Jump to content

Talk:International Association of Scientologists

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Controversial POV Check

[edit]

An "attempt to address pov problem" by 68.164.133.174 is given on 20 Mar 2005 (3:02). The attempt consisted of minor editing which vandalized previous contribution:

* The IAS' stated purpose to forward the Aims of Scientology was censored and replaced with to "contribute to religious freedom." (Quotes as used in this way portray that the IAS does not contribute to religious freedom. It is simply untrue and a subtle glittering of generalities.)
* Also, a ==Membership== section has been removed and weaseled with more glittering of generalities.
* A critical link was added, pointing to Andreas Heldal-Lund's website which references one too many forgeries and other propaganda websites. Anyway, this article (International Association of Scientologists) is not about Scientology.

IMHO, this type of "contribution" by 68.164.133.174 is sneaky vandalism and propaganda under the guise of POV. A bandwagon which Antaeus has joined by stating "Rephrase to reduce endorsement of POV" as the reason for his revision on 20 Mar 2005 (16:28) in which he chang "Recognizing the"... to "Believing in a" and also reverted my previously explained change.
Exactly how does all this reduce endorsement of POV?--J.Tell 06:21, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Very simple. One of the goals of WP:NPOV is to describe disputes and the beliefs held by the various sides of the disputes without taking sides. If I saw an article on an organization of Scientology critics and read a sentence that started "Recognizing the danger posed by the criminal organization Scientology" I would edit it to "Believing in a danger posed by Scientology", because leaving "recognizing" in would suggest that Wikipedia agrees with, "endorses", the beliefs it is describing. For the same reason, when I read in this article a sentence beginning with "Recognizing the need for a", I changed it to "Believing in the need for a", because leaving "recognizing" in would again suggest that Wikipedia endorses the beliefs it is describing. -- Antaeus Feldspar 12:51, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough. But, you didn't mention the rest of the issues I brought up, some of which pertain to the revision you just made.--J.Tell 22:29, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Propaganda

[edit]

Antaeus, Wikipedia is not a soapbox for Andreas Heldal-Lund.

Wikipedia is not a soapbox

Wikipedia articles are not:

  1. Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views.

The link you insist on "contributing" is a propaganda website maintained by Andreas and should have no place within Wikipedia except on the article about Andreas Heldal-Lund and perhaps propaganda.--J.Tell 19:47, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's certainly your opinion that Operation Clambake is a propaganda website. However, that is not enough reason to remove any mention of it in the name of reporting objectively. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:32, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
* 1. It is not my opinion that Operation Clambake is a propaganda site. Determination of propaganda is not based on opinion. Anyone who is familiar with propaganda techniques that studies Andreas' site will tell you that it is loaded with propaganda.
* 2. Andreas admits his website is not objective. What makes you think referencing an unobjective propaganda site is reporting objectively.--J.Tell 00:12, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so it is then your opinion that no Wikipedia article should link to any site which is non-neutral and therefore "propaganda"? Interesting opinion. But not convincing. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:28, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Operation Clambake is biased and propaganda. Can't you find a more objective website? Or is it your intentional to forward propaganda?--J.Tell 21:37, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't we turn it around? Why don't you name me a site that is openly and solidly critical of Scientology that you would not dismiss as propaganda? If you are actually trying to judge Operation: Clambake on its merits when you called it biased propaganda, you shouldn't have too much trouble showing a critic site that is not, for contrast. Of course, if you're speaking as a non-squirreling Scientologist, you might have trouble, since such Scientologists are required to believe (because Source said it was so) that there is no such thing as an honest critic, or even a non-evil critic, since every critic was by definition (Hubbard's definition, of course!) an SP who hates humanity and wants to keep Scientology from saving the world. So if your only basis for calling the site "biased propaganda" is that it's an article of religious faith that it must be, pardon me if I don't find that very convincing. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:14, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You are incorrect on many things in your statement. First of all my basis for calling the site biased and propaganda are obvious to anyone intelligent who looks into the site objectively. Just because you cannot see past the biased and unobjective website of Andreas Heldal-Lund does not justify your inability to objectively criticize the International Association of Scientologists. Study propaganda for a while and then get back to me.
You didn't answer the question: Why don't you name a site that is openly and solidly critical of Scientology that you would not dismiss as propaganda? wikipediatrix 21:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Putting aside the issue of Andreas Heldal-Lund, is there a website that is critical of Scientology that User:J.Tell feels is fair and non-propagandistic? That would be a help. Cheers, -Willmcw 21:09, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps Antaeus knows of other references that are fair and non-propagandistic.--J.Tell 05:00, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Willmcw, I am disappointed in you. For lack of another website, you must resort to propaganda.--J.Tell 04:39, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Willmcw, why did you restore the message that I retracted because I realized you were not the one "resorting" to propaganda? That seems like a pretty sneaky action if you ask me. I am not embarrassed of my statements, but I realized I was wrong so I changed my message.--J.Tell 02:55, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to disappoint. It doesn't look like propaganda to me and you haven't pointed to anything on that site to support your contention. You've been asked to provide a site that you prefer, and apparently there is none. You can't expect us to omit a resource simply because you disapprove of it, especially if it is the main source of criticism of the article's subject. -Willmcw 05:01, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

