343
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 16:
Line 16: + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
→Significant changes to the article: response to TmToulsouse's suggestion to bring up issues
Several of us have changed the article quiet a bit, the most controversial of these changes will involve the criticism section and the use of xenu.net, also perhaps what calling L. Ron Hubbard a science fiction writer, which he is, and maybe the use of the term religion. I also assume there are other issues that will need to be discussed so lets bring them here. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:55, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
Several of us have changed the article quiet a bit, the most controversial of these changes will involve the criticism section and the use of xenu.net, also perhaps what calling L. Ron Hubbard a science fiction writer, which he is, and maybe the use of the term religion. I also assume there are other issues that will need to be discussed so lets bring them here. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:55, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
If you prefer, Tmtoulouse. At [[Conservapedia_Talk#Standards_of_Sources]] there has been discussion about what sources of information are appropriate to a conservapedia. The discussion is ongoing. I have proposed that Wikipedia's use of personal website as a source of information is inappropriate to a conservative wiki. A good deal of the difficulty at Wikipedia revolves around inappropriate use of reference. I hope our threshold of inclusion here is higher than Wikipedia's. The personal website referenced by recent edits is [http://xenu.net xenu.net / clambake.org]. That personal website says on its front page,
'''DISCLAIMER: I, Andreas Heldal-Lund, am alone responsible for Operation Clambake. I speak only my own personal opinions.''' So, you see, those references are to a single individual's presentation of his personal opinion. His personal opinions are not peer reviewed, indeed, they might be no better than a notice on a lamp post. He might be a bright critic, he might be a criminal, but one thing, he is individual. I am saying, let us remove any reference, anywhere, to personal website. If the information is good information, it will appear at other sources of information. It cheapens a document to rely upon one man's personal opinion, particularly when that one man (as Andreas Heldal-Lund has), has spent time in jail.
On March 18th, [[User:Conservative]] (sysop), [[User:Tmtoulouse]] (I am here but I am not, background in psychology and neuroscience), and [[User:Bturpin]], made 18 edits to the article. Conservative and Tmtoulouse seem to have spontaneously found this article as a common target. Yet no talk about this article appears on any of the three user pages. The Bturpin account was recently created, that individual has engaged in only one discussion [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:ColinR&diff=prev&oldid=32185]. How did this seeming unity of mind spontaneously come about ? The collaberation changed the article from
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scientology&oldid=46097] (a brief, 13 sentence, two reference links to offical sites), to [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scientology&oldid=46216], (a 16 sentence article with 7 referenced links and 2 exterior links). The exterior links (frightening links from years ago that tell how bad scientology is) are presented first so the reader knows what he is getting into and can escape if he wants to. The 7 referencing links point to 3 official sites for the religion (just in case anyone wanted to know anything about the religion). The 4 remaining references are to:
* A CBS story titled "The Sinking of Islam" (but misreprestened by the link element to substantiate, "unfavorable opinions of Scientology are widespread".
* A link proposing there might be some question that Scientology is:
** Christian in disguise (no Scientology site would ever suggest that, many Scientology links specifially address that and say no).
** A cult -- this issue is worth discussing because it is an opinion. But the reason for the link is to substantiate (again) "unfavorable opinions of Scientology are widespread" which that link does a very poor job of because it introduces the brand new tidbit of information "Scientology might be Christian". Why introduce that tidbit when Scientology itself says "NO, we're not Christian" and any scholar you are likely to find says "No, Scientology is not Christian"
* A link to a personal website, xenu.net to substantiate and reference that Scientology has been accused (by whom a reader might wonder).
* Another link to the same personal website, xenu.net, to substantiate and reference a myth about alien souls.
: I would like this article to present what Conservapedia proposes every article within it present. That is, a clear and easy to understand, brief introduction. Let us not indoctrinate our readers with our own personal points of view, nor hammer them with personal opinion from personal websites. Let us give our readers a foundation they can be certain of. In such a wise our readers can drop a subject, or not, confident they know something about it. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 19:16, 18 March 2007 (EDT)