Talk:Scientology/Archive 4

message: I'm reluctant to jump in and cut all this stuff unilaterally, but it apears that some editor's personal obsession with "neurofeedback" has led to a lot of dubious additions to the article, including a rather whacked-out "mindmap" with a pic of Hubbard in the middle.  While no doubt there is some connection between E-meters and subsequent popularizers of neurofeedback, "neurolinguistic programming." etc., I don't think this pertains directly to a description of Scientology, and some, like the "mindmap" is utterly non-encyclopedic. I think pretty much all of that stuff should be removed.  Thoughts?  --BTfromLA 05:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you on the neurofeedback and the mind map additions.  A mind map is an obscure way of taking notes; perhaps it is the editor's own creation.  I am familiar with Neuro-linguistic_programming.  NLP, which does not use any machines, is not founded on Scientology related beliefs and Scientology had nothing to do with its development.  I notice that someone has similarly polluted the Neuro-linguistic_programming article with similar comments.--Agiantman 11:11, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I cut the neurofeedback stuff out.  Some of those details belong in an article on neurofeedback, but not in a concise intro to Scientology auditing.  The "mindmap" doesn't belong anywhere in wikipedia, far as I can imagine.  BTfromLA 23:59, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello BT.  I think I understand what you mean.  What is the definition of encyclopedic according to wikipedia though?  Actually, just a bit of background, I added the map because it seemed very relevant to the section and added interesting and concise information.  The map was produced(by me) at a scientology meeting, and summarises some of the strong connections between mind mapping(R) and scientology.  The mind map was inspired (according to Tony Buzan) by the general semantic laden writings of science fiction writers such as Van Vogt and LRHubbard.  It is similarly based on general semantics and reality distortion (the map is not the territory etc).  Of course, the mind map and Buzan have developed their own vision and cult following.  But it is clearly relevant and concise.  Certainly that is encyclopedic! What is your opinion? W Conyers 10:22, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: W, the "mindmap" is basically unintelligible in this context.  It doesn't offer any "relevant and concise" information at all--it comes across like someone's loopy doodle on the back of a paper placemat. It may help you to recollect some connections that occurred in your own mind as you made it, but it doesn't communicate information about Scientology to a reader who is not you.  BTfromLA 16:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neurofeedback mania 

message: (NOTE: the post below was a response to another post that mysteriously disappeared--the anon poster raised questions about a claim about the age of the universe in the article, and he or she mentioned that he or she didn't know how to sign a post...) 
:I don't think you managed to edit the text, but I think it was a good editorial call, so I cut the line from the article.  Not only was it factually dubious, it was superfluous to the description of the Scientology beliefs.  You can sign your posts by simply typing the tilde symbol (~) four times in a row--the software will do the rest.  BTfromLA 23:29, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  That would be me. Right after I made the decision to edit, I lost all ability to do so. For whatever reason, after I made the edit to this talk page, Wikipedia stopped accepting any edits from me, citing some kind of error I (being the new guy I am) didn't recognize. I tried multiple times, but it kept giving me the same error. Thanks for the advice, and removing the line for me. 68.35.71.22 05:27, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Age of the Universe

message: I have just noticed that since the last edit by Antaeus Feldspar on Aug. 11, numerous POV edits have been made to this article with strangely worded editorial explanations that did not actually mention what the actual contents of the edits were.  Entire sections, such as the Xenu section were deleted.  Other sections were carved up or mixed up to the point where they were either no longer relevent to the article, or were supposedly being 'moved' to the Beliefs article.  All of this while using very odd editorial comments.  I have recently restored the Auditing section, the Xenu section and the Scientology and other religions section.  Help from others to fix all of this would be much appreciated.
By comparing Feldspar's last edit of Aug. 11 to the current version, one might more easily be able see what has been happening.
-Scott P. 02:04, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
:I've been somewhat busy this week, but rest assured that I am watching this page and I do try to pitch in to keep it NPOV as much as I can. Fernando Rizo T/C 02:08, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numerous recent POV edits to this article 

message: I don't think Image:Scientology Mindmap.JPG adds anything of value to this article. It's more confusing than anything else, and I think that the labelling of Hubbard as a pseudoscientist is NPOV. I'm going to remove it; if anyone objects, let's discuss it here. Fernando Rizo T/C 02:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, he does pretty much fit the definition, he certainly wasn't a scientist by any definition generally accepted outside of Scientology.  If Scientology is any kind of science, where are the independent, peer-reviewed journal articles where it's concepts and techniques are published?  Where are the independently verified accounts of their techniques and methods?  Where is the documentation of the methods Mr. Hubbard used to develop this belief system?  He certainly didn't use the scientific method by any stretch of the imagination, and thus his claims are pretty clear pseudoscience.  --Wingsandsword 21:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The documentation of Mr. Hubbard's research are to be found in books which the Church of Scientology will happily sell you. Those are titled 'Research and Discovery Volumes.' There's lots of them, they are thick and blue.  My own thinking is that when you label one man's research as pseudoscience you give it credence, whereas before such a label it is simply his individual research. Terryeo 01:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientology mindmap 

message: Someone above mentioned that this page was popular so it shouldn't be changed.  I beg to differ.  This page became popular because of media and interest generated in the subject, by Tom Cruise.  This page doesn't attempt to be factual, it attempts to forward every possible viewpoint (mainly on the negative side if I may say so).  It seems those working on it have lost sight of the word "balance."  There is so much concern to make sure there is no positive POV.  Excuse me but at the risk of being accused of whining (as I am frequently accused of if I speak up)this page is not being edited for the user.
Personally, I think its time for a revamp. 
Firstly, I am suggesting to combine the "Controversy and Criticism" and the "Scientology Critics" sections.
Also as a note, I am reposting my comment regarding the external links.  No one commented and I went ahead.  
(I agree it was getting out of control, but I do insist that there is a balance of positive and negative sites, also having a few neutral sites from respected sites should also not be a problem.  I don't see anything wrong with this, and in fact for the user who knows nothing about the subject, I think it is important that the pro and the anti and the neutral are clearly delineated.  If someone wants to set a limit of how many links for each category, thats cool too.)
Please give me your feedback - only interested in hearing from editors who want to improve  the page for Wikipedia's users, not for Scientology bashing purposes.  Nuview 17:50, 23 Aug 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientology Page Clean Up 

message: Scientologists have added flux capacitors to their DeLoreans so they can go back in time and shanghai the founders of psychology. Then they aim to use the founders' engrams to go Back to the Future. (/bad joke) 64.12.117.14 22:37, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  This Just In (joke)

message: I clarified the difference between Dianetics and Scientology, added some links, and changed the allusion to mystic religions to something a little less spooky.Marbahlarbs 07:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits by Marbahlarbs

message: For those of you keeping track at home, Special:Contributions/64.65.189.42 who made such valuable contributions as this is an IP that belongs to Hollander consulting. 
 [/home/fvw] whois 64.65.189.42
 Eschelon Telecommunications, Inc. ESCHELON-2000A (NET-64-65-128-0-1) 
                                  64.65.128.0 - 64.65.191.255
 Hollander Consultants ESCH-64-65-189-40 (NET-64-65-189-40-1) 
                                   64.65.189.40 - 64.65.189.47
 
 # ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2005-09-27 19:10
 # Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN's WHOIS database.
Always nice to know we still matter to them. --fvw<SMALL>*</SMALL> 18:01, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletions 

message: I removed this paragraph... "The claimed unethical use of general semantics and hypnosis is common to both neurolinguistic programming (NLP) and Scientology, which both hold many New Age similarities, such as the belief in past life regression and super-human potential."
Neuro-linguistic Programming (NLP) has nothing to do with Scientology, so I question the relevancy of it being mentioned here. Secondly, NLP does not "believe in past lives or super-human potential." Someone has been spreading these rumours on the Neuro-linguistic Programming article as well. It is current in mediation about the term engram a term uncommon in NLP yet very popular in Dianetics and Scientology. --Comaze 07:58, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Neuro-linguistic Programming]] 

message: Someone apparently thought it was acceptable here to call Scientology a "radical religious cult" in the introductory paragraph. I'd like to state in no uncertain terms that doing so was a violation of Wikipedia policy. The derogatory implications of the word "cult" are such that we cannot use this word in introducing a description of any group, even one with the egregious public reputation of Scientology.
For comparison, note that we do not use words such as "evil" or "fanatic" in the introduction to the article Nazism. We leave it to the reader to draw their conclusions about whether the Nazis were evil fanatics; and likewise we leave it to the reader to draw any conclusion on whether Scientology is a radical cult. If we present the facts sufficiently, the reader can draw conclusions such as this using their own value judgments.
I'd like to invite the editor who made that change to review our WP:NPOV policy, and more specifically our Wikipedia:Words to avoid. --FOo 23:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Radical religious cult"?!