Jump to content

Talk:Scientology: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Coffeepusher (talk | contribs)
7,488 edits
Coffeepusher (talk | contribs)
7,488 edits
removed biting comment
Line 233: Line 233:
Your logic doesn't address the lede as it already exists. Why then are France, Germany and the UK, notable? Perhaps the statement should be deleted altogether if you feel that it's already included further in the article. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.52.240.108|24.52.240.108]] ([[User talk:24.52.240.108|talk]]) 03:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Your logic doesn't address the lede as it already exists. Why then are France, Germany and the UK, notable? Perhaps the statement should be deleted altogether if you feel that it's already included further in the article. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.52.240.108|24.52.240.108]] ([[User talk:24.52.240.108|talk]]) 03:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:thanks for sharing.[[User:Coffeepusher|Coffeepusher]] ([[User talk:Coffeepusher|talk]]) 03:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
:thanks for sharing.[[User:Coffeepusher|Coffeepusher]] ([[User talk:Coffeepusher|talk]]) 03:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
::Wikipedia has just proven your law school wrong.[[User:Coffeepusher|Coffeepusher]] ([[User talk:Coffeepusher|talk]]) 04:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 11:55, 13 February 2012

Former featured article candidateScientology 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
DateProcessResult
January 19, 2004Refreshing brilliant proseNot kept

Template:ArbcomArticle

Source Failure

A lot of the source links that are pro-scientology don't work. And many of the rest (260 being the first one that got my attention, but there are a lot) are referencing Wikipedia. A source (Wikipedia) can't site itself as evidence. This has to change or non-functioning and self-referencing links will be removed. StolenBlueBox (talk) 06:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All links to other wikipedia articles should be replaced with "source needed". Petter Bøckman (talk) 07:31, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a citation to Wikipedia. When clicked on it leads to [1]. See Wikipedia:Cite#Short_citations. --JN466 12:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology says 'cult' tag defames the church

http://www.watoday.com.au/national/scientology-says-cult-tag-defames-the-church-20110709-1h7rq.html

Possible source for improving the article? DigitalC (talk) 18:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That goes without saying, cult has a negative connotation. Also, scientologists have tried to get the term cult removed before, try again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.49.24.190 (talk) 23:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's because it is a cult Kfcdesuland (talk) 19:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bias under beliefs

Under the beliefs header, the way things are formated almost suggests a bias towards the religion. I think that someone might want to review this, and perhaps scan the rest of the article. --PiKaPi talk blog 19:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you elaborate and point to specific example or issues with it? Explaining how it is biased would prove useful in doing something about it. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 19:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that this nonsense actually has an article is pretty biased in itself already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.1.49 (talk) 13:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Cult"?

Can that possibly be NPOV? It's my personal opinion that Scientology IS a cult, but can we really say something like that here at all, let alone without a citation? Christianity is a cult too (and I'm a Christian), but I doubt we'd ever dare refer to it as such. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 00:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing. It was changed to cult a couple of days ago and it seems no one spotted it. I've restored the longstanding version of the lead sentence. --JN466 00:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No need to lie, evanh. It is a consistently used tactic for scientologists to use "im with you" jargon to get people to agree with them, if you actually have a legitimate reason for removing the term please say so, otherwise stay out of the discussion page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.49.47.34 (talk) 18:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is usually refered to in a negative way by most media and often refered to as a cult by them and by governments around the world. Is anyone actually denying that it is a cult (apart from Americans and Scientologists)? Personally, I think that cult is too weak as scam or crime is more suitable but I will settle for cult.--151.59.146.148 (talk) 19:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at what the generally accepted definitions of contemporary usage of the term are, every religion and a great many businesses are cults, and the Scientology crime syndicate certainly classifies as a business cult much as more traditional organized crime syndicates such as the Gambino crime family can classify as business cults. Christianity and Islam are cults according to all generally accepted terms, so there is no reason to consider the term to be either positive or negative, the term's definitive usage is neutral. Damotclese (talk) 22:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
it's definitive usage being neutral isn't relevant. It implies something negative, and it implies that it's a false belief. I'm actually Catholic and think Scientology is absolutely freaking nuts, but cult is a loaded word. I'd remove it until there is a thorough sourced section on the opinion that it's a cult. --Cabazap (talk) 21:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

please see WP:TALK, this is not a forum for the usage of the word "cult." no where in this article does it describe scientology as a "cult" except in places where it is quoting criticism from WP:RS, the original post was referring to something that was identified as vandalism. please check the article and identify a problem.Coffeepusher (talk) 22:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles conflict re: Hubbard's endorsement/rejection of Freudian theory

I'm not a contributor to these articles, but thought to point out a glaring conflict between the wiki article Scientology and psychiatry, which states:

L. Ron Hubbard, Scientology's founder, was critical of both Freudian theory and biopsychiatry.[4][5][6]

and this article (Scientology and psychiatry), which states:

Sigmund Freud's psychology, popularized in the 1930s and 1940s, was a key contributor to the Dianetics therapy model, and was acknowledged unreservedly as such by Hubbard.[133]

Thought it worth pointing out so that those in the know could correct or clarify as appropriate. (I posted this same message at the talk page for the Scientology and psychiatry wiki) Allonepeople (talk) 02:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

unfortunately for me, the source for that statement in this article is in German. Do we have any German readers who could fact check "Willms, Gerald (2005). Scientology: Kulturbeobachtungen jenseits der Devianz. Bielefeld, Germany: transcript Verlag. ISBN 3-89942-330-5" and compare it to the other articles sources: "Hubbard L.R. (1969) Crime and Psychiatry" and "Hubbard L.R. (1980) Criminals and Psychiatry"?Coffeepusher (talk) 14:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a translation of the passage from Willms (p. 58):

One of the few explicit intellectual influences on Hubbard, and thus the scientological model of reality, is the popular-science reception of Freud in the 1930s and 1940s, whose basic assumptions had a defining influence on the Dianetical understanding of therapy. This includes the basic elements of his teaching about the mind, the analytic and reactive mind, which are so closely modelled on the concepts of the conscious and unconscious mind that one has to assume an explicit and significant influence on the scientological model of reality (Wallis 1976a: 31ff., Whitehead 1987: 21) – even if Hubbard turns the Freudian intentions of psychotherapy upside down with the practice of Dianetics. [Footnote 24: What Freud was ultimately concerned with was using the unconscious as a means to open a pathway to the complexity of what it means to be human, while the practice of Dianetics is aimed at no less than the extinction of the unconscious (see Fromm 1950: 7 for general background on Hubbard's misunderstanding of Freud).] At least in his early works, Hubbard expressly acknowledged Freud positively: "[...] no praise can be great enough to give such a man, and the credit I give him for my own inspiration and work is entirely without reservation or bounds" [Footnote 25: Hubbard 1955a (216). See also: "A Brief History of Psychotherapy, DAB 1951, Vol. 2, No. 59, November 1951 in TB 1979, Vol. I: 181ff. as well as "The Hope of Man", Ability, Minor 5, June 1955 in TB 1979, Vol. II: 209. The constant reference to his close personal friendship with a declared Freud pupil and expert (Commander S. Thompson) likewise speaks in favour of an adaptation of Freudian thinking (ibid., I, again 1951a: Thanks, Hubbard 1952b: Dedication)].

The "no praise ..." quote is given in the original English by Willms. In the passage that follows this, Willms comments on Scientology's opposition to and conspiracy theories about any kind of psychological establishment in society, a contradiction which he says is solved by viewing Scientology not as a psychological teaching, but as the result of Hubbard's independent research into the basic nature of the mind. Bromley and Cowan are here. --JN466 22:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited the passage slightly: [2] Some of the quotes Willms references are available here. --JN466 22:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is some confusion because Hubbard himself was greatly confused and changed his mind about the mental health industry a number of times. He had hoped that his Dianetics would be accepted along side of actual mental health and after having his pleas for paid psychiatric assistance from the Veterans Administration rejected, he sought to supplant actual mental health with his Dianetics beliefs.
There are endless conflicting quotes one can find in Hubbard's prolific written and audio works which merely reflect an unfortunate mind teetering on the edge of the madness for which he begged the VA's Office for assistance combatting, the contradictions do not indicate a failure with the validity of quotes attributed to him, it indicates the changes in Hubbard's mindset as his physical mental, and emotional states altered over time. Damotclese (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:ScientologyCenter1.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:ScientologyCenter1.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dubiousness of intro sentence

"Some former members claim that some of Hubbard's writings on this remote extraterrestrial past, included in confidential Upper Levels, are not revealed to practitioners until they have paid thousands of dollars to the Church of Scientology."

I've mentioned this a few times over the years, but this ridiculous must be resolved. The space opera and extraterrestrial stuff is clearly "revealed" in publicly available books and lectures like A History of Man and literally dozens and dozens of lecture series that may be purchased at any Church bookstore or perused in their Church libraries (and also can be found in plenty of regular libraries.) The OT levels barely contain any space opera except for the OT III Xenu and BTs business, and by that point, Scientologists have been fully indoctrinated to accept space opera via the dozens of lectures they are required to endure to attain eligibility for the OT levels.

So excuse me if I find the claims of a few disgruntled members who claim they were "shcoked" and "surprised" to learn that they suffer from clusters of BTs and were exploded in volcanoes by an intergalatic dictator. Its nonsense since OT eligibility requires a multitude of prerequisite courses which involve listening to hundreds of lectures and auditing past lives back to trillions of years and so forth. By the time OT III arrives, the Scientologist has been forced to audit so many imaginary incidents in distant galaxies that Xenu and the BT problem would not be surprising at all.

So, can we begin to clarify this issue for the average reader and enlighten them as to the reality that there is nothing secret in Scientology about space opera? Laval (talk) 05:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point. Melton pointed out that basically all the space opera stuff can be found in various openly available lectures etc., provided you know where to look. (See Talk:Xenu#Interesting_source). On the other hand, some former members have said things like that, and it is sourced. I believe I recall Atack for example writing that OT III was not what he had expected. --JN466 05:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, the Church of Scientology have on several occasions sued for keeping the OT III (the Xenu story) out of public circulation, citing copyright infringement or trade secrets. While much of the space opera in Scientology is openly available, the Xenu/body thetan story is not. I guess we'll need to differentiate between the publicly available stuff and the OT III and up material. Petter Bøckman (talk) 07:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to Controversies

I do small edits and such, but I am not experienced enough at this site to even begin to want to touch this article. However, the recent claims that a woman was imprisoned for several years on a Scientology cruise ship may be a point of interest for section 7, controversies. The article is here http://www.limelife.com/blog-entry/Scientologists-Imprisoned-Woman-On-A-Cruise-Ship-For-12-Years/138132.html and their official statement is here http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-11-28/church-of-scientology-statement/3700214 Myrab51 (talk) 17:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rathbun, Rinder, and "Independent Scientologists"

The article says: "more recently, high-profile defectors Mark Rathbun and Mike Rinder have formed the nucleus of a group of Independent Scientologists".

This is very problematic:

  • What is "recently"?
  • What exactly makes them more high-profile than other defectors?
  • Are they really a nucleus of one group? Is this group organized somehow? The name is capitalized - does it mean anything?

This should be clarified or removed. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 21:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

... Now i watched the BBC documentary in which they are critical of the Church. It says that they are working to reform the movement, but i didn't get the impression that they are "the nucleus of a group". Are there any other sources which would be more specific? --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 13:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Rathbun, now a leading figure in a movement for Scientologists to practice independently of the church" "'Radical Corporate Scientology' is what I think Mike [Rinder] is referring to here, an epithet he and Marty Rathbun, another former high-ranking Scientology official, assign to the official church under David Miscavige." Rathbun, who was Miscavige's right-hand man for years, left the church in 2004 and runs a blog for "Independent Scientologists." and there are others like that. --JN466 16:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Radar online calls Rathbun "high profile". http://www.radaronline.com/category/tags/marty-rathbun Petter Bøckman (talk) 19:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to Inside Scientology, both were highly ranking members of the Church of Scientology before they left it. They have both been regularly featured in the media since then, so I believe the term accurate, although a more precise term, like maybe "former high-ranking members of the Church of Scientology," might be better. John Carter (talk) 19:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I read all the articles, and none of them clearly assert that Rathbun and Rinder are the nucleus of a group of Independent Scientologists. The Tampa Bay article says that Rathbun is a leading figure. Other articles say that they are many Independent Scientologists, but don't say anything clear about a "nucleus". So it's clear enough that Rinder and Rathbun are associated with one another, but it's not yet completely clear how are they associated with "a movement of Independent Scientologists" other than calling themselves "Independent Scientologists" and being outspoken about it.
I'm probably OK with saying that Rathbun and Rinder are the most prominent recent defectors, but their current role must be clarified. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 12:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also see Sunday Times article. Some related primary sources: http://www.scientology-cult.com/ http://www.scientology-cult.com/scientology-blog.html (note mentions of both Marty Rathbun and Mike Rinder) http://www.freeandable.com/ The first Independent's Day meeting took place at Rathbun's home. [3] [4] As far as I can tell, Rathbun's blog has been a place where people have connected, so the description is basically accurate.
But to avoid the "nucleus of a movement" debate, perhaps we should simply say "have championed the cause of Independent Scientologists", based on the Sunday Times quote "Rinder lives and breathes Independent scientology", and "Rathbun, now a leading figure in a movement for Scientologists to practice independently of the church" in the Tampa Bay Times. --JN466 16:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done [5] --JN466 14:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 9 January 2012

replace "controversial new religious movements" with "controversial of the new religious movements"

Erjoalgo (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Adds the unnecessary connotation that all new religious movements are controversial. — Bility (talk) 22:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

L. Ron Hubbard the Author

On the lede paragraph of this article referring to L. Ron Hubbard as a science fiction and fantasy author. Fact of the matter is that he wrote in many genres: adventure, western, science fiction, fantasy and articles for newspapers and magazines. He cannot be classifed simply as a "Science Fiction author." In the following reference: Encyclopedia of American religious history, Volume 3 By Edward L. Queen, Stephen R. Prothero, Gardiner H. Shattuck - this information is supported. This is the exact text in the encyclopedia:

"From the 1930's until around 1950, Hubbard spent much of his time as a writer of pulp fiction. Also best known as a science fiction writer, Hubbard also wrote western, fantasy, and adventure novels."

In order to acknowledge the wide scope of his writing and not limit him to two genres, I propose we change this to: "Scientology is a body of beliefs and related practices created by author L. Ron Hubbard (1911-1986)..."

Thanks.NestleNW911 (talk) 23:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since he is primarily known as a science fiction author, I think it should be mentioned in the text. The current text may not be perfect, but the proposed text do not reflect the the source you cite, as the term "author" alone usually implies a writer with a somewhat distinguished career. My suggestion: "Scientology is a body of beliefs and related practices created by L. Ron Hubbard (1911-1986), best known as a science fiction and other pulp genera author, ..." Petter Bøckman (talk) 07:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I like Petter's proposal because he is correct that it better reflects theWP:RSCoffeepusher (talk) 15:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be silly. He is certainly not best known as a science fiction and pulp author today. He is best known as the founder of Scientology. --JN466 17:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In my view we should go back to simply referring to him as "L. Ron Hubbard" in the lead. That was a longstanding version of the lead sentence and in line with practice in the majority of encyclopedias I was able to find, including Britannica [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]; [12]. His writing career is appropriately covered in the body of the article. --JN466 17:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2nd! Petter Bøckman (talk) 18:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm good with that, it will stop this yearly argument that keeps occurring. Ill make the changeCoffeepusher (talk) 18:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --JN466 14:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Joseph A. Winter

Thank you for acknowledging my proposal. All for the continued improvement of this page. I've been doing some research on Dr. Joseph A. Winter, one of Hubbard's key supporters on his Dianetics ideas. The Dianetics portion of this article seems to be lacking NPOV, as it does not present exactly why it was supported by the people who did. It merely shows that the ideas were presented by Winter and rejected. It will serve the readers to know more about Winter, why he supported Dianetics, and ultimately, get a more balanced idea about Dianetics.

I would add after the sentence, "Two of Hubbard's key supporters at the time were John W. Campbell Jr., the editor of Astounding Science Fiction, and Dr. Joseph A. Winter."

"Joseph Augustus Winter is an M.D. who got into Dianetics in its early, science-fiction days. Physician Winter, a Manhattan psychosomaticist, was impressed by Hubbard's theory that the mind can register impressions ("engrams") even during unconsciousness. And he was soon convinced that the Dianetics technique of relieving emotional upsets by reliving them before another Dianetics devotee ("auditing") was an improvement on psychoanalysis."

Reference: Departure in Dianetics. Time [serial online]. September 3, 1951;58(10):53. Available from: Academic Search Premier, Ipswich, MA. Accessed January 9, 2012.

Thoughts?NestleNW911 (talk) 01:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

well after reading the article [13] I think that we would also need to talk about the fact that he completely abandoned scientology because L. Ron. was 'absolutistic and authoritarian' and that scientology "became less & less interested in research, more interested in spreading the word. Last winter, Winter flounced out. He was finding orthodox dianetics 'ritualistic and sterile.'" and that "Physician Winter tries to filter Hubbard's strange mixture and pick out the scraps fit for human consumption. He rejects such gimmicks as the mental 'file clerk,' invested by Hubbard to chase about in the mind in search of mislaid impressions, and scoffs at the Hubbardians' "Guk" program. "Guk" was a mixture of vitamins and glutamic acid which was supposed to make dianetics subjects 'run better.'"Coffeepusher (talk) 05:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added information on the scholarly view in order to achieve more NPOV. Thanks.NestleNW911 (talk) 22:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notable countries that don't grant the CoS tax exempt status

The last sentence of the second paragraph of the lede states "In other countries, notably France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, Scientology does not have comparable religious status."

I would propose adding Canada to that list. The fact that a majority of G7 nations (ostensibly the most economically advanced nations, with similarly sophisticated legal systems and democratic ideals) don't extend the same rights to the Church of Scientology as they do to other religious organizations is notable, is it not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.52.240.108 (talk) 04:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

do you have a source for that?Coffeepusher (talk) 04:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The WP page Scientology in Canada has a reference (not online) listed [1] to what appears to be a book under the heading "Legal Status as a Religion." I'm not suggesting making the point about G7 nations and their legal systems (that would arguably be synthesis, and invite contention), but rather just that adding Canada as a notable nation that doesn't grant the CoS tax exempt status seems reasonable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.52.240.108 (talk) 05:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

looking through the page that information is already under the "status by country" section. I do not think it is necessary to put it into the lede.Coffeepusher (talk) 15:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then why is there a line in the lede at all, then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.52.240.108 (talk) 02:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To prevent the discussion from being reduced to pedantic linguistic circles, let me rephrase my point. While it could be debated whether or not Canada is "notable" enough to be included in the already existing statement, I am suggesting that when you consider that the other three nations listed are G7 nations, and that Canada is also a G7 nation, the fact that a majority of them don't extend tax free status to the CoS is notable. When I originally read the existing statement, I immediately scanned the article to see how other wealthy advanced nations treated the Church. Therefore, in THAT context, I think it is quite reasonable to include Canada in the statement in the lede. I'm also curious about Japan, but wasn't able to easily ascertain the Church's status in that country. Otherwise, if you object to duplicating information, then delete the statement altogether. The article is protected, or I would make the changes myself. I'm simply suggesting adding the one name. Other readers can draw (or not) the same conclusion that I did on their own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.52.240.108 (talk) 02:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it notable that it isn't recognized by Canada. We aren't saying that Canada isn't notable, we are saying that the failure to recognize Scientology hasn't produced any notable controversy so in this context it isn't notable enough for the lede.Coffeepusher (talk) 02:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, read the LINE I'm asking to be edited. It says "In other countries, notably France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, Scientology does not have comparable religious status." Read the context in which the statement is made. And then tell me that adding Canada in that list in no way makes sense to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.52.240.108 (talk) 02:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ok, because it isn't notable that it isn't recognized as a religion in Canada. It has official ministers, can perform marriages, isn't the subject of a Canadian task force, has non-profit charity status, it's ministers have clergy privileges with the government, they just don't have religious tax status...HOWEVER those other countries restrict Scientology in the ways that Canada doesn't which makes it notable.Coffeepusher (talk) 03:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, please read the lede. The second paragraph in particular. The statement is talking SPECIFICALLY about tax exempt status. Why is this such a difficult discussion? I'm simply asking for a one word edit, that makes supreme sense to me, for reasons I've tried to very clearly convey. Every counter has been completely off point, as though the editor in residence is just trying to protect the page, without actually reading or caring about the material. Either explain why the proposed edit doesn't make sense in the CONTEXT of the existing lede, or just say "We own the page and are not making edits."

I apologize for being curt, but it seems to me that either I'm not making myself clear, or you aren't actually looking at the material I'm referring to here. Please tell me if I'm unclear, and I will either try harder, or accept my own failing and give up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.52.240.108 (talk) 03:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it is worth noting that it is the statement immediately preceding the proposed edits that discusses the Church's supposition that tax exempt status is proof that it is a recognized religion. And then the statement in question noting that those three countries don't grant the CoS comparable status. Neither does Canada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.52.240.108 (talk) 03:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at the material...I've looked at it every single time you have accused me of not looking at it...I also know what a WP:LEDE is supposed to be and I have been asking you over and over again to explain why the fact that Canada doesn't recognize Scientology is notable...BECAUESE right now it is a one word mention in the body of the article and doesn't deserve a second mention up top if the ONLY thing that the article says is "here is a list of countries and Canada happens to be one of them" when those other countries have more information about them and it IS notable that they are restricting the religious status. NOW do you have a reason why it is notable or are you just going to keep asking me to re-read the same sentences over and over again all night?Coffeepusher (talk) 03:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
since you gave me a choice a little while back, I pick option "C" leave it the way it is. In the future you may want to work on those persuasion skills.Coffeepusher (talk) 03:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The option wasn't yours, it was mine. And you might want to work on your reading comprehension skills. But thanks for the input. My law school would beg to differ with you.

Paragraph 2 of the lede "...Scientology is legally recognized as a tax-exempt religion in the United States and some other countries,[10][11][12][13] and the Church of Scientology emphasizes this as proof that it is a bona fide religion.[14] In other countries, notably France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, Scientology does not have comparable religious status."

Let's deconstruct here, specifically, the word "comparable." In this instance, I don't believe that anyone could dispute that it means "tax exempt." OK, now that we're there (I hope), let's consider what I'm proposing. I propose that adding Canada to THAT statement is worthwhile, because the IMMEDIATE question that came to my mind when I originally read it was to wonder how the rest of the most advanced nations treat the Church. It isn't clear for Japan, it's tax exempt in Italy, and the article already explicitly states that it IS tax exempt in the US. It is NOT tax exempt in Canada. So, it would be reasonable if someone wanted to re-write the lede to take account of these facts, but what I'm simply proposing is that Canada be added to the already existing line in the lede. Alternatively, delete mention of individual countries, and just make the statement that the majority of G7 nations don't grant the CoS tax exempt status, although I would expect that statement to be more contentious. However, that FACT is far more notable than any of the individual countries mentioned, IMO. Since I expect stating it explicitly would be contentious, I propose simply adding Canada to the statement and allowing the reader to draw their own conclusion.

Your logic doesn't address the lede as it already exists. Why then are France, Germany and the UK, notable? Perhaps the statement should be deleted altogether if you feel that it's already included further in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.52.240.108 (talk) 03:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for sharing.Coffeepusher (talk) 03:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Scientology&oldid=476635040"