Talk:Scientology: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 11:09, 15 May 2008 editJayen466 (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Mass message senders, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers56,646 edits →Self-published sources ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 07:59, 30 November 2024 edit undoGrorp (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users12,834 edits Undid revision 1260315734 by 186.154.37.140 (talk) see WP:Article size; WP:NHTBAE Tag: Undo
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Skip to talk}}
	{{User:MiszaBot/config
			{{Talk header\|search=yes}}
	\|maxarchivesize = 250K
			{{Controversial}}
	\|counter = 23
			{{Not a forum\|Scientology, or anything not directly related to improving the ]}}
	\|minthreadsleft = 1
			{{ArticleHistory\|action1=RBP
	\|algo = old(30d)
	\|archive = Talk:Scientology/Archive %(counter)d
	}}
	{{notaforum\|Scientology, or anything not directly related to improving the ]}}
	{{talkheader}}
	{{WikiProject Scientology\|class=B\|importance=Top}}
	{{Rational Skepticism\|class=B\|importance=Mid}}
	{{ArticleHistory
	\|action1=RBP
	\|action1date=January 19, 2004		\|action1date=January 19, 2004
	\|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - History and religion		\|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - History and religion
	\|action1result=~~demoted~~		\|action1result=removed

	\|currentstatus=FFAC		\|currentstatus=FFAC
			\|action2=PR
			\|action2date=13:19:11 25 September 2015 (UTC)
			\|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Scientology/archive1
			\|action2result=reviewed
			\|action2oldid=936292077
			}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=C\|vital=yes\|1=
			{{WikiProject Religion\|importance=Top\|NRM=yes\|NRMImp=Top}}
			{{WikiProject Scientology\|importance=Top}}
			{{WikiProject United States\|importance=Mid}}
			{{WikiProject Skepticism\|importance=Mid}}
			}}
			{{US English}}
			{{User:MiszaBot/config
			\|maxarchivesize = 150K
			\|counter = 33
			\|minthreadsleft = 4
			\|minthreadstoarchive = 1
			\|algo = old(90d)
			\|archive = Talk:Scientology/Archive %(counter)d
			}}
			{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn\|target=Talk:Scientology/Archive index\|mask=Talk:Scientology/Archive <#>\|leading_zeros=0\|indexhere=no}}
			{{Backwards copy
			\|title=Frommer's Britain For Free\|url=http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=TUHkd-NNY8YC&pg=PA29&dq=%22in+return+for+donations%22+scientology&hl=en&ei=2GLuTIa2FsGzhAfHuL3JDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22in%20return%20for%20donations%22%20scientology&f=false\|author=Ben Hatch, Dinah Hatch\|year=2010\|org=John Wiley and Sons
			\|title2=Ultimate Truth, Book 1\|url2=http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=e3kf6GtwaT0C&pg=PA128&dq=scientology+rationality&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Jpv4T8XVJoL-8gPN6rCYBw&sqi=2&ved=0CF0Q6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=scientology%20rationality&f=false\|author2=Peter C Rogers\|year2=2009\|org2=AuthorHouse\|
			\|comments=''Frommer's Britain For Free'' uses parts of the lead and beliefs section of this article, apparently copied some time in 2009, without attribution<br>
			''Ultimate Truth, Book 1'': Description of Scientologist beliefs is largely plagiarised from this article
	}}		}}
	{{sanctions}}
	{{controversial}}

	== 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. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 22:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	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. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 08:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	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. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 00:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	: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 ]. Instead, we try to make the article match the information given by the ] out there. This is a controversial article with editors of many opinions, so we follow ] strictly. ]·] 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. ] (]) 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.] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. --] (]) 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 <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 05:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	This is an interesting point of discussion. ], one of the things that makes Misplaced Pages work is that it uses ] (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 ] or ], 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:{{quotation\|'''Questionable sources'''<br>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.\|] (''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 ] 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. --<font color="green">]</font>] 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. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 07:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	::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 ]. 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 ], 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. --<font color="green">]</font>] 16:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

	It's a cult, unfounded beliefs, totally new ideas, and very controlling and extorting of its members. ] 00:36, 10th December 2007 GMT <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 00:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	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? ] (]) 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... --] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 17:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	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:
	*{{Citation \| last =Cletsch \| first =William A. \| contribution =Scientology \| year =1989 \| title =] \| editor-last = \| editor-first = \| volume =17 (S-Sn) \| pages =207 \| place= \| publisher =Scott Fetzer Company \| id = ISBN 0-7166-1289-5, ] Card Catalog Number 88-50304}}
	Cheers, ] (]) 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. --] (]) 17:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

	:I agree wholeheartedly. ]·] 17:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

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

	:I vote '''Cereal Grain''' 05:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC) <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) </small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	:I vote "Get another hustle." That means spread your hustle.--] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. --] (]) 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 --] (]) 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 ] 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. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	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.] (]) 06:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

	== Reality Check ==

	Things change, times change.

	On Sunday, December 25, 1994, The Washington post publishes the article: A favorite between Scientology critics.

	Now the Washington post published: 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.

	This other journalist writes about the fun time she had in church of Scientology.

	This other one writes about her experiences with auditing.

	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''' ] (]) 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. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	I vote '''NO''' as, checking the links, you've not disproved a single thing.
	<hr/>
	:I vote that your links are broken—only the New Yorker one works for me. ]·] 16:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::'''Agree''' with {{user\|Foobaz}}. These above presented links also do not present an appropriate worldview. ] (]) 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. --] (]) 19:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	;Comment
	Please see ], as well as the related header at the top of this talk page. ] (]) 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) , . --] (]) 17:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Here are the other two links; . --] (]) 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. --<font color="green">]</font>] 19:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:'''Agreed.''' - This is a ''very'' good analysis by {{user\|GoodDamon}}. ] (]) 19:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	I vote '''NO'''. Cherry-picking a few articles out of a very large number isn't significant. ] (]) 05:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	I vote '''NO'''. ] (]) 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.--] (]) 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. --] (]) 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."''

	] 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? --<font color="green">]</font>] 22:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

	:I understand ]'s issue, since the lack of a quantifier might be interpreted as implying universality. How about "several"? ] (]) 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... --<font color="green">]</font>] 03:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::I agree with {{user\|GoodDamon}}'s initial comment, supporting simply leaving in "Journalists.." as is. ] (]) 03:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::The word "Multiple" would work in this case I think. It would imply many, but not all. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 03:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	::::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...".

	::::] (]) 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 ]. And for the record, I'm against Scientology. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 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. ] (]) 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.] (]) 02:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose unilateral redirect without discussion''' - ] 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 ] enough to have its own separate article on Misplaced Pages, this should be discussed in an ]. ] (]) 04:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

	*'''Strongly oppose''' - Per Cdynas, Coffeepusher, and Cirt, this kind of major change is what ] 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. --<font color="green">]</font>] 19:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

	For the record, Sceptre's redirect has been reverted and the article is now being discussed at ]. -- ] (]) 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. --<font color="green">]</font>] 21:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

	== ~~IRS~~ ~~Infiltration~~ ==		== "Very long" tag ==

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

			I wish to start by pointing out a goal from ]:
	http://www.xenu-directory.net/news/austindailyherald-19770708.html <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			{{Blockquote \|text=Articles that cover particularly technical subjects should, in general, be shorter than articles on less technical subjects. While expert readers of such articles may accept complexity and length provided the article is well written, the general reader requires clarity and conciseness. There are times when a long or very long article is unavoidable, though its complexity should be minimized. ''Readability is a key criterion'': an article should have clear scope, be well organized, stay on topic, and have a good narrative flow.}}
			{{pb}}<span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">]</span> 18:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

			:That inevitably leads to the idea of a top level article and top level sub-articles beneath it. Which then leads to the fact that we basically have two top level articles (this and ])which are 90% duplications of each other. And this is inherent in the title because "practices" is 80% of what Scientology is. And we have many many sub articles but no organized usable set that this areticlecan me made more dependent on. My thought for a 2 year plan is to make / keep this article as the top level one and decide on 4-6 main top level sub articles are just beneath it. And "Beliefs and Practices" needs to be changed somewhow. Maybe refine / clarify it to only practices that are very closely related to beliefs. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 18:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
	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. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			::I agree re: Sci beliefs and practices and this article. It should be merged into this one, in my view. The Church of Scientology and Scientology in religious studies sections ought to be considerably shorter. The controversies section ought not to exist (as per ]): its parts should be incorporated into the main narrative about the movement/scam. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">]— ]</span> 20:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

			{{od}}
	:{{seealso\|Operation Snow White}} ] (]) 02:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
			]
			Please tell me if I'm interpreting this correctly; I made the drawings to help illustrate. It seems like we have been treating ] as a topmost article in a hierarchical structure similar to the left diagram (with 3 primary child-articles below it). It seems that North suggests continuing this style but to make the topmost article more of a ] and less of a duplicate of "beliefs" article. It seems that Cambial is proposing ] be the container for beliefs and practices, and there is no ''single'' topmost article, or perhaps ] and ] hold topmost status (like the diagram on the right). Am I on the right track? I have been viewing the ] article as an overview article like in the left diagram, and wonder if this difference in viewpoint is why Cambial and I have had disagreements over this article. After looking at some other religions and how they have structured their articles, I see the "beliefs" article is their topmost article with no overview above it. I say "topmost", but only because their various navbars and sidebars use the "belief" name rather than the "church" name, but entry into the collection of articles is not necessarily a top-down approach.

			Using the ] article for beliefs would allow us to trim much content, though I have a few concerns:
	The two articles should be merged. Or at the very least, a reference should be made on the main page. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 08:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			# By assigning "beliefs" as a topmost article instead of having an overview article, does it grant the scientology belief system a broader recognition than its one-to-one correlation with the Church of Scientology? (I consider the Freezone to be a very minority offshoot; an afterthought.)
			# Many of the "practices" are specific to the Church of Scientology organization (RPF, suppressive declarations, war on psychiatry) and are not (though they sort of ''are'') general "beliefs" of "Scientology" (if one were to generalize it as a belief system). Most of those "practices" fall under controversies/criticisms. Or do we separate practices into "red volume" material (auditing and training) versus "green volume" material (administrative actions... which would include everything about ethics/justice—the source of most of the horrific actions/practices COS engages in—as well as recruiting, sales, marketing, fundraising, public outreach, management, and legal contracts)? Where do we draw the line between practice of belief and practice of policy (which is also their belief, because of ])? Perhaps this entanglement is why I have favored a top-down single overview article approach to the collection of articles as a way to tie together ] and ].

			Food for thought. <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">]</span> 06:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
	== This article needs a real good cleanup ==

			IMO "Scientology" should be the top level article. One comment about trying to organize this. Without getting into a categorization debate, I don't think that the usual structure for covering a church is applicable. A church is usually centric on a set of beliefs, and so beliefs can be covered as such. For Scientology IMO this is not the case. Further, Scientology as a whole has aspects of being an (generic term) organization (or somewhat a set of organizations), a church, a business, a set of practices, a disparate set of beliefs, arguably a cult, a central person and their teachings/writings which are a central defining part of the organization. I think that we need to acknowledge this unusual situation when trying to organize coverage. Again, without getting into categorization debates, structurally it is an organization which is a combination of all of the above things. Structurally, I think that free zone is structurally just a tiny off shoot of the organization which uses some of the organization's beliefs and '''''practices''''' and should not affect our overall planning on coverage on what is actually the described agglomeration where the only term broad enough to think about is "organization" <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 12:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
	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, , 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? ] (]) 02:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
			:I agree about this being the top-level, and that there is no reason to look to structures from other articles. My view is that this article is not and ought not to be about organisations, but about what the opening sentence says: the set of ideas , and a movement that follows those ideas. That movement as a whole specifically not being an organisation, insofar as it is ''disorganised''. You're right that we obviously cannot ignore that CoS organisation is by some margin the most publicly visible part of that movement (and, historically, its source). But we can't say that it's representative of the whole. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">]— ]</span> 13:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
	:I agree, the article needs editing like this. Thanks! ]·] 17:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
			::I know that you have disputed my use of the word "organization" but if you knew the limited way I intended it perhaps you would not. I just meant it as the only vague-enough term to include all of the above listed things. ''Nothing more''. If it will clear it up, I'll use the word "agglomeration" instead. So, when when are trying to figure out coverage structure we need to recognize that Scientology is an agglomeration of all of the above things. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 13:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
			:::I appreciate that clarification, and agree. I think the distinction is useful: Scientology (the non-ideas meaning) is an agglomeration (nebulous, disparate, but with common characteristics); Church of Scientology is an organisation (connected legal entities, has a CEO, etc). <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">]— ]</span> 13:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

			So if agree on "Scientology" being the top level article, IMO we need a short list of top level sub articles which it can be dependent upon/ closely coordinated with . I think that one good candidate is the current "beliefs & practices" article except trim "practices" to only those closely related to beliefs. (which I think are inseparable from beliefs anyway) So it would include things like auditing but not things like "fair game" Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 13:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
	Any other cleanup needed besides length? ] (]) 03:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
			: North8000, where do you suggest the administrative practices go? <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">]</span> 18:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
			::That sort of relates to what the "top tier" sub articles are. The subject being such a complex agglomeration I'm still trying to think of an idea. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 11:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

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

			== Bizarre (page numbers) ==
	{{unsigned}}

			{{reply\|Cambial Yellowing}} Re ]. The version downloadable from Oxford Academic (via Misplaced Pages Library access) shows the page numbers ending with 388. Here are screenshots of and <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">]</span> 19:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
	== So you want to be a scientologist - ] ==
			:OK. The chapter references finish about one-fifth of the way down p. 387 of the book. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">]— ]</span> 20:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
			:: That explains you repeatedly changing it from 388 to 387. I only have the online version, accessed through ], and I'm not acquainted with any reasons why there might be differences between the online and print versions of the book. Each chapter has its own separate ], and using a chapter-specific DOI in a citation makes it easier for Wikipedians (with access to Misplaced Pages Library) to verify content... which would be the online book. <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">]</span> 22:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

			== ] has an ]==
	*{{cite web\|url=http://www.slate.com/id/2190284/entry/2190286/\|title=Hot Document: Primary Sources Exposed and Explained - So you want to be a scientologist.\|work=]\|publisher=]\|date=], ]\|accessdate=2008-04-30\|last=Goldstein\|first=Bonnie}}
	:Good source for discussion of primary source documents, "contract". ] (]) 19:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

			<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>''']''' has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the ''']'''.<!-- Template:Rfc notice--> Thank you. <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">]</span> 06:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
	==Third party sources==
	What information needs to be cited in third party sources? ] (]) 03:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

			== Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2024 ==
	==Self-published sources==
	What information is inappropriately cited in self-published sources? ] (]) 03:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

			{{edit semi-protected\|Scientology\|answered=yes}}
	: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. <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 11:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
			Text "These aspects have become the subject of popular ridicule." has no citation / source, I believe it should either be deleted or have "Citation Needed" tag added. ] (]) 23:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
			:] '''Not done:'''<!-- Template:ESp --> This is sourced in the article body, in the section about reception and pop culture. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">]— ]</span> 02:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 07:59, 30 November 2024

Skip to table of contents

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

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

Article policies

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

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

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

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

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

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

Current status: Former featured article candidate

This

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

Religion: New religious movements Top‑importance

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

Scientology Top‑importance

	This article is supported by WikiProject Scientology, a collaborative effort to help develop and improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Scientology. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on Scientology-related topics. See WikiProject Scientology and Misplaced Pages:Contributing FAQ.ScientologyWikipedia:WikiProject ScientologyTemplate:WikiProject ScientologyScientology
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Mid‑importance

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

United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States

Mid

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

Skepticism Mid‑importance

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

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

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

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

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

"Very long" tag

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reception and influence

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

Bizarre (page numbers)

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

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

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

Scientology officials has an RfC

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

Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2024

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

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

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

Categories: