Statement from Jimbo re. Bauder/Forrester, From around Jan. 2006 ArbCom Elections Options

[C H]

I recall Jimbo saying that any arbcom election process that failed to elect James Forrester or Fred Bauder was broken. It was around the time of the January 2006 election, where James and Fred had seemingly failed in their reelection bids. Shortly thereafter, Jimbo expanded the arbcom by 3 members, adding Forrester, Bauder and JayJG. Can anyone help me find the quote? It was either on-wiki or on the mailing list.

[One]

That's a pretty accurate and neutral summary of the religion. That literally IS the core of the religion, akin to the stories of Jesus in relative scale. Compare to the first paragraph of Jesus:
...
Lose the last line about the COS trying to deny or hide the Xenu story (which they DO do) and it's apples and oranges. If it sounds POV and negative because it sounds like a bad episode of classic Star Trek, that's not anyone at Wikipedia's fault. Its "This is what this religious figure is," according to the internal Church canon. It's not Wikipedia's fault that Xenu is a step removed from a Gorn.

Jesus has fewer OR images generated on the computers of anti-Christians. It could, if it were a comparable article, feature a photoshopped Jesus walking on the water in the most ludicrous manner possible. The article for Jesus also doesn't quote Judas talking about how Jesus was on a steady diet of drugs and wine. For that matter, it isn't composed almost entirely from anti-Christian sources. But then, [[Jesus]] wasn't written by career anti-Christians.

Scientology is so hated that it all sounds perfectly neutral to many. In any other context such COI articles would look foolish. For example, I'm sure that Ralph Nader could write a facially neutral-sounding article on General Motors. He could probably create a very detailed article. Like anti-Scientologists, Nader has a deep memory of the organization and its flaws. But if we knew Nader was the author, I think we would look at it skeptically. I would, at least. I would be skeptical even though (as with Scientology) I would be much more sympathetic to the biased writer than the subject. I'm not sure why this doesn't skepticism apply to anti-Scientologists' work. Wikipedians just shrug or even blame the religion's weirdness for enabling such tawdry articles.

Don't get me wrong--they have exceptionally weird beliefs--but an impartial account by a comparative religion scholar would not resemble the sensationalistic articles on Wikipedia. But then, that's probably true for many subjects.

Milton Roe pointed out in another thread that there are articles for Anti-Catholicism, Anti-Mormonism, Islamophobia, and so forth, but no such article as Anti-Scientology.

This post has been edited by One: