Talk:International Association of Scientologists

message: An "attempt to address pov problem" by 68.164.133.174 is given on 20 Mar 2005 (3:02).  The attempt consisted of minor editing which vandalized previous contribution:<BR>
: *  The IAS' stated purpose to forward the Aims of Scientology was censored and replaced with to "contribute to religious freedom."  (Quotes as used in this way portray that the IAS does not contribute to religious freedom.  It is simply untrue and a subtle glittering of generalities.)<BR>
: * Also, a ==Membership== section has been removed and weaseled with more glittering of generalities.<BR>
: *  A critical link was added, pointing to Andreas Heldal-Lund's website which references one too many forgeries and other propaganda websites.  Anyway, this article (International Association of Scientologists) is not about Scientology.
IMHO, this type of "contribution" by 68.164.133.174 is sneaky vandalism  and propaganda under the guise of POV.  A bandwagon which Antaeus has joined by stating "Rephrase to reduce endorsement of POV" as the reason for his revision on 20 Mar 2005 (16:28) in which he chang "Recognizing the"... to "Believing in a" and also reverted my previously explained change.
Exactly how does all this reduce endorsement of POV?--J.Tell 06:21, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Very simple.  One of the goals of WP:NPOV is to describe disputes and the beliefs held by the various sides of the disputes without taking sides.  If I saw an article on an organization of Scientology critics and read a sentence that started "Recognizing the danger posed by the criminal organization Scientology" I would edit it to "Believing in a danger posed by Scientology", because leaving "recognizing" in would suggest that Wikipedia agrees with, "endorses", the beliefs it is describing.  For the same reason, when I read in this article a sentence beginning with "Recognizing the need for a", I changed it to "Believing in the need for a", because leaving "recognizing" in would again suggest that Wikipedia endorses the beliefs it is describing. -- Antaeus Feldspar 12:51, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough.  But, you didn't mention the rest of the issues I brought up, some of which pertain to the revision you just made.--J.Tell 22:29, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversial POV Check 

message: In the article Operation Clambake presents: What is Scientology? , numerous types of propaganda are being employed: appeal to fear, appeal to authority, demonization, glittering generality, obtaining disapproval, oversimplification, testimonial and damaging quotation, use of virtue words, slogans. SeePropaganda#Techniques_of_propaganda_generation.Besides all that, Operation Clambake has very little credibility:  Andreas has not corrected his website despite many arguments and discussion people have had about the innacuracies of his statements.  Is this the the kind of sources and references Wikipedia wants?--J.Tell 02:48, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How could anyone look at the operation clambake site and not know immediately, the site is established with one goal in mind.  To belittle and work toward destruction.  Isn't it obvious?  I would bet a dollar it is supported by Psychology / Psychiatry somehow.  Its obvious message is, "I am an enemy of Scientology" Terryeo 07:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Operation Clambake 

message: Incorrect information.  See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbard_Association_of_Scientologists_International
and http://www.iasmembership.org/en_US/story/index.html as to the facts on the formation of the IAS.  Deletions have no reliable source and are skewed. (Streamlight 6 January 2006 4:44 GMT
You vandalized this article with false information and pr fluff from the "official" site.  knock it off.--Fahrenheit451 01:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is rather important to present a POV.  Several editors keep insisting that every word of an article be Neutral, well, that is simply a misunderstanding of the policy, WP:NPOV. Especially in a controversial area a POV must be present, if it were not, the subject would not exist in the first place.  While Clambake would refuse to present the subject as it exists, it is Wikipedia's goal to present what is known about the subject.  This means presenting the POV which created the subject. After a subject is actually introduced, after a reader can understand and know what it is, then its controversy can be presented.  To do otherwise would be to copy Clambake and Xenu and expose' news reporting and would not be Wikipedic. Terryeo 04:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference 

message: An unregistered user with the ip address templates of 216.175.xx.xx has repeatedly vandalized this article by POV deletions along the pr lines of the church of scientology. Any further deletions by this user or users, without following wikipedia policy on discussion, will be reverted by myself.--Fahrenheit451 00:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notification of repeated vandalism 

message: Added here to be sifted to see if any of them would be useful in the article.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
That Cruise video from the 2004 IAS meeting might be a notable mention... :) AndroidCat (talk) 03:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Press mentions of International Association of Scientologists

message: I wrote a new page for the IAS. I think the only thing I saved from the earlier version (pre-redirect) was the categories. The page could use a logo.    ▶ I am Grorp ◀  12:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  New page