Talk:Scientology

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Terryeo (Talk | contribs) at 14:59, 25 April 2007. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search

Archives

Talk:Scientology/Archive1

Terryeo

It doesn't take much looking through edit history here to see that by far the most significent contributor to the article is Terryeo, and that his edits consist almost entirely of downplaying or removing anything critical of scientology. I do not wish to create a fuss over this, but personally, I question his impartiality in this instance. Further, a check of his user-talk page shows he is the center of quite a debate regarding this article, and only this article. Some sections in the comments also make wonder if he may be a scientologist himself, most notably when he responds to a claim that scientology takes large sums of money from its members with "My experience has been very very different." Being a member would, obviously, be a clear source of bias that may render his editing of this article questionable. I considered contacting a burocrat, but consider it polite to first state my concerns here so he may have a chance to defend himself. I hope my accusations do not lead to any unpleasantness. --BornAgainBrit

Defend myself? Defend myself against what? I have posted a full view of your attack against me on my user page and have raised your underhanded "question" here. Why weren't you were unable to ask the general community about standard editing policy and get the concensus of the editing community as I did in that link ? Happy Ho Ho's. -Terryeo 19:15, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

New User

Am I allowed to change the page at all, because right now it is really bad. It doesn't tell all the weird stuff about the cult.JoyousOne 22:12, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Its a wiki, we encourage editing! Tmtoulouse

The User who calls themselves "JoyousOne" has clearly not understood the situation with this wiki. We do encourage editing. But we edit responsibily toward articles that are factual. The Conservapedia Commandments The_Conservapedia_Commandments and in particular, Commandment 1 which says that your edit must be verifiable. Your editing produced, "and avoiding any mention of faith's ability to help the individual." Yet Hubbard addresses that exact issue in various of his lectures. But it is not my duty to prove this to you. It is your duty to edit responsibily. Your edits must be verifiable. Commandment 2 spells that out, it says, "Always cite and give credit to your sources". I will remove those of your edits that are not verified and which I, through my own personal knowledge, are untrue. But any editor who is responsible should do that, anyway.

You went on to produce, "The basis of Christianity is denied", yet you fail to attribute WHERE the basis of Christianity is denied. Now, I could tell you personally about the many Christians I personally know who are Scientologists. But I won't, instead I will remove your unattributable statement, "The basis of Christianity is denied" because I know that you will never be able to attribute that to any Scientology statement. Probably what has happened is that you have read a critical - to - scientology website that says something like that. But that isn't what Scientology says. If you find such a statement and wish to present it as "Controvery", well, no one is going to stop you, but you are mistaken to say that the Church of Scientology "denies the basis of Christianity".

I'm sure you see where I'm going with this. First, edit responsibly by reading The Conservapedia Commandments. Second, your edits must be verifiable information. Third, cite your sources so that a reader of the article can learn more about what you are talking about. And welcome to Conservapedia.However, such editing is to be toward ariticles of a certain quality. John Smith could not become an editor and the wiki to place is opinion. This is exactly what JoyousUser has done, Joyous User has PLACED AN OPINION as an edit. This is what the wiki discourages, while encouraging editing. Terryeo 00:27, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

I think you failed to read my citations. Scientology's own site denies the power of Christian faith, and so-called Christians who claim to be scientologists will come back eventually. You seem to have a lot of unsupported opinions or some kind of agenda, or maybe I am reading you wrong. If so, I am very sorry.JoyousOne 00:37, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
At no point has Scientology ever made such a statement that "denies the power of (any) faith", and in fact I just finished a lecture series in which Hubbard addresses the power of faith. In fact, Hubbard uses Jesus' miricles as an example of faith. You are plain wrong and I know it. BUT, you are completely welcome to your opinion and if you will simply cite your facts, if you will reference your facts and smoothly insert them into the article then they can remain. But when you state your own opinion as if it were a fact, then it can not remain in the article. Where does "denial of the power of Christian faith" appear? What webiste says there, where does it say that, what phrase leads you to that? Is that simple enough for you? Where does that appear. Terryeo 10:04, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

By the way,, one of my edits is so far uncited, as I was not satisfied with the quality of any one source I referenced. If I cannot find a good cite for that, I'll have to take it down, so any help would be appreciated.JoyousOne 00:48, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

You can not place a conclusion which you personally hold on this article if it is your opinion alone. You are talking to 6.5 BILLION people Joy, can you dig it? Read your articles, do your reasearch, and then place known facts into the article. Especially where you have not studied the information that comprises the subject. Terryeo 10:04, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
Im not really sure what you find so confusing. The Church's site specifically, as cited, denies faith, and since faith is the basis of Christianity, well, it doesn't take a theologian to get that. I don't care if they want to believe that stuff, but don't hide the real beliefs. You seem to be deceiving yourself.--JoyousOne 10:16, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Popularity

Might I point out that Scientology is a very popular article at conservapedia, perhaps it would be a good idea to recruit more editors so that the article can reflect a consensus? Tmtoulouse 00:37, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

It's still not as popular as my user page! :-P ColinRtalk 00:52, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, I think everyone knows popularity is not as important as "importance". The article was so deceptive as it was, I had to add to it a little. Everything is cited, except as noted, and most if it is from Scientology's own literature, so I am not sure what the problem is. Your page is very nice though, Colin.JoyousOne 00:59, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

I think it would be better for people reverting to address on the talk page what problems they have with the information? Just a suggestion. Tmtoulouse 01:41, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Someone made huge changes to my additions, even though I gave good citations for everything, and I think what I wrote is actually fact, considering a lot of it comes from the church's literature. I wish he would stop doing that.--JoyousOne 09:41, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

I did that Joyous. You may view who does what by clicking the "History" tab at the top of most pages. Both the article and this discussion page have History Tabs, you may learn exactly who typed every word you see on the page, removed any word from the page, etc. There are no secrets here. I did most of that. My edit summaries tell you why I did that. For example:
  • "Scienotology denies the foundation of the Christain Religion" (and you quote how 'if it is true for you, it is true"). Now I understand that A + B = C to you. BUT, that is not what everyone gets. One does not equal the other.
  • When you find a rumor at Xenu.net (God knows there is a whole lot of rumor on Xenu.net), and you place that rumor into the article as a rumor, and you likewise state that rumor has been legally opposed by the Church of Scientology, then you are addressing an issue that has 2 sides, you see? Both sides have taken a strong stance, both sides have made a real issue of it, both sides have spent a good deal of time and money over the issue. There are necessarily 2 sides to an issue that has been in court, do you see? Therefore, it is WRONG to present an undecided rumor into the article in such a way that your personal, biased, uneducated point of view controls or colors the reader's view of the issue.
  • Scientology is composed of, perhaps, 40 million words. That is a LOT of information. Critics have created a lot of information too, though far less of it in recent years. It might be helpful for you to edit a less complex issue for a short while and read the editing commandments and talk with other editors and get the feel of this place. Though of course I'm just trying to be helpful here. Terryeo 10:15, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
My point about the Xenu thing is not about the truths of your beliefs (although I obviously think you are deceived) but about the approach to quieting dissent. A real person of faith doesn't need to sue someone to prevent them from saying bad things about their faith; it is left up to God, and to human discussion.--JoyousOne 10:19, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Please listen to what I am saying to you. Scientology does not have BELEIFS. Therefore Xenu has nothing to say in the area. A real person of real faith may or may not have BELIEFS, scientology does not harbor BELIEFS as part of its FAITH, please understand this very very basic datum so we may proceed. Terryeo 10:41, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

As for your little syllogism problem, anyone who denies faith, and insists on "if it is true for you..." is inherently against Christianity, in fact denegrates the faith of the worlds Christians, who are willing to believe in the power of God through faith alone.--JoyousOne 10:23, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes, that's right. I have a little syllogism problem. A syllogism dictionary is a conclusion that logically follows from two premises. "I know that apples are green" (if it is true for me, it is true as far as I know). "Jim believes that apples are red" (Jim admits he has not seen every apple, but all the ones he has seen are red, he believes all are red). Now, what color are apples ? You state that Scientology's, "If it is true for you, then it is true" is in opposition to the very foundations of Christianity. I invite you to logically demonstrate that. Terryeo 10:41, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Worth noting here is User:JoyousOne's refusal to communicate. 2 editors have attempted to communicate with the user on the user's discussion page, yet the user continues with the user's dogged, narrow, editing in a repeated, manner. A wiki is a collaberation of author and editing effort, Joyous. Terryeo 10:48, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
Um, that's not a syllogism. Your two premises are incredibly flawed. You say, "if it is true for me, it is true as far as I know," which is saying "I believe this." Thus, you don't know anything about apples, thus invalidating your first "premise." Moreover, the second premise, when combined with the first premise, does not allow for any valid or reasonable conclusion to be reached. Even with the "attempt" at a syllogism, you've contradicted yourself. You said Scientology has no beliefs, and "if it's true for me, it's true as far as I know." Yet, that statement is identifying a belief and nothing more. It's true for me that unicorns don't exist (I've never seen one.), ergo it must be true unicorns don't exist. Except that's not how things work. I've not see all of existence, I can't confirm the existence of unicorns either way. Given this, what is it Terryo, does Scientology have beliefs or just bad logic? ColinRtalk 13:47, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

I guess I misunderstood what you said on my talk page. I'm happy to discuss things here, but whay not make edits like you do? You're behavious is frankly bullying, and I really won't stand for it.JoyousOne 11:01, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Thank you VERY much for repsonding. On such a foundation we can work together and create good articles. Yes, I did bully a little when I was ignored and ignored, combined with a lot of large edits, and so on. This is better, we can talk to together and produced articles that we can all agree with. Thank you for responding. Terryeo 12:39, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
Ok, guys, one of the other editors has given my some tips on how to improve my contributions to this page, and I think it should be ok with you. I'll work on it.--JoyousOne 11:08, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Theory of Evolution article

A sympathetic and accurate description of the subject of the article is not a requirement of this site. Take a look at theory of evolution. Even with all of JoyousOne's edits in its still more sympathetic then it has to be. Remember this site has a strong Christian conservative bias and will approach articles that way. Tmtoulouse 12:51, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Sympathetic? Who said anything about sympathetic? Our editing rules are the 7 commandments, where does "sympathy" enter the discussion? Are there additional commandments, rules, guidelines or ariticles of special interest that only you have access to, User:Tmtoulouse? Our production is simple and you are introducing an unneeded, unwanted, undesireable complexity (my opinion) by raising the issue of "sympathetic and accurate". What are you talking about ? Terryeo 13:15, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
Also worth noting, Tmtoulouse, your advice to User:JoyousOne might have been good advice for some articles, it gave Joyous a push into the fray that you yourself refuse to step into. You stand back from the article after editing early and push others into it. And then, JoyousOne, (of good will, but confused) had to ask User:Philip J. Rayment editing difference what they were doing that wasn't appropriate. Terryeo 13:15, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
Always attack never defend, eh? Tmtoulouse 13:18, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Changes

Implemented changes based on discussion to make things a bit more "neutral", and to add additional references. Thank you for the constructive criticism.--JoyousOne 13:24, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for your patience, Terryeo, I still want to make sure the point is in there about the contrast with Christianity. This is not to denigrate Scientology, even though I seems wrong to me, but to present the fact that its beliefs are basically antithetical to Christianity. This is pretty much in line with the goals of the website. Thanks.--JoyousOne 13:49, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

I wish to discuss, User:JoyousOne, you state; On their official website, Scientology explicitly deny the power of faith. I think the you are presenting a logical sequence, are you not?
(Scientology quote) In Scientology no one is asked to accept anything as belief or on faith. That which is true for you is what you have observed to be true.
(Dictionary quote) Faith - belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion. example; the firm faith of the Pilgrims. dictionary.
I think i follow, okay? Do I understand you correctly, is that your line of reasoning that leads to, Scientology explicitly denies the power of faith ? Terryeo 14:09, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
Well, yes, I suppose you do. Since they do not "take a stand" on faith, most Christians would consider this a denial of faith. I'm sorry if that offends, but it is honest and truthful.--JoyousOne 14:15, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Beliefs

How can it be said that Scientology does not have beliefs? That is pretty much impossible, or else reading their information would be like reading random typing by a monkey (and don't get me started on that). The explicitly say that they believe self-improvement is achievable in such-and-such a way, etc.--JoyousOne 13:57, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Ok this is getting out of hand

Perhaps you both should do a pro vs. con set up on this page. Right now it is a slander war against Scientology. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia so a presentation of what the topic is considered to be is the most important feature of the topic. A category of criticisms in the bottom would be fine and give talk time with these issues. With the multiple headers it seems to be a debate page between Scientology and Christianity, note that which denomination of Christianity is not listed.--TimS 15:20, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

One of the defining features of scientology is the controversy that surrounds it. Also material that addresses concerns from a christian perspective is to be expected from CP, no? Tmtoulouse 15:22, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
How is it out of hand? I just showed the clear differences between the two in the article, as is part of the mission here, and, out of respect for other editors, helped integrated their content. It seems to be a balanced look at the topic, not a "Crossfire" episode.--JoyousOne 15:24, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
It is pretty clear that User:TimS has plainly pointed out what is going on. A quick view of the article's edit history [1] illustrates what he says. Further, the exact photo that Wikipedia once used to gently introduce readers to the slanderous presentation at wikipedia was introduced here. When I say "slanderous" I mean exactly that. The Wikipedia editors include people who have a history of lawsuit, with the the Church of Scientology, such people run personal webistes on the very edge of legal and simotaneously edit Wikipedia's Scientology series articles. The photo was introduced there, as it has been introduced here. Tmtoulouse seems quite happy to see the article marching down a roadway toward slander and mis-statement, JoyousOne does not understand how Joyous' opinion is not what the Church means when it says, In Scientology no one is asked to accept anything as belief or on faith. That which is true for you is what you have observed to be true. Yet do either discuss the issues that drive their changes to the article? Alas, no, neither do. THAT is what User:TimS is talking about. Terryeo 15:54, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
Ah, bullbaiting, how fun. The photo is public domain and makes the article look nicer. QED. Your other libelous claims about slander and libel are not really important since those people are not editing this page, non? Tmtoulouse 15:57, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
I tried to clean it up a little, Tim, I hope this helps.--JoyousOne 15:51, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

How do handle this editing conflict

We have developed a problem with this article. We need some manner, some mechanism, some method of dealing with these various points of view. Any suggestions ? Terryeo 15:59, 25 April 2007 (EDT)