Talk:Scientology/Archive 9

message: While the link that was so brashly edited into the page covers some very suspicious questions about scientology and tells an important message it obviously does not belong in wikipedia.  Although... I won't be the one to remove it. Chris8535 22:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The lastest disburance

message: This post is just for the record in case anyone here has had issues with the named editor or others editing similarly on this article. The following editors are as of June 5 2006, blocked indefinitely under any name:
:* HeadleyDown editing as ""
:* HeadleyDown editing as ""
:* HeadleyDown editing as ""
:* HeadleyDown editing as ""
:* HeadleyDown editing as "".
:* Also identified as sockpuppets and indefinitely blocked: "", "", and 4 or so "single-use" sockpuppets.
:* Finally, "" was also blocked, for breach of multiple policies (not a sock of HeadleyDown, but repeated major conduct and editorship issues)
It is not confirmed whether other editors are also in the same sockpuppet/meatpuppet group. They may be. It may also help to be alert in general, to new editors and repeat behavior. Reversion of heavy duty POV editing and forged cites added over many months (back to May 2005) has been needed in cleaning up that article.
Please see Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming for more, including summary of reasons and behaviors related to this. 
Formal ban and block documentation at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Neuro-linguistic_programming#Documentation_of_bans. 
FT2 (Talk) 14:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I for one am glad to be informed of that, thank you FT2.Terryeo 19:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  General info: HeadleyDown, and about 14 sockpuppets blocked on similar article to this 

message: I added more information under the 'Scientology versus the Internet' section regarding YTMND. This information is verifiable and can be currently found on the main page where Max addresses the users. I would like someone to 'Wikify' my information.
PunkCabana 15:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New material 

message: The article presents what it calls "Footnotes".  But before it does, it presents what it calls "References".  The citations should preceed the "References", I believe because they are a part of the article.  But the 5 "References" are not part of the article and should, therefore, be placed after what are called "Footnotes".  The title, "References" is slightly misleading too because the article is fairly well documented, with many citations.  Wouldn't it be more appropriate to call that section which is now labled "References" as "Additional References" or perhaps, "Additional Information" and place it last in the article?  And as a matter of balance, perhaps it should include a Scientology publication too.  Such as Introduction to Scientology Ethics, Hubbard, Bridge Publications Inc. 1968  Terryeo 00:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnotes and References 

message: The title of the article is Scientology.  The first paragraph presents information which a church would put forth.  The second paragraph talks about the Church of Scientology.  Later in the article is "In June 2006, Max Goldberg, owner of the website YTMND.com, was sent a cease and desist regarding the alleged infringment of trademarks and copyrighted Scientology material used in some sites. In response, Max put up a Scientology section on the front page and a slightly satirical disclaimer."   Obviously that cease and desist was an action taken by the Church of Scientology because a subject (such as Biology or Physics or Buddhism can not send a cease and desist.  The Max Goldberg information should go either in the Church of Scientology article or perhaps Scientology versus the Internet, as someone has suggested. Terryeo 00:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Information which should be elsewhere 

message: Okay, you treat scientology as a legitimate religion, why? It's pretty much common knowledge that the whole thing is a moneymaking scam, it's just as out there as the church of the flying spaghetti monster. What I'm asking, and this is an honest question, not vandalism, why do you even entertain the possibility that Scientology is true?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.117.6 (talk • contribs) 
: You ask for a personal opinion.  See WP:NOR, which precludes anyone's personal opinion to appear, indeed, to even be relevant to any article. However, if you actually wish to discuss a personal opinion, the place to do it would be user pages, but then only if a user wished to. Terryeo 02:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Anon talk page poster, 64.12.117.6, why don't you register a screen name?  Most vandalism is done by anon users, though occassionaly anon users make contributions which are useful. Terryeo 02:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The article is neutral on that point. The idea is to present verifiable facts to the reader and let them draw their own conlusions. AndroidCat 01:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I think that scientology is one of the worst examples of how stupid mankind can be I cannot agree that this article is in favor of scientology. It´s pretty much neutral, showing claims from both sides. It is one of the only places in the net that do not exposes mostly one extreme or the other. You should read the article before posting in the talk page. By the way the talk page is not a place to discuss the implications or perceptions of something, it´s not a forum. It´s a place to discuss the article itself, propose changes that would change the article in a drastic way, etc. Regards. Loudenvier 01:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  While I know and use it and know many who do.  That a person re-examine moments of past physical or emotional pain, and re-evaluate them is not a new idea.  Dianetics did it, before Dianetics, Psychology, before Psychology, the Catholic Church's confessional, before that (probably) one person simply talked to another about their problems.  That is precisely the base on which Dianetics and Scientology are built. A difference is that Hubbard found what questions actually make a difference to a person as they review a past trauma.  A lot of other things are present too, but that was and is the foundation.  Without the "techology" of an individual reviewing past traumas, there would be no Scientology.  However, the article hardly presents this idea at all and is, in my opinion, so POV as to be practically useless. Terryeo 02:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Terryeo, isn't all that detailed in the Dianetics article? Ashmoo 05:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Its beginnings are just barely present in the Dianetics article.  Its a tough read to get through the controversy, but the beginnings of it are there.  Dianetics established certain procedures to listen to people talk about their past moments of travial.  Those same procedures were followed when people remembered things which, would normally be considered imposssible memories.  For example memories before birth.  Following the same listening procedures, asking the same kinds of questions, listening in the same way led people, again and again, to view a trauma and they felt better afterward.  There's the difference between Dianetics and Scientology.  Dianetics is designed for one's current lifetime.  Scientology is designed for more.  So no, it isn't covered in the Dianetics article. Terryeo 14:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why?

message: It points to a webpage which is an HTML of (apparently) a court affidavit.  There has been a fair discussion about that http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources&curid=1553589&diff=59057063&oldid=59054683#Affidavits here.  It would improve the quality of Wikipedia if the affidavit were in PDF, or if it were cited to a previvously published book or other source.  Appearing as it does on a personal website, with mispellings within it and without a date of creation and without a notary signature block and without even the person's name or initials who retyped it into an HTML presentable format (are the mispellings duplicated or created by the typist ?), it has less substance, it is of less repute than the original document. Terryeo 04:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnote #56