User talk:Jimbo Wales

Wei Wenhua

For posterity:

• User talk:Jimbo Wales, blanked for 24 hours - 13 January 2008
• User talk:Jimbo Wales/Statements of support

Boy Scouts are for spanking?

Mr. Wales, it may be time for you to either pay more attention to what's happening with this Wikipedia/Wikia relationship, or begin setting down some rules at Wikia along the lines of, "Don't embarrass Wikia or the Wikipedia project with your actions on Wikia or Wikipedia." You'll wonder what I'm talking about? I'm delighted to see that Wikipedia has a GFDL image of some boys involved in the Boy Scouts mission. I'm not so delighted to see that photo copied into a Wikia called "Spanking Art", to enhance an article about Boy Scouts that reads:

While nowadays the Scouting movement prohibits the use of corporal punishment as part of its activities, this was not always so, and in spanking stories they often go hand in hand, especially with Beaver and Cub Scouts. There are also some spanking drawings that show young scouts, e.g. by Comixpank.

Because of the connotations of discipline that comes with scouting, some adult spankophiles like to roleplay/ageplay a boy or girl scout (similar to playing schoolboys).

Exactly what kind of perverts are Wikia and the Wikimedia Foundation enabling, by allowing them free and unfettered access to simple pictures of boys, that are then twisted and exploited on your for-profit company's website, so that they are interwoven into adult perversions and roleplay?

I know I'm not supposed to link there, but you really ought to spend a minute or two reviewing this analysis of what's going on, before you unwittingly spawn a worldwide boycott of Amazon.com, the primary investor in Wikia "Spanking Art", for being a pro-pedophilia corporation. - John Russ Finley (talk) 02:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You're missing a detail here. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia. When that photos was uploaded under free use, it became property of anyone and everyone. Uploading it as a free image says "I don't care who uses this and how they use this, as long as we're credited under the GFDL. So, every photo on Wikipedia can be "twisted and exploited" in the long run. Metros (talk) 03:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. In fact, Wikipedia users *are not* fully informed and thus cannot be assumed to have forfeited their intellectual property rights. Furthermore, the fact that an image is in the public domain does not mean that anyone may use it for any purpose; there are other legal restrictions (for example, libel). But beyond any legal considerations this kind of unrestricted license is unethical, as the example of the misuse of the boy scouts image demonstrates. In my opinion, Wikipedia should find or develop a different kind of license that does not give rise to these problems.Kevin Langdon (talk) 19:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

If that's true, then it's kinda important to TELL people that. I mean, we encourage people to release their images under a free license. Do we tell them that Wikia can then take their images and use them for spanking art? -Amarkov moo! 03:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Metros' top two article-space activities center around the lead singer of Fall Out Boy on the one hand, and Jamie Lynn Spears on the other. Thank you for your insight into the GFDL, property law, and photography. How about we get a discourse now about public relations disasters? - John Russ Finley (talk) 04:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

A. Yeah, note that all my edits there are vandalism reverts because those are two high targets. B. Also note that I'm an admin on Wikipedia, so clearly some people trust me. I would appreciate it if you'd take your ad hominem attacks elsewhere. Thanks, Metros (talk) 04:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

In response to Amarkov: the closest equivalent we have is the statement on every edit page that says "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." and the mention (and link to) the GFDL policy on Wikipedia. There is no explicit "here are some examples of how your submission might be used," just those general statements. Metros (talk) 04:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reason that you are complaining on Wikipedia when the problem you have is with Wikia? Another site is using our image (or rather the Wikimedia Commons' image) in accordance with copyright in a way that you find inappropriate. There is nothing that Wikipedia can do. Mr.Z-man 04:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I saw above that this is the place to praise Mr. Wales for his development of Wikia, Inc. I assumed that it would also be the place to bring criticisms of Wikia to light. - John Russ Finley (talk) 04:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no scandal here. It is allegorical. WAS 4.250 (talk) 11:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Like most people, Jimbo has an email address and he even lists it on his userpage and like most websites, Wikia has an easy to find "Contact Us" page. I would suggest you use one of those if you want someone to actually deal with this issue. Mr.Z-man 21:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like Metros to clarify whether the five boys whose faces are shown in that picture were told, "If you don't want your image to be perverted mercilessly or redistributed for profit by 'spankophiles', do not pose for it." Also, does Metros believe that User:Rlevse (the photographer) explained the GFDL to these 11- or 12-year-olds, and did they comprehend it? Does Rlevse have the authority to release the photo without permission from the 5 boys' parents? I suppose he does, just as Wikia Spanking Art has the authority to reprint the photo in a perverted context. I've notified the three regional chapters of the Boy Scouts in the San Francisco / San Jose area (headquarters of Wikimedia and Wikia). If they don't respond to this themselves, then I suppose there is no scandal, and we should applaud the triumph of free knowledge. -- -- Where I chillax (talk) 20:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Since the image is not being used commercially, and the boys are not recognizable celebrities, there can not be any personality rights issues involved in the U.S., where the First Amendment unequivocally permits all non-commercial publications of photographs that don't infringe on statutes, as protected speech. However, IANAL. MilesAgain (talk) 21:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo, in his capacity with Wikia, certainly has the power to get rid of the image even if the use is legally permissible. I am not a lawyer either so I don't know if the use is permissible, but I'm certainly concerned about the possibilities. What do you think the odds are that any person involved in Scouting is going to contribute any Scouting-related photo if a company owned by Jimbo Wales is going to misuse those photos? I can tell you that if this photo stays up, I have contributed my last photo to Wikimedia projects. If this were a third party using it, ok, there isn't much that can be done, or at least whining about it here isn't going to accomplish anything. But it's a company founded/owned/run/whatever by Jimbo and he certainly has the power to do something about it. It's a question of moral obligations. I cannot speak to the legal obligations of personality rights - I am not a lawyer. --B (talk) 22:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely right. Jimbo had a moral obligation to remove this photograph.Kevin Langdon (talk) 19:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The potential for abuse of images, making wiki look bad, condoning child porn here is huge. Please act, Jimbo. If such use is condoned, I will no longer submit images of children to wiki. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You guys are arguing against freedom. Against free speech. Against free culture. Against the free reuse of media. Against WikiMedia and Wikipedia. Go sell your love of slavery elsewhere. WAS 4.250 (talk) 22:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

This is an abusive, ad hominem, response to a serious concern.Kevin Langdon (talk) 19:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You're joking, right? You have no freedom of speech on somebody else's internet site. Jimbo Wales is well within his rights to restrict in any way what content he will or will not publish on his own website. Your hysterics are ludicrous. --B (talk) 22:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

True as far is it goes. But I think WAS 4.250 was referring to the reason for the call of removal. but it should be noted Jim does not own the website, Wikia, Inc. does. (Not to Say Jim is not a Big player in Wikia, Inc. --Roguebfl (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Now except its usage nowhere come close condoning child porn, and the admins of the wiki in question keep a close eye out to make sure it does not. --Roguebfl (talk) 00:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Provide link to their rules please. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Spanking_Art:Legal_terms and Spanking_Art:Image_use_policy#Pornography --Roguebfl (talk) 01:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Because it can be legally done doesn't mean it should be done. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we are going to get a resolution here and I don't think we can fix what is already out there. This particular usage is odious, but innocuous; it does drive home a point we never considered. We should discuss this within the Scouting project. We have editors in the project from many countries with many different laws and the different national Scouting organizations will have varying rules on youth protection. We can't ban anyone from releasing photos in this manner, but everyone should be aware of the potential issues and each editor is going to have to make their own decisions on this. Personally, I have a camera full of photos from this past weekend that I was processing, but I think they are staying on my PC for now until I think on this some more. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 00:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, there are three different avenues of resolution - (1) appeal to the editors involved, (2) appeal to the website owner, (3) legal cease & desist from the Scout council (tortious interference with Rlevse's youth protection obligations?). This discussion here is #2. Regardless of whether or not Rlevse is legally permitted by the council to license photos he takes at Scouting functions under the GFDL and regardless of whether or not photos of those Scouts can legally be used in this manner, we are asking Jimbo, as a reasonable person, to voluntarily refrain from using the kids in this way. It's not an innocuous use if you are one of the kids or the parent of one of the kids depicted on this website and it's a very reasonable, informal, request that Rlevse's moral rights as the photographer be respected. --B (talk) 00:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected. I dug into the site (more than I wanted to) and I find some of the context quite disturbing. [1] --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 02:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The real question is what was whoever approved this Wikia thinking? Prodego ^talk 02:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I see 2 issues here. One is concerning the copyright on the photos and the other is over wikia cities (or sub-projects). There are pro-pedophile wikis out there, I won't say where, and if images are free that means that as long as those wikis are legal that the images are freely available. We cannot have a GFDL copyright or copyleft that only excludes pro-pedophile sites (if those sites are deemed legal and if they do not contain pornography they generally are considered legal). This is an issue for lawyers not for Jimbo, or at the very least for the whole community. The wikia issue is different, I have heard the pic has been removed and the page locked. Jimbo has a good record of opposing pedophilia activism on wikipedia IMHO, doubtless a mistake was made here and its great if it is being resolved but I don't think we can conclude from this that Jimbo is anything other than offering the kind of leadership we expect on this issue, including ensuring that wikipedia is a a safe place for children to edit. Thanks, SqueakBox 05:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no good reason not to exclude proponents of pedophilia from any civilized venue. I've known victims of pedophiles and they've been scarred for life.Kevin Langdon (talk) 19:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

said lock is only temporary till the issue is resolved, it has not yet been decided --Roguebfl (talk) 05:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Freedom is the right for people to be free to act the way they want to act. The free culture movement is about enabling people to create, modify, and distribute information as text, sounds, images, or video by providing copyleft software tools and content for modification and redistribution. It is not free if the uses are legally restricted to the original content creator's desired purposes. For that, you need to use a non-free copyright license. Wikipedia and WikiMedia have a mission of maximum worldwide free distribution of freely re-editable educational content. If one does not want content that they create to be legally free to be modified and redistributed for causes one does not personally endorse, then they should not contribute them to a free culture site such as wikipedia. WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection to anyone trying to get Wikia to only promote good things. What I objected to is attacks on the legal tool of copyleft copyrights which is needed in the fight for freedom. WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You have my support, WAS, I totally agree. Badly using copyleft images is the responsibility of the people who use them, not of wikipedia for releasing the images with a copyleft copyright. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand how copyright and honoring the ethics of personal privacy, especially of pre-pubescent minors, are somehow antithetical to "freedom". People are also "free" to organize boycotts of Amazon.com (#1 investor in Wikia) and to organize boycotts of donating to Wikimedia Foundation. Let's take a poll -- which do you think would win out in the court of public opinion? The fight for copyleft freedom, or the fight against online sites that promote a pro-pedophilia and pro-child-abuse agenda? Choose your sides, people. This is going to be a quick, decisive battle. - Where I chillax (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you making threats? EconomicsGuy (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I see no threats above, I see cold hard facts and a healthy dose of reality. Here's a frightening idea: let's say one of these kids or one of their parents happens to come across this photo. What is going to happen is the children in question will probably be quite upset, possibly affected psychologically, and the parents will be infuriated and go on the warpath. That's when lawsuits, phone calls to the press, and massive "what about the children?" drives begin. If anyone thinks Wikia can protect themselves by hiding behind the GFDL and copyleft they're sadly mistaken. Can they do so legally? Perhaps. But the ensuing massive bad publicity has the potential to bring the entire project (and any related projects) to its knees. It doesn't matter what is right under the law, it only matters how the public sees you. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 17:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

If anyone wants to sue Wikia, boycott their business partners or whatever it is this thread is being used to plan then take it off-wiki to Wikia directly. This is the encyclopedia, not Wikia. Do you have any complaints directed at Wikipedia? EconomicsGuy (talk) 17:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that the complaints are directed toward the owner of this talk page, who has a stake in Wikia and Wikipedia. This incident, which has a potential of bringing disrepute to the founder of Wikipedia, has the potential to bring the entire Wikipedia project into disrepute, hence, it is not out of place to have this discussion here. "Donations keep this site running." Anything that has the potential to effect donations negatively has the potential of effecting Wikipedia negatively. daveh4h 19:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

