Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scientology/Archive 3

message: Other editors than above, please comment here on your thoughts on the WikiProject Page I worked hard on.  Thank you for your time.  
*Support.  My thoughts:
#It is simpler and easier for new Wikipedians to manage and understand.
#The old version was getting very large and unwieldy.
#It was created in an NPOV style, modeled after WP:SY.  Smee 22:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Smee|Smee]]'s comments 

message: User:Smee redesigned the home page for the project in a manner that may be more attractive but sacrificed a vast amount of usability. I cannot see us working effectively in the little blue boxes. Please discuss the change here. Here is the proposed page by Smee. The vote is either oppose the proposed page or support it (or just comment). Thanks. --Justanother 23:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Justanother|Justanother]]'s comments 

message: Various observations and thoughts about the proposed page change:
*The proposed page looks very attractive and feels more organized to me.
*The double list of participants (with and without comments) is unwieldy.  People will sign one place or the other, and "someone else" will have to work to maintain both lists.  Is this worth our time?
*Sections gone in the proposed page which we may or may not want to be sure are included in any future version (not necessarily exhaustive): 
**Structure (comments)
**Hierarchy definition (Currently empty, but I think the Religion project should be given as a parent.)
**Projects
**Tasks
**Articles - 
***New articles - comment: This is a very important section which I think needs to be included in any version we adopt, but which needs to have a cap on the number of articles in the new articles list. (An article created in 2005 is no longer new.) The list as it currently stands seems too long.
***Article Improvement Drive
***Featured articles (very important)
***NPOV watch
Summary comments - I like the look and organization of the proposed page.  I don't have any problem with the box idea.  I do think we need to keep more (most of) the content from the original page.
-Aleta 03:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually have been working on a proposal for a new sub-project, but it's been slow going, especially due to some technical difficulties. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Aleta|Aleta's]] comments

message: The new look is very easy on the eyes, unlike the current look. Why not have it? I like it. .V. [Talk|Email] 03:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not have it? Pretty motorcycle vs. ugly truck. If I'm hauling something, I'll take the truck please. This is supposed to be a working project page. That is why. Thanks for your input! --Justanother 03:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your concern. You noted above that over 46k bytes (or is it characters? Not sure how it works) was removed. However, I've noticed, though, that the information loss was simply transferred to subpages. This transfer seems to be of non-essential information. A good example is the "Participants" page; having each person's individual comments on a separate page than the main one doesn't seem like any sort of functional loss to me. Is there any specific information that was removed that you feel should be kept on the page? .V. [Talk|Email] 04:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a look at the Projects for the Big 3 religions. Islam and Christianity are like our old one, Judaism is a bit more fancy, but they are all big sprawling work pages, IMO. Trucks. Smee's little blue boxes are not for work, they are for show. I am for a straight one-column layout and the minimum (or none) going off-page. Easier to work, easier to see what is going on. A work page. --Justanother 04:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm kind of confused. Your post earlier talked about a missing 46k bytes of information, but your reply above is about the stylistic layout. Well, regardless, it seems like information is "at your fingertips" in the new version. It's harder to find what you're looking for in the current version in my opinion. A page can still be functional and look nice. Kind of like how a truck can look nice, like a... nice looking truck of some brand. .V. [Talk|Email] 04:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to confuse. I am saying that Smee threw out 46k characters of input by participants to create this styled "whatever". I want a big sprawling work page where I can see everything and I want the 46k back (like it is back now) and we can prune as needed. Yes, we can make the truck pretty but we can't make a truck out of Smee's motorbike. --Justanother 04:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aha, but consider this... a truck hauls things, yes? And a motorbike is fast, yes? The question we need to ask ourselves is: Where is what we want to haul? Are we hauling it, or has it already been hauled? IMO, it's about time we finished the job. A motorbike would get us there quicker. We're going to a goal, not through a goal, and a motorcycle would be optimal for that task. I don't know about you, but I'm ready to "put the pedal to the metal". To me, usability is a function of accessibility; how fast I can get the info. And is this design fast? This design did the Kessel run in 12 parsecs; fast enough for me (to use an analogy.) WikiProjects just aren't in demand since the XP-38 came out, but this will be enough. I say we shut down all the garbage mashers on the detention level and go with an accessible, easy-to-work and still useful choice.  .V. [Talk|Email] 15:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, but true working trucks are not "going" anywhere. They exist to work and work until they cannot work any more. In many cases with mine trucks such as these, they are left in place to rot when a mine is played out as they are expensive to move and not worth it if old and in need of repair. In any event, we have a lot of work to do to bring the project to its ultimate goal. No danger of this mine being played out anytime soon. No reason to trade the old truck for a new motorbike. --Justanother 18:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: .V.'s Comments

message: I created the original project page just by taking the generic template and filling it in. It was eminently suitable to be customised into something more useful and pleasing to the eye - it was, after all, something with no design or effort put into it whatsoever. I like the new version visually as it looks a lot more like there's someone home.
The extra info can be more usefully accessed IMO in subpages rather than all in one linear page. A linear page could be constructed by including the subpages, for those who prefer it in one linear page - David Gerard 18:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: David Gerard's comments

message: I feel that the new page design is more organized, presents the information in not only a pleasing fashion, but also in a more utilitarian and useful one. Subpages with a main page outlining current events (as long as we update it frequently), with participant names on front and comments delineated to a subpage, and yes, visually pleasing elements, seems -right- to me.
We do need inclusion of all potential details, but to me, the following seems important to state:
*I support the use of the visual theme that was incorporated, with these changes if concensus can be reached:
*An area, as I believe was included, to put what we're currently working on, with a link to discussion of same (like our current project to lift specific articles to FA status)
*A section detailing, say, the 3 most recently added articles.
*Anyone ever consider a color-coded pie chart of which percent of our articles are which class? No? Well... just saying, could be made as an Excel image or similar and changed as things go, and figured it might be a neat visual element. Never mind, that's dumb of me.
*A section for hierarchy COULD be parented down from religion, but really I don't feel it's needed, for some reason. I have no strong feelings either way.
I DO, however, strongly, again:
Support a new, more visually pleasing, and above all, briefer and less sprawling version of this page. I feel it would make things less confusing than the last, and subpages CAN contain all relevant data, possibly categorized into SPECIFIC sprawling workpages (trucks) being "pulled" by a concise, visually pleasing front page (the face, or "motorcycle" of our organization here). If the image of a motorcycle pulling trucks hurts your brain, just think of it as the main page taking the new style which I support, and a bunch of subpages which look like the old, sprawling "truck".
Cheers, and Eris protect. Raeft 13:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Raeft's Comments

message: Would it be acceptable to have a straw poll about adopting the new layout? .V. [Talk|Email] 17:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Would a straw poll be appropriate now? 

message: This is a survey/straw poll to assess opinions regarding the new layout for Wikipedia:WikiProject Scientology, currently located at Wikipedia:WikiProject Scientology/test.
Please sign your name using four tildes (~~~~) under the position you support, and please add a (hopefully brief and well thought out) comment. If you are happy with more than one possibility, you may wish to sign your names to more than one place. Extended commentary should be placed below, in the section marked "Discussion", though brief commentary can be interspersed.
;Use new version
#Smee 07:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New WikiProject Scientology layout survey 

message: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Bowles (3rd nomination); I think the project can do without this one. --Justanother 19:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Bowles (3rd nomination)]] 

message: It is recommended that :Category:WikiProject Scientology Wikipedians be renamed to either :Category:WikiProject Scientology participants  or :Category:WikiProject Scientology members according to convention.  It is left up to the project participants/members to choose which they would like.  Please hold a discussion here and when there is consensus make the change.  Thank you. --NThurston 20:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject user category 

message: *Where they existed, I replaced virtually identical material on the main page with the subpages I created.  
*I removed subsections that had not been used for the last (2) years, and moved them to the talk page, which was then archived to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scientology/Archive 2.
*Currently, the only subsection that exists at Wikipedia:WikiProject Scientology, but not at the new version in discussion above, Wikipedia:WikiProject Scientology/test, is the "Tasks" subsection, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Scientology#Tasks.  I would point out that this entire section has become convoluted and very difficult to manage, and that this type of material would be better of for discussion on the talk page.  And if not, we should figure out a simpler way to manage whatever it is that the "Tasks" subsection is intended for.  For example, as explained at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Scientology/Assessment#Quality_assessments :  for articles that do not yet exist but have been identified as subjects that should be covered; add articles to :Category:Needed-Class Scientology articles.
Smee 10:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  The subsection "Tasks", not edited since September 2005, has been archived, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scientology/Tasks (2005).  Smee 07:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some notes... 

