| Revision as of 06:20, 3 December 2008 editCirt (talk | contribs)199,086 edits →Source: re← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 04:26, 17 February 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,013,065 edits Implementing WP:PIQA (Task 26)Tag: Talk banner shell conversion |
| (29 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{not censored}} |
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
| Line 8: |
Line 10: |
|
{{oldafdfull | date = 25 November 2008| result = '''keep''' | page = Scientology and sex (2nd nomination) }} |
|
{{oldafdfull | date = 25 November 2008| result = '''keep''' | page = Scientology and sex (2nd nomination) }} |
|
{{oldafdfull | date = 23 February 2008 | result = '''keep''' | page = Scientology and sex }} |
|
{{oldafdfull | date = 23 February 2008 | result = '''keep''' | page = Scientology and sex }} |
|
|
{{dyktalk|19 May|2007|entry=...that ] founder ] created a belief system regarding ''']'''?}} |
|
{| class="messagebox standard-talk" style="text-align:center;" |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start| |
|
|- |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Sexology and sexuality|importance=Mid}} |
|
| width="0px" | |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Scientology|importance=Mid}} |
|
|| Before complaining about article content, please read: ''']'''. |
|
|
|} |
|
|
{{talkheader}} |
|
|
{{WikiProjectBanners |
|
|
|1 = {{WP Sexuality|class=Start|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Scientology|class=Start|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{| class="messagebox {{#ifeq:{{{small|}}}|yes|small|standard}}-talk" |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|] |
|
|
|An entry from '''{{PAGENAME}}''' appeared on Misplaced Pages's ] in the ''']''' column on ], ]. |
|
|
|{{#ifeq:{{{small|}}}|yes||]}} |
|
|
|} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Additional source == |
|
== ] reports on Scientology, sex, and the "second dynamic" == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*{{cite book| last = Zellner | first = William W. | coauthors =Richard T. Schaefer | title = Extraordinary Groups: An Examination of Unconventional Lifestyles| publisher = Worth Publishers | year = 2007 |chapter=Church of Scientology: Social Positions| pages =296-297 | isbn =0716770342 }} |
|
<blockquote> |
|
|
|
-- ''']''' (]) 06:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
Scientologists say they recognize marriage as a part of the second of the eight dynamics of existence. The second dynamic includes all creative activity, including sex, procreating and the raising of children. |
|
|
</blockquote> |
|
|
*{{cite news | last =] | title =What is a Scientology wedding?: TomKat nuptials bring renewed focus to controversial religious sect | work =] | publisher =] | date =November 18, 2006 | url =http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15767797/ | accessdate =2008-11-27 }} |
|
|
''']''' (]) 17:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
: What's this source say? ] (]) 01:02, 6 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
== Primary source content == |
|
|
Cirt, you had argued at the AfD for pruning back the primary-source content. At the moment, there are still a number of paragraphs sourced only to Hubbard. Shouldn't we take those out now? <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 14:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:No. I think they are valid and are good complements at this point to the secondary sources. Prune/copyedit/trim, perhaps in places. Remove whole entire paragraphs? Disagree. ''']''' (]) 14:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::Would you like to do the trimming then that you deem appropriate? Otherwise I am not sure what to make of . <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 14:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Again, to reiterate: Prune/trim? Yes. I ''never'' suggested removing whole entire paragraphs in that comment. ''']''' (]) 14:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I will list some problems that I see: The second lede para is based exclusively on a primary source, which is not referred to again in the main article. Assertions like the decree being "controversial", a "key teaching" etc. are unsourced. The lede does not summarise the article. <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 14:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
The lermanet page "Scientology's Questionable Policies on Rape and Public Relations" (currently ref 8) is a ] page from an avowed anti-Scientology site. I don't think use of this page as a source is appropriate. <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 14:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
The Gene Zimmer "Alteration of Scientology Materials Report" (ref 4) does not have publication data. Is that an RS? <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 14:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
The entire section "Tone Scale and "Know to Sex" scale" is sourced to primary sources. If we can't find secondary sources discussing this, I am in favour of dropping it. <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 14:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Most of the first para in the Promiscuity section is primary-sourced. The second para is primary-sourced, as well, but luckily this can be fixed. Siker quotes the same policy letter on page 91: <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 14:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
The parts of "Abuse your Illusions" that we cite (by Russell Krick, published by ], ) are from a fictionalised account. While it claims to be based on the actual "case history of a friend", I think we would be better off seeking corroboration in a more reliable source. (Note that the second source given, "One Hand Jerking", is another book featuring the exact same fictional account.) <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 15:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:Similar to the fictionalized account of the ] by ] ? ''']''' (]) 15:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::Some or all of these questions are quoted in the . While that too is a primary source, its preceived factual reliability would be an improvement. <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 21:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
does not actually say in so many words that "Scientology Sex Scandal" was "one of the more popular articles in Australian publishing in 2007", as our article states; the source merely describes it as one of a "slew of blaring headlines" in one of the "celebrity gossip weeklies". I doubt we'll ever be in agreement on the status of women's mags of this type as reliable encyclopedic sources. :-) <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 15:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:The title of that article is "Selling off the rack". Also from the article: "A survey of the best-selling magazines of 2007 ..." ''']''' (]) 15:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::We could say, The article, which discussed the relationship of Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes, featured one of the more notable headlines in celebrity gossip weeklies in 2007, being entitled "Scientology Sex Scandal". <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 16:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::{{done}}. ''']''' (]) 16:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Re the use of primary sources: I am fully in agreement with you, and have said so in the past, that ], as well as related Beliefs and Practices articles, should not quote from Scientology websites or books (unless these are sections that reliable secondary sources have seen fit to quote verbatim). To that extent, I am fully behind what Spidern has done in these articles. But the same thing then also applies to articles like this present one. If we're telling Scientologists they can't pick and quote "the good bits", but have to restrict themselves to what secondary sources have covered, then we can't pick and quote "the bad bits", but should likewise stick to what reliable secondary sources have discussed. I think this is a way forward that would benefit article quality in the long run. <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 16:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:For the most part generally speaking, I agree. However for specific subsections in this article would like to wait to hear what others think. ''']''' (]) 16:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Comment''' - Paragraphs and sections based solely on primary sources are original research and should be removed. A responsible secondary source would do the work to fit the primary material into context and relative importance. A good example is the Pain and Sex bulletin, which in my experience as a Scientologist, is little more than a curiosity. Without a secondary source to put that in perspective we have little more here than the common Scientology critic ploy of picking alarming material from Hubbard out-of-context and holding it up to ridicule. Let's pare this down to those areas covered in secondary sources and perhaps a bit of primary material that corresponds. --] (]) 18:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:*And if we are to be doing OR here then let's not forget a VERY important policy, Second Dynamic Rules, which states that a person's sexual activity is NOT a concern for the Church. That needs to be in the lead. --] (]) 19:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Pretty sure there is good coverage of ''Pain and Sex'' in secondary sources, will do some research into that. ''']''' (]) 19:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Now is as good a time as any to add such content yourself (provided it is well-sourced). I would also invite you to find some secondary sources for ], which is in a similar state. ]<font color="green">]</font>] 19:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I think it would be a good idea to add the 2nd Dynamic Rules to the lede. They seem to be the basis of the practical laissez-faire approach espoused by the church today, so they're of fundamental practical importance to individual Scientologists. <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 21:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Discussion of content in subsection: Scientology sex classes and counseling == |
|
|
|
|
|
What a piece of dreck the below bit is:<blockquote>In 2007, '']'' reported that Scientology has "sex lessons" which can be given to couples looking to educate themselves to have "better sex". This guide studies their sex life and suggests ways for the couple to improve upon their activities. The article, titled: "Scientology Sex Scandal", which discussed the relationship of ] and ], was one of the more notable headlines in Australian celebrity gossip weeklies in 2007.</blockquote>Let's count the POV-driven errors: |
|
|
#The source article is MAGWATCH, which appears to be a column about gossip mags. This article is entitled "A ring of truth, but only about the '''lies''' (emphasis added)" which should give any editor pause before quoting from it. |
|
|
#Here is what it says:<blockquote>New Idea announces Tom and Katie's "scientology sex scandal". For some bizarre reason, the couple are reportedly taking "sex lessons" so they can learn to have "better sex". "Tom and Katie will have to share every detail of their sex life with an adviser, 'an intimate relationship guide', who will analyse their lovemaking and suggest improvements."</blockquote>So this is clearly about Tom and Kate, not about Scientology in general. Yet the editor here engaged in ] generalization to invent that "Scientology has "sex lessons" which can be given to couples". |
|
|
#Now seeing as we now do that the bit is about Tom and Kate, a responsible editor might want to consider ] and think carefully about the quality of the sourcing. |
|
|
#Finally, a responsible editor might want to see if there is any other reliable source that mentions Scientologists taking "sex lessons". There is not and there are no such in Scientology. So an editor here just used terrible sourcing and outright original opinion to create a fiction about Scientology. |
|
|
#Oh, and calling it "one of the more notable headlines" is a definite reach. The article simply calls it one of "a slew of blaring headlines" about Katie that indicate that she is popular fodder for the gossip mags. |
|
|
Personally I think any editor that would engage in the above is a ripe target for a topic ban as they obviously cannot control their POV and I am interested in input as to whether we should propose such a ban on the ] page. --] (]) 18:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:This is information backed up to ''multiple'' sources not just one, and your attempt at biased POV spin and attack on an individual editor instead of discussing the content itself and coming to a consensus on the talk page - or even ''before'' engaging in ''any'' sort of dispute resolution on the talk page such as content RFC on the content you disagree with, or even ] on a specific source you disagree with, is nonconstructive and indicative of a disruptive problem. ''']''' (]) 18:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::Personally I think the happy inclusion of such material is the real problem here as it demonstrates extremely poor judgment. Much poorer judgment than anything that I have seen from Shutterbug. Yet you and others had no problem attacking her and proposing topic ban. --] (]) 18:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::I agree with Justallofthem. <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 18:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I did not initially propose the topic ban, though I support it. The topic ban is due to disruptive editing plus ] from the organization ] and its ]. Again, this is a separate matter and for further community input on ''content'' issues - ]-content is the way to go. For further community input on ''sourcing'' issues - ] is the way to go. ''']''' (]) 18:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
(left) I made five (5) very salient points pointing up gross errors on that bit including ] and ] violations, two of our most-important policies. You did not bother to address any of them but instead happily reinserted the offending material. There is something very wrong there. And I can point at plenty of previous cases where you acted in the same irresponsible manner. --] (]) 18:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Here is the history of the paragraph: , . I had failed to notice, until Justallofthem pointed it out, that the source made a statement on Cruise and Holmes, rather than a general statement about Scientology. Apart from that, I have expressed my concern over our quoting celebrity weeklies as encyclopedic sources. This section was very poorly sourced. I expressed similar concerns over other sources used in this article ]. <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 19:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
If we were to hold a content RFC on this issue I would of course defer to community consensus on the matter. Until such time, I see that there are questions about this material and will continue to invite others to discuss, I posted a note to ] so hopefully we will bring in some other previously uninvolved editors on this article. Again, this is something that was not simply discussed in one source, but multiple others as well. ''']''' (]) 19:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== "In Scientology the focus is on sex. Sex, sex, sex." == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{quote box|width=30%|align=right|quote="In Scientology the focus is on sex. Sex, sex, sex."|source=]'s son ]<ref name="morton" />}} |
|
|
This quote is poignant and especially in this particular article goes to the heart of the subject of the article itself. Not to mention that it is a quote from ]'s son, who was directly involved in initial stages of ]/]. It should be retained in the quote box in that subsection. ''']''' (]) 20:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:You are ignoring the fact that Nibs retracted much if not all of what he said about his father. That statement is ridiculous and not backed up by reliable sources. In Scientology, the focus is most definitely not on sex sex sex. There are lots of things you can say about Scientology - that is not one of them. See, that is my concern, your lack of judgment as to the veracity of questionable sources making statements not backed up in reliable materials. --] (]) 20:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::Source to back up your claim that "Nibs retracted much if not all of what he said about his father" ? ''']''' (]) 20:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Simple, just look at Google search. And our own article on ]. Of course critics have their "Um, uh" but the fact stands that the retractions were made. --] (]) 21:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
In '']'' former Scientologist ] writes: |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Cquote|Nibs accepted a financial settlement from the Scientologists after his father's death in 1986, agreeing not to make further comment.<ref>Atack, Jon, ''A Piece of Blue Sky'' (NY: Carol Publ. Group, 1990), ISBN 0-8184-0499-X, p. 147.</ref>}} |
|
|
|
|
|
In the updated revision of '']'', Bent Corydon comments: |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Cquote|In the case of L. Ron Hubbard Jr.'s 1986 "legal settlement" with Scientology, he had accumulated sizable hospital bills due to recent emergency surgery. This left him weakened and heavily in debt. Concerned about the welfare of his family he finally agreed to a "settlement". This included his signing various prepared documents. I don't believe for a moment that Ron Jr. ever considered these prepared statements to be accurate representations of his thoughts and beliefs. The man was under duress.<ref>Corydon, Bent, ''L. Ron Hubbard: Messiah or Madman?'' (Barricade Books, 1992), p. 423.</ref>}} |
|
|
Not exactly a firm "retraction". Sounds more like a "settlement". Also it seems to refer to the book, but ''not'' to this sourced interview. ''']''' (]) 21:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:DeWolfe has issued multiple retractions. He specifically retracted what he said in the Playboy interview. Those quotes are conjecture and I believe they apply to another instance of his retracting something he said. Not only is he not very credible given his waffling but he has specifically retracted much of what critics would like to quote him on. Just because Morton is a "celebrity muckracker" as one source you provided calls him does not mean that Misplaced Pages need be. or does it? <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> |
|
|
::Again, you fail to provide any sources to back up your claims. ''']''' (]) 22:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Please note that by stating that he has retracted his statements, you only contradict your argument by saying that he is not credible. ]<font color="green">]</font>] 00:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Hardly. If someone says "A"; "no, not A, B" then "A-prime"; "No, not A-prime, B-prime", etc., etc. then that person, almost by definition, lacks credibility. The statements are not credible, the retractions are not credible, nothing the man says is credible. He is, by his own admission, not a credible source and his "revelations" have no place here in this article. In his own article perhaps, but nowhere else. --] (]) 01:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::You are correct. To be quite clear, I wasn't defending the use of the statement in the article. Just pointing out the fact that if indeed a man is incredible, then his retractions are equally incredible (and thus, can't be used as an valid arguing point). The person arguing would be better served arguing for the lack of credibility of the subject. ]<font color="green">]</font>] 01:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Then we are in agreement. However, barring reliable sources that speak to the man's overall credibility, we, as Misplaced Pages editors, are on safer ground if we simply consider the statements as retracted. For those statements not specifically retracted then we, as editors, have a responsibility to at least see if his statements are backed up by other, perhaps more reliable sources. We would certainly not give the man's statements the prominence of a quote box. We should hesitate to include them at all. --] (]) 02:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::I will however say as Jayen466 has said many times that we must not draw conclusions about a source's reliability based solely on our own research, but there must be an academic mention indicating if that were the case. Once again, we must return to the principle of '''verifiability''' and use that as a criteria rather than drawing premature conclusions ourselves about a person's credibility. So in other words, if we can find valid academic mention of the subject, then we shall use it regardless of any subjective assertions that the source is not credible. ]<font color="green">]</font>] 02:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
Bearing in mind that we are having trouble finding reliable secondary sources ''at all'' that topicalise "Scientology and Sex", I found the prominent display of this box, claiming that "In Scientology the focus is on sex. Sex, sex, sex.", |
|
|
#unrepresentative of prominent viewpoints on what Scientology focuses on, as published in the most reliable sources |
|
|
#poorly sourced (the statement was originally published in a porn magazine; it was later retracted; the source cited in our article remains unpublished in several countries as it risks falling foul of local libel laws) |
|
|
#likely to be perceived as being in poor taste by the average Misplaced Pages reader. <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 01:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
===Source === |
|
|
What a hoot - Morton did not even have his sources right. That comment was not from a Playboy interview, it was from the Penthouse interview that DeWolfe specifically retracted. Here is a bit more:<blockquote>'''Penthouse:''' Did the Labor Party official get any of his young men via Scientology?<br><br>'''Hubbard:''' Yes. The British were ripe for Scientology. The British school system fosters lesbianism and homosexuality, because from the time you're born until you're in your twenties, all you see is the same sex. The schools are so segretated. And you'll notice in Scientology the focus on sex. Sex, sex, sex. The first thing we wanted to know about someone we were auditing was his sexual deviations. You know, in actual fact, very few people exclusively practice missionary-style sex. So all you've got to do is find a person's kinks, whatever they might be. Their dreams and their fantasies. And if you find that central core, their sexual drives and desires and fantasies, then you can fit a ring through their noses and take them anywnere. You promise to fufill their fantasies or you threaten to expose them --very simple.</blockquote>A load of trash never substantiated and since retracted, covered adequately in our own article on ]. --] (]) 04:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:You have given a supposed quote, but still not a source nor a way to ] any of these claims you have made. ''']''' (]) 04:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::The link to the Penthouse article is in the DeWolfe article. --] (]) 04:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Removed as a link to a dubious site, and an attack/fishing site to boot. ''']''' (]) 04:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::It's in several places on the net, e.g., or on . <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 05:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
(left) You removed the link to the affidavit, not the Penthouse article. Anyway, I agree that using an alleged true copy of a court document on a POV site is dubious. I believe there are other instances of that that we can work on in the future. it is again but on a similar POV site, just not a listed "attack" site. This affidavit is referred to rather specifically in Corydon's book so we know it exists. What would y'all think would be the proper way to be able to have it as a reference? --] (]) 05:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:Still have yet to be provided a way to verify that document on an actual non-dubious/POV/attack site. ''']''' (]) 05:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::You ignored the entirety of my previous comment? --] (]) 05:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::You have given no reliable way to verify any of your claims. ''']''' (]) 05:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::There is a short summary from a scholar ; the scholar says he has a copy of the affidavit. Btw, do you think editors should assume that sites attacking Scientology are generally reliable, while sites sympathetic to Scientology are generally dubious? <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 05:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::No I do not think that. But these particular sites being linked to are dubious, and written by certain individuals from within the ] tasked for certain specific purposes. Not reliable sites, not even safe sites. ''']''' (]) 05:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Do you agree then that ref 8 linking to a self-published attack site should be dropped from this article? <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 05:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::No. Ref 8 is not an "attack site", though it is self-published. Could be a matter for discussion at ], however. ''']''' (]) 05:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Btw, having just checked the scholar's description of the affidavit against the purported copy of it, I cannot off-hand see any discrepancy. Some phrases, too, I recognize from having seen them quoted in RS before. I guess the scholar could confirm that it's an accurate version; failing such confirmation, we could cite his paper. <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 06:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::With a subtitle of , I doubt any other interpretation would be reasonable. I don't think we need RS/N here; ] is clear enough. <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 06:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::It would certainly be best to find a better secondary source. ''']''' (]) 06:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
.svg){kind=small}
