Talk:Church of Scientology/Archive 2: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Larry Sanger
imported>David Martin
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
{{checklist
|                abc = Scientology
|                cat1 = Philosophy
|                cat2 =
|                cat3 =
|          cat_check = N
|              status = 2
|        underlinked = Y
|            cleanup = Y
|                  by = [[User:David Martin|David Martin]] 20:46, 15 May 2007 (CDT)
}}
In its current form, this article is very difficult to understand.  I would recommend writing to make it more accessible.  --[[User:Peter A. Lipson|Peter A. Lipson]] 14:09, 1 May 2007 (CDT)
In its current form, this article is very difficult to understand.  I would recommend writing to make it more accessible.  --[[User:Peter A. Lipson|Peter A. Lipson]] 14:09, 1 May 2007 (CDT)
: I've rewritten what I think you might be referring to, but please post more comments if you would like.  I've tried to present the reason why Hubbard called it "a study of knowledge".  I've tried to be specific about  what he was talking about re:knowledge, as specifically as possible. [[User:Terry E. Olsen|Terry E. Olsen]] 18:16, 1 May 2007 (CDT)
: I've rewritten what I think you might be referring to, but please post more comments if you would like.  I've tried to present the reason why Hubbard called it "a study of knowledge".  I've tried to be specific about  what he was talking about re:knowledge, as specifically as possible. [[User:Terry E. Olsen|Terry E. Olsen]] 18:16, 1 May 2007 (CDT)

Revision as of 20:46, 15 May 2007


Article Checklist for "Church of Scientology/Archive 2"
Workgroup category or categories Philosophy Workgroup [Categories OK]
Article status Developing article: beyond a stub, but incomplete
Underlinked article? Yes
Basic cleanup done? Yes
Checklist last edited by David Martin 20:46, 15 May 2007 (CDT)

To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist.






In its current form, this article is very difficult to understand. I would recommend writing to make it more accessible. --Peter A. Lipson 14:09, 1 May 2007 (CDT)

I've rewritten what I think you might be referring to, but please post more comments if you would like. I've tried to present the reason why Hubbard called it "a study of knowledge". I've tried to be specific about what he was talking about re:knowledge, as specifically as possible. Terry E. Olsen 18:16, 1 May 2007 (CDT)