Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:32, 7 May 2007

Please do not post copyrighted material to Misplaced Pages without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to The Code of a Scientologist. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites (http://www.scientology.org/wis/WISENG/33/33-caud.htm in this case) or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Misplaced Pages takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details on the article Talk page and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Misplaced Pages:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:The Code of a Scientologist with a link to where we can find that note;
• If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on the article Talk page. Alternatively, you may create a note on your web page releasing the work under the GFDL and then leave a note at Talk:The Code of a Scientologist with a link to the details.

Otherwise, you are encouraged to rewrite this article in your own words to avoid any copyright infringement. After you do so, you should place a {{hangon}} tag on the article page and leave a note at Talk:The Code of a Scientologist saying you have done so. An administrator will review the new content before taking action.

It is also important that all Misplaced Pages articles have an encyclopedic tone and follow Misplaced Pages article layout. For more information on Misplaced Pages's policies, see Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Your original contributions are welcome. --Finngall 22:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Scientology

...on Misplaced Pages that is

"Greetings, I'm new and still learning the ropes. I have seen that you had some troubles dealing with some Scientologist that are offended by some of the materials here. For example COFS was just banned for being a vandal."

OK, they stomped on you for violating copyright. Misplaced Pages is very strict on this.

Glitch: Talk pages are chronological, latest entry at bottom not top. Please move your topic.

Misplaced Pages:Scientology has a long history of banning scientologists I'm afraid. This has basically been for behaving like naughty children in school. Here if you break the rules you get banned, plus if you stick to the rules but are nevertheless disruptive you get banned.

Much of the content has been discussed repeatedly (look at the size of the Talk page archives!) and editors don't take kindly to already decided matters being endlessly revived, so treading carefully is best. --Hartley Patterson 09:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bravehartbear, good to "see" a new face here. Yes, believe good ol' Hartley, you better be prepared for bucket loads of snide remarks and other BS. Stay cool and continue editing. Notice that most of these guys do not edit but most of the time hang out on talk pages to steal your time. Don't fall for it. Good luck! Misou 16:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Scientology scriptures and lectures

While it is an impressive feat for one man to write all that, it is a random fact and should not be included in the top where there is only written shortly about the general concepts of scientology. Joneleth 01:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

applied religious philosophy

That edit is a loaded sentence that implies its universally accepted as a religion, to cater both views it is already stated what it is essentially and then elaborated on a few lines down that Hubbard turned it into a religion. Also in your first edit you removed science fiction author without mentioning why, I have tried to make a new version that is less biased let me know if you approve. Joneleth 07:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Its true that theres a difference between the corporation and the religion, but the main issue is that people who know little or nothing about scientology obviously comes directly to that page. Therefore the synopsis should be kept relatively neutral while both sides are differentiated and explained in depth longer down. Joneleth 22:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

"Didn't delete any links"

In light of the fact that I didn't read to the bottom, and that, well, everything I've written is based on my own ignorance, I deleted all my previous comments. You really - and I quote - "didn't delete any links". lol. Well, thanks for clarifying with me anyway :p Keep up the good work! - Fluck 09:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Walking in on the middle of an argument

Thanks for the message, however the analogy you've chosen is incorrect, when I walk in on an argument then I cannot have heard what has happened before, however on a talk page I can read the whole thing and trace any talk page discussion. When I posted my first question was intentionally dumbed down, as if I didn't know what was going on, then as the replies came in I could respond to them. In terms of NPOV in articles this is how I see it; for example, person A writes and article which contains the phrase "Scientology is bad", there is then an article written about Person A, Mr A was born in..., and on..., and live with..., et cetera. Then under his work it says "He wrote an article saying 'Scientology is Bad'". I could not in all conscience remove that statement from the article, because the bias is from the speaker not the editor. The gist of the talk page on WP:SCN was that any negative comments which had been quoted accurately but were negative should be "balanced" out. And that is not something I could let happen. Darrenhusted 12:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC) Also, out of curiosity why did you talk post in the middle of my page, and not just add a new topic at the end? Darrenhusted 12:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Controversial

"This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute. Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them."
'4,378 Scientology churches, missions and groups' is one example:

• The figure may be correct but it comes from the CoS not research by the quoted newspaper.
• It is often misunderstood by journalists to refer to three different sizes of congregations, whereas 'group' actually adds up each branch of CCHR, etc. It's the Orgs + Missions figure (~520 in 2004) that's the number of branches of the CoS, the best comparison with other organisations.
• It's data about the CoS, which isn't introduced until later in the Introduction. It's out of place.
• There is already a section discussing the disputed size of the CoS further down. If I was going to put the 4,378 number anywhere it would be there, with a breakdown into categories or a caveat to explain it. I'd certainly regard it as less important than the number of Scientologists, which is the normally asked question.

Please don't take this as general opposition to change - I like editing myself and would rip the whole article apart and rebuild from scratch if I could. It's a mess. But I can't, Misplaced Pages is committee based and we have to work with what we have. --Hartley Patterson 17:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 19:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutral Intro

The opening is fine, that final paragraph is accurate in so much as the quote of the source is fine, you seem to be objecting to the fact that any criticism has been included rather than the technical issue of whether the quote is accurate. The two sources are The Washington Post, and CNET news, the Post I trust and CNET is not exactly a tabloid, so I don't have a problem with accurate quotation. If you can find an independent source which does not have any connection to CofS then I would have no problem with a counter balance being added, as it stands the intro is fine. Darrenhusted 21:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The intro you posted on my talk page was way too long. The Post article was not positive for CofS, it just read like a press release for the gala. The other source didn't add anything other than the fact that one public figure didn't pay to go to the gala. I couldn't accept them as balancing out well researched four column articles. As for the CESNUR search, I'm not sure how that supports a positive CofS source, “The Church of Scientology is a commercial enterprise that masquerades as a religion,” writes Anton Hein (2001), a rather notorious Dutch countercultist, and he is hardly alone in his evaluation., for example, doesn't give a positive view of CofS. I can understand why your refs are being challenged. Darrenhusted 23:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

In regards to this quote: "The bottom line is the program provided a better quality of life for hundreds of rescue workers that have taken the program," New York City Councilman Hiram Monserrate talking about the 9/11 Scientology detox program. Over 800 public worker have taken the program. This is not valid, it is anecdotal evidence at best, not scientific, peer-reviewed, or even done in a double blind situation. What 800 public workers think may have happened does not mean it has happened. But then the question arrives is it religion (in which case this would be a miracle) or is it a science (in which case this would need testable evidence). Either way the quote is not a godd source. Darrenhusted 00:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Email Address

It is certainly your choice if you want to do it or not. But I, personally, don't recommend posting your email address openly. There are too many spam-bots, and freaky people out there.

I recommend you put your email address under your my preferences and then people can email you without knowing your email address. They won't get your email address until you answer them.

Best of luck. Peace in God. Lsi john 00:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)