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:
Due the form and manner of the group anonymous, it could be said that they would be a splincter group form ´scientiology´ itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 01:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
No, it couldn't. That would be wrong. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
I think a neutral description of "Scientology" (for example, if one of my friends had never heard of it) would be "An extremely controversial "religion" (I'll explain the air quotes in a second) that is banned in Germany. For example, I had to sign a document for employment, saying I was not a scientologist. To explain why it's a "religion" in quotation marks: it was created by an extremely famous and well-known science-fiction Author (as famous as Isaac Asimov or the most famous, seminal sci-fi writers.) There are uncontested and well-known documents in which L. Ron Hubbard himself says that to "realy rake it in" you should found a religion, i.e. a for-profit organization. Thus Scientology is almost a demonstration of the absurdity of religions. Nevertheless, that is only just how it started: L. Ron Hubbard then took his organization very seriously. It expanded aggressively and was in lots of controversies around its methods. Anyway it's in a different category from older religions like Catholicism, etc. Not mostly due to how recent it is (Mormonism is also relatively recent) but around the facts of how it was formed. It's not an 'open' religion and its ex-members have been murdered by the Church for speaking out against it. That's why it's banned in Germany."
I think that's a totally neutral way I could describe it to my friend. If the first paragraph or two doesn't basically give this impression then it is not very objective, in my opinion. I give the current lead paragraph about a D on the grading scale. It could be worse: but it could also be much, much better.
obviously the church is in an edit war with anyone who wants to reflect a neutral point of view: in my estimation the church must be winning and sane normal editors who want the Encyclopedia to reflect a neutral point of war are losing the battle over the lead of this article: they're just not committed enough, and the Church's POV is winning. I'm not surprised, since the Church has an incentive and lots of money, whereas it seems that neutral editors don't really care about this article or aren't committed to making it good. oh well.
Even if L. Ron Hubbard started Scientology to make money, that in itself does not prove that Scientology is not a religion any more than the Vatican taking in lots of money every year would prove that Catholocism is not a religion. If Scientologists believe in it as a religion, we have no right to tell them otherwise. I would like to point out that the introduction to the article seems to allude to the notion that there may have been something to do with money with the initial founding of the Church of Scientology, and I am certainly not denying that there may be some scary stuff happening with the group (I've heard some stories, but have no evidence either way). If you really want to see a biased article on religion, try looking up Pastafarianism - I seriously doubt that Wikipedia could be convinced to host a completely unbiased article on the religion I choose to follow (I do take it seriously as a religion!). 184.108.40.206 (talk) 00:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Rejection of psychology and psychiatry section
It's far, far too vague. "Exposed" and "abuses" are both overly broad and emotionally loaded when used without context. This could mean anything from clerical errors to torture, and leaving that up to the reader's assumptions to figure out which is absolutely not neutral. Grayfell (talk) 20:41, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
I have just modified 27 external links on Scientology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.