Talk:Standard Tech

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Standard Tech article.
Article policies
The Arbitration Committee has placed all Scientology-related articles on probation (see relevant arbitration case). Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages.
Scientology Portal
This article is supported by WikiProject Scientology, a collaborative effort to help develop and improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scientology.
The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on Scientology-related topics.
See WikiProject Scientology and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

This article seems to me to be utterly uncited. Steve Dufour 13:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unencyclopedic tag added

This article seems to not be about Standard Tech itself. It is only about the expression "Standard Tech". As such it is a dictionary type article and shouldn't be a WP article at all. Any information it contains could be put into other articles, if it is not there already. Thanks. Steve Dufour 17:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge to Study Tech, and then delete? I'm not familiar with scientology. –Pomte 13:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't know too much about it either. Study Tech seems to be a more specialized application of Tech. Standard Tech seems to be a description of the faithfulness of a certain version of Tech to the original, with the different factions within Scientology having different opinions. It might be better to merge this article into Scientology beliefs and practices Steve Dufour 15:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
"This article seems to not be about Standard Tech itself. It is only about the expression "Standard Tech". As such it is a dictionary type article and shouldn't be a WP article at all." Steve seems to be misunderstanding policy in a major way. Articles are deletable if they are only dictionary definitions and could never be anything else. His own indication that the article could be about the Scientology concept of Standard Tech shows that it does not deserve the deletion he has suggested with his "{{unencyclopedic}}" tag. Merging may make sense, but let's hear a clear proposal for a merge, not a vague "let's delete this article because it would require work to make it better" proposal. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
What is Standard Tech? If it only means that a certain version of Scientology practice is faithful to Hubbard's original concept, as it seems to mean from the article, how can there be an article on the subject? It seems like it is just a matter of opinion if a Tech is Standard. And it seems like the CoS and the freezoners have different opinions. I don't think there can be an article on "Standard Tech" any more than there can be an article on "cool cars", because both "Standard" and "cool" are opinions. Steve Dufour 02:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. From what it says it seems to me like this article is a dictionary article. It defines the expression "Standard Tech". If an article were written about Standard Tech it would have to be about Scientology as practiced by both the CoS and the freezoners. How would we be able to choose which is really standard? Of course the concept of Standard Tech should be explained in other Scientology articles, if it is not already. Steve Dufour 02:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're trying to treat the concept of Standard Tech (concept, not "expression") as if it were fully conveyed by the dictionary definitions of "standard" and "tech". "It seems like it is just a matter of opinion if a Tech is Standard. And it seems like the CoS and the freezoners have different opinions." I believe it is a matter of policy rather than opinion, but why would it not be encyclopedic to show which entities hold which definitions of this term? -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The article is not merely a dicdef as it makes claims about beliefs and trends after Hubbard's death. Are there multiple, non-trivial reliable sources on this sort of thing though? –Pomte 03:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

What if the article was entitled "Scientology Tech" and the question of "Standardness" was still mentioned? Steve Dufour 14:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I should chime in here. Standard Tech is an important "touchstone" of Scientology. It is a "rallying call". It means a lot. So does that mean that it is more than a definition? Probably. Standard tech means: the stuff that works, how Ron wanted it done, Source, Truth (yes, with a capital T). It stands in opposition to "squirrelling", which definitely includes TIR, and also included Freezoners that vary the application of Scientology from its "pure" version as practiced in the CoS. So one can be a Freezoner and practice "Standard Tech" or one can be a Freezoner and be a "squirrel". Hope this clarifies. --Justanother 16:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I see now that I wasn't clear on the importance of Standard Tech. However, could it and Altered Tech could be merged? It seems like they are the two halves of the same concept to me. Steve Dufour 20:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Altered Tech is, by definition, not Standard Tech. I think the discussions belong together. The pursuit of Standard Tech is exceptionally important to Scientologists. They think that any deviation from the standard results in sub-par or failed results. --Davidstrauss (talk) 05:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)