Talk:Scientology discography

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This article was nominated for deletion on 20 January 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

The Arbitration Committee has placed all Scientology-related articles on probation (see relevant arbitration case). Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages.

	Scientology Portal 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.
List	This article has been rated as List-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 discography article.
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. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Contents 1 Alphabetical 2 Fair use rationale for Image:Htpsttw.jpg 3 Unsourced material removed from the article

[edit] Alphabetical

Perhaps this article should be in alphabetical order, rather than chronologically? Although usually for such things chronological would be the preferred style, I think it's going to be too confusing to have a 2001 entry for a 1951 lecture that was reissued in 2007. If we go alphabetical here we can give a title and then its reissue and format history. One entry per title, with all we need to know about when and what following it.

The article needs a bit of style tweaks (italicized titles, wikilinks to the articles where appropriate) and also needs to note formats - CD, cassette, LP, etc. wikipediatrix 22:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I second wikipediatrix on noting the formats.HubcapD 19:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, this is going to require some research. If somebody has the 1998 WIS? it contains the information up to 1998 and I have notes on a big part of what came since. (I can say the cassette production started in mid-80s -- with PDC -- and stopped in 2001, the CD production started in 2002 -- with PDC) Does someone have the English Guide Chart? I have just a translated one I picked up last month and the names will have to be checked as I backtranslate to English.

I'm not so sure about the alphabetical for the following reason: lectures have been issued with two names, sometimes three. Here is how it goes: there is the original name from when it was recorded. Let's say 1953 Spring lectures. Then in the 90s the marketing department came up with big-sounding names like Dawn of immortality, hoping to sell them better. Then they decide to market it with Scn 8-8008 for the Golden Age of Knowledge and call it The Factors. These 90s marketing names were in themselves an alteration of Hubbard's intent. The most glaring example is Skills of a theta being. This name sounds like it's an OT lectures while the series is an auditor training course for Academy students. As a result it is due to be reissued as Hubbard Special Professional Auditor course (the original name). Correcting these marketing alterations was one of the big reasons why a Golden Age of Knowledge was necessary from DM viewpoint. At once the Golden Age of knowledge is a correction program, a release program and a marketing program trying to sell the most materials as "lost tech". The 90s marketers were trying to sell it as "OT material" a wrong target that violated the "gradient approach" and made DM state there was not One Scientologist among the public. I give this background info so we don't work in a way that's going to get outdated by coming developments. So I suggest we organize them by original date with an indication of when they were released to the public on which format. This is what best matches the bibliography as it reflects the chronological development. --Leocomix 19:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but you seem to be looking at it from the perspective of Scientology, when this article is written for the masses. The average user of this article will likely be a non-Scientologist, and as such will find it more useful, I believe, if it's item-driven and not content-driven. This should be a list of all audio products the Church has released, whether "outdated" or not. Also, listing by item/title keeps us from having to know exactly when said item was released. I can sit here and rattle off the names of dozens of cassette sets from memory, but I can't enter them into the article because I don't know exactly when each one was released. wikipediatrix 20:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Good point, finding the dates is the most difficult. --Leocomix 20:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I hve my 1998 copy of WIS at hand. What exactly are you looking for?HubcapD 05:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a section at the end that gives release dates for materials but now that I think about it, the dates are not given for the release of cassette series. What I'm looking for is the release dates of cassette series. For this we might have to check the copyright dates on each. For those that were re-released on CD, there might be two copyright dates or the original date, say for State of Man Congress (c) 1992, 2003. So we might find the date even if we don't have all versions. You can use your WIS to check the original dates and the alternate names. --Leocomix 09:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Htpsttw.jpg

Image:Htpsttw.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced material removed from the article

Unsourced material was removed from this article. If you can find secondary sources that satisfy WP:RS/WP:V, please feel free to add that material back into the article. The prior version may be seen here. Cirt (talk) 11:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)