Talk:Scientology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Peer review This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.
Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.
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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments
Former FA Scientology is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article Milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.


  1. /Archive 1 - Dec 2001 - Feb 2004
  2. /Archive 2 - Feb 2004 - Jun 2005
  3. /Archive 3 - Jun 2005 - Jul 2005
  4. /Archive 4 - Aug 2005 - Sep 2005
  5. /Archive 5 - Oct 2005 - Dec 2005
  6. /Archive 6 - Jan 2006 - Mar 2006
  7. /Archive 7 - Apr 2006 - Apr 2006
  8. /Archive 8 - May 2006 - May 2006
  9. /Archive 9 - May 2006 - Jun 2006
  10. /Archive 10 - Jun 2006 - Jun 2006
  11. /Archive 11 - Jun 2006 - Jul 2006
  12. /Archive 12 - Jul 2006 - Aug 2006
  13. /Archive 13 - Aug 2006 - Aug 2006
  14. /Archive 14 - Aug 2006 - Nov 2006
  15. /Archive 15 - Nov 2006 - Mar 2007


Contents

[edit] WP article on Catholic Church compared to article on Scientology

Roman Catholic Church. I think this article leans too far to the positive side, as the Scientology one leans to the negative. I wanted to find the article on anti-Catholicism expecting it to be linked there. There was no section on controversy or criticism, although there was a short section on the current sexual abuse scandals at the end. Steve Dufour 13:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

You'd probably be better off raising this issue on the RC Church talk page --h2g2bob 13:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
The issue I am concerned about more is the grossly unfair and mean-spirited treatment of Scientology here on WP, not the too friendly treatment of larger groups. Steve Dufour 13:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Welcome, Steve. Haven't seen you in discussions on this page before, so welcome. I've seen this issue raised before, frankly. Either the existence or at least perceived existence of an anti-Scientology bias on this and other pages. While I see the complaint a lot, I rarely see suggestions for solutions. See, one misconception you may or may not have is that the current article is in any way inaccurate. All that I can see are cited and factual sources. Thus, I'd request that you make known the parts of the article which you feel are unfair or fall short (leaving comparisons to other articles out of it, since comparing the problems of the RCC to the CoS, although both are numerous, is like comparing apples to oranges), and I and all others will surely work to make those sections comply with the encyclopedic and high standards of Wikipedia, irregardless of personal point of view. (POV is okay in editors, just not in articles, obviously.)
See, we can't do anything if you just say "This article treats Scientology too harshly", you instead have to do something about it, by pointing out the problems, and striving for concensus among all editors. Otherwise, we can't help, unless you identify the problems. Please do. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Raeft (talk • contribs) 20:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC).
::::Thanks. I will continue doing that.  I don't want to change too much too fast.  I am working on some of the other 236 or more Scientology related articles as well.  Steve Dufour 05:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that Scientology should be called a church. Catholisism is a church, Scientology is a cult. 81.156.32.71 19:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History Of Scientology

This is what I feel to be a very accurate and well-written history of Scientology and it should be added to the main article:

Image:Thehistoryofscientology.gif

I'm sure the Scientologists will try and remove this information and continue to suppress free speech and criticism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Snuffaluffaguss (talk • contribs) 19:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

Piffle. I'll remove it since it'll be gone in less than a week with current copyright info and there's no reason to have an extra 885k overhead when loading the Talk page. AndroidCat 21:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
You could try putting link to it at the bottom of the page. Steve Dufour 10:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editing Error

Regarding [1] edit, my reason got cut off:

"it is said" constitutes weasel words. This is as bad in some ways as "claims". Changed to: "It (as in the philosophical belief of Scientology, that's the "it" I mean) professes ...". This removes the implied imaginary supporters who "say" this.

Sorry, I didn't see your comment before I changed it back. "The philosopical belief of Scientology" itself does not "claim", "say", or "profess" anything. One thing we could do is give the sentence a subject. Did Hubbard say this? If so then say something like "Hubbard said that Scientology..." Steve Dufour 05:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I made some changes along those lines. Steve Dufour 06:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
There's actually no directly cited source that Hubbard said it, thus, making him the subject of all of the sentences is not, of necessity, suitable. Also, look up "professes" in a dictionary.
What if we were discussing, say, legislation? How would be state what the legislation documents "say", in your vernacular? It is suitable to place the contents of a set of teachings or book into the context of what the book or set of teachings "say", "profess", et al. The author and the philosophical doctrine which the author wrote are seperable, but since the information is drawn from his teachings, it is appropriate here. Raeft 20:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
The English language can do lots of things, even make an abstract concept like "Scientology" come to life and start speaking. A while ago I was told that Scienology was entirely Hubbard's creation. What is wrong with having him the one speaking? Steve Dufour 02:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Celebrity trivia

Critics say the attention and care given to celebrity practitioners is vastly different from that of noncelebrity practitioners. Andre Tabayoyon, a former Scientologist and Sea Org staffer, testified in a 1994 affidavit that money from not-for-profit Scientology organizations and labor from those organizations (including the Rehabilitation Project Force) had gone to provide special facilities for Scientology celebrities, which were not available to other Scientologists:
“ A Sea Org staffer ... was taken along to do personal cooking for Tom Cruise and [David] Miscavige at the expense of Scientology not for profit religious organizations. This left only 3 cooks at [Gold Base] to cook for 800 people three times a day ... apartment cottages were built for the use of John Travolta, Kirstie Alley, Edgar Winter, Priscilla Presley and other Scientology celebrities who are carefully prevented from finding out the real truth about the Scientology organization ... Miscavige decided to redo the meadow in beautiful flowers; Tens of thousands of dollars were spent on the project so that Cruise and [Nicole] Kidman could romp there. However, Miscavige inspected the project and didn't like it. So the whole meadow was plowed up, destroyed, replowed and sown with plain grass."[1] ”
Tabayoyon's account of the planting of the meadow was supported by another former Scientologist, Maureen Bolstad, who said that a couple of dozen Scientologists including herself were put to work on a rainy night through dawn on the project. "We were told that we needed to plant a field and that it was to help Tom impress Nicole ... but for some mysterious reason it wasn't considered acceptable by Mr. Miscavige. So the project was rejected and they redid it."[2]
Diana Canova, who experienced Scientology both before and during her period of TV stardom, expressed it in a September 1993 interview: "When I started, I wasn't in television yet. I was a nobody - I'd done some TV, but I was not one of the elite, not by a long shot - until I did Soap. Then it became…I mean, you really are treated like royalty."[3]

I would expect that this information is already given in some of the other articles that are linked from this section. It seems to me that this should be a short section saying that some celebrities are involved and then a short critical comment from someone on the other side. Steve Dufour 05:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and made these changes. Steve Dufour 17:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
While I, and I am sure many others, appreciate your many, many edits, you need to realize that discussion and concensus are key, and making unilateral edits to controversial articles is unwise. The celebrity information is not trivia, and reflects differing standards, given it is NOT mentioned in its entirety in other articles, I've restored it. Given the section it was in, and its relevance, removal would not be justified even if it WERE reproduced wholly in a linked article. This is a good article, and removal of relevant information serves, especially in this case, to make it less encyclopedic, not more. 12 hours may be a nice round time frame, but waiting a little longer next time would be advised, especially for large removals. Slow down the editing and give all people a chance to weigh in. Your changes of minor word inflections to "it is said" in many cases also constitutes creating a straw man of belief argument. Raeft 20:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I will wait awhile and see what other people have to say. If people think Tom and Katie romping in the wildflowers is important enough to be in the main article on Scientology I will not remove it again. (It's a very small point, but in my opinion the word "per" is not a good word to use in ordinary prose; just in legal documents and things like that.) Steve Dufour 02:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
This is not "celebrity trivia". The interesting part of this cited & verified anecdote is the treatment of the Scientology staffers, specifically that the organization has them pull long hours in order to impress celebrity members. This isn't "People Magazine" stuff. --FOo 08:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the information on Tom and Katie should be in the article on Scientology and celebrities. However I don't really think it is important enough to take up so much space in the main article. That is just my opinion however. Wishing you well. Steve Dufour 14:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is this fair?

Critics say that celebrity practitioners receive more attention and care than noncelebrity practitioners and that less is required of them.

Here I tried to express the points that critics make about Scientology celebrities. Do you think this is fair? Is there anything important that I have left out? Thanks. Steve Dufour 02:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How many Scientology articles are needed?

I asked this question on the talk page of the the Scientology project and I thought I might ask it here on the main article page too. There are now 239 Scientology articles: 22 top Importance, 55 high, 95 mid, and 67 low. Three have been added in the last four days. How many articles do you think should there about this subject? Thanks. Steve Dufour 15:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Good question. The answer, from my perspective, is as follows:
There should be as many Scientology articles as there are coherent and individual informative occurrences, locales, people, or other originators of encyclopedic content related to Scientology. Adding information serves to make Wikipedia -more- coherent and encyclopedic, not less, and adding too much material to one article makes it overlong and clunky.
This is why we delineate, you see? We COULD put all of the information, 90 percent of which is unique, and the rest of which is justified overlap, into one article, called simply "Scientology". It would be hugely long, almost impossible to keep up with and police, and more than a little messed up. It would also be one hell of a thing to find anything on, and have at least 500 redirects to it from other searches. So, like with TV shows (Many of which have a page per episode), countries (Which have country pages, splits within country pages, regional pages, pages about people in them, pages about buildings, and any other notable thing which isinformative and constructive), and great moments in history (such as the civil war), along with so much else, we keep adding information in logically linked articles until all Scientology vanishes (at which point historical retrospectives of things we have just found out may still be added), or the sun explodes.
I hope my answer has been helpful, and I am happy to hear of three new articles having been added to the massive and amazing thing that is Wikipedia. I know their editors will make them neutral, interesting to read, and informative within a short time, being surely, like all Wikipedia editors, people of vision and scope whose sole interest, like yours and mine, is to better the truthful and well-informed understanding of every man, woman, and child on this earth. Peace out. Raeft 20:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I hope so too. :-) Steve Dufour 21:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Of the hundreds of articles listed, some of those that are ranked as Low on the importance scale might be susceptible to deletion, perhaps merging the most important material they contain into other articles. Personally I fear to tread there :-) SheffieldSteel 01:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I've been here on WP for a little less than a year and I've taken part in a couple of deletion discussions. The process really seems like a lot of work, but I guess that's a good thing because you wouldn't want it to be too easy. I expect that 10 or 12 new Scientology articles would be created in the time it would take to delete one. BTW, I'm thinking about putting a notability tag on the Xenu article. It is about a mythical being that only a few dozen people in the world believe exists. That doesn't seem very notable to me. Steve Dufour 02:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and tagged Xenu as non-notable. Steve Dufour 16:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

My troll-o-meter just exploded. AndroidCat 16:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
You are welcome to explain Xenu's notability on his talk page. Steve Dufour 16:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad you went ahead and did that, Steve. It really lets people know what they can expect from you. Tell me, where did you get the idea that the notability of an idea -- such as a posited entity -- is measured only by the number of people who hold one particular stance on the existence of that entity? -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
A mythical being in which only a few dozen people believe in does not seem very notable to me. The same with a character in a story that few people have ever read. Steve Dufour 20:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Your figure of "only a few dozen people" is highly suspect and your enthymeme that of all the people who have encountered or been affected by a particular construct, only those who believe in it count for purposes of notability, is counter to all logic. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it was telling that in the discussion about deletion nobody voted to keep the article because they said that Xenu was real. Steve Dufour 00:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, then, you're wrong. It isn't telling at all. The only way it could be perceived as even significant was if anyone had ever accepted your false talking point that notability of a construct can only come from those who believe in that construct. What is telling is that this false assumption of yours was pointed out to you multiple times and you never answered it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip Smee. I explained my position there. I could also mention the fact that only 5 or 6 people bothered to vote before the discussion was closed down is a clue that there is very little general interest in Xenu. Steve Dufour 04:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that's much of a clue you have there. Seven people in four hours is hardly a sign of "no general interest" unless you are proceeding on the immensely fascinating premise that "no person can be said to be interested in an article unless they are checking it every four hours." -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually Steve, I would re-read the text at WP:ANI before coming to such a conclusion. Also you might want to skim through the AfD discussion - it's particularly informative if you only read the words in bold type. Now, if the result of the discussion had been Speedy Delete, then I'd be in full agreement with you, but as it is, I can only recommend reading WP:N. SheffieldSteel 04:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, it was 7. I must have lost count. :-) Steve Dufour 04:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/c/i/Talk%7EScientology_1117.html"