Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scientology/Archive 2

message: ===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)
thread_title: Moved discussion

message: *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)
thread_title: Request

message: *Tone scale - This has recently been "boldly edited"; a  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)
thread_title: NPOV watch

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Tim Bowles]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Why is this a project 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  [[Frances Farmer]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Death Certificate

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Scientology info box

message: :Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scientology/Improvement.  Smee 09:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collaboration, Article Improvement Drive 

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

message: I created this Wikipedia:WikiProject Scientology/test.  I propose making this the new version of Wikipedia: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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Very nice, Smee! Aleta 02:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New "Front Page" 

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

text: Raeft: I suspect that Steve is being facetious here with his suggestion of an article. Aleta 04:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No I am not. Unlike Xenu, Captain Robertson was a real person. Steve Dufour 04:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Captain Bill Robertson

message: 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)
replies: text: Standard Tech also seems to fail to establish notability. Steve Dufour 13:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Altered texts in Scientology doctrine]]

message: http://blog.valuewiki.com/2007/03/28/scientology-and-wikipedia/ - David Gerard 20:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Get ready for your 15 minutes of fame you all! :-)  Steve Dufour 05:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The bloggers love us! 

message: 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)
replies: text: Hi Aleta. What did you think of my tagging Standard Tech unencyclopedic? Steve Dufour 04:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Excessive navigation boxes