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 11:45, 15 May 2012 (→mistake?: support). 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

"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]

I'm surprised that this article isn't tagged with the Category:Destructive cult. I'd like to add that category, but I'm seeking input here before doing so. 66.90.146.89 (talk) 23:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

please see the talk archives, there isn't a consensus to do so.Coffeepusher (talk) 04:18, 7 April 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 [1] 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]
IP, Coffeepusher is right. Also, the situation seems to be a little more muddled in Canada than it is in Germany and France in particular, making Canada a less useful example. --JN466 14:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wikipedians! I had observations regarding the statement -"The Church of Scientology is one of the most controversial new religious movements to have arisen in the 20th century. It has often been described as a cult that financially defrauds and abuses its members, charging exorbitant fees for its spiritual services."

Could we word this in such a way that is more balanced? Though there are references that regard Scientology as a cult, it has been recognized as a religion in many places as well. Based on Reference: Huus, Kari (2005-07-05) "Scientology courts the stars" (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8333804/print/1/displaymode/1098/ and a Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_status_by_country), we can word this to be more neutral. My suggested wording would be "Scientology, recognized by the U.S. federal government and various other countries such as Italy, South Africa, Australia, Sweden, New Zealand, Portugal and Spain as a religious organization but labeled by its critics as a cult, is one of the most controversial new religious movements to have arisen in the 20th century."

Thank you very much and looking forward to collaborating on this.Scifilover386 (talk) 00:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

please read WP:LEDE. The lede section is supposed to summarize the content within the article proportionally to the article itself as well as the external sources. you will notice that the paragraph you are referencing is in fact a summary of sections 6 and 7 or religious status and controversies. your proposal does not accurately summarize these sections in regard to WP:WEIGHT, while the original source does.Coffeepusher (talk) 05:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree that the lede section is "supposed to summarize the content within the article proportionally to the article itself as well as the external sources." The "Scientology status by country" section is very extensive yet this sentence on the lead shines on only one side of the story, that Scientology has "often described as a cult." Vague wording too, btw. Perhaps, we can change it to: "Scientology, accepted in many countries as a religious organization yet labeled by its critics as a cult, is one of the most controversial new religious movements to have arisen in the 20th century." It is only fair and neutral to shed light on both positive and critical perceptions of the religion.Scifilover386 (talk) 00:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

actually I was wrong, the section you are referancing is exclusively summarizing section 7, section 6 is covered in the first paragraph.Coffeepusher (talk) 00:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the liberty to slightly modify the statement mention above. I think it is in the interest of making the page more balanced, and it is due weight to acknowledge that Scientology is accepted in many countries. I am open to discussion. Thank you very much!Scifilover386 (talk) 00:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your edit Scifilover386. It was not a "slight modification", it was a wholsale change in meaning and content. I have no objections to adding the information that Scientology is recogniced as a religion in some countries (notably the US), but I object to the removal of the well-sourced statement that Scientology is highly controversal. Thimbleweed (talk) 07:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
also it is mentioned in the second paragraph of the lede that Scientology is accepted in many countries, so I find no reason to mention it twice in the lede.Coffeepusher (talk) 10:57, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thimbleweed. I acknowledge your protest of the removal of the sourced statement, however, I disagree that we can disregard my point altogether. We can still balance this out by mentioning that Scientology is accepted in many countries as a religious organization. Perhaps a version we can agree on is "Scientology, accepted in many countries as a religious organization yet labeled by its critics as a cult, is one of the most controversial new religious movements to have arisen in the 20th century. Its critics claim that it financially defrauds and abuses it members, charging exorbitant fees for its spiritual services." Let me know what you think.NestleNW911 (talk) 00:48, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NestleNW911, it appears ("...we can disregard my point...") that you are also posting here as SciFiLover386, is that correct? -- BTfromLA (talk) 14:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, BTfromLA. Sorry for the confusion. I was merely supporting Scifilover's argument and providing input. I meant to say, "I disagree we can disregard his point altogether..." NestleNW911 (talk) 17:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NestleNW911/SciFiLover386, I have no problem with the pont that Scientology is accepted as a religion in many countries (and not accepted as such in many other), but it is already mentioned further up, and I see no reason it should be mentioned twice in the lede. Thimbleweed (talk) 06:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to CoS

Should include reference to Church of Scientology in the Distinguish-Template 93.213.52.103 (talk) 11:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction, with a link, is made at the beginning of the article. And the two are related, so I don't think that's needed, but I might be persuaded if somebody wants to make the case. By the way, why is there a disambiguation link to "epistemology"? Seems far-fetched to me that anybody confuses the terms, at least no more than any other unfamiliar word ending in "ology." I suggest we cut that. -- BTfromLA (talk) 00:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Base protests

This section is at the Gold Base article:

Picketing at Gold Base
Keith Henson picketed Gold Base compound to protest the deaths of a Scientologist, Stacy Moxon Meyer, and a non-Scientologist, Ashlee Shaner.
Meyer, the daughter of lead Scientology attorney Kendrick Moxon, died in an underground electrical vault at the Gold Base at about the same time that picketers above ground were protesting the previous death of Ashlee Shaner. Shaner died in an auto accident on the road fronting Gold Base when a contractor working for the Church was moving a piece of construction equipment across the highway after dusk without adequate lighting. Nove manslaughter case (Ashlee Shaner)

I dont think the holysmoke.org ref is a reliable source. I would simply remove it, but i wanted to bring it to someones attention here, as the article gets very little attention, and i have of course noticed the strict concerns about NPOV for all COS articles. I have no connection with COS or any agency related or critical of it.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that holysmoke is not a reliable source, additionally it appears to be a cut and paste copyright violation. I have removed the section entirely as it appears that three established editors all agree that it's inclusion is a violation.Coffeepusher (talk) 06:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology

I've added information about the etymology of the word Scientology. I thought it was appropriate to include the perspective of Hubbard here.NestleNW911 (talk) 22:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Xenu

Why is Xenu not mentioned in the introduction of the article? It seems pretty important. 132.204.221.149 (talk) 00:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Belief in Xenu seems to be more of a matter of doctrine than practice, and some sources have indicated that Scientologists themselves do not necessarily take the story at face value. That being the case, it seems to me anyway to perhape be better included later. John Carter (talk) 00:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

mistake?

from the intro: "The Church of Scientology is one of the most controversial new religious movements to have arisen in the 20th century."

shouldn't that be just, "Scientology is one of the most controversial new religious movements..."? The Church of Scientology was described earlier in the intro as being an organization that oversees the implementation of Scientology; in other words, not the religion itself, but its church.

unless there's some meaning here that i'm missing; i'm uninvolved and unfamiliar with the terminology. 24.20.120.165 (talk) 03:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The same difference exists between the terms religious movement (= church) and religion (= beliefs and practices). JN466 03:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hmmm. 24.20.120.165 (talk) 06:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is the term "religious movement" a synonym for an organization? Doens't the term "new religious movement" cover both the religious doctrine as well as the organization itself? Thimbleweed (talk) 09:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in support of that change. Especially with the many layers of organization and the specificity of the "Church of Scientology" I think that just saying "Scientology is one of the most..." will be the best edit in this case. I realize that this is splitting hairs in some ways so honestly I don't actually care one way or another, just putting in my two cents.Coffeepusher (talk) 11:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Scientology&oldid=492678833"