Talk:R2-45

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Scientology (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is supported by WikiProject Scientology, a collaborative effort to help develop and improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scientology. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on Scientology-related topics. See WikiProject Scientology and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Stop removing tags[edit]

User:Thimbleweed, who has a definite bias against Scientology and apparently against myself, has removed the tags. Do not do this without discussion. That is what talk pages are for. And also do not add images unless proper discussion has been had before. Thanks. Laval (talk) 08:06, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your problem is with the current image. It's a neutral, free image of the main person related to this issue, and it was discussed on the talk page. I've put it back. --Slashme (talk) 10:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Why is there such an insistence on an image for a disputed article about a disputed claim? First, it was a gun, and you pushed for that until others decided it was ridiculously biased. Now, you are pushing for an image of Hubbard. Why? Are we to put images of Hubbard on every single on Scientology and its many controversies? It's about bias. And this is just one more example of such, no matter how you wish to deny it, just like constantly removing legitimate maintenance tags. Laval (talk) 13:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Furthermore, that picture is from 1950. When does the claim for the origin of R2-45 come from? 1950? 1952? How does a picture totally unrelated to the subject matter at hand have any relevance to this particular article? If we writing an article on some aspect of Islam, a claim that Muhammad ordered the murder of so-and-so, would you still be pushing for a picture or drawing of Muhammad, no matter what connection or not it had to that particular claim by Islamophobes? Exactly how does this picture, from 1950 (when Hubbard didn't even write the book in question), improve this article? Can you demonstrate that? Laval (talk) 13:57, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
In addition, why that particular picture of Hubbard? There are myriad pictures of Hubbard available here that we can discuss if there was consensus to include such a picture, which I disagree with, but for the sake of argument. The fact that you would insist on sticking that picture back, or any picture, or that any editor would do so with such an article currently under dispute and under severe sanctions reeks of bias. Are you able to understand that? Laval (talk) 14:00, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
[[For those uninvolved, the picture was added by User:Feoffer [1] without prior discussion, and who has a clear history of bias against the subject in question, Scientology.]] Laval (talk) 14:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
[[A further clarification for those uninvolved, this article concerns a fringe claim about a quote that Scientology, for its part, claims is deliberately taken out of context and misinterpreted by those opposed to Scientology. The situation with this article is not unlike claims by Jews, Christians, Muslims, and others about quotes taken out of context from their respective holy books and such by their opponents -- one need only look at an article like Islamophobia to find the most recent examples of this. There is not a single shred of concrete evidence to back up anything claimed by this article, from any viewpoint. Has it ever been proven that Hubbard ordered others to be murdered and/or that this was ever carried out? No. In other words, taking into account Wikipedia policy, this article is not encyclopedic and at best warrants brief mention in an article like Scientology controversies.]] Laval (talk) 14:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm disappointed to see that you've gone back to this very unproductive and unnecessarily argumentative approach to the article. It didn't do Sfarney any favours and it won't do any for you, either. It should be obvious to you that consensus is considerably against you regarding the tags; now that Sfarney is gone, you are literally the only person arguing for them, but you haven't identified a single statement or sentence that you consider problematic, nor have you proposed any changes. That's not constructive editing. Your opposition to the picture is frankly frivolous - no, it's not exactly contemporaneous but it's close enough (within 2 or 4 years) that it's usable. As an aside, while there may be "myriads" of pictures of Hubbard I know from personal experience that there are hardly any in the public domain - the vast majority are either licensed to various copyright holders or to the Church of Scientology, which has been systematically buying the copyrights of pictures of Hubbard in order to control their use. This one and a handful of others from the Los Angeles Daily News from 1950 are the only ones I know of that are verifiably in the public domain.
I've removed the tags as you have no consensus to include them. Please don't restore them as that will put you in violation of the current arbitration sanctions and will earn you a block or topic ban. I also don't propose to rehash all the arguments about the article as you appear to be unpersuadable and you seem to have no interest in proposing specific changes. I suggest that instead of going round in circles yet again we should take a different approach and get external input. Feoffer had the right idea when s/he posted a GA review request, but unfortunately that was sabotaged by Sfarney. I'll seek a fresh review and we will hopefully get some comments from an uninvolved reviewer which will help to take the article forward. It won't happen overnight (there is often a delay of a few weeks) but it should help to resolve the deadlock, assuming that you are willing to abide by the reviewer's comments. In the meantime I suggest that we should all find something more constructive to do than arguing over this article. Prioryman (talk) 16:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
It's clear at this point that after your victory in getting Sfarney banned you're looking to get me banned. Fine. Get me banned. But your claims of "consensus" are false. What you have are a bunch of flagrantly anti-Scientology editors here ganging up on a couple of editors trying to do the right thing. But get me banned, in spite of all my comments above. You're not here to build an encyclopedia. You're just here to impose your anti-Scientology agenda, remove tags in spite of the fact that the article is not in line with Wikipedia policy at all. Have your way. You win buddy. Laval (talk) 16:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
You can revert me again if you so wish, like I've said, you win. Go ahead and get me topic banned. It's clear that neutral articles on Scientology are impossible to achieve on Wikipedia. I've made one last ditch effort, but ultimately you've bullied me out. You and the anti-Scientology gang can have your way from here on out without having to worry about the likes of me and other editors who actually give a damn about WP:NPOV, WP:RS, etc. Laval (talk) 16:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm genuinely sorry that you feel bullied. There's certainly no intention on my part, and I'm sure on the other editors' parts, to do that to you. The problem has been that your approach to editing this article has been consistently unconstructive. You have to be willing to propose actual changes, respect consensus and engage with other editors to negotiate an acceptable compromise, which you haven't done. If you took a different approach to editing I'm sure you would find it a much less stressful experience. Please take a break from this article and focus on getting better, without subjecting yourself to unnecessary stress. Prioryman (talk) 17:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
...a definite bias against Scientology... No. Just because you do not agree with the verified facts of the issues here, you don't get to pretend that the truth about Scientology is some how a "bias." If you think there is something wrong with the article, point to it and explain how it is wrong. TrainsOnTime (talk) 20:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Need to straighten out GA nomination[edit]

The current (and apparently first) GA nomination by Feoffer was opened on April 30; a Talk:R2-45/GA1 file was deleted later that day, presumably because it was opened in error at some point.

The Talk:R2-45/GA2 review page was opened by Sfarney on May 28. However, as someone who was actively editing the article (over a dozen edits) in the month prior to that point, Sfarney is not eligible to review the article. I think Prioryman was trying to address this problem earlier today, when he edited the WP:GAN page directly to put the nomination back into the reviewing pool; that didn't fix the matter, since the Legobot rebuilds the page every 20 minutes based on article talk pages, including this one, and his edits were overwritten by the bot.

What I plan to do is to have the ineligible review page deleted, and start over at GA1. However, the article's stability is questionable—stability is a GA criterion—so it might be better to withdraw the nomination for the moment (though you could hope instead that the article becomes stable before a new reviewer is found). You also might want to have the Scientology Wikiproject reassess the article now: if they still think it's C-level rather than B-level, then it's unlikely to be considered GA quality. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Adding: I hadn't realized that Sfarney had just been topic-banned. I'll adjust the GA nominee template now, and nominate Talk:R2-45/GA2 for deletion. Apologies for the confusion. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, BlueMoonset. Prioryman (talk) 11:54, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Was Sfarney finally sanctioned and his behavior stopped for good? I know at least one editor had had enough of his behavior and unwatched the page here. If he's been banned, I will ask Demotclese to watch again TrainsOnTime (talk) 20:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, he is topic banned from Scientology for one year. The WordsmithTalk to me 22:28, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I saw a comment on BB's Facebook page mentioning that. I've Watch Listed the page again now that the offending editor's nonsense is no longer going to clog by morning's Wikipedia rituals. :) Damotclese (talk) 16:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
(talk) -- I saw BB on Facebook mentioning this, thanks. Also check the Wig Wag page, a recent edit was made which I'm not informed enough about to confirm that it's golden. This extant page has a minor bit of grammar I thought was wrong but it appears to be used a lot on the East Coast of the United States, not so much on the West. :) Thanks. Damotclese (talk) 16:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Abusive editor sfarney banned or not?[edit]

Why is the editor sfarney still posting "Dev-T" to other editor's Talk: pages? Wasn't he banned? I see he's still trying to drag other editor's in to wasting even more time. I unwatched R2-45 specifically to avoid more wasted time, only to re-watch and now I see the supposedly-banned editor once again trying to waste my valuable time. Was he banned or not? Thanks. Damotclese (talk) 00:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

He was topic banned from Scientology articles a month ago, with a ban that also covered "participating in any Wikipedia process relating to those articles." He attempted to seek arbitration in the matter, which was removed with the apparent consensus that if he tries it again the consequences will at least be an indefinite topic ban if not a site ban. That issue is resolved, though whether or not it will evolve into something else remains to be seen. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Okay, thank you, I think the posting in my Talk: was obsolete, I've been working on other projects and only just saw it. I guess I should pay better attention but it's not as if Wikipedia is a priority with any of us. :) I guess the best way to handle abusive editors is to ignore them, politely and professionally. Any way thanks! Damotclese (talk) 03:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh, wait, I see that he posted to my Talk: page just yesterday, in violation of his topic ban.

-- Arbitration --
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Scientology R2-45: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide guide to arbitration and the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Arbitration proceedings Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use. -- user:sfarney Grammar's Li'l Helper user_talk:sfarney Talk 06:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

So it looks like it's not an old, obsolete posting to my Talk: but yet another annoying attempt to waste people's time. I removed it from my Talk: page but maybe I should not have so that we can see about whether it's time to increase the scope of the ban for this abusive user. I'll go revert my own edit on my own Talk page so anyone who wants to see his latest violation may do so. Thanks! Damotclese (talk) 03:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I see that user Sfarney did the same to my talk as well as so several others. This is obviously a Scientology person trying his best to annoy even people who are not involved in whatever his ideology problems are. I am requesting a perm ban for the user as well as for his laval sock account. BiologistBabe (talk) 23:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
  • When Sfarney opened the arbitration case he was required to notify everyone whom he named there, so the talk page notices were perfectly correct. He's already been warned by the administrators there that opening that case was a violation of his topic ban, and he was pointed at a more suitable venue to appeal the ban.
  • Calling Laval a sock of Sfarney is a serious allegation, most likely not true, and certainly contravenes WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF.
  • I think permabanning either of these two editors would be a mistake. They certainly have a CoI about Scientology, but that doesn't mean that they can't contribute sensibly to Wikipedia in general. --Slashme (talk) 07:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Just so long as the user refrains from wasting editor's time, that's all that matters. Thanks for your comments, I had not known he was allowed to post yet more entries on Talk: pages. After a few years it gets somewhat annoying. :) Thanks! We get to move on. Damotclese (talk) 15:41, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:R2-45/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs) 16:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


I've an interest in NRM-themed articles on Wikipedia, so I'll have a crack at reviewing this one. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Clearly, a lot of good work has gone here. However, I'm not convinced that it quite meets GA criteria for a number of reasons.

  • The article doesn't quite meet "1b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections". The lede is there to summarise the content of the article, and at present it doesn't quite do that. Rather, it includes referenced quotations which do not actually appear elsewhere in the article, and doesn't then offer a summary of the other sections of the article body. This would need rectification if the article is to be promoted to GA status. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
  • More seriously, a lot of the sourcing here isn't in keeping with what Wikipedia requires. Whereas an academic study of a subject can use and cite primary sources (original lectures, a promotional video etc), Wikipedia can't. Wikipedia has to rely largely on secondary and tertiary sources]. So, if we have an academic publication saying "In a 1961 lecture, he said" then we can cite that academic, secondary source. What we can't really do is cite an (unpublished) original source, but that's what is going on a lot here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I'll leave some time for the nominator to respond, but if these issues cannot be resolved then I'm afraid that this will have to be a fail. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, the extant article has been reviewed and reviewed and reviewed, argued by one or perhaps two editors, and found to be reasonable and encyclopedic enough for all other editors -- and dozens have passed through and commented over the years.
The current version of the article is the best so far, so I don't see the need for yet another formal review unless an editor can find something that's actually wrong, undue weight, some other guideline that the article exceeds the bounds on. Damotclese (talk) 16:12, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

It's been a week and I haven't had a response from the original nominator. No changes have been made to the article to deal with the areas in which it fails to meet the GA criteria. For that reason I am going to fail it at this time, but that shouldn't negate the good work that has gone into it thus far. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Literal meaning acknowledged by CoS[edit]

Hi Damotclese, my goal with the introduction of this article is to make it clear to the reader who says what about R2-45. The Church's position is very relevant, and it's supported by reliable sources. There is plenty of material in the article to show the whole picture, but just saying in the lede that it's "a meaning acknowledged by the Church" is not balanced, neutral reporting. --Slashme (talk) 18:41, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Slashme's wording improves the article. Feoffer (talk) 18:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)