Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:57, 22 August 2006

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.

Archives

December 2001 - February 2004 February 2004 - June 18, 2005 June 19, 2005 - July 31, 2005 August 1, 2005 - September 30, 2005 October 1, 2005 - December 31, 2005 January 1, 2006 - March 31, 2006 April 1, 2006 - April 31, 2006 May 1, 2006 - May 31, 2006 May 31, 2006 - June 26, 2006 June 26, 2006 - June 26, 2006 June 26, 2006 - July 27, 2006 July 27, 2006 - August 9, 2006 August 9, 2006 - August 19, 2006

Scientology weddings?

The article says: "The Catholic Church has refused to recognise Scientology weddings as valid." What does that mean? I have never heard of the Catholic Church refusing to recognise weddings done under other authorities than itself. Quite the opposite. Does this mean that if a person married in a Scientology wedding were to leave his/her partner he/she would count as a single person in the eyes of the Catholic Church and could be remarried? Steve Dufour 04:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right. It needs a citation. --Davidstrauss 17:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The Roman Catholic rules for weddings and divorce annullment are complex, especially when other religions are involved. It definitely needs a cite, preferably from someone authoritative rather than a blurb in a gossip paper. AndroidCat 18:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Weddings in most countries are a legal contract. Often the ceremony is done by religious sanction, even by religions themselves. A marriage in one country is, usually, recognized as being valid in another country. For the most antagonistic person it might be possible that a marriage in Sweden by a Scientology minister is not recognized in Iran (nothing but Islam), or something like that. But that wouldn't be common. Terryeo 21:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I will take the sentence out until some more information is provided. Steve Dufour 04:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

gnosticism

By all means, cite the newspaper. But follow WP:V to do it. That is a single newspaper article making that statement. Balanced against that are 40 million words over a period of 50 years which say otherwise. By all means, cite the newspaper. But it should not be the introductory sentence. The cite would be better used in the Church of Scientology philosophy because it mentions several practitioners of the Church. Scientology isn't beliefs, guys. It has never been beliefs. You simply can not find in the text which comprises it, anything about beliefs. Terryeo 19:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Well then, since a religion is, by definition, a set of beliefs, you have, intentionally or not, made the case that Scientology is not a religion, nor can it be a "religious philosophy". And since the Church of Scientology adds nothing to the Standard Tech to differentiate it, it cannot be a religion either. Q.E.D...... wikipediatrix 19:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

This article's title is "Scientology", as compared to another article's title, the "Church of Scientology". One subject matter is a body of written, spoken and flimed works, the other article is about the organization which delivers, disseminates, oversees that body of information. This article, therefore, should be about the subject matter. Perhaps it should be titled, Scientology (philosophy), but whatever its title, of what use is it, if it is going to parallel, step for step, point for point, the Church of Scientology article? When presenting religion, present beliefs. When presenting philosophy, present information. Buddhism too could be treated in this same manner because it too presents itself as a philosophy and as a religion. When Hubbard first introduced the term to the public he stated, a study of knowledge and defined that it would intrude into religion by the subjects which it studies. The subject matter includes the spiritual nature of man, but it does not talk about beleifs it talks about knowledge. It says you can know something about emotion and it calls that the Tone scale. It says you can know something about study and it calls that Study tech. It says you can know something about the people who refuse to understand that man tries to help his follow man, and that is called Suppressive person technology. Terryeo 20:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, religions offer a set of claims about humankind's relationship to the cosmos. These claims are accepted by those that follow the religion. They are beliefs. However, the sacred texts of few if any religions actually say "here come the beliefs." That doesn't matter. Please understand this--it is a problem that comes up over and over again in your comments here: Hubbard doesn't get to characterize his own work on Misplaced Pages. Just as a novelist who has control over every word she writes doesn't have any control over the way her work is categorized, assessed and placed in history by historians, neither does Hubbard get to control what others will say about his writing. The fact that he never wrote about Scientology being gnostic doesn't mean that it has nothing to do with gnosticism. Your arguments about "present information" reveal a serious misunderstanding of what an encyclopedia does. BTfromLA 21:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

You have evaluated and stated in regards to my personal understanding. This is not the platform to make such a statement. Should you wish to take up such a personal issue, an article's discussion page is not the place to do it. Do you understand, User:BTfromLA? Terryeo 11:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

If somebody presents an argument based on false premises, it is appropriate to say as much. When a particular editor repeats the same error persistently, it is also appropriate to point that out. The talk page, in other words, is exactly the place to hash out our "personal understanding" of how an encyclopedia article should be written. Terryeo, you are sidestepping what I've written by trying to characterize it as personal. It isn't personal--it's about the point of view from which this article, and all Misplaced Pages articles, are to be written. Why not respond to my analogy about the novelist? BTfromLA 16:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I did not respond to your analogy about the novelist because your statement included your personal evaluation and criticsm, Your arguments about "present information" reveal a serious misunderstanding. It is that which I responded to because unless we are able to communicate to each other, we can not communicate about the novelist. Your stated evaluation would not allow you to communicate with me (since I misunderstand, and seriously) and as the criticized party who, according to your statement doesn't understand anyway, I am not going to attempt to hammer my communication through your understanding when you are certain that I have no understanding to speak from. I assume good faith, I assume the next person understands as well as I do. Terryeo 20:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, your comments seem to be based on a misunderstanding. Did I not make myself clear? Good faith does not mean that everybody interprets things competently, or even that all competent interpretations agree. BTfromLA 22:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I say an encyclopedia presents information to the reader. You evaluated my statement and told me that I had a serious misunderstanding. Then you expect me to talk about some other issue. Since I begin the communication cycle, and since it is my originiation that an encyclopedia present a reader with information as its primary action, I don't feel any discussion could possibly be fruitful if you consider my origination is mis-reasoned (though you say, misunderstood). How can we proceed ?Terryeo 23:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, the issue I asked you to address is the exact one I raised as the site of your "misunderstanding." And please don't try to suggest that I'm saying that an encyclopedia shouldn't present information: I'm saying that you are promoting an inaccurate view of the way information is presented in an encyclopedia, that is, the point of view from which it is presented. If you won't respond to the substance of my comments, than I don't see the point of proceeding. BTfromLA 03:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The issue I think you are raising is something like, "Hubbard has no say in how his work is evaluated?" So, when Hubbard says, "there are three barriers to study" and Touretzky evaluates and restates, "there are three principles to study", then of course Hubbard's words are to be ignored so that Touretzky can present his evaluation and build his opinion which he presents as being valid, thus denying that Hubbard's study tech could be of any use to anyone because Hubbard didn't mean to say, "three barriers" but meant to say "three principles" (according to Touretzky)? Yeah, if that is what you are saying that I am doing, then you are right about that. It irritates me that the actual information is never presented in favor of evaluations which mis-present the actual information. Irriates me because it denies giving the reading public the opportunity to evaluate the information for themselves. I would have the actual information presented before the (what I think of as) beanbrained evaluations, thus giving the reading public an opportunity to evaluate for themselves. That was the beauty of the first real encyclopedia. Terryeo 04:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I think labelling Scientology gnostic in the first sentence carries a fairly aggressive POV and should be dialed back. The first scholar cited in the article, David G. Bromley of Virginia Commonwealth University, says Scientology "is a 'quasi-religious therapy' that resembles Freudian 'depth psychology' while also drawing upon Buddhism, Hinduism, and the ancient, heretical offshoot of Christianity known as gnosticism." That seems much more accurate than simply stating it to be gnostic--I'm no expert on this, but don't gnostic systems always have a deity or demiurge at their center? In any case, I think the gnostic label up front is too strong, though I think that it is approprite for the "origins" section of the article to describe Scientology's similarities to gnosticism (as well as Buddhism and Freudianism, maybe the Crowley OTO stuff, General Semantics, and other sources or systems with significant parallels to Hubbard's ideas). BTfromLA 20:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

As I said before the fact the Scientology has been compared to Gnosticism is interesting, but putting it as the third word in the article seems a little over the top. Steve Dufour 04:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

If the cites I've added don't support labeling Scientology as gnostic, I don't know what would. As for the prominence in the article, I think applying such an apt adjective early on should help the reader contextualize Scientology better. And before you get riled up, Terryeo, calling Scientology "gnostic" is hardly defamation. --Davidstrauss 05:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

This quote from the book I've cited should settle it: "Scientology, however, embraces gnosticism. Its doctrines are gnostic, and it uses gnostic writings to support its own ideas. For example, "Advance!" issue 93 has an article entitled "The Surprising Christian Tradition of Reincarnation", which relies heavily on gnostic writings such as the Pistis Sophia (the best known of the surviving gnostic writings) to support its viewpoint. Scientology is clearly gnostic, by its own admission and by the similarities to its own and gnostic teachings. Once again, ideas Hubbard declares to be new and discovered by him, are shown to be derived from old and widespread teachings in existence long before he came along." --Davidstrauss 05:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Would you please put an ending quote mark after your first: "Scientology, (because it is unclear whether you are saying the whole phrase comes from Advance! issue 93 or what). I can not know if you are quoting from Church writings to support your statements or are quoting a quote which states (from Advance!) that the Church says the Church is gnostic. Terryeo 23:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The best way to ensure that your contribution isn't edited out as POV is not to relentlessly spam it with reference after reference. I've removed the recent spamming; the first ref has been moved into its own independent ref where it can be judged in its entirety. Chris Cunningham 08:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

You removed valid references from the article. That is against policy. --Davidstrauss 03:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as is often the case, Davidstrauss, this page degredates into discussion about the validity of a piece of information. The threshold for inclusion is 'verifiability' says WP:V. There is a source (one newspaper article) which has stated its opinion. Good. Now let us compare that one source against other published words and present to our reading public what is most commonly published, ok? But thank you for enlightening us all about the reasoning you use, letting us all know how the newspaper article's presentation so exactly aligns with your own, personal thinking. Terryeo 11:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

If you had read the references before Cunningham removed them, you would see that many sources back up the statement I added. --Davidstrauss 03:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The article Gnosticism in modern times does not mention Scientology or Hubbard. Steve Dufour 13:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Well duh, it is false information anyway. A single newspaper ran a single article which said that. Including it in an appropriate manner is the issue here. Using A Sun article that says aliens are coming to earth as a headline doesn't make sense and using one newspaper article's opinion for the introduction doesn't make sense. Terryeo 15:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Lack of inclusion in a list somewhere is not a good source for removing that classification. In fact, it's not a source for anything but classifying the things it actually lists. --Davidstrauss 03:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Recent destructive edits

Could the person spouting off about policy violations kindly explain why he believes that taking a strongly critical stance in the article (and getting into revert wars in the process) is a good idea? Most people editing this article have reasonably strong views on the subject matter. Most people, however, are managing to edit it without introducing a strongly critical POV.

If the time cube article can get by without taking every opportunity to strongly dispute the subject matter, so can this one. Chris Cunningham 08:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The current editing conflict

"Hubbard had no qualifications to give pediatric advice and his claims regarding the care of babies and infants are disputed by the majority of doctors and health care professionals." vs. "Hubbard's claims regarding the care of babies and infants are disputed by a number of doctors and health care professionals."

Regarding the issue of "majority" vs. "number" - what is the other option? That Hubart's recommendations are NOT disputed by a majority of professionals? And if Hubbart was not a professional himself, and yet wanted to overhaul the infant care, it should be mentioned in the article.

Yes, mention it all you like in appropriate sections. Justanother 22 August 2006

"Corn syrup is made from maize grain, which was unknown to Europeans before colonization of the New World." - added: "Honey, however, has been known to Western cultures for many thousands of years and the word "honey" appears 61 times in the King James Version of the Bible."

For fairness, it might be appropriate to mention that honey was known by Europeans for ages (even though it is obvious). How many times is honey mentioned in the Bible is completely irrelevant.

Mike Rosoft 10:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The whole purpose of mentioning corn syrup was to hold the topic up to scorn. It is irrelevant as the formula lists honey as a sweetener also. The whole thing was correctly edited out. Justanother 22 August 2006

I don't think you need to go into details about the history of honey at all - just leave off after Hubbard's claim that he "picked it up in Roman days". If you're going to point out that corn syrup wasn't known to the Romans, you might as well point out that time travel is impossible. Let the facts speak for themselves. Robin Johnson (talk) 10:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, Ron was not talking about time travel, he was talking about past-life recall. Justanother 22 August 2006

Or, indeed, one might as well not point any of it out, because the section is about what Hubbard taught and not about what is and is not good for infants. I'm planning on removing anything which even smells like a rebuttal from the beliefs section. lord knows what will happen when people start pulling NASA refs out as rebuttals for the Xenu bit. Chris Cunningham 11:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly Justanother 22 August 2006

Descriptive tone in the non-controversy section

I've removed all the botulism stuff just now because I couldn't find a good place to put it. It belongs somewhere in the controversies section.

It's better if the article outside of controversies sticks to reporting what Scientology claims and does rather than trying to disprove it all. Not only does it read better, it allows the controversies section to expand on whatever it likes. Chris Cunningham 11:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

My recent edits

I made some edits to the Silent Birth section because it was slanted against Scientology and Hubbard in an inappropiate manner.

ex. Mentioning that corn syrup was not available to Romans without mentioning that honey was.

ex. Using the loaded term concoction in relation to the Barley Formula.

ex. Making the unsubstantiated claim that Hubbard had no qualifications to give advice on children. I have children and that gives even me some qualification. Hubbard was self-educated in the field of nutrition and many of his writings show that.

ex. Stating that most medical experts discount anything without substantiating that claim is just silly.

I could go on.

I am an ex-Scientologist and though I am no great supporter of the CoS, I recognize a slant when I see one. I offered balance in the article.

What I discovered in the process was a number of admins and editors that I imagine are Scientology critics and let their personal feelings color their responsibilities as wikipedia editors. I saw a failure to read and evaluate before reverting and little attempt to make contributory changes or corrections to my edit. I saw my valid edits treated as vandalism.

The sub-article was clearly heavily critic POV influenced and I brought a balance to it.

This is the Belief and Practices Section. I wonder how many "contributors" have any 1st hand knowledge of actual beliefs and practices of Scientology? And how many are inappropriately using the section to mock, ridicule, and try to disprove it? There are other areas where you can do that.

I see that Thumperward revised my edits in an appropriate manner to restore neutral POV to the sub-article. Thank you.

I do not do much editing in wikipedia and do not know if I will do more. If I do it will be in the direction taken by Thumperward of removing inappropriate material while contributing the balanced viewpoint of someone that understands Scientologists and their motivations. Justanother 21 August 2006]

I suggest you read WP:3RR, as well as check how much back-and-forth was done on that section previously. AndroidCat 11:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I did no reverts and in fact I don't even know how to do a revert. My valid edits were treated as vandalism by critical editors/admins violating the principle of Harmonious Editing, and IMHO, the spirit of wikipedia: that a person with a bit more knowledge can bring a bit more to the article. This is the Belief and Practices part of the article for Xenu's sake! Justanother 22 August 2006

I only took a brief look at the reverts happening yesterday, but I suspect some of your changes might be considered to violate WP:NPOV#Undue_weight and WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience. A page that gives equal weight to both scientific and pseudoscientific viewpoints is probably a violation of NPOV... it should be 'slanted' towards the scientific view. Mark Grant 12:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the point is that the article is not claiming that any of Hubbard's claims match reality. The article is merely saying that this is what Scientology teaches. Were it to actually state that humans are experiencing past lives or that feeding babies honey is a good idea then you'd have a point, but it isn't; it's just pointing out that this is what Hubbard taught. It makes for a poor article to constantly make inline rebuttals while reporting things like this. And there's a rather prominent controversies section for people to point out scientific distrust for Scientology. Chris Cunningham 12:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Well said. My error was in trying to balance the overtly critical inclusions when I should have simply edited them out. Though I imagine that the same cadre that reverted my balancing would have done the same to that editing. Justanother 13:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position

I continue to learn more about editing in wikipedia. I can see that we have to be cautious about "Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position" in this article. This is a violation of one of the main principles of wikipedia - No Original Research.

Case in point: the recently deleted concept that the "Barley Formula" is potentially unsafe is a clear violation of that standard. The writer took the synthesis of "Barley Formula contains sweeteners" plus "sweeteners can cause infant botulism" and synthesized "The Barley Formula is potentially dangerous". This statement constitutes original research and is not admissable unless first validated in a peer-reviewed publication.--Justanother 16:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics