Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a2a23b8e7dcd5e37

Jump to content

Wikipedia:Neutrality in Scientology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Applicable policies and guidelines

[edit]

Task: review all articles and trim, delete, or adjust as policy demands.

Participants

[edit]

(for transparency, please declare previous involvement with Scientology or Scientology related articles)

  1. Scott Mac (no involvement with Scientology or its articles)
  2. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) (No, involvement with CoS. Previous involvement with Scientology articles but began editing wikipedia after WP:ARBSCI )
  3. Stanistani (no involvement with Scientology itself - have edited Scientology BLPs with the aim of upholding Wikipedia policy; !voted to delete List of Scientologists as BLP hazard)
  4. DGG ( talk ) (no involvement with Scientology, has !voted to keep most articles such as List of Scientologists: deleting BLP violation is good, deleting "BLP hazards" is not reasonable.)
  5. Cyclopiatalk 15:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC) (no involvement with Scientology, little involvement to none in Scientology articles; agree on deleting BLP violation; strongly disagree in deleting "BLP hazards" per DGG above).reply
  6. Collect (talk) 15:23, 26 December 2010 (UTC) total Scientology involvement is meeting J. W. Campbell at a WorldCon in NY in 1967 when the Scientologists were holding a meeting in the same hotel. Strong opinions on BLPs to be sure.reply
  7. FT2 (Talk | email) 19:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC) only WP involvement I can remember is Meade Emory‎ (AFD), probably a couple of others over the years, no CoS connection. Strong views on BLPs, but "Difficult to fix/maintain" or "Been a past problem" are poor deletion rationale.reply
  8. NestleNW911 ( talk ) I've been a Scientologist for a few years and I want to do my part to contribute to a NPOV on Scientology related pages. No involvement in Scientology related articles to date but plan to contribute to Discussion pages.
  9. I am an anti-Scientology activist. I am also not a wikipedian, just a reader who knows little about it. I made a few comments on the Jenny Miscavige deletion page and tried (and mostly failed) to improve on that article in order to prevent it from getting deleted. More importantly, I made a comment on the discussion page of User talk: Scott Mac. Scott deleted that comment, along with a discussion questioning his involvement and neutrality in this project, in particular him being a proxy for banned users. So what happens next? Will Scott delete this comment? Just so other participants know, these events are also documented on a thread on an outside forum: http://forums.whyweprotest.net/12-active-projects/wikipedia-editor-proxying-osa-deleting-jenny-miscavige-75541/#post1386803. For all clarity: I do not oppose this project. I am sure that independant reviewers fill find many Scientology BLP articles are biased. But at the same, I do question Mr Scott's neutrality in this matter.(unsigned comment was from User:85.147.221.167 - added by Off2riorob (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC))reply
  10. I am a former Church of Scientology member. I am not generally a Wikipedian, but I do feel that Scott Mac is acting as a proxy for banned users, either wittingly or unwittingly. Deirdresm (talk) 21:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)reply
  11. I am a not-so-anonymous member of Anonymous, and a Wikipedia administrator, and am committed to maintaining NPOV in Scientology articles. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)reply
  12. User:Griswaldo. (no involvement with anything related to Scientology on or off wiki) I can't promise much time or attention to this ... but since I just prodded an entry mentioned below I figured I'd add my name to the list.Griswaldo (talk) 20:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)reply
  13. I can help out, here or there. Off-wiki, I'm anti-Scientologist, on-wiki, I generally don't bring my personal feelings into the project, and I have no involvement in Scientology articles except for removing a few articles from the purview of the WikiProject for not really belonging there. Sceptre (talk) 05:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)reply
  14. KWcrew1983 ( talk ) I've been a Wikipedia editor for a few months and have a great interest in religious/spirituality themed articles, religious tolerance and coexistence. I have never contributed to Scientology related articles, but have read a few. From my observations, I have decided that I desire to contribute to the cause of achieving a more balanced perspective in Scientology related articles. I will be contributing wherever appropriate.

Articles to be reviewed

[edit]


Articles of concern

[edit]
  • Please list any articles that give concern, with a brief summary of why. I suggest detailed discussion can best be done on the article's own talk page, or at any future deletion nomination.
  • James Stacy Barbour - cleaned up a bit (removed Scientology references as lacking WP:RS) - sourcing still poor
  • Victor Győry -Dreadful sourcing for a negative BLP. Is this notable? If it is all it claims to be then there should be far more? Comments needed.
Seems to me that out of the three paragraphs mentioned in [1], the first is valid but the other two aren't. 85.147.221.167 (talk) 19:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)reply

Are these notable?

[edit]

Please review:

Gets mentioned in Guardian within Wikileaks cables - the Pirate Bay case appears sufficiently notable for her Collect (talk) 11:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)reply

Guilt by association

[edit]

Watch out for biased attempts to link Scientology with criminality when the link is trivial or irrelevant.

  • Mary Kay Letourneau convicted of Child-molestation. Her article included the irrelevant fact that her brother was a Scientologist.
Likewise what is the relevance of the other brother and GWB? John lilburne (talk) 21:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)reply
  • Charles Manson was categorised as a "former Scientologist". He seems to have studied it in prison and once put Scientologist down on a form.

Use of self-published sources

[edit]

Editors may want to review if the self-published YouTube videos listed here are in line with WP:BLPSPS policy; they are in mainspace at the time of writing. --JN466 03:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)reply

Articles reviewed with no problems

[edit]

See Wikipedia:Neutrality in Scientology/Reviewed

Discussions elsewhere

[edit]