Talk:Flag Building

Incredible ! An anonomous editor is linking to a personal website which has stored a past page of a newsgroup and the editor presents information into the article based on a snippet that appeared in a newsgroup and is stored on a personal website ! Incredible ! Removing that "humoungous rundown" information. What a terrible source. WP:RS is the guideline which disallows that citation, while WP:CITE states what can be allowed and WP:V states the intent of reliable information. Terryeo 00:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Is that more or less incredible than the fact that this article states, matter of fact-ly, that a building in Florida contains both a time machine AND an infinite pit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.231.158 (talk) 18:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Personal / Partisan websites and their use
WP:RS (reliable sources) addresses the issue of using personal websites within Wikipedia articles. They may be used, with care, in articles about themselves. However, when they are used as sources of information for articles except about themselves, issues arise about the quality of information they present. Because they are created and maintained by a single individual with no responsibility except to the thoughts of the website owner, as monitored by the legal system, WP:RS states: ''Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources''. Some exterior pointing links within the article point to personal websites.
 * [1] points to which is a personal website and can not be used within an article.
 * [2] points to which is a personal website and can not be used within an article
 * [4] points to which is a personal website and can not be used within an article. All three links should be removed from within the article to be presented in the "external links" section. Terryeo 03:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * With the added note that many web sites used as reference sources can be verified to contain verifiable information. The Skeptic Tank should be used to store copies of the Power Building floor plans published by The Village Voice so that they can be assured of remaining on the Internet forever and be linked to for this Wiki article. Damotclese (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

ChrisO's introduction of a newsgroup's support
User:ChrisO seems to prefer that editors stand down from the concensus reached over a long period of time at WP:RS. While the concensus of editors broadly states that no newsgroup can be used in any article, User:ChrisO not only disagrees, but takes it upon himself to test editor concensus by including such a link at [1], citing to a, a personal website's publication of a personal opinion, a "week in review" of a newsgroup. This sort of extremely bad citation happens again, and again, and again in these articles. The scum citations from unreliable, unattributable sources are cited again and again. Personal opinion which has not been published by any reliable source ever, anywhere, is cited IN GOOD FAITH by EXPERIENCED wikipedia editors, such as User:ChrisO's editing difference which he summated by saying about his off-concensus edit, 00:50, 21 February 2006 ChrisO (Talk | contribs) (citations added, some more info), thus explaining his defience of WP:V which ignores WP:RS which specifically states:
 * Bulletin boards, wikis and posts to Usenet
 * Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as primary or secondary sources.
 * How clear can a defience of editor concensus be ? This is not a personal attack, but I have stated this situation more strongly than I normally do state these very bad citations. Wikipedia does not allow newsgroup citations.  This weekly summation of a newsgroup post, this personal opinion which appears as a summation, this personal opinion which is itself held on a personal website is in defience, direct defience Wikipedia's consenus of editors, WP:RS. Terryeo 08:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your concern... the week in review is, of course, a summary of newspaper articles as well as other things and this is why it was cited. I agree that it's better to cite the original news articles so I've done so now, as well as updating the article. -- ChrisO 09:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * "The scum citations", Terryeo? Pray tell, what is a "scum citation"?  I want to make sure I clear that particular phrase so that I know exactly what you mean when you call something a "scum citation". -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS is a guideline, not a policy
Again, Terryeo treats Reliable Source as a policy as evidenced by his diatribe written above. It is a guideline and editors have judgemental leaway. Terryeo, please stop your tendentious arguments.--Fahrenheit451 15:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

A couple of points mr Fahrenheit451 (your screen name relects your philosoph?)
 * You have called my statements above which resulted in a better citation as a "diatribe". There would be better ways to make a point than by using that word.
 * You have attempted to defend an edit which has already been changed.
 * You have stated something about guidelines and their relationship to editing, implying guidelines need not be paid attention to. While I know otherwise, I'm not going to attempt to convince you.
 * You have stated that I have argued. I have not argued.  I have stated.
 * You have requested that I no longer post such statements. :) Terryeo 17:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This page is for discussion of the article, not for making insinuations about another editor's screen name. Don't bother replying to me about it, just straighten up. This is the precisely the sort of behavior that got you banned. wikipediatrix 18:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Come on people, be nice. This is an article concerning the church of scientology.  I would like to remind you that neutral and factual statements about scientology are the same as slander and libel in the church's eyes.  That means, there should be no need for diatribe seeing as the church is already scared of the truth.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.217.109.71 (talk) 20:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

New source
New source. Cirt (talk) 19:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Floor Plans and Photographs
There are full floor plans and photographs of this building available on The Village Voice which should be referenced in the article. The Voice is considered a primary news source however it is uncertain whether the references in the form of floor plans and photographs will always be on The Voices server. They should be copied to multiple sources and multiply referenced in this Wikipedia article. Scientology Super Power Building Secrets Damotclese (talk) 16:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That looks good, an external link and also a reference to the floor plans and photographs should cover it, though we should ensure that there is more than just the one site at The Village Voice that has the information in the event it is removed. Thanks! Damotclese (talk) 19:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced text
I reverted the unsourced text proposed by 186.155.211.37. The Scientology web site is not a legitimate reference, and the Tampa Bay link does not support 186.155.211.37's proposed text. Damotclese (talk) 15:59, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

PR Advertising? Maybe.
"In a report that featured the opening in 2013, church spokesman Ben Shaw stated, “Super Power is a series of spiritual counseling processes designed to give a person back his own viewpoint, increase his perception, exercise his power of choice, and greatly enhance other spiritual abilities.”"

I'm not so sure that that is public relations advertising when it's posted to Wikipedia. Yes, it is advertising and public relations lies when it is issued by an owner/operator/agent of the enterprise, but wouldn't this count as useful information about the unfounded claims that the enterprise makes? Outrageous claims are informative when made by the individuals who are selling them. Just wondering. Damotclese (talk) 15:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * It could (and should) be better worded, but I agree that it's worth including as a statement of the church's viewpoint. Prioryman (talk) 16:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * On the gripping hand, there's no lack of glowing, gushing, unfounded claims by the enterprise to be found which covers the extant "Flag" suit of business offices. I suspect that anybody researching "Flag" are probably already well aware of such claims. Damotclese (talk) 16:13, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

A very small point: Ambiguity / difficult to parse description in the "Project History" section re: Code Enforcement Board
I am confused by what was intended by "leniency and decimating fines" in the line which begins: "It asked the city to reduce its fine by 90 percent, to reflect its "good faith" effort in bringing the building to code, but the city's resident-led Code Enforcement Board, which has a record of leniency and decimating fines ..."

Should that be "a record of leniency and fine reduction" or "lenience in the face of such efforts" or something similar?

"leniency" and "decimating fines" seem like opposites to me, though I suppose it depends on whether the decimating is to the fines, or the subject of those fines :) If it means a history of reducing the amount of assessed fines on appeal, I think that would be a clearer phrasing.

No snark here!

timbo (talk) 21:09, 8 December 2020 (UTC)