Talk:Scientology in Belgium

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 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.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-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] Scientology in <splat>

I thought we were trying to avoid creating swarms of "Scientology in insert country here" articles? AndroidCat 14:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Mebbe so, but this one seems to be pretty big, literally hundreds of news articles all over the world, and it was carried by at least two wire services, AP and Reuters, and it's said to be the biggest fraud case prosecuted against Scientology. Orangerhymes 17:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC).
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a "news ticker". If you don't understand this you might consider defining "anti-cult PR agent" and see how such would operate on Wikipedia. Shutterbug 17:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I tend to agree with AndroidCat. There isn't really much more info here on the subject than what's already in the Scientology as a state-recognized religion article. This should probably just be integrated into the Scientology controversy article. Elhector 22:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
If so, Scientology In Australia should go too. wikipediatrix 22:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with AndroidCat, too. It was wikipediatrix's idea -- perhaps she can justify it. Re: Shutterbug/COFS's comment and name-calling, Wikipedia has, de facto, taken over many of the functions of Wikinews. And big news, by definition, deserves to be added somewhere. Like.liberation 10:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Like.liberation (talk • contribs)

[edit] To create a new article?

If there is enough stuff for this article, someone should do an article on Scientology in Germany. Orangerhymes 18:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC).

[edit] the lead-in

"The Belgian government labeled Scientology a sect in 1997, and began investigating its practices and finances, after ex-Scientologists said they had been subjected to intimidation and extortion."

This sentence should be inserted after the first because it backs up what the first says, and explains what is to come in the second. Otherwise, it seems like Belgium is acting without grounds. But the government is not acting without reason -- it's denial of the status of religion is based on the complaints. For now, I'm putting it under the indictment subhed. Like.liberation 20:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

That's very poor encyclopedic writing. I see no reason to shoehorn all that into the very first paragraph unless one is just really really determined to stick words like "intimidation" and "extortion" into the intro. And your argument in defense of the Belgian government is touching, but I betcha they wouldn't disqualify Islam even if they received quintuple the amount of complaints about it as they have Scientology. wikipediatrix 20:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "The Belgian government labeled Scientology a sect in 1997"?

This sentence needs to be changed, the Belgian government never labelled Scientology a sect. It was included in a report of a parliamentary commission of inquiry on sects, but that report clearly states that inclusion in the report doesn't mean that the organisation is a sect. Hence it isn't formally labelled a sect, but it is considered to be one.--Ganchelkas 08:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but in ruling not to include Scientology in its list of official religions, it has relegated the group to the title of sect, or movement if you will.
Indictment: a formal accusation initiating a criminal case. The federal court accepted the juge d'instruction's charges, which is the equivalent of an indictment. Innocence is still presumed, of course, but official charges relating to "actes criminelles" have been accepted. Like.liberation 09:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Until very recently, Buddhism wasn't a recognised religion either, but that doesn't mean the government considered it to be a sect. It can also mean that the religious movement just has too little followers in Belgium in order to become a recognised religion. And the court didn't accept the charges yet, according to a source I found in Dutch the so-called Chamber of Advice (which decides whether the case goes to court) will make a decision in a month or two. So they're not indicted yet, as the charges have not yet been accepted. There is also no federal court in Belgium, however, there is a Federal Prosecutor who heads the Federal Parquet. That Federal Parquet wants to prosecute those 12 persons and 2 legal persons, the juge d'instruction doesn't present the charges, he merely directs the investigation and must look into evidence both à charge and à décharge.--Ganchelkas 08:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Newsworthy operation?

Does anyone know how big Scientology is in Belgium? Shutterbug 17:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, according to Senator Luc Willems, who was a part of the parliamentary commission of inquiry on sects, in 1997 they had at most 500 members in Belgium. (Source: [1], under "video" select "Senator Luc Willems over Scientology" and you'll see an interview with him in Dutch)--Ganchelkas 08:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In one of the Belgium-related categories?

Shouldn't this article also be in one of the Belgium-related articles? I don't know which one would be best. Maybe Category:Belgian culture, Category:Belgian society or Category:Religion in Belgium? (The last one seems most appropriate content-wise, but maybe its inclusion there would be disputed?) --David Edgar (talk) 18:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)