message: What's the procedure now for posting notice to WP:SCN members of "hey, this is something that needs attention"?  I see a category of :Category:Scientology articles needing attention but it's not completely clear how we're supposed to put articles in the category.
I think I'd rather use the To-do page, since with that you can also leave some sort of message; not just "Church of Scientology Moscow versus Russia", but "Church of Scientology Moscow versus Russia -- what sub-category does this belong in?"  Perhaps we could even include multiple to-do lists -- divided up by severity of problem (though assessing severity might be a problem), or by the kind of attention needed. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The proper procedure would be to discuss it here on this talk page, and add the new article as an entry to the subpage, Wikipedia:WikiProject Scientology/New, which I have done.  Smee 08:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you may have misread my question, judging by the response you mention in the subpage.  Church of Scientology Moscow versus Russia, the article I used as an example, happens to be a new article.  My question, however, was not how to notify the Project about a new article, but about an article, old or new, that is noted as needing some form of attention. -- Antaeus Feldspar 12:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh.  Well, it would depend on the specificity of the nature of attention needed.  One can either utilize a talk page from one of the relevant sub-pages, or the main talk page here.  Smee 21:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *For anything that really needs to be done but time-sensitive items would be put on top and I think now that everything should have an expiration - what is the point of having year-old items on the list, those we can put elsewhere. Save the list for fairly current stuff. Non-rush items with say a 15-day or 30-day expiration. --Justanother 01:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recommended procedure for raising alert for tasks to do? 

message: *New article created, Scientology and Werner Erhard, sourced to (29) citations to referenced material.  Smee 03:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New article created 

message: Am I the only one who finds it troubling that ALL of the current Scientology "Did you know?" entries are negative, and excessively so? Some aren't even directly relevant to Scientology at all, except by ominous implication.
For instance, there's "Did you know... that TIME magazine's Gerald Loeb Award-winning article "The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power" highlights the suicide of Noah Lottick?"...... it neglects to note that no evidence of the CoS' involvement in Lottick's suicide was ever officially determined, despite much wailing and gnashing of teeth. This seems more FAR important info to me than to know that the TIME article "highlights" the issue. And somewhere along the way, it seems all Wikipedia mentions of the TIME article have been assiduously prefaced with the "Gerald Loeb Award-winning article!" phrase. (Is there some sort of insecurity about the TIME article's status?)
I'll try to be a team player and get into the spirit of things here, though... I may start researching every cab driver and waitress who was given a lousy tip by a Scientologist, and give each of them their own Wikipedia article. Even better, let's give a Wikipedia article to anyone, anywhere, who ever said anything bad about Scientology in a public media source. Then we can always bleat "but it's properly sourced!" when someone complains. wikipediatrix 20:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You know what really shows someone to be a team player?  Voicing their concerns in an articulate and honest manner, without unhelpful sarcasm.  I'm not in favor of so many new articles being created, either, but between someone creating new articles that might not have actually demanded creation, and people trying to remove key information under phony pretexts like "Oh, that's outdated information" and "oh, that information came from 'parroting journalists'", guess where my energy actually gets focused? -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: * Smee, while I certainly agree with you that creating and expanding articles is a Good Thing, I disagree if you are implying that I should create my own one-sided POV-pushing articles about one-sided POV-pushing books and articles and then promote that one-sided POV-pushing with a DYK entry. DYK is supposed to be non-controversial and, all due respect Smee, but you specialize in creating controversial articles. I must say that some of your more recent output is a bit better. --Justanother 01:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *"I must say that some of your more recent output is a bit better."  - Thank you.  However, I must say, that some of the rest of your commentary above, about what you perceive to be what you call "one-sided POV-pushing", is in essence only your own POV, coming through...  Smee 01:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I must say, many of the comments on my writing and article-creation skills from other neutral and previously un-involved editors, in the recent AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientology and Werner Erhard, were wholly unexpected and highly appreciated.  Clearly other editors have the ability to appreciate hard work and highly sourced material to reputable secondary sourced citations when they see it...  Smee 02:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: * (EC) My POV? Sure, I have a POV. But the main thing is to realize that there are two sides (at least!) to every human story and they are both (all) valid sides to the degree that they are subjectively valid to the believers. When you create an article based on a one-sided book you are effectively short-circuiting the basic tenet of Wikipedia that it present both sides. Smee, I do not invalidate your reality, your beliefs. You can believe whatever you care to about est, about est-like groups, and, by association about Scientology. Those are valid beliefs - for you and like-minded people. I do object when you try to make articles ALL about what you believe. I believe something different about Scientology and, guess what, my beliefs (and those of like-minded to me) as valid as yours and the articles need to accurately reflect both sides. --Justanother 02:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *The articles do not always need to reflect "both sides", and there does not always need to be an artificial "balance" created.  If you think that some of the sources I use are POV, well, that is also your own POV that you may have to deal with and work on, in your own time.  Smee 02:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: *Well, I have said before that it is difficult to make NPOV stew from POV meat but that assumed that anyone was even trying. When you simply serve up POV meat you are playing a different game altogether. --Justanother 02:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Um, whatever.  I am done with this thread, thanks for amusing me.  Off to find more reputable secondary sourced citations from whence to create more new articles... :)  Later, Smee 02:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did you know? 

message: Justanother has a tendency to point out what he sees as original research quite often as he has above. To add a break in the conversation I'll explain briefly why the statement that L. Ron Hubbard was not tested for arsenic posioning does not constitute WP:OR.
;The coroner's report said:
Image of Hubbard's Coroner's report Post mortem examination was refused for religious reasons...toxicology test ordered on body fluids
;And the toxicology report said:
Image of Hubbard's toxicology report Marijuana Screen: Not done (it requires urine).. Type of specimen: Blood also you'll notice arsenic is not on the list of substances tested for.
;I also know that the CDC says the best ways to find arsenic in the human body are 1. urine test  or 2. hair/nail test:
ATSDR @ CDC.gov - Specific tests: urine arsenic concentration.
;Lastly, I know when a body is incinerated the hair, nails, and of course any stray urine are destroyed precluding future testing 
These facts are not original research: If I said he WAS poisoned with arsenic, that would be WP:OR since there are no sources asserting it. Anynobody 05:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anynobody your CLEAR original research is introducing speculation that just maybe perhaps the ME coulda shoulda tested for those poisons but he didn't and now we will never know because those sneaky Scientologists had the body cremated. Your edit amounts to little more than conspiracy theory and one that seems to be all your own. Start a blog, my friend, but please keep your OR hints at conspiracy out of an encyclopedia. --Justanother 11:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Everyone on both sides of the issue should look at other articles about contentious deaths and see how they were handled. Nicole Brown Simpson comes to mind. Even though you know and I know and the whole planet knows that O.J. is likely to be guilty, note how that article is not gleefully and obsessively filled with conspiratorial evidence (sourced or not) transparently building a case against him within the article itself. By comparison, the Lisa McPherson article reads like a "true crime" novel and 80 percent of the article is actually not even about her, but about legal wranglings her family had with Scientology after her death (you'd think it was the trial of the century from all the attention it gets in the article - almost as much space is devoted to it as the Scopes Trial or Bush v. Gore).  wikipediatrix 17:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The case of Lisa McPherson has nothing in common with Nicole Brown Simpson, except that both were women. Apples and Oranges. --Tilman 18:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I never said they had to have anything in common with each other, aside from having had contentious deaths. wikipediatrix 18:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd posted the same text to Lisa McPherson earlier and just thought it was also applicable here, since your OR examples re: Hubbard's death are also relevant to that article. I should have reworded it somewhat for reposting here. wikipediatrix 00:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I tend to agree with the above. I am not a Scientologist, and actually have some personal objections to their beliefs, as they do seem to me to be founded on less than adequate evidence. I am also a Christian, which many people also think is founded on less than adequate evidence, and I think the comparison between the treatment of Scientology here and in the world in general and of early Christianity is a good one. A lot of the "press" early Christianity got was negative too, what with allegations of cannibalism, ritual murder, and on and on and on. Any new belief system will get a lot of negative press in the broader world, as negative reports on "new" things tend to get more attention form a public which is at least somewhat averse to new ideas. The fact that many of the individuals named above haven't exactly enhanced the image of Scientology through their occasionally unusual conduct hasn't helped there either. But then the priests and ministers who abuse drugs, children and adult parishoners don't make Christianity look real great either. And, given the comparatively small number of Scientologists in the world today, there aren't going to be as many positive stories to come out to counterbalance the negative ones. And also notice there is now at least one whole Islam work group devoted to "criticism of Islam". Knocking down images that are respected is easy, and something lots of people like to do, which means that there always will be more negative press than positive, until and unless Scientology comes up with a Mother Teresa or the like who receives uniformly positive comments. And, with the anti-religious bias in much of the western world today, there are now beginning to be "critical" reports of her as well. I wish it weren't the case, but it is. John Carter 22:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A brief explanation of [[WP:OR|Original Research]] 

message: Please discuss this in a discussion here--Sefringle 03:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creating a guideline that applies to all religous articles 

message: *New article, Stacy Moxon.  This is most certainly notable, but the article needs to basically have a complete re-write/overhaul, with additions of lots of material from reputable sourced citations.  Smee 11:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Apparently the new thing around here is to devote an article to anyone and anything related to Scientology (especially if it makes them look bad), no matter how trivial and non-notable. And it's very strange how when it comes to Ursula Caberta, Smee is very concerned about potentially libeling a living person (even to the point of removing sourced information), yet here he's made no mad rush to remove an unsourced insinuation about Kendrick Moxon being "unconcerned" about the details of his daughter's death. wikipediatrix 13:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry dear but this is nothing new. Why do you think there are 272 Scientology-series articles. This is how this whole game started. And it was allowed to happen. 'Nuff said before we have to start drinking again. ps See my page - you are due for a drink. --Justanother 13:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  Um, I know you didn't create the article and I didn't state or imply that you did. I did assume you read the article, hence my comments. wikipediatrix 13:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New article Stacy Moxon 

message: This may be old news to some folks, but I just discovered this site tonight:
http://www.moreaboutscientologycult.eu/ 
Very handy collection of news clippings, but they're all in PDF files, which I hate. Aaaaaaah. wikipediatrix 02:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Try this [] for opening PDF files. It really takes the hatred out of reading that format. .V. [Talk|Email] 16:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  moreaboutscientologycult.eu 

message: I saw, that there is an article on scientology and psychiatry... Then I remembered that my government (F.Rep.GERM) expresses its concerns about scientology's compliance to democracy, so that I created the article scientology and democracy. But now it looks like my government is the only reputable source, which is attacked even by the U.S. Department of State for discriminating against religious minorities (by proxy or so)... I personally share Hubbard's view on democracy quite much, because I was very puzzled, when I learned from a female scientologist in 1998, that my democratic government (F.Rep.GERM) tolerates psychiatric electro convulsive therapy, which would explain all those formerly incomprehensible talk of my social environment about "faster therapies", when I told them about my application for several hundred hours of talk therapy (when I asked them for the name of those "faster therapies" they did not tell me (or I am unable to remember due to a big swell of hate)) (furthermore this complex system of physical threats against my life is sufficient to let the psychiatric diagnosis "F20.0 (ICD-10 WHO - paranoid schizophrenia)" look just like another element of extralegal practice, because it is hardly possible to say something paranoid, if one is surrounded by crazy torturers). --Homer Landskirty 12:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No comment? So my idea was a good idea? :-) *blush* --Homer Landskirty 15:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[scientology and democracy]] 

message: There is a new WikiProject task force proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Inter-religious content that is being proposed to deal specifically with articles whose content relates to several religious traditions. Any editors interested in joining such a group would be more than welcome to indicate their interest there. John Carter 15:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New project proposal 

message: The above list has recently been created with a single entry. Members of this project are encouraged to add names and references to the list. Thank you. John Carter 17:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um.......... we already have other articles that deal with this exact same subject, and we're discussing merging them anyway, so why do we need yet another one?? wikipediatrix 17:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wasn't aware of the other articles, for which I apologize. The current article was created as one of a series of articles dealing with lists of notable converts to various faiths. Actually, it is my hope that the soon to be created interfaith task force of the WP:RELIGION will deal with these articles primarily. However, if the members of this project see that the potential list is redundant or useless, feel free to delete it and do so with my expressed permission to do so here. John Carter 17:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of notable converts to Scientology]] 

message: Given ongoing disagreements between User:Smee and myself, I'd like to suggest that all the regular editors of the Scientology articles come together here - especially some who haven't edited as much nowadays - and try to hammer out a clearer picture of what it is exactly that we're doing here. Perhaps we can discuss what the common goals are for the project nowadays, which may be more possible now than in the past, since we have more fair-minded editors like User:Anynobody and less troublemakers like User:Terryeo. 
I'd especially like to see a large cross-section of editors contribute to assessing what, if any, limits we should try to impose on ourselves. Are we going too far in hyper-reporting every little wrongdoing by the CoS, even if true and sourced? Are we going too far in filling articles with Hubbard's doctrine verbatim, thereby turning the project into a de facto Hubbard wiki? Have we created too many articles? Are we the only project/template devoted to a religion which most of the editors are actually opposed to? Even if the content we're putting into articles is technically true, does it appear to the average reader that Wikipedia is really "out to get" Scientology? Does that even matter? Are we all really happy with what we've created so far, and are we happy with the direction it's going? wikipediatrix 16:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting questions. My own personal opinion would be that the encyclopedia would be best served by reporting the major tenets of scientology as the Church itself states them, and working on content related to the church in other articles. Maybe some sort of "master plan" for the particular articles to most emphasize would be the best way to go? Or, alternately, maybe the project could try to draw in other editors, who might have less of a set opinion. Considering the rather small scope of the project, in terms of extant articles, maybe it might function better as a work group of the Religion WikiProject? That might help to draw some of the members of that group into greater input in these articles, hopefully in an NPOV way. John Carter 16:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion the WP coverage of Scientology is a reflection of the mental state of a subset of our society. I don't expect it to improve.  However I would rather see them taking out their aggressions here and elsewhere on the Internet than in some other ways. Steve Dufour 17:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this might be a good idea worth visiting.  Maybe we could set up an IRC channel somewhere and all discuss these issues in a "live" enviroment instead of leaving messages for each other back and forth here.  There seems to be quite a bit of strife between editors here as far as what should be considered appropriate content.  Maybe if we could all have a virtual round table discussion then we can get this all under control.  I'd be willing to setup the IRC channel.  Maybe we could all meet monthly to dicuss current issues.  What do you guys think?  Elhector 20:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IRC could be an option. Another option, at this point, could be to do what people like me in the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team would really like to see every project do, which is specifically bring as many of their top and high importance articles to at least B class as possible, so that they can be included in one or more release versions of wikipedia. Right now, this project has several articles of importance to it which are not in particularly good shape. Maybe just having members focus on improving them might be one of the best options. John Carter 21:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would tend to agree with you.  The problem here is that there seems to be quite a bit of disagreement on what constitutes a "good" article here.  Maybe we should first prioritize which article we consider to be the most important and then fix them up based on criteria that is consensus based.  There just seems to be way to many edit wars involving these articles.  I'll try to put a list together of the most important articles and we can start cleaning those up. Elhector 22:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Scientology Expo 2007? 

message: ...moved a few things around, made some room.  Added a "Tasklist" subpage, at WP:SCN/Tasks.  In this way, the "To Do" list is meant to be static, sort of just things that we should always do, and the "Tasklist" can change and be fluid, as needs for different things arise on different articles.  Smee 04:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some formatting changes... 

message: L. Ron Hubbard is currently a candidate for Featured Article status.  Please comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/L. Ron Hubbard.  Smee 09:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/L. Ron Hubbard]] 

message: I proposed the article on the Internet video The Friend of Mankind for deletion. Steve Dufour 17:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now officially nominated for deletion.Steve Dufour 02:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article proposed for deletion 

message: I made a comment a couple weeks back at Template talk:ScientologySeries.  The concern is that the  template and the  template seem to both contain approximately the same links, but most Scientology-related articles include both templates.  That's just silly - there's no need for the redundancy.  Furthermore, it's clear which of the templates is better: .  The reasons are that (1) the Manual of Style (WP:LAYOUT) says that "See Also" links are an appendix section, so that kind of link should be provided at the end of an article not at the beginning, (2) "ScientologySeries" implies that the template would only go on articles that are linked from the template, but this is not the case, (3) many of the articles, even some of those on the template, are not only scientology topics, and have other big templates near the top, making very ugly formatting (see Tom Cruise for example).  What I'd like to do is to obsolete , going through all the articles that include it, removing the template in favor of  at the bottom, and ultimately turn  into a redirect.  Does this sound okay?  I don't want to start working on this only to get reverted, there are a lot of edits involved.  Mangojuicetalk 20:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have strong feelings about which template to use on any or all articles.  However, I do strongly think that having both on a given article is excessive, and borderline obnoxious. Aleta 23:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Having both isn't excessive on longer articles, especially ones with a large table of contents. AndroidCat 02:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you give some examples?  I note that there aren't that many long articles, and that the three I looked at, Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard, and Tom Cruise all contained only one template each.  And it wasn't consistent which one.  Mangojuicetalk 14:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I asked before, why stop at 2? Why not have 3 or 4 templates on each article? Steve Dufour 06:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know of no reason why the same information should be delivered in a top and bottom template. The footer is redundant and pointless. wikipediatrix 04:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But it makes the anti-Scientologists look stupid.  That's a good thing. :-)  Steve Dufour 07:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|ScientologySeries}} and {{tl|Scientology}} 

message: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Altered texts in Scientology doctrine Steve Dufour 17:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion nomination 

message: This question came up in the discussion of Scientology weddings.  There doesn't seem to be an article on Scientology's views and practices concerning marriage and family, unless I'm missing something.  This seems like it would be a worthwhile article for someone to start. Steve Dufour 00:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not a bad idea.HubcapD 00:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh sure. That makes sense. Then we can create Scientology and ketchup and Scientology and mustard because there's just so much to say that wouldn't fit in Scientology and condiments. Then we can start on Scientology and the Civil War, Scientology and Fonzie, Scientology and the endoplasmic reticulum, Scientology and malt, Scientology and William Shatner, Scientology and cross-stitch, Scientology and feet, Scientology and stuff, Scientology and more Scientology, and Scientology and Coke. (mmmm, make mine a double). wikipediatrix 00:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you like that on the rocks, or neat? I had a little time to think about it, and really couldn't think of much beyond the 2nd Dynamic. What suprised me is I couldn't seem to find a page for the 8 Dynamics. If any page should be created, it should be that one. Of course, Scientology and Eddie Van Halen's Guitar Technique would be a subject worth delving into! ;-)HubcapD 22:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A suggestion was made to rename Scientology weddings Scientology and marriage, or something along the same lines.  That would create a broader topic to which more information could be added. Steve Dufour 04:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientology and the family 

message: Is there an article anywhere on wikipeida concerning religiousfreedomwatch.org?  I haven't been able to find one.  I believe this is an article worthy subject.  I think I'm going to start working on it.  What does everyone else think? Elhector 21:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it'll probably be quicky deleted, again. AndroidCat 21:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why was it deleted?  Was there any discussion on it?  If there was would you be able to point in the direction of the discussion so I can take a look at it?  Wow, that's some rapid fire questioning for you :-)  Anyways, I think it's a notable web page and organization and warrants and article on wikipedia.  I'm sure it being deleted had something to do with the page being controversial but I don't think that's a reason to avoid the subject.  I believe it would be completely possible to put together a well cited and referenced article without crossing over into point of view pushing or anything like that.  I'll work on putting something together and then I'll see what everyone thinks.  It may take me sometime though as I want to make sure to use good sources that no one should have any arguments with. Elhector 23:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are articles on much less important websites. Steve Dufour 06:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I am surprised that published references to it can not be found.  I would have thought that it was very well-known since it is the CoS's official site for dissing people they don't like, and Scientology itself has been getting so much press lately. Steve Dufour 02:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  religiousfreedomwatch.org 

message: Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act recently achieved Good Article status. I've nominated it for featured article status - please see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act. Comments would be welcomed. -- ChrisO 19:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act]] featured article nomination 

message: S. M. Sullivan has created another Religious Freedom Watch article. I think there are some serious problems with it such as lack of references or notability, as well as the BLP problems of an article about an attack site that mixes in an awful lot of defamation with a small serving of fact. What it really needs right now is more than two viewpoints on the subject. AndroidCat 05:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless they're immediately forthcoming, this article should be speedy-deleted as a recreation of an already deleted article that brings no new sources to justify its existence this time around. wikipediatrix 20:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

text: As i mentioned on the article's talk page, to meet the speedy criterion for recreated material, the page must be "…substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes to it do not address the reasons for which it was deleted." Perhaps it meets these, but it's not obvious. If i added sources to the article, would you be satisfied with it, or do you see other problems with it? Foobaz·o< 20:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As it stands now, it's no different than someone making a web page that says "Woody Allen is a pig" and then creating a Wikipedia article that says "The 'Woody Allen is a pig' website states that Woody Allen is a pig, although some people disagree." It's unencyclopedic, useless, and serves no purpose but to amplify the site's smear campaign. wikipediatrix 20:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Heh. I've been reading it since back in 1999, including the parts now behind requested blocks of the Wayback Machine. I see that it's been carefully cleaned up over the last year or so. AndroidCat 06:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, but it's still plenty libelous today. 'So and So is a Pig' was just an illustrative example, but if he wants to be specific, then there's plenty of 'So and So is an anti-religious extremist' statements. Unfortunately, I can't point out any more of the site's more evil and ludicrous statements here because I don't wish to help amplify its lies. wikipediatrix 13:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: No no, not to worry. You see, it can now be edited to bring it in line with the one source that the article has. AndroidCat 05:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another [[Religious Freedom Watch]] article 

message: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Scientology organizations Steve Dufour 03:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion nomination 

message: Well I've taken it upon myself to overhaul this article to try to save it from deletion. I've removed all of the directory info. I've basically changed it to a list of orgs by country. I hate to see this article deleted as i think it's useful. A list of all the different orgs CoS runs is useful because it's not always clear that an orginization is part of the CoS. I think this could be a handy list for anyone doing research on the topic. I've left in as much relevant info as I could. It seems the only way to save this one though was to pretty much gut it and start over again. Tell me what you guys think. Hopefully we can all get in there and fill in the remaining missing info and improve the article even more. I'll keep working on it in the meantime.  If this is to drastic of a change just go ahead and revert my edit, I won't be offended :-) Elhector 00:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Overhaul

message: The Scientology article is missing.  The talk page was last updated on 5 September, with a note today asking where the article disappeared to.  The deletion log is no help, it shows a deletion in 2006.  I put a note on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.  davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where did [[Scientology]] go? 

message: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS has recently concluded and, among other things:
	The Arbitration Committee has placed all Scientology-related articles on probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages.
For the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 03:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article probation 

message: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Source (magazine) Steve Dufour 16:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Project Normandy Steve Dufour 17:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nominations for deletion 

message: I may regret saying this, but I think that there are sufficient articles to create a reasonable portal. Would the rest of you like to see a separate Scientology portal or not? John Carter 18:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol, I'm probably going to regret agreeing with you :-P Elhector 18:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's not great, not by a long shot, but it is started. Portal:Scientology. It definitely needs additional work, but I probably won't be able to do that for a day or two. Anyone who wants to add anything or has ideas to improve the format is more than welcome to. John Carter 23:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a good idea, this portal. And sure like death the ridicule-all-Scientologists-Xenu-story went on top. Predictable. Bah. Misou 05:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So did the only other FA this project has, Katie Holmes. It does make sense to show the best articles we have, after all, and the FAs are pretty much that. And I did want to ensure, given the controversial nature of the subject, that at least one "critical" article was included in both the Selected article and Selected biography seciton. I didn't include the L. Ron Hubbard article because of the lack of a public domain image, but am hoping that someone can find one. I'm contacting the Science Fiction Project to see if any of them might have one. John Carter 13:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portal? 

message: It was great taking a break from the project for a few days.  There is a disagreement over Barbara's article again.  This is over the introduction which is supposed to, well, introduce the topic.  Someone is trying to overload it with fairly unimportant details.  Thanks if you can help out. Steve Dufour 21:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your help everyone. Steve Dufour 22:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Barbara Schwarz]] 

message: *Please see :Image:Xenu BBC Panorama.jpg, and discuss at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_October_21#Image:Xenu_BBC_Panorama.jpg.  Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 00:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image nominated for deletion 

message: *Wikipedia:Peer review/Space opera in Scientology scripture/archive1
Thank you.  Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 17:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review 

message: *Noah Lottick, Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noah Lottick, and provide your feedback if you feel like doing so.  Thank you.  Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 04:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Noah Lottick]] article is up for deletion 

message: *The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power, at Wikipedia:Peer review/The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power/archive1.  Your suggestions on any tips to get this article eventually to WP:FA, or if you think it is ready for WP:FAC or WP:GAC, would be most appreciated at the Peer Review.  Thank you.  Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 16:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:PR]], [[The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power]] 

message: *Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cult and new religious movement researchers.  Whether or not you do or do not hold the opinion that Scientology is or is not a "cult", many of the individuals who are listed as researchers of cults and new religious movements also happen to have done research on Scientology.  Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 18:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Listed related AfD 

message: Note:  This portal navigation can be placed on articles, and is commonly placed in the External links section of an article on Wikipedia, using the following code:
:
This displays as:

Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 13:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 

Oh well, we can always change it gradually in the future, but here you are.  Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 13:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Portal:Scientology]] placement on articles 

message: Ugh, now that I've gone and put the link on a bunch of pages, I figured out a better version for it:
:

Oh well, we can always change it gradually in the future, but here you are.  Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 13:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better image for portal icon 

message: It looks like I might be coming back to active duty on the project soon.  It looks like there's a lot going on now since I have been gone.  Wishing everyone well. Steve Dufour 03:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Returning 

message: It appears that this article became the victim of some undue weighting due to concerns tangentally related to Scientology issues. Could people please keep an eye on it and make sure that the subject's main notability (A decade as the CEO of a major professional organization) does not get derailed by tangental issues? Thanks. Phil Sandifer 15:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Raymond Fowler]] 

message: Template: has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Cirt 13:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of [[:Template:{{ucfirst:ScientologySeries}}]] 

message: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ScienTOMogy Steve Dufour 13:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD