Talk:R2-45

Reference to R2-45 in Auditor #37

According to this excerpt from Nam McLean's affidavit:

«7. I have copies in my possession in which ex-Scientologists were declared "suppressive persons" and made subject to the "fair game law" and a copy of Auditor #37 placing 4 persons under auditing process R2-45. In the context of such Ethics Orders auditing process R2-45 cannot be considered humorous or a joke, but a serious order. The document attached hereto and marked Appendix "D", is a true copy of an original copy of the Auditor. The reference to Auditing Process R2-45, found in paragraph 7, under heading "Racket Exposed", was known by me as a staff member of the Church of Scientology to mean to kill someone with a Colt 45 automatic Pistol.» [1]

I think this reference to the Auditor #37 magazine should be included in the article. I will see if I can include it myself, although other editors who are better at english prose than I am can go ahead meanwhile. Raymond Hill 16:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

"Nan McLean". AndroidCat 12:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Oops, you're right, thanks for the heads-up. Raymond Hill 18:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Clarification

So, is this merely firing a warning shot at the ground or actual murder? If it's the latter, I think it should be in the introduction. --Davidstrauss 20:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

just funny guys. Just too, too funny. really. R2-45, guys, it is meant as a sense of humor, a quicky way to exteriorize an individual, lol, it is a joke guys. Guys, you are 'way too serious about it. Terryeo 06:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It's so funny, I forgot to laugh. wikipediatrix 13:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

There are circumstances where one might plausibly believe that Hubbard was only joking with references to "R2-45". Let me ask you, Terryeo: do you think that an order to Sea Org members on goldenrod paper is where you'll find lots of Hubbard jokes? -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, that you find it funny is expected. The Clearwater City Commission didn't find it funny though. The document "FINAL REPORT TO THE CLEARWATER CITY COMMISSION" includes this passage: [2]

Evidentiary Fact: N. The Church of Scientology has created a policy which orders the commission of homicide. 1. R2-45 means that you shoot the person in the head. (1-78) 2. R2-45 is shooting a person in the head. (1-96) 3. R2-45 is a Scientology policy created by Hubbard. (2-32, 33)

So the Clearwater City Commission concluded that there was enough evidence that R2-45 was actually a policy to commit murder, written by Hubbard. Since the source is reputable, something to integrate to the article. -- Raymond Hill 23:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Amazing. I would think that anyone who has read or studied very much of it understands completely that Hubbard is both making a joke and stating the actuality. lol. But, I guess if someone reads a tiny little piece of it, all by itself and it says "R2-45" then someone is going to take Hubbard's words literally. The rest of us will laugh and enjoy the humor. lol Terryeo 11:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that the whole Ethics Order is a side-splitting joke? In any case the article is based on proper cites, the readers will make their own mind. You are certainly free to laugh irrepressibly when you read the article. -- Raymond Hill 18:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that's really something. I am laughing. I read it and by golly, that's what it says. LOL. wow. Terryeo 06:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

OKay, I guess I'd better seriously reply, but it is funny.

• R2-45 was mentioned by Hubbard as a potential auditing process. Such processes are fall into "technical data" or "tech". Tech is published in RED ink and on white paper. "Policy" is another kettle of fish. Its purpose is to provide policy and hence, guideline for the day to day administration, the running of the Church. Policy is published as green ink on buff paper. R2-45 isn't policy, wasn't policy, can't be policy because it is Tech. Raymond's link to a court document which was apparently presented by the defendants might be actual, but is an unsigned document and you can't really be sure it was ever signed by or created by Hubbard. If Hubbard did create it, heh, you can easily see he was pissed when he did. But, today's Policies say that "nothing may be done contrary to the laws of the land". Which means the Church does not support nor condone any illegal act, be it some auditing process once thought up and never used, or by stealing or anything else that would be illegal. Also, the CLEARWATER REPORT is not dated and the manner in which it is presented at that link leaves at least some doubt to its authenticity. A good deal of it is directly contrary to modern Church Policy and worth noting is the relationship of the City of Clearwater, at present, to the Church, is far less suspicious than at the time of that report. Perhaps some of that is the money the Church has pulled into the Clearwater area, or the improvements they have made, the building materials purchased in the area, etc. etc. Terryeo 07:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Once more, Terryeo: Do you think that the middle of an Ethics Order in which Hubbard is laying out direct instructions on what is to be done with people pronounced guilty of "suppressive acts" and "high crimes" is where Hubbard is likely to slip in one of his little jokes? Phrased in the form of an instruction? You think Hubbard, Mr. Communication, expected the Sea Org to know that "They are declared Enemies of mankind, the planet and all life", "They are fair game," "No amnesty may ever cover them," "they are to be run on reverse processes" are all serious, but 'shoot them in the head' is just his little joke? -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I am sooo lol. really. You are asking me for a personal opinion. Have a nice day. lol. Terryeo 04:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

But you did give your opinion that R2-45 is a joke. Now suddenly you "lost" your opinion? --Tilman 08:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I stated my opinion. Feldspar asked for a personal opinion. Should I state my opinion again and yet again? I've danced around this bush before. I've stated my opinion and have no urge to attempt any modification of yours. Happy Ho Ho's. Terryeo 08:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes. You have danced around this bush before -- and you're still dancing. You're unable to say "Yes, I actually believe that L. Ron Hubbard, in the middle of an Ethics Order which gives specific, direct instructions on specific, direct retaliatory actions to take against 'Enemies of mankind, the planet and all life', put in one specific, direct retaliatory action which his readers would know literally meant 'shoot these people in the head', but intended it as a joke and never believed anyone would take it as anything other than a joke." You know it's not true. You know that Hubbard was accustomed to giving orders and having them obeyed. You know that even if Hubbard were to claim afterward (after someone had already been murdered) that it had all been a joke -- you know that he would have been responsible. He knew that people followed his orders. And he gave the order to murder. I won't press you in what must be a painful moment for you. I just wish you'd learn from these moments of dissonance. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I stated my opinion. I am still laughing. Happy Ho Ho's Terryeo 05:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

And you're still dancing. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I really don't understand, Feldspar. I try to communicate something to the editors here. I state my opinion. I state it honestly. That you refuse to accept what I know to be true is perfectly okay with me. That you refuse to accept what I know to be true and, in addition, refuse to recognize that I have have a point of view I could tolerate. That you refuse to accept what I know to be true, refuse to recognize that I have a point of view, and, in addition, make disparaging remarks of a personal nature goes beyond civility. You notice I did not laugh at anyone. You notice I did not make derogatory remarks to anyone, nor make anyone wrong for holding the point of view of their choice, nor for maintaining their own point of view. What I did do, and often do, is state my own point of view and my own knowledge in the area. Why do you persist with comments which are borderline incivility? Terryeo 09:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, knock off your false accusation of Antaeus that he is uncivil. It looks to me that you are not conducting yourself in good faith here by deliberately dodging discussion. --Fahrenheit451 14:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, your debate technique consists only of ignoring the arguments against you and saying "lol." Clearly you cannot be reasoned with. A reasoning person would consider the arguments of both sides, then reformulate the original statement to account for all the information and opinions on the table. But refusing to listen to the valid points of others, dismissing them with little or no explanation as invalid, and ignoring them only makes you a fool. You had one response that approached coherence, but it doesn't matter whether R2-45 was considered "tech" or "policy" within Scientology, because the government and people outside Scientology will necessarily have a different definition of "policy." You go on to say that the Policy of today is to follow the law of the land, but that's not the topic of the article we're discussing, merely a way to derail the arguments against you. Look at Scientology's track record. Operation Snow White, the infiltration of government agencies and companies, for which 11 scientologists went to prison for conspiracy, among other crimes. The wrongful death of Lisa McPherson, which, contrary to popular belief, has not been settled. Operation Freakout, the nearly successful plan to frame Paulette Cooper for making bomb threats because she wrote critically of the Church of Scientology. I could go on, but I'll spare you. Now here's your problem, Terryeo: you cannot invalidate the crimes I just listed by saying "the documents are unsigned" or "Hubbard was joking lol," because the above crimes are all well documented with plenty of attention from the United States judicial system. When the founder of an organization that commits crimes like this "jokes" about shooting people, it MUST be taken seriously.AnonymousDavid (talk) 08:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Umm, do you realise that you're responding to something that was posted 18 months ago by an editor who was later banned and so can't respond to you? -- ChrisO (talk) 08:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Personal opinion here: I know how in-jokes work from watching other people... I think odds are good that first few times it was used it WAS a joke. It may have easily evolved into an actual order to commit murder. 23:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.255.187.32 (talk)

Footnote #1

Unfortunately, Footnote #1 references to a past newsgroup posting. From: lepton@panix.com (Mike O'Connor)

• Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology

Subject: Re: HUBBARD ORDERED MURDERS Date: Fri, 06 Mar 1998 09:25:22 -0500
Is the heading of that personal website's document. WP:RS clearly spells out, newsgroups are never citable as secondary sources. The citation should be removed. Terryeo 21:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I made the cites more direct, I think it's better now since there are convenient links to the whole material rather than small excerpts (people may want to read more about the subject). What do you think? Raymond Hill 18:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

No newsgroup postings should ever be used as secondary sources in any Wikipedia article. The reason I think that because WP:RS addresses the issue, has extensively discussed the issue and has made a guideline of it. The philosphy of NPOV as spelled out by WP:V and manifested for secondary sources is WP:RS. [6] references to a stored posting of a newsgroup on a personal website. No newsgroup or google group should ever be cited. Alt.Net.Scientology's posters are not only unattributable but they might all chant in unison, "L. Ron Hubbard made the moon into green cheese". Ha! I say, and Ha! again. Further, the references are inconsistantly done and poorly done. WP:CITE#Harvard_referencing tells how to do them. [2a] and [2b] reference to [3] which might be some part of a hand typed copy of some part of a newspaper article. Could you (or anyone) tell me where the newspaper article begins and where it ends and what part of that notebook looking webpage is newspaper article and what part isn't newspaper article and who created that newspaper article? It is not attributed. It has a quote by Hubbard at its head, this is unusual for a newspaper article. It doesn't read like a newspaper article, though some parts of it read like they might have been in a newspaper article. It is held on a personal website, Xenu.net. Xenu is so bad that Google no longer links to it (under normal conditions). I would say it would behoove wikipedia to find a better convenince link. [5] references to a poorly written attribution. Harvard referencing would be much cleaner and easier to understand. The book is "conveniently" linked to but its presentation is poorly formatted for the internet. It is 403 pages long but the reference to it is deep in its bowels. I think it would be wise to A) include the page number of the reference to it and B) find a better formatted "convenience link". Terryeo 10:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

In regards to Terryo's comment that Google no longer links to xenu.net "(under normal conditions)". As I'm sure that Terryeo is quite aware, Google doesn't link to certain specific things because of legal threats and copyright claims from the Church of Scientology (RTC) using portions of the DMCA in a questionable manner. AndroidCat 11:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The laws which you seem to object to are the very laws which protect the creators of publications and thus, provide that artists get rewarded for thier work. The Church has sometimes forged new pathways, especially in regards to the internet. But the Church has not been the only entity with the clout and laywers to protect the basic ideas of an artist earning a reward for his work, instead of his work being distributed for free, everywhere. Terryeo 18:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be wise to A) include the page number of the reference to it Then A) add your voice to those asking for Cite.php to be upgrade to allow per-invocation parameterization, and B) check the page source. Oh, and C) do try to stick to the truth, because "Xenu is so bad that Google no longer links to it" isn't. -- Antaeus Feldspar 13:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course the sequence of footnotes has changed. But why must it be I who points out obviously wrong reference to newsgroups? The editors who are engaging in discussion here understand Wikipedia's WP:RS well enough. All of you have done extensive discussion and sometimes rewrites of the guideline about newsgroups. If you wish to change wikipedia standards, WP:RS is there for you. In the meantime why not write articles according to concensus? This isn't alt.net.scientology, but a public presentation which many people would like to take some pride in. To cite an entire 300+ page book for a two sentence passage is plain bad editing. You lose readers that way. Terryeo 18:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

You know, Terryeo, if you really want answers to the questions you pose, you should try paying attention to the answers you get. Namely, if you had checked the page source, as you were already advised to do, you would know exactly which pages in the book contain the claim. At some future point when Cite.php allows sub-references, page numbers or chapter numbers can be added to individual references to a common work. Currently, however, Cite.php does not permit such sub-references. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, if you find better references, I will replace. For now, that's the best we have. I personally don't dispute the authenticity of the text there, although the quality of some HTML versions could be improved (like Messiah or Madman). If ever I drop by the national library, I may request a scan of the referenced portions, and give it to Mr. Heldal-Lund to provide it with the articles (and of course, you can contribute too.) Raymond Hill 20:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

If there is a particular subject or piece of data or data field you would like me to contribute, I would be glad to do so. I'm usually responsive about most anything. But those are books were written by people who did not understand what Hubbard was saying, though they are convinced they understood what Hubbard was saying. Terryeo 05:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Teyerro is incorrect to say that google no longer links to xenu.net, as he would find if he visited this link Lamuella (talk) 05:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Exteriorization

The article attempts to define a word used in Scientology. It says: Exteriorization, in Scientology, is the ability for the "thetan" (soul or true self) to leave the body, in other words: death

Exteriorization, 1. the state of the individual being outside his body. When this is done, the individual achieves a certainty that he is himself and not his body. 2. The phenomenon of being in a position in space dependent on only one's consideration, able to view from that space, bodies and the room, as it is. 3. the act of moving out of the body with or without full perception. Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary pg. 151, pub. Church of Scientology of California ISBN 0884040372

There is no special ability involved after a body dies. But the word Exteriorization does not mean death, it means, "exterior to the body". Terryeo 05:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, am I to understand that when Hubbard said R2-45 is "an enormously effective process for exteriorization but its use is frowned upon by this society at this time." it is your position he was not referring to exteriorization as a reference to death. Are you telling my that is what you believe? - Glen 08:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I am stating that the article mis-defines the term Exteriorization. Toward causing the term's use to be more understandable, I have provided 3 definitions, exactly quoted from the Tech Dictionary. The article presently states that exteriorization = death. I am stating that is not its meaning and providing 3 direct quotes which define what Exteriorization means (in Scientology). I am not telling you what I believe or what anyone should believe, but telling you the definition of the term, Exteriorization. I am doing that by quoting directly from the Tech Dictionary. If you like, I could provide more information about what Hubbard meant by "exteriorization", there are a number of technical bulletins and articles and Hubbard talked about it extensively. It doesn't mean death is the point I'm making here. It has a particular meaning which is not "death".

Actually, Glen, don't forget that in Hubbardspeak, what you describe would not be death, because the Thetan/soul is alive and the body doesn't matter. And Hubbard used to term "Exteriorization" inconsistently - there are Exteriorization exercises for leaving the body temporarily, but the BIG ultimate Exteriorization is, of course, to leave it permanently. However, Terryeo's statement "There is no special ability involved after a body dies" is also incorrect. wikipediatrix

It would actually be easier to communicate with you in this area if you understand what Hubbard meant. I am not attempting to cause anyone to believe a certain event can happen. I am simply attempting to cause the article to present what Hubbard meant. A reader can undertand what Hubbard meant without agreeing it was so, and without believing it was possible. But exteriorization = death is not what Hubbard was talking about, not what he meant. Terryeo 20:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to make this point. When an editor introduced in other words: death into the article, that editor introduced original research which is not cited, which is unattributable and which Hubbard did not say. That tiny phrase, in other words: death was not spoken by Hubbard, is not present in Scientology Tech and is OR (WP:NOR) on the part of an editor. I am again, not telling anyone what to believe or disbelieve but stating what Wikipedia policy has been ignored by an editor, ignored so a hot topic, an POV of view can be presented. So, if that tiny phrase comes out of there, if Wikipedia policy is followed, if Wikipedia guidelines are implemented, then its going to be a Wikipedia article. And, additionally, if there is some question of what I understand (not believe, but understand) Hubbard's statements to mean, I'm happy to respond. No problem. Terryeo 21:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

So basically, Terryeo, just as "being at cause over MEST" actually means being able to buy a book from a store or mortar a brick, when Hubbard said that the people he had named as "Enemies of mankind, the planet, and all life" should be exteriorized by Auditing Process R2-45, he meant for them to be shot in the head... but not in, y'know, a death-inducing way? -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Feldspar, it cheers me greatly that you exhibit a sense of humor. lol. Terryeo 09:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

As a trivial point of information, "being at cause over MEST" means glancing at your watch to see what time it is, picking up a pencil so that its operating end is in operation, pressing the button on the TV remote which causes the effect you want to create. That's what "cause over MEST means". Of course only within the Church of Scientology could such plainspeak exist, you think? heh. Terryeo 18:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a good thing we have you around to "clarify" such matters, Terryeo. It's doubleplusgood that we have your plainspeak to help us goodthink. I'd write you a thank-you letter, except I haven't reached the state of Operating Thetan where I become at "knowing and willing cause over life, thought, matter, energy, space and time", so I can't pick up the pencil in such as a way as to put its operating end in operation. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I see. If I pick a leaf from a tree and shred it, have I been cause over life? If I first choose to think of cake for desert, and then think of cake for desert, have I been cause over thought? If I pick up a watermelon and drop it from a tall building, have I been cause over matter? If I throw a switch, turning on an electric eraser, have I been cause over energy? If I close a door, have I been cause over space? If I run to the store instead of walking, have I been cause over time? Plainspeek, Scientology intends to be helpful to people. People attest, 1000s and 1000s of people attest Scientology is helpful. 1 + 1 = Plainspeek. Terryeo 15:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

If what they're attesting to is that being "at cause over MEST" allows them to do exactly the same things that anyone can do, even if they hadn't spent thousands of dollars on auditing and courses could do, they can "attest Scientology is helpful" all they like, but I for one ain't buyin' it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, that is the meaning, the most basic and commonly understood meaning of "cause over MEST". If you asked me, that is the definition I would give, I believe (that word) that if you asked any Scientologist, that is the definition they would give you. I further understand you have re-stated again the solidity of your opinion in the matter. Terryeo 05:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

External Links

Normally, most articles place External Links as a section at the end of the article, after the information of the article. Notes and References are part of the information of this article. External Links, in most articles, are placed after the information of the article. Terryeo 05:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I fixed it, thanks for pointing it out. Raymond Hill 23:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Xenu.net / L.A. Times reference

Okay, it is my understanding that the information was actually gotten from Xenu.net / a google group, not the L.A. Times. (See Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources#unrecorded radio talk shows.) If I am mistaken about this, please accept my apologies. However, I changed the reference to show Xenu.net as the publisher (with credit given to the L.A. Times as the original publisher).

As xenu.net got the information from a google group, and the google group is not a reliable source, Xenu.net is not a reliable source on this either. While in-sentence attribution somewhat compensates for this, in the long run it would probably be better either to find the L.A. Times article and cite that, keeping xenu.net a convenience link (note - there is currently no consensus on WT:RS regarding convenience links), or to remove the information.

— Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 00:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

If the copy of the article on Xenu.net is questionable, the thing to do is remove the convience link to it, not say that xenu.net is the publisher. There does seem to be a mis-formated cite in there that's messing up the references with multiple listings, but preview doesn't display with the error. I wish it was possible to define refs other than embedded in the text. AndroidCat 02:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Per WP:CITE#Intermediate_sources:_State_where_you_got_it, it does matter if the editor looking at the source looked at the L.A. Times or Xenu.net. (And, per WP:RS, one of these is significantly more reliable than the other.) The formatting of the reference did not make this clear, and based on the discussion linked above, I believed the editor who used the source looked at Xenu.net. Removing the link to Xenu.net, or specifically labelling it a convenience link, only makes it look like the editor did in fact look at the L.A. Times, which might not be true. Clarification from the person who added it would of course be helpful. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 12:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

What actually seems to happen is this. Some dude in LA reads the LA Times, sees an article and in good faith hand types the article's content into the "I hate Scientology" version of google groups. He gives it his best shot, okay, notwithstanding that his interest is POV. Then Xenu.net picks it up out of the google group as a hand typed replication with nothing about copyright protection or anything. (or some editor who has access to Xenu.net's posting does this). Now we have the LA Times article archived via a google group on Xenu.net. Next, an editor here sees a chance to secondarily source some bit of information and uses the "conveninece link" to the LA Times (no copyright notice, no attribution to the author usually) and cites it here. This is a bad loop, don't you see? It depends on some unknown and unknowable typist duplicating a newspaper which then gets shipped around on T1 lines until it is archived at a personal website. Terryeo 09:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The thing to do is for one or more editors to go to a library or online service archive and verify it. Of course, once they do, we'll just have to take their word for it unless every reader wants to do the same. They could put the exact text up somewhere, but then they'd be the "unknown typist" barring a complete scan of the story (and images can be manipulated), and where do they put it up? Usenet? No. A web site? No, too personal. A web site owned by a corporation, but mainly operated by an individual? Still too personal. An organization? Like CAN, LMT... Nope, they usually become lawsuit-magnets for some reason. The online archive would probably be a for-pay service, so that's out. Have I missed any branches of that tree? (Other than the happy occurance where the publication makes a decades old narrow-interest story available online.) Oh yes, the copyvio claim if it's an exact reproduction and the rejection of commented fair-use versions.

BTW, I love the loaded term "hand-typed" that Terryeo uses. It conjures up images of medieval monks pecking away at teletypes. AndroidCat 11:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and it is an accurate description when a document is not a purchased PDF or other whole document. Terryeo 15:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

And how do you think newspapers get electronic copies of old stories from before wordprocessors? Feed it through OCR software? And do you think that they assign their top-notch typists and proof-readers to go through the back issue crypts? AndroidCat 00:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the difference between a person whose whole universe is opposing Scientology in every way possible, typing a document and a hired typist whose daily bread is earned by accuracy of reproduction. Perhaps you don't. Perhaps it doesn't occur to you that the meaning of a sentence can change by including a comma where it doesn't belong, or mis-including a comma. Even a capitalization can change the meaning of a sentence. A newsgroup's "reporter" would not enter such a message unless he meant to put Sceintology into a bad light. If the standards you suggest we freely use, were applied accross all of Wikipedia, Wikipedia would no longer be an encyclopedic effort. Terryeo 00:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Good example of propaganda operations directed against wikipedia by the "guys who might cooperate".--Fahrenheit451 14:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

