|
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details. |
Any current or future editor who makes substantial edits to any Scientology-related articles or discussions on any page is directed:
- To edit on these from only a single user account, which shall be the user's sole or main account, unless the user has previously sought and obtained permission from the Arbitration Committee to operate a legitimate second account;
- To edit only through a conventional internet service provider and not through any form of proxy configuration;
- To edit in accordance with all Wikipedia policies and to refrain from any form of advocacy concerning any external controversy, dispute, allegation, or proceeding; and
- To disclose on the relevant talk pages any circumstances (but not including personal identifying information) that constitute or may reasonably be perceived as constituting a conflict of interest with respect to that page.
If any editor fails to comply with the spirit or letter of these instructions, any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, ban any editor from editing within the Scientology topic. Prior to topic banning the editor, the administrator will leave a message on the editor's talk page, linking to this paragraph, warning the editor that a topic ban is contemplated and outlining the behaviours for which it is contemplated. If the editor fails to heed the warning, the editor may be topic banned, initially, for three months, then with additional topic bans increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. |
|
|
[edit] Horribly slanted "content" section
The first paragraph has a few lines about the actual content of the book, then has a much bigger section of fairly rampant debunking. If I wanted that I would have read the reception/criticism section. The "content" bit becomes almost unreadable for it's glaring lack of neutrality, but I suspect if I edited out the debunking portions, I would be labelled as a Scientologist who is making religiously-motivated edits. I checked out the page on Dianetics itself, and that doesn't have this problem at all. A nicely neutral bit of basic concepts, followed by a debunking in the appropriate section. I think the content section in this article should be majorly edited to fit the tone of the basic concepts section in that article. Thoughts? Wikiditm (talk) 12:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- I entirely agree; the Content section is pretty clearly NPOV ("Dianetics, in and of itself, thus presents nothing that was not already known to science in that area, while adding phenomena and functional systems that have no basis in fact"—seriously?) and a thorough rewrite would be quite justified, or at the very least a transfer of all the sourced criticisms to a separate Criticism section, as with the main Dianetics article. Also, for a section that offers a link to a main article for more detail, the Content section is way too long; a paragraph-long summary of the ideas contained in the book would suffice. --Wordshark (talk) 07:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
