Talk:Scientology as a business

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Business (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Scientology (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hi, I'm not a regular Wikipedia contributor, and have a situation I'm not sure how to go after.

A quote is included in this page which is

- From a reliable source
- Contains factual information
- Presents a deeply flawed analysis using what appears to be false presumptions without being directly inaccurate
- Is of marginal or questionable value to the overall content of the article
- Is very clearly one-sided with a slant to be defamatory without a balancing point of view
- Contains no information about Scientology

My questions is - How to handle a situation like this? At first I thought I should include additional information that clarifies the context of the quote, but then felt that would be debating the content of a different article inappropriately. The quote itself cannot be modified, of course, so I opted for the suggestion of deleting the quote from the article on the grounds that it is derogatory, marginally relevant, and contained flawed analysis.

Here is the quote and my analysis:

Writing in Skeptic magazine, Michael Shermer contrasted such practices with mainstream religions: "Envision converting to Judaism but having to pay for courses in order to hear the story of Abraham and Isaac, Noah and the flood, or Moses and the Ten Commandments. Or imagine joining the Catholic Church but not being told about the crucifixion and the resurrection until you have reached Operating Theological Level III, which can only be attained after many years and tens of thousands of dollars in church-run courses."[13]

My analysis: The quotation proposes a hypothetical scenario of envisioning something that is not true with the intent of presenting an inaccurate view of Scientology, and also presents an inaccurate view of the Judaic and Christian religions.

1) The Catholic church and other "mainstream" religions do in fact have levels which are attained through church-offered courses, most notably Catechism, pre-marital courses, conversion classes, and also contain mysteries and artifacts that are only accessible to higher levels of the Clergy. 2) While it is true that Scientology has some course and levels that require years and many thousands of dollars to attain, it is also true that the basic levels of Scientology are available to the public through freely disseminated information on the internet, books available for sale online or at bookstores, or through low-cost study at the Scientology orgs where the student has the benefit of a professional trained course supervisor, classroom, and A/V and printed reference materials. 3) This particular quote Does not contain any reference to Scientology. Instead, it is merely a hypothetical scenario relating to Judeo Christianity with a poorly researched allusion to Scientology.

My proposed counterpoint: These viewpoint betrays a lack of understanding of how Scientology operates internally, and falsely presumes that any given religion should behave like Judaism or the other Judaic religions. The Church of Scientology offers many services for free, and provides an escalating "ladder" of services with corresponding escalating costs. The costs of services are designed to be comparable to their value to the recipients of the services - thus, a person of very high "ability" is more likely to benefit from very high level Scientology programs, and is also more likely to be able to afford such services. A person of relatively lower "ability" will get optimal benefits from lower level services, including the lowest level services, which are offered free on the Church of Scientology website. Any person of almost any financial means can find Scientology materials that are affordable, and which are relevant to them. This information may be easily referenced, though I have not done it here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

This article is confused and redundant[edit]

After reading through this article many times and considering a number of possible edits, I'm concluding that the article is both redundant and confused.

It confuses the content of "Scientology" with the "Church of Scientology", both of which have separate articles in Wikipedia and are also conceptually distinct.

"Scientolology as a business" should not be a WikiPedia article as it is not a distinct topic in itself. It should be a section of the Scientology or Church of Scientology articles.

Is this an appropriate place for discussion? What is the next step, if any? Vantorrance (talk) 23:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Probably nomination for deletion. See WP:AfD. Kitfoxxe (talk) 23:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC)