Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) at 01:56, 30 November 2008 (Archiving 12 thread(s) (older than 30d) to Talk:Homosexuality and Scientology/Archive 1.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This article was nominated for deletion on 25 November 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sexology and sexuality Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality 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.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. 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. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. LGBTQ+ studies This 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

ambig

The link to WISE is ambiguous

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. ---Slightlyright 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. AndroidCat 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. ---Slightlyright 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"

Source?

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 ?---Jpierreg 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) --Tilman 07:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I suggest to replace critics claim that Hubbard never revised his basic premise that being gay was a perversion.{{who}} 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. --Tilman 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)". BabyDweezil 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. --Tilman 07:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Just for the record, the above assertions concerning religioustolerance.org were verifiably wrong.
• Looking at google scholar: , , religioustolerance.org has entered academic discourse, and has been cited by numerous reputable and reliable sources (examples include The Lancet, the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, the Journal of Religion and Society, Nova Religio and others).

Examples of citations in academic books:

• (Apologies to Thucydides by Marshall David Sahlins, University of Chicago Press, p. 312: B. A. Robinson essay included in bibliography)
• (Ethical Studies textbook by Robert Bowie quoting Robinson, p. 187)
• (Freedom's Distant Shores by R. Drew Smith, Baylor University Press, cites religioustolerance.org as a corroborating source )
• (Wrestling with God and Men by Steven Greenberg, University of Wisconsin Press, p. 293, cites Robinson article on religioustolerance.org)
• (Theological Librarians and the Internet by Mark Stover, p. 145: academic review of theological web resources, berates undergraduates for dismissing the site in a course assignment, because it carried advertising; describes the site's content as a "massive education program")
• (Teaching New Religious Movements by David G. Bromley, Oxford University Press, pp. 296, 307: lists religioustolerance.org among recommended secondary research sources, along with peer-reviewed journals and academic websites)

(The google book links given to the actual pages may decay over time.)

• Press mentions: , Jayen466 08:58, 29 November 2008 (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. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

So are there any specific facts that you would dispute in this article The Church of Scientology® & homosexuality by religioustolerance.org -- Jpierreg 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 2006-09-20 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? AndroidCat 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

"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."

"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."

"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 -- Jpierreg 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 mental illness were consistent with the views of mainstream psychiatry and psychology 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. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Would you consider the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders a reliable source in expressing what we can consider the "views of mainstream psychiatry and psychology of a period" ?-- Jpierreg 10:35, 19 February 2007 (GMT)

Subject to the usual cautions inherent in using primary sources, yes. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:49, 19 February 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. )

Source

There is a useful source here 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. Jayen466 19:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Full cite:

• Siker, Jeffrey S. (2006). Homosexuality and Religion: An Encyclopedia. Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 90–91. ISBN 0313330883.

Interesting that this encyclopedia has an independent entry on this exact topic. Cirt (talk) 04:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
• Mid-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
• WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles
• Start-Class Scientology articles
• Top-importance Scientology articles
• WikiProject Scientology articles
• Start-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
• WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles