User talk:Antaeus Feldspar/Archive 12

Anti-Cult Issues

Hi, you claim to have been called names on both sides of the debates about cults and that makes you credible. Sounds appealing to me, but then you seem hell-bent on pushing the anti-cult point. Maybe I'm a bit naive, and I will not wade through your contributrions history: But what makes you think that I have no idea about what I am talking about? Yes, I push a point, like everyone else does on Wikipedia (you, me, Tilman, everyone), and mine is that the anti-cult movement has basically hijacked Wikipedia as its vehicle. I'm not gonna defame the ACM or its adherents, I just correct FACTUAL errors. And I know, what I am doing, I have written my ph.d. on New Age (not at some Micky Mouse University, check my CV, via the user page) and I have followed the debate since. When I say that Hadden puts forth the mainstream view, that's because, I have read literally hundreds of scientific articles on this matter, and if you wish, I post the entire bibliography part that demonstrates that. So, please, either justify your edits (like I try to do) or do no longer claim that you are "independent". On second thought, better no longer claim that you are independent, no matter what, because no one is.--Fossa 05:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, you do not just "correct factual errors". You make your first edit in article space to move "Opposition to cults and new religious movements" to "Anti-Cult Movement", without having even suggested this move on the talk page first. Then, having taken it upon yourself to single-handedly change the focus of the article, you then proceed to delete sections of the article because they don't meet the new focus of the article. You delete mention of things that don't fit with your world-view because, even though there are sources for these accounts, you choose not to believe them and so you call them "unsubstantiated", and then you insert your own original research, for which you provide no substantiation. You do not even have enough edits yet to have suffrage in an AfD discussion and yet you're sure that if I am opposing your edits, it could not be because those edits do not meet Wikipedia's standards, but because I am "hell-bent on pushing the anti-cult point." Welcome to the legion of other editors (usually new editors, like you) who refused to believe that there could be any issue with the quality of their edits, and insisted instead that I must be an agent for The Other Side. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, excuse me that Wikipedia has not been the center of my world for the last 5 years. I have worked in a more reasonable environment, academia, where one is concerned with producing knowledge and checking facts, not spreading rumours. That's why I am arrogant enough to change errors in my field of expertise without consulting first the "talk" page, where at best some computer science geeks sits, to whom I have to explain at great length why I make a really basic edit, which is totally uncontroversial in my field, at second best a follower of the Cult of Wikipedia, who explains me some wobbly POV, three edits, or whatever rule I supposedly just crossed (few rules on WP are as specific as the 3R rule, most, like "original research" or "POV", would result in an F in every Philosophy 101 course), and at worst some anti-cult activists (or rarely a cult fruitcake) who desperately tries to sell their warped perceiption of reality as NPOV facts.

Take "Anti-Cult Movement": That is an established term in NRM scholarship. If I search for the exact term "anti-cult movement" in Sociological Abstracts, I get 34 finds. If I type in "Opposition against Cults and New Religious Movements" I get zero finds. B4 you say, but ah, we are not in sociology: The google figures are even more daunting: 45,000 to 129. Most of the 129 are Wikepedia and its clones finds. I think, you call that "concept formation" or somerthing like that in your Wikipedia rules.

Take the Hausherr article (nobody provided sources there, but I am supposed to provide sources; what kind of double-standard is that? Anyways. What did I do? I clipped some redudant information (same link appears twice in the article), kicked out the redudadant "in his spare time", applied a health warning to the two weblinks provided and changed "Scientology critic" into "Scientology opponent". For sure, *he* rthinks he's a critic. But neither do I nor the average Scientolgist. Scientology considers him not a critic, but an enemy, as is evidenced by the Weblink provided. So this fact is obviously disputed. An opponent can be both an enemy or a critic, so I simply applied the most value-neutral label, that would not be disputed by either me, a Scientologist or a anti-cultist. Clearly, anti-cult activists would prefer the more palable label, but there simply is no evidence that Hausherr is a critic, i.e. weighs advantages and disadvantages in a nuanced fashion. There is some evidence that he is an enemy of Scientology (in that he publishes at times plainly false information related to Scientology), but there is no need to investigate this claim either, if you use opponent.

I have been following WP for quite some time, and it's rubbish for everything past the natural sciences, maths, and computer science. I wouldn't be too bothered about the defamations and factual inaccuracies that are being broadcast via Wikipedia about so-called cults, if it wasn't for the fact that people take WP seriously. I get university student essays with Wikipedia quotes. So chances are, Joe Doe will think that it's actually true what he finds in Wikipedia. That's why I started this rather quixotic task to correct falsities, and unsubstatitated allegations. --Fossa 18:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Get back to me when you actually have the expertise you're trying to assert that you have now. It's obvious you don't comprehend WP:NPOV and until you do this discussion is pointless. Even if you understood that we'd still have some points on which you are unclear, such as your idea "if the title of an article does not correspond one-to-one with 'an established term' then it's clearly a bad title and must be moved." Did it ever occur to you that the article "Opposition to cults and new religious movements" existed to discuss the topic "opposition to cults and new religious movements" and not the specific subset of it designated in someone's formulation as "the anti-cult movement"? -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You answer my elaborate reply with three, four sentences, none of which refers to anything substantial of what I have said, but you just give your POV (in this case that means: opinion) that I don't have the "expertise". So a Ph.D. on the subject matter is not enough expertise for you, so i guess you jettison all academic criteria. But what exactly are your criteria for expertise? A few Wikipedia edits? You seem to value those.

I'm not gonna write to you here an elaborate reply, why the NPOV policy is too ambigious to serve for anything else as a smokescreen to advance a certain (usually the young, affluent computer geek majority) POV under the pretense of "neutrality" and "objectivity". But why do you think that philosophers have dwelled hundreds of years over the question of neutrality, if it could be solved by some computer scientists within a few months?--Fossa 19:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, you're right. Wikipedia is based on the principle of WP:NPOV. If you want to edit on Wikipedia, you'd better understand it. If you don't want to understand it or don't want to follow it, you don't have any right to edit on Wikipedia, the fact that you can still edit anyways unless you get banned notwithstanding. It's as simple as that, so if you're still stuck on that point, eighteen paragraphs isn't going to do more good than four sentences. Do you think you're the first person to come along and say "Well, out in the real world there is widespread dissension on this issue, with some people saying X and some people saying Y and some people saying Z. But you are in luck, because I have come along, and I have The Answers! Unlike other people who only think they know what's right, I know what's right, and I will kindly clear up all your confusions by removing what I know is falsehood and substituting what I know is true!"? I'll give you a hint, the whole point of WP:NPOV is to deal with attitudes like yours. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you actually read what I write? I said that NPOV is much too ambigious to be a valid policy. I did and do not at any time violate NPOV, but it it not that fact that makes my edits either actually "neutral" or "objective" in any way. Unlike 3R, which gives clear criteria about when it is violated, almost anything can pass as NPOV. So you can proclaim that my view is not NPOV and I can proclaim that your view is not NPOV, but there is no unequivocal WP-criterion to decide, which of us would be right and who violated the NPOV policy.

To give you an example: When I write that Rick Ross works on "so-called cults": That is obviously a fact. Then you delete the so-called and many people (depending on the meaning of the word "cult") will also consider it a fact. So we can both claim its NPOV, accusing the other side that it's not.

But again: What are your criteria for "expertise"?--Fossa 21:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You evidently really want the last word. Here it is, a gift all for you. Enjoy. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, the moment "Fossa" blurted out "Oh, excuse me that Wikipedia has not been the center of my world for the last 5 years. I have worked in a more reasonable environment, academia, where one is concerned with producing knowledge and checking facts, not spreading rumours. That's why I am arrogant enough to change errors in my field of expertise without consulting first the "talk" page, where at best some computer science geeks sits", I saw no further point in trying to communicate with it. Fosse is an Internet troll in the classic sense and if he/she expresses so low an opinion of Wikipedia, I see no reason to take anything it says seriously. wikipediatrix 02:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wikipediatrix: Just out of curiosity: Have you read my little review of your user page in 1? Or is this a coincidence? Forever yours: Fossa 03:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My 2 cts: Fossa first came up on the german usenet, then in the german wikipedia (several definitions have been blocked now), and now he's trying to "correct" the english wikipedia. He thinks he knows all about cults, including scientology, however I was able to prove again and again that he's mostly clueless (e.g. about the many court decisions on the topic, both in Germany and in the US). He admitted himself that his field is "new age". He has a very black and white view of everything, which is why he loves to use the word "scientology opponent" instead of "scientology critic". In the german newsgroup, he claimed that there is a conspiracy by psychologists and others to "oppress" scientology. He hates wikipedia, even called it a cult. He loves to mention literature sources, suggesting that he had read them (which is not always the case, as I was able to prove in the german usenet).--Tilman 07:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that sounds right in character with the behavior he's displayed here. I'd love to see him in a court of law. "Your Honor, we can stop the trial now, because the defendant is guilty. What? Well, yes, he is guilty. I said so, and I clearly know more than all those twelve morons in the jury box put together. After all, I have a degree, and that means I'm right. What? What do you mean, "no matter what degrees counsel may have, it's the jury who makes the verdict?" Well, you see, that's exactly what I'm here to save you from. That's clearly the wrong way to go about things, so I'm going to come in, ignore the way you do things, and do them the right way. You, being nothing but pig-ignorant legal geeks, won't even realize how you should be thanking me, but that's a cross I must bear." -- Antaeus Feldspar 13:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ubuntu Linux and references

Hi, thanks for your copyedits. Do you think we could convert the web references on the Ubuntu Linux page to the <ref>{{cite web}}</ref> pragma, or is this viewed as not desirable? For the article to ever become featured quality (which I firmly believe it can be), this would probably have to be done. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, shouldn't there be a bot for this?! - Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. I'm afraid I have fairly little experience with {{cite web}}; I've only recently started using the <ref></ref> pragma and I'm still getting used to that. Even though I understand the advantages of separating markup from presentation, I'm afraid when I looked at the cite web template the complexity dissuaded me from using it until I had more experience with the basic <ref></ref> idiom. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"(Terryeo's third, perhaps fourth repetition of a sleazy tired lie)"

Hello Feldspar. Would you, in the future please, state the situation you refer to in your edit summary? Your pasted statement, "(Terryeo's third, perhaps fourth repetition of a sleazy tired lie)" does not describe what you edited, it does not discuss on its discussion page, it uses "lie" when actually I have made good efforts to explain to you and other editors the logic of the situation as clearly as I can. I have invited futher discussion, I am willing to explain things as well as possible. "Lie" is a judgement, By all means, continue to judge right and wrong. But would you please discuss things toward our commonly understanding rather than use such accusation in edit summaries without discussion in appropriate areas? Terryeo 18:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terryeo, I am not interested in your lies. Your claim that I did not spell out exactly which lie it was you were trotting out yet again is entirely false, as anyone can verify for themselves by checking the edit in question: [1]. "Lie" is not a judgment, it is a description of what someone is doing when they know damn well what the truth is and yet they tell something else which isn't the truth. You know damn well that I explained over and over again that Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health should not become the place to discuss the subject of Dianetics, because the article Dianetics was already fulfilling that role, and had been doing so since 2001. What you claimed, however, was that I made instead some statement which "implies that nothing in any of these articles should have the slightest bit of meaning." You knew the truth to be one thing, and yet you claimed it to be something else. That is why I call it a lie and I will continue to do so. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar for Monty Hall problem

Hi Antaeus. Your patience on Monty Hall problem is impressive.

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your tireless efforts to explain the Monty Hall problem to every nonbeliever, and to keep the article itself in reasonable shape. Doradus 19:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tone scale revert

Ya beat me to it by milliseconds! Well done. Nice work as per! ;) File:Glenstollery.gif^POW! 20:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JimmyT

Honestly this guy has more issues than National Geographic - check this out. It's almost scary, seriously! He almost needs an RfC himself IMHO... File:Glenstollery.gif^POW! 14:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC) (CCed to Wikipediatrix and Tenebrous also)[reply]

You'd be suprised how much many more issues I do have then what comprises the 4 of your little glory holes collectively. I still think you're contentious AND pompous and biased; and your Outside View for Terryeo is full of claptrap lugged out of your despotic ___. --JimmyT 14:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This guy is way beyond RfC territory--isn't there a swift lock-out mechanism for this sort of abusive troll? BTfromLA 15:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's gone, for two weeks anyway (see here. Phew! File:Glenstollery.gif^POW! 15:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

personal attacks on dianetics

Please refrain from accusations of "bad faith", "grotesque misconceptions" and other uncivil phrases regarding my edits on Dianetics as per WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Thank you. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to what you are alleging here, I never accused you of "bad faith" or "grotesque misconceptions", at Talk:Dianetics, or anywhere else. I simply pointed out that according to what you claimed at Talk:Dianetics was the only standard that needed to be met for an article to be marked as having its NPOV disputed, a perfectly fine article could be kept forever labelled as "NPOV disputed" by just a single editor, even if that editor was acting in bad faith or operating under grotesque misconceptions as to the NPOV policy. If that's not what you meant to suggest then perhaps you'd like to clarify your earlier remarks. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology Edits (3/24/06)

Hello, Antaeus. Let me introduce myself; I'm the anon editor (as of 3/24/06) who added material relating to the beliefs and activities of the CoS, and whose contribution you reverted. However, I'm not upset or displeased in the slightest, but a little confused. It was slightly POV in retrospect, but unintentional really; I was operating on very, very little sleep and it definately translated into me being sardonic. But, however... I'm a little confused as to why you did a revert rather than an edit to organise the information, as all of it was factual. I still think both subjects are worthwhile contributions to the article, and indeed, while those regarding the legal issues and ethical conduct paint the church in a decidedly negative light (but still worthwhile to mention in the main article), those regarding the basic beliefs are desirable.

So, how would the edits be suitable to your tastes while still incorporating all of the information, and conforming with the NPOV policy? Any suggestions? I think a more substantial contribution is in order, which would be broken down logically withing the article. While I don't think anything I said was necessary inflamatory, the wording was ultimately not cordial/neutral. Additionally, as I hinted out earlier, I think it could have been incorporated into the article better.

I'll keep your talk page on my watchlist for your response. Kaelus

To be honest... I'm not sure which edits you're referring to. I think you're referring to this revert of mine? With my time zone settings, that actually shows up for me as happening the middle of the 23rd rather than the 24th, which is why I'm not sure if that's the revert you mean.

If I'm wrong and you're referring to something else, please let me know. If that is what you're referring to (and I'll write from here as if that's the case), my brief explanation is that the major problem with the information you added was where you added it. You added a great deal of detail to the second paragraph of the article, for instance, on all the different specific fields of science whose information debunks Scientology's space opera, on the Church's involvement in Operation Snow White, Operation Freakout, the death of Lisa McPherson, et cetera. The only problem with this isn't the information itself -- it's the fact that you added it to the introduction of the article, which should serve as a summary for the rest of the article. Think of it as like a legal case: each side makes opening statements. "Your Honor and members of the jury, we will show you physical evidence and offer testimony that places the suspect at the scene of the crime on the night in question, in clear possession of the murder weapon, and with a strong motive to commit the crime." "Your Honor, members of the jury, we will show that the prosecution's case has crucial flaws: their witnesses are tainted and unreliable, their physical evidence is circumstantial at best, and their supposition of motive for the defendant is unsubstantiated guesswork." Then the actual trial begins and both sides start going into the details of exactly who the witnesses are and what they say and what the markings on the bullets were. (In fact, technically, Scientology should only really be functioning as a overview article for all the other articles, which are there to cover the sub-topics in the greatest detail -- the fact that so many people add information straight to the main article is an ongoing problem.) I hope that if I've guessed right, this explains most of the revert. If I've guessed wrong, or if I've left questions unanswered, I hope you'll let me know. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is indeed the edit I was speaking of. And I agree completely with your assessment. The information regarding the scholarly view by the scientific majority could be subdivided into its own section and expanded, and then properly sourced, later in the article.

The basic information Church's involvement in Operation Snow White, et cetera could be better incorporated into the introduction perhaps, as the information and suitable links are noticebly absent from the article (not including the sidebar). The information I'm most concerned about is the list of cardinal beliefs central to Scientology. The existing information is not completely accurate; in fact it's misleading. Let me explain:

A person is basically good, but becomes "aberrated" by moments of pain and unconsciousness in his life.

This is not completely accurate; scientology makes very little claims about this current life, but insists that the "aberration", so called, is primarily due to past lives, the evolutionary history of mankind as presented in a History of Man, and Thetans [tainted] by 'implants'. This should be expressed here, though it is addressed later in the article. The current statement seems to be written to make Scientology more palatable to adherents of other religions.

What is true for you is what you have observed yourself. No beliefs should be forced as "true" on anyone. Thus, the tenets of Scientology are expected to be tested and seen to either be true, or not, by Scientology practitioners.

This is completely contrary to the practice, organisation, and tenets of the Church. Most of the legal controversy having to do with the Church, and its opponents' claimn of the CoS being a "brainwashing cult" have to do with the church not allowing any aberration toward 'unorthodox' beliefs and practises (within the church), and targeting those who insult or publically question the beliefs of the Church of Scientology, sometimes in a criminal manner. I'm suspecting that this whole section was originally written by a Scientologist who formulated it to make it, as I said, more palatable to people of mainstream religious backgrounds, and thus encourage them to find out more information on the church. While I would never disagree with the Church searching for adherents, a Wikipedia article is not the place to do it; the information should be as factual as possible and NPOV, so as to be accessible to all readers, and not a tool for evangelism, if that's what that was intended as. Either way, it's somewhat inaccurate, and the additional information presented key beliefs, even if they might seem a bit "out there" to someone looking for a glowingly positive main article (especially early in the article) which does not express the more criticised aspects of Scientology and Dianetics. Kaelus 20:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Kaelus -- sorry for the delay in replying. You make some excellent points; let me respond to them:

'A person is basically good, but becomes "aberrated" by moments of pain and unconsciousness in his life.' This is not completely accurate; scientology makes very little claims about this current life, but insists that the "aberration", so called, is primarily due to past lives, the evolutionary history of mankind as presented in a History of Man, and Thetans [tainted] by 'implants'.

This is a very good point; all these things are presented by Scientology as sources of aberration. I would not try to press the "primarily" part, as claims of "most" and "primarily" always seem to get challenged as 'unproven', but I would expand it from "moments of pain and unconsciousness" to "engrams and implants incurred during moments of pain and unconsciousness" and "in his life" to "in his current life or in past lives". I think this last would cover the prehistoric time periods Hubbard writes about in AHOM, even if it doesn't specifically mention them; if there was a reasonably concise way to communicate "oh, and these are not just past lives from after the dawn of humankind as we know it, as you might be picturing, but from before as well" without it looking shoehorned in, I'd take it.

'# What is true for you is what you have observed yourself. No beliefs should be forced as "true" on anyone. Thus, the tenets of Scientology are expected to be tested and seen to either be true, or not, by Scientology practitioners.' This is completely contrary to the practice, organisation, and tenets of the Church. Most of the legal controversy having to do with the Church, and its opponents' claimn of the CoS being a "brainwashing cult" have to do with the church not allowing any aberration toward 'unorthodox' beliefs and practises (within the church), and targeting those who insult or publically question the beliefs of the Church of Scientology, sometimes in a criminal manner.

I completely agree with you here. However, I'll be frank that I'm not sure immediately what's to be done about it. I think it itself could be trimmed of the questionable second and third sentences, and perhaps followed by a short discussion that, like all 'ideal culture', there is question about whether these beliefs are actually followed in practice; Scientology advocates state that the tenets of Scientology are expected to be tested and seen to either be true, or not, by Scientology practitioners, but at the same time it is held that "the Tech is 100% effective" and anyone who tested the tenets of Scientology and didn't receive confirming results is presumed to have not applied the Tech correctly.

Please let me know what you would like to do next. I think this has illuminated some good changes that need to be made; I'm tempted to make them myself but I don't want to deprive you of the opportunity. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Claims vs Statements

May I get into communication with you about this ? Please understand, I am here attempting to get into communication with you about this. I am not attempting to convince you of something. I am attempting to establish communication with you because you and I have somewhat different points of view about what words should be used. So I am trying to get into communication with you about the area. Specifically in the thetan article your and my edits are bumping head to head. You might be right. I might be right. We both might be right. There might be a better third way. The last two edit summarys read: Antaeus Feldspar (No, "claims" is perfectly appropriate, as in "the product may or may not live up to the manufacturer's claims".) and Terryeo (→Operating Thetan - reworded one of the "claims" they are better presented as cited statements because 'claims' is a sort of POV presentation). Can we talk about this area ? I am assuming that WP:V is the policy we are going by? Terryeo 09:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Bait and Switch"

Hi Feldspar. I appricated your discussion at User_talk:Spirit_of_Man#.22Evil.22.3F. I saw you presented some important elements. One is the "bait and switch" technique, well known as a con. Perhaps we could talk about this area? For example, "Cause over MEST" is one of phrases that is often used in the Scientology series articles. I read what you said and I think I understand you to understand "Cause over MEST" means "an individual simply wills the physical universe to do something and it does that." Could we talk in this area? May I suggest this possible meaning for "Cause over MEST." A bricklayer picks up a brick, slathers it with mortor and lays it into a wall where the motor dries and the brick becomes part of the wall. The bricklayer has caused something to happen, he has caused an effect with MEST. As another example, a student buys a book from a bookstore, takes it home and places it in his library. He has moved MEST, he has been causative to MEST. May we talk in this area? Terryeo 18:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, if I were to walk into a Scientology franchise, plunk down lots and lots of money, study really hard, accept whatever I'm told without ~~critical~~entheta thinking, do lots of auditing, and eventually reach Operating Thetan, my great reward for all that will be the ability to mortar a brick or to buy a book and put it in my library? -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]