Talk:Scientology and Me

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Scientology and Me article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Scientology Mid‑importance

	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.ScientologyWikipedia:WikiProject ScientologyTemplate:WikiProject ScientologyScientology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

BBC Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the BBC Portal.BBCWikipedia:WikiProject BBCTemplate:WikiProject BBCBBC articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tasks for WikiProject BBC:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Improve BBC, BBC News (TV channel) and BBC News to Good Article status following previous reviews, create BBC Computer Literacy Project (in light of forthcoming 30th anniversary)
Cleanup : Chucklevision - references and general clean-up, Pebble Mill Studios - over-detailed and long, BBC World Service Television - unreferenced and confusing
Copyedit : BBC News, Broadcasting House
Expand : Top 20 start-class BBC articles with most importance: BBC Japan, BBC World Service Television, BBC Lifestyle, BBC Two Northern Ireland
NPOV : Criticism of the BBC (See comments)
Stubs : Stub-Class BBC articles
Other : *Restructure the category
- Add infoboxes to the BBC articles without infoboxes
- Add free-use images to biographical articles where possible
- Add references to Goa Mix (see assessment) and Coat of arms of the BBC
- Return Dad's Army to a Good article. (See comments)
- Reassess BBC following improvements to article.

Television: British

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the British television task force.

A fact from Scientology and Me appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 5 June 2007. The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that investigative journalist John Sweeney stated his outburst in the documentary Scientology and Me was a by-product of viewing the Citizen's Commission on Human Rights exhibit, "Psychiatry: An Industry of Death"?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2007/June.

Wikipedia

Content

This article mentions only a fraction about the programme and much about its controversy. It's ridiculous. - Killioughtta ^T/_C 01:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So get typing.WindsorFan 21:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had time to type it all up. Expand it yourself; i'm out. ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ ^{slurp me!} 22:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is utter propaganda! Its totally one sided, totally biased, based on opinion and designed to influence people to think a certain way. I suggest the whole thing either be deleted or a serious rewrite. Chrisp7 20:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read the message i left you. ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ ^{slurp me!} 22:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, i think i'll post another interjection here. Firstly, the Scientology references i used for the background before the documentary, because the Sweeney version does not include it. Secondly, the article is not finished, and does not by any means claim to be a complete article. The idea that it's "designed to influence people to think a certain way" i find odd -- i'm not trying to change anyone towards thinking any way, but reporting it; i refuse to think this is "Propaghanda", because all i've done is report the information impartially and, aside from relating that CoS says this, and the image says this is all i've said. ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ ^{slurp me!} 23:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Chrisp7. This was clearly written by someone who is strongly supportive of the Church of Scientology's point of view. A tremendous amount of information has been either played down, twisted, or left out, particularly concerning the topic of Sweeney being followed. A very significant part of the documentary was focused on that. This is extremely biased and needs a complete overhaul by someone with a neutral viewpoint on the subject.68.75.29.127 (talk) 22:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with Chrisp7, the entry is so poorly constructed it aught to be removed until a replacement can be put in place. - 90.192.107.58 (talk) 23:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Superkq

I think this article is biased, there is no comments about the church of scientology stalking the journalist neither comments about the Fair Game which is a major topic on the documentary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.64.133.93 (talk) 14:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Refs

16 of the 36 sources are from the Church of Scientology, mostly from "BBC Panorama: Exposed". I find that a bit unsettling. I doubt that "BBC Panorama: Exposed" is a neutral source. WP:RS Suggest finding other sources or removal of info sourced by the Church of Scientology. Jumping cheese 03:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Panorama:Exposed is a scientology site (it says so itself), but when the citations are used they are to illustrate the CoS side of the story, just as the BBC citations are used to illustrate the BBC side of the story. Ideally we need sources which are not from either of them.--AlexCatlin (talk) 03:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV problems and sourcing problems

The article depends too heavily on a Church of Scientology type of Fair Game tactic video produced to discredit the original program, and cites this as a primary source, instead of using secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 13:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And in general, the article relies way too heavily on primary sources such as the documentary itself and the black pr Scientology video - and does not have enough sourcing to independent, secondary sources like books, magazines, newspaper articles, etc. Cirt (talk) 13:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Most of the documentary/CoS website citations are for the step by step description of minor and semi significant events that happened before and during filming. I dont think we are going to get any reliable 3rd party sources for that, so either the article is going to sit here with the neutrality label or pre-filming and filming descriptions without other sources need to go. --AlexCatlin (talk) 22:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we should strive to avoid direct citations from either CoS websites or any other primary source material. Cirt (talk) 11:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright I've removed the descriptions of the events from both parties since they are completely unverifiable from non-primary sources and are not really that important to the article. More important is a description of what the documentary actually contains, which I have left in for now since I think there will be reliable 3rd party sources for that around.--AlexCatlin (talk) 13:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the remaining CoS links by linking instead to our (in theory) neutral article on the subject. BJ^Talk 23:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google video link

I removed a link to the video on Google Video from the External Links section because I couldn't prove that it's not a copyright violation. Enviroboy^Talk_Cs 00:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is an BBC archive and this link should work, although not as straightforward as Google Video. AndroidCat (talk) 00:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. You can put the Google link back up if you don't think that it's an issue. I realize now that BBC releases these online anyway. Enviroboy^Talk_Cs 14:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to a 3rd party who is (maybe) making a "copyright violation" isnt againt the rules. Including the materials in Wikipedia itself would be. Wikipedia cannot be responsible for the content of 3rd party sites.

The link to the video should remain. Wageslave (talk) 01:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Google Video link to the "Response Video" is a dead link when checked (27/01/14) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.232.174.214 (talk) 21:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Lonsdale

I'm wondering why Shawn Lonsdale redirects to this article? Seems to not be the same thing. One would think Shawn Lonsdale would link to a biography of the indevidual. Proxy User (talk) 17:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Shawn_Lonsdale. At some point, perhaps when the coroner's report is released, the issue might be revisited. AndroidCat (talk) 18:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the reference tag up?

Seems to be well sourced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.206.15.242 (talk) 21:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Some additional sources at links above. :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 21:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the presenters field in the infobox

Thanks, Shane (talk) 17:53, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Scientology and Me/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

*5 citations, no images. Article could use expansion, images, more citations. Smee 06:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Last edited at 06:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 05:35, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2017

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

2A02:C7D:31BB:E200:386B:C423:4306:CF73 (talk) 20:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:49, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]