Talk:Isaac Hayes quits South Park over Scientology episode

We are so sued. They'll sue us in England. --Deprifry|+T+ 18:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikinews is not censored. Neutralizer 09:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Sources

Please do not use The Onion or related news-parody sites as sources. These sites are comedic, and very fun to visit, but they are specifically not factual and are not considered verification for factual statements. (They might be used to support a statement that, for example, Isaac Hayes was satirized on the Onion.) - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 19:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

everything exept the last line is sourced, fixed, publish International 20:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Last line is cut&paste from wikipedia, second to last line is from the 2nd source here. Nyarlathotep 20:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I just wanted to fix it according to Amgines concerns and publish it rather fast, didnt check wikipedia. Its a interesting article. Btw I dont find any problem with the interviews on The Onion. International 21:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Umm, I'm not 100% sure, but arn't Onion AV Interviews were just real interviews like any other? It's not being used as a source, but he did talk about the incident there, so its good to link it if its real. Nyarlathotep 20:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

---

The Onion AV club is distinct from the Onion. The former is legitimate while the latter is not. Sr.Wombat 05:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

That's correct; the AV source is just fine, Amgine. Please reconsider. Neutralizer 09:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Many stronger sources are now available for the claim that Hayes did not quit of his own volition. A search is easy. Someone with an account had better fix this.

Why is the page locked down anyway? Open it. Fix, it. Hayes is no longer around to defend himself yet you gladly repeat the words that Scientologists put into his mouth. You even call his stroke 'minor'. Not just unfactual but shameful

What a horrible little website. What is the point of it, if its pages show such negligence of research? If I have to spend longer typing corrections into it than reading, then it has failed in its purpose. Why does it persist? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 78.147.19.93 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

If you wish to present evidence that something stated in the article is factually wrong, please do present this evidence; we would like to know about it, so we can issue a {{correction}}. Please do attend carefully to what we reported, though; note for example the meaning of the term "minor stroke", and it may also matter that we are reporting there on what somebody else said.

A news article is not an encyclopedia article. A news article is a snapshot in time. Our neutrality policy calls for reporting objective facts rather than analysis or opinion about them, and so articles should preserve a snapshot of what objective facts were known at the time of publication, when the event had just recently happened. Our old articles, of which we host a very large collection, are a record of history (a very valuable record, especially when you consider that, in recent years, newspaper archives have been increasingly disappearing behind paywalls, if they're preserved at all); our archive policy forbids substantive changes to them very long after publication, which would be revising history, and calls for them to be fully protected after a while. If there is anything factually wrong stated in an article, we can and do issue a {{correction}}; but we try to make this unlikely by reporting only things we can be sure of. Granted, our quality-control has gotten better over the years, and this is quite an old article, but that doesn't necessarily mean there's anything wrong with this particular article; acaict this article makes no unlikely claims about what anyone said or did. Again, if you have evidence a correction is warranted, please do provide this evidence; we want to correct any errors, though we don't like to have made them. --Pi zero (talk) 23:47, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Category

• Please tighten the category from category:Religion, to category:Scientology. Wilhelm 05:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC).

NO. That should never be done. The problem with Scientology is precisely that it is a religion.

A quote in the page itself could apply to User Wilhelm:

"wants a different standard for religions other than his own, and to me, that is where intolerance and bigotry begin."

The change of category would not be factual, but based on the common opinion that we should call it a cult rather than a religion.

But calling it a cult (a secretive religion) does nothing to distinguish it factually from any other religion currently practised. Rather than a factual statement it would be a tactic that everyone can clearly see. If you want to prevent churches from having tax exempt status then great; I'll agree with that. But if you want to prevent Scientology in particular, by refusing to call it a religion, then you have fundamentally misunderstood the problem.

Seriously, screw Scientology AND whatever religion motivated this moronic request. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 78.147.19.93 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Articles in category Scientology are also filed in category Religion, and this was done a few minutes after the above request. --Pi zero (talk) 23:52, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Minor change

"Stone & Parker" should be "Stone and Parker" according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS:AMP. And why is this page locked so hard? --NoToleranceForIntolerance (talk) 20:30, 15 June 2017 (UTC)