Talk:Scientology/Archive 31

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25 ← Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33

Opening paragraph is incoherent

Scientology is a body of beliefs and practices created by American science fiction author L. Ron Hubbard (1911–86).
In 1950, Hubbard published Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, explaining the process of auditing, in which a counselor guides a subject to recall traumatic memories and resolve the associated negative emotions.[6][not in citation given][7] In 1953, having lost the rights to Dianetics, Hubbard created an expansion called Scientology which teaches that people are immortal beings who have forgotten their true nature.[8][9][10][11] Scientology claims that that psychiatry is destructive and abusive and must be abolished.[12][13] A typical Scientologist must spend several years and $100,000 before learning the story of Galactic Dictator Xenu.[14][15][16] According to the church's official website, such type of suggestions are "absurd."[17]"


This paragraph starts out with a neutral description of scientology as a set of beliefs and practices, explains the origin, but then jumps to mention of Xenu without providing much context but includes mention of the church's rebuttal. I think it is very hard to follow or even understand if you aren't previously familiar with Scientology. Futhermore, it provides no real description of Scientology practices

Scientology is a body of beliefs and practices created by American science fiction author L. Ron Hubbard (1911-86) Scientology now characterizes itself as a religion, however, the movement began as Dianetics, a pseudoscientific alternative to psychiatry. Dianetics proposes that ailments and personality flaws are the result of repressed negative memories which can be resolved through a counselling procedure known as auditing. When Hubbard lost rights to Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health in 1953, he created Scientology which extends the ideas of Dianetics to include traumatic memories from past lives and introduced an electronic device known as an E-meter to be used in auditing sessions. Scientologists progress through increasingly expensive rounds of auditing with the goal of self-improvement. Scientology is often characterized as a cult. In France, Hubbard was tried for fraud and convicted in absentia.

--D'Andria (talk) 19:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

There is no "tax exempt religious status" in the US

IRS grants tax-exempt status to non-profit corporations. §501(c)3. Churches can apply under that law to be tax exempt. But that status has no relationship to the recognition of the church as a religion.[1] Such recognition would be impossible and illegal under the US Constitution. (Court citations available.) It is a mistake to equate the two things in this article.Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 20:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Pop culture section: Epsilon program?

Perhaps you should consider adding the Epsilon Program parody of Scientology from GTA V to the pop culture section — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.130.183.242 (talk) 02:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

That's very unlikely to be encyclopedic without reliable sources directly linking the parody to Scientology. See Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content. Actually, the bit about "We Stand Tall" also needs better sources, too. Hmm... Grayfell (talk) 02:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
The way I see it, there are arguments that could be made for and against including the Epsilon sub-plot from GTA V in this article. As far as I can find, the game's writers and developers have not overtly stated that this is a parody. Despite this, I think that the Epsilon Program could still be included in the Scientology article. Any writers should just include a proviso that states that there is no official statement on whether the Epsilon Program actually is a parody, but that players and game journalists pointed out the parallels. Instead of presenting it as a definitive parody, we could mention it as an item of pop culture that's popularly assumed to be a parody. There are many online articles and discussion forums that demonstrate how people reached their conclusions. SmallMossie (talk) 16:28, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Maybe. Not every example of Scientology or Scientology-like groups needs to be included in this article, so sources would need to be substantial, commenting on how either Scientology was significant to the game, or the other way around. Forum posts cannot be used as sources, and neither can other wikis (see WP:UGC). I'm finding some usable sources talking about it, but not many, and most of them I've found are from before the game was released. Sources are mostly about an advertising stunt to announce the game's release, which isn't something worth mentioning unless it had an enduring impact (doesn't look like it). Epsilon was also part of a set of side-missions, apparently? Sources on that are basically passing mentions, which don't belong. I'm still skeptical about this being noteworthy, but I'm sure there are more sources on this that I didn't check. Grayfell (talk) 21:54, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
You are correct about Wikipedia's stance on forums, so then the Epsilon Program stuff can be put on hold. There are a growing number of peer-reviewed journals on aspects of pop culture that might publish something about games and religion or something in that vein, so I'll keep an eye out for that. Taking another look at the pop culture section, I believe that the South Park mention can stay, since the episode overtly mentions the Church of Scientology. On the other hand, I'm not so sure that the piece about the film The Master belongs in the pop culture section here. All the citations for the film lead to articles that are purely speculative about the film and its relationship to Scientology. Granted, the sources do seem to be online versions of printed newspaper sources, but in terms of content, the articles only speculate on the potential ties between the film and the real-world organisation.SmallMossie (talk) 14:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

NYT Bestseller List?

Dianetics the Modern Science of Mental Health was published in May 1950. But our text says, "Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health entered the New York Times best-seller list on June 18, 1949 and stayed there until December 24 of that year.[51]" OK, so now to reconcile with RS 51. And I can't find mention of the book in the RS. Is this a problem of (1) not true? (2) not an RS? (3) not a proper record of the RS? Let's fix it. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 22:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2016

Incredulousment3 (talk) 00:33, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit request on January 12 2016

Within the "Church of Scientology"-section, the same source (Melton 2000, p.17) is cited twice for the same claim (The "The following year, he formed the ship-based Sea Organization or Sea Org which operated three ships: the Diana, the Athena, and the flagship the Apollo."-claim). Also, within the "Splinter groups: Independent Scientology, Freezone, and Miscavige's RTC"-section, the same source (Nordhausen & Billerbeck (2008), pp. 469-470) is cited twice for the same claim (The "The Advanced Ability Center was established by Hubbard's personal auditor David Mayo after February 1983 – a time when most of Scientology's upper and middle management split with Miscavige's organization"-claim). Also, "Within the "Allegations of coerced abortions"-section, two different sources are each cited twice for the same claim: The claim is "Former Sea Org member Karen Pressley recounted that she was often asked by fellow Scientologists for loans so that they could get an abortion and remain in the Sea Org." and the sources are (www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22613285/print/1/displaymode/1098/) and (Morton, Andrew (2008). Tom Cruise: An Unauthorized Biography. St. Martin's Press. p. 130. ISBN 0-312-35986-1.) Shouldn't the redundant citations be removed?

 Done Ruslik_Zero 20:17, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Excessive length of the article due to detailed info on petty controversial or negatively characterising info

Basically, lots of info of little importance, just IMO to cast negative light or raise doubts on what Scientologiy is or what it did/does. Like, for example, what exact criticisms who exactly in what country voiced and what and where prostesters and opponents/critics wrote, actually protesting Scientology in the text of a Wiki article on it. Why not rewrite and trim that all to keep the language factual and coscise. I'm sorry, if there was an actual deal with any of that, but it mostly are petty grievances or displeasure voiced like 'you see, how strange this one thing seems, you know, that official post holder said that'. This all IMO says nothing on the subject and relevant only technically. Why in so much length? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuri Kozharov (talk • contribs) 11:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Intro paragraph should mention Scientology status, leave members' activities and Hubbard bio for later

I believe the following edit is justified

Scientology is a body of beliefs and practices created by American science fiction author L. Ron Hubbard (1911-86). Scientology now characterizes itself as a religion, however, the movement began as Dianetics, a pseudoscientific alternative to psychiatry. Dianetics proposes that ailments and personality flaws are the result of repressed negative memories which can be resolved through a counselling procedure known as auditing. When Hubbard lost rights to Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health in 1953, he created Scientology which extends the ideas of Dianetics to include traumatic memories from past lives and introduced an electronic device known as an E-meter to be used in auditing sessions. Scientologists progress through increasingly expensive rounds of auditing with the goal of self-improvement. Scientology is often considered to be a cult. In France, Hubbard was tried for fraud and convicted in absentia. In the 1970s, top-ranking members infiltrated and wiretapped the U.S. government and were convicted of espionage.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). In France, Scientology is sometimes classified as a cult by public authorities.
In France, Hubbard was tried for fraud and convicted in absentia. In the 1970s, top-ranking members infiltrated and wiretapped the U.S. government and were convicted of espionage. In 1986, Hubbard died after years in hiding. David Miscavige emerged as leader of Church of Scientology, while many others practice Scientology independently.
Critics contend the church practices brainwashing and fraud against its members,[19] and that it uses psychological abuse, character assassination, and vexatious litigation against its perceived enemies. The Church of Scientology has consistently used litigation against its critics, and its use of aggressive harassment has been condemned.
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). In France, Scientology is sometimes classified as a cult by public authorities.

The point being, not to a provoke any argument about the status of Scientology itself, but to realize that this is an article about Scientology itself. Therefore, the status of Scientology and related controversy deserve mention early on, in the first paragraph, while details about the founder and the activities of Scientology members can be included later. --D'Andria (talk) 22:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Got it, D'Andria (talk · contribs), and I have no quarrel with the factual issues of Scientology. The problems with this text are several in number -- and I recognize that you are moving it, not creating it new:
  1. Hubbard is not Scientology. Whatever legal problems Hubbard had are not relevant to this page. Rather, they belong on the Hubbard page.
  2. The page name is "Scientology," and Scientology as a subject has no cash, no lawyers, no taxes, and no court cases. It is a passive thing like Astrology, Biology, and any other subject. But the legal status being discussed in this text is the legal status of the Church of Scientology, for which Wiki has a separate page. The facts about the tax status of the Church belong on the Church page and not here.
  3. No religion or church in the United States gets a license from the government. None. There is a non-profit status with the IRS, and that is all. I could get a non-profit tax exemption for an organization to clean the streets or to put feral cats in a gas chamber. That status does not create a religion. The US government, the courts, and all of the agencies are forbidden by the Constitution to make any decisions on religion. That is discussed in the Appeals Court of about 1970 with Scientology and the E-meter -- no government agency or jury could decide whether it was a religion because then they would end up deciding whether it was a TRUE religion, and that would get messy -- like the English Reformation and Civil War, with Protestants deciding whether Catholicism was a true religion and vice versa.
The Hubbard court case and the IRS decision regarding the non-profit status of the Church of Scientology -- all these things are inappropriate to this page -- and downright misleading, too. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 23:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
What point of view your are trying to defend with those edits? That Scientology is a religion? Will you then proceed to add that it is a cult and people need to be forcefully (on voluntary basis, of course) 'deprogrammed' from 'mind control' or put into psychiatric hospitals? For in Russia for example mainstream psychiatrists issue statements to that effect and IMO this is going overboard. Scientoloy self-identifies itself as religion and holds a number of beliefs (texts, lectures) and practices (activities), why it is so important to so many to be casting doubts if this all qualifies as characteristics of a modern religion? What do you think should be done to Scientologists? In America tax evasion is a serious crime, are you smearing Scientology suggesting their status helps evade taxes and that they are the business? This is what counter-cultists and deprogrammers are saying, they are all untrustworthy people spreading quasi-scientific ideas themselves. Here you pick on a a technicality and try to raise these matters, these are decades-old arguments. People are not authorities to say what faith is true and what is not, this amounts to incitement to hatemongering and you cleverly avoid being named responsible of that. Well, Scientology could sue, I guess, its so that you could bark out of what you say in courts. Shameful. Just bit by bit, here and there, making the article worse and worse, trying not to cross the line and write clearly libelous stuff, but just continuins to suggest and quote and refer and all of that is really not much relevant or of any substance.Yuri Kozharov (talk) 15:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I am not defending a POV. Tax status does not indicate religion, and religion does not imply tax status. It is improper to equate the two in this article. The US is forbidden by the US Constitution (First Amendment) to make any official rulings about religion. Churches are not required to apply for 501(c)(3) status, and they are still religions. Religion in US law is much older than IRS law. Any serious legal analysis of the subject should help you on this point. Those who understand these matters can easily see the ignorance of those who equate tax status with religion. Other countries have different rules, but the US was very careful to avoid government certification or licensing of religions. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 19:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
How about we make the move now but change some of writing "Scientology's status as a religion 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 of Scientology is granted tax-exempt status, but at least one (Germany) classifies the church as an "anti-constitutional sect" (verfassungsfeindliche Sekte). In France, Scientology is sometimes classified as a cult by public authorities." Further changes can occur later. --D'Andria (talk) 00:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Very nice -- with one objection. This paragraph is about Scientology as a religion. The clause about tax status is irrelevant so should be omitted. My reasons? If you put it here, it implicitly equates the tax status with the religious status, which is true of some countries but not the US. The statements in this paragraph should be about countries where governments recognize and/or license religions. Tax status is simply another subject. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk)

"Edit presents minority opinion as undisputed fact"

@Grayfell: re: your revert of 19:45, 14 March 2016:

  1. The wording the editor used ("according to") clearly is not a statement of undisputed fact, particularly when in company with cited disputes.
  2. That Scientology qualifies as a religion is hardly a minority opinion among religious scholars. A number in agreement are cited on that page. The IRS, the US State Dept., and the US Court of Appeals recognize it as a religion.

Maybe you had other reasons for reverting the edit, though. Can you cite them here, please? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 19:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Sure. The entire edit was: According to Schaefer and Zellner, academic scholarship on Scientology is “moving toward accepting Scientology as a religion.” This is primarily because of the body of beliefs shown in Dianetics “offers an explanation of the world and a purpose for humankind, and addresses issues like salvation and afterlife.” Multiple formatting and punctuation problems aside, this subtly transitions from a statement of opinion to a factual assertion that the body of belief actually does in fact provide such an explanation, which is extremely controversial. The elided content is substantial and far less simplistic. The source, Extraordinary Groups: An Examination of Unconventional Lifestyles, can be accessed online,[2] and the quote is profoundly misleading. Earlier, the beginning of the section specifically says that ...many outsiders refuse to view Scientology as a religion and how some scholars view is as a quasi-religion, and how it's harder to treat Scientology impartially because of its secrecy. The actual quote is far more nuanced and far less blandly flattering within that context: "Academic scholarship related to the Church of Scientology, 'limited as it is, is moving toward accepting Scientology as a religion. This does not mean that... followed by an explanation of exactly what that means. The quote was cherry picked to be as flattering as possible while ignoring all of that other, very important context. Grayfell (talk) 20:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Misrepresents source -- OK, that helps. The Neusner quote backs it up, though. The "secrecy" statement is problematic, though. Has a ratio of published to unpublished literature ever been computed? Does it compare with, say, the cellars of the Vatican? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 20:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Dunno. It's interesting to think about, but I'm not sure what that would prove since it's not necessarily the raw quantity of literature that matters here. Stuff like disconnection, the different OT materials, perceptics, etc. may or may not be subjectively measurable against published content, at least not without dipping deep into WP:OR. I wasn't suggesting we include the line about secrecy (although maybe we should), but it's clear from the larger context that this source is not adequate for emphasizing that scholars are accepting of Scientology as a religion. As for the larger issue, the word scholar is itself needs to be used with caution, since I don't think most people are going to think of The IRS, the US State Dept. and The US Court of Appeals as scholars, and especially not religious scholars. Looking into it further, it's clear that Jacob Neusner didn't write the quotes about Scientology, he was the editor of the book. This is a likely example of the kind of cherry-picking problem I'm talking about: in the rush to find flattering quotes, I think someone forgot to actually read the sources they were taken from. Grayfell (talk) 21:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Outdated info on tax exempt status in the Netherlands as of October 2015.

While Scientology was briefly tax exempt between 2013 and 2015, the Dutch court has ruled on 21/10/2015 it should be considered a business (full court ruling here (Dutch, archived here)). The court ruled that as a business, Scientology is not tax exempt. This should be reflected in the section Disputes over legal status. Tropicalaudio (talk) 03:17, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

@Tropicalaudio: Hello. As WP:PRIMARY sources, court documents are notoriously prone to misinterpretation. Do you have a secondary source, such as a newspaper, magazine, or academic article on this? It doesn't have to be in English, and it doesn't have to be available online, but obviously both of those would be make things much, much easier. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 04:07, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
@Grayfell: A Google search got me this from the NL Times: "The Dutch branch of the Church of Scientology has lost its tax status... in a ruling made by the court in The Hague on Wednesday." [3] Stickee (talk) 05:06, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Cool, that works. I'm always a bit wary when a source mentions Wikipedia, per WP:CIRC, but I think this is fine. We can throw the court document in as a supplement, also. Grayfell (talk) 05:16, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
I've made the change. The article mentioned the possibility of an appeal, which I would be kinda surprised if Scientology didn't follow up on, but I didn't find any later sources. Grayfell (talk) 05:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

What's with the edit war? Thanks for clarification

(Moved from editor talk page) @Grayfell:, WP:BRD: You removed the text because you could not find the quote. I restored the text because the exact quote is in the 4th edition of the book. Now you revert again. Did you not find the words in the link to the book? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 22:01, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

This edit had obvious and severe technical problems. I think that was enough to revert, although that's not really why I did. I'm not sure why it belongs at all. We give the reader no way to know that this comes from an essay in an introductory religious studies textbook, which undermines the value in attributing the quote. That's a red flag that this is cherry-picking, since if it's strictly factual, we should just say it in our own voice, and if it's not, we should clearly explain where it's coming from. Just mentioning the name of the book with no other information isn't good enough in my opinion. I'm also bothered by the apparent need to dip into a new edition of the book to find content that supports this specific and flattering point. It seems like it's starting to verge into WP:SYNTH territory a bit. Over and over and over again that chapter (in both editions, but perhaps more in the later one) makes the point that Scientology is just like other religions/denominations, but says very, very little about critical scholarship on Scientology. It flatly accepts a number of claims about Scientology which are contradicted by other sources, or are at least too controversial to go unchallenged, such as the secular nature of Scientology's social programs, or that Scientology is not exclusivistic. This is a reliable source, but I think we need to be much more cautious about accepting more controversial claims from it at face value. Attributing these claims to the book is a step in the right direction, but without explaining what the book is, or explaining that the view has been contested by other reliable source, it still seems far from neutral. Grayfell (talk) 22:46, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  • The exact quote from your original objection was found in the 4th edition. Apparently, the original editor just named the wrong edition. I consider that concern is resolved.
  • Please explain more about the "introductory" concern. That it is a text book rather than a scholar's study is a distinction without a difference in my library.
  • It is true that Neusner is not at all critical -- without stating untruths, he is not critical of any religion in that book, comparable to Huston Smith's "Religions of Man". Neusner is an Orthodox rabbi, so his equanimity is highly commendable. In my opinion, Wikipedia could take a card from that deck. I do not see that the state of the world is improved by throwing stones. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 23:17, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, the edition thing is resolved regarding the proper citation, but my point still stands. Like I said, it's a red flag that the article draws direct quotes from such a wide array of relatively obscure academics, right down to choosing different sources when one is more flattering than the other. There are so many quotes like this in Scientology articles, and it's tilting the balance away from neutrality. That alone means we need to start weighing these more carefully. Edits like this to Thetan misuse obscure academic quotes to highlight Scientology perspectives while ignoring the sources' larger context. These links are added by a variety of editors, some of whom have already been blocked, but the books they use are always searchable on Google Books, and are never linked so that full context can be viewed. It's a big time-sink to try and figure out if their being used properly or not. Since far too often they're being misused, or are at least borderline, I think this is a problem.
Conflating critical analysis of a topic with "throwing stones" is poisoning the well. Wikipedia is neither Scientologist, not a Religious Studies department. As a general encyclopedia, it's vitally important to view all issues with detachment. Being "not critical of any religion" is the opposite of that. Neusner's personal equanimity is beside the point. His scholarship should not be held to different standards because of his religion. Grayfell (talk) 23:49, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Ah, I don't know about poisoning the well or what that might mean. Religions have been picking holes in each other since Adam was a polliwog, and all of them are easy targets. But I don't see a "criticism" section in Catholicism or Judaism. We do include "criticism" in Christianity. I would prefer we throw stones at no one, or as as distant second option, at everyone equally. My comment on Neusner is a commendation -- in the context of what orthodox clerics normally say about religions not their own. Apart from Unitarians (who are marginally Christians, maybe, maybe not), very few Christian clerics offer stone-less comments on other religions. It is not beside the point -- it IS the point. Neusner can do it, and we can too; we should not be another combatant in the religious wars. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 00:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
It's not an easy line to walk, but maybe it's not really a 'line' at all. If the only two options were stone throwing or blanket uncritical acceptance, I might chose the latter as well, but that strikes me as a false dichotomy. There are lots of controversies in the world. We should not be afraid to examine them closely just because we don't agree with how other people have "examined" them in the past. If discussing Scientology critically is the same as throwing stones at it, that says more about the fragility of Scientology than it does about our motives. Grayfell (talk) 00:28, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
We could, for example, include the Inquisition, the Crusades, the Index, the abortion prohibition, the anti-gay edicts, the slaughter of the Cathars, and the chastity-or-death doctrines of historical Catholicism. Would that help the article? We could include the anti-Christian Talmud excerpts, the Torah stories of genocides commanded by Jehovah, and the gynophobic and xenophobic laws of historical Judaism. Would that help the Judaism article? And then under Positivism, of course we include the Stalinist purges, Pol Pot's escapades with the merry Khmer Rouge, and ... You see where throwing stones gets us? It is a very long journey through a string of putrid battlefields. No, one does not have to "accept" a religion as an alternative to throwing stones. The solution under the pens of the best writers, from Will Durant to Houston Smith and Jacob Neusner, is to just tell what the religion is about. We don't need all the anti-Jewish, anti-Catholic, anti-Islamic, and anti-Scientology material to make a "balanced" article. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 04:07, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
It sounds like you're not seriously considering what I'm saying. There is a difference between "throwing stones" and honestly and impartially discussing a contentious topic. If you can't see that than there's not much point in continuing this discussion. There are articles for all of those terrible things that have been associated with religions and philosophy, because that's how scholarship works. The Crusades were not made worse because people criticized the Crusades. Christianity mentions both the Crusades, and the Inquisition, as it should. Any article on medieval Christianity, medieval Europe, or related absolutely should mention the Crusades, and they do in detail. If any modern European Christians are offended by that history, does that diminish the quality of the scholarship? No, that's unfortunate, but that's not Wikipedia's problem, nor should it be. Any article on "modern" Scientology (which is just Scientology at this point) should be open to a critical assessment. Who gets to decide "what the religion is about"? For Catholicism, would that exclude the Cathars? The Spanish Jews? Wouldn't leaving them out mean that the victors get to decide the history, and isn't that far, far more violent (in the stone-throwing sense) than an attempt at objective critical analysis? The connection between positivism and the Khmer Rouge seems like a stretch based on... the old Creationist meme about social Darwinism? Not even sure what you're getting at there, but if you can find legitimate sources connecting those two, go right ahead. It sounds fascinating if it's true, but it seems more like you're trying to prove a point. Grayfell (talk) 05:10, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Your comments indicate you cannot understand what I am saying because you are attempting to categorize my position rather than understand my communication. That is too bad. Maybe you will find it more understandable at some later date. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 17:37, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

should we give so much references for 1 single line? (111.92.0.148 (talk) 06:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC))

Vitalism and Life Force

For a long time I knew about the Vitalism views of Scientology regarding the "Life Force". When something reminded me of this, I looked it up in this article, but there is nothing to be found. After much digging, I found Thetan, but even that article does not describe it as "Life Force" or as a Vitalism view. This Scientology web site defines Theta as "the life force which animates all living things. This life force is separate from, but acts upon, the physical universe, which consists of matter, energy, space and time." Also, their very high profile E-meter is meant to "measure" the Life Force, but there is no mention of that. I wonder why these terms have been excluded from Wikipedia. Thanks, BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:40, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Scientology#Church of Scientology

Nonchalant77 recently added this paragraph, which I temporarily removed because it is contradicted by the following paragraphs that had been in the article already and were also sourced. I haven't looked at any of the sources yet, but the section didn't make sense anymore, so I took this out for now so we can discuss if/how to best fit it in.

L. Ron Hubbard originally intended for Scientology to be considered a science, as stated in his writings. In 1952, Scientology was organized to put this intended science into practice, and it was incorporated as a church in 1955. The group declared that the Founding Church, as written in the certificate of incorporation for the Founding Church of Scientology in the District of Columbia, was to “act as a parent church for the religious faith down as ‘Scientology’ and to act as a church for the religious worship of the faith.”

-Zald, Mayer N.; McCarthy, John David (1987). Social Movements in an Organizational Society: Collected Essays. Transaction Publishers. ISBN 9780887388026. Retrieved 2016-05-23.

Here's a link to the section when it includes this paragraph. Thoughts? —PermStrump(talk) 23:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Permstrump. Thank you for your diligence. However, you have not provided a reasonable explanation for saying that the new paragraph contradicts the rest of the section. I cannot see that, I can only see that it actually contextualizes and supports it. I have returned the edit based on this. Thank you.Nonchalant77 (talk) 23:41, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi Nonchalant. It contradicts the next couple of paragraphs because they give different dates for all of the things you mentioned. —PermStrump(talk) 23:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I can see that now. I've modified the edit and broke it into two parts to fit the existing text to avoid contradiction. Have a look.Nonchalant77 (talk) 00:01, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2016

"and" should be added to this sentence, after "operations," - it is found under the definition of "Office of Special Affairs": It has targeted critics of the Church for "dead agent" operations, mounted character assassination operations against perceived enemies. Thank you, Lydia Liddy8008 (talk) 19:17, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

 Done, I changed to "which is" because dead agent is the mounting of character assassinations. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:37, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
@Sir Joseph: You may be listening to the wrong sources. Here is an original definition of "dead agent" (source):
      The technique of proving utterances false is called "DEAD AGENTING".
      It's in the first book of Chinese espionage.  When the enemy agent gives
      false data, those who believed him but now find it false kill him - or
      at least cease to believe him.

      So the PR slang for it is "Dead Agenting."

      This consists of disproving utterly the false statement with documents
      or demonstration or display.

      One has to have a kit (a collection of documents) or the ability to
      demonstrate or something to display.

      STATEMENT: "I've been told you are in trouble with Income Tax people."

      REBUTTAL: "Here's a document of fully paid taxes and a letter of
      commendation from the tax authorities."  Displays same.

      Result?  Whoever told him that is now dead with him as an accurate
      informer.

This is paralleled in US law as "witness impeachment" and used frequently in courtrooms across America -- it is considered a wholly legitimate debate tactic. In fact, witness impeachment under the Federal Rules goes much further and includes showing that the witness had serious credibility issues at some time in his life on any subject. See Federal Rules of Evidence 608. Grammar's Li'l Helper Talk 21:36, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

The love for Scientology - Aims of Scientology and more

It seems that the article ignores important ethical aspects of Scientology such as The Aims of Scientology that says:
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.

By reference http://www.scientology.org/what-is-scientology/the-scientology-creeds-and-codes/the-aims-of-scientology.html.

This is also true for The Way to Happiness where Scientology encourages the ethical behaviour from all people on planet Earth, even its own leaders, held to the same standard as always. This by reference http://www.scientology.org/how-we-help/way-to-happiness.html.
Another point is Scientology's Code of Honour that seems to me to also reflect ethical views. By reference http://www.scientology.org/what-is-scientology/the-scientology-creeds-and-codes/the-code-of-honor.html.
All in all, the article as it is written, seems harsh to Scientology, digging into communication that by some interpretation can come across as dubious, probably to the well-knowing of the editors. I hope for improvement for what Scientology is explicitly stating, THE ETHICAL! Thanks. 88.95.155.16 (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia's goal is to provide a neutral overview of the topic. One way we do that is by favoring outside sources. Relying extensively on the church's own writings would not be neutral, because the goal of Scientology.org, which is owned by the church, is to promote their religion. That is not compatible with Wikipedia's goals. It is also worth mentioning that there is already an article specifically about ethics in Scientology: Ethics (Scientology). This article here is about the religion of Scientology in general, and it also should not be confused with the article about the church: Church of Scientology. Grayfell (talk) 20:54, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Grayfell! 88.95.155.16 (talk) 23:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Beside the Aims, any discussion of ethics should touch on Scientology Representative Zabrina Collins, an ETHICS OFFICER and Director of Special Affairs recently found GUILTY after she attacked an ex-Scientologist, which she admitted doing, and justified it by claiming he was 'an avid hate campaigner'. She was sued for accusations she made in horrific emails to the principal accusing a teacher of criminal activity, hate mongering and having links to porn movies featuring teenage boys. None of the accusations were found to be accurate. --21:13, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Ip if you have a RS we can consider, that would be great, otherwise we can't add in original research. Cheers mate.--Adam in MO Talk 16:56, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
You're not my mate, Adam in MO. I wish someone would put a stop to Adamfinmo's hounding of me. See https://www.google.com/search?q=Zabrina+Collins%2C+an+ETHICS+OFFICER+hate , e.g. http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/scientologist-ordered-to-pay-5000-damages-for-vitriolic-personal-attack-34659037.html , http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/04/26/judge-scientologist-to-pay-for-nude-pic-attack-on-critic.html, http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/scientologist-must-pay-damages-for-vitriolic-personal-attack-1.2624158 ... --Elvey(t•c) 17:28, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps it would do you well to read through the policies on assuming good faith. I was simply responding to an unsigned comment to a talk page that was on my watch list. Back off with the personal attack friend.--Adam in MO Talk 17:35, 18 June 2016 (UTC)r
And "Cheers mate" seems to be to be a rather unobjectionable phrase, along the lines of "Have a good day". I get the impression that Adam is trying to indicate he has nothing against the IP or Elvey as an individual or as individuals, and is trying to make that clear. Regarding the "ethical lapses" of Zabrina Collins, which, honestly, strike me as being pretty damn big "ethical lapses," I think it might be possible to argue that, maybe, with the article at http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/daughter-of-publican-framed-by-gardai-is-a-leading-scientologist-26873412.html in addition to the coverage of her involvement in the recent trial, an argument could be made for her notability. I see at least a few books in the Google search which at least mention her name, so it might well be that there is enough material for a reasonable article on her, if anyone wanted to try to put it together. The Ethics (Scientology) article could really use a lot of improvement, admittedly, and I actually didn't even know we had one until just now, but I am less sure that coverage of one individual's misconduct deserves mention in it, although mention of there existing "Ethics Officers" of some sort within Scientology, which I don't see there yet. John Carter (talk) 17:55, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
AGF is not a suicide pact. I've repeatedly asked this user to leave me alone and stop following me. I too "get the impression that Adam is trying to indicate he has nothing against the IP or Elvey as an individual or as individuals, and is trying to make that clear". I don't believe it or the fake friendliness though; the user's many edits targeting me are more indicative of a vendetta. Adam is monitoring my edits and following me around and admits to doing it but claims it's justified. Adam's first comment (ever?) on this page wasn't justified by any WP:HOUNDING#NOT exception that I'm aware of, and is hardly an isolated case. I wish someone would put a stop to Adamfinmo's hounding of me. If he was actually the mate or friend he claims to be, he would have long since respected my request that he stop following me around. --Elvey(t•c) 22:29, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

As for discussion of the ethical aspects of Scientology: I'm not a regular editor regarding Scientology and don't intend to become one. I was trying to bring balance to .88's proposal to promote Scientology's supposed ethics in this article by adding a dose of reality. --Elvey(t•c) 22:41, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

You seem to be making a claim that this individual has been stalking you for some time. It is allowed by policies and guidelines for one individual to watch the activities of another if the watcher believes the individual being watched regularly engages in problematic behavior. Even if the individual making the request asks that it be stopped.
Let me be blunt. You seem to be using this article talk page in a matter which some might consider disruptive as per WP:DE and possibly as a form of personal attack as per WP:NPA, which, as you can probably see from the template at the top of this talk page, is itself potentially, if anyone so requested, grounds for imposition of sanctions as per the prior Arbitration ruling regarding this topic. You also show little if any understanding of basic policies and guidelines in doing so. The correct way to request sanctions from an administrator is, surprise, going to one of the administrator noticeboards and requesting it there, in the appropriate place. The fact that you have chosen to act in the way that you have on this article talk page is itself I think a not unreasonable cause for thinking that you may act in disregard of policies and guidelines perhaps at least frequently, which, under the circumstances, could be itself seen as being a basis for monitoring your edits for other possible violations of policies and guidelines. If you wish to do something which might be productive, which this thread, unlike this thread, you would be better advised to go to one of the appropriate noticeboards, probably either WP:AN or WP:ANI. However, I believe that if you were to do so, you would find that the admins and others there would probably review the behavior of all those involved, including yourself. It is not unknown for people who make requests at one of those noticeboards to sometimes find their own behavior is even more problematic than that of the person about whom they are complaining.
I also think it reasonable to point out that I, or any other editor, might file a request at WP:AE if this article talk page continues to be used to discuss personal matters which are at best marginally related to the article in question. John Carter (talk) 22:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I will not be participating in any further discussion what so ever on this talk page.--Adam in MO Talk 23:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

DOOM Novels and Scientology beliefs

The DOOM Novels story line is either based on the beliefs of Scientology or they are inspired by them. A good note to put in the wiki. Some examples are a soul sucking machine that traps souls after death, a Theater where alien souls are taken to watch and be confused by world religions, alien beings that live inside humans and can only be removed by ritual. Those are just some similarities but there are many, many more. If I had the time I would edit the page, but I don't. However it's a good place for an enthusiast. It's basically Scientology put in the DOOM universe. In fact it's so similar I'm surprised the CoS hasn't sued for plagiarism. 162.157.189.224 (talk) 11:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Scientology and views on homosexuality

Dear Wikipedia community,

Why isn't there any reference of Scientology's view on LGBTI people on the English page ? In the French page, it is written that homosexuality is deemed to be an illness, according to Hubbard. Quite informative to have that kind of information on societal matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.192.22.252 (talk) 08:42, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

First paragraph of this article not informative of what the religion actually is or does

As a Scientologist myself(who is not under the employ of the church), I find the first paragraph of this article uninformative of what the religion actually is or does.

For example in this introductory paragraph it is mentioned:

  • LRH is an American author
  • ...the Dianetics Foundation entered bankruptcy
  • Hubbard lost the rights to his seminal publication Dianetics
  • He then recharacterized the subject as a religion and renamed it Scientology
  • ...he regained the rights to Dianetics and retained both subjects under the umbrella of the Church of Scientology

Wikipedia's goal is to provide a neutral overview of the topic. This paragraph does not sound natural, instead it sounds negatively biased and it is clear that the author of this paragraph is not very friendly towards Scientology. I am not looking for friendly, simply the same treatment as the Christianity page. To me this paragraph does not describe what the point of Scientology is, or what it is, or what the actual definition of the word Scientology is. This would still be neutral, nonbias and educational. I care to better define what Scientology actually is first and then go into who the creator is, bankruptcy, legal rights, etc. These items above do not define what Scientology is for me as a parishioner myself.

I hereby request that the article takes some lead from the official Scientology website and add some more info of what the religion actually is, the definition of Scientology, and then go into the rest of the info. Now I completely agree that we cannot use this site as we need to use neutral sites, but at least define it correctly. See here what the site says:

WHAT IS SCIENTOLOGY? Developed by L. Ron Hubbard, Scientology is a religion that offers a precise path leading to a complete and certain understanding of one’s true spiritual nature and one’s relationship to self, family, groups, Mankind, all life forms, the material universe, the spiritual universe and the Supreme Being.

Scientology addresses the spirit—not the body or mind—and believes that Man is far more than a product of his environment, or his genes.

Scientology comprises a body of knowledge which extends from certain fundamental truths. Prime among these are:

Man is an immortal spiritual being.

His experience extends well beyond a single lifetime.

His capabilities are unlimited, even if not presently realized.

Scientology further holds Man to be basically good, and that his spiritual salvation depends upon himself, his fellows and his attainment of brotherhood with the universe.

Scientology is not a dogmatic religion in which one is asked to accept anything on faith alone. On the contrary, one discovers for oneself that the principles of Scientology are true by applying its principles and observing or experiencing the results.

The ultimate goal of Scientology is true spiritual enlightenment and freedom for all.

Source: http://www.scientology.org/what-is-scientology.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by CreativelySpecialised (talk • contribs) 09:16, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

That's a primary source. Do you have a WP:SECONDARY source for this? --A D Monroe III (talk) 15:00, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9370678/What-is-Scientology.html CreativelySpecialised (talk) 13:34, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
I propose this intro article as taken exactly from the secondary and reputable source:
According to their official literature: "Scientology is a religion that offers a precise path leading to a complete and certain understanding of one’s true spiritual nature and one’s relationship to self, family, groups, Mankind, all life forms, the material universe, the spiritual universe and the Supreme Being." It claims to have roots in the beliefs of “all great religions” and thus encompasses “a religious heritage as old and as varied as Man himself” and could be considered 50,000 years old.
It was founded by a man named L. Ron Hubbard, from New Jersey, US, who wrote a book on “dianetics” in 1950. Four fans, described as an attorney, a publisher, a doctor and an engineer, then formed a Hubbard Dianetics Research Foundation.
The first Church of Scientology was established in February 1954, with more than a dozen new churches springing up over the next decade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CreativelySpecialised (talk • contribs) 09:28, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
WP articles on religions don't emphasize their beliefs in the lede. This is because most readers won't be a part of the religion covered, but are only involved in its outward social, political, and economic effects. When beliefs are noted, they are more to distinguish that religion from other ones that are very similar. Also, per WP:LEAD, the point of the first few paragraphs is to summarize the rest of the article. The intro proposed above removes a lot of that, along with all their sources. Much of this proposal may be better placed in the section #Beliefs and practices. Once there, it may be easier to add a very short summary to the lede from this, if appropriate. --A D Monroe III (talk) 13:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply Monroe. Though you are obfuscating. I think we are getting sidetracked here, the issue I raised is the bias nature of the intro paragraph. Licencing issues, bankruptcy, the founders occupation, etc. have little to do with defining Scientology. These issues can be raised later but are quite irrelevant when mentioned before the definition even. Please can we adres this issue only? CreativelySpecialised (talk) 14:44, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
There is no attempt at obfuscating (WP:AGF); I'm trying to explain WP's wider focus than just the single issue raised here. Religions are known for their outward effects as seen by the general population, not on just what the members see -- a minority. WP is for the general population. Only dead religions are described only for their (dead) beliefs, since they have no current effects. Scientology, especially, is famous for its controversy, so that's what goes in the lede; this does define Scientology to the general public. Beliefs certainly have a place, but it can't be the only thing in the lede, per WP:UNDUE. I'm trying to help find its place, so it can be included. --A D Monroe III (talk) 14:32, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
I hear you, Monroe. I am fine with keeping controversial items in the lede. What I am concerned with is to keep "mostly" controversial info in the lede and little about what Scientology actually is or does in the lede. I am a Scientologist and sending friends and family here to "find out for themselves" is quite a fruitless exercise as they come back with more questions than answers. There is little info on what Scientology actually is; I totally get it's controversial, I am not contesting that, I am contesting the fact of mostly covering the controversy. We could have both and still maintain the integrity of the WP format. How about this intro sentence to be added in the front of the intro paragraph:
Scientology is a body of religious beliefs and practices that according to the church offers their parishioners, "a precise path leading to a complete and certain understanding of one’s true spiritual nature and one’s relationship to self, family, groups, Mankind, all life forms, the material universe, the spiritual universe and the Supreme Being." [List secondary source mentioned above]... continue from here. I suggest you write a new paragraph mentioning some of the facts I have mentioned and can be verified above, as well as the controversy you feel important. CreativelySpecialised (talk) 12:01, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Per WP:LEAD, the first few paragraphs are to summarize the whole article. We need to have beliefs well-covered in the article body before we can state a summary of it in the lede. If we first get this info into #Beliefs and practices (for example), it will be easier to see how to have it summarized in the lede. --A D Monroe III (talk) 19:19, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
There is already a well-covered section on Beliefs and practices in the article exactly as you required. So then it is time you add it into the lede. CreativelySpecialised (talk) 14:13, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Science fiction author

I've raised this issue a few times before and I'll say it again, it is not NPOV to describe Hubbard as a science fiction author in the lead, rather than simply as a writer or just saying "Scientology was founded by L. Ron Hubbard". There is no way anyone could credibly get away with this type of bias with Objectivism (Ayn Rand), for example. Major articles on various denominations don't bother to describe Jesus as a carpenter, or with Islam, referring to Muhammad as a merchant who decided to create a religion, or that Nation of Islam is a pseudo-Islamic group started by someone who -- by their own admission -- was not black and had a criminal record. Go to the NOI article and see if you can insert a sentence stating the founders prior career and keep it there. Wouldn't last more than a few hours. People have tried to describe the NOI as "pseudo-Islamic" or as a black separatist or African-American movement in the lead, and each time its been reversed because Wikipedia goes with how the organization describes itself in the lead.

Nowhere does the Church of Scientology itself go around stating it was founded by "science fiction author L Ron Hubbard". They go to the other extreme in insisting he was a humanitarian, philanthropist, etc. Aside from his pulp fiction career, Hubbard's other major career was that of a Naval intelligence officier. That is totally absent from the sentence mentioning his being a science fiction author.

The fact that many here stubbornly insist on this science fiction thing in the lead is evidence of the massive level of bias here. Our goal here is about facts presented as impartially as possible, not cherry picked editorializing. Calling the guy a sci fi author in the lead is pure cherry picking and weasel wording.

I don't even bother making any attempts to edit this article since its futile to attempt to do so, and as an example, when you've got editors here insisting on using US spelling for "center" instead of the Church's own usage "Celebrity Centre" (no Scientology source uses the US spelling for center), that more than reveals the stubborn bias at play here. After that absurdity over the official spelling of "Celebrity Centre" (which is correct, not "Celebrity Center") I said the hell with it, the only exceptions being articles on Scientologists who hire publicists to run spin control here and keeping that sort of thing in check. But I will continue to raise this issue again and again. Maybe one of these days we'll end up with a decent enough article that is mostly impartial. As it stands, the POV here is pure facepalm fodder. Laval (talk) 01:32, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Hubbard's main claim to fame outside of Scientology is as a pulp-fiction writer, and his contributions to that field are substantial enough that he would have an article even without Scientology or Dianetics. He was an extremely prolific writer of pulp fiction, which was significant to the origins of Dianetics (as with Excalibur) and he continued (or resumed) writing years after founding Scientology with Battlefield Earth (novel) and the Mission Earth series. The CoS continues this connection by publishing the Writers of the Future anthologies and similar through Galaxy Press. Neither Jesus' carpentry or Muhammad's trading are close to that level of proportional significance. I do not think that most reliable independent source would regard the military career of L. Ron Hubbard as being major, at least not with controversy and qualifications which do not belong in the lede. Grayfell (talk) 03:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Agree. Wonder why Laval raised the issue yet again. But, I can't see why Laval's not right in that it should be "Celebrity Centre". (It mostly is already.) --Elvey(t•c) 00:36, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Disagree. This data is more relevant on L. Ron Hubbard's personal article, not within the Scientology article, the article should help define and provide data on what Scientology is or is not. This data is simply not relevant in the lede paragraph. CreativelySpecialised (talk) 14:21, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Xenu

How come there isnt more discussion about Lord Xenu on this page, its a part of scientology. Sulchie (talk) 17:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@Sulchie: Xenu is mentioned several times in the article, and is discussed in greater depth at its own article Xenu, as well as Space opera in Scientology and others. Wikipedia goes by reliable sources, and while Xenu is a sensationalist bit of info, most sources do not present it as central to the religion or its beliefs. This has been discussed many times before, as well. The search-box at the top of this talk page can be used to review some of those discussions. Grayfell (talk) 23:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

LEDE

Okay, I've seen enough of the stuff that surrounds the controversy of Scientology versus Wikipedia, so I took a look at the page here, and I am completely surprised by the Lede. It does not in any way cover the breadth of the page. It instead covers only several controversies, and nothing substantive about what Scientology is. Do I think Scientology is valid. Haha, no. I came here to see if the page was too tilted in the other direction. But this sites policies are not being applied here whatsoever as it comes to the Lede. I propose that we co-develop a Lede here, as editors, that better matches the page. Because, well, the Lede mostly only covers the controversies, which are a slim majority of the page. Given the reference bombing in the current Lede, I would assume there has been some serious contention over the page in general? But come on, the fact there are citations at any significant level means there is a lot of work to be done here. However ... I have not edited in this space before and assume there are strong opinions. Let's not allow those opinions to blur our view of what the Lede needs to be. YesMovementEtTU (talk) 06:06, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Just read some of the above comments, maybe it is time for myself or someone to just WP:BOLD something here? YesMovementEtTU (talk) 06:08, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Also, why is the ArbCom notice at the top of the Talk Page replicated? I tried to fix it, but couldn't see how. YesMovementEtTU (talk) 06:19, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
The Arbcom notice is part of Template:WikiProject Scientology. It looks like it was added to that banner in 2009 (in eye-searing yellow), but it's probably been changed, moved, and adjusted enough that it might not have been as obviously redundant at that time. Seems like a simple mistake, so I've removed it.
As for being bold, well, here are my observations about what's been going on with Scientology articles in general, at least since I started paying attention: many WP:SPAs or near-spas have been slowly adding and expanding Scientology articles with flattering or at least innocuous content supported by extremely obscure academic sources. At a glance, these statements might seem reasonable or helpful, but they are often redundant or vacuous when analysed closely. The consistent, steady nature of this behavior reveals who these editors are, but even without starting yet another sock-puppet investigation or diving into conspiracy theories, the end result is the same. These article have been getting more bloated, and have become more flattering by length alone. As you've noticed, the ledes haven't been keeping up. Before refactoring the ledes, consider if the bodies are up-to-snuff. There is a very large amount of redundant and undue material choking up these pages, and while the lede should reflect the body... maybe the problem is deeper than that. Few of these individual points seem out-of-place by themselves (which I believe is by design) but the overwhelming amount of Scientology-related trivia and ephemera in these articles, such as passing mentions attributed by name to obscure academics, paints a warped picture of the topic. Looking at the history of these articles, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask if this large quantity of material wasn't added specifically to drown-out the criticism, which is much, much more prominently covered by sources.
With that said, I have also found that there's plenty of room for incremental improvements made in good faith. Start bold and see what happens. Grayfell (talk) 06:31, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Anonymous

Due the form and manner of the group anonymous, it could be said that they would be a splincter group form ´scientiology´ itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.44.74.111 (talk) 01:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

No, it couldn't. That would be wrong. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

evaluation of your lead paragraph or two

I think a neutral description of "Scientology" (for example, if one of my friends had never heard of it) would be "An extremely controversial "religion" (I'll explain the air quotes in a second) that is banned in Germany. For example, I had to sign a document for employment, saying I was not a scientologist. To explain why it's a "religion" in quotation marks: it was created by an extremely famous and well-known science-fiction Author (as famous as Isaac Asimov or the most famous, seminal sci-fi writers.) There are uncontested and well-known documents in which L. Ron Hubbard himself says that to "realy rake it in" you should found a religion, i.e. a for-profit organization. Thus Scientology is almost a demonstration of the absurdity of religions. Nevertheless, that is only just how it started: L. Ron Hubbard then took his organization very seriously. It expanded aggressively and was in lots of controversies around its methods. Anyway it's in a different category from older religions like Catholicism, etc. Not mostly due to how recent it is (Mormonism is also relatively recent) but around the facts of how it was formed. It's not an 'open' religion and its ex-members have been murdered by the Church for speaking out against it. That's why it's banned in Germany."

I think that's a totally neutral way I could describe it to my friend. If the first paragraph or two doesn't basically give this impression then it is not very objective, in my opinion. I give the current lead paragraph about a D on the grading scale. It could be worse: but it could also be much, much better.

obviously the church is in an edit war with anyone who wants to reflect a neutral point of view: in my estimation the church must be winning and sane normal editors who want the Encyclopedia to reflect a neutral point of war are losing the battle over the lead of this article: they're just not committed enough, and the Church's POV is winning. I'm not surprised, since the Church has an incentive and lots of money, whereas it seems that neutral editors don't really care about this article or aren't committed to making it good. oh well.

Even if L. Ron Hubbard started Scientology to make money, that in itself does not prove that Scientology is not a religion any more than the Vatican taking in lots of money every year would prove that Catholocism is not a religion. If Scientologists believe in it as a religion, we have no right to tell them otherwise. I would like to point out that the introduction to the article seems to allude to the notion that there may have been something to do with money with the initial founding of the Church of Scientology, and I am certainly not denying that there may be some scary stuff happening with the group (I've heard some stories, but have no evidence either way). If you really want to see a biased article on religion, try looking up Pastafarianism - I seriously doubt that Wikipedia could be convinced to host a completely unbiased article on the religion I choose to follow (I do take it seriously as a religion!). 100.6.32.199 (talk) 00:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Rejection of psychology and psychiatry section

Grayfell, how is it NPOV to remove the statement: "It has also exposed abuses in the psychiatric profession," when upon checking the source, I can clearly see it being supported? https://books.google.com/books?id=GNzHAwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=controversial+new+religions&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiEpNGcjo7TAhXBKGMKHe5JDnYQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=exposed%20psychiatric&f=false Nonchalant77 (talk) 20:09, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

It's far, far too vague. "Exposed" and "abuses" are both overly broad and emotionally loaded when used without context. This could mean anything from clerical errors to torture, and leaving that up to the reader's assumptions to figure out which is absolutely not neutral. Grayfell (talk) 20:41, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 27 external links on Scientology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2017

Scientology is an official religion, not just hundreds of beliefs and practices. If this request is accepted, please do so! RullRatbwan (talk) 14:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@RullRatbwan: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Additionally, please provide reliable sources which support any change (or point to existing sources within the article which support it). Thanks. Murph9000 (talk) 14:43, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Continuous usage of forms of sariah law.

There is one instance that seems to have been overlooked, in the continuous bicker about scientiology.

All and every single affector have definite Sariah law pretenses, from the instances of application of Sariah law in the 1800's in the Bible Belt, to instances of applications of 'catholic' Sariah law in missisippi/louisiana, to 'school of the america's' applications of 'Sariah' law in Central America, to the Californian Cult instances of applications of 'Sariah' law.

These applications include the use of 'marriage' proposals to lure woman into europe for posterior 'sale' to the middle east, with fast use of scientiology methods and south american 'catholic' 'castrata Sariah' applications, that leave little to no doubt to some of the underlying origins of the bicker about scientiology methods, and that is international organized and none organized crime, including human trafficking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.44.84.202 (talk) 13:55, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Missing main card/main table infos

Membership (2012 estimate) 2,500–5,000[citation missing]
other/partial apprentices (not followers) (2012 estimate) 35,000-45,000[citation missing]

Thorough membership, we do not include Islamic Afro-Americans (some are simply partial apprentices, not followers) who simply are using some educational methods!!!unsigned comment added by 2A02:2149:828C:5600:8898:9BE:75D1:C9B1 (talk) 06:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Scientology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Law in Victoria repealed in other Australian states?

We read "In 1973, the law in Victoria was formally repealed in Western and Southern Australia". How can a law enacted in one Australian state be repealed in two others, since it by definition never applied there?89.212.50.177 (talk) 11:52, 19 December 2017 (UTC) I've also realised there isn't an Australian state called "Southern Australia" - it's "South Australia". But I haven't corrected this error, as the whole sentence is meaningless anyway!89.212.50.177 (talk) 11:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Scientology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Scientology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

IAS Freedom Medal

How come no mention of the IAS Freedom Medal in this article? Johnalexwood (talk) 01:29, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Because it doesn't mean anything outside of your stupid cult. Jaydogg1994 (talk) 12:36, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
It is mentioned -- Spacepine (talk) 07:56, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Linking to the wrong Jeff Hawkins

There is a wiki-link to 'Jeff Hawkins'. I followed the reference and it seems to be the wrong Jeff Hawkins. What is the correct way to handle this? Remove the wikilink? Sahedin (talk) 22:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I removed the link. Sahedin (talk) 22:23, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Is Scientology a religion.....?????

I reckon it is — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.38.105.161 (talk) 00:00, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

It should be listed in the following

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.38.105.161 (talk) 00:04, 12 December 2017 (UTC), Edited by 2601:602:77F:D09D:5104:1B8E:4C0E:F898 (talk) 01:34, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

It is currently listed at List of religions and spiritual traditions#New religious movements and has been for some time. –dlthewave ☎ 19:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


Sure it is =) Lawtheagoraphobic (talk) 06:17, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Negative media backlash

Why is there no discussion of recent media negativity? While all media is biased, and is generally less favorable towards religion, it seems to have taken a heavy, one-sided interest in Scientology in recent years, perhaps due to celebrity associations, which news often writes about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:5B0:4FC2:5EE8:CF2:BCE:C958:530 (talk) 05:27, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a platform for original research, so if you know of a reliable source for this negativity, perhaps something could be added. Grayfell (talk) 05:34, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2018

There is a more recent scholarly source that describes the origin of dianetics in science fiction magazines. This could be added as a citation to the end of the first line of the 'Dianetics' section that starts: "In May 1950, Hubbard's Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science was published by pulp magazine Astounding Science Fiction.[40][41][42][43]"

The article details are:

Menadue, Christopher Benjamin (October 2018). "Hubbard Bubble, Dianetics Trouble: An Evaluation of the Representations of Dianetics and Scientology in Science Fiction Magazines From 1949 to 1999". SAGE Open. 8 (4). doi:10.1177/2158244018807572. ISSN 2158-2440.


210.10.180.183 (talk) 11:47, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

The claim appears to have been already cited.  Spintendo  19:38, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Scientology for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Scientology is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Scientology until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 22:38, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Scientology definition in first paragraph simply incorrect as it states it is "Dianetics renamed"

I am raising the incorrect definition issue again: Dianetics vs Scientology.

Dianetics has a vastly different definition to that of Scientology. Saying that Dianetics was "renamed" to Scientology is simply incorrect. These are two different topics as one deals with the mind, and one deals with the spirit(Thetan, in Scientology nomenclature). This article is unclear about the difference.

What actually is Scientology, what does it do, what are its beliefs, what are its methods etc. These are important data points missing in the lead paragraph.

In addition to this, the users who are in control of this article, refuse to cite valid sources who have given a more accurate definition of Scientology and Dianetics, as they claim "these are not reputable sources". There are of course countless reputable sources who can offer a good definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CreativelySpecialised (talk • contribs) 10:30, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

The majority of the information provide in the original article is incorrect and fake.

LOLNO, blocked. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Correction: Scientology is a system of psychotherapy founded by L. Ron Hubbard (1911–86) formally called Dianetics, until it was codified as a Science in 1954, which required a name change [A1] Though Dianetics is still taught as a foundation to Scientology. Research into the subject spanned the years 1938 to 1983 where the American Medical Association [A2], Freudian Psychoanalytic Foundation[A3] and American Psychological Association[A4] were called in to independently test each aspect of research and to verify the findings. Both the APA and AMA petitioned to codify Scientology as a Science, which was effected in 1954, hence the change in name from Dianetcs to Scientology. The book Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health was released to the public on May 9, 1950 by Hermitage House Publishing[A8]. Scientology was made a religion in America in 1993 by the US government[A6] and Psychotherapy was degraded to not require licencing[A7]. The definition of psychotherapy was then defined by the US health Department as "A psychotherapist may not be a licensed professional but can be a regular individual trained in human interaction to interact and help individuals improve their sense of wellbeing" in order for Scientology to continue practicing.

Like Buddhism, Scientology believes that the soul is an immortal, spiritual being that is resident in a physical body and has had innumerable past lives. Based on case studies during research, the patient, during counselling, was able to recount previous lives. This was confirmed recently by Quantum Physics, that also confirmed the presence of the soul.

Hubbard describes the etymology of the word "Scientology" as coming from the Latin word scio, meaning Science or Knowledge, and the Greek word logos, meaning "The study of". Hubbard writes, "thus, Scientology means knowing how to know, or science of knowledge".[A1]

Both Dianetics and Scientology have encountered considerable opposition and controversy.[15] In 1964 The World Psychiatric Association saw Scientology as a major threat to their standing as a mental health authority and to their profits,which include 100% government funding, so approached the Australian State government of Victoria[A9} to conduct a Royal Commission into Scientology. The decision of the Royal Commission was that Scientology committed no crime, but because Scientology contained a moral code and has a belief in a Supreme Being (God), it was decided that Scientology be regarded as a Religion, "to get Psychiatry off its back". Germany classifies Scientology as a major Mental Health Authority, which it stands today.

Dianetics Main article: Dianetics

In 1948, Hubbard's Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science was published as a limited edition to give Medical doctors and Psychologists as an outline of the 10 years of research so far. Psychiatric terms were thrown out the window, mainly because many of Psychiatry's theories, such as the Greisinger Theory (that we think with an organ of the body - the brain) were debunked as early as 1898 and so "Mind" replaced "brain" at the request of The Royal College of Neurology [A14].

Dianetics uses a counseling technique (known to practitioners as "auditing") in which a counselor assists the patient in conscious recall of traumatic events in the individual's past.[47] Hubbard variously defined Dianetics as a spiritual healing technology and an organized science of thought.[50] The stated intent is to free individuals of the influence of past traumas by systematic exposure and removal of painful physical & emotional memories these events have left behind.

Two of Hubbard's key supporters at the time were John W. Campbell Jr., the editor of Astounding Science Fiction, and Campbell's brother-in-law, physician Joseph A. Winter.[55] Dr. Winter, hoping to have Dianetics accepted in the medical community as complementary to medicine, submitted papers (Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science) outlining the principles and methodology of Dianetic therapy to the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1948, which were accepted and excerpts appeared in the journal in 1949. (source: American Medical Association)

Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health spent one year on the New York Times bestseller list.[16][58][59] According to religious studies professor Paul Gutjahr, Dianetics is the bestselling non-Christian religious book of the century.[46] Publisher's Weekly gave a posthumous plaque to Hubbard to commemorate Dianetics' appearance on its list of bestsellers for one hundred weeks (nearly two years).

Dianetics appealed to a broad range of people who used instructions from the book and applied the method to each other, becoming practitioners themselves.

Hubbard became the leader of a growing Dianetics movement.[44] He became a popular lecturer and established the Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation in Elizabeth, New Jersey, where he continued research and trained his first Dianetics counselors.[44][60]

Some practitioners of Dianetics reported experiences in patients which they believed had occurred in past lives, or previous incarnations.[60] In early 1951, reincarnation became a subject of intense debate within the Dianetics community.[65] Hubbard took the reports of past life events seriously after taking an expedition to verify reported past lives, the most famous being the Bridie Murphy case, which became the movie "The Search for Bridie Murphy" in 1956 from the book by Morey Bernstein.

Also in 1951, Hubbard incorporated the electropsychometer (E-meter for short), invented by Volney G. Mathison, as a counselling aid.[65], the device is held by Scientologists (practitioners of Scientology) to be a useful tool in detecting changes in a person's state of mind.[65] and by the Hadron Collider at CERN in Geneva to measure the charge of atoms (which contains 12). The global spread of Scientology at the latter half of the 1950s was culminated with the opening of mental health clinics worldwide, while world headquarters transferred to England in Saint Hill, a rural estate. Hubbard lived there for the next seven years.[67]

The purpose of Dianetics was the improvement of the individual, the individual or "self" being only one of eight "dynamics" (areas of life where Freud only focused on one.[68]

One fake story told to defame Hubbard and Scientology was that "Harlan Ellison told a story of seeing Hubbard at a gathering of the Hydra Club in 1953 or 1954. Hubbard was complaining of not being able to make a living on what he was being paid as a science fiction writer. Ellison says that Lester del Rey told Hubbard that what he needed to do to get rich was start a religion". Research found the quote "to get rich is start a religion" was actually found in the pages of the novel 1984 written by George Orwell[A10], and Harlan Ellison[A11] disputed the fake story involving him.

Education in Counselling: Scientology, being codified as a Science, contains a Ph.D degree where trained clinical practitioners become Doctors of Scientology (D.Scn). This doctorate course was originally conducted at Stanford University[A5] in America. The course in Scientology takes from 5 to 20 years full time study (5 years for Counselor, 20 years for Clinical Scientologist), where Psychology takes 4 years full time and Psychiatry takes one year part time (2 1/2 hours a week for 42 weeks).[A12] [A13]

Sources: [A1] Scientology [A2] American Medical Association [A3] Freudian Psychoanalytic Foundation [A4] American Psychological Association [A5] Stanford University [A6] The United States government, Washington DC [A7] US Department of Health [A8] Hermitage Press [A9] Victorian State Government, Australia [A10] 1984 by George Orwell [A11] Harlan Ellison [A12] UCLA [A13] Columbia University [A14] All other references came from original article

Westgarth Global Entertainment (talk) 06:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2020

Could a wikilink be added for Lori G. Beaman's name in the references to the article about her? Thanks, 207.161.86.162 (talk) 20:49, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 20:55, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Religion or church?

There are articles for Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Christianity, Islam, Paganism, Hinduism, Shinto, Jainism, Judaism, Traditional Berber religion, Daoism, Vaudouism, Sikhism, Bahá'í Faith, Shenism, Odinani, Rastafarianism and Manichaeism on Wikipedia, none of which (I've checked) refer to a headquarters, nor to a chairman (nor any other kind of current director). And this is quite proper: it is a tautology that any abstract set of ideas does not (and cannot) have a headquarters, nor a chairman (nor any other kind of director). Religions or "sets of beliefs" are ideas; they are not and cannot be intrinsically connected to any corporeal entity or agent. Churches, sects, and cults have headquarters. Religions do not.

Why is the church being conflated with the religion? Scientology is not treated specially. We need to either stop referring to Scientology as a "body of religious beliefs and practices", or treat the structure and make-up of its page as that of a religion. Starting — but by no means ending — with removing references to a Chairman and a Headquarters — these terms belong on the CoS page alone. Cambial Yellowing(❧) 02:23, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Last month I invented a religion called XYZism. We meet every Tuesday in my parent's basement, here in Abbot, Texas, with services lead by my cat Frisky. If anyone wants to create a Wikipedia article about XYZism, I welcome it; however, please take heed of Cambial Yellowing's injunction above and do NOT mention Frisky. Frisky is merely a corporeal entity: he should not be conflated with the set of beliefs that constitute XYZism. If you really feel that it's important that people know that XYZism's current high priest is a orange tabby, create another article, "Church of XYZism", and mention it there. — BrianH123 (talk) 19:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
It is inaccurate and reductionist to describe a religion simply as an idea or a collection of ideas. Religions are obviously other things as well, such as traditions, institutions, and practices. As such, they can and in some cases do have headquarters. There is little if any distinction between the Church of Scientology as a specific organization and Scientology as a religion. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:30, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
You are missing the point. It may be reductionist to describe it simply as ideas — but I described it as a "body of religious beliefs and practices" — which is precisely the description used on the article. Practices (and traditions) are also in the abstract — and hence exactly the same applies — practices and traditions cannot and do not have a headquarters — in fact suggesting any other tradition had a 'headquarters' would rightly be seen as equally absurd. There are institutions which purport to further the practices and spread the beliefs but they are not the practices,beliefs and traditions themselves. Grammar'sLittleHelper has already pointed out that Scientology does not have lawyers etc. Neither does it have a chairman or headquarters. You are trying to reinforce the same conflation of two separate things. If they were the same thing WP would not have separate articles for them. The suggestion that "There is little if any distinction between the Church of Scientology as a specific organization and Scientology as a religion" is simply false. Not just as a matter of empirical fact but as an a priori statement of logical truth. Cambial Yellowing(❧) 10:07, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
This was sufficiently persuasive that your proposed change has been boldly implemented. Technically, Scientology is practiced by many groups and has no central leader, HQ, or website. Feoffer (talk) 10:53, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
It didn’t persuade me. Look up nearly any concept in Wikipedia and you will see historical and organizational background details. The article on the metric system mentions the General Conference on Weights and Measures; the article on Judaism mentions Israel; the article on pi mentions Archimedes. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a database of ontology specifications. BrianH123 (talk) 19:58, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. It's a start! There is more work to be done on separating these two things in the lead and body of this article. I note that this issue has been discussed before in some detail, though the separation of the articles, if not the concepts, is much further along than in 2007. Thankfully we have at least one decent model for how a system of beliefs and the insitution(s) which foster them should be treated separately.
To that end, I propose the removal of the organization infobox; it does not belong on a page which states in its opening sentence that its subject is an abstract form and hence mutually exclusive with being an organization. I am looking into possible replacements. Don't want to be hasty now do we. Cambial Yellowing(❧) 13:35, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Cambial Yellowing, what you wrote was, " Religions or "sets of beliefs" are ideas "; you were and are wrong about that. In your confused and muddled comment above, you appear to be trying to claim that you meant something other than what you actually wrote, which is not helpful or sensible. I stand by my statement that "There is little if any distinction between the Church of Scientology as a specific organization and Scientology as a religion"; your description of it as false is itself false. That "Scientology is practiced by many groups" is insignificant given that the other groups (Free Zone, or whatever they call themselves) are insignificant in comparison to the Church of Scientology itself. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:55, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Be assured I meant what I wrote, as is my wont. I referred to Scientology as a religion, which is commonly defined as a system of attitudes, beliefs, and practices. I referred to it as one of many "sets of beliefs" qua ideas (inasmuch as they exist in the mind). I also referred to it as a "body of religious beliefs and practices" which is the definition used by consensus on this article. That said, it is unfortunate that you found my comment muddling and confusing. Let me know which aspects confused you and I will be happy to explain. The comment about multiple groups practising Scientology is from another editor; I will leave it to them to reply if they deem it necessary. Cambial Yellowing(❧) 13:24, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
I think the most accurate description of it would not be a religion or a church, but a grift. 98.118.93.186 (talk) 04:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Period in the military

The article describes Hubbard's period in military service of July 1941 to sometime in 1945, and his attempts to attack Japanese submarines and the Coronado Islands. The article does not mention that World War II was ongoing during this period or that Japan attacked the United States in December 1941. Many readers may not know exactly when World War II or the Pearl Harbor attack were. I think this information is highly relevant to understanding this period of time in the U.S. military, but my attempt to add a mention of it to the article was reverted twice (by different editors who both said it was "irrelevant"). —BarrelProof (talk) 08:47, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

@BarrelProof: - I sort of take your point, but we probably should spend too many words giving context. I've added a wikilink to World War II. Readers unfamiliar with who was fighting and the timeline can go there. NickCT (talk) 14:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

"Variously defined as a cult?" Cleaning up lead

I have removed this ambiguous statement “ It has been variously defined as a cult, a business or a new religious movement.[2][3][4][5][6][7] from the first paragraph and moved it in a modified form in the fourth paragraph, where controversies are mentioned. It better belongs there. There are several reasons why this move is warranted:

1. This is weasel wording - seemingly significant but really provides a vague overview of the coverage of the subject. Who “variously defined it”? 2. There is undue weight on this statement, because only a few cited sources have called Scientology a cult, a business and/or new religious movement. Within the same article, we have mentions of several countries where Scientology is recognized as a religion, including the United States. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology#Scientology_as_a_religion The debate of religion vs. cult is already mentioned extensively here and need not be haphazardly summarized with no context in the first paragraph of the entire article. This is not NPOV. For easy reference, I’ve posted the portion of the article here.

Scientology is officially recognized as a religion in the United States.[339][340][341][342] Recognition came in 1993,[354] when the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) stated that "[Scientology is] operated exclusively for religious and charitable purposes."[355][356] Scientology was again recognized as a religion by the U.S. courts when the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment in Headley v. Church of Scientology International in 2012.[357] Elsewhere, Scientology is recognized as a religion in Australia,[340][361] Portugal,[362] Spain,[363] Slovenia,[364] Sweden,[364][365][366] Croatia,[364] Hungary[364] and Kyrgyzstan.[367] In New Zealand, the Inland Revenue Department classified the Church of Scientology as a charitable organization and stated that its income would be tax exempt.[368] It has gained judicial recognition in Italy,[369][clarification needed] and Scientology officials have won the right to perform marriages in South Africa.[370]

Scientology is not recognized as a religion in Canada.[370] In the UK, the Charity Commission for England and Wales ruled in 1999 that Scientology was not a religion and refused to register the Church as a charity, although a year later, it was recognized as a not-for-profit body in a separate proceeding by the UK Revenue and Customs and exempted from UK value added tax.[370][371] In December 2013, the United Kingdom's highest court officially recognized Scientology as a religion. The ruling ended a five-year legal battle by Scientologist Louisa Hodkin, who sought the legal right to marry at the Church of Scientology chapel in central London. The opinion by five supreme court justices redefined religion in law, rendering the 1970 definition "out of date" in restricting religious worship to "reverence or veneration of God or of a Supreme Being".

3. Saying that Scientology is defined as a cult is a subjective opinion and not a legal statement. Here are a number of sources, one within Wikipedia itself, that list several nations where Scientology is recognized as a religion. Scientology’s tax-exempt religious status in the U.S. is well-known.

https://www.history.com/topics/religion/history-of-scientology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_status_by_country https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10510301/Scientology-is-a-religion-rules-Supreme-Court.html https://www.cnn.com/2017/03/22/us/believer-what-is-scientology/index.html

4. Let us not simplify this age-old debate by making blanket statements that do not recognize the complicated nature of this controversy.Weboflight (talk) 01:40, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I also returned the infobox. The removal of this is vandalism and nothing in Wikipedia policy supports this removal.Weboflight (talk) 01:55, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

  • You've got to be joking. Finding a source that doesn't use the word "cult" doesn't address that that's what most source call it. Scientology being a religion doesn't preclude it from being a cult (most cults are religious). The History Channel, home to Ancient Aliens is absolutely an unreliable source. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. The Telegraph article you cite mentions that it's been called a cult. You should find a topic that doesn't make you int so much enturbulence, instead of overting Wikipedia's policies. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:47, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Yeah, no. Leijurv (talk) 03:34, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Discuss the edit and not the editor. You accuse me of overting Wikipedia’s policy when you are violating the site’s “No personal attacks” policy. First of all, there is an inherent hostility in the tone of these responses with the assumption that I am a Scientologist. I am not a Scientologist, and even if I were, why is this discussion ensuing from that point and not for the merit of the edit or for promoting NPOV on the page? You said that’s what most sources call it, but you have not provided any (I have provided several) and you acknowledge that Scientology is a religion. Even if being religious for any organization does not preclude it being a cult (which is a subjective opinion) we would not begin pages about religions on this note. It belongs to the controversy section. (Please note that I did not remove the mention altogether but posted it on the fourth paragraph). I provided the Scientology status by country page and the paragraph within this same article because these are cited from various sources that show that Scientology is recognized in these countries. It is on Wikipedia because it is based on third-party sources (WP:RS). I can copy and paste the reference page of Scientology Status By Country and the references used in this page but I think you get the idea. To say Wikipedia is not a reliable source is a technicality.

Again, there was no justification for the removal of the infobox, which was just removed again. And Leijurv just said, “Yeah, no.” without any substantial reason why.

I am being unfairly targeted as an editor, when I am just fighting for NPOV on this page. For example, on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church, the lead does not first and foremost mention that numerous scandals associated with the church but the their beliefs and practices. The same treatment and consideration should be lent to the Scientology page.

There was no comment on the weasel wording of “it has been variously defined as a cult” either. This sentence is so vague that it does not really help the lead at all. I also question these references that were added to support the statement: These are first hand reports that are not reliable third-party references. http://www.apologeticsindex.org/The%20Anderson%20Report.pdf https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=JRPz4_u7AxMC&pg=PA668&lpg=PA668&source=bl&ots=Ak1rBBIH1P&sig=ACfU3U0mEKfg4a1bg4E2YvV70vUu--vZCA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjb-PrOypLjAhXoWRUIHcoOCVUQ6AEwAHoECAUQAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

Again, please provide a real argument as to why this sentence has to be in the first paragraph of the entire article. I still do not see the justification.Weboflight (talk) 20:04, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

There is no doubt that Scientology has been described as all of those things by various reliable sources. Do you dispute that reliable sources have called Scientology a cult? I found a dozen just in the first few pages of searching it up. Please remember that by WP:AEIS secondary sources are based upon accounts from primary sources - that doesn't downgrade the information to primary. Every experience started as a firsthand account. The question here seems to be about WP:DUE versus WP:UNDUE. Regarding citations: per MOS:CITELEAD there is a balance to be struck between duplicating information and citations with the article body, and making sure the lede is verifiable. For this reason, I don't think we can say that the "DUE / UNDUE" weight is based solely on the specific citations that were pulled up into the lede. In other words, even though the lede is meant to be a very high level summary of the main article text, that doesn't mean we have to pull in every citation from the body. So I don't think it's quite necessary to nitpick the sources one at a time in order to resolve the lede. So, regarding your UNDUE argument and comparison to Catholic Church, we can compare what's due weight. Per MOS:LEADREL, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources. This is true for both the lead and the body of the article. If there is a difference in emphasis between the two, editors should seek to resolve the discrepancy. At risk of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS I'll bite and explain what I think is going on. The Catholic Church article has From the late 20th century the Catholic Church has been criticized for its teachings on sexuality, its inability to ordain women, and its handling of sexual abuse cases involving clergy. When we look down into the article body and the corresponding sections on those: Catholic Church#Homosexuality, Catholic Church#Holy orders and women, and Catholic Church#Sexual abuse cases, we see that they are comparatively not that much of the article. On the other hand Scientology#Controversies is absolutely massive (about three times longer give or take) and Scientology#Disputes over legal status just adds way more. This is why there is a difference in the prominence in the ledes of the articles: they reflect the article body, giving WP:DUE weight, and the article bodies reflect reliable sources, again giving WP:DUE weight. Leijurv (talk) 21:38, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
The sentence isn't even remotely vague. Your argument is nonsense. Cambial Yellowing❧ 11:48, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Leijurv, I am not just talking about the Catholic Church. Look at all other religions out there. The first paragraph does not mention the body of controversy. I understand trying to include this in the lead, that’s why we put it in the body of the lead which, by the way, it was already mentioned at. I get the DUE weight explanation, but this wording at the first paragraph does not give weight to the many geographical locations where Scientology is actually recognized. Using your argument, we need to include at least a sentence that also discusses where Scientology has legitimacy as a religion. Or say, “It is recognized as a religion in countries like the United States, Australia and South Africa, but considered a cult in French and Germany.” The controversy as much more vast and varied than Scientology being “variously defined as a cult.” (Yes, it is vague and does not make sense.) To actually include where it is recognized and not recognized makes much more sense. That is why we put it in the controversy part of the lead which explains this with more context and detail. Why is it not necessary to nitpick the sources? Is WP:RS only conditional? This is an arbitrary rule that you are creating. You say that Scientology’s controversy section is much more “massive?” Is this compared to all religions and new religious movements? And furthermore, there is a separate article addressing this which is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_controversies. This is where the full detail of all this belongs - the Scientology page just focus primarily on the body of beliefs that the religion encompasses, and the full history of the group, not just focusing on one aspect, which is that is considered a cult by certain groups. Furthermore, we also need to restore the infobox as there is no reason for removing this.Weboflight (talk) 21:49, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

There is no consensus for this whitewashing, nor is there any appetite for tedious rehashing of old discussions. This article isn't a comparison to "other religions". This article is about Scientology, so it summarizes based on sources about "Scientology", including controversies. The existence of other articles is a convenience for readers, not an excuse to downplay significant information. The article does not summarize based on individual Scientologists understanding of the broader topic of religion. Articles will indicate to readers why that topic is noteworthy. Per reliable, independent sources, Scientology is noteworthy for its controversies first, and its beliefs second. Grayfell (talk) 22:02, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Stating that a religion is a cult before giving real encyclopedic information about it is a dangerous precedent for other religions and new religious movements in Wikipedia. This violates NPOV in the summary. This is why controversies have their own sections/articles. I am not against mentioning the controversy in the lead, but it is not needed in the first paragraph.Weboflight (talk) 17:29, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Except that's not what the article says:
Scientology is a set of beliefs and practices invented by American author L. Ron Hubbard, and an associated movement. It has been variously defined as a cult, a business or a new religious movement.
Accurately summarizing a controversial topic according to source doesn't violate NPOV. Nothing about this is a dangerous precedent. Other topics will have other histories and other sources. This article is about Scientology, which has been variously defined as a cult, a business or a new religious movement. Grayfell (talk) 23:55, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Please share your rationale. The Church of Scientology is legally recognized as a religion by the United States government, so how is it within NPOV to start with "cult," followed by "business," with "religion" last? The undue weight order decries its bias and intent. I still do not see the justification to put it in the first two sentences. A mention in the lead section maybe, but not leading "defined as." I am pushing for Wikipedia policy compliance for this one as I would for any legal religion. Maintaining NPOV is critical to the public viewing Wikipedia as a credible source. We should honor the NPOV and undue weight policies, here and everywhere on Wikipedia. We are not supposed to pick and choose subjectively, regardless how we feel about a topic. Please consider an order and wording of "Religion, or business, or cult."Weboflight (talk) 00:58, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I have already shared my rationale. Wikipedia summarizes reliable sources in proportion to due weight. Scientology's supposed legal status (in some places) is a distraction. This factoid is only significant to the extent it is supported by reliable sources. Intentionally reorganizing content to downplay unflattering information would be a form of public relations. This would not honor Wikipedia's policies, and would be contrary to Wikipedia's goals as a neutral source of information. Grayfell (talk) 01:20, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
I agree with everything that's been said by Grayfell, Cambial, and Ian Thompson. Sorry, I haven't checked this page in a while. I will respond to what weboflight asked me some time ago, sorry this is out of order. Why is it not necessary to nitpick the sources? Is WP:RS only conditional? This is an arbitrary rule that you are creating. I will rephrase. I'm talking about MOS:CITELEAD and making the point that the citations in the lede are not the same as the citations in the body. There is much more cited in the body than in the lede, obviously. Therefore, it isn't "enough" to poke at the specific citations that happen to be used in the lede in order to get this pesky "cult" word removed, there's also the larger body of citations in the article itself. And regardless, it probably isn't worth your time. You say that Scientology’s controversy section is much more “massive?” Is this compared to all religions and new religious movements? Yes because it is more controversial, evidently. Especially relative to the number of "adherents". This is where the full detail of all this belongs Yes. That's why it's there. What? There is no detail here, just the single word you don't like. Leijurv (talk) 08:01, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Distraction? (From what?) Factoid? (according to who?) You are trivializing a widely covered news story in the US.

Here are some articles about it: https://www.nytimes.com/1993/10/14/us/scientologists-granted-tax-exemption-by-the-us.html https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Cowen/essays/irs.html https://www.nytimes.com/1997/03/09/us/scientology-s-puzzling-journey-from-tax-rebel-to-tax-exempt.html https://apnews.com/a087263b481fe4553adbd2fee701b5be https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2017/11/12/irs-and-scientology-everything-you-want-to-know-and-more/#5bafc6084042

Leijurv, It's not a question of liking or disliking the word, it's a question of undue weight and lead, and setting a dangerous precedent for other religions on Wikipedia.Weboflight (talk) 21:18, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Again you repeat the same talking points about "precedent", but you haven't actually responded to anyone's answers.
The government (meaning the IRS) calling Scientology a religion doesn't make it not-a-cult, so this is a distraction. The IRS is mainly about taxation, not sociology, and not theology. Further, reliable independent sources do not say "because the IRS grudgingly said it was a religion, it cannot be a cult". Using point A to imply point B is WP:SYNTH, at best. That's why this is a factoid. In context it may or may not be true, but it's trivial regardless. You are attempting to use one context-free fact to support a specific position.
This handful of sources span decades, and at least two of which I can tell are not WP:RS without even clicking on them. This suggest that you are cherry-picking. The rest explain why the IRS thing was controversial. This strongly supports that it's more complicated than you're trying to imply. These sources undermine your claim that it's primarily just a religion, since none of these sources pretend it's that simple. Grayfell (talk) 21:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Also, the whole "it's a religion and so not a cult" argument fails because (as was already pointed out) most cults are religious! Non-religious cults are a very modern phenomena, with arguably fascism being the first secular cult (and even that rather fails given how most fascists try to manipulate the trappings of religion). @Weboflight: see WP:IDHT and WP:RGW for the reasons why continuing to post "nuh-uh" over and over (which is the kindest summary to be given to your posts on this talk page) can easily lead to a topic ban. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Why is the anti-scientology persecution hidden in Wikipedia?

Why does Wikipedia support the US dictatorship and its propaganda? Rowemotto (talk) 01:21, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

This comment is not clear. Find a reliable source if you want to propose a change to the article. Grayfell (talk) 02:12, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

POV check and readability

There have been a lot of recent changes to this article, a lot of them subtle but still significant, and not enough discussion here given the controversial nature of the subject. As the article is already something of a long drawn-out mess, it would be helpful to have a few editors review everything to make sure it is not getting imbalanced or sources being misused or misinterpreted. Laval (talk) 03:20, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

In addition, the readability of this article is terrible. This has been a problem for years and it is getting worse. Laval (talk) 03:20, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Given that there are so many sub-articles on virtually every aspect of Scientology here on Wikipedia, there is no reason for this page to be so long when the sections can be much further condensed and leave the main articles for the bulk of the information. Laval (talk) 03:25, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed that readability is certainly a problem, and I would add there is a major problem of sourcing, with an overabundance of questionable or tangential secondary sources and an underuse of the major academic and journalistic works devoted to the subject produced in the last ~30 years.
With regards to length, it's true that many sub-articles exist, likely a product of the organized editing by members in the past. A number of them are basically cforks of content here, and given the dubious notability of others (e.g. Black Dianetics, Freedom Medal of Valor, etc), many should be deleted or merged, rather than relied on for "the bulk of the information". Cambial foliage❧ 12:48, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Template:Infobox religious group

Hi all, I am really partial to having infoboxes for quick info and I see that infobox organization was recently removed somewhat contentiously, I propose you add in this infobox, as they're somewhat religious, right? Footlessmouse (talk) 02:27, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

This article is not about an organization. The infobox for the Church of Scientology is on the relevant article. Cambial foliage❧ 14:18, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2020

Scientology and "telepathic communication". Uses technology to transmit auditory communication disguised as supernatural. This might be deemed "telepathic", "psychic", "schizophrenia", "dissociative identity disorder", "supernatural powers", "demons", "mental disorder". Scientology is using this technology disguised as possession of some supernatural power. This is used to torture and extort innocent Americans. WhereIsTheTruth2 (talk) 13:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

It's not clear what edit you want made or what sources you are citing for this. – Thjarkur (talk) 14:14, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

update on religion status

quote from History.com:

https://www.history.com/.amp/topics/religion/history-of-scientology#section_6

“The United States, home to the majority of Scientologists, has recognized Scientology as a religion, with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) reaffirming the church’s tax-exempt status in 1993 after a long-running investigation. In 2013, Britain’s highest court similarly affirmed Scientology’s status as a religion by ruling that the group could conduct weddings at its church in London.” Joostgriffioen (talk) 02:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

also:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_status_by_country

“The Church of Scientology has been given tax-exempt status in its home country, the United States,[2] and has received full recognition as a religion in various other countries such as Italy,[3][4] South Africa,[5] Australia,[6] Sweden,[7] New Zealand,[8][9] Portugal[10] and Spain;[11] it thus enjoys and regularly cites the constitutional protection afforded in these nations to religious practice.” Joostgriffioen (talk) 02:04, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Generally unreliable source. Cambial foliage❧ 08:27, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I can't post anonymously here?

Isn't this a problem?

Scientologists are known for going after people who post critical things about this group on the internet -- using tactics such as lawsuits and harassment and in some cases physical violence. All of this is documented in the article.

So why can't I post something anonymously about Scientology in this article? 139.138.6.121 (talk) 12:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Anonymous editing was turned off by the admins due to persistent vandalism. but you can always propose changes here on the talk pages. Creating an account will also serve to increase your privacy -- when you edit without one, you reveal your IP address. Feoffer (talk) 22:54, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Dubious, generally unreliable book

There are a very large number of references on this page to this book. The book is clearly a product of the generally unreliable group CESNUR. It is edited by Massimo Introvigne and co-published by CESNUR. References to the book, and claims for which this is the only source cited, should be removed. I note that Feoffer has gone some way toward addressing problematic CESNUR references previously; if there is a reason to exclude the book from those efforts let me know. Cambial foliage❧ 09:28, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Virtually unexplained reversion

Hello Cambial Yellowing. I updated the first paragraph of this article, because the existing content does not represent the body of information about Scientology's religious status. It gives undue weight to the select articles that talk about Scientology's status as a business or cult but completely ignores that Scientology has been fully recognized as a religion in 26 countries, including the United States. And what does "associated movement," even mean, and why do we need to keep that on the page? There is a section in the article that already acknowledges the cult discussion in references. The current lead does not proportionally represent the body of the article. You also said charitable "not equal to" religion. I did not say "because Scientology is a charitable organization it is automatically a religion", but I backed up with references the statements they are officially recognized in these countries. How is this not NPOV and RS? I am genuinely confused.Bolddreams (talk) 20:33, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

"Associated movement" in this case means that Scientology is not just a set of beliefs and practices but also activity by people and organisations, including the Church of Scientology, its related organisations, and all the competing Scientology groups. It's essential to mention it in the first sentence to convey what Scientology is. MartinPoulter (talk) 20:44, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
See the extensive discussion, the most recent of which is in this section. There is a clear consensus that the stable opening paragraph is a fair representation of the extant sources. Your assertion that the opening text ignores that Scientology has been fully recognized as a religion does not bear scrutiny. The second sentence reads "...defined as a cult, a business or a new religious movement", which encompasses the fact that some sources describe it as religious. The notion that the "full recognition" which you speak of extends to 26 countries lacks credibility; it's closer to 10, though the nature of recognition amongst those is quite variable. None of your sources gave a figure of 26 countries; it's pretty obviously bullshit. Most of the sources you added were not reliable (see here): you need at a minimum established journalism, but most of the sources I added to replace your poor sources are peer-reviewed journal articles or monographs from established academic presses. There are of course some body sections which perhaps ought to be covered in the lead, for example extensive harassment of people who criticise Scientology organizations' business practices, or the widespread allegations of forced abortions. Proposals of how to incorporate those are welcome. Why your edit was not NPOV: first, the phrase yet to be recognized is not a neutral way of describing the facts; second, you focused on certain state agencies' statements about Scientology, and used this as a basis to ignore multiple other journalistic and scholarly sources, not to mention other state agencies. The one does not negate the other, hence "variously defined". Cambial foliage❧ 21:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi Cambial. Thank you for your feedback. I would like to first point out that your tone is very disparaging and does not reflect that assumption of “good faith” at all per Wikipedia policy. I would like to cordially work with you in creating a better lead for this article which I think really unfairly represents the article. Look at the Mormon page opening, which is another controversial religion, and nowhere do they mention just the controversies in the first two sentences. The 26 countries, that you said was “bullshit” was the number of countries listed in the Scientology Status by Country Wikipedia page that recognizes Scientology as a religion. Are you saying then that this Wikipedia page is “bullshit?” The references I used were used in this Wikipedia page. Why is it acceptable in that page, but not in the Scientology page?Bolddreams (talk) 04:01, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Indent your posts. Please indicate exactly which text you think indicates I have not assumed good faith on your part. An accusation of that type without evidence is not very civil. The consensus in the last discussion that I linked for you is that it does fairly represent the article, so if you want to make substantive changes you will need to build a consensus for them. Answers to questions – indirectly, yes: WP is not a reliable source. It isn’t acceptable on that page; it may surprise you to know that I am not responsible for all of Wikipedia. Cambial foliage❧ 06:43, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
1) LDS (Mormons) are SIGNIFICANTLY differently viewed as a religion than Scientology in every source I've seen; that is in no way a fair or equal comparison or analogy. 2) Cambial Yellowing is correct that Wikipedia has policies on Reliable Sources WP:RS, and many articles are not up to par. ---Avatar317(talk) 21:51, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
I got the impression of an accusation on your part when you said “None of your sources gave a figure of 26 countries; it's pretty obviously bullshit.” The language used made me feel that your response was not civil. I get that Wikipedia in itself is not a reliable source - but can you substantiate why the sources are provided were not reliable? Why are they not acceptable? Are you disputing the fact that the Church of Scientology is recognized in these countries? Or just the sources? I can search for alternative sources if that’s what’s needed to come up with a consensus.Bolddreams (talk) 22:23, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
If I assume good faith on the part of Cambrial, my assumption is that they just looked at your edited article lede, looked at the sources you cited in it, and found that none of your sources gave a figure of 26 countries. No more, no less. That sentence, in and of itself, does not imply that the Church is not recognized in those countires, nor does it imply that the sources are unreliable, all it says is that your sources do not support the claim of 26 countries. If you think that was wrong perhaps you could link to one of the sources you cited that has the 26 country figure in it -- perhaps you think Cambrial missed something that is indeed there in a cited source? Leijurv (talk) 08:07, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Simple, we can remove the number 26 and still mention the countries that Scientology is recognized in. Plenty of references for that.Bolddreams (talk) 20:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Why on earth would we do that? Cambial foliage❧ 23:27, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Google Search order concern

When searching for estimates of total Scientology membership on Google, the search algorithm points to this Wikipedia page, suspiciously Scientology’s much-contested estimate of tens of millions specifically.

The sentence stating this organization self-estimate is merely one out of several subsequent paragraphs, which provide myriad other expert assessments strongly calling this census into question—thus I’m concerned that this highly contentious and oft-protected article is being exploited for marketing purposes, either intentionally or coincidentally.

Does anyone have any info on how Google’s search engine crawls this site to land on specific user queries, and whether this process can be manipulated by SEO software? Alanrobts (talk) 23:00, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Ron Merkle

@Whpq: Which aspects of the paragraph you deleted do you believe are unsupported by the source? Cambial — foliar❧ 18:28, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Primarily, I was reverting a vandal who has been inserting false information and "Ron Merkle" into a variety of articles. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Atac2. Aside from that the linkage of the police accepting gifts to this particular prosecution is problematic. "...given the police force's earlier improper relationship with the Scientology organization, the propriety of the summons was questioned in contemporary news reports..." isn't really supported with the sources provided. The Guardian article mentions the gifts, butt he BBC one does not and neither are questioning the propriety of this given the gifts. I would not be surprised if press did question it, but it isn't in these two sources referencing the incident in this article. -- Whpq (talk) 18:50, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
A vandal inserting material elsewhere is not a reason to revert my edits entirely. I’m going to restore it with the small section you say you object to removed. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:58, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
I reverted the entire thing as the incident was not in the article originally. It looked to me as just an excuse to stick in "Ron Merle" not withstanding your additional changes. If you feel the incident should be in the article, I have no objections to your proposal. -- Whpq (talk) 19:07, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2019 and 12 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lexykayy.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2021

Near the end of the lead, please change "the government classify" to "the government classifies". Thanks. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 12:22, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: The grammar is correct as-is. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:26, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
No, Calling it "correct" without qualification is wrong. The correct answer is: it depends on which dialect of English you are using. Collective nouns are generally singular in US English, and may be singular or plural in UK English. The English versions of Wikipedia articles are generally written in US English - as this is the point of origin of the Wikipedia, itself. So, the grammar is wrong and needs to be changed. It is "government is", "government classifies", etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6000:AA4D:C5B8:0:3361:EAF8:97B7 (talk) 02:00, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Lede

I cleaned up the lede. The word movement was used twice, and in the first mention "associated movement" it wasn't clear what it really meant. I also contextualized the other statements and provided a link to the information about the census.Luckystars1981 (talk) 05:38, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Your inappropriate addition did not amount to a “clean up”. This was not an appropriate addition in any part of the lead. Legal recognition is already adequately dealt with in the fourth paragraph. The phrasing of your addition did not adhere to NPOV policy. The reference you added appears to be published by a vanity press; it is not a reliable source. The tiny publisher seems largely to exist as a vehicle for publishing the climate change denial of paid lobbyists. The almost non-existent publicity for the book includes an advert by “Scientologists taking Action Against Discrimination” (supposedly the STAND league - presumably no-one thought to teach the Scientologists about spelling - more appropriately the SAAD league). It may be indicative of the sort of “independent publisher” that brought the book into being.Cambial — foliar❧ 08:35, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

The reference was published by Shepherd Street Press, which is an imprint of Connor Court Publishing and The School of Law, The University of Notre Dame Australia, Broadway. The Connor Court Publishing Wikipedia page mentions “climate change denial” (which is completely unrelated to Scientology) but it also says that it publishes “publishes all sorts of commercial books – including many biographies, books on politics and in particular.” The book is featured on the Stand League website, but STAND is not related at all to the publisher. I question your subjective labelling of the publisher as a “vanity publisher” because of its connection to Connor Court.   

Furthermore, a discussion of this particular reference is moot because there are several mentions of these recognitions in other references. It is not a reason to write off the recognitions altogether. Here are some references for the countries mentioned in the added content, except for Argentina, for which there may be references in Spanish. I will provide if needed.

United States https://www.history.com/topics/religion/history-of-scientology  https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-kirchick-scientology-exemption-20171116-story.html   https://www.businessinsider.com/l-ron-hubbard-history-sci-fi-writer-to-scientology-founder-2015-3      United Kingdom https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-scientology/uk-supreme-court-says-scientology-is-a-religion-allows-wedding-idUKBRE9BA0CQ20131211   

Australia

https://www.sbs.com.au/guide/article/2017/08/16/brief-history-scientology-australia 1983: Scientology given religion status  

Italy, Spain

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/readersreact/la-ol-scientology-tax-exempt-20180201-story.html  

Mexico

https://www.state.gov/reports/2020-report-on-international-religious-freedom/mexico/  

Netherlands, Italy, Spain and Sweden

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/26/belgian-scientologists-trial-fraud-extortion  “The Church of Scientology was founded in 1954 by the American science fiction writer L Ron Hubbard. It is recognised as a religion in the US and in some other countries such as Italy, Spain, the Netherlands and Sweden, and claims a worldwide membership of 12 million. The group’s headquarters are in Los Angeles.”  

Also, according to the Wikipedia Manual of Style for the lead section:

“The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. The reason for a topic's noteworthiness should be established, or at least introduced, in the lead.”  

Scientology has been called “a cult, business or new religious movement” in certain literature, but this does not tell the whole story. It is also notable for being a religion around the world, and this should be properly mentioned in the lead as a “concise version of the article.” The word “cult” is also in the fourth paragraph, so based on your argument, why would we mention this in the lead. Based on these, my edit does belong in the lead, and it does follow neutrality.Luckystars1981 (talk) 20:05, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
As you correctly point out, the lead should briefly summarise the most important points. It must do so in a neutral manner. You have sought to avoid maintaining neutrality by privileging (and placing before all other parts of the article) a list of countries where one or more judges have indicated they categorise the Church of Scientology as religious, or Scientology as a religious movement, etc.
Wikipedia represents sources neutrally. No-one cares whether the Scientology organisation’s lawyers convinced a judge in Uppsala or Guadalajara that it is religious. That they did so does not mean that that view is more important than scholars, journalists, other judges, non-governmental organisations, intergovernmental bodies, government inquiries and the myriad other individuals or institutions in the same countries and other countries that have defined Scientology as a cult or a manipulative profit-making business.
When it comes to sources on Wikipedia, the fact that a judge stated something in a judgement does not make it special relative to what other reliable sources state. They do not carry greater weight than academic sources or reliable journalism. What multiple academic sources cited in the lead refer to as a legitimation strategy – seeking legal judgements as a way to gain recognition as a religion – will not work here.
In short - yes, some legal authorities said it is a religion. Other legal authorities said it is a dangerous cult. Other sources said it is a cool, cynical manipulating business and nothing else. Other sources said it is a ruthless global scam (the first citation, for example). Do we put a list of all the countries where that was said, in the second sentence? No – because we state it neutrally, which is how it is now. The fact that some sources have called it religious is already stated in the second sentence. If you are unwilling to present a neutral point of view this may not be the website for you.
I’ll not be engaging in an extended discussion over a proposed addition that is so absurdly removed from the content policy of this website that it barely merits a response. As there have been multiple previous discussions that indicate a clear and unambiguous consensus that the current wording neutrally represents the extant sources, you will need to demonstrate a consensus for your proposal. I assure you you’ll not be able to do so. Cambial — foliar❧ 04:39, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at ANI

There is a discussion about issues in which editors of this page may have been involved at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Continual reversion, unwillingness to discuss and incivility on Scientology Talk Page. Cambial — foliar❧ 20:50, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Scientology/Archive_31&oldid=1169725074"