Misplaced Pages

Talk:R2-45: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:39, 4 April 2016 editDamotclese (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,639 edits →Facts versus conjecture← Previous edit Latest revision as of 14:56, 8 February 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,675,551 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 1 WikiProject template. Create {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "C" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 1 same rating as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Scientology}}.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion 
(226 intermediate revisions by 16 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{FailedGA|21:25, 16 August 2016 (UTC)|topic=Philosophy and religion|page=1}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo = old(30d)
| archive = Talk:R2-45/Archive %(counter)d
| counter = 1
| maxarchivesize = 150K
| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft = 4
}}
{{talkheader}} {{talkheader}}
{{WikiProject Scientology|class=Start|importance=Low}} {{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|
{{WikiProject Scientology|importance=Low}}
}}
==Stop removing tags==
], who has a definite bias against Scientology and apparently against myself, has removed the tags. Do not do this without discussion. That is what talk pages are for. And also do not add images unless proper discussion has been had before. Thanks. ] (]) 08:06, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
:I'm not sure what your problem is with the current image. It's a neutral, free image of the main person related to this issue, and it was discussed on the talk page. I've put it back. --] (]) 10:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
::Why is there such an insistence on an image for a disputed article about a disputed claim? First, it was a gun, and you pushed for that until others decided it was ridiculously biased. Now, you are pushing for an image of Hubbard. Why? Are we to put images of Hubbard on every single on Scientology and its many controversies? It's about bias. And this is just one more example of such, no matter how you wish to deny it, just like constantly removing legitimate maintenance tags. ] (]) 13:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
::Furthermore, that picture is from 1950. When does the claim for the origin of R2-45 come from? 1950? 1952? How does a picture '''totally unrelated''' to the subject matter at hand have any relevance to this particular article? If we writing an article on some aspect of Islam, a claim that ] ordered the murder of so-and-so, would you still be pushing for a picture or drawing of Muhammad, no matter what connection or not it had to that particular claim by Islamophobes? Exactly how does this picture, from 1950 (when Hubbard didn't even write the book in question), improve this article? Can you demonstrate that? ] (]) 13:57, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
::In addition, why that particular picture of Hubbard? There are myriad pictures of Hubbard available here that we can discuss if there was consensus to include such a picture, which I disagree with, but for the sake of argument. The fact that you would insist on sticking that picture back, or any picture, or that any editor would do so with such an article currently under dispute and under severe sanctions reeks of bias. Are you able to understand that? ] (]) 14:00, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
::] without prior discussion, and who has a clear history of bias against the subject in question, Scientology.]] ] (]) 14:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
::] to find the most recent examples of this. There is not a single shred of concrete evidence to back up anything claimed by this article, from any viewpoint. Has it ever been proven that Hubbard ordered others to be murdered and/or that this was ever carried out? No. In other words, taking into account Misplaced Pages policy, this article is not encyclopedic and at best warrants brief mention in an article like ].]] ] (]) 14:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
:::I'm disappointed to see that you've gone back to this very unproductive and unnecessarily argumentative approach to the article. It didn't do Sfarney any favours and it won't do any for you, either. It should be obvious to you that consensus is considerably against you regarding the tags; now that Sfarney is gone, you are literally the only person arguing for them, but you haven't identified a single statement or sentence that you consider problematic, nor have you proposed any changes. That's not constructive editing. Your opposition to the picture is frankly frivolous - no, it's not exactly contemporaneous but it's close enough (within 2 or 4 years) that it's usable. As an aside, while there may be "myriads" of pictures of Hubbard I know from personal experience that there are hardly any in the public domain - the vast majority are either licensed to various copyright holders or to the Church of Scientology, which has been systematically buying the copyrights of pictures of Hubbard in order to control their use. This one and a handful of others from the Los Angeles Daily News from 1950 are the only ones I know of that are verifiably in the public domain.
:::I've removed the tags as you have no consensus to include them. Please don't restore them as that will put you in violation of the current arbitration sanctions and will earn you a block or topic ban. I also don't propose to rehash all the arguments about the article as you appear to be unpersuadable and you seem to have no interest in proposing specific changes. I suggest that instead of going round in circles yet again we should take a different approach and get external input. Feoffer had the right idea when s/he posted a GA review request, but unfortunately that was sabotaged by Sfarney. I'll seek a fresh review and we will hopefully get some comments from an uninvolved reviewer which will help to take the article forward. It won't happen overnight (there is often a delay of a few weeks) but it should help to resolve the deadlock, assuming that you are willing to abide by the reviewer's comments. In the meantime I suggest that we should all find something more constructive to do than arguing over this article. ] (]) 16:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
::::It's clear at this point that after your victory in getting Sfarney banned you're looking to get me banned. Fine. Get me banned. But your claims of "consensus" are false. What you have are a bunch of flagrantly anti-Scientology editors here ganging up on a couple of editors trying to do the right thing. But get me banned, in spite of all my comments above. You're not here to build an encyclopedia. You're just here to impose your anti-Scientology agenda, remove tags in spite of the fact that the article is not in line with Misplaced Pages policy at all. Have your way. You win buddy. ] (]) 16:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
::::You can revert me again if you so wish, like I've said, you win. Go ahead and get me topic banned. It's clear that neutral articles on Scientology are impossible to achieve on Misplaced Pages. I've made one last ditch effort, but ultimately you've bullied me out. You and the anti-Scientology gang can have your way from here on out without having to worry about the likes of me and other editors who actually give a damn about ], ], etc. ] (]) 16:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
:::::I'm genuinely sorry that you feel bullied. There's certainly no intention on my part, and I'm sure on the other editors' parts, to do that to you. The problem has been that your approach to editing this article has been consistently unconstructive. You have to be willing to propose actual changes, respect consensus and engage with other editors to negotiate an acceptable compromise, which you haven't done. If you took a different approach to editing I'm sure you would find it a much less stressful experience. Please take a break from this article and focus on getting better, without subjecting yourself to unnecessary stress. ] (]) 17:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
: '''...a definite bias against Scientology...''' No. Just because you do not agree with the verified facts of the issues here, you don't get to pretend that the truth about Scientology is some how a "bias." If you think there is something wrong with the article, point to it and explain how it is wrong. ] (]) 20:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


==Reference to R2-45 in Auditor #37== == Need to straighten out GA nomination ==


The current (and apparently first) GA nomination by ] was opened on April 30; a ] file was deleted later that day, presumably because it was opened in error at some point.
According to this excerpt from Nam McLean's affidavit:


The ] review page was opened by ] on May 28. However, as someone who was actively editing the article (over a dozen edits) in the month prior to that point, Sfarney is not eligible to review the article. I think ] was trying to address this problem earlier today, when he edited the ] page directly to put the nomination back into the reviewing pool; that didn't fix the matter, since the Legobot rebuilds the page every 20 minutes based on article talk pages, including this one, and his edits were overwritten by the bot.
<blockquote>«7. I have copies in my possession in which ex-Scientologists were declared "suppressive persons" and made subject to the "fair game law" and a copy of Auditor #37 placing 4 persons under auditing process R2-45. In the context of such Ethics Orders auditing process R2-45 cannot be considered humorous or a joke, but a serious order.
The document attached hereto and marked Appendix "D", is a true copy of an original copy of the Auditor. The reference to Auditing Process R2-45, found in paragraph 7, under heading "Racket Exposed", was known by me as a staff member of the Church of Scientology to mean to kill someone with a Colt 45 automatic Pistol.» </blockquote>


What I plan to do is to have the ineligible review page deleted, and start over at GA1. However, the article's stability is questionable—stability is a ]—so it might be better to withdraw the nomination for the moment (though you could hope instead that the article becomes stable before a new reviewer is found). You also might want to have the Scientology Wikiproject reassess the article now: if they still think it's C-level rather than B-level, then it's unlikely to be considered GA quality. ] (]) 18:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
I think this reference to the Auditor #37 magazine should be included in the article. I will see if I can include it myself, although other editors who are better at english prose than I am can go ahead meanwhile. ] 16:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


Adding: I hadn't realized that Sfarney had just been topic-banned. I'll adjust the GA nominee template now, and nominate ] for deletion. Apologies for the confusion. ] (]) 18:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
:"'''Nan''' McLean". ] 12:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


::Oops, you're right, thanks for the heads-up. ] 18:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC) :Thanks for doing that, BlueMoonset. ] (]) 11:54, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


: Was Sfarney finally sanctioned and his behavior stopped for good? I know at least one editor had had enough of his behavior and unwatched the page here. If he's been banned, I will ask Demotclese to watch again ] (]) 20:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
== Clarification ==
::Yes, he is topic banned from Scientology for one year. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 22:28, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
::: Thanks, I saw a comment on BB's Facebook page mentioning that. I've Watch Listed the page again now that the offending editor's nonsense is no longer going to clog by morning's Misplaced Pages rituals. :) ] (]) 16:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
:: (]) -- I saw BB on Facebook mentioning this, thanks. Also check the Wig Wag page, a recent edit was made which I'm not informed enough about to confirm that it's golden. This extant page has a minor bit of grammar I thought was wrong but it appears to be used a lot on the East Coast of the United States, not so much on the West. :) Thanks. ] (]) 16:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)


== Abusive editor sfarney banned or not? ==
So, is this merely firing a warning shot at the ground or actual murder? If it's the latter, I think it should be in the introduction. --] 20:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


Why is the editor sfarney still posting "Dev-T" to other editor's Talk: pages? Wasn't he banned? I see he's still trying to drag other editor's in to wasting even more time. I unwatched R2-45 specifically to avoid more wasted time, only to re-watch and now I see the supposedly-banned editor once again trying to waste my valuable time. Was he banned or not? Thanks. ] (]) 00:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
: just funny guys. Just too, too funny. really. R2-45, guys, it is meant as a sense of humor, a quicky way to exteriorize an individual, lol, it is a joke guys. Guys, you are 'way too serious about it. ] 06:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
:], with a ban that also covered "participating in any Misplaced Pages process relating to those articles." He attempted to seek arbitration in the matter, which was with the apparent consensus that if he tries it again the consequences will at least be an indefinite topic ban if not a site ban. That issue is resolved, though whether or not it will evolve into something else remains to be seen. ] (]) 00:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
:: Okay, thank you, I think the posting in my Talk: was obsolete, I've been working on other projects and only just saw it. I guess I should pay better attention but it's not as if Misplaced Pages is a priority with any of us. :) I guess the best way to handle abusive editors is to ignore them, politely and professionally. Any way thanks! ] (]) 03:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)


Oh, wait, I see that he posted to my Talk: page just yesterday, in violation of his topic ban.
:: It's so funny, I forgot to laugh. ] 13:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


::: -- Arbitration --
::There are circumstances where one ''might'' plausibly believe that Hubbard was only joking with references to "R2-45". Let me ask you, Terryeo: do ''you'' think that an order to Sea Org members on goldenrod paper is where you'll find lots of Hubbard jokes? -- ] 19:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
::: You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Scientology R2-45: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide guide to arbitration and the Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Arbitration proceedings Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use. -- user:sfarney Grammar's Li'l Helper user_talk:sfarney Talk 06:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


So it looks like it's not an old, obsolete posting to my Talk: but yet another annoying attempt to waste people's time. I removed it from my Talk: page but maybe I should not have so that we can see about whether it's time to increase the scope of the ban for this abusive user. I'll go revert my own edit on my own Talk page so anyone who wants to see his latest violation may do so. Thanks! ] (]) 03:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
::Terryeo, that you find it funny is expected. The Clearwater City Commission didn't find it funny though. The document "FINAL REPORT TO THE CLEARWATER CITY COMMISSION" includes this passage: <br>
::{| border=1 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=5
| Evidentiary Fact:<br>N. The Church of Scientology has created a policy which orders the commission of homicide.<br>1. R2-45 means that you shoot the person in the head. (1-78)<br>2. R2-45 is shooting a person in the head. (1-96)<br>3. R2-45 is a Scientology policy created by Hubbard. (2-32, 33)
|}
::So the Clearwater City Commission concluded that there was enough evidence that R2-45 was actually a policy to commit murder, written by Hubbard. Since the source is reputable, something to integrate to the article. -- ] 23:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


: I see that user Sfarney did the same to my talk as well as so several others. This is obviously a Scientology person trying his best to annoy even people who are not involved in whatever his ideology problems are. I am requesting a perm ban for the user as well as for his laval sock account. ] (]) 23:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
::: Amazing. I would think that anyone who has read or studied very much of it understands '''completely''' that Hubbard is both making a joke and stating the actuality. lol. But, I guess if someone reads a tiny little piece of it, all by itself and it says "R2-45" then someone is going to take Hubbard's words literally. The rest of us will laugh and enjoy the humor. lol ] 11:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


::* When Sfarney opened the arbitration case he was required to notify everyone whom he named there, so the talk page notices were perfectly correct. He's already been warned by the administrators there that opening that case was a violation of his topic ban, and he was pointed at a more suitable venue to appeal the ban.
::::Are you saying that the whole is a side-splitting joke? In any case the article is based on proper cites, the readers will make their own mind. You are certainly free to laugh irrepressibly when you read the article. -- ] 18:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
::* Calling Laval a sock of Sfarney is a serious allegation, most likely not true, and certainly contravenes ] and ].
::::: Wow, that's really something. I am laughing. I read it and by golly, that's what it says. LOL. wow. ] 06:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
::* I think permabanning either of these two editors would be a mistake. They certainly have a CoI about Scientology, but that doesn't mean that they can't contribute sensibly to Misplaced Pages in general. --] (]) 07:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
OKay, I guess I'd better seriously reply, but it is funny.
:::: Just so long as the user refrains from wasting editor's time, that's all that matters. Thanks for your comments, I had not known he was allowed to post yet more entries on Talk: pages. After a few years it gets somewhat annoying. :) Thanks! We get to move on. ] (]) 15:41, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
* R2-45 was mentioned by Hubbard as a potential auditing process. Such processes are fall into "technical data" or "tech". Tech is published in RED ink and on white paper. "Policy" is another kettle of fish. Its purpose is to provide policy and hence, guideline for the day to day administration, the running of the Church. Policy is published as green ink on buff paper. R2-45 isn't policy, wasn't policy, can't be policy because it is Tech. Raymond's link to a court document which was apparently presented by the defendants ''might'' be actual, but is an unsigned document and you can't really be sure it was ever signed by or created by Hubbard. If Hubbard did create it, heh, you can easily see he was pissed when he did. But, today's Policies say that "nothing may be done contrary to the laws of the land". Which means the Church does not support nor condone any illegal act, be it some auditing process once thought up and never used, or by stealing or anything else that would be illegal. Also, the CLEARWATER REPORT is not dated and the manner in which it is presented at that link leaves at least some doubt to its authenticity. A good deal of it is directly contrary to modern Church Policy and worth noting is the relationship of the City of Clearwater, at present, to the Church, is far less suspicious than at the time of that report. Perhaps some of that is the money the Church has pulled into the Clearwater area, or the improvements they have made, the building materials purchased in the area, etc. etc. ] 07:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


{{Talk:R2-45/GA1}}
Once more, Terryeo: Do you think that the middle of an Ethics Order in which Hubbard is laying out direct instructions on what is to be done with people pronounced guilty of "suppressive acts" and "high crimes" is where Hubbard is likely to slip in one of his little jokes? Phrased in the form of an instruction? You think Hubbard, Mr. Communication, expected the Sea Org to know that "They are declared Enemies of mankind, the planet and all life", "They are fair game," "No amnesty may ever cover them," "they are to be run on reverse processes" are all serious, but 'shoot them in the head' is just his little joke? -- ] 14:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
: I am sooo lol. really. You are asking me for a personal opinion. Have a nice day. lol. ] 04:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


== Literal meaning acknowledged by CoS ==
::But you did give your opinion that R2-45 is a joke. Now suddenly you "lost" your opinion? --] 08:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
::: I stated my opinion. Feldspar asked for a personal opinion. Should I state my opinion again and yet again? I've danced around this bush before. I've stated my opinion and have no urge to attempt any modification of yours. Happy Ho Ho's. ] 08:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


Hi ], my goal with the introduction of this article is to make it clear to the reader who says what about R2-45. The Church's position is very relevant, and it's supported by reliable sources. There is plenty of material in the article to show the whole picture, but just saying in the lede that it's "a meaning acknowledged by the Church" is not balanced, neutral reporting. --] (]) 18:41, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
::::Well, yes. You have danced around this bush before -- and you're still dancing. You're unable to say "Yes, I ''actually believe'' that L. Ron Hubbard, in the middle of an Ethics Order which gives specific, direct instructions on specific, direct retaliatory actions to take against 'Enemies of mankind, the planet and all life', put in one specific, direct retaliatory action which his readers would know literally meant 'shoot these people in the head', but ''intended it as a joke'' and ''never believed anyone would take it as anything other than a joke.''" You know it's not true. You know that Hubbard was accustomed to giving orders and having them obeyed. You know that ''even if'' Hubbard were to claim ''afterward'' (after someone had already been murdered) that it had all been a joke -- you know that he would have been responsible. He knew that people followed his orders. And he gave the order to murder. I won't press you in what must be a painful moment for you. I just wish you'd learn from these moments of dissonance. -- ] 04:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
:Slashme's wording improves the article. ] (]) 18:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
::::: I stated my opinion. I am still laughing. Happy Ho Ho's ] 05:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::And you're still dancing. -- ] 15:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::: I really don't understand, Feldspar. I try to communicate something to the editors here. I state my opinion. I state it honestly. That you refuse to accept what I know to be true is perfectly okay with me. That you refuse to accept what I know to be true and, in addition, refuse to recognize that I have have a point of view I could tolerate. That you refuse to accept what I know to be true, refuse to recognize that I have a point of view, and, in addition, make disparaging remarks of a personal nature goes beyond civility. You notice I did not laugh at anyone. You notice I did not make derogatory remarks to anyone, nor make anyone wrong for holding the point of view of their choice, nor for maintaining their own point of view. What I did do, and often do, is state my own point of view and my own knowledge in the area. Why do you persist with comments which are borderline incivility? ] 09:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

:::::::Terryeo, knock off your false accusation of Antaeus that he is uncivil. It looks to me that you are not conducting yourself in good faith here by deliberately dodging discussion. --] 14:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

::::::::Terryeo, your debate technique consists only of ignoring the arguments against you and saying "lol." Clearly you cannot be reasoned with. A reasoning person would consider the arguments of both sides, then reformulate the original statement to account for all the information and opinions on the table. But refusing to listen to the valid points of others, dismissing them with little or no explanation as invalid, and ignoring them only makes you a fool. You had one response that approached coherence, but it doesn't matter whether R2-45 was considered "tech" or "policy" within Scientology, because the government and people outside Scientology will necessarily have a different definition of "policy." You go on to say that the Policy of today is to follow the law of the land, but that's not the topic of the article we're discussing, merely a way to derail the arguments against you. Look at Scientology's track record. Operation Snow White, the infiltration of government agencies and companies, for which 11 scientologists went to prison for conspiracy, among other crimes. The wrongful death of Lisa McPherson, which, contrary to popular belief, has not been settled. Operation Freakout, the nearly successful plan to frame Paulette Cooper for making bomb threats because she wrote critically of the Church of Scientology. I could go on, but I'll spare you. Now here's your problem, Terryeo: you cannot invalidate the crimes I just listed by saying "the documents are unsigned" or "Hubbard was joking lol," because the above crimes are all well documented with plenty of attention from the United States judicial system. When the founder of an organization that commits crimes like this "jokes" about shooting people, it MUST be taken seriously.] (]) 08:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::Umm, do you realise that you're responding to something that was posted 18 months ago by an editor who was later banned and so can't respond to you? -- ] (]) 08:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Personal opinion here: I know how in-jokes work from watching other people... I think odds are good that first few times it was used it WAS a joke. It may have easily evolved into an actual order to commit murder. 23:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC) <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) </small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Footnote #1 ==

Unfortunately, Footnote #1 references to a past newsgroup posting.
From: lepton@panix.com (Mike O'Connor)
*Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: HUBBARD ORDERED MURDERS
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 1998 09:25:22 -0500 </br>
Is the heading of that personal website's document. ] clearly spells out, newsgroups are '''never''' citable as secondary sources. The citation should be removed. ] 21:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

:I made the cites more direct, I think it's better now since there are convenient links to the whole material rather than small excerpts (people may want to read more about the subject). What do you think? ] 18:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

No newsgroup postings should ever be used as secondary sources in any Misplaced Pages article. The reason I think that because ] addresses the issue, has extensively discussed the issue and has made a guideline of it. The philosphy of NPOV as spelled out by WP:V and manifested for secondary sources is ]. references to a stored posting of a newsgroup on a personal website. No newsgroup or google group should ever be cited. Alt.Net.Scientology's posters are not only unattributable but they might all chant in unison, "L. Ron Hubbard made the moon into green cheese". Ha! I say, and Ha! again. Further, the references are inconsistantly done and poorly done. ] tells how to do them.
and reference to which ''might'' be some part of a hand typed copy of some part of a newspaper article. Could you (or anyone) tell me where the newspaper article begins and where it ends and what part of that notebook looking webpage is newspaper article and what part isn't newspaper article and who created that newspaper article? It is not attributed. It has a quote by Hubbard at its head, this is unusual for a newspaper article. It doesn't read like a newspaper article, though some parts of it read like they ''might'' have been in a newspaper article. It is held on a personal website, Xenu.net. Xenu is so bad that Google no longer links to it (under normal conditions). I would say it would behoove wikipedia to find a better convenince link.
references to a poorly written attribution. Harvard referencing would be much cleaner and easier to understand. The book is "conveniently" linked to but its presentation is poorly formatted for the internet. It is 403 pages long but the reference to it is deep in its bowels. I think it would be wise to A) include the page number of the reference to it and B) find a better formatted "convenience link". ] 10:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

:In regards to Terryo's comment that Google no longer links to xenu.net "(under normal conditions)". As I'm sure that Terryeo is ''quite'' aware, Google doesn't link to certain ''specific'' things because of legal threats and copyright claims from the Church of Scientology (RTC) using portions of the DMCA in a questionable manner. ] 11:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

:: The laws which you seem to object to are the very laws which protect the creators of publications and thus, provide that artists get rewarded for thier work. The Church has sometimes forged new pathways, especially in regards to the internet. But the Church has not been the only entity with the clout and laywers to protect the basic ideas of an artist earning a reward for his work, instead of his work being distributed for free, everywhere. ] 18:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

:''I think it would be wise to A) include the page number of the reference to it'' Then A) add your voice to those asking for Cite.php to be upgrade to allow per-invocation parameterization, and B) check the page source. Oh, and C) do try to stick to the truth, because "Xenu is so bad that Google no longer links to it" isn't. -- ] 13:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

:: Of course the sequence of footnotes has changed. But why must it be I who points out '''obviously''' wrong reference to newsgroups? The editors who are engaging in discussion here understand Misplaced Pages's WP:RS well enough. All of you have done extensive discussion and sometimes rewrites of the guideline about newsgroups. If you wish to change wikipedia standards, WP:RS is there for you. In the meantime why not write articles according to concensus? This isn't alt.net.scientology, but a public presentation which many people would like to take some pride in. To cite an entire 300+ page book for a two sentence passage is plain bad editing. You lose readers that way. ] 18:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
:::You know, Terryeo, if you really want answers to the questions you pose, you should try paying attention to the answers you get. Namely, if you had checked the page source, as you were already advised to do, you would know exactly which pages in the book contain the claim. At some future point when Cite.php ], page numbers or chapter numbers can be added to individual references to a common work. Currently, however, Cite.php does not permit such sub-references. -- ] 18:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

:Terryeo, if you find better references, I will replace. For now, that's the best we have. I personally don't dispute the authenticity of the text there, although the quality of some HTML versions could be improved (like Messiah or Madman). If ever I drop by the national library, I may request a scan of the referenced portions, and give it to Mr. Heldal-Lund to provide it with the articles (and of course, you can contribute too.) ] 20:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
:: If there is a particular subject or piece of data or data field you would like me to contribute, I would be glad to do so. I'm usually responsive about most anything. But those are books were written by people who did not understand what Hubbard was saying, though they are convinced they understood what Hubbard was saying. ] 05:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

:Teyerro is incorrect to say that google no longer links to xenu.net, as he would find if he ] (]) 05:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

== Exteriorization ==

The article attempts to define a word used in Scientology. It says: ''Exteriorization, in Scientology, is the ability for the "thetan" (soul or true self) to leave the body, in other words: death''
<blockquote>'''Exteriorization''', 1. the state of the individual being outside his body. When this is done, the individual achieves a certainty that he is himself and not his body. 2. The phenomenon of being in a position in space dependent on only one's consideration, able to view from that space, bodies and the room, as it is. 3. the act of moving out of the body with or without full perception. ''Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary'' pg. 151, pub. Church of Scientology of California ISBN 0884040372</blockquote>
: There is no special ability involved after a body dies. But the word ''Exteriorization'' does not mean ''death'', it means, "exterior to the body". ] 05:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

::Terryeo, am I to understand that when Hubbard said R2-45 is ''"an enormously effective process for exteriorization but its use is frowned upon by this society at this time."'' it is your position he was not referring to exteriorization as a reference to death. Are you telling my that is what you believe? - ] 08:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

:::: I am stating that the article mis-defines the term '''Exteriorization'''. Toward causing the term's use to be more understandable, I have provided 3 definitions, exactly quoted from the Tech Dictionary. The article presently states that exteriorization = death. I am stating that is not its meaning and providing 3 direct quotes which define what ''Exteriorization'' means (in Scientology). I am not telling you what I believe or what anyone should believe, but telling you the definition of the term, ''Exteriorization''. I am doing that by quoting directly from the Tech Dictionary. If you like, I could provide more information about what Hubbard meant by "exteriorization", there are a number of technical bulletins and articles and Hubbard talked about it extensively. It doesn't mean death is the point I'm making here. It has a particular meaning which is not "death".

::: Actually, Glen, don't forget that in Hubbardspeak, what you describe would not be death, because the Thetan/soul is alive and the body doesn't matter. And Hubbard used to term "Exteriorization" inconsistently - there are Exteriorization exercises for leaving the body temporarily, but the BIG ultimate Exteriorization is, of course, to leave it permanently. However, Terryeo's statement "There is no special ability involved after a body dies" is also incorrect. ]

:::: It would actually be easier to communicate with you in this area if you understand what Hubbard meant. I am not attempting to cause anyone to believe a certain event can happen. I am simply attempting to cause the article to present what Hubbard meant. A reader can undertand what Hubbard meant without agreeing it was so, and without believing it was possible. But exteriorization = death is not what Hubbard was talking about, not what he meant. ] 20:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
:::: I'm trying to make this point. When an editor introduced ''in other words: death'' into the article, that editor introduced original research which is not cited, which is unattributable and which Hubbard did not say. That tiny phrase, ''in other words: death'' was not spoken by Hubbard, is not present in Scientology Tech and is OR (]) on the part of an editor. I am again, not telling anyone what to believe or disbelieve but stating what Misplaced Pages policy has been ignored by an editor, ignored so a hot topic, an POV of view can be presented. So, if that tiny phrase comes out of there, if Misplaced Pages policy is followed, if Misplaced Pages guidelines are implemented, then its going to be a Misplaced Pages article. And, additionally, if there is some question of what I understand (not believe, but understand) Hubbard's statements to mean, I'm happy to respond. No problem. ] 21:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

::::So basically, Terryeo, just as "being at cause over MEST" actually means being able to buy a book from a store or mortar a brick, when Hubbard said that the people he had named as "Enemies of mankind, the planet, and all life" should be exteriorized by Auditing Process R2-45, he meant for them to be shot in the head... but not in, y'know, a death-inducing way? -- ] 23:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::: Feldspar, it cheers me greatly that you exhibit a sense of humor. lol. ] 09:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

::::: As a trivial point of information, "being at cause over MEST" means glancing at your watch to see what time it is, picking up a pencil so that its operating end is in operation, pressing the button on the TV remote which causes the effect you want to create. That's what "cause over MEST means". Of course only within the Church of Scientology could such plainspeak exist, you think? heh. ] 18:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::It's a good thing we have you around to "clarify" such matters, Terryeo. It's ''doubleplusgood'' that we have your plainspeak to help us goodthink. I'd write you a thank-you letter, except I haven't reached the state of Operating Thetan where I become at "knowing and willing cause over life, thought, matter, energy, space and time", so I can't pick up the pencil in such as a way as to put its operating end in operation. -- ] 14:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::: I see. If I pick a leaf from a tree and shred it, have I been cause over life? If I first choose to think of cake for desert, and then think of cake for desert, have I been cause over thought? If I pick up a watermelon and drop it from a tall building, have I been cause over matter? If I throw a switch, turning on an electric eraser, have I been cause over energy? If I close a door, have I been cause over space? If I run to the store instead of walking, have I been cause over time? Plainspeek, Scientology intends to be helpful to people. People attest, 1000s and 1000s of people attest Scientology is helpful. 1 + 1 = Plainspeek. ] 15:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::::If what they're attesting to is that being "at cause over MEST" allows them to do exactly the same things that ''anyone'' can do, even if they ''hadn't'' spent thousands of dollars on auditing and courses could do, they can "attest Scientology is helpful" all they like, but I for one ain't buyin' it. -- ] 01:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::::: Well, that is the meaning, the most basic and commonly understood meaning of "cause over MEST". If you asked me, that is the definition I would give, I believe (that word) that if you asked any Scientologist, that is the definition they would give you. I further understand you have re-stated again the solidity of your opinion in the matter. ] 05:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

== External Links ==

Normally, most articles place ''External Links'' as a section at the end of the article, after the information of the article. ''Notes and References'' are part of the information of this article. ''External Links'', in most articles, are placed after the information of the article. ] 05:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

:I fixed it, thanks for pointing it out. ] 23:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

== Xenu.net / L.A. Times reference ==
Okay, it is my understanding that the information was actually gotten from Xenu.net / a google group, not the L.A. Times. (See ].) If I am mistaken about this, please accept my apologies. However, I changed the reference to show Xenu.net as the publisher (with credit given to the L.A. Times as the original publisher).

As xenu.net got the information from a google group, and the google group is not a ], Xenu.net is not a reliable source on this either. While in-sentence attribution somewhat compensates for this, in the long run it would probably be better either to find the L.A. Times article and cite that, keeping xenu.net a convenience link (note - there is currently no consensus on ] regarding convenience links), or to remove the information.

— ] (]|]|]) 00:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

:If the copy of the article on Xenu.net is questionable, the thing to do is remove the convience link to it, not say that xenu.net is the publisher. There does seem to be a mis-formated cite in there that's messing up the references with multiple listings, but preview doesn't display with the error. I wish it was possible to define refs other than embedded in the text. ] 02:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

:: Per ], it does matter if the editor looking at the source looked at the L.A. Times or Xenu.net. (And, per ], one of these is significantly more reliable than the other.) The formatting of the reference did not make this clear, and based on the discussion linked above, I believed the editor who used the source looked at Xenu.net. Removing the link to Xenu.net, or specifically labelling it a convenience link, only makes it look like the editor did in fact look at the L.A. Times, which might not be true. Clarification from the person who added it would of course be helpful. ] (]|]|]) 12:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

::: What actually seems to happen is this. Some dude in LA reads the LA Times, sees an article and in good faith hand types the article's content into the "I hate Scientology" version of google groups. He gives it his best shot, okay, notwithstanding that his interest is POV. Then Xenu.net picks it up out of the google group as a hand typed replication with nothing about copyright protection or anything. (or some editor who has access to Xenu.net's posting does this). Now we have the LA Times article archived via a google group on Xenu.net. Next, an editor here sees a chance to secondarily source some bit of information and uses the "conveninece link" to the LA Times (no copyright notice, no attribution to the author usually) and cites it here. This is a bad loop, don't you see? It depends on some unknown and unknowable typist duplicating a newspaper which then gets shipped around on T1 lines until it is archived at a personal website. ] 09:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

::::The thing to do is for one or more editors to go to a library or online service archive and verify it. Of course, once they do, we'll just have to take their word for it unless every reader wants to do the same. They ''could'' put the exact text up somewhere, but then ''they'd'' be the "unknown typist" barring a complete scan of the story (and images can be manipulated), and where do they put it up? Usenet? No. A web site? No, too personal. A web site owned by a corporation, but mainly operated by an individual? Still too personal. An organization? Like CAN, LMT... Nope, they usually become lawsuit-magnets for some reason. The online archive would probably be a for-pay service, so that's out. Have I missed any branches of that tree? (Other than the happy occurance where the publication makes a decades old narrow-interest story available online.) Oh yes, the copyvio claim if it's an exact reproduction and the rejection of commented fair-use versions.

::::BTW, I love the loaded term "hand-typed" that Terryeo uses. It conjures up images of medieval monks pecking away at teletypes. ] 11:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
::::: Yes, and it is an accurate description when a document is not a purchased PDF or other whole document. ] 15:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

::::::And how do you think newspapers get electronic copies of old stories from before wordprocessors? Feed it through OCR software? And do you think that they assign their top-notch typists and proof-readers to go through the back issue crypts? ] 00:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

::::::: Perhaps the difference between a person whose whole universe is opposing Scientology in every way possible, typing a document and a hired typist whose daily bread is earned by accuracy of reproduction. Perhaps you don't. Perhaps it doesn't occur to you that the meaning of a sentence can change by including a comma where it doesn't belong, or mis-including a comma. Even a capitalization can change the meaning of a sentence. A newsgroup's "reporter" would not enter such a message unless he meant to put Sceintology into a bad light. If the standards you suggest we freely use, were applied accross all of Misplaced Pages, Misplaced Pages would no longer be an encyclopedic effort. ] 00:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

::::Good example of propaganda operations directed against wikipedia by the "guys who might cooperate".--] 14:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

::::: You don't understand. You continually present that I am attempting to harm these articles in some manner. You continually attempt to present that I am on one side and everyone else is on another side. That is not the actual situation. You frequently imply that I'm not a real person, that I am a representative of something you find distasteful, that is not the actual situation. I am not attempting to create a Scientology website here, do you understand? I have spoken of my effort many times. What is it, do you require an opponenet all of the time, what's the story ? ] 00:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

::::: The basis of this is actually ], all published points of view. And ], the idea being that if a lot of information is published which presents a point of view, then that point of view is easily substantiated. ] 15:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

