The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Please supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing unciteable information.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 60 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived. An archive index is available here.
This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
current: Scientology is one of the most controversial new religious movements to have arisen in the 20th century. better, since the 20th Century is over: Scientology is one of the most controversial new religious movements that arose in the 20th century.
This has probably been discussed ad nauseam. Regardless, I was curious as to whether or not there was any particular reason that Scientology is not referred to as a cult? JDiala (talk) 01:11, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
I would also imagine it has previously been discussed, but it does seem a strange omission. Under the "Scientology status by country" section it does state that some religions "continue to view it as a pseudoreligion or cult." It gives two sources for the use of that term. It is rather conspicuously absent from the contoversy section, especially when it describes how Scientology "brutally exploits its members," "that survives by intimidating members and critics in a Mafia-like manner," and "in which members are encouraged to cut off all contact with friends or family members who are "antagonistic" to Scientology." These are such classic cult behaviors that it is almost as if this section is describing it as a cult while deliberately avoiding the word? That seems rather un-encyclopaedic to me. -Lciaccio (talk) 16:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
There are basically three reasons, so far as I know. One is our guideline WP:W2W. The word "cult" in this context is both somewhat vague, as there is so far as I can tell no specific clearly agreed upon definition of the term, and because, at least in this content, the use of the term tends to prompt more heat than light. Poorly defined language is at best dubiously encyclopedic, and so is rather unnecessarily inflammatory language. Lastly, the academic community has stopped using the word lately, replacing it with new religious movement, so we use the currently used academic language instead. John Carter (talk) 17:23, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. That makes a lot of sense from a Wikipedia standpoint; the entry for Cult itself demonstrates the difficulty defining it. I think the use aimed for here was to signify religions who use psychological manipulation; I wish we had a distinct new word to differentiate those from other types of new religious movements. From what I can tell, had the word been better defined, the fact that it was inflammatory would have required frequent use by reliable sources, and thus may not alone have been a barrier. I haven't made a study of how often the word is used for Scientology, but I suspect the official use of that label by governments indicates it would have been satisfied. -Lciaccio (talk) 21:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
If it is of any help, here is a translation from the introduction of the Scientology article in the Hebrew Wikipedia: "inquiries performed by investigation committees in different countries, including Australia, Israel and France, have rejected the argument of a scientific basis of Scientology, and defined it as a cult". Three citations are given. The first is the Australian Anderson report, also cited here. The other is for France: Commission d'enquête sur les sectes – Assemblée nationale, 22/12/1995, linking to http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/rap-enq/r2468.asp. The third is for Israel: דו"ח וועדת החקירה הבינמשרדית בראשות מרים גלזר-תעסה לבדיקת נושא הכתות בישראל, ירושלים, טבת תשמ"ז, ינואר 1987, meaning "Report of the interministerial investigation committee chaired by Miriam Glazer-Tassa for the examination of the cults issue in Israel, Jerusalem, January 1987". No link is provided. Wikiation (talk) 15:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
And yet none of my two dozen dictionaries have any problem defining the word. The fact is the science of sociology has very clearly provided definitions of the word cult. But one could I suppose go on forever arguing the definition of cult. That said, scientology fits every single definition ever published and that should be enough to use the word. It is a cult period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk • contribs)
I haven't been around this article in a long while, but I'm pretty sure there was consensus some time ago to describe Hubbard as a "pulp fiction author" or something along those lines, given the fact that the majority of his fiction output were typical pulp fare in the adventure/Westerns/detective stories/pirate milieus, etc. Almost no other fiction authors who worked in multiple genres ever gets this kind of treatment, so the predominantly negative tone of this article in certain parts is problematic.
WP:NPOV doesn't mean positive point of view. Some articles are more negative than others, like War vs. Love. Hopefully, the articles reflect the negative or positive views of WP:RSs. If that's not the case here, you just need to bring sources.
On the specific of "science fiction" vs. "pulp fiction", I don't see how the latter is more NPOV. I'd think that SF is more prestigious than pulp. But, again, it should come to sources, not our opinions. Currently, the page L. Ron Hubbard leads with SF and fantasy author. We should probably reflect what that page says. --A D Monroe III (talk) 23:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)