Talk:List of Scientology references in popular culture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of Scientology references in popular culture article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
This article is supported by WikiProject Scientology, a collaborative effort to help develop and improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scientology.
The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on Scientology-related topics.
See WikiProject Scientology and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents

[edit] Proposed move and refocus

I suggest that this article be moved, as BTfromLA suggested to Scientology and popular culture and broadened to include not just references to Scientology but the broader topic of the relationship between the two. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:22, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Great idea! See Nuclear weapons in popular culture for how this sort of thing can be far better than the usual list article - David Gerard 19:24, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


Greg Bears Novella Heads also features an organization called Logolists similar to Scientology, are books applicable in the popular culture section?
Only if they are popular.  ;-)

[edit] Holy cow - what is with all this Original Research?

Look at this: A backdoor to inserting POV original research slams of Scientology:

  • In The Simpsons episode titled "The Joy of Sect," originally aired on February 8, 1998, the family joins a cult called Movementarianism. Many aspects of this cult appear similar to Scientology, including nutritional deprivation, group humiliation, indoctrination movies, brainwashing techniques, and alien cosmology. Also parallel is the extremely litigous nature of the Movementarians. The reddish-haired guru of the cult lives a lavish lifestyle using the money of his adherents.

This article looks like 90% Original Research. If you want to put a comparison here you have to source it, otherwise it is original research. Not just source the comparison but the source has to mention all those "similarities". Reputable sources, please.

Just to make myself clear: A "Scientology reference in popular culture" would be where Scientology, Dianetics, Hubbard, etc. are mentioned by name. All of these things that go by other names that you think are references to Scientology should not be here unless they can be sourced. Sorry to be a spoilsport but there are plenty of other places you can put your unsourced ideas; wikipedia is not one of those places.

By the way, this Simpsons episode seems to be parodying a number of cults and, from my impression of the article here on wikipedia, only the alien cosmology mentioned above parodied Scientology.--Justanother 14:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

There may be dubious entries on the list, but I do not agree with the interpretation you're expressing that no satiric similarity, no matter how clearly intended, can be acknowledged except when outside sources have spelled it out. There is a common-sense limit to WP:NOR, as there is to most policies, and it is unreasonable to cry "original research" when, for example, someone describes something as "potentially unsafe" that has already been noted as potentially causing a fatal illness. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi. It is clearly original research to say that someone is parodying Scientology when the person making the parody does not say so nor is there any reference to others making such a claim that can be sourced. The "Bowfinger" one I edited is a good example. Apparently there was sourced speculation and Steve Martin made a denial but even if there was no denial, if the speculation can be sourced, then it should be included. We don't have to place a "common sense" disclaimer to WP:V. There is already one there and it states that you can leave out the source if it could be easily sourced, i.e. "The sun rises in the east" kind of thing. This is definitely not in that category. There is a place to publish "truth" that cannot be sourced; it is your personal blog, not wikipedia. I remember you telling me that WP:V protects us all, or something to that effect.--Justanother 15:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd agree that the episode is a parody of several cults. But one aspect is clearly scientology: the part with the attorneys. --Tilman 16:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I understand that aspects of the episode likely parodied Scn. And believe me, I enjoy a good parody of Scn as much as anyone (and probably more than most). The problem comes in when we open the door for any editor to claim that anything, anything at all regardless of what the creator of the parody intended, is a parody or parallel of Scn. That is why these should really be sourced. By sourcing, we limit to those that are most likely related. Otherwise it really does just become the "OR Zone". Perhaps there should just be a separate article "List of cultic references in popular culture". Then all these could be placed there with no mention of what they might be parodying and the reader can make his own decision.--Justanother 16:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree that there's some original research there that could be toned down, although it's not that flagrant. There comes a point when one doesn't need a source for the fact that water is not wet. In the episode, Homer Simpson signs a trillion-year contract with the cult. That pretty much makes it clear which cult they're parodying the most. wikipediatrix 16:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Without repeating myself on OR (yet), from what I get from the article here, they are parodying Jim Jones the most, but with elements from other "cults", too. But I have not seen the episode nor am I enough of an expert on other cults to say what goes where though I certainly do not object to your and Tilman's characterizations of those specific bits. If we were watching it together we would probably all have a good laugh. The problem is adding our unsourced interpretations to wikipedia. That is the very definition of original research, even if we share them with lots others and even if they are "obvious".--Justanother 16:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
If we rephrase the article so it says "Widely regarded by fans as a parody of Scientology", there's sourcing here: [1]. (Incidentally, of all the people who have analyzed the episode at snpp.com, no one even mentions Jim Jones as being something the show is parodying.) wikipediatrix 16:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't object. I would like to hear what others say about the OR point. I would word it something like the below. Re: Jim Jones, that may OR here and/or it may be that the snpp guys missed obvious references because Jim Jones is almost 30 years ago.

  • In The Simpsons episode titled "The Joy of Sect," originally aired on February 8, 1998, the family joins a cult called Movementarianism. Fans believe that the episode parodied a number of alleged cults including Scientology; possible Scientology references include the use of an orientation movie, the extremely litigous nature of the Movementarians, Homer signing a trillion-year contract, and a reddish-haired guru[2].--Justanother 17:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Looks OK to me. I'd temper it to "Many fans have suggested" rather than "Fans believe". wikipediatrix 18:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, I will put this one back as sourced. I will look at the others as time permits. Please, all, source them if you want them or discuss sourcing here. Thanks--Justanother 00:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reorganized

OK, I changed the page around because it is important to distinquish between actual references (including those veiled references that the creator acknowledges) and those that are mere supposition. The suppositions should still be sourced. Well they should all be sourced but the actual ones self-source. Oh, BTW, I see that I did not do the division exactly right. Feel free to correct my errors (of course). --Justanother 23:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I think you have gone too far. Suggesting that Repo Man's 'Dioretix - The Science of Matter over Mind' is only a "suggested veiled reference" to Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health is simply plain silly. There's no ambiguity about what it is parodying. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
It is just a simple division. Either they specifically mention or they don't. If they don't, then they don't and it is a veiled reference. Pretty broad in the Repo Man case, sure, but still veiled. Let the reader draw his own conclusion. Otherwise it gets into too much shading, IMO. That is my point also about OR. If you put something sourced and then draw a conclusion from that info that is NOT in the source then you have done OR. Again, just put the info and let the reader draw his own conclusion . . . or find a source for the conclusion that you want to put in the article. Since wikipedia is not peer-reviewed the way it keeps out every editor's opinions and conclusions is by requiring them to be sourced. I know that a ton of articles are written (or pasted) that are mostly OR and are unreferenced but they are not controversial. Scientology is and has to stay very strictly to NOR or we will have a free-for-all. Thanks for discussing this here. Let's see what the other editors have to say. In short, put the reference as veiled and let the reader make the connection. --Justanother 05:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but I find that your logic does not hang together. You are basically suggesting that no matter how broad, obvious, even inescapable a parody is, if it is a "veiled" reference, it is automatically a "suggested veiled reference". WP:NOR was never intended it to place obstacles in the path of observing that which no reasonable editor would doubt. Are you telling us that you actually doubt that "Dioretix" is a reference to Dianetics? -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Well yes, it is a veiled reference. Simple test here. Had the creator wanted a direct reference he would have said "Dianetics" not "Dioretix". Was he making a joke, like Dianetics is like a diuretic? Or like diarrhea? We don't know what he intended. And we don't have to guess. And this for an "easy one". What about the more remote ones. Should we assign each one a "veiling factor"? Easy solution: it is either direct or it is veiled.--Justanother 03:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contents of L Ron Hubbard "parody" section--in need of integration into this article

Per discussions on the L. Ron Hubbard page, I've cut the parody section there: the contents are below, and should be incorporated here as editors see fit.

Hubbard was awarded the 1994 Ig Nobel Prize in Literature for "his crackling Good Book, Dianetics, which is highly profitable to mankind — or to a portion thereof". The presenter observed he was also the most prolific posthumous author that year.

In 2001,an independent film called The Profit was produced, which featured a character called L. Conrad Powers, founder of the Church of Spiritual Science, who used a device called a Mind Meter. Although the producers stressed that any resemblance to Scientology was entirely coincidental, the Church of Scientology obtained an injunction blocking its release.[1] However, some of those who saw the film, even critics of Scientology, derided it as over the top, and the organisation behind the film's production, Human Rights Cinema, was accused of being an anti-cult group.[2][3]

On the South Park episode "Trapped in the Closet", it was claimed that Stan Marsh is L. Ron Hubbard reincarnated and that Hubbard was a "prophet". As a reference to Scientology's litigious tendencies, all the credits at the end of this episode were changed to read "John/Jane Smith". The episode also has an animated version of the Xenu story; in case a viewer might mistakenly think South Park was exaggerating for satiric effect, this sequence is accompanied by a caption reading "This is what Scientologists actually believe". Isaac Hayes, who voiced "Chef" on the show and is himself a Scientologist, ostensibly left the cast on account of this episode. However, it isn't clear whether this was his own decision or a decision of upper-level Scientologists; during a radio interview on The Opie and Anthony Show after the episode aired, Hayes defended South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone, saying, "If you take the shit they say seriously, then I'll sell you the Brooklyn Bridge for two dollars". South Park further parodied Scientology when Isaac Hayes left South Park over the issue: in The Return of Chef - "Chef" is portrayed as being brainwashed by some "fruity little club," a group of child molesters called the "Super Adventure Club", a veiled reference to Isaac Hayes and his links to Scientology.

Anthony Boucher's murder mystery Rocket to the Morgue (1942) features cameos of members of the Mañana Literary Society of Southern California. Hubbard makes a dual appearance as D. Vance Wimpole and Rene Lafayette (one of his pen names). Jack Parsons is also there as the character "Hugo Chantrelle".

In Frank Zappa's rock-opera album Joe's Garage the main character Joe seeks advice from L. Ron Hoover of the First Church of Appliantology, who directs him to a lifestyle of having sex with appliances and robots.

In the David Eddings series of Tamuli books, a silly theatrical character who performs and tells tall tales in front of locals to gain support for a strange cult is named Elron (L. Ron).

Philip K. Dick's short story The Turning Wheel features a post-apocalyptic religion following the teachings of "the Bard, Elron Hu".

Niven and Pournelle's novel Inferno (a retelling of Dante's Inferno) has a description of a one-time science fiction writer who created his own religion "that masks as form of lay psychiatry" and is now - quite literally - in hell as a result.

There have also been numerous other jabs at L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology from other sources; for example, the final city in the computer game Fallout 2 contains the Hubologist cult which is a direct take on Scientology.

Hubbard is also a featured character in the novel The Chinatown Death Cloud Peril by Paul Malmont.

On the Millennium episode "Jose Chung's Doomsday Defense", the (fictional) writer Jose Chung interviews a member of the "Church of Selfosophy", founded by his former science fiction writer colleague, "J. Onan Goopta".

Steve Martin's movie, Bowfinger, features a cult called "Mindhead" whose posh celebrity center is said to be based on a Hollywood facility serving Scientology's star clientele.

Steven Soderbergh's 1996 comedy Schizopolis features a cult called Eventualism led by one T. Azimuth Schwitters which is seemingly inspired by Hubbard.

In Neal Stephenson's book Snow Crash, there is a character named L. Bob Rife who has an ocean-going fleet centered on a surplus aircraft carrier, and populated by mind-controlled followers.[4]

The Snake Oil Wars by Parke Godwin satirizes Hubbard by having him serving his time in Hell as an answering machine.

The song Ænema, by the band Tool, denounces Hubbard with the line "...fuck L. Ron Hubbard and fuck all his clones."

The satirical art religion "The Church of the SubGenius" has as its prophet and Messiah figure a 1950's appliance salesman named J.R. "Bob" Dobbs, whose image of an always-smiling, pipe-smoking, Brylcreem covered head is appropriated from 1950's clip art. The Texas based group also integrates elements of Fundamentalist Christianity and televangelists into their writings and media projects.

L-Ron, a sentient robot from the DC Comics universe, and former assistant to Manga Khan, is named after Hubbard, as other robot assistants Khan of were named after science fiction writers (Hein-9, K-Dikk).

In the 1986 film, Stoogemania, which deals with a Three Stooges fan (Josh Mostel) attempting to break his addiction to the comedy threesome, said fan ends up going to a rehab clinic run by a mysterious figure named "L. Ron Howard" ('Howard' being the last name shared by Moe, Curly and Shemp). "L. Ron Howard" only appears on TV screens at the clinic - he is never seen in person.

Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to:

[edit] Pyramids of Mars

Does anyone else see a certain resemblance between Sutekh and another alien dictator? ^_^ --207.245.10.221 18:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup tag & OR tag

This article is a complete mess. It's full of very non-notable trivia references, and some much more significant ones. For instance, that the Far Side once referred to "Cowintology" is not encyclopedic at all, nor is the mention about the scene in Airplane!... but I can't bring myself to say this needs deletion at the moment, some of the items are sourced and relatively important. But almost all of this is unsourced, hence the OR tag, and there is no selectivity. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, so some real work needs to be put in here. Mangojuicetalk 04:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Your help is welcome. Thanks --Justanother 04:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Basically, you claim that all is "not encyclopedic". Submit an AfD. Stuff like the scene in Airplane! is very important in my opinion - after all, all these mention shows the impact of scientology into the humor scene. Scientologists might not like it, however. --Tilman 07:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Seriously? That scene in Airplane referenced every kooky religion they could come up with that they thought the audience would have heard of. All that proves is that people have heard of Scientology. Mangojuicetalk 23:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've rewritten this to be a list, mainly of internal links, organized by general type. Now, this is a navigation aid rather than a list of trivia. The few items that are still described fully have sources. Otherwise, exactly how Scientology relates to the various topics is better explained in the individual article. For instance The Joy of Sect is the more appropriate place to discuss that episode's inspirations; similarly with many of the other references. Along the way I've removed a lot of items that are vague in their connection, irrelevant, or merely tangential. The motivation is simple: it is actually very relevant, for instance, to The Joy of Sect to discuss the episode's influence in various religions. Since it's appropriately covered at that article, we should just link there and let them cover it. Mangojuicetalk 19:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

So now it's we who have to find and reinsert all the elements that you deleted without having a consensus about it? --Tilman 20:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Please look here if you need to find any of the old refs. What he did was appropriate in that he cleaned out a lot of trash from the article and now entries that others feel are valid can come back in and we can discuss any differences we might have. --Justanother 20:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
BTW the ones I removed basically fit into three categories: (1) very minor mentions, regardless of the venue. A pun on "L. Ron Hubbard" alone doesn't make for something notable. (2) things about real people; those belong in List of scientologists, and (3) things that either have no article, nor any parent article (such as the reference to the "The Truth Rockets" song; there is no article on the band or the song. Actually, the band article existed but was deleted in July). Also, some entries were duplicated. If I goofed on any of these, I don't disagree with fixing that mistake. Mangojuicetalk 02:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
For (2), in List of Scientologists, there is only their name and a reference with no detail. AndroidCat 16:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
While trimming out the non-notable bits that accumulate is good, I find that the change removes far too much detail and doesn't provide a solid framework for adding new entries. AndroidCat 16:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
There should not be a "solid framework for adding new entries," if by that you mean that it should be easy to add in new bits of trivia. No, entries should be added if they actually have some relevance to something, that's the whole point. I'm glad people restored the OR and cleanup tags. Let me be clear: if someone doesn't remove all the unverified statements and cut this down so it isn't a list of trivia, I'll just put it up for deletion like I did for several other "In popular culture" articles. Not right away, people should have time to work, but if you want to simply dismiss my hard work on the topic, do your own hard work. It's necessary. Mangojuicetalk 22:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it does need cleaning up, and I know that by pruning the existing page rather than expanding your cut-down version, I'm committing my time to make the effort. In the end, the result might be the same, but hopefully this way (in steps and discussed goals) will carry a lasting consensus, which didn't seem to be happening otherwise. AndroidCat 16:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removing Reference Tag

I'm relatively new here so forgive me if I ask a stupid question. In the TV section the bit about the Millennium episode was marked as needing a source. Now that I've (re)added the source, should I remove that tag? Or does that tag apply to everything in the section? Thx Theangryblackwoman 13:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Boston Legal clip

  • The Boston Legal clip is a small section of the episode and is a useful link as a reference in this article. Smee 13:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC).
    • Thanks for finally coming here. Actually, I strongly support the removal of the clip: it's not a small section of the episode, it's over 10 minutes long. It's also a copyright violation: Xenutv.com claims no rights to be allowed to host that content. Ok, this is different from Wikipedia hosting the content, but on WP:ANI it was widely agreed (a while ago, I'd have to dig through the archives) that copyvio YouTube links be removed from external links and references: we don't want to be associated with copyright violation. Not to mention that Xenutv.com is an attack site against Scientology: I wouldn't want ANY links there from a general article like this without a much better reason. Mangojuicetalk 13:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
      • (EC) Yes, my point exactly. And Smee, if I make a reasoned and measured change to the article and you do the "revert-o-matic" thing please do not expect me to respect your "edit" because I will not. Or your "special request" to not use your name in edit summaries. You are not invisible. --Justanother 13:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I would not consider it an attack site at all. Xenu TV merely hosts archived shows and commentary, with some original work. The Boston Legal clip is used in this case to illustrate the points made in the article, and do not diminish from the producers' ability to profit from the work in any regard. Smee 13:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC).
        • You're kidding, right? It's a significant portion of a 1-hour episode, shown without any commercials, for free over the internet. It absolutely does compete with the copyright holder. Attack site issues aside, I don't really care about those, it's just another point. Mangojuicetalk 13:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Perhaps others will comment on this. Smee 13:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC).
          • And User:Justanother, I resent your attitude and tack. If you wish for your edits to be respected, you must first learn to respect others and not characterize theirs in such an abrasive manner. Smee 13:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC).
            • Smee, my edits do just fine, thank you. If you make abrasive edits then I will call 'em likes I sees 'em. Smee, I strongly recommend that you slow down and analyze any edits I make before trying that "revert" button. I really do a pretty good job of following the rules here. As far as your edits, I would very much love to call your edits "admirable", "noble", even "reasonable", and will when it is called for. Your "blind reverting" is extremely RUDE and I thought that you were going to slow down on it. --Justanother 13:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Justan, your behaviour towards others that do not share your opinions is extremely RUDE and I thought that you were going to slow down on it. Smee 14:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC).
    • Yes, I do get kinda rude toward those that do not appear to share my opinion that wikipedia is best served by sticking to the rules of WP:NPOV and WP:V. I do get kinda rude with those that will willingly break any rule here to forward their highly POV position. It is a failing of mine and I am working on it. BTW, some consider mocking another's words pretty rude in itself but I don't mind, I try to have a thick skin about the personal stuff. --Justanother 14:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Evidently Justan, evidently, because you are doing it right now... Smee 14:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC).
        • ps. my preferred nick would be Justa. Feel free to use it in edit summaries. Smee, really though, I almost think that we could get along fine if you would shelf the "revert-o-matic". I can guarantee you that so long as you revert repeatedly my proper edits then there will be little peace between us and that is just fine with me. It is also fine with me if you improve the articles and allow me to do the same. There are plenty of other "anti-Scientologists" here that I get along with just fine. --Justanother 14:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
          • I am not an "anti-scientologist" or anything of the sort. I do, however, take issue with suppression of information, and when certain individuals attempt to suppress information and facts, this should be reverted, yes. And I as well feel that we could get along better if you act more politely, regardless of your interpretations of the motivations of others' said actions. Smee 14:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC).
            • But Smee, think about it. I did not try to suppress that the episode existed, I simply suppressed inclusion of an inappropriate link, which is something that we should all do and something that I am more than willing to do for the "other side" too. Smee, we first met over a similar issue on "The Bridge" and I wonder if this is the "theme" of our conflict. But I also see you taking a confrontational stand with me by doing such things as injecting yourself in a discussion between me and User:Fahrenheit451 about something to do with his user space. In Scientology we call doing that "3rd partying" as the "3rd party" is often looking to stir up trouble. Certainly your right but why would you do that? Inject yourself? (Rhetorical question, I am not asking for your answer) I really hope that you have not decided to be point man for the "Scientology Haters Club". That is not a comfortable position to be in and you should really know what you are about if you find yourself there. --Justanother 14:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I am not a "point man" for anything. And I have no idea how to interpret your Scientology jargon, which is quite confusing. And I am not going to respond any further to your veiled threats and insults, it is quite offensive. Smee 14:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC).
    • No matter. But for anyone else that might be confused by the "jargon". User:Fahrenheit451 and User:Justanother are having a discussion about something related entirely to them and not affecting any other part of the project in any tangible manner. We might be called the 1st and 2nd parties. Oh look, here comes Mr 3rd Party to make sure that User:Fahrenheit451 (an experienced wikipedian) understands just how "highly unusual and inappropriate in Wikipedia etiquette" User:Justanother is being. How helpful of him. --Justanother 15:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I am not going to get into this here with you on an unrelated thread. You are free to assume whatever you want, and have your own opinions about what you think my motivations are, but they are most likely incorrect. Smee 15:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC).
        • OK. I would be happy to just edit articles and not wonder about the motives of others. I know it was a rhetorical question above but if you would like to state your motive then, out of courtesy, I invite you to do so, and I will not dispute your stated motive. If you ever have questions about my motives then feel free to ask; I am a piece of glass. --Justanother 15:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Sounds good. Smee 15:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Boston Legal Fart

And this is why it is best, as another editor suggested, to simply list the "reference" and link it to an article we have on it. So now we have to fill the article with crap like that so we have the proper balance of "Scientology is a bunch of crap": vs. "Anti-Scientologists are bigots". I will leave it to the viewer to decide which point the show was trying to make. I love the episode, myself. --Justanother 14:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

It is a great episode. James Spader is at his best during that speech. Smee 14:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC).
I removed the extensive summary of the episode. This is ridiculous: we should not be trying to retell jokes in an article. Justanother is right: this is why this article should be nothing more than a bare list, as I had cut it down to before. See this version, for instance. Mangojuicetalk 20:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Justa, DO NOT edit with another user's comments. If you have a problem with something, say so on the talk page and NOT THE EDIT SUMMARY. Thanks. Smee 15:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC).
    • Please STOP editing my comments. Perhaps I might even listen to you and remove whatever you have a problem with myself if you stop being so disruptive and impolite. Yeesh. Yuck yuck. Smee 15:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC).
      • OK, please remove it. Thanks. If the link is not appropriate in the article then it is not appropriate in the talk page either. And Smee, editing out an inappropriate EL is not the same as changing someone's comments --Justanother 15:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Yes, it is. And in the last edit you summarily removed my entire comment. And no, the link is fine on the talk page, because we are talking about whether or not it is appropriate on the main page. As it has been removed from the main page, this is not an issue any more. However, for the sake of finishing this thread, I will remove it from here. Smee 15:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Scrubs reference

Three times, a note about a single joke in a Scrubs episode has been added. I've removed it twice now. This reference should be removed: unlike the other refences here that haven't been cut, this one really has no importance: not to Scrubs, not to Scientology, not even to the episode in question. If we put this back, we're heading back in the direction of a completely indiscriminate trivia article. Mangojuicetalk 21:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep reference - It is in the Suggested veiled references section, and yet is pretty obvious to conclude what they are referring to, at any rate... Smee 23:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC).
  • I also vote to Keep reference because so far no one has explained how 'important' a reference must be to qualify as 'important enough'. The whole purpose of this article seems to be to list when Scientology has shown up in media/popular culture to highlight the effect it has had on the same. I think the Scrubs line highlights exactly that. Indiscriminate would be including any references in media to any cult at all. The Scrubs bit is pretty explicit. I personally think the way the article is organize right now isn't very useful. At the very least, the heading on the section in question might need to be changed. It makes it sound like everything under it isn't confirmed to be about Scientology and isn't explicit, but, in at least two cases, that's not true. Theangryblackwoman 05:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    • It's explicit, but trivial. It should be removed because it's trivia, of importance to nothing. Mangojuicetalk 20:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Please explain to me what on this list is important and relevant? It's a list of movies, television, theater, etc. relating to Scientology, not an academic journal on archeology. Define important. Define relevant. In relation to the topic, it appears as relevant as anything else on this page. Theangryblackwoman 22:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Okay, I see your point, nothing is that important or relevant to anything, which is why "In popular culture" articles are not the best idea in the first place. And I do see that I haven't really explained myself on this point well so far. There's a world of difference between items like, say, the Millenium episode reference and, say, the Scrubs reference, or the reference from Airplane! that I earlier removed. In the first case, it shows that some awareness of Scientology has gotten into popular culture, enough for them to make full episodes of mainstream TV shows that are thematically based on Scientology and take on a lot of its beliefs and practices. If we want to make some kind of case that Scientology is in popular culture, references like that are far, far more useful than mere toss-off mentions like the second type. If the goal here, though, is just to collect notes with no level of selectivity, then the article should just be deleted -- that's not consistent with the goals of an Encyclopedia. Mangojuicetalk 13:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move?

It seems to me that this article has a major problem with indiscriminate trivia. I think this is being exacerbated by the title. Specifically, (1) as a "list" this will never make an attempt to incorporate the trivia into any sort of article. (2) As the subject is "Scientology references in popular culture" rather than "Scientology in popular culture", the title implies that we should be basically completely indiscriminate, but this is at odd with the basic nature of an Encyclopedia, and with guidelines like WP:AVTRIV. Basically, I see four ways to address this concern: we can:

  1. Keep the current title, but reduce the article to a bare list, without all the excessive info. References that are easily and fully explained at another article could be included as links, references too minor for mention elsewhere would be removed. (I had done this before, but it was reverted).
  2. Move to something like List of significant Scientology references in popular culture. Remove trivial references.
  3. Move to Scientology in popular culture, and try to develop an article rather than a list of facts, per WP:AVTRIV.
  4. Do nothing.

Thoughts? I prefer 3, then 1, then 2, then 4. Mangojuicetalk 20:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Prefer 4. - But then (3), then (2), then (1). Smee 20:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC).
  • 4 Or, maybe a 4a, try to come to consensus about what is indiscriminate and what is relevant. because, at this moment, it seems like MangoJuice is working from some idea of what he/she thinks this article should be and maybe others don't agree. Let's compare this article to other 'list of references in popular culture' articles. Even if we change to 'significant' we may still disagree on what constitutes significant. Theangryblackwoman 22:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I still like # 1. And I support Mangojuice's efforts. No real point in # 2; # 3 would take a lot of effort on the part of the editors here but I would be willing to help. # 4 is, well. # 4. And # 5, AfD, goes square against the wikipedian love of cruft and other factors best left unmentioned. --Justanother 23:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Note: - I've said my piece about this. Just so y'all know, I'm taking this page off my watchlist for a while, as a self-imposed break on it. Please let me know if this discussion progresses seriously in a particular direction towards a certain action. Smee 00:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] South Park

The credits were not John/Jane Smith to avoid legal action, it was a pun on the linguistics of scientology, as shown on the Trapped in the Closet episode page. Mr. Garrison (talk • contribs)

[edit] "Suggested veiled references"

This needs to be referenced or it needs to be removed. Otto4711 04:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] mergeto - Cults and new religious movements in literature and popular culture

Please discuss at the talk:Cults and new religious movements in literature and popular culture#mergefrom - List of Scientology references in popular culture. I will add a bit more later but for now, I think List of Scientology references in popular culture violates WP:NOT, an indiscriminate collection of information. I think that we are trying to build a real article at Cults and new religious movements in literature and popular culture which is not the case at List of Scientology references in popular culture and the list should be merged in. --Justanother 20:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that there's no need for this proposal, really. Just go ahead and merge in anything you think would be useful. At some point this page could become a redirect to that one, but if that article needs info from here, take it. And it'd be simpler to decide on making this a redirect or not once it's already obsolete than approving a merge before knowing what form it would take. Mangojuicetalk 03:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/s/Talk%7EList_of_Scientology_references_in_popular_culture_644e.html"