Jump to content

Talk:Scientology

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Coffeepusher (talk | contribs) at 16:59, 6 September 2009 (→donations?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


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

SCIENOTLOGY, secondary sources

I would like to (again) present some good scholarly sources on Scientology with the suggestion of adding them to the rest of the secondary sources in the Wiki-article on the subject: 1) Scientology, Social Science and the Definition of Religion, by James A. Beckford. Ph.D, Prof Sociology 2) Scientology, Comparison with Religions of the East and West, by Per-Arne Berglie, Prof History and Religion 3) Is Scientology a Religion?, by Allan W Black, Associate Prof of Sociology 4) Scientology, a New Religion, by M Darrol Bryant Ph.D, Prof Religion and Culture 5) Scientology, by Régis Dericquebourg, Prof of Sociology and Religion 6) Scientology and Contemporary Definitions of Religion in the Social Sciences, by Frank K Flinn Ph.D, Associate Prof of Sociology 7) Scientology and Contemporary Definitions of Religion in the Social Sciences, by Alejandro Frigerio, Ph.D, Associate Prof of Sociology 8) Scientology a True Religion, by Urbano Alonso Galan, Doctor of Phylosophy and Licenciate in Theology, Gregorian University and Saint Bonaventure Pontifical Faculty Rome 9) Scientology, its True Nature, by Harri Heino, Prof of Theology 10) Is Scientology a Religion?, by Dean M Kelley, Counsellor on Religious Liberty 11) The Reliability of Apostate Testimony about New Religious Movements, by Lonnie D Kliever, Dr.Phil, Prof of Religious Studies 12) Religious Philosophy, Religion and Church, by G C Oosthuizen, Th.D, Prof (retired) Dept of Science and Religion 13) The Religious Nature of Scientology, by Geoffrey Parrinder, Ph.D, Prof Emeritus 14) The Church of Scientology, by J Pentikainen, Ph.D 15) Scientology, its Historical and Morphological Frame, by Dario Sabbattuci, Prof of History and Religion 16) The Relationship between Scientology and other Religions, by Fumio Sawada, Eighth Holder of the Secrets of Yu-itsu Shinto 17) Scientology and Religion, by Christiaan Vonck, Ph.D, Rector Faculty for Comparative Study of Religions 18) Apostates and New Religious Movements and Social Change and New Religious Movements, by Bryan Ronald Wilson, Ph.D 19) Scientology, An Analysis and Comparison of its Religious Systems and Doctrines, by Bryan R. Wilson, Ph.D. Awaiting reply, Taodeptus (talk) 16:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Taopeptus[reply]

Would you be able to give the publication information so we can see if they qualify as reliable sources, because what we have now is just a bunch of individual qualifications of individuals who don't count as notable, so if they are self published they won't hold up.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so far...and I have only been through the first 12, but I am going to stop because the result is the same. Those that arn't published by the Church of Scientology have been self published on line, and at least 3 of the individuals cradentuals are in question as well (one doesn't have any record of existing outside of this publication, and 2 others I can find PhD's who's names match, but one is a linguist and another's vita doesn't match the cradentuals presented in the publication). So again, do any of these publications count as a reliable source?Coffeepusher (talk) 23:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. While the author is indeed notable, this publication does not show up anywhere in his Vita which covers publications, books, internet publications and lectures…which makes this self published at best, and a fabrication at worst. http://www.sociology.emory.edu/cv/cv_flechner.pdf

2. The only links to this article (including scholarly searches) came from the church. This is published through “freedom publications” and the search results on the website for all the freedom publications I could find did not turn up a 9 page article on scientology, no ISBN or other qualifying information could be found.

3. The only Allen Black PhD. I could find came from Harding University…While I am pretty sure what the Church of Christ has to say about anyone who aren’t Fundamentalist Christians, I checked out his vita with the same results as #1. http://www.hugsr.edu/community/CVs/Allen_Black.pdf Other than him, there is no Allen Black PhD. At the University of New England.

4. Can’t find any publication information, all websites that host doc are connected to the church. Appendix 5 of “scientology critique” on Scribd, uploaded by the church (you will begin to see a pattern…

5. Appendix 4. All publications…yada yada…

6. While less affluent than others, still no mention of this publication on his personal website. http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~fkflinn/

7. Appendix 6. And this man has only done one thing as shown here http://www.zoominfo.com/people/PersonDetailLimited.aspx?PersonID=4256627&lastName=Frigerio&searchSource=page&firstName=Alejandro&id=4256627&page=1 Have I mentioned that it is interesting that all these foreign nationals have been doing English publications while the rest of the stuff coming out of their universities appears to be in the native language.

8. Appendix 7…you know what. I think I am going to stop until someone comes up with any information validating these publications.Coffeepusher (talk) 01:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UFO Religion?

Why is this article in the category "UFO Religions" if none belief ,practice or basic mentions any "UFO God" or deity. Scientologists don't believe in extraterrestial beings as holy ones or something similar. It must be removed from this category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.245.241.187 (talk) 20:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The belief that we are reincarnated spirits of aliens is a significant component of Scientology. I don't think a "UFO God" is required for it to qualify. --GoodDamon 21:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First misunderstanding. People are not "reincarnated alien spirits," but rather "self-determined spirits taking a body" weather it's alien or not. Any way, aliens are a topic considered in Scientology, so I see no problem with categorizing as a "UFO Religion" RUL3R*flaming | *vandalism 05:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is largely one of semantics. The Princeton definition of reincarnation is "embodiment in a new form." A spirit "taking a body" definitely qualifies. --GoodDamon 18:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Spirits, Scientology suggests we are spirits animating human bodies. But, doesn't say anyone should believe. Rather, its teachings speak of the situation and leave beliefs to practitioners. It doesn't say, "you must believe that we are spirits". Second, "reincarnated", within Scientology texts, is specifically denied. Because "reincarnated" suggests the possibility of "coming back" as an animal or plant. So "reincarnated alien spirits" is denied within Scientology texts. Third, "alien spirits"; Stolen documents mention this idea but are poorly sourced, besides being stolen. While the Church's websites don't mention the idea at all. Thus, Clambake.org can say "UFO religion", but without substantial source, Wikipedia can not. John Fitzgerald Smith (talk) 11:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First, it doesn't matter whether Scientology requires belief in aliens of its practitioners. The text of the religion includes detailed information about alien spaceships and star systems. I make no judgments about that text other than that it exists, but it doesn't make sense to disregard that text merely because believing in it is optional. Besides, an argument could be made that the belief ceases to be optional when you reach the higher OT levels, since the self-auditing that occurs at those levels mostly involves directly addressing body thetans; it wouldn't make sense to address body thetans you don't actually believe exist. Secondly, please don't use the "stolen documents" argument here. The documents detailing the Xenu myth were formally authenticated -- by lawyers for the Church of Scientology -- in court cases. They aren't in question. Finally, the documents have since been republished and re-authenticated by various news organizations and scholars, and those are valid sources for Wikipedia to use. An argument could be made that they are taken out of context and misinterpreted, but the text itself is authentic, and there's no point arguing otherwise. This is Wikipedia, and if you want to edit here, it's not your job to defend your religion's secret doctrine -- nor is it anyone's job to attack it. It's just our job to reproduce it in as neutral a manner as possible. --GoodDamon 18:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here a source: Introduction to world religions‎ by Christopher Hugh Partridge (2005), Page 444: "Although sometimes classified as a UFO religion, the Church of Scientology is unusual in having no obvious spiritual ancestry. Science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard ..." It's clearly less obviously a UFO religion than the Raelians, but the classification has at times been made. I don't mind whether we have the cat or not, to be honest, because many authors don't use it for Scientology, but it is sourceable. JN466 12:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The question here would be "What is a UFO Religion?" Is it a religion that worships aliens? Or a religion that just considers aliens exist, without worship? By the first, Scientology would not be. By the latter, it is. It is sourced and deserves mention, though. RUL3R*flaming | *vandalism 16:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The answer would be pretty much the same as it is with most religions. A UFO religion, like a new religious movement, is defined for our purposes as being something which has been called in a reliable source a UFO religion. The question of the definition of the term is a reasonable one, and is pretty much addressed by the page UFO religion. I personally agree that not all of these groupings/categorizations are ones that make sense to me personally, but it ain't my call, it's the call of the sources, and we pretty much gotta go by what they say. (throws up hands) John Carter (talk) 18:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to influences

I added material to show that Hubbard was influenced by Satinisim. Below is the material I added to this section. If I did it wrong, would someone be so kinds as to fix it or put it into the correct form? People need to know about the Satanic origins of Scientology.

In 1945, Hubbard studied in Los Angeles under Aleister Crowley, the Satanist who called himself the “Anti-Christ, the Beast of Revelations, and 666” Hubbard adapted Crowley’s “Magical Memory” theory into his Scientology “time track”. “The similarity between the Magical Memory and Time Track, then, is that they both can recall every past incident in a person's life, they both can recall incidents from past lives, and they both must be developed by certain techniques in order to make use of them”[1] Reprinted with permission from The Hubbard is Bare by Jeff Jacobsen. Copyright © 1992 by Jeff Jacobsen, P.O. Box 3541, Scottsdale, AZ 85271. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rob043055 (talk • contribs) 02:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The source is self-published, and the more reputable literature has a different take on it. See e.g. references to Crowley in this book: [1] (pp. 20-21, 31, 259). Hubbard did not study with Crowley; they never met. --JN466 13:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a para on Crowley; I think the Crowley-Hubbard connection is notable enough to deserve mention. JN466 13:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

add a random fact to where appropriate!

From German Wikipedia: Heute verfügt Scientology über ein Büro für Hubbard in jeder seiner Kirchen und Organisationen, welches dauerhaft leersteht.

In every scientologist church there is even today a room for Ron L. Hubbard that constantly stands empty. Source: J. Gordon Melton: The Church of Scientology, Signature Books, Salt Lake City 2000, S. 23.

Heil comrade Hubbard!

--Sigmundur (talk) 14:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe WP:TRIVIA could apply to that... --RUL3R*flaming | *vandalism 19:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How does this help to improve the English article? You seem to speak German, so if you think it's inappropriate to have that sentence in the German article (in a paragraph about LRH's role in Scientology), I think it would be better to discuss it on the German talk page.--Six words (talk) 20:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would still be smart to keep all pages uniform, as it could help someone who speaks English and was looking for little tid-bits like that. However, that might be better on the Church of Scientology page instead if there's a section on the construction of the churches. No Stahr (talk) 16:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Negative tone

This article conveys a somewhat negative tone towards the religion. While I don't disagree with this in general, I think it's inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. 220.245.127.197 (talk) 23:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still, most content in the article complies with WP:V and WP:RS. Sure, there is an overwhemingly negative tone in it, but it is a reflection of available sources. -- RUL3R*flaming | *vandalism 23:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article on death conveys a somewhat bleak tone towards death. While I don't disagree with this in general, I think it's inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.74.114.94 (talk) 21:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strength in their numbers: More Church of Scientology defectors step forward with accounts of abuse

  • Childs, Joe (August 2, 2009). "Strength in their numbers: More Church of Scientology defectors step forward with accounts of abuse". St. Petersburg Times. www.tampabay.com. Retrieved 2009-08-02. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Additional source for use in article. Corroborated with additional accounts from other individuals at [2], as well as multiple other WP:RS secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 06:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Movement of tax exempt one paragraph down

The reason I was changing the placement of the tax exempt status was that personally I believe that its current placement reads like a train wreck. We read in this intro paragraph first about thetans, next about how the auditing process, then about the donations for auditing materials, now we insert an enthymeme regarding a connection between donations and tax exempt status, and then mention tax exempt status.

