Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:09, 15 May 2008

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.

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. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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: 30 days

Scientology B‑class 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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism B‑class 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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

	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

This article and its editors are subject to Misplaced Pages general sanctions.

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.

Cult status?

Scientology is certainly a cult and recognized as one by multiple religions and Hubbard's own son. It's a mix of cult and money-scheme. Somebody should mention with sources the Baptist convention's declaration of Scientology as a cult. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Countryfan (talk • contribs) 22:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Here scientology is referred to as a "cult", but surely it is more of a world-affirming religion? World affirming religions are tolerant of peoples religious beliefs - even it's own members (for example some scientologists are catholic) and don't force its members to cut themselves off from their friends, family and society (as a cult would) but rather try and make the world a better place through scientology?

err- there is plenty of proof of scientology destroying families and cutting off relationships. it is a cult. its is misguided and rediculous attempt to make money. off of aliens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ANONANONANONANON (talk • contribs) 08:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC) Any criticism is welcome or if anyone has anything more to add, please do. I just think that that should be clarified in the article itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptinHairybely (talk • contribs) 00:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

A number of major news organizations, academics, and novelists have reported that Scientology is a cult. It's not up to Wikipedians to decide whether or not they are—that would be original research. Instead, we try to make the article match the information given by the reliable sources out there. This is a controversial article with editors of many opinions, so we follow the rules strictly. Foobaz·o< 02:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

No need to link to the original research page, asshole. No need to act like you know it all. You are the bane of wikipedia.

And a number of major news organizations, academics, and novelists have reported that Scientology is NOT a cult. Opinions, opinions and opinions. Sadly both sides need to be documented regarless of how ignorant they are. Bravehartbear (talk) 08:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, Bravehartbear has a point. It's probably presumptuous at this point to use the loaded word "cult" except to state that "some" have called Scientology a cult. Scientology certainly has cult-like or conspiratorial elements (charismatic leader, repression of alternate points of view through misuse of copyright law and ingrained doublethink), but also has elements of a "life-affirming religion". Certainly the Church is neither complete evil nor purely saintly. We should keep in mind the need to merely point out both points of view and leave personal investment out of this.71.35.252.65 (talk) 00:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

If those are the only requirements, then no religion can be or not be a cult, because there are always going to be people who say that it is, and people who say that it isn't. Amphibienne (talk) 08:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Reading all this I nave an impression, that Misplaced Pages, and especially this particular entry, is being edited by folks without proper education. Know definitions of the words, know history and history of religions. Most importantly chec the facts regarding Scientology. With that knowledge it is clear what is a cult (like Scientology) and what is not. In many cases it is not that important. In case of this organization it is crucial to inform people, not misinform. This cult is dangerous, money grabbing and brainwashing scam. Simple as that. Folks - read up a bit about this organization, then edit this entry here. I think it should be clearly stated that Scientology is a cult, just like Earth is round, evolution is a scientific fact etc. Or do we have to do with some SeaOrg manipulation here, or better yet silly political correctness in the same league as recent bashing of "three little pigs" form being "offensive to Muslims" in the UK. Do some fact checking, and lets not be silly to the point of absurdity. Scientology = cult, and so it should be made clear in this article. For those arguing against stating, that it is a cult - consider this: if Scientology is not a cult, then what is? You can't get more "cultish" than this. It is is not a cult, then this word should be erased form all dictionaries and languages. Lets not be silly here. Lets not be manipulated by the functioning Sea Org members romping about the Internet. --Pitdog (talk) 16:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey Pitdog. If you are going to criticize people for not having proper education on the subject, then maybe you should display your knowledge on the subject rather than just restating that it's a cult. Maybe if you stated YOUR sources for the information, then we could check them out ourselves and determine on our own if they're reliable enough to make an entire judgement on. The way you write makes it clear that you have an extreme biased against this organization, but if you used neutral sentences and backed up your accusations with reliable evidence or sources, then people might be able to take you a little more seriously, and think of you less like a person with an extreme prejudice. I'm not a scientologist, nor do I know any, nor do I really care about this or any religion, but I'm just pointing out that if you want to argue a point to get people to believe your claims, then you should usually back it up with more than psycho-babble. If you're so informed, please let us all in on this cold, hard evidence which you claim to possess. -- March, 17 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.45.43 (talk) 05:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

This is an interesting point of discussion. CaptinHairybely, one of the things that makes Misplaced Pages work is that it uses reliable sources (I highly recommend you read that policy in its entirety, by the way). One example of a reliable source would be a news magazine with a strong history and reputation for basic fact-checking, such as Time or Newsweek, or the peer-reviewed books and articles of academic scholars. The interesting thing is that the materials produced by the subject of an article on Misplaced Pages are not generally accepted as reliable sources:

Questionable sources
Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves ... Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources.

— Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Questionable_sources (emphasis added

Generally speaking, the only things we can use Church of Scientology-produced material to support are statements like "The Church describes Scientology as..." and "According to the Church..." We can't use any material they provide to support a statement of fact, because it is automatically biased, and by definition not peer-reviewed.

To a large extent, the same applies to certain critical websites. It's all about peer-review and fact-checking, and many critics do not have established track records for either.

One difference -- and I'm afraid this puts the Church at a bit of a disadvantage here -- is that several of the critics do have established track records and scholarly credentials. But in the Church's favor, as Bravehartbear pointed out, there have also been a few peer-reviewed "news organizations, academics, and novelists" that support the Church's stance that Scientology is a religion. There are sections of the article that reflect that.

Basically, if a major media outlet or academic publication fact-checks statements from the Church or a critic and finds the statements verifiable, then we can use them, but otherwise they're assumed to be biased. --GoodDamon 21:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Scientology originated as an applied religious philosophy and its purpose was to initially be a guidance to life, just like all the other religions out there. It is not fair to marginalize scientology ideas and the people related to the church, just because one doesn't agree with it's practices. It currently continues to exist because of a huge dedicated following that has faith and support in the institution. The church should be recognized like any other established religion, regardless of how many people exist to disagree and disdain. Yes, criticism of the religion should be accessible and available, but not on an introductory basis (like how it is currently on its wikipage). Just because the media is constantly questioning the credibility of the religion with major bias, doesn't mean it should be introduced as a cult for the person seeking the common knowledge of Scientology principles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.149.225.218 (talk) 07:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not Misplaced Pages's job to dictate what is and is not a "cult," a "religion," or whatever. Misplaced Pages has to rely on the dominant findings of reliable sources. Please read that link for a better understanding of Misplaced Pages's requirements. Reliable sources are a policy of Misplaced Pages, and anything that doesn't match that policy may be removed. Now, I'm sorry to say this, but the vast majority of reliable sources describe Scientology and the organization that promotes it in less-than-flattering terms. Scholarly papers, investigative reports, and other such pieces generally refer to it as a controversial cult that is destructive to its members.

Now please be aware, I'm not saying that any of that's true. I'm saying that this is what the sources Misplaced Pages finds to be reliable say, so that's what Misplaced Pages has to report. For all I know, Scientology may do great things for you and the majority of its members, but I can't take your word for it for Misplaced Pages. That would be what Misplaced Pages calls original research, which isn't allowed. In other words, I can't cite my own experiences or investigations in a Misplaced Pages article. It has to come from a reliable source, which other people can verify. --GoodDamon 16:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a cult, unfounded beliefs, totally new ideas, and very controlling and extorting of its members. Reapermage 00:36, 10th December 2007 GMT —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reapermage1990 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a cult but it's recongized as a religion by many governments including that of the United States so it should be referred to as such. Maybe refer to it as a cult if/when it loses it's status as a government recongized religion. Also, is Scientology considered a religion by the UN or do they have no stance on that? FalseMyrmidon (talk) 00:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

If as you stated above it is a cult, why we need government's approval of that fact? If a certain dish is called pizza, does it have to be officially recognized by a given government in order for us to speak of it as pizza?Or it just is a pizza. Since when any government should have the influence on simple facts and definitions in an encyclopedia on the net... --Pitdog (talk) 17:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The first definition of cult in Dictionary.com is "a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies." So it's a cult... and so is Christianity, so is Islam, so is Buddhism etc etc etc. Bazonka (talk) 12:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

that is a true deffinition, however that isn't the one we are talking about. That isn't even the definition that is commonly accepted when people say the word "cult". this discussion is better explained by the sociological definition of a Cult which states (I am paraphrasing, however I can get the source if neccisary) an orgonization that is charictorised by four things 1. strong central leadership, 2. hidden agenda/knowlage (they don't let you know everyhting about the orgonization untill you have become invested in the group), 3. Promice of special powers only avalible through the groups central leadership (Sobriaty through the central leaders teachings, promice of salvation through loyalty of the leader) 4. coersive or brainwashing tecqnecs.

when I hear the word cult that is what I think of...not the Boy Scouts religious services. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coffeepusher (talk • contribs) 17:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

If anyone gets a chance to check this source, there is an interesting article on Scientology in it related to your "cult status" question, from above:

• Cletsch, William A. (1989), "Scientology", World Book Encyclopedia, vol. 17 (S-Sn), Scott Fetzer Company, p. 207, ISBN 0-7166-1289-5, Library of Congress Card Catalog Number 88-50304

Cheers, Cirt (talk) 05:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC).

It does not in any way improve this article to argue over whether Scientology "is" or "is not" a cult. There is not one true definition of "cult"; the word is largely used as a slur. We are much better off describing what Scientologists believe, what Scientologists do, and the history of the Scientology organization -- and leave it up to readers whether these things show it to be a cult, a praiseworthy religion, an organized crime syndicate, a happy summer camp, or a high-heeled shoe. --FOo (talk) 17:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. Foobaz·o< 17:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I vote for high-heeled shoe. --JustaHulk (talk) 15:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I vote Cereal Grain 05:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.255.179.144 (talk)

I vote "Get another hustle." That means spread your hustle.--76.248.230.194 (talk) 03:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I would term it an "Officaly Recognised Religion" and then, possibly state where it is official, or make it a link to a point on the page where they do state it. I believe it is a cult, but that is an opinion. It is definately a religion, so we should state it as that, as it is a fact. Cults are still religions. 82.74.121.248 (talk) 00:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Assuming your current list of countries is accurate, then you should not call it an officially recognised religion at this point. It would be preferable to have a section entitled "Recognised Religion" and simply state those countries that do. This is fair to both sides of the argument. This is pretty much what you have now, although the current edit is somewhat less succinct. --Angryjames (talk) 19:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

With regards the term "Cult". The same argument should be used. If various countries and or significant groups refer to the organisation as a "Cult", then that should be listed in a section head something like "Is it a Cult?" or "Cult Status". To argue about the meaning of the word is pointless, and especially to argue that most religions fall into that definition. We know they do. We are here to report the facts as significant trusted sources would. Significant sources/countries might use the term "Cult" to describe Scientology, but not use it to describe say Christianity, even though we know the latter started as a cult --Angryjames (talk) 19:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Man, I strongly strongly dislike Scientology, but as there is no generally accepted definition of a cult (a word that is loaded with controversy) and it carries widespread negative connotations I think it should be classified as a weasel word and therefore not used. One of the best things about Misplaced Pages is its objectivity and although it seems ridiculous to people like us, we have to realise that that is just our opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.136.36 (talk) 22:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I have looked-in the term "CULT" in Misplaced Pages and also the term "RELIGION" and in my understanding Scientology indeed falls under the category of Cult. And if you look into it you'll understand why they keep on saying they are a religious group, it is for tax purpose only.Reinbowe (talk) 06:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Reality Check

Things change, times change.

On Sunday, December 25, 1994, The Washington post publishes the article: In Scientology Fiction - The Church's War Against Its Critics and Truth. A favorite between Scientology critics.

Now the Washington post published: XENU-PHOBIA Weird Sure. A Cult, No. The same magazine now says that Scientology is not a cult.

The New Yorker now writes about Scientology Celebrity Center like it was a Gala Dinner. Château Scientology

This other journalist writes about the fun time she had in church of Scientology. An afternoon with the Scientologists

This other one writes about her experiences with auditing. | The Invasion Begins, Scientology's Plan To Conquer Cleveland

The reality is that the Scientology controversy is dying out. People are more concern with Will Smith being a Scientologist and Tom Cruise videos than anything else. No one considers Scientology a dangerous cult no more. They may find it weird but that's all. The court cases against Scientology in the U.S. have almost disappeared.

There is just a handful of desperate Scientology critics left that the worst thing they can do is to bog down the website and post stupid messages.

In writing this because the last paragraph in the lead is just bias. Is based in old obsolete information that is no longer current. Is simply an offensive insult with no real data. I want a vote to have that paragraph removed.

I vote YES Bravehartbear (talk) 14:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Ummm... Have you been paying attention to whats been going on concerning the cult lately? as in 2008? Theres been an explosion of bad press and controversy. Public sentiment against scientology is currently the highest it's ever been! Your post is obviously disinformation that nobody with any interest in this subject will ever believe. And, as a friendly word of advice, ignoring the facts will probally hurt your e-meter readings. You'll never reach OT3 at this rate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.217.109.71 (talk) 21:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I vote NO as, checking the links, you've not disproved a single thing.

I vote that your links are broken—only the New Yorker one works for me. Foobaz·o< 16:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Foobaz (talk · contribs). These above presented links also do not present an appropriate worldview. Cirt (talk) 17:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I vote NO. Bravehartbear is proposing that Scientology is no longer controversial in part based on a newspaper article that begins "Scientology, the controversial religion..." Preposterous. --BTfromLA (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment

Please see WP:NOT#FORUM, as well as the related header at the top of this talk page. Cirt (talk) 17:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Response

It is not misuse to discuss how RS treats the exact subject of this article and how that directly impacts the manner in which this project treats the exact subject of this article. BTW, here are the Washington Post links (from just Googling the titles) 1, 2. --JustaHulk (talk) 17:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Here are the other two links; 3 4. --JustaHulk (talk) 17:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I vote NO. None of those links indicate any "dying out" of Scientology's controversies.

• First link: The opening sentence for Mark Oppenheimer's opinion piece begins with "Scientology, the controversial religion..."
• Second link: Do you really want to cite an investigative report that refers to Scientology as the religion that "incorporates aspects of Eastern philosophy, management theory, and science fiction"?
• Third link: Whoa, nelly... Did you read it? "It sounded like a pretty sweet deal. Who doesn’t like free things from an organization that’s well known for being controversial? We approached the ornate wooden doors and entered without knowing it would be another three hours until we would manage to escape." It goes downhill from there. The "fun" they had appears to be in making fun of Scientology. The tone is very mocking.
• Fourth link: Again, I have to wonder if you read it. After getting past the picture of the alien -- presumably a dig at Xenu -- I read through it and I have to wonder how you could possibly have gotten the idea that it regards Scientology as non-controversial. It discusses Scientology's opposition to psychiatry in some detail, and not in a flattering light.

If anything, the tone used to describe Scientology in the news since the Tom Cruise video is getting worse, not better. They all mention Xenu, they all describe its controversial nature, and I couldn't find any text indicating the court cases have "almost disappeared." I would be hesitant to include any of these links because they're all opinion pieces, and they're all largely mocking in tone. Even the first one, in which Mr. Oppenheimer says Scientology isn't a cult, goes into some detail about the perceived weirdness of it, and describes it as controversial. If we include them, the tone of this article will get more negative, not less, while we'll be using opinion pieces written by non-experts as reliable sources -- and I don't see any reason to do that. --GoodDamon 19:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. - This is a very good analysis by GoodDamon (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 19:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I vote NO. Cherry-picking a few articles out of a very large number isn't significant. AndroidCat (talk) 05:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC) I vote NO. 129.174.226.5 (talk) 00:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I too vote NO, and WOW you really neglected to read the information that you linked as evidence, because some of the articles contradict what you are trying to argue.--iF (talk) 04:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I vote NO, Now there is a HUGE controversy with the Church of Scientology thanks to its censorship of YouTube videos. --Chinese3126 (talk) 17:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

"Some journalists" vs. "Journalists" in intro

There is some ongoing edit... well, not edit-warring, as such, but let's say edit-disagreement... over one of the lines in the intro. Specifically, this line: "Journalists, courts and the governing bodies of several countries have described the Church of Scientology as a cult and an unscrupulous commercial enterprise, accusing it of harassing its critics and abusing the trust of its members."

Su-Jada has tried a couple of times to change that line so it reads "Some journalists..." Those edits have been reverted.

The problem with "some," as I see it, is that it would be perceived as indicating that the sentence doesn't reflect majority opinion, while in reality, the overwhelming majority of significant journalistic inquiries into the Church of Scientology really have described it in that manner. (Please note: I make no judgment call on the validity of that determination, I only mean to point out that the negative depictions of the Church far outnumber the positive ones).

Limiting it to simply "journalists" bypasses any quantitative analysis; it's up to the reader to determine whether that means "a few," "a lot," "the majority," or "almost all." I'm not sure this is the right approach either, but appending "some" to the beginning is definitely the wrong one. If anything, it should be "almost all."

So... Thoughts? --GoodDamon 22:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand Su-Jada's issue, since the lack of a quantifier might be interpreted as implying universality. How about "several"? Ayla (talk) 23:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sure that works, either. If there's any quantifier there, it should be one that reflects what the reliable sources actually say. "Several" doesn't accurately reflect the fact that most journalists who have researched Scientology have written negative stories about it. But saying something like "most journalists" reads like negative POV pushing. Aaargh... --GoodDamon 03:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with GoodDamon (talk · contribs)'s initial comment, supporting simply leaving in "Journalists.." as is. Cirt (talk) 03:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The word "Multiple" would work in this case I think. It would imply many, but not all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.65.7.34 (talk) 03:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The proportion of 'reliable' sources qualifying the subject as a cult has not been precisely determined within the scope of wikipedia. Until this determination is done, one can't use "some" nor "most" nor anything else that would indicate a direction.

The quantifier 'multiple' or 'many' would also indicate a direction because the phrase refers to a cult and there is no balanced phrase in the introduction to quantify the subject as a 'religion'. The introduction very much refers to the subject as 'a body', 'an organization', and not as a religion except from Hubbard's characterization.

An option, requiring additional work, would be to count the number of 'reliable' sources, courts, countries that have made such claim and compare it to opposite claims to determine an undisputed proportion. I don't think the later would be original research other than through the selection of what is a 'reliable' source and was is not.

In the mean time one might find a compromise to emphasize that a determination has not been accomplished (yet). One such indeterministic quantifier could be 'A number of'.

Likewise the quantifier 'several' before countries may not have been verified and is no better than 'many'.

The phrase could then read "..., a number of journalists, courts and the governing bodies of a number of countries have described the Church of Scientology as a cult...".

Uiteoi (talk) 10:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Controversy redirect

Hi, I've redirected the controversy page, for several reasons:

• We have a summary of Scientology's less-than-savoury practices in this article.
• The controversy article was 60kb, half of the main page.
• The controversies page has been problematic for over a year.
• The page is full of NPOV against the Church, with only one paragraph detailing the CoS' response.
• There's more weaseling in that article than I have ever seen, with statements such as "Critics say" or "oft-cited rumour"

It's articles like that which lower Misplaced Pages's credibility. We're supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a soapbox for anti-or-pro-anything rants. The page is completely against our policy of neutral point of view. And for the record, I'm against Scientology. Sceptre 19:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong. Shouldn’t there been some form on of group consensus before you did this?

I disagree with your removal of the controversies page without prior discussion. I think you should withdraw your edit until a general agreement is met. Cdynas (talk) 23:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

So you redirected a page that is a main page for a subset of articles without discussion or any attempt to clean it up. Essentualy you have deleted an article without any prior discussion or authoraty. I will be removing your redirect, and if you wish to have the article deleted, nominate it for such and go through with the prossess.Coffeepusher (talk) 02:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose unilateral redirect without discussion - Scientology controversies is its own valid full article with multiple sources, and has been for quite some time now. If an editor feel that it is not notable enough to have its own separate article on Misplaced Pages, this should be discussed in an WP:AfD. Cirt (talk) 04:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose - Per Cdynas, Coffeepusher, and Cirt, this kind of major change is what WP:AfD is for. Changes such as this one should never be enacted unilaterally, and I see no reason why the article can't be cleaned up instead of deleted. --GoodDamon 19:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

For the record, Sceptre's redirect has been reverted and the article is now being discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Scientology controversies. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

My own feeling is that the article needs work, but shouldn't be deleted. The controversies surrounding Scientology are many and quite notable. The fact that they largely put the church in a negative light has no bearing on the encyclopedic merit of such information or the article in which it is contained. --GoodDamon 21:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

IRS Infiltration

Although I lack the faculties to develop a well-referenced and definitive article on the subject, I find its abscence worrisome. I have heard on many accounts the Scientologist infiltration of the IRS remains the largest known act of its kind to find success against the US government. This deserves at the very least a footnote.

http://www.xenu-directory.net/news/austindailyherald-19770708.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.252.17 (talk) 23:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The link provided may or may not be considered a questionable source as it obviously has a bias (as a website devoted to Scientology). It does however provide substantial amounts of referencing and is seemingly objective in its approach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.252.17 (talk) 23:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

See also: Operation Snow White AndroidCat (talk) 02:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The two articles should be merged. Or at the very least, a reference should be made on the main page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.252.17 (talk) 08:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

This article needs a real good cleanup

Large, contentious articles contributed to by a horde of editors end up being a bit sloppy, usually because many contributors are looking at content rather than the standard of writing. This article is no exception, and it truly looks like it grew like Topsy. I tightened one sentence today, here, but am a little reluctant to do the whole thing knowing my efforts might be reverted simply because someone prefers verbosity. I am neutral re Scientology. Any comments? Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 02:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the article needs editing like this. Thanks! Foobaz·o< 17:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Any other cleanup needed besides length? Hyacinth (talk) 03:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Please add Jesus in Scientology as seealso link under the subsection "Scientology as a religion"

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ] (] • ])

So you want to be a scientologist - Slate Magazine

• Goldstein, Bonnie (April 30, 2008). "Hot Document: Primary Sources Exposed and Explained - So you want to be a scientologist". Slate Magazine. The Washington Post Company. Retrieved 2008-04-30. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Good source for discussion of primary source documents, "contract". Cirt (talk) 19:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Third party sources

What information needs to be cited in third party sources? Hyacinth (talk) 03:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Self-published sources

What information is inappropriately cited in self-published sources? Hyacinth (talk) 03:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that applies to much on the beliefs and practices, largely cited to promotional Scientology sites. We should give preference to scholarly works over Scientology's PR materials. Of course, we shouldn't cite privately-run anti-Scientology sites either, unless they are cited in the academic literature. Jayen466 11:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• B-Class Scientology articles
• Top-importance Scientology articles
• WikiProject Scientology articles
• B-Class Skepticism articles
• Mid-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• Misplaced Pages former brilliant prose
• Misplaced Pages articles under general sanctions
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics