Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:52, 13 July 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

United States Unassessed

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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Religion Unassessed

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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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

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?

In terms of referring to it as a cult, the term has a number of emotive negative connotations associated with its everyday use that overshadows its sociological definition of referring to a group whose belief systems are typically syncretic, esoteric, and individualistic , and a better term to use to describe Scientology is that it is a new religious movement as this better reflects this religion in a more neutral fashion. Xiaan77 (talk) 05:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

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?

Hardly "world affirming." They are tolerant only to the point they would like to be associated with other faiths to avoid criticism- ie, standing behind more established faiths to fend off critics as 'religious bigots.' The openly stated goal of Scientology is world dominance of Scientology and the 'clearing' of the entire planet. Also, while they outwardly claim tolerance and publish pretty 'interfaith' videos, they believe religious leaders of the past were false alien implants and Hubbard personally claimed Jesus was a violent pedophile. This is neither tolerant nor affirming.24.130.199.233 (talk) 18:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

Maybe we should watch what we say - a 15 year old kid is apparently being prosecuted in Britain for calling Scientology a cult. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/may/20/1 Pearce.duncan (talk) 22:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it; the Crown Prosecution Service have today announced that there will be no prosecution, because (they say) the word "cult" is neither threatening, nor abusive, nor insulting within the specific legislation. --Rodhullandemu 23:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It strikes me as fascinating that the Church of Scientology has chosen to take issue with the term cult and its usage in relation to them. In doing so they are in violation of their own beliefs as passed down by L. Ron Hubbard.

Scientologists are required to "clear words" to insure that they properly understand said terms. One such word which is required is the word Cult, for which a definition is given within the index of "Science of Survival" which states, "cult: an exclusive group of people who share an excessive devotion or dedication to some person, idea, or thing."

Clearly they meet their own criteria, and based on their policy of "clearing words" in relation to their own internally defined meanings, any instance in which this term is misinterpreted to mean anything else would indicate that said Scientologist has not properly cleared the term.

                                                       13Heathens (talk) 09:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

"Scientology has opened the gates to a better World. It is not a psycho-therapy nor a religion. It is a body of knowledge which,when properly used, gives freedom and truth to the individual." -THE CREATION OF HUMAN ABILITY, A Handbook for Scientologists BY L. RON HUBBARD  Esper  rant 20:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Brainwashing

In the article, the psychiatrist William Sargant who worked for the British MI-6 appears as having influenced L. Ron Hubbard. Sargant wrote a book elucidating the principles of brainwashing; the book was published as Battle of the Mind. Sargant inspired the Scottish Dr. Donald Ewen Cameron who was a CIA recruit for the LSD-25 special project MK-Ultra; they were looking for ways and means to bring about the Manchurian Candidate. Hubbard himself got hold of the alleged textbook of Psychopolitics used by the Russians, their textbook on brainwashing and the Church of Scientology published it. In 1979, John Marks wrote The Search for the Manchurian Candidate and was published by New York Times Books ISBN 0-8129-0773. It seems that to include this material in the article is very pertinent and is far from being contentious or vandalism.JDPhD (talk) 23:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

JDPhD, this article is about Scientology and notWilliam Sargant. Its unrelated to mention that William Sargant also "inspired Donald Ewen Cameron". Can you specify your reference with a page number and an citation? What part did you find in Marks book exactly and wich part not. If the content would be properly sourced it still may be better to move it to William Sargant,Anti-psychiatry or Donald Ewen Cameron-- Stan _talk 10:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

BTW. William Sargant isn't mentioned at all in the online version of the book you cited. -- Stan _talk 10:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is something I believe to be a relevant source on brainwashing by Scientology, and fairly unbiased. It's created by the Lisa McPherson Trust, an organization describing itself as one that helps people abused by the church, but in this video they almost exclusively demonstrate auditing and discuss whether or not this qualifies as brainwashing its members. Aside from the possibility of bias from a critical organization, this appears to be a very education video, but from the looks of things here, it looks like I should ask here before either trying to make mention of this. Google Video --Smokeresearcher (talk) 04:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Add Cults and governments, Church of the New Faith and List of groups referred to as cults as 'see also' links

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Valuative (talk • contribs) -->

Scientology in fiction

How about a section on Scientology in fiction? It's usually depicted under a different name to avoid legal actions, but its appearances include:

• "Systemotics" in "Law & Order" (season 18, episode 15, aired April 30, 2008, depicting a fictionalization of the deaths of Theresa Duncan and Jeremy Blake)
• "Movementarianism" in "The Simpsons" (season 9, episode 13, "The Joy of Sect", aired February 8, 1998)
• "Selfosophy" in "Millennium" (season two, episode 9, "Jose Chung's Doomsday Defense", aired November 21, 1997)
• As itself in "South Park" (season 9, episode 12, "Trapped in the Closet", aired November 16, 2005)
• "Transformationalism" in Norman Spinrad's 1985 novel, .

I know I've seen several others, as well.

Lippard (talk) 14:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Scientology in popular culture? AndroidCat (talk) 20:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It's on my list of articles to work on at some point, just not at the moment. Cirt (talk) 23:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight on Anonymous/Project Chanology?

There's a lot of information about this in the article, and it seems like there is too much importance given to Chanology etc., per WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM.--Hyperpaddling (talk) 22:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

-- i dont think so, project chanology is a significant factor in raising public awareness about this cult. since this happened, i have studied the topic, made videos about it on youtube that got 60000 views in total, and have been protesting in reallife against the church of scientology here in munich 3 times. and scientology threw eggs at us (the protesters). from my perspective, this needs to be in the article, because it has already been so significant that it will get a long-term place in this story. Kurtilein (talk) 22:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurtilein (talk • contribs) 22:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

---I agree with Hyperpaddling, especially in light of the fact that said group seems to be fading away faster than they appeared.FreedomFighter4all (talk)

---Considering that the Anon vs CoS situation has only been going on for six months, the Chanology info does need to be trimmed down somewhat. Three paragraphs is a bit too long.The Lizard (talk) 16:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Unnecessary references

A number of the references recently added by JDPhD seem to be extraneous. For example, refs for Alfred Korzybski and Sigmund Freud's work. No article text is based on those works and there were already wikilinks to the proper articles. AndroidCat (talk) 20:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree w/ AndroidCat (talk · contribs) regarding above comment. Using references as cites in this manner borders on WP:OR/WP:SYN violation and disruption. Cirt (talk) 04:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Lack of Sources

Large chunks of this article, especially the controlversial section about "Secret levels" etc. contains paragraphs of unsourced information, and much of the sourced data is very unreliable. I move that at least the unsourced information be moved (unless sourced) and at most the entire section be removed for poor sources. If Misplaced Pages cites any website as fact, what value does Misplaced Pages have anymore? FreedomFighter4all (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

If you think information is unsourced you can tag it with {{fact}}; that way other editors are alerted to the issue. It's somewhat customary to allow a reasonable time for sourcing to appear before deleting that material. Websites are fine as sources as long as they satisfy policy, and in fact the vast majority of articles, including Featured Articles and Good Articles, rely on online sources to a great extent. These days, not everything is in print. --Rodhullandemu 14:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I am unable to edit this article, which is why I requested someone else do it. I assumed there was some soft of lock on it (as I've never been in violation before). FreedomFighter4all (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Overusage of large amount of quoting within footnotes

I fail to see the need for this. These large amounts of quoted text within footnotes should be removed, it is not needed to satisfy WP:V. Cirt (talk) 22:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

References

1. Marshall, G. (1994) The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Sociology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

L. Ron Hubbard: speculative fiction writer or science fiction writer

Hi, The Encyclopedia Britannica states "science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard (1911–86)" in its coverage of Scientology issues. Available at: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/274475/L-Ron-Hubbard#tab=active~checked%2Citems~checked&title=L.%20Ron%20Hubbard%20--%20Britannica%20Online%20Encyclopedia. Could an editor provide a reputable source claiming that Hubbard was a speculative fiction writer?OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 17:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

This just keeps coming up, doesn't it... Let me explain. L. Ron Hubbard wrote science fiction, certainly. But he also wrote in the fantasy, horror, and alternate history genres, as well as doing some work in westerns, crime thrillers, and the odd romance. Speculative fiction encompasses the majority of the genres he worked in. While the term was not in use during his time, it more accurately sums up his fiction career than science fiction does.

Now, the term "science fiction" itself used to be used inaccurately to describe writing in any fantasist setting, whether there were spaceships and aliens, or flying carpets and elves. In modern usage, however, it's come to refer to fiction taking place in a setting where the fantastical originates in extrapolation on scientific reasoning instead of in physics-defying magic. So you can't simply classify a writer as a science fiction writer if he or she works extensively in other genres. Thus the term "speculative fiction," which allows us to describe in two words a writer whose works cross multiple genres. Our other options are to use "science fiction," which is inaccurate, or use a laundry list of the genres he wrote in, which nobody wants. Since the bibliographic record indicates the majority of his work was in science fiction, fantasy, and horror, we can use the "speculative" umbrella without having to expand the introduction unnecessarily. Anyone interested in what "speculative" means can click the link and get a good idea of what Hubbard wrote. --GoodDamon 18:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't find a ref that refers to him as a speculative fiction writer, and when news articles refer to him outside Scientology, science-fiction writer is almost universally used. Speculative fiction is possibly more accurate, but it's an invention and perhaps giving his other work a notability that it just doesn't have? AndroidCat (talk) 11:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you feel like opening that can of worms, be my guest. But if you do, you're going to have to somehow work in the fact that he wrote in multiple genres or you'll probably end up with an edit war on your hands. There are plenty of POV-pushing editors who will jump all over that line once we open it up for editing again. --GoodDamon 16:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't help but think that of all the debates over terminology in this article, this one is perhaps the least meritorious; I'm wondering exactly what difference it makes to a reader to have one over the other. Sleeping dogs, indeed. --Rodhullandemu 16:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I have brought this issue up because the claim that he is a "speculative fiction" writer is at odds with the reputable source I cited (The Encyclopedia Britannica, which refers to "science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard (1911–86)"). As well, although there are a number of terminology disputes, this one has a relatively high profile, because it is in the start of the lede section. Based on my understanding of Misplaced Pages policies, I argue that IF we find that the majority of the most reputable sources call him a "science fiction writer", then that is how we should refer to him in the article. Note I am not saying that this is the case. I am saying that if, after doing the research, all of the encyclopedias on fiction writers and English Lit call him a "sci fi" writer, then we have to follow the consensus of the experts in the field. I will check out the "speculative fiction" source that was posted above, Thanks OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 16:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings about that. First, I have to wonder if this is an instance where WP:IGNORE applies. Things to think about:

• That sentence was a vandalism magnet before we reached consensus on "speculative fiction" as a neutral term.
• Beyond mere vandalism, POV-pushing editors will make hay with the sentence. When it said "science fiction," we had a lot of Scientologists coming in and deleting the reference outright, causing more work for everyone else, and a lot of anti-Scientology activists trying to expound on Hubbard's status as a sci-fi writer... Again, more work for everyone else.
• The term "science fiction" itself has several different meanings. In its most modern usage, Hubbard's bibliography can't be described as that of just a "science fiction" author.

But like I said, I'm willing to wash my hands of it if consensus begins to lean the other way. --GoodDamon 17:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi everyone, thank you for your comments and input. The Reliable sources policy states that "articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". The "most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." There are a number of mainstream, reputable encyclopedia articles and magazines that define Hubbard as a science fiction writer. The World Encyclopedia (2005) says "Hubbard, L. Ron ( Lafayette Ronald) (1911–86) US science fiction writer and the guiding spirit of the Church of scientology.(World Encyclopedia 2005, originally published by Oxford University Press 2005.) The Oxford Pocket Dictionary of Current English ( 2008) states that Scientology "was founded by science-fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard (1911–86) in 1955. THe Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition (2008) says that "A prolific author, Hubbard wrote many works on Scientology and is also noted for his science-fiction novels and short stories." A TIME magazine article from May 6, 1991 By RICHARD BEHAR states that "The Church of Scientology, started by science-fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard to "clear" people of unhappiness, portrays itself as a religion( www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,972865,00.html). An article in the UK paper The Guardian from June 2007 says "The Church was the creation of L Ron Hubbard, the American science fiction author, as the religious development of his earlier secular ..." (www.guardian.co.uk/theguide/features/story/0,,2097544,00.html). The Scifi Horizons!

magazine refers to him as "L. Ron Hubbard, science fiction author and founder of Scientology( http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:WaO6EioBUxwJ:www.scifihorizons.com/issue10.htm ). MSN Encarta's article on Science Fiction states that "...Campbell’s magazine introduced many soon-to-be famous science-fiction writers, including L. Sprague De Camp, Lester del Rey, Theodore Sturgeon, L. Ron Hubbard, Fritz Leiber, A. E. Van Vogt, Arthur C. Clarke, and Robert Heinlein." (emphasis added). ( http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:Ab-5ltObMw8J:encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761563123_3/science_fiction.html )................................................................As far as sources for Hubbard being a speculative fiction author, most of the sources I found were Scientology sites, blogs, promotional websites, book advertisements, and so on. The most reputable sources referring to Hubbard and speculative fiction were Reuters articles discussing Hubbard's Writers of the Future Contest(see www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS179622+15-Jan-2008+PRN20080115 ). Perhaps I have been unsuccessful in finding authoritative sources for the "Hubbard = speculative fiction author" claim. If so, please provide these sources. As far as the vandalism issue, and the IGNORE rules policy, I acknowledge your (GoodDamon's) greater knowledge of Misplaced Pages and its policies and rules. However, I humbly argue that the "reliable sources" policy is one of the policies that we ought to defend. :) OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 20:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I don't see anything in your argument that conflicts with Misplaced Pages policies whatsoever. By Misplaced Pages policies, you're absolutely right. I'm simply arguing that this might be a very particular situation in which WP:IGNORE trumps the other policies. But you're absolutely right that the reliable sources almost all refer to Hubbard as a "science fiction" writer. The term "speculative fiction," while more accurate, was decided on way back when to head off the issues I listed earlier.

On the other hand, times have changed. There seem to be fewer pro-Scientology editors in these pages now, and frankly, they were causing the biggest problems with that line. So while I'm unwilling to, may I suggest you be bold, change the line, cite sources accordingly, and open this can of worms? --GoodDamon 00:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

possible vandalism or something?

does anyone else see the phrase "Scientology: It is not good" at the bottom of the page below the religion template boxes? i think that ought to be removed, but my status as an inexperienced new wiki user makes it a little difficult since the article seems to be safeguarded against edits. cheerio 144.92.83.141 (talk) 14:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done --Rodhullandemu 14:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Tanzania and Zimbabwe

• Church of Scientology Not WP:RS for this.
• Operation Clambake message board Not RS and the thread is entirely unrelated.
• U.S. Dept. of State International Religious Freedom Report 2007 For those countries, there's no mention of Scientology.
• U.S. Dept. of State International Religious Freedom Report 2005, print edition That report is also online, and again, no mention of Scientology.

Could JDPhD please stop adding bad references for Scientology as a recognized religion in these countries? Since they've been without references since November 5th (previously to a non-RS CoS page), I'm removing them until a valid WP:RS surfaces. AndroidCat (talk) 18:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Of possible interest

Might have been mentioned before, quite lenghtly article about this cult, see here. --Allemandtando (talk) 09:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

edits and refs contributed by JDPhD

JDPhD added new refs galore to this article in recent past. I'm not able to check and keep track of all of his additions and therefore can't judge every single contribution made by him. However, most references and additions contributed in particular by JDPhD I actually checked were either unrelated, plain wrong or non existent.

What is the consensus in Misplaced Pages to deal with questionable contributions and refererences by editors who repeatedly make "malicious" contributions ? I'm not even talking about POV edits or bad interpretations of sources but disruptions like this one(where his actual source turns out to be completly unrelated to his edit). I'm aware that references should not be deleted easily by other editors but it is extremly time consuming to proof that every single source he inserts is wrong or unrelated since many sources are only offline available.

Continue WP:AGF and research strange sources which turn out to be by 90 % plain wrong or revert such suspicious edits unless they are prooven by the editor on talk page?

Yes, my suggestion to ignore WP:AGF is quite harsh but I don't know how to deal with this problem in any other way espescially since JDPhD usually doesn't participate on talk page and many edits of him look like plain disruption rather than well-intentioned contributions. -- Stan _talk 03:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course, if anyone else can keep up with JDPhD's edits and actually check all his "new" references, this thread would be unneeded and can be closed. -- Stan _talk 03:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• Unassessed United States articles
• Unknown-importance United States articles
• Unassessed United States articles of Unknown-importance
• WikiProject United States articles
• Unassessed Religion articles
• Unknown-importance Religion articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• 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 controversial topics