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:
current: Scientology is one of the most controversial new religious movements to have arisen in the 20th century. better, since the 20th Century is over: Scientology is one of the most controversial new religious movements that arose in the 20th century.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 21:22, 29 April 2014
Repeated disruptions and refusal to WP:HEAR by Apokrif
This page is under attack by the account Apokrif who appears to throw every policy over board. The account is deleting content, even sourced content, edit warring and violating WP:BRD. I won't get dragged into any edit war, but I've left a final warning at the user's talk page and hope some other user can restore the page. This is not a content dispute in any way, that Scientology is classified as a "secte" in France is clear in the source (which the vandal-account also deleted). It's just a case of a vandal deleting content based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Jeppiz (talk) 19:58, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
I was wondering whether anyone was going to discuss this on the talk page. I also urge all editors to realize that this article is very very clearly under discretionary sanctions, as per the template at the top of the page. At least one of the arguments that editor has used, to the effect that a parliamentary report is not a sufficient declaration to declare whether a group is counted as a cult, as per here, unusual at best. @Jeppiz:, any reason you haven't taken this to AE yet? John Carter (talk) 20:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
John Carter, I first assumed good faith and assumed the user requested a source. I thought that was a valid argument, which is why I made sure to include the source. When the user then deleted the content and the source, claiming that a French parliamentary report declaring the movement a cult in France wouldn't be a valid source that the movement is considered a cult in France, well, I realized that my good faith attempt was mistaken. I won't get involved in edit warring, but I agree that AE may be the next step. Jeppiz (talk) 20:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
It's always nice to have WP:SECONDARY sources for this kind of thing, especially since government documents are so easy to misinterpret. In this case though, this is a technicality, as Scientology in France has such sources. This one seems like it might be usable to my non-French reading eyes. Grayfell (talk) 21:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm wondering if this section's title may fall under Wikipedia:No personal attacks; perhaps a title like "legal value of French parliamentary reports" would be more relevant(edit:added "alleged" to the title). @Jeppiz:, could you please tell what your sources are on the topic of these reports? In particular, can you cite a source which contradicts this source or (edited to add) that very clear secondary source ("le rapport parlementaire est dépourvu d'effet juridique")? Apokrif (talk) 11:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
I rephrased the article. Note that the source about Germany (the Der Spiegel article) is very vague as to the exact status in Germany; that's exactly the type of approximation or vagueness I try to avoid in Wikipedia articles. Apokrif (talk) 11:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Apokrif, what part of Wikipedia is not a reliable source is it that you don't understand? You can link to 100 French wikipedia articles if you want, and it still doesn't make any difference. You're already on ANI for your refusal to WP:HEAR. Jeppiz (talk) 20:40, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Again: did you ever bother to read the sources I referred you to several times? MIVILUDES is not part of the French Wikipedia - nor (AFAIK) is it in any way linked to any Wikimedia project. Apokrif (talk) 13:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Please someone condense the lede, move Hubbard's life story somewhere below, summarise controversies in one paragraph (no need to go into details, just 3-4 sentences of general nature - so that negative info does not overshadow neutral info), affiliations can safely be listed in the main article body, and so on. Follow guidelines set in WP:LEDE if in doubt. Thanks and regards, kashmiriTALK 16:32, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Fore instance, I think there is to much detail here: "The group's legal classification is often a point of contention. The United States and some other countries have granted the Church 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. See Scientology in France": country-specific info (and the relevant footnotes) could be provided in a specific section or article. Apokrif (talk) 17:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
This is a very big article (over 200 kb) and it only has 4 not particularly long paragraphs which is in keeping with WP:LEDE guidelines. Whether undue weight or excessive detail has been given is a separate issue.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 09:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
The text in this section is confused between tax-exempt status and religious status. Granted, in the US, many religions are tax exempt. But many tax-exempt organizations in the US are not religions, and some religions do not apply for tax exempt status through the IRS because of the hassle and legal hurdles. Other countries do not have the same rules and Wikipedia should not be making presumptions. In Sweden, recognized religions are not just tax-exempt, they are tax supported. I advocate that tax-exempt status and religious status be separated in this article. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 00:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Doesn't the CoS own the trademark on "Scientology"? While I agree that the distinction is worth acknowledging, sources and the article on the Free Zone (Scientology) make it clear that the Church of Spiritual Technology owns that name. This seems less like Christianity and the Vatican and more like Kleenex and facial tissue, or Xerox and photocopying. Know of any sources that specifically deal with government recognition of independent groups? Grayfell (talk) 02:03, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
The article states, "While Scientology generally refers to Miscavige-led Church of Scientology, many other groups practice Scientology." We have to be consistent. Either "Scientology" is synonymous and congruent with "Church of Scientology," or it is not. You now claim it is, but the article states it is not. If it is, there should be only one page on the subject, but consensus has ruled there should be two pages, one for "Scientology" and another for the "Church of Scientology." Government recognition of independent Scientology groups is completely irrelevant to the issue. Since our sources state that other groups practice "Scientology," we would be wrong to state that "Scientology" is synonymous with "Church of Scientology." Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 04:31, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm not taking a firm stand here, I'm pointing out the discrepancy. Many other groups practice Scientology, but they don't actually call it "Scientology" (usually). Regardless of the reasons, that is a legitimate cause for confusion. I don't think Free Zone is the main reason there are two articles here. Even though there is much overlap between the church and the religion, they are still treated differently enough by sources to be distinct articles, regardless of how "official" the CoS is or claims to be.
I have no particular opposition to moving the section to the CoS article, but sources are the deciding factor. If there are no sources discussing any distinction between the church and the indie groups regarding government recognition, then I tentatively support that move. Tax issues are presumably about churches as financial organizations, while non-tax government recognition is a bit more complicated and needs to be broken down on a case-by-case basis. If there aren't plenty of sources about non-tax related recognition, I'm not sure if it's going to make the article clearer by giving it its own section. Grayfell (talk) 05:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Let's try again. This section is headed, "Scientology as a tax-exempt organization." Scientology is not, according to our own words and our own sources, an organization. The Church is an organization. The subject is not. Our sources say it is not. Wikipedia says it is not -- it has two pages: on for the subject ("Scientology") and another for the organization ("Church of Scientology"). This section is confused. Let's get some agreement on that, then move onto the second point of confusion. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 05:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, good points. I'm asking if you or anyone else knows of any sources discussing tax-exempt status for none CoS Scientologists. This would be an interesting and potentially valuable thing to add to the article, if it exists. If it doesn't exist, or there's something I'm missing, I support moving the section to the Church of Scientology article.
As for the second issue, taxes are, in this situation, an organizational issue. My understanding is that religious status may potentially involve individuals, which makes this more complicated. This can involve issues of time-off for religious observances, conscientious objection, marriage, etc., so I think we need reliable sources to go any further. Grayfell (talk) 05:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Grayfell. The second problem with the text in this section is a presumption that tax-exempt == recognized religion and recognized religion == tax exempt. Planned Parenthood is tax exempt, but few would call it a religion. Some religions are not tax-exempt because they have not applied for 501c(3) status with the IRS -- they don't believe in it. But in the United States, religions do not have to be recognized and registered to be religions. Tax-exempt status has some relation to the subject of government recognition, but it is not synonymous as this text implies. Religions existed and had a place in the US Constitution and US law long before the IRS existed. Other countries have structures not even similar. The text is confused -- and, well, ignorant. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 15:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Support I agree that Scientology the tax-exempt organization is a different organization than Scientology the religion. Mostly this is logic based on a legalism. 26 U.S.C.§ 501(c)(3) refers to "Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation [..] organized and operated exclusively for religious [..] purposes [...]". While a religion may be a corporation (or a corporation a religion), arguably, this article clearly states in the lede that this article is not about any corporation, community chest, fund, or foundation. So any reference to a 501(c)(3) organization must be referring to something other than what this article is speaking to. What these references are referring to when they say "Scientology" is likely ambiguous and will be hard to straighten out 100%, but I think it's safe to say it's the Church of Scientology.
Now, that's only for US law based on the lede of this article. It is arguable that a religion can be a corporation, and that a corporation can be a religion. It's arguable that other countries tax religions, by making anyone who holds certain beliefs to pay taxes or something, maybe by arguing that those legal systems consider such believers to be part of a corporation. Such arguments can be handled separately; for this lede, for this country, such material should be moved to the Church article. Int21h (talk) 03:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Which redacted an obvious cheap shot and/or expression of ignorance. Obviously I'm not going to defend this subject, perhaps the showcase example of the fact that a religion is a false belief system. Tactics like this don't help this thing and you look rabid calling me a Vandal, making 180 counterfactual statements. Lycurgus (talk) 17:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
I am familiar with those policies. It appears I've been editing here several years before you created the Jeppiz account. None of those is applicable to the edit in question. If the POV you're pushing is denouncing Scientology, and especially if as a result of being a former member, then this behavior would make sense. The sense of "cult" that I was trying to clarify is made clear in the lede of that article. Let's leave it here, as I said, not going to defend my edits here, it's sufficient that the record shows this exchange. Lycurgus (talk) 09:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2015
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
in the first paragraph, the word 'and" is in duplicate several sentences down. LuChemist (talk) 21:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Old: 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). the Netherlands,Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).
Oppose: Since "Scientology" and the "Church of Scientology" are two different pages in WP, let us adhere to our own distinctions. Scientology is a subject. It cannot act, and it has nothing to win or lose. The Church of Scientology is a legal entity. It goes to court, makes arguments, collects fees, delivers services, makes statements, and pays or does not pay taxes. In the same way, "Christianity" never appears in court. Various churches do, but Christianity does not. Please take these tax issues to the Church of Scientology page. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 18:50, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
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)
Perhaps you should consider adding the Epsilon Program parody of Scientology from GTA V to the pop culture section — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 02:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)