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 21:28, 9 June 2011 (→Jerry Seinfeld: WP:TALK). 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


{ The new link to Stephen Kent's article ("Scientology -- Is This a Religion?") is http://www.uni-marburg.de/fb03/ivk/mjr/pdfs/1999/articles/kent1999.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maierstrahl (talk • contribs) 00:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template.Please say why this link needs to be on this page, also please put {{Editsemiprotected}} when requesting a semi-protected edit request.--Breawycker (talk to me!) Review Me! 21:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Breawycker did you even look at to the article? the source is cited several times but the link broke and this user is trying to update it. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 22:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 22:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

.com?

you should mention that most churches and non-profit organizations use .org not .com, the web domain itself brings one to question the religious aspect considering a .com domain points it to being a corporation....just a thought —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.136.249.233 (talk) 07:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 69.111.183.174, 22 May 2011

The below listed paragraph taken from the last paragraph of the first page of Scientology does not appear to be balanced and from a neutral point of view. The listed paragraph appears to be written by someone with a slanted perspective of Scientology and based on opinions. I have read your wiki articles on other religions and they don't list former member complaints or "litigation" tactics. Although the person that wrote this paragraph obviously has the right to do so in some newspaper article, I don't believe it deserves its place in a neutral encyclopedia. I believe that after reviewing the below listed paragraph one would agree that it does not fall in line with Wikipedia's mandatory core approach to neutral, unbiased article-writing. Thank you for your consideration into this matter.

"It has often been described as a cult that financially defrauds and abuses its members, charging exorbitant fees for its spiritual services.[9][18][19] The Church of Scientology has consistently used litigation against such critics, and its aggressiveness in pursuing its foes has been condemned as harassment.[20][21] Further controversy has focused on Scientology's belief that souls ("thetans") reincarnate and have lived on other planets before living on Earth.[22] Former members say 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."

69.111.183.174 (talk) 04:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. I'm not sure how you're recommending the paragraph be changed. It seems reasonably balanced to me, in that it specifically cites relevant, reliable sources. That other religions don't have similar comments isn't particularly relevant; many religions, though, have full, independent articles of criticism (just as Scientology does). If you can explain, though, exactly what you think should be changed, please do so and change the "yes" in the template above to "no". Qwyrxian (talk) 04:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is stating facts and citing quotes, I don't see how this could be considered bias.--Jacksoncw (talk) 02:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why most religion articles don't have sections on litigation is because most religions don't have a documented history of aggressively suing anyone who criticizes them. That's even more of a reason for it to be included in the article, and considering that it is citing quotes and reliable sources, as well as the fact that it is a documented part of Scientology history, I recommend that it remain unchanged. If you would like the article to have a more balanced point of view, perhaps include a couple of sentences detailing Scientology's official responses to such claims. Luvanger666 (talk) 17:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Scientology&oldid=433453918"