Talk:Scientology/Archive 30

Archive 25

←

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

On "Footnotes"

Just so it can come around: footnotes are used on (book) pages and in the end of chapters (to books). I don't think footnotes are suitable for webpages... (*blush*) What about you? LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 04:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Me too, brah, footnotes are lame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.15.159.212 (talk) 02:18, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

There is also a thing on Notes and References and how they are to stand to another when both concepts are used. In Philosophy of Mind, 2nd ed., 2006, by Jaegwon Kim, Westview Press/Jaegwon Kim have them placed Notes and then References so you may consider to switch them around so that the article stands out more perfectly... Alright? LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 11:42, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 September 2012 - amend 'Hindu mythology' - pejorative term

The term "mythology" is used twice in the article and is offending to people of Hindu faith. I request it to be changed to "scriptures" as it would look more practical to those people. Spirituality and rebirth are explained in Hindu scriptures and references can be found in Swami Vivekananda's Paper on Hinduism. Since it is 'teaching', I feel the term 'mythology' undermines Hindu faith. Hence the request to change it to the term "scriptures". Kiran Kumar (talk) 14:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Good point. I've amended 'Hindu myths' to 'Hindu beliefs'. The other references to 'religious mythology' are more general and do not refer specifically to Hinduism. I haven't changed them as I didn't think they were subject to the same problem - let me know if you disagree. --Mknjbhvgcf (talk) 14:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Ethics

To editor Thimbleweed: I am puzzled as to why this bit about Scientology's ethics "...even though Scientology has clearly defined its ethics as common sense ethics, i.e., ethics that everyone can identify with." has been removed because "it does not belong to the controversies section." Where does it belong then? I believe this deletion should be reinstated.NestleNW911 (talk) 20:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I side with NestleNW911. It must be clear that a note should be connected to such a dubious statement by Kent when Scientology writes it everywhere and that logically and by principles of discussion, then, NestleNW91 is correct. Because Kent is the controversy and this note (even though) is merely placed under his name, as in this fashion, Controversy -> Scientology critic, Kent -> statement "...even though...". Agree? (Should I write "I support!" and then others may write "I oppose!") Best wishes, 46.9.43.142 (talk) 23:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I have reinstated the removed section.NestleNW911 (talk) 23:53, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

As the sentence now stands, it implies Kent doesn't know what he is talking about, that his statement s against the obvious or despite common knowledge. I agree the the COS' view is relevant, bit it needs to be 1) sourced, and 2) put in a way to indicate there's more to Scientology ethics than just "common sense". Thimbleweed (talk) 07:50, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I can't see why that bit about "common sense" belongs in here under any circumstances. It adds no information, simply serves to muddle Kent's comment. Either we include Kent's view or we don't, there is no point in tossing in a few sentences of irrelevant Scientology PR. -- BTfromLA (talk) 22:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Similarities between scientology and the scepticalmovement.

Similarities between Scientology and Skepticism:

Both movements claimed from the beginning that they represented science.

Both movements had ties to Science Fiction. The concept of "scientific skepticism" from SciFi. Scientology's founder was scencefiction author.

Both movements are working hard to create high walls between members and non-members. Skeptics call the opponents of nicknames woowoo, pseudovetare, alternativare etc.. Scientology members raise over other people they are "clear".

They have leaders who are above members.:

The magician James Randi traveling around and talking all sorts of nonsense and get applause of supporters (see Youtube videos).

Ron Hubbard was sitting on a yacht in the Mediterranean, and wrote about Scientology.

Members who are critical ports in the cold, and treated worse than ordinary opponent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karl den nionde (talk • contribs) 08:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Since when did Skepticism have its root in SciFi? Also, since when was James Randi a leader for all skeptics? Thimbleweed (talk) 11:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Another delusion by the sceptics "Where can I find their ethis? But I need a secondary source!"

It says in the article that a "belief held" by Scientology is that "...Scientology is against the practice of [the science of] psychiatry [as matter of mental health]!" I bluntly object to this and suggest instead that the line should read "Scientology is against the malpractice of psychiatry (by fx. E. Rudin and A. Ploetz) and not against the psychiatry as science when it is properly practiced or given by the good practices!" Do I need to claim that you, some of you editors, have malicious intents against Scientology by portraying them as "unscientific"? This direct lying needs to stop! Cheers! 37.200.45.168 (talk) 13:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Check out the CoS's own website - it states: "Auditing is quite different from these past practices, many of which were ineffective and some, like psychiatry, which were actually harmful." This article and the article Scientology and psychiatry also cite numerous reliable sources that back up the statement that Scientology, or at least the CoS, is opposed to psychiatry. Jonathanfu (talk) 13:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that may be true, but it may also be a kind of wording that may contain the meaning "among the psychiatric practices where some practices are ineffective" and that the ethics (the speciality of Jonathanfu?) says that "9. Don't do anything illegal [thus no adverse action against consensus psychiatry]" and 19 and 20 that represent in essence the Categorical Imperative of (well-accepted) Kantian ethics and Christian ethics too, i.e., do to others... [that compels Scientology to accept the treatment when this can be reported upon as positive by the patients themselves]! Scientology is in no position to trump the laws and regulations and it proceeds it has no intention to do this either! Cheers! 37.200.45.168 (talk) 19:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

In some matters you, Jonathanfu, seem eager to accept urls as source, but in others you demand/require the books, not even this, but the secondary sources as "the Bible can't speak about the Bible itself", idiot as it may sound! 37.200.45.168 (talk) 19:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Try to stay away from guessing what hidden meanings the wording might contain, that is original research and unacceptable under Wikipedia policy. If you can find a reliable source that explicitly says what you're saying, then I'd love to see it. I'm no expert on ethics and am unfamiliar with this 9, 19, and 20 that you're referring to, but I assume that they are parts of Scientology's code of conduct or something of the like. There's nothing in what you've quoted that says Scientology is unopposed to psychiatry, only that the code does not condone illegal conduct, such as any illegal actions against psychiatrists(though given Scientology's brushes with the law in the past, I'm pretty wary of that). I'm sorry, what books do I demand to see? I'm fairly eager to accept what www.scientology.org says about their opinions on psychiatry as that's the main Scientology website and it stands to reason that the opinions stated there are their official opinions. Jonathanfu (talk) 23:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

If you title your comments: "another delusion by the sceptics" some people are going to worry you might well be a scientologist.. which is absolutely fine, just as a scientologist you'll have to put any bias aside and remain objective.

We could provide citations of tom cruises opinion on psychiatry.. could we not expect tom cruise to have similar opinions to other scientologists or are scientologists allowed to make their own minds up on this matter?DarkShroom (talk) 18:25, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Is it just me or does user 37.200.45.168 remind you of LFOlsnes-Lea? Sockpuppet? --98.209.42.117 (talk) 08:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)--98.209.42.117 (talk) 08:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Did kind of look like that to me, especially given that 37.200.45.168 is from the same area that an IP Lea once used is from. Jonathanfu (talk) 18:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Ambiguity

"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.[9][27][28] In response, Scientologists have argued that theirs is a genuine religious movement that has been misrepresented, maligned and persecuted.[29]"

Why is this statement made as though the first and second portions are opinions and not a fact and a lie respectively? No one afaik on wikipedia pussyfoots around with shit like creationism NOT BEING SCIENCE so why here are you phrasing this as though the fraud, murders, abuses, and larsonry are not factual? And that Scientology who argue otherwise are lying through their teeth just like anyone who says creationism and intelligent design is somehow scientific? These guy's have a factual history of sueing, defacing, and with any means possible destroying anything that criticizes them if they are capable of doing so. there's no need to be anymore subtle about this than there is about Christopher Columbus. Stop kowtowing to this bullshit.

I agree that this article should be way more harsh because at the moment it is dangerously biased. It seems Scientology gets special treatment amongst other new "religions" because of it's legal tenacity and financial security.

So most of the article is written with an element of kid gloves, written so as to consciously not piss anyone off... unfortunately doing anything with special mind to not annoying any one particular group results in bias. It's not to say you should deliberately piss people off either, but it's the case that some STRONG topics, you cannot state facts without annoying someone...

That said the quote you mention however, it's an attempt to state it in a neutral manner, it might seem like "subtly" I think this is a bit relative..wikipedia has to state fact it can't say "Scientology is cult that financially defrauds and abuses its members" because this would be wikipedia having an opinion DarkShroom (talk) 18:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Body and Spirit and Membership statistics

Added a clarifying paragraph to Body and Spirit from Bromley and Cowan's book in 2008; also added an enriching statement to Membership statistics from the same book.NestleNW911 (talk) 00:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Quote or not, the phrase "and ARGUABLY is the only GREAT religion to come out of the 20th century" is blaten WP:PEACOCK. I've also moved your quote from the section giving statistics into the section where the scientologists respond to the data. Topically it makes it more readable.Coffeepusher (talk) 02:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Scientology cross

I've added a new paragraph on the "Beliefs" section regarding the Scientology cross.NestleNW911 (talk) 17:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I´ve formerly objected to this article´s portrayal of "The Cross" as primary Scientology symbol (on grounds of aberration and engrams(-provoking)), but I give you this on being right on using it, even by L. Ron Hubbard´s own words: The Scientology Cross is justified, barely, on page 13 and mentioned only briefly in Scientology 0 - 8, Bridge Publications. 109.189.88.8 (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Why can't there also be a WP:Selective? To my knowledge, selective history writing is banned in academia and has been known to be the common history making in dictatorships, fx. Soviet Union, as in "nation building". Any good? 109.189.88.8 (talk) 02:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The current section is extremely selective. It should mention that the cross has nothing to do with Christianity, and that it was adopted in connection with the revamping of Scientology as a religion. Unless amended, I suggest removing it outright. Thimbleweed (talk) 10:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Dr. J. Gordon Melton, Distinguished Senior Fellow of Baylor University's Institute for Studies in Religion & the director of the Institute for the Study of American Religion in Santa Barbra, California, has written that the cross was "developed from an old Spanish cross Hubbard ran across in Phoenix, Arizona in the early 1950s, is found on the cover of many Scientology books and is displayed prominently on all church buildings" and further writes "The church sees this cross as an eight-armed symbol, with each arm representing one of the eight basic dynamics through which Scientologists organize their experience of the world." Scientology ministers also wear a version of the cross to identify themselves as ministers of the C of S. All of this information and a whole lot more can be found in his book, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Church_of_Scientology_(Melton). Good Luck with the section/article. Ka'Jong 17:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, Melton has a bad habit of believing what the leaders of NRMs tells him. The point here is that the Scientology cross has nothing to do with the Christian cross, and that it was introduced when Interestingly the cross of Scientology is rather similar to the Rosy Cross, Hubbard was otherwise not to shy about nicking things from Blavatsky and Theosophy. Thimbleweed (talk) 15:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Sources for an "Aims of Scientology section"?

An "Aims of Scientology" section would be interesting, but we need some sources. Ollie cited the IAS-card, but this would only be relevant for the COS, as the IAS is specifically connected to the COS, and I am fairly sure none of the Freezone or Independent Scientologists are members (or even are allowed to be). If we are to make such a section relevant to Scientology as a whole, and not just the COS-Scientologists, we would need something else, I'm not sure what. Thimbleweed (talk) 13:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Possible source The concept “salvation” in the Church of Scientology. "Scientology aims to free the soul from MEST entrapment through human practices, and to restore the thetan to its native power and its ability to control MEST or to be at cause (to be able to determine the course of events). ... [this] can be termed salvation through own efforts". HTS Teologiese Studies / Theological Studies; Vol 62, No 1 (2006), 313-327. doi: 10.4102/hts.v62i1.353 14 September 2009 --Mknjbhvgcf (talk) 13:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Another: "Scientology aims at personal, spiritual self-development" James R. Lewis, 'Scientology', OUP

Religous Movements: Cult and Anticult Since Jonestown "The most commonly drawn distinction is that between the more obviously religious groups (which, like ISKCON, the Unification Church, the Children of God or Ananda Marga, are likely to expect total commitment-the members living together in a commune and working full-time for the movement) and the "para-religions" of the Human Potential movement (which, like est, TM, the Emin or Exegesis, have a clientele seeking enlightenment or self-development in one form or another). This is not a clear distinction, however, and too many movements (Church of Scientology, Rajneeshism, Divine Light Mission) straddle the boundaries or may fall on either side, according to which characteristic is being stressed (Barker 1982a)."

I think we'd need to distinguish between the aims of individual Scientologists in studying/following/practicing Scientology, and the collective aims of Scientology as an organisation/movement/church. I also find it particularly interesting that Scientology has 'aims' for the whole of 'civilisation', i.e. its aims encompass the non-Scientology world. It could also be quite interesting to look at the differences (if any) between the aims of Dianetics and the aims of Scientology.

Anyway, there is a risk I think that we'd just drift off into a rather too general discussion, which might not be appropriate for Wikipedia. As I'm new here, I'll leave it to others to judge that.

--Mknjbhvgcf (talk) 13:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure a section on the "Aim of Scientologists" as such would be appropriate or even possible. Scientologists are just people like everyone else, they presumably have aims and dreams unique to each just like Republicans, boy scouts or medical doctors. It must the the group or organization (the GOP, the World Scout Movement or the MD profession) that has aims. Ollie wanted it specifically not to be about the COS, so we need sources which states something about Scientologists in general, not just COS-Scientologists. I'm not sure if there are any proper sources here, perhaps the aims are better covered under "Beliefs and practices"? Thimbleweed (talk) 15:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

A subsection of 'beliefs and practices' would make sense to me. You're correct of course that it'll be impossible to generalise about the aims of Scientologists - their aims in general - because everybody's different, but I think the article could discuss what the aims of Scientologists are in studying/following/believing Scientology. e.g. to become Clear, to make progress up the Bridge (does one go 'up' the Bridge? I'm not clear on the terminology), to achieve mastery over the MEST universe (if that is indeed one of the aims.... I could be wrong). Of course Wikipedia may already have most of this in other articles. --Mknjbhvgcf (talk) 16:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

source for quote "THE AIMS OF SCIENTOLOGY A civilization without insanity, without criminals and without war, where the able can prosper and honest beings can have rights, and where Man is free to rise to greater heights, are the aims of Scientology." appears to be Scientology 0-8: The Book of Basics by Hubbard, 1965(?) I'm trying to find online access to that book (or at least that section of it) so we can take a look at the quote in context. --Mknjbhvgcf (talk) 17:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

some more...

New Statesman: Hubbard's Aims

A World Without: A Critical Examination of the Goal of the Church of Scientology - author seems to be an ex-Scientologist - this doesn't seem like a very strong source (in Wikipedia terms) in itself, but it includes this interesting quote from David Miscavige (head of Scientology):

the objectives that we, as members of the IAS, have set for the year 2000: Objective One - place Scientology at the absolute forefront of Society. Objective Two - eliminate psychiatry in all its forms. We don't care what the current think is regarding what's wrong with the planet. Government won't handle it. Politics won't handle it. Legislation won't handle it. All that's going to handle it is what we, of the IAS, have set down in stone. Let's get rid of psychiatry, and let's bring Scientology to every Man, Woman and Child on this planet."

One interpretation of 'the goal of Scientology' seems to be 'to clear the planet'. (I guess a 'goal' is the same as an 'aim'). I'm looking for a decent source for this.

a Hubbard quote that might be relevant in this context: "It is not necessary to produce a world of clears in order to to have a reasonable and worthwhile social order; it is only necessary to delete those individuals who range from 2.0 down, either by processing them enough to get their tone level above the 2.0 line...or simply quarantining them from the society." (still looking for the source for that one).

--Mknjbhvgcf (talk) 17:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

No word from Ollie though. I had hoped she would come up with some good sources. Thimbleweed (talk) 07:06, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I can confirm that "The Aims of Scientology" exist on pages 3 and 4 in Scientology 0 - 8 (from Zero to Infinity). I also find the section on "The Code of a Scientologist" interesting (in the same book, pp. 389-390) that says on the last point, point 20, "To make this world a saner, better place." Good or what? Cheers! 84.202.100.95 (talk) 19:23, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

We may also want to note the controversy over allegations that Scientology is a money-making enterprise. Put another way, we'd be giving Scientology's alleged "worldly" goals Deus Ex Logica (talk) 06

10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Further Objections to Very Important Prof. Kent, the Sociologist

2 points against two sentences I find directly lying over Scientology books as plain text:

"In Scientology, rationality is stressed over morality.[114]"

1. The Hubbard Chart of Hum. Ev. and Dian. Proc. p. 133 says:

"A - The Tone Scale 40.0"

to "S Ethic Level - Bases ethics on Reason. Very high ethic level."

"S Ethic Level" (A - 1.1) - "Sex criminals. Negative ethics. Deviously dishonest. Perverts honesty without reason."

"Kent has described Scientology's ethics system as "a peculiar brand of morality that uniquely benefited [the Church of Scientology] ... In plain English, the purpose of Scientology ethics is to eliminate opponents, then eliminate people's interests in things other than Scientology.".[260]"

2. For p. 390, The Codes of a Scientologist - "12. To support the freedom of religion." By direct implication, they do not say that "the freedom to support Scientology". No, on the contrary,

"choose whatever religion you like", the one that "works for you" (with slight reference to "The Way to Happiness")! 95.34.151.249 (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, this article isn't supposed to "depict" David Irving, is it? 95.34.151.249 (talk) 17:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

include all policies

i know this could be deemed negative and a personal attack against the curch but i feel that to give a full picture of scientology we should add some of the more controversial polcies that are at the heart of scientology to the article. for instance the attack the attacker policy which is clearly documented on wikipedia is a core belief to the curch of scientology yet has no mention at all in the article. it seems in an effort not to offend any religion key sourced information is being ommited. 152.91.9.153 (talk) 21:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you are looking for the Scientology controversies page. We tend to leave them off the main page because...well for starters it is long as hell as it stands, and that the Church denies many of these policies. Having a separate article made a lot more sense.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 March 2013

You can add Laura Prepon to the list of celebrities. 99.57.20.144 (talk) 14:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Psychiatry and Scientology

It says in the text "Another controversial belief held by Scientologists is that the practice of psychiatry is destructive and abusive and must be abolished.[36][37]"! This is not FACT! They, Church of Scientology, are against the destructive and abusive aspects/sides/practices, and this is an important distinction! This may cause the article to be misleading, directly, a fairly severe accusation! Cheers! 95.34.148.78 (talk) 17:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually the quote from COB within the text is "our next step is eradicating psychiatry from this planet, we will triumph!" My understanding is that COB makes the policy and is in charge of the vision of the church. More importantly it is accurate according to the reliable sources, so by wikipedia standards it will stand scrutiny.Coffeepusher (talk) 15:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Kinda of sounds like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/LFOlsnes-Lea this lovely fellow, who I think also edited from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/95.34.148.46 this IP, which is within the same range. Jonathanfu (talk) 15:26, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

we should keep an eye out. LFOLsnes-Lea doesn't follow the same pattern of the OSA accounts we have encountered in the past. The sleepers tend to not get banned until they can be activated for Scientology edits. More recently they have a one day on, one week off editing style as to avoid battleground appearances. I am more inclined to believe that 95.34.148.78 is simply a well meaning editor more familiar with Scientology doctrine than most, but we will see.Coffeepusher (talk) 15:39, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Coffeepusher seems to read too much into the text while "our next step is eradicating psychiatry from this planet, we will triumph!" can also mean "our next step is eradicating [the bad parts/the worst parts of] psychiatry from this planet, we will triumph!". Either way, by the "Aims", Scientology is committed to the ethical, and sane approach, that even the entire RTC has to comply with, no exceptions allowed! 109.189.211.11 (talk) 18:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Seems to me that injecting this "[the bad parts/the worst parts of]" into Miscavigne's quote is significantly worse than "reading too much into the text", you're putting words in his mouth to make the quote less objectionable Jonathanfu (talk) 01:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, do you have any reliable sources which identify those parts of Psychiatry (seperate from tech) which Scientology is fighting to maintain?Coffeepusher (talk) 04:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Objection to the "Survival and ethics" section

It says in the section that "Scientology teaches that spiritual progress requires and enables the attainment of high ethical standards.[116] In Scientology, rationality is stressed over morality.[116] Actions are considered ethical if they promote survival across all eight dynamics, thus benefiting the greatest number of people or things possible while harming the fewest.[117]" while it says in "Scientology: A New Slant on Life that "Ethics are reason", p. 235, i.e., reason = rationality. You should also know that Hubbard elaborates on this throughout the chapter of Ethics, Justice and the Dynamics and it seems to me that ethics, reason and survival are coined together and go together, not that they oppose. You can read up for yourself. Especially also on p. 236. 109.189.211.11 (talk) 18:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

please read wikipedia's reliable source policy. We try our best to use third party sources whenever possible. What you are proposing is original research While the rest of the section is actually cited by secondary sources. If you have a secondary source which will back up your claim then we can discuss it.Coffeepusher (talk) 04:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Simon Locke's Scholarly View

Locke's interpretation definitely adds to the discussion and brings to light the relation of science to Scientology since it is a topic that is widely debated and questioned. I don't see why the view of a prominent scholar should be omitted in a section that lists "scholarly views." Is it your own opinion that we should not care about it or the consensus of the community? I argue that this is something of importance and definitely adds value to the section. There isn't a substantial amount of input from the academic community about Scientology except for this section, and in my opinion, efforts to expand it definitely enriches the academic perspective towards the religion. With this reasoning I am restoring the edit.Matipop (talk) 00:26, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I've removed it citing WP:WEIGHT. As it is Locke isn't notable enough to generate conversation, nor has his article really gotten any traction in the last 10 years.Coffeepusher (talk) 05:11, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Locke is not only unimportant to the topic of Scientology, but the text you introduced clarified nothing for the reader. It was opaque and unhelpful. Further, you selected one of Locke's several interpretations with no indication about the unrevealed interpretations and why this one was chosen. Binksternet (talk) 17:04, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Uncited POV In The Membership Section

"Scientologists tend to disparage general religious surveys on the grounds that many members maintaining cultural and social ties to other religious groups will, when asked their religion, answer with their traditional and more socially acceptable affiliation." I have no doubt this true to an extent but it is uncited and seems to have been purposely placed to downplay the disparity in actual surveyed membership numbers and the claims of the church. 74.4.199.229 (talk) 17:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The sentence can stay, if there are good sources this is the case. Otherwise, it should be "XXX claims Scientologists ...", and if so, a counter-claim could also be introduced. Thimbleweed (talk) 20:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Melton

This person's work is cited very often in the article - sometimes as if what he says is generally agreed. I don't know his work, but I think it is dodgy to say things like Criminon "has experienced steady growth, based on a good success rate, with low recidivism", without saying that the assertion is in only one person's work - even if there is a citation. I have altered that a little. Melton seems to be overused in the article as a whole, particularly since the article about him says "the Church of Scientology has asked him to testify in court on its behalf". Myrvin (talk) 09:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

J. Gordon Melton is considered one of the leading, if not perhaps the leading, living authority on religions in the United States in the country. Sometimes, his ideas are a little unusual/strange, but his academic work, particularly in relating statistics, is generally considered about as reliable as it gets on subjects such as this one. John Carter (talk) 18:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Melton is definitely a leading authority on religions in the United States; my point exactly that supports the inclusion of his point of view on the “Scholarly views” section. Since the previous Melton quote added by a previous editor doesn’t have a source acceptable by Wikipedia standards, I have added a quote sourced from the book “The Church of Scientology, part of the series by Signature Books in “The studies of contemporary religion” to further diversify and substantiate this section and to add the viewpoint of a highly authoritative figure.Matipop (talk) 01:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I think you are conflating two issues here, Matipop: whether Melton is a credible source on this topic is distinct from the question of how to edit the article effectively. You chose to place your comment here and have not responded to my reasoning above about why the a broad remark about Scinetology being considered a religion from Melton offers very little to the reader in this context. I have no objection to Melton as a source, but I am concerned that you keep wanting him in there as a way of, in your words, "balancing out" the section. Melton's view is already well represented, without adding his quote. I don't want to get in an edit war, so I won't cut your recent Melton addition, but I think that it should be cut on the grounds I stated above: basically, the article is better without it. -- BTfromLA (talk) 01:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Degree of attention to be given Urban's work

God help us, I recently read Keith Urban's book on Scientology. His work deals primarily with the "mystery" aspects of it, and it is worth noting that there does seem to be some reasonable basis to see this group as being in the tradition of "mystery" religions. He makes some statements about Scientology in his book which are remarkably dissimilar to much of the non-academic material and other material not sharing his same attention to “mystery” aspects. These deal specifically with quotes from both Hubbard and Cruise which he uses to indicate that one of the purposes of Scientology is for Scientologists to create new universes which are, according to his quotation from Hubbard, more real than our own. This idea would not necessarily be considered problematic to a lot of Westerners, as it is similar I guess to some Mormon beliefs. Although there has been a lot written about Scientology in general, with some basic review of its theological tenets, what do we do if an academic source discusses some “mysteries” which haven't been discussed clearly by either earlier works or the group itself? There aren't that many “mystery” religions out there today, but I think there are at least a few, and similar questions would probably arise about them. John Carter (talk) 18:31, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Drivel

You people may want to check or links regularly. I just fixed drivel that redirected here.--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Can't think of a better place for it to redirect to, can you?--ЗAНИA ^{talk WB talk}] 22:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Free auditing/Phil Donahue

I've removed a bit that had been recently added to the lede section, which claimed that paid services are not necessary for members of the Church of Scientology, and used as a citation something church spokesperson Heber Jentsch said on the Phil Donahue TV show in 1995. The idea that members in good standing can audit freely based on books checked out at the local library does not comport with the vast majority (all of them that I've seen) of descriptions of Scientology practices by journalists, scholars and former members. Perhaps this is true to a small extent for Dianetics, but I find no evidence that it is the case for Scientology proper. In any case, free and independent auditing with the blessing of the church--if such a thing exists at all--is rare enough that it is misleading to include it in the lede. -- BTfromLA (talk) 21:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Misleading first sentence?

Shouldn't it be immediately visible right from the start that the question of whether Scientology is seen as a religion or a sect/cult is subject of a lot of debate? Right now, it says in a very declarative manner that it's a religion. There should be a "do no harm" part to Wikipedia, shouldn't there?

The first sentence doesn't say it's a religion, and the second sentence doesn't either, though it does put forward the fact that Hubbard characterized it that way. Perhaps there's a place for a third sentence that concisely describes the fact that its status as a religion has been much contested, and that many observers believe it has more characteristics of a for-profit corporation? Anyone else care to weigh in here? -- BTfromLA (talk) 04:49, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that it is fine. I'm confused as to what our anonymous editor means by the "do no harm" statement.Coffeepusher (talk) 02:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Melton quote on Membership

I'd like to discuss Binksternet's removal of Melton's quote on the growth of the religion. Though it does not literally present numbers, it is relevant to the section because of its commentary on the growth of Scientology. In my honest opinion,it is deeply relevant and it helps the section in providing a more wholistic perspective and should be retained. Any input?Matipop (talk) 00:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Binksternet's cut. That quote was basically a bland statement that Scientology had spread. It doesn't address statistics or specifics, or offer anything that hasn't already been said elsewhere in the article. I am puzzled by your repeated insistence on adding quotes from Melton all through the article, even when they add nothing but repetition of Melton's name. -- BTfromLA (talk) 02:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Just so others understand what is being discussed, here is the diff of my cut. I removed the following text: Melton also says, however, that "The church has been among the handful of the many new religions founded since World War II which have successfully spread across the West during the last half of the twentieth century."

I removed it because it was bereft of membership information, but it was in a section which discussed membership. Furthermore, I saw that a negative quote from Melton (membership figures are exaggerated) was being followed by a positive Melton quote with no bearing on membership. It made me think that someone was trying to wave away the negative aspect of exaggeration by plopping down a positive final sentence. Regardless of the motive, there is no need for the unrelated and unenlightening Melton quote. Binksternet (talk) 02:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

UFO religion section newly added

I am dubious over the inclusion of the section "Scientology as a UFO religion." It is not relevant under the category "dispute of religion status" and this information does not belong to the section. The addition to the Scientology page is not appropriate and helpful when it is already discussed in detail in "List of UFO religions." The inclusion of the block quote about the "Xenu event" is also not within the proper context of the section - it seems to fall out of WP: DUE WEIGHT. Why would we give so much attention to information that does not even seem to belong to the section and the article as a whole? I think that the article reads better without the inclusion and it does not provide relevant information. It goes off in a tangent, does not represent neutrality and the predominant point of view, and gives a lopsided view of what Scientology is and is more relevant and better addressed in the "List of UFO religions" page.Merrymoo112 (talk) 20:59, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I personally don't much care for the claim of Scientology being a "UFO religion", however that section is well sourced and is written in line with WP:NPOV. It certainly doesn't belong in the infobox, but all notable views should be presented within the article, so long as they are sourced appropriately. Laval (talk) 04:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Given that Scientology emerged from the science fiction milieu back in the 1950s, it's hardly a surprise that it has a major overlap with UFOlogy. Roy Wallis's The Road to Total Freedom is very good on the link between SF fandom and early Scientology. It's all well-documented, so I would agree that it belongs in the article. Prioryman (talk) 05:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Since I put it in, it is likely that I would think it belongs in the article. I think the argument that it doesn't belong in the article because it is talked about in a totally different article, that isn't referenced here, to be very odd. I think the idea that S is a UFO religion, and is written about as such, to be relevant to the S article - where else would it go? I put it in the section to do with the arguments about the religious status of S, because it is about the religious status of S. These writers think that S is a religion - a UFO religion. Myrvin (talk) 20:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I like the addition, but I agree that it probably shouldn't be in the info box. My reason is that unlike most UFO religions, that isn't part of their public face and in some cases scientologists outright deny this aspect of their religion. As such I don't think the info box should reflect something that the church has denied in public.Coffeepusher (talk) 22:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the UFO religion tag shouldn't be in the info box and I have removed it again. Not discounting that there are sources that were cited in this section; but this still does not warrant inclusion on main page on Scientology. It is a minority view and need not be included on the page. If we insist on including this section however, it should be significantly shortened. The quote by Gregory Reece is not important enough to deserve the central attention it has, and it really doesn't enrich a section entitled "dispute of religion status." I suggest removing or shortening this quote. We should also include a section for what the church has to say in the matter, to get the direct information, rather than relying on secondhand interpretations for the entirety of the section. Here are some excerpts of what the church has to say on the matter; this is evidence of the "public denial" mentioned in this talk page:

http://www.scientology.org/faq/scientology-in-society/do-scientologists-believe-they-are-descended-from-aliens.html

I've added the following statement to reflect this.

According to the church website, however, Scientologists do not believe "they are descended from aliens. Scientology holds no such belief."Merrymoo112 (talk) 23:24, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I think your addition adds balance. However, it doesn't say the movement doesn't believe that UFOs were involved somehow. Myrvin (talk) 06:47, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with this clarification because it's true that Scientology does not believe "thetans" are "aliens" in the popular sense -- Hubbard's own sources make it clear that Scientologists believe in ancient human civilizations in outer space, not dissimilar to Mormon cosmology. So clarifying this matter is helpful to the reader, and also illustrates the usefulness of keeping the section as a whole. Laval (talk) 10:00, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the CoS quote adds much to this bit on Scientology as a UFO religion - UFO religions do not necessarily involve humans being descended from aliens, they simply have to have UFOs somehow incorporated into their belief system. If anything, it might be more useful on the thetan or Space opera in Scientology articles, where the description of a thetan is somewhat confusing. Jonathanfu (talk) 11:39, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Celebrity center

The current text reads:

Celebrity Centers are open to the general public, but are primarily designed to minister to celebrity Scientologists. Entertainers such as John Travolta, Kirstie Alley, Lisa Marie Presley, Nancy Cartwright, Jason Lee, Isaac Hayes, Edgar Winter, Tom Cruise, Chick Corea and former member Leah Remini

Of these, Remini has left the COS, Presley appear not to have done any services for ages and is generally rumoured to have left too (at least there are no current sources on her being a Scientologist), Hayes is dead and Winters is hardly well known (I had to look up his WP article). Would it not be better to trim back the section a bit, concentrating on verifiable Scientologists like Cruise, Alley and Travolta, perhaps putting Elfman in there in stead? Thimbleweed (talk) 12:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

According to Lisa Marie Presley's website, she still lists the Citizens Commission on Human Rights as a charity that she supports on her philanthropy page, which would indicate she is still at least nominally a Scientologist. There are literally no sources that prove she is no longer a Scientologist and she has made no public comment on the issue. Laval (talk) 14:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the list of scientologist celebrity names should be moved up to the prior paragraph; it doesn't belong as an elaboration on Celebrity Centers (or "centres"). Perhaps it could be shortened or revised, but the fact that some of those people are inactive, have left the organization or are dead doesn't really disqualify them in the context of famous people who have gotten attention for Scientology. (Among the dead, one might consider adding Sonny Bono, who is often cited in press coverage.) I think the criteria should be people who lent their names to scientology at one time or another: so Cruise, Travolta, Hayes and Cartwright would definitely stay. -- BTfromLA (talk) 03:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree, Cruise, Travolta, Hayes and Cartwright are relevant. My reason for suggesting trimming it a bit is that the entence is about the Celebrity Center, not a list of celebrity Scientologists. Thimbleweed (talk) 08:02, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

If I may, in the interests of NPOV & not assigning undue weight to any one or number of public figures, it might be best to avoid mentioning any names at all. My reasoning is that while someone like Remini has left, while she was in she was quite outspoken about it. Jason Beghe, who is also no longer in, has stated he was viewed by the leadership as the "poster boy" for the religion. Tom Cruise has been quiet about Scientology for quite a few years now, while John Travolta seems to be more in the active spotlight as far as being outspoken. So, we could go back & forth on these characters, and precisely for that reason I strongly suggest keeping the section as minimal as possible and not mentioning any names, reserving such material for the main article. Laval (talk) 14:31, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

There is conveniently a list of Scientologists that may be linked to instead, if there is a consensus to remove the string of names. Thimbleweed (talk) 19:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

That's a great idea. I support this action. Laval (talk) 09:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion for new text

Combining the suggestions, I suggest the following text:

Hubbard envisaged that celebrities would have a key role to play in the dissemination of Scientology, and in 1955 launched Project Celebrity, creating a list of 63 famous people that he asked his followers to target for conversion to Scientology. Former silent-screen star Gloria Swanson and jazz pianist Dave Brubeck were among the earliest celebrities attracted to Hubbard's teachings. Current members include Tom Cruise, John Travolta, Kirstie Alley and Jenna Elfman (ref?).

Today, Scientology operates eight churches that are designated Celebrity Centers, the largest of these being the one in Hollywood. Celebrity Centers are open to the general public, but are primarily designed to minister to celebrity Scientologists.

My only issue with this is the inclusion of Cruise, Travolta, Alley and Elfman. As I related before, this opens a can of worms in deciding who should be mentioned and who shouldn't, which detracts from the article. Lisa Marie Presley, for example, is still very much a supporter of CCHR, as her website indicates, and for years she was very much a vocal supporter of the Church. Yet, because of the rumors surrounding one of her songs, we've got people trying to push the line that she's no longer a Scientologist. They tried the same thing in the days leading up to Leah Remini's public confirmation, but it was only when Remini herself acknowledged and confirmed those rumors that it became a verifiable fact that would allow for us to alter her article accordingly.

Personally, I think we're better off not including any names, but if there's a consensus to include names, I would strongly suggest limiting them to Cruise and Travolta, who are the two best known celebrities in Scientology, and as far as I can tell, the only Scientologist notables who could be considered as part of the so-called A-list. But again, I think it's best to not include names when the list of notable Scientologists can be linked to, as there'll always be people trying to also include this or that celebrity, whereas if we set a standard to not go that route in this article, then we can avoid that can of worms altogether. Laval (talk) 11:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

How about this, in lieu of the list of names: Former silent-screen star Gloria Swanson and jazz pianist Dave Brubeck were among the earliest celebrities attracted to Hubbard's teachings; in recent decades, prominent actors, including Tom Cruise and John Travolta, have spoken publicly about their commitment to Scientology. -- BTfromLA (talk) 18:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

PS: The church spells it "Celebrity Centre." -- BTfromLA (talk) 18:45, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I like it, it neatly addresses all we have discussed here as far as I can see. Thimbleweed (talk) 21:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree, it solves the problem and still points to some high profile scientologists who (in my opinion) are probably not going to deviate from that status any time soon. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 13:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the change. -- BTfromLA (talk) 17:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

What about that Glenn Schuck quote? I think that could be cut. There is a link to the separate article about "Scientology and celebrities," and that one quote doesn't really provide an overview of the topic of why celebs get involved--it seems like an almost-random point of view that raises more questions than it answers. -- BTfromLA (talk) 17:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree, we can do away with that quote without losing anything.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:46, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I made the cut. -- BTfromLA (talk) 17:59, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the celebrity section should be expanded just a bit more to provide proper context, since it's not as cut and dry as the section (and main article) posit. Even the definition of celebrity in Scientology is quite different than the standard dictionary definition, as is common in Scientology jargon. Might be a good idea to change the section title to "Celebrities & Hollywood" or "Celebrity members" or "Celebrity & VIP members" or something along those lines. The history of the Celebrity Centre is notably missing from the main article, which I was planning on expanding, but would be better to first reach some consensus on which sources to use so that it doesn't get bogged down in disputes over WP:RS, as had happened at Grant Cardone.

Editors may also wish at some point to consider trimming the intro paragraphs down to the most essential details, and leaving the less essential facts for the rest of the article. This would help improve readability, which is an important factor in getting this marked as a good article. For example, IMHO it would be better to shorten the section regarding tax-exemption and legal recognition to a few sentences in summary, and move the rest to an appropriate section. Laval (talk) 22:07, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I do have an issue with this sentence: "Celebrity Centres are open to the general public, but are primarily designed to minister to celebrity Scientologists." This is not exactly true, even from the official perspective of the church. The church's official documents (also on the website for the Celebrity Centre) defines the Celebrity Centre this way: "It is for this reason that L. Ron Hubbard saw to the formation of a special Church of Scientology which would cater to these individuals — the artists, politicians, leaders of industry, sports figures and anyone with the power and vision to create a better world. That Church is Celebrity Centre International." [1]. Many critical sources state that in terms of actual (A list) celebrities, there are practically none on a regular basis there (perhaps more at Flag, based on testimonies) and most of the clientele are aspiring talents. Overall, the section could use inclusion of critical perspectives -- on the one hand the article overall looks great and for the most part is the most readable version so far. But, it has also become somewhat watered down & diluted in some respects. That also reminds me to raise the issue of the church's real estate holdings & gentrification efforts -- does not appear that any articles specifically focused on church real estate, assets, renovation & gentrification efforts, etc. exist at the moment. Laval (talk) 00:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

most attempts to include "the church's real estate holdings and gentrification efforts" have become a listing of every time the church buys a building inside a city with little regard to notability. Do you have a suggested inclusion? Coffeepusher (talk) 16:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

No, I was referring more to the mainline acquisitions of key bases such as Celebrity Centre Int, Flag Land Base, and the various historic properties along Hollywood Boulevard. Essentially, Scientology is widely acknowledged as triggering the gentrification and rehabilitation of Hollywood. A whole article could be written on that alone, as they were the first developers to begin buying up properties in the area and then fixing them up to their original states. Indeed, Scientology still owns much of the real estate in and around Hollywood. If someone were so inclined to dig up the sources (most of this would not be available on the web), it would be an interesting effort. Unfortunately, I am not inclined to do this. :) Laval (talk) 23:40, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

As of now, the only sources I can find that talk about Scientology and it's triggering of gentrification of Hollywood are a real-estate blog named Curbed, and a tumbler account for "a scientologist," neither of which qualify for inclusion. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 00:14, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

There IS a reliable, noteworthy source about the real estate holdings of the Church of Scientology here: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/scientologys-hollywood-real-estate-empire-213565. I agree with Laval that a whole article should be created on this topic alone. It's significant enough, and provides key information about the Church. I'd be happy to help with constructing the article.Matipop (talk) 00:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure one source qualifies as either notable or significant coverage of an event.Coffeepusher (talk) 01:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Flawed description of auditing

From the introduction: Its method of spiritual rehabilitation is a type of counselling known as auditing, in which practitioners aim to consciously re-experience painful or traumatic events in their past in order to free themselves of their limiting effects

The above sentence is highly inaccurate and is a description of Dianetic auditing rather than Scientology auditing. Dianetic auditing is a completely different type of auditing than Scientology processes. They are worlds apart. Two completely different ball games. Apples and oranges. It is inaccurate on such a scale that I wonder how I missed it. So, we should definitely consider changing it to a more accurate description. Also, while the inclusion of "spiritual rehabilitation" is quite brilliant as this is a key Scientology concept that even most Scientologists generally don't even think about, so it's quite nice someone was paying attention to this factor, but someone had linked that to the article on psychiatric rehabilitation. I removed the wikilink (while keeping the phrase "spiritual rehabilitation") for obvious reasons. It was a nice joke, though. Laval (talk) 23:40, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Scholarly Views on Scientology's Status as a Religion

Adding an additional scholarly view to this section in an effort to balance out the perspectives offered in this section.Matipop (talk) 23:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

In your last three additions to this article you have misinterpreted and misrepresented two sources, and you placed a minor author's sweeping (positive) conclusion above that of a much more highly regarded critic. I performed what fixes I saw fit. Binksternet (talk) 01:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello Binksternet. About your reversion of my addition for the "Scholarly Views" section, how is my addition not notable exactly? It was a review by Rocheford, of a work by Bryan R. Wilson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryan_R._Wilson) who is a notable scholar, (apparently notable enough to merit his own Wikipedia page). I believe this addition enriches this section and adds a different perspective, and is worth retaining on the page. I propose that the edit is retained. Also, how is Kent's perspective more important than Wilson's? What policy can we cite that supports the order that you think is best for this section? Also, is there a policy against posting a scholarly view that has a positive inclination? It is based on a reliable source from a notable scholar.Matipop (talk) 00:02, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The "positive inclination" you describe is bias, pure and simple. At Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, the hard-and-fast rule is that articles must not be biased. We are supposed to take "a variety of sources" and convey to the reader what is in them "fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias." A further explanation can be found at WP:CHERRYPICKING—the practice of misrepresenting a source by ignoring the parts you do not want to bring forward. Binksternet (talk) 00:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

From what I understand, you mean positive content about Scientology is necessarily biased? You couldn't have said it any better, we are supposed to take a "variety of sources", hence including positive, negative and neutral. So in this section in question, it would therefore lend to "neutrality" if we had sources that both spoke to the religious or non-religious nature of Scientology. It seems that the bias that exists is against anything that might be remotely construed as positive, even though it is a scholarly perspective reflected verbatim from the notable source.Matipop (talk) 17:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

You have misunderstood. A source which contains positive and negative information about Scientology cannot be misrepresented by telling the reader about only the positive. Binksternet (talk) 19:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

This section had become badly overgrown--I've made an edit that attempts to retain the on-topic information in a concise manner. -- BTfromLA (talk) 02:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Good work. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 02:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

About the recent changes you made, BTfromLA. While I appreciate the brevity you've lent to the section, I feel that you have deleted significant portions that are not redundant and fulfill Wikipedia's requirement of notability, reliable sources and neutrality. Along with the work that you've done, I've reinserted J. Gordon Melton's statement on the status of Scientology as a religion. It flows well with the rest of the section, and Melton is also mentioned in the section that immediately follows right after. J. Gordon Melton is also equally as notable as Stephen Kent, and is generously cited in religion/spirituality related articles. Thank you.Matipop (talk) 23:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The "flow" that you appear to like makes for a jagged and clunky reading experience. You have to allow the negative voices free space for expression; you should not try to attenuate negative information by negating it with positive information. Binksternet (talk) 00:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The Melton quote that you've inserted, Matipop, adds no value: the idea that Scientology is a religion is already conveyed by three other sources in this section! I can't think of any justification for including it except the one that Binksternet offers, as an attempt to "attenuate negative information." (Although the comments it is countering are not all that negative, if you ask me.) I've reverted the change. -- BTfromLA (talk) 04:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I honestly do not understand why balancing out a section that is supposed to give an overview of "scholarly views on Scientology's status as a religion" is not valuable. Melton's perspective certainly adds value to the page, because he is an authoritative, credible and well-noted scholar. The addition of Melton's quote lends NPOV in a section that is supposed to give the most succinct yet inclusive overview possible of scholarly views on the matter.  According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view, "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, ALL of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Notice "ALL of the significant views." Melton is definitely significant and notable enough to be included and his statement is backed by a verifiable, reliable source.  Do I sense a general aversion towards any positive addition here? I do not understand this. If you feel that the addition is "attenuat[ing] negative information." and not allow[ing] negative voices free space for expression, then perhaps the better move is to transfer the Melton quote to another part of the section, perhaps at the bottom of the paragraph that starts with Dr. Frank K. Finn? Why shouldn't we allow positive voices "free space for expression as well?" Isn't NPOV all about being inclusive of all significant viewpoints?Matipop (talk) 18:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The article to which you have linked is hosted on a pro-Scientology website, instead of citing the original work "A Short Study of the Scientology Religion", for which I cannot find any other mentions online (except one book citing your linked website as the source instead of the original). Moreover, it is an opinion piece, not a scholarly work. It does not appear to be published in a peer-reviewed journal, or any other reliable source. Mindmatrix 19:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Matipop, if 75 esteemed scholars were to have written words to the effect that "Scientology is a religion," it does not mean that the article should quote all 75, or even two of of them. The issue is exactly the one you state: "representing fairly [and] proportionately" the significant views on the topic. The idea that Scientology is widely considered as a religion for academic purposes is already very well represented--indeed, it is the topic sentence of the section. The ways in which Scientology is seen to have the defining characteristics of a religion are spelled out in both of the Flinn and Neusner quotes, which are a bit redundant as it stands. Each of those are far more specific than Melton's quote, which tells the reader nothing new except that Melton agrees. If you think Melton is of such import that he above all should be quoted, I guess he could replace those other quotes, but I prefer them for the article because they are more specific, and they actually help the reader to understand the reasoning involved. (I'm setting aside for the moment the objections that Mindmatrix raises, but there is definitely an issue about the reliability of sources sponsored by the church in this subject area, too.)-- BTfromLA (talk) 19:44, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

One example of anti-cult Scientology is found is a key text, A New Slant on Life, p. 33 and forward, describing an Autonomy-principle, in "raising Scientology above the authoritarian category." This isn't the only thing, apart from being primary literature to critics and followers alike´, the Neutrality Point of View still demands that you cite correctly and that, as in science and philosophy, a charitable view must be permitted at any point in time. Cheers! 95.34.151.21 (talk) 04:12, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Warning! Something is going on here. There should have been a section that says "Why Scientology can be described as religious (and not cult)"! Why has this text been so soundly removed? Not with the archives, 30, and not here, yet holding 4 important points, well elaborated? Do you want them here? Isn't the article supposed to reflect the true contents of Scientology teachings? Dishonesty instead? 95.34.121.16 (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

To my humble opinion, any unproven idea in which people persist to believe is religion. So Scientology is clearly religious in my opinion. I am therefor of the opinion that the discussion, about Scientology being a religion or not, is a false discussion. It tries to hide the real discussion that people should have. And that is whether or not the State should grand religious people or their organizations special rights that non-religious people or organizations can not get. Why should persisting to believe in unproven ideas be promoted in this way, and given a head-start on people and organizations that prefer to believe in proven ideas?77.172.59.47 (talk) 11:09, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

See WP:NOT#FORUM. Talk pages are not for general discussion of article topics Jonathanfu (talk) 14:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Confusing wording

"The Sea Org was based on three ships, the Diana, the Athena, and the Apollo, which served as the flag ship.[77] One month after the establishment of the Sea Org, Hubbard announced that he had made a breakthrough discovery, the result of which were the "OT III" materials purporting to provide a method for overcoming factors inhibiting spiritual progress.[77] These materials were first disseminated on the ships, and then propagated by Sea Org members reassigned to staff Advanced Organizations on land."

This makes no sense out of context. What are the "ships" described? Also, the rest of the text seems vague and confusing as well. 12.203.226.194 (talk) 18:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Recent additions

Binksternet: The reasons given for the deletion of my edits is confusing and unsubstantial. What is your basis to say that Dianetics is not psychotherapeutic? Do you have references? I have posted this edit in compliance with WP:RS. It seems arbitrary to say as well that statements are "opaque" and offer little meaning for the reader. This is only your own subjective point of view. The Flinn quote states that engrams exist as believed in Scientology. It is presented as a belief based on a valid encyclopedic reference. I would like to request that my edits be reinstated based on this, or if not modified to warrant inclusion. To simply revert everything haphazardly and with little thought is not assuming the good faith of the edits.Matipop (talk) 23:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Nearly every bit of text you bring to this topic is promotional or positive in nature. Every time I see you add something I make sure to examine it closely. I do not want to see the article become a brochure for Scientology or otherwise violate NPOV.

Specifically about this series of your additions, I see no reason that in-universe terminology should be brought into the article as if it were a normal way to talk about the world—it is not. In-universe assumptions about what is psychotherapy likewise cannot be presented as normal. Binksternet (talk) 00:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

You assumption is incorrect, I have inserted text that are neutral - positive, and always go out of my way to back up my edits with encyclopedic, reliable resources. I'm passionate about the topic and it bothers me when NPOV is violated on the related pages. I have strived to stick to NPOV by carefully citing encyclopedic references. Why is a positive edit automatically construed as "promotional"? A negative edit, then is considered as in compliance with NPOV? To be neutral and encyclopedic, an article must present positive, neutral and negative points of view. "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Isn't a neutral-positive view, if based on a reliable source, just as significant as a critical/negative one? A preference for negative edits is the violation of NPOV.Matipop (talk) 00:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

You just constructed a straw man argument to refute. I'm not trying to put negative things into the article, I'm just here to remove the outlandishly positive things so that the article can retain its balance. My goal is NPOV, your goal is that this topic about which you are "passionate" should be made to sound as good as possible. Binksternet (talk) 02:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Again, the word "outlandish" is from your subjective point of view. I did a quick analysis of the article and it is predominantly negative. I am adding neutral-positive content in order to create a greater balance, thus NPOV. I never said that you're "trying to put negative things into the article." You just seem to be more critical towards positive additions.Matipop (talk) 01:00, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually this isn't subjective at all. WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV cover it pretty good. A quick analysis of the reliable sources out there on Scientology are predominately negative. Adding neutral positive content in this case isn't creating a NPOV but rather violating NPOV by ignoring weight.Coffeepusher (talk) 04:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Coffeepusher is right. The goal of having a perfect balance of negative and positive information is not compliant with WP:NPOV. Instead, the article's "balance" should be based on the imbalance which is found in the literature. Scientology is not treated well by the majority of sources. Scientology is not considered a religion by the German government, where they are highly critical of the group. Ursula Caberta, former German cabinet member, worked very hard during her time in office to expose Scientology's strong-arm tactics. Ronald DeWolf, Hubbard's son, wrote in 1983 about the terrible, lurid practices he saw within Scientology. Jamie DeWolf, the great-grandson of Hubbard, has damned Scientology as "absolute poison" and a "dangerous cult". Jenna Miscavige, niece of Scientology leader David Miscavage, has exposed Scientology as a cult. Former Church of Scientology inspector general Marty Rathbun says he narrowly escaped the "destructive cult" of Scientology. There is a long list of notable people who were once members of Scientology but have quit. Nearly all of those describe Scientology as abusive, controlling or in otherwise uncharitable terms. Time magazine had a cover article by Richard Behar on May 6, 1991, called "The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power"—the actual magazine cover said "Scientology – The Cult of Greed". Cynthia Kisser of the Cult Awareness Network was quoted in Time saying that "Scientology is quite likely the most ruthless, the most classically terroristic, the most litigious and the most lucrative cult the country has seen." Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Lawrence Wright interviewed 200 Scientology members and ex-members to conclude that Scientology has "an enduring appeal" despite "the widespread assumption that Scientology is a cult and a fraud." BBC investigative reporter John Sweeney (journalist) wrote a book calling Scientology "the Church of Fear". Journalist Janet Reitman reports that Scientology is clearly "America's most controversial religion," likened repeatedly to a cult. French psychiatrist and criminologist Jean-Marie Abgrall describes and decries the practices of Scientolgy in his book Soul Snatchers: The Mechanics of Cults. British religion professor James A. Beckford says that scholars disagree about the word "cult", with some saying that a cult must be a small group, not a large one like Scientology. Nevertheless, he says that Scientology is "widely regarded as controversial." Religion scholar Rodney Stark wrote in 1985 that Scientology was the training ground for cult leaders and also the inspiration for new cults. He refers to Scientology as "the vast psychotherapy cult founded by science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard." He says that Scientology "has not yet been able to escape it primary basis in extremely specific and serious magical claims." He says the book Dianetics is "the bible of his cult", meaning Hubbard's cult. Academic writer James R. Lewis (scholar) says that Scientology is not a cult but a sect because its members do not agree about the world, they just agree about their level of commitment. He says that Scientology is commonly said to be "mental therapy masquerading as a religion." All of this negative material is in the popular media and the scholarly treatments. The balance is strongly against Scientology. That is the balance this article should have but at the moment it fails in this task. It is far too positive. Binksternet (talk) 05:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

There are a lot of neutral-positive references on Scientology if you care to look. They are in encyclopedias, journals, academic databases and many publications. I have found them in my research as I continue to edit. You just simply listed all the people/authors who are critical about the religion, and I acknowledge that this perspective exists, but there is also a vast amount of material that present Scientology in a neutral-positive light. There is an alternate perspective that must be represented as well.Matipop (talk) 16:25, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I did not list all the critics of Scientology! There are many, many more. The government of Greece says Scientology is an "enemy of the state". The governments of France and Belgium agree with Germany that Scientology is "dangerous". Your "vast" amount of neutral–positive material is not completely trustworthy. James R. Lewis (scholar) says Scientology paid scholars to write neutral/positive/apologist articles about the group. Professor David G. Bromley agrees.[2] That means the scholarly writings are suspect—they may not be telling the whole truth. Lewis said in 2011 that his view of Scientology changed for the worse as many high-ranking Scientologists left the group and spoke about abuses. The most prominent of these was Heber Jentzsch, former president of Scientology, a person that Lewis interviewed at length. Lewis says the previous growth of Scientology has "ground to a halt" since the high-ranking members left.[3] You have been using the Gordon Melton material extensively for neutral–positive views but Melton has been rethinking his stance since then; he is now more negative about Scientology. He says that Scientology will never become one of the mainstream religions. He's more concerned now about abuses in Sea Org, and strong-arm tactics against the perceived enemies of Scientology. Your "alternate" perspective is a minor view as compared to the mainstream one. Binksternet (talk) 17:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Binkesternet, lets not try to discredit WP:RS using vague accusations that target every scholar that wrote a non-negative view of scientology. Scientology uses the same tactic against critics, and it doesn't hold weight here on wikipedia. Now if you have evidence that specific scholarly works are in fact primary sources published by scientology then that is fine, but if Scientology commissioned research that was then vetted through an independent peer review then it is a valid WP:RS. That being said, those scholarly publications still have to be represented based on WP:WEIGHT not based on a "one positive claim, one negative claim, one positive claim, one negative claim" understanding of neutrality. Coffeepusher (talk) 19:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that vetted scholarly papers are still scholarly. Binksternet (talk) 00:28, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Recent edit

Mindmatrix, I would appreciate an explanation of your reversion of my edit because of a "review" of the reference that you consider as the sole basis of regrading the reference is unreliable. Where in Wikipedia policy does it state that we can discount the reliability of a scholarly reference because of a review? Can you also explain how a reference is reliable for "the existence of orgs but not their activities?" I feel that you are preventing me from adding the information on the page for some reason, but I am open to discussion. What can we do to add the information on the page?Matipop (talk) 00:37, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

In this review of the book, the reviewer states that the authors "requested that each group review their description for accuracy", which is OK to verify the existence and operations of the organization, but is by no means a critical inspection therein. In this bibliography at the Miller Library at Colby College, the reviewer states that the book provides "the reader with an extensive list of contemporary religious organizations and movements", which makes it a good source for articles such as List of new religious movements. However, it is not a good source for this article, as the reviewer also states "it is suggested that the reader does not rely solely on this work for accuracy of information". Mindmatrix 15:24, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your edit, I think it would be better to clearly explain each piece of info. For example, you added that the Scientology group of organizations "focus on human rights, education, drug rehabilitation and other issues"; instead, you should explain the organization's treatment of human rights, views on education, and approach to drug rehabilitation. For example, discuss Narconon for drug rehabilitation, which has "faced considerable controversy over the safety and effectiveness of its rehabilitation methods" (per the WP article and the sources it uses). This is an article about a controversial organization, so any text included in it should be clear, precise, accurate, and comprehensive. Mindmatrix 15:24, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Scientology's Status as a Religion in Italy

The article claimed «Scientology is legally recognized as a tax-exempt religion in the United States, Italy,[...]», but actually it is not true. This statement is based on this reference: ["Italian Supreme Court decision". Cesnur.org. Archived from the original on 2012-07-29. Retrieved 2012-09-20. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)].
The full text of the judgement in Italian just says that even if the organization has religious features, it should be treat as a business company and has to pay taxes. So, de facto the Italian Supreme Court did NOT "rule" «[...]that Scientology is a religion for legal purposes», because, according to Civil Law system, judges' decisions have no precedence value.

In Italy a religious group can ask for recognition as Ente di culto ("cult institution"?) and then stipulate an agreement directly with the Government that promulgate a new law through Parliament's endorsement; that is the only way to get recognition and Scientology just NEVER did so.
In this case when Scientology is on trial, is the judge to decide to treat it as a religious subject or not according to the kind of trial and the principles of Constitutional Court. But it does NOT mean that in Italy Scientology is officially recognised as a religion, let alone a "tax-exempt religion".

That is why I ask to remove all the references to the recognition of Scientology as a Religion in Italy, just because they are false and based on a source that misinterpret facts.
Cuci.en (talk) 21:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC) [Forgive my poor English]

Here are a few more references: [4] [5] [6]Myrvin (talk) 13:04, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

UK Scientology religion status

Hello, i´ve just read this: ( Scientology is a religion, rules Supreme Court, we should add the new country, although, it´s not confirm, that´s a "tax-exempt religion", and also, i would look for legal papers about it or a more reliable online source--Euroescritor (talk) 16:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Here is a Reuters article. Just so it's clear, this is the UK Supreme Court, not SCOTUS. --GoodDamon 17:19, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2014

According to “Escape From Evil,” a book by Pulitzer Prize-winning author Ernest Becker, Scientology is Hilterism because it practices Blukitt (Blood-Cement) of its new members called pre-clears. Harryscaryghost (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Not done: This accusation didn't generate enough response to be considered for inclusion within the article. In other words it appears that this is the only source of that accusation (I can't find any other reliable source that says Scinetology is Hilterism [sic] or practices Blukitt), therefore this statement doesn't satisfy wikipedia's weight requirements. Coffeepusher (talk) 14:09, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2014

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)

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)

Wanton for additional religious symbols of Scientology - The Pyramid by the S and two Arcs

The file looks like this, https://www.rtc.org/pics/Grupo 13 Logo.jpg - . 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)

Derivation of the word Scientology

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)

Scientology teaches that people are immortal beings who have forgotten their true nature

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)

Disconnect between articles

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)

Historical basis for Scientology

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)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2014

Extremely Dysfunctional - Only the ric and famous benefit Horrific abuse and disgusting behavious against the law - child abuse etc - whoever follows this religion is a pycho and crazed lunatic

99.246.62.139 (talk) 23:09, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. (t) Josve05a (c) 23:15, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration amendment request (vacate article probation)

I've posted an amendment request to the Arbitration Committee at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment requesting that the article probation authorised in the COFS case be vacated in preference to the Scientology. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:03, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee motion

An arbitration amendment request in which editors here may be involved resulted in a motion by the Arbitration Committee

Motion

For the Arbitration Committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 13:42, 3 June 2014 (UTC)"

Cult?

This has probably been discussed ad nauseam. Regardless, I was curious as to whether or not there was any particular reason that Scientology is not referred to as a cult? JDiala (talk) 01:11, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I would also imagine it has previously been discussed, but it does seem a strange omission. Under the "Scientology status by country" section it does state that some religions "continue to view it as a pseudoreligion or cult." It gives two sources for the use of that term. It is rather conspicuously absent from the contoversy section, especially when it describes how Scientology "brutally exploits its members," "that survives by intimidating members and critics in a Mafia-like manner," and "in which members are encouraged to cut off all contact with friends or family members who are "antagonistic" to Scientology." These are such classic cult behaviors that it is almost as if this section is describing it as a cult while deliberately avoiding the word? That seems rather un-encyclopaedic to me. -Lciaccio (talk) 16:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

There are basically three reasons, so far as I know. One is our guideline WP:W2W. The word "cult" in this context is both somewhat vague, as there is so far as I can tell no specific clearly agreed upon definition of the term, and because, at least in this content, the use of the term tends to prompt more heat than light. Poorly defined language is at best dubiously encyclopedic, and so is rather unnecessarily inflammatory language. Lastly, the academic community has stopped using the word lately, replacing it with new religious movement, so we use the currently used academic language instead. John Carter (talk) 17:23, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. That makes a lot of sense from a Wikipedia standpoint; the entry for Cult itself demonstrates the difficulty defining it. I think the use aimed for here was to signify religions who use psychological manipulation; I wish we had a distinct new word to differentiate those from other types of new religious movements. From what I can tell, had the word been better defined, the fact that it was inflammatory would have required frequent use by reliable sources, and thus may not alone have been a barrier. I haven't made a study of how often the word is used for Scientology, but I suspect the official use of that label by governments indicates it would have been satisfied. -Lciaccio (talk) 21:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

If it is of any help, here is a translation from the introduction of the Scientology article in the Hebrew Wikipedia: "inquiries performed by investigation committees in different countries, including Australia, Israel and France, have rejected the argument of a scientific basis of Scientology, and defined it as a cult". Three citations are given. The first is the Australian Anderson report, also cited here. The other is for France: Commission d'enquête sur les sectes – Assemblée nationale, 22/12/1995, linking to http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/rap-enq/r2468.asp. The third is for Israel: דו"ח וועדת החקירה הבינמשרדית בראשות מרים גלזר-תעסה לבדיקת נושא הכתות בישראל, ירושלים, טבת תשמ"ז, ינואר 1987, meaning "Report of the interministerial investigation committee chaired by Miriam Glazer-Tassa for the examination of the cults issue in Israel, Jerusalem, January 1987". No link is provided. Wikiation (talk) 15:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

And yet none of my two dozen dictionaries have any problem defining the word. The fact is the science of sociology has very clearly provided definitions of the word cult. But one could I suppose go on forever arguing the definition of cult. That said, scientology fits every single definition ever published and that should be enough to use the word. It is a cult period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.144.213.97 (talk • contribs)

Incorrect Statement

This statement is untrue:

"On January 24, 1986, L. Ron Hubbard died at his ranch in Creston, California,[87] and David Miscavige became the head of the organization."

Hubbard was succeeded by the Broekers but Miscavige essentially seized control over the next 2 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.123.225.76 (talk) 00:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest editing it to something like:

"On January 24, 1986, L. Ron Hubbard died at his ranch in Creston, California,[87] and within two years David Miscavige became the head of the organization."

Source is easy to find one example would be the Going Clear book. There are some news reports as well. 24.21.151.167 (talk) 02:38, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2015

The sentence "In contrast, the organization is considered a commercial enterprise in Switzerland" is without a source and incorrect.

The source is a statement of the Swiss Federal Council (Swiss Government) stating "According to its nomenclature and its bylaws the Church of Scientology sees itself as a new religious movement and is to be treated as such until other facts would be available. The Federal Court (highest court in Switzerland) shares this view (BGE 118 Ia 52)"

Swiss Federal Council official statement on Scientology 1./2. Entsprechend ihrer Nomenklatur und ihren Statuten sieht sich die Scientology Church als neureligiöse Bewegung und ist bis zum Vorliegen anderer Fakten als solche zu behandeln. Das Bundesgericht teilt diese Auffassung (BGE 118 Ia 52). Nach der bundesstaatlichen Kompetenzausscheidung (Art. 3 BV) liegt die Kirchenhoheit bei den Kantonen. Sie ordnen das Verhältnis von Kirche und Staat und bestimmen die rechtliche Stellung der Religionsgemeinschaften. Es kann daher nicht Sache des Bundesrates sein, über die Rechtsstellung der Scientology zu befinden.

Please replace the sentence "In contrast, the organization is considered a commercial enterprise in Switzerland, a cult (French secte) in France and Chile, and a non-profit in Norway, and its legal classification is often a point of contention." with "In Switzerland the Swiss Federal Council stated in a public reply: According to its nomenclature and its bylaws the Church of Scientology sees itself as a new religious movement and is to be treated as such until other facts would be available. The Federal Court (highest court in Switzerland) shares this view (BGE 118 Ia 52)" Voltar99 (talk) 16:18, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

•  Not done You asked for one thing but then suggested several things including the removal of valid summary text about the CoS being considered a sect in France and Chile, etc. This appears to be an attempt to remove valid summary text. Binksternet (talk) 16:58, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Science fiction author?

I haven't been around this article in a long while, but I'm pretty sure there was consensus some time ago to describe Hubbard as a "pulp fiction author" or something along those lines, given the fact that the majority of his fiction output were typical pulp fare in the adventure/Westerns/detective stories/pirate milieus, etc. Almost no other fiction authors who worked in multiple genres ever gets this kind of treatment, so the predominantly negative tone of this article in certain parts is problematic.

If anyone thinks this article isn't at all significantly biased against its subject, contrast with Werner Erhard, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Paul Twitchell, among many others. Laval (talk) 15:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:NPOV doesn't mean positive point of view. Some articles are more negative than others, like War vs. Love. Hopefully, the articles reflect the negative or positive views of WP:RSs. If that's not the case here, you just need to bring sources.

On the specific of "science fiction" vs. "pulp fiction", I don't see how the latter is more NPOV. I'd think that SF is more prestigious than pulp. But, again, it should come to sources, not our opinions. Currently, the page L. Ron Hubbard leads with SF and fantasy author. We should probably reflect what that page says. --A D Monroe III (talk) 23:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

If you are familiar with the subject, then you know that there are just as many reliable sources that describe Hubbard variously as just an "author," as a "science fiction" author, as a "pulp fiction" author, and so on. This article and the L. Ron Hubbard article do not use specific inline citations to make the assertion one way or another. This is exactly something that would require a general consensus from editors, rather than simply trumpeting one set of sources over another. The goal is WP:NPOV. Laval (talk) 09:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I've changed it to "author" — we'll see what others think of that. That's the most NPOV we could get. It makes sense for the L. Ron Hubbard bio article to go into further detail stating, "... LRH, was an American author and the founder of the Church of Scientology. After establishing a career as a writer, becoming best known for his science fiction and fantasy stories, he developed a self-help system called Dianetics which was first expounded in book form in May 1950." I wouldn't object to further detail here since at least there is an attempt at objectivity, but it is a bit much IMHO since this article is not a bio, but a description of Scientology's belief system. But simply describing him as a "science fiction writer" is not WP:NPOV however which way you wish to paint it. Laval (talk) 09:44, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the earlier phrasing can be improved, which might involve breaking up a sentence or adding a new one at the top of the article, but I disagree with the new version that labels Hubbard as simply "author." There are clearly points of connection between the scriptures (and history) of Scientology and the pulp sci-fi milieu of which Hubbard was a part, so mentioning his prior (and ongoing, even after Scientology was long established) connection to writing science fiction seems entirely relevant. (Hubbard himself spoke of "space opera" within Scientology, and of course the early days of Dianetics are firmly tied into the sci-fi subculture.) I don't know the exact proportion of third party sources who mention the pulp science-fiction connection when introducing Hubbard in the context of Scientology, but in my experience it appears more often than not. --BTfromLA (talk) 22:30, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

This article is about Scientology, not focused just on LRH. How LRH should be quickly described here is based on the specific LRH article. This discussion belongs there, not here. If that page is changed to describe him as an "x", then we'll do the same on this page. Until then, this last change here is against consensus. --A D Monroe III (talk) 14:51, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Who tagging

Maybe the text could be phrased better to indicate that the "Some scholars" are those identified in the footnote at the end of the sentence. Should the footnote be replicated in the "who?" position? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 22:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I would prefer to just give attribution to whoever made the claims. That's not the first time I've seen that claim made, but the source itself is pretty obscure, and being in reference to the Stark-Bainbridge theory of religion doesn't seem to be from a proper historical perspective. Roy Wallis is reliable enough though, so I would hope that either a better source could be found, or at least an additional source from a different scholar. At the very least it should just say "sociologists Roy Wallis and Steve Bruce have suggested..." Grayfell (talk) 01:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Done. Also replaced it in the last para that section. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 03:23, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, that'll work. Like I' said, I've seen that claim in other places, and I kind of doubt it originated from that relatively obscure journal. Maybe I'll remember where else I've read that. I've rephrased it a bit, as the mention of individualism was starting to seem a bit confusing. Grayfell (talk) 04:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Etymology

This paragraph is not really about Scientology. It is more in the category of "fun facts to amaze your friends." If we cannot show that it has any connection with the subject or the founder of the subject, it is not even a fact:

In 1901, Allen Upward coined Scientology "as a disparaging term, to indicate a blind, unthinking acceptance of scientific doctrine" according to the Internet Sacred Text Archive as quoted in the preface to Forgotten Books' recent edition of Upward's book, The New Word: On the meaning of the word Idealist.[44] Continuing to quote, the publisher writes "I'm not aware of any evidence that Hubbard knew of this fairly obscure book."[45] In 1934, philosopher Anastasius Nordenholz published a book that used the term to mean "science of science".[46] It is also uncertain whether Hubbard was aware of this prior usage of the word.[47]

I propose it should be removed from the article. What say you? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 06:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

It could stand to be rephrased for sure, but as an encyclopedia article, it makes sense to explain other uses of a term. This article is titled "Scientology", so explaining the (very obscure) history of that word prior to Hubbard seems reasonable and potentially helpful. Grayfell (talk) 07:16, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Grayfell. There's no doubt that the etymology is notable; it's been discussed by multiple authors (see [7]). It should be retained, though it does need some rewording. Prioryman (talk) 07:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about the "notability" of etymologies, but I'll take your word for it. It is kind of a weasel to imply that it means "blind unthinking etc." if that has nothing to do with the origin of word, and then add the disclaimer that it may not even be true. It sounds like the banal quip, "All doctors take the hypocrite -- I mean, the Hippocratic -- Oath. Those words may or may not be related." Anyway, do you have a suggestion for rewording? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 08:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:WEASEL is for vague, unattributed value judgments. This isn't a weasel, because it's the definition of the word given by the first person known to have used it. To mention that Upward coined the word without explaining its meaning would be too vague.

Here's my take on rephrasing the paragraph:

The term scientology had been used in published works at least twice before Hubbard. In 1901, Allen Upward coined scientology to mean blind, unthinking acceptance of scientific doctrine.[44] In 1934, philosopher Anastasius Nordenholz published a book that used the term to mean "science of science".[46] It's unknown if Hubbard was aware of either prior usage of the word.[45][47]

Upward's book can be browsed online, and the I'm not entirely sure I agree with that characterization, but I think that's close enough. It's clear that he's using it dismissively, he says "And unhappily scientology is as often mistaken for science as theology is for worship."[8] which seems a bit more nuanced then we're presenting. A recurring theme in the book is the harm caused by dogmatism and arrogance, which supports the given definition. It's pretty insufferable in parts, so I don't think I'm going to plow through the whole thing, but there are bits that are pretty interesting. Grayfell (talk) 21:25, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Since there was no objection, I've streamlined the paragraph. Grayfell (talk) 03:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Variant text in mobile version

I was browsing this topic on my mobile device, and the top of the article looked like this: [9] - if you can't see this image, it contains this text: "Body of beliefs and related practices created by science fiction writer Alex Contreras". It looks like a caption for the image, but I'm not seeing any image like this with such text attached to it.

I can't find a place to fix this (Alex Contreras is not the correct name!) but a search through the source code, the image source code, the talk pages, and the article history has not turned up any reference to Alex Contreras. I can't duplicate the error on my laptop either. Could someone better than I at code have a look at, and possibly fix, this minor error? Thsnkd - Pegship (talk) 23:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed Found it: Apparently the mobile site gets a summary from Wikidata. It was vandalized there in December:[10]. I've fixed the problem. Grayfell (talk) 02:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Aha, thank you! Pegship (talk) 21:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Scientology

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Scientology's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "urban2006":

• From Xenu: Urban, Hugh B. (June 2006). "Fair Game: Secrecy, Security, and the Church of Scientology in Cold War America". Journal of the American Academy of Religion. 74 (2). Oxford University Press: 356–389. doi:10.1093/jaarel/lfj084. ISSN 1477-4585. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• From L. Ron Hubbard: Urban, Hugh B. "Fair Game: Secrecy, Security, and the Church of Scientology in Cold War America." Journal of the American Academy of Religion 74:2 (2006)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 14:53, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Lede structure

I just glanced at this article for the first time. Does the sub-sectioning in the lede strike anyone else as odd. I don't think we do this anywhere else. Is there a reason we do it here? NickCT (talk) 14:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm for removing the odd sub-sectioning. Some may find it marginally helpful, but it's also distracting having things that look like sections but aren't, and making the apparent lede (the part of the lede before the first sub-section) to be way too brief. Mostly, it is non-standard, and I see no reason to justify the deviation here. --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

@A D Monroe III: - Ok. I think I'm just going to blanket delete the content for now. If people want to revert it they can put it back without the subsections. NickCT (talk) 17:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

@NickCT:; Yikes! I did not mean all the sub-sections should be deleted! Just the sub-sectioning -- the lines starting with ";". The text in the sub-sections have been there (in some form) for quite a while, and are sourced. --A D Monroe III (talk) 18:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I went back to the state of the article prior to NickCT's large-scale removal, and I removed the subheadings that had been put in place by Feoffer, but which were outside of normal WP:LAYOUT style. I also removed a bit about how members can pay for study materials, as it was trivial, not appropriate to the lead section. Here's the diff of what I did. Binksternet (talk) 19:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

That looks good. Thanks. --A D Monroe III (talk) 19:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

@A D Monroe III: - Yeah. I know we probably didn't want the material to be completely deleted. I deleted it in order to prompt someone to look at it. Which worked....

@Binksternet: - Thanks. I think you missed one. I took it out. NickCT (talk) 15:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Addition of "questionable" under the edit summary of "clarify"?

Referring to this diff ... the characterization of social service programs supported by Scientology as "questionable" I don't think should be made unless it is supported by a reliable source quotation as it is too easily dismissed as an opinion on the part of the editor. I don't have access to the text of either source supporting the passage, though. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 21:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Fraudulent would be more neutral, but questionable is fair, and well supported based on the articles on the programmes themselves, especially narconon. Guy (Help!) 21:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Scientology

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Scientology's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "kent":

• From Scientology and abortion: Kent, Stephen A. (July 1999). "Scientology -- Is this a Religion?". Marburg Journal of Religion. 4 (1). archiv.ub.uni-marburg.de. Retrieved 2009-11-07.
• From Kurt Weiland: Kent, Stephen A. (September 2003). "Scientology and the European Human Rights Debate: A Reply to Leisa Goodman, J. Gordon Melton, and the European Rehabilitation Project Force Study". Marburg Journal of Religion. 8 (1). University of Marburg. Retrieved 2008-06-16.
• From Kendrick Moxon: Kent, Stephen A.; Theresa Krebs (1998). "When Scholars Know Sin: Alternative Religions and Their Academic Supporters". Skeptic Magazine. 6 (3). Retrieved 2009-06-20.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 14:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Featured article nomination for Sara Northrup Hollister

I've nominated the article about Sara Northrup Hollister - Hubbard's second wife - for Featured Article status. If you have any comments on this please feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sara Northrup Hollister/archive1. Prioryman (talk) 21:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Change request about the status of Scientology in Switzerland

Hi,

I live in Switzerland and I am fairly familiar with the status of Scientology in Switzerland. Please consider my request

The sentence "In contrast, the organization is considered a commercial enterprise in Switzerland" is without a source and incorrect.

The source is a statement of the Swiss Federal Council (Swiss Government) stating "According to its nomenclature and its bylaws the Church of Scientology sees itself as a new religious movement and is to be treated as such until other facts would be available. The Federal Court (highest court in Switzerland) shares this view "

The Swiss Federal Council official statement on Scientology in the German Original 1./2. Entsprechend ihrer Nomenklatur und ihren Statuten sieht sich die Scientology Church als neureligiöse Bewegung und ist bis zum Vorliegen anderer Fakten als solche zu behandeln. Das Bundesgericht teilt diese Auffassung (BGE 118 Ia 52). Nach der bundesstaatlichen Kompetenzausscheidung (Art. 3 BV) liegt die Kirchenhoheit bei den Kantonen. Sie ordnen das Verhältnis von Kirche und Staat und bestimmen die rechtliche Stellung der Religionsgemeinschaften. Es kann daher nicht Sache des Bundesrates sein, über die Rechtsstellung der Scientology zu befinden.

Please replace the sentence "In contrast, the organization is considered a commercial enterprise in Switzerland, a cult (French secte) in France and Chile, and a non-profit in Norway, and its legal classification is often a point of contention." with "In Switzerland the Swiss Federal Council stated in a public reply: According to its nomenclature and its bylaws the Church of Scientology sees itself as a new religious movement and is to be treated as such until other facts would be available. The Federal Court (highest court in Switzerland) shares this view "

Please let me know if this change can be inserted in Wiki or if any further information needs to be provided.

Kind regards

Voltar99 (talk) 19:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)voltar99 - Gianni Zanetti, Switzerland

References

Arbitration Motion

The Arbitration Committee are proposing to combine the discretionary sanctions authorised for this topic area with those authorised in several similar areas. Details of the proposal are at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Motion: New Religious Movements where your comments are invited. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:22, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

The 20th Century is Over

current: Scientology is one of the most controversial new religious movements to have arisen in the 20th century. better, since the 20th Century is over: Scientology is one of the most controversial new religious movements that arose in the 20th century.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.77.79.17 (talk) 21:22, 29 April 2014

Dude the 20th Century is not over. 206.45.27.179 (talk) 01:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

This is the 21st century. The 20th century ended 31 December 2000. Grayfell (talk) 02:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Lead section condense

Please someone condense the lede, move Hubbard's life story somewhere below, summarise controversies in one paragraph (no need to go into details, just 3-4 sentences of general nature - so that negative info does not overshadow neutral info), affiliations can safely be listed in the main article body, and so on. Follow guidelines set in WP:LEDE if in doubt. Thanks and regards, kashmiri ^TALK 16:32, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Fore instance, I think there is to much detail here: "The group's legal classification is often a point of contention. The United States and some other countries have granted the Church tax-exempt religious status, but at least one (Germany) classifies Scientology as an "anti-constitutional sect" (verfassungsfeindliche Sekte).[28][29]In France, Scientology is sometimes classified as a cult by public authorities.[30][31][32] See Scientology in France[33][34][35]": country-specific info (and the relevant footnotes) could be provided in a specific section or article. Apokrif (talk) 17:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

This is a very big article (over 200 kb) and it only has 4 not particularly long paragraphs which is in keeping with WP:LEDE guidelines. Whether undue weight or excessive detail has been given is a separate issue.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 09:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Repeated disruptions and refusal to WP:HEAR by Apokrif

This page is under attack by the account Apokrif who appears to throw every policy over board. The account is deleting content, even sourced content, edit warring and violating WP:BRD. I won't get dragged into any edit war, but I've left a final warning at the user's talk page and hope some other user can restore the page. This is not a content dispute in any way, that Scientology is classified as a "secte" in France is clear in the source (which the vandal-account also deleted). It's just a case of a vandal deleting content based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Jeppiz (talk) 19:58, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I was wondering whether anyone was going to discuss this on the talk page. I also urge all editors to realize that this article is very very clearly under discretionary sanctions, as per the template at the top of the page. At least one of the arguments that editor has used, to the effect that a parliamentary report is not a sufficient declaration to declare whether a group is counted as a cult, as per here, unusual at best. @Jeppiz:, any reason you haven't taken this to AE yet? John Carter (talk) 20:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

John Carter, I first assumed good faith and assumed the user requested a source. I thought that was a valid argument, which is why I made sure to include the source. When the user then deleted the content and the source, claiming that a French parliamentary report declaring the movement a cult in France wouldn't be a valid source that the movement is considered a cult in France, well, I realized that my good faith attempt was mistaken. I won't get involved in edit warring, but I agree that AE may be the next step. Jeppiz (talk) 20:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

It's always nice to have WP:SECONDARY sources for this kind of thing, especially since government documents are so easy to misinterpret. In this case though, this is a technicality, as Scientology in France has such sources. This one seems like it might be usable to my non-French reading eyes. Grayfell (talk) 21:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm wondering if this section's title may fall under Wikipedia:No personal attacks; perhaps a title like "legal value of French parliamentary reports" would be more relevant(edit:added "alleged" to the title). @Jeppiz:, could you please tell what your sources are on the topic of these reports? In particular, can you cite a source which contradicts this source or (edited to add) that very clear secondary source ("le rapport parlementaire est dépourvu d'effet juridique")? Apokrif (talk) 11:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

@Grayfell:, I can't see what the Nouvel Observateur article you linked to might add to the debate? Note that the phrasing in the article you link to and in Scientology status by country is more accurate, so why not paste it into Scientology? Apokrif (talk) 11:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I rephrased the article. Note that the source about Germany (the Der Spiegel article) is very vague as to the exact status in Germany; that's exactly the type of approximation or vagueness I try to avoid in Wikipedia articles. Apokrif (talk) 11:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

[11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feoffer (talk • contribs) 10:15, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't get your point. Apokrif (talk) 12:15, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Empfehlung: Suggest for mediator contact Enforcement . EditWaffen:[19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26] und 3RR: [27][28][29][30] Feoffer (talk) 12:47, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Could you please write clear sentences, preferably in English? Apokrif (talk) 13:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

May I suggest that the contributors to this discussion read the sources I cited above, as well as this? ("Il faut avant tout souligner que la notion de secte est une notion de fait et non de droit, et qu'il ne s'y attache aucune conséquence juridique"). Perhaps they should be added to this article and to Scientology status by country and Scientology_in_France#Legal_status. More generally, editors should be aware that the point of view of some official body of a country is not necessarily the same as the official point of view of this country. See also fr:Discussion:Scientologie/archives1#Statut_l.C3.A9gal_en_France, Talk:Scientology_status_by_country#France and Talk:Scientology_in_France#Recognition_as_a_religion. Apokrif (talk) 14:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Please read also what the president of MIVILUDES said. Apokrif (talk) 18:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Apokrif, what part of Wikipedia is not a reliable source is it that you don't understand? You can link to 100 French wikipedia articles if you want, and it still doesn't make any difference. You're already on ANI for your refusal to WP:HEAR. Jeppiz (talk) 20:40, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Again: did you ever bother to read the sources I referred you to several times? MIVILUDES is not part of the French Wikipedia - nor (AFAIK) is it in any way linked to any Wikimedia project. Apokrif (talk) 13:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Scientology as a tax-exempt organization

The text in this section is confused between tax-exempt status and religious status. Granted, in the US, many religions are tax exempt. But many tax-exempt organizations in the US are not religions, and some religions do not apply for tax exempt status through the IRS because of the hassle and legal hurdles. Other countries do not have the same rules and Wikipedia should not be making presumptions. In Sweden, recognized religions are not just tax-exempt, they are tax supported. I advocate that tax-exempt status and religious status be separated in this article. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 00:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, Scientology is not the Church of Scientology, just as Christianity is not the Vatican. Several different organizations say they follow "Scientology," and those organizations are not friendly to each other. This section should be moved from this article to the Church of Scientology. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 00:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't the CoS own the trademark on "Scientology"? While I agree that the distinction is worth acknowledging, sources and the article on the Free Zone (Scientology) make it clear that the Church of Spiritual Technology owns that name. This seems less like Christianity and the Vatican and more like Kleenex and facial tissue, or Xerox and photocopying. Know of any sources that specifically deal with government recognition of independent groups? Grayfell (talk) 02:03, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The article states, "While Scientology generally refers to Miscavige-led Church of Scientology, many other groups practice Scientology." We have to be consistent. Either "Scientology" is synonymous and congruent with "Church of Scientology," or it is not. You now claim it is, but the article states it is not. If it is, there should be only one page on the subject, but consensus has ruled there should be two pages, one for "Scientology" and another for the "Church of Scientology." Government recognition of independent Scientology groups is completely irrelevant to the issue. Since our sources state that other groups practice "Scientology," we would be wrong to state that "Scientology" is synonymous with "Church of Scientology." Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 04:31, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not taking a firm stand here, I'm pointing out the discrepancy. Many other groups practice Scientology, but they don't actually call it "Scientology" (usually). Regardless of the reasons, that is a legitimate cause for confusion. I don't think Free Zone is the main reason there are two articles here. Even though there is much overlap between the church and the religion, they are still treated differently enough by sources to be distinct articles, regardless of how "official" the CoS is or claims to be.

I have no particular opposition to moving the section to the CoS article, but sources are the deciding factor. If there are no sources discussing any distinction between the church and the indie groups regarding government recognition, then I tentatively support that move. Tax issues are presumably about churches as financial organizations, while non-tax government recognition is a bit more complicated and needs to be broken down on a case-by-case basis. If there aren't plenty of sources about non-tax related recognition, I'm not sure if it's going to make the article clearer by giving it its own section. Grayfell (talk) 05:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Let's try again. This section is headed, "Scientology as a tax-exempt organization." Scientology is not, according to our own words and our own sources, an organization. The Church is an organization. The subject is not. Our sources say it is not. Wikipedia says it is not -- it has two pages: on for the subject ("Scientology") and another for the organization ("Church of Scientology"). This section is confused. Let's get some agreement on that, then move onto the second point of confusion. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 05:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, good points. I'm asking if you or anyone else knows of any sources discussing tax-exempt status for none CoS Scientologists. This would be an interesting and potentially valuable thing to add to the article, if it exists. If it doesn't exist, or there's something I'm missing, I support moving the section to the Church of Scientology article.

As for the second issue, taxes are, in this situation, an organizational issue. My understanding is that religious status may potentially involve individuals, which makes this more complicated. This can involve issues of time-off for religious observances, conscientious objection, marriage, etc., so I think we need reliable sources to go any further. Grayfell (talk) 05:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Grayfell. The second problem with the text in this section is a presumption that tax-exempt == recognized religion and recognized religion == tax exempt. Planned Parenthood is tax exempt, but few would call it a religion. Some religions are not tax-exempt because they have not applied for 501c(3) status with the IRS -- they don't believe in it. But in the United States, religions do not have to be recognized and registered to be religions. Tax-exempt status has some relation to the subject of government recognition, but it is not synonymous as this text implies. Religions existed and had a place in the US Constitution and US law long before the IRS existed. Other countries have structures not even similar. The text is confused -- and, well, ignorant. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 15:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Support I agree that Scientology the tax-exempt organization is a different organization than Scientology the religion. Mostly this is logic based on a legalism. 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3) refers to "Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation [..] organized and operated exclusively for religious [..] purposes [...]". While a religion may be a corporation (or a corporation a religion), arguably, this article clearly states in the lede that this article is not about any corporation, community chest, fund, or foundation. So any reference to a 501(c)(3) organization must be referring to something other than what this article is speaking to. What these references are referring to when they say "Scientology" is likely ambiguous and will be hard to straighten out 100%, but I think it's safe to say it's the Church of Scientology.

Now, that's only for US law based on the lede of this article. It is arguable that a religion can be a corporation, and that a corporation can be a religion. It's arguable that other countries tax religions, by making anyone who holds certain beliefs to pay taxes or something, maybe by arguing that those legal systems consider such believers to be part of a corporation. Such arguments can be handled separately; for this lede, for this country, such material should be moved to the Church article. Int21h (talk) 03:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Support section move to the Church of Scientology. Very good, Grammar'sLittleHelper. Feoffer (talk) 11:43, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Reversion of my edit

Which redacted an obvious cheap shot and/or expression of ignorance. Obviously I'm not going to defend this subject, perhaps the showcase example of the fact that a religion is a false belief system. Tactics like this don't help this thing and you look rabid calling me a Vandal, making 180 counterfactual statements. Lycurgus (talk) 17:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome to read WP:NPA, WP:AGF, WP:OR and WP:SOAP, all of which apply directly to your editing and your behavior. Jeppiz (talk) 18:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I am familiar with those policies. It appears I've been editing here several years before you created the Jeppiz account. None of those is applicable to the edit in question. If the POV you're pushing is denouncing Scientology, and especially if as a result of being a former member, then this behavior would make sense. The sense of "cult" that I was trying to clarify is made clear in the lede of that article. Let's leave it here, as I said, not going to defend my edits here, it's sufficient that the record shows this exchange. Lycurgus (talk) 09:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2015

in the first paragraph, the word 'and" is in duplicate several sentences down. LuChemist (talk) 21:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

LuChemist (talk) 21:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't see anywhere in the first paragraph "and and". Can you copy+paste the exact offending sentence ? Cannolis (talk) 22:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2015

L.S.

The Church of Scientology lost a court case on October 22nd, 2015 and are considered a commercial organisation. The are not eligable for tax exempts: http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/36383/Scientology/article/detail/4166533/2015/10/21/Hof-Scientology-is-commercieel-niet-een-goed-doel.dhtml

Old: The group's legal classification is often a point of contention. In some jurisdictions, such as the United States, South Africa, Australia, Sweden, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal and Spain, the church is granted tax-exempt religious status, but at least one (Germany) classifies Scientology as an "anti-constitutional sect" (verfassungsfeindliche Sekte). the Netherlands,

References

Stan135ly (talk) 14:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Oppose: Since "Scientology" and the "Church of Scientology" are two different pages in WP, let us adhere to our own distinctions. Scientology is a subject. It cannot act, and it has nothing to win or lose. The Church of Scientology is a legal entity. It goes to court, makes arguments, collects fees, delivers services, makes statements, and pays or does not pay taxes. In the same way, "Christianity" never appears in court. Various churches do, but Christianity does not. Please take these tax issues to the Church of Scientology page. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 18:50, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Navy Veteran

While technically true that he was part of the Navy Reserve, it is not notable enough to include as a primary descriptor, and is not done on his primary page nor in other similar situations with other authors who have histories of military service. For instance, the page for Faith of My Fathers begins "Faith of My Fathers is a 1999 bestselling non-fiction book by United States Senator John McCain with Mark Salter." not "Faith of My Fathers is a 1999 bestselling non-fiction book by United States Senator and Navy Veteran John McCain with Mark Salter.". This holds true across every example I could find. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 01:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, Hubbard's Naval career is cited by many who are accepted RS on Hubbard and Scientology. Jon Atack, Tony Ortega, Lawrence Wright, Bent Corydon ... The Wikipedia has a separate page on Hubbard's naval career -- in contrast to those others you name, indicating that Hubbard's naval history is very important in the view of other Wikipedia editors. I ask you to review your opinion. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 07:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that the page you mentioned is partially devoted to the fact that many the claims about said career were fabricated, which is a fact that contributes to its notability, I never said his naval career is not citable or notable. What I said was that in most situations which describe authorship or creation of something, only the single most notable descriptor is included, not a list of all technically correct things, and that on LRH's main page he is not described as a naval veteran in the first sentence of the lede, indicating that while it may be true, it is not one of the most notable things about him (Which are his work as a science fiction author and his founding of Scientology).UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 10:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I agree with UnequivocalAmbivalence. This isn't so vital to his personal history or to the history of Scientology that is belongs in the lead like that. Nobody is disagreeing that he was in the Navy, but many, many people of his generation were veterans, and since his career was relatively short and, according to the overwhelming majority of independent sources, relatively minor, it's not so vital that it biographically defines him. In the first paragraph of this article, it's unnecessary to highlight his military career, and it doesn't make the topic of Scientology any easier to understand. In contrast, virtually every overview of Hubbard is going to mention that he was an author, probably of sci-fi or pulp, specifically.

As for the article about Hubbard's navel career, we also have one on Elvis's Army career, but we don't refer to Graceland as "the home of musician and Army veteran Elvis Presley." Grayfell (talk) 10:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)