You don't understand. You continually present that I am attempting to harm these articles in some manner. You continually attempt to present that I am on one side and everyone else is on another side. That is not the actual situation. You frequently imply that I'm not a real person, that I am a representative of something you find distasteful, that is not the actual situation. I am not attempting to create a Scientology website here, do you understand? I have spoken of my effort many times. What is it, do you require an opponenet all of the time, what's the story ? Terryeo 00:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The basis of this is actually WP:NPOV, all published points of view. And WP:V, the idea being that if a lot of information is published which presents a point of view, then that point of view is easily substantiated. Terryeo 15:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The question is whether the editor who added the source to Wikipedia actually looked at the L.A. Times, or the reproduction(s) from the website(s) (which are unreliable publishers). If they did look at the L.A. Times, there is no problem. However, if the person who put the article on Xenu.net (which cites the google group) and the person who added it to Wikipedia are the same (is that what happened, Terryeo?) this is unlikely. If they didn't, then, as AndroidCat says, someone should check the L.A. Times. This of course will require more effort than internet-surfing, and may be inconvenient for some editors, and take time to happen. In the meantime, we could make the article honest to the current source of the information being an unreliable publisher by re-formatting the reference, adding {{Verify credibility}}, and making the attribution specific. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 14:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely ! If the editor who added the source looked at the L.A. Times or the website and reproduced himself, what he observed and reproduced it verbatim with exact punctuation and so on, then his edit falls into one area. But if he the reproduction left out a comma, it falls into another area. This is simply too much for us to ask Wikipedia readers to trust. While in theory it is possible, it is too much to trust. In fact, all of the people involved in the transition from the physical newspaper to an archived newsgroup message have contributed thier anti-Scientology point of view in their actions of duplication. It is just too much to ask. Terryeo 15:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

If the link is just a convenience link, and not an indirect source, then it doesn't need to be trusted. So long as the information in the article was verified by looking at the original source. — Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 16:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I love it ! Then we should write WP:RS so that indirect sources may not be used unless they include a citation to the original source of information. And not just a statement such as, radio broacast of Jun 13, 1980 by RTCT, Seattle, WA, but a way or manner by which a person could find a reliable copy of the original information? Terryeo 21:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, there are some occasions when the non-original publisher may still meet the requirements of "reliable and reputable". But aside from that, I agree that indirect sources should not be considered to meet WP:RS, although I have no objection to using them as convenience links provided at least one editor has checked the original source. (After that editor, you can either trust that editor, or go through the inconvenience of checking the original source yourself.) So, yay! By the way, somehow I got the Los Angeles Times reference and the Maclean's reference mixed up. I don't actually have any reason to believe that the editor who added the Los Angeles Times reference didn't look at the Los Angeles Times - but I do doubt whether the editor who added the Maclean's reference checked Maclean's (see our conversation on WT:RS. In any case, I found four search results for the L.A. Times on what looked like an official archive (copyright notices "Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission", scanned PDFs that you have to pay for, free abstracts, not to mention that latimes.com links to it). So if you don't trust the editor who added it, you can either pay $3.95 for one of them, or $10.95 for all four (or cheaper per article if you have a larger subscription). (Or, of course, you can go to a public archive near you, if there is one.) I couldn't find any official online archive for Maclean's that goes back to 1974, though. (My search results on the Maclean's website seemed to only go back to 2000.) But I'm sure AndroidCat will find it given time. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 02:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The Macleans issue cover looks interesting. I've added it my list for my next library reference hike. AndroidCat 00:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Does no one notice that the link to xenu.net includes not only what is purported to be a newspaper article, but takes a quote from Hubbard's 40 million published words which was used in quite another context and presents it juxtaposed against a newspaper article? Terryeo 16:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the Captain Bligh bit has no place here and I will remove it after appropriate time for comment. --Justanother 16:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Mis-Use of the term "thetan"

The artice begins, The process of R2-45 specifically pertains to shooting the target with a Colt .45 pistol, causing the victim's "thetan" (soul or spirit) to leave the body (exteriorization). The term, thetan is misued. As stated the victim's thetan is something that he has and by golly, when he gets shot through the bean his thetan pops out of his body. That's what it says, The victim's thetan leaves the body. This editing mistake was created by User:Glen_S editing difference. His edit summary states rephrased. What he rephrased was, Exteriorization, in Scientology, is the ability for the "thetan" (soul or true self) to leave the body, in other words: death. Both of these statements are wrong. The present statement is wrong because it is a misuse of the word, "thetan". The earlier statement was wrong because it included the phrase, in other words, death which was not what Hubbard said and most certainly was not what Hubbard meant and is unciteable and unreferenceable by Hubbard's words.

• Solution. Quote Hubbard's words. Don't introduce a word more and don't leave out words. Quote Hubbard's words. This will cause the article to be accurate and factual and editors will not have to understand the terms which are used by Hubbard to create articles about these things. If an editor actually wishes to understand the word Thetan, that article is there to read. As the article's words are presently in place, a reader is immediately introduced, the editors of this article are unable to use a defined Scientology word. Terryeo 21:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Captain Bligh

Can someone please tell me the point of putting the "Captain Bligh" line in there. It has nothing to do with R2-45, does it? Are we trying Hubbard here? I think the article speaks for itself and that line serves no legitimate purpose. --Justanother 03:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

MacLean

If you read the MacLean article you will see that I have presented a truer version of what was said by the Scientologist. --Justanother 13:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

hmmm.... deja vu....

User:Justanother left this bizarre message on my talk page: "Wikipediatrix, please do NOT treat my good-faith edits on R2-45 as vandalism. If you have something to say put it up on the talk page and we can bounce it around as I did with "Captain Bligh". I am totally willing to work with others and for consensus. Thank you." And yet the word "vandalism" has not crossed my lips. And shortly after he criticizes me for an "improper reversion", he goes and reverts the page himself. User:Justanother, why do you think you can revert the page, but no one else should without consulting you first? You do not WP:OWN this article. I gave perfectly good reason in my edit summary for my changes, which were NOT a reversion but a mix of elements from several different editor's versions. wikipediatrix 14:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I left that message to remind you of what WP:REVERT actually, well, what it actually SAYS.:

"Reverting should be used primarily for fighting vandalism."

If I make a good-faith edit and you object to a specific part of it then post your SPECIFIC objection here and the community can hash it out. STOP treating my good-faith edits as vandalism. Funny that you should accuse me of EXACTLY what you are doing. I am editing, you are "defending" and attempting to WP:OWN. --Justanother 14:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Nope. As I said, my edit is a collection of elements from several different editor's versions. Yours is just your own recently-created stuff that you seek to hammer in there without consensus. If consensus here decides I am wrong in my edit, believe me, they'll quickly say so, and that'll be that. But you alone are not consensus. You are apparently reverting to your version for no other reason than that it is your version. I have stated in my edit summaries my reasons for removing it - namely, it contains false information (my copy of the book doesn't have the quote in all caps) and your version needlessly removed important info that doesn't fit your POV. :wikipediatrix 15:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Both Wikipediatrix and Feldspar have, believe me, a long history of "reverting vandalism" when it comes to someone (like me) who knows the actual subject and actually edits to produce actual information instead of slightly mistated statements. For example See my posting about, regards "mis-use of the word 'thetan'". For months the two editors reverted my edits when I correctly made really tiny corrections which removed mis-statements like "causing the victim's thetan to leave". In that case above it could be stated, "causing the victim to leave". I did a lot of that, Wikipediatrix and Feldspar, neither understand the language, reverted me with edit summaries such as "rv POV", "rv vandalism", etc. etc. Then, when pressed, wikpediatrix has tradiationally refused to discuss the issue. Recently wikipediatrix has dissmised discussion about references with, WP:RS is "just a guideline". I'm saying this because User:Justanother expects to meet good faith and to work with editors. His edits are obviously not vandalism and it is inappropriate to treat his edits collectively with anon editors who insert "Tom is Gay" and such silliness. Terryeo 16:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

"Both Wikipediatrix and Feldspar have, believe me, a long history of "reverting vandalism" when it comes to someone (like me) who knows the actual subject and actually edits to produce actual information instead of slightly mistated statements." Ah, so removing information that comes from a verifiable, reliable source on the pretext that it could have come by way of a personal website, even though it didn't and you made no attempts whatsoever to check your hasty assumption, is "editing to produce actual information"? Removing a reference to a verifiable, reliable source on the pretext that you can't figure out how a paragraph that ends "(hence the volcano reference on the cover of Dianetics)" (a paragraph which in fact gets reproduced specifically for your benefit) relates to the volcano on the cover of Dianetics -- that's suddenly "editing to produce actual information"? Inserting your own personal opinion that "the publisher of the book apparently feels it sells books" well after you have asserted to others easily a dozen times how an insertion of a private theory like that is original research -- in your "reality", that's now "editing to produce actual information"? Requesting that certain statements be backed up with reference to verifiable, reliable sources and then removing those references when you get them -- that's "editing to produce actual information"? Of course, asserting to Justanother that you were never doing anything in the least bit wrong when you got reverted not only paints a portrait of you as a lonely lawful crusader against a corrupt cabal, but develops traffic, you see? However, the problem is it does not match the facts. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Update: Justanother has just violated the three-revert rule, and still has yet to respond to the actual points of contention I have with this edit he is hell-bent on pushing. wikipediatrix 15:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I did not violate WP:3RR but I certainly think you do. Regularly. By misusing revert to protect pages that you are attempting to WP:OWN. You seem to see your role here as one of "gatekeeper", not as a contributing editor. You seem to think that all edits must pass your review. --Justanother 15:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Pot, kettle, black. The history page to this article stands as proof. wikipediatrix 15:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it does indeed. It shows that I edit and contribute while you "protect" and WP:OWN. --Justanother 15:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

That's the situation as I see it too. Wikipediatrix and several editors refuse to follow guidelines, communicate together in several ways to keep a shoulder to shoulder stance critical of Scientology. So then, instead of the information which comprises these subjects being presented, the controversy the words of these subject restimulate are presented. I have worked with Wikipediatrix and the several editors who WP:OWN these articles. User:Justanother deserves more respect than to be reverted as a vandal. Terryeo 16:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Is September's policy of the month WP:OWN? This is the same tired argument referencing yet another policy. --Davidstrauss 23:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

My recent edits

Although I explained my edits as I went, let me recap them here. I welcome comments.

The MacLean article is cited to present some imagined contradiction in what the Church says of the process but there is no contradiction. The church says it refers to shooting someone and it is a joke or jest. Read the MacLean article.

The original article slightly implies that recent revisions of the book COHA are perhaps different from earlier versions on this but it is just the same as the first edition and what is important is that it was included in 1954 and how it was described.

1954 was wrong, it was 1952.

It reads better if presented chronologically; 1952 to 1954, and logically; it is about shooting then here is what the CoS says.

That is it, a better and truer article I think and I think I defended that. Please let me know what you think. --Justanother 15:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, we have read the Maclean's article, Justanother. I must point out that it doesn't say quite what you claim it does. The statement by the Church of Scientology spokesman doesn't say that R2-45 is "a joke or jest", but that the name was "given in jest", and he may have been trying to say that the description of it as an "auditing process" was also part of the joke.

However, even if we had an absolutely clear, unambiguous statement saying "R2-45 is completely and totally and utterly a joke", even a statement to that effect from L. Ron Hubbard himself... I'm afraid that wouldn't be the end of the matter. Hubbard gave direct orders for Sea Org members to actually use "Auditing Process R2-45" in the "RACKETS EXPOSED" Ethics Order of 1968-03-06. No one has suggested that Hubbard was in the least bit joking about any other portion of that order. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

However unfortunate for the point of view who hopes to crucify religion, your purported - have - once - been - issued, "Ethics Order" is not citeable, it being an unpublished sort of privately distibuted information. It simply doesn't meet WP:V at all, nor WP:NPOV's requirement that all of Wikipedia's information be published information. It isn't published, it wasn't published. That some beanbrain stole a copy of it (Or maybe created a copy of it, who knows) and posted it on a newsgroup, which was then "archived" onto a personal website does not make it worthy of inclusion. Tsk, tsk. Terryeo 20:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand that you have entered an objection, Terry (thus developing traffic, you see?) However unfortunate for you, Terryeo, your objection is factually incorrect, and you would have known that if you had in fact read the article -- or do you not bother reading the articles anymore before you try to make big grand pronouncements about what they should and shouldn't contain? -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Roy Wallis, "The Road to Total Freedom", page 154, as the article already says. Another frivolous complaint, I'm afraid. -- ChrisO 12:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Then why not be curteous enough to spell out for the reader of the article that which you have spelled out for me, here ? citing a whole book for an information on a single page is simply not good referencing, see WP:CITE Terryeo 17:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand that you have communicated that you are unable to find the page number which is there, Terryeo. Perhaps with sufficient effort you could look and find it there, just as with sufficient effort you could verify a citation consisting of the name of the largest newspaper in America, a headline for an article therein, and the date of that article. Of course, whining instead that it does not follow the style guideline WP:CITE would instead advance a goal of wasting other editors' time in an effort to keep the encyclopedia from presenting useful information that people of a certain POV and the organization they belong to nevertheless would like to surpress. You see? -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

You've made a personal comment. But my post does not make a personal comment. My post points out that we could be more courteous to our article's readers by specifing the page number, rather than giving them the whole damn book to thumb through in order to find a 1/2 page reference. Your use of "whining" nonwithstanding, your developing additional traffic aside, my post is about how we can be more courteous (and helpful) to our readers. Happy Ho Ho's Terryeo 20:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you think that my acknowledging that you have communicated that you could not locate the page number, which any reader can in fact read without having to "thumb through" the "whole damn book", was a personal comment? I know it could not have been my simple observation that making petty complaints is a form of Dev-T, because you swore up and down that you had in no way tried to imply that a particular Wikipedia editor had been trying to increase his personal website traffic by ending a sentence observing that editor's action with "thus increasing his personal website traffic, you see?" You swore up and down that you were only commenting on the result of his edits, not the motivation behind his edits. I don't know why you think when I make a simple observation about the results of whining and making petty complaints that I am somehow making a "personal comment". -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

<undent>Apparently some part of "courtesy to the reader" can not enter the discussion, although this it the third time I've mentioned how we can better serve our readers. Terryeo 22:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

It's spelled "courtesy". You're welcome. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)