Talk:Scientology and Me

Content
This article mentions only a fraction about the programme and much about its controversy. It's ridiculous. - Killioughtta  T /C  01:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So get typing.WindsorFan 21:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I haven't had time to type it all up. Expand it yourself; i'm out. ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ slurp me! 22:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This is utter propaganda! Its totally one sided, totally biased, based on opinion and designed to influence people to think a certain way. I suggest the whole thing either be deleted or a serious rewrite. Chrisp7 20:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Read the message i left you. ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ slurp me! 22:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, i think i'll post another interjection here. Firstly, the Scientology references i used for the background before the documentary, because the Sweeney version does not include it. Secondly, the article is not finished, and does not by any means claim to be a complete article. The idea that it's "designed to influence people to think a certain way" i find odd -- i'm not trying to change anyone towards thinking any way, but reporting it; i refuse to think this is "Propaghanda", because all i've done is report the information impartially and, aside from relating that CoS says this, and the image says this is all i've said. ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ slurp me! 23:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Chrisp7. This was clearly written by someone who is strongly supportive of the Church of Scientology's point of view. A tremendous amount of information has been either played down, twisted, or left out, particularly concerning the topic of Sweeney being followed. A very significant part of the documentary was focused on that. This is extremely biased and needs a complete overhaul by someone with a neutral viewpoint on the subject.68.75.29.127 (talk) 22:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I also agree with Chrisp7, the entry is so poorly constructed it aught to be removed until a replacement can be put in place. - 90.192.107.58 (talk) 23:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Superkq
I think this article is biased, there is no comments about the church of scientology stalking the journalist neither comments about the Fair Game which is a major topic on the documentary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.64.133.93 (talk) 14:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Refs
16 of the 36 sources are from the Church of Scientology, mostly from "BBC Panorama: Exposed". I find that a bit unsettling. I doubt that "BBC Panorama: Exposed" is a neutral source. WP:RS Suggest finding other sources or removal of info sourced by the Church of Scientology. Jumping  cheese  03:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Panorama:Exposed is a scientology site (it says so itself), but when the citations are used they are to illustrate the CoS side of the story, just as the BBC citations are used to illustrate the BBC side of the story. Ideally we need sources which are not from either of them.--AlexCatlin (talk) 03:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

NPOV problems and sourcing problems

 * 1) The article depends too heavily on a Church of Scientology type of Fair Game tactic video produced to discredit the original program, and cites this as a primary source, instead of using secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 13:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) And in general, the article relies way too heavily on primary sources such as the documentary itself and the black pr Scientology video - and does not have enough sourcing to independent, secondary sources like books, magazines, newspaper articles, etc. Cirt (talk) 13:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC).


 * Most of the documentary/CoS website citations are for the step by step description of minor and semi significant events that happened before and during filming. I dont think we are going to get any reliable 3rd party sources for that, so either the article is going to sit here with the neutrality label or pre-filming and filming descriptions without other sources need to go. --AlexCatlin (talk) 22:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that we should strive to avoid direct citations from either CoS websites or any other primary source material. Cirt (talk) 11:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright I've removed the descriptions of the events from both parties since they are completely unverifiable from non-primary sources and are not really that important to the article. More important is a description of what the documentary actually contains, which I have left in for now since I think there will be reliable 3rd party sources for that around.--AlexCatlin (talk) 13:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I've removed the remaining CoS links by linking instead to our (in theory) neutral article on the subject. BJ Talk 23:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Google video link
I removed a link to the video on Google Video from the External Links section because I couldn't prove that it's not a copyright violation. Enviroboy TalkCs 00:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There is an BBC archive and this link should work, although not as straightforward as Google Video. AndroidCat (talk) 00:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks good. You can put the Google link back up if you don't think that it's an issue.  I realize now that BBC releases these online anyway. Enviroboy TalkCs 14:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Linking to a 3rd party who is (maybe) making a "copyright violation" isnt againt the rules. Including the materials in Wikipedia itself would be.  Wikipedia cannot be responsible for the content of 3rd party sites.
 * The link to the video should remain. Wageslave (talk) 01:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The Google Video link to the "Response Video" is a dead link when checked (27/01/14) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.232.174.214 (talk) 21:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Shawn Lonsdale
I'm wondering why Shawn Lonsdale redirects to this article? Seems to not be the same thing. One would think Shawn Lonsdale would link to a biography of the indevidual. Proxy User (talk) 17:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * See Talk:Shawn_Lonsdale. At some point, perhaps when the coroner's report is released, the issue might be revisited. AndroidCat (talk) 18:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Why is the reference tag up?
Seems to be well sourced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.206.15.242 (talk) 21:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Additional sources

 * Some additional sources at links above. :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 21:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Some additional sources at links above. :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 21:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Please check the presenters field in the infobox
Thanks, Shane (talk) 17:53, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 05:35, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2017
2A02:C7D:31BB:E200:386B:C423:4306:CF73 (talk) 20:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:49, 14 March 2017 (UTC)