"It doesn't look like propaganda to me"-Willmcw, May 11, 2005

Allow me: See below--J.Tell 02:14, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

J.Tell's deliberate misquoting of Antaeus Feldspar

[edit]

"When your goal is to act in an ethical and moral manner, your first and foremost enemy is always yourself."--Antaeus Feldspar
Antaeus Feldspar is using Wikipedia to forward Andreas Heldal-Lund's propaganda website. Please see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, specifically the section about propaganda or advocacy of any kind.
IMHO, actions that forward or directly use propaganda reflect either ignorance or a deep seated POV.--J.Tell 20:56, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

J.Tell, please cure yourself of the mistaken notion that you can successfully deflect attention from the issues by making personal attacks like this on other editors. Secondly, I'm glad you did this, because it allows me to show what bad faith you are acting in. Here is the context in which you found that quote on my user page (which, by the way, you do not have my permission to edit):
I used to believe (and tell others that I believed) that "When your goal is to act in an ethical and moral manner, your first and foremost enemy is always yourself."
I now know I was wrong. If you have the basic desire to act ethically in the first place, then you have to take second place in line to a whole lot of other people out there who can do a lot better of a job twisting your good intentions into bad deeds than you can. To be hoist by one's own petard is not necessarily the easiest or most common way to go, only the one with the most irony.
I for one find it absolutely fascinating that you choose to reproduce a quote verbatim but not to include the salient information that I now consider that quote wrong. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:01, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion about your quote and scrutinizing my choice to quote you is a "deflection" of attention from the issue: propaganda being used as reference and often as source material for composing Wikipedia articles. This is not my opinion, it is a fact. One who understands propaganda can easily prove that Andreas' site is full of propaganda. Also, his site references false documents and forgeries. The fact that you reference this website but not many other critical and objective sites suggests that you are using Wikipedia to forward propaganda. Why not reference the many other sites that are objectively critical? You seem to be POV towards critics so you should have no trouble digging up the references.--J.Tell 04:57, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Clambake

[edit]

In the article Operation Clambake presents: What is Scientology? [1], numerous types of propaganda are being employed: appeal to fear, appeal to authority, demonization, glittering generality, obtaining disapproval, oversimplification, testimonial and damaging quotation, use of virtue words, slogans. SeePropaganda#Techniques_of_propaganda_generation.

Besides all that, Operation Clambake has very little credibility: Andreas has not corrected his website despite many arguments and discussion people have had about the innacuracies of his statements. Is this the the kind of sources and references Wikipedia wants?--J.Tell 02:48, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How could anyone look at the operation clambake site and not know immediately, the site is established with one goal in mind. To belittle and work toward destruction. Isn't it obvious? I would bet a dollar it is supported by Psychology / Psychiatry somehow. Its obvious message is, "I am an enemy of Scientology" Terryeo 07:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about recent reverts/POV issue

[edit]

AI, once again I find your actions cryptic and confusing, and request clarification. You've reverted my last edits, then restored some of my edits, declaring something to the effect that "we've discussed this change already." Huh? My questions: What is it about the current version that seems to have a neutrality problem? What would you like to change to make it more neutral? And why do you think we need multiple links to the same IAS web site? (Two of the links are basically useless, in any case: one to a "privacy" page, another begins at number 7. in a longer list. Really, the main link is all anyone needs. Imagine if your multi-link policy was applied throughout Wikipedia!) BTfromLA 3 July 2005 06:29 (UTC)

BT, If you are confused, then look around and find out where you are. If my actions are cryptic, then describe my actions. Thank you for a more neutral revert.--AI 3 July 2005 08:04 (UTC)
  1. I see no problem with having only a main link to the IAS site.
  2. About the purpose of the IAS, regardless of how much time has gone by, I see that the issue raised about this was never addressed by Antaeus or BT or anyone else under #Controversial POV Check.--AI 3 July 2005 08:04 (UTC)
It looks to me as if the complaint was that the line about the IAS furthering "the aims of Scientology" had been cut. But that phrase is in all the versions that I've proposed, quoted directly from the IAS web page. Am I missing something? BTfromLA 3 July 2005 08:34 (UTC)
Thank you.--AI 3 July 2005 09:07 (UTC)
Actually, yes, it was addressed, under the general principle of "Wikipedia can describe the beliefs held by the various sides of disagreements, but should not be taking sides." To report that the IAS's stated purpose is to forward the aims of Scientology is describing the beliefs. To report that "through their membership dues IAS members support the aims of Scientology" -- i.e., that when an IAS member pays his or her dues they're supporting "a civilization without insanity, without criminals and without war, where the able can prosper and honest beings can have rights, and where man is free to rise to greater heights" -- that's taking sides.
Suppose a psychiatry-related article stated that psychiatrists are physicians who take the Hippocratic oath, which includes the promise to never deliberately do harm to anyone for anyone else's interest. Would you be comfortable with that changing to "psychiatrists, as physicians who have taken the Hippocratic oath, never deliberately do harm to anyone for anyone else's interest"? If not, then now you understand why quoting the IAS on what they claim their purpose to be, and stating that it is their purpose and it's what members support with their dues, are two entirely different things. -- Antaeus Feldspar 3 July 2005 22:05 (UTC)

support aims or activities?

[edit]

A recent edit changed the phrase about what the IAS dues support--instead of the activities of Scientology to the aims of Scientology. This seems like an error to me--money doesn't fund "aims," which are abstractions, it funds actions. Any objection if I revert to the earlier version? BTfromLA 3 July 2005 18:09 (UTC)

No objection at all. -- Antaeus Feldspar 3 July 2005 22:44 (UTC)


Reference

[edit]

Incorrect information. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbard_Association_of_Scientologists_International and http://www.iasmembership.org/en_US/story/index.html as to the facts on the formation of the IAS. Deletions have no reliable source and are skewed. (Streamlight 6 January 2006 4:44 GMT

You vandalized this article with false information and pr fluff from the "official" site. knock it off.--Fahrenheit451 01:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Corrections have been made to inaccuracies per http://www.iasmembership.org/en_US/story/index.html and http://www.rtc.org. I have done my homework. The parts I have deleted have no reliable source. Editors should at least try to be somewhat factual. Removed a link that has no specific connection with the specific subject of this page or its content – seem to be just a general negative affect to the Scientologists.Streamlight 17:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have done my homework as well. Please knock off your POV "reliable source" editing.--Fahrenheit451 00:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is rather important to present a POV. Several editors keep insisting that every word of an article be Neutral, well, that is simply a misunderstanding of the policy, WP:NPOV. Especially in a controversial area a POV must be present, if it were not, the subject would not exist in the first place. While Clambake would refuse to present the subject as it exists, it is Wikipedia's goal to present what is known about the subject. This means presenting the POV which created the subject. After a subject is actually introduced, after a reader can understand and know what it is, then its controversy can be presented. To do otherwise would be to copy Clambake and Xenu and expose' news reporting and would not be Wikipedic. Terryeo 04:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fahrenheit451, if you say the facts I am supplying are incorrect, then please supply some reliable source – please do not just nuke my edits out of hand. I am correcting information that is false and my source for this is the IAS’s site itself. http://www.iasmembership.org/story/index.html Streamlight 09:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That IAS website page is some POV pr for sure. Lots of omitted data, lots of opinion. It's a pr site.--Fahrenheit451 10:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Antaeus Feldspar – I have changed this numerous times to put in factual information. This has nothing to do with anyone’s POV. This is an encyclopedia and data should be accurate, not unverified and false. Streamlight 11:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gloria Streamlight, again, I ask that you cease and desist from vandalism. Removal of the wikilinks is a clear case of vandalizing an article. --Fahrenheit451 17:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fahrenheit451 – please check the definition of vandalism. It is perfectly within my rights to correct false information. You have not provided any reliable source that gives you reason to keep changing this; accusations of vandalism are not going to change the facts. Streamlight 11:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Streamlight, so where does the IAS claim that it is incorporated? Please provide that reference.--Fahrenheit451 23:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of repeated vandalism

[edit]

An unregistered user with the ip address templates of 216.175.xx.xx has repeatedly vandalized this article by POV deletions along the pr lines of the church of scientology. Any further deletions by this user or users, without following wikipedia policy on discussion, will be reverted by myself.--Fahrenheit451 00:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Press mentions of International Association of Scientologists

[edit]

Added here to be sifted to see if any of them would be useful in the article.

That Cruise video from the 2004 IAS meeting might be a notable mention... :) AndroidCat (talk) 03:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New page

[edit]

I wrote a new page for the IAS. I think the only thing I saved from the earlier version (pre-redirect) was the categories. The page could use a logo.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 12:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:International_Association_of_Scientologists&oldid=1201929823"