Talk:Scientology: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 05:23, 22 May 2006 edit205.227.165.11 (talk) Wrong article!← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 07:59, 30 November 2024 edit undoGrorp (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users12,831 edits Undid revision 1260315734 by 186.154.37.140 (talk) see WP:Article size; WP:NHTBAE Tag: Undo
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{~~controversial~~}}		{{Skip to talk}}
			{{Talk header\|search=yes}}
			{{Controversial}}
			{{Not a forum\|Scientology, or anything not directly related to improving the ]}}
			{{ArticleHistory\|action1=RBP
			\|action1date=January 19, 2004
			\|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - History and religion
			\|action1result=removed
			\|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
			}}

			== "Very long" tag ==
	{{scientology}}

			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)
	''To view discussion of the ] article:

			I wish to start by pointing out a goal from ]:
	:Topic threads beginning Dec. ] through Feb. ], please see ''']'''.
			{{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.}}
	:Topic threads beginning Feb. ] through June 18, ], please see ''']'''.
			{{pb}}<span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">]</span> 18:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
	:Topic threads beginning June 19, ] through July 31 ], please see ''']'''.
	:Topic threads beginning August 1, ] through September 30, 2005, please see ''']'''.
	:Topic threads beginning October 1, ] through December 31, 2005, please see ''']'''.
	:Topic threads beginning January 1, ] through March 31, 2005, please see ''']'''.
	:Topic threads beginning April 1, 2005 through April 31, 2005, please see ''']'''.

			: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)
			::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}}
	== Maybe this quote should be added? (If it's a true quote) ==
			]
			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:
	(Put this back in as this discussion is not over - I realize I was late in answering - hope this is the correct procedure -- Nuview)
			# 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)
	L. Ron Hubbard "Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion."
	:Can you please cite the reference from which this quote is taken from? --<font style="background:gold">]]</font><sup><font style="background:yellow">]</font></sup> 14:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
	::It's already in ]. There's a tendency to add everything into the main article, which requires frequent and ruthless pruning. ] 15:01, 23 April 2006 (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" <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 12:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::The actual data about this “quote” is that although it has been falsely claimed that L. Ron Hubbard said that the way to make a million dollars is to start a religion, Mr. Hubbard never made this statement. It was allegedly made at a science fiction convention in 1948 in New Jersey; however, two people (David A. Kyle and Jay Kay Klein) who attended the convention deny Mr. Hubbard ever made that remark. The original source of the claim was Sam Moskowitz, who also attended the meeting. In 1993, Mr. Moskowitz provided the Church with a copy of the minutes of that meeting, which include a summary of Mr. Hubbard’s remarks to the group. No such statement is included in the minutes of the meeting. Mr. Klein pointed out in an August 2000 affidavit that Mr. Moskowitz was apt to make remarks for the purposes of effect and would sometimes state as facts things, which were untrue or inaccurate. A writer who did make a similar statement, however, is George Orwell. Mr. Orwell’s statement has been wrongly attributed to L. Ron Hubbard. In 1982, when presented with the evidence of Mr. Hubbard not having made this statement, a Munich court prohibited a publisher from repeating this false statement. ] 23:21, 24 April 2006 (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 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)
	::::The church's standard statement on that has a number of problems. The main one is the assertion that the 1948 convention was the only place it was claimed Hubbard said something like that. ] 15:07, 25 April 2006 (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 :
	::::Unfortunately, Nuview, Robert Vaughn Young already really had the last word on the subject. Oh, I'm not talking about his admission that when he was still in the Church, he himself found that Orwell quote and suggested that they could use it to make the official Party line "oh, obviously that's not something that ''Hubbard'' said, it's something that ''so-and-so'' said, and then it was wrongly attributed to Hubbard (by, oh, about ten to fifteen of his personal acquaintances, for starters.)" No, I mean that RVY really had the last word on this when he pointed out to someone who was quoting back at him the same "it was really Orwell who said it" line that he himself came up with: "No, my friend, LRH said it too. The difference between LRH and Orwell is that LRH did it." -- ] 02:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
			*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) ==
	:::::That Young said this (if he did) doesn’t mean it was true – so its still hearsay.
	] 22:10, 21 May 2006 (PST)

			{{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)
			: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 ]==
	==Cluttering the introduction==
	Is it a good idea to clutter the introduction with requested references? If the items requested are general and expanded upon later in the page after the introduction and properly referenced, isn't that enough? This seems like micro-management. ] 01:53, 1 May 2006 (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)
	:It is, in fact, entirely unnecessary. All that information is covered by general references. One wonders why {{user\|Nikitchenko}} thought that each sentence of ''that'' paragraph needed an individual, specific source, but didn't see any such need for the paragraph immediately following, which contained not a single source for its claims. -- ] 22:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

			== Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2024 ==
	:Indeed cluttering the introduction makes it a bit of a burden to read. Although {{user\|Nikitchenko}} is also right since some references may be needed so as to reach an agreement or some common grounds and settle the matter. The intro should be kept accurate but straight to the point. We know how the introduction is important since in Psychology the first impression is everything- ] 04:40, 02 May 2006 (GMT)

			{{edit semi-protected\|Scientology\|answered=yes}}
	=="Outflow false data"==
			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)
	I've moved the following recently added section here temporarily:
			:] '''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)
	Another critisim of Scientology is what L. Ron Hubbard called "outflow false data," which is Scientologies policies to lie or mislead. According to document by US F.B.I., there is Scientology training course specifically teaching to lie.
	My reasons are this: First of all, this seems to be simply to be a 'smear' addition, and secondly, I'm not sure what to make of the sources. I think the best thing to do is for discussion here before it's put anywhere in the article. Thoughts? --] 00:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
	:: Im sorry I didnt find more neutral way of putting, here are few more related links from one site to this. Google searches on text from these will show more sites with same references, community please review and decide if this stays and if so where it goes. http://www.xs4all.nl/~johanw/CoS/black-propaganda.txt, http://www.xs4all.nl/~johanw/CoS/tr-l.txt, http://www.xs4all.nl/~johanw/CoS/reporter-trs.txt ] 00:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
	:At a quick look, it look like we've also got the following sources for Scientologists being trained to "outflow false data effectively" and that being another way of saying "lying":
	:*
	:*
	:*
	:*
	:I think that should settle the question of sources. As for it being a "smear" addition... well, I have trouble figuring out how it can be dismissed as a "smear" regardless of whether it is supported by such sources. -- ] 01:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

	::Good show! The 'smear' comment was mainly an extention of the 'bad sources' argument, with a nod to the bad choice of words. Now that there's some reliable sources, I think all that's needed is maybe a little NPOV rewrite (just a smidgen) and a good place to put it. --] 01:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

	:::In a bizarre twist, in the Ontario Snow White case, ], CoS's defence argued that testimony from ex-members shouldn't be accepted: ''"Ruby said the prosecution witnesses could not be believed, because they had all taken special training in how to lie."'' Unfortunately, that's only someone on Usenet quoting the actual reference "Ruby outlines case for Scientologists", Globe & Mail, April 22, 1992, p. A13, which I haven't seen. ] 02:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

	== etymological overkill, pt.2 ==

	Once again, the intro is almost completely devoted to not one, not two, not three, but FOUR different explanations of how Hubbard defined the word in 1952, 1965, 1960, and 1969 (and in that order!). That's just nuts. It belongs with the rest of the etymological analysis in the "Origins" section. I can find no other "-ology" article that bothers to spend ''over half of the introductory paragraph'' with a long and convoluted analysis of the word's etymology. Articles for other religious beliefs such as ], ], and ] do not go into the etymology of their names in the intro paragraph. The article for ] doesn't even go there until the article's third subsection, deep into the article. ] 15:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

	I agree, thanks for sorting that out. The intro is now beginning to be almost readable. ] 23:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

	: Actually, Scientology is a philosophy which spells out actions or practices. The philosophy would be the first term, practices second and then by the time it gets to be the philosophy of a church, then beliefs come into the equation. Hubbard first uttered the word publically in ''Scientology: Milestone One'', a 1952 lecture in Kansas. ] 22:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

	== Cost of services ==
	I think the cost of services table is innappropriate here. I think we should just place a link to this information in the external links section at the bottom. It appears to be the original work of either Andreas or some other editor. Surely there are many verifiable sources that peg the cost of crossing the Bridge above $300,000. Let's find one and put that quote in the article and get rid of this huge table, which is not verifiable and excessively large. It also appears to contain numerous assumptions for which there is no source. ] (]) 16:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
	:I've always thought it seemed a bit unencyclopediac too, but didn't want to get into another fight to remove it. It would be good to find an external source that contains the list and mention it with a link, maybe adding 'prices range from $x,xxx for basic services up to $xxx,xxx for the final OT VII'. ] 23:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
	:I think it makes sense to have a separate section for ]. I don't think that the "business" aspects, although often focused on in the press, should be such a large part of this page. Copied over the info, if everyone agrees it should be split off, please remove dupe info from this page. ] 22:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
	:: A hundred different people would give you a hundred different estimations, the variation is very wide and has so many factors involved that a reasonable estimation, even by someone who had done it all, would be difficult. Possibly the best source would be a man who's profession was selling services for a higher Organization, but he would probably give you an average high and a low, the low being, factually, zero dollars. ] 22:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

	== Smacks of POV ==

	I just wanted to make a quick note to say, that this is one of the most hotly debated articles i've ever seen at Wiki and also that i didn't know what scientology actually was until 5 months ago. I didn't actually know any specifics till I read this article and the whole thing smacked of being very pro-scientology. I'm totally unbiased to it, i've only a few bits to go on from what i've heard. But its clearly predominantly written by scientologists and it seems to me that there whole thing needs a thorough going through and re-writting. The intro is still highly POV - comments like "scientology has been percieved as..." and so on all seem to come from a pro-scientology POV. Whilst the article is full of good facts and snippets of info i felt the whole thing is connected by opionative statements. This is far from NPOV.

	:Actually, I think it's one of the most NPOV articles on the wiki, but you may be misinterpriting our policy. This article consists of two things: firstly, the claims scientology make about themselves, all of which are labeled as their own claims (except where it is obviously a fact, such as tax exempt status and whatnot). Secondly is criticism of scientology, all of which is written with the support of outside references (and the inverse is also true; we don't make claims against them here that we can't back up). NPOV doesn't mean writing from an outside perspective; it means showing both sides of the issue without presenting either as 'correct', which is done here. --] 16:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

	== The introduction ==

	The introduction states that Scientology is:
	*"a system of beliefs"
	*"practices"
	*"and was created as a self-help philosophy"
	But when Hubbard introduced the word in Kansas in the lecture ''Scientology: Milestone One'' he described his idea: "Scientology would be a study of knowledge." The dictionary defines "-ology" as "A branch of learning" and gives examples: "2. Science; theory; study: dermatology; sexology" and -ology is also used in "biology" and other sciences. Hubbard intended his idea to communicate that a subject was under scrutiny, and he described it as a philosophy more than once. The last word of the present introduction is "philosphy" and that is right, that is what Hubbard intended to communicate. Scientology is a philosophy, that is, it is a body of knowledge which is based on an idea, it codifies knowledge in a manner not hithertofore done. As such it is a philosophy. It has never been presented to the public as a system of beliefs. The Church of Scientology, it might present beliefs. But the subject of Scientology presents codified knowledge, or what is considered within its bounds to be codified knowledge. It is a philosophy in the manner that "science" and Buddhism" are philosophies.] 16:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

	==Trementina base land swap prior to tax exemption==

	I've added information about a land swap that took place between Church of Spiritual Technology and federal government just a little over a year before the tax exemption, with an appropriate link to ] where there are more details of the apparent quid pro quo with cites. ] 20:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
	: That's a good piece of information, if it is true Huntley, but your suggestion that Misplaced Pages editors do Original Research and trek out there, and your suggestion about how to do that and be legal and stay out of trouble and be safe, that isn't a good piece of information. That sort of information could not be put into Misplaced Pages, anyway. The only way to get the results of that into Misplaced Pages would be to have it published, say in the New York Times, and ''then'' have that article included in Misplaced Pages. Your suggesting it as something Misplaced Pages editors should do clearly says that you haven't read ] or at least you have not understood ]. ] 22:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

	== The Difference between NPOV and Defamation ==

	I have removed a paragraph. The reference given is a sensational, discrediting piece of media. It isn’t okay to scatter Misplaced Pages articles with defamatory, unverified statements trying to make it look like this is what the majority of the public think. Simply not true. While critics would prefer to have you think this (and this paragraph is a classic example) its simply not true, the critics are in the minority – if you want some statistics to back up this statement, let me know. I am removing this section. .] 16:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

	:Didn't CoS already try and fail to prove defamation in the referenced stories from Time and the Washington Post? ] 21:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

	::Looks like it. No matter how you try to spin it, Time and the Washington Post are simply considered good sources. --] 21:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

	::Nuview, can you clarify what you mean by "unverified statements"? As AndroidCat and InShaneee have already pointed out, the statements in question cite stories in Time and in the Washington Post. That ''is'' their verification. What you seem to be arguing -- correct me if I'm wrong in this -- is that even though these statements are backed by fully acceptable secondary sources, that you believe the secondary sources themselves to be ''incorrect'' and are arguing that they are therefore unusable. Is this your position on the matter? -- ] 23:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
	::: Its so obvious to even the most casual reader that Misplaced Pages editors are working toward presenting Scientology in the worst possible manner. 80 % of every article is accusatory in tone and littered with vauge, past references to the Guardian Office (disbanned), to long dead policies (created by someone long since expelled), to various other odd, rare, unusual events of the past which 99.99 percent of the people whose lives have been bettered by Scientology have never heard of. Every bit of dirt that can be dug up, however long dead, is included while any good news is uniformly supressed. It is so obvious to even the most casual reader. Even the[REDACTED] standard, "broadly published gets the most space in an article" is ignored in favor of long dead issues. ] 04:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

	:::Certainly, I am questioning the validity of using inflammatory media/magazine stories as reliable secondary sources. What gets quoted or used from them then becomes “fact” in the eyes of the reader. This is not NPOV, it is pushing a definite POV and that’s where it goes off the rails. It is a POV that has an agenda to discredit. There are some parts of the article that are okay but there are sections that don’t even attempt any neutrality, which I maintain should be the standard, not what is being defined as NPOV. This is my position on it. ] 21:52, 21 May 2006 (PST)


	:::I'd hardly consider Time magazine obscure in any sense of the word. --] 14:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::: Right, the ''Time'' article is an interesting exception, it is a publication of good repute and it published an article which makes a counter-statement. To a lesser extent, various newspapers have likewise presented controversial actions and elements. Those are real enough, no arguement. But the "Guardian's Orders" (Guardian's Office long since disbanned) and the Policy letters from the formative years of the Church are often presented as if they were the present policy of the Church. ] has no less than 5 examples of long ago discarded, no longer in force policies which are presented as if they are some part of present Church policy. Perhaps 80 % of that article is composed of long dead policy and actions resulting from long dead policy. "Guardian Office Orders" are cited and quoted throughout the Scientology articles. That office was disbanned some years ago precisely because its actions brought troubles to the Church. There are other examples too. It is completely appropriate, as you've pointed out, InShaneee, to quote and cite published information. Possibly the difficulty editors are confronting has to do with "what is most broadly published, what is narrowly published". ] 03:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

	==Time archive of Scientology stories==
	Time now has an online archive, and their collection of stories on Scientology is one of the ones that they are allowing free access to. Obviously links directly to Time would be preferable for online courtesy copies of references to Time stories. ] 14:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

	:After trying it a bit more, their main site seems to be unreliable as to if it shows the full story or just the first paragraph, possibly for bandwidth. Their proxy site seems to be consistent. At least one story that was in the International but not the American edition of Time seems to be missing from the collection. I wouldn't suggest doing a bulk change of all links just yet. ] 15:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

	:: Viewing the ''TIME'' site, for now they seem to present the first paragraph and selected other informations, things to lead people into buying subscription. Then, if a person buys a subscription they have full access to whole articles. ] 03:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

	== A couple questions: ==

	I've been searching for awhile, but there are still several questions I have relating to this religion. If anyone could answer these, I'd really appreciate it:

	When and where did the religion begin? I can't find any specifics on it...

	Does scientology have any kind of 'holy book'? If so, where could I find a brief explanation ofit?

	Anywhere I could find a list of the important or major beliefs of this religion? Things like, their theory of evolution, and what-not.
	::The word "Scientology" was first introduced to the public by L. Ron Hubbard in an audio lecture in Kansas, in 1952. He spent most of the lecture explaining the idea and why Dianetics, which he had been exploring and disseminating up to that time, why Dianetics was not workable in this new area. His first words on the subect were, "Scientology would be a study of knowledge", the Scien- means know, the same root word as science and the -ology means "study of". The lecture's title was ''Scientology: Milestone One''. The following links might be helpful, Scientology as presented on Misplaced Pages is not 100% factual and you can't depend on it to be. Too many editors work too hard hard to present controversy. and . ] 02:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

	:::In 1952 Hubbard had broken with the Hubbard Dianetic Foundation in Wichita, and the legal control of the Dianetics material, including royalties, were up in the air. That might explain why he felt that Dianetics wasn't workable at that time. ] 03:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::: Nope, that isn't what he says at all in the lecture. That difficulty was because a man he had depended on for monatary support had betrayed him. The reason be begin Scientology was entirely different and the timing is a coincidence and not a motivation. Dianetics found that people were remembering things previous to the current lifetime. And the more Dianetics were run, the more poeple remembered. And if you ran those past memories in exactly the manner Dianetics had been running memories, the guy suddenly felt great and did better. Memory beyond the current lifetime was the motivation for Scientology. ] 04:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
	::::You're making a whole lot of claims, yet providing evidence to support none of them. --] 04:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
	::::: My statements include a source, ''Scientology: Milestone One''. I have summerized certain portions of that lecture in my statement. To my knowledge, that lecture is not available online. Perhaps it would not be beyond Misplaced Pages's guidelines if I quoted various bits from that lecture here on this page, would that be all right? ] 04:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

	Thanks.

	:There's a great article on ] at Misplaced Pages. It will answer your questions. ] 01:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
	:: The "great article" mispresents certain elements of Scientology. You can't count on Misplaced Pages being 100% factual, 100% of the time. As one example, the first 2 sentences of ], last I looked, presented that Scientology has "beliefs" whereas, in fact, Scientology is a body of knowledge, a philosophy. The ] might, argueably, present certain beliefs, but the subject it self is knowledge and doesn't present beliefs. ] 02:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::As you can see by this small excerpt, Terryeo's reasons for complaining about the accuracy of the Scientology articles are generally nonsense. He claims here that Scientology does not have "beliefs", a claim contradicted by http://www.scientology.org , which describes the core beliefs of Scientology and acknowledges that they ''are'' beliefs by inviting the reader to "Learn more about the beliefs of Scientology". Even if his own church was not contradicting him about his own religion on this point, it would still be an invalid point; what he is claiming is that since ''he'' has chosen to believe that all the beliefs of Scientology are true, they are no longer "beliefs", but "knowledge". This is as ludicrous as it would be if, in a court case, an overzealous prosecutor continuously referred to the ''charges'' against the defendant as "the verdict". It is not for the prosecutor to decide that the verdict is exactly the same thing as his charges, and it is not for Terryeo to decide that "knowledge" is the exact same thing as the religious beliefs of Scientology. -- ] 16:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::: Indeed, Feldspar, an excellent choice of link which illustrates exactly what I have stated. "Scientology" is a body of knowledge, a philosophy while the Church of Scientology presents certain aspects which might be called beliefs. However, those ideas which that link mentions, might be called "beliefs" are presented by the Church. Whereas the body of information, the philosophy which is Scientology is a body of knowledge. ] 07:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Translation: "Despite my argument being completely torpedoed by your evidence, evidence coming from the very source that I have often insisted to ''you'' is the source you should be turning to for ''all'' your information on the subject, I will repeat my argument in the hopes no one will notice that I am just wasting their time. Happy ho-hos, Terryeo." -- ] 13:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
	::::::: Written on the page, present in books is a body of knowledge. That is Scientology. It states information. People ''might'' interpret that information and believe it, or not believe it, thence the ] professes ''beliefs''.] 03:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
	::::::::Hey, Terryeo? Just out of curiosity, when OSA hatted you for Operation Dev-T-Misplaced Pages, did they provide you with a talking points memorandum of false claims to keep insisting on no matter what, or did you generate your own? -- ] 16:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
	::::::::: You have couched a question within an assumption. Your assumption has to do with an organization with the Church, the OSA. You have assumed a relationship between that organization and myself and have asked me a question based on your assumption. I have responded to direct questions in that area a number of times, Feldspar. You could have asked me in a civil manner. I have responded to civil questions of that nature several times, to several editors. I am not a member of the Office of Special Affairs, I have never communicated in any way with them as an organization, nor, to my knowledge, with any member of that organization. Nor do I edit with their knowledge. Likewise with every organization of Scientology. I am an individual who edits as any individual does and am not a member of any organization, nor do I operate with the knowledge nor the permission of any organization. I am a member of the Church of Scientology in the sense that I belong to the International Association of Scientologists, I am a "public" in the Church's view and have taken a few public courses and actions. Please be more civil in the future, Feldspar. You have made an accusation rather than asking a direct question. ] 04:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::: In fact Scientology IS knowledge but for a non-Scientology publics this knowledge is presented by the church as beliefs (see Scientology.org). This knowledge then becomes truth to a Scientology public only when he has experience it himself or when this Scientology public has accepted it as truth for him. However if a Scientologist accepts all what LRH says as truth he would greatly lack in -integrity- since they are data that must be experienced to be real to someone. It is hard to believe in Dianetics or Scientology when one has never audited, been audited and/or seen someone audit someone else. ] 17:40, 16 May 2006 (GMT)

