| Revision as of 15:09, 24 April 2005 editGodHelpWiki (talk | contribs)8 edits response← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 22:56, 28 May 2024 edit undoPARAKANYAA (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers45,239 edits Assessment: banner shell, Religion (Low), Skepticism (Rater) |
| (381 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
Okay, this is an attempt to make this section more even-handed and NPOV, by portraying the ongoing battle between Scientology and its critics from ''both'' sides of the argument. This is not an easy task, and a lot of input is needed in this area. --] 12:23 16 Jul 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{controversial}} |
|
|
{{old XfD multi |date=April 15, 2008 |page=Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Scientology controversies |result='''Snowball Keep'''}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|collapsed=yes|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=Low|NRM=yes|NRMImp=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Scientology|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=High}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
|
|
|counter = 1 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|
|algo = old(120d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:Scientology controversies/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{dyktalk|20 March|2007|entry=...that '']'' magazine's ]-winning article "]" highlights the ] of ''']'''?}} |
|
---- |
|
|
I have again moved the ''dealing with critics'' section to the top. That section contains most of the "meat" of this article, as opposed to the wilder, mostly unverified accusations that follow. Prior to my edit, the article started out with what is almost certainly an urban legend—a good article should present facts first and speculation last, not vice versa. ] 21:46, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2022 == |
|
---- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Edit semi-protected|Scientology controversies|answered=yes}} |
|
"The church of Scientology has been known to conduct covert black bag operations against opponents." - it would be nice to have some kind of citation here, and perhaps change the text to "There is evidence that..." |
|
|
|
Please remove the section beginning "The following letter, written by L. Ron Hubbard". There is no source cited for the claim that the letter was seized in an FBI raid, and I'm sure that's incorrect anyway. The first public appearance of this letter was in an affidavit filed by ] in 1982 as one of many supporting documents he said he removed from Scientology offices while working there, but the only sources I can find for that explanation are not what we would call reliable. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately, I don't think there can be any reliable source to support the claim that the letter was actually written by Hubbard. I'm sure Armstrong is telling the truth, but that means nothing here. |
|
"In 1978, L. Ron Hubbard was convicted in absentia by French authorities and sentenced to fours years in prison." - for ''what''??? Tax evasion? Spitting on the sidewalk from the Eiffel Tower? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In theory we could say "the following letter was allegedly written by Hubbard," but that's weak sauce and not, in my opinion, up to Misplaced Pages standards. ] (]) 08:55, 10 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
Has the Co$ tried to do anything about this page yet? :) |
|
|
|
:{{done}}<!-- Template:ESp --> ] (]) 19:25, 23 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== NZ link archive address, please add == |
|
:A couple of anonymous contributors have deleted sections of the articles on Hubbard and Scientology that portray him as less than a perfect superman; though those edits were quickly reverted. Nothing more serious has happened yet. --] 01:41, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
https://web.archive.org/web/20120214130628/http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=3048935 ] (]) 14:06, 16 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
:: I don't think any sane person considers him a "perfect superhuman", but at least we know that you're holding true to your NPOV status which is what Misplaced Pages stands for. (Sarcasm intended.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
: {{done}}. I took the live url from ]. ] (]) 06:23, 17 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
---- |
|
|
|
|
|
Criticism sections should not be split away from main articles. This is grossly POV and therefore unacceptable. Please merge this section into the main article about either the church or the philosophy.] 22:54, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
How would you propose this section be merged into the others? All three of the articles have become quite large and detailed, and to merge this in with them may push one or both of them over the 32K "recommended" limit. |
|
|
|
|
|
On a somewhat related note, you may want to look closely at this page: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This web site is already known for blatantly copying Misplaced Pages articles. Yet, strangely enough, all references to the section on "controversial issues" have been conveniently blanked out over there on that Web site. Hmmm. --] 00:05, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Quotations== |
|
|
An anon inserted a statement that the quotation about men who "attacked us" was taken out of context. I expanded the quotation and added some identifying information about the people Hubbard referred to. Having done that, I left in the anon's explanation, although characterizing it as one POV that was offered rather than flatly stating it as fact. The supposed explanation, which seems meritless to me, nevertheless deserves reporting if it represents the official position of the Church of Scientology or a notable member; not knowing whether the statement met this criterion, I left it in, hoping that more information could be provided later. ] 11:44, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Starting a religion to make money == |
|
|
|
|
|
''The Church of Scientology denies these claims <nowiki></nowiki>, and has in fact sued publishers for making them.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
The only such suit I know of is the lawsuit against ], which Stern won. Especially in light of the Church's expressed position on lawsuits ("the purpose of the law suit is not to win, but to harass") I think it's somewhat important to note which lawsuits ended with findings for the defendants, as lawsuits conducted for the purpose of the harassment might be expected to frequently do. |
|
|
|
|
|
Also, there isn't a mention here of what was (at least it was in 1994) the Church's official response to the allegation: they pointed to a George Orwell quote where he said something about how you could make a lot of cash by starting a religion, and claimed that Orwell's quote had been misattributed to LRH. The late Robert Vaughn Young, however, said that he himself discovered the Orwell quote, and had made the suggestion that this could be publicized as the "true" source of the quote. (RVY's first-person account used to be up on the Net, before he passed away, but unfortunately I can't seem to locate it; I remember that it ended with him relating an e-mail he'd gotten from an angry Scientologist who was utterly insistent that Orwell and ''not Hubbard'' was 'the one' who had talked about making cash by starting a religion, and his terse reply to the Scientologist along the lines of "even if they ''both'' said it -- Orwell said it. Hubbard did it.") - ] 22:44, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
OK, I've found one of my own previous posts where I quoted RVY's post (which at that time I could still find RVY's original on the net) and here's what he said: |
|
|
|
|
|
:''The fact that Orwell said it means nothing . . . I doubt that he and LRH were hardly the only ones who said that a religion is a great way to make a buck. No, my friend, LRH said it too. The difference between LRH and Orwell is that LRH did it.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately, Googling on those words doesn't bring up RVY's original anymore. -- ] 22:18, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Try here: --] 22:36, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:oh, excellent! -- ] 01:47, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== We need to clarify an important point regarding the Church of Scientology's litigation history.== |
|
|
|
|
|
Throughout this article there are numerous accusations against the Church of Scientology implying that the Church has overstepped its moral boundaries by litigating against individuals who were attempting to express their freedom of speech on the internet or elsewhere. These sort of statements are very misleading, if you omit an important fact which is that the Church has only litigated against individuals on the basis of violation of copyright laws and trademarks which like any other corporations it is entitled to do. Additionally litigation has also been directed towards individuals who have actually stolen materials from the Church and who have thereby made themselves liable to legal action. |
|
|
|
|
|
Could the Church have taken a softer approach? , perhaps. Could the Church have conducted itself in a wiser manner in the prelude to the falling out of grace between the Church and individuals who later left the Church and became the violators of the copyrighted materials?, Of course. Did the Church exercise its legal prerogative? Yes it did. TruthTell |
|
|
|
|
|
: "The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than win. The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway, well knowing that he is not authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly." -— L. Ron Hubbard, ''The Scientologist, a Manual on the Dissemination of Material,'' 1955 |
|
|
|
|
|
==Impartiality in this article== |
|
|
We ought to make a distinction between impartial information regarding events whether pro or con and slanted propaganda. I believe the reader would be better served by the former. |
|
|
|
|
|
:Kindly explain how a quote from the judgement of ''Religious Technology Center v. Arnaldo Lerma, Washington Post, Mark Fisher, and Richard Leiby'' (November 29, 1995) is slanted propaganda? --] 17:05, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== separation of "Church of" from "Scientology" == |
|
|
|
|
|
Well, it looks like Truthtell has unilaterally decided to change the subject of the article from "Scientology controversy" to "Church of Scientology controversy". The problem is that they are not exactly as separable as that; it is not as simple as simply converting every mention of "Scientology" to "Church of Scientology". For instance, Hubbard's dictum that every single psychiatrist is a sadistic torturer/murderer, if not in this life then in their past life in the Marcab whatever -- is that Scientology, or the Church of Scientology? -- ] 17:38, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:There is a difference between the Church and the subject itself.The Church is an ecclesiastic organization of imperfect human beings, Scientology is a body of knowledge or truths, as in "the Axioms of Scientology". When you confuse the two you make a mess because the subject of Scientology often is mis-represented by the behavior of individuals.The bulk of the accusations in this article are directed towards the conduct of people who were acting on behalf of the Church, which is why a clarification is in order.. TruthTell |
|
|
|
|
|
::That's a valid and good point. So now could you answer our valid and good point, about why you're saying "these are ''two separate subjects'', and this article is ''only'' for discussing controversy related to ''one'' of those two"? Yes, a great deal of controversy is based on the actions of individuals who were acting on behalf of the Church of Scientology. But some of the controversy is right in the religion itself, like the dogma that anyone who experiences no gain from Scientology is a "suppressive person" who is to be "disposed of quietly and without sorrow". Are you telling me that L. Ron Hubbard was mis-representing Scientology when he instituted the Fair Game policy? -- ] 21:51, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: First of all the dogma you refer to is seriously misquoted , and the Fair Game policy was cancelled in 68 , but that being said, when the actions of any scientologist, no matter who, contradicts the basic truths of the subject of Scientology then bad outcomes result. TruthTell. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Aha, you're confused because you proceeded past a misunderstood. =) Hubbard stated very clearly "This P/L does not cancel any policy on the treatment or handling of an SP." The Fair Game policy ''was never cancelled'', in 1968 or otherwise. All that was cancelled was the practice of ''declaring'' people Fair Game. In Hubbard's own words, "FAIR GAME may not appear on any Ethics Order. It causes bad public relations." All that changed was the outward appearance. -- ] 01:50, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== The Use Of Sources (and other lock of NPOV points) == |
|
|
|
|
|
Since someone is complaining that my POV tag (as well as other people who have tagged this) is "unjustified", here are my reasons: |
|
|
|
|
|
1. The links on the page are all from the same group of two or three people, and are clearly not unbiased sources. Citing these people is like someone citing The Church of Scientology: if you're going to try to make your page NPOV, neither of these sources are the place to look! |
|
|
|
|
|
2. Assuming you intend to KEEP these non-NPOV sources, it would only be fair to provide the other side of the argument. Keeping one side supported while ignoring the other isn't a good practice. |
|
|
|
|
|
Therefore, I think it's EXTREMELY reasonable for me to simply leave a non-POV tag on this article. If I did what I ''actually'' think would be fair, I'm sure many people here would be chasing me down with tourches and pitchforks (metaphor - please don't assume something I didn't mean), as you have for past people (myself included) trying to conform to the supposed NPOV rules that you claim to stand for. Now before you get offensive and claim I'm the bad guy and that I'm a low-life, try rising above my level, and instead of doing to me what you think I would do to you, try to consider things from my point of veiw, as (not a Church memeber, but) someone who just thinks Misplaced Pages should be unbiased. Maybe, hopefully, someone will open their eyes. |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not arguing that legal court documents aren't acceptable, but rather suggesting (heaven forbid!) that when you provide one document, you supply another one where the Church won on the matter, or at VERY LEAST provide the reasoning behind the motives of both parties, as opposed to just the verdict. Still, those are not the sources I'm trying to advocate against. Rather, I think it's very unfair to use websites directly aimed against Scientology, especailly ones aimed at ALREADY TROUBLED people, who then commited suicide or such. If you're going to list sources like those, then at least try to conform to SOME amount of NPOV standards by including things such as how many people have been HELPED by Scientology and . I know that those are Scientology-officiated websites, but if you're going to get the anti-Scientology, you HAVE to have the pro-Scientology too if you truely expect to be considered unbiased. What makes the anti- websites ok and the pro- websites not ok? Just because all of the pro- sites are supported by Scientology, while the anti- sites aren't supported by any one orginization shouldn't matter. You can't punish Scientology for being "more together" than those who speak out against them, especailly not given the circumstances in which this lack of NPOV is being shown. |
|
|
|
|
|
That's all. I hope that this meets your standards and merits a non-NPOV tag now. Further, I think it's stupid to remove a non-NPOV tag from a page without reason. Yes, I understand that you may want the issue resolved as to WHY they think it's biased, but that doesn't mean that they don't think it's biased. Removing someone's tag is even more stupid that them putting it there without posting the reason. I won't say anymore on that, since this isn't the page for it though. |
|
|
] ] |
|
|
|
|
|
:The "NPOV" tag is too often abused by people who can't ''actually'' refute their opponent's points but nevertheless want to create the appearance that such points have hugely convincing refutations waiting in the wings that just somehow haven't shown up yet. That's not the way Misplaced Pages works. |
|
|
|
|
|
:There are also those who are just confused and who think that NPOV works like their daily newspaper, which will try to artificially balance the "sides" of a story so that, for instance, the guy with a 6th-grade education who claims he invented a perpetual motion machine in his workshed will get as much if not more airtime than the other "side", i.e., the professor of physics who patiently explains that if there ''was'' some way around the laws of thermodynamics, then there probably would have been ''some'' sign of it over the past two thousand years that people have been looking for it. NPOV doesn't work like that, either; it does not aim at "false balance". NPOV tries to present each view ''fairly''; that is not the same as "equally". If ten thousand witnesses have testified to Corporation X's misdeeds, NPOV does not require that we print ten thousand of Corporation X's press releases about its virtues. |
|
|
|
|
|
:Finally, I think I could not sum up better why I think your NPOV tag was perhaps not made with the greatest amount of consideration than to juxtapose two sentences from your post: |
|
|
|
|
|
::''The links on the page are all from the same group of two or three people...'' |
|
|
|
|
|
::''... <nowiki>at least try to conform to SOME amount of NPOV standards by including things such as how many people have been HELPED by Scientology and .</nowiki>'' |
|
|
|
|
|
:As my first paragraph indicated, there's a difference between ''wanting'' there to be a great case to be made for one side of the issue, and there actually ''being'' such a case. -- ] 00:56, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Please make your case with specific criticisms and proposals for amendments or additions to the article. If you think the changes will be controversial, please post them here for discussion before changing the article. If you actually can correct errors and address important omissions in the article, I'll bet your changes will find support here. But please do try to keep it concise--the thing is too long and rambling as it stands... ] 05:13, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:To GodHelpWiki: |
|
|
|
|
|
::''The links on the page are all from the same group of two or three people...'' |
|
|
|
|
|
:Could you name these two or three sources? I am not sure what you are referring to, I would like to understand more the issue. Naming the two or three sources will help clarify, as it will enable us to verify that the claims made by these two or three sources are or are not confirmed anywhere else. You must note though, that when specific information comes with evidence, or that the source is credible enough, it is likely to be good enough material to be included in the article. ] 15:37, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Sources== |
|
|
] suggested that the article is POV because it only uses sources from a few people. I cannot tell if the article is NPOV from my limited knowledge but the range of sources seems diverse to me. Here is my analysis of the sources that could have been used in the first half of the article (deduced from the article text): |
|
|
*Brinkema, Leonie M. ''Civil Action No. 95-1107-A: Memorandum Opinion'', (Alexandria:US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia—Alexandria Division, ] ]) |
|
|
*Hubbard, L. Ron. ''Attacks on Scientology'', "Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter," ], ] |
|
|
*''All England Law Reports'' (London: Butterworths,1979), vol. 3 p. 97 |
|
|
*Transcript of judgement in B & G (Minors) (Custody) Delivered in the High Court(Family Division), |
|
|
London, ] ]. |
|
|
*[EFF "Legal Cases - Church of Scientology" Archive |
|
|
*, (] ]) |
|
|
*''Washington Post'', ], ] |
|
|
*''Catholic Sentinel'', ], ] |
|
|
*United States District Court, District of Columbia (333 F. Supp. 357) |
|
|
*''Arizona Republic'', ], ] |
|
|
*] ])] |
|
|
--] 19 April 2005 07:27 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I noticed you didn't include a complete list. I don't think that ANYONE can reasonably consider www.whyaretheydead.com a NPOV source. ] ] |
|
|
:I did not complete the list because I had to leave Misplaced Pages at that point. Are you aware that one of the guiding principles of Misplaced Pages is that we ]? I rather thought that the partial list still made my point that the article was derived from diverse sources. --] ] 19:20, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
*]: The fact that some biased perspectives are represented is not grounds for a POV dispute. You have misapplied the NPOV concept. That link is entirely appropriate in context: it is not presented as an "NPOV source"--it is provided as a link that documents certain accusations against the church. Here's where you might have a case about POV : "The Church of Scientology, in typical fashion, fought tooth and nail the various legal actions brought against them as regards the death. In the end, the prosecuting attorneys in the criminal case were forced to drop their charges, and the case was dismissed." You could make a case that "in typical fashion, fought tooth and nail," for example, assumes a biased tone. If you believe that to be the case, and you can replace it with a more neutral tone, do so. (Maybe something like " The Church of Scientology denied any responsibility for McPhearson's death and they vigorously contested the criminal charges; the prosecuting attorneys in ultimately dropped the criminal case.") Also, please sign you posts on the talk page, it helps communication. ] 18:36, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:The document in question is a court filing archived at whyaretheydead. It doesn't matter if the document is hosted at whyaretheydead.net, scientology.org, or ilovespam.com -- the document in question is what's important. Whether or not the domain itself is biased against Scientology (or in favor of it), the ''court filing'' itself is presented as a way of presenting evidence while still maintaining a neutral point of view. --] 00:33, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
::To my mind, there isn't really a pov dispute here, though I guess there is a dispute about whether to put the "disputed" tag on the article. I don't want to get involved in a revert war... do others agree that the banner should come off? ] 01:02, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I agree. --] ] 09:47, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I agree, the person that put the tag in the first place was questioning the sources, but there doesn't seem to be real issue with these sources finally. ] 18:22, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I agree. This seems to be another case where someone applied the tag because of unhappiness with the results, not out of any substantive problems with the process. -- ] 00:05, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Glad you all agree that someone disputing an articles POV status means that my feelings about the article are mute. I chose the name GodHelpWiki because of these sorts of problems. By definition a wiki website is one open to the public to change and build upon as the public sees fit. I think it is best described as a form of internet anarchy. I'm not saying that's a bad thing! Governing the internet would be somewhat illogical, considering that there are not true gatekeepers for the media here. However, trying to build a wiki environment while also claiming that you cannot dispute an articles POV because other people disagree is just dumb. It's paradoxical in a sense. What would be required for the POV tag to stay? More justifications? I thought I did enough of those. More voices? Do I really need to call my friends to sign up here to back my words? That seems silly for a type of website who's purpose is to include the voices of everyone reasonable. I don't think I'm asking the unreasonable here. If you'd like I could go in and completely rewrite the page as I would conform to NPOV - but I think a simple POV tag would be a lot easier, and save me some time. (I don't know about you guys, but I have a real job, and Misplaced Pages isn't it.) This whole POV issue transcends this single article. Still, I think this merits a POV tag. |
|
Please remove the section beginning "The following letter, written by L. Ron Hubbard". There is no source cited for the claim that the letter was seized in an FBI raid, and I'm sure that's incorrect anyway. The first public appearance of this letter was in an affidavit filed by Gerry Armstrong (activist) in 1982 as one of many supporting documents he said he removed from Scientology offices while working there, but the only sources I can find for that explanation are not what we would call reliable.
Unfortunately, I don't think there can be any reliable source to support the claim that the letter was actually written by Hubbard. I'm sure Armstrong is telling the truth, but that means nothing here.
In theory we could say "the following letter was allegedly written by Hubbard," but that's weak sauce and not, in my opinion, up to Misplaced Pages standards. 67.188.1.213 (talk) 08:55, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Done. I took the live url from Scientology status by country. Grorp (talk) 06:23, 17 May 2023 (UTC)