Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scientology/Archive 1

message: (moved from project page)
Looks intrinsically POV to me, shoving criticism into a corner. Fair Game (Scientology) arguably belongs in :Category:Scientology beliefs and practices, considering the CoS defended it in court under that name - David Gerard 19:29, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair Game is in both these sub-categories.  I actually regard the fact that articles can be placed in multiple sub-categories as largely preventing the corner-shoving effect -- assuming that the articles belong to the categories they're appropriate for, a controversial Scientology practice can be found in both :Category:Scientology controversy and in :Category:Scientology beliefs and practices, which is where it would be if :Category:Scientology controversy didn't exist. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:48, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm very unsure about this, in that the WP:CLS guideline recommends that an article should not be in both a category and its subcategory. We could try to declare an exception for this project, but I'm really wary of using a wikiproject as an excuse for gratuitous policy/guideline/style variation - David Gerard 15:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Sorry, those two are next to each other, not one under the other :-) Nevertheless, something still feels not quite right about it ... - David Gerard 15:21, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Its a historical fact, not a real time situation, hence it probably doesn't belong in either.  Why don't people understand, the Church lost enough court cases over it, modified the policies they operate under and don't engage in that any more. duh. Terryeo 20:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Category:Scientology controversy]]

message: Does anyone know why :Category:Scientology stubs is not showing up as a sub-category of :Category:Religion stubs? -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:17, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: NM, figured it out -- the sub-categories are sorted alphabetically and only appear on the page where stubs of the matching letter appear -- whichever page has the religion-stubs that begin with "S" will have the link to :Category:Scientology stubs. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:27, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientology stubs 

message: Listed participants David Gerard and Roger Gonnet (213.245.103.34) are critics of Scientology. How exactly do these critics intend to help NPOV Scientology articles? --AI 17:08, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: AI, I can understand your concern regarding critics writing articles about Scientology, but please rest assured that all participants to this project fully understand the implications of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and that the goal of this project is specifically related to ensuring neutrality of Scientology related articles across Wikipedia. I am a Scientologist and a participant to this project, but I would still refuse to bias articles towards my own personal beliefs and would not permit others to do so. Perhaps if you are concerned about this matter, you might be so kind as to join our project and ensure that we maintain NPOV yourself? --NicholasTurnbull 00:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I have joined the project and provide a POV.  Unfortunately, as much as I work to discuss, people find it difficult to tolerate 1/20 of an article being an introduction which accurately states the subject extant in Scientology but want to stuff it with dispersion and controversy from the second word on. Terryeo 08:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Scientology participants 

message: Just posting to a.r.s probably isn't enough, nor even a popular website unless it's Operation Clambake ... real-world influence, e.g. lawsuits, writing a book, frequent media (discussion needed) - David Gerard
That comment was listed with notable critics. What does this have to do with NPOV'ing Scientology related articles? It looks like part of an anti-scientology agenda. --AI 17:25, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking in terms of what to fill out the critics' section with - in terms of who probably deserved an article and who didn't; rather than to do with NPOV or references, which I mention in the aims as areas Wikipedia could really excel in in writing about Scientology. I'm sorry you don't think it's possible, but as a CoS member your POV is very much needed in some of the stridently critical articles, particularly if you can do better in assuming good faith - David Gerard 21:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, the statement did not give proper context and leaves readers guessing. --AI 22:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As a small note (most people don't do it anyway) there are some things on the internet which are not published (i.e. confidential and not published to the public).  Because Wikipedia articles are to use published sources of information (i.e. "unimpeachable") infomrations citing unpublished (and especially Scientology Confidential information) should not be used. Terryeo 20:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Out of context 

message: :Category:Free Zone is appropriate, but they should also be in one of :Category:Scientologists or :Category:Former Scientologists. It's not clear to me which would be more useful to the reader. Some of these people would say they're one and some would say they're the other, but I suspect that wouldn't be useful for someone trying to look them up - David Gerard 10:27, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable Freezone and Independent Scientologists - cat? 

message: NPOV Review Project
This project would provide internal peer review of material generated by this WikiProject, to check for proper balance and NPOV. Also, this project would check existing articles on Scientological subjects and correct POV material as appropriate.
:Can anyone tell me if there is another similar project so I can see a basic structure for this kind of task?  I'm interested but I need to determine if there are any existing guidelines to help organize and accomplish this kind of task. - Tεxτurε 22:22, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi there Texture, I'm afraid there doesn't seem to be anything quite the same as my idea for an "NPOV Review Project" elsewhere on Wikipedia; however, there is Wikipedia:Wikiproject Removing POV from pop culture articles, which achieves more or less the same thing with pop culture articles to what we are looking for in Scientology material. I hope this helps. --NicholasTurnbull 00:51, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just look through articles in general. Many articles have too much of a pro-Church POV or a critical POV. I'd suggest flagging them on this project page rather than, e.g. cutting material if something looks askew to you - David Gerard 13:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Gawd, that any of the Dianetics and Scientology articles have anything but a hostile POV.  lol.  Really, not a one of them comes anything close to a realistic presentation of the information of the article's title. Terryeo 05:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I completely agree, Ema.  Wiki policy says to do that and if we do that we can create realistic articles, even in this controversial area.  Just by following Wiki policy !  I think it will come out that the CoS says a lot of stuff from verifiable information (published, websites, etc.) and critics will say what appears at first glance to be a lot of stuff from a very small handful of sites.  This too is covered in Wiki policy and points toward that point of view which is verified best being the strongest arguement.  Terryeo 00:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV project 

message: I hope that you don't consider Gary Scarff notable enough to warrant an entry. -- llywrch 01:15, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: He is known as a critic of Scientology, but I doubt he's done or written anything worthy of labeling him as a notable critic. --AI 21:32, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Go ahead add him to the list --AI 22:43, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure there's much to say about him in regards to Scientology. He would be mentioned in relation to the Declaration of Garry Scarff, which was of some note as I recall, but what he's done since then is post to a.r.s. I suppose we'd write whatever article the declaration was relevant to and then see if there was really enough to break out Scarff as a separate article - David Gerard 14:41, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Persons 

message: I've been noticing a fairly large problem with duplication between articles.  Obviously, it is not desirable to remove all duplication, but some contributors (mostly anons) will read an article, "realize" that it is "missing" some information on the subject, and put it in.  ... I'm frankly not sure I know what to do about this, but I know it seems to be getting a bit worse lately. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:06, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Lots and disgustingly worse.  Thetan has all kinds of redundancy with body and operating thetan.  The Dianetics article practically says the exact same sentences twice in the first 5 lines. Terryeo 05:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Refactor as you find it, I guess. Wikilinks with a summary in brackets help avoid this, I suppose - David Gerard 00:48, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preventing duplication 

message: I first encountered jive and chef filters in 1996 when Deana Holmes used a filter of this kind to garble a quote from NOTS which she then published on Usenet, getting a few stern letters from lawyers for her efforts.
I've been editing a small article, Jive.exe, about this family of novelty programs, and it's been submitted for deletion.  As for some reason its notability is being questioned, I'm not above doing a bit of delving to try and save it, I've been looking to see if it's been the occasion of any lawsuits.  The nearest I got was Karin Spaink's account of being in court during one of the Zenon Panoussis hearings in Stockholm in 1998, in which she describes some filings made by one party or the other, one of which was a Swedish Chef parody of a NOTS document.
Any further information about the practice of jiving and borking would be welcome, as would edits to the article, and (of course, because I'm shameless in this regard) votes to keep the article. Think of it as a blow for the historical value of kitsch. --Tony SidawayTalk 15:40, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Jive.exe]]

message: Barbara Schwarz is unhappy with her article. She has indiciated a desire for legal action, however likely or unlikely that may be; if someone who actually knows something about the subject could see that its contents are NPOV and verifiable, I'd appreciate it. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:46, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Mindspillage - I'll check the article out for you. Schwartz tends to make these sort of legal demands on a routine basis; rest assured, however, that they rarely (if ever) come to anything. I should be able to spot if there really is a problem, since I know quite a lot about this field. --NicholasTurnbull 01:42, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I have gone over the article carefully. Although it is written in a slightly negative tone, there is no NPOV violation present that I can find, and all facts stated are verifiable. Some sourcing could be added to emphasise this. There is, as far as I can determine, no scurrilous material present that could substantiate such a comment from Ms. Schwarz. Best regards, NicholasTurnbull 04:48, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, nothing is verifiable except to Barbara's postings. If we are going to base the article on her postings, then almost anything she writes can be used in the article. Currently the contributors are only using things about Barbara to make her look crazy and they ignore everything else.  I think the article should mention the story how she was illegally removed from the Church of Scientology and kidnapped to a "psych hospital" and then "treated" against her will. --AI 09:14, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Barbara Schwarz

message: alt.religion.scientology has been receiving flames by the dozens attacking Wikipedia and smearing the reputation of Jimbo Wales.  I hope we're not the ones responsible for this - if NPOV doesn't look favorable enough to the CoS there's nothing we can do about it, but anyone who's unhappy should bring it up through proper channels, instead of going on Usenet and trying to backstab the whole organization. - 206.114.20.121 22:34, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Promoting the idea of Wikipedia vs. Scientology is propaganda by 206.114.20.121.  The comment by Marbahlarbs serves no purpose but to support the propaganda, enflame bias, and encourage "original research" or "research" based on unreliable sources. --AI 09:10, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientology vs. Wikipedia? 

