Talk:Scientology

Excessive length of the article due to detailed info on petty controversial or negatively characterising info

Basically, lots of info of little importance, just IMO to cast negative light or raise doubts on what Scientologiy is or what it did/does. Like, for example, what exact criticisms who exactly in what country voiced and what and where prostesters and opponents/critics wrote, actually protesting Scientology in the text of a Wiki article on it. Why not rewrite and trim that all to keep the language factual and coscise. I'm sorry, if there was an actual deal with any of that, but it mostly are petty grievances or displeasure voiced like 'you see, how strange this one thing seems, you know, that official post holder said that'. This all IMO says nothing on the subject and relevant only technically. Why in so much length? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuri Kozharov (talk • contribs) 11:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Navy Veteran

While technically true that he was part of the Navy Reserve, it is not notable enough to include as a primary descriptor, and is not done on his primary page nor in other similar situations with other authors who have histories of military service. For instance, the page for Faith of My Fathers begins "Faith of My Fathers is a 1999 bestselling non-fiction book by United States Senator John McCain with Mark Salter." not "Faith of My Fathers is a 1999 bestselling non-fiction book by United States Senator and Navy Veteran John McCain with Mark Salter.". This holds true across every example I could find. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 01:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, Hubbard's Naval career is cited by many who are accepted RS on Hubbard and Scientology. Jon Atack, Tony Ortega, Lawrence Wright, Bent Corydon ... The Wikipedia has a separate page on Hubbard's naval career -- in contrast to those others you name, indicating that Hubbard's naval history is very important in the view of other Wikipedia editors. I ask you to review your opinion. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 07:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that the page you mentioned is partially devoted to the fact that many the claims about said career were fabricated, which is a fact that contributes to its notability, I never said his naval career is not citable or notable. What I said was that in most situations which describe authorship or creation of something, only the single most notable descriptor is included, not a list of all technically correct things, and that on LRH's main page he is not described as a naval veteran in the first sentence of the lede, indicating that while it may be true, it is not one of the most notable things about him (Which are his work as a science fiction author and his founding of Scientology).UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 10:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I agree with UnequivocalAmbivalence. This isn't so vital to his personal history or to the history of Scientology that is belongs in the lead like that. Nobody is disagreeing that he was in the Navy, but many, many people of his generation were veterans, and since his career was relatively short and, according to the overwhelming majority of independent sources, relatively minor, it's not so vital that it biographically defines him. In the first paragraph of this article, it's unnecessary to highlight his military career, and it doesn't make the topic of Scientology any easier to understand. In contrast, virtually every overview of Hubbard is going to mention that he was an author, probably of sci-fi or pulp, specifically.

As for the article about Hubbard's navel career, we also have one on Elvis's Army career, but we don't refer to Graceland as "the home of musician and Army veteran Elvis Presley." Grayfell (talk) 10:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Pop culture section: Epsilon program?

Perhaps you should consider adding the Epsilon Program parody of Scientology from GTA V to the pop culture section — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.130.183.242 (talk) 02:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

That's very unlikely to be encyclopedic without reliable sources directly linking the parody to Scientology. See Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content. Actually, the bit about "We Stand Tall" also needs better sources, too. Hmm... Grayfell (talk) 02:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

The way I see it, there are arguments that could be made for and against including the Epsilon sub-plot from GTA V in this article. As far as I can find, the game's writers and developers have not overtly stated that this is a parody. Despite this, I think that the Epsilon Program could still be included in the Scientology article. Any writers should just include a proviso that states that there is no official statement on whether the Epsilon Program actually is a parody, but that players and game journalists pointed out the parallels. Instead of presenting it as a definitive parody, we could mention it as an item of pop culture that's popularly assumed to be a parody. There are many online articles and discussion forums that demonstrate how people reached their conclusions. SmallMossie (talk) 16:28, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Maybe. Not every example of Scientology or Scientology-like groups needs to be included in this article, so sources would need to be substantial, commenting on how either Scientology was significant to the game, or the other way around. Forum posts cannot be used as sources, and neither can other wikis (see WP:UGC). I'm finding some usable sources talking about it, but not many, and most of them I've found are from before the game was released. Sources are mostly about an advertising stunt to announce the game's release, which isn't something worth mentioning unless it had an enduring impact (doesn't look like it). Epsilon was also part of a set of side-missions, apparently? Sources on that are basically passing mentions, which don't belong. I'm still skeptical about this being noteworthy, but I'm sure there are more sources on this that I didn't check. Grayfell (talk) 21:54, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

You are correct about Wikipedia's stance on forums, so then the Epsilon Program stuff can be put on hold. There are a growing number of peer-reviewed journals on aspects of pop culture that might publish something about games and religion or something in that vein, so I'll keep an eye out for that. Taking another look at the pop culture section, I believe that the South Park mention can stay, since the episode overtly mentions the Church of Scientology. On the other hand, I'm not so sure that the piece about the film The Master belongs in the pop culture section here. All the citations for the film lead to articles that are purely speculative about the film and its relationship to Scientology. Granted, the sources do seem to be online versions of printed newspaper sources, but in terms of content, the articles only speculate on the potential ties between the film and the real-world organisation.SmallMossie (talk) 14:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Opening paragraph is incoherent

Scientology is a body of beliefs and practices created by American science fiction author L. Ron Hubbard (1911–86).

In 1950, Hubbard published Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, explaining the process of auditing, in which a counselor guides a subject to recall traumatic memories and resolve the associated negative emotions.[6][not in citation given][7] In 1953, having lost the rights to Dianetics, Hubbard created an expansion called Scientology which teaches that people are immortal beings who have forgotten their true nature.[8][9][10][11] Scientology claims that that psychiatry is destructive and abusive and must be abolished.[12][13] A typical Scientologist must spend several years and $100,000 before learning the story of Galactic Dictator Xenu.[14][15][16] According to the church's official website, such type of suggestions are "absurd."[17]"

This paragraph starts out with a neutral description of scientology as a set of beliefs and practices, explains the origin, but then jumps to mention of Xenu without providing much context but includes mention of the church's rebuttal. I think it is very hard to follow or even understand if you aren't previously familiar with Scientology. Futhermore, it provides no real description of Scientology practices

Scientology is a body of beliefs and practices created by American science fiction author L. Ron Hubbard (1911-86) Scientology now characterizes itself as a religion, however, the movement began as Dianetics, a pseudoscientific alternative to psychiatry. Dianetics proposes that ailments and personality flaws are the result of repressed negative memories which can be resolved through a counselling procedure known as auditing. When Hubbard lost rights to Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health in 1953, he created Scientology which extends the ideas of Dianetics to include traumatic memories from past lives and introduced an electronic device known as an E-meter to be used in auditing sessions. Scientologists progress through increasingly expensive rounds of auditing with the goal of self-improvement. Scientology is often characterized as a cult. In France, Hubbard was tried for fraud and convicted in absentia.

--D'Andria (talk) 19:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

There is no "tax exempt religious status" in the US

IRS grants tax-exempt status to non-profit corporations. §501(c)3. Churches can apply under that law to be tax exempt. But that status has no relationship to the recognition of the church as a religion.[1] Such recognition would be impossible and illegal under the US Constitution. (Court citations available.) It is a mistake to equate the two things in this article.Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 20:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Intro paragraph should mention Scientology status, leave members' activities and Hubbard bio for later

I believe the following edit is justified

Scientology is a body of beliefs and practices created by American science fiction author L. Ron Hubbard (1911-86). Scientology now characterizes itself as a religion, however, the movement began as Dianetics, a pseudoscientific alternative to psychiatry. Dianetics proposes that ailments and personality flaws are the result of repressed negative memories which can be resolved through a counselling procedure known as auditing. When Hubbard lost rights to Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health in 1953, he created Scientology which extends the ideas of Dianetics to include traumatic memories from past lives and introduced an electronic device known as an E-meter to be used in auditing sessions. Scientologists progress through increasingly expensive rounds of auditing with the goal of self-improvement. Scientology is often considered to be a cult. In France, Hubbard was tried for fraud and convicted in absentia. In the 1970s, top-ranking members infiltrated and wiretapped the U.S. government and were convicted of espionage.The group's legal classification is often a point of contention. In some jurisdictions, such as the United States, South Africa, Australia, Sweden, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal and Spain, the church is granted tax-exempt religious status, but at least one (Germany) classifies Scientology as an "anti-constitutional sect" (verfassungsfeindliche Sekte). In France, Scientology is sometimes classified as a cult by public authorities.

In France, Hubbard was tried for fraud and convicted in absentia. In the 1970s, top-ranking members infiltrated and wiretapped the U.S. government and were convicted of espionage. In 1986, Hubbard died after years in hiding. David Miscavige emerged as leader of Church of Scientology, while many others practice Scientology independently.

Critics contend the church practices brainwashing and fraud against its members,[19] and that it uses psychological abuse, character assassination, and vexatious litigation against its perceived enemies. The Church of Scientology has consistently used litigation against its critics, and its use of aggressive harassment has been condemned.

The group's legal classification is often a point of contention. In some jurisdictions, such as the United States, South Africa, Australia, Sweden, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal and Spain, the church is granted tax-exempt religious status, but at least one (Germany) classifies Scientology as an "anti-constitutional sect" (verfassungsfeindliche Sekte). In France, Scientology is sometimes classified as a cult by public authorities.

The point being, not to a provoke any argument about the status of Scientology itself, but to realize that this is an article about Scientology itself. Therefore, the status of Scientology and related controversy deserve mention early on, in the first paragraph, while details about the founder and the activities of Scientology members can be included later. --D'Andria (talk) 22:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Got it, D'Andria (talk · contribs), and I have no quarrel with the factual issues of Scientology. The problems with this text are several in number -- and I recognize that you are moving it, not creating it new:

1. Hubbard is not Scientology. Whatever legal problems Hubbard had are not relevant to this page. Rather, they belong on the Hubbard page.
2. The page name is "Scientology," and Scientology as a subject has no cash, no lawyers, no taxes, and no court cases. It is a passive thing like Astrology, Biology, and any other subject. But the legal status being discussed in this text is the legal status of the Church of Scientology, for which Wiki has a separate page. The facts about the tax status of the Church belong on the Church page and not here.
3. No religion or church in the United States gets a license from the government. None. There is a non-profit status with the IRS, and that is all. I could get a non-profit tax exemption for an organization to clean the streets or to put feral cats in a gas chamber. That status does not create a religion. The US government, the courts, and all of the agencies are forbidden by the Constitution to make any decisions on religion. That is discussed in the Appeals Court of about 1970 with Scientology and the E-meter -- no government agency or jury could decide whether it was a religion because then they would end up deciding whether it was a TRUE religion, and that would get messy -- like the English Reformation and Civil War, with Protestants deciding whether Catholicism was a true religion and vice versa.

The Hubbard court case and the IRS decision regarding the non-profit status of the Church of Scientology -- all these things are inappropriate to this page -- and downright misleading, too. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 23:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

What point of view your are trying to defend with those edits? That Scientology is a religion? Will you then proceed to add that it is a cult and people need to be forcefully (on voluntary basis, of course) 'deprogrammed' from 'mind control' or put into psychiatric hospitals? For in Russia for example mainstream psychiatrists issue statements to that effect and IMO this is going overboard. Scientoloy self-identifies itself as religion and holds a number of beliefs (texts, lectures) and practices (activities), why it is so important to so many to be casting doubts if this all qualifies as characteristics of a modern religion? What do you think should be done to Scientologists? In America tax evasion is a serious crime, are you smearing Scientology suggesting their status helps evade taxes and that they are the business? This is what counter-cultists and deprogrammers are saying, they are all untrustworthy people spreading quasi-scientific ideas themselves. Here you pick on a a technicality and try to raise these matters, these are decades-old arguments. People are not authorities to say what faith is true and what is not, this amounts to incitement to hatemongering and you cleverly avoid being named responsible of that. Well, Scientology could sue, I guess, its so that you could bark out of what you say in courts. Shameful. Just bit by bit, here and there, making the article worse and worse, trying not to cross the line and write clearly libelous stuff, but just continuins to suggest and quote and refer and all of that is really not much relevant or of any substance.Yuri Kozharov (talk) 15:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

How about we make the move now but change some of writing "Scientology's status as a religion is often a point of contention. In some jurisdictions, such as the United States, South Africa, Australia, Sweden, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal and Spain, The Church of Scientology is granted tax-exempt status, but at least one (Germany) classifies the church as an "anti-constitutional sect" (verfassungsfeindliche Sekte). In France, Scientology is sometimes classified as a cult by public authorities." Further changes can occur later. --D'Andria (talk) 00:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Very nice -- with one objection. This paragraph is about Scientology as a religion. The clause about tax status is irrelevant so should be omitted. My reasons? If you put it here, it implicitly equates the tax status with the religious status, which is true of some countries but not the US. The statements in this paragraph should be about countries where governments recognize and/or license religions. Tax status is simply another subject. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk)

NYT Bestseller List?

Dianetics the Modern Science of Mental Health was published in May 1950. But our text says, "Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health entered the New York Times best-seller list on June 18, 1949 and stayed there until December 24 of that year.[51]" OK, so now to reconcile with RS 51. And I can't find mention of the book in the RS. Is this a problem of (1) not true? (2) not an RS? (3) not a proper record of the RS? Let's fix it. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 22:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Edit request on January 12 2016

Within the "Church of Scientology"-section, the same source (Melton 2000, p.17) is cited twice for the same claim (The "The following year, he formed the ship-based Sea Organization or Sea Org which operated three ships: the Diana, the Athena, and the flagship the Apollo."-claim). Also, within the "Splinter groups: Independent Scientology, Freezone, and Miscavige's RTC"-section, the same source (Nordhausen & Billerbeck (2008), pp. 469-470) is cited twice for the same claim (The "The Advanced Ability Center was established by Hubbard's personal auditor David Mayo after February 1983 – a time when most of Scientology's upper and middle management split with Miscavige's organization"-claim). Also, "Within the "Allegations of coerced abortions"-section, two different sources are each cited twice for the same claim: The claim is "Former Sea Org member Karen Pressley recounted that she was often asked by fellow Scientologists for loans so that they could get an abortion and remain in the Sea Org." and the sources are (www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22613285/print/1/displaymode/1098/) and (Morton, Andrew (2008). Tom Cruise: An Unauthorized Biography. St. Martin's Press. p. 130. ISBN 0-312-35986-1.) Shouldn't the redundant citations be removed?

 Done Ruslik_Zero 20:17, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2016

Incredulousment3 (talk) 00:33, 15 January 2016 (UTC)