This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Surely this doesn't warrant its own article. Condense it a little and insert the remaining material into the main Scientology article. If I was to open a hard-copy encyclopedia I wouldn't expect to find the main Scientology article in a different section to "beliefs and practices". These Scientology articles are getting out of control.-- Grinning Idiot 14:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
what does an "asparagus can" can look like? - 195.92.101.11
its read and green and spreads all over? - Terryeo 09:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Churches of Scientology are open to the public from about 10 Am in the morning until about 10 PM at night. This is, count them, 12 hours a day and they run week ends too. During that time classes are taught. Auditing is delivered. Two shifts of personal (called staff) run two independent organizations in the same building to make this schedule work. That is Busy. It is not "rare churches here and there" and it is not "Some Churches" but it is "Churches of Scientology are busy places." If you choose to learn this by your own experience, feel free at any time to enter any Church of Scientology and ask for a tour. If you refuse to accept this obvious, simple straightforeward statement I would be glad to quote you policy that specifies hours a Church is to be open to the public. What's the problem with "Churches of Scientology are busy places?" Terryeo 03:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
This article is garbage. It doesnt mention anything about the numerous lawsuits threats and intimidation that the 'church' has perpetrated on people. This article is truly a pathetic example of a case in which the principles of wikipedia have utterly failed, in that a dedicated well-off upper middle class cult with a lot of people with a lot of free time can systematically conspire to commit censorship by the sheer volume and tenacity of their attempts to edit the page over and over and over and explode bombs into the ocean of truth as though to vaporize it forever.
i can only hope that some day the rains of justice will fall again and those injured by the cult will see the day when the principles of wikipedia can once again return to the field and win again.
Wikipedia is not a scandal sheet. Wikipedia articles are not to be sensational. Attempts to make them more rather than less so goes directly in the face of what wikipedia is supposed to be. Smarter brains than mine will hopefully site and link the policy refs that say in other words exactly what I'm saying here. Thaddeus Slamp 02:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
The fact of the matter is that Scientologists "religiously" hunt down and remove bad PR stuff anywhere it can be found and in any way they can. Wikipedia is an especially easy place for them to forward such activity and control. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.103.170.172 ( talk) 07:34, August 20, 2007 (UTC)
This isn't the place to argue over what Scientology has or has not done. If something has a cite and it is appropriate then put it in. However it seems to me that unless the lawsuit has to do with what Scientologists believe then it belongs at a different article. Cerevox ( talk) 06:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I have gone and reorganized the page more logically, so that items involving politics and belief, are all sub group together. I have added a section on Scientology Holidays, and done other shuffling around. I think that you will agree that the re-organization works well, although, you might want to add in more of your own favorite bits.
All the stuff involving the Tech I have reorganized, and collected together under the topic of the Modern System of Auditing. There are certain missing bits of data that I have included, because without them, it is like understanding the USA without discussing certain major historical events.
The "past lives" section severely needs to be rewritten to include both points of view. Right now it states the Scientologist view of things as if it were fact, that "in auditing, a Scientologist is helping a person recover, bit by bit, their own immortality." Needlessly to say, it should also discuss the other possibility: that in auditing, a Scientologist is giving undue credence to imaginary fantasies that never happened in this life or any other. - 4.156.84.53
First, who I am: I'm the guy that deleted a sentence on the E-Meter, had it reverted, reverted it back, and then saw it converted to a different form, all within the 7/15-7/16 period. Hiya. =) The reason I mention this is because I hadn't created a login at that time, so otherwise you'd never know it was me.
The reason I made the edit was that I had re-read the article several times, and something kept nagging at me each time, and finally I saw that that sentence was just stuck at the end, bald, as if someone had wanted to make sure that fact got in there and didn't really care whether it fit with the paragraph or the article. After a lot of thought, I had to conclude that it had little to do with the article topic, and that is why I finally removed that sentence (even though personally I would like that fact, and others that point to Scientology's profit-hungry nature, to be known to more people.)
I appreciate that JamesMLane stopped the edit war and put in the context to explain why that factoid was there. But after a similar period of waiting and re-viewing and reconsidering the article, I have to say it still feels like the same thing: like a fact that someone wanted in there, regardless of whether or not it was relevant.
Do we have any reliable estimates of just what the parts and labor cost of an E-Meter is? I think we can all agree it's nowhere close to $4000, but if we had some reliable estimate, the same fact could be phrased to highlight its relevance to the context (for instance "Critics argue that it is the $3500 profit margin on every E-Meter, rather than any value it may have as a counseling tool, that causes the church to deem it an absolutely necessary purchase.") That goes more directly, I think, to the article topic.
In a similar vein, the sentences I moved about "modern meters" and their "1024 levels of sensitivity" seem to be much the same thing, albeit from the other side: someone wanted the information in there despite it being only tangentially relevant to the article topic. I did not feel comfortable editing them out immediately, however, so I only moved them to a more appropriate paragraph. I'd like it if we could either make those more directly relevant or, if not, eliminate them. (The "1024 levels of sensitivity" only seem relevant in that Hubbard never tested a control group -- so whether 1, 100, or 1000 levels of sensitivity separate a reading of mental tension from a reading of unenturbulated froopiness is, once again, purely a religious dogma draped in the apparel of science.) -- Antaeus Feldspar
User:67.180.61.179 made an edit to the article that I found a little surprising, saying that:
The reason I find this surprising is that it doesn't match my experience. In my experience (and I don't claim for one minute that mine is the widest experience on this matter) Scientology texts intended for non-Scientologists generally do use Scientology terms, but actually draw attention to the fact that they are doing so, and use the opportunity to explain LRH's belief that one cannot proceed past a word one does not understand. Thus, it wouldn't be true that the readers of the text "would have no way of knowing what [the terms] mean."
Can you cite examples of Scientology texts intended for non-Scientologist audiences, that use Scientology terms and don't explain them? -- Antaeus Feldspar 08:18, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Introspection Rundown and Lisa McPherson now exist. Both are rewrites of Jeff Jacobsen articles. Useful here? - David Gerard 13:30, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I removed the following passages of text from the article to the talk page today:
=== a comment ===
One notes the similarity of the idea of a "memory bank" to the way 1960's computers are structured. Dianetics, in its original form, would seem to be yet another attempt to understand the brain in terms of the technology of the day - just as in Newtonian times, people tried to interpret the brain as a " lens" which somehow "focused" knowlege.
It is becoming more and more clear that the brain does not work anything like this, that memory does not lie in a "reactive mind", but is everywhere and nowhere in the brain. Religious dogma usually has trouble keeping up with science. See chaos theory, emergent systems.
and:
While I think some good points are hiding in there, they're not very focused and they're not in encyclopedic form. Perhaps someone can rework them to be a bit more acute? -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:14, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I don't think the two links you added can be classified as "neutral", Nuview. They're clearly taking information coming from the Church at face value, like "Based on the belief that you cannot free yourself spiritually without working to free others, Scientology has founded and supports many organizations for social betterment, particularly in the areas of drug abuse, crime, psychiatric abuse, government abuse of law, human rights, religious freedom, education, and morality." In fact, both of them are repeating basically identical information; I can only find one sentence that is different from one to the other. You can't call them "neutral" just because they aren't acknowledging that there is any controversy. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:36, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
4.247.200.61 made the following changes, among others:
removed from a description of the manifestations of entheta that Hubbard proposed:
If anyone can confirm that Hubbard did indeed propose entities, they should go back in. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:05, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hubbard promoted the Purification Rundown as a treatment and cure for a great number of physical ailments ranging from drug addiction to radiation contamination (though many of these claims have been questioned by doctors, scientists, and members of the medical profession).
Environmental toxins, including radiation, and drugs. That simple.
Can anyone document any doctors, scientists, or members of the medical profession who have offered evidence to support the claims made for the Purif? There aren't any mentioned in the Purification Rundown article (which, incidentally, is where most of this information should be going...) -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:16, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
The purif materials contain @ least 1 medical evaluation. Check Narcanon, and Clear Body, Clear Mind as well. There might be some there.
I organized the material according to
There has nothing been deleted except two redundant section titles.
Also I added several hidden titles which also need to be taken up in this article, e.g. creed, study tech, relation to eastern religions.
-- Irmgard 19:53, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
User 141.154.87.251 has almost completely rewritten large sections of this article. It seems much more POV to me now... ( Entheta 18:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC))
It's a huge article. What would good sub-article splits be? Ronabop 11:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I have removed for discussion the portion of that heading which I believe to be original research. It is was not cited in the article and I believe it is unciteable, except perhaps by a lot of arguement in a court of law. If you can find a verification for this:
Then we can appropriate add it to the text and place it in the article once again per Wikipedia:No original research. More specifically, what source of information states the RTC has pejoratively dehumanized anyone? And secondly, the last statement is a conclusion with no possible verification because you and I both know the RTC doesn't make that sort of statement. Which would mean you must find some outside-the-RTC source which draws that conclusion. Then you could post that cited source of information along with that information. Cite and post, Cite and post, rather than "hint and post, hint and post". Terryeo 16:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
The point being taken is: the word "squirrel" somehow dehumanizes certain persons? How so? If so, when, what does the person feel when addressed as "Hey you! Squirrel!" and stuff. As stated it is just rumor or misunderstanding or something. What inherently dehumanizes a person, a word like squirrel? You gotta be kidding, right? Terryeo 00:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
"However, many point out that the Church has itself introduced changes to Hubbard's Scientology, such as the "patter drills" introduced in 1995, and cite this as an indication that the Church is more worried about losing its position as the only source of 'true' Scientology than in keeping Scientology true to Hubbard."
Terryeo ( talk · contribs) expressed a belief that one of the two above statements was untrue -- either that the Church introduced changes to Hubbard's Scientology, or that critics of the Church point to their changes to Hubbard's Scientology as a clue to their real interests. However, he failed to identify which of these statements he thought untrue, and he failed to follow the correct procedure outlined at Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute, instead ripping both statements out of the article entirely. I am therefore fixing his error by following the recommended WP:AD procedure. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
((User|Antaeus Feldspar)) created information without verification. His statement: "Many point out that the Church has ..." was and is unverified, Following appropriate Wiki Policy I cut the portion (which I know to be untrue and in my own estimation, unverifiable) from the article and placed it here in the discussion page. Antaeus Feldspar did then willingly refuse to cite the information or even to discuss the information's verifiability but instead reposted it into the article. Whereupon I once again cut it from the article and since he refused discussion here, posted a full explanation on his User talk page which he apparently pays a little attention to. The Lines in dispute are poorly written even if verifiable because the introduce without definition the brand new (to the article) term "patter drill" which he doesn't define, doesn't verify and, again, my opinion, is a statement included from ignorance and verges on slander. While Antaeus Feldspar now, at this time, seems to be following apprpriate Wiki Policy, it was only after a good deal of effort that he even deigned to notice his posts are subject to exactly the same scrutiny as everyone else's are. The Wikipedia:No original research applies to him as much as it does to anyone else. He too must follow Wikipedia:Verifiability as everyone else must. A NPOV can not be obtained when persons say from personal experience without any verifying information: "Many point out that ...." It is not valid information without a verifiying source of such information. "Patter Drills," if introduced, must be defined to have any meaning to the article, else it creates a confusion for the reader. Antaeus might know what patter drills are, or he might have heard it from a friend. Or he might just be introducing his opinion as original research. Whatever the actual situation is, no part of his disputed lines of text expose the source of that slanderous attitude and they should have stated out right the source of that information. That he insists on dispute, rather than the more obvious and ethical citing a source as per Wikipedia:NPOV says a great deal about his treatment of his fellow editors. Terryeo 04:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
A second, separate dispute and this involves Antaeus Feldspar's mentioned Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute as it applies to the Article's "Patter Drill" area. The specific statement I dispute the accuracy of is:
Patter drills Patter drills were added to most Scientology training courses beginning in mid-1995. The technique of these drills is, while seated facing a wall, read a section of course material and then look up at the wall and speak that section to the wall. Such drills have no validation outside the Church of Scientology, and in fact, any such drills were advised against by L. Ron Hubbard in his policy letter dated 16 April 1965 issue II "Drills, Allowed".
and my reason for disputing the accuracy of the article's statement is because that policy letter spells out cleanly and without doubt it is to apply to "Practical Drills" and it spells out specifically what Practical Drills will be allowed. Whomever created this article's portion about Patter Drills is inaccurate in the sense, they have misunderstood that Hubbard Communication Policy Letter's application. It applies to Practical Drills while Patter Drills are Theory Drills. The person who misunderstands that both "practical" and "patter" begin with the letter "p" but do not mean the same thing has been inaccuarte in understanding that Patter Drills are Practical Drills. They are not. They are Theory Drills and that policy letter does not apply to Patter Drills. Thus, the article is inaccurate. It needs to be rewritten and the Citation, HCOPL 16 April 1965 Issue II must be removed. My source of information is the quote I made from that policy letter "Practical Drills" and my understanding of CoS's disambiguation of "theory" and "practical." Further, I have myself done these drills, variously, and know them to not be Practical Drills, but to be Theory Drills, about the theory of certain informations. An example in point is the ways in which a word can be misunderstood, that is one of the Patter Drills, all of which are Theory Drills. Terryeo 06:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I have therefore removed the totally false section of that article. That portion of that article which might be valid I have placed here. if someone can cite a published source which states this:
Then it can happily go back into the article. Untill it is cited it is the sort of statement which Wikipedia:Citing_sources#When_to_cite_sources spells out clearly, and how to deal with such statements when they appear in an article. Specifically it states: "Avoid the use of weasel words such as 'Some people say ...' (in this case - a number of memebers have been punished-) What number have been punished for reporting? What did they report? How did the RTC punish them? What controversy is there about those Theory Drills? Terryeo 09:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
The section of the article entitled Standard Tech has this information:
Further, I removed from the article under that heading and place here for verification pending its return into the article:
Finally I removed this from that section.
Terryeo, you cannot, cannot, cannot criticize previous edits of this article in the course of the article itself, nor can you use the text of the article to call to task other editors who you disagree with. Since you are SO fond of citing Wikipedia rules, I KNOW you know better than to do this, so this qualifies as near-vandalism. Hopefully your temper will cool down and you will not repeat such an error in judgment. It's a shame, because SOME of the information you added was genuinely useful, but you need to provide sources. And I know you know that, too. wikipediatrix 02:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Terryeo habitually makes other editors wrong if he disagrees with them. He violates a wikipedia policy, then accuses you of what he did. He seems to have all the attributes of an Suppressive person.-- Fahrenheit451 03:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
We had hit 54K of article, and since auditing is a pretty big subject, I moved the text over. I'll need help with wikifying, references, etc. Ronabop 06:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
For example: Scientology church leaders receive comparatively modest salaries and nothing to approach evangelicals like Billy Graham, Benny Hinn or Joyce Meyers. The majority of donations received go to promotional and expansion activities, as well as routine operational expenses. Church Leader David Miscavage has been said to have a yearly salary of aproximately $50,000 (US dollars).
This is a defensively-written attempted refutation of an argument that is not actually present. Billy Graham has nothing whatsoever to do with this article. Someone needs to clean this article up, it reads like an advertisement for Scientology.
And who is the moron who put (disputed - see talk page) in the body of the article? Colonel Mustard 17:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
The reference cited is to the site of a known critic, someone posting unverified information and allegations. The references used are newsgroups, and quotes from a divergent group. Not a credible source of information. As covered before, the “controversy” here is manufactured.
Also removing the sentence above, it is an opinion and it doesn’t even apply to religious beliefs. Ever try to hold up Christian theology to the doctrine of falsifiability? It serves no purpose to go there – especially since the critical view is well represented already. California guy 14:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Just my little bit. Scientology staff members are paid weekly a percentage of church income. Non-staff members pretty much only outflow money, but have a much easier time getting auditing, since staff members are considered pragmatically to not have cases, they get what get can. They get no set amount of money, but receive their portion of earnings on a weekly basis. Field staff members get a percentage of what they themselves are able to earn, basically. There may be exceptions about which I am ignorant, in fact thats my bet.
Thaddeus Slamp 02:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
According to WP:Vandalism, "Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content, made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia." BTfromLA's edits weren't anything like that, to me, and were clearly labeled. (I would have called it trimming the fat, which it really needs.) Could the word vandalism be reserved for actual deliberate vandalism like block deletions, "YO D0UG RULZ!", or hamburger spokesman replacement edits? If someone disagrees with a change, they should say so. AndroidCat 16:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Which is exactly why I reversed these changes. They did no good to the article, while impugning on the integrity of previous text. If there had been good stuff in it, I might have taken the pains of a more serious editing and rephrasinfg. Since a) previous text was perfectly good, b) new text added nothing of worth and actually diminished the article, and c) I had nothing special to add... just do the math. Vandalism may not have been editor's intent, but bad editing a highly sensitive article is as bad. -- Svartalf 17:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- An integral part of the Bridge is what is known as Standard Tech. Hubbard's effort was to ensure total comprehension of his work, and to see that his writings and instructions were fully, correctly, and competently applied. As a result of this effort, Hubbard developed what became known as the system of Standard Tech. Standard Tech is the system developed and codified by Hubbard in the 1960s at his home at Saint Hill in England. These writings, which are looked upon as scripture in Scientology, are officially known as "Training and Auditing Technology," although among Scientologists, Hubbard's technical writings are referred to as Standard Tech or simply The Tech. They include not only auditing procedures, but also include materials governing training, and the administration of a fully operational Scientology facilty.
- Standard Tech, according to Scientology, must always be delivered to Scientologists in its pure form. As the developer of the Tech, Hubbard himself is referred to as Source, and his writings are considered the only true source of the Tech.
- However, since Hubbard's death and his replacement by successor David Miscavige, there have been many subtle and not-so-subtle alterations and omissions from Hubbard's texts and even recordings. These altered texts in Scientology doctrine have caused controversy both inside and outside the Church, especially among Free Zone practitioners. [4]
- Among Scientologists, Hubbard's technical writings are referred to as "Standard Tech" or simply "The Tech." These writings (and taped lectures) include not only auditing procedures, but also materials governing training and the administration of a fully operational Scientology facility. As the developer of the Tech, Hubbard himself is referred to as "Source," and his utterances are considered the sole and definitive source of the Tech.
- "Standard Tech" describes the methods by which Hubbard's instructions are fully, correctly, and competently applied, which is to say that they are transmitted without any deviation from Hubbard's original intentions.
- Since Hubbard's death, the Church of Scientology has issued versions of some of Hubbard's texts and recordings containing alterations or omissions with respect to their original versions. These altered texts in Scientology doctrine have been a subject of controversy, especially among Free Zone practitioners, who allege that the current Church management is deviating from Standard Tech. [4]
So it seems I'm the only one with my opinion? Let it stay that way then. -- Svartalf 20:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Please take a look at the "past lives" subsection of this article. It's a mess, and I'm hard pressed to find anything important in there that isn't covered elsewhere in the article. I'm tempted to remove the whole section, then if it seems that more details about the "whole track" are needd, we can start from scratch. Opinions? BTfromLA 02:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd appreciate it if Scientologist wikipedians would explain to TheFarix and Orsini that the page " Scientology Public Relations" is an obvious attack on Scientology by the vandal Lord Xenu.
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientology Public Relations for the discussion. These users have both falsely accused me of making personal attacks when I pointed out that this user is a vandal. Thanks, Republitarian 18:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I am removing the below again. I know that there is sourcing that criticizes Scn use of jargon and I do not dispute that there is well-sourced criticism on that. The below inclusion however, and the intimation that Hubbard knowingly is committing "Propaganda by Redefinition of Words", is a non-RS concept and one that critics advance with no backing other than their own opinions on non-RS sites. The below infomation might have a place in an article on Hubbard's writing on propaganda but it has no place in a section on Scn jargon. Not to mention that, IMO, it goes well beyond "fair use" but that is not the point.
Hubbard's commentary on " Propaganda by Redefinition of Words" has been taken by critics to explain his use of language as follows:
Supporters of Hubbard claim citation needed that these writings of Hubbard should be interpreted as a statement of his loathing of and criticism of the technique for selfish, manipulative ends. Critics point out, however, that Hubbard openly states it to be "necessary" to employ the same "propaganda technique" he has just decried in the hands of others, stating that it is the "ultimate objective" that determines whether the technique is good or bad -- affirming a belief that the ends justify the means.
-- Justanother 15:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Since E = MC2, this means that Energy is Matter and therefore the "ME" in "MEST" is redundant and therefore MEST should actually be called "EST". Doh! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.187.32.71 ( talk) 19:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC).
Yes. Matter was more of a formality, of sorts. Hubbard has lectures in which he refers to it as space time and energy. Thaddeus Slamp 01:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
besides variouse rundowns, introductory processes and assists may be run @ any time, tho cos scientologists should not use them if they intend to take courses or receive more formal auditing or courses soon, since, theoretically, this interferes w/measuring case gain. Basically ipa's include any of the thousands of processes hubbard invented, as long as not later cancelled like " terrible trio"(I'm almost positive that process was discontinued) for instance, and processes that are part of the bridge. In fact a cos may practice outside practices, such as yoga, as long as he takes a break from the bridge for a while. I beleive he/she must talk to the d of p before doing other practices or non-bridge actionsthings Hope to provide links. Thaddeus Slamp 01:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC) Thaddeus Slamp 01:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
The tone scale has 2 divisions. Minus emotion is said to begin below antagonism (2.0). This is from when the tone scale bottomed out @ 0.0, and is still important in auditing, as 1 should not end a session untill @ least + emotion has been achieved. Body death is said to be a tone, so below body death (0.0=body death) is the other main division. One might also add emotions above 4.0 (enthusiasm), as these are above body life (this evaluation is my wording). Scientologists "beleive" that a person can still be alive, tho their tone is below body death. I put quotes around beleive, becouse part of the "conspiracy against scientology" is to fail to emphasise how important hubbard considered it to be that (in his own words) "whats true for you is true for you" (YMMV, as we say on the net). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thaddeus Slamp ( talk • contribs) 01:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC).
C'mon people! This section of the article is just wrtetched! I can't even begin to explain why! It's that BAD!! What research, citation frigging needed for crying out loud! There, that's a start —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thaddeus Slamp ( talk • contribs) 03:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC). The following is aproximately how I would approach the ethics section of this article (this is quick and dirty): Hubbard had about 3 to 4 takes on ethics: 1)The greatest good for the greatest # of dynamics (This is perhaps the most important scientology ethics concept. It is part of the "formula" for the condition of doubt which is germain to 4 below, is 1 reasaon I think so.) . 2) A thetan has it's own native state (scientology) ethics. Hubbard never went to far into this. I would guess, becouse such is SO personal. 3) Either the advanced dianetics axioms, or the scientology axioms (I forgits which), defined ethics as: "the exact estimation of effort"(I am 99.9% sure that that is an exact quote). Hubbard adressed this even lesss, and I think this may be related enough to 2 above, that it does merit not seperate mention). 4)Contrasted with justice, which is other-determined, ethics is self-determined action, to get ones discipline in (scientology). This last is the subject of about 10 blue volumes. The " Ethics vols", most of which are " blue on white" (blue print on white paper), and might have better been named the ethics and justice vols, as they contain both. The most important, of these that also fit into the subset of ethics data that seems possibly helpful to beginners, are collected in the book An Introduction to Scientology Ethics. There is a course @ the bottom of the bridge called the ethics course. Thaddeus Slamp 16:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC) P.S.: OOPS. 2 other things that might bear mentioning: 1) The only purpose of ethics and policy, is to get tech in. 2)Ethics contrasted w/morality. Ethics is the study of right and wrong, while morals are right and wrong "round these here parts". Thaddeus Slamp
One section of the article says that church officials acknowledge that some doctrine is secret.
Whats being demoted is that most scientology is open. Scientology is not a secret society. Need I say more? Thaddeus Slamp 03:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeagh; self-auditing. This sort of demand is @ least similar, if not identical, to demands made in many disciplined activities. "Cross that bridge when I come to it", you know. Thaddeus Slamp 16:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Some mention might be made of rites and ceremonies. There was a book published in about 54 called Rites and Ceremonies of the Founding Church (I think that was it's title) and I beleive Hubbard wrote it. Thaddeus Slamp 03:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Scientologist believes that Scientology should be studied by studying the original texts and that any second hand explanations of Scientology are an alteration of Scientology. As a Scientologist I'm tempted with editing this page but that would be equal for me to alter the tech. So I would limit my self to provide links. I would also like to ad a comment in the intro stating that "Scientologist believes that Scientology should be studied from the original texts and that any second hand explanations of Scientology are an alteration of Scientology. The church of Scientology doesn't approve of any of the explanation in this page." I would really appreciate if you guys respect this. Afinity Warrior 03:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
How can this be a complete article of Scientology Beliefs without even mentioning Xenu (Xemu). Let's get it together guys!