message: Please take into consideration Beroul's opinion about sources. Beroul is coming from a totally neutral point of view and is the most significant contributor at Muslim Brotherhood. --AI 21:43, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly, although academic contributors in the field of Scientology, and new religious movements in general, are notoriously problematic - see Stephen Kent's paper When Scholars Know Sin - David Gerard 13:32, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sociologist Stephen Kent's ideas are disputed by other sociologists and many view him as a crackpot.  I'm not buying this automatic "problematic" "reaction". --AI 23:27, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A sociologist who criticizes those in his field who take money from the groups they're supposedly doing neutral, scholarly research on, being disputed and defamed by those "scholars" in return?  What a shocking surprise. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:22, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A privately paid sociologists disputing another sociologist's viewpoint does not necessarily indicate bias and their "neutral, scholarly research" doesn't have to be effected by the dispute over an alleged crackpot's viewpoint. --AI 08:48, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So, basically, sociologists you haven't bothered to name have called Kent a "crackpot" and that anonymous imprecise insult automatically nullifies any significance to anything brought up by Kent?  However, just because Kent has clearly documented how these scholars have gone about their research with a lucrative conflict of interest in their wallets, it doesn't "necessarily indicate" bias?  Your double standard is just ridiculous. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:17, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Antaeus, this is the last time I will remind you of WP:NPA. --AI 21:08, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good for you; for the person who made this edit to even be mentioning the "no personal attacks" policy is rank hypocrisy. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:25, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Unfortunately, while User:AI raised an actual, valid issue, the issue he raised is dispersed, defamed and generally mangled by Feldspar's subsequent reactions to AI's raised issue.  Doesn't WP:NPOV cover this issue clearly enough? Terryeo 17:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: AI, we fully intend to only add those books which are notable enough to merit inclusion (e.g. those with a sufficient exposure and readership). Whatever other people have decided can be voted for deletion is beside the point, as notability can only be determined on a case-by-case basis and there is little to no method of creating a blanket rule on what is notable and what isn't. And besides, I hardly think it to be a problem if an article is created on a book which is subsequently nominated for deletion due to non-notability; the fact that things can easily be changed on a wiki is what makes such arguments quite unnecessary, since nomination on AfD is hardly a big deal. I can assure you that I shall be documenting LRH's books extensively as well, and the same notability criteria shall apply in both the supporter and the critic POVs. I appreciate your help in this regard. ARC, --NicholasTurnbull 00:21, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK then I assume you are intending to maintain NPOV by countering criticism by including the Scientology POVs (rebuttals). --AI 08:54, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If anyone has a site which counts "number of copies sold" it would be helpful because it would spell out which books are noteable and which books are not.Terryeo 09:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion from Projects - Critical Books Coverage Project 

message: I've been thinking for some time; there's a :Template:Public watchlist that can be used to make a publicly editable page that works almost the same as a watchlist (there are some differences, but most of them have work-arounds.)  Might this be a good addition to our Project? -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This still seems like a good idea to me.  If no one has objections I will start it sometime within the next few days. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shared watchlist? 

message: It is quite common for those who are anti-Scientology, those who are anti-Church and those who are anti-Church actions to be lumped together as "anti-Scientology".
This suffers from the outpoint "Assumed Identities not Identical".
I would like to see, at the very least, a differentiation between anti-Scientology groups/people/statements/actions and anti-Church groups/people/statements/actions.
:Well, this seems to be a good point to make in discourse, that is almost impossible to make in the category system.  There is indeed a difference between opposing the belief system of Scientology and opposing the Church of Scientology, and I suppose there's a difference between opposing the Church and opposing the Church's actions (although I scratch my head trying to figure out why anyone would oppose the Church except for their actions).  But since the Church of Scientology regards anyone opposed to the Church's actions as opposed to the Church, and anyone opposed to the Church (including Free Zoners) as opposed to Scientology, and anyone opposed to Scientology as a suppressive person who hates humanity, trying to classify groups/people/statements/actions in this manner would be endlessly controversial -- for, frankly, not a lot of actual gain to anyone that I can see. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that getting it "sorted out" would be highly likely to run into the problem of original research.  Reporting what people say their own motives are?  That can be done in an NPOV fashion.  Reporting what people say the motives of other people are?  That can be done in an NPOV fashion (though of course it can also be done in an improper POV fashion, too...)  But trying to determine what their true motives are and categorize them accordingly, as I understand the original proposal to be?  I think that the principles of Wikipedia point very clearly in this case to restrict ourselves to reporting statements on motives, not endorsing them by making them the basis of a system of classification. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Category:Anti-Scientology differenticated from Anti-Church actions]]

message: I happened to watch part of a Barbara Walters interview with Tom Cruise and the topic of childbirth came up. Specifically Walters asked whether there is a Scientology view on childbirth and something about the mother keeping quiet during labor, which Cruise essentially confirmed. Is this a topic which we should cover (or have we already?) -Willmcw
:I would say we should but I don't know offhand where it should go. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:28, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If I understand the concept behind it it is done in order to not create any engrams for the child at birth, so perhaps one could mention it in Scientology:_Beliefs_and_Practices#Reactive_mind_and_engrams (Entheta 15:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If a person considers that an engram might exist and if a person understands what an engram consists of then and only then would a person be likely to understand why excessive noises, slaps on the baby, etc. etc. would matter, anyway. Terryeo 21:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Childbirth 

message: I did a relativly major rewrite to the Zenon Panoussis article. Could a few people read over it and make sure it sounds allright, is NPOV and properly formatted? -AKMask 14:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks OK to me. Egyptian born? I thought he was Greek - David Gerard 14:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Zenon Panoussis]] rewrite 

message: Neutral point of view is going to be a tricky one on this subject - remember that these articles should be useful to both Scientologists and strident critics as well as the general reader. So I've placed a section called "NPOV watch". I've added the list article because I've used my own site as a reference, and I'd like other eyes on it for that reason. Please note articles that you think need NPOVing if you don't have time to do it yourself. (And please don't be too procedural if someone removes the article from the list.) - David Gerard 16:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the mainstay of difficulty to be resolvable by WP:NOR#How_to_deal_with_Wikipedia_entries_about_theories.  I believe the constant back and forth editing and reasons for dispute revolve around whether a particular cited information is a theory or a datum.  That link gives us conflict resolution.  We should use the discussion pages to resolve what is theory.  We should then present it as theory.  When it comes to datums that are not theory, which are either straight beliefs, or, alternatively, as known as apple pie then we deal with that datum in another way.  For example, the term, "mental energy".   It can be a confusing term because "mental" in western dictionarys usually is something about the brain.  So the term would mean, "energy about the human head" and has almost no useful meaning.  While in Dianetics, "mental energy" is meant to refer to any sort of thought or energy which a thought manifests.  Separating out the theory from what is commonly known in discussion pages will lead to good articles, I think. Terryeo 21:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV watch

message: Please visit this template I'm working on to go at the bottom of all of the major religious pages as a way to facilitate comparative religion research.  Leave your comments on its talk page.  Thanks! --Mareino 01:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparative Religions Template

message: Flag Land Base redirects to Church of Scientology. Shouldn't it rather redirect to Fort Harrison Hotel or perhaps Flag Service Organization (which however doesn't exist yet? (Entheta 20:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understand it, Flag Land Base is a central organization.  It consists, in part, of the Fort Harrison Hotel but includes several other buildings, even of similar stature.  Without doubt it is the single most organizationally complete and complex manifestation of the Church of Scientology on the planet.  It includes the Flag Service Org.  It isn't wrong to direct it to Church of Scientology but an article of its own would probably be appropriate.  I understand there was a good deal, still is, of controversy about the city and the base establishing itself. Terryeo 21:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes there certainly was some controversy. A little info on Wikipedia about this can be found at Church_of_Scientology#Flag_Land_Base.2C_Clearwater.2C_Florida and some at Fort Harrison Hotel. I don't know enough about this to start a separate article about Flag Land Base, but if someone else can, maybe it's a good idea, or what do others think? Is it unneccessary? (Entheta 21:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For my 2 cents, don't bother.  It seems like the threshold for creating an article on here is "Is there controversy" instead of Wikipedia's standard which might be phrased as, "Is there a subject a person would want to know about?"  I wouldn't bother, myself.  It would just mean that those who are convinced that Scientology was long ago "debunked" and the millions of dollars worth of property the Church now owns is a farce, built on a base of farces, will of course create the article(s). And then along will come hardworking people and, seeing the fallacies and falsehoods and POV, attempt to bring them into accurate standards toward which every encyclopedia strives.  I would say, "don't bother" Terryeo 00:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Flag Land Base

message: :Jargon.  There are many terms and phrases that reoccur within Scientology (e.g. "get ethics in on the planet"), that are meaningless to most readers.  The goal of Wiki, and good writing, is clarity; as much for Scientology as art criticism or molecular biology.   Avoid jargon, catch phases, indeed cliches, whenever possible. Jargon specific to Scientology, which includes proper nouns  (e.g. Sea Org, Rehabilitation Project Force) or nouns formalized within Scientology (e.g "Tech") should be linked, perhaps in appropriate cases to Wiki Dictionary as jargon.
I just wanted to give me props to the boys here at this project.  The mere depth provided by these scientology articles are a fairly major improvement from earlier on.  Keep up the good work!  --Depakote 01:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, but unfortunately it's not coming easily, as we're facing some very aggressive POV-pushing on some of these articles (see especially Talk:Dianetics). Feel free to lend a hand! -- ChrisO 02:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Boys and girls, actually. ;-). Now that we have more voices, and more of a variety of POV editors (as everyone has their own POV), we're navigating rough waters and finding neutral and extreme language, neutral and extreme sources, and slowly managing to fold in everything together. It's not easy, but it's quite rewarding, and the articles are growing quite nicely, if at times, with some contention. Anyways, thanks for the props! Ronabop 13:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Light editing contention, free flowing fads of the moment. Xenu as a belief.  You people tickle me. There is more information extant but all is not well in Dodge either. lolTerryeo 09:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radical Improvement 

message: I've posted a Request for Comments on User:Terryeo. I've reluctantly come to the conclusion that his persistent misconduct on a range of Scientology-related articles will require an intervention from the Arbitration Committee and probably a lengthy ban. I'll keep the RfC open for a limited period before submitting it to the ArbCom as a Request for Arbitration. Please feel free to add any comments to the RfC, which is at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Terryeo (but please ensure that you add your comments to the right section of the RfC). If you have any additional evidence, please add that to the RfC. I will be posting this note to a number of users who've been directly involved in editing disputes with Terryeo. -- ChrisO 23:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It becomes pretty clear what is going on when An editor approaches ChrisO and asks him if he thinks "help" (against me) should be drawn from alt.religion.scientology.  It becomes pretty clear just how hard editors are working toward a NPOV.  Pretty clear :) Terryeo 03:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Comments - Terryeo

message: I'm .... rather bemused by this category.  Why is it useful in a way that the separate categories of :Category:Dead people and :Category:Scientologists are not?  I've added it to the public watchlist, but I don't think it's a good idea, frankly. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New category "Dead Scientologists" 

message: I want to say, I understand all of the editors here almost always edit in the best possible NPOV way they are capable of.  My first months were spent convincing people that I was not a doctrinaire (a person who can tolerate no other point of view than his own doctrine).  I do want you all to understand that you are not actually presenting the information which comprises these subjects.  You are presenting information about them.  I don't doubt that you are doing what you feel is right.  But I do want you all to understand that you are not presenting the information which comprises them. Terryeo 21:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I want you to understand that you're not fooling anyone.  You can't make up for months and months in which you do almost nothing on talk pages except accuse other editors of deliberate wrongdoing with an insincere last-minute pretense that you're finally willing to assume good faith. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see. Nonetheless, I am convinced that you are doing the best you can with what you have, with your personal understanding of the subjects :) Well, that's what I am doing too.Terryeo 03:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "You are not actually presenting the information which comprises these subjects.  You are presenting information about them."  Is this a criticism, Terryeo?  It seems to me that the premise of the encyclopedia is to offer writing about subjects, in a manner that is accessible to readers who have little prior familiarity with the subjects, from a disinterested point of view, that is, a distanced, "outside"  point of view.  It would be totally inappropriate for us to uncritically re-present the indoctrination materials of Scientology, or of most any subject that involves persuading people to a particular point of view: Evangelical Protestantism, Laizzez-faire capitalism, the Green party, whatever.  Do you disagree?  BTfromLA 16:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: Hello! We at the Work via WikiProjects team for Wikipedia 1.0 would like you to identify the "key articles" from your project that should be included in a small CD release due to their importance, regardless of quality. We will use that information to assess which articles should be nominated for Version 0.5 and later versions.  Hopefully it will help you identify which articles are the most important for the project to work on. As well, please add to the Scientology WikiProject article table any articles of high quality. If you are interested in developing a worklist such as this one (new) for your WikiProject, or having a bot generate a worklist like this one automatically for you, please contact us.  Please feel free to post your suggestions right here.  Thanks! Walkerma 04:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The fundamental articles are: Dianetics, Scientology and the Church of Scientology. Terryeo 07:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gee, I can't imagine why Terryeo would have forgotten Scientology controversy... -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then your task, Feldspar, should you choose to accept it, is to do as I did. Go to the appropriate page and place your statement.  If I can do it, would there be a reason you could not do it?  Further, to copy your style; "Gee, I can't imagine why Feldspar did not reply earlier." Terryeo 19:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thanks a lot for these, I will add them into the table soon as Top-Importance.  Sorry I took a while to respond, our new semester began shortly after I posted...!  I'll enter your FAs like Xenu into the table too with lower importance levels, just for the record. Many thanks, Walkerma 16:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  As a point of information which you may or may not choose to consider, Walkerma, neither the Church nor any member in good standing with the Church of Scientology makes any statement whatsoever about "Xenu".  That article has no primary source of information for it and has only rumor, stolen documents (which might or might not be accurate) and other such drivel as sources of information.  There are, perhaps, 2 other Wikipedia articles in the series which are likewise so poorly documented as to hardly be worthy of consideration in a reliable study. Please keep in mind, Wikipedia is always being improved. Terryeo 16:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Terryeo says "nor any member in good standing with the Church". Strictly speaking, this is false. The members that leaked the Xenu story were in good standing with the church. It is because they leaked this information that they lost their good standing. Yandman 18:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The abundance of critical coverage of Scientology isn't a problem. WP:NPOV actually requires it. We're not supposed to represent some abstract truth. We're supposed to give coverage representative of verifiable, reliable sources. These sources are overwhemlingly in favor of criticizing Scientology. Little exists beyond Scientology's primary sources to support Scientology's assertions. --Davidstrauss 20:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: David is completely right, there is lots and lots of critical coverage about Scientology and Dianetics.  Almost all of it falls below wikipedia's standards, however.  For example, the hundreds of personal essays and thousands of newsgroup postings by selected Wikipedia members all fall below wikipedia standards. Tsk, its unfortunate, but there you have it.  However, should any of those fine editors become published by, say, The New York Times or even a small town newspaper then their fine essay style could be quoted right here in downtown Wikipedialand ! Terryeo 22:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You see, Terry, this kind of thing is why I think the "remove personal attacks" theory is a terrible idea.  (1) The context should be clear that the title was related to the text and not a personal attack; (2) I was just about the only person here willing to listen to your side, so what was the chances I was making a personal attack, and (3) now my feelings are hurt.  If you think I've made a personal attack in the future, I'd appreciated it if you'd either ask me to remove it or report me and see if the admins want to step in.  TheronJ 01:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  ok.  I could have been more diplomatic and restated the thing  differently. Terryeo 11:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Key articles for Wikipedia 1.0 

message: Sorry for thinking out loud, but I took a look at the Xenu article in light of Terryeo's complaints, and it gave me a bunch more thoughts about Terryeo's criticisms of the scientology project in general.
# Some of Terryeo's complaints are, IMHO, valid, and, if addressed, would improve the scientology articles.  
## In particular, the scientology pages don't do the best job of representing the Scientology point of view in a non-dismissive way,(See "Wikipedia:Writing for the enemy"), and at least some of the scientology pages rely heavily on self-published websites with strong anti-COS points of view.
## I appreciate that the editors here have worked hard on the articles, some of which are excellent, and that (1) it's hard to represent the COS viewpoint neutrally because the COS tends not to make public statements regarding Xenu, patter drills, or whatever, and (2) a lot of the most interesting information is on websites.
# On the other hand, IMHO, many of Terryeo's complaints are at least overblown, and some are completely off base.  
## In particular, Xenu was a featured article in February 05, and it's considerably better today than it was then, IMHO.  The article appears to be well sourced, and finding additional sources regarding Xenu mythology is trivially easy.  
## At most, the article could be improved by a slightly more balanced tone regarding the COS position on Xenu.  As Terryeo says, it's true that the sources have cobbled together Xenu mythology from a combination of alleged COS leaks and LRH science fiction, so we can't know all of the details.  Still, the article does say this, so at most, it suffers from a slight excess of tone.
# I understand that Terryeo has a strong POV, and that he's basically a single purpose account, and that if he violates his ban a couple more times, he's probably gone.  Still, it's a shame that there isn't any way to harness the debate between Terryeo and the other editors to polish up all the articles.  It would be helpful to have someone like him to point out when the COS viewpoint wasn't being represented, or when he felt that a source was unreliable, and then let the other editors consider, and maybe remedy the problem, or the part of the problem they believe exists.
Just thinking out loud, TheronJ 19:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The abundance of critical coverage of Scientology isn't a problem. WP:NPOV actually requires it. We're not supposed to represent some abstract truth. We're supposed to give coverage representative of verifiable, reliable sources. These sources are overwhemlingly in favor of criticizing Scientology. Little exists beyond Scientology's primary sources to support Scientology's assertions. --Davidstrauss 20:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: David is completely right, there is lots and lots of critical coverage about Scientology and Dianetics.  Almost all of it falls below wikipedia's standards, however.  For example, the hundreds of personal essays and thousands of newsgroup postings by selected Wikipedia members all fall below wikipedia standards. Tsk, its unfortunate, but there you have it.  However, should any of those fine editors become published by, say, The New York Times or even a small town newspaper then their fine essay style could be quoted right here in downtown Wikipedialand ! Terryeo 22:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You see, Terry, this kind of thing is why I think the "remove personal attacks" theory is a terrible idea.  (1) The context should be clear that the title was related to the text and not a personal attack; (2) I was just about the only person here willing to listen to your side, so what was the chances I was making a personal attack, and (3) now my feelings are hurt.  If you think I've made a personal attack in the future, I'd appreciated it if you'd either ask me to remove it or report me and see if the admins want to step in.  TheronJ 01:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  ok.  I could have been more diplomatic and restated the thing  differently. Terryeo 11:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thoughts in Light of Terryeo's Complaints About Xenu 

message: A bunch of comments, in no particular order.
# If, as Francis states, it is possible to replace the cites to Xenu.net with cites to authorities that more clearly meet WP:V and WP:RS, that is a good thing.  Terryeo's motives probably aren't relevant -- if he points out an area where the encyclopedia should be improved, and it's possible to improve it, that's great. 
# As a general matter, I'm more generous to "convenience cites" than Blueboar, and wouldn't have an objection to a convenience cite as long as the citation also has a citation, in proper WP:CITE form, to a source that meets WP:V standards.
# The chart on Scientology as a business is suboptimal.  It cites to two sources, Xenu.net and the American Saint Hill Organization, Church of Scientology.  However, it's very difficult to determine which portions of the chart are sourced by which of the two citations (or both), and there's no explanation of what ASHO is or whether its fees are representative of all Scientology fees.
# Generally, I don't think Xenu.net documents meet WP:V, at least not without a citation to a verifiable version of the document, and a clear note that Xenu is offered for convenience.  Xenu is clearly self-published, and there's no reason to think that it meets one of the exceptions to the WP:V rule forbidding the use of self-published sources
Thanks, TheronJ 13:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While we may disagree on the reliability of using convinience links in general... I agree with you on the rest of this.  The chart has issues beyond just WP:RS (WP:NOR for one)... and Xenu is clearly self-published. Blueboar 15:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More comments on [[Scientology as a business]]

message: I have given my opinion on the cites at Scientology as a Business... take 'em or leave 'em.  This should give you a clear idea of how I will opine on other cites.  I told you going in that I was a "strict constructionist" on reliability.  On the other hand, I can be convinced to make exceptions in specific cases.  So... will my comments be helpful if we look at some of the other Scientology related articles?  If so... what's next? Or am I just waisting everyone's time? Blueboar 22:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you.  Would you consider viewing Patter drill next?  In particular cites 2, 4, 5, and 6 point to borderline websites and 4,5,and 6 to personal websites. Terryeo 23:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: TheronJ's comments on the talk page of Patter Drill sums up my reaction perfectly... he is doing my job for me! (I have agreed with his comments on that talk page) Next? Blueboar 17:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is a biggy, may I suggest Scientology ? Several days ago I created a brief analysis of the references here.  Several are personal websites with personal opinion.  Several are in languages other than English.  One or two are hand typed duplications of court documents (apparently). And I want to state that I'm very pleased both of you agree.  Very. Terryeo 11:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Blueboar, it's all yours - I may chime in later.  ;)  TheronJ 13:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll take a look this weekend. Blueboar 16:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Shall we continue?

message: I thought it might help to touch base and see what people would like to see happen as a result of Blueboar and me poking around the scientology pages.
# If I can oversimplify, Blueboar and I reviewed couple pages, Scientology as a business and Patter drill and concluded that:
## We generally agree that Terryeo has raised some valid complaints about the citations used on those pages, and that many, probably a majority, of the citations used do not meet WP:V or WP:RS.
## Neither Blueboar or myself appears inclined to edit the pages to remove or fix the offending citations, and Terryeo is barred from doing so.
## If I understand ChrisO and Francis Shonken correctly, they also agree that at least some of Terryeo's complaints have some basis, although they also think that some of his complaints go too far.
# So Terry, Chris, Francis, (and anyone else) what would you like to see happen next?  I can imagine a few possibilities.
## If the current review is helpful, Blueboar and I can keep doing it.
## If the current review isn't helpful, we could quit.
## The current editors could agree to try to correct some of the concerns identified to date.
## ChrisO mentioned in Terryeo's request for mediation that he would prefer RFCs to bring in more outside opinion.  If Blueboar and I aren't enough of a sample size, would you guys prefer to see some RFCs?  If so, would you like to draft it collectively or would you prefer for someone just to post it.
Thanks, TheronJ 13:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad you said something, F.  Glad you said something.  Would you be willing to apologize for accusing me of "bad faith?" Terryeo 20:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would Terryeo be willing to apologize for chronically attempting to get Reliable Source enforced as if it were a policy?--Fahrenheit451 20:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why don't you ask me ? Terryeo 23:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: So you're not in favour of the use of sites like "Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance" (covered here Talk:Scientology and the legal system#Resources, fair and balanced)? A personal website, claiming to be neutral, but with almost all the Scientology articles authored or co-authored by Al Buttnor, Director of Special Affairs, Church of Scientology Toronto. (But no mention of that on the site.) Misleading references too. As well, the site attempts to block the use of the Wayback Machine archive to compare the pages with previous versions. AndroidCat 14:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am, as I have stated many times, in favor of implementing Wikipedia policy and Wikipedia guidelines.  Show me 5 Scientology articles which don't cite a personal website, can you?  I would be ALL FOR removing every cite to a personal website, if that were Wikipedia policy.  Don't you find it slightly amusing that one personal website is offensive to you, but Xenu.net, Clambake.org and a dozen other personal websites are not offensive to you, 'Cat ? Terryeo 16:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, implementing Wikipedia policy and Wikipedia guidelines...  I must have missed the part where abiding by bans imposed by the Arbitration Committees became an optional practice... -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why not comment appropriate to this discussion heading?  Our Wikipedia would be more widely read if only Policy and Guidelines were followed in the Scientology series of articles.  That's what this min-Rfc is about. Because I often point out deviations from the guideline, especially WP:RS and direct conflicts with WP:NOR and what happens?  Opposition might not be the right term, but you certainly must have the idea, huh ? Terryeo 00:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC: What's the end result? 

message: In recent days with a little searching I have found an edit by User:ChrisO which cites his own message which he placed on a newsgroup.  And, likewise, one by User:Raymond Hill.  It took a few hours of searching.  But what I am trying to say is that ALL of that kind of self-interest would not be present in the articles if editors simply followed policy.  Newsgroups are obviously not reliable sources of information.  They aren't actually attributable.  An editor could post a newsgroup message, "Hubbard said the moon is made of green cheese in Executive Directive 04" and then go to his personal website and archive the newsgroup, come here to Wikipedia and quote Hubbard, cite his manufactured quotation and that has actually happened (all in good faith of course).  But all of that self interest can not creep in if we simply follow WP:V.  As obvious as these examples are, Personal Websites are too small a step up the reliability ladder.  They too can be manipulated, essays created on them and then cited here in Wikipedia.  Obviously. Terryeo 23:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So you're not in favour of the use of sites like "Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance" (covered here Talk:Scientology and the legal system#Resources, fair and balanced)? A personal website, claiming to be neutral, but with almost all the Scientology articles authored or co-authored by Al Buttnor, Director of Special Affairs, Church of Scientology Toronto. (But no mention of that on the site.) Misleading references too. As well, the site attempts to block the use of the Wayback Machine archive to compare the pages with previous versions. AndroidCat 14:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am, as I have stated many times, in favor of implementing Wikipedia policy and Wikipedia guidelines.  Show me 5 Scientology articles which don't cite a personal website, can you?  I would be ALL FOR removing every cite to a personal website, if that were Wikipedia policy.  Don't you find it slightly amusing that one personal website is offensive to you, but Xenu.net, Clambake.org and a dozen other personal websites are not offensive to you, 'Cat ? Terryeo 16:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, implementing Wikipedia policy and Wikipedia guidelines...  I must have missed the part where abiding by bans imposed by the Arbitration Committees became an optional practice... -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why not comment appropriate to this discussion heading?  Our Wikipedia would be more widely read if only Policy and Guidelines were followed in the Scientology series of articles.  That's what this min-Rfc is about. Because I often point out deviations from the guideline, especially WP:RS and direct conflicts with WP:NOR and what happens?  Opposition might not be the right term, but you certainly must have the idea, huh ? Terryeo 00:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal websites 

message: After seeing this Wikiproject I no longer have faith in the neutrality and the factual accuracy in any Scientology page. Has any editor seen that virtually all "participants" in this Wikiproject have a stated, anti-Scientology pov? Wow. Now I understand why Scientology Public Relations exists. Republitarian 02:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is a good deal of truth to that, I'm afraid. It is a matter of understanding Wikipedia's streets and byways I guess. Terryeo 20:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Kind of you to drop in, Republitarian, although I might recommend that you brush up a bit on Wikipedia:No personal attacks, which you just violated rather severely.  Did you in fact have any comment to make about the content, or were you under the impression that it was fine for you to not only comment on the contributors but make a sweeping and negative accusation against them? -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No mention of any individual editor was either stated nor implied by User:Republitarian's post.  No personal attack exists. Terryeo 23:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see -- it's okay to make personal attacks as long as it's against several people at once, instead of singling out editors individually?  Is that your understanding?  Perhaps you should share that with the Arbitration Committee. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Quite to the contrary.  "Personal Attack" (which you accuse the user of), User:Antaeus Feldspar requires that a person be pointed to.  Per WP:NPA, certain other salient features would be present.  None of them are. I would welcome communication with the Arbitration Committee, did you have a page in mind ? Terryeo 20:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Having a particular POV does not automatically disqualify one from writing a NPOV article. WP:NPOV requires that you write neutrally, not that you be neutral. -- ChrisO 13:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Toward writing in complience with WP:NPOV, keep in mind that articles are not so much created out of thin air, but collect together previously published information by reliable sources (WP:V).  Good guidance for such sources of information can be found at WP:RS but do not include personal websites (for reasons stated there), nor archived newsgroups such as this edit, where User:ChrisO quotes his own, newsgroup posted words, finds them archived on a personal website and then cites them into the Scientology article on 28 June, 2005Terryeo 02:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who's surprised that the edit which Terryeo links to absolutely fails to match Terryeo's accusatory description?  Raise your hand if you're surprised that Terryeo made an accusation, and linked to an edit as if that edit actually supported his accusation, but that it didn't in fact back up his words.  ... any time, now.  Go ahead.  Raise your hand if you're surprised. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Count up from the bottom, the ninth (9th) paragraph you come to has at its end, the link to the archived newsgroup on a personal website which is a message from Chris Owen. Perhaps the quantity of information created by administrator User:ChrisO presents a lot to sort through. Terryeo 03:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My hand will not be raised.  At first, I thought Terryeo had found his "smoking gun."  It does appear that ChrisO did link to an article he authored, correct?  Not content with facts, though, Terryeo charges that ChrisO "quotes his own, newsgroup posted words," which is patently false--the reference is clearly and only to Hubbard's written words, which are quoted in the Chris Owen article.   And Terryeo doesn't object to anything that actually bears on the quality of the article--he offers no concern about the veracity of the Hubbard quote in question.   Still, it wouldn't hurt to replace the link, so as to eliminate any hint of impropriety and to focus more exactly on the cited material.  Terryeo won't be satisfied, but the relevant memo is reproduced, unedited and without external commentary, at . BTfromLA 04:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  User:ChrisO has stated that he is Chris Owen in various places.  When he posts in newsgroups (many postings), creates his anti-Scientology website (Anti-Narconon), writes a 100+ articles on Xenu, appears at the personal "Solitary Trees" website in many essays, works with David T to produce anti-Scientology essays and edits here on Wikipedia, well, a person should expect a tiny bit of his cross-hatting work to show up somewhere.  But I'll agree, his edits rarely cite his own works.  However, his work appears cited frequently enough because he has posted so much anti-Scientology on so many personal websites. Terryeo 12:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Terryeo, you need to focus your complaints and limit your objections to things that are both true and truly problematic if you want editors to respond favorably.  If my quick reading of ChrisO's edit is correct, you have identified a link that has one real problem and one possible impropriety.  You did not mention the real problem at all, and you added some charges that are plainly false--ChrisO did not quote himself.  The real problem with that link, I think, is that there is not a clear citation of the memo from which the Hubbard quote is drawn--that, certainly, should be added.  The "appearance" issue is the fact that ChrisO linked to something he had written as a way of making a larger part of the Hubbard quote visible.  As I suggested above, I think that should be substituted with a "cleaner" convenience link, such as the one I found easily with a google search.  About "personal sites," in my view, if the site is not the reference (i.e., it is a convenience link, not a link to the actual reliable source on which the citation is based), if the information is clearly presented, and if there is no reason to suspect that the cited document is distorted or mis-represented, I just don't see the point of getting exercised about it, particularly if more extensively vetted web hosts are not available.  I know that my view is not universally held, but neither do I think my view falls outside the mainstream of wikipedia editors.  And I'm confident I'm not the only one who wishes your "continual comments about the quality of the sources of information" did reflect some interest in the veracity of "the information contained within such citations," which you seem to find irrelevant to the quality of the articles.  BTfromLA 05:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Every editor should work toward implementation of Wikipedia policy and guideline rather than encouraging other editors to ignore them at their personal whim. Terryeo 05:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We have a difference of priorities. I think editors should work toward writing readable, concise, informative, factually accurate articles, written, to the extent possible, from a "neutral" point of view.  BTfromLA 05:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The original poster of this thread needs to read up on WP:NPOV, which doesn't support the idea of equal coverage of each viewpoint in articles and says nothing about equal representation of each view in Wikiprojects. --Davidstrauss 05:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  As I've tried to spell out, NP:NPOV guides editors to present the most widely published point of view as being the prevelent point of view.  In the case of this subject, Scientology, we have something like 40 million published words, millions of sold books, DMSMH as being a best seller, etc.  Widely published. Against that we have a few dozen, perhaps a few hundred newpaper articles, a handful of books, etc.  Therefore, for this subject (if we exclude personal websites, blogs and newsgroup trashtalk), we have a clear guideline of how to present the subject. Terryeo 05:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Trash talk"?  "Hey, Hubbard... yo' muddah wears army boots..."  BTfromLA 05:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL! But seriously, the "most widely published point of view" is a red herring and it certainly doesn't mean what Terryeo says it means. What Terryeo is actually saying is "the side with the most published words should prevail". If all of those 40 million published words come from L. Ron Hubbard, that's actually the least widely published point of view - they come from only one source. By comparison there are dozens of books and tens of thousands (check Lexis-Nexis) of articles from hundreds if not thousands of journals and newspapers around the world. We should be presenting articles from a neutral point of view based on all available sources, not on which source has the highest word count. I'll be the first to acknowledge that many of this WikiProject's articles don't meet that ideal, but that doesn't mean that the alternative has to be the sort of slavish kow-towing to the Scientology line that Terryeo seems to want. -- ChrisO 08:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your argument is not with me.  Your red herring argument for an exception to the Scientology Series of articles is with the concensus of editors who establish and maintain WP:RS, and, conceiveably with our founder, Jimbo.  "Published" in this sense means "presented to the public" as in "copies of books sold" and while 40 millions of words is vastly less than the number of words sold, the idea,  which side has published and put into public hands the larger quantity of reliable information is clearly not on the side of unattributable, hidden-in-solitary-trees, anti-Scientology personal websites.  The public speaks by purchasing copies, those purchasing dollars represent votes by the public for the information the public considers valuable.  That information is the information which NPOV addresses when it says, The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly.  Your argument is not with me, I am asserting what policy and guideline say should be asserted. I am stating what I mean.  Feel free to notice that I am not stating what you mean, as you do, User:ChrisO Terryeo 09:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  I don't believe I have done either of those things. Of course I understand your motivation to protect me from people's thinking and thank you so much for caring enough to state so :) Terryeo 14:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I am not surprised. I have no interest in protecting you from "people's thinking", thus your alleged understanding of that is your own fabrication.--Fahrenheit451 15:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I refer to your statement, I don't want anyone thinking that you have suppressive traits.   Thank you for your consideration in the matter, have a nice day. Terryeo 17:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I presume this is the part of the NPOV policy upon which Terryeo bases his theory of "widely published": "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each."  The kinds of sources the policy is seeking are third-parties, with a preference for well-credentialed ones: accredited scholars and journalists for "major" publications; jurists, in issues where courts are involved, would also be a good source of third-party viewpoints.  In this context, it is doubtful whether any materials published by Hubbard or the Church of Scientology can be accepted as "a reliable source."  Bridge publications provide primary source materials for these articles--quotes from Hubbard or Church officials--but are not a reliable source of how Scientology or its claims are viewed by third parties.  Indeed, there is ample evidence that Hubbard and Bridge are distinctly unreliable sources in these matters, prone to publishing false or misleading information.  As to Terryeo's emphasis on print runs, sales figures and word counts--at best, those are a few among many factors in assessing how prominent a given point of view is, and I don't think you'll find them singled out as significant in the written wikipedia policies, which clearly emphasize "credible, third-party sources". BTfromLA 18:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  BTfromLA has raised an issue, it is doubtful whether any materials published by Hubbard or the Church of Scientology can be accepted as "a reliable source."  The issue raised is non-sequiter.  We need not judge the reliability because in this series of articles the publications are Primary Source information.  If they were being used as secondary source information, the issue of reliability would be germane.  For example, in an article about crime which has reduced in the region just around the Flag base, if Hubbard's publications were being cited as secondary sources then the issue of reliability could come up.  But through these articles Hubbard and the Church are primary sources and the issue of "reliability" doesn't apply except that publications be of good, uniform quality. In regard to BTfromLA's statement, Indeed, there is ample evidence that Hubbard and Bridge are unreliable sources, I completely disagree.  But that issue is trivial when using a source of information in an article about itself.  Which is the situation throughout the Scientology Series. Instead a very big issue is the secondary source information reliability.  If Scientology were actually opposed by many governments and many people, newspapers would be full of the kind of drivel found in personal websites (often cited) and anti-scientology newsgroups (cited too often).  But that is not the situations.  The Church has actually been helpful to some governments, the Government of Australia changed some of its laws about Psychiatric Institutions as a result of Church investigation into sleep therapy, as one example.  Terryeo 23:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I wrote that, must have used 5 tildes instead of 4 to sign it, have resigned it appropriately.  The Church doesn't practice Fair Game and hasn't practiced it for 40 years.  The rest of what you state in that area confront Suppressive person technology which can be misunderstood but which I agree with. Of course you are free to cite those rare instances of those difficulties which you say are frequent, are published.  Yes, I am willing to state that it is my opinion that the anti-scientology personal websites are drivel.  If you would wish to explore my personal opinion by a line by line look through a personal website, I'm willing to do so on my user page.  I tried this with BTfromLA, about the time he begin to see how things were going, he quit talking with me, heh. Since you, ChrisO, Wikipediatrix and gawd, who knows, everyone, refuses to understand how WP:RS is to be applied I suppose I'll have to go to that discussion page, do some more work to get statements on the page of how to apply guidelines.  They are set in stone within their parameters.  No personal websites as secondary sources Period. Terryeo 23:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So in their appeal of the Gerry Armstrong case, the Church was effectively arguing that they had a "core practice" which should be Constitutionally protected even though they hadn't (at least according to your, um, version of events) practiced it for two decades?  -- Antaeus Feldspar 13:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is an interesting case.  It begin in what, 1968 or something?  1972?  And in 1995 (or something) elements of the case were still kicking around in the court system?  If the single published document which is the court findings and affidavits are reproduced in a reliable manner, those could be included, obviously.  It is the hand type reproductions by unreliable personal websites that don't meet WP:V.  There is some arguement that PDF files with time and date information, notary signature, etc. might be good wherever they appear. Terryeo 14:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "It begin  in what, 1968 or something?  1972?"  ... wow.  Just wow.  If you don't know anything about a situation, Terryeo, why do you feel compelled to comment on it anyways? -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  First you bring the case up.  In good faith, I assume you do so with some idea in mind.  In good faith I respond with the little I know about it.  In response to my good faith response, you critize me saying "if you don't know anything about a situation" (I know a little) "why do you feel compelled to comment" ?  I am not compelled and I'm perfectly willing to leave it alone.  You say, "nice day isn't it?" and I say, "sure, its a nice day", "what do you want to discuss about that case?" and you both refuse to talk any more about it and in  the works, evaluate that I have a compulsion and don't know anything about the case.  <well> Terryeo 22:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Terryeo, I brought up the case.  You brought up the issue of what year the case started, implying that the year the case started was relevant, and you got the year wrong by about a decade and a half.  I "evaluate" that you don't know anything about the case because anyone who did understand the basics of the case would understand why it couldn't have started before L. Ron Hubbard went into hiding; I "evaluate" that you felt compelled to comment on a situation where the "little [you] know about it" was not enough because it's exactly what you did. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  As I said, I know little about it, but am willing to discuss it. Terryeo 16:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I understand User:Fahrenheit451, your demonstrated expertise in editing WP:RS (20 edits in 24 hours), your demonstrated expertise on its discussion page (attempted to place the article into an RfC was it?), and the smooth manner in which you got along with all the editors there spell out your familiarity with the guildline.  Here is a recent edit on that talk page which addresses your concerns,  Terryeo 16:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop the personal attack Terryeo. You are making an accusatory comment in a sarcastic, invective tone.--Fahrenheit451 16:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Terryeo, Fahrenheit451, let me make a suggestion.  F451, would it address your concerns if Terry started citing primarily to WP:V?  Verifiability is a pplicy, and it forbids self-published websites.  (It also states that sources must comply with WP:RS, but that's a can of worms that doesn't need to be opened for you and T to deal constructively with each other.)  TheronJ 09:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, maybe that could work out. Terryeo 12:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: My position has always been this.  If an encyclopedia is going to present criticsm about a subject, it should present the subject and THEN present the criticsm.  By doing it this way, a reader can understand what is being criticized.  The Thetan article kind of does it that way, at least you have some clue what the subject is about before you get convoluted criticsms.  Other subjects though, don't do so well.  When a lot of criticsm is presented before the reader understands what is being criticized, I believe it prevents a person from understanding the subject at all.  He comes away thinking, "oh, that is a subject to criticize" rather than, "oh, that means ....abc.... and its critcisms are ...xyz..." Terryeo 04:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not sure I'd be comfortable generalizing here. I can see both the benefit of intertwining criticism with the subject matter and keeping it seperate. I guess it depends on the breadth of the topic - when lots of information is presented, it can seem disjointed to read all of the info, then all of the criticism. I guess I'd have to see which leads to a smoother flow. Vpoko 16:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just like to see the subject presented fairly before the criticism is presented fairly. So if it is a very long article the criticism could follow the subject in the same section. In shorter articles it can be a separate section. Inline criticism is discouraged by wikipedia guidelines because, IMO, it a contentious form of presenting the subject that does not lead to an understanding of both sides. I wonder also about rebuttal. Should a sourced rebuttal follow the criticism, i.e. should the subject be allowed to respond to the criticism? and no, there doesn't have to a re-rebuttal, you just edit the criticism to address the issue in the rebuttal. Which brings up another though, then would you not also want to edit the subject to address the criticism if that can be sourced. I like it; just two parts, subject and criticism and an iterative process, trial by fire, if you like, and we are left with a good representation of the subject and of that criticism that is most likely justified and not merely misrepresentation of the subject. --Justanother 16:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I like the idea of the (sourced) rebuttal of any (sourced) criticism just being included with the (sourced) presentation of the original subject, but that concept would work whether the criticism was inline or in its own section. It does seem to me that many of the concepts in Scientology are controvertial enough (at least to those who aren't trained in them, if that's your perspective), that I wouldn't want to present them without making it clear that they're claims that have not been accepted by mainstream science. Anyway, it's not a black-and-white argument - maybe criticism should get a sentence or two in the presentation of the subject and then have its own in-detail section. I just don't think you can generalize and create a policy that will work for every topic. Vpoko 18:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I am not proposing a policy. There are some suggestions in WP:NPOV#Fairness of tone that apply. I find most of the controversy here to be of two main sorts; objections to Scn's nature as abusive and/or a cult and the other being presentation of the tenets and practice of Scn as "High Weirdness". I have a lot less objection to the former than to the latter. As regards the former, I have no interest in disputing correctly presented criticism. As for the portrayal of Scn as "all weird, all the time"; that stems almost exclusively from misunderstanding and misrepresentation of Scn, something wikipedia does not need to further. If anything, wikipedia's job is to explain Scn well enough that someone that knows nothing about it can understand a bit of what I, a practicing Scientologist of some 30 years, understand in depth. I find the other approach, the "high weirdness" to be little more than holding Scn up to scorn and continuing an inside joke. It does not contribute to knowledge and understanding and could be summed up a single line, "Lots of people think Scn is really weird". OK, put that line and let's move on with explaining Scn. --Justanother 18:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, it's safe to say there are people here who have a personal stake (or at least interest) in presenting Scientology in a certain light - both positively and negatively. But the sides do serve to keep each other honest, and there are enough impartial editors to help when there's an impasse. Personally, I think the current Scientology series on Wikipedia is excellent. Can it be much improved? Yes. But I don't see any huge deficiencies that stand out. Vpoko 19:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  A baker might mix certain ingredients and get a loaf that smells good.  A uneducated person, following the same recipe, might mix the same ingredients and get a mess.  The baker "loosens" the flour, adds the ingredients together in a series of sequences, mixes or combines them appropriately and the uneducated person might not follow all of those steps.  In a parallel manner, Scientology is an exact technology and a series of small steps.  Several of the articles do not present the information which the title is about in a manner that allows the subject to be understood.  A glaring example is the template which presents Xenu to be some part of Scientology Doctrine.  It is not.  Yet a group of editors who do not know Scientology insist that it is.  There are a number of other examples. Terryeo 20:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, Terryeo, your being in the cofs and having not done OT III, you may state that. But, there are those who have done OT III or studied the materials and confirm that a person named Xenu is mentioned in those materials. So, you are in no position to make a denial of that. --Fahrenheit451 23:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see you are commenting on my personal experience and appear certain that, because of my personal experience in the area of the subject you mention, I should not comment on that subject.  But that was not the subject of the comment I made.  The subject of the comment I made was in the area of Wikipedia Policy and Guideline.  Specifically I referenced to WP:V which states, the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, and by that is meant verifiability by a reliable source of information.  So, you see, I am not commenting on the subject itself, but commenting on an application of Wikipedia Policy.  Please, feel free to talk about the application of Wikipedia Policy.  On the other hand, if you wish to discuss my personal experience, well, my user page would be the place for that.  Terryeo 07:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: There is published literature that mentions the Xenu personage, so I believe there are reliable sources on that matter. Discussion of that belongs here, not on your user page.--Fahrenheit451 16:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Vpoko, there are some decent parts and a lot of it represents a good effort. I guess what you might term "a positive light", I consider writing from an understanding of the subject. I do that wherever I edit and I only edit aticles where I feel that my understanding of the subject surpasses the level the article or section is currently sitting at. It is of course a judgement call on my part and time will tell if my judgement finds respect here. Right now a lot of Scn stuff seems to me to be written from the POV of someone trying to be fair with material that really makes little sense to them. I am sure that you see how that might be improved by an intelligent person that it does make sense to; especially one that sees the big picture, how it all hangs together. --Justanother 20:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that as a Scientologist, you have a unique and very useful perspective to contribute to this article, but we should also remember the reality that there are a lot of published criticisms of Scientology, as well as information obtained through other-than official channels (directly from the CoS). So while you're certainly qualified to give the Scientologist's view on Scientology (as long as it's not Wikipedia:OR), there is also another perception that deserves inclusion. Personally, you don't seem like you're trying to whitewash anything, but we just have to be careful not to get caught in the trap of thinking that only things that officially come from the CoS are valid when speaking about the CoS (or Scientology in general). Vpoko 12:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this a joke?

message: I see so much discussion on these two topics and I want to add my POV and perhaps discover why they seem so contentious.
Fair Game was a policy LRH put out a long time ago that declared that any Scientologist could do whatever they pleased to an SP and not get in trouble with the Church. They could, of course, get in trouble with the law of the land. It was a "hold harmless" policy. To me, and many others I am sure, it seemed to declare "Open Season" on SPs. I, personally, found it distasteful, and would never consider harming another person just because it was allowed. 99.9% of the hundreds of Scientologists I have come to know over the years are EXTREMELY good-hearted people and I imagine they would feel the same way. This is not to say that some people would not take it to heart. But the policy was cancelled, "fair game" was cancelled. All other policies related to SPs remained in force but there is no other similar policy so "Open Season" was closed. I am not saying that the CoS does not take actions against critics that I find reprehensible; counter-picketing, leafleting, blowing up minor foibles and posting them on the internet. But that is not "fair game"; that is just what it is, be it "dead-agenting", "dirty tricks", or whatever. To me, the concept of "fair game" is this "open season on SPs" thing where every public Scientologist gets to take a swing. So I would make note of the fair game policy and that it was cancelled and discuss the harassment of critics separately as simply that. Trying to say that current harassment of critics is "fair game policy" is not accurate.
Xenu, ahhh Xenu. How little we knew thee, Xenu. This one is simpler yet, I think. The CoS does not discuss nor disclose what material is contained on the OT Levels and neither will any Scientologist that does not want to ruin his standing with the Church. That means me, too. But plenty of ex-Scientologists will. So what is the big deal? Xenu has come to represent all that is "weird" about Scientology. OK. The simple truth is that Scientology deals with your history as a spiritual being. LRH talks about the "whole track" many places; prior to 1967, the processes designed to create an OT, then termed a "cleared theta-clear", were not confidential and dealt mainly with whole track goals processing. Ex-Scientologists say that current OT III, Wall of Fire is such and such. Those three lines capture most of it in a nutshell. Then you have the church's efforts to suppress the data. OK, cover that, too. What is there to argue about? --Justanother 17:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm in complete agreement with you. Regarding Fair Game, the gist of our description should be that it was an official policy that was subsequently canceled by the church. If there are verifiable sources saying that it wasn't really canceled, we should make a reference to those as well. It's not our place to take sides as far as who's story we believe. Likewise regarding Xenu. If I recall correctly (and I might not), the Xenu story came out in a court case, which gives us a published, public-record source. If the CoS doesn't acknowledge it as being part of Scientology doctrine, that should be promintently mentioned also. Vpoko 17:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  A Church publishes its doctrine, of course.  A Church makes public its doctrine, obviously.  Xenu is not part of the Church's doctrine Terryeo 21:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Dictionary.com: "a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government." I don't see anything about being published. --Davidstrauss 22:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thought or advocated almost always involves publication.  Perhaps you can think of an example where a Church's Doctrine is unpublished, unknown, thought only in the dark recesses of the full moon, but that would be rare.  Normally, I'm sure you would agree, a Church's doctrine is published for all to view. Terryeo 01:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Terryeo, wikipedia is not about doctrine, especially CoS doctrine. Wikipedia is about what is. There is such a thing as OT III. The CoS will not describe it in detail. People that have done it and left the church pretty uniformly agree in their descriptions of what it is and they describe it in detail. Therefore wikipedia will use their description. It can be noted that the description is from ex-members. How could it be any other way? What would you have wikipedia do instead? Say there is such a thing as OT III but we can't describe it because the CoS says we shouldn't? Do you really think that position is tenable? It is fine for you and me but the rest of the world is not bound by the rules we are bound by. The "best" thing to do is put it in its proper perspective and continue to describe the rest of Scn to the best of our ability. Continuing to argue an untenable position is not effective use of our time, IMO. BTW, the OT levels are confidential, not published, "doctrine" (if anything in the tech is "doctrine"). --Justanother 00:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would have the template present the broadly published point of view, the widely prominent point of view.  In the case of the Xenu article (if there must be one), I would have it placed in the Controvery Section of the template. Terryeo 01:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The most broadly published point of view was the one shown on South Park. Is that the one you mean? If you haven't seen South Park (you might want to if you have the sense of humor that allows you to laugh at yourself or at Scientology), it is the same old Xenu story. OK ,you have a good point there. Is that what this is all about? Taking Xenu out of the beliefs and practices section and confining him to the controversy section? OK, I understand your thinking there. Not sure if it will fly but perhaps he needs to be given the proper amount of significance there that he has in actual beliefs and practices; i.e. reportedly a character in one level of the entire Bridge. Then expanded on in the controversy section. --Justanother 01:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Some of this is about that, yes.  Simply blowing some cool air of reason into the hot controversy, placing the information in a sensible manner so the reader can benifit.  Yes, I think that is what it is about. Terryeo 12:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wait, so are you in favor of removing the Xenu story from Wikipedia because it isn't published doctrine, or just presenting the Xenu story in a different place that it's in now? Vpoko 13:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text: So are you both just talking about the Scientology article (this is the talk page for the whole project so I'm not sure). There, it does seem like the Xenu story gets a lot of play without much mention that the CoS claims it's not part of its doctrine. Let me ask, does the CoS actively deny that it's part of doctrine, or do they neither confirm nor deny it? A sourced denial would add a lot to the article (if it exists). How about the actual Xenu article, is that one OK with everyone? Vpoko 13:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The CoS has not, to my knowledge, denied but on the contrary has engaged in extraordinary effort to suppress. I am talking about the Scn article. Re the Xenu article, I really can't speak to it and don't have much interest in it. I will likely take a shot at rewiting a bit of the Scn article to restore a more realistic perspective. Xenu falls into the controvery section because it is controversial that, assuming what ex-Scientologists say about the OT levels is, for the most part, true (Fishman, of course, being quite the liar and I base this on personal knowledge of some of the stuff he claims in his "book"), controversial that the CoS keeps the "space opera" nature of the OT Levels secret, maintaining them as a sort of "revealed knowledge" that must be presented at the correct time but some would claim that that is disingenuous. I can see it either way but I am not about debate. But the real, to me, controversy and the one worthy of note is the one I mention. Xenu is a sideshow and has come to represent the "weirdness of Scientology". It is one of the internet memes of Scientology and why we get so much vandalism on these pages. As a meme it will get its own article, nothing I can do about that, that is the nature of wikipedia, just like goatse.cx gets its own article, internet meme. --Justanother 13:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And as a high-profile factoid about Scientology, doesn't it seem reasonable to address it in the main Scientology article?  As it stands, Xenu is treated only in a short sub-section of the part about the OT levels, well into the article.  I'm not persuaded that is "way overblown," especially in light of Xenu's fame (e.g., South Park).  BTfromLA 00:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean simply overblown in the beliefs and practices section because, as regards Scientologists, it a small part of the experience of a small percentage. In the Controversy section he has more significance as the meme. For most Scientologists he is completely unknown and for the rest, part of something they audit for a few days perhaps and then are done with, assuming that he is on OT III. --Justanother 03:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair game and Xenu 

message: I came across over 700 links to this organization, Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance. The site has a ton of ads but on the other hand, it has content (and a Wikipedia article). 
Normally, such an ad-intensive site with so many links gets attention at WikiProject Spam for further investigation. Even if it's not spam, many links may often get deleted as not meeting the external links guideline. I've left a note at WikiProject Spam asking others to look at some of these and see what they think. 
Even some non-profit organizations will add dozens of links to Wikipedia since links in Wikipedia are heavily weighted in Google's page ranking systems. (If interested, see the article on Spamdexing for more on this).
You can see all the links by going to this this "Search web links" page. I encourage you to look at Wikipedia's external links guideline then look at the links in the articles you normally watch. Also, if you don't mind, please also weigh in at WikiProject Spam with your opinions. If you see links to pages that you don't think add additional information beyond the content already in an article, feel free to delete them, but please don't go mindlessly deleting dozens of links. (Per WP:EL, links that don't add additional information should be deleted but that doesn't necessarily mean they're "spam").
Thanks for your help and for providing some second opinions. --A. B. 17:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  religioustolerance dot org 

message: Space opera in Scientology doctrine is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy (Talk) 16:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Space opera in Scientology doctrine]]

message: In the space of one evening, there are now four pages potentially sentenced to death in various ways:
*AMC Publishing Death by AfD.
**That one is mine and I do not lightly AfD pages that have relevance to critics. This one really seems like cruft though. --Justanother 15:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deathwatch List

message: The current organization there is abit muddled, and needs some discussing how to deal with. A general proposal for cleaning it up is posted at Category talk:Religious leaders#Organization proposal, and more input would be great. It doesn't address the issue of Religious leaders/religious workers/religious figures, but that is another issue that exists. Badbilltucker 22:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Religious leaders]] 

message: I regret to say that the current banner has nothing in particular to draw the eye to it, and may be somewhat less than effective. I was thinking that maybe adding the image :Image:Scientology e meter blue.jpg to the banner might help to draw a little more attention. Given its source, it could be used for such a purpose. Also, I am in the process of trying to ensure that most of the articles in the general category of "religion" receive an assessment. Would the members of this project object to including assessment parameters in the banner and perhaps including the image as well? I welcome any and all responses. Badbilltucker 22:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project banner and assessment 

message: Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 18:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards 

message: To the usual suspects :) Please consider putting Heron Books on your watchlist. It published scientology books in the past, today it seems to be a business of Alan Larson, the headmaster of Delphi Oregon to promote study technology, but also to keep wog materials used in the school to that publisher. --Tilman 05:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Heron Books]]