There are several issues involved. *I* was solely talking about people badmouthing the GFDL because it is able to be used to promote bad things. My interest was to defend the GFDL in spite of its ability to be used to promote bad things. Like some people defend gun ownership even tho guns can be used to do bad things. Defending the right to own a gun is not advocating murder. Defending copy left is not advocating bad things that can be done with copy left content. Advocating freedom to speak is not advocating that Wikipedia or Wikia allow anyone to say anything on either of those sites. I am for the right of people to legally advocate bad things on their own site (not Wikia or Wikimedia sites) using copyleft content. I am for people protesting the advocacy of bad things. I am against making either the advocacy or the protest illegal. I believe that freedom of expression is the best way to identify what in fact is a good thing versus what in fact is a bad thing; and in laws that outlaw doing bad things while retaining the freedom to advocate a change to those laws. WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Could someone explain how this page is inherently different than the "indecent images" discussed here? I'm not seeing a gigantic difference. You say that defending the right to own a gun is not advocating murder. Likewise, defending the privacy rights of innocent children (who don't know a GFDL license from a proprietary watermark system for secure digital media) is not advocating censorship, or slavery, or abolition of the copyleft license, or whatever the heck would be the opposite of the "freedom" that you spoke of above. Continued debate on the legal intricacies of this problem while denying the moral magnitude of the situation is going to backfire on this project. -- -- Where I chillax (talk) 19:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that an image on WikiMedia servers breaks the law? If so, which image breaks which law? WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you daft? Do you not know the difference between the words "moral" and "legal"? How could you possibly respond to what I wrote with what you wrote, unless you are utterly trying to deflect this discussion to some arcane aspect of the situation that you can "win"? I'm done with trying to engage in finding a solution here. Let the authorities and the lawyers figure it out. I'm sure that perverted individuals who are exploiting youngsters will win the day. - - Where I chillax (talk) 19:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

At what point are we ready to say this thread constitutes a legal threat and deal with it accordingly? EconomicsGuy (talk) 19:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Very nice - you want to ban us because we don't want pictures of Boy Scouts to be used to promote pedophilia? Nobody is threatening to sue or anything remotely like that - we are asking Jimbo to do the honorable thing and not allow a photo that Rlevse provided in good faith to be used in that manner. That isn't a threat - it's a polite request. --B (talk) 20:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't. The thread is an appeal to Jimbo because it isn't illegal, thus can't be removed through normal methods. But Wales could remove it if he so wishes, though that might create a bad image for him. That might be one reason he is leaving this alone, there is no good answer here. Prodego ^talk 20:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think at any point - I'd like you to point to any part of this thread where anyone has said, explicitly, or implied (even as far as "innocent queries about editing Wikipedia from a Department of Defense computer"), the involvement of any law enforcement authority. Or are you angling for the "chilling effect" of ensuring people don't rock the boat too much? Because I can't see a single point at which you could say "this thread needs to be shut down as a legal threat". Quite simply, it ain't there. Achromatic (talk) 22:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

So now you assume that I'm playing games like it was some natural thing to do on Wikipedia because I was concerned about the tone and general language and purpose of the latter comments before I posted that question. Sweet. So now the natural assumption when someone is concerned about a debate that he must be trying to chill the debate and silence the critics. I think that says more about Wikipedia these days and WR and the trolls who inhabit it than we needed to be reminded of. I'm gone anyway now but I do wonder what the DoD have to do with anything I've said. EconomicsGuy (talk) 22:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, one ad hominem begets another, is that it? I'm still curious, though, I'm wondering what comments prompted you to run off down the "let's call this thread a legal threat and act accordingly". That's more than just "concern about tone and general language" of comments. Achromatic (talk) 23:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

EconomicsGuy: you need to chill the hell out with your claims of legal threats. You're CLEARLY trying to silence the critics because as far as I can tell, two of your posts here have been baldfaced implications that we're here making legal threats. What the hell would I or any of the other people here sue for? You're trying to draw this into a circular logic trap and an ad hominem mudslinging contest and it won't work. Frankly, I'm here because I'm concerned ABOUT the project. If you'd taken the time to read what I wrote above and think about it before going into internet argument mode and automatically dismissing it as "legal threats", you'd see how something of this magnitude can affect not just Wikia, but everything else associated with it. As I said before, nobody cares about the legality of things, free media, etc. when children and borderline pedophilia are involved. And if you think anyone will be fair in their attacks, think again. So, we can all look forward to the news media screaming headlines like "Wikipedia associated website sued for kiddie porn." Which I guarantee will be the effective end of Wikipedia, as it's a considerably more high-profile target than Wikia itself is. But go right ahead- tell me I'm making legal threats and try to hush up people with real concerns regarding the project. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 23:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

If you think I'm going to grab the bait just because you repeat the accusations of bad faith and type in caps you're wrong. If you want Jimbo to act I suggest you send him a calm e-mail. He is far more co-operative and responsive than he is generally given credit for. I'm done here. Geez... EconomicsGuy (talk) 07:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I have seen what could be considered kiddie porn on WMF and Wikia wikis, and a bunch of boy scouts, even on a wiki about spanking, doesn't come close. MilesAgain (talk) 00:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Please give examples to back up what you say. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually please don't. Let's not start posting more objectionable material when it's not needed. This discussion was about should wikipedia be held responsible for anyone taking a perfectly innocent image from this website and using it elsewhere (for anything) and the simply answer is "no". Content is freely available to anyone and that includes people who would use the content for fetishistic and porn purposes. If you feel they are doing something wrong then take it up with them and their IP hosts. Benjiboi 02:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Benjiboi that further examples are not required. I also believe that every editor who has posted a photograph of a person or persons under the age of 16 should give serious consideration to taking whatever steps they are able to have those photographs deleted, barring written permission of the parent(s) of said child(ren) authorizing the posting of the photographs here on Wikipedia, complete with acknowledgement of the implications of the applicable license. Writing as the parent, I would not hesitate for a minute to demand takedown of any unauthorized photographs of my child that I happen to find anywhere on the web, but most particularly in a site such as Wikipedia, where the photographs can be (and no doubt are) taken by individuals of questionable intent. Indeed, Wikipedia and Commons should give serious consideration to refusing to host such photographic images without parental authorization. Risker (talk) 02:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

SqueakBox, I know you know what I am talking about because I saw you on this very page discussing some possibly-underage non-nude girls in sexualized poses. MilesAgain (talk) 08:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

A final recap: After much discussion here, the Boy Scout page on Spanking Arts was chopped, Wales deleted the image from their site and the SA folks created a new policy on images. The Scouting WikiProject is drafting a project guideline that notes the potentials for reuse of images in ways the photographer may not have intended. As there is no way to control reuse of images, we are recommending that editors do not upload images of youth. This reverses a personal push for more active images with Scouts to replace a lot of the boring images we currently have of buildings and empty waterfront areas.

There was an awful lot of discussion here about freedom, guns and other tangent subjects. Please understand that the Scouting WikiProject has no desire to attempt censorship; most of our editors are volunteer members of one of the myriads of national Scouting organizations around the world. We must answer to local and national laws, the rules and regulations of our organizations and each editor's moral compass. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 18:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

These are good and sensible moves. WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to throw this out here for discussion. First off, thank you Jimbo for deleting the image. Your willingness to step in is appreciated. I'd like to suggest as a project, we reexamine our licensing policy concerning identifiable images of persons under 18. (Identifiable means that it is zoomed in enough on a person's face that you could recognize that person if you saw them on the street.) We really ought to either permit these images to be licensed under a more restrictive licensing scheme that prohibits sexually explicit reuse OR we need to require parental informed consent to be logged with OTRS. I recognize that the former probably isn't going to happen, but the latter definitely should. --B (talk) 19:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I, too, appreciate Jimbo's action on this subject. I agree that more thought needs to be given to the licensing question.Kevin Langdon (talk) 19:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the sort of nonsense that WR was trying to create in the first place. Child actors, faces in a crowd, etc. Don't contribute if you don't want your contribution to be under a free license that can be used by anybody for anything. WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This is total nonsense. Do you want images of you to be posted with the caption "child molester"? "Anybody for anything," my ass!Kevin Langdon (talk) 19:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

At issue is NOT the rights of the contributor. In every case, Scouters who have contributed these photos are doing so with the willingness that their contributions be used or adapted, commercial or otherwise, etc. The rights of the contributor aren't an issue. It's about the rights of the children depicted in the photo. Either (a) we need to protect their rights or (b) we need to make sure that their parents have given informed consent to the use of the photo. Neither the photographer nor Wikipedia has the authority to permit you to use a photo of someone else's child for sexually explicit purposes. That's a legal fact of life and we need to spell that out somewhere. Informed parental consent is the direction I'm leaning. --B (talk) 20:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Every comment you have made in this thread, WAS 4.250, seems to be an effort in making people appear draconian for demanding curtailing of contributor rights. You have invoked spurious appeals to emotion, "Go sell your love of slavery elsewhere." and such, in an effort to derail the discussion from what it was about - that there are, ethically, morally and legally, more peoples rights involved than that of the contributor. Personality and likeness rights - even if, from all interpretations of your comments - you have decided that such rights are inherently trumped by your rights - certainly an interesting approach to take. Even when it has been repeatedly explained that the issue is the right of an unintended/potentially unwilling subject to be depicted in a manner of their choosing, your responses have been predominantly along the lines of "ZOMG, the WR trolls are hounding down the GFDL! Slavers!", seemingly deciding instead that it's not the message that's important (or not), but the messenger. Achromatic (talk) 03:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It appears that the Spanking Art site at Wikia has been shut down until they can sort out whether its administrators can restrain themselves from making it a site that focuses prurient attention of the abuse of children. Let's hope they get it right. - John Russ Finley (talk) 22:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Scientology article

Scientology definition page is constantly being vandalized and manipulated by the cult followers. Any time a word "cult" shows up there, it gets erased, Same with simple facts about the workings of this organization. I hope the founder of Wikipedia can somehow protect this article so that it is not misleading or manipulative. If Scientology is not a cult, than what is? Or should we get rid of that word entirely... Any educated person with information about Scientology - it's practices, its workings, manipulations etc know what this cult is about. Let's not kid ourselves here. And the encyclopedia should be about information, knowledge, transparency - not manipulation, deletion of certain facts and informations. Wikipedia is a very well known and popular online encyclopedia, lots of kids read it, it should be informative, not misleading and luring into some cults like Scientology. All the info on this cult is online, all the historical info on religions and cults as well, and in spite of that this particular entry here is constantly evolving into a nice little promo for this brainwashing racket. Some fact should be placed under the definition of Scientology - after all the encyclopedia is about informing, educating people not withholding information, isn't it? Just as this nice sentence on Jimmy's homepage states: "Free knowledge for free minds". Scientology is certainly not free, it keeps it's papers and procedures secretive and the same is going on on its definition page on Wikipedia. Gradually crucial info is being erased by some very active individuals. Kind regards --Pitdog (talk) 17:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

As pretty much the only Scientologist currently editing, I have to laugh. The only "very active individual" in the Scientology articles is a prolific critic that is interested in "constantly evolving" the series "into a nice" exposition of his POV and evolving WikiNews "into a nice little promo" for a bunch of Anon cyberterrorists (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Prolific POV-pusher moving from Wikipedia to WikiNews). --JustaHulk (talk) 18:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear JustaHulk :) since you are obviously biased here, and as we all know the cults main point is to manipulate the minds of its members, I do not think you should be able to edit the article or being taken seriously. And do not meddle with the facts, you are pretending not to know what has been going on with this particular entry for years on end or you are very new to Wikipedia. Either way you seem to be kinda oblivious to some simple facts. I hope you can educate yourself a little bit, read about this organisation and stop being manipulated by the cult. I wish you the best. --Pitdog (talk) 10:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Pitdog, the self-imposed mind control of ill-informed bigotry is much more likely, more prevalent, and more damaging than any shifts in point-of-view that a Scientologist may experience by virtue of studying Scientology. --JustaHulk (talk) 14:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Please tell my why you are mentioning some ill-informed bigotry. What do you know about me and my knowledge, my experiences? You are biased, if you have an some sense of fair play and justice, you should see that you shouldn't take part in editing an article about something in which you participate, especially a cult which manipulates its members. Read some info I provided above, then discuss. From me: over and out. I am not fair game, I will not further waste time talking to someone, who perhaps is manipulating the public forum. Just have some respect for the readers here and admit: as someone involved in the cult you are not able to make clear judgments about the organization. Your views are certainly not neutral, because you are a Scientologist. Scientology through its primitive mind controlling practices is a very dangerous organization. The "lessons", or auditing those are very old, simple and potentially very harming exercises for a victims psyche. Repetitions, prolonged monotonous sessions, hatred towards sciences like psychiatry, medicine in general - now we an start talking about bigotry ad doing harm to societies, to individuals... Cheers --Pitdog (talk) 14:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I will not waste space here attempting to disabuse you of your ill-informed and bigoted (not to mention banal) misconceptions. Yes, people that know a subject may have a different opinion of it than those that do not and I guess you could call that "bias". --JustaHulk (talk) 14:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You are being offensive, throwing names around. Another typical cult tactic (this particular cult) - attack, fair game. Please explain what is ill informed about simple very well known facts, pick one - secrecy of the cult, money grabbing, all the L,R.Hubbard "teachings" which are basically drunk man' blabberings (or am I mistaken, correct me and show the wisdom of that con man lol). And again lets get back to the main point - where is NPOV if an active member of the cult is editing the page?? Be fair, have some dignity and respect for the readers and do not involve yourself in creating a biased, misinforming Wikipedia entry on Scientology. Have you read the sources I provided? A simple question. Read and understood I mean. --Pitdog (talk) 15:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Trust me, I am extremely familiar with ALL sides of this issue. And it is your ill-informed, one-sided blatherings that are truly offensive. And readers here will be glad to hear that I am done rising to your trolling. --JustaHulk (talk) 16:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Scientology should be ridiculed in accordance with NPOV, because virtually everyone agrees it's ridiculous. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 02:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Please don't say things that are unnnecessarily inflammatory, and may offend other editors. --Deskana (talk) 02:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• as Cult is the total cultural aspects of a religion, as they are distinguished from others. In theory its can be applied to all religions equally, what the problem is that "cult" is perceived in the negative when added to a religion as such the use of "cult" should be exercised with caution where the term is used it use should be clearly inline with WP:NPOV. In general respect should be given to the wording of all religious articles and terms that have such extreme negative perceptions should be avoided in the general writing of articles and left to the quotes of experts on the subject. Gnangarra 03:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

So can I put some expert quotes on the subject of this cult there? So that the article is not misleading and becomes a bit more informative? Cult implies manipulation, mind control- yes, it is a negative term, that is precisely why it applies to Scientology. If this is not a cult, than what is I ask? Kind regards --Pitdog (talk) 10:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Cult doesnt mean "manipulation" "mind control" to use the term to imply such violates WP:NPOV. Scientology is a religion if you have issues with it then editing an article to push your POV is doing exactly what you are complaining about. Something about "let he who is free of sin cast the stone"... Gnangarra 14:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

We must be talking about a different word with different definition. So what a cult means in your opinion? The saying about the stone and sin - what it has to do with facts? Being neutral means no manipulation, no withholding information. Pretending that Scientology is not a cult is like pretending that right now theres peace and democracy in Iraq. I see no point in further discussion on this level. Scientology is a cult if you have issues with it that its your right to be misinformed, but why misinform the general public? You mention being objective, and yet the page is being actively edited by a member or members of the cult. Where is objectivity in that? Please do not twist the facts, it is pointless. ". By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." a quote form NPOV article. Regards --Pitdog (talk) 14:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You're talking about a very loaded word, with multiple definitions and connotations. Cult can mean any religious sect you don't like. And it doesn't even need to be religious. You could all benefit by reading the Wikipedia article on cults, which is really quite excellent. And by the way, the proposed psychological definition fits the Navy SEALS or the Marine Corps a lot better than it does Scientology. Take people who are young or otherwise mentally vulnerable, then break-em-down, then build-em-up, and the finally use them for whatever purpose you like, is an old, old human process. SBHarris 20:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The world cult can be used to mean "any religious sect you don't like." However, that's not the neutral or objective definition of cult, and Scientology is a cult that it is ridiculed by virtually all neutral parties. Supporting the treatment of Scientology as a potential "religion" that faces "prejudice" or "persecution" by "anti-Scientologist bigots" is a violation of WP:NPOV, WP:SOAP, and WP:FRINGE. The claim that the neutral definition of cult applies to religions and the Navy SEALS or USMC may be a perfectly logical inference, which may be true. However, it is also original research. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 08:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

May I respectfully submit that this is not the proper place to debate the merits (or lack thereof) of Scientology? Nor is the proper place anywhere on Wikipedia, or any of its sister projects. All users with strong points of view about a subject, be they approval or disapproval, are advised to be particularly cautious when editing articles about that subject, lest they unknowingly introduce bias. - Chardish (talk) 08:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

This is actually very very simple. Chardish is 100% correct. And anyone who says that NPOV demands that we call Scientology a cult has really completely, utterly and totally missed the point of NPOV as dramatically as possible. On any controversial issue, Wikipedia must not take a stand. It is certainly fine (and necessary for NPOV) to discuss that reputable sources have raised the question of whether Scientology is a cult. It may also be fine, depending on what the source says, to say that the source has "alleged" or "claimed" that it is. Or that many commentators have. Or whatever might be the case. But Wikipedia itself can have no opinion on the matter one way or the other.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Native Son

Since you are the second most famous native son of Alabama, Forest Gump being the first, are there any streets (buildings? state constitutional amendments?) named after you? Huntsville(Madison)? , Tuscaloosa?, that other school? --mitrebox (talk) 17:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this a joke? You're joking, right? KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Name somebody from Alabama more famous than Jimmy? There are no presidents. So that only leaves Ruben Studdard? He was born in Germany --mitrebox (talk) 18:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Possible candidates are Helen Keller, Hank Aaron, Harper Lee, Joe Lewis, Willie Mays, and Rosa Parks, for a start. And that's just off the top of my head. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

And there's also George Wallace.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh and I'm more alarmed that you list Forest Gump as being the most famous than I am at your assertion that Jimmy is the second-most. At least Jimmy is real, and justly famous. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

People KNOW Forrest Gump. Helen Keller? "Oh the blind chick on the quarter", Rosa Parks? You mean the OutKast song?, Hank Aaron? that dude whose record was broken by steroid BB, and people are more likely to know Attaicus Finch than Harper Lee.--mitrebox (talk) 18:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Forest Gump isn't even a native son of Alabama any more than Tom sawyer is a native son of Mississippi, and I find it extraordinary that anyone would think otherwise. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Tom sawyer is from Missouri. (hey whats this? why I think its some of that Extraordinary that going around)--mitrebox (talk) 19:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

La la la. --JustaHulk (talk) 19:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I, being born in Alabama, find the Forrest Gump sentiment prevalent. I usually tell such people about our "law" keeping women barefoot until they are 15, and am frequently met with, "really?"  :-) 63.3.15.129 (talk) 21:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

When I travel I always get the "but you don't have an accent" statement. I retort with "Well we only do that for the tourists..." Then breaking into the most exaggerated drawl ".. not so much for their entertainment, but to keep them from sticking around too long."--mitrebox (talk) 01:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Mitrebox, is that joke CC licensed? ...cause I shore do wanna use it... ;-)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo, I think thats one of very few jokes I ever came up with on my own. And I tell you what... I'd sure be mighty proud if anyone ever used it to get a laugh.--mitrebox (talk) 19:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Well when I heard Jimbo on the radio he certainly sounded like he had a strong accent, but perhaps that is merely my British ears. Thanks, SqueakBox 07:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

My Midwestern ears hear no accent after listening to him speak for an hour. MilesAgain (talk) 08:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Trinitarian Biased Impedance of Nontrinitarian Article improvement

{{help}} I'm sure you have higher priority things on your plate, but my distress has motivated me to contact you, as one of the more senior administrators of this Encyclopedia, to request that you review/create policy that will more fairly and effectively detect and deal with the hidden biases put into action via impedance of article improvements that conflict with said biases. ie, there is enough evidence now I think at the Nontrinitarian Article that the influence of Trinitarian Administrators and editors is becoming harmful. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 17:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't see that ever happening, even if Jimbo agreed with you.

Headline: "Jimbo edits article on Trinitarianism, blocks Christian admins -- his anti-Christian bias shows!" etc, etc..

Conservapedia would have a field day with it and he'd be thrown in with "the leftist conspiracy" on the O'Reilly Factor, though it would probably be funny to see what jokes Stephen Colbert would make about it.

If the users there are regularly violating a certain policy, like WP:V, WP:RS, or WP:NPOV, report them for it and help clarify that specific policy more explicitly rather than expecting Jim to step in where he obviously can't. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 19:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

"Gods! What a monster." - Jean-Luc Picard.
Thank you for the heads up on Conservapedia. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 19:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You may wish to take a look at Countering systemic bias to see if there is anything there to help you interact with your colleagues on the article more fruitfully. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)