Talk:Volunteer Ministers/Archive 1

Commendation by the New York Fire Department

It would be good to get a non scientology.org reference for this commendation, so as to remove any chance of it looking like self promotion on the part of Scientology. I can't find one though. SweenyTod 04:39, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the below data that some kind person removed from this page. Rather than sowing seeds to try and belittle the volunteer ministers, check out the facts before you bother saying anything. Not exactly a NPOV Sweenytod.

The New York Times reported in Sept 2001 that "though many religious organizations are supplying assistance for the disaster, few are as well organized as the Scientologists, or as evident at the scene. When many volunteers were asked to clear out over the weekend, the Scientologists were allowed to stay, working alongside groups like the American Red Cross and the Salvation Army."

Nuview 20:00, 31 August 2005 (PST)

Please discuss edits

It is interesting that many people are editing this article and removing eachothers edits, but there is not much discussion.

As part of a revert by Modemac[1], why was this removed: The New York Times reported in Sept 2001 that "though many religious organizations are supplying assistance for the disaster, few are as well organized as the Scientologists, or as evident at the scene. When many volunteers were asked to clear out over the weekend, the Scientologists were allowed to stay, working alongside groups like the American Red Cross and the Salvation Army."

--AI 13:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree AI and thanks for pointing it out. There was no reason to remove this section and I am putting it back in. Also unless someone has some valid objection, I plan to remove the section that talks about this so-called documented email from some "lieutenant." This could have been made up by anyone. The volunteer ministers are a group of self-less people who give up their money-earning time, their family time, etc. to go and help people less fortunate than themselves. I hope some of these people who are busy criticizing the volunteer ministers in their edits are out there donating their time and money to people in need?

--Nuview 19:30, 31 August 2005 (PST)

There is still no credible source given for this “documented email,” which anyone could have made up. --Nuview 22:36, 26 Apr 2006 (PST)

There is nothing being put in the discussion – I invited dialog on this point a year ago, no one said anything. However, Stupid Fool now just changes my edits stating that the email is verified, giving no verifiable reference, just stating it as though it were fact. I am removing it again. Who is Stupid Fool anyway? He just shows up in April out of the blue – somebody’s sock puppet perhaps? --Nuview 18:12 16 May 2006 (PST)

Updated the recent mission paragraph

I added the Volunteer Ministers mission in New Orleans in the wake of hurricane Katrina.--HistoricalPisces 18:05, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Series Template

Removing this Series Template from across the Scientology related pages. This is not correct usage of Series Templates per the guidelines. They were set up to show the history of countries and were different articles form a sequential series. This is not the case with the Scientology pages, which are random pages on different topics – not a sequence of any kind. Wiki’s definition of a series is: “In a general sense, a series is a related set of things that occur one after the other (in a succession) or are otherwise connected one after the other (in a sequence).” Nuview, 14:50, 10 January 2006 (PST)

Citing Wikipedia Editors as references

Chris Owen User:ChrisO is cited as a Reference. His article at [2] is cited as a source for this article. The link appropriately attributes his article to him. However, I would urge some caution to include Chris Owen articles as references. Perhaps as exterior links or as "further reading" his contributions to the anti-scientology advocacy would be more appropriate. User:ChrisO is an active editor in the Dianetics and Scientology articles and has administrative status on Wikipedia and so, I would assume he is familar with the policies which preclude his creating a "autobiography" kind of situation. Terryeo 17:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That Chris Owen reference is inappropriate. If you read through his article, you find it is his original research and personal opinion. Further in the Original Research and Personal Opinion arena, it is placed on a Personal website. That isn't good, Wikipedic writing, people. Terryeo 08:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the Owen article was used as the source of one or more direct quotes from L Ron Hubbard. It might be nice if that were clarified in the notes (i.e., that a "ref" footnote appeared at the point where Owen's article was being cited), but I don't see what the problem is with using Owen's essay for that purpose. Are you suggesting that Owen misquotes Hubbard's written "bulletins"? Unless there is evidence of that, this is a non-issue. Your other claim about ChrisO creating an autobiography is completely without foundation--not only did ChrisO not cite himself, he doesn't appear to have edited this article, ever. Nor in any case of which I'm aware has any mention of an article by Chris Owen been remotely autobiographical--quoting L Ron Hubbard is hardly telling one's own life story. The fact that somebody has published articles about a topic outside of Wikipedia does not disqualify them from working on Wikipedia. BTfromLA 15:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTfromLA, don't take what I am about to say as the actual situation. A user could create an essey and put it on a personal website. Many quotes of that user's personal experience with author Jon Atack, author Ron Hubbard, actor Tom Cruise or anyone else might be included. The user could quote Hubbard (in this instance) of saying "the moon is made of green cheese" and there would nothing in the world that would refute that. Now, I am not saying Hubbard's quotes, as manifested by Chris Owen do that. What I am saying is that this potential for deceit is one of the reasons that personal essays and opinions and publications can not be put into Wikipedia articles unless they are published by known publishers, such as newspapers or publishers of repute. I'm sure you follow this reasoning for Wikipedia's policies. Terryeo 01:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The day that Chris Owen's personal opinion is published in the New York times it will be appropriate to quote Owen. That he publishes on a personal website does not allow his essey to be included as a reference though, at this time, such a personal website may be used as an "exterior link" or "further reading" but not a source of secondary source of information, not a reference. That's the wikipedia standard, if you wish to change it, WP:RS reliable sources is your combat arena. Terryeo 03:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Essays By Chris Owen

Note #4 is cited to Chris Owne's Casualty Contact. That essey by Chris Owen (User:ChrisO) is being used as a secondary source of information within a Wikipedia article. Chris Owen is not recognized as an expert on religion by any government or organization. His personal essays are not permissable within Wikipedia articles unless published by the New York Times or a publishing house, except for an article about him. Further, that essey by Chris Owen is reposited on a personal website. A personal website, publishing personal essays, is not permissible as secondary sources of information on Wikipedia, per WP:V. Any information on a personal website is to be suspect because a personal website is not a publication medium. A newspaper is a publication medium, a publication house is a publication medium, but a personal website is not recognized by Wikiedia as "publishing" information in the sense that when posted, it is published to the public. The precludes a personal website being used as a secondary source of information. The guideline that applies is WP:RS (reliable sources} and its parent policy, WP:V Terryeo 22:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that Chris Owen's personal self-published comments should not be used as a source in an article on Wikipedia unless the article is specifically about Chris Owen (who I don't believe is notable enough for an article). However, there is a big caveat here. It doesn't appear to me that Chris Owen's words are being used as a source in this case. Again, we have a case we have seen before, it looks like to me that the article is merely using the Chris Owen pages as a convenience link to information that was published by the Church of Scientology itself. Terryeo -- do you assert that the information on the Chris Owen website is not an accurate reproduction of the CoS materials? Vivaldi (talk) 05:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe that something should be done here to fix this. We should make the source of the claims to be Hubbard and cite the specific original documents in the references section. Then perhaps we still may be able to include a convenience link to that information as long as its clear that the information is sourced to the original document and not to Chris Owen. Vivaldi (talk) 05:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since Terryeo has so kindly brought this article's citation problems to my attention </sarcasm>, I've done some work to improve the article and improve its scope. Hopefully this will keep Terryeo happy for about the next five minutes (yes, that's sarcasm too). -- ChrisO 14:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:ChrisO has directed sarcasms at me, <shudder>. Shudder. Oh Shudder. That action is uncivil. It borders on a personal attack. My comment is on the article. It is simply Wrong to use an unpublished piece of information as a secondary source of information in any Wikipedia article. No amount of sarcasm at me will change that. Chris Owen, even if witness to the hand of god enblazoning commandments on stone, is unpublished. When his rememberences of L. Ron Hubbard appear in his essays on a personal website, he is unpublished. When the New York Times publishes Owen, then we can use Owen's esseys. Your arguement is not with me. Your battle ground for change is WP:RS and WP:V. I am willing to say aloud YOU ARE WRONG, but it is not I who creates the rules by which I can say that. It is you, it is a concensus of editors who create these rules which we all must follow. Terryeo 14:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your battle ground for change is WP:RS and WP:V. It is not necessary to change WP:RS in order to make specific exceptions to it. It is merely a guideline that should be followed and not a policy. Since it is a guideline, then exceptions can be made. Also, if the article is using L. Ron Hubbard as the original source for the claims, then it is perfectly fine. The article should not use any of Owen's own words elsewhere as a source for any claims in this article. But the fact that both Owen and this Wikipedia article use the same Hubbard quotes for sources is not a reason to remove the content from Wikipedia. Vivaldi (talk) 16:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are banned from editing Scientology articles because of your obnoxious behavior and misguided edits, I think it should be plain by now that this "consensus of editors" you speak of is resoundingly and overwhelmingly against you. Persisting in beating this dead horse accomplishes nothing in the improvement of this article or any other. wikipediatrix 15:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Owen (User:ChrisO)'s personal essey is no longer cited as a secondary source of information in the horse which you refer to as "dead" and Chris Owen (User:ChrisO) still has not found a publication house for his many essays. But, if he does, they he would be published and those personal essays could be used as secondary sources of information in Wikipedia articles. Unfortunately, at this time, the bar is just a tiny bit too high for Chris Owen's personal essey's to be included. Your battleground is WP:V, WP:RS and WP:CITE. Terryeo 23:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"BTW, here's an interesting piece of news." says Terryeo. Why is it interesting? An accusation that a Wikipedia editor is a transexual? Or is it interesting because this person was also the person who started up A.R.S. on Usenet 15 years ago? Well, I guess your "news" proves that critics of Scientology are all sexual deviants and criminals just as L. Ron Hubbard said. Hopefully, Religious Freedom Watch will immediately expose how A.R.S. was started by a man that now is a transexual. Oh, how tantalizing. That will surely get people to disbelieve the Time Magazine article and the hundreds of other articles that expose CoS as a global scam and a fraud. Vivaldi (talk) 16:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the embittered kooks at wikipediareview.com are remotely credible, well... that says it all, really! -- ChrisO 16:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable Sources

While I can see some improvement has been attempted to this article there is still work to do. I have edited one entry that was designed to create controversy and as you may have noticed, I am contesting “editors” are allowed to do this. This is an encyclopedic reference not a Usenet message board.

Fact: Hundreds of selfless volunteer ministers worked around the clock during 911, Fact: They were commended by the NY Fire Department, Fact: they received many other accolades (which I can detail if needed), Supposition: I doubt anyone of the people criticizing the volunteer ministers worked around the clock, under horrible conditions, providing food, water, clothing, support, manpower and anything that was asked for to help the authorities during the crisis at Ground Zero. So, the cooked up addition put into this article about the quota and realism is not informational and twists the facts to ridicule, is being removed. It went in without a consensus, so it can come out without one.

Note – I also removed a link to Heldal-Lund’s site. This is an article by Barbara Graham, who hates all religions – unbelievable anyone can consider this a valid source of information. Nuview 11:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the quota information. It is well-cited and informative. Are you going to stop, or do I need to start documenting these removals for an RFC on you? --Davidstrauss 05:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What you want to do, Davidstrauss, is what is suggested, that is, provide a balanced information in the article. A newspaper makes an inflammatory report which (they hope) will sell some newspapers. Okay, fine. However, A commendation by the NY Fire Department is a balancing piece of information which could be included too. Such a commnedation is obviously public. Good newspaper reports and critical newspaper reports, side by side, you see? Of course Xenu.net has been discussed extensivly at WP:RS's discussion page and is a personal website. Therefore it can only be used as an exterior link or perhaps, "additional reading" except when citing to works which have already been published and appear whole and intact, reposited on Xenu.net / Clambake.org. Davidstrauss, are you attempting to present that Heldal-Lund's site is not a personal website and his own opinion as he states it is on his first page? Terryeo 17:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

a news about volunteer ministers

Scientology Volunteer Ministers Who Were There [3] Terryeo 04:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another positive release by Georgina Tweedie, Internet public affairs director, Church of Scientology International, Los Angeles. [4] AndroidCat 10:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Panel members include Catherine Seda, founder, Seda Communication Inc., Thousand Oaks, Calif.; Michael Bonfils, CEO, Hyper InterActive Corp., Irvine; Georgina Tweedie, Internet public affairs director, Church of Scientology International, Los Angeles; Steve Kinney, president & founder, Search Optimizers, Laguna Niguel, Calif.; and Lee Mills, director of marketing, Anonymizer, San Diego. states the TechBiz Connection Forum. But Georgian Tweedie does not make that release, though you have claimed Tweedie did. And what relationship to Volunteer Ministers does the alleged positive release by Georgian Tweedie have ? Terryeo 14:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Link to dmoz "open directory"

The so-called "open directory project" is really a closed club. Just try to become an editor! They create pages of link farms for their pet passions. I would like to delete the link to the open directory from the links section.--Fahrenheit451 03:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]