	:::::Well, as has just been explained, Scientology beliefs ''are'' beliefs. They do not become "knowledge" when someone decides to believe them very intensely, or fully. It might be argued that ''according to Scientology beliefs'', someone who chooses to believe something very intently indeed makes it so, but it would, of course, be circular logic to conclude therefore that Scientology beliefs are knowledge because a believer in Scientology has chosen to ''believe'' so. These articles are to be written ''about'' Scientology beliefs, not ''according to'' Scientology beliefs. This is something about which some editors have expressed great confusion.
	:::::As for it being hard to believe in Dianetics or Scientology when one has never participated in or observed the act of auditing first-hand, yes, that's true. It is also very hard to believe that a stage magician has pulled a rabbit out of an empty hat, if one is not watching the magician's stage show. However, this in no way logically implies that the person who ''does'' watch the stage show and ''does'' think the magician pulled a rabbit out of a hat is correct in so thinking. -- ] 18:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
	::::::: Scientology presents information. It doesn't say, "hey, this is a belief" and "this is knowledge", it just presents information. It encourages skepticsm, it actively encourages skepticsm. It says, as an example, "people are aware ''that'' they are aware", this aspect of individuality we will call "thetan". But its not presented as a belief. It defines certain ideas and builds with them. ] 07:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::It may not be ''presented'' as a belief, but that's exactly what it is. Scientology does not just "define" certain ideas and "build" with them, it actively asserts them to be true. "Thetan" is not just defined as "that which is aware of being aware", it is asserted to have specific abilities. These are beliefs. Everything you and Jpierreg have said to the contrary are simply word-games. -- ] 13:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::::Again, "beleifs" exist in the mind of man, while information exists. Beliefs are something people apply or don't apply to information they have.] 03:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
	::::::::::Flunk, M/U, go back and word-clear "beliefs". -- ] 16:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

	<small>
	</small>states 1) The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another. "A mental act" is done by an individual, it would be an idea held in the mind of man. Hubbard suggested skepticsm, he did not encourage and even discouraged people to take literally and believe literally the words he wrote. 2) Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something. "Mental acceptance" is something that a person does, it is not the word on the page but the action in the mind of man. An individual might or might not accept Scientology, but its author did not encourage that a person should, instead he suggested a person be skeptical. 3)Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons. ''This'' is the meaning most readers will use when they read the article. It especially applies to religion, but can apply to any area. It says, "accepted by people" and that means "accepted by individuals, accepted in the mind of man". A belief is an idea which exists in the mind of man.

	If you asked a man, "do you believe in science" he would say sure. But if you asked him, "does science propose that I believe in it?" he would say, "of course not !". There is more than a single meaning of the word "belief". Scientology is a group of information, written words. It makes statements. Its author suggested a person be skeptical of its statements. Its author didn't suggest, "believe in this stuff", Hubbard didn't make statements like that. He made statements, he wrote information. Scientology is a collection of those words, and not a "system of beliefs". However, The Church of Scientology selects certain of the statements composing the philosopy, Scientology. The Church then presents that those statements might be considered beliefs. For example, the Church points to Hubbard's statements about the supreme being, for which Hubbard used the term, "the 8th dynamic". Hubbard did not present the 8th dynamic as "you should believe there is an 8th dynamic". Hubbard suggested skepticsm for all of his statements. Some of what he did say appears in the ''Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary'' pg. 129. It says, "the eighth dynamic -- is the urge toward existence as infinity. This is also identified as the Supreme Being." Nothing there about "belief", you see? Hubbard speaks of an "urge toward existence" but he didn't say, "you should feel this urge" nor did he say, "you should believe in this urge". He just said, "there is an urge toward existence" and defined a bit about the urge. But the Church of Scientology freely presents a belief in the supreme being. It isn't accurate for this article, Scientology, to present "Scientology is a series of beliefs....". But that statement could appear in the ] article. ] 18:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

	::::::Hello Jpierreg. I would not want to get into long philosophical debates about the nature of reality or postmodern thought, but in general, reality is not seen as a point of view, and beliefs are not knowledge. Misplaced Pages uses science as a light to shine on pseudoscience. Scientific method sees objectivity as possible (reality is not just a shared reality), and belief is more a matter of religion. The claims of Scientology proponents don't stand up to scientific scrutiny in both theory and practice. They are holding beliefs, both religious and self-efficacy, but there is no way you could call scientifically it knowledge, or knowing about knowing. I understand that is how Scientology is promoted though, through obscurantisms and confusion between belief and knowledge. Clearly there are enough editors here who know the difference and can help the reader through the minefield. Regards ] 03:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

	::::::I personally think HeadleyDown's explanation above is rather wide of the mark - Misplaced Pages isn't an exposé, nor does it set out to propound scientific method. It does not attempt to separate the "truthful" subjects from the "fallacious". Indeed, it does not even set out to define beliefs and methodology as being either scientific or pseudoscientific; the spirit of the ] policy is exactly that we serve to relay the claims of primary sources stating these as claims coming from those specific sources. That is what we do when writing about Scientology, or indeed about any other topic; Antaeus is quite right in the principles of his explanation above, although I think that perhaps the comparison, albeit an implicit one, that Scientology is analogous to a magic show is perhaps rather unnecessarily controversial. Basically the point is we relay what one side says about the subject, and what the other side says as well; it really is that simple. Whether or not the characterisations propounded by the sources in questions are correct or incorrect is in truth immaterial provided we document who has made those characterisations. Although I know that many contributors here will cringe when I say this, LRH said, as famously quoted, "what is true for you is true for you". What is true for you is, however, not what is true from another - the issue of perspective - and so Misplaced Pages merges those perspectives as exactly that, different perspectives, and labels them as such. --] \| ] 03:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::Thank you, Nicholas -- an excellent explation. I am sorry if I offended you with my analogy of a magic show. I have studied in formal logic and I am used to the norms that prevail there; if someone presents you with an argument whose logic is faulty, you show them an argument with identical structure, with premises that everyone would agree are at least as true as those of the original argument, and a conclusion everyone would agree is false. The point isn't to imply similarities between the entities discussed in the original argument and the entities postulated in the counter-argument; the point is to show that the argument which was presented does not represent a way to put together reliable premises to reach a conclusion that is equally reliable. I did not choose a magic show as the vehicle of the metaphor in order to say "Scientology is like a magic show" but rather because everyone recognizes that an argument which ends "therefore, everything which appeared to happen in the magic show ''really did'' happen" is an argument that went wrong somewhere. I apologize if it appeared that I was instead trying to make implicit comments with my choice of vehicle. -- ] 12:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

	:::::::I totally agree Nicholas. With a subject as controversial as this, we are never going to get agreement on what is 'true' and what isn't. The best we can do is ''report'' who says what and who disagrees. ie ] & ] ] 03:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

	::::::::Thanks for the prompt replies. Postmodern or New Age thinking is generally averse to the concept of objectivity. This is very different to that of the scientific method (and of course different from most Western modern thought). This is the difference between Scientology and the majority (science). We certainly don't need Misplaced Pages to spell out what is true or not. But in subjects of pseudoscience, science takes priority. Clarity is important with such obscure subjects, and it would be wrong for the article to characterize the issue as "the woman was really sawn in half according to a significant portion of the audience". I am suggesting that the scientific method or at least scientific theory is crucial in order to explain the matter from the scientific point of view. Pseudoscience is not on a par with science, and belief does not equal knowledge from this perspective. Regards ] 04:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

	::::::::::Hi again. Just a thought: Is the term "Scientology" considered an obscurantism in itself by any particular view? I mean it is something that is designed to look scientific, but has no reliable basis in science. It would be something that claims knowledge, but fails to deliver according to the majority view of objective scientific method. Regards ] 05:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
	::::::::::: Hubbard first used the word publically in Kasas, 1952 and stated, "Scientology would be a study of knowledge". That lecture isn't present at this time at ] but sometimes it is. From that first lecture he made it plain that -ology (study of), study of knowledge, would intrude into the realm of religion. ] 03:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


	:'''Holy hell''', I was just looking for the answers to these questions. Thanks Terryeo

	::----------- QUOTE ------------------
	::When and where did the religion begin? I can't find any specifics on it...
	::---------- UNQUOTE -----------------
	::Hello, check this following link to see an historic of how Scn. began:

	::http://www.scientology.org/p_jpg/wis/wiseng/36/36-50s.htm

	::-- ] 01:45, 18 May 2006 (GMT)

	:::Stop linkspamming. This is an ENCYCLOPEDIA. Point him to a page with the info. --] 01:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::::InShanee, doesn't it point out pretty clearly, a person has to come to this page to find the answer to the very very first questions anyone would ask? Rather than find that information in the article and those links in the article? Doesn't that illustrate how these articles should be written and should be referenced and should be presented to the reader. Instead of the manner of presenting "Scientology is beliefs......etc". ? Doesn't that make sense to you? ] 04:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
	::::::So what you're saying is that the entire style we've been writing the encyclopedia in for all these years is wrong? No, that doesn't make the slightest bit of sense to me, but it does sound like you're trying to excuse spamming links to Scientology sites since you can't edit this page to make it read like you want to. --] 04:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::: OMG no Shaneee, I don't think that is true at all. Most of the time, most of Wikipolicy and guideline works. Obviously. Look what procedures and editors and administrators have produced! It is a lot. No, I'm talking minor tweaks, minor corrections, minor instances of enthusiastic editors removing some cited links and putting what they think are better cited links. Probably the religious articles are the tip of the spear sort of thing. 99 percent of the guidelines work 99 percent of the time. No, I'm not at all saying that, not at all. To take as an example and expand it out and examine it that link which speaks of the first date of the modern Church of Scientology. It was in the first paragraph of the article. At the time there was a fair amount of discussion, whether to put that date or the date of the first church (which no longer exists). The 1954 date appears at the top of the linked page and most of the people who are active in the Church felt it was an appropriate presentation. But a majority of editors (ChrisO, Feldspar, Modemac, Wikipediatrix, I don't remember exactly Raymond Hill maybe) majority wanted the first date of the church, 1953 in New Jersey, which no longer exists. Well, ] doesn't say which to use, ] would allow either date because both are documentable. I'm not saying things don't work, things do work but there are some minor difficulties in controversial articles. ] 07:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::: I checked the ] article. It used to have the 1954 date, when the present Church of Scientology was founded, as a first reference, but someone has changed that. That information is . That used to be the first link and reference in that article. Now I can't find it in the article at all.] 03:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

	==Brainscams==
	Hi again. Here is something that may warrant addition (or at least help clarify certain points here).

	In Beyerstein’s paper on Brainscams: Neuromythologies of the New Age. (1990p28) he states that

	“The areas of science that enjoy the greatest prestige at any moment are the most tempting targets for appropriation by pseudoscientists. Capitalizing on dramatic progress in the neurosciences, the merchants of personal success were quick to commandeer neurological jargon to provide a patina of authority. Scientology's "engrams" and its notorious "e-meter" were pioneers in this trend.”

	Beyerstein, B. L. (1990) Brainscams: Neuromythologies of the New Age. Intl. J. of Mental Health. Special issue on quackery 19(3):27-36.

	== Moved from my user talk page... ==

	regarding Scientology - it is not NPOV to characterize L. Ron Hubbard as a Pulp Fiction Author. In fact even to characterize him as an "author" characterizes him in such a way the it is not NPOV. {{unsigned\|12.99.252.203}}

	:I'm afraid you misunderstand NPOV, if you think that it allows you to remove completely true facts because you don't like the way the information reflects upon the subject. You claim that even referring to him as an "author" violates NPOV -- how exactly do you figure that is? Because, even though he is provably an author, even though he is provably a ''pulp fiction'' author, Scientologists would rather think of him as a philosopher? According him that status ''would'' violate NPOV. -- ] 19:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

	That's a fine assertion, but to single out the pulp fiction as the only distinguishing characteristic is to bias by limited characterization. Either make it broad to include many of Hubbard's accomplishments or leave it neutral by just stating that L. Ron Hubbard is the founder and one can detail who he was further in his the LRH Misplaced Pages entry.
	]

	:The vast majority of his works have been pulp fiction novels, and that's also what he's best known for. --] 22:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
	:: Yes, a lot of people have that impression. However, the amount of shelf space of his fiction might be 10 feet. The amount of shelf space of his writing in Dianetics and Scientology is more like 25 feet of shelf space. A substantial way of comparing the difference might be to go to and search for "L. Ron Hubbard". Another method invovles a photograph the Church has at a website I forget right now, they show maybe 8 feet by 6 feet full of books, every book different, every book or audio lecture from Hubbard. ] 23:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

	:::Upon the inception of Scientology LRH was undoubtly a pulp fiction author, that's what the article says; that scientology was created by a pulp fiction author. And that couldn't be more accurate. - ''''']]]''''' ''<small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> ]</small>'' 08:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::: The inception of Scientology happened in 1952. At the inception of Dianetics, 1950, Hubbard was best known for his fiction. But by 1952 he had began to be known for Dianetics and by 1954, when today's church was founded he was know for his writings in Dianetics and Scientology. None of his fiction stories reached the best selling status that his ] did. Therefore, as an introduction to ], that's a terrific line, but for the introduction to this article, Scientology, there is at least some room for other points of view, I would say. ] 09:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
	The introduction presently states:
	*Scientology is a system of beliefs and practices created by American pulp fiction author L. Ron Hubbard in 1952 as a self-help philosophy. By 1960 Hubbard had redefined it as a "religion by its basic tenets". -- This is inaccurate in several ways. Scientology is a philosophy. When Hubbard first introduced it in 1952 at a lecture in Kansas he stated, "Scientology would be a study of knowledge" and went on to spell out why studying knowledge automatically puts it into the sphere of religion. It was not a 1960 redefinition, it was a 1952 introduction. There are no beliefs within it. It is statements. What an individual does with the information is his alone to decide on, Hubbard suggested skepticism. In 1952, Hubbard was known best for his best seller, ] and not known best for his pulp fiction. Nor for his screen play writing. Nor for his Explorer Club activity. Nor for his U.S. Navy experience, but for having authored a best seller and introducing Dianetics by book, lecture and demonstration. Scientology was not introduced as a self-help philosophy. Dianetics was, and still is, but Scientology was not and is not, though there are elements of self-help within it. ] 22:19, 20 May 2006 (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: