Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scientology/Archive 2

Request

 * Zenith Applied Philosophy - a break away sect from Scientology in New Zealand, mainly around Christchurch. ZAP has been linked to far-right politics (both neo-liberal and racist). --Midnighttonight please tell me off for procrastinating on my essay! 23:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This is not a schism (break-away sect). When a David Mayo breaks off, starts his own group practicing what he considers Scn to be, and takes a goodly number of experienced Scientologists with him, that is a schism. When some fellow studies a bit of Scientology and then starts his own group using some of what he learned plus god-knows what else, that is, basically, nothing much to do with Scientology. This point is sometimes missed big time; Scn cannot and should not be responsible for the actions of people that study Scientology. It should be responsible for the actions of its staff. If ZAP itself is notable then go ahead and mention the Scientology connection but it means very very little as regards Scientology; Scn excommunicated the guy and washed their hands of him, that is all they can do. Here is a good article (except for the schism thing but that is certainly excusable). --Justanother 20:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

NPOV watch

 * Tone scale - This has recently been "boldly edited"; a POV check template was placed on it and the same sole editor who "boldly edited" it removed the template. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * See the discussion page of that article Talk:Tone scale. The article had needed clean up for a long time.  I didn't touch the controversy section of it but cleaned up the presentation of all that -40 and +40 and as soon as I did you placed the POV check without discussion.  I removed the template you placed and invited discussion on the discussion page.  It should be obvious that the first method of resolving difficulties of POV is for the various POVs to communicate with each other. You've made a nice clean report here, though.  Except that you might include your reasoning which prompted your statement that the article requires a POV check which you haven't included here, nor on the article's discussion page or in your edit summary. Terryeo 15:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, I know you said you didn't change any of the controversial parts of it. I know you said that.  However, since you've been caught previously inserting your own disputed POV under an edit summary claiming that you were changing things "to reflect reality", the idea that an article doesn't need any POV checking after you've "boldly edited" it, just because you claim you didn't make any POV changes, is absolutely ridiculous. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, I "see", it was not your intent to communicate about that but instead your intent to bring up another edit of mine? I see. okay then, thanks for making that clear.  Now, about the Tone Scale edit I did which prompted your opportunity to present another edit I did which you are talking about, which part of it seemed "POV" by your estimation? Terryeo 17:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC) Umm, I do however see the 22 "POV words" you point to with your link there, Feldspar :) Terryeo 17:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it was my intention to point out that even if it makes any sense for a POV check template to be removable by the very editor whose work is to be checked -- an iffy proposition at best -- you would be an exception to the rule because of your proven willingness to lie about your own edits. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Feldspar, I don't think I do. Let me put it this way.  If you had witnessed a quanitity of my edits and viewed whatever it is you are talking about 100 times, how would it benifit our production for you to use the tone you just used?  Frequently you use a tone of that nature,  1/2 accusing other editors of the intent to mislead you.  I don't think I do.  But when I tell you the most obvious fact you refuse to accept any part of it.  For example, Dianetics (which might have been a fad in the 50s) has produced over 50,000 Clears.  Dianetics is used every day and taught every day in Churches of Scientology worldwide. Have a piece of cake or something, FeldsparTerryeo 01:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * List of Scientology organizations - I'm listing this only because I listed pages I wrote as references. (Though I've listed the references I used for those.) I'd like other eyes on them too - David Gerard 16:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Anti-psychiatry - There seems to be the occasional slam or conflation creeping in, so it might be good to add this to some project member watchlists (or an appropriate area in the shared watchlist, perhaps?) Ronabop 02:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I've added it to the shared watchlist. By the way, I've got a concern about how much we add to the watchlist, but I'll describe that on the talk page. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * David Miscavige has been edited and reverted a lot lately, and an npov template added. (Entheta 19:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC))

WikiProject Religion
The group indicated above was recently revitalized for, among other things, the purpose of working on those articles whose content is such that the article does not fall within the scope of any particular denomination. To most effectively do this, however, we would benefit greatly if there were at least one member from this Project working on those articles. On that basis, I would encourage and welcome any member of this Project willing to work on those articles to join the Religion WikiProject. Thank you. Badbilltucker 22:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Tim Bowles
Tim Bowles has appeared and is unhappy about his article. He seems to consider it libellous to be linked to scientology. --Tilman 11:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is this a project
Why is there a project devoted to spreading this proeganda? a quick google search (after the first result) reveals what sceintoligy is really about. Alan2here 18:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, please note it isn't about spreading the propoganda. The project's sole featured article, Xenu, is not what one would call propoganda. Also, if you were to see the members list, at least one member, Roger Gonnet, is a former Scientologist who has since published an anti-Scientology book. I think that the project is primarily created to increase the quality of wikipedia's articles, in an objective and NPOV way, which is pretty much why almost all the WikiProjects exist. Of course, it's always the case that biased editors will write articles reflecting their biases, but that is hardly unique to this project. Badbilltucker 18:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Frances Farmer
To the usual suspects :) I've had the actress Frances Farmer on my watch list, since there is a remote scientology connection (her sensationalized bio was made with the help of President Heber). And what did I see today: some person tried to put the fiction back in, and/or remove/downplay the research by Jeffrey Kaufmann. (JK is not an anti-scientologist, but he's done a lot of research about Frances Farmer, and has also posted to a.r.s. about that topic) --Tilman 22:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess most of the usual suspects are on vacation. For me, it looks like the IP simply changed "false" to "disputed" in a number of instances. Without doing a lot of research myself, all I can say is that it seems to be replacing POV with NPOV, not POV with POV. (a bit later) After looking at the article it certainly makes a good case that there was never any lobotomy so while I know better than to trust wikipedia I would say that reverting the IP's changes is certainly appropriate unless the IP comes back with RS. --Justanother 15:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Death Certificate
This project is as dead as a WikiProject can be. Articles are not being improved, the same people turning in revert circles and talk pages still look like Usenet BS in the style of I-am-more-right-than-u-r. Can somebody help me out of this frustration? Misou 04:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I have been guilty of the above too but my word to you is hang there; things are improving as far as the articles being editable by more than a clique and the more people like you that hang in the better for everyone. --Justanother 04:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry to say, but that sounds a bit lame and beaten. It could be something else, if one would care. Misou 00:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Scientology info box
I have a problem with this since its purpose seems to be to highlight negative aspects of Scientology. It has also been added to articles that are not mainly about Scientology itself, such as Tom Cruise Steve Dufour 20:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The Scientology Info Box is just that, an info box. It lists categories which are quite concise and inclusive. But "seems to be to highlight negative aspects of Scientology" is quite vague. You'd need a specific complaint for anything to really be, you know, done about it. Also, Tom Cruise is part of Wikiproject: Scientology and the infobox because his outspoken views on Scientology have recently effected his career in a big way (I believe and others believe, this is disputable), and additionally because he is one of their major star figures, tied with the religion, et al. It's like saying that Wikiproject: Christianity shouldn't include notable worshippers who weren't in official positions, though it does. He has a strong tie to it, and it seems appropriate, also, how a mere set of links can be biased seems tricky to me. Raeft 22:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If you check out the info boxes on other religions you will see that they have far fewer links and mostly only one or two to criticism or negative aspects. Steve Dufour 13:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Collaboration, Article Improvement Drive

 * Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scientology/Improvement. Smee 09:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

How many articles?
I see that there are already 236 Scientology related articles. This seems like a lot to me, relative to Scientology's real importance and compared to the number of articles on other groups of people. Are more planned? Thanks. Steve Dufour 20:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Mixed martial arts has 319 articles. I don't see why there would be a limit to the number of new articles, provided they are adequately sourced from reputable secondary sourced citations...  Smee 20:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC).
 * How would you compare the number of people involved in mixed martial arts to Scientology? Steve Dufour 22:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I just picked another WikiProject. Smee 23:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC).


 * I hope it is not Pokemon :-) Steve Dufour 23:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * There are 745 articles in WikiProject The Simpsons. This includes a different individual article on every single episode.  Smee 23:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC).


 * I think that is another topic that is way over-covered by WP, as are Pokemon and Scientology. That is just my opinon however. Steve Dufour 23:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, you are entitled to your opinion. Smee 23:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

I see that the project now has 239 articles: 22 top, 55 high, 95 mid, and 67 low. Three have been added in the last four days. Steve Dufour 15:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Smee 17:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC).

There are now 240. It took three days to add the last one, so maybe the pace is slowing down. Steve Dufour 12:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Steve, you -really- seem to have a misconception about how Wikipedia works. It wouldn't be much of an encyclopedia if it didn't grow as new information became available. The number of people who PRACTICE Scientology is irrelevant to the number of articles. It's not the number of people interested, either. This is a Wiki, nigh unlimited size. If an editor can adequately source an article and it has published, major reliable sources (mass media, whole books), or multiple trivial sources (magazine articles, single shot essays). The standard for INCLUSION in Wikipedia, is verifiability and notability, period. Verifiability and notability are both tied to sources. If enough reliable sources can be found to write the article, it deserves to exist. Once it exists, it is the job of editors to constantly improve it if it needs improvement or they see where they can help. If something is verifiable, and I can write an article on it, it belongs in Wikipedia. There are pages for every single episode of many TV shows, most books, songs, all countries in the world (I believe) and so much more. The number of people who -believe- in the subject of an article is irrelevant. If you want that to matter, try Wikifaith. Here, it's the number of people who might want to KNOW about something. And if that number of people is greater than or equal to "one", even if that one is just the article writer, and the article can be put together from reliable sources in the mass media, or trivial physical sources, or reliable physical sources (again, books), then it is notable enough for Wikipedia. There ISN'T this huge, high bar for notability. Quite the opposite. An inclusive and broad encyclopedia like Wikipedia needs a standard that reflects the potential desire for knowledge on ANY topic. If we raise the standard and start distancing ourselves from and excluding any article which can be reliably written and sourced if we don't think enough people believe in it (something irrelevant since statistical data is not going to be consulted before article creation), this will become a more dismal place, filled with less truth, all told.


 * To that extent, this number of articles is a tribute to the research skills and incredible determination of all of Wikipedia's editors at finding reliable sources and writing articles based on them, and I personally think it's groovy. Peace, all. Raeft 22:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it can be dangerous when a person has only one interest in life. Steve Dufour 05:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * How very true. You might want to take your own hint, Steve. -- ChrisO 07:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * And yet, we have *no* KRC article yet, do we? WHY? (My excuse can be found at my flighty kind of contributions, which (amusingly enough) includes correcting a pokemon typo, and also I have a total lack of sources on how 'KRC' is important.). As far as number of articles, within 100 years, the CoS will have no copyright, no trademark, no ownership left of *anything* LRH wrote, so I'd expect article size to grow over time, with explosions as material becomes public domain, maybe a new WP article for every inch, or quarter inch, or few pages, of shelf space. Oh, and AFAIK WP:NPA includes veiled ones, IMNSHO. Ronabop 07:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

As it is, if a person read one Scientology article a day it would take him 8 months to finish them all. Steve Dufour 12:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Such a person might be well-advised to look into a speed reading course. -- Antaeus Feldspar 13:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed, indeed. In fact, all this talk of "too many articles" has convinced me there are too few, and galvanized me to do more research for Wikiproject: Scientology. Thus, huzzah. In all seriousness, I have a LOT of interest. Also, if you sit down and read an entire encyclopedia, that too will take a LONG time, at one page a night, some of the 1000 page encyclopedias just on world events in the last 10 years, would take you years to complete. Funny, that. You'd think they were reference manuals, meant to be consulted on topics of interest by those with specific questions or areas of interest...


 * Naw, I guess I'm just talking crazy. Or maybe that was e-sarcasm directed in Steve's direction. I am unsure. But it is notable that if someone read 1 page on the television show "The Simpsons", each day, it would take over 2 years, WAY above 8 months, and a far less important topic in the eyes of some. Raeft 15:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * To User:Raeft, if out of this conversation more articles related to this topic and WikiProject are created, provided that they are heavily sourced with reputable secondary sourced citations, then at least something good will have come from this user's disruptive actions across many pages of this encyclopedic project. Smee 17:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

join?
I want to join the project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thaddeus Slamp (talk • contribs)
 * To join, add your name at WikiProject Scientology. Aleta 00:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Thaddeus Slamp 00:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

New "Front Page"
I created this WikiProject Scientology/test. I propose making this the new version of WikiProject Scientology, and moving the current version to some archive or something. It is getting large and unwieldy, and this is a friendlier, simpler, easier to use version. What do y'all think? Smee 21:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Changed it to this version. The old version has been archived, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scientology/Old version.  Smee 21:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC).


 * It looks awesome! Wish I had the time and ingenuity to put together something like that. MUST learn how to make pages that look snazzy like that someday. I'm all in favor of keeping this page. The old one looked cluttered and disorganized. Raeft 01:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Very nice, Smee! Aleta 02:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you both, kind words, and they mean a lot! Smee 06:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

Captain Bill Robertson
I was just checking out the articles on the Free Zone and Ron's Org. It seems like Captain Robertson does not have his own article. He seems to be fairly important if he is a founder and leader of a group of 2,000 people. Thanks. Steve Dufour 00:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. That's a good point. Wanna collaborate and make it? We can go over what to add here. I'll do some research and post it here when I get some free time (homework and all) Raeft 01:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure. I don't know hardly anything about him. Steve Dufour 02:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't find mention of him at all except on his own organizations' websites and personal websites of Scienologists and critics. Steve Dufour 04:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Raeft: I suspect that Steve is being facetious here with his suggestion of an article. Aleta 04:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No I am not. Unlike Xenu, Captain Robertson was a real person. Steve Dufour 04:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I assume good faith. The depressing thing is, with the press of school, I cannot currently divine facetiousness or lack thereof, but the addition of a page of any kind to Wikipedia, long as the sources exist, is a good thing. Raeft 13:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for saying that. I will continue to look for sources on him. This seems to be the CoS's POV on him. This is very interesting but doesn't really seem to be a reliable source. Steve Dufour 16:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the error, Steve (and Raeft). I was thinking that based on your earlier calls for reducing, or at least not increasing, the number of articles in the project.  My mistake.  :) Aleta 21:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem. I still think there are way too many articles. But Captain Bill seems like he is important enough for one anyway. The press doesn't seem to think he or the freezone movement are very important however. Steve Dufour 00:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Altered texts in Scientology doctrine
Could someone check out this article? It seems to be the opposite of Xenu's situation. Here is something that seems to be real and fairly important, yet has attracted almost no attention in the world outside of Scientology. To me it doesn't look like it should have an article according to WP policies on notability and original research. Steve Dufour 05:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Standard Tech also seems to fail to establish notability. Steve Dufour 13:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The bloggers love us!
http://blog.valuewiki.com/2007/03/28/scientology-and-wikipedia/ - David Gerard 20:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Get ready for your 15 minutes of fame you all! :-) Steve Dufour 05:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Excessive navigation boxes
To have both the vertical and horizontal navigation boxes on a stub article such as Standard Tech is to me distractingly, annoyingly excessive. Aleta 21:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Aleta. What did you think of my tagging Standard Tech unencyclopedic? Steve Dufour 04:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)