:::: The question is whether the editor who added the source to Misplaced Pages actually looked at the L.A. Times, or the reproduction(s) from the website(s) (which are unreliable publishers). If they did look at the L.A. Times, there is no problem. However, if the person who put the article on Xenu.net (which cites the google group) and the person who added it to Misplaced Pages are the same (is that what happened, ]?) this is unlikely. If they didn't, then, as ] says, someone should check the L.A. Times. This of course will require more effort than internet-surfing, and may be inconvenient for some editors, and take time to happen. In the meantime, we could make the article honest to the current source of the information being an unreliable publisher by ], adding {{tl|Verify credibility}}, and ]. ] (]|]|]) 14:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
::::: Absolutely ! If the editor who added the source looked at the L.A. Times or the website and reproduced himself, what he observed and reproduced it verbatim with exact punctuation and so on, then his edit falls into one area. But if he the reproduction left out a comma, it falls into another area. This is simply too much for us to ask Misplaced Pages readers to trust. While in theory it is possible, it is too much to trust. In fact, all of the people involved in the transition from the physical newspaper to an archived newsgroup message have contributed thier anti-Scientology point of view in their actions of duplication. It is just too much to ask. ] 15:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::: If the link is just a convenience link, and not an indirect source, then it doesn't need to be trusted. So long as the information in the article was verified by looking at the original source. — ] (]|]|]) 16:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
::::::: I love it ! Then we should write WP:RS so that indirect sources may not be used '''unless''' they include a citation to the original source of information. And not just a statement such as, ''radio broacast of Jun 13, 1980 by RTCT, Seattle, WA'', but a way or manner by which a person could find a '''reliable''' copy of the original information? ] 21:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::::: Well, there are some occasions when the non-original publisher may still meet the requirements of "reliable and reputable". But aside from that, I agree that indirect sources should not be considered to meet ], although I have no objection to using them as convenience links provided at least one editor has checked the original source. (After that editor, you can either ], or go through the inconvenience of checking the original source yourself.) So, yay! By the way, somehow I got the Los Angeles Times reference and the Maclean's reference mixed up. I don't actually have any reason to believe that the editor who added the Los Angeles Times reference didn't look at the Los Angeles Times - but I do doubt whether the editor who added the Maclean's reference checked Maclean's (see our conversation on ]. In any case, I found four search results for the L.A. Times on what looked like an official archive (copyright notices "Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission", scanned PDFs that you have to pay for, free abstracts, not to mention that links to it). So if you don't trust the editor who added it, you can either pay $3.95 for one of them, or $10.95 for all four (or cheaper per article if you have a larger subscription). (Or, of course, you can go to a public archive near you, if there is one.) I couldn't find any official online archive for Maclean's that goes back to 1974, though. (My search results on the seemed to only go back to 2000.) But I'm sure ] will find it given time. ] (]|]|]) 02:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
The Macleans issue cover looks . I've added it my list for my next library reference hike. ] 00:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Does no one notice that the link to xenu.net includes not only what is purported to be a newspaper article, but takes a quote from Hubbard's 40 million published words which was used in quite another context and presents it juxtaposed against a newspaper article? ] 16:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

:Yes, I agree that the Captain Bligh bit has no place here and I will remove it after appropriate time for comment. --] 16:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

== Mis-Use of the term "thetan" ==

The artice begins, ''The process of R2-45 specifically pertains to shooting the target with a Colt .45 pistol, causing the victim's "thetan" (soul or spirit) to leave the body (exteriorization).'' The term, ''thetan'' is misued. As stated the victim's thetan is something that he has and by golly, when he gets shot through the bean his thetan pops out of his body. That's what it says, '''The victim's thetan leaves the body'''. This editing mistake was created by ] . His edit summary states ''rephrased''. What he ''rephrased'' was, ''Exteriorization, in Scientology, is the ability for the "thetan" (soul or true self) to leave the body, in other words: death.'' Both of these statements are wrong. The present statement is wrong because it is a misuse of the word, "thetan". The earlier statement was wrong because it included the phrase, ''in other words, death'' which was not what Hubbard said and most certainly was not what Hubbard meant and is unciteable and unreferenceable by Hubbard's words.
* Solution. Quote Hubbard's words. Don't introduce a word more and don't leave out words. Quote Hubbard's words. This will cause the article to be accurate and factual and editors will not have to understand the terms which are used by Hubbard to create articles about these things. If an editor actually wishes to understand the word ], that article is there to read. As the article's words are presently in place, a reader is immediately introduced, the editors of this article are unable to use a defined Scientology word. ] 21:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

== Captain Bligh ==

Can someone please tell me the point of putting the "Captain Bligh" line in there. It has nothing to do with R2-45, does it? Are we trying Hubbard here? I think the article speaks for itself and that line serves no legitimate purpose. --] 03:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

== MacLean ==

If you read the MacLean article you will see that I have presented a truer version of what was said by the Scientologist. --] 13:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

== hmmm.... deja vu.... ==

] left this bizarre message on my talk page: ''"Wikipediatrix, please do NOT treat my good-faith edits on R2-45 as vandalism. If you have something to say put it up on the talk page and we can bounce it around as I did with "Captain Bligh". I am totally willing to work with others and for consensus. Thank you."'' And yet the word "vandalism" has not crossed my lips. And shortly after he criticizes me for an "improper reversion", he goes and reverts the page himself. ], why do you think you can revert the page, but no one else should without consulting you first? You do not ] this article. I gave perfectly good reason in my edit summary for my changes, which were NOT a reversion but a mix of elements from several different editor's versions. ] 14:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

:I left that message to remind you of what ] actually, well, what it actually SAYS.:
::"Reverting should be used primarily for fighting vandalism."
:If I make a good-faith edit and you object to a specific part of it then post your SPECIFIC objection here and the community can hash it out. STOP treating my good-faith edits as vandalism. Funny that you should accuse me of EXACTLY what you are doing. I am editing, you are "defending" and attempting to ]. --] 14:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
::: Nope. As I said, my edit is a collection of elements from several different editor's versions. Yours is just your own recently-created stuff that you seek to hammer in there without consensus. If consensus here decides I am wrong in my edit, believe me, they'll quickly say so, and that'll be that. But you alone are not consensus. You are apparently reverting to your version for no other reason than that it is your version. I have stated in my edit summaries my reasons for removing it - namely, it contains false information (my copy of the book doesn't have the quote in all caps) and your version needlessly removed important info that doesn't fit your POV. :] 15:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Both Wikipediatrix and Feldspar have, believe me, a long history of "reverting vandalism" when it comes to someone (like me) who knows the actual subject and actually edits to produce actual information instead of slightly mistated statements. For example See my posting about, regards "mis-use of the word 'thetan'". For months the two editors reverted my edits when I correctly made really tiny corrections which removed mis-statements like "causing the victim's thetan to leave". In that case above it could be stated, "causing the victim to leave". I did a lot of that, Wikipediatrix and Feldspar, neither understand the language, reverted me with edit summaries such as "rv POV", "rv vandalism", etc. etc. Then, when pressed, wikpediatrix has tradiationally refused to discuss the issue. Recently wikipediatrix has dissmised discussion about references with, ] is "just a guideline". I'm saying this because ] expects to meet good faith and to work with editors. His edits are obviously not vandalism and it is inappropriate to treat his edits collectively with anon editors who insert "Tom is Gay" and such silliness. ] 16:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
:"Both Wikipediatrix and Feldspar have, believe me, a long history of "reverting vandalism" when it comes to someone (like me) who knows the actual subject and actually edits to produce actual information instead of slightly mistated statements." Ah, so removing information that comes from a verifiable, reliable source on the pretext that it ''could have'' come by way of a personal website, even though it ''didn't'' and you made ''no attempts whatsoever'' to check your hasty assumption, is "editing to produce actual information"? Removing a reference to a verifiable, reliable source on the pretext that you can't figure out how a paragraph that ends "(hence the volcano reference on the cover of Dianetics)" (a paragraph which in fact gets reproduced specifically for ''your'' benefit) relates to the volcano on the cover of ''Dianetics'' -- that's suddenly "editing to produce actual information"? Inserting your own personal opinion that "the publisher of the book apparently feels it sells books" '''well after''' you have asserted to others easily a dozen times how an insertion of a private theory like that is original research -- in your "reality", that's now "editing to produce actual information"? Requesting that certain statements be backed up with reference to verifiable, reliable sources and then '''removing''' those references when you get them -- that's "editing to produce actual information"? Of course, asserting to Justanother that you were never doing anything in the least bit wrong when you got reverted not only paints a portrait of you as a lonely lawful crusader against a corrupt cabal, but develops traffic, you see? However, the problem is it does not match the facts. -- ] 21:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Update: ] has just violated the three-revert rule, and still has yet to respond to the actual points of contention I have with this edit he is hell-bent on pushing. ] 15:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I did not violate ] but I certainly think you do. Regularly. By misusing revert to protect pages that you are attempting to ]. You seem to see your role here as one of "]", not as a contributing editor. You seem to think that all edits must pass your review. --] 15:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
:: Pot, kettle, black. The history page to this article stands as proof. ] 15:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

:::Yes, it does indeed. It shows that I edit and contribute while you "protect" and ]. --] 15:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

:::: That's the situation as I see it too. Wikipediatrix and several editors refuse to follow guidelines, communicate together in several ways to keep a shoulder to shoulder stance critical of Scientology. So then, instead of the information which comprises these subjects being presented, the controversy the words of these subject restimulate are presented. I have worked with Wikipediatrix and the several editors who ] these articles. ] deserves more respect than to be reverted as a vandal. ] 16:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
::::: Is September's policy of the month ]? This is the same tired argument referencing yet another policy. --] 23:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

== My recent edits ==

Although I explained my edits as I went, let me recap them here. I welcome comments.
:The MacLean article is cited to present some imagined contradiction in what the Church says of the process but there is no contradiction. The church says it refers to shooting someone and it is a joke or jest. Read the MacLean article.

:The original article slightly implies that recent revisions of the book COHA are perhaps different from earlier versions on this but it is just the same as the first edition and what is important is that it was included in 1954 and how it was described.

:1954 was wrong, it was 1952.

:It reads better if presented chronologically; 1952 to 1954, and logically; it is about shooting then here is what the CoS says.

That is it, a better and truer article I think and I think I defended that. Please let me know what you think. --] 15:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

:Well, we ''have'' read the ''Maclean's'' article, Justanother. I must point out that it doesn't say ''quite'' what you claim it does. The statement by the Church of Scientology spokesman ''doesn't'' say that R2-45 is "a joke or jest", but that the '''name''' was "given in jest", and he may have been trying to say that the description of it as an "auditing process" was also part of the joke.

:However, even if we had an absolutely clear, unambiguous statement saying "R2-45 is completely and totally and utterly a joke", even a statement to that effect from L. Ron Hubbard himself... I'm afraid that wouldn't be the end of the matter. Hubbard gave direct orders for Sea Org members to actually use "Auditing Process R2-45" in the "RACKETS EXPOSED" Ethics Order of ]. No one has suggested that Hubbard was in the least bit joking about any other portion of that order. -- ] 20:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

:: However unfortunate for the point of view who hopes to crucify religion, your purported - have - once - been - issued, "Ethics Order" is not citeable, it being an unpublished sort of privately distibuted information. It simply doesn't meet ] at all, nor ]'s requirement that all of Misplaced Pages's information be published information. It isn't published, it wasn't published. That some beanbrain stole a copy of it (Or maybe created a copy of it, who knows) and posted it on a newsgroup, which was then "archived" onto a personal website does not make it worthy of inclusion. Tsk, tsk. ] 20:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

:::I understand that you have entered an objection, Terry (thus developing traffic, you see?) However unfortunate for ''you'', Terryeo, your objection is factually incorrect, and you would have known that if you had in fact read the article -- or do you not bother reading the articles anymore before you try to make big grand pronouncements about what they should and shouldn't contain? -- ] 21:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

:::Roy Wallis, "The Road to Total Freedom", page 154, as the article already says. Another frivolous complaint, I'm afraid. -- ] 12:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
:::: Then why not be curteous enough to spell out for the reader of the article that which you have spelled out for me, here ? citing a whole book for an information on a single page is simply not good referencing, see ] ] 17:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
:::::I understand that you have communicated that you are unable to find the page number which is there, Terryeo. Perhaps with sufficient effort you could look and find it there, just as with sufficient effort you could verify a citation consisting of the name of the largest newspaper in America, a headline for an article therein, and the date of that article. Of course, whining instead that it does not follow the style guideline ] would instead advance a goal of wasting other editors' time in an effort to keep the encyclopedia from presenting useful information that people of a certain POV and the organization they belong to nevertheless would like to surpress. You see? -- ] 20:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
:::::: You've made a personal comment. But my post does not make a personal comment. My post points out that we could be more '''courteous''' to our article's readers by specifing the page number, rather than giving them the whole damn book to thumb through in order to find a 1/2 page reference. Your use of "whining" nonwithstanding, your developing additional traffic aside, my post is about how we can be more '''courteous''' (and helpful) to our readers. Happy Ho Ho's ] 20:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
:::::::Do you think that my acknowledging that you have communicated that you could not locate the page number, which any reader can in fact read without having to "thumb through" the "whole damn book", was a personal comment? I know it could ''not'' have been my simple observation that making petty complaints is a form of Dev-T, because you swore up and down that you had ''in no way'' tried to imply that a particular Misplaced Pages editor had been trying to increase his personal website traffic by ending a sentence observing that editor's action with "thus increasing his personal website traffic, you see?" You swore up and down that you were only commenting on '''the result''' of his edits, not '''the motivation''' behind his edits. I don't know why you think when I make a simple observation about the ''results'' of whining and making petty complaints that I am somehow making a "personal comment". -- ] 22:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
<undent>Apparently some part of "courtesy to the reader" can not enter the discussion, although this it the third time I've mentioned how we can better serve our readers. ] 22:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
:It's spelled "courtesy". You're welcome. -- ] 23:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

==M1911 versus .45 Colt==
I am of the opinion that Hubbard meant a Colt ], which is often known as a "Colt .45" and not a .45 Colt revolver. The gun is more common, and would have been one that Hubbard had access to while in the military. I am changing the image to reflect this. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 21:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

OK, I put a picture in of a "Colt .45" - if someone could check the original stuff and see if it mentions "revolver" versus "pistol" ("pistol" usually means an automatic), then that would settle this pretty easily. ] (]) 22:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Fuck. Just looked it up here ]. It says "which Ron proceeded to demonstrate by firing a '''revolver''' into the floor of the podium." I'll go edit that out again. ] (]) 22:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Someone else changed it to a 1911 again. Anyone else wanna change it back?] (]) 04:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

:If you read through he whole document, you'll see most of the quotes refer to an "automatic" rather than a revolver where the type is specified (there's even a reference to a .44). The only one mentioning a revolver is Steward Lamont. Was he present at the talk? Did he know guns well enough to make the distinction? Suggestion: What about putting in a picture of a .45 bullet? ] (]) 09:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
::.44 is almost exclusively a revolver round (]). And there are 2 very distinct .45 rounds that he could have been using (] and ]). ACP is almost exclusively an automatic round (though if I recall correctly the ] used it) whereas .45 Colt is a revolver round (I can't think of any automatics that use it). Blah. I thought I read through the whole thing last time and I didn't see any reference to an automatic. However, looking through the document it looks like my first instinct was right and that they were referencing an automatic (almost certainly the M1911, which is the pistol he used in the military etc.). So I guess the current image (M1911) is correct after all. Thanks.] (]) 19:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

==Facts versus conjecture==
There is some obvious original research in directly quoting Hubbard and interpreting the quotation to mean something other than what the Scientology sources claim (that he was joking), but that aside, considering the subject matter (homicide) and the sensitivity of such, there is no way to accept how the subject is presented as being in line with ]. ] (]) 00:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

The two Hubbard sources that are presented do not mention anything about the model of Colt -- the word "gun" isn't even apparently mentioned by him specifically. Using the image of the gun is also blatantly inflammatory given the sensitivity of the subject matter (homicide) and the fact that this is a Scientology article, which have been prone to continual POV edit wars. ] (]) 00:11, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

:There is no other "Colt .45 Automatic" that would have existed in 1958. ] (]) 01:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

::Uh, well, that has nothing to do with the subject of this article because Hubbard wasn't advocating actually using a gun and killing people. Talk about cherry picking and completely going overboard in taking things out of context. There is no a single shred of evidence to back what critics claim about this alleged process. It is not an actual process and it is not and has never been included as part of any auditing regimen. This has been clarified again and again. ] (]) 20:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

::Keyword is "alleged." The article as it stands gives undue weight to the absurd literalist interpretation that this "process" is actually real and used. The claim that the church actually verified this is obviously false and bogus. It's not a real process, it is not included in any of the training and cramming materials, nor is it used. We're talking about murder, for heavens sake, and alleging that Scientologists would actually murder someone because LRH mandated it.Totally false. ] (]) 20:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how you can reasonably claim that Hubbard wasn't advocating killing people when he authored a memo advising people to use R2-45 on certain people. What other reasonable interpretation can there be for that? --] (]) 08:08, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
:Excuse me? This article has nothing to do with killing anyone with a gun. Your allegation is not supported by facts and I suggest ypu seriously avoid stating as fact that this artice is about Hubbard advocating murder. ] (]) 09:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
::What interpretation apart from advocating shooting people can you reasonably ascribe to "Any Sea Org member contacting any of them is to use Auditing Process R2-45."? --] (]) 10:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

:Also, I strongly suggest you read ], ] and ] several times over. You don't appear to be new, so you should already be familiar with these policies and guidelines. ] (]) 09:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
::That R2-45 refers to shooting someone is not OR: multiple independent sources flatly state this fact, with no need for synthesis. As for the reliability of the sources, we have a mix of books, blogs and lectures, so I don't think that's really an issue. And as for undue weight, I think the article is reasonably balanced. It shows that the church claims that it was just a little joke and that Hubbard never meant that anyone should shoot anyone else, and also presents the mainstream interpretation that the term was used in internal communications and in threats to ex-scientologists, and was intended to be understood as code for shooting someone to death. --] (]) 13:10, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

L. Ron Hubbard '''was advocating murdering people yes''' as part of the R2-45 "rundown," and no, it was not a "joke" as the Scientology enterprise attempts to paint his "technological breakthrough," as Hubbard originally called it. Murdering people was one way, Hubbard stated, to "exteriorize" (sic) someone, and not just the police, Judges, Federal agents, prosecutors, newspaper reporters et al. which were indicting him and his enterprise, the R2-45 exteriorization (sic) technique was a way to "end cycle" his own customers through suicide when his customers and owners/operators created media "flaps," as the enterprise's leader called it.

No such ] issues arise when covering Scientology's policies, practices, and procedures as described verbally by Hubbard from his own lips faithfully recorded in his many lectures and endless other recordings inasmuch as for the extant article (and for Misplaced Pages as a whole) testable, falsifiable references and citations to those very same recordings available on YouTube, from Freedom of Information Act requests, and other sources are considered legitimate. One can't pretend that his core criminality was "jokes." Indeed, to suppose his advocacy and commission of endless criminal acts are "jokes" '''would''' be a bending of ].

I should add that witness testimony which has been provided under oath in numerous criminal and civil court cases, either before sitting Judge and during deposition, conducted for or against ex-customers and ex-owners/operators is also considered to be suitable references and citations for purposes of Misplaced Pages legitimacy provided it is clearly noted that same '''is''' in fact witness testimony which otherwise surmounts ] worries.

Don't forget, for this particular issue one can also considered Hubbard's Jack Parsons history with intrusions in to the
] (OTO) which would assist Hubbard in the mentally dysfunctional ideology which would allow for him to suppose that murdering people '''isn't really killing them''' and is merely removing their "Thetan" (sic) from their current "meat body" which, Hubbard likewise supposed, was merely an inconvenience" on what he called "the whole time track."

Hubbard's belief that human children are Thetans (sic) who have lived trillions of years in numerous other lives underscores his belief that R2-45 is just another "rundown" which his customers may utilize. Scientology customer Susan Meister was, in fact, subjected to R2-45 aboard one of Hubbard's ships while at anchor, so while Hubbard himself almost certainly did not engage in the "rundown," other people who followed him certainly considered the "rundown" to be wholly legitimate. (And considering the fact that the person responsible was never indicted gave further credence to the supposition that the procedure is valid.)

So the references and citations covering Scientology's R2-45 policy remain legitimate for purposes of Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 14:33, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

:Uh, no, that's not how it works. There is not a single shred, not one iota to back any of your absurd claims that hubbard was advocating murder. That is so insanely stupid and asinine. Misplaced Pages isn't Usenet and this sure as hell isn't "alt.religion.scientology" -- take your ] somewhere else. We deal in facts here, not allegations, especially not baseless allegations claiming the existence of a policy that does not exist. It's just ONE line in a book. Get over yourself. ] (]) 17:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

::''"There is not a single shred, not one iota to back any of your absurd claims that hubbard was advocating murder."'' - That's simply not true. There's excellent evidence that Hubbard himself issued an "Ethics Order" saying that any Sea Org member meeting a certain group of people should use R2-45 on them. Hubbard himself explained that R2-45 means shooting someone. This is not synthesis, and the connection has been made outside Scientology circles and outside USENET. --] (]) 19:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
:: Good grief. Once more time around Piccalilli Circus. VICKI AZNARAN covered Hubbard's ordering of a "troublesome" staff member to R2-45 "end cycle" though to be fair, Hubbard did not provide a firearm. STEVEN FISHMAN and UWE GEERTZ have provided testimony under oath as well as AZNARAN as to Hubbard advocating murder and suicide to "end cycle" people who were causing the criminal enterprise "flaps" and people who were deemed by Hubbard to be "enemies."
:: One of the best summaries of Scientology's core R2-45 "rundown" may be found filed by ex-customers and ex-owners/operators who were part of the enterprise and worked closely with Hubbard.
:: The second in command of the Scientology organization during most of Hubbard's later years was Jessie Prince. He was questioned during trial about Scientology's R2-45 "rundown" which absolutely confirms that it's a "rundown" used for both murder and suicide of people Hubbard wanted to "end cycle."
:: ] wants to suggest that "dealing in facts here" consists of lying about Hubbard's murder / suicide "rundown" as if it was some kind of joke when in fact there '''have''' been a number of R2-45 deaths, with Susan Meister being the most notable and notorious homicide. Laval, you're overruled, the facts speak for themselves. If you object to the '''format''' or the '''tone''' which covers Hubbard's policies, suggest a change, however objecting to the '''fact''' of Hubbard's policy covered in the extant article, the evidence has spoken. ] (]) 15:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 14:56, 8 February 2024

Good articlesR2-45 was nominated as a Philosophy and religion good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (August 16, 2016). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the R2-45 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconScientology Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is supported by WikiProject Scientology, a collaborative effort to help develop and improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Scientology. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on Scientology-related topics. See WikiProject Scientology and Misplaced Pages:Contributing FAQ.ScientologyWikipedia:WikiProject ScientologyTemplate:WikiProject ScientologyScientology
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Stop removing tags

User:Thimbleweed, who has a definite bias against Scientology and apparently against myself, has removed the tags. Do not do this without discussion. That is what talk pages are for. And also do not add images unless proper discussion has been had before. Thanks. Laval (talk) 08:06, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your problem is with the current image. It's a neutral, free image of the main person related to this issue, and it was discussed on the talk page. I've put it back. --Slashme (talk) 10:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Why is there such an insistence on an image for a disputed article about a disputed claim? First, it was a gun, and you pushed for that until others decided it was ridiculously biased. Now, you are pushing for an image of Hubbard. Why? Are we to put images of Hubbard on every single on Scientology and its many controversies? It's about bias. And this is just one more example of such, no matter how you wish to deny it, just like constantly removing legitimate maintenance tags. Laval (talk) 13:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Furthermore, that picture is from 1950. When does the claim for the origin of R2-45 come from? 1950? 1952? How does a picture totally unrelated to the subject matter at hand have any relevance to this particular article? If we writing an article on some aspect of Islam, a claim that Muhammad ordered the murder of so-and-so, would you still be pushing for a picture or drawing of Muhammad, no matter what connection or not it had to that particular claim by Islamophobes? Exactly how does this picture, from 1950 (when Hubbard didn't even write the book in question), improve this article? Can you demonstrate that? Laval (talk) 13:57, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
In addition, why that particular picture of Hubbard? There are myriad pictures of Hubbard available here that we can discuss if there was consensus to include such a picture, which I disagree with, but for the sake of argument. The fact that you would insist on sticking that picture back, or any picture, or that any editor would do so with such an article currently under dispute and under severe sanctions reeks of bias. Are you able to understand that? Laval (talk) 14:00, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
without prior discussion, and who has a clear history of bias against the subject in question, Scientology.]] Laval (talk) 14:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
] Laval (talk) 14:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm disappointed to see that you've gone back to this very unproductive and unnecessarily argumentative approach to the article. It didn't do Sfarney any favours and it won't do any for you, either. It should be obvious to you that consensus is considerably against you regarding the tags; now that Sfarney is gone, you are literally the only person arguing for them, but you haven't identified a single statement or sentence that you consider problematic, nor have you proposed any changes. That's not constructive editing. Your opposition to the picture is frankly frivolous - no, it's not exactly contemporaneous but it's close enough (within 2 or 4 years) that it's usable. As an aside, while there may be "myriads" of pictures of Hubbard I know from personal experience that there are hardly any in the public domain - the vast majority are either licensed to various copyright holders or to the Church of Scientology, which has been systematically buying the copyrights of pictures of Hubbard in order to control their use. This one and a handful of others from the Los Angeles Daily News from 1950 are the only ones I know of that are verifiably in the public domain.
I've removed the tags as you have no consensus to include them. Please don't restore them as that will put you in violation of the current arbitration sanctions and will earn you a block or topic ban. I also don't propose to rehash all the arguments about the article as you appear to be unpersuadable and you seem to have no interest in proposing specific changes. I suggest that instead of going round in circles yet again we should take a different approach and get external input. Feoffer had the right idea when s/he posted a GA review request, but unfortunately that was sabotaged by Sfarney. I'll seek a fresh review and we will hopefully get some comments from an uninvolved reviewer which will help to take the article forward. It won't happen overnight (there is often a delay of a few weeks) but it should help to resolve the deadlock, assuming that you are willing to abide by the reviewer's comments. In the meantime I suggest that we should all find something more constructive to do than arguing over this article. Prioryman (talk) 16:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
It's clear at this point that after your victory in getting Sfarney banned you're looking to get me banned. Fine. Get me banned. But your claims of "consensus" are false. What you have are a bunch of flagrantly anti-Scientology editors here ganging up on a couple of editors trying to do the right thing. But get me banned, in spite of all my comments above. You're not here to build an encyclopedia. You're just here to impose your anti-Scientology agenda, remove tags in spite of the fact that the article is not in line with Misplaced Pages policy at all. Have your way. You win buddy. Laval (talk) 16:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
You can revert me again if you so wish, like I've said, you win. Go ahead and get me topic banned. It's clear that neutral articles on Scientology are impossible to achieve on Misplaced Pages. I've made one last ditch effort, but ultimately you've bullied me out. You and the anti-Scientology gang can have your way from here on out without having to worry about the likes of me and other editors who actually give a damn about WP:NPOV, WP:RS, etc. Laval (talk) 16:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm genuinely sorry that you feel bullied. There's certainly no intention on my part, and I'm sure on the other editors' parts, to do that to you. The problem has been that your approach to editing this article has been consistently unconstructive. You have to be willing to propose actual changes, respect consensus and engage with other editors to negotiate an acceptable compromise, which you haven't done. If you took a different approach to editing I'm sure you would find it a much less stressful experience. Please take a break from this article and focus on getting better, without subjecting yourself to unnecessary stress. Prioryman (talk) 17:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
...a definite bias against Scientology... No. Just because you do not agree with the verified facts of the issues here, you don't get to pretend that the truth about Scientology is some how a "bias." If you think there is something wrong with the article, point to it and explain how it is wrong. TrainsOnTime (talk) 20:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Need to straighten out GA nomination

