Talk:Scientology as a business

Scientology self published sources

There are three external links to Scientology websites on the bottom of the article. They appear to violate policy, but I'm not 100% sure so I'm posting here for consensus. Andrew³²⁷ 01:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

My understanding is that the only time self published external links should be added are when they add information which is too extensive to be covered in the article itself. These links are promotional in nature and therefore shouldn't be included. I have deleted the links.Coffeepusher (talk) 01:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

now I am not opposed to having a single link to the official scientology main page, since that is the subject matter of the page.Coffeepusher (talk) 01:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

It would violate policy if the links evaluated Scientology, but if they simply provided information or were themselves evidence of what Scientology says, they would not be.Drg55 (talk) 03:45, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

please read the second subheading in WP:ELOFFICIALCoffeepusher (talk) 04:01, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Beit-Hallahmi in lead

Drg55 just added content based on the article by Beit-Hallahmi. The addition fails verification and is being removed.

What he added: "even critics admit most scholars consider it a new religious movement".

What the source actually says: "Regarding Scientology, we have two competing claims before us. The first, espoused by most NRM scholars, as well as some legal and administrative decisions, asserts that Scientology is a religion, perhaps misunderstood and innovative, but a religion nevertheless, thus worthy of our scholarly attention. The second, found in most media reports, some government documents in various countries, and many legal and administrative decisions, states that Scientology is a business, often given to criminal acts, and sometimes masquerading as a religion."

It's not surprising that new religious movement scholars are fans of new religious movements. That doesn't belong in the lead of this article. It would have a place if this were Scientology as a new religious movement, but this is Scientology as a business. The article also describes Scientology in much different terms than the edited lead suggested. Andrew³²⁷ 03:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I would agree. There is a lot of cherry picking going on to glean "even critics admit most scholars consider it a new religious movement."Coffeepusher (talk) 04:00, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

No, a new religious movement is a religion, just a newer one.

"Bryan Wilson, arguably one of the most brilliant minds in the study of new religious movements, establishes the notion of a minimal definition of religion, which will justify according the religion label to Scientology (Wilson, 1990). What he clearly

argues is that in deciding on the correct classification for Scientology we need to look at its beliefs and nothing else. The motivation for the creation of this belief system, or any other context, are irrelevant. Let me repeat what Wilson (1990, p. 282-283) states: "even if it could be conclusively shown that Scientology took the title of 'church' specifically to secure protection at law as a religion, that would say nothing about the status of the belief-system". Wilson's (1990) position on the centrality of belief is something I wholeheartedly share (see Beit-Hallahmi, 1989; Beit-Hallahmi & Argyle, 1997), but his examination of Scientology beliefs chooses to ignore the history and context of those beliefs, and there can be no real interpretation without establishing a context. Some have argued that it is the attitude of current followers, rather than the original intentions of the founder, that determine the status of a group as a religion. This is what Wilson has argued, but it can be easily countered with the following example:"

So in other words he acknowledges "one of the most brilliant minds in the study of new religious movements" thinks Scientology is a religion.

Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi is a psychologist not a religious scholar. The purpose of his paper seems to be to try to make a case against this, but is is mostly circumstantial rather than substantive argument, its not his field. Wilson is a reliable source, Beit_Hallahmi is not. And to cap it off his prejudices show.

In his article he is critical of the 1982 Mission Holders conference. I can discuss this in more detail, and put it in the article if you like as it demonstrates that internally Scientology is discusses as a religion (your article suggests it is just a public pretense) and officials come down very hard on people they think may be just using it for money making purposes. The context to this conference is that after the closure of the Guardians Office, which you might know infiltrated the FBI, there were considerable management changes and there was an interim period of bad management. The mission network was controlled by the Guardians Office and the tithes from it supported GO operations, hence management, which was angry at GO abuses, also believed that the Missions were equally contaminated.

Finally I should add that there is a concept called "theta" which is repeatedly mentioned in Scientology, it refers to spirit or spiritual essence. Scientologists use it all the time and if you are looking for evidence that its a religion in practice thats what to look for, yet Beit-Hallahmi is completely unaware of it.Drg55 (talk) 04:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

You cannot use a non-reliable source to justify a disagreeing source. I'm busy this week, but I'd be happy to find many more sources that support the premise of this article, including the recent book Going Clear, which I'm currently halfway through reading (I won't cite it until I'm finished). Beit-Hallahmi is a very minor player, and the entire article would stand without him. However, he is still a reliable source and if you disagree, you are encouraged to file a claim at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard where impartial and uninvolved editors will give their outside opinions. Andrew³²⁷ 04:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I honestly have no idea what the hell you are talking about anymore Drg55. The lede says that some scholars believe scinetology is a religion. We had problems with the way your wording distorted what the source says, but you somehow have hit a very big tangent. This is the "scientology as business" article, which means that we are necessarily going to talk about the business practices of scientology, not the religious practices. So what on earth is your proposal, because I seriously can't figure it out.Coffeepusher (talk) 04:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I have added "Overall, Scientology can be seen as a "multi-faceted transnational corporation that has religion as only one of its many components. Other components include political aspirations, business ventures, cultural productions, pseudo-medical practices, pseudo-psychiatric claims, and (among its most devoted members who have joined the Sea Organization), an alternative family structure."" to the lede in order to show the complexity of the organization itself and introduce the fact that this article is about the actual business, but there are many different parts of scientology as a whole. It is a direct quote, from an expert in the field, published in a reliable source, which has been referenced by 20 different peer reviewed sources. This should clear up Drg55's concerns regarding the characterization of Scientology in the lede of the article.Coffeepusher (talk) 15:50, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I like that a lot more than other versions that have been discussed or implemented. Andrew³²⁷ 22:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Stephen A. Kent is not a reliable source

I have altered the lede to remove the Stephen A. Kent quote. First of all this is synthesis as it introduces something other than "business" and opens more questions than it answers. I took the trouble to read Kent's paranoid schizophrenic article and I better just list of the outstanding contradictions in it. If your read the wikipedia article on Stephen A. Kent you will see in the research section:

few Canadian academics agree with his findings and most disagree quite strongly because of his tendency to use the testimony of ex-members."[8] Sociologist Anson Shupe and Susan J. Darnell characterised Kent as "eccentric", stating that research and police enquiries into the allegations of satanic ritual human sacrifice had proved them to be unfounded.[9]

Satanic Ritual Abuse is completely discredited paranoid obsession of the 1980's based largely upon taking seriously things said in psychological uncovering of "repressed memories" under hypnosis. The episode showed extraordinary gullibility of people for patently impossible claims.

Kent is heavily associated with the "anti cult" movement making him not neutral point of view. Therefore you cannot quote him in the ledw. In the article he mentions that an anticult group "Berliner Dialog [a 'counter-cult' Christian-based magazine] covered some of my expenses". He cites articles he has written for "Cultic Studies Review" which is a publication of the International Cultic Studies Association, an anti cult group.

The link given to political aspirations in the lede only leads to the Scientology in Germany page.

There are only ten lines out of twenty three pages in the Kent reference that relate to Scientology as a business. Here is the entirety of what he has to say:

"3.2: Business

At times related to its political aspirations (as in Perm) are Scientology's programs designed to train business executives and professionals, often specifically targeting personnel in medically related areas. Through an organization named WISE (World Institute of Scientology Enterprises), Scientology offers a business consultancy and management program. A recent publication claims that "WISE [m]embers form a network of highly trained consultants in Hubbard Management Technology who can provide you with tailor-made training programs to suit your company's needs"

(WISE International, 1994b). WISE programs target various clients through numerous companies, and in Germany and other parts of Europe the best known WISE company is U-Man (see, for example, WISE International, 1994a). For all practical purposes, this dimension of Scientology is secular, regardless of how the organization portrays it."

Marburg Journal of Religion: Volume 4, No. 1 (July 1999) pages 4-5

This is a particularly bland piece of writing that says nothing and then tags on an opinion. I did a simple search and yes there are Christian business training courses. I thought it would be fairly obvious that Scientology business training seeks to employ Scientology policies in the wider world, so as to make the world a better place by putting in on the lines of simple but deep Scientology principles. Its only selling principle is it works. All sorts of people seek to modify life to their ideology, take the freudian influence in advertising, they even teach it in film school, why Australia has no decent film makers these days.

Kent's Schizophrenia overtakes him in the rest of the article, he quotes ex members but doesn't see that their interpretation of events is coloured by emotion.

He seeks to contaminate the German Government with his hysteria about the RPF. I did a similar program when the Guardians Office was abolished and it was like a holiday. the physical work helps to clear you head and the five hours of enhancement is enjoyed by Scientologists. If you don't want to reform and stay in the group you can leave. People who withhold their crimes can build up much more charge than the circumstances might warrant, but some people it has been found are continually committing counter survival acts against the group and so they accumulated a great mass of blackness. Therefore one has to qualify the statements of ex-members of any group, and if you look for examples from groups with which you are familiar you can see this is a phenomenon. Because he takes the claims at face value Kent is not reliable.

You can sleep soundly at night knowing that Scientologists in all facets of activity are working to spiritual objectives.Drg55 (talk) 00:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

So how does any of this make Kent's article not a WP:RS. The you haven't quoted is Wikipedia policy except for your first sentence, and that demonstrates you don't understand WP:SYNTH. The fact is that Kant IS a reliable source, and you are attempting to dead agent which you have already been told doesn't hold weight on wikipedia.Coffeepusher (talk) 00:47, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I've posted on WP:RSN#Stephen A. Kent as a reliable source for Scientology articles to get an outside opinion. I linked to the diff which explained your point of view.Coffeepusher (talk) 01:05, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

The conversation appears to have come to a close, and the consensus on the reliable sources notice board is that the Kent article is both reliable and able to be used on Scientology articles. They suggested that I directly attribute the quote, which I have taken care of. Cheers.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Kent is reliable in the right context, and his use in the lead is appropriate because it gives the best overview of the topic that I've seen. The current text basically says "Scientology is complex", which is both neutral and well supported by facts. Andrew³²⁷ 17:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

In his website: http://www.artsrn.ualberta.ca/skent/satanic.html There is an expert opinion on "satanic abuse" wherein Kent makes the following assessments:

. "I also noted that she said that [Ron] and his group put deer antlers

between the ears of a dog, and further stated that after one abusive incident half the dog's head was gone. Certainly this alleged description stretches credulity, but I can imagine sadists trying to affix horns to a dog with strong epoxy. Moreover, mention of half the dog's head missing occurred in a foster parent's notes, and perhaps C. said that half the dog's hair was missing. In any case, C. did not mention the half-missing head in the account that she wrote for psychologist [name removed]. Finally, I doubt whether cuts to C.'s fingers could have caused her to bleed enough to half-fill two chalices, but the chalices

could have been partially filled with red wine that C. mistook for her blood."

http://web.archive.org/web/20081106005251/http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/~skent/Linkedfiles/assessment%20of%20the%20satanic%20abuse.htm

This guy, and his German buddies, belong in the dark ages burning witches at the stake. Probably an auditor could find the incident they are in, it might be they were a victim and became the identity of the Inquisitor in a later life, although it doesn't excuse their actions.

Really they make it too easy for us. I could say you two are backing the wrong group, I just have to laugh. You call this guy a source?Drg55 (talk) 15:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)