Template talk:ScientologySeries/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 More template tweaks 2 celebrities 3 Doctrines Revisited 3.1 Back to the Point 4 Suppressive Person is Doctrine / Education 5 Suggestions 6 Editing of Color and putting in an image 7 Gerry Armstrong 8 Paulette Cooper 9 disorganization 10 Free Zone 11 Logo removal 12 Archive the talk page 13 New picture? 14 So here are my thoughts 15 You're missing the point 16 Major changes to "People" heading 17 Bi-directional links 18 Multiple IPs 19 The Template's organization of information 20 Still more template tweaks 21 Vandalism 22 "Comm Evs"? 23 POV issues 24 too much controversy 25 Clambake vs. Xenu

More template tweaks

I see someone's added a "Publications" section to the Template. I'm not sure how important that is for the Template, especially since both articles in it are very short stubs. Plus, keeping the Template compact is a must, since its extreme length continues to cause problems with various articles by displacing relevant images and infoboxes. I'm making a few tweaks to try to keep the Template shorter but still action-packed. The RPF link is semi-redundant because we already have the Sea Org article which delves into that stuff. Having both Paulette Cooper and Operation Freakout here are also redundant, so I bumped Cooper. The IAS was added recently also, and I'm not sure it's vital enough to the Scientology story for inclusion here. Anyone else have thoughts? wikipediatrix 17:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The IAS is a separate corporation that is the membership organization of the cofs. It is important a the major fund raising organization in the cofs. I think it should definitely be included in this template. Definitely Not redundant in mentioning it. Fahrenheit451 00:02 20 April 2006 (UTC)

As I suggested earlier, it is possible for a series of articles to have several templates. A single template which covers a large portion of this template would be possible. For example, a single entry into this template for "Controversy" might lead to an article about controversy and a template, a stand alone template of several individual articles (right now about what, 15 articles) which are in the area of "Scientology Controversy". In that manner, any single element of the present template could itself have a template and yet appear on this main template as a single listing. Thus, this main template would become more abbrieviated and manageable. Terryeo 17:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the template should definitely remain intact and not be split up piecemeal. The template for Judaism is a good example of what I think we should be working towards. I'd like to swipe the Jewish template's trick of having alternating lines be a super-pale shade of color to offset them but I don't have the patience to wade through all that code. wikipediatrix 22:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure which side you're arguing for, actually... See Jew, but also see the related templates for Jewish Holidays, Judaism, Books of Torah, Language, Nevi'im, Ketuvim, by country, Jewish Life Cycle, maybe even Israelis or Politics_of_Israel, along with the other templates which have a fair bit of cross-over in the WP:Judaism project (and related projects). BTW, We did have alternating color lines at one point (starting template for Scientology *was* the Judaism template, [1] quite amusingly), but they were yanked (by me, I think) to simplify the amount of visual information in the template. It was also a nice experience to look through the Israel/Judaism template debates, as well, as they have some of the exact same issues (what to separate, where to separate, whether to separate more or combine (Such as they did with jews and judaism), etc.) as us, even down to controversy sections/items. :-) WRT shrinking, I pulled two internet sites references (xenu.net and scientomogy) because those are covered in scientology vs. the internet. Ronabop 03:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

great presentation, Ronabop ! <applauds> Scientology is big on blue, if we go to colors again, can we try red, white and blue? lol. sorry, I mean, 2 shades of blue, say the shade of "sky blue waters" and the shade of "a cloudless blue sky?" hehehehehehe. Terryeo 19:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

celebrities

Not sure about this new "Celebrities" section that someone just put up.... I don't think the main article, Scientology and Celebrities, is ready for prime time yet. There's a lot of unsourced statements in the first section, it lacks an intro, and most Scientology celebrities are not yet mentioned in the article. Also, Tom Cruise and John Travolta are known for a lot more things than Scientology, so their inclusion in the template seems a bit misplaced, especially since the template does not (and should not) appear on their articles anyway. Thoughts, anyone? wikipediatrix 14:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This should go. Grandmasterka 14:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I also agree, this is not the correct place. Celebrity pages should be bio pages about them, their movies, etc.

I move to keep it. It won't improve much if no one visits it, and no one directly searches for "Scientology and Celebrities". I would file the article under "Recruitment". I mean, that's clearly why Scientology wants visible celebrity members. --Davidstrauss 06:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I am also removing these entries that are not “Scientology Doctrine.” This is Wikipedia’s definition: Doctrine, from Latin doctrina, (compare doctor), means "a body of teachings" or "instructions", taught principles or positions, as the body of teachings in a branch of knowledge or belief system. The Greek analogy is the etymology of catechism. [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine] You won’t find any of this in the Scientology catechism. More sensationalism. Also Patter Drills and South Park do not belong here, as gone over before they are drummed up controversy.Nuview 22:11, 30 April 2006 (PST)

I reverted your edit. It's drastic, it covers several disputed issues, and you don't have consensus. Many of the articles in the doctrine section were clearly part of "a body of teachings". --Davidstrauss 06:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

A template has a good deal of Point of View in it but its brief nature. The word "Doctrine", for example, can present dry, encyclopedic categories or it can present controversial categories which some editors are arguing are Scientology's "Doctrine". Because we seek to present a dry, encylopedic (but interesting) read for those who come to read about subjects, we should present as cleanly as possible. This means as simply as possible. Once a reader begins to click around and read the many Scientology related articles, then he can become introduced to editors ideas that Xenu is somehow core to Scientology, that Space Opera is incredibly imporatant and all the other stuff which the Church of Scienotology considers trivail to its existence, which information is used by only a tiny percentage of its membership. We should use "Doctrine" as the term is most widely used and understood because that is the use the common reader will think of when he reads and clicks that word. Terryeo 06:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad to hear you admit now that the "information is used by only a tiny percentage of its membership", which is quite a drift from your original vehement insistence that not only was there ZERO percentage of Scientologists using it, but that the information was bogus in the first place. wikipediatrix 13:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to talk with you Wikipediatrix, but as always when I do, I'm going to have to be sure of what you are talking about. In this case, I would talk about the subsection title in this subsection. Would we list Christian Celebrities, such as Bush and various Congress members, would we list their specific faiths in a set of articles about those faiths? We want to appeal to readers but "widely published" is our baseline, encyclopedic rather than "expose', front page headlines. Terryeo 04:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I say any "religion" that opens up a building devoted to the care of celebrities and frequently publishes information on webpages like this, ought to be discussed. And if George Bush's church opened up a $10 million facility and a started a magazine and a website for celebrities to promote his church...then yeah...I think that is notable and we should add a mention to his church if they do that. The church of Scientology has a sick and perverse fascination with celebrity (especially for a church). I'm not sure that we need to link to specific celebs here, or else we risk adding Kirstie Alley, Jenna Elfman and whatever other C-list has-beens that people think are famous. Vivaldi (talk) 05:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to rationally reply to a man who knows that catering to celebrities like the Church of Scientology does to be a "Sick and perverse fascination", that's a description more like you hear about criminals, or about people who play with the dead. If you observe what Scientology does, I think you find it is effective in Life and in Living and its catering Celebrities has not hurt it, either. Actually, if you've lived in Hollywood, you've seen firsthand what happens to businesses and people who cater to Celebrities. Some of them succeed very well. Others, who attempt to get celebrity's attention with drugs and immoraity, usually (but not always) fail and it gets in the news. Celebrities are a special case, a case of successful artists. Hubbard said things like, "a society needs its artists" and pointed out that artists often are not adequately rewarded by their societies during their liftimes.Terryeo 11:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

that's a description more like you hear about criminals, or about people who play with the dead I believe the Church of Scientology is a criminal enterprise; As for playing with the dead, see: Why are they dead?. And while you pretend that Scientology is about catering to the unrewarded artists, the fact of the matter is that all celebrities are catered to, whether they are artists or not. It is sick that a church would be obsessed with celebrity. And whether or not churches "do very well" by catering to celebrities is moot. "Doing very well" is not a position of much moral standing. Used car salesmen that lie to their customers can "do very well" also -- and the CoS has shown that lying can make them very wealthy as well. Lying is a sacrament in the CoS. It is so pervasive that it infests everything the CoS touches. The CoS is the only church that I know of that actually teach people how to lie effectively and encourages them to do so when its convenient. And yes indeed, I find it sick and perverse. Vivaldi (talk) 04:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Gosh, I'm not sure how to reply. I have lived in Hollywood and worked as a housepainter in Hollywood and personally known a couple of people worked in the entertainment industry. I'll try to communicate what life is like for them. They work their butts off to become successful. They take acting classes and do shows under difficult circumstances and usually don't have enough money to buy shoe polish until they have worked very hard for a number of years. Then a very few of them get popular. Suddenly their time is not their own. They have no opportunity to sit down and put their feet up. Instead someone comes along and wants them to read this screen play or attend that party. Free drugs are offered them at every party. Free woman, free cars, if only they will just look at this screen play or just attend that event. For Scientology to expedite their religious progress makes pretty good sense within that context, I think. Of course your opinions are your own and based on your own experience. Terryeo 23:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

DavidStrauss, please be specific about which of these entries you consider to be a body of teachings. The appropriateness of the “Scientology and Celebrities” section has been discussed and this is an Index Box about the Scientology pages –celebs don’t belong in this box. .Nuview 21:42, 4 May 2006 (PST)

In response to Nuview's lack-of-consensus-except-among-Scientologists edit, I've added "Celebrities" to the recruitment section. It's obviously that's why they're such revered members of Scientology. Heck, Scientology even assigns them handlers to maximize positive PR. --Davidstrauss 19:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, Strauss, you're ignoring perfectly well meaning, well intentioned, good faith advise and substituting your own, original research (even if other editors who do not know the subject agree with your original research) if you do that. This happens more often than is good for good, encyclopedic writing. A person who knows the subjects states the reasons and reasoning, several editors who, through their own original research, are convinced otherwise are unable to persist with a good, heathyly discussion of which what the issues should be decided. With me then it worked out that an edit war ensued, which of course, against several editors convinced opinions, I lost. Nonetheless, the issues I raised and the statements I made had elements of truth in them and discussion simply went no where against several editors (who don't know the subject) against their original research. Terryeo 22:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Doctrines Revisited

Davidstrauss – Fine that you criticize my lack of consensus, however, you are not answering the question, which is what the discussion is about. I am asking again, which of these entries you consider to be a body of teachings? What is your verifiable reference? I am removing them as they are not.doctrines. From my experience editing in Wiki recently, consensus is not something I am likely to get amongst critics who have already decided that NPOV = the critic’s POV. There are some editors who take the time to research and understand a subject, there are others who just blindly believe what they read and follow the majority. --Nuview 28:07, 16 May 2006 (PST)

The references are cited within the articles. The subject is Space Opera in Scientology Doctrine because to argue that learning about Xenu is not a significant part of OTIII would be a lie. Do you deny reading Hubbard's writings about the R6 implant would not be significant to the reader? I'd say when told that Jesus was a pedophile would fairly surprising to most! Regardless please don't make major changes without consensus, thanks - Glen ^T_C (Stollery) 02:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Umm, Glen? Are those things which you say you have read, are those documents published by the Church of Scientology, or are those stolen documents which have never been published by the Church and might well be greatly altered by the person who stole them before he published them? You can't expect a reader to come to a consensus based on stolen documents, can you? Wikipedia wants good, reliable sources of information.Terryeo 07:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Space Opera in Scientology Doctrine is built on a completely false assumption stated early in the article. Of 25 feet of shelf space, space opera comprises a few inches, it is not very important. The techniques of auditing, the methods of education, all of it applies to space opera in exactly the same way it applies to the accident with the baseball some kid had when he was 10 years old. Space opera forms a very small and minor portion of scientology. The article presents that in some mystical manner, space opera is critically important within Scientology. Such is not actually the situation, I've tried to correct that because there is simply no source of information which says it is important.Terryeo 07:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

You need to word-clear "doctrine": "a belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school." Space opera and Xenu patently are beliefs while "medical claims" and "altered texts" are articles about doctrinal materials. Terryeo's argument about the importance of them is irrelevant - the section isn't about "major doctrines" or "minor doctrines", it's about doctrines, period. Once again, I'm afraid this is an example of our Scientologist editors wishing to remove anything they regard as bad PR. -- ChrisO 07:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

You suggest I need to "clear a word", at an earlier time you suggested, "you don't know much about Scientology, do you?" Neither of those comments are directed toward the article, nor the information in the article but are directed toward me, personally. They verge on incivility. dictionary.com states: "A principle ... presented for .. belief, as by a religion; dogma." Fortunately I am able to read the written word. None of it presents any of what you have stated as doctrine, is doctrine. Actually this has been one of the major confusions present on Clambake.org, but is coming to light here on Wikipedia where controversy meets actuality. When New York Times publishes that Scientology doctrine includes Space Opera, then that information can be presented to the reader. But Chris Owen's orginal research that states the Church of Scietology's doctrine includes Space Opera is simply not admissibble on Wikipedia. Not until Chris Owen is published in the New York Times. WP:V applies. To find what the doctrine of the Church of Scientology is, we must use the Church of Scientology (original source) or use secondary sources such as scholars and doctors of divinity who have made statements about the Church of Scientology and its doctrine, or use tertiary sources such as the U.S. Navy's "About various faiths". In no instance may we use unpublished original research (especially by wikipedia editors) just because they publish their original research on personal websites and entitle them "essays". Terryeo 04:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Once again you bring up the repeatedly debunked US Navy link. Good grief. AndroidCat 11:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

AndroidCat, quality of sources is kind of a major issue in these articles. Of course you understand there is a primary source of the information. In addition, certain other people have commented on the primary source. When those people's work is published then it should be used as a secondary source of information. For example, the Time and the Rolling Stones articles are secondary sources of information, newspaper articles are secondary sources of information. At this time, WP:RS allows us to use "reposited" information from personal websites, though it does not consider that esseys contained on personal websites are "published". If those esseys were published by the New York Times or by the U.S. Navy, then they would be secondary sources of information. Any publication by any department of a government would be a secondary source of information, or a tertiary source. You say "debunked", but your statement does not change the situation. The U.S. Government has published certain information on one of its sites. That information therefore qualifies as a "secondary source" of information because it is broadly published by a source of good repute. Per WP:RS it can be included (as any government's web information can be), included in any article and properly cited. I recognize that your "debunked" argument rests on the supposition that the U.S. Navy did not create that information, but instead used another source and took their information and published it. And that is the definition of "tertiary source", which is considered by Wikipedia to be the best sort of informational source to use. Terryeo 04:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. See my previous comment. AndroidCat 05:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Whatever, if you ignore one of the few tertirary sources available, then whatever. Terryeo 09:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The Navy did not play any hand at all in the writing of that article. We have the original source for the comments and you have been made aware of who the author of the article is. The fact that the US Navy was given this document by the CoS to explain itself does not in any way give the article any more reliability. Your intent is to try to fool people into believing that these are the ideas that the US Navy has discovered through its research, but that is completely wrong. The entire document is a cut-n-paste of material that we have available from the original source. We should cite the original source when it is available rather than citing a site that has cut and paste the text. Vivaldi (talk) 17:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Please stop your personal attacks, Vivaldi. Terryeo 00:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no intent to fool anyone Vivaldi, you just stated, "your intent is to try to fool people". That is uncivil, that is worse than uncivil, you have made a personal attack. You stated it as an accusation and therefore Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks applies. That policy states: "There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them. Comment on content, not on the contributor." This is, therefore, your first warning from me that you have personally attacked me because at no point in the above do I state nor imply that the U.S. Navy created that information on their website, nor did I try to fool anyone. The policy I linked for you spells out my alternatives to personal attacks. Those alternatives are your alternatives also. I did not try to fool anyone and it is a personal attack to accuse me of the intent of trying to fool people. I shall post this same notice on your User Discussion page because this is your first instance in recent weeks of a personal attack. Terryeo 00:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo -- why do you wish to source the information that is on the Navy page to someone other than the original source? I cannot fathom any reason that you would want to try to use the Navy page as a source unless your intent is to get people reading the article to believe that the Navy researched and wrote the article or that they endorse the validity of its content. This seems like an attempt to fool people to me. All that page is was a copy of an article that was given to the Navy. We have the original source for those claims and we should make it clear that the words and content are from that source and not the Navy. Vivaldi (talk) 04:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I point to the navy site as a possible site to use. Period. End of story. Terryeo 15:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Back to the issue. Glen Stollery – You state that the references are cited within the articles. That however does not means that they are valid to go under the category of “Scientology Doctrine.”

Relevant to your complaint that I am not getting a consensus before editing. I am repeating that from my experience editing in Wiki recently, consensus is not something I am likely to get amongst critics who have already decided that NPOV = the critics’ POV. There are some editors who take the time to research and understand a subject, there are others who just blindly believe what they read. --Nuview 14:05, 29 May 2006 (PST)

You don't understant WP:NPOV. In Scientology's case, balanced NPOV is covering the critics' POVs with an aside to what the Church says. NPOV is about balancing content to predominant views, not "truth." In Scientology's case, the predominant POVs are all negative. Controversy is Scientology's notability. Almost no one practices Scientology; it would merit nary an article without the surrounding controversy. Hence, Scientology articles should mostly present criticism and controversy. --Davidstrauss 20:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You have stated a misunderstanding of our most basic, policy. NPOV does not balance a critics' POV with an aside to what the Church says. NPOV is about presenting widely published as being the prevelent point of view, while narrowly published is presented as an aside. In the case of the Church, 40 million words (or thereabouts) are published in many languages. Certainly that is widely published. So where, exactly is the widely published critical point of view? It resides in a small handful of books which are not widely published in a range of languages. It resides in some newspaper articles. It resides in 3 or 4 magazine articles. Scientology publishes, perhaps 10 times that amount of information every week. Get on board, read WP:NPOV once again and see that Widely Published is to be presented as the predominent point of view. Terryeo 15:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Once again you misrepresent WP:NPOV and keep pushing your own Widely Published code-phrase (which seems to mean proof by volume and repetition from a single source). AndroidCat 16:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

You still don't get it, do you AndroidCat? Your statement below, Vanity press doesn't count as widely published. and your statement here, all spell out that you don't understand NPOV's "Widely Published" should be presented as the prevelent point of view. You keep insisting for various strange, twisted reasons (its a vanity publication) or (its a code-phrase). Widely Published IS the prevelent point of view. Scientology IS widely published. To support an anti-scientology point of view requires a LOT of work because the vast tonnage of publication on the subject is from the vanity press which is wealthy enough to publish widely and in many languages. This it IS the prevelent point of view. That is what NPOV means. You don't like it, your platform for change is NPOV, good luck. Terryeo 22:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not slapping at WP:NPOV (at you put it), I'm just slapping at you. The term Widely Published appears to be your own invention as it doesn't occur anywhere in WP:NPOV. Just because one organization runs its own printing presses overtime to print its own view doesn't make that view widely accepted. For example: Look at the long-running repetition of Hubbard's claimed war record even though it is completely contradicted by the official US Navy record, or the recent inflation of the number of claimed Scientologists to 10 million with as much real evidence as the old 8 million claim. If you want your pet term Widely Published to have any weight, I'm afraid that it is you who will have to petition for your changes in NPOV, good luck. HAND. AndroidCat 23:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Strauss, I'm afraid that is not quite what NPOV presents. I believe it presents the idea that widely published is, in fact, widely published because it is the predominent point of view. That is to say, there will be very, very few publications which talk about how wonderfully the KKK would fulfill the USA's "freedom of religion", but many publications which would tell about how poorly the KKK fulfills "freedom of religion". Widely published represents widely held opinion is, I believe, the basis of NPOV, its manifestation on which we edit. We can't go wrong if we write articles which present the widely published point of view as being widely published and the narrowly published point of view as being narrowly published. And it should be obvious for us. A search for news articles should produce many of the widely held point of view and only a few of the narrowly held point of view. So too with books, lectures, and so on. But with Scientology this is not so easy because almost any darn search gives millions of hits. Terryeo 23:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Vanity press doesn't count as widely published. AndroidCat 02:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Your forum to change Wikipedia Policy and / guidelines to suit that statement would be WP:V and WP:RS. At this time, that is not the situation, but good luck with that. At this time, "widely published" is based on the amount of copies published. Published in a quantity of languages (as the particular vanity press you reference is), contributes to being widely published as well. Terryeo 05:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

If the self-published Crad Kilodney got someone to do extremely rough translations of his 32-odd books to 150 languages, it wouldn't make him widely-published either. Lack of independent sales auditing and numerous stories in the publishing industry make Bridge's claimed figures dubious at face value. Good luck with your changes in WP:RS as well. AndroidCat 21:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think so. I think WP:RS should include "published" to clearly mean and state, Published to the public and should more clearly define "reputable" to utterly obliterate and stop all inclination by edtiors to cite personal website opinions as secondary sources in Wikipedia articles. Terryeo 05:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Your forum to change Wikipedia Policy and / guidelines to suit that statement would be WP:V and WP:RS. Actually, WP:V and WP:RS already cover the issue of vanity presses such as Bridge. -- Antaeus Feldspar 13:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm satisfied with WP:V and WP:RS. At present, WP:V doesn't specifically address "vanity sites", however WP:RS has WP:RS#Partisan_websites which does. In these areticles about Scientology, the special interest (you are calling it vanity publisher) publisher IS the organizations which are manned by, run by and controlled by Scientology, via Scientologists. Their interest is in presenting reliable, reputable publications, the information which comprises Scientology. There could be no stronger motivation than they have, it would be very rare to find a mispelled word or poor grammar in modern Scientology books. In these articles about Scientology you can have confidence that Scientology sources accurately state Scientology information. Don't let the millions of sold books and the many languages of publication overwhelm you, they are very carefully translated and published. Myself, I'm quite satisfied that such publications be cited in articles about themselves. :) Terryeo 03:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

you can have confidence that Scientology sources accurately state Scientology information. Correction: we can have confidence that Scientology sources accurately state what they wish to be taken as the truth. misspelled words? poor grammar? The work of L. Ron Hubbard's vanity press Bridge Publications might be free of those. "Reliable, reputable"? free of misrepresentations? hardly something we have any reason to think. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you actually making an argument that Bridge Publications does not present Hubbard's word as Hubbard meant his word to be presented? Are you actually stating that the Church of Scientology is not a reliable, reputable publisher within its area of interest? Inconceivable ! We have gone through that on Talk:Dianetics and other pages ! Bridge publishes in only one area. I believe you are mistaken in your statements. Terryeo 15:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Back to the Point

I am removing these links again for reasons stated earlier, these are not valid items to go under “Scientology Doctrine.” The xenu issue has been discussed at length and “medical claims” and “altered text” are not doctrines.--Nuview 21:10, 7 June 2006 (PST)

Nuview is totally, utterly correct. Terryeo 23:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

In the sense that "correct" means "stubbornly persisting without regard to the facts", then yes, you could make an argument that Nuview is "totally, utterly correct". In the real world, no. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The real world is what an editor is refusing to confront. The Church of Scientology in the real world publishes their doctrine and publishes it widely. The Catholic Church too, publishes their doctrine. The most widely published source must, per WP:V be presented as the most widely published source. A = A, secondary opinions which are less widely published are then to presented as secondary opinions which are less widely published. So, when it comes to priests and little boys, we don't publish that information as a primary motivation of young men toward seeking a vocation of Priest, though we could imply that motivation if we carefully wrote an article. We would only need to present the less widely published, less widely known information first and foremost and the statements which the Catholic Church makes afterward. But that would defy WP:V which tells us, the most widely published is presented as the most widely know point of view. Terryeo 15:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Suppressive Person is Doctrine / Education

Some of the links are in inappropriate sections. Suppressive Person belongs in Concepts because it is an idea or concept which was presented by Hubbard, published by Hubbard and is part of the Church's teachings. It is both an education (taught in courses) and an area of address in auditing. Fair Game, however belongs where it is, in Controversy. Patter drill belongs in the Concepts section because it is an educational technique used by every Church in every academy course room. I understand it was created as a controversial article, and certain non-members consider it so, but it is an educational concept regularly used by the Church. If there is controversy then that should be presented in its article. Xenu belongs in Controversy because the Church makes no statement which would place it into Scientology Doctrine. Altered texts, by definition, belongs in Controversy. Terryeo 20:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions

R2-45 should be placed under "Controversies" instead of practices. Have they been known to ever practice this policy? Is Karin Spaink notable enough to be in the template, or even Lerma or Christman? Entheta 12:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed on R2-45 -- despite the fact that Hubbard is known to have ordered its practice, we don't have any evidence that it actually has been practiced. Not sure about the others. -- Antaeus Feldspar 13:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

LOL, R2-45 is a joke, people. Terryeo 23:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

yeh, threatening to shoot people is just hilarious.--Krsont 18:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll give it one go toward communicating the joke. I'm fairly sure you all will just find elements of my explanation that you don't understand, but here goes. Consider for just a tiny fraction of a microsecond that perhaps, maybe a human being is a body which is being motivated by an individual spirit. This spirit (just for a microsecond now), forgets things when he wishes to, when he isn't actively creating something, he just forgets about it. So we have individuals who use human bodies, but have forgotten previous - to - this - body events. Now, (just for a microsecond) if we can get the spirit to view his body from outside of his body, we find he quickly realizes his situation. So, we try to exteriorize him. Okay, microsecond is over ! Hubbard tried a few auditing commands to cause exteriorization, the results were not consistent. If you grant that a spirit is motivating a human body, then maybe you follow the logic, a shot in the head will probably exteriorize an individual spirit ! heh. Of course, right away, you have a problem because the body isn't much good anymore as a communication line to the spirit who has been shockingly exteriorized. Well, that's it. lol. Terryeo 15:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess it was funnier when Hubbard told it... -- ChrisO 15:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

At best very Ann Coulter-ish if you ask me, you know, "We need somebody to put rat poisoning in John Paul Stevens' crème brûlée, and oh, by the way - I'm joking." —Gabbe 19:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Several of you have insisted that you don't understand what Hubbard meant again and again and again. I thought, hell, I'll give it a shot, maybe you might possibly understand why his audience laughed uproariously. lol. Terryeo 21:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Did the people who received the March 6, 1968 "RACKETS EXPOSED" Ethics Order with its command to actually go out and use this process laugh uproariously? And, no, we haven't insisted that we "don't understand what Hubbard meant"; what we have insisted is that we do not agree that Hubbard gave direct instructions to shoot people in the head as a joke, as you have insisted again and again and again. Do we understand the theory you are proposing? Completely. Do we find it plausible? No. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

You say an Ethics Order, Rackets Exposed, of 6 Mar 68 was published to the public? Well, if so, then who read it that didn't laugh uproariously? Terryeo 16:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Back to the original question: You are right Entheta, R2-45 has never been a practice. Terryeo (though he does carry on somewhat) is actually correct, this was never even a “controversy.” I am amazed anyone went to the trouble of creating a page about it – which I note is just drama created by people who don’t have a clue – I wonder sometimes if we are editing in an online encyclopedia or some trashy magazine – no wonder Wiki’s reputation takes a beating. Who is creating this mess?

Let’s get professional and clean up this box – I have a suggestion, why not make a “Media Generated Controversy” section and a “Critic Generated Controversy” section – this would be more honest.

Entheta, to answer your question about Karin Spaink and company, I think the first question is “What is the purpose of the PEOPLE section?” It is a bit broad as a category. Do we want to include any and all critics? – it doesn’t seem appropriate. All some of these people are famous for is attempting to destroy the the good that the Church creates and without Scientology to attack they would be nobodies. So my vote is that they come out of the Index Box – it is glutted enough.--Nuview 11:15, 12 July 2006 (PST)

Looks like I missed this discussion. Agreed on R2-45 going to the controversy section. I will move it there. Raymond Hill 19:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Editing of Color and putting in an image

Please stop editing out the picture and color scheme, I am adding. It looks better than that awful yellow. - Truthisgreater

Please abide by WP:3RR. The picture was removed for good reason as the concern was raised that usage of it in a template might be perceived as violating fair use. As for the color scheme, no one else seems to think an all-white template looks better than the one we had. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The "picture" can be used in one article, an article about "the picture". Any additional article containing the picture is beyond fair use, apparently. I would prefer light blue color than yuk yellow. For one thing, light blue is commonly used for templates.Terryeo 05:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I changed it to a light blue color. Let me know what you think. - Truthisgreater

I think it looks good :) Terryeo 05:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Why are we not allowed to add that cross pic to the template. In other articles they have pictures in their templates?

I've reverted even just the color change. The template has been yellow for a very long time. Gain consensus before changing it. --Davidstrauss 06:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

On the picture, I suggest it can be used in articles with this template, it can *visually* appear in the template, but the name of a specific picture can't be hardcoded into this template itself. See {{Big Brother housemates}} in Big Brother (UK series 7) for a "paramater" approach. There is no problem, because the image is specified in each separate article, and its used only where fair use applies. That gives you the freedom to use the template in cases where fairuse doesn't apply, by excluding the pic in just those cases. Despite what Terryeo said, we probably can justify use of the image in more than just one article, just as we can include a logo for various company article's which are about the company, not the logo. Also, perhaps some Scientology organizations have their own logo (I don't know), which is another benefit, of the parameter approach. --Rob 07:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Your argument is not with me. Your argument is with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. A trademarked logo may be used in an article about itself. Any other use of a trademarked logo implies the owner of the trademark endorces the information associated with the trademark. Clambake.org endorces Wikipedia's POV, it says so on that page's front page. Clambake has opposed freedom of religion for along time, and not just Scientology. That it supports Wikipedia's presentation of Scientology should tell you, or anyone, what Clambake's owner thinks of the Scientology presentation on here. It is very, very far from neutral. Let us not push the envelope yet further by defying Wikipedia policies and guidelines. A trademark may be used in an article about the trademark and not in other articles with good reason. Your platform for changing Wikipedia's policies is not arguing with me. I'm simply stating the consensus of existing opinion. Terryeo 19:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

What is the relation between the use (or not) of the image in the template, and your pure speculations about the motivations of the owner of clambake.org? I can't see any relation, and I'm curious of why you would make one in the present discussion? Raymond Hill 21:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, this wasn't an appropriate section to raise the obvious POV issue which runs through the template and its associated articles, all right. okay. Terryeo 15:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Gerry Armstrong

Should Gerry Armstrong be added to the "People" section of this template? Phr (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Paulette Cooper

I've improved Paulette Cooper a bit. I'm surprised that no one has improved my edits, so please add it to your watch list :-) --Tilman 06:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

disorganization

Heh! You guys are such a tickle. The template presents perfectly the organizational thinking which a consensus of editors has. It is disorganized because it is presenting controversy. The whole of the article series is not about the Church, but about controversy around the Church. Controversy, instead of an encyclopedic presentation of information. Any reader can understand there is controversy about E-meters, controversy about Scientology, controversy about Study Tech, controversy about MEST. The template exemplifies editor consensus to present "the controversy of titled article". Editors might compare this controversial presentation, to some of Wikipedia's other articles, such as Apple. There you see a presentation of information about the subject. Here you see a presentation of controversy about the subject. This template article exemplifies editor's urge toward presenting the controversy around Scientology. Several editors who know the subject have made several suggestions about the template's organization of articles. They are always ignored, or if not ignored, at least never included in the disorganization the template has become. That editors insist it is the controversy which must be presented by Wikipedia no longer appalls me. I can tell you the template is becoming more disorganized. BTW, there is no aspect of any of these articles which has never had any controversy at all, but E-Meter and MEST are two of the least controversial. Terryeo 00:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Ho-hum. It's the usual. 'Everyone who agrees with me is qualified to have an opinion; anyone who disagrees is out to keep the subject of the informations from being communicated.' Seventy-second verse, same as the first... -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Editors who understand the subject have worked hard to present the good sense of the subject. As an example, Xenu has been brought up a number of times. Since the Church makes no comment on it, and since any Church presents its beliefs, it obviously belongs in a catagory other than the one it is in. Yet. to sway those editors who are controlling these articles, filling them with spiteful criticsm rather than fulfilling the policies Wikipedia spells out is not possible, since there are a number of them and since the few people who know the subjects are not in the majority. Not to mention the more obvious situation. Some editors will simply not allow the foundation of why Hubbard ever published Dianetics which, btw, is the same reason the Church of scientology now owns billions of dollars worth of property. That reason. Anti-Scientology editor disallow that reason. And it words that reason is: "People find that Scientology is helpful to them in their daily lives". Terryeo 06:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, it is rather hard to take an editor who only edits pages that concern one topic, and always tries to bias them towards one point of view, seriously. Moreover, when one reads your (many) "edits", all of which blatantly defy the conventions of grammar, logic and even rhetoric, it is evident that you are more concerned by the reputation of your organisation than by the quality of this project. Therefore, if you are going to continue making your editions, please stop trying to justify them. We all know your reasons, and these discussions only succeed in making you slightly less credible than you already were. Yandman 09:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I see. But, User:Yandman, all of your comment does not address the article, nor any article. All of your comment is addressed to a singular topic which has nothing whatsoever to do with any Wikipedia article. WP:NPA (No Personal Attacks) is official policy and states: Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. This is the third instance of a personal attack, User:Yandman. My future actions are spelled out by WP:PAIN. Your future actions are your own responsibility. I shall place this same posting on your user discussion page. Terryeo 09:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, the "No Personal Attacks" policy you link to states: "Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks.". Let us take a closer look at what I said:

1 - "it is rather hard to take an editor who only edits pages that concern one topic, and always tries to bias them towards one point of view, seriously". This is a statement of fact, and makes no reference to your personal character, therefore, it should not be construed as a personal attack.

2 - "your ...edits ... blatantly defy the conventions of grammar, logic and even rhetoric". This language is civil and describes your actions, therefore, it should not be construed as a personal attack. Yandman 13:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you should take a close look at what I said and you should read all of WP:NPA. Your 1 is inaccurate, based on information which you find here and there. If you read all of the information available on my user discussion pages you would find I edit in other articles. Your 2 states: it is evident that you are more concerned by the reputation of your organisation than by the quality of this project. That statement is a conclusion on your part. I know it to be a false conclusion, but you are welcome to your conclusion and I don't mind at all that you make a conclusion and state your conclusion. However, it is a false conclusion. The place to discuss such a conclusion would be my user page. In a discussion page, the discussion is about the article, do you follow this reasoning, as spelled out at WP:NPA? Please stop your personal attacks, please constrain your comments to the topic of discussion, please consider the efforts of other editors in good faith, that they will likewise follow the same policies, principles and guidelines, Happy Ho Ho's :) Terryeo 18:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I apologise, my 1 is indeed inaccurate and I shall rephrase it: "it is rather hard to take an editor who only edited pages that concerned one topic, and always tried to bias them towards one point of view, seriously". To be honest, your history makes it hard to consider you "in good faith". Not that it matters anymore. Yandman 08:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Free Zone

Added a link to the "free zone" page, even if the CoS doesnt recognize them, they still consider themselves students of 'Hubology' (from what I've read), therefore there is a constant controversy between the CoS and these groups, and so the site belongs to the controversy section. What do you think? Yandman 08:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm, interesting question. My first instinct is to say "wherever Church of Scientology is, so should Free Zone be". However, a look at that section shows that header is "Organization" -- which, while a useful header for most of what follows under it, doesn't fit "Free Zone" well... -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Its obvious to me that neither of you either understand that the Church of Scientology intends to be helpful to people in their daily lives, nor understands that Free Zone practitioners have some misunderstanding which they, individually, have refused to clear up which has constrained them to the Free Zone. :) Terryeo 09:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you in that we could find another location for "Free Zone", however I felt it was necessary to include the link somewhere on the template, and putting it in "Controversy" means there is an indisputable argument (or so I hope) for not removing it (someone springs to mind...) Yandman 15:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Yandman, I request that you stop your personal attacks. This is the second instance of personal attacks which you have originated. User:Terryeo which you link as someone is a particularly noxious manner of personal attack. Terryeo 09:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean ubnoxious? Yandman 06:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Your reply baits, refuses to take responsibility and encourages a personal reply. A responsible editor would attempt to once again direct the discussion to the article, toward producing Wikipedia. Terryeo 09:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

If we want to "produce Wikipedia", as you put it, we must at least speak the same language. I perfectly understand that if there is no wikipedia in your mother tongue, you participate in the english version. This multicultural collaboration can only bring added depth to the encyclopædia. However, this can also lead to misunderstandings between editors, and therefore I prefer to make sure my translation of your statements is correct before replying to them. If you feel strongly about this, I can refrain from asking you in the future. Yandman 13:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Yandman, please excuse User:Terryeo. He seems to be a habit of his to accuse one of a personal attack when another's POV differs from his. --Fahrenheit451 01:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Yandman refused to take any responsibilty for his personal attack. Fahrenheit asks Yandman to "excuse me" for stating that he made a personal attack. To link a user in the manner Yandman did, just there, to imply without stating, to attempt to create a conspiricy of editor agreement, hidden in a link, is a noxious personal attack. I have so stated. Terryeo 02:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, you are just being quarrelsome and tendentious. I suggest you take responsibility for your behavior.--Fahrenheit451 04:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

"?" Terryeo 04:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, there is no "conspiricy" (sic). There is just the simple fact that your contributions (be they to the articles or to the talk pages) to this project have been written in a language that is definitely not english. Moreover, they have been consistently slewed towards your point of view, and some of them have wasted the time of more capable editors. Therefore, it is quite normal for you to receive criticism from just about anyone who can read. Yandman 07:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm somewhat amused that arguing amongst yourselves you guys didn't notice that the added Freezone link wasn't working! The Freezone article title reads Free_Zone_%28Scientology%29, but I don't know how to correct that globally. --Hartley Patterson 15:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Logo removal

According to Jean-Baptiste Soufron, host of the Wikimania 2006 copyright forum, the logo on the template did not qualify as "free" and there is no way to create anything imitating the logo and consider it "free." --Davidstrauss 15:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Where does that discussion take place? Terryeo 21:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

In real life. --Davidstrauss 23:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Would it be against copyright law to have a photo of the (wall of a scientology building)/(scientology book) e.t.c... on which the logo is visible, and then cut out everything but the logo itself? Any lawyers in our midst? Yandman 16:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

No. Jean-Baptiste specifically said this changed nothing, despite its existence as policy on DE. It's the equivalent photocopying a book; the copyright remains exactly the same. --Davidstrauss 17:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't add to Wikipedia's reputability to find some sneak - around method. Better we stay in the center of the roadway if we want to create a Wikipedia for everyone. The intent of logo copyright is that an article can be produced which is about the logo and the logo can appear there, be examined there, etc. etc. But any article besides the logo article, which contained the logo would, by implication, be supported by the organization who owns the logo, you see? Terryeo 18:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair-use of logos is far more broad than "in articles about the logos." --Davidstrauss 23:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

How so? Terryeo 03:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a policy on fair use. It's more important to follow that than know everything that's technically legally acceptable. --Davidstrauss 06:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Why not simply using a photograph of a well-known scientology building? I mean the entire building. The back of the big blue building would be good. (Although it might need photoshop improvement with the colors, since it looks rather run-down) --05:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a photo at my fingertips, but either the Flag Landbase's Ft. Harrison Hotel with its red tile roof or the blue stucco, refurbished St. Lebonon's hospital would do. At a distance the Scientology cross is visible, possibly a few Sea Org uniforms, etc. The blue building(s) ajoin a Scientology created brick street with no parking which would make a noteable photograph with a strong character and defining color scheme. Terryeo 20:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I see User:Vivaldi has defied editor concensus and has inserted a Scientology cross.png in the template. I'll open discussion with him on his user page. Terryeo 08:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not the image is "free" is irrelevant. The question is whether we can use a copy of an image that is copyrighted in a manner that is consistent with "fair-use" principles of U.S. and international copyright law. Nobody is suggesting that the image is "free", but rather we are asserting that a depiction or representation of the symbol in a forum that is meant for education and criticism is appropriate "fair-use" of the symbol. Do you believe that the use of a much more powerful (and valueable) trademark and copyright such as the Nike Swoosh image should also be removed from Wikipedia? What about the Coca-Cola trademark logo? Obviously you guys have a lot of work to convince a lot of people that such uses are not acceptable fair-use. There is a specific Wikipedia template for such things:

This is a logo of an organization, item, or event, and is protected by copyright and/or trademark. It is believed that the use of low-resolution images on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, of logos for certain uses involving identification and critical commentary may qualify as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. Certain commercial use of this image may also be trademark infringement. See Wikipedia:Non-free content and Wikipedia:Logos. This tag must have an accompanying fair use rationale which must be unique to the usage of THIS image in each article in which it is used. You must also give the source and copyright information for all fair-use images uploaded. Use of the logo here does not imply endorsement of the organization by Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation, nor vice versa.

Do you intend to remove the 'logo' template and cite Davidstrauss's personal communication and interpretation of Jean-Baptiste's comments as the reason? Good luck with that! Vivaldi (talk) 10:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with citation. Jean-Baptiste is a primary legal advisor to the Wikimedia Foundation, and there's no interpretation of his words that I'm using. I specifically asked him about this case. Do not make me seek a formal declaration from the Foundation office regarding this issue. --Davidstrauss 06:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

As to ignoring consensus, I would suggest that none has developed to eradicate Scientology's copyrighted works from Wikipedia. The Scientology cross has been used on Wikipedia for a long time and has withstood thousands, if not tens of thousands of edits. Vivaldi (talk) 10:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Fair use criteria point #9 states the fairuse image can not be included in template space (as opposed to article space). This was discussed previously, when a logo was removed from this same template. Nobody is suggesting Scientology logos can't be used in Wikipedia. However, no {{logo}} tagged image can be used in any template, regardless of whether the law allows it, or not. As this is a policy issue, there really isn't any choice in the matter. --Rob 18:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah...well, I didn't realize there was a policy about it. If that is indeed the case, then I won't mess with it again. I thought this was removed based on a non-policy opinion given by an editor based on comments he heard elsewhere. Thanks for clearing up my confusion. Thanks Rob! Vivaldi (talk) 05:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Policy or not, putting the logo in the template is likely outside fair use. (Also remember that the fair use policy is based on fair use law.) --Davidstrauss 06:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if there's a way to modify the template so that the image appears only when the template is transcluded in an article. Would that be enough? Phr (talk) 02:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I inserted includeonly tags around the image, per above (it shows up as just a link in the noninclude case). Go ahead and remove again, if this isn't sufficient; but it looks reasonable to me. Phr (talk) 02:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

That causes the image to appear in every article but the template. Why do you people attempt to skirt the edge of what is okay instead of playing in the vast field of what is okay? The intent, obviously, is that an image which is owned not be presented except in an article about itself because such a use of an owned image implies the owner of the image sanctions the use of the image. Terryeo 03:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe what I did satisfies Rob's concern about fair use criteria point #9, which says not to include FU images in the template namespace. I defer to other editors about the other issues. However, I'd say that the article Dell makes fair use of the Dell logo even though the article is about the Dell corporation and not about the Dell logo. I also don't see any implication at all that use of a fair use image implies that the copyright holder sanctions the image's use. If the copyright holder sanctioned it, we'd tag it "used with permission" instead of just as fair use. Phr (talk) 03:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Using "noinclude" won't solve things. If you wish, to have the image *visually* appear instead the box, you can. But, you must specify the image in each article that uses it. That's how the various info boxes can have fairuse images visually appear, without being hard coded into the template. This template is used in many articles. Even if several have a fairuse claim for a logo, its unlikely all do. For instan ce, its hard to justify use of a logo to illustrate a critic of Scientology (unless he's criticizing the logo, which seems unlikely). By including the unfree image in the template, we're making the template unfree. That puts an absurd restriction on where we can use the template. We should be free to use the template wherever wished, while being cautious about the logo. --Rob 04:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

(Outdenting) I don't understand how it matters whether the articles specify the image directly, instead of indirectly by including the template. I also don't see why we shouldn't use the logo in an article about a critic, if the article is one of the closely related series on Scientology, which is what the template signifies. Of course we shouldn't use the template in a non-scn related article. I removed it from the article Louis Jolyon West, which only briefly mentioned Scientology and wasn't really part of the series. If you're saying we need to include a separate fair-use rationale in the image description, for every article that uses the image, then we can do that; maybe even automatically by transcluding a category into the image description.

As for replacing the logo, I'm not crazy about a pic of a Church building unless there's a really interesting looking one that's free. How about a volcano, like the Dianetics one? Time Magazine used something like that for their cover story. I just spent a minute colorizing a volcano pic from Commons (see right), and did sort of a crappy job, but of course someone could do a much better one, if the idea seems appropriate. Phr (talk) 09:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

How about the already used and available Image of the Superpower building, [2] (it would need reducing). It is, after all, the largest building built by the Church, isn't completed yet, has a distinguishing tower, remarkable by color and unique architecture. Terryeo 15:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

How about Xenu's head (the alien in blue robes version Image:Xenu.jpg)? I use it for software icons and its quite distinct even down to 24x24. AndroidCat 17:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you actually do need a separate fair use justification for every article you use it in. --Davidstrauss 16:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The picture of the Super Power building is pretty dull IMO. How about the pic of the LA church in [3] if we can get permission? Pic of Xenu might be seen as POV if used for the whole series. Maybe we could use it for articles about critics, while using (say) a pic of a Church building for articles about the Church, and maybe a pic of an E-meter for articles about Scientology practices. Phr (talk) 19:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It should be possible to find a pic of the big CoS building in LA with the Scientology cross on its roof - that would allow us to legitimately feature the logo in the template... -- ChrisO 19:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Incredible. you "neutral" editors suggest a caractiture, an artist's imagination of an individual whose name the Church of Scientology doesn't even comment on. Why not "Kennedy" or "George W. Bush"? The Church makes exactly the same comments on those folks, that is to say, none at all. Terryeo

I don't see any importance to getting the logo into the template (such as by photographing a building that has it), and I'm not sure that would solve the fair use problem anyway (if there is a problem). The image that we had was pretty good in terms of visual distinctiveness and I was satisfied with it from an NPOV point of view, so I'd just as soon keep using it, even if we have to exercise some care to conform to fair use by avoiding putting it in inappropriate places. But if we have to get rid of it and find another image for the template, it doesn't matter whether the new image has the logo or not. Phr (talk) 15:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I've found an image that might do - it's of the top of the pole/sign board outside the Scientology centre on L. Ron Hubbard Way in Los Angeles. Any thoughts? -- ChrisO 22:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

It could stand to be reduced to 2/3rds size. I'd say crop it to just show the logo, but that defeats the point, right? Just to understand, are we talking about copyright or trademark restrictions? AndroidCat 22:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

We're talking about copyright and that photo is likely to have the same problem as just using the logo as we formerly were. Nobody liked the volcano? Phr (talk) 01:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The photograph is an image of a symbol and does not have any copyright or trademark problems associated with it, provided the author of the image has released it under a common property license or is public domain. --Fahrenheit451 16:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Davidstrauss says, in the 4th post of this section, that a photograph of a copyrighted symbol is the equivalent to a photocopy of a book. That is, neither bypass the copyright of the author. I'm pretty sure using the image of a copyrighted symbol, whether a direct cut-and-past copy or a photograph if its appearence, violates the symbol's copyright. Terryeo 14:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't see that - thanks for pointing it out. It does seem to be fairly absolute, unfortunately. -- ChrisO 21:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The symbol is photographed on a building, not by itself. There seems to be some misinfomation being promoted about copyright or trademark fair use. Using a image of an object with a trademark on it is NOT a IP violation. --Fahrenheit451 04:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

No. I specifically asked Wikipedia's lawyer about such photographs at Wikimania 2006. He said the DE policy of photographing logos was meaningless and has no legal value. Plus, the image in question is depicting the logo with minimal extraneous content. To draw a parallel, I cannot photograph a page of a book on a library desk and claim there's no copyright because there's some desk in the picture. --Davidstrauss 21:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand your point, but copyright and trademarks are different issues with different laws. The page photograph would likely be fair use. You are correct about photographing a trademark by itself.--Fahrenheit451 14:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Archive the talk page

This page is over 200 kbytes; anyone object to archiving the old stuff? Phr (talk) 09:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Good with me. Xenu belongs in Controversy, though.Terryeo 15:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Consensus is that Xenu belongs where he/she/it is. --Davidstrauss 16:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

At a time in the past that was the concensus. At that time editors ignored the vast amount of information which points to Xenu being placed anywhere but where it presently is, in favor of a single gesture in a court case. Xenu certainly doesn't belong in any portion Scientology's statements about its knowledge or its docterine or its beliefs or its practices but belongs, perhaps, in Controversy. Terryeo 17:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It's well documented that Xenu is part of OT3. That is doctrine. Phr (talk) 15:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

A person stole some documents. Then he sent a copy to the memebers of a government, after he stole them. He obviously had a motivation and a vested interest (who knows what it was?) for his actions. What certainty could anyone have that his "publication" of documents was the documents which he stole? He might have discluded, some, included others, modified, deleted, added to, or any number of actions between the time he stole them and the time he "published" them. And, against those unknown actions, the Church has never made any comment on the validity of what he published. If you want good reliability, anyone would realize you don't depend on stolen documents. When you use a stolen piece of information, you don't know for sure what you've got. Terryeo 16:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

And, by the way, the government of Sweden seems to support the idea I have stated. The documents in question are no longer "published" by the government of Sweden, its legislature having passed law to prevent such events in the future and denying the credibility, in those circumstances, of such a "publication".

Terryeo 22:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, you are interjecting your own interpretation of the Swedish legislation: It was done strictly as a copyright matter that used paid lobbyists. (That a religious scripture can be copyrighted at all is another matter). You interjected your own opinion which is the "and denying the credibility, in those circumstances, of such a "publication". " line. That is clearly false. --Fahrenheit451 16:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I stated the situation pretty cleanly. Your evaluation of how lobbyists were paid might, to some people, in some circumstances contribute a little something, but I stated the outcome which is that a law changed and that which was once published by the government of Sweden is no longer published by the government of Sweden. The government of Sweden obviously denies the credibility of publications of that nature, under those circumstances. Denial of credibility is only one of the many reasons Swedish lawmakers confronted in changing Swedish laws. Why don't you list the rest of them? :) Terryeo 16:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Archived as requested. -- ChrisO 19:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

New picture?

The picture of the DC-8 without wings looks rather silly as the header of the template. I do not mean to offend those who believe them capable of intergalactic travel, but to the average user, they have no meaning whatsoever. Does a template really need a picture that badly? Do any non-banned editors agree with me that we should remove this? Yandman 07:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree - it doesn't have any context to it. However, I think I've found a better alternative - a Commons picture of an E-meter. It doesn't have any copyright problems and I think we can all agree that it's uniquely associated with Scientology. I've added it to the template - any thoughts? -- ChrisO 08:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

There might still be problems: Scientology claims "MARK SUPER VII QUANTUM symbol" and "MARK SUPER VII QUANTUM configuration" as trademarks[4]. If the image is kept, though, I would suggest knocking out the background so that the E-Meter is more visible. —tregoweth (talk) 21:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

That sounds fine. I see a certain oxymoron in the term "religious trademarks" however. --Fahrenheit451 22:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Expanding: "religious trademarks", "sports trademarks", "drug trademarks", "commercial trademarks", "broadcasting trademarks", "publication trademarks", etc. Terryeo 03:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Even in expanded form "religious trademarks" stand out. In fact this is a nice proof that CoS is not a religion, but a commercial entity. Futurix 16:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

So you suggest that the Roman Catholic Church doesn't own churches or other worldly wealth? That the Church if Islam doesn't own holy buildings but only oversees them by the grace of god or something? Scientology's practices are more transparent than most are, and it is certainly a newer religion than many, but any large faith owns millions of pounds of real property, much like Scientology's Saint Hill Manor, Sussex, England. Terryeo 21:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Terreyo, what in the world is the "Church if Islam" (I'm assuming you meant Church of Islam)? Islam does not have a church. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 07:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I mispelled "of", stating "if" instead of "of" and meant "Church of Islam" and not "Church if Islam". Here is a link to the "Church of Islam" and here is a google search result to the "Church of Islam" (300,000 hits). Terryeo 11:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

That's a Christian church masquerauding as Islam. That doesn't count. Islam has no fucking popes. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 02:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

"No fucking popes?" Oh, I see, therefore the Church of Islam does not own any worldly wealth and can not, therefore, be the owner of a copyright? I guess I follow your reasoning. Because they don't have any fucking popes. right. okay then. Terryeo 07:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

"Religious trademarks" is a sham. Trademarks are a commercial device. A religion cannot own trademarks by tradition and to be in compliance with the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Somebody in the PTO screwed up. No one said a religion cannot own "worldly wealth", but Terryeo falsely alleges someone did. In fact, it was him! --Fahrenheit451 13:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's as much of a problem with photos that contain incidental trademarks. It's not like McDonalds could force you to license their logo to show pictures of Times Square. (I have not confirmed this with a lawyer.) It is, however, legally confirmed that you can't simply photograph the logo and use that. --Davidstrauss 20:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Times Square is a good analogy. However, the fact that there's a logo on the front of the e-meter doesn't actually matter in this case - it's visible in the full size image but not in the thumbnail image [5] used in the template itself. No visible logo means no legal problem. -- ChrisO 21:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I like the volcano better than the e-meter, but I'll go along with anything you guys can settle on. Phr (talk) 07:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The volcano is potentially ambiguous - it could equally be used as the symbol of vulcanology and it takes some knowledge of Scientology to understand its associations (Xenu etc). It's also potentially controversial, given Scientologists' reticence on the subject. On the other hand, the e-meter is exclusively associated with Scientology and is directly linked with its core activity, auditing. It's a much more relevant and less controversial symbol of the topic. -- ChrisO 10:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think your arguments rather speak in favour of the volcano rather than the e-meter. It takes some knowledge of Scientology to know what an e-meter is or even what it looks like, whereas the volcano is a rather recognisable symbol as it is on the cover of the Dianetics book. I see little controversy when Scientology itself uses this symbol in such a public way. The e-meter seems utterly confusing to someone unfamiliar with Scientology, it makes the series look like it is some kind of science or technology series. As an alternative, what about a picture of Hubbard? Really Spooky 21:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, actually, a picture of Hubbard sounds like a good idea, if there's any we're allowed to use. There's no copyright info on Image:L Ron Hubbard.jpg so that one's probably not good. Is it really not possible to use the Scientology logo or the Scientology cross? Entheta 21:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, there's no non-copyrighted photos of Hubbard in the public domain - at least I've never come across any. Image:L Ron Hubbard.jpg is the CoS's official publicity pic of Hubbard so it can't be used in a template, and we've already discussed the use of trademarked images. The volcano is not uniquely associated with Scientology, and it requires a good deal of explanation to explain the association. That's why I suggested the e-meter in the first place - it is uniquely associated with Scientology and is relatively easy to explain, since it's arguably the functional equivalent of a menorah or a prayer wheel. -- ChrisO 00:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to be sure we are all on the same page, a Menorah is a symbol of an event which is purported to have happened a few hundred years ago while a Prayer wheel is used; spinning such a wheel will have much the same effect as orally reciting the prayers. An E-meter is a modern electonic device containing RAM, a rechargable battery and similar Integrated Circuits which purportedly tell of a person's emotional changes. We are actually speaking the same language and you are comparing a symbol to a portable, battery powered electronic device?

You wouldn't be implying that Scientology has anything to do with science, would you? After having tried so hard to convince us that it makes no such claims? Yandman 07:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Please cease your personal attacks, User:Yandman. If you wish to reply to the issue which User:ChrisO raises, that a symbol of a long past purported event is the functional equivalent of a modern, battery powered electronic device, this would be the area to do that. Terryeo 07:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, please cease your false accusations of personal attack. Very clearly Yandman did not attack you. Knock off that nonsense.--Fahrenheit451 13:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

"The E-Meter is not medically or scientifically useful for the diagnosis, treatment or prevention of any disease. It is not medically or scientifically capable of improving the health or bodily functions of anyone.". This makes it pretty clear that it has no scientific or medical function. The fact that it is a "portable, battery powered electronic device" does not change anything. Moreover, members of your organisation believe it can detect entities implanted billions of years ago by an evil galactic overlord. Having no function, and being a symbol "of a long past purported event" (sic), it is inarguably the functional equivalent of a prayer wheel. Yandman 07:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe I can help you with what you understand an E-meter to be, with how it functions, with what its dial indicates. I have tried to talk with you. I don't think I communicate these things to you. However, I can say that your statements about the E-meter are not practical, i.e. they do not apply to the use of the E-meter as it is used by Scientologists. Terryeo 08:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It's the functional equivalent simply in that it's a religious artefact used in the central religious ritual of Scientology, i.e. auditing. The exact purpose for which it's used isn't relevant in this context. -- ChrisO 08:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I see User:ChrisO has not replied to my request for communication. Terryeo 08:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

He does not have to. Are you attempting to harass ChrisO by demanding he respond to you?--Fahrenheit451 14:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Fahrenheit451 :) I stated what I observed. Unresponded to is how a symbol of an event (purported to have happened event) (long past) (maybe was real, maybe not) which is communicated about with a symbol (this is a symbol "A") (another symbol is an S with two triangles) how a symbol equates to an object which is used every day on planet earth, whose battery much be recharged daily, whose RAM actively switches data bits into and out of it, whose faceplate presents knobs to turn and information to record. One is an object. The other is a symbol. User:ChrisO states they are equal "for our purposes here". And so I ask, "are we on the same page?" But User:ChrisO refused to respond to my question and I then stated what I observed, that he refused to reply to my request for communication. Terryeo 14:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

And you, Terryeo, have always answered questions posed by other editors? You have never not answered or evaded a direct answer?--Fahrenheit451 15:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

That's right Fahrenheit451, I'm pure as the driven snow and bright as the sun. heh ! Terryeo 15:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Your "answer" just verified your conduct here.--Fahrenheit451 15:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

If you can take my answer seriously I guess it might. I can't. lol Terryeo 18:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

So here are my thoughts

If we can't use a picture, how about just the word Scientology in a font that looks similar to L. Ron Hubbard's own handwriting?

Like this picture I made myself:

and it would look like this:

[6]

Compare that to this (which is L. Ron Hubbard's actual handwriting):

It would be even better if someone found the word written by L. Ron Hubbard himself. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 02:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Why don't one of you guys email RTC and ask them for a suggestion ? Who knows, perhaps they might be cooperative. Terryeo 07:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

What would the "guys" at RTC have to do with what Kirbytime is proposing? Who cares if RTC would cooperate or not, besides yourself? Some consider RTC to be a racket, so why even bother with it/them?--Fahrenheit451 14:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah right, I follow your sequence of logic there. Terryeo 14:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll tell you what I would do. If I wanted these articles to present Scientology in the modern world I would use a photograph of one of 2 or 3 buildings which have good color and are easily recognized, very careful examination might notice a flash of color which was a Church's symbol but it wouldn't be the obvious element of the photograph. On the other hand, if I wanted to present that mankind has always had religion and that Scientology is an "upstart", I would use a photograph of the Christian Cross because it is an uncopyrighted holy symbol, which can be used. Scientology's Cross added 4 fairly small bits to it. The reader would have the small activity of filling in the missing pieces (fill in the dots). Obviously, sooner or later we are going to have an article on the Scientology and Dianetics symbols. Terryeo 15:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Um, we already do, and have for quite some time. It's called Symbols of Scientology. wikipediatrix 20:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

So Terryeo, what you are suggesting is that we deceive our readers by using a symbol of a religion (Christianity) that is the anti-thesis of Scientology (in order to get around Scientology's pointless copywrighted religious symbol)? --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 03:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

LOL. U funny. I assume you understand that the cross is a symbol which is used in a number of areas. The common symbol which I refer to is not owned (as far as I know), is not copyrighted, is too old for any of those things to apply to, but yet is frequently used to represent religion in general. You see it over graves no matter what faith the individual who is buried under had followed, you see it over animals' graves. It doesn't actually represent any particular religion but is a symbol with a variety of uses. I don't propose to deceive, defame, belittle or otherwise disrespect your personal beliefs or a reader's when I propose a common cross symbol could serve on this template. I would further state, Scientology protects its copyrights with the same effort that Ford Motor Company and other large corperations do, and with the same intent. Terryeo 14:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

"You see it over graves no matter what faith the individual who is buried under had followed". Terryeo is obviously not an undertaker. I think he needs to visit a jewish cemetery (star). Or a muslim one (crescent). Yandman 20:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Both your statements and my statements are accurate statements until you get to your evaluation. You do (if you look) see common crosses over graves of every faith. You do, (if you look) see that which you state, also. Because you choose not to understand what I have said, but instead choose to find exception to what I have stated, I will be more specific, so that you may become enlightened. There are graveyards (if you choose to look) where every buried person has exactly the same symbol over his / her grave, no matter what their faith was. Now it is your choice. You may choose to take issue with my statement, or you may press me for further specificity and I shall name the particular graveyard I have in mind :) But you, and probably everyone, knows my statment is true. And now, everyone can see that your statement, while true, is not meant to be supportative, but is placed in an argumentative manner because you say, "I think ... needs to visit a graveyard". Such a comment treds on incivility, it is unnecessary in communicating about Faith, Religion and Symbols thereof. Terryeo 22:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

And.. that's total nonsense. Only Christians, or those related to Christians, are buried under a Christian cross. Jews, Muslims, everyone else, has a common Π shaped gravestone, if not a specific style of their own. Terryeo, the cross is exclusively a Christian symbol. Scientologists stole it and bastardized it (and even trademarked it!); so what? How does that justify using a different religion's symbol? It makes absolutely no sense. Take a look at this [7]. Not a single cross in that graveyard. Nada. Nor in this one [8]. Are you done being a tool of Scientology already? --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 03:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

This photograph [9] and this one [10] is a small section of a large graveyard. Every government tombstone is standard, every one has a cross symbol on it. My statement is, "the cross is a widely recognized religious symbol". Further, "the cross does not necessarily reflect a particular religion". Yes, certainly there is a discussion point to this. Yes, certainly exception can be found. Oh hum. Terryeo 01:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

If you'd looked a little further "Government Headstone/Niche Cover — The government will provide at no cost to the estate of the deceased an upright, white marble headstone or white niche cover. The cemetery staff at Arlington will place the order, which goes to the National Cemetery Administration, part of the Department of Veterans Affairs. The order for the headstone or niche cover will include the appropriate inscription and choice of faith emblems."[11] and [12]. AndroidCat 02:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Really, I love it. You guys are sooo predictable. You snipe at me for the most trivial of reasons. I say the sky is blue and that a common cross symbol is widely recognized as representing religion in general. You snipe at that. When I present minor, pictoral evidence for this obviously true datum, you snipe at the examples. soooo predictable. The situation exists as I state it. hello? check any dictionary. Hello? Hello? Hello? Now what, you check not just any dictionary but check a particular dictionary to find a definition which states a specific definition that says a specific about the common cross representing something slightly different? A common cross obviously represents in a broad general way, religion. Make me laugh, guys. Obviously. Terryeo 06:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

If by "snipe", you mean provide a cite showing that your picture example didn't support your statement, well .. yes. AndroidCat 11:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Good grief. Is Terryeo really suggesting that Muslims, Jews and other religions are represented by the Christian cross? (Hint: there's a reason why it's called the Christian cross.) This is just... wow. -- ChrisO 12:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

<undent>Good Grief! Cross: widely used symbol. In various forms, it can be found in such diverse cultures as those of ancient India, Egypt, and pre-Columbian North America. [13], [14]. "The cross is an ancient symbol associated with the sun whose origins are lost in the mists of time. The cross was clearly associated with the sun in many cultures long before Jesus of Nazareth was crucified" [15]. "The cross was used in Egyptian Art" [16] Msn gives lots of crosses, [17]. Good grief ! If you don't like the idea, say so. If you are uneducated in the area, say so. But to crow about what you don't know is a bit silly, isn't it? Read our own Wikipedia article, already. Terryeo 13:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

You have made a personal attack when you stated, "are you done being a tool of Scientology". Please stop your personal attacks User:Kirbytime. Terryeo 00:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack, it is a statement of fact. You are putting Scientology's interests before Wikipedia's interests by distorting facts. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 19:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I think using a Christian cross is a terrible idea. If we're going to use a stylized font for "Scientology," we should use a good one, not a pixelated, ugly script font. Using Hubbard's handwriting would probably fall under "fair use," preventing use in the template. --Davidstrauss 14:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

So tell me Mr. Critic, got a better font? I think it looks perfectly fine. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 03:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You're criticizing my taste with that signature? :-) --Davidstrauss 08:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

What was wrong with the E-meter image? Did I miss something? wikipediatrix 14:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Yea, it sucked. Plus, Scientologists have never used the E-meter as a symbol of their faith. Plus, it is not recognizable. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 03:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

If we can't use one of the Scn symbols that actually represent Scn or a pic of LRH or a recognizable building then I like the picture of the meter, too. It is unique to Scn, easily recognizable, and representative enough. I don't like the script idea at all, sorry but it looks "not so good". --Justanother 04:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Kirbytime removed the E-meter image to reintroduce the Scientology logo. I've reverted this. I agree 100% with Justanother, btw. -- ChrisO 09:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I missed that fancy footwork by Kirbytime. I prefer the meter over some script. AndroidCat 11:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Is a logo really imperative? The script looks silly (my apologies to you Kirbytime), the christian cross might leave some to believe scientology is a serious religion, the e-meter might leave some to believe scientology has anything to do with science, and while the dollar sign might be more representative of this organisation, it will probably offend. Yandman 17:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Yandman, while it is not a surprise and you have stated your point of view in other places, because you have said here, the christian cross might leave some to believe scientology is a serious religion, I feel it only appropriate to point out to you that there is simply no presentation of Scientology within Wikipedia which could not include the secondary sources of information that consider Scientology is a serious religion. I refer of course to the many governments while have recognized Scientology's seriousness of religious purpose, thus granting tax exempt status. Further, a number of court cases have presented that judges too consider Scientology to be a serious religion. In Sweden, Scientology Ministers can marry people. While there is still some disagreement in some countries, Scientology could hardly be presented without inclusion, here on Wikipedia, of it being a serious religion. Terryeo 00:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

For the final time, Scientology's tax exemption in the U.S. is not an indication of official endorsement as a religion. --Davidstrauss 08:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

And Davidstrauss is correct. A government endorsement of religion would be a violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution. Terryeo appears to be spreading misinformation: "I refer of course to the many governments while have recognized Scientology's seriousness of religious purpose, thus granting tax exempt status. Further, a number of court cases have presented that judges too consider Scientology to be a serious religion." There is NO legal threshold of criteria of "seriousness". --Fahrenheit451 13:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

All right F. February 1, 1965 A Federal District Judge in Washington, DC ruled that Scientology ministers may refuse to violate confidences divulged to them by parishioners in pastoral counseling sessions [18]. Legal recognition, you see ? And there are many others as well. When a government decrees that a minister of a stated faith may perform marriages, (as has been done in Sweden) it is a legal recognition. In some countries Churches are "legally recognized as religions" though as you state, in the USA, the IRS' tax exemption is about "charitable" and not about "religiosity". Terryeo 15:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

And your reply is non-sequitur to my statement. To repeat:"And Davidstrauss is correct. A government endorsement of religion would be a violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution. Terryeo appears to be spreading misinformation: "I refer of course to the many governments while have recognized Scientology's seriousness of religious purpose, thus granting tax exempt status. Further, a number of court cases have presented that judges too consider Scientology to be a serious religion." There is NO legal threshold of criteria of "seriousness"."--Fahrenheit451 05:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

F's edit summary states, "non-sequiter gibberish". May I invite you toward WP:CIVIL? As for government recognition of a religion, my statements are sufficent. :) Terryeo 12:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

You still have not addressed your non-sequitur statements about "seriousness" which is not a legal criteria. Again, it is merely your opinion, it does not meet WP:V and actually seems to be WP:OR on your part. Please stop trying to change the subject.--Fahrenheit451 15:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed ! "seriousness" is not an issue, you see? Issues revolve about previously published, reliable sources of information. Whereas I point to sources of information which reply to your posts and show Scientology as being a religion recognized by governments and scholars, you point to other editors being "serious". My responses contribute toward how Wikipepdia is written (reliable published sources of information) while yours point toward editor's evaluation of the seriousness of the subject matter. Terryeo 16:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, Terryeo, your response is non-sequitur. You were the one who brought up "seriousness" as a legal criteria for religion. We are not addressing any other matter, but you go off on a tangent having nothing to do with the matter at hand. It sure looks like you are evading a discussion of your own pronouncement. I take that as evidence that you do not operate in good faith here.--Fahrenheit451 22:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I see you have claimed that I "do not operate in good faith". Yet "seriousness" is not what I was talking about at all. :) Terryeo 01:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Trying to talk to Terryeo is like walking into the Monty Python Argument Clinic, and only disrupts the discussion with unnecessary squabbling, which I assume is precisely what he wants. (I don't think we have to assume good faith with users who have been banned from editing these articles.). wikipediatrix 01:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Suppressive Office of Special Affairs tactics. I have come to the same conclusion. Oh, I remember the Argument skit. It sure characterizes those kind of tactics!--Fahrenheit451 03:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Good grief ! People are offering suggestions about what to use at the head of the template. I stated, I would use a photograph of one of 2 or 3 buildings which have good color and are easily recognized (agreeing with other editors) and, On the other hand, if I wanted to present that mankind has always had religion and that Scientology is an "upstart", I would use a photograph of the Christian Cross because it is an uncopyrighted holy symbol. I mean, hello, a cross has been a symbol for 5000 years, the Egyptians used it, the Greeks used it, the Romans used it, it has represented various gods, it has been used an alphabet letter, etc. etc. I do understand no one agrees with my suggestion but a simple "no" or even less illuminating "no reply" would cover the situation, would it not? Instead there is statements of "bad faith", implications "you're using OSA tatics", etc. etc. Raymond Hill makes a small mistake, citing his own personal website, ChrisO makes a mistake and reads my statement about Raymond's small mistake as some sort of personal attack. Really people, suggesting a cross symbol is about like saying the sky is blue. It is completely obvious, yet no one can read the words I put on the page? Terryeo 23:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

By comparable logic, we could illustrate a template on the works of William Faulkner with a picture of William Shakespeare, because Shakespeare has been dead a while and can't protest. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Scientology has adopted a version of a cross as one of its symbols. The the best of my knowledge, William Faulkner never went around calling himself Shakespeare. However, if there are reasons to prefer not to use the CoS version of the cross, then don't use it. It would be better for the template to go undecorated than to have a protracted argument about whether the CoS adoption of the cross has a legitimate historical background. Thatcher131 (talk) 17:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thatcher, the version of a cross which Scientology has adopted is precisely the one we've been told we can't use -- that's what triggered the search for a replacement. To my knowledge, Scientology has never used any other version of the cross as a symbol other than their eight-pointed version, and Terryeo isn't suggesting that such a thing has ever taken place -- he's suggesting that the traditional "Christian cross" is actually a generic symbol for all religions, not a symbol of Christianity specifically. By the same logic as Terryeo is presenting, if we were for some reason unable to use the Star of David in a template on Judaism, or the inverted pentagram in a template on Satanism, it would be reasonable to use the Christian cross instead -- again, on the dubious premise that the Christian cross means "a generic religion" now. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with that interpretation as well but it is enough to say we disagree and to move on. It does not seem useful to get into a discussion of ancient symbolology (or to perpetuate such a discussion). You need a free image that is associated with the CoS--a generic cross is not associated with the CoS, and the CoS cross may not be free enough for this purpose. A discussion on one of the copyright talk pages might be useful here, particularly the distinction between a copyright and a trademark. If there is a CoS symbol that is trademarked but not copyrighted, it can be used (as far as I know, I may be wrong) all long as you are not using it for the same business purpose. Thatcher131 (talk) 21:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You're missing the point

(I was asked on my talk page to look this debate over by Terryeo who is concerned he is being over-reacted against. I have no prior interest in Scientology either way. I think this debate has not yet crossed the line of incivility but it is certainly not very productive. Everyone seems to be senstized to each other over past disputes and somehow a discussion of the template has turned into yet another debate on the legitimacy of scientology as a religion. Get back to the point, ok?)

From an outsider perspective, the point here is finding an image to decorate the Scientology template. I say decorate specifically because that's what it is. While the use of copyright images in Symbols of Scientology is fair use per the commentary doctrine, the template does not contain such discussion/criticism and any use here is clearly as decoration. Therefore, it must be a free image. I find the idea of using a handwriting mock-up to be deceptive and inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Any image you use must be a real image connected with scientology. Using LRH's handwriting would not fall under fair use as suggested above (because it's decoration) and in any case would be even more obscure than a photo of an e-meter. A photo of a building, such as the celebrity center in LA, with neon letters spelling out CoS, would be acceptable even if it happened to include a trademarked image. I am less agreeable to the CoS Cross since that may very well contain enough unique elements to be trademarked or copyrighted. (CoS has clearly adopted a cross-like symbol--this is not the place for an argument about their reasons for doing so and the legitimacy of the symbol.)

In short, the image must be free; the image must be officially associated with Scientology in some way; having no image at all is preferable to having an image that fails these two criteria, and having no image is better than getting into a protracted fight about it. Thatcher131 (talk) 02:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Thatcher131. Ral315 (talk) 13:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Since E-meter is one of the articles mentioned in the Template itself, would that not justify proper non-decorative fair use of the E-meter image? wikipediatrix 17:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair Use doesn't apply to any decorative purpose, since the navigation template will work just as well with or without an image. However the design of the e-meter is not copyrightable and the photo used has a free GFDL license, so it may be used anywhere for any reason. It seemed like some users were looking for a better image. Any image used in the template would have to have one of the free licenses.

(This is perhaps not the place for a copyright discussion, but a better example would be an artist like Andy Warhol. It would be very hard to write a useful article about his art without including some images, hence the Fair Use doctrine. However, a navigation template linking to Warhol-related articles works just as well without images, so only free ones could be used. The difference being that the image makes the article more useful but only decorates the template.) Look for example at Template:Startrek2 which has no images, probably for this reason.) Thatcher131 (talk) 20:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Major changes to "People" heading

I've made some major changes to the "People" heading to reflect the classification under Category:Scientologists. Hopefully this will make it more informative and intuitive. The revised heading is as follows:

• Line 1 - founders of Scientology (L. Ron Hubbard, Mary Sue Hubbard).
• Line 2 - leaders of Scientology (Heber Jentzsch, David Miscavige).
• Line 3 - famous Scientologists (Tom Cruise, Isaac Hayes, John Travolta).
• Line 4 - former Scientologists who've had the most significant impact on the organisation (Lisa McPherson, Lawrence Wollersheim).

Jon Atack, Tory Christman, Arnaldo Lerma and Karin Spaink are no longer listed. Although mostly significant critics (though I'd call Christman marginal in this context), I think that their objective significance is outweighed by that of McPherson and Wollersheim; furthermore, only Atack is widely known outside of Internet circles. As for including Cruise, Hayes and Travolta, most people will have heard of Scientology in connection with those three. I think they would reasonably expect to see the most famous Scientologists linked somewhere in this template. -- ChrisO 10:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a good structuring. On Line 4, what would you think about putting Gerry Armstrong? When one considers all the documents that came to public light because of his trial, one could argue his impact was more significant than Wollersheim's. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the structure is much better that way, even though Lisa McPherson was not former Scientologist, to my knowledge.

Bi-directional links

Here is an idea: Pages that include this template should also be included in the template. For example, Jon Atack, Tory Christman, Arnaldo Lerma and Karin Spaink were removed from this, so their pages should also have the template removed. Encyclopedias work best by having links that are two way, not simply going in one direction. If a page warrents including this template as part of the page, due to it's relationship with the topic, then it is also important enough to have a back pointer. Super 7 - Everything else is just transport 14:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

No, a "two way link" rule won't work. Once a topic has enough pages to need a template, there will be a significant number of pages that won't fit. There are over a hundred pages about Scientology, and room for some 67 on the template. Should all the others just be cut a-drift? AndroidCat 02:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Not cut adrift, but maybe folded into fewer pages that have more information, and remove as much of the overlap as possible. I'd have to look at the whole set of pages, and unfortunatly, don't have the time right now. Idea: Maybe, instead of having a few of the people listed, there should be a "Personalities" page, which the template points to, and then a short paragraph or two about each of the people, with pointers to the individual pages? In any case, it was just an idea. Super 7 - Everything else is just transport 19:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Went to the transfer station, and had a few ideas while doing that. Does Wiki have a "autogenerate index" ability? I don't know enough about Wiki to answer that. Would it be OK for there to be an index of some sort, with links to ALL the pages arranged in some sort of topical manor? Maybe with a sentence about what the page contains. The no page gets lost. At the same time, cut the Template way back, but have it point to the index, and each page could then point back to the "base" by having a smaller template that does not take up all the room. I'm not pro or con on the idea, but I see a need to have a topical index, and the template structure isn't quite enough without having it be huge, taking up lots of space. A smaller template and/or index page would be nice, because, then, it can be included in places where Scientology is discussed (rather than just mentioned) without taking up lots of room. Super 7 - Everything else is just transport 20:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Just found Wikipedia:WikiProject Scientology/publicwatchlist, which is a start, but not exactly what I had in mind. Super 7 - Everything else is just transport 20:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

How about a dedicated template to "Scientology Critics" which could contain those four persons. Then that template could be linked to the Scientology Template at, perhaps, "Critics". Terryeo 17:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Multiple IPs

I'd guess it would be safe to assume that 67.159.5.116 and 85.214.28.144 are the same person. That makes 8 attempts to change the template a particular way. AndroidCat 02:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Got a screw loose, Android. But nice idea. 85.214.28.144 02:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The Template's organization of information

There is quite a lot of information which is part of the template. At Organization we have "Sea Org, Church of Scientology, Celebrity Centre, Trementina Base, Church of Spiritual Technology, Office of Special Affairs, Gold Base, RPF, International Association of Scientologists, and Religious Technology Center.

Here we have groups (Sea Org, RPF) mingled with organizations (Religious Technology center, Church of Scientology), mingled with locations (Gold Base, Trementina Base). Why don't we take some single parameter and sequence the information using a single parameter ? The title of the section is "Organization". Why don't we list the most senior organization first, the next most senior second and so on? For example:

All of the organizations of the Church are the responsibility of the Sea Organization. It runs a rehabilitation program (RPF) for Sea Org members who currently are not producing as well as they should.

The Church of Spiritual Technology (senior to all, its passive acceptence is required for all the rest to operate)

The Religious Technology Center (responsible for the use of patents and copyrights, provides a report line for any out technology and any out-application).

The Church of Scientology (operates under the protection of RTC and provides monetary support up the chain of command to RTC)

The Office of Special Affairs (responsible for Scientology's public image [Dividsion 6] which includes legal affairs and media announcements, it operates under RTC)

Celebrity Centre is a specialized sub organization of the Church, staffed by Sea Org members and operating in a number of locations and caters to celebrities.

Trementina Base and Gold Base are special purpose locations which the Church operates for particular purposes.

The International Organization of Scientologists is run by the Sea Org and made up of members of the public who donate to be a part of it. The benifits to a public for membership include lower donation and purchase rates.

In any event, however the template gets organized, it presents a helter-skelter informational scatter as it stands, now. I suggest:

Sea Org · (Rehabilitation Project Force)
Church of Spiritual Technology
Religious Technology Center
Church of Scientology · OSA
Celebrity Centre · Advanced Orgs
Trementina Base · Gold Base
International Association of Scientologists Terryeo 21:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Check your texts for typos, man. Got some personal experience on what you write? 85.214.28.144 02:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

User 85.214.28.144, if you have a contribution to make (such as something I wrote that manifests an error), feel free to state it. The idea is, after all, toward a good article. On the other hand, if you have a personal issue with my comment here, feel free to take it up with me on my discussion page. Terryeo 05:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Right. Now, the Scientology organizational structure is one of those things well documented in registration documents and court cases. The existing template is a symbol of the bias of those who have put it up or tweaked since. Your "proposal" up there would add just some more. I am not going to teach a Scientologist Scientology organizational structures but your lack of homework would make the template even more inaccurate, like for for "Celebrity Center", "CST", "IOS" (would be IAS, I guess) etc. Try again. 85.214.28.144 22:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Your statement is a criticsm and suggest "trying again". Your statement is a criticsm and states, "I'm not going to ... (improve anything)". Your statement is a criticsm and states I haven't done my homework. Your statement is a criticsm. Perhaps it is more clear to you now that your statement is not constructive, but is a criticsm ? Terryeo 01:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not necessary for the template to be ordered in a way that represents "Scientology organizational structures". It's just a bunch of links that give an overview of articles on the subject, nothing more. wikipediatrix 23:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

We attempt to present information to a reader. There are many ways we can do so. "just a bunch of links" would be one method. I am proposing that an organization of such links would be helpful to a reader. Terryeo 01:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Pretty long list though and not only unsorted but false as well. And ugly too but that is just my opinion. I am not talking hierarchy with "Scientology organizational structure" (what do I know) but at least there should be no salt in a pot labeled pudding and "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable". 85.214.28.144 23:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

My $0.02; there is some reorg that could be made. Like move RPF to controversy (and the Bridge to Practices - never mind, this is the film, how do you line out?). Then the question, are we including ALL Scn articles in the template? If not some are kinda minor, like Trementina. That is all I have for now. I am not sure I understand what the template is supposed to be (and I am very sleepy so good night).--Justanother 05:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Go sleep then. The template should be sorted by beliefs/doctrine, individuals (Hubbard and Miscavige, no one else) and Scientology organizations. That throws out the minor crap, such as Trementina. Add some controversy section with Space Opera and other phantasies on the bottom and you are done. But throw out promotion of POVs, like "The Bridge" and other obviously biased products. 213.251.134.44 04:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Still more template tweaks

I did some more tightening of the Template, trying to keep it as compact as possible while still keeping it readable. I removed The Bridge, The Profit and R2-45 because I just don't think these are on the same level as controversy as Operation Snow White, etc. I almost removed the South Park link because that controversy seems to have fizzled out without having amounted to much, but perhaps there will be new lawsuits when it's time for it to be released on DVD. I added Downtown Medical and The Way to Happiness to the outreach groups. wikipediatrix 19:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

In "This article forms part of a series on Scientology", "Scientology" was changed to "Faggotology." Perhaps a locking is in order? Mansfieldatron 04:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

"Comm Evs"?

Why is the Scientology Justice article listed here as "Comm Evs"? Wouldn't "Justice" be the logical thing to call it? Highfructosecornsyrup 20:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

POV issues

Check out the Islam template. Then have a look at the Christianity template. Then peruse the many articles listed on the Judaism template.

You will note that none of the aforementioned templates have a "criticism" section. You will note that none of them found it appropriate to list critics, critical sites, or embarassing incidents, even well-known ones.

Now have a look-see at the Scientology template. Obviously, a complete different set of standards are at work here, and clearly, unlike Islam, Christianity and Judaism, this template was not arranged by members of the religion it supposed to represent.

Who can give me a straight answer why Lisa McPherson and Lawrence Wollersheim are important enough to be listed alongside DM and Jentzsch? Who can defend not only that this template should even have a "controversy" section in the first place, but that's it's the largest section? (12 links) Highfructosecornsyrup 04:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Mainly because, for its size and years of existance, and despite its attempts to rewrite history, Scientology is controversial? AndroidCat 05:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

How is that your judgment - or mine - or anyone's else's to make? Real encyclopedias aren't supposed to decide such things for the reader. Highfructosecornsyrup 05:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

There's never been a major newspaper article about Scientology as a religion. There have been several about Scientology as a criminal organisation ("Time" was the most important). Scientology is known for its controversies more than it is known as a "serious" religion, and we have to follow that. yandman 11:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you mean major newspaper article then this took like 15 seconds to find but I suspect you mean more of major newspaper article. Don't know but I would for sure "never say never". There have not been that many of them and most were of the expose genre I would suppose. Actually I am going to point you right back at the same one, it being a three-part series. Never say never. --Justanother 16:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

So you're basically admitting that you have no interest in treating it fairly? Even the most controversial subjects one can think of - Rush Limbaugh, John Mark Karr, Saddam Hussein, Charles Manson, deserve to be treated fairly and impartially, even if they're more known for their controversies. To say that you don't feel obligated to make the Scientology template follow the same impartial style as other religion templates is horrifying. Highfructosecornsyrup 15:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

In case you missed it, User:Slightlyright said it best and I paraphrase. "The problem is that, [on wikipedia], Scientology is not a subject, it is a controversy about a pseudo-subject". Therefore the controversy figures prominently on the template while for your other examples, which are acknowledged to be actual subjects, it does not. --Justanother 16:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

What avenues are there for rectifying this obvious bias? It appears that no one is willing to listen to reason. In the last 24 hours I've been damn near crucified for simply trying to suggest ways to make the articles fairer. If I was out to censor criticism of Scn, I'd be removing unsourced information from the articles. Instead, I thought I was going by the book and doing things the right way: placing tags to call attention to other editors that problems may exist, and to try to start discussions on the talk pages about it. It appears that criticism of Wikipedia's articles about Scientology is just not allowed anymore. Highfructosecornsyrup 16:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if the blatant POV can be remedied at all. There is much arrogance here by many longtimers. This is due mostly to the fact that they do not see the anti Scn POV. Their POV to them is common sense and this "common sense" is reflected accurately in the article as far as they are concerned. Because they do not perceive the negative bias, they see knowlegable presentation of Scientology as a "pro Scn POV", and anyone presenting this view is automatically dismissed mentally so they do not give proper consideration to deletions and reversions since such editors are "obviously biased". Add to this their ongoing frustration with the flood of vandals (which makes folks quick to rv any new contributions) and it seems hopeless.

I really don't think Wikipedia's coverage of Scientology will ever educate anyone about anything but the controversy surrounding it. I think the solution is to continue to edit in good faith and try to correct what you can.

For what it's worth, I thought all of your edits were legitimate, reserved and reasonable. They were unjustifiably reverted. Go ahead and put them back if you believe thier removal to be detrimental to the fair treatment of the subject. ---Slightlyright 17:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

How can Scientology be a pseudo-object or did I miss sarcasm or irony? I will argue for the inclusion of criticism on the templates of Christianity, Islam etc.[19]. I do not think that controversy and criticism should be removed from this template, may be reduced in size. Andries 16:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Lisa Mcphearson should be moved to the Controversies section and so should Wollersheim. Thoughts? ---Slightlyright 17:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I also think we should model this template more closely after those for other religions. ---Slightlyright 17:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Without getting into the broader debate regarding the POV of all Scientology articles, I'll just respond to this original point: "none of them found it appropriate to list critics, critical sites, or embarassing incidents, even well-known ones" (referring to the Islam and Christianity navboxes). While it is certainly true that there is no section on "criticisms", there are indeed links to critics and (to those faiths) embarrassing incidents. The Islam template has separate links for Sunni and Shi'a (a schism which reverberates to this day combined with very vocal criticisms of each other). The Christianity template has far more: Great Schism, Protestantism (and all subcategories, most of which were formed out of rejection of the previously established church), and notably links of some of the most outspoken critics of "the church" as it existed in their own time, Martin Luther and John Calvin.

In other words, no there is certainly not the more direct reference to "criticism", but some of that may simply be based on the fact that the major schisms and large scale criticisms are distant history instead of current events. Scientology was formed in the last couple generations so would logically be described in more modern terms. Just my 2 cents -Markeer 21:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The issue here isn't about schisms - I have no problem with Free Zone being on the Scientology template. I'm talking articles like Lisa McPherson whose only purpose in the template seems to be to further tinfoil-hat conspiracy theories about the Church. Even if the Pope shot a woman dead in the Vatican in front of the media, I doubt the article about her would end up being prominently displayed in the Christianity template. Highfructosecornsyrup 22:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Controversy or criticism of Catholicism could include abortion (right-to-life, family planning), sedevacantism; of Judaism the Zionism question; for Christianity in general, creationism vs evolution, school prayer. All religions have ongoing controversy. But look at the Christianity template; no mention of controversy or criticism there. OK, you say, that is a long established religion. Well, let's look at the Mormons then; fairly recent; LOTS of controversy over their history. Take a look at their template. No conflict/controversy there either. Let's at least be honest. There is a general POV here on wikipedia that is disrespectful to Scientology. Those that support that POV will argue that that is the prevailing view in society but it is not; it is the prevailing view among critics and pile-on wannabes (present company excluded, of course), aided by sensationalist media and the tendency of even "respectable" media sources to include at least some tabloid or gossip content. There will be many here that will say that Scientology earned it. I don't think you should ever be able to earn the disrespect of an encyclopedia or, by extension, its editors. They should be above the fray. If the encyclopedia cannot maintain its distance then it should, like a trial judge, recluse itself for conflict of interest and have no articles at all on the subject. So I don't buy any "logic" that says that wikipedia should disrespect Scientology because Scientology disrespects critics, the internet, or even wikipedia itself. To the credit of wikipedia and its editors, I have found that my edits in the direction of removing ingrained (practically institutional) POV have not met with untoward opposition except in the case of a very few editors and that I have found support or at least tolerance among many that are likely not fans of Scientology at all. Will all due respect, I urge Highfructosecornsyrup to back off on any confrontational approach and simply contribute well-sourced, well-written content to the encyclopedia. --Justanother 22:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't think of anything I've said or done that even approaches being confrontational. I think I've been pretty meek, honestly. In almost every instance where I've wanted to change an article, I've made an inquiry on the talk page instead of taking action. Most of those questions have still gone unanswered, of course. Highfructosecornsyrup 02:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Please don't take it that I have reviewed your edits and come to any conclusion; I am simply basing my comment on the chatter, i.e. if it smells like a conflict . . .

On a more general note, I did see that the main objection was littering. You can perhaps better serve the same purpose in other ways; attach a {{subst:unreferenced}} tag to the section; copy (not move) the section to the talk page and invite disussion there; look at the supplied refs and rewrite to match them; or find some more refs and rewrite as appropriate (Wikipedia:Writing for the enemy). --Justanother 02:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Christianity template includes links to Martin Luther, John Calvin, and John Wycliffe - critics in modern terms. Futurix 22:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Begs the question, IMO, They were critics in the middle ages; now they are the fathers of Protestantism (from protest, obviously). So they would only be controversial in The Illuminated Wikipedia (joke). --Justanother 23:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that they are still controversial for catholics ;-) [User:Futurix|Futurix]] 00:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Probably, but on a serious note (considering the wink), there is no template specific to Catholics and I am sure that most would say that their presence on the Christianity template is as founders of Protestantism, not as critics of Catholicism in any relevant modern sense. --Justanother 00:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

too much controversy

The template now contains fourteen links in the controversy section, fifteen if you count the header title's link to Scientology controversy. That's not counting all the articles elsewhere on the template whose only purpose is criticizing, ridiculing, exposing, misrepresenting and attacking, such as "Medical claims", "Supernatural Abilities", "Space Opera", "Altered Texts", "Human Evolution", etc. Since Scientology controversy contains links to everything else anyway, why can't we just have that article be on the template and leave it at that? I repeat, no other religion's template treats its subject in this unfair manner. Highfructosecornsyrup 15:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

This seems a reasonable way to deal with it (i.e. leave "Scientology Controversy" as a link and place the individual topic links on that article). The purpose of a navbox is guide people who want to know more about a subject, and it seems fair to say that those interested in most of the "controversial" topics would actually prefer to be guided to one article as a starting point. I have no particular love for Scientology (my own POV) but this suggestion strikes me not being a POV one but rather how to adjust this template to first-time readers interested in the subject. -Markeer 16:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow! If statement articles ... whose only purpose is criticizing, ridiculing, exposing, misrepresenting and attacking is not a statement of obvious bias, I don't know what it is!

And there is no global Wikipedia rule on religion navigation templates, so content of individual boxes can vary. In this case we have scientology - highly controversial and relatively recently founded something which is not even recognized as religion in most countries. I don't see comparison of christianity and scientology as fair (in this context). Futurix 16:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess I should say you're biased because you say I'm biased because I say the articles are biased? Blah blah blah blah. I'm only interested in talking about how to improve the template and make it fairer, not in responding to personal attacks. Highfructosecornsyrup 17:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Who decides what's fair and what's not? You've already branded articles as ridiculing and misrepresenting - how is that fair?

Oh, and by the way, why do you think that criticizing and exposing is wrong? Futurix 17:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, the difference between my comments and an article or a template is that my comments are not articles, and my comments are not templates. Creating an article with an agenda - to criticize or to be an "exposé" - is hard to do without fundamentally violating NPOV. Can you try to stop talking about me now and start talking about the Template?Highfructosecornsyrup 19:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Articles that criticize and expose need only meet WP:N, be WP:NOR, and be properly written in accordance with other policies. Articles that misrepresent and ridicule need to be corrected. There is nothing wrong in labeling articles in the latter category as such. There is not much point in complaining about the existence of articles in the former --Justanother 17:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no, articles are not supposed to criticize, they can only relay and report criticism. Big difference. Most of the articles I've been complaining about are filled with unsourced criticism. (Even so, sources aren't everything: there are plenty of verifiable sources for people who say Carrot Top and his routine are stupid, but how far do you think I'd get if I tried to create an article called "Stupidity in Carrot Top performances" or even "Accusations of stupidity in Carrot Top performances"?) Highfructosecornsyrup 19:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Right, I meant that articles that report on notable criticism of a subject will likely not disappear from this site and will likely stand as separate articles if there is sufficient non-repetitive, verifiable, and notable information to support them being split off the main article or a more general "controversy of" article. --Justanother 19:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems more to me that this so called religion is more a sect.So as it is a sect there should be a rule to deny any information about sects in encyclopedias.It is a heretical group as it seems.So I think these should be mentioned and taken away from wikipedia.82.114.68.30 20:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Clambake vs. Xenu

On the main Scientology template, why is the Operation Clambake article pipe-linked as Xenu.net? The appropriate name to call it/link is the name of the article. - Denny 00:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

To add promotion for the website. Feel free to correct it. Misou 00:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.