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)

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)

I am not defending a POV. Tax status does not indicate religion, and religion does not imply tax status. It is improper to equate the two in this article. The US is forbidden by the US Constitution (First Amendment) to make any official rulings about religion. Churches are not required to apply for 501(c)(3) status, and they are still religions. Religion in US law is much older than IRS law. Any serious legal analysis of the subject should help you on this point. Those who understand these matters can easily see the ignorance of those who equate tax status with religion. Other countries have different rules, but the US was very careful to avoid government certification or licensing of religions. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 19:01, 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)

"Edit presents minority opinion as undisputed fact"

@Grayfell: re: your revert of 19:45, 14 March 2016:

1. The wording the editor used ("according to") clearly is not a statement of undisputed fact, particularly when in company with cited disputes.
2. That Scientology qualifies as a religion is hardly a minority opinion among religious scholars. A number in agreement are cited on that page. The IRS, the US State Dept., and the US Court of Appeals recognize it as a religion.

Maybe you had other reasons for reverting the edit, though. Can you cite them here, please? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 19:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Sure. The entire edit was: According to Schaefer and Zellner, academic scholarship on Scientology is “moving toward accepting Scientology as a religion.” This is primarily because of the body of beliefs shown in Dianetics “offers an explanation of the world and a purpose for humankind, and addresses issues like salvation and afterlife.” Multiple formatting and punctuation problems aside, this subtly transitions from a statement of opinion to a factual assertion that the body of belief actually does in fact provide such an explanation, which is extremely controversial. The elided content is substantial and far less simplistic. The source, Extraordinary Groups: An Examination of Unconventional Lifestyles, can be accessed online,[1] and the quote is profoundly misleading. Earlier, the beginning of the section specifically says that ...many outsiders refuse to view Scientology as a religion and how some scholars view is as a quasi-religion, and how it's harder to treat Scientology impartially because of its secrecy. The actual quote is far more nuanced and far less blandly flattering within that context: "Academic scholarship related to the Church of Scientology, 'limited as it is, is moving toward accepting Scientology as a religion. This does not mean that... followed by an explanation of exactly what that means. The quote was cherry picked to be as flattering as possible while ignoring all of that other, very important context. Grayfell (talk) 20:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Misrepresents source -- OK, that helps. The Neusner quote backs it up, though. The "secrecy" statement is problematic, though. Has a ratio of published to unpublished literature ever been computed? Does it compare with, say, the cellars of the Vatican? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 20:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Dunno. It's interesting to think about, but I'm not sure what that would prove since it's not necessarily the raw quantity of literature that matters here. Stuff like disconnection, the different OT materials, perceptics, etc. may or may not be subjectively measurable against published content, at least not without dipping deep into WP:OR. I wasn't suggesting we include the line about secrecy (although maybe we should), but it's clear from the larger context that this source is not adequate for emphasizing that scholars are accepting of Scientology as a religion. As for the larger issue, the word scholar is itself needs to be used with caution, since I don't think most people are going to think of The IRS, the US State Dept. and The US Court of Appeals as scholars, and especially not religious scholars. Looking into it further, it's clear that Jacob Neusner didn't write the quotes about Scientology, he was the editor of the book. This is a likely example of the kind of cherry-picking problem I'm talking about: in the rush to find flattering quotes, I think someone forgot to actually read the sources they were taken from. Grayfell (talk) 21:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

What's with the edit war? Thanks for clarification

(Moved from editor talk page) @Grayfell:, WP:BRD: You removed the text because you could not find the quote. I restored the text because the exact quote is in the 4th edition of the book. Now you revert again. Did you not find the words in the link to the book? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 22:01, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

This edit had obvious and severe technical problems. I think that was enough to revert, although that's not really why I did. I'm not sure why it belongs at all. We give the reader no way to know that this comes from an essay in an introductory religious studies textbook, which undermines the value in attributing the quote. That's a red flag that this is cherry-picking, since if it's strictly factual, we should just say it in our own voice, and if it's not, we should clearly explain where it's coming from. Just mentioning the name of the book with no other information isn't good enough in my opinion. I'm also bothered by the apparent need to dip into a new edition of the book to find content that supports this specific and flattering point. It seems like it's starting to verge into WP:SYNTH territory a bit. Over and over and over again that chapter (in both editions, but perhaps more in the later one) makes the point that Scientology is just like other religions/denominations, but says very, very little about critical scholarship on Scientology. It flatly accepts a number of claims about Scientology which are contradicted by other sources, or are at least too controversial to go unchallenged, such as the secular nature of Scientology's social programs, or that Scientology is not exclusivistic. This is a reliable source, but I think we need to be much more cautious about accepting more controversial claims from it at face value. Attributing these claims to the book is a step in the right direction, but without explaining what the book is, or explaining that the view has been contested by other reliable source, it still seems far from neutral. Grayfell (talk) 22:46, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• The exact quote from your original objection was found in the 4th edition. Apparently, the original editor just named the wrong edition. I consider that concern is resolved.
• Please explain more about the "introductory" concern. That it is a text book rather than a scholar's study is a distinction without a difference in my library.
• It is true that Neusner is not at all critical -- without stating untruths, he is not critical of any religion in that book, comparable to Huston Smith's "Religions of Man". Neusner is an Orthodox rabbi, so his equanimity is highly commendable. In my opinion, Wikipedia could take a card from that deck. I do not see that the state of the world is improved by throwing stones. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 23:17, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the edition thing is resolved regarding the proper citation, but my point still stands. Like I said, it's a red flag that the article draws direct quotes from such a wide array of relatively obscure academics, right down to choosing different sources when one is more flattering than the other. There are so many quotes like this in Scientology articles, and it's tilting the balance away from neutrality. That alone means we need to start weighing these more carefully. Edits like this to Thetan misuse obscure academic quotes to highlight Scientology perspectives while ignoring the sources' larger context. These links are added by a variety of editors, some of whom have already been blocked, but the books they use are always searchable on Google Books, and are never linked so that full context can be viewed. It's a big time-sink to try and figure out if their being used properly or not. Since far too often they're being misused, or are at least borderline, I think this is a problem.

Conflating critical analysis of a topic with "throwing stones" is poisoning the well. Wikipedia is neither Scientologist, not a Religious Studies department. As a general encyclopedia, it's vitally important to view all issues with detachment. Being "not critical of any religion" is the opposite of that. Neusner's personal equanimity is beside the point. His scholarship should not be held to different standards because of his religion. Grayfell (talk) 23:49, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I don't know about poisoning the well or what that might mean. Religions have been picking holes in each other since Adam was a polliwog, and all of them are easy targets. But I don't see a "criticism" section in Catholicism or Judaism. We do include "criticism" in Christianity. I would prefer we throw stones at no one, or as as distant second option, at everyone equally. My comment on Neusner is a commendation -- in the context of what orthodox clerics normally say about religions not their own. Apart from Unitarians (who are marginally Christians, maybe, maybe not), very few Christian clerics offer stone-less comments on other religions. It is not beside the point -- it IS the point. Neusner can do it, and we can too; we should not be another combatant in the religious wars. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 00:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not an easy line to walk, but maybe it's not really a 'line' at all. If the only two options were stone throwing or blanket uncritical acceptance, I might chose the latter as well, but that strikes me as a false dichotomy. There are lots of controversies in the world. We should not be afraid to examine them closely just because we don't agree with how other people have "examined" them in the past. If discussing Scientology critically is the same as throwing stones at it, that says more about the fragility of Scientology than it does about our motives. Grayfell (talk) 00:28, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Outdated info on tax exempt status in the Netherlands as of October 2015.

While Scientology was briefly tax exempt between 2013 and 2015, the Dutch court has ruled on 21/10/2015 it should be considered a business (full court ruling here (Dutch, archived here)). The court ruled that as a business, Scientology is not tax exempt. This should be reflected in the section Disputes over legal status. Tropicalaudio (talk) 03:17, 15 March 2016 (UTC)