Talk:Scientology: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 06:46, 30 May 2009 editSineBot (talk \| contribs)Bots2,555,400 editsm Signing comment by 88.204.14.4 - "→Can you heip me?: "← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 07:59, 30 November 2024 edit undoGrorp (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users12,548 edits Undid revision 1260315734 by 186.154.37.140 (talk) see WP:Article size; WP:NHTBAE Tag: Undo
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{~~talkheader~~}}		{{Skip to talk}}
			{{Talk header\|search=yes}}
	<inputbox>
			{{Controversial}}
	bgcolor=transparent
			{{Not a forum\|Scientology, or anything not directly related to improving the ]}}
	type=fulltext
			{{ArticleHistory\|action1=RBP
	prefix=Talk:Scientology
			\|action1date=January 19, 2004
	break=yes
			\|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - History and religion
	width=60
			\|action1result=removed
	searchbuttonlabel=Search Scientology talk archives
			\|currentstatus=FFAC
	</inputbox>
			\|action2=PR
			\|action2date=13:19:11 25 September 2015 (UTC)
			\|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Scientology/archive1
			\|action2result=reviewed
			\|action2oldid=936292077
			}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=C\|vital=yes\|1=
			{{WikiProject Religion\|importance=Top\|NRM=yes\|NRMImp=Top}}
			{{WikiProject Scientology\|importance=Top}}
			{{WikiProject United States\|importance=Mid}}
			{{WikiProject Skepticism\|importance=Mid}}
			}}
			{{US English}}
	{{User:MiszaBot/config		{{User:MiszaBot/config
	\|maxarchivesize = 150K		\|maxarchivesize = 150K
	\|counter = 27		\|counter = 33
	\|minthreadsleft = 8		\|minthreadsleft = 4
			\|minthreadstoarchive = 1
	\|algo = old(30d)
			\|algo = old(90d)
	\|archive = Talk:Scientology/Archive %(counter)d		\|archive = Talk:Scientology/Archive %(counter)d
	}}		}}
			{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn\|target=Talk:Scientology/Archive index\|mask=Talk:Scientology/Archive <#>\|leading_zeros=0\|indexhere=no}}
	{{notaforum\|Scientology, or anything not directly related to improving the ]}}
			{{Backwards copy
	{{WikiProjectBanners
			\|title=Frommer's Britain For Free\|url=http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=TUHkd-NNY8YC&pg=PA29&dq=%22in+return+for+donations%22+scientology&hl=en&ei=2GLuTIa2FsGzhAfHuL3JDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22in%20return%20for%20donations%22%20scientology&f=false\|author=Ben Hatch, Dinah Hatch\|year=2010\|org=John Wiley and Sons
	\|1 = {{WikiProject United States\|class=C\|importance=Mid}}
			\|title2=Ultimate Truth, Book 1\|url2=http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=e3kf6GtwaT0C&pg=PA128&dq=scientology+rationality&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Jpv4T8XVJoL-8gPN6rCYBw&sqi=2&ved=0CF0Q6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=scientology%20rationality&f=false\|author2=Peter C Rogers\|year2=2009\|org2=AuthorHouse\|
	{{WikiProject Religion\|class=C\|importance=Mid}}
			\|comments=''Frommer's Britain For Free'' uses parts of the lead and beliefs section of this article, apparently copied some time in 2009, without attribution<br>
	{{WikiProject Scientology\|class=C\|importance=Top}}
			''Ultimate Truth, Book 1'': Description of Scientologist beliefs is largely plagiarised from this article
	{{Rational Skepticism\|class=C\|importance=Mid}}
	}}		}}
	{{ArticleHistory
	\|action1=RBP
	\|action1date=January 19, 2004
	\|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - History and religion
	\|action1result=demoted

	\|currentstatus=FFAC
	}}
	{{Talk:Scientology/Topic Bans\|collapsed=yes}}
	{{controversial}}

	== Notes ==

	{{reflist}}

	== The use of self-published sources ==

	I just want to point out that self published sources can be used!!! ] states:

	'''Using self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves'''

	''Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field'', so long as:

	the material used is relevant to the notability of the subject of the article;
	# it is not unduly self-serving;
	# it does not involve claims about third parties;
	# it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
	# there is no reason to doubt its authenticity;
	# the article is not based primarily on such sources;
	# the source in question has been mentioned specifically in relation to the article's subject by an independent, reliable source.

	:WABOB! Self-published sources are not reliable nor trustworthy nor in a way peer-reviewed. Everyone can publish his own thesis in a book, and there is no reason for taking that crap into wikipedia. --] (]) 11:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

	== Celebrities? ==

	I don't see the point of saying what celebrities are in this religion. i think thats only a promotional fact, not really interesting.
	If we had to put how many celebrities are in christianity for example, it would ocuped pages and pages. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	== C-class? ==

	Just curious: This article has a pile of references and seems pretty substantial. Why is it rated only C-class? Shouldn't it be B-class? -- ] (]) 03:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
	:Well, until fairly recently it was an unreadable amalgam of badly written crap that was obviously just an attack piece. This article has improved a bit lately, but not knowing the Class criteria I cannot second your motion or answer your question. ] (]) 06:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

	== No Primaries Rule Should Be Rescinded WAS: Help with Cites Please ==

	I recently expanded the Bridge to total freedom section a bit and included a cite which is a link to a nice big copy of the Bridge on a CoS site. I reference the site three times in the section and don't know how to make all three of the references use the same note number. Will someone kindly fix that for me? Currently the cite occurs at the bottom three times, each with a different cite number. Much appreciate the help. ] (]) 06:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
	:Hi Slightlyright, thanks for trying to expand the Bridge section. I'm glad you think the article has improved. It has. But I've reverted your recent additions because we're trying to get away from reliance on ]. Please help researching secondary sources, ideally scholarly sources, to expand and improve the article further.
	:For how to reuse a reference, see ]. Cheers, <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 07:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
	:: yeah, we are gonna have to talk about the colossal idiocy of not being able to use primary sources. When a section entitled "The Bridge to total Freedom" cannot use a link to the ACTUAL DOCUMENT that IS the Bridge to total freedom, Then something is horribly, horribly, badly and stupidly misunderstood about the reason that primary sources are bad. And if these articles are ever going to have anything in them that is actually scientology instead of just criticism of scientology, then primary sources are going to need to be allowed.
	::Just a fact.
	::I had hoped that the recent activity on this article was indicative of someone somewhere wanting to get some scientology into the scientology articles. I guess not. ] (]) 11:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

	::The Christianity article is full of scriptural references, and if that is not a primary source then i don't know what the hell is. This aversion for Primaries is way outta hand here. It is being used as a device to keep the article quality here horribly low. Horribly, Terribly low, humiliatingly low. And it's pissing me off rather.
	::So someone better cogently explain to me why completely legitimate primary sources are being rejected out of hand even though they are the only logical reference for fluff's sake. ] (]) 12:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

	:::Slight-- you don't understand. This article has faced some extreeme edit warring. Opening the door to primary sources will also pen the door a bunch of critical primary sources. a totaly bias article and edit warring. The solution was to agree to use only reliable secundary sources like schoolars and journalists. If you do your research you will some secundary source that will cover whatever you want to talk about. We are not lowering our standards, that would have daring consecuences. ] (]) 22:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

	::::Yeah, i know about the warring. It's why I left for a couple years. But here's the thing: Scientology articles should have Scientology in them. Google's Top link for 'Scientology' is this sad, tortured and pathetic article. Now, While i will grant that it is in fact much improved, I will not grant that it contains much Scientology, nor will I concede that it is good enough to be the first stop for someone trying to learn about the subject. An encyclopedia is supposed to be a good place to learn about something. Currently Misplaced Pages is positively THE ABSOLUTE WORST place to learn about Scientology. This is primarily because Misplaced Pages's reputation and authority is being hijacked by anti-Scientology hate groups. People come here expecting some sort of objectivity and authority on the subject, They do not get it but since it's Misplaced Pages they assume they are getting it and thus go away badly misinformed. This is not the result one expects from an encyclopedia. It is the result hoped for by certain hate groups though.

	::::You see, the no primary sources... uhm... rule? - guideline? armistice? compromise? blight? idiocy? blatantly-obvious-evidence-of-rampant-braindeath? whatever it is - insures that there will NEVER be any Scientology in the Scientology articles, ever. There will only be what people have said about Scientology. And thus, the hate groups win. And thus, the Nazis get to control what gets said about the Jews. (and yeah, that analogy is gonna piss some people off, but that's how I feel about it.) Scientology primaries (At the very least Hubbard primaries) must be allowed to be included in Scientology articles. Other primaries don't. A source from an attack website is not on a par with something Hubbard said about Scientology. What a scholar said about Scientology is not as authoritative as what Hubbard said. The basic lie here is that a primary is a primary, obviously there are primaries and then there are primaries and the difference is obvious. (The not-quite-bright who cannot appreciate irony, need not comment on the previous sentence.)

	::::Imagine an article on Geometry that couldn't include anything by Euclid. A Calculus article containing nothing by Newton or Leibniz. Absolutely, incredibly, moronically asinine. Asinine. Asinine. Asinine. And lest my position be misunderstood - not allowing Hubbard primaries in a Scientology article is ... uhm... asinine.

	::::It is so simple: Hubbard Primaries have legitimate and overriding authority in an article about Scientology. They are authoritative on Scientology, primary screeds by apostates and hate groups or well intentioned others or knowledgeable scholars are not at the same level. Apostate venom on a par with Scientology doctrine??? PUUUHHHLEEEEEZE. Equating them is bogus. And almost certainly deliberate. There is probably a wikiword that has to do with Meta Editingingishness: using policies and definitions and precedence to skew local, consensus editing policy in order to create an editing environment that skews articles toward a given PoV. I don't know what this word is, but that's what's happening here.

	::::Let's remember what started this thread: I expanded the section called "The Bridge to Total Freedom" by about 2K characters. AND I included a link to A Beautiful, High resolution scan of the ACTUAL DOCUMENT. THE ACTUAL GORRAM DOCUMENT. Complete. Unabridged. (couldn't resist) and because it was a primary source, my good faith edits were reverted out of hand. So let's make sure no one misses this: A LINK TO THE THAT BEARS THE EXACT TITLE AS THE SECTION IN QUESTION, AND IS IF FACT THE EXACT DOCUMENT IN QUESTION WAS DISALLOWED based upon some sort of house rule. And now... instead of being able to spend time expanding another article or section and actually being of benefit to the encyclopedia, I have to spend time pointing out that the Scientology article should include some Scientology. Sorta annoying actually.

	::::Look, I know y'all are battle weary, really, I get it. But the Scientology articles should allow people to learn about Scientology. That is the purpose of an encyclopedia. Honest. Really. That IS the purpose, I looked it up on Misplaced Pages. You can't pass rules that prevent this from happening, otherwise you're doing something, but whatever it is is not contributing to the mission of Misplaced Pages, it is something else. Allowing this asinine rule to stand is a pathetic and cowardly (or maybe just exhausted) surrender to the hate groups. It's also a grotesquely irresponsible abdication of the encyclopedic mission.

	::::This rule has to go. And don't tell me that hate group primaries have to be allowed too then. They don't. A differentiation needs to be made between a primary from the creator of a subject and primaries of lesser magnitude. This would be the best solution. Barring that, allow the hate mongers but confine their bile (I mean balanced and objective wisdom) to the controversy section. I suspect that strict enforcement of such a rule would have prevented the need for creating the current idiocy we are forced to labor under.

	::::That's my three cents. ] (]) 21:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

	:::::See ]
	::::: A discussion on this rule is better suited to this forum -> http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#Religious_primary_sources

	:::::Your comment reminded me of the following which, while a Scientology policy is not a Misplaced Pages policy:

	:::::<blockquote>Extract from HCO PL 7 Aug 79 entitled “FALSE DATA STRIPPING” “<i>Where a subject, such as art, contains innumerable authorities and voluminous opinions you may find that any and all textbooks under that heading reek with false data. Those who have studied study tech will recall that the validity of texts is an important factor in study. Therefore it is important that any supervisor or teacher seeking to use False Data Stripping must utilize basic workable texts. These are most often found to have been written by the original discoverer of the subject and when in doubt avoid texts which are interpretations of somebody else’s work. In short, choose only textual material which is closest to the basic facts of the subject and avoid those which embroider upon them.</i>”</blockquote> ] (]) 12:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

	::::::Unfortunately, the Scientology Study Tech method of "False Data Stripping" as defined above serves the purpose of removing any third-party observation or criticism from consideration, thus providing a stumbling block for any objective analysis or research of a subject outside of the oft-repeated Scientology exhortation that one must "try the 'tech' for yourself to see if it works". ] (]) 15:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

	(od) All editors, both pro ''and'' critical would love to use Hubbard's writings, lectures, documents, HCOBs, etc, directly, but there's usually just too many problems with added interpretation, synthesis and messy looong arguments about context. Scientology is unusual in that there are few Scientologists writing to explain and interpret Scientology in secondary texts. ("Verbal tech"?) Failing that, there are non-critical scholars who have written about Scientology beliefs. See: Massimo Introvigne, Eileen Barker, Bryan Wilson, Derek H. Davis, Gordon Melton, James R. Lewis for starters. (True, I sometimes have problems with their fact-checking and referencing in areas outside of beliefs.) It will require some searching and digging (try GoogleBooks), but .

	Meanwhile, I don't think the charged rhetoric about hate groups and false-data stripping is helping much. ] (]) 17:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

			== "Very long" tag ==
	:::Wuao, for 1st time I totally agree with Android Cat. ] (]) 13:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

			I agree that the article is too long. Opening a thread here in which to put comments and engage in discussion. <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">]</span> 18:19, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
	== I mangled an edit summary ==

			I wish to start by pointing out a goal from ]:
	The ] for should've read ''"hitherto" does not help make the article neater or nicer, but does make it harder to understand. See e.g. ]''.
			{{Blockquote \|text=Articles that cover particularly technical subjects should, in general, be shorter than articles on less technical subjects. While expert readers of such articles may accept complexity and length provided the article is well written, the general reader requires clarity and conciseness. There are times when a long or very long article is unavoidable, though its complexity should be minimized. ''Readability is a key criterion'': an article should have clear scope, be well organized, stay on topic, and have a good narrative flow.}}
			{{pb}}<span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">]</span> 18:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

			:That inevitably leads to the idea of a top level article and top level sub-articles beneath it. Which then leads to the fact that we basically have two top level articles (this and ])which are 90% duplications of each other. And this is inherent in the title because "practices" is 80% of what Scientology is. And we have many many sub articles but no organized usable set that this areticlecan me made more dependent on. My thought for a 2 year plan is to make / keep this article as the top level one and decide on 4-6 main top level sub articles are just beneath it. And "Beliefs and Practices" needs to be changed somewhow. Maybe refine / clarify it to only practices that are very closely related to beliefs. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 18:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
	My finger slipped on the Enter key there, but the edit itself was as intended. --] ''']''' ] 02:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
			::I agree re: Sci beliefs and practices and this article. It should be merged into this one, in my view. The Church of Scientology and Scientology in religious studies sections ought to be considerably shorter. The controversies section ought not to exist (as per ]): its parts should be incorporated into the main narrative about the movement/scam. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">]— ]</span> 20:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

			{{od}}
	== Can you heip me? ==
			]
			Please tell me if I'm interpreting this correctly; I made the drawings to help illustrate. It seems like we have been treating ] as a topmost article in a hierarchical structure similar to the left diagram (with 3 primary child-articles below it). It seems that North suggests continuing this style but to make the topmost article more of a ] and less of a duplicate of "beliefs" article. It seems that Cambial is proposing ] be the container for beliefs and practices, and there is no ''single'' topmost article, or perhaps ] and ] hold topmost status (like the diagram on the right). Am I on the right track? I have been viewing the ] article as an overview article like in the left diagram, and wonder if this difference in viewpoint is why Cambial and I have had disagreements over this article. After looking at some other religions and how they have structured their articles, I see the "beliefs" article is their topmost article with no overview above it. I say "topmost", but only because their various navbars and sidebars use the "belief" name rather than the "church" name, but entry into the collection of articles is not necessarily a top-down approach.

			Using the ] article for beliefs would allow us to trim much content, though I have a few concerns:
	Dear sir.
			# By assigning "beliefs" as a topmost article instead of having an overview article, does it grant the scientology belief system a broader recognition than its one-to-one correlation with the Church of Scientology? (I consider the Freezone to be a very minority offshoot; an afterthought.)
			# Many of the "practices" are specific to the Church of Scientology organization (RPF, suppressive declarations, war on psychiatry) and are not (though they sort of ''are'') general "beliefs" of "Scientology" (if one were to generalize it as a belief system). Most of those "practices" fall under controversies/criticisms. Or do we separate practices into "red volume" material (auditing and training) versus "green volume" material (administrative actions... which would include everything about ethics/justice—the source of most of the horrific actions/practices COS engages in—as well as recruiting, sales, marketing, fundraising, public outreach, management, and legal contracts)? Where do we draw the line between practice of belief and practice of policy (which is also their belief, because of ])? Perhaps this entanglement is why I have favored a top-down single overview article approach to the collection of articles as a way to tie together ] and ].

			Food for thought. <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">]</span> 06:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
	First at all. I 'm patty . and I interest scientology. but i 'm can read and listen english not very good. but i would like to know about scientolg too much. Can you have thai language.? I would like to speak and listen english.but I cannot do it well. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 03:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			IMO "Scientology" should be the top level article. One comment about trying to organize this. Without getting into a categorization debate, I don't think that the usual structure for covering a church is applicable. A church is usually centric on a set of beliefs, and so beliefs can be covered as such. For Scientology IMO this is not the case. Further, Scientology as a whole has aspects of being an (generic term) organization (or somewhat a set of organizations), a church, a business, a set of practices, a disparate set of beliefs, arguably a cult, a central person and their teachings/writings which are a central defining part of the organization. I think that we need to acknowledge this unusual situation when trying to organize coverage. Again, without getting into categorization debates, structurally it is an organization which is a combination of all of the above things. Structurally, I think that free zone is structurally just a tiny off shoot of the organization which uses some of the organization's beliefs and '''''practices''''' and should not affect our overall planning on coverage on what is actually the described agglomeration where the only term broad enough to think about is "organization" <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 12:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
	::There are Scientology books in Thai, I just purchased a couple for my GF Waraporn. Just visit the Scientology official web site. Look for the basic books and select your prefered language. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			:I agree about this being the top-level, and that there is no reason to look to structures from other articles. My view is that this article is not and ought not to be about organisations, but about what the opening sentence says: the set of ideas , and a movement that follows those ideas. That movement as a whole specifically not being an organisation, insofar as it is ''disorganised''. You're right that we obviously cannot ignore that CoS organisation is by some margin the most publicly visible part of that movement (and, historically, its source). But we can't say that it's representative of the whole. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">]— ]</span> 13:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
			::I know that you have disputed my use of the word "organization" but if you knew the limited way I intended it perhaps you would not. I just meant it as the only vague-enough term to include all of the above listed things. ''Nothing more''. If it will clear it up, I'll use the word "agglomeration" instead. So, when when are trying to figure out coverage structure we need to recognize that Scientology is an agglomeration of all of the above things. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 13:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
			:::I appreciate that clarification, and agree. I think the distinction is useful: Scientology (the non-ideas meaning) is an agglomeration (nebulous, disparate, but with common characteristics); Church of Scientology is an organisation (connected legal entities, has a CEO, etc). <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">]— ]</span> 13:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

			So if agree on "Scientology" being the top level article, IMO we need a short list of top level sub articles which it can be dependent upon/ closely coordinated with . I think that one good candidate is the current "beliefs & practices" article except trim "practices" to only those closely related to beliefs. (which I think are inseparable from beliefs anyway) So it would include things like auditing but not things like "fair game" Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 13:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
	:] <small><span style="border: 1px solid">]]</span></small> 03:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
			: North8000, where do you suggest the administrative practices go? <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">]</span> 18:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
			::That sort of relates to what the "top tier" sub articles are. The subject being such a complex agglomeration I'm still trying to think of an idea. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 11:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

			Well, here's a starting point idea on "top tier" articles just beneath "Scientology". It's basically the narrowed "beliefs and practices" article plus some headings from this article. (add :Scientology" to all of these titles :
	::Too fat <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 06:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			*Beliefs and practices" (but only practices closely related to beliefs)
			*The Church of Scientology
			*Free Zone and independent Scientology
			*Controversies
			*Legal status (including disputes over legal status)
			*Scientology in religious studies
			*Demographics
			<b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 14:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
			*Reception and influence
			::Looks fine apart from "Controversies". We ought not to be separating content based on the apparent POV subject, so as to maintain NPOV. Scientology as a business would also come right under this article in a hierarchy. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">]— ]</span> 14:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

	== ~~Membership~~ ~~edit~~ ~~reverted~~ ==		== Bizarre (page numbers) ==

			{{reply\|Cambial Yellowing}} Re ]. The version downloadable from Oxford Academic (via Misplaced Pages Library access) shows the page numbers ending with 388. Here are screenshots of and <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">]</span> 19:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
	of mine was reverted. I took the US figures on membership and put them in ]. Even though Scientology started in the US this article should not be about info specific to the US (or other countries for that matter) especially since a suitable article exists for such information. There are two reasons for this: to avoid ] and to keep articles to a ]. -- ] (]) - 19:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
			:OK. The chapter references finish about one-fifth of the way down p. 387 of the book. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">]— ]</span> 20:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
	:Hiya, I disagree. The US as the country of origin of Scientology has the largest membership figure; I think this info is worth having in this generic overview. Also note that if you chop that single sentence out, the following paragraph about Scientologists disparaging general surveys, and the inflated membership statistics, loses its reference. There won't have been a prior mention of surveys then. '''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>''' 21:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
			:: That explains you repeatedly changing it from 388 to 387. I only have the online version, accessed through ], and I'm not acquainted with any reasons why there might be differences between the online and print versions of the book. Each chapter has its own separate ], and using a chapter-specific DOI in a citation makes it easier for Wikipedians (with access to Misplaced Pages Library) to verify content... which would be the online book. <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">]</span> 22:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
	:I mean, if you do insist on taking that sentence, then you have to take the following sentence along with it. Then we can lose this as a separate section here (because only two sentences will be left), and integrate the remaining sentences in the preceding section. '''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>''' 21:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

			== ] has an ]==
	== Project Chanology ==

			<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>''']''' has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the ''']'''.<!-- Template:Rfc notice--> Thank you. <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">]</span> 06:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
	Shouldnt there be a seperate heading for Project Chanology under "Scientology and the internet"? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 01:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			== Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2024 ==
	== Reliable source ==

			{{edit semi-protected\|Scientology\|answered=yes}}
	"The collaborative online encyclopedia Misplaced Pages has banned the Church of Scientology from editing the site. The Register reports Misplaced Pages’s Arbitration Committee, or ArbCom, voted 10 to 0 in favor of the ban, which takes effect immediately." . There you go. ] (]) 06:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
			Text "These aspects have become the subject of popular ridicule." has no citation / source, I believe it should either be deleted or have "Citation Needed" tag added. ] (]) 23:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
	:See ]. '''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>''' 06:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
			:] '''Not done:'''<!-- Template:ESp --> This is sourced in the article body, in the section about reception and pop culture. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">]— ]</span> 02:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 07:59, 30 November 2024

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Scientology article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33Auto-archiving period: 3 months

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Scientology, or anything not directly related to improving the Misplaced Pages article. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Scientology, or anything not directly related to improving the Misplaced Pages article at the Reference desk.

Scientology is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 19, 2004	Refreshing brilliant prose	Not kept
September 25, 2015	Peer review	Reviewed

Current status: Former featured article candidate

This

level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Religion: New religious movements Top‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as Top-importance).

Scientology Top‑importance

	This 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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Since the external publication copied Misplaced Pages rather than the reverse, please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following sources:

Ben Hatch, Dinah Hatch (2010), Frommer's Britain For Free, John Wiley and Sons
Peter C Rogers (2009), Ultimate Truth, Book 1, AuthorHouse

Additional comments
Frommer's Britain For Free uses parts of the lead and beliefs section of this article, apparently copied some time in 2009, without attribution Ultimate Truth, Book 1: Description of Scientologist beliefs is largely plagiarised from this article

"Very long" tag

I agree that the article is too long. Opening a thread here in which to put comments and engage in discussion. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 18:19, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I wish to start by pointing out a goal from WP:CANYOUREADTHIS:

Articles that cover particularly technical subjects should, in general, be shorter than articles on less technical subjects. While expert readers of such articles may accept complexity and length provided the article is well written, the general reader requires clarity and conciseness. There are times when a long or very long article is unavoidable, though its complexity should be minimized. Readability is a key criterion: an article should have clear scope, be well organized, stay on topic, and have a good narrative flow.

▶ I am Grorp ◀ 18:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

That inevitably leads to the idea of a top level article and top level sub-articles beneath it. Which then leads to the fact that we basically have two top level articles (this and Scientology beliefs and practices)which are 90% duplications of each other. And this is inherent in the title because "practices" is 80% of what Scientology is. And we have many many sub articles but no organized usable set that this areticlecan me made more dependent on. My thought for a 2 year plan is to make / keep this article as the top level one and decide on 4-6 main top level sub articles are just beneath it. And "Beliefs and Practices" needs to be changed somewhow. Maybe refine / clarify it to only practices that are very closely related to beliefs. North8000 (talk) 18:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree re: Sci beliefs and practices and this article. It should be merged into this one, in my view. The Church of Scientology and Scientology in religious studies sections ought to be considerably shorter. The controversies section ought not to exist (as per WP:STRUCTURE): its parts should be incorporated into the main narrative about the movement/scam. Cambial — foliar❧ 20:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Left: Single main article. Right: Two main articles.

Please tell me if I'm interpreting this correctly; I made the drawings to help illustrate. It seems like we have been treating Scientology as a topmost article in a hierarchical structure similar to the left diagram (with 3 primary child-articles below it). It seems that North suggests continuing this style but to make the topmost article more of a WP:general overview article and less of a duplicate of "beliefs" article. It seems that Cambial is proposing Scientology be the container for beliefs and practices, and there is no single topmost article, or perhaps Scientology and Church of Scientology hold topmost status (like the diagram on the right). Am I on the right track? I have been viewing the Scientology article as an overview article like in the left diagram, and wonder if this difference in viewpoint is why Cambial and I have had disagreements over this article. After looking at some other religions and how they have structured their articles, I see the "beliefs" article is their topmost article with no overview above it. I say "topmost", but only because their various navbars and sidebars use the "belief" name rather than the "church" name, but entry into the collection of articles is not necessarily a top-down approach.

Using the Scientology article for beliefs would allow us to trim much content, though I have a few concerns:

By assigning "beliefs" as a topmost article instead of having an overview article, does it grant the scientology belief system a broader recognition than its one-to-one correlation with the Church of Scientology? (I consider the Freezone to be a very minority offshoot; an afterthought.)
Many of the "practices" are specific to the Church of Scientology organization (RPF, suppressive declarations, war on psychiatry) and are not (though they sort of are) general "beliefs" of "Scientology" (if one were to generalize it as a belief system). Most of those "practices" fall under controversies/criticisms. Or do we separate practices into "red volume" material (auditing and training) versus "green volume" material (administrative actions... which would include everything about ethics/justice—the source of most of the horrific actions/practices COS engages in—as well as recruiting, sales, marketing, fundraising, public outreach, management, and legal contracts)? Where do we draw the line between practice of belief and practice of policy (which is also their belief, because of KSW1)? Perhaps this entanglement is why I have favored a top-down single overview article approach to the collection of articles as a way to tie together Scientology and Church of Scientology.

Food for thought. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 06:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

IMO "Scientology" should be the top level article. One comment about trying to organize this. Without getting into a categorization debate, I don't think that the usual structure for covering a church is applicable. A church is usually centric on a set of beliefs, and so beliefs can be covered as such. For Scientology IMO this is not the case. Further, Scientology as a whole has aspects of being an (generic term) organization (or somewhat a set of organizations), a church, a business, a set of practices, a disparate set of beliefs, arguably a cult, a central person and their teachings/writings which are a central defining part of the organization. I think that we need to acknowledge this unusual situation when trying to organize coverage. Again, without getting into categorization debates, structurally it is an organization which is a combination of all of the above things. Structurally, I think that free zone is structurally just a tiny off shoot of the organization which uses some of the organization's beliefs and practices and should not affect our overall planning on coverage on what is actually the described agglomeration where the only term broad enough to think about is "organization" North8000 (talk) 12:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree about this being the top-level, and that there is no reason to look to structures from other articles. My view is that this article is not and ought not to be about organisations, but about what the opening sentence says: the set of ideas , and a movement that follows those ideas. That movement as a whole specifically not being an organisation, insofar as it is disorganised. You're right that we obviously cannot ignore that CoS organisation is by some margin the most publicly visible part of that movement (and, historically, its source). But we can't say that it's representative of the whole. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I know that you have disputed my use of the word "organization" but if you knew the limited way I intended it perhaps you would not. I just meant it as the only vague-enough term to include all of the above listed things. Nothing more. If it will clear it up, I'll use the word "agglomeration" instead. So, when when are trying to figure out coverage structure we need to recognize that Scientology is an agglomeration of all of the above things. North8000 (talk) 13:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate that clarification, and agree. I think the distinction is useful: Scientology (the non-ideas meaning) is an agglomeration (nebulous, disparate, but with common characteristics); Church of Scientology is an organisation (connected legal entities, has a CEO, etc). Cambial — foliar❧ 13:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

So if agree on "Scientology" being the top level article, IMO we need a short list of top level sub articles which it can be dependent upon/ closely coordinated with . I think that one good candidate is the current "beliefs & practices" article except trim "practices" to only those closely related to beliefs. (which I think are inseparable from beliefs anyway) So it would include things like auditing but not things like "fair game" Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

North8000, where do you suggest the administrative practices go? ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 18:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

That sort of relates to what the "top tier" sub articles are. The subject being such a complex agglomeration I'm still trying to think of an idea. North8000 (talk) 11:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, here's a starting point idea on "top tier" articles just beneath "Scientology". It's basically the narrowed "beliefs and practices" article plus some headings from this article. (add :Scientology" to all of these titles :

Beliefs and practices" (but only practices closely related to beliefs)
The Church of Scientology
Free Zone and independent Scientology
Controversies
Legal status (including disputes over legal status)
Scientology in religious studies
Demographics

North8000 (talk) 14:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Reception and influence

Looks fine apart from "Controversies". We ought not to be separating content based on the apparent POV subject, so as to maintain NPOV. Scientology as a business would also come right under this article in a hierarchy. Cambial — foliar❧ 14:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Bizarre (page numbers)

@Cambial Yellowing: Re Special:Diff/1229598896. The version downloadable from Oxford Academic (via Misplaced Pages Library access) shows the page numbers ending with 388. Here are screenshots of top of document and bottom of document ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 19:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

OK. The chapter references finish about one-fifth of the way down p. 387 of the book. Cambial — foliar❧ 20:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

That explains you repeatedly changing it from 388 to 387. I only have the online version, accessed through Misplaced Pages Library, and I'm not acquainted with any reasons why there might be differences between the online and print versions of the book. Each chapter has its own separate DOI number, and using a chapter-specific DOI in a citation makes it easier for Wikipedians (with access to Misplaced Pages Library) to verify content... which would be the online book. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 22:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Scientology officials has an RfC

Scientology officials has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 06:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Text "These aspects have become the subject of popular ridicule." has no citation / source, I believe it should either be deleted or have "Citation Needed" tag added. Kurtalden (talk) 23:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Not done: This is sourced in the article body, in the section about reception and pop culture. Cambial — foliar❧ 02:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Categories: