User talk:Justanother/Archive3

From elsewhere

 * First, I reiterate that a touch assist is designed to help the spirit in its relationship to the body and that it is a spiritual, not "scientific", thing. Spiritual issues are subjective and are not addressed by science, they are outside the realm of science. Unfortunately Scientism is the religion of the day and spiritual concepts are held up to the standard of science when perhaps it should be the other way around (if it were that way perhaps we would not have nuclear weapons scattered all over the world just waiting to fall into the very wrong hands, if they are not already there).


 * On the Dianetics issue, I can only offer my opinion. In 1950 (and likely similarly today too), the subject of mental healing was composed of schools of thought such as Freudian or Jungian that were based on unproven theories of behavior or structure, while science and engineering (and the efforts and sacrifice of millions of men and women) had just won WWII (the atomic bomb, radar, the proximity fuze) and Americans were enjoying a new level of technology in their everyday lives (refrigerators, air conditioning, automatic transmissions, television, etc.) I think LRH considered himself more an engineer than a philosopher and he cast his theory of the mind's workings into a technological mold. This is not to say that his theories of behavior or structure were any more proven than Freud's or Jung's and it is certainly possible that, in 1950, LRH was trying to cast Dn as a science to give it added credibility. He may well have gone overboard if he claimed that he had created a science in the strictest sense of the word (I am not sure he did but I remember DMSMH as being a bit over-the-top on that issue and this is all my opinion anyway). However, it is important to remember that the theories that Ron advanced related to the engram being held in the cell and other physical aspects of Dianetic theory were alway labeled as no more than hypothesis. Even in 1950, Dianetics was a "science of the mind", not of the physical universe. Further, once LRH moved into the area of the spirit with Scientology, the "pseudoscience" claim becomes even more moot; Dianetics is still "science of the mind" but now the mind is clearly a spiritual construct. And finally, what do we mean by a "science of the mind"? We don't mean hard science, we mean something with laws and rules that you can learn and apply, another valid definition of the word science: "Methodological activity, discipline, or study". No pseudoscience. And why is it compared to gravity? Here is something from my user page on the subject of Scientology and science: "However, it works and it is reproducible. If I apply the principle of the ARC triangle to my relationship with another person, I get the uniform result of improved understanding between us and a more harmonious relationship. The fact that people can "naturally" do this does not invalidate the 'law of ARC' no more than the fact that people can "naturally" fall down invalidates the law of gravity." --Justanother 14:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Your readings
So what conclusions have you come to after all that reading and listening? --Justanother 00:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Regarding the 'tech' itself, about 80 percent of it is factually incorrect and/or arbitrary, self-contradictory and meaningless, and couched in unnecessary Hubbardese jargon and preposterous axioms to conceal this meaninglessness. As for the other 20 percent, there are enough things that ARE true and that DO work, that Hubbard could have founded a legitimate program around these things, instead of choosing to go the direction he did with it.


 * Of this 20 percent, however, most of it I agree with only because it's obvious and not because it's any great revelation, such as the supposition that survival is the goal of all life. I do agree with the importance of a gradient scale approach, the usefulness of three-dimensional models in experiential learning, the basic concept of an engram, etc., but these are concepts that were appropriated by Hubbard, not originated by him.


 * I even agree with the basics of Scientology Ethics, believe it or not, even though many anti-Scientologists find this to be one of their most frightening and chilling aspects. But the concept of moral relativism didn't originate with Hubbard, either. wikipediatrix 14:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you perhaps see how I might feel that your believing "about 80 percent of it is factually incorrect and/or arbitrary, self-contradictory and meaningless, and couched in unnecessary Hubbardese jargon and preposterous axioms to conceal this meaninglessness. [emphasis added]" might equate to the tech "making little sense to you"? So I stand by what I said; You are trying to be fair with material that makes little sense to you. Not condescending at all but a simple statement of fact; assuming that you are trying to be fair which, I for one, believe you are. I never said that editors had not read the material; I said it made little sense to them. --Justanother 14:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I understand the tech just fine. It is by my understanding of it that I know that it is incorrect. (That I think in strictly scientific terms helps also.) The "If you think it's BS, then you just don't understand it" argument is the defense mechanism of apologists for all religions. You continue to misinterpret me as saying Hubbard's work makes no sense to me - I haven't said that. It makes perfect internal sense, relative to its own constructs. But something can "make sense" and still be dead wrong and batshit crazy. When Hubbard says "Reality is the agreed-upon apparency of existence", I am not suffering from a lack of understanding, I am suffering from an unwillingness to go along with Hubbard spouting such axioms that are mere philosophical meanderings at best and pseudoscience at worst. wikipediatrix 22:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I think that we will continue to disagree on your "understanding" of Scientology. If you do not see the truth in that axiom then you do not see it, and if are unwilling to find the truth in it then you are unwilling. We make up our own minds and you have made up yours. But apropos of that quote, compare the "reality" of Scientology on the internet to the "reality" of Scientology among Scientologists (and no, we are not all brainwashed, that argument too is a "defense mechanism") to the "reality" of Scientology among theologicians. Three very different realities based on three very different sets of agreements. You chose that quote well indeed. --Justanother 22:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It's nothing personal against Scientology. I could pick apart any other religion for scientific inaccuracy just as easily. I only bring all this up because you asked. And I never said anything about "brainwashing". (That topic comes up when discussing the Church itself, and its Orgs. So far I have only been talking about Hubbard's writings.) wikipediatrix 23:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I asked and I have no problem with your answers. They reflect your reality and, without being critical, it seems the reality of a skeptic. I simply present the concept that someone that does not believe it is 80% meaningless and the other 20% is trivial and derivative; that such a person might do a better job of presenting the beliefs and practices of Scientology in an "understandable" manner, meaning as understood and as understandable by another, than a skeptic that, at heart, sees it as nonsense, even if the skeptic honestly desires to be fair. The brainwashing reference was only to make my point that Scientologists can have a valid "reality" of what Scientology is; as valid as "netizens" or theologians or Christian fundamentalists or atheists or . . .; for "Reality is the agreed-upon apparency of existence". --Justanother 23:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * At least you put "Reality" in qualifying quotation marks to indicate the relativism involved. Hubbard didn't. As with Buddhists, New Agers, Robert Anton Wilson devotees, etc., it's hard to have a discussion with anyone who maintains that there is more than one reality. It makes for an instant "out" in any debate. Who needs an encyclopedia when no matter what any article says, it's doomed to conflict with someone else's "agreed upon reality"? It's a real conversation-killer. wikipediatrix 00:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

To the left. Well, the nature of reality has been tackled by philosophers through the ages. Hubbard says reality, even down to the physical universe, is a "artifact" composed of agreement. The concept that the universe has an ambivalent existence is not unique to Hubbard nor is it scoffed at by philosophers or scientists. Only by putting strict limits on the nature of reality can it be fit into a box. Those limits are artificial and uh, limiting (need a better word but oh well). Point is about Scientology is that you DO something with the knowledge. It gives you power and that is the best test of the truth of a piece of knowledge, does it enpower you. Since I know that "reality" is agreement and I know the theory of the three universes, I have, IMO, a tool that I find of benefit in my life and in my dealings with others. And that is what Scientology is really about. --Justanother 01:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Justanother, I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. If you don't believe in it too, then you just don't understand the batshit crazy science behind it like I do.  Until you understand the FSM tech you just won't ever be at my level of understanding of batshit science. 67.190.61.6 16:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, parodies are certainly fun and that is a great one. But we are talking philosophy here, not the science in the strict sense that the unwitting followers of Scientism think describes all that can be described. We are discussing things which cannot be "proven" except to the degree that they allow one to predict and affect human behavior and, guess what, Scientology does that perhaps better than any other theory of human behavior extant, obviously IMO. The Scientology philosophy serves as a model for human experience; models are theoretical frameworks that seek to describe some phenomena that can be observed and allow predictions to be made. We can observe that someone got mad at us; the Scientology model can tell us why and how to "repair" the situation, it is predictive. This is not about the physical universe, this is a spiritual undertaking. If you are not interested in the spirit then, for god's sake, why bother with Scientology? Guess that is something I don't quite get. --Justanother 17:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I have to laugh cause I just came up with a great analogy for what goes on here in these POV areas such as Scientology. Present company excluded, of course. To be blunt, a lot of it is fanboy shit. "My Scientology rok0rz." "No way, lamer, Scientology suxx0rz." Both these fanboiz, like many fanboiz in other subjects, edit in an immature and disruptive manner. Hopefully, since we have mad skillz, we can see that there is another position to take and edit appropriately. --Justanother 17:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Are those comments directed at me, or to 67.190.61.6 ? wikipediatrix 18:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The tone is directed at the IP. I think you and I understand that we are discussing philosphy. I really don't know your stand on the spirit in general but I get the sense that you have spiritual beliefs, but that is, of course, just an assumption on my part. My comments about Scn being a model are a point that I would make also to you, however. --Justanother 18:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * But are you a practicing Scientologist (if so, may I ask where on the Bridge you are?) or just someone who is very interested in the subject? I would think to acknowledge that Scientology is just a "model" would be considered giving too much of the Game away as far as the Church is concerned. wikipediatrix 20:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I am very much a practicing Scientologist in that I have integrated Scientology into my world view and the use of it is a natural part of my life. But I could say the same of science or math, I have integrated them into my world view and the use of them is a natural part of my life. I am also a trained auditor, years on staff, spent plenty on the Bridge over the many years. I've stood on picket lines as a Scientologist; etc. I don't reveal more particulars here.

Interesting that you would think that calling Scn a "model" gives something away. LRH describes it that way from the get-go in DMSMH. I don't have DMSMH here but he always says that all this business about engrams being cellular memory is just a theory; one that seems to explain his results. You can check that if you have a copy handy.

What this is really about is how does Scientology fit into one's world view. For me Scn has always been a tool, something that is "less than" me; i.e. it has to fit into my worldview, not the other way round. Some people, however, take Scientology, or what they envision as Scientology, to be the entirety of their world view. That is not Scientology's fault although it might be Hubbard's and they can perhaps be forgiven for that as Hubbard would have that Scn is, by definition, the study of knowledge, and would constitute the entirety of everything. But if that is what he created then it had its growth frozen while still an infant when Hubbard decided that the "workable path" was more important than development of his "new" philosophy. I can understand that viewpoint although I am less than convinced. I can understand that someone would feel that this world needs Scientology so much right now that development can wait; right now we have a big mess to clean up. I applaud such people for their dedication and their effort. But even given what I said previous, I don't think Hubbard wanted you to subvert your viewpoint to his (there is another "sub" word I really want here, subsume?). He wanted you to try it and see if it worked for you. The trouble is that many people are "intellectually lazy" and once they find something to believe in they are done thinking. Again, the structured nature of Scientology lends itself to that but it is not part of Scientology. Most of the problems and excesses of Scientology are just the nature of people and of groups; you can even see them here, in this group. Hubbard said that no group, including Scn, could be trusted with justice.

I should admit my own level of "intellectual laziness". I don't want to do all the work, reading, and research that Hubbard did. I like what he came up with and, to the degree that it is "true for me", I will use it. I also use the work of other philosophers and writers that I come across and that have meaning for me. I am constantly looking to flesh out my framework of reality.

Interesting also that you think there is some game I would give away. One of the basic principles of Scn theory of games is that it requires "determinism for self and no (or limited) determinism for others"; self-determinism. When playing chess you play your pieces and follow your stategy. The second you start taking responsibility for both sides, looking for a win-win, the game goes away; you are practicing "pan-determinism". For example, debate is a game; seeking agreement as to what is is not. What game do you think Scn is playing that I might give away? --Justanother 21:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hubbard would call Dianetics/Scientology a theory on one page and then say it's a proven science on the next. I don't think the CoS of today would like the inference that it's merely a model (in a scientific sense), since that sounds too much like saying it's just a theory. That's all I meant by "giving the game away". Anyway, your statement "For me Scn has always been a tool, something that is "less than" me; i.e. it has to fit into my worldview, not the other way round" is quite refreshing, because it must mean, then, that there are some elements of Hubbard's teachings that you do not accept. I'd be genuinely interested in hearing about what parts of Scientology you disagree with, or at least have no use for. I'd also be curious to know if there are any elements of the CoS that part of you distrusts on some level, maybe even fears - Miscavige? The Sea Org? The RTC? It sounds like your experience with Scientology has been a pleasant and rewarding one, but surely you understand that it has been a total nightmare for many, many others, and seemingly through no fault of their own. wikipediatrix 22:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I would not call any even partially workable model of human existence "mere". Regarding the rest of your question, perhaps another time. For now, this: Scientology = Hubbard = Hubbard's claims = The Church of Scientology = Miscavige is a case of A=A=A=A=A, abberation. Both in the case of Scientologists and the case of critics alike. Sanity is the ability to discern differences and similarities. I like to think that I am sane on the subject of Scientology. I don't fit in well with zealots on either side. I probably understand both but sympathize more (but not exclusively) with Scn zealots; their motives are clear to me (the "world without war, etc." thing). I regret that Scientology no longer seems to have one of Hubbard's most endearing qualities; the ability to laugh at himself. Hubbard was always one to be aware of and point out those aforementioned differences. --Justanother 00:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The reason I bring these things up is that it brings us back to where we started this discussion, which is why I edit the way I do. Although I don't think anti-Scientology zealots automatically deserve "equal time" just for their own sake, I do think that it's appropriate that articles be weighted in such a way that reflects the Church's long history of misdeeds. I think it's common sense that once an entity reaches such infamy, it can't be glossed over in the interest of "appearing fair". This is why the Ku Klux Klan article doesn't devote equal space to detailing their personal philosophy, beliefs and tenets. This is why no one cries POV with O.J. Simpson's article mentioning Nicole's murder in the very first paragraph. There comes a common-sense point when it is no longer POV to call a serial killer a serial killer, or to call a criminal a criminal, etc. Clearly, Operation Snow White and Lisa McPherson alone are enough to put the CoS over that line of obviousness. wikipediatrix 19:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Snow White was an (illegal) error in judgement with the perpetrators tried as criminals and tossed out of Church leadership positions. What more do you want there? Lisa was a tragedy that should never have happened and that the Church handled with an out-of-court settlement to the family. Maybe you want more there but OK. Scientology is mostly "infamous" on the internet. Many non-Scientologist think well of Scientology. Scientology has faults and those faults may be important but those faults are not "Scientology" and they only "fully define Scientology" for the critical zealot. Scientology is practiced 24/7 by hundreds of thousands of people. What that is and describing that is certainly more important that describing the occasional or habitual misdeeds of the a few members of the organization. I say more important but not exclusive. Go ahead and do a great job describing those misdeeds but realize that you are describing misdeeds of a few, not Scientology itself or the actions of the many. --Justanother 20:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Believe me, I know, I know. It's not a conspiracy theory. The article for Watergate doesn't blame the entire Republican party for the misdeeds of its leader and a few cronies, but nevertheless, it happened on their watch and the buck had to stop somewhere. I think most readers are astute enough to know that Operation Snow White did not involve all Scientologists everywhere, en masse, and that the average Scientologist has never even heard of McPherson.


 * I agree that it's unfortunate that Scientology itself has to get dragged into the misdeeds of the Orgs, but that's the way it's set up by the CoS itself: you know and I know that anyone can get some Bibles and open a "Christian Church" on any street corner and preach any wild variations on it they like, but no one is allowed to take Hubbard's books and open a "Scientology Church" next door and preach variants of it without getting sued into oblivion. The who, where, and how of practicing Scientology is so micro-managed by the Church itself that it and its Tech are inextricably linked. And it's a shame, but... "this is the way he wants it. Well, he gits it." wikipediatrix 21:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. I just looked at the Roman Catholic Church to see how the sex scandals of the recent years may have affected the tone of the article. It is presented, certainly, but does not seem to have much affected the tone of the article; the RC Church is not presented as a massive cover organization for pedophiles and pederasts. It is presented in context. And the fact that it seems to have been pervasive and covered up for years by Church heirarchy, again, does not seem to alter the fact that it is presented in context. Your Watergate example is also a good one. Look at the Republican Party article. Watergate only gets two passing mentions and those are not even linked to the Watergate article. So you see my point? All I ask for is context. The Scientology article should tell what Scientology is, especially what it is to the many many that practice it daily. To do otherwise is a disservice both to practicing Scientologists and to the readers of wikipedia. Present the "bad side" too; but not at the expense of the other. ps I doubt anyone could take a bunch of Bibles and open a Roman Catholic Church and call their church "Roman Catholic" if it were heretical according to the RC Church. I am sure they would be hearing from the RC Church's version of Helena Kobrin. Plenty of people use Hubbard's ideas in their practices or their group; they just can't call it Scientology. Example: Traumatic incident reduction, I could give you lots more. --Justanother 21:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As I said, the difference is that the CoS micro-manages what goes on with its members and in its Orgs; the Republican Party does not. The Catholic Church micro-manages to some degree (though not as much as the CoS), which is why their article reflects greater culpability as an organization in general. And the Catholic pedophile priest incidents are roughly comparable to Scientology's Gabriel Williams incident, which you must admit is hardly being belabored on Wikipedia. If the Catholic Church comes up with their own Operation Snow White and Operation Freakout tomorrow, you can bet the tone of their articles will change.


 * The Republican Party doesn't have as many black marks on its permanent record as Scientology, that's why you're seeing the "context" that you do. If they had dozens of Watergates, it would be different. The CoS has dozens of Watergates.


 * And finally, you're way wrong about the RC version of Kobrin - there are many, many schisms from Catholicism out there, and though they aren't recognized by the Vatican, they also are not threatened by attorneys with cease-and-desist letters for misusage of the Pope's intellectual property and "trade secrets". wikipediatrix 21:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

On the last point first, could they call themselves "Roman Catholic"? Can you give me an example of that? Next, you don't really think that one incident of a Scientologist committing a crime is analogous to a historical and pervasive pattern of behaviour known about and concealed for, likely, centuries. Tell me, please, that you do not. --Justanother 22:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I was only comparing modern incidents, since it's unfair to compare an ancient religion's track record with that of a religion that started recently. And I doubt a schism would want to call itself Roman Catholic - but they can and do call themselves Catholics. wikipediatrix 22:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Then I stand by what I said: "I doubt anyone could take a bunch of Bibles and open a Roman Catholic Church and call their church "Roman Catholic" if it were heretical according to the RC Church. I am sure they would be hearing from the RC Church's version of Helena Kobrin." On the sex scandal, what do you mean modern; the sex scandal IS modern, it just happens to have been going on for a long time. It ain't "ancient". It's right now. The truer analogy, I think, to the RC sex scandal would be the harassment of critics, whether you call it "fair game" or not. Here you have a long repeated pattern of abusive behaviour concealed from the rank and file members for the purposes of the heirarchy. See my point. If the sex scandal does not color the entire RC article then neither should the harassment color the entire Scn article. --Justanother 22:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! As far as I'm aware, you're the very first pro-Scientology editor who has acknowledged that a "a long repeated pattern of abusive behaviour concealed from the rank and file members" exists. As for the rest of your argument, my answer is the same as with Watergate: for every scandal Catholicism has had in modern times, Scientology has had twenty. This, along with the fact that Scientology's fundamental status as a "real" religion is disputed by many, is why there's a very different context.


 * My unsolicited advice to you and to any other prospective Scientologist editor would be to let the criticism stand - even when it seems to be overwhelming - unless it's unsourced. Trying to put a positive spin on the Church's hopelessly negative past (and present) just isn't possible. "If a battle can't be won, don't fight it." However: I would support and defend any edit that expands information about Scientology itself. Not Terryeo-style insertions of multiple links to Scientology-owned sites that don't even contain the exaggerated claims being cited, but real and useful information, like, for instance, I'm amazed that there's no article on the Bridge to total freedom. I would have created one myself long ago, but I'd prefer to use the standard image of the chart, which can't be done in low enough resolution for Fair Use, alas. wikipediatrix 01:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I beg to differ. I think that Scn has not had so many scandals at all. I am going to be presumptuous, but I think that you have only been exposed to one side. I am talking people, not books or tapes. You have been reading a lot of stories from disaffected members and cannot balance them as I can with knowing hundreds of actual Scientologists and knowing their stories, good and bad but real stories. I think that if you knew a few Scientologists your ideas about Scientology might change; really knew them. At least I would hope so. I hope that just by knowing me a bit that perhaps your ideas about Scientology have changed if only to the extent of "Well, at least one Scientologist can make some sense . . . sometimes". Take care. --Justanother 01:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, I can balance them in my own head just fine. But "Knowing hundreds of actual Scientologists and knowing their stories" isn't something we can use in the articles. You still seem to think I have more of a negative opinion about Scientology than I actually do. But my opinion doesn't matter in Wikipedia. It's all about the sources. Even if I personally knew dozens of people who reported major wins from Scientology, that doesn't affect my editing. wikipediatrix 02:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Cool. By the way, I don't think you would, but my remark about "a long repeated pattern of abusive behaviour concealed from the rank and file members" should not be quoted as "a Scientologist admits". As a Scientologist, I have no more knowledge of that than you do. I have no OSA or GO history. My awareness of it is based on no more factual or "inside" information than yours is. I read all the critical books starting with "The Scandal of Scientology", which I read about 25 years ago, and some that you may never have heard of that predated that one. I've read all the "modern" criticisms and seen the material on most web sites. The difference between me and you, I think, is that I had Scientology and Scientologists right there, intimately, in front of me and I could judge the truth or falsity of the claims. I also have first-hand experience of much of what the books cover. Often, like the film "The Bridge", actual Scientology is broadly or subtly altered to cast it in a bad light. While that might be understandable (if not acceptable) in critical materials, I hope we do not have to continue that here. Later --Justanother 12:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I should have mentioned earlier that Helena Kobrin, as I remember her, is a very nice person and was only mentioned as a well-known and aggressive defender of Scientology's legal rights who, I am sure, has a counterpart in the RC Church's legal team (though not so well-known perhaps). --Justanother 16:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Mis-information on the Cars flim pages
On the page about the Cars film http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cars_(film) Many of the cars are labled as being certain makes when there is no backing about this by Disney or Pixar. The characters that come to mind are Lightning McQueen, Boost, DJ, Snot Rod and Wingo. They have their own pages with misinformation about what their makes are. The cars that have official makes are listed in the credits and none of the ones listed there are in the credits of the film and books. The ones listed in the credits are: Dodge, Hudson Hornet, Volkswagen, Model T, Fiat, Mack, Mazda Miata, Kenworth, Chevrolet Impala, Porche, Jeep, Mercury, Plymouth Super Bird, Cadilla Coupe De Ville.

There is no mention of a Ford GT, a Mitsubishi, A Nissan, a Toyota or anything else listed on those pages. I do not have an account so I did not edit myself. I still feel that it's wrong to edit pages. Things like this end up happening.

Snakey 63.21.29.88 00:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There are references. Did you not see them? For instance saying that Lightning McQueen is "A hybrid between a stock car and a more curvaceous LeMans endurance racer (like Lolas and the Ford GT40)." That apparently came from Pixar in this article ""A grease geek will guide you: 'Cars' decoded" by Dan Neil, Los Angeles Times, June 4, 2006". That link no longer works but we can probably assume that that is a true quote. The link needs to be updated. So you are saying because you did not see it in the credits, it should not be in the article here? The articles here can draw on many sources. Show me a specific one that you dispute and I will help you figure out if it is legit or not. --Justanother 00:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I found the article and you may have a good point. There is no GT40 mention there but that can probably be forgiven as whoever put it in the article was trying to explain "curvaceous LeMans endurance racer". I will adjust that bit to show you how it should probably look. --Justanother 00:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Take a look at Lightning now. When a wikipedia editor adds his own ideas to an article, that is called "original research" (OR) and it is not allowed. Mentioning the Lola and GT40 looks like original research as does the mention of the Buick Regal in a later one. Usually on a noncontroversial article like Cars, editors can get away with a lot of OR but if someone challenges them they have to source it or remove it. If you want to address it go ahead but be gentle. First try to find where that idea may have come from and supply the missing citation see WP:Cite. If you can't find one then just tag the fact asking for a citation; just type after the bit you dispute. If no-one comes back with one in a few days, go ahead and remove the uncited part. --Justanother 01:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the help. Would I add the fact dispute after each sentence?  I could post a link to most of the pages I found.  The Lightning reference of course would be one.  Then the fact that they mention Boost is an Eclipse, Wingo is a Silvia (this is also sadly mentioned on the Nissan Silvia page not to mention the images are labled as such which would mislead people), DJ is a Scion, and Snot Rod is a Barracuda are wrong and has not backing from Disney.  Should I also provide Disney/Pixar approved material such as scanning the pictures of the toys where the characters are merely described as "tuners".  The toys that are based on real cars and the ones that Disney was approved to use have the manufactuer logos on the bottom of the boxes.  I think the reason the villains in the movie were composites that look like parts of cars but not any real car is because the companies would not give Pixar the right to portray their products in a negative light.  But some of the cars mentioned in this don't even look like the ones in the movie.  Snakey 63.21.41.23 04:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Remember to first try to verify it yourself. You should make a decent effort before tagging it. For example I tried to find a reliable source for Snot Rod being a Barracuda. I searched google here. There are 477 hits and I looked at the first 100 of them (you may want to look at more) and there was no reliable source. Remember, wikipedia and similar sites are NOT reliable sources. Nor are forums. A reliable source might be a newspaper or website of a reputable news firm. Here is an example of a reputable source; check it out, they mention the Buick Regal. Remember also, that the internet is only a small portion of the resources available so perhaps the source exists but we can't easily find it. That is why you ask first. Sources do NOT have to be available on the internet, they just need to be reliable and cited. It is also possible to state something in different ways that can make less than reliable information acceptable here. If a Pixar or Disney representative says Snot Rod is a Barracuda then it would be represented as a fact. If an auto columnist in a reliable source says he looks like a Barracuda, or is one, that would be presented as "Joe Blow, columnist for the Terrible Times, stated that . . ." or perhaps "Terrible Times: 'Snot Rod is a Barracuda'" in that chart. Finally, if there is a lot of fan buzz that he is a Barracuda, you might be able to say "Fans claim . . . " but that one can get dicey. And yes, you should put the tag once for each group of related facts that you dispute; once for each car perhaps but not once after each part of a statement about a specific car if you dispute it all. Just be clear about what you dispute. You should also open a topic on the article discussion page for people to talk about your ideas. And remember that although other editors may have more experience or be "better writers" (though you seem a competent writer), none are "more special" than others. We are all equal. And that one article is not "more important" than another when it comes to our desire to "get it right" so go ahead and fix Cars. Hope this helps. --Justanother 14:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This is precisely why I brought it up. There is no backing for these statments from an official Pixar or Disney person which is why it bothered me that some fan is trying to pass this off as fact.  Some Pixar guy could come out of the blue and say they're all station wagons and then that would be the way it is.  Coming from a scientific background I know that one should not make statements without having something to back them up.  Seems to me this guy just wrote this stuff because he believes it.  Another reason I didn't want to fix it myself is because he can come back at a later date and change everything back.  What do you do when that happens?  Snakey 63.21.9.150 18:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If "Some Pixar guy could come out of the blue and say they're all station wagons" then that would have to stand if it is reported in a reliable source (he can't come here and claim to be a Pixar guy and change everything). It is not our job to judge the credibility of a spokesperson (unless that credibility question is also reported in a reliable source); that is the job of the reliable source, that is why they are called reliable and that is why unreliable sources like forums or newsgroups are not. But that is unlikely. What is more possible is that "Some anonymous wikipedia editor could come out of the blue and say they're all station wagons". That is easy to handle. You make a commitment to wikipedia. Open an account, it is free and anonymous, make your edits, and then add the page to your watchlist so you can keep an eye on it. That is the only solution. Eventually other editors will come to agree with you and help you protect the page. Just don't think that all that goes there is "official" statements. Anything that appears in a reliable source can go there provided it is not misrepresented. Think of wikipedia as a mirror that can only reflect information from reliable sources but cannot judge that information itself or add to it. Have fun. --Justanother 19:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes I know that, which is why I brough this up. I know it's not likely but what I'm saying is if a Pixar person did just show up (yes he'd have to prove who he was let's say he did) then my example stands that as rediculus as it sounds they would all officially be station wagons.  We're on the same side here I'm not trying to argue.  You yourself said you couldn't find any reliagable sources after going through 100 links for Snot Rod.  This is why I mentioned this in the first place.  What I'm proposing is putting up the information that IS official from Disney and Pixar.  I have my own ideas about what the cars are but that doesn't make it so.  My ideas aren't backed in the credits and neither is what is here.  Many people believe anything they read.  I questioned the information right away. It sounded fishy to me and after looking around just as you did came to the same conclusion that there's nothing to back this up.  I have the official books, have a printed copy of the credits and the official descriptions of the toys all of which were given the Disney stamp of approval.  Well, I may just make an account and change those parts as you recommend.  Thanks for the help.
 * Great! Go for it. My point is that if a Pixar guy showed up here he still could not do his "original research" here. He would have to have it published elsewhere first (Pixar's website would be fine but not his personal website). Doesn't matter if he is the president of Pixar. You don't write original material here. These far-fetched examples can get dicey but I am sure you get my point. --Justanother 20:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh one more thing. On the Delinquent's page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Delinquent_Road_Hazards there is no option at the top to edit the intro section where the makes of the four are mentioned. That part needs to be changed. Are there any admins that can fix things like this when this happens? And the citation needed links on the main page were removed already. Did you do this or is it our fan kid at work? Snakey 63.21.12.253 19:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Just hit "Edit this page" at the very top. --Justanother 20:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Now welcome to the "real" wikipedia! Skywatcher68 seems to be invested in that article. What you don't want to do is butt heads with him. Open your account then start a topic on the talk page about your templates. Work out with him how to best achieve what you want to achieve. He may well agree with you. You may also want to point at this discussion so others can see your logic and you don't have to repeat everything; copy and paste Reference desk/Miscellaneous By the way, you put a fact template on the one that I already fixed. Good luck. From here on out please go to my talk page if you need help as this has gone beyond the scope of the reference desk. I am happy to continue to help you. --Justanother 20:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)