User:Terryeo/Scientology article corrections

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is a list of out points in our Scientology articles which at the time of posting here, requires correction in the named article. Terryeo 18:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

This page has become somewhat out of date and I will update it. Terryeo 10:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Scientology

WP:RS states: Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources.

The main article, Scientology uses a number of information from poor quality sources to as secondary sources. In that article at Scientology#References are the following references that fall below Wikipedia's standards.

Scientology reference appearing as [], pointing to [1] presents photographed information (unpublished, unconfirmed, probably unconfirmable) on a page full of personal opinion including talk about "the right to kill".

[]; [2], the "daisy freeserve" is used to present a personal opinion.

[] [3] a hand typed, unsworn, unwitnessed replication of an attestation whose accuracy is not attested to by the typist. Questions should be directed to Mike Gormez at mgormez@gmail.com.

[] [4] The page is nothing but personal opinion on the personal website. At first glance it might appear as a duplication of a 1993 publication of Premier magazine, but reading through the page presents that it is not because it presents information which has happened since 1993.

[] [5] quotes an archived google group posting, Google Groups:alt.answers, apparently posted 15 Jan 1999 but archived and used as a reference.

[] [6] presents what it calls an affidavit. The reference for what it calls an affidavit is an archive of a google group, [7]. Xenu.net introduces itself by stating, I, Andreas Heldal-Lund, am alone responsible for Operation Clambake. I speak only my own personal opinions.

[] [8] the personal website, lermanet.com presents a handtyped information which might be a replication of a court document. Lermanet.com's attribution is that alerma@bellatlantic.net can be emailed.

[] [9] presents personal opinion on a personal website, email Don Lindsay, comment-scientology-start.a.religion@don-lindsay-archive.org.

[] [10] (Heldal-Lund and his personal opinion, again). It presents photostatic copies of Church mailed advertisements and then evaluates them, presenting a personal opinion about what Heldal-Lund thinks the costs are.

[] [11] (solitarytrees is the personal website of Ted Mayett and Keshet) It presents the opinions of our own, Scientology series editor, Chris Owen (User:ChrisO). At [12] appears an archived article by ChrisO, its newsgroup header states:

From Chris Owen <chriso@lutefisk.demon.co.uk> Subject GO FILES #5: Scientology's secret war against psychiatry Date 1998/10/13 Msg-ID <O9SdcKAVt9I2EwSW​@lutefisk​.demon​.co​.uk> Newsgroups alt.religion.scientology

User:ChrisO's personal opinion contributes to our Scientology article which he then edits ! His contributions to solitarytrees.net include 7 sections of that site.

[] [13] is used a second time

[] [14] Lermanet.com is a personal website. In this link it tells its opinion of certain elements of Scientology.

[edit] Template:ScientologySeries

[edit] miscatagorizations

[edit] Scientology doctrine - Xenu

The Church makes no official comment about Xenu. You would certainly expect a Church to announce its doctrine, wouldn't you? The Template presents the article, Xenu, is part of the Church of Scientology's doctrine. However, it does not cite a source of information. The Church simply does not make a statement about the subject. If the subject is to be included in the Template, it belongs in Controversy.

[edit] Controversy - Patter drill

Patter drills are a drilling method used in courses in the Church of Scientology, begins the Patter Drill article. This tells any reader, right away, it is something used by the Church in present time. The article has room to present controversy but the article should not be presented as controversy. Patter drill might be catagorized as a Concept, or an Education or as part of Study Tech.

[edit] Controversy - Suppressive Person

The Church has information which is called "Suppressive Person technology" by the Church. It is written information, it was created by Hubbard and is used by the Church. It consists of a fair amount of information, something in the area of a few hundred pages perhaps. It is educational information. In addition it is administrative information which directs a Church in how to deal with suppressive persons and people who are connected to suppressive persons. As the Template presently stands it would be included in the template's Concepts, though if the template were better organized there would be an Education section which this article would best fall into.

[edit] Personal websites used as secondary sources

[edit] The Patter drill article

It has several out points. Sentences within the article are quotes of personal opinion which is on personal websites. Opinion on personal websites is unpublished opinion. Should, for example, the New York Times, publish those opinions then those opinions could be included as secondary sources within Wikipedia articles. Patter drill quotations which appear as notes [4], [5], [6] and [7] have not been published by the New York Times. WP:RS, in spelling out specifics of our guiding policy, WP:V states: Personal websites should not be used as secondary sources. [15]. The opinions should be removed from the article. An "exterior links" section might be added to the article and those personal website links included there.
The article contains three full paragraphs to confuse the reader. The reader is told about practical drills and theory drills and the article presents exactly the confused, convoluted reasoning which the personal website opinion presents here and at [4] and [5]. We editors should not ask the Wikipedia reader to sort through whether "patter drill" is "practical drill" or is "theory drill" or is some other kind of drill. The article presents a confusion to the reader. An article should present good sense to the reader. Confusion should be worked through by Wikipedia editors, not presented to Wikipedia readers. The article goes on to make the unverified statement, There are reports of retaliative actions being taken against Scientologists who have objected to and reported what they see as a deviation from standard Scientology but that statement is completely unsupported because it is a quote of personal opinion contained on a personal website.

[edit] Narconon

The article references from within it, a number of reposited news articles on a personal website.

Tulsa_World May 3, 20003 pg A19

Bob Lobsinger, Newkirk Herald Journal Apr27, 1989 (hosted by David Touretzky)

McNutt, Michael, Daily Oklahoman, Jul 11, 1990 (hosted by David Touretzky)

Peter Gerdman's non-english version of a 1981 study, (hosted by david Touretzky)

[edit] Altered texts in Scientology doctrine

No citation exists for an untrue and misleading statement. These alterations to the "Standard Tech" have caused controversy both inside [citation needed] and outside the Church. Discussion here and here

[edit] Personal Websites as secondary sources within articles

Supernatural_abilities_in_Scientology_doctrine blockquotes [16] which is a personal website whose email is infolisatrust@yahoo.com. The edit was inserted at the article's first edit by User:Wikipediatrix, 21 April 2006 here and has been supported by a concensus of editors every since. The information quoted is a mis-statement of slightly similar Church statements. editor discussion