Talk:Church of Scientology International

OR issues

This article uses a massive amount of PDF files as references, all of them uploaded and added by the same user. Might be OR. Shutterbug (talk) 22:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The fact that "a massive amount of pdf files were used as references" and which were "added by the same user" is no indication whatsoever for *original research*. Why don't you point out the specific pdf files in question?

I removed your tag. It did not even address the "issue" properly. Cheers. Martin Ottmann (talk) 22:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

broken links - no sources

I put the tags back in. Almost all sources for this article are either broken links (links to non-existent PDF files) or primary sources, or - statistically, out of 28 references only 4 are not broken links exist[1][2][3] and those all 4 are primary sources. The 24 broken links earlier linked to 24 more primary sources. Zero scholar works, zero secondary sources at all. Shutterbug (talk) 06:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I just ran a script to convert all the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/foo foo] links to [[foo]], and this turned a boatload of links red! This is one of the reasons why it's important to use the proper link style for internal links (another is that it breaks SSL browsing). Plastikspork (talk) 02:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

"Cult" as a term

The term should not be used as per WP:LABEL, which states "Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. Avoid myth in its informal sense, and establish the scholarly context for any formal use of the term." Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view, so if you insist on using the term, you'll need secondary sources to back it up. Yeenosaurus (talk) 🍁 03:05, 16 June 2018 (UTC)