Talk:Dianetics/Archive 9

The Goal of Dianetics
I would like to add a new section, the goal of Dianetics. Please discuss here: Spirit of Man 14:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Recruit people into Scientology? «Any time you write or say Dianetics today, define it -- "Dianetics, that part of Scientology which stresses mental anatomy." That swings people into Scientology before they think about it.» -- L. Ron Hubbard, HCO POLICY LETTER OF 2 OCTOBER 1958, "SALE AND CONDUCT OF ACADEMY COURSES" Raymond Hill 00:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The goal in the article is a quote from the cited book, from 1951. You seem to be going down a new road not introduced. What are you talking about and why? I didn't say anything about Scientology there, why are you citing a policy that doesn't apply? Is this some form of personal attack? Spirit of Man 01:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * If a "Goal of Dianetics" section is to be created, the above quote certainly has its place in the section: L. Ron Hubbard seemed to consider Dianetics as a recruitement tool, according to his own words. That could be a goal, recruiting into Scientology. What part of my comment you consider a personal attack? Raymond Hill 02:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I have cited the long term objective, the goal of Dianetics, that expresses what it is for and why it is done at all. You seem to be taking some obscure quote from Oct 58, and are pretending that is the "real" goal. You seem to be pretending the section is not there. What's up? Spirit of Man 03:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it needs its own section. Actually, a section like that seems like it would be merely an excuse for POV-pushing. And there's not a hell of a lot of context. "Hubbard said that the goal of Dianetics is to create a perfect world, however, he also said that it was a useful recruiting schtick." What else are you going to say? Tenebrous 02:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This article is about the general subject of Dianetics. That embraces a lot of things. The goal of that activity is relavent. You seem to be quoting something about a "perfect world". To my knowledge there is no such quote. Hubbard says, "Absolutes are unattainable". What are you talking about? Are you of the point of view the citations of the written material of the subject should be eliminated and only citations to controvertial material should be included in the article? Spirit of Man 01:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it wasn't relevant or shouldn't be included. Once again you fail to comprehend the argument.


 * We have only begun this argument. How can I once again fail comprehend the argument. It may well be that I have failed to comprehend it, but you haven't said what it is yet. I understand I said a long term goal. I understand you said "recruitment". What would you like me to comprehend. I don't get it. Are you saying Dianetics is not the primary method to Clear people, but is merely a prank to mislead people into Scientology? That is not true. Spirit of Man 14:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Argument, as in 'the argument I was making'. You say that we should have a section. What will it include? One sentance? Sorry, not allowable. Tenebrous 15:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Educate me. Where in Wikipedia policy is a single statement of the goal of an activity "not allowable". Spirit of Man 18:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Please try to read and understand what is being said, before jumping to conclusions. The quote was an example, a reduction of the total content of such a section to one sentance. "Perfect world" is a paraphrase, however, just because you don't know of such a quote does not mean it does not exist.
 * Are you now talking about Tenebrous's statement? Spirit of Man 14:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Considering that I made that statement, then yes, it's likely that I was referring to it. Tenebrous 15:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you same person as Raymond Hill? Spirit of Man 18:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * However, it's still not relevant to the question, which remains unanswered.
 * I understand you are not talking about the question immediately following [mine], but the question above about "recruitment"? Why be so obscure? Spirit of Man 14:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Is "[mine]" supposed to link to something? The question is content: what are you going to say that needs its own section? Tenebrous
 * Tenebrous, I see I need to distinguish between you Ray. Spirit of Man 18:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * "Are you of the point of view the citations of the written material of the subject should be eliminated and only citations to controvertial material should be included in the article?" This is absolutely baseless and accusatory, as well as being irrelevant.
 * Here is an example. Tenebrous just reverted my citation of "The Auditor" magazine which gives a monthly tally of the total number of Clears in the world. The current issue 328 is for Feb 2006. He deleted that primary source to cite an estimate from two years that has a POB statement associated with it "Scientology Stats are Down". He did this in the same fell swoop as deleting the Goal section. It is relevant and rather continuous on Wiki. A second example is the DMSMH page, the cited book and the cited article discusses the philosophy, science and therapy of Dianetics. ChrisO and you have reverted this to reduce the content to "self-improvement techniques" which are not even taken up in the article. How can you say this is "baseless"? Spirit of Man 14:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * If you want an apology for the deletion of the updated count of fictional persons, you have it. However, accusing ChrisO and Raymond of "dispersive editing" (to use Terryeo's phrase) is not productive. Take issue with the content, not the user, unless you're taking this to RfC. Tenebrous 15:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No I am not looking for deleted... apologize later. I happen to know a few Clears and the rumors of them being "fictional persons" seems disingenous at best. I'm looking for fair treatment according to Wiki policies. I can live with your dripping sarcasm and your insincerety, that is not a problem to me. As to "dispresive editing": I wrote a DMSMH page. So did Chis. Mine was deleted and reverted to his newer one. It was edited to the newer one, queries to it are rerouted to his. His article talks about Dianetics philosophy, science and therapy, and not self-improvement techiques. His link to self-improveement techniques link to psychological materials, not Dianetics methods. So I revised the first line to reflect the actuality. He and Antaeus have deleted it repeatedly in violation of Wiki policy on citations. Is this an example of what you mean by "dispresive editing". Linking the reader to what does not exist and deleting what does exist? If they do it what is the problem with saying they do it? Their text isn't doing it, they are. Spirit of Man 18:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * As regards "fictional persons", I don't think Clears are fictional people -- as long as we define "Clear" as "people that the Church of Scientology has announced as reaching the state of 'Clear'". Of course, we'll need to make sure that no one, intentionally or unintentionally, blurs the line between "Clear-as-person-the-CoS-says-is-Clear" and "Clear-as-person-who-possesses-all-the-powers-attributed-to-Clears", since there is no factual verification that anyone actually meets the latter criteria -- but we'd have to do that anyways.  Anyways, Spirit of Man, I'm disappointed in you.  I thought surely by now you'd finally understand that when you created an article titled "Dianetics: the Modern Science of Mental Health" for the purpose of promoting your own view of Dianetics (not the book, but the concept/philosophy) in a way that you could not get other editors to let you do at Dianetics, it was deleted by a unanimous AfD because it was a POV fork, and POV forks are not acceptable on Wikipedia.  But instead of taking that AfD as feedback and trying to learn from it, you're still acting as if it was somehow your article was deleted by unilateral decision of myself and ChrisO (who didn't even cast a vote in the AfD) and that the NINE other editors who thought your article should be deleted had nothing to do with it.  I have to say, it seems to me that if you haven't understood that in the nearly two months since then, then it means you probably haven't been trying to understand. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I combined the references. The Auditor's current figure along with previous claims. The "sometime after 2004" part should be replaced with the exact date The Auditor resumed publishing totals as soon as someone can supply it. AndroidCat 16:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

We're talking about a section here, not what is cited and what isn't. One quotation does not deserve its own section, period. If you can dig up several paragraphs of material, with cites, and some critical commentary to balance it, then you can put it in the article. Anything else I will delete as POV-pushing. Tenebrous 06:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You have demonstrated a POV here by deleting a primary citation [Number of Clears] per WP:V, and pasted in a POV citation that is two years old...and based on this primary source anyway. Spirit of Man 14:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You have placed a "No Personal Attacks" note in my talk section. You have deleted the section on "The Goal of Dianetics" calling it POV pushing. You have rv my citation to the primary source of the number of Clears and replaced with a POV citation two years old. You threaten to personally delete all my edits to the section. How is this not your personal attack? What do you consider I did that warrants your this treatment? You didn't say, you just referred me to this section. Spirit of Man 14:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The statistics deletion was accidental; I don't really care what sources you use. Personal attacks, well. How about "I think you are uninformed and have substituted your own evil misconception for the truth. Do your homework." ? Yep, that definitely qualifies.
 * Can you tell me where you found this statement? I don't recall saying that to you? Spirit of Man 04:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Tenebrous: Here is the context I found from above: "You mean a world without criminals like Reed Slatkin? Awesome! Of course, to be accurate, that is what Hubbard claimed the goal of Dianetics/Scientology to be, not necessarily what the goal is. Since things like trying to frame one's critics for falsified bomb threats and falsified hit and run accidents are, themselves, crimes, it would of course be remiss to only provide the talk that Dianetics/Scientology talks and not mention how frequently it fails to walk the same walk. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)" Tnebrous, how would you characterize what Antaeus said, was he saying that Hubbard was speaking truly when he wrote this goal, or is Antaeus accusing Hubbard of something more evil, "not necessarily what the goal is." I think Antaeus is saying in Dianetics, "trying to frame one's critics for falsified bomb threats and falsified hit and run accidents" is condoned rather than treated as a crime. I think he is saying, condoning such things is evil. Tenebrous, do you agree, this is what Antaeus believes and is saying there? If you do, please remove your personal attack message on my talk page. Spirit of Man 17:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no way that that that sentance could be characterized as anything other than a personal attack, no matter what the context is. And there is no excuse for that. Tenebrous 03:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * If Antaeus is willing to state here that he does not feel anything in Dianetics is evil, including these exact statements he made, I will apologize, and I apologize in advance if that is not the case. I felt I was merely stating the obvious fact. I'm not saying he has to agree when I said I felt it was a misconception, if he doesn't feel something is evil, then I apologize and your statement is well taken, and I hope you both accept my apology. But if what I said is true then your statement about personal attack must go. I was merely stating one thing he said specifically and I believe he intended to convey, in my own way and nothing personal beyond that was intended. Spirit of Man 14:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think Tenebrous interpreted your remarks in exactly the same way that I did, Spirit: he did not interpret "your evil misconception" as "your misconception that something else is evil" but "your misconception, which is itself evil."  That is, to be blunt, what adjectives do when they come immediately before nouns:  they modify the noun.  Putting "evil" between "your" and "misconception" marks the 'misconception' as what is 'evil'.  That's why your words were interpreted as a personal attack. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand Antaeus' conception is that "Hubbard is evil". This is his "evil conception". I said that was a misconception. I said, "your own evil misconception". I did not say, "YOU are evil". I apologize if either of you mistook what I said, as a personal attack or bad syntax. It was intended to distinguish "his conception" from "my conception". Tenebrous can you remove your "Personal Attack" thing from my user page? Spirit of Man 03:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * As to the section, I've explained my problems with it. It's obviously not a personal attack, because I'm not saying anything bad about you. My issue is with the content, not the user. If you address my concerns, I'll be happy. However, you appear to be more interested in talking about how you've been maligned, wronged, persecuted, etc. How about this: given the number of people who disagree with you, you should consider the possibility that you are in fact wrong. We are not out to get you. There is no conspiracy. Calm down, take a deep breath. Hold it for a couple heartbeats. Release. Repeat. Good. Now, explain to me what else you want to put in this section, and how you're going to write it so it's NPOV. Tenebrous 15:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You have deleted the new version with a nebulous statement about POB pushing. What is your problem? Why are you deleting citations instead of placing your own? Spirit of Man 04:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Spirit of Man, you state «You seem to be quoting something about a "perfect world". To my knowledge there is no such quote.»... This statement is surprising, in view of your edits : «"A WORLD WITHOUT INSANITY, without criminals and without war—this is the goal of Dianetics." Science of Survival by L. Ron Hubbard, page 1, Bridge Publications, Inc. ». Raymond Hill 02:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * What is surprising? Are you playing at 20 questions now? Spirit of Man 03:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * "A perfect world" implies an "absolute". There is NO such quote. Spirit of Man 14:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * A world without insanity, criminals, and war can't be described as perfect? How about utopian? How is a "world without insanity" not an "absolute"? Hubbard seems to contradict himself---what is the context of that quote on absolutes? Also, given the amount of material Hubbard churned out, it's not a good idea to say definitely that he didn't ever use the phrase "perfect world" in any of his writings. Tenebrous 15:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * "A world without insanity, criminals, and war" is very very far from utopian. If you have ever been in charge of the decision, should company A (offering to paint a building for $10K) or company B (offering to paint the building for 9.5K with the incentive thrown in they leave you 80 gallons of paint, additionally) paint the building?  Decisions in politics too are swayed by economic offers, in government.  And the USA government has less corruption than many do.  Even if everyone were perfectly ethical and there was no war, life would still be far from utopian.  Resource allocation would still be a problem, education would still be a problem, the streets would not run with milk and honey. heh. Terryeo 19:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No, not utopian in my opinion. Spirit of Man 18:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You didn't answer any of my questions. Spirit of Man 18:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * "How is a "world without insanity" not an "absolute"?" In Dianetics, much of insanity is actually an untreated medical condition. So such people are sent to find what "has not been found or treated medically". Often a hypothyroid condition, or a pinched nerve, or a deficency of something is found. An treatable, but so far untreated condition is found. The world would certainly be more ideal if a person with a goiter and severe mental troubles were given treatment and then was physically healthy and "sane" again. I have done this. My niece told me her daughter had been having chonic ear infections since birth, 7 years. The school wanted an ADD program. I had her go to a medical specialist and get the right antibiotic and treatment. In a short time the girl had no ear infection and was not an ADD candidate. The girl's life is still not ideal by any means, but she doesn't have that one problem any more. She had lost one entire eardrum and had 80 percent scar tissue in the other and couldn't hear well. I showed the mom how to do an assist and she did. After the assist, the mom and I were talking and the daughter went over an turned down the TV, "It was too loud!". She immediately got into a fight her sisters who liked it loud. So the world still turns after an insanity is handled. And after poor hearing is handled. I think the same will be true when the goal of "a world without insanity" is approached or achieved. Maybe there are other worlds? Spirit of Man 18:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * "what is the context of that quote on absolutes?" It is Logic 6, under the front cover of Science of Survival. It is mentioned in Evolution of a Science. It is cited in many places. Logic 5 is "A definition of terms is necessary..." Logic 7 is "Gradient scales are necessary to the evaluation of problems...". Aristotelian logic used two values, Right and Wrong or true and false, or in computers 1 and 0. Many religions use a single valued logic, God is right. [Period] In Dianetics, an infinity of possibilities between two such "absolutes" is envisioned, thus the gradient scale idea. The ends of the spectrum are not attainable, such as absolute Right or absolute Wrong. But we can see somethings are more right than others. In Dianetics they are Right to the degree they assist the survival of all, and wrong to the degree they are non-survival. So PERFECT as an absolute would not be used. More perfect or less perfect might be. Spirit of Man 18:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You have brought to this discussion the idea of "Delusions|writings". Could you please give me one example of what you honestly feel this applies to? Spirit of Man 18:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Can we save the phenomenological "Really Deep Thoughts" applesauce and just edit this article in plain English? This entire discussion is just one big diversion better suited to college freshmen over a bottle of wine. wikipediatrix 04:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Can I quote you on this? "Can we save the phenomenological "Really Deep Thoughts" applesauce and just edit this article in plain English?" I think it's cute. Spirit of Man 04:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

BTfromLA, please explain your deletion of the goal of Dianetics. How is it unencyclopedic?

"A WORLD WITHOUT INSANITY, without criminals and without war—this is the goal of Dianetics."

Dianetics was conceived in 1930 Dianetics Today] and the goal of the activity of that decade, starting from nothing, resulted in a defining principle for the future of Dianetics. It was said by the author, to explain all existence. This principle was super-condensed and expressed as a possible command for all of existence, including mankind, to obey, SURVIVE! Hubbard envisioned at that time, that a therapy might be developed to help return people to normal when they became ill. [[Evolution of a Science

The goal of the next decade was expressed by the author as, "A science of mind is a goal which has engrossed thousands of generations of Man." The Dianetics activity of that decade evolved methods and principles, definitions, and a description of such a science. Even the name Dianetics itself, meaning what the soul is doing to the body, came from that defining principle, SURVIVE! Those principles and methods and theories that described the mind were considered by the author to constitute a new science of the mind. It was understood by the author to include all thinking on the mind up to that point, covering some 50,000 years of thinking men. The goal of life was considered to be infinite survival. The survival goal for the Individual, or "awareness of awareness unit", was said to be immortality. Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health.

The goal of Dianetic therapy in 1950 was said to be an optimum individual that could be tested before and after for any neuroses, any psychoses, any self generated illness and intelligence, and be found to not have the undesirable conditions after clearing and to have a high intelligence. Since 1950 this optimum state for the individual, as regards himself only, has been called the Clear. Clears were envisioned to have sufficient ability and intelligence to bring into existence, a more optimum world. Spirit of Man 21:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Accurate edit summaries
Terryeo claimed that he was merely removing the otheruses4 template. While I feel that the disambiguation line is as useful as any disambiguation line, I would have let the change stand if Terryeo hadn't made an unmarked change to the introduction at the same time, from "Dianetics is a set of ideas about the nature and structure of the human mind, and a set of associated practices which attempt to treat physical and mental ailments." to "Dianetics is a set of ideas about the nature and structure of the human mind, and a set of associated practices. It purports to help people." Terryeo knows of course that other editors oppose his attempt to remove the documented fact that the practices of Dianetics attempt to treat mental and physical ailments and substitute the flabby, vague "to help people" ; because he knows this, his choice to make both changes but only to mention one of them in his edit summary smacks of an attempt to deceive. I am restoring both. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually it is more accurate to state: "to help people" than to state: "treat mental and physical ailments". It says so at the website ] by stating, "the single goal of dianetics is to remove the reactive mind."  Unless you got a real good understanding of how a reactive mind might cause "physical and mental problems" it is more accurate to state, "to help people". Terryeo 11:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Gawd Feldspar, what we would do without you around to save us? Whew! Terryeo 09:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting, in pulling up the history of this talk page I see: (cur) (last) 13:01, 27 February 2006 Spirit of Man (→2¢ about the current state of the article - Comment to BTfromLA)

(cur) (last) 01:24, 27 February 2006 Terryeo (→2¢ about the current state of the article - reply to Feldspar) Which leaves a gap of 11 hours and 36 minutes. Is there something wrong with my browser? Terryeo 19:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I am certainly removing the disambiguation, it is a blind guess on the part of an editor that a person coming to this page does not want to arrive at this page. Further, the book link is available to them at the top of the navigation template.  Its dumb to have it there.  I plan to consistantly remove it.  Further, it is clearly obvious that the article is not being created by a consensus of editor opinion.  Obvious, clearly.  Spirit of Man has worked hard toward consensus.  He creates an an editor reverst his stuff out with almost no discussion.  One or two editors side with the revert and it stultifies the article's growth and accuracy.  I have worked for months, the contrary editors who revert me don't understand the words used and can not possibly understand, therefore, what the subject is about.  I'm through tip toeing.  Feldspar will sometimes go several days, happily reverting other poeple's created edits and he isn't the worst contrary editor.  I haven't given up discussion, but I'm through discussing every tiny one letter change on the discussion page before doing it.  The policy is "edit boldly".  I've long put concensus on at least an equal footing with that. But the policy doesn't say, "edit boldly if everyone agrees with you".  The contrary editors revert without discussion and uses excuses like "POV, reverted".  Have a happy editing time, heh,  just joining the crowd on this one.Terryeo 19:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Terry, I don't want to put too fine a point on things, but you may want to read this, this, and this. Tenebrous 02:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I just reverted the edit by Spirit of Man, as it simply removed a cited (albeit poorly) sentence without any edit explaination. --Davidstrauss 03:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't write that material, it was written by a group of four Dianetic critics, all I did was pull it out of being buried in a paragraph on illness and noted that on the edit summary. I don't know why it didn't appear, I must have done something wrong on that summary line. Your edit fails to note the actual source of information, The Auditor a publication of the American Saint Hill Orgainzation and again buries it once again, inside a paragraph on illness. David, why did you put it in there and delete the source material and use a conflict site for your citation? Spirit of Man 01:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I removed the disambiguation (again). For one thing it is a blind guess that a reader coming to this article might want to go to the other article instead. That is just a pure, silly blind guess.  They already have the template to navigate with one click.  Then a dumb disambiguation offers them yet one more mousey click to another article so they don't actually have to read this one.  How far are we going to go with this top of page nonesense? heh!  I removed it. Terryeo 11:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * If you'd like to pretend that it is a "blind, silly guess" to think that anyone will ever link the word Dianetics to get the article regarding the book, when the book is actually (now) described at Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, then go ahead and pretend. Of course, you'll look ridiculous doing so, since two counter-examples  already show that people have and may well again link Dianetics when they mean Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health.  However, it will at least be a tiny bit less ridiculous than your insistence that what a "Doctor of Divinity" or a page reprinted by the U.S. Navy from the website of an amateur doesn't say is more authoritative than what the Church of Scientology's Deputy Inspector General for Legal Affairs says in court under oath. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Heh -- and the day that I find yet another article that links to Dianetics when it actually means Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health is the day (well, okay, one of the many days) that Terryeo tries to remove the disambiguation template with a bogus edit summary: . -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The Straight Dope
Terryeo classified the external source "The Staight Dope" as a critical site. However, the Straght Dope is a site that is not at all about criticizing Scientology. It exists solely to fight ignorance and stupidity by publishing true and accurate information about thousands of topics. Anyone that publishes the truth about Scientology is automatically dismissed as a critic of Scientology by Terryeo. Does he also consider the Encyclopedia Britianica first and foremost a critic of Nazism because it publishes the fact that millions of people were slaughtered in the Holocaust? Vivaldi 01:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Would you consider "the Encyclopedia Britianica" a critic if it wrote; "Whatever may be said for Scientology as a philosophy (and there are those who say it has helped them), its record as an organization is one of unmitigated sleaze. Get mixed up with these people at your peril.
 * --CECIL ADAMS" Spirit of Man 02:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * If that site publishes the known truth about thousands of subjects, then do this. Pick a subject that you know well.  Read about it there. Is it the truth?  I read what they say in the area I know well. It doesn't fight ignorance and stupidity, it doesn't publish true and accurate information in the area of Scientology.Terryeo 15:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Putting an ugly Critical Site marker on every site that disagrees with the Church of Scientology certainly isn't the way to go--unless we're prepared to balance every single Scientology link with an equally ugly Scientology Site marker. I don't think we want to go there. AndroidCat 06:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * What makes a "Critical Site" marker ugly? Actually I would agree with any indicator to the reader that saves him trouble, that makes it easier for the reader to explore information.  "Critical site" is not cast in stone, other methods could be used.Terryeo 15:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Stylistically, it's damned ugly, and I'd insist that all sites were labeled with an equally ugly "bullet". AndroidCat 04:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay with me, consensus of editor opionion is what makes these articles. How should we do it?  BTW, I agree some presentations are more aesthetic than others. Terryeo 07:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Terryeo: "any indicator to the reader that saves him trouble"... What trouble? Raymond Hill 13:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Raymond. The reader wants to understand the subject, some readers will want to read critical sites first. Other readers will want to read official sites first.  If you know of a better way, good.  By "save the reader trouble" I mean that without some indications, some sites can appear to be friendly and offical when actually they are cricital.  There is even an "offical" church site which is designed for people who are critical of scientology and leads them gently through what you might first think, is a sympathy for criticsm.  We can save the reader some trouble (some time, effort, reading), by presenting what sort of information is at a link. But how we do that, well, I'm not certain "offical" and "critical" are quite the right words to use.Terryeo 13:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to raise the practice of marking Church of Scientology sites automatically as an "Official Site". On pages where CoS is the obvious owner of a trademark or copyright of the topic of the page, then that's usually fine. On pages like Study Tech it isn't clear if CoS or ABLE or CCHR (etc.) can speak as the official site. On pages like Scientology versus The Internet, CoS might have sites with their official position, but they aren't THE Official Site and shouldn't be labeled as such unless this is to difference them from the Covert Sites? (Kidding.) With so many pages ranging from core to fringe topics, it's easy to lose track of how Official a site is on a particular page. AndroidCat 06:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Applied Scholastics dot org states: "Based on L. Ron Hubbard's extensive technology, Applied Scholastics™ programs enable individuals to handle the literacy and education of the children and people in their communities." It is the organization for the dissemination of Study Tech into societies.  It is recognized by the Italian Government as having good technology which is useful to teachers.  Applied Scholastics is an organization which falls under another organization, ABLE, which falls under yet another organization, RTC.  By "fall under" I mean the lower org leases or rents the patents and copyrights of the higher org.  All of these use the extension "org" and all of these use their name as the URL.  CCHR does the same, falling under RTC and uses "CCHR" as an URL  with an extention of "org". Terryeo 07:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * These subjects are controversial, one of the methods people have been using is to mis-mark a link. The page that comes up sounds like it might be an official Scientology site, at first it reads in an easy manner and without criticsm. Then after 1/2 page or something its tone changes.  This sort of difficulty of sorting Offical Sites from Sites which intend to defame that which they purport to be about should be sorted by Wikipedia editors.  We want to present the two sides of the controvers as plainly as we can.  "Offical Site" and "Critical Site" works (obviously) but there would be other methods too. How about "Church site" and "Opponenet site?"  ABLE speaks for itself.  CCHR speaks for itself. The Social interaction group which intends to present Study Tech is "Applied Scholastics". They go; "AppliedScholastics.org", "CCHR.org", "Criminon.org", "Scientology.org", do you begin to see a pattern here? Terryeo 15:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * My point is that depending on the Wiki page, Scientology's site isn't always the Official Site from the Wiki perspective, any more than xenu.net should ever be labelled the Official Site of critics. As well, if the concept that various CoS entities are independent is 100% standardly applied, then a CoS site can't be the "Official Site" of the Wiki CCHR page. (An example of something that I corrected.) I'm just asking that people not get into the automatic habit of labeling CoS sites as Official Site. (BTW, did you know that all email to ABLE is routed to smtp.scientology.org?) AndroidCat 04:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Scientology's website, www.scientology.org is obviously the "official site" of the church of scientology while www.whatisscientology.org is an offical site of the philosophy of scientology. Those are "primary sources".  "Official" has several meanings.  To my knowledge, Wikipedia has no guideline which exactly defines what an "official site" is, as we use the term here.  My interest is to prevent confusion for the reader. My interest here is to do the work which will cause an article to present information to a reader which makes it easier for him / her to understand.  "Offical site" and "Critical site" seems like a reasonable way to help the reader.  Do you know of a better way to help the reader sort through a complex issue? I agree that CCHR has its own "offical site".  The routing of email, I don't know about but would suspect it has to do with firewalls, preventing email attacks, spam filters, etc. Terryeo 13:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The bigger problem is that labeling sites as critical is often wrong. Straight Dope is not a critical site.  Their mission, unlike that of http://www.Xenu.net, is not to press any particular point of view.  It is a neutral resource that exists to find the truth about various topics and publish their findings for the benefit of everyone.  Just because those findings are objectionable to some Scientologists, does not mean it deserves a tag of "Critical Site" or "Opponent Site".   The Straight Dope is an "unbiased site" that as no affiliation with either critics or Scientology.  Vivaldi 04:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Straight Dope is a site which proclaims that its statements are the product of "Cecil". To state it another way, One guy (who Straight Dope considers 'very smart') is stating his opinion.  One guy on a planet of 6.5 billion people.  The single problem has to do with practicality.  The guy who states his opinions at straightdope has (ask any scientologist) never done any Dianetics or Scientology.  A parallel might be to ask someone who has never driven a car about how to drive a car.  That guy doesn't have a clue about Dianetics.  That he is skeptical is cool but of what value is an such an opinion?  He has only stood well back in the distance and Viewed Dianetics, he has no clue in the world about its workability.  He has no clue about its value.  He has never seen a person become able to walk because of a Dianetic assist.  He has never been close to someone whose life improved because of Dianetics.  How can I tell?  Because he mentions nothing good.  Its a skeptical, critical only site and tells nothing about how people's lives have improved because of Dianetics. Terryeo 13:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmmm, Terryeo. This tells me that Scientologists must have all taken a lot of psychiatric drugs.  After all, if someone who "has never done any Dianetics or Scientology" cannot have "a clue about Dianetics", what are we to make of Scientologists' assertion that they know everything they need to about how awful all "psychiatric" drugs (like aspirin) are?  I mean, if Cecil Adams has to do Dianetics to know about Dianetics, and Scientologists claim they know about psychiatric drugs, there's only two possible conclusions... -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Feldspar, I am so happy that you have been told something, however the above discussion is about straightdope, the website. However tittilating it may be to bend the subject toward drugs, the discussion orginated about the quality of the citations arising from straightdope (one man's opinion). Terryeo 19:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * There's at lease one other situation and conclusion. I knew a person that had taken LSD. I knew what his life was like before Dianetics. I gave him 50 hours of Dianetics just on LSD. I saw in detail what LSD did to his mind and what his mind was like after Dianetics. I saw what his life was like after a Dianetic handling of a drug designed by psychiatry to produce "insanity". I have inspected the effects of LSD in detail and have familiariarized myself with what can be achieved when that drug is fully resolved for the individual. You have no more idea of what the effects that a psychiatric drug like LSD can have on a mind than the Man in the Moon. You are absolutely in no position to bad mouth the science behind the benefits this man received with Dianetics. My conclusion is that the use of psychiatric drugs produces insanity, and that insanity can be resolved by Dianetics. But why? Why spend my time resolving an insanity produced by a "so-called" medical science? If it's end-result is INSANIT, what conclusions can one draw about those who support and defind it? Spirit of Man 15:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * LSD was not "designed" to do anything, it was discovered. It is also not a psychiatric drug, and the few instances of its use as such remain highly controversial. Some form of mental instability may be a long-term consequence of LSD use, but saying that it "causes insanity" is a misrepresentation. Also, drugs are designed (or more frequently discovered) by pharmecutical companies, not psychiatrists. Since this is an example of recreational drug use, it's very hard to understand how you can blame psychiatry for it. Also, you're perfectly to burn psychiatry for its past abuses, misuses, and crimes, and yet when it comes to similar things within Dianetics/Scientology, these things are unimportant, irrelevant, and we shouldn't hold the actions of a few against the whole? I call that hypocrisy. Tenebrous 00:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you are asking, "On what basis does the Church of Scientology take a stance against Psych drugs?" And you are doing that because you assume the Church of Scientology has not "take a lot of psych drugs" and therefore does not have experience in the area of psych drugs and therefore can not be anything but critical because I state that Cecil has no experience with Dianetics (other than to "view it from afar")?  Is that what you are asking me?  Why does the Church of Scientology stand against psych drugs? Terryeo 14:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The same silly logic that Terryeo espoused here would also indicate that people could not form an opinion about the possible benefits and workability of a technology that, lets say, involved the molestation of children, unless one goes out and molests actual children themselves. Fortunately, most people can derive a sense of right, wrong, and worth, without actually having to debase themselves to levels of the people and things they are studying.  Analyzing the victims of abuse and other witnesses of the abuse are plenty sufficient.  One does not need to actually engage in evil to understand that it exists and comment intelligently about it.  Vivaldi 21:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The site is one man's opinion. Does he criticize Scientology? Yes, he does.  If you can read it and come away with a conviction that you're going to start in Scientology tomorrow because he praises it, heh, say so.  Obviously he criticizes it, he isn't neutral.Terryeo 14:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * (Using Terryeo's own logic one could also say the Encyclopedia Britianicca is not a neutral encyclopedia, but rather a group that is dedicated to criticizing the KKK): Go read the Encyclopedia Britianacca article about the Ku Klux Klan.  If you would read those articles and and come away with a conviction that you're going to start in the Ku Klux Klan tomorrow because the encyclopedia praises it, heh, say so.  Obviously the Encyclopedia Britianacca criticizes the Ku Klux Klan, it isn't neutral. Vivaldi 20:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * All independent neutral researchers that study Scientology will uncover evidence that a Scientologist would find to be critical. Therefore, according to any Scientologist, all indepedent researchers are critics.  Also, Terryeo, it appears that your POV that you are pushing in this article, namely that The Straight Dope is a critical site of Scientology, needs to be cited.  This appears to be original research on your part.  Vivaldi 20:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Free clue: while Cecil Adams' column is the product (or at least the responsibility) of one man, to call what he does "opinion" is bend the meaning of the word into complete nothingness. Adams answers questions from readers using something called "research", unearthing things called "facts". By the postmodern-style reductio ad absurdum you are indulging in, everything ever written everywhere is "opinion" and of equal truth value. While this is convenient for your POV campaign, those of use with some standards regarding the value of verifiable reality aren't buying this. --Calton | Talk 13:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Calton, here is a quote from that site regarding Dianetics: "...that the brain was analogous to a computer with two independent memory banks, the Analytical (conscious) Mind and the Reactive (subconscious) Mind." Dianetics represents the "mind" as all the mental image pictures in a person's existence, NOT the brain. These pictures are by-products of the spirit, NOT the brain. They control the brain and are not controlled by the brain. I agree with Terryeo, that the citation represents Cecil's opinion rather than "facts" when it comes to Dianetics. I don't agree with Cecil's facts and I don't agree with his opinion. Spirit of Man 23:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * So here we have the essential differences: your obfuscations are at least succinct (albeit pompous), while Terryeo's are merely incoherent. The goal remains the same, and equally unconvincing. --Calton | Talk 04:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Unconvincing? For 55 years Dianetics has attempted to introduce "mental" in a manner which says, "of thought and not of the body".  That's 55 years of saying so.  Cecil hasn't got it.    Some people have understood the concept. Some persons, (Cecil) apparently, will never understand the concept.  Convince you? NO.  State the situation?  Yes. The article here is not about how convinced anyone is, the article here is the presentation of certain information in a manner which the average reader can grasp the concepts. Cecil does not grasp the concept.  It is a concept very very basic.  Let us present the concept in this article.  Cecil's opinion does not include the situation that Dianetics was built on.  Our wikipedia article should present Cecil's site as "critical" because it does not grasp the basic concept.Terryeo 13:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Calton, for your information here is the Goal of Dianetics: "A world without insanity, without criminals and without war--this is the the goal of Dianetics."
 * You mean a world without criminals like Reed Slatkin? Awesome!  Of course, to be accurate, that is what Hubbard claimed the goal of Dianetics/Scientology to be, not necessarily what the goal is.  Since things like trying to frame one's critics for falsified bomb threats and falsified hit and run accidents are, themselves, crimes, it would of course be remiss to only provide the talk that Dianetics/Scientology talks and not mention how frequently it fails to walk the same walk. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly, a world without criminals like Reed Slatkin, and anyone that "falsifies bomb threats" and "falsified hit and run accidents". You are right. If someone in Dianetics or Scientology violates a civil law they suffer the same penalties as anyone else. Your examples are dramatic, but one would be expelled from Scientology for far less than that. As one progresses higher and higher towards Clear or above the rules become tighter and tighter. Completely aside from that, one will not retain their abilities if they violate the law or violate what is best for the greatest number, or what they have agreed to do. Despite your dramatic examples it is a worthy goal, and those people were obviously NOT working in the direction of such a goal, and it remains the goal of Dianetics. "Slatkin" would be expelled from Dianetics far faster than it took to convict him on that crime. I understand such a case in Dianetics would have their background investigated and all his crimes brought to light, not just the one he received a civil conviction on. By the way, the last time I checked an Almanac, psychology had 50,000 deaths a year for people receiving psychology. So, a lot needs to be done to attain "a world without insanity and crime". If you aren't working towards that, what are YOU doing? Spirit of Man 20:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * An "almanac"? How intriguing.  I wonder just what kind of almanac lists such dubious statistics; was it by any chance from that "reputable publisher" Bridge Publications?
 * No it was commercial in a book store. Your covert attack or backhand, on Bridge is noted. Spirit of Man 02:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * In any case, your assurance that any offenders would be quickly expelled is not only in contradiction to what has actually happened, it's an example of the "no true Scotsman]" fallacy. "Followers of Dianetics are helping to create a world without crime!" "What about these 'followers of Dianetics' who committed crimes on behalf of the organization, or for personal greed or personal lust?" "Since they committed crimes, they're not true followers of Dianetics." -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The simplicity is, the higher one goes, the more ethical one becomes. The Church of Scientology does not just excommunicate (as the Catholic Church does) but such a "Suppressive Person Declare" must include as part of it, a list of actions that the person can do and become an active part of the Church again. Being declared is not a punishment, it is part of a correction.  Actually it is the last in an increasingly complicated list of actions which can happen. Far more simple ethics actions usually happen.Terryeo 15:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry I don't accept your "fallacy" argument. I don't accept your true followers thing either. If a student, or preclear or scientologist is known to be violating any such crime they go off all courses, all auditing, all services until it resolved. It is allowed to be resolved. Resolution is the usual handling rather than punishment. I think you are uninformed and have substituted your own evil misconception for the truth. Do your homework. Spirit of Man 02:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * He's also confusing psychology and psychiatry. And Spirit, what you see as a worthy goal, I see as destroying individuality. Argue it on my talk page if you want, but the point: not everyone would agree that (a) that is the goal of Dianetics (b) that goal is good (c) the methods that you have chosen are good/effective. Tenebrous 03:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Psychology is a field of study. Psychiatry differs because it is Psychology + Medicine. A person who has become educated and holds a doctor degree in both is a Doctorate of Psychiatry.Terryeo 15:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You may be right on psychiatry vs psychology. What do you suppose it is world-wide instead of just in the USA for both? Spirit of Man 02:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * What "individuality" do you consider to be destroyed? That sounds like Menninger. Anybody that does art is crazy so the way to "help" people is to make them "crazy". That is itself insane, and a justification for atrocities like the holocaust. What is your idea of "help"? Spirit of Man 02:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to show the evolution of Terryeo's beliefs on the subject of labeling sites: Diff from Talk:Applied Scholastics. Back on Jan 28, Terryeo believed that classifying a site was original research: "I propose that stating it as a watchdog site is an act of original research, a conclusion drawn by an editor and inserted into an article which predispositions a reader's right to draw his own conclusions. Let the dang site speak for itself, okay?". However, it appears that now Terryeo is not willing to "Let the dang site speak for itself", but instead wishes to insert his own very original research into this article when it pushes his own POV. Vivaldi 07:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow, is that a criticsm? I thought we had gone on past that issue. If a site declares itself to be a "watchdog site" then, by golly, present it as a "watchdog site".  These are exactly the sort of conclusions that editors make which are better left to the reader to make thier own decisions. Our task is not to interpret information, our task is to present selected information from a vast sea of information. Terryeo 19:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow, are you still amazed that people find your hypocrisy and point it out?  I didn't realize we had ever "gone on past that issue", because last time I checked you hadn't apologized for you POV pushing and site labeling, and in fact you seem to have been still fighting for your labels quite recently above.  Are you now admitting that you shouldn't have labelled The Straight Dope a critical site?  The whole point of this argument is that your view that you have written about has changed.  In this very article you yourself labeled straightdope.com as a "critical site".  Besides the fact that I completely disagree with your assessment that The Straight Dope is a critical site about Scientology, I wanted to demonstrate that you have changed your views on the subject of site labeling in general when it pushes your own POV to do so.  So previously you wrote, "let the dang site speak for itself", but when you edited this site list a month later you labeled it as a critical site, instead of letting the site speak for itself.  You say one thing and do another.  see hypocrisy. Vivaldi 10:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow, let me understand exactly what you mean to say there, Vivaldi. In the main it looks like you are lecturing me. Stating that my point of view has assimilated new information and the result is that my point of view has changed.  In the main you seem to presenting; to change one's point of view is a hipocracy.  Is that what you are saying? Terryeo 15:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I never stated that your POV has assimilated new information, nor have I suggested that your POV has changed. I have no way of knowing if either of those statements you made are true.  Has your POV changed since 6 weeks ago?  What new information have you assimilated?   I only stated that you have instructed others to not label sites about 6 weeks ago, and now you are labeling sites yourself.  If you believe your earlier instructions to not label sites was indeed improper, then I wish you would please state your opinion on this matter clearly once and for all.  Or should we continually expect that you will "assimilate new information" and "change your POV" on this very simple matter every time it becomes convenient for you to do so? Vivaldi 06:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Holy crap, this thing is long
Content issues entirely aside from a moment: this article is huge, and that needs to be fixed right about now. Would a split to History of Dianetics be all right by everybody? That seems to cut the article more or less in half.

Sometime today I'm going to undertake a major grammar/style edit on this beast to see if I can't shorten it at least some without losing any content. Fair warning. Madame Sosostris 19:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * By all means, go for it, though I fear that the contentiousness on the talk page--which involves a lot of mania for citations and example and counter-examples--may make it difficult for any substantial copy editing to stand unreverted (though it is MUCH needed): you may want to take this editing project in stages to avoid having your work undone in one swoop. I'm against the "History of " spinoff--I don't see why the necessary content can't fit into a single article, most of which can be incorprooated into a narrative history. There's a lot of unnecessary material in the article as it stands. BTfromLA 19:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't worry, I always go by sections on things like this. I'm hoping not to step on too many toes by focusing on stuff like sentence structure rather than content, at least at first. We may find that the spinoff is necessary, though, so keep an open mind. Madame Sosostris 20:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm about halfway done -- got as far as the pseudoscience before throwing up my hands and running. Does anyone have any suggestions (or reprimands) before I continue? Madame Sosostris 22:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It amuses the hell out of me that you cut exactly the same things that I cut earlier and your edits stand while my edits seem to draw editors to revert them. I have even wondered if the first thing editors do is follow my edits and revert for no reason except that I edited. HEH! Terryeo 02:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * People don't like it when you just take information out without doing anything else. The trick is to rewrite extensively during the removal process, so that nobody wants to revert you, because the article is substantially better for what you've done. Madame Sosostris 02:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Can we establish stable datums to work from

 * Bridge Publications is a refutable, (though special interest) publishing house. Its publications may be quoted as a "primary source" okay? Terryeo 16:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I assume you mean "reputable", and I disagree. For something to be reputable, it must have good "repute". With whom, other than Scientologists, does Bridge have good repute? (On an unrelated note, data is the plural for datum.) --Davidstrauss 09:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It meets the Wiki criteria for "reputable". Spirit of Man 18:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That is why we discuss DavidStrauss. I do mean "reputable", of good reputation.  It is appropriate to understand that a publishing house can publish in a specialized area such as Lawn Care or Science Fiction or Buddhism, but be of good reputation.  Bridge Pubs does not, for example, mispell frequently nor do other mistakes that some small publishing houses do.  I would hope that within its area of specialization it can be considered to produce the information its author intended to publish, as the author intended it to be presented.  Can we agree on that? Terryeo 18:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Dianetics has a valid website which may be quoted as "primary source", okay? Terryeo 16:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * As the CoS seems to explain the topic, only Hubbard's work itself is a primary source for Dianetics. Most content on the website would be either secondary or CoS (not Dianetics) primary. --Davidstrauss 09:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Which is again, exactly why we discuss on discussion pages. The website is created and run by the Church of Scientology which is likewise responsible for the publication (through Bridge Pubs) of Hubbard's work.  I present the topic here for discussion for exactly the reason you point out, Davidstrauss.  To establish whether Hubbard's work is presented as he intended to present it on the Dianetic's website.  Are you saying "no?" or are you raising a question? Terryeo 18:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * We aren't using the CoS concept of primary source. The referenced website has the responsibility to represent the CoS and meets the Wiki criteria for primary source. Spirit of Man 18:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * People who practice Dianetics are in the minority but this article would not exist if they did not exist. Therefore that point of view must be included in the article in some manner. okay? Terryeo 16:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't matter if Wikipedia itself owed its existence to Dianetics, the articles aren't supposed to include non-neutral views. You are, of course, welcome to document the view of Dianetics practitioners. --Davidstrauss 09:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Davidstrauss, controversial topics are to fulfill WP:NPOV, as all articles. But with any controversial topic, be it Dianetics or be it "did Christ raise his body and rise from the dead?" there are going to be different points of view.  The articles are to, I believe, include non-neutral points of view, but described in encylopedic terms.  Rather than, "It is commonly known that Christ rose from the dead," a more encyclopedic presentation might be, "In the New Testement, John 4:14 states ...."  (some pertinent quote).  It would simply be impossible to not include what the author meant when he said, "Scientology would be a study of knowledge." (as an example).  The subject would not exist, we would not be writing, if Hubbard had not made statements.  You say his Point of View should not be included.  I believe WP:NPOV says otherwise, I believe WP:V says otherwise.  He had a point of view.  I believe you are mis-understanding the policies we edit by Davidstrauss.  This is not a criticsm, but a statement that I would like to talk over with you. Terryeo 18:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I have outlined a Minority Point of View. Would you, as a signer of the Poll above, care to outline a Majority Point View that fairly represents the Minority View? Spirit of Man 18:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * This section doesn't seem to have anything to do with stable sources. The critical sites against Scientology seem very stable, and Time's early-1990s article isn't going anywhere. What you seem to mean are "official" sources. Because many of us consider the official organization corrupt, we're reluctant to accept these "official" sources. --Davidstrauss 09:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Davidstrauss, it is perfectly okay that you consider the official organization corrupt, that's fine. Our task is to present published informations.  If you have an example of that, by all means present it.  It would be especially helpful in, perhaps, the Church of Scientology article. Or perhaps the Sea Org article.  But if we can get it sorted out about what is primary source,  what is good sources of information and what is secondary source and tertiary source, we can more effectively write these articles, okay? Terryeo 18:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Your personal point of view (curruption) has been respected in the article. That point of view should be fairly compared with the (uncorrupt) point of view as Wiki policy says. You post your citations and we post ours. We don't delete yours unfairly, and you don't delete ours unfairly. Does this make sense? Wiki policies are fairly stable, that is the idea of stable data here, what one can hold to for while. Spirit of Man 18:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)