Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:26, 8 December 2008

This is an alternative account of Justanother.

This editor is a Veteran Editor and is entitled to display this Iron Editor Star.

Two thoughts for critics

He is self-educated, and does really know a multitude of things, but they are not so.
-Mark Twain

Sanity is the ability to recognize differences, similarities and identities.
-L. Ron Hubbard

AfD

Hi Justallofthem, just noticed that the Afd for HS&S was speedy kept (I had made one post, went out for a couple of hours, made another and then found I had posted to a discussion that had been closed in the meantime). Point is, if you want to contest the speedy keep, I would back you up on that. Jayen466 16:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I already asked the closer to reopen. That is the first step. No hurry. I will let you know if they go to WP:DRV and your comment there is welcome. --Justallofthem (talk) 16:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Please keep me posted. Cheers, Jayen466 18:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I found a useful scholarly source for the HS&S article, details on the talk page. Jayen466 19:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that is a good source. Given that and the Hairspray issue, I think there is sufficient secondary material that I will not contest the close. I have however contested Sex and Scientology and your comments are welcome, here. --Justallofthem (talk) 23:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Scientology beliefs and practices

I have recently restructured this article. Being a Scientologist yourself, I think you would have a good amount of motivation to improve this page. Right now, the page's state is largely that of original research; it is in dire need of some secondary sources. If you could provide some, it would be most appreciated. ←Spidern→ 18:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Unfortunately I have very little time these days to devote to Misplaced Pages. In the past I have gone quite the other way and it took a toll on me. That is why I appreciate any Scientologist that is willing to edit against the grain here. Others should too. It is a lot of effort and an enormous time sink for a Scientologist to edit here. That said, I do try to improve things were I can but I do not have time to dig up references and usually work with whatever is already available in the article. Which is sad because there is a lot of material out there that is under-represented here because it is not critical of Scientology. --Justallofthem (talk) 18:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I've started to introduce some material into the Beliefs and Practices article from deChant/Jorgensen (hope to be able to do more over the next few days). I'd be grateful if you could have a look over it. Cheers, Jayen466 13:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I will try this evening. --Justallofthem (talk) 13:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

About requests for comment

Hello Justallofthem, and thanks for your comments. While I respect your opinion and the processes that already exist here on Misplaced Pages, I have observed that most of the public debate which has happened on the recent WP:AE thread has been among those currently embroiled in the content dispute itself. As Jayen466 said, if all the "uninvolved" were taken out of the debate which took place, there would be but one left. I respectfully disagree with your argument that if it were noteworthy, something would have been done.
Please do not misunderstand me to say that I am fishing for another opinion because I am unpleased with what the Arbitration committee already has to offer. I simply believe that with the massive crowd available on Misplaced Pages with plenty of valid opinions, surely their energies can be put to useful effort in coming to an unbiased consensus. I do not wish to disparage the work of the "eyes" which already contribute there.
My brainstorm over on complex content disputes is not targeted directly at users, as seems to be the case with arbitration and WP:RFCC. The point I'm trying to make is that the true issue here is not user-specific, but content-specific. The categorization of such requests can be easily organized as the reference desk by broad categories of interest, where willing participants can help bring about consensus without already being embroiled in a particular conflict. ←Spidern→ 05:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no comment as to the changes being proposed as they relate to content disputes. I too have been frustrated by the lack of neutral response to RfCs. Seeing as critics of Scientology enormously outnumber supporters here, if only critics and supporters chime in then I am sure to lose every "battle". No, my objection and my reference to shopping was that you used a user dispute to illustrate your point. Don't go there. If you review that arb you will see that another user used to use me personally as the "eternal example", as one admin said. The lack of response on the WP:AE page is telling in itself and that is exactly my point. If action were needed then action would have been taken. Remember that our little disputes are just a drop in the ocean here. Every article has its cadre of supporters and detractors. There are few people here without opinion. The system here has "been there, done that" with targeting users rather than content. It is frowned upon. Rather than target Shutterbug, work with her. She, for the most part, has valid things to say and bears listening to, not attempting to silence. Any Scientologist willing to run the gauntlet here should be supported, not attacked, by any editor that seeks to be called "neutral" on the subject. Scientology articles are enormously skewed toward criticism and against any hint that this might possibly be a system of any value, despite the many many thousands of Scientologists and even ex-Scientologists that speak to that value. I do not expect you to agree with the premise that Scientology has value; I would expect you to agree with the observation that many think it does and that view is underrepresented here. Even though there is plenty of press on that point. --Justallofthem (talk) 05:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

All I have to say is that if you feel that a Scientology page is unreasonably skewed, find the source which you believe to be skewing it and contest its reliability. Otherwise, there is nothing that can be done. Misplaced Pages isn't and will never be a portal to truth; it is a product of adhering to verifiability. Truth can be a highly subjective term in many cases, which is the root of most content disputes. As for whether Scientology has value, that is not for me to decide nor discuss here. It is clear that Scientology is a notable topic and as such must be covered duly. I welcome any constructive contributions to Scientology related articles as long as they are well sourced. If you are trying to promote the positive aspects of your religion, my personal recommendation would be that you focus on the articles that describe precisely what it is that you believe in. If you yourself don't have time to work on improving the sourcing on Scientology beliefs and practices, perhaps you could find a friend in your community that can. ←Spidern→ 06:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. And to the degree that Shutterbug has time to work here, perhaps more time than I, she should be valued for adding sorely needed diversity, see WP:BIAS. Later, my friend. --Justallofthem (talk) 12:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Spidern, you know what the problem skewing these articles is. The problem is the almost complete exclusion of scholarly works, while at the same time editors are asserting that self-published anti-Scientology web pages and celebrity gossip magazines should be viewed as reliable sources on Scientologist theology. You can do as much as anyone to help address it, by looking at the scholarly material and summarising its contents in these articles. Jayen466 14:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I certainly can, but that's not where I choose to spend the bulk of my time; I much prefer editing. But more importantly, since the content directly concerns Justallofthem out of Misplaced Pages, he would naturally have much more reason to wish that the page reflects a more accurate viewpoint than it currently does. Not to mention that much of it is not sourced at all. ←Spidern→ 18:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

(left) Spidern, in Scientology we say that many (most?) individuals have fallen away from self-determinism to a state of other-determinism. The other-determined individual is controlled by forces other than his own perspective and his own ability to effect solutions in his life. Scientology is mainly geared toward restoring full self-determinism. The fully self-determined person is charting his own course through life and is vigorously playing the game from his own perspective; imagine a winning football team. There is a state senior to that and that is pan-determinism, responsibility for both (all) sides of the game. To continue the analogy, that would be the the league commission, the rulemakers, the officials. Their job is to be responsible for both sides, to ensure a "level playing field", to make sure both sides can play the game. I see from the tone of your remarks that you are leaning toward a "self-determined" position, that you are a "critic of Scientology" and it is not your place to give Scientology a fair shake - that that is my job and that of my community. And I know that Shutterbug edits from her self-determined position. She is a Scientologist and she believes what her Church says over what some dissatisfied ex-members claim. Both of those positions are fine. But I also see from your remarks that you have the intelligence to assume the more senior position. It might not seem so fun a game as being down there on the field hitting hard and getting dirty but it is a position that can be filled by only the best of us. Some may have crafted a stratagem of pretending to be in that position while really continuing to play the game on the ground but that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about researching and including the sympathetic side of the issue at least 50% as diligently as you research and include the unsympathetic. A "player" will scan a source to pick out the bits that support his side, and discard those that do not. "Neutral" people do not edit the Scientology articles in any depth - you have to have some commitment to something to wade through this material and to push to make your voice heard. I strive to remain above my "POV", to remain "pan-determined", at least to my 50% goal. I am more than 50% as likely to remove derogatory material from the article on a critic as from the article on a Scientologist; I have no problem correctly representing a criticism of Scientology and incorporating it in the article or even the lead as I recently did with Jessica Rodriguez. As I said in an earlier version of my page:

I edit from what I call a "Scientology-sympathetic" viewpoint. However, I also understand where most critics are coming from and do not oppose their right to criticize the Church of Scientology. The Scientology Ethics Officer would likely say that I was in a Condition of Doubt or lower; the Scientology critic would likely say that I am "still brainwashed". I would deny both claims, but that is only to be expected. Since extremists on both sides are guilty of bone-headed acts against even moderate individuals on the other side, I will remain justanother - just another editor. Oh, I should mention that I most certainly do not the divide the universe into pro- and anti-Scientologist; I do not even divide the editors working on the Scientology articles here that way; I only put people in those categories that seem to so tightly hold their own POV that they cannot conceive that the other might have some validity too. I would say that they know who they are but, in actual fact, I doubt that they do.

No-one will cheer you on if you rise above the game. In fact, both sides might boo you. But I think you have the necessary stuff so I extend my invitation to rise above the playing field. --Justallofthem (talk) 15:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#Scientology

I've opened a request for arbitration and listed you as a named party. You may wish to make a statement. Best wishes, Durova 18:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)