Wikipedia:Featured article review/Space opera in Scientology scripture/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Space opera in Scientology doctrine

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at David Gerard, ChrisO, and Scientology. Sandy (Talk) 16:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is long with lots of list-like sections. The prose is not compelling, hence failing criterion 1a. There are lots of quotes from Scientology literature, hence it appears more like a Scientology pamphlet rather than a Wikipedia article. My suggestion is to cull some of the text and rewrite it into a more summary style. --RelHistBuff 15:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment Other problems:
    • The article uses mixed reference styles (at least 3 different styles): needs to consistently employ one reference style.
    • External jumps should be removed.
    • Rambling, out-of-control Table of Contents, reflecting lack of organization and possible failure to tightly focus on subject.
    • Not clear if all of the References were used to source the article, or if some should be eliminated, Further Reading, or External links.
    • Possible POV because of lack of critical sources.
    • The article is listy and stubby, appears to have grown via piecemeal edits, and needs a rewrite/reorganization.
    • Text relies largely on quotes. Sandy (Talk) 16:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - The article is NOT neutral. It gives inordinate emphasis to casual remarks by Hubbard as being part of Scientology doctrine. Arslycus is a good example; that was a casual remark in the PDC lecture made to illustrate a point (I actually listened to that very lecture not long ago while on a long drive). It is not a part of Scientology. Hubbard was always careful, IMO, to distinquish between his opinion or his self-admitted tendency to act the raconteur and what he considered to be the technology of Scientology. Additionally; he specifically excluded space opera (as a general topic) from Scientology; lumping it in, along with lots of other "unprovables", to what he termed "para-Scientology"; meaning that most Scientologists have VERY little intersection with space opera and it is by no means a core belief (the core belief being that you are an immortal spiritual being inhabiting a body and using a mind and that you can improve your state of being, by-and-large, using very concrete techniques that have nothing to do with space opera). The only actual alleged example of space opera that I know of that has any relevance to Scientology is the claim by ex-Scientologists that OT 3 includes the Xenu incident. But if that were the entirety of the article, I guess it would not be as "interesting" (although it might be a lot more accurate). Interestingly, I just looked again at the article and see that critics like to pooh-pooh Scientologist's protestations that LRH's far-out stories, anecdotes, and jokes are not a part of mainstream Scientology. So I guess we are "damned if we do and damned if we don't". Anyway, the article needs a lot of work to bring it to a neutral state. --Justanother 16:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Needs inline cites and needs to observe NPOV. LuciferMorgan 23:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. The main problem with this article, aside from its blatant POV problems, is that most of the wacky stuff this article gleefully delineates in slobbering detail is NOT "Scientology doctrine", not by the dictionary definition of doctrine, not by Wikipedia's own Doctrine article, and most importantly, not by The Scientology Handbook. Subjects like the "Obscene Dog Incident" are taken from Hubbard's lectures, which were not always about Scientology, and were/are NOT Scientology doctrine except in the most ridiculously all-inclusive sense. By that same all-inclusive standard, we would also have to consider "Scientology doctrine" to include Hubbard's many tangents gone off on during lectures which had nothing at all to with Scientology, old war stories, stories told to illustrate a point but clearly not necessarily real, anecdotes from his personal life, and moments such as when, in one lecture, he commented at length about the hors d'oeuvres being served at the lecture and how tasty they were. Who's ready to start Hors d'oeuvres in Scientology doctrine? At the very least, the word "doctrine" needs to be stricken from the article's title and introduction. Highfructosecornsyrup 20:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. The article needs massive cleanup, and a lot of time is being chewed up on a POV dispute instead. If the editors intend to retain their featured status, they should get crackin' on resolving the problems, and start writing in accordance with WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CITE, WP:LAYOUT, and WP:MOS. Sandy (Talk) 23:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment (I am copying this over here from an unregistered user that put it on the talk page for this review)

I am a Freezone Scientologist. In the past I worked for the Church of Scientology, but I do not currently work there or participate in any of their activities. I do, however, continue to participate in Scientology (but not Church of Scientology) activities. I continue to be in agreement with the aims of the subject, even if not entirely with the official organisation. I have at least a passing familiarity with pretty well of the material which is referred to in the article and have done the level known as "OT3".

My overall impression of the article is that it has been written for the purpose of poking fun and/or titilation. Much of the material does not form part of what you could really call doctrine and was mentioned only in passing. The parts that refer to something you genuinely could call doctrine are quoted way out of context and thus do not give the reader a fair/neutral impression.

Further, many things which are actually part of Scientology doctrine seem to barely merit even a mention in Wikipedia. Thus the overall impression a reader obtains from this and other pages on the subject is heavily skewed.

Many from the official Church would be utterly shocked and offended that this material is mentioned in public at all. I do not feel that way personally. But I do object to the overall bias.

Nick Warren—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.139.185.125 (talk) 02:43, 12 December 2006

  • Comment I disagree that the article needs "massive cleanup". It has citations for the Scientology teachings and Hubbard quotes. It believe it is written in an NPOV manner, but I'd be willing to improve the article if someone could provide a specific suggestion for what needs to be changed in this regard. And while I sympathize with those that are Scientologists or Freezoners that they don't consider these particular Scientology teachings to be "doctrine", it is clear that the Church of Scientology does in fact believe that Space Opera is not just a funny story that Hubbard came up with in a lecture. The Church of Scientology specifically says Space Opera is NOT FICTION. When a Church and its guru make proclamations like this, you can't just dismiss them out of hand. It is true that most Scientologists are not exposed to Space Opera until upper levels of Scientology, but that doesn't mean that it isn't a part of CoS teachings -- because it is 100% certain that CoS teaches that Space Opera is real, that CoS upper level courses specifically discuss aliens, and that Hubbard himself spoke about alien civilizations and alien beings on a number of occasions. Vivaldi (talk) 08:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I already provided a list (above), and none of the structural items (aside from possible POV) have been addressed. Sandy (Talk) 20:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I have no stake in this on either side, and it does seem to me that, like "Zionism" or "Creationism" or even "Baptism", it will be nearly impossible to do much more than provide "equal space" and let the POV proxies duke it out.

However, I would like to point to what seems to be a significant error in categorization: It is indeed possible for a philosophy or religion to teach that something is "real" and for adherents to talk about it without it being doctrine.

Doctrine can not reasonably include everything a group believes. This would be a most unhelpful definition which would dramatically increase the amount (and pettiness) of Doctrine for all of the World's faiths. Doctrine, as technically defined, could be construed to include just about anything. It could arguably be part of the Jesuit doctrine that the Sun rises in the East; of the Zoroastrians that it sets in the West.

For the sake of utility (see our own somewhat flawed article on "doctrine" for inspiration) I would suggest that we accept as doctrine "whatever a religious, political or social group claims as doctrine." This makes sense precisely because the utility of doctrine lies in its ability to discriminate, and it must be the purpose of any group charged with teaching doctrine to isolate those things that make "us" stand apart from all the others.

It is doctrine that enables our scholars to prove that your scholars are wrong. Doctrine tells not only what may be believed, but what must be believed. Doctrine tells us who is and who is not one of us. This is the strength, and the weakness of doctrine.

Applying this to Scientology, I would suggest that we accept what the church says is doctrine, as the doctrine of the church. This does not mean that many or even most of the church members don't believe something in addition to the doctrine, but that someone will not be thrown out of the group for refusing to believe these other things. This might help clarify our statements.

Roy 05:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are structure, sectioning, and TOC (2), prose (1a), and consistent referencing (1c). Marskell 20:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove: My initial comment on simply culling and rewriting was being generous as I had the hope that some Scientology experts would rework this article. However, now that it appears that there are different viewpoints, a lot more work on agreeing on the subject matter needs to be done. --RelHistBuff 11:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove: massive problems, unaddressed during FAR, the article is an embarrassment to FA standards. Sandy (Talk) 01:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove: as per Sandy --Justanother 01:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove as per Sandy. LuciferMorgan 13:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)