Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by LadyofShalott (talk | contribs) at 00:09, 28 March 2007 (→join?: how to join). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• ]

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Religion

The group indicated above was recently revitalized for, among other things, the purpose of working on those articles whose content is such that the article does not fall within the scope of any particular denomination. To most effectively do this, however, we would benefit greatly if there were at least one member from this Project working on those articles. On that basis, I would encourage and welcome any member of this Project willing to work on those articles to join the Religion WikiProject. Thank you. Badbilltucker 22:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Tim Bowles

Tim Bowles has appeared and is unhappy about his article. He seems to consider it libellous to be linked to scientology. --Tilman 11:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is this a project

Why is there a project devoted to spreading this proeganda? a quick google search (after the first result) reveals what sceintoligy is really about. Alan2here 18:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, please note it isn't about spreading the propoganda. The project's sole featured article, Xenu, is not what one would call propoganda. Also, if you were to see the members list, at least one member, Roger Gonnet, is a former Scientologist who has since published an anti-Scientology book. I think that the project is primarily created to increase the quality of wikipedia's articles, in an objective and NPOV way, which is pretty much why almost all the WikiProjects exist. Of course, it's always the case that biased editors will write articles reflecting their biases, but that is hardly unique to this project. Badbilltucker 18:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Frances Farmer

To the usual suspects :) I've had the actress Frances Farmer on my watch list, since there is a remote scientology connection (her sensationalized bio was made with the help of President Heber). And what did I see today: some person tried to put the fiction back in, and/or remove/downplay the research by Jeffrey Kaufmann. (JK is not an anti-scientologist, but he's done a lot of research about Frances Farmer, and has also posted to a.r.s. about that topic) --Tilman 22:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess most of the usual suspects are on vacation. For me, it looks like the IP simply changed "false" to "disputed" in a number of instances. Without doing a lot of research myself, all I can say is that it seems to be replacing POV with NPOV, not POV with POV. (a bit later) After looking at the article it certainly makes a good case that there was never any lobotomy so while I know better than to trust wikipedia I would say that reverting the IP's changes is certainly appropriate unless the IP comes back with RS. --Justanother 15:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Death Certificate

This project is as dead as a WikiProject can be. Articles are not being improved, the same people turning in revert circles and talk pages still look like Usenet BS in the style of I-am-more-right-than-u-r. Can somebody help me out of this frustration? Misou 04:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I have been guilty of the above too but my word to you is hang there; things are improving as far as the articles being editable by more than a clique and the more people like you that hang in the better for everyone. --Justanother 04:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to say, but that sounds a bit lame and beaten. It could be something else, if one would care. Misou 00:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Scientology info box

I have a problem with this since its purpose seems to be to highlight negative aspects of Scientology. It has also been added to articles that are not mainly about Scientology itself, such as Tom Cruise Steve Dufour 20:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The Scientology Info Box is just that, an info box. It lists categories which are quite concise and inclusive. But "seems to be to highlight negative aspects of Scientology" is quite vague. You'd need a specific complaint for anything to really be, you know, done about it. Also, Tom Cruise is part of Wikiproject: Scientology and the infobox because his outspoken views on Scientology have recently effected his career in a big way (I believe and others believe, this is disputable), and additionally because he is one of their major star figures, tied with the religion, et al. It's like saying that Wikiproject: Christianity shouldn't include notable worshippers who weren't in official positions, though it does. He has a strong tie to it, and it seems appropriate, also, how a mere set of links can be biased seems tricky to me. Raeft 22:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Collaboration, Article Improvement Drive

• Let's all start a discussion, aimed at picking one or max two articles that we would like to bring up to Featured Article Status. Thoughts? Smee 21:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

Proposal.

• I'll start with a proposal, to make it easiest, work on articles already of a high quality.

1. Start with the former Featured Article (Currently A-Class Article), Space opera in Scientology scripture. As it was once already a Featured Article, it should not be that hard to bring it back up to status with more permanence.
2. Then, move down to Good Class Articles. We could start with L. Ron Hubbard.
3. Then, we could work on Dianetics.
4. And then, Trapped in the Closet (South Park). Smee 21:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

Votes/Comments

Please provide your votes/comments/sentiments/opinions below:

• Support, (as Nom). Begin to collaborate on Space opera in Scientology scripture, and after that has become a Featured Article, move next to L. Ron Hubbard. Smee 21:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
• Support, I believe that Space opera in Scientology scripture doesn't need much work to bump up, and L. Ron Hubbard being a biographical page means we can take resources from Wikiproject: Biography, and use examples of existing featured articles in that project for helpful resources in bumping it up, following that we'll move down the ranks. Raeft 22:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

How many articles?

I see that there are already 236 Scientology related articles. This seems like a lot to me, relative to Scientology's real importance and compared to the number of articles on other groups of people. Are more planned? Thanks. Steve Dufour 20:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Mixed martial arts has 319 articles. I don't see why there would be a limit to the number of new articles, provided they are adequately sourced from reputable secondary sourced citations... Smee 20:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC).
  • How would you compare the number of people involved in mixed martial arts to Scientology? Steve Dufour 22:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I just picked another WikiProject. Smee 23:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

• I hope it is not Pokemon :-) Steve Dufour 23:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• There are 745 articles in Misplaced Pages:WikiProject The Simpsons. This includes a different individual article on every single episode. Smee 23:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

I think that is another topic that is way over-covered by WP, as are Pokemon and Scientology. That is just my opinon however. Steve Dufour 23:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, you are entitled to your opinion. Smee 23:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

I see that the project now has 239 articles: 22 top, 55 high, 95 mid, and 67 low. Three have been added in the last four days. Steve Dufour 15:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Smee 17:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC).

There are now 240. It took three days to add the last one, so maybe the pace is slowing down. Steve Dufour 12:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Steve, you -really- seem to have a misconception about how Misplaced Pages works. It wouldn't be much of an encyclopedia if it didn't grow as new information became available. The number of people who PRACTICE Scientology is irrelevant to the number of articles. It's not the number of people interested, either. This is a Wiki, nigh unlimited size. If an editor can adequately source an article and it has published, major reliable sources (mass media, whole books), or multiple trivial sources (magazine articles, single shot essays). The standard for INCLUSION in Misplaced Pages, is verifiability and notability, period. Verifiability and notability are both tied to sources. If enough reliable sources can be found to write the article, it deserves to exist. Once it exists, it is the job of editors to constantly improve it if it needs improvement or they see where they can help. If something is verifiable, and I can write an article on it, it belongs in Misplaced Pages. There are pages for every single episode of many TV shows, most books, songs, all countries in the world (I believe) and so much more. The number of people who -believe- in the subject of an article is irrelevant. If you want that to matter, try Wikifaith. Here, it's the number of people who might want to KNOW about something. And if that number of people is greater than or equal to "one", even if that one is just the article writer, and the article can be put together from reliable sources in the mass media, or trivial physical sources, or reliable physical sources (again, books), then it is notable enough for Misplaced Pages. There ISN'T this huge, high bar for notability. Quite the opposite. An inclusive and broad encyclopedia like Misplaced Pages needs a standard that reflects the potential desire for knowledge on ANY topic. If we raise the standard and start distancing ourselves from and excluding any article which can be reliably written and sourced if we don't think enough people believe in it (something irrelevant since statistical data is not going to be consulted before article creation), this will become a more dismal place, filled with less truth, all told.

To that extent, this number of articles is a tribute to the research skills and incredible determination of all of Misplaced Pages's editors at finding reliable sources and writing articles based on them, and I personally think it's groovy. Peace, all. Raeft 22:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

join?

I want to join the project.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thaddeus Slamp (talk • contribs)

To join, add your name at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Scientology#Participants. Aleta 00:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)