User talk:GoodDamon/Archives/2009/October

Expertises on Scientology in Wikipedia
Hello GoodDamon,

on 050609 I wrote the following on the Scientology Talk Page which you had recommended:

Hello, I am proposing more references in the wiki-articles on Scientology. The ones I have added below are impartial, qualified, professional treatises on the subject. I feel that it must be possible for people using an encyclopedia and for all people using wikipedia, that when reading an article, they must be able to consult the available expertises on any subject and to be able to access them as easily and directly as possible in order to evaluate their information and attain the hightest possible level of truth by doing so. That is just as important to their own continuation of existence as to everybody elses. The analyses below have been undertaken from a plain research viewpoint, by learned people in related fields, who have no vested interests in the results. These qualities make these sources highly valuable to the public. In that perspective I would like to know if they can be added: 1) Scientology, Social Science and the Definition of Religion, by James A. Beckford. Ph.D, Prof Sociology 2) Scientology, Comparison with Religions of the East and West,  by Per-Arne Berglie, Prof History and Religion 3) Is Scientology a Religion?, by Allan W Black,  Associate Prof of Sociology 4) Scientology, a New Religion,  by M Darrol Bryant Ph.D, Prof Religion and Culture 5) Scientology, by Régis Dericquebourg, Prof of Sociology and Religion 6) Scientology and Contemporary Definitions of Religion in the Social Sciences,  by Frank K Flinn Ph.D,  Associate Prof of Sociology 7) Scientology and Contemporary Definitions of Religion in the Social Sciences, by Alejandro Frigerio, Ph.D, Associate Prof of Sociology 8) Scientology a True Religion,  by Urbano Alonso Galan, Doctor of Phylosophy and Licenciate in Theology, Gregorian University and Saint Bonaventure Pontifical Faculty Rome 9) Scientology, its True Nature, by Harri Heino, Prof of Theology 10) Is Scientology a Religion?,  by Dean M Kelley, Counsellor on Religious Liberty 11) The Reliability of Apostate Testimony about New Religious Movements, by Lonnie D Kliever, Dr.Phil, Prof of Religious Studies 12) Religious Philosophy, Religion and Church, by G C Oosthuizen, Th.D, Prof (retired) Dept of Science and Religion 13) The Religious Nature of Scientology, by Geoffrey Parrinder, Ph.D, Prof Emeritus 14) The Church of Scientology,  by J Pentikainen, Ph.D 15) Scientology, its Historical and Morphological Frame,  by Dario Sabbattuci, Prof of History and Religion 16) The Relationship between Scientology and other Religions,  by Fumio Sawada, Eighth Holder of the Secrets of Yu-itsu Shinto 17) Scientology and Religion, by Christiaan Vonck, Ph.D, Rector Faculty for Comparative Study of Religions 18) Apostates and New Religious Movements and Social Change and New Religious Movements,  by Bryan Ronald Wilson, Ph.D 19) Scientology, An Analysis and Comparison of its Religious Systems and Doctrines,  by Bryan R. Wilson, Ph.D. Awaiting reply, Taodeptus (talk) 17:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)Taopeptus

I looked for an answer to this request, but apart from it dissapearing, nothing new came. When I had asked you where to find the answer you wrote me: "You did get answers, but either they weren't the answers you were looking for, or you didn't see them. I'm afraid that after you posted on the talk page there, one of the other editors carefully reviewed your proposed sources and found they were either written by and for the Church of Scientology, self-published online, or written by authors whose academic credentials are missing or suspect. Quantity in this regard is far less important than quality; Wikipedia should use the highest quality academic and news sources. Oh, and please stop copying and pasting this list verbatim without context or formatting, as it's very difficult to read. If you would like to contribute to Wikipedia, you should learn some of the syntax it uses for formatting text, so your list is more legible. For instance, you could use hash signs to create a numbered list as follows: First item Second item Third item Using formatting makes for much easier reading. Finally, use tildes at the end of your comments to sign them. It should look like this when you're typing it: Taodeptus (talk) 17:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC). Wikipedia automatically converts four tildes into your full signature." --GoodDamon 19:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

When I wanted to reply you were absent, but on 1309 you where there again, so I wrote: Thanks for the advice on syntax, which is an important part of writing, for example because one should make it as easy as possible for a reader to identify the information. I wasnt totally neglectful of organisation though, as I compiled the list myself and before leaving it on the talk page I tried to improve it per the rules for references with academic theses, like alfabetical order.

As to my request for advice, I still dont know how or where to view any answers on my request to add academic references. Where are these answers or their "wiki-backup copies"?

From your answer above I would also like to know the following things: - how to get (to) the details on the non-academic nature of the works proposed (19) as I get it that none of them should qualify as academic - then I have to ask for the details or their location on the net with regards to suspect or lacking credentials of their authors - also inform me please on how the other (non-church) works published in the wiki article on Scientology should concord with the requisite you mention of being of highest quality academic and news sources - then I still dont see the problem when (any) articles are self-published, as they still are secondary sources - finally, how is it that articles by people outside an organisation, but published by the organisation, cannot be used. The AMA and APA for example have articles by others and their members published in Wiki.

Thanx very much for you help.

Taodeptus (talk) 17:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)Taodeptus

When will you be able to answer my questions? Or is there somebody else in Wikipedia who should take care of those questions? I am looking forward to a conclusion of this matter and you probably too. It is no use for us to spend our time debating about the subject of Scientology (nor Dianetics, as we did in the past), because we simply don't know enough about it. The ”knowledge” about it in Wiki is deficient for probably the same reason. So I am looking forward to the middle-path of scientifically acceptable external renditions of the subject. The people on the above list are not perfect but they are the right candidates to resolve disputes and prevent misinformed readers. They have studied it for years, some even longer, and have the background, intelligence and impartiallity to evaluate it properly.

Taodeptus (talk) 17:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)Taodeptus


 * Taodeptus, I'm afraid I can't read the above very well. You really need to learn Wiki syntax in order for it to display appropriately, and please stop re-copying everything I write; I'm well aware of what I've previously written, and it just clutters up the page. Please also stop adding new sections to this page. Instead, edit in an existing section. That way, you'll be able to see the syntax other people use and learn it for yourself.


 * Now then... In answer to your questions, I am not the person you should be bringing this up to, and my talk page isn't the proper forum for determining whether or not your sources are legitimate. I'm not even heavily involved in the Scientology pages anymore, and have semi-retired from Wikipedia. Furthermore, to be blunt, your responses take so long to arrive that this conversation is essentially useless. You have to be willing to put in the time to post a comment, get a reply, and post another comment in return in a reasonable amount of time.


 * I do have a few recommendations for you:
 * Read this link: Reliable sources - This page describes in detail what Wikipedia does and does not regard as a reliable source. Rule of thumb: If YOU can't supply the credentials to verify that your source is legitimate, most people will assume it is not.
 * Post further discussions here: Talk:Scientology - This is the discussion page for the Scientology article. Make specific recommendations on content. Do not simply copy and paste your list of authors and their works onto the page.
 * Learn the syntax for lists. Should you decide to create a list of these works anyway, you will avoid annoying anyone by formatting it using the # sign or the * sign at the beginning of each line. Wikipedia will automatically convert lists of sentences that begin with a # into numbered lists, and * into non-numbered lists. Look at the gobbledygook you produced above, and compare it to how well-structured my paragraph is. Proper syntax makes it much more readable.
 * I hope this helps. -- Good Damon 21:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Merry Columbus Day 2 all and 2 all a goodnite, beware of large windstorms bearing gifts
Greetings fellow WikiProject Oregon member, time to uncork a fine wine as it is once again time for the Collaboration of the Week. As always, thank you to those who helped out the last few weeks improving the Oregon Zoo, the Rasheed Wallace, Willamette Bridges, and the Vanport articles. This week we have by request Jim Paxson and Films shot in Oregon. The later can easily be improved just by adding some sources. As always, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. And with Halloween fast approaching, remember that pennies really suck as a “treat” and you can expect toilet paper and or eggs on your residence for your “trick”. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)