This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | → | Archive 30 |
I thought this had been covered ad infinitum earlier, but oh well... Prior to writing Dianetics and other Scientology texts, Hubbard was primarily known as a writer of fantasy, horror, and science-fiction (collectively known as speculative fiction these days). JustaHulk states in his edit to the intro: "that whole bit sounds forced and is unnecessary, usually "sci-fi" is added for POV purposes. "Author" is fine and leaner reads better." Now personally, I think removing it is pushing a POV that the information isn't notable or pertinent, and that including it is somehow an attack on Hubbard. I think a simple definition of what kind of author he was ("speculative fiction" is just two words) is neither "forced" nor POV-pushing. There's no shame in writing speculative fiction, and hiding what he wrote -- especially when it's already widely known -- seems both POV-pushing and obfuscatory. Furthermore, "speculative fiction" encompasses a lot more than "sci-fi," and more accurately reflects what he wrote. So... Should we describe -- again, in nonjudgmental terms -- what kind of author Hubbard was in the intro, folks? -- Good Damon 16:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
All right, I'm putting it back then. -- Good Damon 17:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
(left) I can go with whatever the consensus is. Obviously, sci-fi is almost always added as a POV-push. Hubbard was always an author. By the time he formed Scn, he was not a fiction author at all but had been running Dianetics for a few years. So, by rights, Scn was not started by a fiction author because that is not what he was or had been for some time when he started it. I had removed the "author" bit entirely a while back and it stood until another red account inserted sci-fi and GoodDamon well-meaningly tried to make something better of that. Sorry, but one thing I've learned here is that you do not always have to try to improve a questionable bit; sometimes the best thing to do is remove it. If we must pigeon-hole Hubbard right off the bat in the article then I prefer "pulp-fiction" writer as it is more accessible than "speculative fiction" and I do not like the frequent tendency here in Wikipedia to use less accessible, if perhaps incrementally more precise, terminology in lead paragraphs. -- JustaHulk ( talk) 18:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
"Speculative fiction" is not a term Hubbard would have recognized. "Science Ficton," "Science Fiction and Fantasy" or "Pulp Science Fiction" are correct in this case. "Pulp Fiction" focuses on the publishing venue rather than the story genre, so it's true, but less specific. Everything I've read leads me to believe that by reputation and Hubbard's own characterization, "Science Fiction" is the best candidate here. Definitely not "Speculative fiction," though, which I think was introduced in the late 1960s as an attempt to cast SF as a more respectable literary genre (similar to the introduction of the term "graphic novel" as applied to what were universally known as "comic books." ) BTfromLA ( talk) 16:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
It is over 100K. Since the "Controversy and criticism" section has a "main" article, it seems appropriate to simply move its subsections to that page.-- Blinadrange ( talk) 15:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC) That was about 30K worth of material moved to the subordinate "main" page. The article is still somewhat large at 73K, but it's a start.-- Blinadrange ( talk) 16:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
It is tempting to move more of the beliefs and practices to their "main" sub-page. Well...I hope somebody will add a reaction to this idea. Also, I think that the lead should not need references: it should summarize the rest of the article. I moved the 16 refs in the lead into the main body of the text. What else should we do to get this to GA?-- Blinadrange ( talk) 16:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion, scientology is famous for its controversy, not its beliefs and practices or anything else. Therefore, removing criticism from the main article is wrong. Lantios ( talk) 03:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Cirt, a prolific Scientology critic (references available upon request), has written Project Chanology. This is a "perfect" example of WP:RECENTISM, i.e. "create new articles which inflate the importance and effect of a topic that has received recent media attention." Cirt (as User:Wilhelm) has already written two, count 'em, two articles on Chanology for WikiNews. That is a more apt venue for this latest flash-in-the-pan and those articles are referenced here by means of the WikiNews insert in our article. I do not think it reflects well on this project to promote cyberterrorism to forward one's POV. Am I alone in that viewpoint? Thanks. -- JustaHulk ( talk) 21:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
For further discussion, see ongoing AfD, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Project Chanology. This is NOT a solicitation of any kind, just that this discussion of whether or not to have an AfD is pointless, when there is one ongoing. Cirt ( talk) 06:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
The line "Journalists, courts and the governing bodies of several countries have stated that the Church of Scientology is a cult and an unscrupulous commercial enterprise that harasses its critics and abuses the trust of its members" is biased, since it implies that this view is eliteist or not shared by "the common man". It should be modified to read something like "One common view, held by both people and governments (references), holds that ... ". Court views should be stated next. Journalists aren't important enough to include - it makes it sound like this is a weird view only they have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.84.189 ( talk) 15:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
A few days ago, Blinadrange (now banned), trimmed a large amount of material off of the article without prior discussion, mainly from the Controversies section, to be moved to various main articles. I believe that some of these moves were reverted at the destination, and therefore completely lost in transit. As well, by moving controversy out to other articles, and not moving other sections such as Beliefs, Practices, Organizations to their respective main articles, I feel that this seriously unbalances the article. AndroidCat ( talk) 17:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I just queried the blocking admin, here. -- JustaHulk ( talk) 18:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Everyone should support anon! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.183.62.178 ( talk) 03:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Is this worth mentioning?
--Some random jack off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.85.232.249 ( talk) 06:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
No. -- Good Damon 06:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
You sure?
Ason Abdullah (
talk)
08:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes. I honestly hope that the media (if it decides to cover this) takes a neutral position and refrains from calling the *chans internet terrorists. I mean honestly, Scientology had it coming. It is sad for all those that have enlisted in the religion, and supported its "teachings." They truly were taken advantage of when they were at their lows, depressed and hopeless. Their money was taken away, their lives ruined. This just can't go unnoticed.
For once, the hackers of the *chans are doing something that is moral at its core.
When I said the internet is united, I meant the major communities. I would never alter the wikipedia article, but this is a talk page. I believe this is worth mentioning, some people will disagree. I can't change that. The talk page is meant to profess your beliefs, and show your platform. And a note to the users that believe this not reliable: The *chans have already stolen documents that are restricted to Scientologists. You can search and find it, but I will not post it on wikipedia, for it is illegal content. Deleted the "internet is united" quote. Also, I was under the belief that this was discussion, not a suggestion for editing. You may disregard my argument, for until it is openly admitted by the Church itself, it ought not to be included in this article.
In my opinion it should be noted in the article. I mean this certainly is a notable event, look at how many views there are of the youtube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCbKv9yiLiQ of Anonymous stating it's intentions. That in addition to the fact that the 'scientology' website has been shut down for the past view days makes this a very notable event in my opinion. Supra guy ( talk) 21:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes that seems suitable. Supra guy ( talk) 02:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
More media links: http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=uVaQG67eqwA -- DestroyYouAlot ( talk) 01:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
To say they are kiddy scripters is idiotic with the consistent +5 day removal of service of Scientology.org and many other scientology websites. http://video.knbc.com/player/?id=209215
I disagree with the reversion of the addition about Project Chanology. The referenced source was a mainstream media source (APC Magazine, which has been published since May 1980). This effort has also been reported in Wired.com, CNBC and other TV news outlets. It's certainly a notable part of the history of Scientology to date. Further, reporting that it has happened is a neutral addition to the article. Danwarne ( talk) 05:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
At this point, I think there is enough coverage to include a piece on "Project Chanology" in the article. The group and their attacks have been covered on several mainstream news channels, and the group have done notable damage to scientology websites, as well as theft of scientology internal documents. Daler ( talk) 16:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
The status of the Scientology site due to personal observations is inadmisable to Wikipedia, and really depend on when you try and access it (the attacks last on average of 30 min. then Quit), so I think that up to the min. coverage on the status of the scientology page is useless for the talk page. Coffeepusher ( talk) 18:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
"He also established Religious Technology Center which is headed by David Miscavige [1][2] to see to the orthodox application of Scientology technology even after he passed away. [3]"
Where is the evidence that Hubbard personaly established RTC. I know that LRH established the policies to establish RTC like everything else in Scientology but I don't know believe he personaly did it. Bravehartbear ( talk) 12:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Jwray in revision of 22:20, 28 January 2008 added "and a business" to the first sentence. Could that be removed? I feel it is POV and a bit redundant. Any organization could be "accused" of being a business if they have income and expenses. Richard-of-Earth ( talk) 09:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
OK folks, it's obvious there are some heated feelings about this, so let's all calm down and take care of it in as neutral a way as possible. I think first off, we should take a look through the various Scientology groups and figure out which ones are for profit and which ones are not. From that point, we can figure out if the business aspects of Scientology ought to be incorporated -- in a non-judgmental, neutral manner -- into the intro. I don't think restoring the text Shutterbug removed is the answer there, not because of any POV issues, but because the sentence was rather clumsy as it was. And if the for-profit Scientology organizations are too insignificant to partially classify Scientology as a business, then no harm done and we'll all have learned more about Scientology organizations. -- Good Damon 17:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
For Profit (of a business or institution) initiated or operated for the purpose of making a profit. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/for%20profit
I suppose this is a charged issue. When GoodDamon said to calm down I thought "we're just talking here". I suppose the reason it is objectionable is when you say it's a business you’re saying it’s about the money. I know from personal experience that when the international and local staff hear the Church's income went up, it gets applause, but when you tell of someone getting helped, it gets a standing ovation, kudos to COB (David Miscavage) for running the Church the way it's suppose to be and three cheers to Ron for making it all possible. So, when we see someone shy away from us because they're afraid we're after their money, it's builds up emotional charge. The fact I'm still talking about this after the change has been removed shows I got emotional charge about it. I tell you it is not about the money, money is a means to an end, people matter to the Church, the staff and anyone dedicated to the movement. Richard-of-Earth ( talk) 23:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, I challenged you to show who's making the money and some of you say it isn't important in defining a business. Fine. A business is an organization, saying he established organizations and businesses is redundant. It says later in the article it is viewed as a business. It needn't be in there in the beginning. Richard-of-Earth ( talk) 23:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Editors may be interested to know that this article was one of Wikipedia's most read articles in January, with over 1.32 million views in the course of the month - 410,000 of them in one three-day period. See http://stats.grok.se/en/200801/Scientology for details (with thanks to User:Henrik). -- ChrisO ( talk) 23:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
With this edit, Bravehartbear added this sentence to the introduction: "Although the Church of Scientology is the biggest of these networks, organizations such as Narconon, Criminon and Applied Scholastics promote other aspects of Scientology." This is a strange sentence, since those are all subsidiary organizations owned by the Church of Scientology. Thoughts? -- Good Damon 05:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ticklemygrits. I would like to ask why you reverted my edit instead of addressing my concern. You removed text, but did not remove a long list of references that were there to support that text. As a result, the list of citations moved up and attached to the previous sentence. I would appreciate greater care and discretion in the future, as it is not the responsibility of other editors to clean up after you. Thanks, Silly rabbit ( talk) 22:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
You're not explaining why they are in the lead. Why was it in the lead? I have no problem with properly sourced information in the rest of the article, but the lead should just describe Scientology. It shouldn't be used to address critics. I don't think anything the US thingmyjigger on religous freedom represents a worldwide view, nor do I think it's relevent to defining what scientology is. And I don't appreciate extranious references being inserted because I actually read them, and it's very taxing on my eyes Ticklemygrits ( talk) 00:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok tell me what is wrong with the revert. What is your problem with the lead as it stands Ticklemygrits ( talk) 00:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
User:Ticklemygrits removed a sentence that he/she thought should not be there diff. However, User:Ticklemygrits forgot to delete the references to the state department which were attached to that statement. (Here is that diff again.) I reverted ( diff), asking nicely and unambiguously:
Then User:Ticklemygrits immediately reverted, telling me to explain on the talk page, which I did. Then I corrected the problem caused by User:Ticklemygrits's edit, namely that he/she had placed bogus references on a statement in the text. Silly rabbit ( talk) 02:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
This article is looking a lot better today than it was the last time I looked. Congraduations to all the editors who have contributed to improve this article. Titanium Dragon ( talk) 01:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
What is allowed in Wikipedia are covered in WP:EL. This is what it says: Links normally to be avoided "Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject—and not prohibited by restrictions on linking—one should avoid:"
Also is usefull to read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view Bravehartbear ( talk) 21:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
hardly paints Touretzky as an "expert" - the paper went to five of what they really consider experts."The teacher has teamed with David Touretzky, a computer science research professor at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh and a free-speech advocate who runs an anti-Narconon Web site that includes some controversial material."
-- JustaHulk ( talk) 14:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)"Those ideas are rejected by the five medical experts contacted by The Chronicle, who say there is no evidence to support them."
Just to clarify -- "personal Web page" does not mean a Web page maintained by an individual expert or researcher on a subject. It means a Web page that is autobiographical, in the nature of a personal blog or journal. -- FOo ( talk) 23:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Surely point "2. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material..." means no links to any sites that contain belief based information over factual content, e.g. any religious doctrine?!? Did I miss something? :) -- Angryjames ( talk) 19:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering if it should be mentioned in the article. -- MahaPanta ( talk) 23:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Major news sources are talking about it. Scientology made You Tube remove it. The New York Post still has a copy (for now) http://www.nypost.com/seven/01162008/news/nationalnews/star_raving_mad__68340.htm . It is VERY funny. Creepy even. Angry Christian ( talk) 23:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Here is the Video display http://gawker.com/5002269/the-cruise-indoctrination-video-scientology-tried-to-suppress —Preceding unsigned comment added by XenuCareBear ( talk • contribs) 15:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
The Cruise video and the storm that followed is a significant moment in recent CoS history. What argument is there for excluding a reference to it? Here in the UK, CoS was a point of news after the Panorama programme (mentioned on this page) and even more so after the Cruise video release. What was the US reaction? It would appear to be of significant interest. Also Cruise's comment appear to be a return to some of those LRH "fair game" ways. Any comments? -- Angryjames ( talk) 20:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I have tagged several subsections of this article with {{ Primary sources}}. Multiple sections of this article fail the very letter of the primary sources tag - specifically, these subsections cite no other sources other than the Church of Scientology website and affiliated self-referential publications. Per the text in the primary sources tag:
This article or section needs sources or references that appear in reliable, third-party publications. Primary sources and sources affiliated with the subject of this article generally are not sufficient for a Wikipedia article. Please include more appropriate citations from reliable sources, or discuss the issue on the talk page.
Please find some secondary sources, and try to phase out this over-dependence on the Church of Scientology websites and affiliated publications for this article - we do not want the Wikipedia article on "Scientology" to be mainly a duplicate of the Church of Scientology websites, in many sections. Cirt ( talk) 12:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Please note, I have only tagged those subsections where all of the sources cited in those subsections are to Church of Scientology websites and affiliated publications, primary sources and self-referential sources - i.e. sections which contain zero citations to secondary sources not affiliated with the Church of Scientology. Cirt ( talk) 12:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Unless we want to make the entire article read like blatant advertising for Scientology it is entirely appropriate to severely limit the use of primary source self-referential links to Scientology websites and Scientology affiliated organizations and sources. To do otherwise is a disservice to the reader and to NPOV. With an overdependence on such primary source, self-referential sources there would be no point to this article and the entire page could just be a soft-redirect to www.scientology.org - because that is what the article would be like with so many links to those websites. Cirt ( talk) 14:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Cirt I apologise. You are right is just that the third party sources are just not there. This is a new subject and the studies have not been done. This is why there is a controversy. This place has been a battle field of self published sources. Almost everything here is self published. This place used to be a mirrow image of xenu.net and it was hard to change that. But you will find that the third party sources contradit each other, so it is imposible to make conclusions. The reader will have to come up with his own conclusion. We really don't have conclusions here, just facts, allegations and opinions. And we try to balance things up. But I agree with you, but that would cut these pages into a few paragraphs. And I think that would be fine. But the editors here will really be against that. Thank you for trying to bring some sanity here. Bravehartbear ( talk) 15:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I found a source that appears to be very NPOV, and comes from an established religious studies Proffessor. I used it for the 8 million membership number, and I am shure we can work alot more information into the article...but I just don't have time today. here is the link Frank K. Flinn Adjunct Professor of Religious Studies at Washington University interview Coffeepusher ( talk) 19:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
[CNN: Scientology: A Way to Happiness?] Maybe we should talk about this in the page. Bravehartbear ( talk) 23:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Removed external link to copyrighted material. Cirt ( talk) 16:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
In the intro, the text "Today there are more than 4,378 Scientology churches, missions and groups worldwide on 155 countries." is clearly the St. Peterburg Times quoting PR material from the Church of Scientology, which never provides any sources or documentation for its claimed numbers. I don't think that should remain as it is in the intro. AndroidCat ( talk) 16:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Those are exactly the same ones I would pick. But first, we should put such a reversion to a consensus vote, then select the version. The question is, should we revert to a previous version of the article that was largely accepted by all the editors here to undo fairly systemic problems with over-reliance on non-RS material and lost content? Edit: I should clarify that I don't think all the edits since those revisions have been bad, and that after such a revert I think we should comb through the prior version for material and references to bring forward. -- Good Damon 19:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, I think the consensus so far is that we need to remove info from, as Cirt put it, "primary, self-referential sources". I no longer think reverting part of the article is the answer to that. So let's get editing, folks... -- Good Damon 19:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I see that reference placement has gotten a little confused again. So do people prefer to see referenced before or after punctuation? We should probably standardize that. -- Good Damon 20:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah right -- L-Ron wrote SCIENCE FICTION. Why not say so?-- 71.202.121.130 ( talk) 21:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)This source should be incorporated into the article. Cirt ( talk) 14:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)Editorial piece on the same issue. Cirt ( talk) 14:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Whom ever wrote this article must have been a scientologist. The reason they don't like psychiatry is because if a member was ever to be evaluated they will be diagnosed clinical nut jobs. This is putting it nicely. Scientology promotes itself not philosophy, religion or anything about spirituality. This is a commercial enterprise. Some people give it an example of the Amway of religions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.4.186 ( talk) 06:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Your talking rubbish, unlock it then and let us normal people edit it? Why lock it, what are you trying to hide...the truth? 12:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC) Jezza —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.149.111 ( talk)
What I mean by that, is that the horizontal scroll bar appears when you visit the main article. It's from a little [citation needed] thing in one of these paragraphs.
Well, we aren't allowed to edit the page. Are higher-ups allowed to? If there are higher-ups that are allowed to, can this please be fixed? 71.238.211.166 ( talk) 05:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I did not see what any mention of Aliens in the article.Isnt that A beleif of Scientology?It would also explain why people think its a cult. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.1.245.18 ( talk) 00:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
See Space opera in Scientology scripture. -- FOo ( talk) 04:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
And those same rational, scientific people believe the chances that anything could travel to earth are almost none. Contrary to science-fiction (which ultimately is all that scientology is) faster than light speed travel is impossible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.42.210 ( talk) 14:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Am I right in thinking that the toning down of the "alien" content is in direct relation to the Scientologists' own position? Should we not have something in the page that explains a shift in expressed views. Forgive me if I'm wrong about this, having grown up with CoS news, I felt the whole "alien" thing was openly expressed and then suddenly or perhaps gradually it disappeared. Is that true? -- Angryjames ( talk) 20:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Angryjames. I have followed this article extensively along with the history of exposure of the belief in Scientology. I'm surprised there is not a complete section that talks about Xenu, volcanos, trapped spirits, nuclear explosion, spacetravel in DC-10 aircraft, etc. This entire backstory used to be in the article and has been slowly whittled down until it's completely disappeared. Did CoS send a copywright infrigement notification? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mneipert ( talk • contribs) 03:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Someone (probably in reference to the Googlebombing campaign) has created a page that redirects Dangerous Cult to this article. While it's probably true, it's certainly not neutral. Would someone who knows how to remove a redirect please consider fixing it? Vonspringer ( talk) 05:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Just a note to all editors, I wikilinked Dangerous Cult, if it is blue (not red) it means it is active again, and needs to be fixed. thank you Coffeepusher ( talk) 20:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Please give references http://www.bible.ca/scientology-is-a-religion-black.htm Bravehartbear ( talk) 00:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
In the Frank K. Flinn interview, he clearly states that the source of his number was the Church of Scientology. "Scientologists count about 8 million people worldwide, but that includes people to took just an introductory course without necessarily continuing." AndroidCat ( talk) 19:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
The source itself, Frank Flinn is a third party, and it also clarified how they came to that number "those who just took an introductory cource". Which is actually believable. I will buy the fact that 8 million people worldwide have been introduced to scientology and many didn't continue...I don't buy the 1.03 billion number that they say on the Tom Cruse video. Personaly I think that even if the initial source is the church itself, the fact that the interviewee (horible grammer) is outside the church and a religious studies professor makes it admissable in the article. additionaly this number was beside the churches claim of 3.5 million in the united states...so I am wondering why the worldwide number is inadmisable? Coffeepusher ( talk) 20:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Galactic Confederacy seems to be nothing but fancruft, and as it stands now it lacks sources and fails WP:FICT, WP:N and WP:PLOT. Unless these issues can be rectified, it would be a good idea to merge a concise summary of the article into this one. - YYN ( talk) 04:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Oppose merge. The subject appears to be a standard part of Scientology beliefs, and Scientology, while a controversial organization with controversial beliefs and practices, is nonetheless clearly notable as are its core practices. Galactic Confederacy appears to be sufficiently notable and require sufficient detail to explain to stand on its own. The basis for merge seems to be, not that the subject is non-notable or not a belief of Scientology, but that the beliefs of Scientology as a whole (including this one) are fictional The status of Scientology as a religion is certainly controversial. While this controversy should be explained fairly in the relevant articles including criticism, a particular view on it does not seem an appropriate basis for merge decisions under WP:NPOV Readers are capable of deciding for themselves whether the beliefs of Scientology are fictional or not, just as is the case for all POV controversies. Best -- Shirahadasha ( talk) 17:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that the article does not say anything about the rumours of Scientology brainwashing its members. Is there any truth to that or is it just a conspiracy theory? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.45.183 ( talk) 17:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I read on Wikipedia that Scientologists believe in "attacking the attacker." But, no where have I seen any explanation of why Scientologists believe that smearing people is good—for any one. Is there any sort of explanation that they have offered that explains how doing evil (e.g., disclosing personal information, pestering people, filing frivolous law suits, intimidation, kidnapping, stalking, etc.) is good? To clarify, how does "attacking the attacker" improve either attacker? Simply disputing a falsehood about Scientology would be a different matter. What I am talking about is making an attack against an individual, rather than an argument or a belief. Ad-hominem arguments seem to be their first line of defense, however irrelevant they may be to any debate. How do they justify that morally?-- Guywithdress ( talk) 14:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict)why don't we just wait for it to archive. I personaly abhore deleting from talk pages except in the case of outright vandalism or stupidity (the bin laden question on this page is a perfict example of that "is osama bin laden a scientologists?"...um...no he is a muslem, duh!) and while it is a stretch to say that this refurs to the article, I do see some value in keeping it, for no other reason than if someone comes up with the same question they can see that Ethics (Scientology) already adresses it. Coffeepusher ( talk) 19:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I disagree w/ this edit, which removed tags that were still appropriate. Just look at the References section. There are still way too many cites to primary, self-published/self-referential sources, affiliated with the subject of this article. Cirt ( talk) 06:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
It seems odd to me that these two are one section in the article. The section itself doesn't seem to relate the two. Might it be better to split that section? Perhaps the first paragraph (the only part that talks about hypnosis) into a "Hypnosis and Scientology" section and then the rest as "Scientology as a Cult?"-- Tyranastrasz ( talk) 23:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for using TW without any comment. I reverted Su Jada because she smoothly excluded other actions against the internet from the first section. It is not just about some legal actions. (sporgery on ARS) -- Stan talk 23:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not certain where else to but this info, but someone should take a look at Scientology's practices on ebay. Not sure if there's any 'reputable' sources for this info, but slashdot mentions a letter from ebay, and I think ebay is reputable. It's not flattering to ebay. At the very least, this may be something to watch.
http://realitybasedcommunity.net/archive/2008/02/scientology_abu_1.php
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/04/27/1712248
74.67.17.22 (
talk)
00:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
I am fairly unfamiliar with editing wikipedia articles and what the rules are as far as 'valid' sources go. But I did a search on google news and found these 3 articles (ex-cluding slashdots) on the scientology / ebay saga. You can find them
here,
here and
here.
They are from Dailytech.com, radaronline.com and shortnews.com. They all seem like very reputable sources, but again - I can't confirm, as I don't know the rules well enough. Hopefully these can be used; if not hopefully someone can shed some light on why they can't. Thanks. Cdynas ( talk) 02:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
They don't look RS to me. The one from Dailytech.com is a blog, so no evidence of fact checking; the one from radaronline.com is a scandal sheet, they print any rumor; the one from shortnews.com is secondhand it gives a source www.realitybasedcommunity.net, a blog. I could write an article and say anything I like and post it on at least 2 of these sources. Look for an official release from ebay or an article that has one. Richard-of-Earth ( talk) 18:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)A very interesting development, indeed. Cirt ( talk) 21:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)Cirt ( talk) 05:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)Cirt ( talk) 18:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
All refs from 27 to 67 are primary sources mainly available on the internet. It looks a bit like an ammasment of PR quotes which are not informative at all and not concise. Many are misleading or controversial but are not attributed correctly. see Wikipedia:NPOV#Attributing_and_substantiating_biased_statements.
example for missing attribution in this section(its also not really informative):
Therefore, a therapy which asks man to adapt his subjective environment to the obective environment, and not the other way around, is like psychiatry enslaving and is unworkable simply because it is not true.
another example: (substantiation and attribution missing)
It is a personal thing that an ethical person does by his own choice.[63]
The Scientology Ethic book and most scholars don't descibe Ethics as "a personal thing in Scientology" and the second part "ethical person already indicates that this "PR statement" is a kind of workaround. "Ethic Orders" and Conditions are directly assigned by the church to the individual on the "3'rd dynamic" in general and on "lower conditions" on all "dynamics".
... or should Coca Cola on Wikipedia be descriped as surpisingly refreshing and very beneficial because "everytime you have a coke,you help support your community" ?
I would like to clean it up but would like to reach consensus on this matter first. BTW, "Admin Tech" and PTS/SP doctrine is completly missing in the belief section. -- Stan talk 00:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
This article is over 115 kb. It should really be trimmed down/summarized/phrased more succinctly. Too many sections of the article go into specific details on things that should be summarized instead, w/ links to more specific articles on tighter topics. Cirt ( talk) 13:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
This article seems to be speaking on behalf of what L. Ron Hubbard said post-creation of Scientology, after it had already gained status. I'm pretty sure it was developed as a joke when L. Ron Hubbard was going through a period where he had been on many prescription drugs, and he found there could be some truth to it...
why is this article protected 212.149.252.23 ( talk)¨ —Preceding comment was added at 16:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
It should be obvious.. are you a member of the movement by any chance? Mijcsmu ( talk) 17:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
It is also said that Danny Masterson (HYDE off of that 70's show) is another supporter of scientology —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.5.231.118 ( talk) 22:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Can anyone find any third party sources for alot of the stuff here.
Also would it be acceptable to post a 'spark-notes' version of the OT3 documents-- Sylvok ( talk) 12:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
under scientologoy and the internet it says that anonymous' next protest will be on march 15th, this already happend and another protest is scheduled for april 12th. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.162.203 ( talk) 18:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC) Anonymous members are members from the 4chan.org message boards. More importantly, they are from the random message board otherwise known as /b/. They are the ones who started the protests. The reason they wear Guy Fawkes masks is because they use the image of the mask on a stick figure and refer to it as EFG or Epic Fail Guy. Why has this information not been added? All of these protests come from members of that forum.
I have as of yet, failed to find ANY proof that Co$ is a non-profit orginization. There is absolutely no evidence to support them as being non-profit. The fact that Co$ has had SEVERAL 'Leaders of Anoynomus' arrested at protests world wide (Mostly the people doing most of the chanting and or leading people in the chants or reading articles against the church published by third parties mostly news articles.) People that drove to the protests, have had notices placed in their post by "Representitives of the Church of Scientology." and it just so happened to be a law firm... a very reputable one at that. I personally have been contacted by "Representitives of the Church of Scientology" However I took no part in the protest, yet my place of work is directly across the street from an office of The Church of Scientology.
The 'Church' of Scientology is hardly a 'Church' at all. Direct or Indirect oppression against those who disagree with the church, or publicly speak out against their practices and beliefs is (Not sure about most countries but i'm sure it is in Aus.) illegal.
HOWEVER, it is not wikipedia's job to refuse an article to a cult, There is insufficent references, and third party information regarding the church of scientology's article. All of it's sources are from either it's own publications, or publications by it's members and affilate orginiazations.
Either Deletion or some other form of action should be taken on this article. The article is full of lies, half truths, self promotion and defamation of the group anonymous. (Last i checked Wiki articles were supposed to be netural.)
AnnaJGrant ( talk) 09:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)This will be the university's first satellite campus on a satellite. It will be completely funded by the Church of Scientology, NYU spokesman John Beckman said in a joint news conference with actor Tom Cruise.
The "NYU L. Ron Hubbard Center for the Study of the Universe" will be able to host nearly 200 former SPs each semester, with potential for expansion in the future.
Sounds like an ambitious project. Cirt ( talk) 09:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, I yield... It just seemed more targeted than the rest of the 4/1 shenanigans, but maybe that's just me. :) -- Good Damon 21:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
In germany scientology is officially marked as sect and therefore denied church status. This should be mentioned in the controvesity section. And it would be interesting to see where else scientology is denied church status ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arotto ( talk • contribs) 13:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
"A Sydney woman has been ordered to stand trial after pleading not guilty to the stabbing murders of her father and sister. The 26-year-old will also defend a charge of inflicting grievous bodily harm with intent to murder her mother. The attack allegedly happened at the family's Revesby home in Sydney's south-west in July last year. The Supreme Court was told mental health will be an issue at the trial, which will start in July. It is alleged that the woman was denied psychiatric help because of her parents' belief in Scientology."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/04/04/2208153.htm
Wageslave ( talk) 05:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
this article makes no mention of Hubbard's science fiction writing in the intro, his arguably most famous book 'battlefield earth' was clearly science fiction.i am not saying that he was not also a speculative fiction writer, but if that term is included in the introduction then the term "science fiction writer" should be included also
if i am beating a dead horse i apologies, i went though the archives looking for a debate on this topic but could not find anything, if this has already been resolved then could you please point me to the talk pages in archives? Rubico ( talk) 17:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
im going to go ahead and change it, have not gotten a response in over a week, revert if you want but please adress in talk Rubico ( talk) 16:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
"American speculative fiction" should not be included when referencing LRH on the Scientology page. It's fairly obvious that referring to him as such is an effort to discredit the religion, and such descriptions should be confined to a biography page, not a discussion of a religion. I know I'll get flack for this, but, you wouldn't refer to Christianity as a religion based on Jesus, a carpenter, because not only is that not what he was was most known for, but it's only relevant in a biographical sense, not relevant to the religion itself. I don't know if this should be its own heading or not, if so, please advise. Nihiletnihil ( talk) 09:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the article should say somewhere in the first paragraph that scientology is a scam. Why the hell should it cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to be "treated" by the "church"? A real religion would do that out of sheer goodwill. Anyone with half a brain can figure out that this is nothing but a total scam. Unbrady ( talk) 01:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'v read those, and guess what? Scientology is still a blatant scam. I was at their "head base" in LA a few months ago, and they had security gaurds walking around with 7 INCH BLADES on them. What kind of religion has freakin armed gaurds in their churches? (the Swiss gaurd in Vatican City is just ceremonial). This whole organization screams "Scam! Scam Scam Scam Scam Scam!" Unbrady ( talk) 01:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Well put. It’s only a matter of a count down to the end of the global scam when you can read an un-bias article and still come to the conclusion that it is a scam. -- DavidD4scnrt ( talk) 07:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Things change, times change.
On Sunday, December 25, 1994, The Washington post publishes the article: In Scientology Fiction - The Church's War Against Its Critics and Truth. A favorite between Scientology critics.
Now the Washington post published: XENU-PHOBIA Weird Sure. A Cult, No. The same magazine now says that Scientology is not a cult.
The New Yorker now writes about Scientology Celebrity Center like it was a Gala Dinner. Château Scientology
This other journalist writes about the fun time she had in church of Scientology. An afternoon with the Scientologists
This other one writes about her experiences with auditing. | The Invasion Begins, Scientology's Plan To Conquer Cleveland
The reality is that the Scientology controversy is dying out. People are more concern with Will Smith being a Scientologist and Tom Cruise videos than anything else. No one considers Scientology a dangerous cult no more. They may find it weird but that's all. The court cases against Scientology in the U.S. have almost disappeared.
There is just a handful of desperate Scientology critics left that the worst thing they can do is to bog down the website and post stupid messages.
In writing this because the last paragraph in the lead is just bias. Is based in old obsolete information that is no longer current. Is simply an offensive insult with no real data. I want a vote to have that paragraph removed.
I vote YES Bravehartbear ( talk) 14:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I vote NO as, checking the links, you've not disproved a single thing.
Please see WP:NOT#FORUM, as well as the related header at the top of this talk page. Cirt ( talk) 17:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
It is not misuse to discuss how RS treats the exact subject of this article and how that directly impacts the manner in which this project treats the exact subject of this article. BTW, here are the Washington Post links (from just Googling the titles) 1, 2. -- JustaHulk ( talk) 17:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I vote NO. None of those links indicate any "dying out" of Scientology's controversies.
If anything, the tone used to describe Scientology in the news since the Tom Cruise video is getting worse, not better. They all mention Xenu, they all describe its controversial nature, and I couldn't find any text indicating the court cases have "almost disappeared." I would be hesitant to include any of these links because they're all opinion pieces, and they're all largely mocking in tone. Even the first one, in which Mr. Oppenheimer says Scientology isn't a cult, goes into some detail about the perceived weirdness of it, and describes it as controversial. If we include them, the tone of this article will get more negative, not less, while we'll be using opinion pieces written by non-experts as reliable sources -- and I don't see any reason to do that. -- Good Damon 19:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I vote NO. Cherry-picking a few articles out of a very large number [6] isn't significant. AndroidCat ( talk) 05:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC) I vote NO. 129.174.226.5 ( talk) 00:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I too vote NO, and WOW you really neglected to read the information that you linked as evidence, because some of the articles contradict what you are trying to argue.-- iF ( talk) 04:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I vote NO, Now there is a HUGE controversy with the Church of Scientology thanks to its censorship of YouTube videos. -- Chinese3126 ( talk) 17:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I've redirected the controversy page, for several reasons:
It's articles like that which lower Wikipedia's credibility. We're supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a soapbox for anti-or-pro-anything rants. The page is completely against our policy of neutral point of view. And for the record, I'm against Scientology. Sceptre ( talk) 19:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Correct me if I am wrong. Shouldn’t there been some form on of group consensus before you did this?
I disagree with your removal of the controversies page without prior discussion. I think you should withdraw your edit until a general agreement is met. Cdynas ( talk) 23:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
For the record, Sceptre's redirect has been reverted and the article is now being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientology controversies. -- ChrisO ( talk) 19:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Although I lack the faculties to develop a well-referenced and definitive article on the subject, I find its abscence worrisome. I have heard on many accounts the Scientologist infiltration of the IRS remains the largest known act of its kind to find success against the US government. This deserves at the very least a footnote.
http://www.xenu-directory.net/news/austindailyherald-19770708.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.252.17 ( talk) 23:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
The link provided may or may not be considered a questionable source as it obviously has a bias (as a website devoted to Scientology). It does however provide substantial amounts of referencing and is seemingly objective in its approach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.252.17 ( talk) 23:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
The two articles should be merged. Or at the very least, a reference should be made on the main page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.252.17 ( talk) 08:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)There is some ongoing edit... well, not edit-warring, as such, but let's say edit-disagreement... over one of the lines in the intro. Specifically, this line: "Journalists, courts and the governing bodies of several countries have described the Church of Scientology as a cult and an unscrupulous commercial enterprise, accusing it of harassing its critics and abusing the trust of its members."
Su-Jada has tried a couple of times to change that line so it reads "Some journalists..." Those edits have been reverted.
The problem with "some," as I see it, is that it would be perceived as indicating that the sentence doesn't reflect majority opinion, while in reality, the overwhelming majority of significant journalistic inquiries into the Church of Scientology really have described it in that manner. (Please note: I make no judgment call on the validity of that determination, I only mean to point out that the negative depictions of the Church far outnumber the positive ones).
Limiting it to simply "journalists" bypasses any quantitative analysis; it's up to the reader to determine whether that means "a few," "a lot," "the majority," or "almost all." I'm not sure this is the right approach either, but appending "some" to the beginning is definitely the wrong one. If anything, it should be "almost all."
So... Thoughts? -- Good Damon 22:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Large, contentious articles contributed to by a horde of editors end up being a bit sloppy, usually because many contributors are looking at content rather than the standard of writing. This article is no exception, and it truly looks like it grew like Topsy. I tightened one sentence today, here, but am a little reluctant to do the whole thing knowing my efforts might be reverted simply because someone prefers verbosity. I am neutral re Scientology. Any comments? Kaiwhakahaere ( talk) 02:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Any other cleanup needed besides length? Hyacinth ( talk) 03:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
What information needs to be cited in third party sources? Hyacinth ( talk) 03:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
What information is inappropriately cited in self-published sources? Hyacinth ( talk) 03:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I think this article on Scientology would benefit greatly by comparing and contrasting the way that the Scientology crime syndicate is different than more traditional organized crime syndicates -- such as the Italian, Irish, and other Mafias.
At one time in the past, the Scientology crime syndicate was global in scope and constituted a serious threat to the national security of the nations that it invaded in ways that more traditional organized crime gangs did not.
It would be good to see an in-debth, definitive description (research would be a heavy requirement) of the ways in which Scientology is different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Damotclese ( talk • contribs) 01:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I have noticed that this isn't mentioned until the 3rd paragraph down (and the paragraphs are pretty bulky) I have scoured the net and considering the amount of public criticism Scientology has got, i think this needs to be mentioned higher up (end of 1st paragraph?) to form a more unbiased article.
-- Petersmith140 ( talk) 01:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
The external resouce 131, Verfassungsschutz Bayern (Constitution Protection Bavaria: Publications (German), leads to a page not found. Should the information that came from this link be taken out? 68.77.187.144 ( talk) 20:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Is Scientology a cult? It seems like it if so lets put it in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plyhmrp ( talk • contribs) 22:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
No Anonymous members have been found conclusively to have performed DDOS attacks on Scientology websites. R3ap3R.inc ( talk) 05:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
How about a section on Scientology in fiction? It's usually depicted under a different name to avoid legal actions, but its appearances include:
I know I've seen several others, as well.
Lippard ( talk) 14:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
There's a lot of information about this in the article, and it seems like there is too much importance given to Chanology etc., per WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM.-- Hyperpaddling ( talk) 22:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
-- i dont think so, project chanology is a significant factor in raising public awareness about this cult. since this happened, i have studied the topic, made videos about it on youtube that got 60000 views in total, and have been protesting in reallife against the church of scientology here in munich 3 times. and scientology threw eggs at us (the protesters). from my perspective, this needs to be in the article, because it has already been so significant that it will get a long-term place in this story. Kurtilein ( talk) 22:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurtilein ( talk • contribs) 22:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
---I agree with Hyperpaddling, especially in light of the fact that said group seems to be fading away faster than they appeared. FreedomFighter4all ( talk)
---Considering that the Anon vs CoS situation has only been going on for six months, the Chanology info does need to be trimmed down somewhat. Three paragraphs is a bit too long. The Lizard ( talk) 16:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I fail to see the need for this. These large amounts of quoted text within footnotes should be removed, it is not needed to satisfy WP:V. Cirt ( talk) 22:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
In the article, the psychiatrist William Sargant who worked for the British MI-6 appears as having influenced L. Ron Hubbard. Sargant wrote a book elucidating the principles of brainwashing; the book was published as Battle of the Mind. Sargant inspired the Scottish Dr. Donald Ewen Cameron who was a CIA recruit for the LSD-25 special project MK-Ultra; they were looking for ways and means to bring about the Manchurian Candidate. Hubbard himself got hold of the alleged textbook of Psychopolitics used by the Russians, their textbook on brainwashing and the Church of Scientology published it. In 1979, John Marks wrote The Search for the Manchurian Candidate and was published by New York Times Books ISBN 0-8129-0773. It seems that to include this material in the article is very pertinent and is far from being contentious or vandalism. JDPhD ( talk) 23:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Here is something I believe to be a relevant source on brainwashing by Scientology, and fairly unbiased. It's created by the Lisa McPherson Trust, an organization describing itself as one that helps people abused by the church, but in this video they almost exclusively demonstrate auditing and discuss whether or not this qualifies as brainwashing its members. Aside from the possibility of bias from a critical organization, this appears to be a very education video, but from the looks of things here, it looks like I should ask here before either trying to make mention of this. Google Video -- Smokeresearcher ( talk) 04:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
A number of the references recently added by JDPhD seem to be extraneous. For example, refs for Alfred Korzybski and Sigmund Freud's work. No article text is based on those works and there were already wikilinks to the proper articles. AndroidCat ( talk) 20:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Large chunks of this article, especially the controlversial section about "Secret levels" etc. contains paragraphs of unsourced information, and much of the sourced data is very unreliable. I move that at least the unsourced information be moved (unless sourced) and at most the entire section be removed for poor sources. If Wikipedia cites any website as fact, what value does Wikipedia have anymore? FreedomFighter4all ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
In terms of referring to it as a cult, the term has a number of emotive negative connotations associated with its everyday use that overshadows its sociological definition of referring to a group whose belief systems are typically syncretic, esoteric, and individualistic [8] , and a better term to use to describe Scientology is that it is a new religious movement as this better reflects this religion in a more neutral fashion. Xiaan77 ( talk) 05:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Scientology is certainly a cult and recognized as one by multiple religions and Hubbard's own son. It's a mix of cult and money-scheme. Somebody should mention with sources the Baptist convention's declaration of Scientology as a cult. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Countryfan ( talk • contribs) 22:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Here scientology is referred to as a "cult", but surely it is more of a world-affirming religion? World affirming religions are tolerant of peoples religious beliefs - even it's own members (for example some scientologists are catholic) and don't force its members to cut themselves off from their friends, family and society (as a cult would) but rather try and make the world a better place through scientology?
err- there is plenty of proof of scientology destroying families and cutting off relationships. it is a cult. its is misguided and rediculous attempt to make money. off of aliens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ANONANONANONANON ( talk • contribs) 08:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC) Any criticism is welcome or if anyone has anything more to add, please do. I just think that that should be clarified in the article itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptinHairybely ( talk • contribs) 00:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
This is an interesting point of discussion. CaptinHairybely, one of the things that makes Wikipedia work is that it uses reliable sources (I highly recommend you read that policy in its entirety, by the way). One example of a reliable source would be a news magazine with a strong history and reputation for basic fact-checking, such as Time or Newsweek, or the peer-reviewed books and articles of academic scholars. The interesting thing is that the materials produced by the subject of an article on Wikipedia are not generally accepted as reliable sources:
Questionable sources
Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves ... Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources.— Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable_sources (emphasis added
Generally speaking, the only things we can use Church of Scientology-produced material to support are statements like "The Church describes Scientology as..." and "According to the Church..." We can't use any material they provide to support a statement of fact, because it is automatically biased, and by definition not peer-reviewed.
To a large extent, the same applies to certain critical websites. It's all about peer-review and fact-checking, and many critics do not have established track records for either.
One difference -- and I'm afraid this puts the Church at a bit of a disadvantage here -- is that several of the critics do have established track records and scholarly credentials. But in the Church's favor, as Bravehartbear pointed out, there have also been a few peer-reviewed "news organizations, academics, and novelists" that support the Church's stance that Scientology is a religion. There are sections of the article that reflect that.
Basically, if a major media outlet or academic publication fact-checks statements from the Church or a critic and finds the statements verifiable, then we can use them, but otherwise they're assumed to be biased. -- Good Damon 21:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
It's a cult, unfounded beliefs, totally new ideas, and very controlling and extorting of its members. Reapermage 00:36, 10th December 2007 GMT —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reapermage1990 ( talk • contribs) 00:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
It's a cult but it's recongized as a religion by many governments including that of the United States so it should be referred to as such. Maybe refer to it as a cult if/when it loses it's status as a government recongized religion. Also, is Scientology considered a religion by the UN or do they have no stance on that? FalseMyrmidon ( talk) 00:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
The first definition of cult in Dictionary.com is "a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies." So it's a cult... and so is Christianity, so is Islam, so is Buddhism etc etc etc. Bazonka ( talk) 12:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
If anyone gets a chance to check this source, there is an interesting article on Scientology in it related to your "cult status" question, from above:
Cheers, Cirt ( talk) 05:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC).
It does not in any way improve this article to argue over whether Scientology "is" or "is not" a cult. There is not one true definition of "cult"; the word is largely used as a slur. We are much better off describing what Scientologists believe, what Scientologists do, and the history of the Scientology organization -- and leave it up to readers whether these things show it to be a cult, a praiseworthy religion, an organized crime syndicate, a happy summer camp, or a high-heeled shoe. --
FOo (
talk)
17:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I would term it an "Officaly Recognised Religion" and then, possibly state where it is official, or make it a link to a point on the page where they do state it. I believe it is a cult, but that is an opinion. It is definately a religion, so we should state it as that, as it is a fact. Cults are still religions. 82.74.121.248 ( talk) 00:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Assuming your current list of countries is accurate, then you should not call it an officially recognised religion at this point. It would be preferable to have a section entitled "Recognised Religion" and simply state those countries that do. This is fair to both sides of the argument. This is pretty much what you have now, although the current edit is somewhat less succinct. -- Angryjames ( talk) 19:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
With regards the term "Cult". The same argument should be used. If various countries and or significant groups refer to the organisation as a "Cult", then that should be listed in a section head something like "Is it a Cult?" or "Cult Status". To argue about the meaning of the word is pointless, and especially to argue that most religions fall into that definition. We know they do. We are here to report the facts as significant trusted sources would. Significant sources/countries might use the term "Cult" to describe Scientology, but not use it to describe say Christianity, even though we know the latter started as a cult -- Angryjames ( talk) 19:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Man, I strongly strongly dislike Scientology, but as there is no generally accepted definition of a cult (a word that is loaded with controversy) and it carries widespread negative connotations I think it should be classified as a
weasel word and therefore not used. One of the best things about Wikipedia is its objectivity and although it seems ridiculous to people like us, we have to realise that that is just our opinion. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
86.134.136.36 (
talk)
22:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I have looked-in the term "CULT" in Wikipedia and also the term "RELIGION" and in my understanding Scientology indeed falls under the category of Cult. And if you look into it you'll understand why they keep on saying they are a religious group, it is for tax purpose only. Reinbowe ( talk) 06:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Maybe we should watch what we say - a 15 year old kid is apparently being prosecuted in Britain for calling Scientology a cult. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/may/20/1 Pearce.duncan ( talk) 22:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
It strikes me as fascinating that the Church of Scientology has chosen to take issue with the term cult and its usage in relation to them. In doing so they are in violation of their own beliefs as passed down by L. Ron Hubbard.
Scientologists are required to "clear words" to insure that they properly understand said terms. One such word which is required is the word Cult, for which a definition is given within the index of "Science of Survival" which states, "cult: an exclusive group of people who share an excessive devotion or dedication to some person, idea, or thing."
Clearly they meet their own criteria, and based on their policy of "clearing words" in relation to their own internally defined meanings, any instance in which this term is misinterpreted to mean anything else would indicate that said Scientologist has not properly cleared the term.
13Heathens ( talk) 09:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
"Scientology has opened the gates to a better World. It is not a psycho-therapy nor a religion. It is a body of knowledge which,when properly used, gives freedom and truth to the individual." -THE CREATION OF HUMAN ABILITY, A Handbook for Scientologists BY L. RON HUBBARD
Esper
rant
20:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Could JDPhD please stop adding bad references for Scientology as a recognized religion in these countries? Since they've been without references since November 5th (previously to a non-RS CoS page), I'm removing them until a valid WP:RS surfaces. AndroidCat ( talk) 18:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Might have been mentioned before, quite lenghtly article about this cult, see here. -- Allemandtando ( talk) 09:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
JDPhD added new refs galore to this article in recent past. I'm not able to check and keep track of all of his additions and therefore can't judge every single contribution made by him. However, most references and additions contributed in particular by JDPhD I actually checked were either unrelated, plain wrong or non existent.
What is the consensus in Wikipedia to deal with questionable contributions and refererences by editors who repeatedly make "malicious" contributions ? I'm not even talking about POV edits or bad interpretations of sources but disruptions like this one(where his actual source turns out to be completly unrelated to his edit). I'm aware that references should not be deleted easily by other editors but it is extremly time consuming to proof that every single source he inserts is wrong or unrelated since many sources are only offline available.
Continue WP:AGF and research strange sources which turn out to be by 90 % plain wrong or revert such suspicious edits unless they are prooven by the editor on talk page?
Yes, my suggestion to ignore WP:AGF is quite harsh but I don't know how to deal with this problem in any other way espescially since JDPhD usually doesn't participate on talk page and many edits of him look like plain disruption rather than well-intentioned contributions. -- Stan talk 03:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Of course, if anyone else can keep up with JDPhD's edits and actually check all his "new" references, this thread would be unneeded and can be closed. -- Stan talk 03:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
The quote used in this section is not presently accurate and the note number 284 does not link directly to the info. The Church of Scientology states the following: "A Hubbard Electrometer, or E-Meter, is a device which is sometimes used in Dianetics and Scientology services. In itself, the E-Meter does nothing. It is not intended for the diagnosis, treatment or prevention of any disease or for the improvement of health or any bodily function. Ownership or use of the E-Meter is strictly limited to duly ordained ministers of the Church of Scientology and ministers in training and is otherwise absolutely prohibited."
The old quote as it presently appears on the page should be erased together with its false reference. The new quote should be written in its place with the new reference. JDPhD ( talk) 19:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it appears in L. Ron Hubbard's book "Introducing the E-Meter" right under the copyright and trademark notices. By the way, the link you showed above is pretty good. However, it seems the one that appears in all the E-meter books as cited above is the one standardly used by the church in the copyright and trademark notices page of all the E-meter books. Thank you for your prompt reply. JDPhD ( talk) 20:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
AndroidCat ( talk) 00:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)A man who holds no truck with established religion is unsurpris-ingly unlikely to have much good to say about Scientology, which purports to use scientific tools such as its controversial “E-meter”. “It’s purely made-up. It just taps into some ‘gullibiligy’. They find some film star or somebody like Tom Cruise or whatever his name is who’s thick as two short planks and he becomes a sort of advertisement.”
The following seems irrelevant to the article, and possibly implying a link where no suggestion of one has been cited.
"Like Dr. Milton H. Erickson, M. D., founder of the American Society of Clinical Hypnosis and widely recognized as the world's foremost medical hypnotist who went on to influence the development of NLP, L. Ron Hubbard demonstrated his professional expertise in Hypnosis by going on to discover the Dianetic engram."
There's no citation for any link between Milton Erickson and L. Ron Hubbard, or for any link between Milton Erickson and the Dianetic engram (and AFAIK there isn't any link). Also, there's no citation for L. Ron Hubbard having professional expertise in Hypnosis, just that he wrote about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.110.159 ( talk) 12:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
does anyone else see the phrase "Scientology: It is not good" at the bottom of the page below the religion template boxes? i think that ought to be removed, but my status as an inexperienced new wiki user makes it a little difficult since the article seems to be safeguarded against edits. cheerio 144.92.83.141 ( talk) 14:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Why remove fact? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.193.110 ( talk) 03:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
There is sound evidence that Scientology is not a "body of beleifs and related practices" as stated in the first sentence of the article, but rather a moneymaking operation disguised as a religion.
This evidence includes:
1. The fact that the founder of scientology L. Ron Hubbard once said, "The easiest way to make money is to start a religion."
2. The fact that there is absolutely no scientific merit to the operation of an E-Meter as described by scientologists.
3. The fact that the Church of Scientology charges what many deem to be unreasonable sums of money for "counseling".
4. The Church of Scientology actively hunts down people who criticize their beleifs/practices and harass them via frivolous lawsuits or ad hominem attacks.
5. The Church of Scientology has been outlawed in Germany on the grounds of fraud (amongst other charges)
The first sentance and the nature of the rest of the article should be changed accordingly. 75.1.243.85 ( talk) 23:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
With all do respect, surely it can be argued that point number one should be verified before being brought forth. I may be biased, but a claim needs evidence. Surely we can agree that the section concerning controversy does a great deal of good presenting the controversies in a neutral light. That is the point of wikipedia right? to present as little bias as possible? I believe that the allegations of stalking, mudslinging, and Ad Hominem attacks should be disclosed in the controversies section. I am still wondering how anything can claim it is a religion when it copyrights it's own material. I have to argue that more criteria need to be put forth when evaluating something as being religious. Pseudoscience should be brought to light as well. Kashmirxincx ( talk) 23:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Should we devote a section to how people who are critial of scientology are treated? BBC reporter John Sweeney found a trong resistence from scientology members (most notably Thomas W. Davis) when he tried to interview people about Scientology. Some references: BBC: Scientology & Me Shawn Lonsdale, a fierce Scientology critic Jaap ( talk) 19:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I CONCUR. -LR —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
71.222.9.110 (
talk)
07:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
There is no rule against making an article over scientology critics, and claims. it doesn't even have to be biased (It shouldn't be). Many people are interested in scientology critics. I mean, if Neo Nazis can have a Wiki on there movement, rational people can have one too.
Kashmirxincx (
talk)
23:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
The requirements on "sources of references", "cleanup" and "self-published sources" appear to have been satisfied. If not, what else is there? JDPhD ( talk) 19:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, The Encyclopedia Britannica states "science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard (1911–86)" in its coverage of Scientology issues. Available at: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/274475/L-Ron-Hubbard#tab=active~checked%2Citems~checked&title=L.%20Ron%20Hubbard%20--%20Britannica%20Online%20Encyclopedia. Could an editor provide a reputable source claiming that Hubbard was a speculative fiction writer? OnBeyondZebrax ( talk) 17:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
magazine refers to him as "L. Ron Hubbard, science fiction author and founder of Scientology( http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:WaO6EioBUxwJ:www.scifihorizons.com/issue10.htm ). MSN Encarta's article on Science Fiction states that "...Campbell’s magazine introduced many soon-to-be famous science-fiction writers, including L. Sprague De Camp, Lester del Rey, Theodore Sturgeon, L. Ron Hubbard, Fritz Leiber, A. E. Van Vogt, Arthur C. Clarke, and Robert Heinlein." (emphasis added). ( http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:Ab-5ltObMw8J:encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761563123_3/science_fiction.html )................................................................As far as sources for Hubbard being a speculative fiction author, most of the sources I found were Scientology sites, blogs, promotional websites, book advertisements, and so on. The most reputable sources referring to Hubbard and speculative fiction were Reuters articles discussing Hubbard's Writers of the Future Contest(see www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS179622+15-Jan-2008+PRN20080115 ). Perhaps I have been unsuccessful in finding authoritative sources for the "Hubbard = speculative fiction author" claim. If so, please provide these sources. As far as the vandalism issue, and the IGNORE rules policy, I acknowledge your (GoodDamon's) greater knowledge of Wikipedia and its policies and rules. However, I humbly argue that the "reliable sources" policy is one of the policies that we ought to defend. :) OnBeyondZebrax ( talk) 20:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
In fact it bears little relevance if such sources all tell that he would be a 'Science Fiction' writer. All these sources, either way, have to submit to what the actual statistics are. Time after time people have purposely made the association with Science fiction. Somehow this got stuck in people's minds, and in those that wrote these source entries. The fact is that he wrote in all genre's of fiction (and other), and the majority of them (and most certainly prior to 1950), it was by far not Science Fiction. Try here. As I have predicted a while back already, this matter will be an everlasting war. This time around the 'authority' argument is being tried, rather than the statistically correct argument. Propaganda rules, this is always going to rule in controversial subjects in such media such as Wikipedia where any unprofessional can interfere. -- Olberon ( talk) 18:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
(Resetting indent) - Olberon, if you have specific issues with Wikipedia's policies, you should take it up on those policies' talk pages. Each policy, such as WP:RS -- which appears to be the one you're objecting to here -- has its own discussion page for making changes to it. Right now, the position that the reliable sources we're using say "science fiction" instead of, for instance, "speculative fiction" has won against the position that Hubbard's bibliography has more than science fiction in it. And that's well in line with the policy. So as you appear to have an issue with WP:RS, I strongly suggest you take it up there. This is not the proper venue for that discussion. -- Good Damon 23:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
With other words you humbly and for all blindly 'submit'! Your percentage of 40% is statistically and proven seriously incorrect! What study are you referring to?? Suddenly you also say that "he wrote more science fiction than he wrote of any other genre", which is an outrigth lie! It does not even pass the 25%. Where is your study?? I also see that you ignored my comments on 'consensus'. You also have a misinterpretation of these particular sources being "well-researched", if they are well-researched they tell where they got the data from where it is based on. They all fail to mention that! As I said I wrote this all down, analyzed it and published it on my site. -- Olberon ( talk) 09:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
(Resetting indent) OK, I'm going to point out policy one more time, and then we're done.
That's it. I think we've taken this as far as we can go. If you want to, I suggest you take this up with
the Arbitration Committee (whoops, meant to link
dispute resolution, but I was pretty tired when I wrote this), but I can promise you they'll quote Wikipedia policy to you as well. You would be best served by reading, understanding, and arguing your case at
WP:RS. --
Good
Damon
05:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Should this article mention the scientologist's Sea Organization? It's a fake navy where the dress up like Admiral Farragut and sign a BILLION YEAR CONTRACT and basically become David Miscavige's personal slaves.
Generalanonymous ( talk) 00:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
To learn more go to
xenu.net
Generalanonymous ( talk) 01:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Didn't there used to be a section in the main article regarding Criminal activity? Have I managed to miss it entirely?
I'm looking for information on the critical writer Scientology framed and the battle with the FBI, but I could no longer find it.
Thanks, -- UnicornTapestry ( talk) 00:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm a new registered user so I can't edit this myself, but:
In the article it is stated almost as a fact that LRH would have studied Freud as a twelve-year-old, under the guidance of a personal student of Freud himself. However, in LRH's diaries from this time, nothing of the sorts is mentioned. No references to freudian theories and no mentioning of anybody tutoring him in this field. This information from "A Piece of blue sky /Dianetics, Scientology and L.Ron Hubbard exposed", Jon Atack, "A Lyle Stuart book", ISBN 0-8184-0499-X
Rujaraju ( talk) 11:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you! Rujaraju ( talk) 09:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
This is from the Wikipedia definition of the word, "cult:"
"New religions are often considered "cults" before they are considered religions[12] by social scientists, and usually by Christian Evangelical/Fundamentalist theologians, and by the secular public – yet these three groups do not usually have the same understanding of the term "cult". People understand the term "cult" through the most popular usage in their cultures and subcultures, which can result in homonymic conflict, a communicative conflict with people who hold a different definition of the same term. This often results in confusion, misunderstanding, and resentment between members of "cult" groups and non-members." This applies here in spades.
The fact that Scientology has certain beliefs or practices to which its members strongly adhere does not justify using a word generally accepted as having negative connotations in a definition of the subject. I went to Wikipedia to find the meaning of the word, "Scientology," and what I found instead was a debate more suited for blogs and forums. In fact, it was hard to tell what Scientology is according to the aforementioned, "definition," other than a controversy, which leads me to conclude that the definition is not a definition at all, but representative that the protocols of value in editing Wikipedia are being bypassed in order to further rather hateful agendas and inner-Wiki blogging.
The references listed on the definition page of Scientology make it all seem valid as being utterly and only a controversy, but if one looks at the pages devoted to Christianity, for example, he will not find pedophelia, murderers and war lords, even though these practices are well documented as having been furthered by so-called members of Mother Church. Nor do I find on the pages devoted to Muslims, a history of terrorism, or on the subject of Judaism, a history of lobbing mises into neighboring countries. In fact, on these subjects I found rather comprehensive definitions and historical studies, none of which were attacks by their respective, "victims," or by the disaffected and so on. This is because, for some strange reason, these subjects have been presented as they were meant to be presented on Wiki's; as definitions.
Certainly Scientology has had it's share of controversy. One writer notes the statements by the son of L. Ron Hubbard himself against the church. I believe, however, that the churches founder has another son who is a devoted Scientologist. What is his opinion? Or, don't you want to know? Of course not - not for these purposes. Neither son represents an objective definition, which is what I, as a lay person, was looking for. And nor do the individuals responsible for posting the hate group, "Anonymous,"'s photo in the middle of a page devoted to a definition of Scientology. If this group had any courage, any real point to make, they would not hide their identities, nor would they post hateful text into what is supposed to be an objective look at a subject.
On the subject of sources like Time magazine and other media, it is my personal opinion that in the past 20 years or so, almost all media sources have become rather glamorized. I read an article on the Church of Scientology where they referred to Narconon, an L. Ron Hubbard related drug-program, as believing that drug addiction could be handled with a sauna and some vitamins. In fact, the medical sauna (also called the Purif) is an integrated part of Narconon, but that represents only a fraction of an entire process devoted to ethics, suppression, integrity, relationships, control, communication, etc. I know this because I have a very close family member who went through the program and came out quite changed for the better in my view. Very solid individual, contributing member of society, etc. And, yet, none of these aspects were mentioned. So, the value I place on media sources, to say nothing of the circus that is the news on television these days, is next to nil.
Another gray area is the idea of, "..beliefs generally agreed to be outside the mainstream." in terms of defining Scientology as a cult. I know from my study of Narconon that Hubbard teaches a rather mainstream code of ethics, from monogamy to respecting one's parents, to being drug free to supporting persons of good intent. In fact, there was an entire "course" on integrity and honor. Something I found quite refreshing and made quite clear.
I don't know that it's really fair, responsible, or objective to insist that Scientology be classified as a cult on Wikipedia. I think that there are all sorts of forums to bash religions as much as you want, but what I do not appreciate is being dragged into the middle of it in an encyclopedia definition.
Captinhairybely (interesting name by the way) states, "...there is plenty of proof of Scientology destroying families and cutting off relationships. it is a cult. its is misguided and ridiculous attempt to make money. off of aliens."
Even a brief look at news articles and debates over the past thousand or so years shows this to be the case of most religions. The adherence to a belief system itself often is cause for familial separation when one member strongly believes or "follows" something and another argues against it. As far as I know, the Catholic church has made billions more than the church of Scientology, and I don't know how much the Mormon establishment pulls in every year based on it's per member 10% "tithe." And insofar as aliens - they seem no less..alien than a guy turning water into wine and parting oceans with a wave of his hand. And, in the Scientologist's defense, I don't see Scientologist's lobbying for more money on our present day war machine.
But do these controversies define the subject of each religion? Do wayward Scientologists define the practices of fundamental Scientology any more than Christians Deacons and priests having sex with grammar school aged altar-0boys define the fudamental practices and written dogma of the Catholic church? Of course not. These are choices made outside the churches themselves, and have less to do with the definition of the practice than they are a reflection of the disgruntled or disavowed, or wayward condition of the individual, who should, be it Christianity, Islam, Mormonism or Scientology, probably get back to their church and start doing whatever it was that the church actually preaches or practices. And, if it doesn't work out for them, then they should find something that does, or create something that does, instead of spending all day trying to disavow something that others find beneficial in their lives.
But the question of "cult" in the Wiki definition seems displaced. Members who are insisting that the word be used appear to insist too much to me. There seems to be an aggressive and unwarranted bias against the church, and these contributors seem hell-bent on placing their footprint in the Wiki. I say we don't. As a group, let's blog and flog and batter and shatter ideas in other forums. Get yourself a website, write to the editor of your local paper, bash away! But not here, not in the "sacred" halls of Wiki.
I would be happy to help write the whole thing up, inclusive of Scientology's controversial history, because I think it's an important academic point, but focusing on the evolution of Scientology as an applied religious practice. The article definitely needs more info on the elements of Scientology, like Auditing, the triangles in the logo and what they mean, the development of Scientology from Dianetics (I think that was the progression if I'm not mistaken), and yes, the controversies, especially in the 70's through the 90's. But again, not as a focus, just as an aside.
In all fairness, we should add in the historical gore in every other religious definition as well. I still wonder if this is really the place for all of that, but the debate should end with some sort of general agreement, since that would be the most conducive to the Wiki public at large looking for a general description.
In summary I think we should avoid "opinion leaders" as much as possible, since this could turn into an endless, "he said, she said," and be a simplified definition of the practice itself. Just my opinion. Steven K. Bruno CCDC ( talk) 00:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC) gr8dna ( talk) 22:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Valuative ( talk • contribs) -->
I know that the fact that Hubbard was a science fiction author is bound to be contentious but are 8 citations really necessary? They are breaking up the very first sentence of the article. Wouldn't 2 or 3 RS be enough? - IcĕwedgЁ ( ťalķ) 05:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | → | Archive 30 |
I thought this had been covered ad infinitum earlier, but oh well... Prior to writing Dianetics and other Scientology texts, Hubbard was primarily known as a writer of fantasy, horror, and science-fiction (collectively known as speculative fiction these days). JustaHulk states in his edit to the intro: "that whole bit sounds forced and is unnecessary, usually "sci-fi" is added for POV purposes. "Author" is fine and leaner reads better." Now personally, I think removing it is pushing a POV that the information isn't notable or pertinent, and that including it is somehow an attack on Hubbard. I think a simple definition of what kind of author he was ("speculative fiction" is just two words) is neither "forced" nor POV-pushing. There's no shame in writing speculative fiction, and hiding what he wrote -- especially when it's already widely known -- seems both POV-pushing and obfuscatory. Furthermore, "speculative fiction" encompasses a lot more than "sci-fi," and more accurately reflects what he wrote. So... Should we describe -- again, in nonjudgmental terms -- what kind of author Hubbard was in the intro, folks? -- Good Damon 16:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
All right, I'm putting it back then. -- Good Damon 17:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
(left) I can go with whatever the consensus is. Obviously, sci-fi is almost always added as a POV-push. Hubbard was always an author. By the time he formed Scn, he was not a fiction author at all but had been running Dianetics for a few years. So, by rights, Scn was not started by a fiction author because that is not what he was or had been for some time when he started it. I had removed the "author" bit entirely a while back and it stood until another red account inserted sci-fi and GoodDamon well-meaningly tried to make something better of that. Sorry, but one thing I've learned here is that you do not always have to try to improve a questionable bit; sometimes the best thing to do is remove it. If we must pigeon-hole Hubbard right off the bat in the article then I prefer "pulp-fiction" writer as it is more accessible than "speculative fiction" and I do not like the frequent tendency here in Wikipedia to use less accessible, if perhaps incrementally more precise, terminology in lead paragraphs. -- JustaHulk ( talk) 18:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
"Speculative fiction" is not a term Hubbard would have recognized. "Science Ficton," "Science Fiction and Fantasy" or "Pulp Science Fiction" are correct in this case. "Pulp Fiction" focuses on the publishing venue rather than the story genre, so it's true, but less specific. Everything I've read leads me to believe that by reputation and Hubbard's own characterization, "Science Fiction" is the best candidate here. Definitely not "Speculative fiction," though, which I think was introduced in the late 1960s as an attempt to cast SF as a more respectable literary genre (similar to the introduction of the term "graphic novel" as applied to what were universally known as "comic books." ) BTfromLA ( talk) 16:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
It is over 100K. Since the "Controversy and criticism" section has a "main" article, it seems appropriate to simply move its subsections to that page.-- Blinadrange ( talk) 15:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC) That was about 30K worth of material moved to the subordinate "main" page. The article is still somewhat large at 73K, but it's a start.-- Blinadrange ( talk) 16:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
It is tempting to move more of the beliefs and practices to their "main" sub-page. Well...I hope somebody will add a reaction to this idea. Also, I think that the lead should not need references: it should summarize the rest of the article. I moved the 16 refs in the lead into the main body of the text. What else should we do to get this to GA?-- Blinadrange ( talk) 16:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion, scientology is famous for its controversy, not its beliefs and practices or anything else. Therefore, removing criticism from the main article is wrong. Lantios ( talk) 03:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Cirt, a prolific Scientology critic (references available upon request), has written Project Chanology. This is a "perfect" example of WP:RECENTISM, i.e. "create new articles which inflate the importance and effect of a topic that has received recent media attention." Cirt (as User:Wilhelm) has already written two, count 'em, two articles on Chanology for WikiNews. That is a more apt venue for this latest flash-in-the-pan and those articles are referenced here by means of the WikiNews insert in our article. I do not think it reflects well on this project to promote cyberterrorism to forward one's POV. Am I alone in that viewpoint? Thanks. -- JustaHulk ( talk) 21:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
For further discussion, see ongoing AfD, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Project Chanology. This is NOT a solicitation of any kind, just that this discussion of whether or not to have an AfD is pointless, when there is one ongoing. Cirt ( talk) 06:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
The line "Journalists, courts and the governing bodies of several countries have stated that the Church of Scientology is a cult and an unscrupulous commercial enterprise that harasses its critics and abuses the trust of its members" is biased, since it implies that this view is eliteist or not shared by "the common man". It should be modified to read something like "One common view, held by both people and governments (references), holds that ... ". Court views should be stated next. Journalists aren't important enough to include - it makes it sound like this is a weird view only they have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.84.189 ( talk) 15:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
A few days ago, Blinadrange (now banned), trimmed a large amount of material off of the article without prior discussion, mainly from the Controversies section, to be moved to various main articles. I believe that some of these moves were reverted at the destination, and therefore completely lost in transit. As well, by moving controversy out to other articles, and not moving other sections such as Beliefs, Practices, Organizations to their respective main articles, I feel that this seriously unbalances the article. AndroidCat ( talk) 17:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I just queried the blocking admin, here. -- JustaHulk ( talk) 18:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Everyone should support anon! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.183.62.178 ( talk) 03:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Is this worth mentioning?
--Some random jack off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.85.232.249 ( talk) 06:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
No. -- Good Damon 06:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
You sure?
Ason Abdullah (
talk)
08:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes. I honestly hope that the media (if it decides to cover this) takes a neutral position and refrains from calling the *chans internet terrorists. I mean honestly, Scientology had it coming. It is sad for all those that have enlisted in the religion, and supported its "teachings." They truly were taken advantage of when they were at their lows, depressed and hopeless. Their money was taken away, their lives ruined. This just can't go unnoticed.
For once, the hackers of the *chans are doing something that is moral at its core.
When I said the internet is united, I meant the major communities. I would never alter the wikipedia article, but this is a talk page. I believe this is worth mentioning, some people will disagree. I can't change that. The talk page is meant to profess your beliefs, and show your platform. And a note to the users that believe this not reliable: The *chans have already stolen documents that are restricted to Scientologists. You can search and find it, but I will not post it on wikipedia, for it is illegal content. Deleted the "internet is united" quote. Also, I was under the belief that this was discussion, not a suggestion for editing. You may disregard my argument, for until it is openly admitted by the Church itself, it ought not to be included in this article.
In my opinion it should be noted in the article. I mean this certainly is a notable event, look at how many views there are of the youtube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCbKv9yiLiQ of Anonymous stating it's intentions. That in addition to the fact that the 'scientology' website has been shut down for the past view days makes this a very notable event in my opinion. Supra guy ( talk) 21:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes that seems suitable. Supra guy ( talk) 02:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
More media links: http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=uVaQG67eqwA -- DestroyYouAlot ( talk) 01:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
To say they are kiddy scripters is idiotic with the consistent +5 day removal of service of Scientology.org and many other scientology websites. http://video.knbc.com/player/?id=209215
I disagree with the reversion of the addition about Project Chanology. The referenced source was a mainstream media source (APC Magazine, which has been published since May 1980). This effort has also been reported in Wired.com, CNBC and other TV news outlets. It's certainly a notable part of the history of Scientology to date. Further, reporting that it has happened is a neutral addition to the article. Danwarne ( talk) 05:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
At this point, I think there is enough coverage to include a piece on "Project Chanology" in the article. The group and their attacks have been covered on several mainstream news channels, and the group have done notable damage to scientology websites, as well as theft of scientology internal documents. Daler ( talk) 16:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
The status of the Scientology site due to personal observations is inadmisable to Wikipedia, and really depend on when you try and access it (the attacks last on average of 30 min. then Quit), so I think that up to the min. coverage on the status of the scientology page is useless for the talk page. Coffeepusher ( talk) 18:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
"He also established Religious Technology Center which is headed by David Miscavige [1][2] to see to the orthodox application of Scientology technology even after he passed away. [3]"
Where is the evidence that Hubbard personaly established RTC. I know that LRH established the policies to establish RTC like everything else in Scientology but I don't know believe he personaly did it. Bravehartbear ( talk) 12:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Jwray in revision of 22:20, 28 January 2008 added "and a business" to the first sentence. Could that be removed? I feel it is POV and a bit redundant. Any organization could be "accused" of being a business if they have income and expenses. Richard-of-Earth ( talk) 09:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
OK folks, it's obvious there are some heated feelings about this, so let's all calm down and take care of it in as neutral a way as possible. I think first off, we should take a look through the various Scientology groups and figure out which ones are for profit and which ones are not. From that point, we can figure out if the business aspects of Scientology ought to be incorporated -- in a non-judgmental, neutral manner -- into the intro. I don't think restoring the text Shutterbug removed is the answer there, not because of any POV issues, but because the sentence was rather clumsy as it was. And if the for-profit Scientology organizations are too insignificant to partially classify Scientology as a business, then no harm done and we'll all have learned more about Scientology organizations. -- Good Damon 17:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
For Profit (of a business or institution) initiated or operated for the purpose of making a profit. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/for%20profit
I suppose this is a charged issue. When GoodDamon said to calm down I thought "we're just talking here". I suppose the reason it is objectionable is when you say it's a business you’re saying it’s about the money. I know from personal experience that when the international and local staff hear the Church's income went up, it gets applause, but when you tell of someone getting helped, it gets a standing ovation, kudos to COB (David Miscavage) for running the Church the way it's suppose to be and three cheers to Ron for making it all possible. So, when we see someone shy away from us because they're afraid we're after their money, it's builds up emotional charge. The fact I'm still talking about this after the change has been removed shows I got emotional charge about it. I tell you it is not about the money, money is a means to an end, people matter to the Church, the staff and anyone dedicated to the movement. Richard-of-Earth ( talk) 23:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, I challenged you to show who's making the money and some of you say it isn't important in defining a business. Fine. A business is an organization, saying he established organizations and businesses is redundant. It says later in the article it is viewed as a business. It needn't be in there in the beginning. Richard-of-Earth ( talk) 23:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Editors may be interested to know that this article was one of Wikipedia's most read articles in January, with over 1.32 million views in the course of the month - 410,000 of them in one three-day period. See http://stats.grok.se/en/200801/Scientology for details (with thanks to User:Henrik). -- ChrisO ( talk) 23:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
With this edit, Bravehartbear added this sentence to the introduction: "Although the Church of Scientology is the biggest of these networks, organizations such as Narconon, Criminon and Applied Scholastics promote other aspects of Scientology." This is a strange sentence, since those are all subsidiary organizations owned by the Church of Scientology. Thoughts? -- Good Damon 05:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ticklemygrits. I would like to ask why you reverted my edit instead of addressing my concern. You removed text, but did not remove a long list of references that were there to support that text. As a result, the list of citations moved up and attached to the previous sentence. I would appreciate greater care and discretion in the future, as it is not the responsibility of other editors to clean up after you. Thanks, Silly rabbit ( talk) 22:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
You're not explaining why they are in the lead. Why was it in the lead? I have no problem with properly sourced information in the rest of the article, but the lead should just describe Scientology. It shouldn't be used to address critics. I don't think anything the US thingmyjigger on religous freedom represents a worldwide view, nor do I think it's relevent to defining what scientology is. And I don't appreciate extranious references being inserted because I actually read them, and it's very taxing on my eyes Ticklemygrits ( talk) 00:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok tell me what is wrong with the revert. What is your problem with the lead as it stands Ticklemygrits ( talk) 00:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
User:Ticklemygrits removed a sentence that he/she thought should not be there diff. However, User:Ticklemygrits forgot to delete the references to the state department which were attached to that statement. (Here is that diff again.) I reverted ( diff), asking nicely and unambiguously:
Then User:Ticklemygrits immediately reverted, telling me to explain on the talk page, which I did. Then I corrected the problem caused by User:Ticklemygrits's edit, namely that he/she had placed bogus references on a statement in the text. Silly rabbit ( talk) 02:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
This article is looking a lot better today than it was the last time I looked. Congraduations to all the editors who have contributed to improve this article. Titanium Dragon ( talk) 01:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
What is allowed in Wikipedia are covered in WP:EL. This is what it says: Links normally to be avoided "Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject—and not prohibited by restrictions on linking—one should avoid:"
Also is usefull to read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view Bravehartbear ( talk) 21:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
hardly paints Touretzky as an "expert" - the paper went to five of what they really consider experts."The teacher has teamed with David Touretzky, a computer science research professor at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh and a free-speech advocate who runs an anti-Narconon Web site that includes some controversial material."
-- JustaHulk ( talk) 14:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)"Those ideas are rejected by the five medical experts contacted by The Chronicle, who say there is no evidence to support them."
Just to clarify -- "personal Web page" does not mean a Web page maintained by an individual expert or researcher on a subject. It means a Web page that is autobiographical, in the nature of a personal blog or journal. -- FOo ( talk) 23:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Surely point "2. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material..." means no links to any sites that contain belief based information over factual content, e.g. any religious doctrine?!? Did I miss something? :) -- Angryjames ( talk) 19:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering if it should be mentioned in the article. -- MahaPanta ( talk) 23:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Major news sources are talking about it. Scientology made You Tube remove it. The New York Post still has a copy (for now) http://www.nypost.com/seven/01162008/news/nationalnews/star_raving_mad__68340.htm . It is VERY funny. Creepy even. Angry Christian ( talk) 23:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Here is the Video display http://gawker.com/5002269/the-cruise-indoctrination-video-scientology-tried-to-suppress —Preceding unsigned comment added by XenuCareBear ( talk • contribs) 15:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
The Cruise video and the storm that followed is a significant moment in recent CoS history. What argument is there for excluding a reference to it? Here in the UK, CoS was a point of news after the Panorama programme (mentioned on this page) and even more so after the Cruise video release. What was the US reaction? It would appear to be of significant interest. Also Cruise's comment appear to be a return to some of those LRH "fair game" ways. Any comments? -- Angryjames ( talk) 20:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I have tagged several subsections of this article with {{ Primary sources}}. Multiple sections of this article fail the very letter of the primary sources tag - specifically, these subsections cite no other sources other than the Church of Scientology website and affiliated self-referential publications. Per the text in the primary sources tag:
This article or section needs sources or references that appear in reliable, third-party publications. Primary sources and sources affiliated with the subject of this article generally are not sufficient for a Wikipedia article. Please include more appropriate citations from reliable sources, or discuss the issue on the talk page.
Please find some secondary sources, and try to phase out this over-dependence on the Church of Scientology websites and affiliated publications for this article - we do not want the Wikipedia article on "Scientology" to be mainly a duplicate of the Church of Scientology websites, in many sections. Cirt ( talk) 12:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Please note, I have only tagged those subsections where all of the sources cited in those subsections are to Church of Scientology websites and affiliated publications, primary sources and self-referential sources - i.e. sections which contain zero citations to secondary sources not affiliated with the Church of Scientology. Cirt ( talk) 12:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Unless we want to make the entire article read like blatant advertising for Scientology it is entirely appropriate to severely limit the use of primary source self-referential links to Scientology websites and Scientology affiliated organizations and sources. To do otherwise is a disservice to the reader and to NPOV. With an overdependence on such primary source, self-referential sources there would be no point to this article and the entire page could just be a soft-redirect to www.scientology.org - because that is what the article would be like with so many links to those websites. Cirt ( talk) 14:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Cirt I apologise. You are right is just that the third party sources are just not there. This is a new subject and the studies have not been done. This is why there is a controversy. This place has been a battle field of self published sources. Almost everything here is self published. This place used to be a mirrow image of xenu.net and it was hard to change that. But you will find that the third party sources contradit each other, so it is imposible to make conclusions. The reader will have to come up with his own conclusion. We really don't have conclusions here, just facts, allegations and opinions. And we try to balance things up. But I agree with you, but that would cut these pages into a few paragraphs. And I think that would be fine. But the editors here will really be against that. Thank you for trying to bring some sanity here. Bravehartbear ( talk) 15:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I found a source that appears to be very NPOV, and comes from an established religious studies Proffessor. I used it for the 8 million membership number, and I am shure we can work alot more information into the article...but I just don't have time today. here is the link Frank K. Flinn Adjunct Professor of Religious Studies at Washington University interview Coffeepusher ( talk) 19:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
[CNN: Scientology: A Way to Happiness?] Maybe we should talk about this in the page. Bravehartbear ( talk) 23:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Removed external link to copyrighted material. Cirt ( talk) 16:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
In the intro, the text "Today there are more than 4,378 Scientology churches, missions and groups worldwide on 155 countries." is clearly the St. Peterburg Times quoting PR material from the Church of Scientology, which never provides any sources or documentation for its claimed numbers. I don't think that should remain as it is in the intro. AndroidCat ( talk) 16:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Those are exactly the same ones I would pick. But first, we should put such a reversion to a consensus vote, then select the version. The question is, should we revert to a previous version of the article that was largely accepted by all the editors here to undo fairly systemic problems with over-reliance on non-RS material and lost content? Edit: I should clarify that I don't think all the edits since those revisions have been bad, and that after such a revert I think we should comb through the prior version for material and references to bring forward. -- Good Damon 19:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, I think the consensus so far is that we need to remove info from, as Cirt put it, "primary, self-referential sources". I no longer think reverting part of the article is the answer to that. So let's get editing, folks... -- Good Damon 19:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I see that reference placement has gotten a little confused again. So do people prefer to see referenced before or after punctuation? We should probably standardize that. -- Good Damon 20:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah right -- L-Ron wrote SCIENCE FICTION. Why not say so?-- 71.202.121.130 ( talk) 21:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)This source should be incorporated into the article. Cirt ( talk) 14:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)Editorial piece on the same issue. Cirt ( talk) 14:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Whom ever wrote this article must have been a scientologist. The reason they don't like psychiatry is because if a member was ever to be evaluated they will be diagnosed clinical nut jobs. This is putting it nicely. Scientology promotes itself not philosophy, religion or anything about spirituality. This is a commercial enterprise. Some people give it an example of the Amway of religions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.4.186 ( talk) 06:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Your talking rubbish, unlock it then and let us normal people edit it? Why lock it, what are you trying to hide...the truth? 12:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC) Jezza —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.149.111 ( talk)
What I mean by that, is that the horizontal scroll bar appears when you visit the main article. It's from a little [citation needed] thing in one of these paragraphs.
Well, we aren't allowed to edit the page. Are higher-ups allowed to? If there are higher-ups that are allowed to, can this please be fixed? 71.238.211.166 ( talk) 05:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I did not see what any mention of Aliens in the article.Isnt that A beleif of Scientology?It would also explain why people think its a cult. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.1.245.18 ( talk) 00:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
See Space opera in Scientology scripture. -- FOo ( talk) 04:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
And those same rational, scientific people believe the chances that anything could travel to earth are almost none. Contrary to science-fiction (which ultimately is all that scientology is) faster than light speed travel is impossible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.42.210 ( talk) 14:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Am I right in thinking that the toning down of the "alien" content is in direct relation to the Scientologists' own position? Should we not have something in the page that explains a shift in expressed views. Forgive me if I'm wrong about this, having grown up with CoS news, I felt the whole "alien" thing was openly expressed and then suddenly or perhaps gradually it disappeared. Is that true? -- Angryjames ( talk) 20:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Angryjames. I have followed this article extensively along with the history of exposure of the belief in Scientology. I'm surprised there is not a complete section that talks about Xenu, volcanos, trapped spirits, nuclear explosion, spacetravel in DC-10 aircraft, etc. This entire backstory used to be in the article and has been slowly whittled down until it's completely disappeared. Did CoS send a copywright infrigement notification? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mneipert ( talk • contribs) 03:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Someone (probably in reference to the Googlebombing campaign) has created a page that redirects Dangerous Cult to this article. While it's probably true, it's certainly not neutral. Would someone who knows how to remove a redirect please consider fixing it? Vonspringer ( talk) 05:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Just a note to all editors, I wikilinked Dangerous Cult, if it is blue (not red) it means it is active again, and needs to be fixed. thank you Coffeepusher ( talk) 20:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Please give references http://www.bible.ca/scientology-is-a-religion-black.htm Bravehartbear ( talk) 00:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
In the Frank K. Flinn interview, he clearly states that the source of his number was the Church of Scientology. "Scientologists count about 8 million people worldwide, but that includes people to took just an introductory course without necessarily continuing." AndroidCat ( talk) 19:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
The source itself, Frank Flinn is a third party, and it also clarified how they came to that number "those who just took an introductory cource". Which is actually believable. I will buy the fact that 8 million people worldwide have been introduced to scientology and many didn't continue...I don't buy the 1.03 billion number that they say on the Tom Cruse video. Personaly I think that even if the initial source is the church itself, the fact that the interviewee (horible grammer) is outside the church and a religious studies professor makes it admissable in the article. additionaly this number was beside the churches claim of 3.5 million in the united states...so I am wondering why the worldwide number is inadmisable? Coffeepusher ( talk) 20:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Galactic Confederacy seems to be nothing but fancruft, and as it stands now it lacks sources and fails WP:FICT, WP:N and WP:PLOT. Unless these issues can be rectified, it would be a good idea to merge a concise summary of the article into this one. - YYN ( talk) 04:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Oppose merge. The subject appears to be a standard part of Scientology beliefs, and Scientology, while a controversial organization with controversial beliefs and practices, is nonetheless clearly notable as are its core practices. Galactic Confederacy appears to be sufficiently notable and require sufficient detail to explain to stand on its own. The basis for merge seems to be, not that the subject is non-notable or not a belief of Scientology, but that the beliefs of Scientology as a whole (including this one) are fictional The status of Scientology as a religion is certainly controversial. While this controversy should be explained fairly in the relevant articles including criticism, a particular view on it does not seem an appropriate basis for merge decisions under WP:NPOV Readers are capable of deciding for themselves whether the beliefs of Scientology are fictional or not, just as is the case for all POV controversies. Best -- Shirahadasha ( talk) 17:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that the article does not say anything about the rumours of Scientology brainwashing its members. Is there any truth to that or is it just a conspiracy theory? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.45.183 ( talk) 17:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I read on Wikipedia that Scientologists believe in "attacking the attacker." But, no where have I seen any explanation of why Scientologists believe that smearing people is good—for any one. Is there any sort of explanation that they have offered that explains how doing evil (e.g., disclosing personal information, pestering people, filing frivolous law suits, intimidation, kidnapping, stalking, etc.) is good? To clarify, how does "attacking the attacker" improve either attacker? Simply disputing a falsehood about Scientology would be a different matter. What I am talking about is making an attack against an individual, rather than an argument or a belief. Ad-hominem arguments seem to be their first line of defense, however irrelevant they may be to any debate. How do they justify that morally?-- Guywithdress ( talk) 14:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict)why don't we just wait for it to archive. I personaly abhore deleting from talk pages except in the case of outright vandalism or stupidity (the bin laden question on this page is a perfict example of that "is osama bin laden a scientologists?"...um...no he is a muslem, duh!) and while it is a stretch to say that this refurs to the article, I do see some value in keeping it, for no other reason than if someone comes up with the same question they can see that Ethics (Scientology) already adresses it. Coffeepusher ( talk) 19:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I disagree w/ this edit, which removed tags that were still appropriate. Just look at the References section. There are still way too many cites to primary, self-published/self-referential sources, affiliated with the subject of this article. Cirt ( talk) 06:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
It seems odd to me that these two are one section in the article. The section itself doesn't seem to relate the two. Might it be better to split that section? Perhaps the first paragraph (the only part that talks about hypnosis) into a "Hypnosis and Scientology" section and then the rest as "Scientology as a Cult?"-- Tyranastrasz ( talk) 23:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for using TW without any comment. I reverted Su Jada because she smoothly excluded other actions against the internet from the first section. It is not just about some legal actions. (sporgery on ARS) -- Stan talk 23:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not certain where else to but this info, but someone should take a look at Scientology's practices on ebay. Not sure if there's any 'reputable' sources for this info, but slashdot mentions a letter from ebay, and I think ebay is reputable. It's not flattering to ebay. At the very least, this may be something to watch.
http://realitybasedcommunity.net/archive/2008/02/scientology_abu_1.php
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/04/27/1712248
74.67.17.22 (
talk)
00:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
I am fairly unfamiliar with editing wikipedia articles and what the rules are as far as 'valid' sources go. But I did a search on google news and found these 3 articles (ex-cluding slashdots) on the scientology / ebay saga. You can find them
here,
here and
here.
They are from Dailytech.com, radaronline.com and shortnews.com. They all seem like very reputable sources, but again - I can't confirm, as I don't know the rules well enough. Hopefully these can be used; if not hopefully someone can shed some light on why they can't. Thanks. Cdynas ( talk) 02:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
They don't look RS to me. The one from Dailytech.com is a blog, so no evidence of fact checking; the one from radaronline.com is a scandal sheet, they print any rumor; the one from shortnews.com is secondhand it gives a source www.realitybasedcommunity.net, a blog. I could write an article and say anything I like and post it on at least 2 of these sources. Look for an official release from ebay or an article that has one. Richard-of-Earth ( talk) 18:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)A very interesting development, indeed. Cirt ( talk) 21:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)Cirt ( talk) 05:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)Cirt ( talk) 18:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
All refs from 27 to 67 are primary sources mainly available on the internet. It looks a bit like an ammasment of PR quotes which are not informative at all and not concise. Many are misleading or controversial but are not attributed correctly. see Wikipedia:NPOV#Attributing_and_substantiating_biased_statements.
example for missing attribution in this section(its also not really informative):
Therefore, a therapy which asks man to adapt his subjective environment to the obective environment, and not the other way around, is like psychiatry enslaving and is unworkable simply because it is not true.
another example: (substantiation and attribution missing)
It is a personal thing that an ethical person does by his own choice.[63]
The Scientology Ethic book and most scholars don't descibe Ethics as "a personal thing in Scientology" and the second part "ethical person already indicates that this "PR statement" is a kind of workaround. "Ethic Orders" and Conditions are directly assigned by the church to the individual on the "3'rd dynamic" in general and on "lower conditions" on all "dynamics".
... or should Coca Cola on Wikipedia be descriped as surpisingly refreshing and very beneficial because "everytime you have a coke,you help support your community" ?
I would like to clean it up but would like to reach consensus on this matter first. BTW, "Admin Tech" and PTS/SP doctrine is completly missing in the belief section. -- Stan talk 00:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
This article is over 115 kb. It should really be trimmed down/summarized/phrased more succinctly. Too many sections of the article go into specific details on things that should be summarized instead, w/ links to more specific articles on tighter topics. Cirt ( talk) 13:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
This article seems to be speaking on behalf of what L. Ron Hubbard said post-creation of Scientology, after it had already gained status. I'm pretty sure it was developed as a joke when L. Ron Hubbard was going through a period where he had been on many prescription drugs, and he found there could be some truth to it...
why is this article protected 212.149.252.23 ( talk)¨ —Preceding comment was added at 16:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
It should be obvious.. are you a member of the movement by any chance? Mijcsmu ( talk) 17:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
It is also said that Danny Masterson (HYDE off of that 70's show) is another supporter of scientology —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.5.231.118 ( talk) 22:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Can anyone find any third party sources for alot of the stuff here.
Also would it be acceptable to post a 'spark-notes' version of the OT3 documents-- Sylvok ( talk) 12:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
under scientologoy and the internet it says that anonymous' next protest will be on march 15th, this already happend and another protest is scheduled for april 12th. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.162.203 ( talk) 18:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC) Anonymous members are members from the 4chan.org message boards. More importantly, they are from the random message board otherwise known as /b/. They are the ones who started the protests. The reason they wear Guy Fawkes masks is because they use the image of the mask on a stick figure and refer to it as EFG or Epic Fail Guy. Why has this information not been added? All of these protests come from members of that forum.
I have as of yet, failed to find ANY proof that Co$ is a non-profit orginization. There is absolutely no evidence to support them as being non-profit. The fact that Co$ has had SEVERAL 'Leaders of Anoynomus' arrested at protests world wide (Mostly the people doing most of the chanting and or leading people in the chants or reading articles against the church published by third parties mostly news articles.) People that drove to the protests, have had notices placed in their post by "Representitives of the Church of Scientology." and it just so happened to be a law firm... a very reputable one at that. I personally have been contacted by "Representitives of the Church of Scientology" However I took no part in the protest, yet my place of work is directly across the street from an office of The Church of Scientology.
The 'Church' of Scientology is hardly a 'Church' at all. Direct or Indirect oppression against those who disagree with the church, or publicly speak out against their practices and beliefs is (Not sure about most countries but i'm sure it is in Aus.) illegal.
HOWEVER, it is not wikipedia's job to refuse an article to a cult, There is insufficent references, and third party information regarding the church of scientology's article. All of it's sources are from either it's own publications, or publications by it's members and affilate orginiazations.
Either Deletion or some other form of action should be taken on this article. The article is full of lies, half truths, self promotion and defamation of the group anonymous. (Last i checked Wiki articles were supposed to be netural.)
AnnaJGrant ( talk) 09:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)This will be the university's first satellite campus on a satellite. It will be completely funded by the Church of Scientology, NYU spokesman John Beckman said in a joint news conference with actor Tom Cruise.
The "NYU L. Ron Hubbard Center for the Study of the Universe" will be able to host nearly 200 former SPs each semester, with potential for expansion in the future.
Sounds like an ambitious project. Cirt ( talk) 09:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, I yield... It just seemed more targeted than the rest of the 4/1 shenanigans, but maybe that's just me. :) -- Good Damon 21:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
In germany scientology is officially marked as sect and therefore denied church status. This should be mentioned in the controvesity section. And it would be interesting to see where else scientology is denied church status ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arotto ( talk • contribs) 13:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
"A Sydney woman has been ordered to stand trial after pleading not guilty to the stabbing murders of her father and sister. The 26-year-old will also defend a charge of inflicting grievous bodily harm with intent to murder her mother. The attack allegedly happened at the family's Revesby home in Sydney's south-west in July last year. The Supreme Court was told mental health will be an issue at the trial, which will start in July. It is alleged that the woman was denied psychiatric help because of her parents' belief in Scientology."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/04/04/2208153.htm
Wageslave ( talk) 05:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
this article makes no mention of Hubbard's science fiction writing in the intro, his arguably most famous book 'battlefield earth' was clearly science fiction.i am not saying that he was not also a speculative fiction writer, but if that term is included in the introduction then the term "science fiction writer" should be included also
if i am beating a dead horse i apologies, i went though the archives looking for a debate on this topic but could not find anything, if this has already been resolved then could you please point me to the talk pages in archives? Rubico ( talk) 17:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
im going to go ahead and change it, have not gotten a response in over a week, revert if you want but please adress in talk Rubico ( talk) 16:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
"American speculative fiction" should not be included when referencing LRH on the Scientology page. It's fairly obvious that referring to him as such is an effort to discredit the religion, and such descriptions should be confined to a biography page, not a discussion of a religion. I know I'll get flack for this, but, you wouldn't refer to Christianity as a religion based on Jesus, a carpenter, because not only is that not what he was was most known for, but it's only relevant in a biographical sense, not relevant to the religion itself. I don't know if this should be its own heading or not, if so, please advise. Nihiletnihil ( talk) 09:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the article should say somewhere in the first paragraph that scientology is a scam. Why the hell should it cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to be "treated" by the "church"? A real religion would do that out of sheer goodwill. Anyone with half a brain can figure out that this is nothing but a total scam. Unbrady ( talk) 01:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'v read those, and guess what? Scientology is still a blatant scam. I was at their "head base" in LA a few months ago, and they had security gaurds walking around with 7 INCH BLADES on them. What kind of religion has freakin armed gaurds in their churches? (the Swiss gaurd in Vatican City is just ceremonial). This whole organization screams "Scam! Scam Scam Scam Scam Scam!" Unbrady ( talk) 01:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Well put. It’s only a matter of a count down to the end of the global scam when you can read an un-bias article and still come to the conclusion that it is a scam. -- DavidD4scnrt ( talk) 07:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Things change, times change.
On Sunday, December 25, 1994, The Washington post publishes the article: In Scientology Fiction - The Church's War Against Its Critics and Truth. A favorite between Scientology critics.
Now the Washington post published: XENU-PHOBIA Weird Sure. A Cult, No. The same magazine now says that Scientology is not a cult.
The New Yorker now writes about Scientology Celebrity Center like it was a Gala Dinner. Château Scientology
This other journalist writes about the fun time she had in church of Scientology. An afternoon with the Scientologists
This other one writes about her experiences with auditing. | The Invasion Begins, Scientology's Plan To Conquer Cleveland
The reality is that the Scientology controversy is dying out. People are more concern with Will Smith being a Scientologist and Tom Cruise videos than anything else. No one considers Scientology a dangerous cult no more. They may find it weird but that's all. The court cases against Scientology in the U.S. have almost disappeared.
There is just a handful of desperate Scientology critics left that the worst thing they can do is to bog down the website and post stupid messages.
In writing this because the last paragraph in the lead is just bias. Is based in old obsolete information that is no longer current. Is simply an offensive insult with no real data. I want a vote to have that paragraph removed.
I vote YES Bravehartbear ( talk) 14:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I vote NO as, checking the links, you've not disproved a single thing.
Please see WP:NOT#FORUM, as well as the related header at the top of this talk page. Cirt ( talk) 17:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
It is not misuse to discuss how RS treats the exact subject of this article and how that directly impacts the manner in which this project treats the exact subject of this article. BTW, here are the Washington Post links (from just Googling the titles) 1, 2. -- JustaHulk ( talk) 17:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I vote NO. None of those links indicate any "dying out" of Scientology's controversies.
If anything, the tone used to describe Scientology in the news since the Tom Cruise video is getting worse, not better. They all mention Xenu, they all describe its controversial nature, and I couldn't find any text indicating the court cases have "almost disappeared." I would be hesitant to include any of these links because they're all opinion pieces, and they're all largely mocking in tone. Even the first one, in which Mr. Oppenheimer says Scientology isn't a cult, goes into some detail about the perceived weirdness of it, and describes it as controversial. If we include them, the tone of this article will get more negative, not less, while we'll be using opinion pieces written by non-experts as reliable sources -- and I don't see any reason to do that. -- Good Damon 19:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I vote NO. Cherry-picking a few articles out of a very large number [6] isn't significant. AndroidCat ( talk) 05:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC) I vote NO. 129.174.226.5 ( talk) 00:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I too vote NO, and WOW you really neglected to read the information that you linked as evidence, because some of the articles contradict what you are trying to argue.-- iF ( talk) 04:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I vote NO, Now there is a HUGE controversy with the Church of Scientology thanks to its censorship of YouTube videos. -- Chinese3126 ( talk) 17:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I've redirected the controversy page, for several reasons:
It's articles like that which lower Wikipedia's credibility. We're supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a soapbox for anti-or-pro-anything rants. The page is completely against our policy of neutral point of view. And for the record, I'm against Scientology. Sceptre ( talk) 19:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Correct me if I am wrong. Shouldn’t there been some form on of group consensus before you did this?
I disagree with your removal of the controversies page without prior discussion. I think you should withdraw your edit until a general agreement is met. Cdynas ( talk) 23:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
For the record, Sceptre's redirect has been reverted and the article is now being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientology controversies. -- ChrisO ( talk) 19:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Although I lack the faculties to develop a well-referenced and definitive article on the subject, I find its abscence worrisome. I have heard on many accounts the Scientologist infiltration of the IRS remains the largest known act of its kind to find success against the US government. This deserves at the very least a footnote.
http://www.xenu-directory.net/news/austindailyherald-19770708.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.252.17 ( talk) 23:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
The link provided may or may not be considered a questionable source as it obviously has a bias (as a website devoted to Scientology). It does however provide substantial amounts of referencing and is seemingly objective in its approach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.252.17 ( talk) 23:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
The two articles should be merged. Or at the very least, a reference should be made on the main page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.252.17 ( talk) 08:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)There is some ongoing edit... well, not edit-warring, as such, but let's say edit-disagreement... over one of the lines in the intro. Specifically, this line: "Journalists, courts and the governing bodies of several countries have described the Church of Scientology as a cult and an unscrupulous commercial enterprise, accusing it of harassing its critics and abusing the trust of its members."
Su-Jada has tried a couple of times to change that line so it reads "Some journalists..." Those edits have been reverted.
The problem with "some," as I see it, is that it would be perceived as indicating that the sentence doesn't reflect majority opinion, while in reality, the overwhelming majority of significant journalistic inquiries into the Church of Scientology really have described it in that manner. (Please note: I make no judgment call on the validity of that determination, I only mean to point out that the negative depictions of the Church far outnumber the positive ones).
Limiting it to simply "journalists" bypasses any quantitative analysis; it's up to the reader to determine whether that means "a few," "a lot," "the majority," or "almost all." I'm not sure this is the right approach either, but appending "some" to the beginning is definitely the wrong one. If anything, it should be "almost all."
So... Thoughts? -- Good Damon 22:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Large, contentious articles contributed to by a horde of editors end up being a bit sloppy, usually because many contributors are looking at content rather than the standard of writing. This article is no exception, and it truly looks like it grew like Topsy. I tightened one sentence today, here, but am a little reluctant to do the whole thing knowing my efforts might be reverted simply because someone prefers verbosity. I am neutral re Scientology. Any comments? Kaiwhakahaere ( talk) 02:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Any other cleanup needed besides length? Hyacinth ( talk) 03:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
What information needs to be cited in third party sources? Hyacinth ( talk) 03:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
What information is inappropriately cited in self-published sources? Hyacinth ( talk) 03:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I think this article on Scientology would benefit greatly by comparing and contrasting the way that the Scientology crime syndicate is different than more traditional organized crime syndicates -- such as the Italian, Irish, and other Mafias.
At one time in the past, the Scientology crime syndicate was global in scope and constituted a serious threat to the national security of the nations that it invaded in ways that more traditional organized crime gangs did not.
It would be good to see an in-debth, definitive description (research would be a heavy requirement) of the ways in which Scientology is different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Damotclese ( talk • contribs) 01:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I have noticed that this isn't mentioned until the 3rd paragraph down (and the paragraphs are pretty bulky) I have scoured the net and considering the amount of public criticism Scientology has got, i think this needs to be mentioned higher up (end of 1st paragraph?) to form a more unbiased article.
-- Petersmith140 ( talk) 01:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
The external resouce 131, Verfassungsschutz Bayern (Constitution Protection Bavaria: Publications (German), leads to a page not found. Should the information that came from this link be taken out? 68.77.187.144 ( talk) 20:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Is Scientology a cult? It seems like it if so lets put it in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plyhmrp ( talk • contribs) 22:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
No Anonymous members have been found conclusively to have performed DDOS attacks on Scientology websites. R3ap3R.inc ( talk) 05:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
How about a section on Scientology in fiction? It's usually depicted under a different name to avoid legal actions, but its appearances include:
I know I've seen several others, as well.
Lippard ( talk) 14:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
There's a lot of information about this in the article, and it seems like there is too much importance given to Chanology etc., per WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM.-- Hyperpaddling ( talk) 22:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
-- i dont think so, project chanology is a significant factor in raising public awareness about this cult. since this happened, i have studied the topic, made videos about it on youtube that got 60000 views in total, and have been protesting in reallife against the church of scientology here in munich 3 times. and scientology threw eggs at us (the protesters). from my perspective, this needs to be in the article, because it has already been so significant that it will get a long-term place in this story. Kurtilein ( talk) 22:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurtilein ( talk • contribs) 22:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
---I agree with Hyperpaddling, especially in light of the fact that said group seems to be fading away faster than they appeared. FreedomFighter4all ( talk)
---Considering that the Anon vs CoS situation has only been going on for six months, the Chanology info does need to be trimmed down somewhat. Three paragraphs is a bit too long. The Lizard ( talk) 16:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I fail to see the need for this. These large amounts of quoted text within footnotes should be removed, it is not needed to satisfy WP:V. Cirt ( talk) 22:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
In the article, the psychiatrist William Sargant who worked for the British MI-6 appears as having influenced L. Ron Hubbard. Sargant wrote a book elucidating the principles of brainwashing; the book was published as Battle of the Mind. Sargant inspired the Scottish Dr. Donald Ewen Cameron who was a CIA recruit for the LSD-25 special project MK-Ultra; they were looking for ways and means to bring about the Manchurian Candidate. Hubbard himself got hold of the alleged textbook of Psychopolitics used by the Russians, their textbook on brainwashing and the Church of Scientology published it. In 1979, John Marks wrote The Search for the Manchurian Candidate and was published by New York Times Books ISBN 0-8129-0773. It seems that to include this material in the article is very pertinent and is far from being contentious or vandalism. JDPhD ( talk) 23:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Here is something I believe to be a relevant source on brainwashing by Scientology, and fairly unbiased. It's created by the Lisa McPherson Trust, an organization describing itself as one that helps people abused by the church, but in this video they almost exclusively demonstrate auditing and discuss whether or not this qualifies as brainwashing its members. Aside from the possibility of bias from a critical organization, this appears to be a very education video, but from the looks of things here, it looks like I should ask here before either trying to make mention of this. Google Video -- Smokeresearcher ( talk) 04:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
A number of the references recently added by JDPhD seem to be extraneous. For example, refs for Alfred Korzybski and Sigmund Freud's work. No article text is based on those works and there were already wikilinks to the proper articles. AndroidCat ( talk) 20:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Large chunks of this article, especially the controlversial section about "Secret levels" etc. contains paragraphs of unsourced information, and much of the sourced data is very unreliable. I move that at least the unsourced information be moved (unless sourced) and at most the entire section be removed for poor sources. If Wikipedia cites any website as fact, what value does Wikipedia have anymore? FreedomFighter4all ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
In terms of referring to it as a cult, the term has a number of emotive negative connotations associated with its everyday use that overshadows its sociological definition of referring to a group whose belief systems are typically syncretic, esoteric, and individualistic [8] , and a better term to use to describe Scientology is that it is a new religious movement as this better reflects this religion in a more neutral fashion. Xiaan77 ( talk) 05:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Scientology is certainly a cult and recognized as one by multiple religions and Hubbard's own son. It's a mix of cult and money-scheme. Somebody should mention with sources the Baptist convention's declaration of Scientology as a cult. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Countryfan ( talk • contribs) 22:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Here scientology is referred to as a "cult", but surely it is more of a world-affirming religion? World affirming religions are tolerant of peoples religious beliefs - even it's own members (for example some scientologists are catholic) and don't force its members to cut themselves off from their friends, family and society (as a cult would) but rather try and make the world a better place through scientology?
err- there is plenty of proof of scientology destroying families and cutting off relationships. it is a cult. its is misguided and rediculous attempt to make money. off of aliens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ANONANONANONANON ( talk • contribs) 08:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC) Any criticism is welcome or if anyone has anything more to add, please do. I just think that that should be clarified in the article itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptinHairybely ( talk • contribs) 00:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
This is an interesting point of discussion. CaptinHairybely, one of the things that makes Wikipedia work is that it uses reliable sources (I highly recommend you read that policy in its entirety, by the way). One example of a reliable source would be a news magazine with a strong history and reputation for basic fact-checking, such as Time or Newsweek, or the peer-reviewed books and articles of academic scholars. The interesting thing is that the materials produced by the subject of an article on Wikipedia are not generally accepted as reliable sources:
Questionable sources
Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves ... Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources.— Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable_sources (emphasis added
Generally speaking, the only things we can use Church of Scientology-produced material to support are statements like "The Church describes Scientology as..." and "According to the Church..." We can't use any material they provide to support a statement of fact, because it is automatically biased, and by definition not peer-reviewed.
To a large extent, the same applies to certain critical websites. It's all about peer-review and fact-checking, and many critics do not have established track records for either.
One difference -- and I'm afraid this puts the Church at a bit of a disadvantage here -- is that several of the critics do have established track records and scholarly credentials. But in the Church's favor, as Bravehartbear pointed out, there have also been a few peer-reviewed "news organizations, academics, and novelists" that support the Church's stance that Scientology is a religion. There are sections of the article that reflect that.
Basically, if a major media outlet or academic publication fact-checks statements from the Church or a critic and finds the statements verifiable, then we can use them, but otherwise they're assumed to be biased. -- Good Damon 21:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
It's a cult, unfounded beliefs, totally new ideas, and very controlling and extorting of its members. Reapermage 00:36, 10th December 2007 GMT —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reapermage1990 ( talk • contribs) 00:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
It's a cult but it's recongized as a religion by many governments including that of the United States so it should be referred to as such. Maybe refer to it as a cult if/when it loses it's status as a government recongized religion. Also, is Scientology considered a religion by the UN or do they have no stance on that? FalseMyrmidon ( talk) 00:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
The first definition of cult in Dictionary.com is "a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies." So it's a cult... and so is Christianity, so is Islam, so is Buddhism etc etc etc. Bazonka ( talk) 12:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
If anyone gets a chance to check this source, there is an interesting article on Scientology in it related to your "cult status" question, from above:
Cheers, Cirt ( talk) 05:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC).
It does not in any way improve this article to argue over whether Scientology "is" or "is not" a cult. There is not one true definition of "cult"; the word is largely used as a slur. We are much better off describing what Scientologists believe, what Scientologists do, and the history of the Scientology organization -- and leave it up to readers whether these things show it to be a cult, a praiseworthy religion, an organized crime syndicate, a happy summer camp, or a high-heeled shoe. --
FOo (
talk)
17:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I would term it an "Officaly Recognised Religion" and then, possibly state where it is official, or make it a link to a point on the page where they do state it. I believe it is a cult, but that is an opinion. It is definately a religion, so we should state it as that, as it is a fact. Cults are still religions. 82.74.121.248 ( talk) 00:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Assuming your current list of countries is accurate, then you should not call it an officially recognised religion at this point. It would be preferable to have a section entitled "Recognised Religion" and simply state those countries that do. This is fair to both sides of the argument. This is pretty much what you have now, although the current edit is somewhat less succinct. -- Angryjames ( talk) 19:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
With regards the term "Cult". The same argument should be used. If various countries and or significant groups refer to the organisation as a "Cult", then that should be listed in a section head something like "Is it a Cult?" or "Cult Status". To argue about the meaning of the word is pointless, and especially to argue that most religions fall into that definition. We know they do. We are here to report the facts as significant trusted sources would. Significant sources/countries might use the term "Cult" to describe Scientology, but not use it to describe say Christianity, even though we know the latter started as a cult -- Angryjames ( talk) 19:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Man, I strongly strongly dislike Scientology, but as there is no generally accepted definition of a cult (a word that is loaded with controversy) and it carries widespread negative connotations I think it should be classified as a
weasel word and therefore not used. One of the best things about Wikipedia is its objectivity and although it seems ridiculous to people like us, we have to realise that that is just our opinion. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
86.134.136.36 (
talk)
22:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I have looked-in the term "CULT" in Wikipedia and also the term "RELIGION" and in my understanding Scientology indeed falls under the category of Cult. And if you look into it you'll understand why they keep on saying they are a religious group, it is for tax purpose only. Reinbowe ( talk) 06:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Maybe we should watch what we say - a 15 year old kid is apparently being prosecuted in Britain for calling Scientology a cult. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/may/20/1 Pearce.duncan ( talk) 22:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
It strikes me as fascinating that the Church of Scientology has chosen to take issue with the term cult and its usage in relation to them. In doing so they are in violation of their own beliefs as passed down by L. Ron Hubbard.
Scientologists are required to "clear words" to insure that they properly understand said terms. One such word which is required is the word Cult, for which a definition is given within the index of "Science of Survival" which states, "cult: an exclusive group of people who share an excessive devotion or dedication to some person, idea, or thing."
Clearly they meet their own criteria, and based on their policy of "clearing words" in relation to their own internally defined meanings, any instance in which this term is misinterpreted to mean anything else would indicate that said Scientologist has not properly cleared the term.
13Heathens ( talk) 09:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
"Scientology has opened the gates to a better World. It is not a psycho-therapy nor a religion. It is a body of knowledge which,when properly used, gives freedom and truth to the individual." -THE CREATION OF HUMAN ABILITY, A Handbook for Scientologists BY L. RON HUBBARD
Esper
rant
20:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Could JDPhD please stop adding bad references for Scientology as a recognized religion in these countries? Since they've been without references since November 5th (previously to a non-RS CoS page), I'm removing them until a valid WP:RS surfaces. AndroidCat ( talk) 18:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Might have been mentioned before, quite lenghtly article about this cult, see here. -- Allemandtando ( talk) 09:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
JDPhD added new refs galore to this article in recent past. I'm not able to check and keep track of all of his additions and therefore can't judge every single contribution made by him. However, most references and additions contributed in particular by JDPhD I actually checked were either unrelated, plain wrong or non existent.
What is the consensus in Wikipedia to deal with questionable contributions and refererences by editors who repeatedly make "malicious" contributions ? I'm not even talking about POV edits or bad interpretations of sources but disruptions like this one(where his actual source turns out to be completly unrelated to his edit). I'm aware that references should not be deleted easily by other editors but it is extremly time consuming to proof that every single source he inserts is wrong or unrelated since many sources are only offline available.
Continue WP:AGF and research strange sources which turn out to be by 90 % plain wrong or revert such suspicious edits unless they are prooven by the editor on talk page?
Yes, my suggestion to ignore WP:AGF is quite harsh but I don't know how to deal with this problem in any other way espescially since JDPhD usually doesn't participate on talk page and many edits of him look like plain disruption rather than well-intentioned contributions. -- Stan talk 03:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Of course, if anyone else can keep up with JDPhD's edits and actually check all his "new" references, this thread would be unneeded and can be closed. -- Stan talk 03:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
The quote used in this section is not presently accurate and the note number 284 does not link directly to the info. The Church of Scientology states the following: "A Hubbard Electrometer, or E-Meter, is a device which is sometimes used in Dianetics and Scientology services. In itself, the E-Meter does nothing. It is not intended for the diagnosis, treatment or prevention of any disease or for the improvement of health or any bodily function. Ownership or use of the E-Meter is strictly limited to duly ordained ministers of the Church of Scientology and ministers in training and is otherwise absolutely prohibited."
The old quote as it presently appears on the page should be erased together with its false reference. The new quote should be written in its place with the new reference. JDPhD ( talk) 19:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it appears in L. Ron Hubbard's book "Introducing the E-Meter" right under the copyright and trademark notices. By the way, the link you showed above is pretty good. However, it seems the one that appears in all the E-meter books as cited above is the one standardly used by the church in the copyright and trademark notices page of all the E-meter books. Thank you for your prompt reply. JDPhD ( talk) 20:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
AndroidCat ( talk) 00:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)A man who holds no truck with established religion is unsurpris-ingly unlikely to have much good to say about Scientology, which purports to use scientific tools such as its controversial “E-meter”. “It’s purely made-up. It just taps into some ‘gullibiligy’. They find some film star or somebody like Tom Cruise or whatever his name is who’s thick as two short planks and he becomes a sort of advertisement.”
The following seems irrelevant to the article, and possibly implying a link where no suggestion of one has been cited.
"Like Dr. Milton H. Erickson, M. D., founder of the American Society of Clinical Hypnosis and widely recognized as the world's foremost medical hypnotist who went on to influence the development of NLP, L. Ron Hubbard demonstrated his professional expertise in Hypnosis by going on to discover the Dianetic engram."
There's no citation for any link between Milton Erickson and L. Ron Hubbard, or for any link between Milton Erickson and the Dianetic engram (and AFAIK there isn't any link). Also, there's no citation for L. Ron Hubbard having professional expertise in Hypnosis, just that he wrote about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.110.159 ( talk) 12:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
does anyone else see the phrase "Scientology: It is not good" at the bottom of the page below the religion template boxes? i think that ought to be removed, but my status as an inexperienced new wiki user makes it a little difficult since the article seems to be safeguarded against edits. cheerio 144.92.83.141 ( talk) 14:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Why remove fact? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.193.110 ( talk) 03:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
There is sound evidence that Scientology is not a "body of beleifs and related practices" as stated in the first sentence of the article, but rather a moneymaking operation disguised as a religion.
This evidence includes:
1. The fact that the founder of scientology L. Ron Hubbard once said, "The easiest way to make money is to start a religion."
2. The fact that there is absolutely no scientific merit to the operation of an E-Meter as described by scientologists.
3. The fact that the Church of Scientology charges what many deem to be unreasonable sums of money for "counseling".
4. The Church of Scientology actively hunts down people who criticize their beleifs/practices and harass them via frivolous lawsuits or ad hominem attacks.
5. The Church of Scientology has been outlawed in Germany on the grounds of fraud (amongst other charges)
The first sentance and the nature of the rest of the article should be changed accordingly. 75.1.243.85 ( talk) 23:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
With all do respect, surely it can be argued that point number one should be verified before being brought forth. I may be biased, but a claim needs evidence. Surely we can agree that the section concerning controversy does a great deal of good presenting the controversies in a neutral light. That is the point of wikipedia right? to present as little bias as possible? I believe that the allegations of stalking, mudslinging, and Ad Hominem attacks should be disclosed in the controversies section. I am still wondering how anything can claim it is a religion when it copyrights it's own material. I have to argue that more criteria need to be put forth when evaluating something as being religious. Pseudoscience should be brought to light as well. Kashmirxincx ( talk) 23:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Should we devote a section to how people who are critial of scientology are treated? BBC reporter John Sweeney found a trong resistence from scientology members (most notably Thomas W. Davis) when he tried to interview people about Scientology. Some references: BBC: Scientology & Me Shawn Lonsdale, a fierce Scientology critic Jaap ( talk) 19:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I CONCUR. -LR —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
71.222.9.110 (
talk)
07:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
There is no rule against making an article over scientology critics, and claims. it doesn't even have to be biased (It shouldn't be). Many people are interested in scientology critics. I mean, if Neo Nazis can have a Wiki on there movement, rational people can have one too.
Kashmirxincx (
talk)
23:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
The requirements on "sources of references", "cleanup" and "self-published sources" appear to have been satisfied. If not, what else is there? JDPhD ( talk) 19:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, The Encyclopedia Britannica states "science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard (1911–86)" in its coverage of Scientology issues. Available at: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/274475/L-Ron-Hubbard#tab=active~checked%2Citems~checked&title=L.%20Ron%20Hubbard%20--%20Britannica%20Online%20Encyclopedia. Could an editor provide a reputable source claiming that Hubbard was a speculative fiction writer? OnBeyondZebrax ( talk) 17:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
magazine refers to him as "L. Ron Hubbard, science fiction author and founder of Scientology( http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:WaO6EioBUxwJ:www.scifihorizons.com/issue10.htm ). MSN Encarta's article on Science Fiction states that "...Campbell’s magazine introduced many soon-to-be famous science-fiction writers, including L. Sprague De Camp, Lester del Rey, Theodore Sturgeon, L. Ron Hubbard, Fritz Leiber, A. E. Van Vogt, Arthur C. Clarke, and Robert Heinlein." (emphasis added). ( http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:Ab-5ltObMw8J:encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761563123_3/science_fiction.html )................................................................As far as sources for Hubbard being a speculative fiction author, most of the sources I found were Scientology sites, blogs, promotional websites, book advertisements, and so on. The most reputable sources referring to Hubbard and speculative fiction were Reuters articles discussing Hubbard's Writers of the Future Contest(see www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS179622+15-Jan-2008+PRN20080115 ). Perhaps I have been unsuccessful in finding authoritative sources for the "Hubbard = speculative fiction author" claim. If so, please provide these sources. As far as the vandalism issue, and the IGNORE rules policy, I acknowledge your (GoodDamon's) greater knowledge of Wikipedia and its policies and rules. However, I humbly argue that the "reliable sources" policy is one of the policies that we ought to defend. :) OnBeyondZebrax ( talk) 20:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
In fact it bears little relevance if such sources all tell that he would be a 'Science Fiction' writer. All these sources, either way, have to submit to what the actual statistics are. Time after time people have purposely made the association with Science fiction. Somehow this got stuck in people's minds, and in those that wrote these source entries. The fact is that he wrote in all genre's of fiction (and other), and the majority of them (and most certainly prior to 1950), it was by far not Science Fiction. Try here. As I have predicted a while back already, this matter will be an everlasting war. This time around the 'authority' argument is being tried, rather than the statistically correct argument. Propaganda rules, this is always going to rule in controversial subjects in such media such as Wikipedia where any unprofessional can interfere. -- Olberon ( talk) 18:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
(Resetting indent) - Olberon, if you have specific issues with Wikipedia's policies, you should take it up on those policies' talk pages. Each policy, such as WP:RS -- which appears to be the one you're objecting to here -- has its own discussion page for making changes to it. Right now, the position that the reliable sources we're using say "science fiction" instead of, for instance, "speculative fiction" has won against the position that Hubbard's bibliography has more than science fiction in it. And that's well in line with the policy. So as you appear to have an issue with WP:RS, I strongly suggest you take it up there. This is not the proper venue for that discussion. -- Good Damon 23:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
With other words you humbly and for all blindly 'submit'! Your percentage of 40% is statistically and proven seriously incorrect! What study are you referring to?? Suddenly you also say that "he wrote more science fiction than he wrote of any other genre", which is an outrigth lie! It does not even pass the 25%. Where is your study?? I also see that you ignored my comments on 'consensus'. You also have a misinterpretation of these particular sources being "well-researched", if they are well-researched they tell where they got the data from where it is based on. They all fail to mention that! As I said I wrote this all down, analyzed it and published it on my site. -- Olberon ( talk) 09:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
(Resetting indent) OK, I'm going to point out policy one more time, and then we're done.
That's it. I think we've taken this as far as we can go. If you want to, I suggest you take this up with
the Arbitration Committee (whoops, meant to link
dispute resolution, but I was pretty tired when I wrote this), but I can promise you they'll quote Wikipedia policy to you as well. You would be best served by reading, understanding, and arguing your case at
WP:RS. --
Good
Damon
05:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Should this article mention the scientologist's Sea Organization? It's a fake navy where the dress up like Admiral Farragut and sign a BILLION YEAR CONTRACT and basically become David Miscavige's personal slaves.
Generalanonymous ( talk) 00:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
To learn more go to
xenu.net
Generalanonymous ( talk) 01:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Didn't there used to be a section in the main article regarding Criminal activity? Have I managed to miss it entirely?
I'm looking for information on the critical writer Scientology framed and the battle with the FBI, but I could no longer find it.
Thanks, -- UnicornTapestry ( talk) 00:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm a new registered user so I can't edit this myself, but:
In the article it is stated almost as a fact that LRH would have studied Freud as a twelve-year-old, under the guidance of a personal student of Freud himself. However, in LRH's diaries from this time, nothing of the sorts is mentioned. No references to freudian theories and no mentioning of anybody tutoring him in this field. This information from "A Piece of blue sky /Dianetics, Scientology and L.Ron Hubbard exposed", Jon Atack, "A Lyle Stuart book", ISBN 0-8184-0499-X
Rujaraju ( talk) 11:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you! Rujaraju ( talk) 09:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
This is from the Wikipedia definition of the word, "cult:"
"New religions are often considered "cults" before they are considered religions[12] by social scientists, and usually by Christian Evangelical/Fundamentalist theologians, and by the secular public – yet these three groups do not usually have the same understanding of the term "cult". People understand the term "cult" through the most popular usage in their cultures and subcultures, which can result in homonymic conflict, a communicative conflict with people who hold a different definition of the same term. This often results in confusion, misunderstanding, and resentment between members of "cult" groups and non-members." This applies here in spades.
The fact that Scientology has certain beliefs or practices to which its members strongly adhere does not justify using a word generally accepted as having negative connotations in a definition of the subject. I went to Wikipedia to find the meaning of the word, "Scientology," and what I found instead was a debate more suited for blogs and forums. In fact, it was hard to tell what Scientology is according to the aforementioned, "definition," other than a controversy, which leads me to conclude that the definition is not a definition at all, but representative that the protocols of value in editing Wikipedia are being bypassed in order to further rather hateful agendas and inner-Wiki blogging.
The references listed on the definition page of Scientology make it all seem valid as being utterly and only a controversy, but if one looks at the pages devoted to Christianity, for example, he will not find pedophelia, murderers and war lords, even though these practices are well documented as having been furthered by so-called members of Mother Church. Nor do I find on the pages devoted to Muslims, a history of terrorism, or on the subject of Judaism, a history of lobbing mises into neighboring countries. In fact, on these subjects I found rather comprehensive definitions and historical studies, none of which were attacks by their respective, "victims," or by the disaffected and so on. This is because, for some strange reason, these subjects have been presented as they were meant to be presented on Wiki's; as definitions.
Certainly Scientology has had it's share of controversy. One writer notes the statements by the son of L. Ron Hubbard himself against the church. I believe, however, that the churches founder has another son who is a devoted Scientologist. What is his opinion? Or, don't you want to know? Of course not - not for these purposes. Neither son represents an objective definition, which is what I, as a lay person, was looking for. And nor do the individuals responsible for posting the hate group, "Anonymous,"'s photo in the middle of a page devoted to a definition of Scientology. If this group had any courage, any real point to make, they would not hide their identities, nor would they post hateful text into what is supposed to be an objective look at a subject.
On the subject of sources like Time magazine and other media, it is my personal opinion that in the past 20 years or so, almost all media sources have become rather glamorized. I read an article on the Church of Scientology where they referred to Narconon, an L. Ron Hubbard related drug-program, as believing that drug addiction could be handled with a sauna and some vitamins. In fact, the medical sauna (also called the Purif) is an integrated part of Narconon, but that represents only a fraction of an entire process devoted to ethics, suppression, integrity, relationships, control, communication, etc. I know this because I have a very close family member who went through the program and came out quite changed for the better in my view. Very solid individual, contributing member of society, etc. And, yet, none of these aspects were mentioned. So, the value I place on media sources, to say nothing of the circus that is the news on television these days, is next to nil.
Another gray area is the idea of, "..beliefs generally agreed to be outside the mainstream." in terms of defining Scientology as a cult. I know from my study of Narconon that Hubbard teaches a rather mainstream code of ethics, from monogamy to respecting one's parents, to being drug free to supporting persons of good intent. In fact, there was an entire "course" on integrity and honor. Something I found quite refreshing and made quite clear.
I don't know that it's really fair, responsible, or objective to insist that Scientology be classified as a cult on Wikipedia. I think that there are all sorts of forums to bash religions as much as you want, but what I do not appreciate is being dragged into the middle of it in an encyclopedia definition.
Captinhairybely (interesting name by the way) states, "...there is plenty of proof of Scientology destroying families and cutting off relationships. it is a cult. its is misguided and ridiculous attempt to make money. off of aliens."
Even a brief look at news articles and debates over the past thousand or so years shows this to be the case of most religions. The adherence to a belief system itself often is cause for familial separation when one member strongly believes or "follows" something and another argues against it. As far as I know, the Catholic church has made billions more than the church of Scientology, and I don't know how much the Mormon establishment pulls in every year based on it's per member 10% "tithe." And insofar as aliens - they seem no less..alien than a guy turning water into wine and parting oceans with a wave of his hand. And, in the Scientologist's defense, I don't see Scientologist's lobbying for more money on our present day war machine.
But do these controversies define the subject of each religion? Do wayward Scientologists define the practices of fundamental Scientology any more than Christians Deacons and priests having sex with grammar school aged altar-0boys define the fudamental practices and written dogma of the Catholic church? Of course not. These are choices made outside the churches themselves, and have less to do with the definition of the practice than they are a reflection of the disgruntled or disavowed, or wayward condition of the individual, who should, be it Christianity, Islam, Mormonism or Scientology, probably get back to their church and start doing whatever it was that the church actually preaches or practices. And, if it doesn't work out for them, then they should find something that does, or create something that does, instead of spending all day trying to disavow something that others find beneficial in their lives.
But the question of "cult" in the Wiki definition seems displaced. Members who are insisting that the word be used appear to insist too much to me. There seems to be an aggressive and unwarranted bias against the church, and these contributors seem hell-bent on placing their footprint in the Wiki. I say we don't. As a group, let's blog and flog and batter and shatter ideas in other forums. Get yourself a website, write to the editor of your local paper, bash away! But not here, not in the "sacred" halls of Wiki.
I would be happy to help write the whole thing up, inclusive of Scientology's controversial history, because I think it's an important academic point, but focusing on the evolution of Scientology as an applied religious practice. The article definitely needs more info on the elements of Scientology, like Auditing, the triangles in the logo and what they mean, the development of Scientology from Dianetics (I think that was the progression if I'm not mistaken), and yes, the controversies, especially in the 70's through the 90's. But again, not as a focus, just as an aside.
In all fairness, we should add in the historical gore in every other religious definition as well. I still wonder if this is really the place for all of that, but the debate should end with some sort of general agreement, since that would be the most conducive to the Wiki public at large looking for a general description.
In summary I think we should avoid "opinion leaders" as much as possible, since this could turn into an endless, "he said, she said," and be a simplified definition of the practice itself. Just my opinion. Steven K. Bruno CCDC ( talk) 00:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC) gr8dna ( talk) 22:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Valuative ( talk • contribs) -->
I know that the fact that Hubbard was a science fiction author is bound to be contentious but are 8 citations really necessary? They are breaking up the very first sentence of the article. Wouldn't 2 or 3 RS be enough? - IcĕwedgЁ ( ťalķ) 05:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)