User talk:Su-Jada

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi! Good to see some more free minds around here! Welcome and keep up the good work! COFS 01:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement!Su-Jada 01:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thanks for your great edits on Scientology. You chose a piece of nerve-wrecking work. Do you have background data on Scientology? COFS 22:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks COFS. I know you've had your hands full trying to get the articles to reflect balance. I have been lurking around Wikipedia for quite some time. It just got to a point recently I could no longer countenance the lack of academic responsibility I saw. Yes. I've studied a great deal of material on the subject of Scientology, and I like to consider myself well informed on the subject, while always willing to learn more.

Cool. Don't forget to sign with four tildes. And if you want stay in the know what is happening I want to recommend this to you. COFS 05:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please read the instructions

At the top of the arbitration evidence page are instructions that you seem to have missed. Please read those and consider moving your inappropriately positioned comments to the talk page. Another editor started deleting them, so I ask them to revert those deletions. Jehochman ^Hablar 03:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Those comments have been moved to the talk page. Su-Jada is advised to read and understand the rules of evidence commentary.--Fahrenheit451 04:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

Please note this one here. You are mentioned. COFS 22:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tilman and the David Miscavige article

Greetings from a fellow Scientologist! I've been watching the exchange between you and Tilman regarding his use of questionable references in the David Miscavige article. You make an excellent case that the use of Atack's and Miller's books are not RS since they are POV (plus they seem to qualify as Primary Sources). I don't think you're going to get anywhere trying to convince Tilman to stop his reverts; may I suggest using some dispute resolution?HubcapD 22:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks HubcapD I think you're right. I'll study up on what to do on dispute resolution, and meanwhile I'll continue to revert their vandalism, as they are violating WP:BLP by continually reverting my edits and adding back in questionably sources, misquoted hearsay in this article. Thanks for the moral support!Su-Jada 16:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I see they dinged you for 3RR :(. Here's the page that goes over dispute resolution. Also, have you read Justanother's hat write-up? I found it to be very helpful.HubcapD 18:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:3RR violation

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• Jossi has agreed to lift this block for the time being, so both you and Tilman can continue to discuss the situation on the article's talk page. I have protected the article from editing; if the edit warring continues after the protection is lifted, blocks will follow. So please take this time to reach an agreement. Kafziel ^Talk 18:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• I've extended page protection for 24 hours, to give you a chance to discuss the problem. I want to stress to you that tomorrow, when the protection ends, Tilman is quite likely to revert your edits. If you haven't tried to justify yourself by then, and you show up and revert him again, you will be blocked immediately. Kafziel ^Talk 17:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I talked with User:Justanother about this situation. He directed me to this page: WP:BLPN. That seems like a good place to get the question of whther these books are RS handled.HubcapD 04:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lerma AfD

You only did the first of the three steps in nominating an article for deletion... just letting you know, since you seem to have gone on to other edits. wikipediatrix 20:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nice work on the Dianetics page!

I checked out your edits to the page today. Very good work!HubcapD 23:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks! Su-Jada 02:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MEDCAb case involving you

[edit] OT Levels section on Scientology navtemplate

I know it might seem superfluous; but there was a good reason behind it being added; there being a number of links that did not fit perfectly into any existing section to the satisifaction of all editors. --Krsont 05:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to comment here, although I won't revert your edit, Su-Jada. The edits were designed to take the Xenu article out of the controversies section and define it more properly as an OT level belief, which we thought would be a more neutral place for it, since it suitably establishes several facts in a neutral way:

• That Xenu and the space opera are not believed by the majority of Scientologists
• That for those who do believe it, it's learned of at the OT levels
• That while it has some inherent controversies, it shouldn't itself be classified as a controversy

Please tell us if we're wrong, here. And if we are, please tell us how you would classify the OT beliefs versus the beliefs of the majority of Scientologists. --GoodDamon 13:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks GoodDamon and Krsont and I really appreciate your attempting to make the subject more neutral in its presentation and I follow your line of reasoning. Although you have gone to pains to establish the three points you mention above, and although I can't really speak for the majority of Scientologists, I can absolutely state that any Scientologist reading anything about OT III on the Net would classify it not as beliefs and practices but as controversy. To begin with, any information on the Net on OT III and other OT levels has been very badly altered, and it is uniformly "quoted" in an attempt to discredit Scientology and Scientologists and is therefore used to create controversy and not to discuss the beliefs and practices of the religion. Just as one example, the section on Xenu in the Scientology article uses, as its graphic, a cartoon image from a TV show from 20 years ago,and where I have tried to have this removed as having no encyclopedic value whatsoever it gets added back in as soon as I do so. Clearly no one can state that a TV show's "depiction" is factual, reliable or valid. Hence controversy. I hope I answered your question. Su-Jada 23:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. That was the best reasoning I've seen for this stance yet. I'm happy to leave it in the controversies section.

If I may ask, what has been altered in the OT material on the net? My understanding -- and please, correct me if I'm wrong -- is that the OT material, specifically OT III, was directly scanned in from source material, and also entered into court records. We also have L. Ron Hubbard's recorded lectures on the subject. If all these things are substantially inaccurate and altered, it seems to me a simple matter to point out exactly how and where. I've seen lots of statements to the effect that "the material is altered" and "Xenu isn't a big part of it." But I've never seen anyone delve into the specifics of what is correct and what isn't, and what's considered a big part of it and what isn't. From the outside, the only things I know about OT III are the Xenu story and the training one receives to get rid of body thetans. If there's more, then there's a lot of article correction to do. --GoodDamon 17:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks GoodDamonand sorry for taking so long to get back to you. OT III material has been taken out of context and altered in importance. Both are methods to confuse and denigrate. In the early days of Christianity the concept of transubstantiation was altered by those who feared the new religious movement and rumors were spread that these peaceful people were actually practicing cannibalism. Had it not been for that, would the atrocities against the early Christians have taken place? I am not about to engage in a discussion of what aspects of OT III that appear on the Net are and are not accurate. It is a very firm tenet of Scientologists that these materials not be made available to anyone who has achieved the state of Clear and earlier OT Levels, and even then must only be administered to those of proven ethical standards by those authorized to do so.Su-Jada 17:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for your forthrightness. I must say I find that very frustrating, though... I don't know of any other religion that hides core teachings from its followers that way, and from an academic perspective it makes it very hard to research it. I once mentioned to Justanother that it makes for arguments where one person tells the other he's wrong, but can't tell him why or how. We're stuck, then, with the Fishman Affidavit as the only reliable source on the contents of OT III, and we're basically going to have to assume it's the entirety of it. --GoodDamon 17:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I do understand what you're saying, GoodDamon and for anyone really interested in learning about Scientology, Hubbard's research into the capabilities of the spiritual being, what he describes as the "whole track," including incidents that occurred many millions of years ago, a project to make these materials available has just been completed and anyone can read the books and listen to the lectures. Bridge Publications recently published new editions of 18 basic Scientology and Dianetics books,and Golden Era Productions has released something like 250 recorded lectures by Hubbard. A description of these materials is available at http://bpi.goldenageofknowledge.net/Su-Jada 18:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Does that include everything? Including the OT levels? Because frankly, that would be a gold mine for research. In the spirit of honesty, I should tell you I'm not interested in Scientology in any way but as a point of academic interest. I'm a writer, and find contemporary beliefs absolutely fascinating, but I myself am strictly agnostic. But if the Church has chosen to release all information about Scientology for the curious, like me, that would be absolutely fan-freakin'-tastic! --GoodDamon 19:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good Job

Just wanted to say hi. Very nice job. I see you had some reverts issues, well just keep editing. ;-) Love You Bravehartbear (talk) 12:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Primary sources

It would be best to avoid usage of primary sources and self-referential sources, in describing the history of an organization specifically from those sources. Better to rely on secondary, WP:RS/WP:V sources. -- I saw that you cited the St. Petersburg Times in one instance - this is what I am referring to by secondary sources. When discussing the history of an organization/individual directly affiliated with that organization we can use primary sources in some instances, but in general for the majority of the references used, best to rely mainly on secondary source material, not primary. Cirt (talk) 21:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)