Misplaced Pages

Talk:Scientology and homosexuality: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 04:51, 29 November 2008 editCirt (talk | contribs)199,086 edits →Source: +← Previous edit Latest revision as of 07:43, 3 May 2024 edit undoBilledMammal (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users49,325 editsm BilledMammal moved page Talk:Scientology and sexual orientation to Talk:Scientology and homosexuality without leaving a redirect: Per RM 
(57 intermediate revisions by 34 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talkheader}} {{Talk header}}
{{WikiProject Scientology|class=Start|importance=Top}}
{{LGBTProject|class=start}}
{{oldafdfull|page=Homosexuality and Scientology|date=25 November 2008|result='''keep'''}} {{oldafdfull|page=Homosexuality and Scientology|date=25 November 2008|result='''keep'''}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|
{{WikiProject LGBT studies}}
{{WikiProject Scientology|importance=Low}}
}}
{{old move|date1=8 August 2021|destination1=Scientologist views on homosexuality|result1=no consensus|link1=Special:Permalink/1039143763#Requested move 8 August 2021|date2=26 April 2024|from2=Scientology and sexual orientation|destination2=Homosexuality and Scientology|result2=moved|link2=Special:Permalink/1220907615#Requested move 26 March 2024}}


==Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment==
==NPOV dispute==
] This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2019-08-26">26 August 2019</span> and <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2019-12-06">6 December 2019</span>.
To me, this article seems to be written far in favor of Scientology rather than presenting opposing viewpoints. It's almost a persuasive essay; indeed, the opening paragraph presents that if you read on the allegations are "unfounded."
06:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)]
: Piece by piece, Scientologists have been adding to this article. I replaced their puff piece with the original one, with a few edits. It's a struggle to get toward NPOV in articles like this, especially when someone biased thinks that they're actually writing from an NPOV.


{{small|Above undated message substituted from ] by ] (]) 08:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)}}
The again, perhaps the best way to find out about Scientology is to examine source material such as a book written by L. Ron Hubbard, rather than rely on opinions of web surfers. -Esky
== Additional source ==


*{{cite book| last = Zellner | first = William W. | coauthors =Richard T. Schaefer | title = Extraordinary Groups: An Examination of Unconventional Lifestyles| publisher = Worth Publishers | year = 2007 |chapter=Church of Scientology: Social Positions| pages =296-297 | isbn =0716770342 }}
I am not for or against Scientology, but in wanting to research this issue found the article beneficial. Homosexuality as treated by Scientology in the 21st century sounds similar to the way it is treated in other churches. -MV
-- ''']''' (]) 05:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


== Dead Keith Relkin links ==
: The Church takes no stance on the issue. You can be gay, straight, up, down, in, out, sideways or celibate, the Church could care less. The article parallels news reporting in placing controversial elements of Scientology Tech alongside other information '''as if''' there were some significance. There isn't. The Church could care less if you are gay, straight, up or down or celibate. The Church would treat you in exactly the same way, sell you exactly the same courses, treat you exactly the same way. It is a trivial non-issue, as important an issue within the Church as your race or eye color. There is a little bit of technology that includes information about homosexuality, and everyone reads it as they go along. oh hum. ] 16:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


Just wanted to get someone's attention about the external links for this page. Those links linking to "Keith Relkin" now go to a blog that has no content. Any input on how to fix this?] (]) 23:17, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
::Profoundly wrong. It is next to impossible for homosexuals to advance beyond the basic levels. For example, "OT Preps" seek to correct such "outnesses" as homosexuality. (] 16:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC))


== External links modified ==
:::To say that in the article would need ] that could be cited and quoted, otherwise there's just the Church of Scientology's statements about their position. ] 22:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
:::: I have tried and tried to find solid evidence that the OT Preps contain anti-gay language, but the info just doesn't seem to be out there. (Can't someone ask ] to divulge what her OT Preps consisted of?)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
::::Personally, regardless of what Hubbard felt about the subject, I think the current CoS probably doesn't want to exclude gays because, after all, ''they have money too'', just like everyone else. And the fact that Cruise and Travolta are their most well-known spokesmen speaks loads.


I have just modified one external link on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
::::Finally, this article mentions - but perhaps doesn't stress it prominently enough - that in 1967 Hubbard cancelled ALL previous rules, regulations and polices relating to the sexual activities of Scientologists, and he did it in a Policy Letter, which means if the CoS today were still discriminating against gays, they're squirelling in a '''big''' way. ] 22:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091027221550/http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2009/10/crash_director.php to http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2009/10/crash_director.php


When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
:::::How could Hubbard do that in 1967? He stepped down in 1966. ''(Snort!)'' I don't see how an editor here could ask an ex-member and then include their statement as a RS. It still has to be a valid secondary source, possibly a quotation in a newspaper story. Personal accounts should be set into a proper time frame—Unless there's something built into the doctrine, CoS's real attitudes over time probably reflect those of general society, with a certain amount of organizational resistance to change—like many other groups. ] 22:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::: Well, I wasn't suggesting we just take Tory's word for it and use that on Misplaced Pages, of course. I'm just loudly dropping the hint that someone out there should probably find it out and publish it somehow, if for no other reason than I'd be curious to know. And if it was something we could use as a source here, all the better. ] 23:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
== ambig ==


Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 04:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
The link to WISE is ambiguous


== Should the page be renamed to ]? ==
== Current view points ==


The article is actually about homosexuality, not sexual orientation in general. ] (]) 03:18, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
These should be chronological.
: '''Agree''': I have reopened this discussion below. ] (]) 21:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)


== Requested move 8 August 2021 ==
I don't see how there can be a current viewpoint. Per CoS policy, Hubbard writings countermand any other opinions. A Scientologist in disagreement with the idea that a homosexual is a pervert could be penalized for squirrelism (the Scientology crime of diverging from Hubbard's writings). There is no "current viewpoint." What there is a PR (public relations) statement. There is no tolerance of homosexuality within Scientology churches (at least as to late 2006). Homosexuality is seen as something that the parishioner is expected to overcome at one point. In 1991-1992 I have seen homosexuals (lesbians) being forbidden to have sexual relations. In addition, a husband was told he should not get masturbated by his wife as Hubbard describes masturbation as detrimental for the mind in Handbook for preclears (it mixes mental pictures). Finally a woman complained of being sent to Ethics (being disciplined) for having had sex with two men at the same time. You cannot rent a room together in the Flag hotels unless married. The church DOES care about sexual orientation (or used to until it started to draw fire or it) --] 01:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->
I don't see the point of mentioning that article that Hubbard's homophobic ideas could come from his son Quentin. When Hubbard expressed homophobic ideas in DMSMH and SOS in 1950-51, Quentin was not born!!! What could be mentioned is teh fact that by 1976, Hubbard was embarrased that his son was gay, showing he had not evolved on that matter in spite of his earlier 1967 statement.
:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. ''


The result of the move request was: '''no consensus.''' It does not appear there is consensus in favor of this move at this time. If anything changes about the article, or if anyone believes they now have consensus on their side, this can easily be brought back to a new RM. <small>(])</small> —&nbsp;] <sup>(]</sup> <sup>])</sup> 10:59, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Then again, Quentin was not a mere Scientologist, he was part of the Sea Org which expects a higher moral standard.
----


] → {{no redirect|Scientologist views on homosexuality}} – Per above, the article is actually about Scientologist views on homosexuality not sexual orientation in general. Also, sometimes ] is necessary in article titles, but in this case it just leads to unnecessary vagueness about the article's actual topic and is inconsistent with other articles on "Religious views on ____". (] · ]) ''']''' 11:58, 8 August 2021 (UTC) <small>—&nbsp;'''''Relisting.'''''&nbsp;] <sup>(]</sup> <sup>])</sup> 18:29, 15 August 2021 (UTC)</small>
==Straight dope, my ...==
:<small>—&nbsp;Advertised at ].--18:37, 15 August 2021 (UTC)</small>
:<small>—&nbsp;Advertised at ].--18:37, 15 August 2021 (UTC)</small>


*'''Neutral''' At first I was sceptical. I assumed that the article would cover their views on bisexuality, pansexuality and asexuality as well as homosexuality, thus justifying the current broader title. After checking the article I see that none of those are even mentioned, so I guess I'm neutral on changing "sexual orientation" to "homosexuality" if there really is nothing to say on those other subjects. Replacing "Scientology and" with "Scientologist views on" does seems like a small but worthwhile improvement though. --] (]) 19:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Link was provided offering The Straight Dope on this subject. It is nothing to do with the widely-respected straightdope.com, but instead goes to some kind of new age site with a page ''called'' "The straight dope on (etc)". Have provided a caveat to that effect.] 14:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
*'''Scientology and LGBT+''' ] has published extensively about being in the church, having periods of practicing various sexual behavior, and doing a gender transition through it. This person talks about how the church reacted to all this. There is the potential to talk about sexuality and gender in addition to just orientation. I recognize that the article does not currently contain content for this, though, and also Bornstein's stories are dated and not a reflection of the church's changes over the decades. ]] 16:24, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
:: "Straight dope" is a popular phrase, and I don't think anyone would be confused, especially since all one has to do is hover their mouse and look at the status bar to see that the site is "liveandgrow.org". ] 14:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
::I would prefer sticking with a name that accurately reflects the current scope of the article rather than preemptively retitling in anticipation of a possible expansion of scope later down the line. If someone does later want to add content about the church's views on gender identity they may find it makes more sense to do so in a separate article (depending on the degree of overlap in sourcing between the two sub-topics). ] (]) 16:58, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
::: I beg to differ. The use of capitals certainly made me think "Ooh, I wonder what Mr Adams has to say on ''this'' one?", and I didn't realise till I clicked through (tending to believe that wikipedia is upfront about its links, I tend not to 'hover' on them). Would be interested to hear opinions. Glad to see you left the new scarequotes on, though, anyway. ] 15:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div><!-- from ] -->
:::: I put "liveandgrow.org" in the link title so there can be no chance of confusion. ] 15:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
</div><div style="clear:both;"></div>


== Requested move 26 March 2024 ==
=='60s?==
<div class="boilerplate mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->
:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.''


The result of the move request was: '''moved.''' Consensus to move to ] <small>(])</small> ] (]) 07:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
I recall that ] was homosexual and that this was no problem for anyone. And I vaguely recall people who were in the CoS in the '60s saying that some regarded the CoS as a place that was safe to be gay in. I'm vague on that one, you understand. This present article is a mess, not a survey of the subject - ] 22:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
----


] → {{no redirect|Homosexuality and Scientology}}
I agree, David. Especially if you take the time to read the article by the homosexual Scientologist posted at the bottom of the article. I get the impression that this entry has largely been molded by the backlash against Tom Cruise. I have no strong opinions about Scientology, since I have almost zero exposure to them other than the media portrayal. I came here to supplement that perspective. I do agree with the person who recommended that the only way to really know the beliefs is to read L.Ron Hubbard. Personally, I am in a PhD program currently and I am a Methodist who has already pretty much settled my spiritual quest --for now, and so I was hoping to skip that level of research, because it is all that I can do to work and keep up with my school reading;-). I have only a casual interest, really. Therefore, I was a little disappointed to not find a more objective and substantive entry.


I propose to move this article to ] to better ] analogous articles in other religions like ], ], ], ], ], ]. This proposed article title better meets ] to "precisely identifies the subject; it is short, natural, distinguishable and recognizable; and resembles titles for similar articles", as it centers on the subject of homosexual romantic and sexual behavior and people, and not on theoretical concept of ] which is also addressed on ]. The previous discussion prompted by ] and ] three years ago did not reach a consensus. Thoughts on the proposed move anyone?
:If you don't have any exposure to Scientology, then why would you offer your opinion AT ALL? Makes no sense to me, except in light of the fact that one of the more subtle methods Scientologists use to indoctrinate people is to pass themselves off as naive observers and to suggest that people pick up the books and read them. Could that be your angle? Hmmmm?? <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 03:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


Should this article be moved to ] as asked above? ] (]) 05:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
==Reputable site?==
Why isn't religioustolerance.org a reputable site? Seems reasonably sane to me. Hope somebody has a good answer, because there are loads of BS critical sites and scientology hate group sites used ALL THE TIME in wikipedia as RS and they are no more reputable than this site. in fact, much much much much less so, since they are maintained by avowed critics that want the church outlawed, destroyed and/or fed to lions. ---] 05:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

:Almost all of the current Scientology pages of religioustolerance.org are authored or co-authored by Al Buttnor, an official of the Church of Scientology, who appears to be cribbing his text directly from Scientology sites. That seems to be a break from the stated neutral policy of the site. As well, the particular page cited didn't list ''any'' author. ] 05:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

::Well, OK... I guess that is less than ideal...maybe. So, if I don't care for a single contributor to a website I get to then declare that site Non RS? Is that how it works? I 've been a scn for a long time I know for a fact the church doesn't give a darn about homosexuality unless it worries the person seeking services. Yet this article goes on for paragraph after paragraph about how Scn hates homosexuality or did in the 50s when it was considered perversion by darn near everyone. It is just an attack piece.

:::Excuse me, but if Hubbard was so fuckin' englightened and such a genius, why did he go along with "darn near everyone" about homosexuality? Seems to me and enlightened genius of a man who is considered the SAVIOR of every human on the planet might have told us, "You know, there are many variations in human sexual orientation, and homosexuality is merely one. It exists in every animal on the planet that has gender, and always has. There is nothing inherently evil, 'wrong,' or pathological about being something other than heterosexual." But did he? No! He went right along with "darn near everyone." Don'tcha think that's a MAJOR problem for the Scientologists? Of course, Christianity has this issue as well, so I guess that DOES make Scientology a religion after all, eh?

::The whole article could be reduced to say:

:::The Church of Scientology doesn't care about the sexual orientation of its parishioners (source). There are several organizations of active Scientologists who are openly gay. (source,source) In the 50s Hubbard held the then almost universally widespread opinion that homosexuality was a sexual aberration and mentioned it in a few of his writings (source, source).

::Everything beyond this is just blatantly using Misplaced Pages as a vehicle to heap ridicule and scorn on Scn.

::I know this will seem like a stupid question to all the editors here that hate scientology, but why is the Church of Scientology not a valid information source for information about the CofS's position on homosexuality... it just staggers me, the hatred and bias I find here masked in sincere delusions of NPOV.

::This article should somewhere and clearly state the truth: that Scn doesn't care about the sexual orientation of its parishioners. That is simply the truth. Call me crazy, but that should be readily apparent to a reader of the article and it isn't!

::OK, I am done ranting now. Thanks for listening. ---] 06:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

:::"Almost all of the current Scientology pages of religioustolerance.org are authored or co-authored by Al Buttnor, an official of the Church of Scientology" </br>
:::Source? </br>
:::What's more! how many singly-authored or co-authored "''critical''" sites of Scientology that have been used for source in WP can you think of ?---] 06:45, 15 February 2007 (GMT)

:::It is not true that scientology "doesn't care about the sexual orientation of its parishioners". Go by a current "Dianetics" book.

:::Or become a Sea Org staffer, and tell another male that you think he's hot and see whats happening :-) (That would be "original research", however) --] 07:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

:::I suggest to replace <nowiki>critics claim that Hubbard never revised his basic premise that being gay was a perversion.{{who}}</nowiki> with a text that mentions a current dianetics book, with its exact publication date, and that the "pervert" text is still there, not even with a footnote. --] 07:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

::::If thats true (I dont have the book) I think it would be fine to say "the 200X edition of Dianetics continues to carry the statement from the original edition (insert the relevant quote)". ] 16:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

:religioustolerance.org is not a "reputable" site because its just a private website. These folks haven't been quoted in the media, no academics have written about them, etc. Even Anton Hein (has been written about in an academic article) is more reputable. --] 07:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

:religioustolerance.org indeed has real problems with reliability, particularly as concerns the Church of Scientology, which have been heavily discussed on Misplaced Pages before. This is in no way, shape or form a new issue that just cropped up. Now I myself believe RT.org can be trusted ''to a certain extent''. If RT.org gives me a specific quote that was supposedly said by a particular individual, I can put a fair amount of faith that that quote was actually said by that individual. However, the claims that were being attributed to RT.org in this article require far more than simply the ability to reproduce a quote accurately, and RT.org has in fact shown serious problems in exactly those areas. -- ] 05:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

So are there any specific facts that you would dispute in this article -- ] 07:45, 16 February 2007 (GMT)

:It doesn't change that it's not an RS. At a brief look,
:* It uses '''this''' Misplaced Pages article as a reference. (There was a case of another Wiki article referencing that reference, a circular mess with curious timing.)
:* The entry on the Dohring site www.scientologymyths.info is listed as 2005, but the site didn't exist until after ] and soon after that, the entry was back-added to the page. (There may be some good reason for blocking the Wayback archiving bot, but it's awkward not having a record of changes from a neutral third-party.)
:If the references listed on that page are reliable sources, why not use them directly? ] 14:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

::I agree we should better use a direct source instead when possible. While 2005 instead of 2006 seams just a detail, the reference to WP articles seams only handy to point at other sources as per below quote from Religioustolerance.org"
:::2005: According to an article in Misplaced Pages: 7 </br></br>
:::"'''In 2005 an article in Source (an official magazine published by the Church of Scientology)''' featured a male and his 'partner' in a success story about their WISE consulting business."</br></br>
:::"'''In 2005 an article in the New York Daily News''' suggested that the homophobic writings of Hubbard might have come from his own embarrassment over Quentin Hubbard, his gay son, who committed suicide in 1976. The article cites a spokeswoman for Scientology, 'Mr. Hubbard abhorred discrimination in all its forms,' and that the Church encouraged relationships that are 'ethical'. The spokeswoman said also that the Church had not taken an official position on gay marriage, and that members prefer not to talk about it."</br></br>
:::"However, a '''2004 article in the St. Petersburg Times''' claims that the Church defines marriage as the union between a man and a woman. This also suggests that gays must remain celibate if they want to be part of the group's clergy." 8
::I don't see how such reference to WP here would make the web site less reliable -- ] 18:25, 16 February 2007 (GMT)
:''"So are there any specific facts that you would dispute in this article"'' -- well, that's exactly the point. In the disputed text it is ''not'' "specific facts" that are being disputed but rather conclusions. The sentence segment cited to RT.org in the disputed text is "Hubbard's views in the mid-20th Century on homosexuality as a ] were consistent with the views of mainstream ] and ] of that period". We can't take RT.org as a reputable source for such a conclusion, obviously, if we can't take it as a reputable source for what "the views of mainstream psychiatry and psychology of that period" ''were'' -- and part of what brought RT.org's credibility as a "reputable site" into question in the first place was RT.org reporting ''the Church of Scientology's interpretation'' of the motivations and beliefs of people who were in conflict with the Church, rather than what ''those people'' would identify as their cause of action. Obviously given that the Church of Scientology has spent over fifty years publicly and vehemently opposed to "mainstream psychiatry and psychology" (and making frankly inaccurate representations of its beliefs such as the supposed belief that "man is an animal") we really just can't take RT.org as a reputable site for conclusions which ''require'' independent evaluation of the views of mainstream psychiatry and psychology, or anyone else the Church of Scientology considers an enemy. -- ] 01:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

:: Would you consider the ] a reliable source in expressing what we can consider the "views of mainstream ] and ] of a period" ?-- ] 10:35, 19 February 2007 (GMT)
:::Subject to the usual cautions inherent in using primary sources, yes. -- ] 16:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

==Notability tag==
I came across this article because it is one of the ones that readers of the main ] article are told to see. To me it looks like a lot of original research. Has anyone in the mainstream said that "Homosexuality and Scientology" is an notable topic? Have any books been written about the subject? Any articles? For that matter, in all the media coverage of ], who is a Scientologist and rumored to be gay, has the topic of "Homosexuality and Scientology" been mentioned? This article seems to be sourced through primary Scientology sources and some critical sites. I think there is one newspaper story about Hubbard. That information could go into his article. There is also a trivial mention of Scientology's definition of marriage and some rumors about celebrities. I don't think there is enough to make up a WP article. Thanks. ] 15:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

:Perhaps you should tag most of the other "Homosexuality and x" articles too? ] 15:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

::Good idea. I do think that "Homosexuality and Christianity" is more important than "Homosexuality and Scientology", if only because there are more Christians in the world than Scientologists. ] 15:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

:::Simply being in the minority does not make a group unimportant however. I'd be careful about saying things like that about any religious (ethnic, etc.) group. As a more general comment, I would point out that LGBT issues are a major topic in the world today, and that includes how various religious groups view and treat sexual orientation. ] 23:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

::::The ReligiousTolerance.org citation seems awfully notable and reliable to me. And it's specifically about this topic. As for notable, while I realize Google isn't a great measure, searching for "homosexuality scientology" does return 504,000 hits. -- <span style="background-color: #EECCFF;">]<span style="font-size: smaller;"> (] | ])</span></span> 00:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

:::::ReligiousTolerance.org is a specialized site for that kind of information. I think that WP should contain some information about Scientology's views of and/or actions concerning homosexuality. However, I don't think the topic is important enough for its own article. ] 01:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

::::::I see it as an exercise in ] - it's certainly complementary (and of a piece with) similar article on other faith systems' views on homosexuality. Also, don't forget ]. -- ] 02:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

In the article on ] it is suggested that Scientology is not a religion at all. But here it is treated as a peer of religions that are thousands of years old and now have millions of members. There are a few thousand Scientologists in the world. Their opinions are not that important. Hubbard's can go into his article. ] 05:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

:There are certainly enough Scientologists to have a cultural impact. I've removed the tag. ] 20:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

::Please explain the cultural impact of Scientologists concerning public attitudes toward homosexuality, gay rights, etc. Thanks. ] 21:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

:::Steve, I think you're starting to get into ] territory here. Please knock it off. -- ] 21:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

::::No I am not. This article is not about a notable subject. I asked Aleta to explain the cultural impact of Scientologists' views on homosexuality. If someone can explain why this topic is notable enough for a WP article I will remove the tag. ] 22:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

:::::Please see my reply on ]. -] 22:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
*I second ]'s warning of ]. The ] brought up by ] are highly inappropriate. ] 04:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

::::::You said, if I understand you correctly, that how gay people in these groups are treated is important and that how group members' attitudes might affect the larger society is also important. I agree. However both of these are fairly small groups, compared to the rest of the human population. Do Scientologists and Baha'is have a greater influence on society than other people? Once again, I am not advocating removing any of the information from these articles from WP. It could all be put into other articles if these non-notable articles were deleted. Thanks. ] 06:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

:::::::Where would you like to see the information? I see no reason to move it. ] 13:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

:::::::::The information on Hubbard's opinions could be put in his article, if it is not there already. ] 02:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

::::::::Since the article is the intersection of two different projects, moving it without duplicating the information in two places would be difficult (and unneeded). ] 13:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

==Pokemon and Scientology==

Why isn't there an article on this? I am sure that many Scientologists play Pokemon. I am trying to make a point here, but I think that is ok on a talk page. :-) ] 22:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Write one, Steve.--] 02:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
: Shhhhh.... please don't give ] any ideas ;) ] 02:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

== scientology celebrity ==


Lawyer statements such as "Mr. Cruise is not gay" mean nothing. It certainly does not mean "Mr. Cruise never had homosexual relations." The lawyer statement should be understood from the scientology belief that homosexuality is an aberration and that therefore nobody is really gay. Scientology Public Relations Officers are drilled to give such answers that seem to contradict a statement but are just a smokescreen. (The classic example being that the practice of labeling people "fair game" is cancelled. Yet records show that it was just the labeling that was cancelled, the actions connected to "fair game" were never cancelled. )

== Scientology and homosexuality in media, referenced a Misplaced Pages article ==

*{{cite news
| last =Naff
| first =Kevin
| coauthors =
| title =When Scientologists attack: Gays should be wary of ‘church’ that has helped advance the reckless idea that homosexuality can be cured.
| work =Washington Blade
| pages =
| language =
| publisher =Window Media LLC Publication
| date =May 18, 2007
| url =http://www.washblade.com/2007/5-18/view/editorial/10592.cfm
| accessdate =2007-06-13}}
*:Article references the article ], in a discussion of ]. -- Would be a good citation and information to add to this article. ] 18:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC).

== According to the BBC Hubbard's son was gay. ==

In a BBC documentary, it said that one of Hubbard's sons was gay and later committed suicide. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Do you have a reference?--] (]) 19:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
:Everyone's known that ] was gay. Misplaced Pages even says so, so obviously if Misplaced Pages accepts a source that Quentin was gay in another article, then it must be true. ] (]) 21:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

== Merge proposal with ] ==

*'''Oppose Merge.''' - These are completely different topics and will most likely incorporate a whole set of different types of sources. I do not think they should be merged. ] (]) 19:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

== Scientology and psychology ==

Lol, if Scientology denounces psychology and psychiatry so much, then how come L. Ron Hubbard used psychological and psychiatric studies to support his claims? And how come his views on gays sound just like Freud, even though $cientologists like to cite Freud to say that shrinks are stupid and crazy? These guys are such hypocrites! ] (]) 21:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

== Primary sources tag ==

The article has an over-weighting of primary sources, and the primary sources tag should remain until the article is balanced with a significant amount of additional material from ''secondary'', ]/] sources. ] (]) 08:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

==Requested move==
{{archivetop}}
] → ] — Seems to be the convention. See examples like ], ], ], ], ], and ]. — ] (]) 02:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

===Survey===
:''Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with'' <code><nowiki>*'''Support'''</nowiki></code> ''or'' <code><nowiki>*'''Oppose'''</nowiki></code>'', then sign your comment with'' <code><nowiki>~~~~</nowiki></code>''. Since ], please explain your reasons, taking into account ].''

*'''Oppose.''' Per convention of other articles, see examples at ]. ''']''' (]) 03:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
:I completely missed that. Am i able to close the request or does it have to run its course? ] (]) 04:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
::You can close it. ''']''' (]) 04:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Done! ] (]) 04:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


===Discussion=== ===Discussion===
:''Any additional comments:''
{{archivebottom}}

==Source==
There is a useful source that could help to address the perceived OR problems with this article, and help balance the article
*by putting Hubbard's view into historical context (he was within the mainstream, which until 1970 considered homosexuality a mental illness)
*covering assertions by Scientologists that he later changed his mind. <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 19:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


*'''Comment''' - You've started an ] when you should have started a ]. I'd suggest removing the RfC template and using a RM template. '']''<sup>]</sup> 07:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Full cite:
* '''Oppose as written, however''' I would '''support''' a move to ]. Because there are over a dozen articles titled "Scientology and..." and it could be said this is part of a set. I would '''oppose''' a move to ]. Also, there is a nuance between the two titles—the former focuses on Scientology's viewpoints toward homosexuality, and the latter sounds like it would focus on the viewpoints of homosexuals towards Scientology. Note that there are already redirects from both titles to this article. <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">]</span> 07:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
*{{cite book | last =Siker | first = Jeffrey S. | title =Homosexuality and Religion: An Encyclopedia | publisher =Greenwood Publishing Group | date =2006 | pages =90-91 | isbn = 0313330883}}
* '''Support'''. Would support Grorp's alternative version too. --] <small>]]</small> 08:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
:Interesting that this ] has an independent entry on this exact topic. ''']''' (]) 04:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support''' and like Andreas would support Grorp's alternative version also. '']''<sup>]</sup> 08:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose as written''' (invited by the bot) Loses the main definition of what the article is about. But I think that Grorp's rename idea would be fine. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 13:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose as written''' (bot invite): I don't see a problem. ] (]) 14:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div><!-- from ] -->
</div><div style="clear:both;" class=></div>

Latest revision as of 07:43, 3 May 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Scientology and homosexuality article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion on 25 November 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.
This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconLGBTQ+ studies
WikiProject iconThis article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies
WikiProject iconScientology Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is supported by WikiProject Scientology, a collaborative effort to help develop and improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Scientology. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on Scientology-related topics. See WikiProject Scientology and Misplaced Pages:Contributing FAQ.ScientologyWikipedia:WikiProject ScientologyTemplate:WikiProject ScientologyScientology
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

Discussions:

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 6 December 2019.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Additional source

  • Zellner, William W. (2007). "Church of Scientology: Social Positions". Extraordinary Groups: An Examination of Unconventional Lifestyles. Worth Publishers. pp. 296–297. ISBN 0716770342. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

-- Cirt (talk) 05:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Dead Keith Relkin links

Just wanted to get someone's attention about the external links for this page. Those links linking to "Keith Relkin" now go to a blog that has no content. Any input on how to fix this?Matipop (talk) 23:17, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Scientology and sexual orientation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Should the page be renamed to Scientology and homosexuality?

The article is actually about homosexuality, not sexual orientation in general. Apokrif (talk) 03:18, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Agree: I have reopened this discussion below. Pastelitodepapa (talk) 21:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 8 August 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. It does not appear there is consensus in favor of this move at this time. If anything changes about the article, or if anyone believes they now have consensus on their side, this can easily be brought back to a new RM. (non-admin closure) — Shibbolethink 10:59, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Scientology and sexual orientation → Scientologist views on homosexuality – Per above, the article is actually about Scientologist views on homosexuality not sexual orientation in general. Also, sometimes WP:AND is necessary in article titles, but in this case it just leads to unnecessary vagueness about the article's actual topic and is inconsistent with other articles on "Religious views on ____". (t · c) buidhe 11:58, 8 August 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. Shibbolethink 18:29, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

— Advertised at WikiProject Scientology.--18:37, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
— Advertised at WikiProject LGBT studies.--18:37, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Neutral At first I was sceptical. I assumed that the article would cover their views on bisexuality, pansexuality and asexuality as well as homosexuality, thus justifying the current broader title. After checking the article I see that none of those are even mentioned, so I guess I'm neutral on changing "sexual orientation" to "homosexuality" if there really is nothing to say on those other subjects. Replacing "Scientology and" with "Scientologist views on" does seems like a small but worthwhile improvement though. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Scientology and LGBT+ Kate Bornstein has published extensively about being in the church, having periods of practicing various sexual behavior, and doing a gender transition through it. This person talks about how the church reacted to all this. There is the potential to talk about sexuality and gender in addition to just orientation. I recognize that the article does not currently contain content for this, though, and also Bornstein's stories are dated and not a reflection of the church's changes over the decades. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
I would prefer sticking with a name that accurately reflects the current scope of the article rather than preemptively retitling in anticipation of a possible expansion of scope later down the line. If someone does later want to add content about the church's views on gender identity they may find it makes more sense to do so in a separate article (depending on the degree of overlap in sourcing between the two sub-topics). Colin M (talk) 16:58, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.

Requested move 26 March 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Consensus to move to Scientology and homosexuality (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 07:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Scientology and sexual orientation → Homosexuality and Scientology

I propose to move this article to Homosexuality and Scientology to better match analogous articles in other religions like Homosexuality and the LDS Church, Catholic Church and homosexuality, Homosexuality and Baptist churches, Jewish views on homosexuality, Christianity and homosexuality, Baháʼí views on homosexuality. This proposed article title better meets WP:TITLE to "precisely identifies the subject; it is short, natural, distinguishable and recognizable; and resembles titles for similar articles", as it centers on the subject of homosexual romantic and sexual behavior and people, and not on theoretical concept of sexual orientation which is also addressed on Scientology and sex. The previous discussion prompted by Apokrif and Shibbolethink three years ago did not reach a consensus. Thoughts on the proposed move anyone?

Should this article be moved to Homosexuality and Scientology as asked above? Pastelitodepapa (talk) 05:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

The discussion above 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. Categories: