Talk:Scientology: Difference between revisions

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 Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33Auto-archiving period: 60 days

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 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 page is not a forum for general discussion about Scientology, or anything not directly related to improving the Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia article at the Reference desk.

Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States C‑class 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 Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion: New religious movements C‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia'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 articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. 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). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. 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 articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Scientology C‑class Top‑importance This article is supported by WikiProject Scientology, a collaborative effort to help develop and improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scientology. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on Scientology-related topics. See WikiProject Scientology and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.ScientologyWikipedia:WikiProject ScientologyTemplate:WikiProject ScientologyScientology articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

	Scientology is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 19, 2004 Refreshing brilliant prose Not kept

Template:ArbcomArticle

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 Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33Auto-archiving period: 60 days

This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Since the external publication copied Wikipedia rather than the reverse, please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source: Ben Hatch, Dinah Hatch (2010), Frommer's Britain For Free, John Wiley and Sons Additional comments Book uses parts of the lead and beliefs section of this article, apparently copied some time in 2009, without attribution

This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Since the external publication copied Wikipedia rather than the reverse, please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source: D. D. Ph.D Peter C Rogers (2009), Ultimate Truth, Book 1, AuthorHouse Additional comments Description of Scientologist beliefs is largely plagiarised from this article

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows: Neutral point of view as applied to science: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience. Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work. Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification. Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience. Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized. Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

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

I want to fix some grammatical errors and add some statistics to one of the pages that I have recently read on this website. Swag699 (talk) 02:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 03:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The file looks like this, https://www.rtc.org/pics/logo.jpg - Religious symbols of Scientology. Other than this, some sources for OFFICIAL Scientology symbols are: https://www.rtc.org/ , http://www.bonafidescientology.org/ by the very beautiful image of http://www.bonafidescientology.org/Chapter/04/img/pg11_1.jpg , Various symbols of Scientology. (Well, well, message is that there are more symbols to Scientology and that the Pyramid in particular is missing from the article. Alright?) Others? Cheers! 109.189.68.247 (talk) 17:19, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If there is any basis in historical fact for the teaching and belief system of Scientology, then I think there is desirable that information were included in this article, preferable near the beginning. Or have I missed something? P0mbal (talk) 11:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In what way? Hubbard started Scientology in the fifties. Laval (talk) 13:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a need for a definition of the word "Scientology", which I expect to mention the Latin SCIENTIA and the Ancient Greek logos. P0mbal (talk) 12:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If this is so fundamental, being near the beginning of the article, is there any evidence that the first assertion of this sentence is true? I would expect this to be discussed. The truth of the second part of the statement is based on the truth of the first part, which remains to be proved. I would like to know if Scientology has some basis in truth, and it's up to the founders to demonstrate this. P0mbal (talk) 13:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC) Maybe I shouldn't question it. If it's a belief system then it does not have to be based on facts, which worries me, because then anything can be stated! P0mbal (talk) 13:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology beliefs and practices is reading more like an advertisement and this one is really slowly becoming like that too. The tone throughout both articles doesn't jive well as WP:NPOV -- some parts are becoming way too promotional, other parts too negative or confused. Might be easier to edit this article toward NPOV by moving more chunks to their respective subarticles and delegate from there? There are a bunch of subarticles that are virtually empty and lacking sources. Just my 2 cents FWIW. Laval (talk) 13:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]