Talk:Scientology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is not a forum for general discussion of Scientology, or anything not directly related to improving the Wikipedia article.
Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Scientology article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23
The Arbitration Committee has placed all Scientology-related articles on probation (see relevant arbitration case). Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages.
Scientology Portal
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
This article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Wikiproject Rational Skepticism seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudosciences, pseudohistory and skepticism. Please feel free to help us improve this page.

See Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments
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.
January 19, 2004 Refreshing brilliant prose Not kept
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

Contents

[edit] Cult status?

Scientology is certainly a cult and recognized as one by multiple religions and Hubbard's own son. It's a mix of cult and money-scheme. Somebody should mention with sources the Baptist convention's declaration of Scientology as a cult. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Countryfan (talk • contribs) 22:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Here scientology is referred to as a "cult", but surely it is more of a world-affirming religion? World affirming religions are tolerant of peoples religious beliefs - even it's own members (for example some scientologists are catholic) and don't force its members to cut themselves off from their friends, family and society (as a cult would) but rather try and make the world a better place through scientology?

Hardly "world affirming." They are tolerant only to the point they would like to be associated with other faiths to avoid criticism- ie, standing behind more established faiths to fend off critics as 'religious bigots.' The openly stated goal of Scientology is world dominance of Scientology and the 'clearing' of the entire planet. Also, while they outwardly claim tolerance and publish pretty 'interfaith' videos, they believe religious leaders of the past were false alien implants and Hubbard personally claimed Jesus was a violent pedophile. This is neither tolerant nor affirming.24.130.199.233 (talk) 18:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

err- there is plenty of proof of scientology destroying families and cutting off relationships. it is a cult. its is misguided and rediculous attempt to make money. off of aliens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ANONANONANONANON (talk • contribs) 08:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC) Any criticism is welcome or if anyone has anything more to add, please do. I just think that that should be clarified in the article itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptinHairybely (talk • contribs) 00:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

A number of major news organizations, academics, and novelists have reported that Scientology is a cult. It's not up to Wikipedians to decide whether or not they are—that would be original research. Instead, we try to make the article match the information given by the reliable sources out there. This is a controversial article with editors of many opinions, so we follow the rules strictly. Foobaz·o< 02:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
No need to link to the original research page, asshole. No need to act like you know it all. You are the bane of wikipedia.
And a number of major news organizations, academics, and novelists have reported that Scientology is NOT a cult. Opinions, opinions and opinions. Sadly both sides need to be documented regarless of how ignorant they are. Bravehartbear (talk) 08:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, Bravehartbear has a point. It's probably presumptuous at this point to use the loaded word "cult" except to state that "some" have called Scientology a cult. Scientology certainly has cult-like or conspiratorial elements (charismatic leader, repression of alternate points of view through misuse of copyright law and ingrained doublethink), but also has elements of a "life-affirming religion". Certainly the Church is neither complete evil nor purely saintly. We should keep in mind the need to merely point out both points of view and leave personal investment out of this.71.35.252.65 (talk) 00:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
If those are the only requirements, then no religion can be or not be a cult, because there are always going to be people who say that it is, and people who say that it isn't. Amphibienne (talk) 08:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Reading all this I nave an impression, that Wikipedia, and especially this particular entry, is being edited by folks without proper education. Know definitions of the words, know history and history of religions. Most importantly chec the facts regarding Scientology. With that knowledge it is clear what is a cult (like Scientology) and what is not. In many cases it is not that important. In case of this organization it is crucial to inform people, not misinform. This cult is dangerous, money grabbing and brainwashing scam. Simple as that. Folks - read up a bit about this organization, then edit this entry here. I think it should be clearly stated that Scientology is a cult, just like Earth is round, evolution is a scientific fact etc. Or do we have to do with some SeaOrg manipulation here, or better yet silly political correctness in the same league as recent bashing of "three little pigs" form being "offensive to Muslims" in the UK. Do some fact checking, and lets not be silly to the point of absurdity. Scientology = cult, and so it should be made clear in this article. For those arguing against stating, that it is a cult - consider this: if Scientology is not a cult, then what is? You can't get more "cultish" than this. It is is not a cult, then this word should be erased form all dictionaries and languages. Lets not be silly here. Lets not be manipulated by the functioning Sea Org members romping about the Internet. --Pitdog (talk) 16:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey Pitdog. If you are going to criticize people for not having proper education on the subject, then maybe you should display your knowledge on the subject rather than just restating that it's a cult. Maybe if you stated YOUR sources for the information, then we could check them out ourselves and determine on our own if they're reliable enough to make an entire judgement on. The way you write makes it clear that you have an extreme biased against this organization, but if you used neutral sentences and backed up your accusations with reliable evidence or sources, then people might be able to take you a little more seriously, and think of you less like a person with an extreme prejudice. I'm not a scientologist, nor do I know any, nor do I really care about this or any religion, but I'm just pointing out that if you want to argue a point to get people to believe your claims, then you should usually back it up with more than psycho-babble. If you're so informed, please let us all in on this cold, hard evidence which you claim to possess. --[Non-user] March, 17 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.45.43 (talk) 05:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

This is an interesting point of discussion. CaptinHairybely, one of the things that makes Wikipedia work is that it uses reliable sources (I highly recommend you read that policy in its entirety, by the way). One example of a reliable source would be a news magazine with a strong history and reputation for basic fact-checking, such as Time or Newsweek, or the peer-reviewed books and articles of academic scholars. The interesting thing is that the materials produced by the subject of an article on Wikipedia are not generally accepted as reliable sources:

Questionable sources
Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves ... Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources.

– Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable_sources (emphasis added

Generally speaking, the only things we can use Church of Scientology-produced material to support are statements like "The Church describes Scientology as..." and "According to the Church..." We can't use any material they provide to support a statement of fact, because it is automatically biased, and by definition not peer-reviewed.

To a large extent, the same applies to certain critical websites. It's all about peer-review and fact-checking, and many critics do not have established track records for either.

One difference -- and I'm afraid this puts the Church at a bit of a disadvantage here -- is that several of the critics do have established track records and scholarly credentials. But in the Church's favor, as Bravehartbear pointed out, there have also been a few peer-reviewed "news organizations, academics, and novelists" that support the Church's stance that Scientology is a religion. There are sections of the article that reflect that.

Basically, if a major media outlet or academic publication fact-checks statements from the Church or a critic and finds the statements verifiable, then we can use them, but otherwise they're assumed to be biased. --GoodDamon 21:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Scientology originated as an applied religious philosophy and its purpose was to initially be a guidance to life, just like all the other religions out there. It is not fair to marginalize scientology ideas and the people related to the church, just because one doesn't agree with it's practices. It currently continues to exist because of a huge dedicated following that has faith and support in the institution. The church should be recognized like any other established religion, regardless of how many people exist to disagree and disdain. Yes, criticism of the religion should be accessible and available, but not on an introductory basis (like how it is currently on its wikipage). Just because the media is constantly questioning the credibility of the religion with major bias, doesn't mean it should be introduced as a cult for the person seeking the common knowledge of Scientology principles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.149.225.218 (talk) 07:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
It is not Wikipedia's job to dictate what is and is not a "cult," a "religion," or whatever. Wikipedia has to rely on the dominant findings of reliable sources. Please read that link for a better understanding of Wikipedia's requirements. Reliable sources are a policy of Wikipedia, and anything that doesn't match that policy may be removed. Now, I'm sorry to say this, but the vast majority of reliable sources describe Scientology and the organization that promotes it in less-than-flattering terms. Scholarly papers, investigative reports, and other such pieces generally refer to it as a controversial cult that is destructive to its members.
Now please be aware, I'm not saying that any of that's true. I'm saying that this is what the sources Wikipedia finds to be reliable say, so that's what Wikipedia has to report. For all I know, Scientology may do great things for you and the majority of its members, but I can't take your word for it for Wikipedia. That would be what Wikipedia calls original research, which isn't allowed. In other words, I can't cite my own experiences or investigations in a Wikipedia article. It has to come from a reliable source, which other people can verify. --GoodDamon 16:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a cult, unfounded beliefs, totally new ideas, and very controlling and extorting of its members. Reapermage 00:36, 10th December 2007 GMT —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reapermage1990 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a cult but it's recongized as a religion by many governments including that of the United States so it should be referred to as such. Maybe refer to it as a cult if/when it loses it's status as a government recongized religion. Also, is Scientology considered a religion by the UN or do they have no stance on that? FalseMyrmidon (talk) 00:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

If as you stated above it is a cult, why we need government's approval of that fact? If a certain dish is called pizza, does it have to be officially recognized by a given government in order for us to speak of it as pizza?Or it just is a pizza. Since when any government should have the influence on simple facts and definitions in an encyclopedia on the net... --Pitdog (talk) 17:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The first definition of cult in Dictionary.com is "a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies." So it's a cult... and so is Christianity, so is Islam, so is Buddhism etc etc etc. Bazonka (talk) 12:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

that is a true deffinition, however that isn't the one we are talking about. That isn't even the definition that is commonly accepted when people say the word "cult". this discussion is better explained by the sociological definition of a Cult which states (I am paraphrasing, however I can get the source if neccisary) an orgonization that is charictorised by four things 1. strong central leadership, 2. hidden agenda/knowlage (they don't let you know everyhting about the orgonization untill you have become invested in the group), 3. Promice of special powers only avalible through the groups central leadership (Sobriaty through the central leaders teachings, promice of salvation through loyalty of the leader) 4. coersive or brainwashing tecqnecs.
when I hear the word cult that is what I think of...not the Boy Scouts religious services. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coffeepusher (talk • contribs) 17:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

If anyone gets a chance to check this source, there is an interesting article on Scientology in it related to your "cult status" question, from above:

Cheers, Cirt (talk) 05:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC).


It does not in any way improve this article to argue over whether Scientology "is" or "is not" a cult. There is not one true definition of "cult"; the word is largely used as a slur. We are much better off describing what Scientologists believe, what Scientologists do, and the history of the Scientology organization -- and leave it up to readers whether these things show it to be a cult, a praiseworthy religion, an organized crime syndicate, a happy summer camp, or a high-heeled shoe. --FOo (talk) 17:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. Foobaz·o< 17:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I vote for high-heeled shoe. --JustaHulk (talk) 15:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I vote Cereal Grain 05:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.255.179.144 (talk)
I vote "Get another hustle." That means spread your hustle.--76.248.230.194 (talk) 03:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I would term it an "Officaly Recognised Religion" and then, possibly state where it is official, or make it a link to a point on the page where they do state it. I believe it is a cult, but that is an opinion. It is definately a religion, so we should state it as that, as it is a fact. Cults are still religions. 82.74.121.248 (talk) 00:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Assuming your current list of countries is accurate, then you should not call it an officially recognised religion at this point. It would be preferable to have a section entitled "Recognised Religion" and simply state those countries that do. This is fair to both sides of the argument. This is pretty much what you have now, although the current edit is somewhat less succinct. --Angryjames (talk) 19:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

With regards the term "Cult". The same argument should be used. If various countries and or significant groups refer to the organisation as a "Cult", then that should be listed in a section head something like "Is it a Cult?" or "Cult Status". To argue about the meaning of the word is pointless, and especially to argue that most religions fall into that definition. We know they do. We are here to report the facts as significant trusted sources would. Significant sources/countries might use the term "Cult" to describe Scientology, but not use it to describe say Christianity, even though we know the latter started as a cult --Angryjames (talk) 19:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


Man, I strongly strongly dislike Scientology, but as there is no generally accepted definition of a cult (a word that is loaded with controversy) and it carries widespread negative connotations I think it should be classified as a weasel word and therefore not used. One of the best things about Wikipedia is its objectivity and although it seems ridiculous to people like us, we have to realise that that is just our opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.136.36 (talk) 22:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I have looked-in the term "CULT" in Wikipedia and also the term "RELIGION" and in my understanding Scientology indeed falls under the category of Cult. And if you look into it you'll understand why they keep on saying they are a religious group, it is for tax purpose only.Reinbowe (talk) 06:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should watch what we say - a 15 year old kid is apparently being prosecuted in Britain for calling Scientology a cult. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/may/20/1 Pearce.duncan (talk) 22:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it; the Crown Prosecution Service have today announced that there will be no prosecution, because (they say) the word "cult" is neither threatening, nor abusive, nor insulting within the specific legislation. --Rodhullandemu 23:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It strikes me as fascinating that the Church of Scientology has chosen to take issue with the term cult and its usage in relation to them. In doing so they are in violation of their own beliefs as passed down by L. Ron Hubbard.

Scientologists are required to "clear words" to insure that they properly understand said terms. One such word which is required is the word Cult, for which a definition is given within the index of "Science of Survival" which states, "cult: an exclusive group of people who share an excessive devotion or dedication to some person, idea, or thing."

Clearly they meet their own criteria, and based on their policy of "clearing words" in relation to their own internally defined meanings, any instance in which this term is misinterpreted to mean anything else would indicate that said Scientologist has not properly cleared the term.

                                                       13Heathens (talk) 09:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please add Jesus in Scientology as seealso link under the subsection "Scientology as a religion"

—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

[edit] Contrast With Traditional Organized Crime

I think this article on Scientology would benefit greatly by comparing and contrasting the way that the Scientology crime syndicate is different than more traditional organized crime syndicates -- such as the Italian, Irish, and other Mafias.

At one time in the past, the Scientology crime syndicate was global in scope and constituted a serious threat to the national security of the nations that it invaded in ways that more traditional organized crime gangs did not.

It would be good to see an in-debth, definitive description (research would be a heavy requirement) of the ways in which Scientology is different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Damotclese (talk • contribs) 01:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism & Controversy

I have noticed that this isn't mentioned until the 3rd paragraph down (and the paragraphs are pretty bulky) I have scoured the net and considering the amount of public criticism Scientology has got, i think this needs to be mentioned higher up (end of 1st paragraph?) to form a more unbiased article.

--Petersmith140 (talk) 01:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Link not working, should remove?

The external resouce 131, Verfassungsschutz Bayern (Constitution Protection Bavaria: Publications (German), leads to a page not found. Should the information that came from this link be taken out? 68.77.187.144 (talk) 20:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

No, the page has moved & I've updated the link. --Rodhullandemu 20:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cult

Is Scientology a cult? It seems like it if so lets put it in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plyhmrp (talk • contribs) 22:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It's in the List of groups referred to as cults.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Valuative (talk • contribs) -->
Calling something a cult does not make it so. I have no axe to grind for Scientology, but this has been thrashed out ad nauseam to achieve consensus as to what the article should say. I suggest you review prior arguments and if you feel there is a strong reason to seek a new consensus, do so. Please also see thread above.--Rodhullandemu 14:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, in the U.S. it's a religion, as per the IRS and the State Department. Jayen466 14:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
But if you leave the US it is a cult? Hyacinth (talk) 23:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
"Cult" and "religion" are not mutually exclusive; it's just that, despite the Constitutional separation of church and state in the US, the taxation rules are framed such that CoS fall within those rules. However, the practical problem is one of definition; just like "terrorist", I've yet to see an organisation of any sort define itself as a "cult" other than satirically; and in that sense, the argument is somewhat barren because there is little objectivity to be had, let alone a mutually acceptable definition of any relevant term of reference. --Rodhullandemu 23:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anonymous

No Anonymous members have been found conclusively to have performed DDOS attacks on Scientology websites. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 05:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brainwashing

In the article, the psychiatrist William Sargant who worked for the British MI-6 appears as having influenced L. Ron Hubbard. Sargant wrote a book elucidating the principles of brainwashing; the book was published as Battle of the Mind. Sargant inspired the Scottish Dr. Donald Ewen Cameron who was a CIA recruit for the LSD-25 special project MK-Ultra; they were looking for ways and means to bring about the Manchurian Candidate. Hubbard himself got hold of the alleged textbook of Psychopolitics used by the Russians, their textbook on brainwashing and the Church of Scientology published it. In 1979, John Marks wrote The Search for the Manchurian Candidate and was published by New York Times Books ISBN 0-8129-0773. It seems that to include this material in the article is very pertinent and is far from being contentious or vandalism.JDPhD (talk) 23:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

JDPhD, this article is about Scientology and notWilliam Sargant. Its unrelated to mention that William Sargant also "inspired Donald Ewen Cameron". Can you specify your reference with a page number and an citation? What part did you find in Marks book exactly and wich part not. If the content would be properly sourced it still may be better to move it to William Sargant,Anti-psychiatry or Donald Ewen Cameron-- Stan talk 10:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
BTW. William Sargant isn't mentioned at all in the online version of the book you cited. -- Stan talk 10:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Add Cults and governments, Church of the New Faith and List of groups referred to as cults as 'see also' links

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Valuative (talk • contribs) -->

[edit] Scientology in fiction

How about a section on Scientology in fiction? It's usually depicted under a different name to avoid legal actions, but its appearances include:

  • "Systemotics" in "Law & Order" (season 18, episode 15, aired April 30, 2008, depicting a fictionalization of the deaths of Theresa Duncan and Jeremy Blake)
  • "Movementarianism" in "The Simpsons" (season 9, episode 13, "The Joy of Sect", aired February 8, 1998)
  • "Selfosophy" in "Millennium" (season two, episode 9, "Jose Chung's Doomsday Defense", aired November 21, 1997)
  • As itself in "South Park" (season 9, episode 12, "Trapped in the Closet", aired November 16, 2005)
  • "Transformationalism" in Norman Spinrad's 1985 novel, [Mind Game].

I know I've seen several others, as well.

Lippard (talk) 14:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Scientology in popular culture? AndroidCat (talk) 20:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
It's on my list of articles to work on at some point, just not at the moment. Cirt (talk) 23:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Undue weight on Anonymous/Project Chanology?

There's a lot of information about this in the article, and it seems like there is too much importance given to Chanology etc., per WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM.--Hyperpaddling (talk) 22:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

-- i dont think so, project chanology is a significant factor in raising public awareness about this cult. since this happened, i have studied the topic, made videos about it on youtube that got 60000 views in total, and have been protesting in reallife against the church of scientology here in munich 3 times. and scientology threw eggs at us (the protesters). from my perspective, this needs to be in the article, because it has already been so significant that it will get a long-term place in this story. Kurtilein (talk) 22:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurtilein (talk • contribs) 22:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)