User talk:Dooode

Welcome to the Wikipedia!
Hello, and Welcome to the Wikipedia, Dooode! Thanks for experimenting with the Wikipedia over on the David Singer, DC, article. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you have made, are considered vandalism. Here are a few perfunctory tips to hasten your acculturation into the Wikipedia experience: And some odds and ends: Cite your sources, Civility, Conflict resolution, How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Pages needing attention, Peer review, Policy Library, Verifiability, Village pump, and Wikiquette; also, you can sign your name on any page by typing four tildes: &#x7e;&#x7e;&#x7e;&#x7e;. Best of luck, Dooode, and most importantly, have fun! Ombudsman 22:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Take a look at the New contributors' help page, the Wikipedia Tutorial and the Manual of Style, and If you still need any help, you can always post your question at the Help Desk.
 * When you have time, please peruse The five pillars of Wikipedia and Assume good faith, but please keep in mind the unique style you brought to the Wiki!
 * Always be mindful of striving for NPOV, be respectful of others' POV, and remember your perspective on the meaning of neutrality is invaluable!
 * Explore, be bold in editing, and, above all else, have fun!

David Singer
Before completely rewriting the David Singer article, removing criticism, and filling it with unencyclopedic glowing praise, you need to discuss proposed changes with other editors at Talk:David Singer. Please do so before making further drastic alterations to the article. Thanks. wikipediatrix 14:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey Dooode, Welcome to Wikipedia. You are not alone in thinking the Singer article is unjustly slanted toward the negative. However you are part of a community and if you want your changes to be kept in place you need to engage the community by articulating your editorial reasoning. The 'Trix is right and you are gonna get in trouble if you don't start posting some explanation for your edits on the talk page... Slightlyright 15:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

you have exceeded the three-revert rule
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. wikipediatrix 14:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

False and misleading information on the David Singer entry
1. Section "Litigation" is based on an anonymous email supposedly copying/pasting the text from a newspaper article. The email derived from an anti-scientology newsgroup (alt.religion.scientology). This "litigation" does not concern David Singer Enterprises, nor does it make any reference to Dr. Singer. There was no litigation brought up against David Singer Enterprises nor Dr. David Singer himself. Therefore the Litigation section is a fabricated "fact".

2. The LA Times article has the one quote from Dr. Singer, which states SPECIFICALLY that he does not teach religion:  "Hubbard was a prolific writer and wrote on a multitude of subjects.  We do not, have not and will not make part of our program the teaching of any religion.", yet the focus of this article is the controversy surrounding Scientology, which is NOT the purpose of Dr. Singer's program.

Dr. Singer is not ashamed of being a Scientologist and his quote is true and appropriate, but it is obvious by the article that the author of this entry is attempting to create a controversial tie to Scientology where there is none. The quote on the company's website is most appropriate and is, in fact, Dr. Singer and his company's purpose: "You have the power and the responsibility to lead the people in your community away from needless pain and suffering, from unnecessary drugs and devastating surgery. Through Chiropractic, you provide a route and the means for your fellow man and woman to attain greatly improved health, vitality and happiness."

THAT is his purpose. THAT is what drives him and his staff.

It seems that the only concern with the authors and editors of this entry is with Scientology and not Dr. Singer or David Singer Enterprises. Dr. Singer is certainly a Scientologist and teaches some Hubbard Management Technology, but the Hubbard Management Technology is a small percentage, less than 1/3, of what he teaches.

Look at it this way, Dr. Singer is also a Jew (a fact not mentioned in the entry). Imagine if the entry only focused on the fact he is a Jew and went over all the "controversy" concerning Judism and Israel.

I'm not suggesting you delete out any reference to Scientology, just have some perspective. Do you want a BIOGRAPHY about Dr. Singer or do you want it about Scientology?

Dooode 11:30, 22 November 2006


 * Let's see here...


 * 1) Dr.Singer's connection to Scientology is primarily what makes him notable for a Wikipedia article.
 * 2)  The "jew" comparison is a red herring. If Dr. Singer is Jewish, it's true that controversies related to Judaism would be unconnected to him. But Singer IS a Scientologist, and he IS connected directly to WISE-related Scientology controversies. That's so obvious I shouldn't have to explain it.
 * 3)  Your statement "attempting to create a controversial tie to Scientology where there is none" cannot be taken seriously either, since there's a wealth of documented evidence for his tie to Scientology, and it's right there in the article but you keep trying to remove it.
 * 4) The link to the geocities page with the email is what's known as a "courtesy link". It is not the actual reference itself. The actual reference for the "Litigation" section is The Cincinnati Post, Wednesday, September 20, 1995. However, I've just re-examined it and I agree it seems to be off-topic and probably should be removed. wikipediatrix 16:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) I have no problem with having an extended "Biography" section that doesn't mention Scientology, but your version you've repeatedly tried to insert violates WP:NPOV in practically every sentence, sounding like a glowing advertisement. Even this post you've made on the talk page sounds like a ringing endorsement: "THAT is his purpose. THAT is what drives him and his staff"!
 * 6)  Incidentally, how do you claim to know what drives him and his staff? Only if you were Dr.Singer himself would this argument hold any water. (Are you?) wikipediatrix 16:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipediatrix:

Firstly, no. I am not Dr. Singer. Dr. Singer has asked me to speak on his behalf.

On your points above:

1. Were this same reasoning was taken with all those who are Scientologists, you wouldn't have Wikipedia. You would have http://home.scientology.org. To override Dr. Singer's accomplishments and purposes with the fact that he is a scientologist defeats the purpose of who he is and what he does within the chiropractic community.

His programs and seminars have three primary functions: 1) research and education on natural health care, 2) to train practitioners to market their practices, and 3) to train office managers to manage their practice competently (which is partially where "management by statistics" comes in). It's not any more complicated than that.

2. No, Dr. Singer IS a Jew, not IF he is a Jew. Dr. Singer himself makes several passing references to that fact here: http://www.davidsingerenterprises.com/media/ChangingPeoplesLives.wmv. Again, to make him responsible or to tie him in to controversies surrounding the Church of Scientology or WISE is the same as saying every Roman Catholic practitioner is tied in to what their church or priests do.

Further, I've never heard the phrase "a proselytizing front group for the church" when speaking of a christian mission into Russia (or wherever). This phrase is specifically slanted toward a negative bias and is not a neutral viewpoint, as you claim should exist.

3. Now that is an interesting point. Where is this "nationwide controversy", please? A single Dynamic Chiropractic article? Where is the article? Where does the quote come from? I read below this text table that "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable", but I don't see the references (or is this something we should not be seeing?? Excuse my ignorance!).

Regardless, a single newsletter is hardly a "nationwide controversy". Please let's put this in perspective. The fact that there are 1000+ DSE clients yearly conflicts with the idea that there even is a controversy. I'm sorry that the client number is not verifiable by you (but I am not going to send you a client list!).

4. Thank you for this.

5. I apologize that my edits appeared to be a "glowing advertisement". I removed the unverifiable "controversy" surrounding the article and added "Dr." where only "Singer" appeared. Dr. Singer is a licensed chiropractic doctor and deserves the title as would any doctor who's made his bones in the field.

Further, the line "Singer is also said to have been president of the New Jersey Chiropractic Research Foundation and a teacher for Parker Seminars." infers rumour or heresay. It's not "is also said to have been", Dr. Singer was president of the New Jersey Chiropractic Research Foundation (1974-75) and a teacher for Parker Seminars. Furthermore, he currently speaks at several Parker Seminars per year.

Dr. Singer requests that you remove that "Scientology" bar on the right of his entry, again because making Scientology the primary focus of the article detracts from his purpose and the purpose of his company. He is about educating and expanding the chiropractic field.

Personally, I liked his website quote: "You have the power and the responsibility to lead the people in your community away from needless pain and suffering, from unnecessary drugs and devastating surgery. Through Chiropractic, you provide a route and the means for your fellow man and woman to attain greatly improved health, vitality and happiness."

---

Lastly, the David Singer article has several broken links: Harry Wong, D.C., Dynamic Chiropractic, New Jersey Chiropractic Research Foundation, New Jersey Chiropractic Society, Chiropractics Economics.

PS: Happy Thanksgiving!

Dooode 17:27, 23 November 2006