Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scientology/Old version

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut

Some Wikipedians have formed a project to better develop and organise information in articles related to Scientology. This page and its subpages contain their suggestions; it is hoped that this project will help to focus the efforts of other Wikipedians. If you would like to help, please inquire on the talk page and see the to-do list there.

For more information on WikiProjects, please see Wikipedia:WikiProjects and Wikipedia:WikiProject best practices.

Title

[edit]

WikiProject Scientology

Scope

[edit]

To create and improve WP:NPOV, well-referenced and encyclopedic articles on all aspects of Scientology.

Assessment

[edit]
  • Assessment - Automatically generated statistical data.

Parentage

[edit]

No parent of this WikiProject has been defined.

[edit]

No related WikiProjects have been named.

Descendant WikiProjects

[edit]

No descendant WikiProjects have been defined.

Category:Free Zone could really do with some work, if we can find a specialist or two.

Similar WikiProjects

[edit]

Similar WikiProjects are:

[edit]

No related WikiPortals have been named.

[edit]

No related Collaborations have been named.

Sister Project Searches

[edit]

Participants

[edit]
Instructions
  1. Add your name to the bottom of the list, with a comment.
  2. You can also utilize the Userbox: {{User Scientology project}}, on your User Page.
  3. Also, you can add {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Scientology/DYK}} to your User page or Talk page, which will add facts from new WikiProject Scientology-related articles that were featured on the Main Page in WP:DYK.
  • Antaeus Feldspar
  • ChrisO
  • David Gerard - never a Scientologist, Internet critic since 1995, apparently what passes for an expert [1]
  • Fernando Rizo - I have no inside knowledge of Scientology, but I want to help keep this controversial topic as NPOV as possible. 23:38, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • NicholasTurnbull - experienced Scientologist, now non-CoS (but not Free Zone)
  • Roger Gonnet - eight years founder of a "successful" scientology profit center, 22 years critic, ex-"OT" - upper levels of the cult, 'auditor', translator,"course an case supervisior in scientology etc. Author of an anti-scientology book "La Secte".
  • Tεxτurε - No inside knowledge - neither convert nor critic (but a serious non-believer) - Would like to see both sides evenly presented. Currently too anti-Scientology in some sections.
  • Marbahlarbs - Lifelong Scientologist, still practice as an "applied religious philosophy". Would like to work on making Scn articles as NPOV as possible, add information. Not a raving lunatic. I'm still pissed about penet.fi
  • Irmgard I know both sides.
  • User:HistoricalPisces Christian Free Zone. I reject the xenu story but believe Dianetics and auditing can help mentally ill people.
  • AKMask Very interested in Scientology, and portraying both the positive and negatives in an open fashion.
  • Entheta - Never in Scn. Critic since about two years.
  • Ronabop I like the NPOV challenge of NRM's.
  • David Strauss No inside knowledge, but familiar with the terminology and background. Here to help organize content and achieve documented, NPOV articles.
  • Grandmasterka - I've edited several Scientology articles now, I might as well declare myself part of the project. I would best describe myself as a critic. NPOV is important.
  • Vivaldi -- Besides picking scabs and collecting them in jars, studying Scientology and its abuses is one of my most interesting hobbies.
  • Xinit - I'm a skeptic of religions and religion-like philosophies in general, and try to be a good editor regardless of my knowledge (or lack thereof) of the material at hand.
  • Jake34567 - I am in the process of interviewing someone who works for a scientologist church.
  • Misou - the amount of extreme POVs in regards the Scientology topics fascinates me, especially in view of so much unused and founded online information on most articles. Lots to edit, if time permits!
  • Glen S (talk ·  contribs) why not :)
  • Badbilltucker
  • Justanother - (With a nod to Vivaldi) Besides scratching my butt and sniffing my finger, reading critical and shameless misrepresentations of something that I have lived for 30 years is one of my badder habits. Oh, BTW, I am a Scientologist. Unlike the CoS, I think critics should be free to criticise. I only ask that they "keep it real" and don't disrupt those that care to "get on with it".
  • S. M. Sullivan Don't know that much about Wikipedia yet, but have a couple decades of CofS experience.
  • Smee - I like to create new articles.
  • COFS - I like to see an encyclopedia online, and that is a way to go for WP.
  • john196920022001-I am a graduate level student who enjoys learning about other religions.
  • Aleta - already part of the religion & mythology projects, and interested in various religions
  • Steve Dufour - I have never studied Scientology although I have had some contact with it. My main interest in the project is my concern that the present public hatred and contempt of Scientologists is potentially very dangerous.
  • Thaddeus Slamp
  • Raeft - I am a Theology student and quite interested in religious studies and the advent of new perspectives. I'm a practicing Discordian, and will admit to that bias up front, but feel I can set aside those differences in favor of creating articles from a neutral point of view, and helping this project. Peace, all.

Structure

[edit]

Dry and encyclopaedic is the goal here. Critical writings tend to be heavy on detail and references but very opinionated and POV; pro-Scientology writing tends to cover what is important to the Church of Scientology but leaves out things the critics consider highly relevant. There is very little source material that is NPOV and not reasonably factually questionable by either side. Similary, there is little actual NPOV that is not considered POV by the other side.

Wikipedia (and category:Scientology) has contributors who are knowledgeable critics, contributors who are CoS members and contributors who are non-CoS Scientologists. It should be possible to work together (or at least not conflicting overly) in a manner that self-evidently fits Wikipedia's goals, policies and guidelines and its mission as an encyclopedia.

I think it's important that we avoid variations from general Wikipedia policies, guidelines and styles on this project. Many projects do this and it's not a good thing IMO. Our work should be invisible except from the quality of the results - David Gerard 15:28, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Jargon. There are many terms and phrases that reoccur within Scientology (e.g. "get ethics in on the planet"), that are meaningless to most readers. The goal of Wiki, and good writing, is clarity; as much for Scientology as art criticism or molecular biology. Avoid jargon, catch phases, indeed cliches, whenever possible. Jargon specific to Scientology, which includes proper nouns (e.g. Sea Org, Rehabilitation Project Force) or nouns formalized within Scientology (e.g "Tech") should be linked, perhaps in appropriate cases to Wiki Dictionary as jargon.

Hierarchy definition

[edit]

No classification of this project has been defined.

Goals

[edit]
  1. Create and expand NPOV encyclopaedic coverage of important topics regarding Scientology.
  2. Neither a critical POV, a pro-CoS POV or a pro-Scientology POV - describe all as relevant, but the article tone must be strictly neutral.
  3. High-quality and thorough referencing. Casual readers seem to find a lot of things about Scientology hard to believe.

Projects

[edit]

Note: The projects below are merely my idea on how this project's work could be handled as separate collaboration projects. These haven't been agreed by anyone else on this project yet. Volunteers, and new projects, are welcomed. --NicholasTurnbull 22:55, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  1. History Article Project
    This project would be involved in editing, creating and cleaning up articles related to the history of Scientology, ensuring that there is a uniform coverage of Scientology's history both in individual articles and across all of the subjects pertaining to Scientology.
    Participants: JWSchmidt - Scientology says scientology was started in 1952, but does not explain.
  2. L. Ron Hubbard Books Coverage Project
    This project would be involved with creating, maintaining and improving articles containing information and synopses of official Scientology books written by LRH. Many of LRH's books do not have a synopsis or even a stub, at the moment.
    Participants: NicholasTurnbull
  3. Critical Books Coverage Project
    Quite a number of key texts (like Robert Kaufman's Inside Scientology/Dianetics) have absolutely no mention on the wiki, as far as I can determine. A project taskforce could be created to ensure adequate coverage of all key critical texts, by writing, editing and maitaining synopses and information about these books.
    Participants: David Gerard (I will probably take Martin Hunt's books list [2] and see if I can do stubs at least)
    Discussion moved to project talk page --NicholasTurnbull 00:16, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. NPOV Review Project
    This project would provide internal peer review of material generated by this WikiProject, to check for proper balance and NPOV. Also, this project would check existing articles on Scientological subjects and correct POV material as appropriate.
    Participants: Fernando Rizo (I already try to do this for the Scientology main article, I can certainly watchdog many of the other articles as well. ) Irmgard Ronabop
  5. Technical Subject Article Project
    Many fundamental subjects in Scientology technology have absolutely no coverage at the moment in the encyclopedia. This project would create, maintain and improve articles related to Scientology technology and beliefs.
    Participants: NicholasTurnbull

Tasks

[edit]

Note that we have a stub of our own, so if you think of an article to add to this list, you really might as well just start it, jot down whatever occurs to you off the top of your head and add that stub to it. Please try to add at least one reference, to help the next editor.

  1. Fix the stubs - expand and give full references
    1. Category:Scientology stubs
  2. Articles that need writing
    1. Lisa McPherson Trust
    2. Scientology and psychiatry
    3. Author Services Inc.
  3. Topics important to the majority of Scientologists
    1. What does a CoS Scientologist want to learn about Scientology from an encyclopedia?
    2. A concise form of what is covered in dozens of books and thousands of lectures.
      Note: this might better be termed What might a CoS Scientologist want a non-Scientologist to learn about Scientology from an encyclopedia? CoS Scientologists learn about these things from source materials.
      Note that quite a lot of the tech topics exist as redirects to Scientology beliefs and practices — a blue link doesn't mean the article exists as yet
      1. ARC (Scientology) and the ARC Triangle
        Someone just marked the second one as a suspected copyright violation, since Roger appears to have added it when not logged in, so the history only shows a French IP rather than his name! I've explained on WP:CP and I expect Guy will ask Roger on user talk:Roger Gonnet - David Gerard 22:48, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        I suggest that when the copyvio is cleared, a merge and redirect to the article ARC (Scientology) is performed, as I can't really see that the ARC Triangle should be in a separate article to ARC. --NicholasTurnbull 04:57, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Or just let that be removed, redirect it to the ARC article and use the original as a reference? - David Gerard 10:22, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      2. Assists
      3. Auditing processes and procedures
      4. Clear (Scientology) - just written (David Gerard 10:22, 1 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]
      5. Codes of Scientology, including:
        1. The Code of a Scientologist
        2. The Auditor's Code
        3. The Supervisor's Code
      6. Comm cycle
      7. Dianetic auditing procedure - including cost, duration of sessions, and frequency. Also, technical information (e.g. engrams, locks, chains, misdirectors, groupers, holders, denyers, etc.)
      8. E-meter - including photographs, description of operation, reads etc.
      9. Engram needs expansion regarding Scientology
      10. Ethics (Scientology) inc PTS/SP stuff, O/W writeups, etc. As of 18APR06, this is now longer article, but still lacks O/W info and criticism from non-SCN POV
      11. Exteriorisation (Scientology) inc info. about the Ext/Int R/D, Dianetics 55 processes etc.
      12. Grades (Scientology) inc. related information
      13. KRC (Scientology) and the KRC Triangle
      14. Management by statistics (Scientology) with reference to Ethics (Scientology)
      15. Mental image pictures inc. short reference to engrams. Includes stuff on service facsimiles, locks, etc.
      16. MEST (Scientology)
      17. Operating Thetan (currently a long stub, needs summaries of all levels)
      18. Overts & Withholds or O/Ws inc. Overt-motivator sequence
      19. Power Processes
      20. Purification Rundown - very critic POV; needs Scientologist coverage
      21. "Previous lifetime" stuff:
        1. Genetic Entity (GE) with reference to A History of Man
        2. Implant (Scientology) - needs the list from Space opera in Scientology doctrine
        3. New Era Dianetics (NED)
        4. NED for OTs (NOTs)
        5. etc.
      22. "Red" and "Green" volumes: Technical Bulletins and Administrative Bulletins
      23. Saint Hill Manor or AOSH Just a note - these terms are not synonyms and have different meanings.Bennjamyn 00:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      24. Study Tech
      25. Thetan
      26. Tone scale
      27. Information about and proper synopses of key Scientology texts: A History of Man, Book of Case Remedies, Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, Dianetics 55!, Introduction to Scientology Ethics, Science of Survival, Scientology: Fundamentals of Thought, etc.
        Note: There is probably much more to be added here, but this is just a start. Maybe a lot of these could be merged into some kind of "Fundamentals of Scientology" article. --NicholasTurnbull 21:30, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Topics specifically important to CoS-only Scientologists (e.g. IAS members and those "on lines" at orgs)
  5. Topics specifically important to non-CoS Scientologists (e.g. Free Zone members and unaffiliated Scientologists)
    1. Category:Free Zone is just about empty and needs a knowledgeable contributor or two.
  6. Topics important to critics of Scientology
    1. Scientology and celebrities
    2. What topics are particularly popular on Operation Clambake? Someone needs to go through them
    3. Key critical books and articles
      1. Atack, Jon. A Piece Of Blue Sky.
      2. Burroughs, William S. Burroughs On Scientology, Los Angeles Free Press, 6th March 1970.
      3. Cooper, Paulette. The Scandal of Scientology.
      4. Forté, Major John. The Commodore and the Colonels.
      5. Kaufman, Robert. Inside Scientology/Dianetics.
      6. Miller, Russell. Bare-faced Messiah.
    4. Matters within the Church of Scientology of interest to critics
      1. Copyright and the Church of Scientology
      2. Church of Spiritual Technology (CST) the "secret" management of the CoS; known only by a PO Box
      3. Estates Project Force (EPF)
      4. Guardian's Office (GO) -- exists but only as a redirect with possibilities
      5. Introspection Rundown
      6. Office of Special Affairs (OSA)
      7. Operation Snow White
      8. Operating Thetan - OT III already has good coverage in Space opera in Scientology doctrine and Xenu
      9. Overboarding (Scientology) - not quite sure about this one; re. overboarding on the Apollo
      10. Rehabilitation Project Force (RPF) and the RPF's RPF
      11. Religious Technology Center (RTC) - the "semi-secret" management
      12. Scieno Sitter -- of course, we should use whatever the official name of it is, and only use "Scieno Sitter" as a redirect
        Does it have an official name? Does it need its own article? It's mentioned in Scientology versus The Internet (Entheta 18:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
        I'm not entirely convinced it does need its own article - it's just a custom version of CyberSitter (which doesn't have an article either). If someone wants to write something really long about it ... - David Gerard 21:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Suggestion withdrawn, then. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      13. Sea Organisation or Sea Org - the main Church of Scientology nexus
  7. Put {{WikiProject Scientology}} (the project template) on the talk page of all relevant articles
  8. POV Scientology articles requiring attention
    1. Church of Scientology - slight critical POV, low priority
    2. Purification Rundown - distinct critical POV, high priority - I've put up a checklist towards achieving NPOV on this article's talk page. Fernando Rizo T/C 19:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. People notable in the context of Scientology
    1. Notable CoS public Scientologists (Category:Scientologists)
      1. Anne Archer
      2. Mary Bono - there is a question as to whether she is now, or ever was, a Scientologist.
      3. Chick Corea
      4. Isaac Hayes
      5. John Travolta
      6. Keith Code
      7. Kirstie Alley
      8. Tom Cruise
      9. Nancy Cartwright
      10. Beck
    2. Notable CoS staff members (e.g. management, prominent Sea Org and OSA staff) (Category:Scientologists)
      1. David Gaiman has a famous son, but was all over the UK press in his own right in the 1960s and still works for the CoS now
      2. John McMaster, 1960s "World's First Clear", did lots of publicity
      3. David Miscavige Chairman of the Board, RTC
      4. Guillaume Lesevre ED INT, Church of Scientology
      5. Helena Kobrin apparently now disappeared; originally from Legal, OSA INT
      6. Mark Rathbun Inspector General, RTC
        Would be great if someone with some info got an article on Rathbun started, especially if someone has any info on what has happened to him recently. The CoS seems to have removed his name from all their websites. Sources on OCMB says he blew.
      7. Mary Sue Hubbard L. Ron Hubbard's wife, now deceased; often referred to as MSH
      8. Mike Rinder, ED OSA INT
      9. Warren McShane Deputy Inspector General for Legal Affairs, RTC
      10. Heber Jentzsch
      11. Joe Winter -- important in the history of Dianetics
    3. Notable Freezone and Independent Scientologists (not sure what cat. Category:Free Zone is appropriate, but it's not clear to me whether Category:Scientologists or Category:Former Scientologists is more useful to the reader - see talk
      1. Bill Robertson aka. Captain Bill Robertson or CBR; formerly LRH's right hand man
      2. David Mayo original contributor to upper level materials and founder of the Advanced Ability Center organisation (now defunct)
      3. Heidrun Beer freezoner; has had some interference from the CoS
      4. Ralph Hilton prominent Freezoner and technical enthusiast. Runs FZAOINT, I seem to recall.
      5. Ray Kemp - former mission holder and one of LRH's closer friends. Alleged author of the OCA/APA Test.
      6. Tommy Thompson (Free Zone) - Not sure who he is, but the critical attention devoted to him seems to indicate that he's someone...
    4. Notable critics (Category:Critics of Scientology)
      1. Andreas Heldal-Lund has a stub
      2. Arnaldo Lerma has an article in need of wikification and cleanup
      3. Cyril Vosper, author of The Mind Benders (which is currently the same article)
      4. David S. Touretzky Professor at CMU; long history of being a CoS critic
      5. Fredric Rice
      6. Gerald Armstrong Very long lawsuit with the CoS over alleged contract breach; notable writer
      7. Jeff Jacobsen
      8. Jesse Prince famous ex-member
      9. Jon Atack - critic and author
      10. Keith Henson
      11. Karin Spaink
      12. Larry Wollersheim - high profile lawsuit and outspoken critic
      13. Roger Gonnet - head of the CoS in France for many years, did many of the official translations into French, is now a critic, wrote a critical book
      14. Ron Newman (computer programmer) has a v short article
      15. Steven Fishman of Fishman Affidavit fame, one of the first to publicise the OT materials - currently a redirect to the famous affidavit's page
      16. Steve Hassan - did he do a lot specific to Scientology? His article talks about his experiences with the Unification Church
      17. Ursula Caberta
      18. Just posting to a.r.s probably isn't enough, nor even a popular website unless it's Operation Clambake ... real-world influence, e.g. lawsuits, writing a book, frequent media (discussion needed) - David Gerard
      19. Bob Minton. Both he and the Lisa McPherson Trust should have articles I think. Many of us who weren't around when all that stuff was going on are still confused as to exactly what happened, so if someone with good knowledge could write about it, that would be great (Entheta 21:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
      20. Just started a stub on Tory Christman, the well-known ex-Scn and critic. I figure that since she's been on TV 'AND' radio making her case against the "church" we def. need an article on her. Anyone want to tackle the full length writeup? 206.114.20.121 19:59, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I can try to do it. I was unsure whether she would qualify as being "important enough" to get her own wikipedia article, but you're probably right, since she's been on tv and radio, etc. (Entheta 02:53, 27 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]
I have now written a brief article. Please check and correct any mistakes (Entheta 05:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]

General strategy and discussion forums

[edit]

I suggest keeping it to here and the talk page until either grows way too big and needs to bud off - David Gerard 13:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Other subpages

[edit]

/publicwatchlist -- a shared "public watchlist" created with {{Public watchlist}}. Don't forget to add the talk page of the article, too; they aren't added automatically as they are on a true watchlist.


Access Panel
Shared watchlist at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Scientology/Old_version/publicwatchlist (Edit | History)
Check shared watchlist
To create an access panel to the same watchlist page elsewhere, copy and paste the following code:
{{public watchlist|Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Scientology/Old_version/publicwatchlist}}

Templates

[edit]

Infoboxes

[edit]

We had an old Template:Scientology (before MediaWiki had categories), but it was (a) redundant with the category (b) IMO very much from a critical POV in the article selection.

In order to help avoid something POV-leaning (a common failing with article series boxes — see WP:CLS), I've made Template:WikiProject Scientology the WikiProject box for article talk pages. Put {{WikiProject Scientology}} at the top of talk pages and you'll get:

I really think we can do everything a reader would need with carefully-chosen category names and sorting, and infoboxes are unneccesary - David Gerard 20:48, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stub templates

[edit]


The article will also be added to Category:Scientology stubs.

Other templates

[edit]
  • {{ScientologySeries}} - Adds column with related articles to right side of article's page.
  • {{Scientology}} - Adds horizontal footer with related articles to bottom of article's page.
  • {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Scientology/DYK}} - Adds facts from new WikiProject Scientology-related articles that were featured on the Main Page in WP:DYK.

Userboxes

[edit]

Categories

[edit]

Lists

[edit]

Articles

[edit]
[edit]

Please list your new Scientology-related articles here (newer articles at the top). Any new articles that have an interesting or unusual fact in them should be suggested for the Did you know? box on the Main Wikipedia page. DYN has a 72 hr. time limit from the creation of the article.

Don't forget to add the appropriate Scientology-related category, and a {{scientology-stub}} notice if appropriate!

DeWolf is the correct spelling, I moved the article to Ronald DeWolf, since he seemd to prefer that name, at least in the court hearings. It also has more google hits. (Entheta 00:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Existing articles recently tagged as Scientology project

[edit]

NPOV watch

[edit]
  • Tone scale - This has recently been "boldly edited"; a {{POV check}} template was placed on it and the same sole editor who "boldly edited" it removed the template. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • See the discussion page of that article Talk:Tone scale. The article had needed clean up for a long time. I didn't touch the controversy section of it but cleaned up the presentation of all that -40 and +40 and as soon as I did you placed the {{POV check}} without discussion. I removed the template you placed and invited discussion on the discussion page. It should be obvious that the first method of resolving difficulties of POV is for the various POVs to communicate with each other. You've made a nice clean report here, though. Except that you might include your reasoning which prompted your statement that the article requires a POV check which you haven't included here, nor on the article's discussion page or in your edit summary. Terryeo 15:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, I know you said you didn't change any of the controversial parts of it. I know you said that. However, since you've been caught previously inserting your own disputed POV under an edit summary claiming that you were changing things "to reflect reality" [5], the idea that an article doesn't need any POV checking after you've "boldly edited" it, just because you claim you didn't make any POV changes, is absolutely ridiculous. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, I "see", it was not your intent to communicate about that but instead your intent to bring up another edit of mine? I see. okay then, thanks for making that clear. Now, about the Tone Scale edit I did which prompted your opportunity to present another edit I did which you are talking about, which part of it seemed "POV" by your estimation? Terryeo 17:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC) Umm, I do however see the 22 "POV words" you point to with your link there, Feldspar :) Terryeo 17:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, it was my intention to point out that even if it makes any sense for a {{POV check}} template to be removable by the very editor whose work is to be checked -- an iffy proposition at best -- you would be an exception to the rule because of your proven willingness to lie about your own edits. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Feldspar, I don't think I do. Let me put it this way. If you had witnessed a quanitity of my edits and viewed whatever it is you are talking about 100 times, how would it benifit our production for you to use the tone you just used? Frequently you use a tone of that nature, 1/2 accusing other editors of the intent to mislead you. I don't think I do. But when I tell you the most obvious fact you refuse to accept any part of it. For example, Dianetics (which might have been a fad in the 50s) has produced over 50,000 Clears. Dianetics is used every day and taught every day in Churches of Scientology worldwide. Have a piece of cake or something, FeldsparTerryeo 01:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know?

[edit]
From WikiProject Scientology's newest articles:
Did you know...
WikiProject Scientology watchlist – Start a new article...
The above material is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.

Article improvement drive

[edit]

Also see discussion on talk page.

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates

[edit]

Collaboration of the week

[edit]

Peer review

[edit]

Featured article candidates

[edit]
[edit]

Articles for deletion

[edit]

Requests

[edit]
  • Zenith Applied Philosophy - a break away sect from Scientology in New Zealand, mainly around Christchurch. ZAP has been linked to far-right politics (both neo-liberal and racist). --Midnighttonight please tell me off for procrastinating on my essay! 23:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not a schism (break-away sect). When a David Mayo breaks off, starts his own group practicing what he considers Scn to be, and takes a goodly number of experienced Scientologists with him, that is a schism. When some fellow studies a bit of Scientology and then starts his own group using some of what he learned plus god-knows what else, that is, basically, nothing much to do with Scientology. This point is sometimes missed big time; Scn cannot and should not be responsible for the actions of people that study Scientology. It should be responsible for the actions of its staff. If ZAP itself is notable then go ahead and mention the Scientology connection but it means very very little as regards Scientology; Scn excommunicated the guy and washed their hands of him, that is all they can do. Here is a good article (except for the schism thing but that is certainly excusable). [8] --Justanother 20:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Resources

[edit]

Archives

[edit]
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Scientology.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Scientology/Old_version&oldid=1238836501"