Talk:Scientology 0-8: The Book of Basics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Scientology 0-8: The Book of Basics article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Hi Wikipediatrix, you have reverted a number of changes I made recently. I have a few questions/comments:

1) Why did you revert all the edits I made (before I created this account)? You gave some notes but they contained no thought. I read your perfunctory comments as, "I didn't like them so I removed them." The Logics, Axioms, Code of Honor, etc are available in full on the web, on sites where copyright is not an issue why would you not link to them? This seems a perfectly sensible thing to do if your intention is to allow one to learn about Scientology 0-8 (which is why I presume a reader would be here on the page). I saw numerous external links on other pages. I understand that it might be a matter of form though. Please let me know if this is the case and I will learn and utilize the appropriate form.

2) Your POV (namely that Scientology is nonscientific, incomprehensible and nonsensical) is really quite obvious to anyone with any Scientology knowledge or understanding of eastern religions. Your choice of which axioms to include shows obvious bias that was quite clearly borne out when I read through your discussion history RE Scn elsewhere. In particular your decision to include only points that would raise eyebrows in favor of early ones that are quite easily understood. By including the 14th and 20th axiom of anything and omitting the preceeding axioms and supporting definitions you deliberately create confusion in the reader in an attempt to have them share your point of view that Scn is nonsensical. I suspect you know this and did it deliberately. In my edits I added early axioms/statements which you deleted without comment. These earlier points serve to give the reader a better idea about what the book contains. I would like you to please put them back in.

3) I have no idea what you mean by 'deleted POV.' I will tell you my POV - it is that this book contains some stuff about scientology that you can read in full [here] there is no POV in pointing someone to the contents of a book when they are reading an article about the book. (This presumes of course that you assume they want to learn about what the book contains instead of why they should think Scientology is nonsense.)

4) All the above said, the article is reasonably good - your bias is apparent but relatively mild. I look forward to working with you on it until we get it right(er)

Slightlyright 08:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's see here.... you're a brand-new account and this is your very first edit. (And even if you're 24.18.239.151, who edited this article yesterday - see here - this is still the only article you've edited) And now you abruptly pop in saying things right off the bat like "Hi Wikipediatrix, seems you are the self appointed guardian of this page", "which you arrogantly deleted", and "I look forward to wrestling with you"?? Thanks for the invitation to your trolling, but I think I'll pass. wikipediatrix 16:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

oops. Ok, I have fixed my commentary, deleting the "personal attacks" which I apologize for. I would still like the points above adressed. Doesn't it seem a little weak to you to say that I am trolling and thus justify ignoring everything I've said? Slightlyright 01:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

No. wikipediatrix 01:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Too-eager-to-delete-administrators are (apparently) a very common phenomena at Wikipedia. Rest assured, Wikipedia is not the best encyclopedia thanks to them. Hope Slightlyright will get used to this. Daham.wick 18:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Since you've only had a Wikipedia account for two days now, and your very first action was to unfairly attack another editor as "malicious" [1] and you have yet to actually edit any articles, mind explaining what you think you're talking about?? What do "Too-eager-to-delete-administrators" have to do with the present discussion? wikipediatrix 19:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Obviously trolling. Vpoko 19:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Very familiar writing style, can a CheckUser be far behind? Vpoko 18:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Vpoko, apparently there is much historical venom surrounding Scn and/or other things. I assure you though, I am new to the community. (as an editor at least) Slightlyright 01:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I have no reason not to take what you say at face value, so welcome to Wikipedia. Vpoko 02:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser has shown that this user is unrelated to Terryeo, at least as far as IP addresses are concerned. Vpoko 13:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] fair use of text

I expect a bunch of overzealous editors will jump all over my head again, the same way they did over my attempts to place "disputed" and "citation needed" tags on Scientology articles, but as I understand this tag, it's to call attention to possible copyright violations, just in case, for the safety and well-being of Wikipedia in general. Placing the tag doesn't indicate that I am saying it positively IS a copyright violation. But if I am using the tag improperly, I'm sure someone will pop up soon and let me know.

Anyway. As I understand it, it's OK to use large bits of quoted text from books as long as it illustrates a point in an article, or for purposes of review, etc.... but this article is basically nothing BUT quotes from the book, presented as an article. Not saying it's good, not saying it's bad, just throwing the matter out there for consideration. Highfructosecornsyrup 15:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Calling attention to possible copyright problems would be posting something here on the Talk page. You've said that it is a copyright problem and the admins may possibly delete the article if no one steps up to defend it: "Unless the copyright status of the text on this page is clarified, it will be deleted one week after the time of its listing."

By the way, have you actually done any editing of Scientology articles other than add tags and AfDs? AndroidCat 19:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] excessive and inappropriate examples

User:Antaeus Feldspar has removed my copyvio tag for the THIRD time, even though he's not an admin and according to WP:CP, only an admin should be the one to investigate the matter.

Be that as it may, I still think the question "Does this article go beyond fair use?" was a good one to ask. There are nine sections to this article, and in most of them, the quotations from the book are longer than the actual Wikipedia text that introduces them. In other words, this entire article is mainly stitched-together segments of the book with a sentence or two saying basically "this is this" before each one.

If we MUST have this article, I'd like to see more actual information than just dumping a few randomly quoted axioms. This material is meant to be studied in order (you know, on a gradient scale?) because terms and functions are gradually introduced as you progress through them. Just like in basic algebra class. So, when you jump ahead and quote one of the more complex ones out of context, it makes it seem like impenetrable gibberish, which seems to be exactly what the authors of this article wanted. Why else would they think this:

"Communication is the consideration and action of impelling an impulse or particle from source-point across a distance to receipt-point, with the intention of bringing into being at the receipt-point a duplication and understanding of that which emanated from the source-point."

...was a good example for a casual reader? Highfructosecornsyrup 18:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I have restored the copyvio template because I have concerns about the quoting in the article being excessive to qualify as fair use. VxP 16:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The web page that the alleged copyrighted info comes from does not actually seem to contain anything but a link to purchase the book. Perhaps the people bringing the complaint forward could actually point to a valid source for this? At first glance, it just seems to be a list of excerpts and snippets, all of which would easily qualify for fair use. Tarc 00:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)