Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:48, 19 May 2016

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the R2-45 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Scientology C‑class Low‑importance

This article is supported by WikiProject Scientology, a collaborative effort to help develop and improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Scientology. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on Scientology-related topics. See WikiProject Scientology and Misplaced Pages:Contributing FAQ.ScientologyWikipedia:WikiProject ScientologyTemplate:WikiProject ScientologyScientology C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

R2-45 is currently a Philosophy and religion good article nominee. Nominated by Feoffer (talk) at 09:06, 30 April 2016 (UTC) Any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article may review it according to the good article criteria to decide whether or not to list it as a good article. To start the review process, click start review and save the page. (See here for the good article instructions.)

Unresolved issues

The tags, which are constantly removed by editors here who have voiced strong bias against Scientology, should not be removed, especially considering the fact that they have not been resolved at all. Rewriting the article using peacock terms and weasel words is not helpful. Laval (talk) 06:43, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

There is no "bias against Scientology." What you are complaining about are editors working to keep factual information about the Scientology enterprise from being covered accurately and fully. This is an encyclopedia, Laval, encyclopedias work to be informative and educational, so unless you can find something that is wrong, mistaken, not supported by testable, verifiable references and citations, you're wasting editor's valuable volunteer time. I'm getting very tired of people trying to demand that R2-45 isn't what Hubbard said it is. Annoyance verging upon anger. Damotclese (talk) 19:53, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

By the by, consensus does not equal a bunch of editors, particularly those with a stated bias against the subject (that subject being Scientology) coming up with a version of the article that is only agreeable to their viewpoint. The current version of the article has not, in any way at all, solved the issues that I have brought up. There is no appropriate rationale to constantly remove the tags every time I add them. If I have been absent for a few days, it's because I like to take a break from Misplaced Pages to cool down. Such an absence is no justification to removing those tags. Laval (talk) 06:54, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

You added the tags to a previous version of the article. The current version of the article was written specifically to address several of the issues that you and Sfarney had raised. I agree that there were problems with how sources were being used in the previous version, but these have been resolved now. The only issue that you raised earlier that seems to me to have any application to the current version is your complaint about the use of primary sources - specifically the 1959 lecture. But as I have already pointed out to Sfarney at ], this is a non-issue. There is no question about the authenticity of the quotation as you can check it yourself if you wish. The lecture in question is publicly available (you even can order it online). The current version of the article uses it exactly as WP:PRIMARY specifies - "to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." The facts being that Hubbard made a particular statement at a particular time, as recorded in the lecture. The interpretation of those facts is, as required by WP:PRIMARY, sourced exclusively to other reliable sources.

So having disposed of that issue, do you have anything else that you would like to raise? Prioryman (talk) 08:44, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

The article currently cherry-picks words to say something quite different from the Ortega recording. We shall discuss that when the copyright question is settled. Grammar's Li'l Helper 09:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Since Ortega isn't being used as a reference for anything to do with any recordings, I fail to see what your point is. Are you sure you've read the current version of the article? Prioryman (talk) 18:46, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Presuming the Ortega recording is a true excerpt of the lecture, this statement is not a fair summary: "He said in a 1959 lecture that "even cops or gangsters" could make a "Clear" out of a person "by taking a Webley 38 or Smith & Wesson, or Colt or something like that and doing R2-45." It is a classic example of Misplaced Pages:Cherrypicking. Grammar's Li'l Helper 19:05, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Nobody is "cherry-picking" anything, the audio of Hubbard describing R2-45 is available on line for anyone to download and listen to themselves, and the extant article fully and accurately covers the Scientology enterprise's "rundown" which is described. Journalist Tony Ortega and every law enforcement agency and criminal and civil Judge which has commented on R2-45 are not "cherry-picking" what Hubbard said. If any editor can find anything wrong or not supported in the extant article then suggest a proposed update! Stop trying to pretend that R2-45 isn't what Hubbard said it is, you're wasting valuable volunteer editor's time! Damotclese (talk) 20:01, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Then why not quote at least one complete sentence? Instead, the editor picked words and phrases out of context to make a statement that says the very opposite of Ortega's recording. That is called Misplaced Pages:Cherrypicking. Grammar's Li'l Helper 02:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

If you would, suggest an update proposal, if you would please. Select a complete sentence which you consider to be more accurate and make the update, if it's golden I'm sure editors will agree. Thanks! Damotclese (talk) 16:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

This is a synopsis: In that recording, the lecturer clearly states that clearing involves more than exteriorization. Exteriorization was all that Buddha accomplished. If that were the only thing required for clearing, a cop or a thug could "clear" people with a pistol. The context of the lecture is all that has come before in Dianetics, including the statement that clearing has never before been possible. So implicit in the cops and thugs statement is the syllogism that shooting people is NOT clearing them. The whole statement is irony. Grammar's Li'l Helper 17:17, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

If you still have concerns, maybe you could propose additional text that is verifiable, not original research or synthesis? The article could provide broader context and background if it can comply with content policies. FWIW, the recording does indeed suggest that the typical members of the live audience did not interpret the lecture to mean murder was standard church policy. The article does note "audience responded with laughter", for example. Feoffer (talk) 00:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

The entire paragraph is described by WP:REDFLAG: "challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest". Redflag content is not good Misplaced Pages, and it doesn't matter who does it. In this case, the editor asserts that Hubbard tells ministers to counsel the believers into committing suicide. Absolutely no secondary sources support that statement. REDFLAG Grammar's Li'l Helper 00:24, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Unneeded images

I should just add that I don't think it's appropriate to add images to this article, other than perhaps a generic photo of Hubbard. The image of the notice in The Auditor didn't and couldn't pass muster under Misplaced Pages's copyright policies, and I don't see any point in adding a generic image of a revolver (or even a Colt .45 - I don't think Hubbard ever specified the type of .45 pistol). So please leave out the images for now. Prioryman (talk) 08:49, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I also wondered about that, it only adds emotive content. We don't want Scientology people finding any excuse no matter how weak to complain about the content and accuracy of the extant article. Damotclese (talk) 15:38, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

We are not here for or against Scientology or to construct an exposè — we are here to build an encyclopedia. Any other purpose is WP:NOTHERE. Grammar's Li'l Helper 15:44, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

True, yet at the same time we have a number of editors being dragged in here to expend basically wasted time commenting on an issue which had already been hashed out years ago. I certainly have other things to do. :) Hopefully the current quality and accuracy and references are suitable that we've seen the last of attempts to pretend R2-45 is anything other than what Hubbard said it was. Hopefully (praying to Jesus in 3...2...1...) Damotclese (talk) 15:51, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Counseling believers to commit suicide?

prioryman (talk · contribs) You are in violation of WP:REDFLAG -- making outrageous claims based on WP:cherrypicking and your alleged interpretation of WP:PRIMARY with no reliable sources. Read those sections carefully and revert your reversion of 19:38, 26 April 2016. More threats against other editors is not an option. Grammar's Li'l Helper 05:03, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

It looks like we have a majority of opinion by editors on the quality of the current version of the article, sfarney. The article has been greatly improved during this past discussion cycle, I find nothing remotely inaccurate or not well-grounded with suitable references and citations. In fact the article is looking better now than it ever has. I think we could use more references and citations, including links to more audio and lectures, preferably to Hubbard's audio recordings currently available on Russian servers, but I don't want to belabor the point, the existing references are fine. Damotclese (talk) 15:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I actually think that the current text does give the wrong idea. There is plenty of evidence, primary and secondary, that Hubbard and others in the organisation used the term "R2-45" to mean shooting someone, but to suggest that Hubbard was seriously recommending that people solve their problems with suicide is a misrepresentation. The quote "If that fails you, well, you've always got suicide. You could propose that to the pc . That would solve his problems. 'R2-45' by its various – various other techniques." should really not be used to support the conclusion that "he suggested suicide as a possible method of dealing with issues if other auditing techniques did not work". That's a clear case of taking a quote out of context with too much of a literal interpretation. Yes, with R2-45 he meant killing. No, he wasn't suggesting death as a therapeutic measure. --Slashme (talk) 11:25, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

If we had a reliable source, we could use it. But the current article text does not meet Misplaced Pages standards. Grammar's Li'l Helper 17:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure I understand what you're saying we shouldn't use - can you explain a bit more? --Slashme (talk) 12:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Paragraph 3 is in violation of WP:REDFLAG -- outrageous claims based on WP:cherrypicking and personal interpretation of WP:PRIMARY source with NO secondary reliable sources. Primary sources are permitted in limited circumstances, and this does not qualify. Read WP:REDFLAG. Grammar's Li'l Helper 16:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

'malignant narcissism' NPOV/UNDUE?

Is the following line appropriate:

According to Stephen A. Kent of the University of Alberta, such orders are demonstrations of "the manifestation of Hubbard’s malignant narcissism and, more specifically, his narcissistic rage."

As is, it seems pseudoscientific and judgmental. Should we balance it with other opinions? Excise it? Accept it's okay as is? Feoffer (talk) 09:27, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Doctor Kent's credentials, academic research, and reporting on psychological dysfunctions are fairly well known among academia, his work is considered to be well regarded. The classification of "narcissistic" certainly is accurate despite Doctor Kent never having gotten Hubbard under formal evaluation on his couch. There is the need to ensure that such "remote evaluations" conducted by psychologists of someone's behavior and history are not evaluations suggested for non-benign motivations -- such as when psychologists weight-in on a politician's exhibited behavior despite never having acquired hands-on back-and-forth with the individual, done purely for political reasons. However when a psychologist evaluates a public figure's behavior and publishes findings lacking unfriendly motivations, their professional findings hold the same weight as the Doctor's reputation.

Kent's BRAINWASHING IN SCIENTOLOGY'S REHABILITATION PROJECT FORCE (RPF) released as Revised Version of a Presentation at the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion, San Diego, California (November 7, 1977). by Dr Stephen Kent - December 3, 1997 (2nd Draft) is considered to be one of the most submitted exhibits for civil and criminal cases by ex-customers in cases filed against Scientology since his work is considered to be accurate, well researched, and above reproach.

For purposes of the extant article, considering Kent's standing in his profession and among academia, I think the quote is suitable for Misplaced Pages. The quote is even better rooted in professional evaluation than has been Judges who have stated in their court findings at core the same thing. Damotclese (talk) 02:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a source on Kent's reputation? His theories on brainwashing are still fringy, not accepted by mainstream psychologists. No one has been able to prove brainwashing in a laboratory under controlled conditions. After decades, Kent's theories are still pseudoscience. Grammar's Li'l Helper 17:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

People who do not accept the validity of the benefits of the practices of the mental health industry -- or the medical environment entirely, of which I'm part, for that matter -- always consider science to be "fringe." No amount of achievements, experience, or accomplishments sways ideologues.

You could Google "Stephen A. Kent" yet I seriously doubt you or any other Scientologist consider any psychologist, psychiatrist, or medical physician to be anything but Satan -- or the Scientology equivelent of Satan. BiologistBabe (talk) 16:42, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Your ad hominem is noted -- and set aside. I will not be provoked by WP:PA. Kent is fringe for the reasons stated above: His views of brainwashing run counter to the consensus of his profession, as does his opinion that Hubbard was a narcissist, let alone a malignant narcissist. A single polemical professional is not a reliable source. Grammar's Li'l Helper 07:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Kent isn't fringe. But the way he is used here may be undo weight, more prejudicial than probative. It's strange for the article to include one expert to do little more than wrap a moral judgment in the trappings of psychology. Feoffer (talk) 08:12, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

The article pretends to make a medical diagnosis of someone the authors never met or examined. It is apparently self-ublished, not peer reviewed, and should have no standing. It is not WP:RS. We can do better than that, folks. Grammar's Li'l Helper 14:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

If something is wrong, propose an update

I see that Scientology has been attempting to claim that what their founder said in audio recordings and what he wrote were some how "jokes" or that he did not actually mean what he actually meant.

Who ever the Scientology person is that is trying to make that assertion, you should post a citation to something Hubbard wrote which shows that it is a joke. I don't know anything about Scientology other than what I read in criminal and civil court cases against the organization's people, but checking the references provided here, they are all legitimate, including the copies of audio recordings which I assume is Hubbard's actual voice.

Any way the article looks fine. Maybe editors should request protection since Scientology has a history of trying to scrub information about their organization off of the Internet, not just Misplaced Pages. BiologistBabe (talk) 16:36, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Who are you accusing of being Scientologists? Nobody as far as I can tell is a Scientologist here. On the other hand, we do have a number of people -- including yourself, apparently -- who are explicitly anti-Scientology. Are you under the mistaken impression that Misplaced Pages is here to dump on, ridicule, mock and promote conspiracy theories about Scientology? Laval (talk) 18:25, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Tony Ortega is not a reliable source

Ortega has never been a reliable source, and his blog entries are absolutely without question, unreliable. With so many better sources like Lawrence Wright, Hugh Urban, etc the fact that anyone would resort to using Ortega to promote fringe nonsense speaks volumes. You won't find legitimate journalists and researchers like Wright and Urban engaging in this garbage. Laval (talk) 18:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

When you can find anything that the award-winning journalist covers in his researched, referenced, and cited publications that are in any way mistaken, you'll let us know, won't you? Please be specific. That goes for any other journalist, psychologist, psychiatrist, reporter, Judge, District Attorney, criminal and civil prosecutors, and anyone else who covers the Scientology organization's activities and history. Thanks. Damotclese (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

We can start with the allegation of criminal conspiracy that dead-ended 50 years ago with an investigator for the Food and Drug Administration -- and goes nowhere, even though the FDA was at that time eager to find something it could prosecute. However, in 2015, Ortega still reports it as though the allegation were true. Ortega is still actively marketing his articles freelance because every so often we find something in a rural paper. But Ortega has not found a market for this piece. This pig don't fly, even in Orlando, and that is not the competent journalism or investigation we need at Misplaced Pages.

I have already told you what is wrong with Kent. He makes a medical diagnosis without a medical degree about a person he has never met or examined. He is offering opinions about religions without a degree in religion. And his opinions of cults, Scientology, and Hubbard are not in agreement with the consensus of the professions appropriate to the subjects on which he is offering his opinions. That particular piece is based completely on hear-say, so it is not good scholarship on any level. It is not peer reviewed, so it is not good Misplaced Pages. Have I answered the question yet? Grammar's Li'l Helper 20:48, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Ridiculous overuse of primary sources from Scientology

There is so much original research going on here, along with overutilization of primary sources quoting Hubbard and Scientology documents directly, that it really is something for anyone to argue how this article isn't in terrible shape or that there isn't an anti-Scientology bias going on here. I know some people believe Misplaced Pages is a battleground to attack subjects they don't like or even hate, but it isn't. As it stands, any RfC would demonstrate just how messed up things are here, and any ArbCom ruling would concur, especially with the sanctions in place. If there hasn't been an RfC already, one should be started, and if that doesn't lead anywhere, then ArbCom. Laval (talk) 18:37, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

When you can find anything in the extant article that is mistaken, not accurate, not backed up with testable references and citations, please do discuss it here in the specific, and of course if you would, suggest proposed changes. Aside from that, let's not waste any more of volunteer editor time. Thanks. Damotclese (talk) 19:31, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I have outlined the problem with the current article. One word: WP:REDFLAG. Grammar's Li'l Helper 20:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

• C-Class Scientology articles
• Low-importance Scientology articles
• WikiProject Scientology articles
• Good article nominees
• Good article nominees awaiting review