Talk:Doctrine of Exchange

message: Since L. Ron Hubbard was the only Hubbard previously mentioned in the article, and since only infrequently is Harry Ross Hubbard mentioned at all in discussions of Scientology, I thought it went without saying that "Hubbard's maxim" meant the maxim of L. Ron Hubbard and not of L. Ron Hubbard's father.  Why would it be otherwise? -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Ron Hubbard not his father"? 

message: User:Wikipediatrix begin this article.  Wikipediatrix' references included 3 personal websites whose information she felt contributed to the article.  [4]  was her first reference. It is the personal website of Kristi Wachter. Kristi is apparently a Scientology critic and says on her site: "In addition to compiling this site, I picketed Scientology for a few years, beginning in April 1998."  Kristi's uncited opinion on that page includes: Scientology conducts itself in ways that are more typical of businesses than churches. Due to Scientology's doctrine of exchange, services are not given away but must be paid for.
*WP:V#Other_comments states: "Just because some information is verifiable, doesn't mean that Wikipedia is the right place to publish it.  See what Wikipedia is not. Just because information is true, doesn't mean that it meets our verifiability requirements — information has to be sourced from reliable sources"
A better reference for what the article is saying might be the Church's HCO Policy Letter of 10 Sept 1982, Exchange, Org Income and Staff Pay which states:  One takes in orders and money and delivers exactly what has been ordered.  Most successful businessses and activities work on the basis of "fair exchange." 
Wikipediatrix' references also included:  
[5]  and 
[6] , both pages are part of the personal website,  which appears to be a personal website.  [5] presents a personal essey, written by Jeff Jacobsen and dated July 19, 2001.  No indication is given within the essey that Jacobsen's essay has ever been reliably, verifiably published.  The page just starts in with Jacobsen's personal essey.  Which is perfectly fine for a personal website, but falls below Wikipedia's stardard set out at WP:V which requires; previously published by a reliable source.  The reason for Wikipedia's standard is that the internet provides very cheap publication.  Almost any person on the planet can publish a personal website for very little cost.  Any information from, "Bush is an asshole" to the finest presentation of a new mathmathical proof might be found on a personal website.  But Wikipedia prevents the clog of articles which would stultify it by placing a bar, a standard. References must be at the bar or above before they can be used as secondary sources in Wiki's articles.  If Jacobsen's essey is of sufficient merit, some newspaper or book or other reliable source will publish it and then it can be included as a secondary source of inforamtion.  Until that time, it needs to be removed as a secondary source of information, referenced from within the article to an "exterior links" or "further reading" section of the article.  Besides which, since July of 2001, governments have granted the Church Tax Exemption, so his essey isn't current and doesn't reflect what seems to be the growing trend. Zimbabwean grants tax exemption  Then [6] brings up another personal essey which is not even attributed.  WP:V requires attributed (not anonomous) information.  That link should never have entered the article, though it might be used as a "further reading" link, an exterior link.</br>
What can an editor do when finding a poor secondary references such as these which falls below Wikipedia's standard?  WP:V#Burden_of_evidence directs such an editor and states:  Any edit lacking a source may be removed.  In these cases the sources are of insufficent quality to be used in Wikipedia articles because the information has not been previously published by a reliable source but is opinion stated in essays on a personal website.  Terryeo 19:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole article is mainly unsourced.  However, the topic seems to be fairly important so I will not make an issue of it. Steve Dufour 16:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article's references [4], [5] and [6]