The current (and apparently first) GA nomination by Feoffer was opened on April 30; a Talk:R2-45/GA1 file was deleted later that day, presumably because it was opened in error at some point.

The Talk:R2-45/GA2 review page was opened by Sfarney on May 28. However, as someone who was actively editing the article (over a dozen edits) in the month prior to that point, Sfarney is not eligible to review the article. I think Prioryman was trying to address this problem earlier today, when he edited the WP:GAN page directly to put the nomination back into the reviewing pool; that didn't fix the matter, since the Legobot rebuilds the page every 20 minutes based on article talk pages, including this one, and his edits were overwritten by the bot.

What I plan to do is to have the ineligible review page deleted, and start over at GA1. However, the article's stability is questionable—stability is a GA criterion—so it might be better to withdraw the nomination for the moment (though you could hope instead that the article becomes stable before a new reviewer is found). You also might want to have the Scientology Wikiproject reassess the article now: if they still think it's C-level rather than B-level, then it's unlikely to be considered GA quality. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Adding: I hadn't realized that Sfarney had just been topic-banned. I'll adjust the GA nominee template now, and nominate Talk:R2-45/GA2 for deletion. Apologies for the confusion. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, BlueMoonset. Prioryman (talk) 11:54, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Was Sfarney finally sanctioned and his behavior stopped for good? I know at least one editor had had enough of his behavior and unwatched the page here. If he's been banned, I will ask Demotclese to watch again TrainsOnTime (talk) 20:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, he is topic banned from Scientology for one year. The Wordsmith 22:28, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I saw a comment on BB's Facebook page mentioning that. I've Watch Listed the page again now that the offending editor's nonsense is no longer going to clog by morning's Misplaced Pages rituals. :) Damotclese (talk) 16:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
(talk) -- I saw BB on Facebook mentioning this, thanks. Also check the Wig Wag page, a recent edit was made which I'm not informed enough about to confirm that it's golden. This extant page has a minor bit of grammar I thought was wrong but it appears to be used a lot on the East Coast of the United States, not so much on the West. :) Thanks. Damotclese (talk) 16:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Abusive editor sfarney banned or not?

Why is the editor sfarney still posting "Dev-T" to other editor's Talk: pages? Wasn't he banned? I see he's still trying to drag other editor's in to wasting even more time. I unwatched R2-45 specifically to avoid more wasted time, only to re-watch and now I see the supposedly-banned editor once again trying to waste my valuable time. Was he banned or not? Thanks. Damotclese (talk) 00:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

He was topic banned from Scientology articles a month ago, with a ban that also covered "participating in any Misplaced Pages process relating to those articles." He attempted to seek arbitration in the matter, which was removed with the apparent consensus that if he tries it again the consequences will at least be an indefinite topic ban if not a site ban. That issue is resolved, though whether or not it will evolve into something else remains to be seen. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Okay, thank you, I think the posting in my Talk: was obsolete, I've been working on other projects and only just saw it. I guess I should pay better attention but it's not as if Misplaced Pages is a priority with any of us. :) I guess the best way to handle abusive editors is to ignore them, politely and professionally. Any way thanks! Damotclese (talk) 03:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh, wait, I see that he posted to my Talk: page just yesterday, in violation of his topic ban.

-- Arbitration --
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Scientology R2-45: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide guide to arbitration and the Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Arbitration proceedings Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use. -- user:sfarney Grammar's Li'l Helper user_talk:sfarney Talk 06:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

So it looks like it's not an old, obsolete posting to my Talk: but yet another annoying attempt to waste people's time. I removed it from my Talk: page but maybe I should not have so that we can see about whether it's time to increase the scope of the ban for this abusive user. I'll go revert my own edit on my own Talk page so anyone who wants to see his latest violation may do so. Thanks! Damotclese (talk) 03:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I see that user Sfarney did the same to my talk as well as so several others. This is obviously a Scientology person trying his best to annoy even people who are not involved in whatever his ideology problems are. I am requesting a perm ban for the user as well as for his laval sock account. BiologistBabe (talk) 23:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
  • When Sfarney opened the arbitration case he was required to notify everyone whom he named there, so the talk page notices were perfectly correct. He's already been warned by the administrators there that opening that case was a violation of his topic ban, and he was pointed at a more suitable venue to appeal the ban.
  • Calling Laval a sock of Sfarney is a serious allegation, most likely not true, and certainly contravenes WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF.
  • I think permabanning either of these two editors would be a mistake. They certainly have a CoI about Scientology, but that doesn't mean that they can't contribute sensibly to Misplaced Pages in general. --Slashme (talk) 07:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Just so long as the user refrains from wasting editor's time, that's all that matters. Thanks for your comments, I had not known he was allowed to post yet more entries on Talk: pages. After a few years it gets somewhat annoying. :) Thanks! We get to move on. Damotclese (talk) 15:41, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:R2-45/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs) 16:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


I've an interest in NRM-themed articles on Misplaced Pages, so I'll have a crack at reviewing this one. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Clearly, a lot of good work has gone here. However, I'm not convinced that it quite meets GA criteria for a number of reasons.

  • The article doesn't quite meet "1b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections". The lede is there to summarise the content of the article, and at present it doesn't quite do that. Rather, it includes referenced quotations which do not actually appear elsewhere in the article, and doesn't then offer a summary of the other sections of the article body. This would need rectification if the article is to be promoted to GA status. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
  • More seriously, a lot of the sourcing here isn't in keeping with what Misplaced Pages requires. Whereas an academic study of a subject can use and cite primary sources (original lectures, a promotional video etc), Misplaced Pages can't. Misplaced Pages has to rely largely on secondary and tertiary sources]. So, if we have an academic publication saying "In a 1961 lecture, he said" then we can cite that academic, secondary source. What we can't really do is cite an (unpublished) original source, but that's what is going on a lot here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I'll leave some time for the nominator to respond, but if these issues cannot be resolved then I'm afraid that this will have to be a fail. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, the extant article has been reviewed and reviewed and reviewed, argued by one or perhaps two editors, and found to be reasonable and encyclopedic enough for all other editors -- and dozens have passed through and commented over the years.
The current version of the article is the best so far, so I don't see the need for yet another formal review unless an editor can find something that's actually wrong, undue weight, some other guideline that the article exceeds the bounds on. Damotclese (talk) 16:12, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

It's been a week and I haven't had a response from the original nominator. No changes have been made to the article to deal with the areas in which it fails to meet the GA criteria. For that reason I am going to fail it at this time, but that shouldn't negate the good work that has gone into it thus far. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Literal meaning acknowledged by CoS

Hi Damotclese, my goal with the introduction of this article is to make it clear to the reader who says what about R2-45. The Church's position is very relevant, and it's supported by reliable sources. There is plenty of material in the article to show the whole picture, but just saying in the lede that it's "a meaning acknowledged by the Church" is not balanced, neutral reporting. --Slashme (talk) 18:41, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Slashme's wording improves the article. Feoffer (talk) 18:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Categories: