Talk:Supernatural abilities in Scientology doctrine

message: Sorry, solitary trees is two individuals with a specific agenda. They say so, they are dedicated to pushing their particular POV and have no fact checking, no validity and don't attempt to do anything but convince their readers that their particular POV is correct.  They are a personal website and fall under WP:RS which states: "a personal website may not be used as a secondary source" Terryeo 08:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your misguided "personal websites" crusade is not going to work. Stop Gaming the Rules and Wikilawyering. wikipediatrix 13:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Wikilawyering" is an overused, ill-defined term as you use it. But in any event, it appears my "personal crusade" has more substance to it than you suspected it might.  Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Problems_with_Convenience_Links  Terryeo 01:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Removing the link to the Board of Health Report was certainly misguided, as that's just a source stored on that site.  But referencing an essay written by ChrisO as the only source supporting that ashtray thing and the remote viewing claims.....  That's somewhat questionable to me.  WP:RS was obviously intended specifically to discourage people from referencing personal essays and rants by people on the web.  If ChrisO has independent sources to back up his claims, we should reference those instead.--KSevcik 14:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Huh? Are you saying that ChrisO, the Wikipedia editor, is the author of that essay? If that's the case, I was unaware of that... but a source is still a source. Why say "the only source", as if it needs more than one? Anyway, other sources for the Ashtray TR are obtainable, and I will obtain them. wikipediatrix 17:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  At this difference,  ChrisO states that he contributes to Xenu.net, he may well have created that article which he cites. "Many people have contributed to it, including myself", he says: Terryeo 18:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, at the bottom of the webpage it says "by Chris Owen."  It seemed a logical conclusion to me that it's the same ChrisO.  As for "the only source," if the article only links to one source and it happens to be an off-wiki essay by a wiki user editing these articles, it just looks funny.  Glad to hear there's other sources for the info out there.  Thanks for clearing it up--KSevcik 19:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Solitarytrees

message: Training Routine 9.  If the article is to spell out this training routine, it should do so accurately.  Its present representation of it comes from a secondary source of information which does not accurately present the routine.  This is yet another example of how personal websites should not be used as secondary sources because they tend to state an individual's own opinion of the situation.  Normally we could rely on an individual's opinion but for Wikipedic standards we should attribute a person's opinion to him and present it alongside other people's opinions and more widely known, more scholarly opinions. Terryeo 18:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What are you talking about? There's nothing about TR 9 in the article. wikipediatrix 14:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TR 9 

message: solitarytrees is a personal website.  The guy has a personal opinion and a personal agenda and his information may or may not be accurate.  He may even, like Xenu.net, allow wikipedia editors (such as ChrisO says he does here) to contribute to him and then come here to Wikipedia and quote the previously contributed, created, personal article and cite the website as the source of the "published" article.  Nothing would stop that, this is one of the reasons personal websites are not to be used as secondary sources per WP:RS Terryeo 04:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The term "personal websites" generally refers to a website in which the owner's content is about themselves. People who do websites investigating or researching specific subjects are not doing "personal websites". By your desperate definition, virtually all non-business sites out there would be "personal websites". wikipediatrix 12:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I appreciate your response, Wikipediatrix.  I have often stated that it seems appropriate to me to have some controversy in these articles.  My concern is mainly that the subject of the article becomes introduced.  The undiscussed difficulty is how to communicate both aspects of a subject to the reader.  The Church of Scientology presents good information and juxtaposed against it, editors attempt to present, again, good information.  But Xenu.net presents all of its information as "this is opinion", while presenting documents, lectures, and other information which appears (at least at first glance) to be bonafide documents with good spelling and so forth.  The editors here are not treating Xenu.net and other websites as editors treat opinions from personal websites.  Feldspar and others have made, you know, various arguement that the content of Xenu (and such websites) can not be judged and used based on the website's disclaimer (or claim) but instead, each page of the site must be judged on its merit, then cited and used on Wikipedia, based on its individual webpage merit.  If this is the standard by which we edit, then why don't we state that as a guideline? Terryeo 16:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Feldspar and others have made, you know, various arguement that the content of Xenu (and such websites) can not be judged and used based on the website's disclaimer (or claim) but instead, each page of the site must be judged on its merit, then cited and used on Wikipedia, based on its individual webpage merit.  That's almost correct, which is a lot better than your average.  The actual issue which causes most people to believe that your argument is being put forth in wholly bad faith is your claim that the website's disclaimer must be applied with robotic, absolutist literality to everything hosted on the website, such that if the disclaimer states 'The contents of this website are solely my opinions' and a particular page very clearly identifies the contents as having originated in the book Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science by Martin Gardner, that the disclaimer for the whole website must take precedence over what the page clearly states as the origin of the page contents, and the material must be removed as being 'opinions' from a 'personal website' despite the fact that ... well, frankly, the fact that such an interpretation is totally stupid.  If you are going to put such absolute unswerving faith that the website maintainer's disclaimer is absolutely 100% true even in the most mindlessly literal sense for every single iota of text on the whole of his website, then you might as well trust that everything he says is true enough to be used on Wikipedia; if one sentence of his disclaimer is worthy of such perfect faith and absolutely literal interpretation then surely all the rest of what he says should be similarly elevated. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  WP:V tells us our standard.  People get hot under the collar about WP:RS and get worked up about other elements, but the policy really reverts back to WP:V.  The most widely published, well known sources of good information are what we should use as much as possible.  That seems pretty simple. Terryeo 08:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal Websites 

message: Terryeo's latest uncivil edit summary says, and I quote: "I removed uncited bullshit. The link points to a page which talks about NARCONON, not "psychokinesis" whatever that is."
Ignoring the obvious rudeness, I will remind him that the citation link points to a page that clearly gives the information expressed and if he doesn't see it, he isn't looking hard enough. Also, if he really doesn't know what "psychokinesis/telekinesis" is (hint: it's defined in the article!), then how can he be qualified to state whether it's discussed in the link or not? (another hint: you can do a ctrl-F and search that page for "kinesis") wikipediatrix 19:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As you have stated the situation, Wikipediatrix, it appears a very refined, well known, widely published about phononema.  However, a search of google using the search terms, "psychokinesis and bullshit" turns up 618 hits  and so I can not think that to refer to psychokinesis by that term is unknown in the civilized world.  Were you able to verify that psychokinesis were an actual goal of the Church I would be inclined to use a less emotionally impactive term.  "Bullshit" is emotionally expressive but it hardly explains how a person who has talked with many OT completions, who has read all of the published end phenonoma of the OT levels, how such a person would react to the article's presentation.  Would "LOL" be more exact?  How about, "what a silly idea?"  Understand, I'm not amused by the presentation in the article, but by the attempt to use Scientology terms to describe psychokinesis as a goal of the Church.  The moon is made of green cheese?  Its just completely way out of any ball park the Church plays in.Terryeo 19:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  How does the amount of Google hits for a euphemism provide an excuse for poor editing and poor talk-page conduct?  As if. wikipediatrix 02:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The quantity of google hits displays how the term, through common usage, may be used within an edit summary to communicate to other editors the commonly viewed, popular opinion of the object of the adjetive.  Normally, editors can read that edit summary, then come to this discussion which expands that edit summary and thereby come to learn exactly how common the view of "psychokinesis" is when used with the discriptive adjective, "bullshit".  In this manner, then, the subject itself is more easily understood in its most common, basic terms. Terryeo 12:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI, a google seach for "scientology + bullshit" yields "about 204,000" hits.  BTfromLA 15:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am a f*g*go*t  Terryeo 20:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "bullshit"? 

message: Solitarytrees Is a personal website it states it is created by Ted Mayett and Keshet.
"© 1998-2006 Ted Mayett and Keshet"
The website presents the personal story of Ted Mayett and includes "Why we created these pages".  Its information attacks Scientology, the NAACP and so on.  It therefore falls within the parameters of "personal website" and should not be used as a secondary source of information within Wikipedia articles.  This is per WP:RS which states that Personal Websites should not be used as secondary sources. Terryeo 16:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solitarytrees, a personal website 

message: That image, as it appears right now has a subtitle on it which states: "Narconon's Communication & Perception course 4a instructs recovering drug addicts to scream levitation commands at ashtrays."  Obviously Narconon does not at any point in their programs, instruct any individual to ever "scream levitation commands at ashtrays."  That is not verifiable.  What might be verifiable would be "command in the loudest possible voice".  May I point out, without tromping on toes, the first subtitle would be better placed in an expose' newspaper article than on our Wikipedia where WP:NOR is the standard we apply? Terryeo 19:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is perfectly verifiable, and I have the book right here. Would you like to see scans from it? wikipediatrix 02:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What is the title, author and ISBN of the book that you have right there please? Terryeo 13:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Narconon Communication & Perception Course, L. Ron Hubbard, 2004 edition. It has no ISBN number. Published by ABLE. wikipediatrix 13:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, good.  Is it hardbound or softbound?  A book or a booklet, if you will? Terryeo 19:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Softbound. At several hundred pages, however, it's certainly no booklet. wikipediatrix 20:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, thanks for responding, Wikipediatrix.  I was surprised a Narconon publication would use the word "scream" to describe a training routine, as the original routine is carefully worded otherwise. Terryeo 20:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The booklet actually says "levitation commands" and not simply, "commands?"  The article doesn't add in some original research which is not present int he 300 page book?  The reason I ask, I've looked at the Bulletin which spells out TR-8, it uses the word 'commands' and states its purpose, none of which is toward levitation. Terryeo 21:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  Wikipediatrix has not replied about "leviation commands", which pretty obviously is not the term used in the book, but instead, seems likely is a term which was Original Research and created of whole cloth from a term actually used in the book and mis-quoted.  Some less emotionally slanted term, likely. Terryeo 12:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Narconon Image 

message: http://www.sptimes.com/2006/05/06/Tampabay/Scientology_nearly_re.shtml -- includes personal claims by the one "public" who's gone through the Super Power program. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the article's paragraphs reads, "Matt Feshbach believes he has super powers. He senses danger faster than most people. He appreciates beauty more deeply than he used to. He says he outperforms his peers in the money management industry."  Those words by Feshbach might be called "statements" or they might be called "attestations".  He is the only person who knows what he used to percieve, so he is the only living authority who can compare what he perceives today, to what he perceived yesterday.  Therefore there is no opponent to his statement, therefore he is not "claiming" but he is "attesting".  Terryeo 07:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While you're using the dictionary, look up "quotation" and see if the definition is "something that looks pretty similar to what someone said." -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll assume that was directed to me.  Comments which reference other comments on other user pages might best be contained on those other user pages or, alternatively, on one personal discussion page.  Placed here, that discussion is dispersive rather than contribuatory, but feel free to talk to me on my discussion page.  Terryeo 20:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useful article on Super Power Rundown and purported effects 

message: Presently the article reads: "higher-level secret Operating Thetan information". The Church presents it as "confidential Operating Thetan information".  The difference between "secret" and "confidential" is not a great amount, both mean undisclosed.  However, confidential is documentatable, people who read the links which point to Church sites will run across the term confidential but will never run into the term "secret" as a description.  Actually the Church is not keeping a secret, but keeping a confidence.  The article would be more neutral to use the word "Confidential" than to use the word, "secret". Terryeo 01:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secret vs Confidential 

message: anon user 68.12.62.131 in his edit of (17:54, 18 June 2006) edited without understanding Wikipedia's standards of citation.  He inserted a statement at the end of the subsection MEST, The Church of Scientology has been extremely controversial throughout its history for promising the things it does. and cited a personal website (lisatrust) to substantiate his edit.  However, WP:RS states, personal websites can not be used as secondary sources and his edit should be deleted.  lisatrust.bogie.nl could be used in exterior links, but not within an article as a secondary source of information. Terryeo 02:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The link was already there as the source of the quotation. My reasons for removing the addition to the quotation block had nothing to do with Terryeo's familiar line of argument. (When did every change that someone else disagrees with become vandalism? Will "edit terrorism" be next?) AndroidCat 11:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Apparently you didn't agree with the edit which I referred to as "Vandalism" because you removed it.  You disagree with my description of it, but likewise disagree that it was a good edit. Okay, fine.  If you view my statement as inaccurate, why not give your own reasoning for removing the edit?  If you find my statement of "vandalism" to be familar, why don't you point to my several uses of the word?  If it is a familar arguement which you often see and disagree with, why not present the information.  Terryeo 18:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (1) My comment when I reverted the edit was quite clear. (2) Your argument for removing the link as part of 68.12.62.131's edit was in error. (3) Your comments on vandalism are irrelevant. AndroidCat 21:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, it is a vandalism to find a quotation which cites a website and then, after the quotation and before the link to the website, insert one's own, created sentence, leaving the rest of the information as it was.  That's a vandalism.  I said so. Terryeo 05:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Terryeo, I'm a little unclear.  What was your reason for concluding that it could not possibly have been a mistake? -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  I spelled out the editor and the date and time.  The difference makes his edit viewable.  I classified it a "vandalism" rather than a "mistaken edit" because that is how it appeared to me. Terryeo 21:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still a little unclear.  What led you to conclude that the anon could not possibly have been acting in good faith? -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I concluded it was a vandalism because of the placement of the inserted text.  The insertion of a sentence of unattributed text, by itself, might not be a vanadalism.  Often such an insertion is not a vandalism.  But its placement, cleverly placing it into a position that could be construted to be cited (though it was not cited by the citation) and its content (somewhat akin to other statements the citation says) led me to conclude it was a deliberate vandalism by a (somewhat) experienced Wikipedia editor who understands Wikipedia markup and current use of ,Terryeo 15:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but each time you explain, your reasoning seems to get more and more inexplicable.  Exactly how do you conclude that the edit you protested was "deliberate vandalism by a (somewhat) experienced Wikipedia editor who understands Wikipedia markup and current use of ," when ... the edit in question did not involve Cite.php tags at all? -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the point is keep you typing and wasting your time, trying to explain things to him that he already knows full well. Since Terryeo no longer edits these articles, I see no point in arguing with him any more. So many of these discussion pages are now clogged like cholesterol-filled arteries, filled with pointless arguments with Terryeo over hair-splitting nothingness. wikipediatrix 19:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  A citation is needed and I point to it.  Editors don't go, "oh, okay".  Instead it is a week of pointless arguement, challenging that a citation is needed, calling me a "strawman" and other derogatory terms.  In the long run it works out that a citation is needed.  On this page I classified the anon edit as a valdalism.  It was immediately changed.  And then what?  Editors challenge my classification of it as a vandalism?  Why?  What possible good does it cause the article.  I would be enormously curious why Wikipediatrix is unwilling to notice the actuality and state it in simple terms, why Feldspar and Android Cat could say, "oh, well, yeah, it was vandalism" or "oh, well, I wouldn't classify it that way".  But not, its gotta be a yard long talk about cholesterol, pointless prattle etc. etc. If I say small, you all gotta say big?  And if I say big, you all gotta say small or your day doesn't have sunshine? <Signing at a later time, now> Terryeo 22:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hear Tangent is lovely this time of year, but I've never really had the urge to go there. AndroidCat 20:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: No, if you say small, you should be able to defend the premise "small".  If you say big, you should be able to defend the premise "big".  And if you say "vandalism", which has a very specific meaning which excludes good-faith edits (even mistaken ones), and you reiterate over and over your claim that yes, you mean vandalism (and therefore do mean to make accusations of knowing bad faith), and you go on to amplify your accusations by directly stating that you think it was an experienced Wikipedia editor editing as an anon, you had better be able to back up those accusations.  You really like to skirt so close to the edge of your personal attack parole, but guess what?  That kind of gamesmanship doesn't go over well. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Vandalism by anon user 68.12.62.131 

message: Shouldn't it say somewhere in the article (or did I miss it) that there is no evidence at all that anybody has ever been able to do this stuff ? Or is that too obvious ? Unmitigated Success 10:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It certainly should !  The article opens:
*In Church of Scientology doctrine, the subjects of supernatural or superhuman powers and abilities are ones that recur often. This applies to all Scientology and Dianetics materials from the most basic introductory texts to the higher-level secret Operating Thetan information.
Well, I for one know that to be a pile of horse doo-doo, Original Research by Some Wikipedia Editors who misunderstands some statements.  For example, Cause over MEST, duh.  A perfect example of a misunderstood, mispresented piece of information that is purported by Wikipedic to mean, psychic cause over MEST.  The whole subject is a pile of nonesense, the  lede mispresent the subject, the subject is presented falsely and then an innocent editor comes along and asks the article to add a bit of how unproven it all is.  It doesn't exist, guys.  The article is Original Research and horse dung, and then mispresented as if it were an actual subject, and recurs often.  What a pile of bunk. Terryeo 22:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Are you saying touch assists don't actually exist in CoS? That there is no belief in scientology that medical treatment can by supernaturally bypassed for mental conditions? I'm soooo confused. With that being said, I agree that this article's very premise is unfair, unless we also single out, uhm... "horse doo-doo" that states that christians believe that prayer can change the universe, cures disease, raises people from the dead, that long-dead people can create miracles, etc. Anybody wanna create the "supernatural abilities in christianity" article? No? Why not? Ronabop 07:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Horse doo-doo is a little stretched (and very cheesy, you can write bullshit if you like), since there are undeniable references and quotes in this article (how is Advance! (#130, pgs.22-23) original research ?!). But I don't agree with Ronabop about the whole Christianity analogy, because just read Laying  on of hands or Miracles at Lourdes, it's basically the same approach without the corny phrase "supernatural abilities", and I find it reasonable in both instances to either document the occurrences of these "vacuum tube activators" and "I can see, I can see !" or plainly say that it's complete bullshit.  Unmitigated Success 09:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Subjects of superhuman powers recur often simply lights me off.  You show me a haunting and I'll show you the ghosts whom are creating the haunting, leaving.  "Witch Doctors" have done "miricle Cures" for longer than western civilization has exsited (according to some sources).  I won't argue the exitence of such, I won't argue that it happens every day and I won't argue it is beyond normally communicatable English.  But I will argue that superhuman powers recur often in Scientology.  It is too general a statement to be useful in an article. Terryeo 13:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's simply the "recur often" that's a problem, it can be fixed, especially since the often isn't justified (there are many examples in the articles, but apparently Scientology literature is so ridiculously large that it doesn't necessarily mean anything). We can change it to "recurring concept", or something else you can come up with. However, I stand by the fact that this article is legitimate, and that it should say in the introduction that these particular claims made by scientology are baseless. Unmitigated Success 14:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you very much. Terryeo 18:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Never ever

message: Wikipedia's WP:V talks about what quality of sources should be used in creating our articles.  WP:RS then, by a concensus of editors spells out the intent of WP:V more specifically.  In particular and specific to this article, personal websites may not be used as secondary sources of information within Wikipedia articles.  The reason for this concensus of editors which has been arrived at by extensive editor discussion at WP:RS is that personal websites have nothing between the person who wishes to express an opinion or a point of view, and the presented information.  The blockquote of Stacy Brooks of the Lisa McPherson Trust is published on a personal website and verifiable from that personal website.  The information about that website is not extensive, but it does give an email address which is infolisatrust@yahoo.com.  Therefore, because I see that an editor or two wishes to include her point of view, why don't you all do one of two things?
#* email Brooks and find out what the source of her information is and then cite it?  - or -
#* Follow Wikipedia policy and guidelines and remove the direct blockquote from a personal website ? Terryeo 15:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or:
#* Ignore Terryeo's attempts at getting yet another lengthy (and utterly useless) discussion going. Yandman 15:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Or:
#* Demonstrate a willingness to create something better than newsgroup chatter.  Wikipedia uses better standards than the newsgroup chatter.  Those standards should actually be upheld by every editor.  Your arguement is not with me, but with the concensus of editors who create and maintain those standards.  My posting those standards here is not an antagonism, nor a personal attack. Terryeo 16:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  personal websites as secondary sources 

message: Our own User:ChrisO's personal opinion is referenced in  Telepathy and remote viewing.  User:ChrisO's essay titled Narconon and Scientology: a comparison is posted on the personal website  solitarytrees and used as a secondary source of information.  The article states: Scientology has had similar TRs over the years for recalling the thetan's lost telepathic abilities such as mind-reading and remote viewing.  6.  WP:V tells us that personal opinion which appears on personal websites is not of sufficient quality to be used as a secondary source within an article.  Such personal opinion might appear as an "exterior link" or a "further reading" sort of reference, but shouldn't appear as a secondary source linked as a reference from within an article. Terryeo 03:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal Opinion on Personal Website 

message: This page is flagged as being biased (yellow rectangle at the top of the page), but I don't see anything that could be considered in that manner. Could this be removed?
:It speaks to the issue of calling individual anecdotes, "doctrine", i.e. giving undue weight to titillating matter. The article needs some reworking to be WP:NPOV -- Justanother 23:26, 13 December 2006 
Everything hubbard says is doctrine, though.  That's what happens when your leader is infalliable. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality Dispute? 

message: I think the word "doctrine" itself has a negative connotation, except among Christians when they are talking about Christian doctrine. I don't know if there is another word that would be better. I also considered removing the time travel story as too trivial; but it was such a great story! :-) Steve Dufour 11:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Doctrine

message: The original version of Dianetics made overt promises that it could cure disease, but this was toned down in later years, after investigations that medicine was being practiced without a license.
Steve Dufour removed the above as uncited, but he didn't specify what part of it he thought could be challenged.  Which part?  I think the only part that might be not substantiable, actually, would be the "toned down" part. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless I overlooked it there was no citation given at all for this information. Steve Dufour 02:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While various charges have been brought against Dn and Scn over the years, I have never seen nor heard any mention anywhere that DMSMH was changed as a result so that would need a citation and without that claim (changes) the other part (charges) is adequately covered elsewhere. --Justanother 03:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I cleaned up the headings so that they actually relate to the "power" being discussed. The Super Power one might should be deleted as we do not know what it is about. --Justanother 03:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Finally, I pulled the tags as it looks pretty OK other than as I mention here. The only one I have a problem with is the time travel anecdote as that is just an anecdote from an OT, not doctrine. So either remove the anecdote or remove "doctrine" from the title or add an OR-ish intro line in the section as to how it fits into the general OT "cause over MEST" thing. --Justanother 03:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of those options, removing "doctrine" from the title seems to be the least destructive to the encyclopedia. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, I will BOLD it. Thanks. --Justanother 04:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Later, though, no hurry. --Justanother 04:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  clarification requested 

message: :Image:Operating Thetan.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 18:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Operating Thetan.gif

message: Propose rename to "Psychic abilities in Scientology doctrine".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.160.151 (talk) 10:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename?