Wikipedia talk:Neutrality in Scientology

Jayen466's involvement

I welcome this project, though as I've contributed to some of the relevant articles, I will not get involved myself. I just want to raise a concern about User:Jayen466's involvement, though. Jayen has listed an article as "of concern" but has not listed himself in the participants or declared his long involvement with the area in question. He can't be regarded as an uninvolved party. Perhaps Jayen could make use of this talk page to make suggestions, rather than the project proper? MartinPoulter (talk) 11:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Unless people are subject to an arbcom restriction, they are welcome to participate. I was simply inviting people to declare any bias (or perceived bias) for transparency. It does not prevent anyone involving themselves.--Scott Mac 12:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I'll stay uninvolved because I think this is best done by previously uninvolved editors. I think it's only fair that Jayen declare his previous involvement in the participants list, as others have done. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 14:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I think of it as a Wikiproject, lots of editors drop notes to the project but are not actively involved in the project himself. He merely indicated an article he was concerned about for us to take a look at. Knowing Jayen as we edit together in the same topic are, he probably feels to involved to edit neutrally in the review portion. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 14:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

That is correct. I will not be participating as a reviewer, but may list further articles which could benefit from a review over the next couple of weeks. Thanks to those who started and staff this project; we have some excellent reviewers there. --JN466 17:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

ResidentAnthropologist's involvement

I am withdrawing from this, I support the principals of this endeavor and give all the support I can. I am too involved for mine and others standards and like Jayen466 will not be participating any further except in moral support and AFDs on occasion The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions

Since I have been warned under WP:ARBSCI for my edits to a single article, I am unable to participate in this project, but here are some suggestions for things to look at:

• Category:Critics of Scientology should not be a subcategory of Category:Scientology controversies
• Category:Critics of Scientology is likely misnamed, and should perhaps be Category:Critics of the Church of Scientology
• Mark Rathbun, a critic of the CoS whose blog postings seem to have spawned some of the recent Scientology-related articles here, is not in Category:Critics of Scientology, possibly because he is in the category Category:Independent Scientologists (see above)
• Laundry ball - you'll figure it out (There seem to be some articles like this wherein companies that are owned or are alleged to be owned by Scientologists are identified as being "Scientology" companies as if the CoS actually owns and runs them.)  Done
• Elli Perkins - someone might want to remove the links to www.perkinstragedy.org per WP:EL
• Tom Cruise: An Unauthorized Biography is still being used as a source in List of Scientologists and other BLPs despite the fact that I pointed this out in a few places.
• Michael Doven - I keep trying to get this one cleaned up, but it never gets much better. See above, and also other questionable sources for a BLP including Fox News gossip. I suggest that once the refs are vetted, the CoS connection should be revisited for relevance and undue weight concerns.

Thanks for taking this on, and I hope it leads to similar clean-ups in other topic areas of categories covered by WP:BLPCAT. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• • I'm marking as  Done the ones I've looked at and acted as appropriate.--Scott Mac 16:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I think it is probably safe to remove Category:Scientology controversies from Laundry ball now... ;) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Pages of Concern

Hello,

I was scanning through the WikiProject Scientology and came across a few pages of concern. I wanted to bring these articles to your attention and see what you thought about my points.

- Michelle_Stith: I question whether or not he belongs on Wikipedia. Additionally, the sources used appear to run against WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:COATRACK.

- James_Stacy_Barbour There seems to be insufficient sources for this page, and the reference to Scientology seems reliant upon Non-RS material. If you nullify "sources" #12 to #15, the connection to Scientology seems lost.

- Dee_Smart Again, I question her notability. Also, the Scientology reference is no longer accessible.

- Hossam_Ramzy The connection to Scientology is a citation on jazz.com in article about Chick Corea. Seems Non-RS.

Thanks again for all of the help! NestleNW911 (talk) 23:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

BTW -- I went and brought this to the Discussion tab first. Let me know if you would like me to bring articles to the "Articles for Deletion" section going forward NestleNW911 (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've cleaned up and removed the Scientology categories as lacking RS support. As to notability, I'll leave that to others.--Scott Mac 21:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

List of Scientology officials

This list was split off from List of Scientologists for reasons which were unclear. No attempt appears to have been made to deal with the duplication of material in these lists. Some changes were made to fix BLP issues I raised elsewhere, but not replicated in the original. I have no strong feelings about merging versus deleting duplicated content, but the present situation needs to be resolved. Can someone take a look, please? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 10:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Anyone? There is no reason to have the same content in two articles. This is a content fork and edits to one are not getting replicated in the other, so the situation is worsening. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Project Proposal

I don't see that this project was properly proposed before it was created. Is there a link I'm missing where creation of this project was initiated and discussed before it was commenced? Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as on Calicocat, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you.

Part of WP:BOLD, no need for unnecessary Bureaucracy The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

After all the rigmarole and long arbitration process with this subject, the least desirable policy to follow in this matter is the one you state. The project was not proposed as I think it should have. A more conservative approach here is called for. Calicocat (talk) 23:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I really fail to see an issue, Arbcom urged such action like this (see WP:ARBSCI#Review of articles urged). That was nearly two years ago The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there any objection to moving this into Wikipedia:WikiProject Scientology?   Will Beback  talk  23:34, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

As Wikipedia:WikiProject Scientology/Neutrality in Scientology seems a valid idea. As this is a short term effort I see no reason why it can not be in that subspace. Though I think others may have a objections. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I've no objection to it being moved (or even marked "historic") in the longer term. However, I do object just now. A Wikiproject should be a project to improve and keep neutral articles in its ambit. However, there were significant concerns being raised over Scientology articles in the last few months. What this "working group" was attempting to do was to draw in new people without any necessity of any particular interest in Scientology to look over things and deal with any neutrality distortions (or find there were none) particularly in the area of BLP. Personally, I've no long-term interest in maintaining Scientology articles and no interest in joining that Wikiproject. I just wanted to get a lot of fair-minded people to shed some light into this dark corner and see what they found. As you'll see from the participants, we've got some quality editors (who certainly don't share agendas with me) interested in helping out. That's good. Burying this inititive in some subpage of the wikiproject just takes us back where we were.

If you've got a long term interest in Scientology, join the wikiproject. If you'd like to help a few of us in a short-term review of related content, help out here. It is a short term project so after a bit most of the participants will fall off, or join the wikiproject - at that point merge them. Merging now will just halt this initiative - and what can be the objection to a short-term review task group?--Scott Mac 23:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

There's no obligation to join anything, and project or workgroups can be short or long-term. I'll go ahead and move it to the name suggested by ResidentAnthropologist. I don't think it's wise to start creating ad hoc groups to pursue POVs.   Will Beback  talk  00:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Reverted. We are discussing this. Don't go moving things. Frankly, why are you disrupting. If you want to help, do so. Otherwise, leave us to get on with work here.--Scott Mac 00:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

How is moving this page within the Scientology project disruptive? Getting things in their proper places is helping.   Will Beback  talk  00:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Will, i agree with you in principal and I suggested the location, but i also suggest waiting to hear from one or two more people before moving it again as per WP:BRD The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Explain how burying this in the subpages of a Wikiproject helps? A number of the people participating here are not involved in that Wikiproject and have expressed no interest in it. Why is it so important to you to move this? This is designed to bring in new eyes - and it is succeeding. What you want to do may (or may not) jeopardise that, but it certainly doesn't help it.--Scott Mac 00:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

How would this move jeopardize anything?   Will Beback  talk  00:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Because the this initiative is designed to bring in new people - burying it the old wikiproject defeats that. Tell me how it helps.?--Scott Mac 00:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you proposing this as a template to follow anytime someone wishes to bring in new people to contentious topics? Do Wikiprojects discourage participation? That's the opposite of their purpose and if that's the result then maybe we should simply disband them.   Will Beback  talk  00:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm uninterested in such considerations. I'm just trying (and succeeding) in getting new people to look at an area that's been problematic. Have you a problem with that? If it fails, archive it. If it succeeds, great.--Scott Mac 00:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Scott, I'm maybe missing something but your rationales don't make sense to me. Will's proposal should be uncontroversial. I don't see any way that this task force can be harmed by the renaming. It's not exactly unprecedented to have task forces operating within Wikiprojects. Evaluating the neutrality of Scientology articles, and applying NPOV where it doesn't exist, is clearly within the scope of the existing Wikiproject. MartinPoulter (talk) 00:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

And clearly that's great, but specific issues were not being adressed. I and others were willing to spend some time looking at the articles and see if there were major problems or not. I've no long term interest and no interest in being involved in a Wikiproject here. If people had wanted to involve themselves in that, they would have. If the wikiproject members had wanted to start a sub-group, they could have. But a different group of people are involved here. This is simply an attempt to kill this project. It can do nothing but distract and discourage those who were actually improving articles.--Scott Mac 00:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved Dpmuk (talk) 12:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia:Neutrality in Scientology → Wikipedia:WikiProject Scientology/Neutrality in Scientology — This is an ad hoc project that overlaps with an existing project. There's no clear reason why it needs to be a standalone non-project. Leaving it here sets a dangerous precedent for editors in POV battleground topics. Creating pages like "Neutrality in Eastern European articles" or "Neutrality in Israel" would be extremely counterproductive, especially if the creators then canvassed off-Wiki. Scientology has been the topic of ArbCom cases and we should be very careful about taking unilateral actions. If this page is solely devoted to BLPs, then an alternate project to merge to into would be Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography.   Will Beback  talk  00:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• This is a short-term initiative to try to get new people NOT involved in the wikiproject to help review articles for problems. The suggested move is simply an attempt to defeat this by a user who has scant regard for BLPs in areas of agenda-pushing. Maybe we need Wikipedia:Neutrality in LaRouche - and maybe that's exactly what is feared?--Scott Mac 00:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Please AGF. Is this quasi-project short term or indefinite? How long do you expect it to exist and what will happen to it when it's completed?   Will Beback  talk  00:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
    • My involvement is short-term in particular focus. When it is complete, articles will have improved (I hope). If it developed into something more than short term, then it would be aping the Wikiproject, and at that point a merge would be appropriate.--Scott Mac 00:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
      • What do you mean by "short term"? What will happen to your page when you've stopped participating?   Will Beback  talk  01:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
        • I assume it will be kept as historical record. Like many other defunct groups on Wiki. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support for reasons explained above. No convincing argument for keeping the distinct has been offered. MartinPoulter (talk) 00:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC) Oppose merging with the wikiproject, but for the sake of findablity by new users this project could do with a better location; (eventual) moving into a wikiproject space (Neutrality? BLP?) would achieve this. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose No convincing reason for making this a subproject has been given. ++Lar: t/c 00:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

If it's not a subproject/work group then what is it? Should we have more pages like this?   Will Beback  talk  00:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

If the need arises, yes. ++Lar: t/c 03:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Note: I would support this being a BLP subproject if it must be a subproject of something. That, however, hasn't been yet shown. ++Lar: t/c 15:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - sometimes the project can be the problem, a stand alone independent review can be extremely beneficial as regards neutrality. Off2riorob (talk) 01:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
• Neutral but definitely WP:LAME. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose moving this into the Scientology wiki-project. The issues with scientology-related BLPs have necessitated this call for an independent review of the Scientology topics, especially BLPs, to ensure that WP:NPOV and WP:BLP are being followed. Cla68 (talk) 11:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Most of the purpose of this has little or nothing to do directly with Scientology as far as I am concerned, and placing it into an area which is designed to attract those interested in the topic would, in my view, lessen the chance of this succeeding. If anything, this is better placed under any BLP project than under a Scinetology project. Collect (talk) 13:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. This would appear to have been able to have been a subproject of now-defunct WikiProject Neutrality. If there are more project pages like this one for other topics that need attention, it might be a good idea to revive WikiProject Neutrality to organize efforts to address neutrality issues in topics that historically have NPOV issues. While everyone should strive to maintain neutrality, having a group dedicated to it apart from topic projects might be beneficial. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. If this has been a problem area for some time now, no doubt many of the problems have come from the activities of the people on either side of the aisle who are already involved in the afore mentioned Wikiproject. I applaud the efforts here to facilitate some third party involvement in improving this area of the encyclopedia by people who have no axes to grind. Keep it as far away from the same old Scientology regulars as possible. It is their work that is being reviewed here. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose There's no rule that says WikiProjects must have a rational scope. WikiProjects are fundamentally social groups, not topic areas, and we can't reasonably expect normal social dynamics to evaporate just to make the content-to-WikiProject map look nice and neat. A forced "merger" is pretty much like saying "since you two groups are working on the same topics, then you must all be friends".
  To put this in the terms of the WikiProject Council's Guide: A WikiProject is a group of editors. The group of editors has sole and absolute control over which articles it chooses work on (because you can't force volunteers to work on articles when they refuse, and you can't stop them working on articles 'outside' what you think is a rational scope). "WikiProject My Favorite Articles" is okay with us. We would accept "WikiProject First Thousand Articles from Special:Random", if that's what a group wanted to work on. Similarly, if this particular group of editors wants to define its scope as being identical to the scope that some other group chose, then they're allowed to do that. It might be silly—but they're allowed to do that. What matters is what this group is doing, not whether some other group is (supposedly) doing something similar. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose ...as a member. I have no desire to be a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Scientology. After this short-term project is concluded, however, I think I would join Scott MacDonald's left-handed suggestion for a sequel... →StaniStani  11:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

One more to look at

The sources linking Eddie Deezen to the CoS have been removed ([1] & [2]), but they are still listed as a member of category:American Scientologists and still in the "Scientology portal" (not to mention the stuff on the talk page). Can someone take a look at this? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks like this has been addressed. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Now that is exactly the kind of thing this project is good for. Sheesh, using websites to source taking a course years ago is not OK. Fences&Windows 02:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The site was added in this edit. --JN466 01:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk page templates relating to WP:ARBSCI and WP:SCN

The talk page templates remain on Talk:Eddie Deezen. Is this article still under probation if the subject is no longer part of a Scientology-related category? Is it now appropriate to have the Scientology Project template on the article's talk page? I recall there was a big debate about project tags revolving around the LGBT Studies wiki-project tag on Johnny Weir. Was there ever a consensus reached on the subject of wiki-project tags and BLPs? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd remove them. --JN466 23:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps comment them out - lest someone in future add Scientology material to the page? Collect (talk) 23:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't go too far

I don't oppose going over these articles, but please don't swing the pendulum too far and expunge mention of Scientology unnecessarily. For example, Danny Masterson is not secretive about being a Scientologist, he has spoken about it in interviews. It didn't take much effort to find the sources. While some people might view an association with this religion as a negative, public members like Masterson might be offended that we scrubbed mention of their faith from their biographies. We'd also excised his well-publicised relationship with Bijou Phillips! Our biographies will start to look silly if we leave out easily verifiable and well known details. Fences&Windows 02:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The intent is not and should not be to remove references to Scientology, or to gloss over the controversies often associated with Scientology. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes. With Masterson I think some reference to Scientology is clearly relevant. Striving for neutrality in such a case would mean, IMO, removing UNDUE amounts of information about the involvement with Scientology, and not all references to it. I think the current state of things looks good.Griswaldo (talk) 15:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Philip Gale

See Talk:Death_of_Philip_Gale#Major_coatrack_and_NPOV_issues. Rather than adding the content discussed there to balance the article, I am wondering whether the more humane thing would not be to simply nominate the article for deletion. Views? --JN466 23:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see it as particularly humane, and the case is clearly and obviously notable; moreover we do not delete what can be fixed by editing, and it's not even a BLP. So, no, I don't see AfD as a reasonable option. --Cyclopia^talk 01:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The more I read this article, the less notable it seems. I'm thinking afd is precisely the way to go. I'm willing to give it a bit to see if there's anything more out there to establish the importance of the case, but the article as it stands below what I think our thresholds are. Arguably, it is borderline - and at that point ethical issues are worth considering. But in any case, I don't really thing it is borderline - I think anyone but a determined inclusionist will see it as substantially below that.--Scott Mac 01:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec)I am not a "determined inclusionist" especially on BLP matters. The problem here is that there are significant sources about the suicide, and the catenation of the person's background and manner of death (being particularly spectacular) appears to be notable on its own. Had he simply OD'd, I doubt the case would have received much notice at all. This does not mean any great weight at all should be given to Scientology as causative in any way, of course. Collect (talk) 02:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC) +

Oh, there's no need to debate this here and later, so let's just do it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Philip Gale--Scott Mac 01:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Interesting statistic

At the time of writing, –

• 195 Wikipedia articles use the gossip website RadarOnline as a source or link to it.
• 24 of these articles (about 12.5%) are in some way about Scientology. --JN466 09:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Not really surprising, considering the relationship between Scientology and entertainers of various kinds. I question whether RadarOnline is an appropriate source for BLPs, which some of these are, but that's a different discussion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

huh, so only 01.77% of the Scientology articles on wikipeida use RadarOnline as a source. Statistics are fun!Coffeepusher (talk) 21:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm rather confused as to what that link is supposed to show. Can you explain?Griswaldo (talk) 01:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

there are over 1300 articles that qualify as "some way about scientology" by Jayen446, of those only 24 use the radaronline link...therefore only 1.77% of the articles dealing in some way about scientology use that link as a source...or 98.22% of the scientology articles are radaronline free.Coffeepusher (talk) 01:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Well, we have 1351 articles mentioning Scientology; so 24 is 1.77% of that. Fair enough. Overall, Wikipedia contains 3,000,000+ articles, and of those, 0.0065% cite Radar. Which means that an article mentioning Scientology is about 275 times more likely to cite Radar than any other article. Now, is Radar a good encyclopedic source for BLP material? Perhaps not. --JN466 01:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

so we are just talking about articles, if we total the number of radaronline citations per article, and devide it by the total number of citations we get a far different number...for ex. Scientology has one citation out of 267... or there is a 0.3% of the total citations for the Scientology page is radaronline, while 4% of the sources onRachel Uchitel article uses radar...a whopping 6 times greater probability...of their citations,Scientology versus the Internet 2%, Anonymous (group) 1.9%, Freewinds 6%, Project Chanology has 5% but Davy Lauterbach uses 25%, Lisa Lampanelli 10%, Main Core 60%, , Forever 21 10%, Brian Grazer 10%...statistics can be used to make any argument we want to, but I don't think there is a rampant problem in the scientology section, it actually fairs better than any other type of article that uses RadarOnline.Coffeepusher (talk) 01:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Got it. Let's get rid of the source if it isn't reliable.Griswaldo (talk) 01:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, discussions about the validity of the statistics aside, the number of Scientology-related articles is likely slightly higher than the 1351 number mentioned above, if you factor in ones like Jamie Sorrentini, Daryl Wine Bar and Restaurant, The Best American Magazine Writing 2007, Net.wars, etc ... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Probably so. Incidentally, the controversy about Daryl Wine Bar and Restaurant was rekindled the other day, when Jimbo pointed out that the place had closed for refurbishment. The article is now at AfD again. --JN466 04:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• According to Radar, truthaboutscientology.com is an "official Scientology list". ;) It just seems that when it comes to Scientologists, our sourcing standards take a nosedive. --JN466 01:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • No when it come to Celebrities whether be Musician/Actors/Athlete our Sourcing takes a nose dive the problem is Scientology gravitates around those sort of individuals through their Celebrity centers The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Perhaps. --JN466 01:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Checking through the RSN archives, there has been one previous thread on RSN about Radar, as far as I can see, in August 2009. It is here: [3] --JN466 01:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The article at the center of that discussion, New Village Leadership Academy is an interesting piece of work. There is quite literally more about an alleged connection to Scientology -- a connection denied outright by the school -- than about the school. My favourite part is this quote from an anti-Scientology protester: "Will Smith and Jada Pinkett Smith, an admitted Scientologist, have opened this private school as a front for teaching the L. Ron Hubbard principles of 'Study Technology, his creation, and the school employs Scientologists". Should we really be quoting anti-Scientology protesters like that? And if we do, shouldn't we be noting that despite what they claim, both Smith and Pinkett Smith say that they are not Scientologists (I just checked their articles). That statement was not only added by a Wikipedia admin (User:Cirt), but they also restored it when removed from the article by user:Robotarmy. Incidentally, after reverting and warning Robotarmy, Cirt reported their username as promotional because the user was "Associated with http://www.robotarmy.com" (although I see no evidence that they had been promoting that website). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree with you on all counts; I feel it's another coatrack. --JN466 04:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Seriously DC, have you thought about seeking help with your obsession with cirt? One look at WR and its getting kinda scaryCoffeepusher (talk) 06:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree. I mean, you're utterly ignoring the many other anti-scientology attack-dogs who's only interest in the topic is pushing their agenda. If it were only scientologists caught in the spray, I'd be all for it, but there seems to be an increasing amount of collateral damage. Say, Coffeepusher, do you happen to know anyone else with a strong anti-scientology agenda editing in that area that DC could look at?121.208.224.152 (talk) 06:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

personally I think it is this focusing in on editors which is the problem, except when it comes to IP socks...then I think those editing styles should be looked at. I tend to edit with a strong inclusionist bent relying upon WP:RS...happens to be that a majority of WP:RS dealing with scientology are negative to the subject, but that being the case according to WP:WEIGHT rules wikipedia should reflect the reliable sources in both content, tone, and distribution. people who don't understand wikipedia's neutrality rules, or who are editing with an agenda (being either paid for by the church of scientology, or an "anti-this editor" agenda) tend to try and fair game me.Coffeepusher (talk) 15:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I find it hard to assume good faith in your participation in this project, both because of your statements here and because of this little gem from your user page: "Scientology (The fruity little club that scrambled Chef's brains)". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Coffeepusher, as is typical in these types of discussions on Wikipedia, you have attempted to change the discussion from the specific issue to a general and unsupported allegation against the person pointing out the problem. You mistake my interest in Cirt's egregious POV-pushing for an "obsession" with Cirt generally. I only looked at that article because of the Reliable Sources noticeboard thread that was linked earlier. Feel free to pretend that it was someone other than Cirt who added the material if that helps you focus on the specific issue of demonstrably false and likely misleading statements about living people in an article that is ostensibly about a school. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Yah, I love south park, can quote it chapter and verse. That one came from episode 1001 "the return of chef". defiantly not one of the better ones, my favorite would have to be the one right before that one 914 "Bloody Mary" which, as us south park experts know, really sparked off some controversy between the catholics, scientologists, and south park...but the one's who really took a hit on that episode (Alcoholics Anonymous) remained silent, which shows some class and a lot of understanding about humor and satire... something you personally somehow lack seeing as you believe that post on my page speaks to a fatal flaw in my editing ability...could it be it was just a joke? just saying. As I said 30% of the threads about cirt on wikipedia review were started by you. your activity on wikipedia has brought several editors to caution your involvement with cirt, and you seem to know his edits chapter and verse.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Stop. Both of you. This project page is not for discussions of personal conduct issues like thinly vailed accusations of stalking. Take it to one of your talk pages or a relevant noticeboard. Enough with it here. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 16:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I have started a thread at WP:BLPN to address the BLP violations in New Village Leadership Academy. It would be nice if someone could take a swipe at reducing the undue weight issues. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Frank Gregg

Frank Gregg is (apparently) an Irish actor so unremarkable that he doesn't even have an IMDB entry. The BLP may have been created with the sole purpose of identifying Gregg as a Scientologist, since Gregg was also added to List of Scientologists by one of the IPs which was editing the BLP. Can someone please look into this? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Naw Typical WP:SPAM sending to AFD shortly The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Time to wind down the Initiative?

It seems compared to the flurry of edits last at the start of this project this seems to seems to be stalling. I think the thing to do now is examine the Core Scientology articles and check them for error and neutrality concerns. I suggest once those are examined for this project put effort into one or two to improve to GA or FA status. The logical things ones to me it seems are the L. Ron Hubbard in Which what appears to be a new editor has stated his intention to bring it to such status to feature on the main page for the 100th Anniversary of LRH's Birth. The second article I think this project could focus is Scientology beliefs and practices Which is topic where there is alot of good material very little which is disputed. (With the exception of Xenu of course).

This seems a very logical progression for people here to take. Then This project could be labeled with the {{Historical|last=1 March 2011}} and be considered a successful venture. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

ResidentAnthropologist, apart from yourself, I doubt most of the participants have a specific interest in Scientology, so working to bring those articles up to "good article" or "featured article" status is something that is entirely outside this project. Perhaps instead of winding down due to a loss of initial momentum, it is time to stand back and examine what has been done and what remains to be done. I made a number of suggestions early on, but only one of those appears to have been addressed (see also the section "Pages of concern" started by someone else). A duplication of material in two lists [[[List of Scientologists]] and List of Scientology officials went unaddressed until raised during an AfD for the latter. I pointed out a blatant misuse of quotations in what is largely a coat rack article just a few days ago (see this diff for details).

I think it would be a good idea to go back to the beginning and work through things in a simple and methodical way. Ensure that all BLPs in a Scientology category are categorized according to WP:BLPCAT. At the same time, do a quick check for notability issues to weed out the coatrack articles. Starting keeping a list of articles that have issues with undue weight given to Scientology (such as New Village Leadership Academy) so that they can be addressed or passed on to the NPOV noticeboard. I think editors may have been discouraged by the comments of prominent editors and by the discussions on this page which do not focus on specific, easily addressed issues. I suggest it is time to restart, not wind down. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Let's have some patience here. I don't really care about this topic area but come back here now and then to see what has been posted and to see if there is something I can help with. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Just some thoughts

While I'll refrain from the urge to use scathing sarcasm, I can't help but share some thoughts regarding this.

Self-proclaimed Scientologists and anti-Scientologists taking part in this project is absurd to the point of being funny. It's like die-hard Republicans reviewing the article Ronald Reagan or anarcho-communist activists reviewing capitalism. A Young Earth creationist reviewing evolution. It just doesn't make sense. Who in their right mind would think a Scientologist or an anti-Scientologist is the right person for the job of impartially reviewing the neutrality of Scientology-related articles? It makes my head hurt. Poor show. Swarm ^X 07:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't entirely disagree, but I believe that there has been some limited success here already simply by applying WP:BLPCAT. Your concerns are valid but moot since there is very little activity in this project. As I write this, List of Scientologists contains two red links to articles deleted at AfD and half a dozen broken cites... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I realize it's a moot point, but I just wanted to get these thoughts down "for the record" if nothing else. It seemed to me that someone had to say something about this blatant absurdity that I was witnessing. I just wish I'd noticed it sooner, I may have made more of a point. I'd help out with the project, but it looks like it's fizzling out. Swarm ^X 14:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

List of Scientologists could definitely do with more work to ensure it is in line with WP:BLPCAT. The whole "Definition" section is out of date; it was merely inserted to put forward the point of view that anyone who had ever done a Scientology course was "a Scientologist" and therefore worthy of inclusion in the list. While this may be the Church of Scientology's definition, it is not the definition reliable sources use, nor is it the definition Wikipedia uses. --JN466 15:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Fixed the ref tags. My first time trying to untangle something like that. The redlinks I did not see, presumably already fixed. →StaniStani  02:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Aaron Saxton

There is a series of self-published YouTube videos by Aaron Saxton in Commons, at [4]. The first one of these is embedded in the Aaron Saxton BLP. I'm unsure whether there is a potential WP:BLPSPS issue here and have started a thread at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Aaron_Saxton to ask for outside input. --JN466 11:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Pablo Santos

An IP added Pablo Santos to List of Scientologists (without a reference). Santos is apparently dead, so WP:BLP does not apply, but I could find no source in a quick Google news search that would meet WP:RS. Can someone take a look to see if Santos belongs on List of Scientologists, Category:Mexican Scientologists (Santos is the sole entry), and under the dubious umbrella of the Project Scientology banner? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)