Difference between revisions of "User talk:Splark"
(initiating a discussion about the Scientology article) |
(Reply about the personal website information in the scientology article) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
I know that websites which are critical of Scientology SAY that "scientology believes ...." or SAY that "scientologists believe ...", and I'm new here. So that's why I'm asking how you feel about links appearing in the article. | I know that websites which are critical of Scientology SAY that "scientology believes ...." or SAY that "scientologists believe ...", and I'm new here. So that's why I'm asking how you feel about links appearing in the article. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Yes, I understand that perfectly. I have viewed that and other sites and I understand that your edit is of information on the site you mention. Those statements exist as part of a body of information we might call "criticism of scientology". Let me give you a parallel situation, okay? Your friend, Ronny has just invented ice cream and conservapedia runs an article titled "Ice Cream", okay? You've tried ice cream and know what it is. But Joe (who lives in The Netherland) has never tried ice cream. HOWEVER, Joe feels his statements about ice cream are valid and he posts them on his personal website. Joe's statements include, "Ice cream causes warts". Should that go in a conservapedia article? | ||
| + | : The situation is parallel because the source, the Church of Scientology, (Or your friend Ronny) does not say anything like that. But a number of person websites who have never understood what ice cream is, say "ice cream causes warts". If you follow ? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 21:34, 12 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 01:34, March 13, 2007
Hello Splark, happy to see another editor contributing to the Scientology article. Do you think it appropriate to place links as part of the article to substantiate its statements? For example, we might make note of its newness as a Religion, the link www.whatisscientology.org says it was founded in 1954.
I saw you added a sentence. The reason I mention linking is because there is a lot of information on the internet. The Church does not say what your recently added sentence says. And so I searched through the Scientology dictionarys (red for technology and green for administration) and found nothing at all about that. Also, I searched through the technical volume index (13 large volumes) and the administration index (10 large volumes) and looked through a lot of the Scientology and Dianetics books. Nada, nothing about that subject at all. Scientology doesn't present itself as a belief system (though the article presently says "the Scientology belief system"). Scientology doesn't suggest any belief at all that I can find. So that's why I ask about the linking, you see?
I know that websites which are critical of Scientology SAY that "scientology believes ...." or SAY that "scientologists believe ...", and I'm new here. So that's why I'm asking how you feel about links appearing in the article.
Yes, I understand that perfectly. I have viewed that and other sites and I understand that your edit is of information on the site you mention. Those statements exist as part of a body of information we might call "criticism of scientology". Let me give you a parallel situation, okay? Your friend, Ronny has just invented ice cream and conservapedia runs an article titled "Ice Cream", okay? You've tried ice cream and know what it is. But Joe (who lives in The Netherland) has never tried ice cream. HOWEVER, Joe feels his statements about ice cream are valid and he posts them on his personal website. Joe's statements include, "Ice cream causes warts". Should that go in a conservapedia article?
- The situation is parallel because the source, the Church of Scientology, (Or your friend Ronny) does not say anything like that. But a number of person websites who have never understood what ice cream is, say "ice cream causes warts". If you follow ? Terryeo 21:34, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
