Talk:Scientology controversies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Scientology controversies article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on April 15, 2008. The result of the discussion was Snowball Keep.

Contents

[edit] Deletion?

Why has this article been nominated for deletion? I believe that based on the first amendment that this article should be protected, and monitored to make sure that no one attempts to tamper with it, and eliminate a valuable source of scientology controversies. Besides, who would want to delete an article unless it would be a danger to someone, or an organization? Just saying... Cm2dude (talk) 17:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] intertextualty

I'd just like to make it noted that the YTMND that was put a an exterenl link links to the artical at the end

[edit] Well written page

I think this is a well written wiki article on a difficult and controversial subject. Its very hard to maintain a neutral bias, but I think this article is about as neutral as you can get - it presents the facts and issues surrounding a case, without carrying any extra emotional bias to or for against Scientology. Also considering how often pages on Scientology liked to get reverted or altered with more pro-scientology information, id like to thank everyone for maintaining this page.

After having spent the better part of two hours reading the page and following the references, I'm very very much inclined to agree, and am removing the POV tag from the top (just as soon as I recall how to do that...It's been a while). The article is well written, and is just about as neutral as you can possibly get with any article. The assertions made on the page are supported with plenty of documentation from good sources. Jonathon Barton (talk) 19:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
In addition, every assertion I read was backed up by additional reading offsite. I removed the disputed tag, as well. Jonathon Barton (talk) 19:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Questioning a revision

I don't see what's wrong with what was removed in this revision. Was there no references sourced? References should be briefly looked for before removing unsourced material, or flagged with 'needs citation' or whatever's appropriate there. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientology_controversies&diff=202665335&oldid=202654547 74.67.17.22 (talk) 08:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wall-o-tags

Slapping 5 major tags on the article without discussing them here or trying fix them in the article seems a lot like sour grapes after a bad faith deletion by redirection failed and an AFD consensus strongly in favour of keeping the article. I'm against tag-bombing articles without discussion because, without an indication of exactly what the editor feels is wrong, it's hard to know when the points (if any) have been addressed and the tag can be removed. Many times these tags linger on for a year until someone finally cleans them off. I'm inclined to treat it as article defacement and remove them. AndroidCat (talk) 15:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the taging of this article is mepthic of a bad faith variaty. a spontanious 5 tags, after a redirect, during an AFD all by the same editor seems more like a vendeta than a attempt to clean up wikipedia.Coffeepusher (talk) 15:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Or maybe I'm trying to clean up Wikipedia. No, it must be disruption because I'm a dirty deletionist heathen who should be shot. Sceptre (talk) 15:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
In that case, for future reference I would suggest deleting all content and redirecting be discussed on the talk page with a {{mergeto}} tag used, that maintenance, tags be added before nominating for AfD and that you use {{articleissues}} if their are more than 3 of them. As you acted it was disruptive even if it was in good faith.--Nate1481(t/c) 16:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Whatever happened to "be bold"? Sceptre (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
you will find the following text in the link you provided:
"Also, substantial changes or deletions to the articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories, such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or abortion, or to Featured Articles and Good Articles, should be done with extra care. In many cases, the text as you find it has come into being after long and arduous negotiations between Wikipedians of diverse backgrounds and points of view. A careless edit to such an article might stir up a hornet's nest, and other users who are involved in the page may become defensive. If you would like to make a significant edit to an article on a controversial subject (not just a simple copyedit), it is a useful idea to first read the article in its entirety and skim the comments on the talk page. On controversial articles, the safest course is to find consensus before making changes, but there are situations when bold edits can safely be made to contentious articles. Always use your very best editorial judgment in these cases and be sure to read the talk page." (emphasis added)Coffeepusher (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
It's not "careless" at all. When an article inherently has problems, we fix them. A question: why are you so intent on keeping this article anyway? Sceptre (talk) 17:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
it did stur up a hornets nest, so if it ribbits and hops I call it a frog...my personal reasons for keeping the article are on the AFD...Coffeepusher (talk) 23:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

(backdent) When people disagree with our fix, then we give justifications on the talk page. We don't try another method that is a similarly drastic change to see if others will be alright with it instead. The problem with relying completely on Bold, is that it's a two way street. You can boldly make a modification, and the other party can Boldly revert that change. This is why Bold is tempered with WP:CONCENSUS. When you justify your actions, it helps us to see that you are not some random vandal. When you justify them well, you potentially sway someone who may otherwise not understand your reasoning, disagree with your change, and revert your efforts. Alternatively, by presenting your arguments, someone else might be able to make a well-formed rebuttal that will cause you to withdraw your position. So I'd love to hear about your specific problems with specific passages or aspects of this article. -Verdatum (talk) 23:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Scientology#Controversy article. Sceptre (talk) 23:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the link, however, that anchor could not be found in the current revision of the talk page. Did you mean to link to Talk:Scientology#Controversy redirect? If not, I'm a bit frightened to wade into that massive set of archives to search for it...Regardless, any major discussion on that talk page resulting in signifigant changes to this article should probably by linked to within this talk page from the start. -Verdatum (talk) 07:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I meant that. Sceptre (talk) 09:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

After reading this I change my adverbs from "cairless" to "wreckless" and "arrogent"Coffeepusher (talk) 22:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Septer has not tagged this article with a total of 10 tags, with no attempt to fix any problems, or any explination of what he believes is the problem. a "factual accuracy" tag definatly needs a detailed explination. the "manual of style" tag implys that he wants us to delete the entire reponce section from the COS which although it needs cleanup, does add well to this article. and the tags where placed with the edit summary "explained on talk page" and there is no new content from will on this talk page.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Explain how they aren't, and I'll support removing they aren't. For fucks sake, the entire aritcle bleeds "blah blah WE HATE TOM CRUISE YAY ANONYMOUS" The sources are flaky, and a lot are being misinterpreted to push an anti-COS POV. Sceptre (talk) 17:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
...This article isn't related to anonymous outside of one entry...your comment is making me believe that this is part of your anti-anonymous stance (lets not rehash that). There isn't a "contriversy section" so your manual of style comment is unfounded. the "factuality" of these events isn't desputed so that tag is bad (they happened). Your more recent use of the word "Fu@#" on talk pages is unexcusable and I wish you would be more professional in your talk practices, if wikipedia works you up to the point that you can't express yourself without profanity then you really should find a new hobby (aka, grow up kid). adding an edit summery of "explained on talk page" was a blatent lie, since you didn't explain yourself on the talk page. without those explinations and means of improvement, your tags are blatant defacement not constructive. Coffeepusher (talk) 18:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
This large amount of tags is not constructive. Perhaps we can move this discussion along to constructively and politely discussing how to improve this article itself, with specific recommendations, as opposed to a discussion over inappropriate usage of tags to push a point? Cirt (talk) 20:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
ok, I am obviously not on my best behavior...I will focus on the article in future discussions.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Improvements to article

, my reading shows a large amout of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. I also think that this article is a great resource, but currntly has no real focus (it covers all topics of contriversy, without any rhyme or reason for what is included). having both critisisms and lists of legal conflicts listed by topic and instance, rather than listing "critisisms" while subsourcing points in time when it was problamatic...or listing insidents of conflict and suplementing them with critisisms that came out of those conflicts. I am also reading the responce section...and seeing less and less value for that section every time I read it.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Going forward
  1. Cut out/remove from the article all the poorly sourced stuff, and WP:OR/WP:SYNTH, and if some of that is contentious, discuss on talk page first. Cirt (talk) 21:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  2. Set up (on the talk page) a rough chronological order. Cirt (talk) 21:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  3. Perhaps break the order of the article into decades or periods of time, 1950s, 1960s, onward, etc. Cirt (talk) 21:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
    Doesn't have to be specifically by time period, could just label the subsections by the names of the controversies, and order chronologically. Cirt (talk) 21:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  4. Provide short summaries within each time period/subsection of what happened, controversies that arose, etc. Cirt (talk) 21:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  5. Remove The Church of Scientology's replies to its critics - merge each of its individual responses to each controversy in the subsection about said controversies. Cirt (talk) 21:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

What do people think? Cirt (talk) 21:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not too keen on the idea of ordering the article chronologically. Many of the controversies surrounding Scientology (taxes, litigation, treatment of critics etc) are issues that have been raised repeatedly, from the 1950s onwards. It would be more sensible to structure the article by general subject heading, for instance "Taxation status", "Relationship with governments", "Dealings with critics", "Treatment of members" and so on. The rest of your proposals sound sensible. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I would like to establish the president of naming a contriversy only when paired with a notable incident(s). my reason is because otherwise it would leave this article open to puting any chritisism they want down and just citing a critic (which is what has happened in many places). so we could talk about the "alternitave to psychiatry" (can't remember the term) and introduce it with Lisa Mcpherson, or the Fair game principal with "operation snow white" etc. but we couldn't bring up the "Brainwashing tactics" without some notable example of it coming to press...just a thoughtCoffeepusher (talk) 23:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I am fine/in agreement with comment above by ChrisO (talk · contribs), sounds like a good thematic approach. Cirt (talk) 23:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I also agree with ChrisO (talk · contribs)'s thematic approach. I did see that there is a nice collection of litigation history at Scientology and the legal system. Perhaps it should either be merged with this article or the legal issues in this article transferred to Scientology and the legal system. Taiwan prepares (talk) 11:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)