now I am not saying that this paragraph doesn't have its merits, but I thought that placing the tax exempt status after the paragraph that goes over the different orgonizational statuses of Scientology provided a better read and didn't rely upon an enthymeme to provide a contextual connection.Coffeepusher (talk) 04:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining. I just see the second para of the lede as a discussion of the general topic area of "religion" -- i.e. Scientology's religious or quasi-religious beliefs, and the extent to which it's recognized as a religion. The third para is "organization", the fourth "controversy". As a sequence of topics, it kind of works. JN466 22:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
so what do you think would work better? personally I would feel a little more comfortable if there was a slight lead in during its current placement, or a intro sentence at the lead of that paragraph that would tie it all together. not completely sure what that would look like, but it would provide a better flow.Coffeepusher (talk) 22:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent rewording.

Per Jayen466's latest edit, I believe the wording might be slightly unprofessional. I would suggest:

By contrast, countries such as Germany, France and the UK, have not granted legal recognition to Scientology as a religious organization.

Because "enjoy" kind of makes me think of the giant "S" logo jumping and having a party with the Sea Org's crown and the Dianetics pyramid. --> RUL3R*flaming | *vandalism 19:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rul3R, thanks for bringing it up. My problem is that it's really hard to say something generic that isn't both true and false. In the UK for example, the CoS is VAT exempt and classed as a non-profit organization, but it is not recognized as a charity. On the other hand, Scientology is an officially recognized religion in the Royal Navy. In Germany, Scientology is not tax-exempt, but the German Supreme Court has said that individual Scientologists practising Scientology are protected by Article 4 of the German constitution, which governs the freedom of religion. Some German courts have also ruled that Scientology is a faith community, though the German government takes the view that it isn't. So the only true thing I could think of saying was that Scientology does not enjoy the same sort of status in these countries. But I am open to suggestions. JN466 21:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken out "enjoy" and replaced it with "have". JN466 21:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The number of blue links should be drastically reduced. They make the article complete unreadable.--dunnhaupt (talk) 12:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where exactly? Because I find most of the article to have a reasonable amount of links. --> RUL3R*flaming | *vandalism 14:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

donations?

{{editsemiprotected}} In the second paragraph the articles describes that members get study materials and auditing courses in return for specified donations. In the fourth paragraph is stated that the organization charges fees for those materials. According to the definition of donations this term should not be used in this context: Donations are gifts given without return consideration. As the giver donates expecting the material and courses this is no more a donation. Maybe one could include this sentence: The members gain access to study materials and auditing courses in return for specified fees. --88.67.233.130 (talk) 11:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Object The fourth paragraph uses the "fee" wording as part of a representation of what critics say. The "donation" wording is not inappropriate in a context where the Church has charitable or religious status, and donations given to it are tax-exempt. JN466 11:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. The Church of Scientology can get donations. But that's not the point. By definition no organization can get donations in return for something else. For example wikimedia asks for donations. But it doesn't say: You only get access to wikipedia if you donate a specified amount of money. That's not how donations work. Therefore it's inappropriate to use the term donation in this context. --88.67.233.130 (talk) 13:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Welcome and thanks for contributing. Your request seem more focused on whether that choice of terms is valid, rather than on whether it fairly represents the sourced text. The sentence in question has a reference, so the question is simply whether that reference called them donations or not. Celestra (talk) 14:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is interesting. Do I understand you in the right way that something that is obviously wrong can be written in this article as long as it is possible to have an reference? It is quite obvious that this sentence contradicts the definition of donations. --88.67.233.130 (talk) 15:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
well you can't quote a source but before hand "fix" it according to your interpretations of what is correct. Its not obviously wrong that they ask for donations, there may be a more accurate word (fee) that would encompass the entire process but the church has chosen to describe the initial money exchange process as "donations" which isn't incorrect.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Scientology&oldid=312210853"