Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scientology/Archive 3

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scientology
Latest comment: 16 years ago by Cirt in topic AfD
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

New look discussion

Latest comment: 17 years ago42 comments8 people in discussion

User:Smee redesigned the home page for the project in a manner that may be more attractive but sacrificed a vast amount of usability. I cannot see us working effectively in the little blue boxes. Please discuss the change here. Here is the proposed page by Smee. The vote is either oppose the proposed page or support it (or just comment). Thanks. --Justanother 00:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

*Oppose proposed change as per the above. Sacrifice of utility for appearance. --Justanother 00:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC) Please see my comments in subsection below. --Justanother 23:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC) *Support - The old version is extremely cumbersome, long and unwieldy. The new version is simple and easier to use for new Wikipedia members. It was modeled after WP:SY. The old version can still be utilized through Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scientology/Old version. Smee 22:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC). Please see my comments in subsection below. Smee 22:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

    • User:Smee (formerly User:Smeelgova) please do not edit war over drastic change inadequately discussed. If you want this change then notify ALL the members (as you already selectively notified, see WP:CANVASS); otherwise leave it alone as it was. More useful. --Justanother 22:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Please stop your false allegations. I was merely informing interested parties, NOT canvassing. Smee 22:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC).
        • User:Smee (formerly User:Smeelgova), you are coming out of the box edit-warring. I will not be sarcastic and I will not be uncivil but I will not allow you to walk over me and over this project. --Justanother 22:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
        • I have worked very, very hard on this new version, and it is NPOV and merely presents info. Please work with the old version which I have conveniently archived. You are the only user who has a problem with the new version. Smee 22:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC).
          • User:Smee (formerly User:Smeelgova), canvassing is not necessarily disallowed nor is the use of the term derogatory. But you did do a bit of canvassing and if you will take a breather from edit-warring, we can have a discussion. --Justanother 22:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
            • Please stop with this formerly business, it is annoying and not conducive to the discussion. Please stop your false allegations. I will create a new section for other editors to comment about the new style of the WikiProject. Thanks. Smee 22:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC).
          • User:Smee (formerly User:Smeelgova), please put it back, finish your canvassing properly and wait for adequate discussion. I am disputing your change. You do not edit-war over that. --Justanother 22:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
            • Stop with this "formerly" business, stop your false allegations, and answer the question please. Thanks. Smee 22:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC).
              • User:Smee (formerly User:Smeelgova), so long as you continue the inappropriate activity for which you are know under the old name, I want to carry the continuity forward clearly so I will continue stating the truth that you were formerly another editor with similar WP:TE and WP:DE pattern. I told you that I was stopping the rough language, not my strong stand on your inappropriate behaviour. --Justanother 22:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Smee's comments

Other editors than above, please comment here on your thoughts on the WikiProject Page I worked hard on. Thank you for your time.

  • Support. My thoughts:
  1. It is simpler and easier for new Wikipedians to manage and understand.
  2. The old version was getting very large and unwieldy.
  3. It was created in an NPOV style, modeled after WP:SY. Smee 22:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

Here are some comments, from (3) other editors:

  • User:Raeft -- It looks awesome! Wish I had the time and ingenuity to put together something like that. MUST learn how to make pages that look snazzy like that someday. I'm all in favor of keeping this page. The old one looked cluttered and disorganized. Raeft 01:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • User:Aleta -- Very nice, Smee! Aleta 02:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC) [1]
  • User:Anynobody -- I was surprised since I thought the previous page was good, I see now that it was not nearly as good as it could be. It's an improvement in every respect, I even like the colors. Great job Smee, you've fixed something I didn't think was broken. Anynobody 23:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC) [2].

Thanks for your time. Yours, Smee 23:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

Justanother's comments

User:Smee redesigned the home page for the project in a manner that may be more attractive but sacrificed a vast amount of usability. I cannot see us working effectively in the little blue boxes. Please discuss the change here. Here is the proposed page by Smee. The vote is either oppose the proposed page or support it (or just comment). Thanks. --Justanother 23:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

This diff Wikipedia:WikiProject Scientology‎; 22:43 . . (-46,702) shows how drastic his change was and how he threw out over 46K characters worth of input. Certainly the page needed pruning but he converted a working page into some useless "show piece". --Justanother 00:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose proposed change as per the above. Sacrifice of utility for appearance. --Justanother 23:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Smee (Smeelgova), I understand that you worked hard on it. All I am asking is that you do it right!!! That means that you wait. Wait until you have notified ALL the members of the project. Wait until there has been adequate discussion. What is it that you find so difficult to understand about waiting when you are opposed on a major or controversial change? I can do the RfC thing or the AN/I thing to show you my point but why not just figure it out for yourself. That is how it works around here. The way I am telling you. --Justanother 23:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Antaeus Feldspar's comments

I appreciate the work that Smee put into a new front page. I think we as members of the project -- heck, we as Wikipedians -- should keep ourselves open to the possibility that "maybe our front page isn't serving our needs as well as it could do with a redesign". But ... what are the needs that aren't being met, and how would a redesign address these needs? I would really like to see more discussion of what these needs are before radically changing the existing page to suit them. For instance, while I like the idea of adding more visual appeal to the page, I really would have opposed the blue boxes, as I find it more difficult to read black text with most of the links in it blue on a blue background. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for acknowledging the work that was put into this. The graphical question is certainly an easy fix, what colour would you propose for the boxes? White? Thank you for your input. Smee 03:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC).
Well, I would prefer either white with a color border, or a very pale background color. But again, I think the way we should go about redesigning is to first identify our needs and then talk about how to make the redesign fit those needs.
As part of that discussion about needs -- I think the point of having a project in the first place is to make it easier to find editors willing to and qualified to assist on things that need doing. I think we need more ways to announce "hey, I've found an article which needs some fixing, and this is the specific kind of fixing it needs; can I get others helping on it?" -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Aleta's comments

Various observations and thoughts about the proposed page change:

  • The proposed page looks very attractive and feels more organized to me.
  • The double list of participants (with and without comments) is unwieldy. People will sign one place or the other, and "someone else" will have to work to maintain both lists. Is this worth our time?
  • Sections gone in the proposed page which we may or may not want to be sure are included in any future version (not necessarily exhaustive):
    • Structure (comments)
    • Hierarchy definition (Currently empty, but I think the Religion project should be given as a parent.)
    • Projects
    • Tasks
    • Articles -
      • New articles - comment: This is a very important section which I think needs to be included in any version we adopt, but which needs to have a cap on the number of articles in the new articles list. (An article created in 2005 is no longer new.) The list as it currently stands seems too long.
      • Article Improvement Drive
      • Featured articles (very important)
      • NPOV watch

Summary comments - I like the look and organization of the proposed page. I don't have any problem with the box idea. I do think we need to keep more (most of) the content from the original page.

-Aleta 03:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your comments. Some of the points are noted, and could be adapted into the new page, however others are actually duplicates, and already included in the new page.
  1. Structure - included in the "About this WikiProject" section. (In the old project this section was initially written by User:David Gerard, and recently was updated by him in the new project).
  2. Hierarchy definition - good point, this could be integrated into the new page.
  3. Projects - This was a barely used function. The only existing subpage, Wikipedia:WikiProject Scientology/History Article Project, was last edited August 1, 2006. Clearly this is not useful, or could be instead simply the subject of collaborative discussion by editors on the talk page.
  4. Tasks - Can be instead discussed on the talk page, also parts of this exist in the "To Do list" function, but can also be replaced with the "Category:Needed-Class Scientology articles" function.
  5. New articles - this has been replaced in the new project page by two pages: The "Did you know?" section, highlighting new articles that had previously been featured on the Main Page, and also the Wikipedia:WikiProject Scientology/Assessment's Assessment Log, which produces a list of new articles, compiled automatically by a bot, (thus no work is needed on that page).
  6. Article improvement drive - good idea, this could be a new section on the new project page.
  7. Featured articles - This could be a new section, highlighting a different featured article on the project - but at the moment there is only one. This is also covered in the Assessment Section of the new project page, and can be viewed by clicking on Category:FA-Class Scientology articles. But essentially - this should be the main goal of the project - to create more well sourced articles, and bring existing articles up to Featured Article Status.
  8. NPOV watch - This should be discussed on the talk page, when specific articles need to be addressed, or on the talk page of the individual article. Smee 04:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC).
I actually have been working on a proposal for a new sub-project, but it's been slow going, especially due to some technical difficulties. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

.V.'s Comments

The new look is very easy on the eyes, unlike the current look. Why not have it? I like it. .V. [Talk|Email] 03:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Why not have it? Pretty motorcycle vs. ugly truck. If I'm hauling something, I'll take the truck please. This is supposed to be a working project page. That is why. Thanks for your input! --Justanother 03:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I understand your concern. You noted above that over 46k bytes (or is it characters? Not sure how it works) was removed. However, I've noticed, though, that the information loss was simply transferred to subpages. This transfer seems to be of non-essential information. A good example is the "Participants" page; having each person's individual comments on a separate page than the main one doesn't seem like any sort of functional loss to me. Is there any specific information that was removed that you feel should be kept on the page? .V. [Talk|Email] 04:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Take a look at the Projects for the Big 3 religions. Islam and Christianity are like our old one, Judaism is a bit more fancy, but they are all big sprawling work pages, IMO. Trucks. Smee's little blue boxes are not for work, they are for show. I am for a straight one-column layout and the minimum (or none) going off-page. Easier to work, easier to see what is going on. A work page. --Justanother 04:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm kind of confused. Your post earlier talked about a missing 46k bytes of information, but your reply above is about the stylistic layout. Well, regardless, it seems like information is "at your fingertips" in the new version. It's harder to find what you're looking for in the current version in my opinion. A page can still be functional and look nice. Kind of like how a truck can look nice, like a... nice looking truck of some brand. .V. [Talk|Email] 04:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to confuse. I am saying that Smee threw out 46k characters of input by participants to create this styled "whatever". I want a big sprawling work page where I can see everything and I want the 46k back (like it is back now) and we can prune as needed. Yes, we can make the truck pretty but we can't make a truck out of Smee's motorbike. --Justanother 04:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Aha, but consider this... a truck hauls things, yes? And a motorbike is fast, yes? The question we need to ask ourselves is: Where is what we want to haul? Are we hauling it, or has it already been hauled? IMO, it's about time we finished the job. A motorbike would get us there quicker. We're going to a goal, not through a goal, and a motorcycle would be optimal for that task. I don't know about you, but I'm ready to "put the pedal to the metal". To me, usability is a function of accessibility; how fast I can get the info. And is this design fast? This design did the Kessel run in 12 parsecs; fast enough for me (to use an analogy.) WikiProjects just aren't in demand since the XP-38 came out, but this will be enough. I say we shut down all the garbage mashers on the detention level and go with an accessible, easy-to-work and still useful choice. .V. [Talk|Email] 15:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
File:Euclid Hitachi.jpg
Hitachi mining truck.
 
Liebherr T 282B mining truck.
Ah, but true working trucks are not "going" anywhere. They exist to work and work until they cannot work any more. In many cases with mine trucks such as these, they are left in place to rot when a mine is played out as they are expensive to move and not worth it if old and in need of repair. In any event, we have a lot of work to do to bring the project to its ultimate goal. No danger of this mine being played out anytime soon. No reason to trade the old truck for a new motorbike. --Justanother 18:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • To reiterate from above, I am going to incorporate User:Aleta's points into a working version of the new page, and that will allow for more "characters" and functions of the new page. However, from a simple rough count of editors, it seems at the moment that a majority of more editors support the new version, than do the old version. Smee 04:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC).
    • Please do not be premature. I really think, Smee, that, since this is your proposal that you should invite all the Project members over here to discuss with a neutral message. I will do it if you will not but it is really your job, IMO, as it is your makeover. --Justanother 04:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I will wait and make the recommended further adjustments to the new version, but that is a good idea and I will do so shortly... Smee 04:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

David Gerard's comments

I created the original project page just by taking the generic template and filling it in. It was eminently suitable to be customised into something more useful and pleasing to the eye - it was, after all, something with no design or effort put into it whatsoever. I like the new version visually as it looks a lot more like there's someone home.

The extra info can be more usefully accessed IMO in subpages rather than all in one linear page. A linear page could be constructed by including the subpages, for those who prefer it in one linear page - David Gerard 18:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Raeft's Comments

I feel that the new page design is more organized, presents the information in not only a pleasing fashion, but also in a more utilitarian and useful one. Subpages with a main page outlining current events (as long as we update it frequently), with participant names on front and comments delineated to a subpage, and yes, visually pleasing elements, seems -right- to me.

We do need inclusion of all potential details, but to me, the following seems important to state:

  • I support the use of the visual theme that was incorporated, with these changes if concensus can be reached:
  • An area, as I believe was included, to put what we're currently working on, with a link to discussion of same (like our current project to lift specific articles to FA status)
  • A section detailing, say, the 3 most recently added articles.
  • Anyone ever consider a color-coded pie chart of which percent of our articles are which class? No? Well... just saying, could be made as an Excel image or similar and changed as things go, and figured it might be a neat visual element. Never mind, that's dumb of me.
  • A section for hierarchy COULD be parented down from religion, but really I don't feel it's needed, for some reason. I have no strong feelings either way.

I DO, however, strongly, again:

Support a new, more visually pleasing, and above all, briefer and less sprawling version of this page. I feel it would make things less confusing than the last, and subpages CAN contain all relevant data, possibly categorized into SPECIFIC sprawling workpages (trucks) being "pulled" by a concise, visually pleasing front page (the face, or "motorcycle" of our organization here). If the image of a motorcycle pulling trucks hurts your brain, just think of it as the main page taking the new style which I support, and a bunch of subpages which look like the old, sprawling "truck".

Cheers, and Eris protect. Raeft 13:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Would a straw poll be appropriate now?

Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Would it be acceptable to have a straw poll about adopting the new layout? .V. [Talk|Email] 17:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

New WikiProject Scientology layout survey

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

This is a survey/straw poll to assess opinions regarding the new layout for Wikipedia:WikiProject Scientology, currently located at Wikipedia:WikiProject Scientology/test.

Please sign your name using four tildes (~~~~) under the position you support, and please add a (hopefully brief and well thought out) comment. If you are happy with more than one possibility, you may wish to sign your names to more than one place. Extended commentary should be placed below, in the section marked "Discussion", though brief commentary can be interspersed.

Use new version
  1. Smee 07:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC). I have incorporated the helpful suggestions of users from the discussion above into Wikipedia:WikiProject Scientology/test.
  2. .V. What can I say. I've got to have it. 49:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC).
  3. Raeft I've been absent with school recently, so sorry I did not contribute sooner. I DO enjoy the new page layout as I've just seen at Wikipedia:WikiProject Scientology/test, and still feel that it serves to provide all necessary information in a far more organized setting that doesn't cramp the eyes and feels more welcoming and easier to find things in overall. Kudos again. I also dig how the little boxes allow a prominent "what we're working on" list. 22 April, 2007.
Use original version
  1. Use the old version as it is a workhorse. Make any modifications to it that we deem helpful. --Justanother 18:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Other

Discussion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Bowles (3rd nomination)

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Bowles (3rd nomination); I think the project can do without this one. --Justanother 19:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject user category

Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

It is recommended that Category:WikiProject Scientology Wikipedians be renamed to either Category:WikiProject Scientology participants or Category:WikiProject Scientology members according to convention. It is left up to the project participants/members to choose which they would like. Please hold a discussion here and when there is consensus make the change. Thank you. --NThurston 20:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Support
  1. I would support a change to either of those other categories, they are both more appropriate. How about we go with Category:WikiProject Scientology participants ? Smee 22:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC).
  1. I would guess "participants" because only a few of us here like to be "Scientology" and "members" in the same breath. --Justanother 22:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Sounds good, it seems that this was in place long enough, and initially proposed by a neutral previously un-involved editor at that, that I will make the changes. Smee 23:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

Some notes...

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments1 person in discussion

Smee 10:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

Archving "tasks" subsection, not edited since September 2005

As stated above, the only section now that does not exist in the new version of the main page, but is currently on this version, is the subsection, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Scientology#Tasks. However, it looks like this subsection was last edited quite a while ago, in September 2005. I am going to archive this subsection so that it can still be consulted, as User:David Gerard had previously done with Wikipedia:WikiProject Scientology/Old list of articles about Scientology. If people still wish to utilize this information, they can consult the archive. Smee 07:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

Done. The subsection "Tasks", not edited since September 2005, has been archived, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scientology/Tasks (2005). Smee 07:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC).
  1. Archive subsections that had not been edited for approximately 2 years.
  2. Where the information was virtually duplicated, utilize the sub-page versions already used at Wikipedia:WikiProject Scientology/test, as (transclusion) into the main page.
  3. Note the changes here on the talk page, and provide links to the archived sections in the archive box for accessibility.
  • So now, the only question that remains is to discuss the variations between the proposed new version and the current version, of which very few variations exist at this point...

Smee 07:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

Proposal for change of Free Zone article and category

Latest comment: 17 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

I believe that we should change the article Free Zone (Scientology) and the category Category:Free Zone in both name and focus, to Independent Dianetics and Scientology, or an appropriate variant thereof. I think there are many good reasons why we should make this change:

1) The term "Free Zone" is ambiguous. It could be read as many things, including:

  • The group which originally called itself the "Free Zone" (now known as "Ron's Org");
  • Only those groups and individuals which formally acknowledge membership in the network now called "The Free Zone";
  • All independent practitioners of Dianetics and Scientology whose practice outside the CoS came after the formation of the Free Zone, whether or not they consider themselves part of it;
  • All independent practitioners of Dianetics and Scientology regardless of when they began.

As long as the article and the category are defined by an ambiguous term, all sorts of confusion is possible.

2) Even if we established a fixed definition for "Free Zone", if that definition was any except the most inclusive, then we'd simply need another article about all which is excluded by the definition. Even our second-most inclusive definition above excludes some movements very important to the history of Scientology and Dianetics, such as Harry Thompson and Jack Horner's Amprinistics, and David Mayo's Advanced Ability Centers. Such an article would inevitably duplicate a lot of material -- the Church of Scientology hardly treats independent practitioners differently depending on whether or not they consider themselves Free Zone, for instance.

3) Even if we established a fixed definition for "Free Zone" and were able to solidly communicate it to all editors, our real goal is to communicate it to the reader. "Independent Dianetics and Scientology" communicates the idea right away. "Free Zone" requires more explanation to clear up any of the various possible confusions about what is included and what is excluded.

I'd like to hear comments and suggestions on this proposal. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Free Zone is the most commonly used term for this, however. .V. [Talk|Email] 17:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree, it's the most commonly used, but in this case I think that factor is outweighed by the ambiguity of just what the term does and doesn't apply to. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Maybe the article can be rearranged. "Origins of the term" and "Scientology as a word" sections can be merged. The "CoS" reaction section can be moved to the top, then the "Germany" section, then a section with those four points you listed as subsections. The intro would also need to be cleared up as well. It's a bit bulky as it stands. .V. [Talk|Email] 23:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok, you convinced me. I'll go along with this provided the present redirecting from Freezone still points to it. No one is going to type 'Independent Scientology' into a Search Engine because the uninformed don't know it exists and the informed are going to type 'Freezone'. --Hartley Patterson 12:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Keeping those redirects in place definitely makes sense. The Free Zone is still a big part of the subject of independent Scientology, any way you look at it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 13:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Independent Field (Scientology) should, at least, be a redirect. Better yet it should be the title of the topic. Independent field is the actual term used by those who practice some form of Scientology outside the cofs.--Fahrenheit451 22:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree that any terms which are widely used in reference to the subject should be mentioned up front and probably made redirects as well. But one thing I hope that a renaming will accomplish is to close avenues for troublemaking (or even for honest but stubborn misunderstanding on someone's part.) "Independent Dianetics and Scientology" is a definition. Figuring out whether something belongs in that article is just a matter of seeing whether it fits the definition. Using any existing term, however, brings up the question of whether that term is synonymous with the definition, and there's a possibility that someone will come along and say "Oh, X doesn't belong here! Because even though he's clearly part of the independent Scientology movement, he's not part of the Independent Field!" -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Independent is good. Freezone has definite connotations and is its own thing. In fact there should probably be an overall article on Independent Scientology which would include a section on Freezone linking to the larger article on Freezone. Or we could also go with a main article entitled Non-sanctioned Scientology or Scientology derivatives instead of Independent Scientology and that would include things like TIR, etc. in addition to Freezone. --Justanother 21:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, regarding your first suggestion, about an Independent Scientology article separate from Free Zone (Scientology), I think that would just give us back all the same problems about "does this belong in the Free Zone article or not?", and all the same duplication of material that will be essentially the same between the articles. I think it's better to describe the Free Zone inside the article about independent Scientology.
In regards to the second suggestion, I'm afraid I find the two suggested titles unsatisfactory in regards to NPOV. Some of these groups assert that what they are doing is adhering to L. Ron Hubbard's true conception of Scientology even better than the Church of Scientology is doing. "Scientology derivatives" as a title makes the assumption that the POV of these groups is wrong, that they're practicing derivatives of Scientology and not the real thing. "Non-sanctioned Scientology", while not quite as bad, still implies that the Church is the real source of Scientology whose sanction is needed. You bring up a good point about legitimate boundary cases, though, and Traumatic Incident Reduction is probably the best example: practices which are derived from Dianetics or Scientology but which are asserted to not be Dianetics/Scientology. My intuition is that they should be mentioned in the article on the independents, but mostly for the purpose of explaining to the reader that if they want more information on those practices, they need to go to the individual articles. Comments? -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The Office of Special Affairs POV would be "Non-sanctioned Scientology", from their view a religious practice "needs" to be sanctioned, even though such a thing is blatantly (and ironically) anti-religious freedom. "Scientology derivatives" is too broad as it would include things like Patter drills, but many independent groups are in fact practicing original Scientology. It is not our place to do original research on wikipedia and state in an article that any particular group uses a "derivative" of Scientology. Independent Field is an NPOV term, an accurate description, and is in use.--Fahrenheit451 19:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

What's the procedure now for posting notice to WP:SCN members of "hey, this is something that needs attention"? I see a category of Category:Scientology articles needing attention but it's not completely clear how we're supposed to put articles in the category.

I think I'd rather use the To-do page, since with that you can also leave some sort of message; not just "Church of Scientology Moscow versus Russia", but "Church of Scientology Moscow versus Russia -- what sub-category does this belong in?" Perhaps we could even include multiple to-do lists -- divided up by severity of problem (though assessing severity might be a problem), or by the kind of attention needed. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The proper procedure would be to discuss it here on this talk page, and add the new article as an entry to the subpage, Wikipedia:WikiProject Scientology/New, which I have done. Smee 08:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC).
I think you may have misread my question, judging by the response you mention in the subpage. Church of Scientology Moscow versus Russia, the article I used as an example, happens to be a new article. My question, however, was not how to notify the Project about a new article, but about an article, old or new, that is noted as needing some form of attention. -- Antaeus Feldspar 12:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh. Well, it would depend on the specificity of the nature of attention needed. One can either utilize a talk page from one of the relevant sub-pages, or the main talk page here. Smee 21:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

Antaeus, I agree with you to use the TODO list because we can mirror the TODO list on our user page. I would put the item at the top of the list and timestamp everything and for time-sensitive items like an AfD or RfC put an expiration of 5 days or 7 days or whatever and then remove it after the expiration date to avoid clutter. This is part of what I mean when I say that the page should be for USE, not for SHOW. Let's start using it! Talk is for talking about the page. The page is for USE! --Justanother 21:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Perhaps, but how many items should then be on the ToDo list? Why? What for? How many is too many? These are reasons that I think we should use the talk page instead, and/or relevant talk pages of the relevant sub-pages. Enough members of the WikiProject should hopefully be monitoring those in the future. By the way, any of the new sub-pages can also now be mirrored on a user's page or anywhere else - that is the benefit of sub-pages. Smee 21:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC).
  • For anything that really needs to be done but time-sensitive items would be put on top and I think now that everything should have an expiration - what is the point of having year-old items on the list, those we can put elsewhere. Save the list for fairly current stuff. Non-rush items with say a 15-day or 30-day expiration. --Justanother 01:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

New article created

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

Did you know?

Latest comment: 17 years ago15 comments4 people in discussion

Am I the only one who finds it troubling that ALL of the current Scientology "Did you know?" entries are negative, and excessively so? Some aren't even directly relevant to Scientology at all, except by ominous implication.

For instance, there's "Did you know... that TIME magazine's Gerald Loeb Award-winning article "The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power" highlights the suicide of Noah Lottick?"...... it neglects to note that no evidence of the CoS' involvement in Lottick's suicide was ever officially determined, despite much wailing and gnashing of teeth. This seems more FAR important info to me than to know that the TIME article "highlights" the issue. And somewhere along the way, it seems all Wikipedia mentions of the TIME article have been assiduously prefaced with the "Gerald Loeb Award-winning article!" phrase. (Is there some sort of insecurity about the TIME article's status?)

I'll try to be a team player and get into the spirit of things here, though... I may start researching every cab driver and waitress who was given a lousy tip by a Scientologist, and give each of them their own Wikipedia article. Even better, let's give a Wikipedia article to anyone, anywhere, who ever said anything bad about Scientology in a public media source. Then we can always bleat "but it's properly sourced!" when someone complains. wikipediatrix 20:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You know what really shows someone to be a team player? Voicing their concerns in an articulate and honest manner, without unhelpful sarcasm. I'm not in favor of so many new articles being created, either, but between someone creating new articles that might not have actually demanded creation, and people trying to remove key information under phony pretexts like "Oh, that's outdated information" and "oh, that information came from 'parroting journalists'", guess where my energy actually gets focused? -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Or instead certain individuals might wish to spend their time creating other new articles sourced to lots and lots of reputable secondary sourced citations, which cover different areas of the topic at hand. Smee 05:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

Did you know? That that fun little feature has been used for POV-pushing? I addressed it here. The DYK needs to be monitored for inappropriate use. --Justanother 21:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Or rather, those editors that have problems with it should instead focus their time in creating other new articles that interest them, with multiple reputable secondary sourced citations from whence to draw a potential DYK... Smee 01:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC).
  • Smee, while I certainly agree with you that creating and expanding articles is a Good Thing, I disagree if you are implying that I should create my own one-sided POV-pushing articles about one-sided POV-pushing books and articles and then promote that one-sided POV-pushing with a DYK entry. DYK is supposed to be non-controversial and, all due respect Smee, but you specialize in creating controversial articles. I must say that some of your more recent output is a bit better. --Justanother 01:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • "I must say that some of your more recent output is a bit better." - Thank you. However, I must say, that some of the rest of your commentary above, about what you perceive to be what you call "one-sided POV-pushing", is in essence only your own POV, coming through... Smee 01:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC).
  • I must say, many of the comments on my writing and article-creation skills from other neutral and previously un-involved editors, in the recent AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientology and Werner Erhard, were wholly unexpected and highly appreciated. Clearly other editors have the ability to appreciate hard work and highly sourced material to reputable secondary sourced citations when they see it... Smee 02:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC).
  • (EC) My POV? Sure, I have a POV. But the main thing is to realize that there are two sides (at least!) to every human story and they are both (all) valid sides to the degree that they are subjectively valid to the believers. When you create an article based on a one-sided book you are effectively short-circuiting the basic tenet of Wikipedia that it present both sides. Smee, I do not invalidate your reality, your beliefs. You can believe whatever you care to about est, about est-like groups, and, by association about Scientology. Those are valid beliefs - for you and like-minded people. I do object when you try to make articles ALL about what you believe. I believe something different about Scientology and, guess what, my beliefs (and those of like-minded to me) as valid as yours and the articles need to accurately reflect both sides. --Justanother 02:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The articles do not always need to reflect "both sides", and there does not always need to be an artificial "balance" created. If you think that some of the sources I use are POV, well, that is also your own POV that you may have to deal with and work on, in your own time. Smee 02:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC).
  • No, my friend, I will deal with it in my usual much more direct fashion and I will show you that "my own POV" is, as usual, very much in-line with neutral consensus opinion here. But at least you have openly admitted that you think that articles can present a one-sided, skewed, POV-pushing exposition of a multi-faceted subject and still be appropriate for this project. That is at the core of our disagreements and, I dare say, the disagreements that you have with other editors (I do not imply that, by the same token, other editors do not agree with you but I happen to think that they likewise are mistaken). If I can disabuse you of that notion then I will be happier and you will too, IMO. --Justanother 02:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
    • No, that is NOT what I am saying. I am simply saying that not all articles on this project need to present an equal amount of content from what individuals perceive to be both "sides". Sometimes these "sides" are simply imagined. And I would highly doubt that the majority of other editors on this project feel you represent a "neutral consensus opinion" as you call it... But thanks, that made my bit of amusement for the day! Cheers! Smee 02:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC).
  • Well, I have said before that it is difficult to make NPOV stew from POV meat but that assumed that anyone was even trying. When you simply serve up POV meat you are playing a different game altogether. --Justanother 02:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Um, whatever. I am done with this thread, thanks for amusing me. Off to find more reputable secondary sourced citations from whence to create more new articles... :) Later, Smee 02:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

Constant Negativity

Latest comment: 17 years ago62 comments10 people in discussion

I'm trying to shake off the reelingness accompanied by trying to navigate the large amount of misinformation accumulated here but I'd like to say something to whomever is running this project, I just can't figure out who or where.

Yes, I am a Scientologist, might as well get that out of the way. But I have been a Wikipedia user for a very long time and after seeing the amount of time and energy going into this project all I can say is I am very disappointed by the amount of negativity. I can't find a single article that simple states information without the words and ideas of someone's personal vendetta against CofS poking through and to put it simple, just bashing CofS left and right, with no end in sight!

Regardless of the original intent of this project it seems to me it's just an incredibly effective means of accumulating all negative and outright false information about Scientology into one place and using the original intent behind Wikipedia for something not even anywhere near aligned with the purpose of Wikipedia.

The point is, you've taken something great, that was an amazing source for all sorts of information and took a huge chunk of it for your own just to attack a Religion. Doesn't it seem like a bit much just to talk about a Religion? Maybe it's just the fact that I'm tired of constantly being attack, berated, and just outright bombarded with anti-Scientology sentiments when everyday what I see from my side of it is some of the nicest people I've ever met...

If this is not the place for this, please move it or delete it and tell me where this 'opinion' should go, because someone should be allowed to say when enough is enough. Leave em alone already :(

Nihiletnihil 16:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

A nice idea Nihiletnihil but just in case it does not happen please feel free to lend a hand addressing it more directly. --Justanother 16:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I don't even know where to start. The articles on Scientology have become such a monster of their own. All-devouring of any neutrality I feel I'm not familiar with enough the ways of rhetoric to jump in and say my two cents anywhere. Am I the only one that thinks the attacking of CofS is a bit much, especially for a place of learning like Wikipedia? --Nihiletnihil 16:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
No, you are not alone. Even a lonely few Scientology critics feel that it is way over the top. For now just "lurk" (watch) and I will send you my Scientologist-specific "Welcome message". --Justanother 16:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Ps. Who is "running this project" is you. And me. And all the critics. And everyone else. Wikipedia operates by this mythical principle called "consensus". No-one has ever seen "consensus" but we think that we know what it looks like. I think it looks like a big brown bear. Maybe friendly. Maybe not. What that means in practical purposes in that the "side" with the most members has the easier time of it. If you are in the minority you must either hope that the majority will respect your opinions and compromise or you must bring in outside editors to help decide the issue. If three or four outside editors support you then "consensus" is on your side even though Wikipedia has thousands of active editors. Kinda like a President saying he has a "mandate" if only 1/10 of 1% of the eligible voters voted for him. So without characterizing the system further, I simply state that it is what it is and that we can work with it and that your help is welcome. --Justanother 16:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Well I can say I am very surprised to find people who are willing to even accept the idea that maybe the Scientology bashing has gone too far in some cases, if not most. There is hope :) With all honesty I really would like the articles on Scientology to be balanced out simply to align with the purpose of Wikipedia. While I am a Scientologist, I am also a huge Wiki-fan and believe in it strongly, so much false information and "original research" on any topic shouldn't be allowed, as it is with their particular one. Nihiletnihil 01:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
That is the right attitude and you will do just fine. It will get stressful. Try not to rise to the bait. If you are working on something and encountering problems with editing, policies, or other editors please start a topic here and we will all head over there to work it out. You cannot "hide" from the "anti-Scientology" editors so you might as well broadcast what you are doing and we can all help. --Justanother 01:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Justanother, please take a look at how you define "anti-scientology". Is it someone who disagrees with your POV on the subject? Someone who objects to the actions of the CofS? Also, who are the "critics"? Those who edit derogatory content in to Scn articles? It looks to me like you are stereotyping certain editors here.--Fahrenheit451 02:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I do tend to lump all the CoS critics that support each other's edits and vote in a bloc as "anti-Scientologists". You can recognize this group because not only do they vote together on AfDs and RfCs but they also show up to support one another in less appropriate venues, like AN/I incidents where they otherwise have no interest other than supporting a comrade or denouncing a Scientologist or supporter. That is a dead giveaway. Since this is a very recognizable group it is a helpful shorthand. I do not say that the "other side" ("my side") has not emulated them. You'all are good teachers. Is there another term that you would prefer? --Justanother 03:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright, Justanother. If someone objects to certain actions of the CofS, yet still practices the subject, then according to your reasoning, that person is still "anti-scientology". Do you see anything illogical about your equation?--Fahrenheit451 17:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

illogical? Not really, F451. I told you it was shorthand. The anti-Scientologists are the ones thinking they are waging a war here against the CoS rather than simply writing an encyclopedia. Look at your own user page full of strategy and counter-strategy not related to simply building an encyclopedia. Anti-Scientologists are playing their own game by their own rules and they are no better than your so-called "OSA-directed editors". They are not playing the Wikipedia game and that is why they oppose WP:NPOV and WP:V and fill AN/I with spurious complaints and waste everyone's time. They are yellow journalists. At best. Is there a better term you would prefer I call you guys because you are certainly acting as one of them? But you can change if you care to. --Justanother 17:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
O.K. so according to your statements, an anti-scientologist are those "thinking they are waging a war here against the CoS". How do YOU know what THEY are thinking? My user page is based on my experience with several CofS directed editors, some of whom have been banned. Time is wasted by such editors habitually violating wikipedia policy. I suggest you take a broader view: Epithets can be used to characterize those who support the CofS. I don't think you would like to be called a "cult member" or a "robot". You can change if you care to.--Fahrenheit451 18:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
No, your user page is not that. After I accused you of practicing "Black Scientology", a charge that I can easily prove with any number of diffs of your talk page posts, you raced over to add that to your list of OSA tactics. See, that was me accusing you, not OSA. Your page is a tactic in your little war. Something to point people at or for to them find on their own in order to marginalize anyone that is objecting to your inappropriate activity. Tactics like that show where you are coming from. And if you do not like that I assign obvious motives to obvious actions then that is just too bad. And if you think that my remarks and edits are unthinking and robotic then go ahead and think that. I guess it is better for me if you do not deal in reality. People that do not deal in reality are less effective than those that do and I guess I would have you less efective if soap-boxing, gamesmanship, and warring is your purpose here. --Justanother 18:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Justanother, your claim that you can prove I am "practicing Black Scientology". First, please define what Black Scientology is with citations, not just your opinion. Then please show that I am practicing that. If you will not do that, I think your claim is baseless. Your last sentence demonstrates that you are gaming and warring here on wikipedia. Your purposes are clear. Thanks.--Fahrenheit451 18:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Now here is a change of subject (diversionary tactic). We are talking here about the negativity in the Scientology articles. You and I are talking about how you think that I am wrong in thinking the negativity is the product of a small group of "anti-Scientologists" or that that is poor term. I am explaining how I use that as shorthand for CoS critics that band together and support one another on edits, AfDs, RfCs (all understandable) and also on AN/I (less understandable). While understandable and not particularly against the rules it does border on meatpuppetry. Now you want to totally divert the conversation? And waste my energies. I don't think so. "Your purposes are clear." Post your request on my talk page if you care to and I will address it as time permits. For now, for those unfamiliar with Scientology auditing and e-meters, just look at User:Fahrenheit451#A discussion with User:COFS and try out what the hell is going on there. --Justanother 19:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Justanother, you are the one attempting to change the subject (diversionary tactic). You are giving me the OSA "no answer answer". You cannot explain and cite what "Black Scientology" is or show that is what I am doing when I ask you questions, so you engage in psychobabble. You are clearly warring here and attempting to game wikipedia. Please stop it.--Fahrenheit451 21:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Is time for change! Scientology has grown and matured. It is no longer the little cult that you could bully around. Scientologists are getting involved in their communities; helping in all National and International disaster relief efforts. The Scientology controversy is dying out; every day there is less criticisms of Scientology. The court cases have almost died out. Worldwide recognition of Scientology as a religion is imminent. It time for Wikipedia to get with the times and give Scientology equal respect than any other religion. You don’t see whole sections criticizing the Catholic Church even though they have done terrible things. This has to stop!Bravehartbear 03:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the CofS should stop its human rights violations, like enforced disconnection which destroys families and harms businesses, and the practice of Fair Game which encourages criminal acts against cofs disfavored people. This has to stop!--Fahrenheit451 17:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Maybe they already have stopped those specific objectionable activities. Maybe they stopped them years ago. Maybe you just did not get the memo. --Justanother 17:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
They have not, they continue to this day and I know of quite a few folks who have been adversely affected by these barbaric practices.--Fahrenheit451 18:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
The controversies are still there. See for example religiousfreedomwatch.org, which shows that scientology is stalking people it perceives as "enemies". There are also still lawsuits, for example against Gerry Armstrong and Keith Henson. And then there is the dishonest "volunteer ministers" business, and the similar dishonest "detox" business.
About the catholic church - there is negative information in wikipedia: Inquisition, Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism, Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston, Roman Catholic sex abuse cases. Feel free to add more.
There would be a way to have the controversies die down - apologize to the past victims, try to make good on the damage for those who are still alive, and stop the controversial practices. But this is beyond the scope of wikipedia. --Tilman 06:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Isn't Keith Henson the guy that is in jail for making terrorist threats! And please Gerry Armstrong with a minor harassment lawsuit is nothing. The detox project has helped millions and has been publicly claimed by New York politicians as workable and is even used in some states by the government. The volunteer ministers are there to help. What is dishonest about that? There is no controversy, the only thing is left is simple bias against technology that works. In Europe Scientology will be considered a religion by the human rights court order. The fight is over! We won, end of story. But you can keep the Dixie Flag flying and pretend that the war is still going on. Maybe in a few years we can get together and do a reenactment of the battles. Think about it, you can be Ken Dandar! Bravehartbear 07:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Bravehartbear, you need to keep in mind that on this common forum, there are those who do not agree about what you view on "technology that works". You need to tolerate that viewpoint. What may be true for you, is not necessarily true for someone else.--Fahrenheit451 17:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
No, Keith Henson is not in jail, nor was he ever sentenced for making terrorist threats - I suggest you read the article about him.
The volunteer ministers are there to "keep the psychs away" (the BBC taped this). The press has reported quotes of people calling them "leeches" and "vultures". [3] And of course, they get their FSM fees. (See photograph in the VM handbook)
The NY Detox project has been denounced by mayor Bloomberg.
The ECHR decision applies to Russia only, since it is in the context of the russian laws, that has previously registered scientology.
But hey, as L. Ron Hubbard said (not the exact words) - 1) What's true for you is what's true for you. 2) Never compromise with your own reality. --Tilman 08:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Bloomberg's comments doesn't retract that other New York politicians do endorse the program.[4]
"The bottom line is the program provided a better quality of life for hundreds of rescue workers that have taken the program," New York Councilman Hiram Monserrate [5]
And you took a favorable article about Scientology and zeroed in the most negative comment in the article ignoring all the positive points. This is exactly was is wrong with Wikipedia. Why you couldn't comment in any of the positive points? Bias?
The ECHR decision sets a precedence that applies in all future cases.-- Bravehartbear 14:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
You might want to research what happened with the last politician who endorsed this scientology "detox". Despite / Because the scientologists were funding her, she wasn't reelected.
The ECHR decision does not set a "precedence" that applies in all future cases. Again: What's true for you is what's true for you. However this principle does not apply to wikipedia. --Tilman 17:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Wait, is this conversation just a bunch of Scientologists trying to complain about POV in Scn pages, and even complaining about being called a "cult" when all sources that are not tainted by CofS clearly show that Scientology is a cult and that most of the articles about CofS try to take a NPOV, which is something that no CofS website does. And on top of that what is "reelingness"? And what's with all the unsigned comments? Darrenhusted 19:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

So all sources that say that Scientology is ok are tainted by Scientology, and all sources that say that Scientology is crap are right? That's bullcrap, there are plenty reliable sources that say that Scientology is ok. This page has link has 28 different religious studies papers on Scientology made by religious scholars: [6] But of course you are not interested because it doesn't fit your agenda!
Once again you are ignoring the positive and validating the negative regarless of how absurd it is. This is bias and that's a fact. --Bravehartbear 20:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Darrenhusted, is the United States Department of State "tainted". Is the United Nations "tainted"? Those groups and many more consider Scientology a religion entitled to the rights and protections due any religion. I submit (and with all due respect) that the only "taint" seems to be that your opinion has been "tainted" by the proliferation of anti-Scientology propaganda on the internet. --Justanother 20:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Justanother, the U.S. government does NOT determine what is or what is not a religion, nor does the U.N. Recognition is rather trivial. You say that you are a religion and you are. The internet information on the CofS is mainly from those who have had unpleasant experiences with that corporation. The CofS has tainted itself quite thoroughly and continues to do so.--Fahrenheit451 21:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, one at a time. First, bullcrap? Learn to swear like an adult, Scientology is the very model of a cult, and is only called a religion for tax purposes, and to avoid scrutiny from the scientific community. Second, ignoring the positive? I'm not, I asked, "is this conversation just a bunch of Scientologists trying to complain about POV in Scn pages", so far no answer. Thirdly, yes the US DoS is tainted, the fact that religions of all colours (not just bright, sick making yellow) get any preferential treatment at any level, whether it be state, county or town is wrong. That Scientology exploits that is worse. If you want to keep up personal attacks and mis-spelled words (regarless?) then go to my talk page. Darrenhusted 20:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Not my intent to PA. I simply say that your opinion in one with the internet propaganda and if that is all that you have to hand to base your opinion of Scientology on then your opinion is "tainted". And please see my talk page for some better swearing. --Justanother 20:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I went to www.neureligion.de/ENG/index.htm. Picked a random page and clicked on it, (the one by Black if you want to know) and to my surprise the bottom of the page contained a number of links, all run by CofS. If you're going to bring me untainted links then then would need to be free of any link to any CofS or Ron's Org sites. If you want I'll give you this link [7] and this link [8]. But at some point can I get an answer to "is this conversation just a bunch of Scientologists trying to complain about POV in Scn pages"? Darrenhusted 20:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you often walk up to conversations and ask questions like that? The answer to your question is no, not really. What it more is a Scientologist who happens to like Wikipedia happened along and voiced his concerns. I invited him to join us and help address his concerns. Another came along and objected to how I often phrase what I see as the core problem and we went off on that tangent a bit. Then another came along and seemed to attack the concept that people are talking here at all about what concerns them and then he proceeded to give his highly biased and dubious opinion of Scientology and religion in general and complained about "all the unsigned comments" of which there are none apparent. Does that pretty well answer your question? --Justanother 22:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Your Bullcrap comment was unsigned, for a start. And as a matter of fact when I'm thinking of joining a project I read the project talk page, and by asking what this increasingly long section was about I was merely being bold, if I'm going to contribute to a project I want to know the current health of the project. If this topic (which boils down to a few Scientologists complaining that not all the WP:SCN article kiss L Ron's ass), and reactions to my questions are going to be indicative of the project then at least I know what I'm getting in to before I start, rather than editing and having anything slightly critical of the cult reverted. Darrenhusted 22:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The "Bullcrap comment" was not mine and it is not unsigned. If you have questions about who posted what it is best to check the edit history. FWIW, there are no unsigned comments in this section. Now, as far as your main concern; if you do not like revert after revert after revert, regular trips to WP:ANI, and lots of talk page discussion then you probably will not like it here one bit. And if you do not like POV edits and POV talk page comments torn to bits then you probably will not like it here one bit. And if you think Wikipedia is xenu.net or YTMND then you probably will not like it here one bit. Other than that . . . . Welcome Aboard. --Justanother 22:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Justanother, from reading your last reply to Darrenhusted, you are not really trying to welcome him, but rather attempting to discourage this editor from contributing to scientology-related articles. Quote "if you do not like revert after revert after revert, regular trips to WP:ANI, and lots of talk page discussion then you probably will not like it here one bit. And if you do not like POV edits and POV talk page comments torn to bits then you probably will not like it here one bit." That is a flagrant attempt to drive away editors who don't agree with your POV.--Fahrenheit451 22:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if the "revert after revert after revert" was maybe not just a subtle hint that if I edit that I will be watched? I don't mind POV in talk pages, and discussion is good, but a group of Scientologists (kudos for identifying yourselves as such) arguing for a "balancing" of articles sounds like editors looking for a consensus to neuter criticism of the CofS, and that is something with which up I will not put. If I join, of course. Darrenhusted 23:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

He gives the same line to Scietologist too. See his talk page. We are all being watched here. I had a lot of my stuff reverted so, what's the big deal? Bravehartbear 23:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Glad you ask, the big deal is this, when I edit it is in my spare time, and the edits that I make will be considered and thought out, and will take time. As I do not believe in a God, and this is the only life I will ever have I consider my time to be a precious resource, and I will not waste it. For me that is the big deal. Darrenhusted

Darren, I like that attitude and wish other editors had it. If your edits comply with policy here then they will stand. See, we poor Scientolgoists don't have any "Get out of jail free" cards. They were all given away before we got here. So we have to abide by the rules. When we edit it has to be correctly sourced, NPOV, and not WP:OR. Fine. Then the only thing we can do is insist that critics of Scientology also follow the rules here. I like that game and you are sincerely invited to play. --Justanother 23:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Notice how Justanother lumps anyone who disagrees with the CofS view as a "critic". We do not refer to them as "cult members" or "brainwashed robots" here, but cofs editors are compelled to not recognize us as individual editors, but rather "critics".--Fahrenheit451 23:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

F451, critics seek to present the critical view of Scientology because it happens to be their view and they believe, like many editors, that their POV belongs here. Some additionally seek to suppress the Church's view; they think ONLY their POV belongs here. These particular critics never add anything showing the Church's views or the views of individual church members without filtering it through their POV. Scientologists never do anything good or seek to help anyone; they form "front groups". When these particular critics are done everything here is thoroughly "tainted". Good word. We object to this project being tainted and, Darren, if you spend any time here and are intellectually honest, that taint will become plain to you too. F451, critic refers to your POV. We all have POVs. Call me a proponent of Scientology if you like - I think it is valuable and helpful and that the failings are human failings and, for its size and what it is seeking to accomplish and what it is up against, pretty minimal failings at that. --Justanother 00:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Justanother, I am an editor here and I consider it a personal attack to stereotype my editing with a derogatory epithet. I resent being put into any category. You are to stop your personal attacks.--Fahrenheit451 06:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Just look at the Scientology page, the Scientology Controversy section of the Scientology it almost takes half of the Scientology page with little citations. By far this project is more inclined to the right than the left. We just got in a heated argument. I know because I was a instigator. There was ruff stuff said from both sides. You just happened to walk in the middle of an argument and you just got burn for being an inocent by standers. We are dealing with a controversial subject and people get carry away.--Bravehartbear 23:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I always try to play by the rules, Justantother, when it comes to Wikipedia policy, however my concern is with the statements made by Nihiletnihil, which seem to suggest a general unhappiness with the current tone of WP:SCN articles and a desire to edit any negative POV from them, even if that POV is correct and correctly sourced (the TIME magazine article being once such page which offers a negative view of CofS). From reading the pages there is very few articles where the editors voice has intruded and offers the negative views, most negative views are correct quotes from the source. From the posts here there seems to be an undercurrent with current members of the church that want to restrict accurate reporting of quotes that attack CofS.Darrenhusted 00:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Negative ghost rider, find one edit that is not accurate or is restrictive of the truth. Scientologists are playing by the rules. Show me the evidence of your accusation. Bravehartbear 00:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Darrenhusted, I've been in your position during a discussion like this before where someone asks for proof of an assertion I've made but I lacked said evidence at that place and time. I found myself wishing someone would jump in and cite an example, which is why I'm posting this here. This diff shows a Scientologist here named Misou adding his own original research to the L. Ron Hubbard article. The WP:OR is the assertion that a drug test eliminates the possibility of him being poisoned diff. Recently this same editor has come under very strong suspicion of being either a sock puppet or puppeteer along with three other CoS editor accounts as documented: checkuser case.
If you want to find your own examples of Scientologists not playing by the rules, check out the history of Hubbard, Barbara Schwarz, or see Terryeo. They don't break the rules with every edit, but you'll find a several instances with a bit of research. Anynobody 04:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that post, Anynobody, as it shows that you are just as prone to WP:OR as anyone. You were both in uncited OR land there; just that you were trying to make opposite points with your OR; Misou that LRH wasn't poisoned becasue the coroner tested his blood and you that he might have been because you know all about poisons, blood testing, and drug latency. Sheesh. --Justanother 04:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
It is true that some Scientologist has broken the rules but all have been caught and the edits reverted. And the offender have been punish. That proves there is no conspiracy.Bravehartbear 04:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
It is true that the citations are true. There is no argument about that. But every subject has 2 points of view and the scientology point of view has not being addressed until now. Bravehartbear 00:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you guys really get riled up. The reason I posted what I did was just to voice my concern that the Scientology pages on Wikipedia are very far from the rest of the content I've read. I mean, you can argue and cite all you want, you guys are good at it.. but I've read a bunch of Wikipedia on all sorts of topics from Fly Fishing to Nazism and even the latter gets more of a fair and neutral collection of information than Scientology.

The point is, if you disagree with it, that's fine. But Wikipedia is not the place for it! You can cite whatever sources you want, and write however many voluminous arguments and have all kinds of discussions... but all you need to do is just read the about Wikipedia page, take a deep breath, and consider another person just may be offended; and why offend anyone? Why not spend all this time on something more productive?

I think I'll go to the park and read a good book. I just got some nice apples, they taste great this time of year. Argue away fellas, feel free to join me anytime, maybe we can chat about something we agree on for just a lil' while, eh? Nihiletnihil 04:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

A brief explanation of Original Research

Justanother has a tendency to point out what he sees as original research quite often as he has above. To add a break in the conversation I'll explain briefly why the statement that L. Ron Hubbard was not tested for arsenic posioning does not constitute WP:OR.

The coroner's report said

Image of Hubbard's Coroner's report Post mortem examination was refused for religious reasons...toxicology test ordered on body fluids

And the toxicology report said

Image of Hubbard's toxicology report Marijuana Screen: Not done (it requires urine).. Type of specimen: Blood also you'll notice arsenic is not on the list of substances tested for.

I also know that the CDC says the best ways to find arsenic in the human body are 1. urine test or 2. hair/nail test

ATSDR @ CDC.gov - Specific tests: urine arsenic concentration.

Lastly, I know when a body is incinerated the hair, nails, and of course any stray urine are destroyed precluding future testing

These facts are not original research: If I said he WAS poisoned with arsenic, that would be WP:OR since there are no sources asserting it. Anynobody 05:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Anynobody your CLEAR original research is introducing speculation that just maybe perhaps the ME coulda shoulda tested for those poisons but he didn't and now we will never know because those sneaky Scientologists had the body cremated. Your edit amounts to little more than conspiracy theory and one that seems to be all your own. Start a blog, my friend, but please keep your OR hints at conspiracy out of an encyclopedia. --Justanother 11:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say he should have, I said Misou's assertion that the possibility murder had been eliminated was false because poisons weren't tested for. Justanother please remember I was pointing out an instance where a Scientologist engaged in WP:OR (asserting he couldn't have been murdered based on a toxicology report) as proof that like anyone else, members of the CoS don't always play by the rules (either intentionally or unintentionally). Please do me the courtesy when saying I have violated WP:OR. Anynobody 23:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Everyone on both sides of the issue should look at other articles about contentious deaths and see how they were handled. Nicole Brown Simpson comes to mind. Even though you know and I know and the whole planet knows that O.J. is likely to be guilty, note how that article is not gleefully and obsessively filled with conspiratorial evidence (sourced or not) transparently building a case against him within the article itself. By comparison, the Lisa McPherson article reads like a "true crime" novel and 80 percent of the article is actually not even about her, but about legal wranglings her family had with Scientology after her death (you'd think it was the trial of the century from all the attention it gets in the article - almost as much space is devoted to it as the Scopes Trial or Bush v. Gore). wikipediatrix 17:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
The case of Lisa McPherson has nothing in common with Nicole Brown Simpson, except that both were women. Apples and Oranges. --Tilman 18:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I never said they had to have anything in common with each other, aside from having had contentious deaths. wikipediatrix 18:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a good idea wikipediatrix, I'll do that if I find myself in the situation again. I apologize for giving the impression that the issue itself was under discussion (I meant it as an example of past behavior). As to Hubbard's death, if the subject comes up of poison it should convey the truth; we'll never know. Anynobody 23:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd posted the same text to Lisa McPherson earlier and just thought it was also applicable here, since your OR examples re: Hubbard's death are also relevant to that article. I should have reworded it somewhat for reposting here. wikipediatrix 00:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I understood what you meant, it really is a smart way to edit (find out how other disputed deaths are handled here). Anynobody 06:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, this has obvioiusly gotten a little out of had. I've read many of the scientology related articles here on Wikipedia and I don't think they're negative. They're simply presenting facts and things that did happen. Most things in the articles seemed to be sourced well. I think the people here who are complaining about the "negativity" of the articles need to keep in mind that these things did happen. It's well documented that the CofS has commited acts that are less then ethical in the past at least. Much of the contoversies have died out over time and maybe the church has even corrected a lot of it's really messed up policies. Even still though that doesn't mean that the things that happened in the past should be covered up, removed, or forgotten. Members of the church here have to remember that the articles aren't pointing out anything negative about them personally. These are acts the church as an orginization commited. It doesn't help when people who are in the media spotlight and members of the church do and say crazy things (i.e. Tom Cruise, David Miscavige, John Travolta). I guess what I'm saying is that just because negative things the church has done in the past are discussed in articles here doesn't mean the articles are attacking the church or it's members. They're simply conveying true information on events that did occur. The CofS really doesn't help it's case by being secretive or running sites such as religiousfreedomwatch.org. I know personally that at least 90% of the info on that page is BS. I guess in the end what I'm trying to convey is that maybe the problem isn't with the articles. Maybe members of the church need to look within there own orginization. If the church made a concerted effort to apologize to the people it has harmed (which it is well documented they have harmed people through such things as the fair game policy, stalking and harrassment, religousfreedomwatch.org, forced disconnection from family and friends, bad medical advice, and unproven "technology"), changed it's policies, and at least tried to seem more like a religion and not like multi level marketing scheme then there would be much more positive info to include in the articles. Elhector 21:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the above. I am not a Scientologist, and actually have some personal objections to their beliefs, as they do seem to me to be founded on less than adequate evidence. I am also a Christian, which many people also think is founded on less than adequate evidence, and I think the comparison between the treatment of Scientology here and in the world in general and of early Christianity is a good one. A lot of the "press" early Christianity got was negative too, what with allegations of cannibalism, ritual murder, and on and on and on. Any new belief system will get a lot of negative press in the broader world, as negative reports on "new" things tend to get more attention form a public which is at least somewhat averse to new ideas. The fact that many of the individuals named above haven't exactly enhanced the image of Scientology through their occasionally unusual conduct hasn't helped there either. But then the priests and ministers who abuse drugs, children and adult parishoners don't make Christianity look real great either. And, given the comparatively small number of Scientologists in the world today, there aren't going to be as many positive stories to come out to counterbalance the negative ones. And also notice there is now at least one whole Islam work group devoted to "criticism of Islam". Knocking down images that are respected is easy, and something lots of people like to do, which means that there always will be more negative press than positive, until and unless Scientology comes up with a Mother Teresa or the like who receives uniformly positive comments. And, with the anti-religious bias in much of the western world today, there are now beginning to be "critical" reports of her as well. I wish it weren't the case, but it is. John Carter 22:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Creating a guideline that applies to all religous articles

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please discuss this in a discussion here--Sefringle 03:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

New article Stacy Moxon

Latest comment: 17 years ago20 comments4 people in discussion
  • New article, Stacy Moxon. This is most certainly notable, but the article needs to basically have a complete re-write/overhaul, with additions of lots of material from reputable sourced citations. Smee 11:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC).
    • It would be helpful if these citations could maybe be listed on the article's talk page as well. Smee 11:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC).
      • Smee, just what makes you think she is "notable". Take a look at WP:BIO and answer that please. Thanks. --Justanother 13:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
        • (EC) Smee, I am blanking the page. You can rewrite it when you have a source. It is entirely offensive and unsourced conspiracy theory and unrelated "criticism" of Scientology making hay over the unfortunate death of a Scientologist. Please do not play games with me over this. Find a source and rewrite it you care to or leave it alone. --Justanother 13:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Apparently the new thing around here is to devote an article to anyone and anything related to Scientology (especially if it makes them look bad), no matter how trivial and non-notable. And it's very strange how when it comes to Ursula Caberta, Smee is very concerned about potentially libeling a living person (even to the point of removing sourced information), yet here he's made no mad rush to remove an unsourced insinuation about Kendrick Moxon being "unconcerned" about the details of his daughter's death. wikipediatrix 13:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry dear but this is nothing new. Why do you think there are 272 Scientology-series articles. This is how this whole game started. And it was allowed to happen. 'Nuff said before we have to start drinking again. ps See my page - you are due for a drink. --Justanother 13:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Um, I know you didn't create the article and I didn't state or imply that you did. I did assume you read the article, hence my comments. wikipediatrix 13:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Please, feel free to remove unsourced material from the article as you see fit, but do not blank or redirect. That is not appropriate and avoids the process here on the project. Let's move further discussion to that article's talk page. Thanks. Smee 13:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC).
      • OK, Smee, I left a bit to start you off. But in actual fact it was ALL unsourced and a load of crap to boot and blank was appropriate. You could have just found a source and gone from there instead of leaving any unsourced, non-notable in the article. --Justanother 13:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
        • I am glad that you have stopped your inappropriate blanking of the article. Now that you have stopped I can take a look at it, and add information and citations. Thanks. Smee 13:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

Please stop calling the appropriate "inappropriate"; that is just more game-playing. And stop with any EL or cats before we get some RS and we can see what is supported at that time. Good luck. --Justanother 13:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

moreaboutscientologycult.eu

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This may be old news to some folks, but I just discovered this site tonight:

http://www.moreaboutscientologycult.eu/

Very handy collection of news clippings, but they're all in PDF files, which I hate. Aaaaaaah. wikipediatrix 02:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Try this [[9]] for opening PDF files. It really takes the hatred out of reading that format. .V. [Talk|Email] 16:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

scientology and democracy

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I saw, that there is an article on scientology and psychiatry... Then I remembered that my government (F.Rep.GERM) expresses its concerns about scientology's compliance to democracy, so that I created the article scientology and democracy. But now it looks like my government is the only reputable source, which is attacked even by the U.S. Department of State for discriminating against religious minorities (by proxy or so)... I personally share Hubbard's view on democracy quite much, because I was very puzzled, when I learned from a female scientologist in 1998, that my democratic government (F.Rep.GERM) tolerates psychiatric electro convulsive therapy, which would explain all those formerly incomprehensible talk of my social environment about "faster therapies", when I told them about my application for several hundred hours of talk therapy (when I asked them for the name of those "faster therapies" they did not tell me (or I am unable to remember due to a big swell of hate)) (furthermore this complex system of physical threats against my life is sufficient to let the psychiatric diagnosis "F20.0 (ICD-10 WHO - paranoid schizophrenia)" look just like another element of extralegal practice, because it is hardly possible to say something paranoid, if one is surrounded by crazy torturers). --Homer Landskirty 12:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

No comment? So my idea was a good idea? :-) *blush* --Homer Landskirty 15:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

New project proposal

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a new WikiProject task force proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Inter-religious content that is being proposed to deal specifically with articles whose content relates to several religious traditions. Any editors interested in joining such a group would be more than welcome to indicate their interest there. John Carter 15:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

List of notable converts to Scientology

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The above list has recently been created with a single entry. Members of this project are encouraged to add names and references to the list. Thank you. John Carter 17:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Um.......... we already have other articles that deal with this exact same subject, and we're discussing merging them anyway, so why do we need yet another one?? wikipediatrix 17:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Wasn't aware of the other articles, for which I apologize. The current article was created as one of a series of articles dealing with lists of notable converts to various faiths. Actually, it is my hope that the soon to be created interfaith task force of the WP:RELIGION will deal with these articles primarily. However, if the members of this project see that the potential list is redundant or useless, feel free to delete it and do so with my expressed permission to do so here. John Carter 17:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Scientology Expo 2007?

Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Given ongoing disagreements between User:Smee and myself, I'd like to suggest that all the regular editors of the Scientology articles come together here - especially some who haven't edited as much nowadays - and try to hammer out a clearer picture of what it is exactly that we're doing here. Perhaps we can discuss what the common goals are for the project nowadays, which may be more possible now than in the past, since we have more fair-minded editors like User:Anynobody and less troublemakers like User:Terryeo.

I'd especially like to see a large cross-section of editors contribute to assessing what, if any, limits we should try to impose on ourselves. Are we going too far in hyper-reporting every little wrongdoing by the CoS, even if true and sourced? Are we going too far in filling articles with Hubbard's doctrine verbatim, thereby turning the project into a de facto Hubbard wiki? Have we created too many articles? Are we the only project/template devoted to a religion which most of the editors are actually opposed to? Even if the content we're putting into articles is technically true, does it appear to the average reader that Wikipedia is really "out to get" Scientology? Does that even matter? Are we all really happy with what we've created so far, and are we happy with the direction it's going? wikipediatrix 16:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting questions. My own personal opinion would be that the encyclopedia would be best served by reporting the major tenets of scientology as the Church itself states them, and working on content related to the church in other articles. Maybe some sort of "master plan" for the particular articles to most emphasize would be the best way to go? Or, alternately, maybe the project could try to draw in other editors, who might have less of a set opinion. Considering the rather small scope of the project, in terms of extant articles, maybe it might function better as a work group of the Religion WikiProject? That might help to draw some of the members of that group into greater input in these articles, hopefully in an NPOV way. John Carter 16:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion the WP coverage of Scientology is a reflection of the mental state of a subset of our society. I don't expect it to improve. However I would rather see them taking out their aggressions here and elsewhere on the Internet than in some other ways. Steve Dufour 17:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I think this might be a good idea worth visiting. Maybe we could set up an IRC channel somewhere and all discuss these issues in a "live" enviroment instead of leaving messages for each other back and forth here. There seems to be quite a bit of strife between editors here as far as what should be considered appropriate content. Maybe if we could all have a virtual round table discussion then we can get this all under control. I'd be willing to setup the IRC channel. Maybe we could all meet monthly to dicuss current issues. What do you guys think? Elhector 20:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
IRC could be an option. Another option, at this point, could be to do what people like me in the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team would really like to see every project do, which is specifically bring as many of their top and high importance articles to at least B class as possible, so that they can be included in one or more release versions of wikipedia. Right now, this project has several articles of importance to it which are not in particularly good shape. Maybe just having members focus on improving them might be one of the best options. John Carter 21:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I would tend to agree with you. The problem here is that there seems to be quite a bit of disagreement on what constitutes a "good" article here. Maybe we should first prioritize which article we consider to be the most important and then fix them up based on criteria that is consensus based. There just seems to be way to many edit wars involving these articles. I'll try to put a list together of the most important articles and we can start cleaning those up. Elhector 22:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Some formatting changes...

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

...moved a few things around, made some room. Added a "Tasklist" subpage, at WP:SCN/Tasks. In this way, the "To Do" list is meant to be static, sort of just things that we should always do, and the "Tasklist" can change and be fluid, as needs for different things arise on different articles. Smee 04:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/L. Ron Hubbard

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

L. Ron Hubbard is currently a candidate for Featured Article status. Please comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/L. Ron Hubbard. Smee 09:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC).

Article proposed for deletion

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I proposed the article on the Internet video The Friend of Mankind for deletion. Steve Dufour 17:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Now officially nominated for deletion.Steve Dufour 02:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

{{ScientologySeries}} and {{Scientology}}

Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

I made a comment a couple weeks back at Template talk:ScientologySeries. The concern is that the {{ScientologySeries}} template and the {{Scientology}} template seem to both contain approximately the same links, but most Scientology-related articles include both templates. That's just silly - there's no need for the redundancy. Furthermore, it's clear which of the templates is better: {{Scientology}}. The reasons are that (1) the Manual of Style (WP:LAYOUT) says that "See Also" links are an appendix section, so that kind of link should be provided at the end of an article not at the beginning, (2) "ScientologySeries" implies that the template would only go on articles that are linked from the template, but this is not the case, (3) many of the articles, even some of those on the template, are not only scientology topics, and have other big templates near the top, making very ugly formatting (see Tom Cruise for example). What I'd like to do is to obsolete {{ScientologySeries}}, going through all the articles that include it, removing the template in favor of {{Scientology}} at the bottom, and ultimately turn {{ScientologySeries}} into a redirect. Does this sound okay? I don't want to start working on this only to get reverted, there are a lot of edits involved. Mangojuicetalk 20:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't have strong feelings about which template to use on any or all articles. However, I do strongly think that having both on a given article is excessive, and borderline obnoxious. Aleta 23:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Having both isn't excessive on longer articles, especially ones with a large table of contents. AndroidCat 02:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Could you give some examples? I note that there aren't that many long articles, and that the three I looked at, Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard, and Tom Cruise all contained only one template each. And it wasn't consistent which one. Mangojuicetalk 14:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
As I asked before, why stop at 2? Why not have 3 or 4 templates on each article? Steve Dufour 06:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I know of no reason why the same information should be delivered in a top and bottom template. The footer is redundant and pointless. wikipediatrix 04:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
But it makes the anti-Scientologists look stupid. That's a good thing. :-) Steve Dufour 07:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion nomination

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Altered texts in Scientology doctrine Steve Dufour 17:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Scientology and the family

Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

This question came up in the discussion of Scientology weddings. There doesn't seem to be an article on Scientology's views and practices concerning marriage and family, unless I'm missing something. This seems like it would be a worthwhile article for someone to start. Steve Dufour 00:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea.HubcapD 00:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh sure. That makes sense. Then we can create Scientology and ketchup and Scientology and mustard because there's just so much to say that wouldn't fit in Scientology and condiments. Then we can start on Scientology and the Civil War, Scientology and Fonzie, Scientology and the endoplasmic reticulum, Scientology and malt, Scientology and William Shatner, Scientology and cross-stitch, Scientology and feet, Scientology and stuff, Scientology and more Scientology, and Scientology and Coke. (mmmm, make mine a double). wikipediatrix 00:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Would you like that on the rocks, or neat? I had a little time to think about it, and really couldn't think of much beyond the 2nd Dynamic. What suprised me is I couldn't seem to find a page for the 8 Dynamics. If any page should be created, it should be that one. Of course, Scientology and Eddie Van Halen's Guitar Technique would be a subject worth delving into! ;-)HubcapD 22:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
A suggestion was made to rename Scientology weddings Scientology and marriage, or something along the same lines. That would create a broader topic to which more information could be added. Steve Dufour 04:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

religiousfreedomwatch.org

Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Is there an article anywhere on wikipeida concerning religiousfreedomwatch.org? I haven't been able to find one. I believe this is an article worthy subject. I think I'm going to start working on it. What does everyone else think? Elhector 21:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it'll probably be quicky deleted, again. AndroidCat 21:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Why was it deleted? Was there any discussion on it? If there was would you be able to point in the direction of the discussion so I can take a look at it? Wow, that's some rapid fire questioning for you :-) Anyways, I think it's a notable web page and organization and warrants and article on wikipedia. I'm sure it being deleted had something to do with the page being controversial but I don't think that's a reason to avoid the subject. I believe it would be completely possible to put together a well cited and referenced article without crossing over into point of view pushing or anything like that. I'll work on putting something together and then I'll see what everyone thinks. It may take me sometime though as I want to make sure to use good sources that no one should have any arguments with. Elhector 23:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
There are articles on much less important websites. Steve Dufour 06:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, just wanted to give everyone an update on this article that I'm working on putting together. I'm having a lot of trouble finding resources and references. Does anyone have any good places to look for info on this web page besides the actual page itself? The actual web page doesn't cite or reference any of it's info so I'm having a very hard time putting together an article on it. Anyone have any ideas? Any help would be greatly appreciated. User:AndroidCat made reference above to a past existing article on Wikipedia about this web page. What happened to it? Thanks! Elhector 23:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I am surprised that published references to it can not be found. I would have thought that it was very well-known since it is the CoS's official site for dissing people they don't like, and Scientology itself has been getting so much press lately. Steve Dufour 02:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act featured article nomination

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act recently achieved Good Article status. I've nominated it for featured article status - please see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act. Comments would be welcomed. -- ChrisO 19:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Another Religious Freedom Watch article

Latest comment: 17 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

S. M. Sullivan has created another Religious Freedom Watch article. I think there are some serious problems with it such as lack of references or notability, as well as the BLP problems of an article about an attack site that mixes in an awful lot of defamation with a small serving of fact. What it really needs right now is more than two viewpoints on the subject. AndroidCat 05:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Unless they're immediately forthcoming, this article should be speedy-deleted as a recreation of an already deleted article that brings no new sources to justify its existence this time around. wikipediatrix 20:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
As i mentioned on the article's talk page, to meet the speedy criterion for recreated material, the page must be "…substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes to it do not address the reasons for which it was deleted." Perhaps it meets these, but it's not obvious. If i added sources to the article, would you be satisfied with it, or do you see other problems with it? Foobaz·o< 20:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
As it stands now, it's no different than someone making a web page that says "Woody Allen is a pig" and then creating a Wikipedia article that says "The 'Woody Allen is a pig' website states that Woody Allen is a pig, although some people disagree." It's unencyclopedic, useless, and serves no purpose but to amplify the site's smear campaign. wikipediatrix 20:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Religious Freedom Watch is a valuable source of information. Where else are you going to find out about the outcome of Michael Pattinson's lawsuit against the CoS, for example? You're not going to find that information on the church critic websites. Your example given of a comparable defamatory website about Woody Allen is a poor analogy. I haven't seen any 'So and So is a Pig' articles on RFW. But I actually read RFW. Did you? Is it considered original research to read a primary source? I've noticed a great reluctance to read ANY Scientology-related primary sources among editor/church critics here. S. M. Sullivan 05:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Heh. I've been reading it since back in 1999, including the parts now behind requested blocks of the Wayback Machine. I see that it's been carefully cleaned up over the last year or so. AndroidCat 06:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Yep, but it's still plenty libelous today. 'So and So is a Pig' was just an illustrative example, but if he wants to be specific, then there's plenty of 'So and So is an anti-religious extremist' statements. Unfortunately, I can't point out any more of the site's more evil and ludicrous statements here because I don't wish to help amplify its lies. wikipediatrix 13:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Scientologists tend to think that a person who sues or pickets their church must perforce be an anti-religious extremist. That's why the website says these things. It's written from the point of view of Scientologists. I don't expect you to sympathize. Nominate it for AfD if you must.S. M. Sullivan 04:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

No no, not to worry. You see, it can now be edited to bring it in line with the one source that the article has. AndroidCat 05:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion nomination

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Scientology organizations Steve Dufour 03:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Article Overhaul

Well I've taken it upon myself to overhaul this article to try to save it from deletion. I've removed all of the directory info. I've basically changed it to a list of orgs by country. I hate to see this article deleted as i think it's useful. A list of all the different orgs CoS runs is useful because it's not always clear that an orginization is part of the CoS. I think this could be a handy list for anyone doing research on the topic. I've left in as much relevant info as I could. It seems the only way to save this one though was to pretty much gut it and start over again. Tell me what you guys think. Hopefully we can all get in there and fill in the remaining missing info and improve the article even more. I'll keep working on it in the meantime. If this is to drastic of a change just go ahead and revert my edit, I won't be offended :-) Elhector 00:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Where did Scientology go?

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Scientology article is missing. The talk page was last updated on 5 September, with a note today asking where the article disappeared to. The deletion log is no help, it shows a deletion in 2006. I put a note on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC) fixed. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Article probation

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS has recently concluded and, among other things:

 
 The Arbitration Committee has placed all Scientology-related articles on probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages.

For the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 03:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Nominations for deletion

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Source (magazine) Steve Dufour 16:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Project Normandy Steve Dufour 17:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Portal?

Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

I may regret saying this, but I think that there are sufficient articles to create a reasonable portal. Would the rest of you like to see a separate Scientology portal or not? John Carter 18:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Lol, I'm probably going to regret agreeing with you :-P Elhector 18:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's not great, not by a long shot, but it is started. Portal:Scientology. It definitely needs additional work, but I probably won't be able to do that for a day or two. Anyone who wants to add anything or has ideas to improve the format is more than welcome to. John Carter 23:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Not a good idea, this portal. And sure like death the ridicule-all-Scientologists-Xenu-story went on top. Predictable. Bah. Misou 05:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
So did the only other FA this project has, Katie Holmes. It does make sense to show the best articles we have, after all, and the FAs are pretty much that. And I did want to ensure, given the controversial nature of the subject, that at least one "critical" article was included in both the Selected article and Selected biography seciton. I didn't include the L. Ron Hubbard article because of the lack of a public domain image, but am hoping that someone can find one. I'm contacting the Science Fiction Project to see if any of them might have one. John Carter 13:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Please consider the overall importance of Scientology compared to other subjects covered on WP. I live next to the city of Concord, California which has about the same number of people that Scientology does. Should it have its own portal? Steve Dufour 21:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Barbara Schwarz

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

It was great taking a break from the project for a few days. There is a disagreement over Barbara's article again. This is over the introduction which is supposed to, well, introduce the topic. Someone is trying to overload it with fairly unimportant details. Thanks if you can help out. Steve Dufour 21:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help everyone. Steve Dufour 22:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Image nominated for deletion

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Peer Review

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thank you. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 17:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC).

Noah Lottick article is up for deletion

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

WP:PR, The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Portal:Scientology placement on articles

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Note: This portal navigation can be placed on articles, and is commonly placed in the External links section of an article on Wikipedia, using the following code:

{{Portal|Scientology}}

This displays as: {{Portal|Scientology}} Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 13:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC).

Better image for portal icon

Ugh, now that I've gone and put the link on a bunch of pages, I figured out a better version for it:

{{Portal|Scientology}}

{{Portal|Scientology}} Oh well, we can always change it gradually in the future, but here you are. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 13:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC).

Returning

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It looks like I might be coming back to active duty on the project soon. It looks like there's a lot going on now since I have been gone. Wishing everyone well. Steve Dufour 03:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Raymond Fowler

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It appears that this article became the victim of some undue weighting due to concerns tangentally related to Scientology issues. Could people please keep an eye on it and make sure that the subject's main notability (A decade as the CEO of a major professional organization) does not get derailed by tangental issues? Thanks. Phil Sandifer 15:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:ScientologySeries

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Template:ScientologySeries has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Cirt 13:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ScienTOMogy Steve Dufour 13:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Scientology/Archive_3&oldid=910685778"