I realize that the "Differentiation, Association and Identification" chapter takes up an enormous chunk of Scientology 8-8008, but is it really major enough to go here? Especially stretched out in the unnecessarily-taking-up-space manner of giving each of the three its own separate subheader. Also, Bravehartbear, I see you've got the 2007 edition - can you add the specific page number to your citation? I can't seem to find the "dog bite me" bit in my 1990 edition. wikipediatrix 22:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I would like to divide this page in two for sizing. One page for believes and another page for practices. Bravehartbear 07:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
"An individual spiritual being in Scientology is called a Thetan." This statement opens new questions: What exactly is the individual spiritual being / thetan? Do I have this, or is it the person itself? What is the „I“ of man? Definition 5, Dianetics & Scientology Technical Dictionary: „The personality and beingness which actually is the individual and is aware of being aware and is ordinarily and normally the „person“ and who the individual thinks he his.“ I put this defintion into the articel, chapter „spirit“. Any disagreements? Wolfgang 89.15.156.168 ( talk) 11:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
The complete lack of 3rd party references to any data on this article warrants deletion. I've talked to other churches and organizations that were deleted because of their lack of 3rd party references. There should be no discrimination. Yes, they are an organization of note. However, anything without a 3rd party notation should be removed.
I see hints of this in the section on secret writings, but IMHO I don't think it's spelled out enough: Scientology's beliefs on learning include the concept of a "gradient": breaking down a complicated idea into smaller pieces so that someone who could not grasp the whole idea at once can learn it piece by piece. This is not unique to Scientology; what is the assertion that any piece out of order can actually be mentally (and thus by Scientology's beliefs physically) harmful to the would-be learner.
Under this doctrine, Scientologists must therefore surpress information that is "too advanced" for the information-seeker -- for their own good, of course! This explains notable contradictions in what Scientology professes as its beliefs and practices, such as professing to the public that Scientology is compatible with all other religions when OT III teaches that God and the Devil are merely implants. The Scientologist would say that approaching information on a gradient keeps people from being confused, but the critic would say that it keeps people from being able to evaluate what Scientology is telling them in any context except the one Scientology has planned for them.
There's some out of place verbiage in the "Verbal Tech" section. The third paragraph has a fairly overt slam on Wikipedia ("online encyclopedias, which often have a variety of errors, distortions, omissions, and sometimes are even plainly or comically wrong to anyone with actual expertise in the subject") and the fourth paragraph seems like an attempt to tack on more material (with a slightly pro-Scientology slant) to the article without properly incorporating it into the existing material. Thoughts? -- 67.50.35.176 on Aug 3 2005
Removed comment about critics views of Scientologists leisure time.
Removing this Series Template from across the Scientology related pages. This is not correct usage of Series Templates per the guidelines. They were set up to show the history of countries and were different articles form a sequential series. This is not the case with the Scientology pages, which are random pages on different topics – not a sequence of any kind. Wiki’s definition of a series is: “In a general sense, a series is a related set of things that occur one after the other (in a succession) or are otherwise connected one after the other (in a sequence).” Nuview, 15:20, 10 January 2006 (PST)
Could we get some info about "contact assists" here from someone that knows about them please?
Security Check Children is marked for deletion. Because it will probably deleted, here's the text - maybe you'd want to include it here.
In
Scientology, the Security Check Children is a
security checking
auditing procedure designed to be applied to children aged 6 to 12.
L. Ron Hubbard, founder of Scientology, issued the security check as HCO Bulletin of
21 September
1961, also known as HCO WW Security Form 8.
The child is put on the E-meter, holding a can (the electrode of the E-meter) in each hand. If a question gives a read on the E-meter, the child is questioned further as to the reason for the read.
The procedure runs through 99 questions. It starts:
The procedure is usually applied to children of members of the Sea Org, the paramilitary organisation (run along Navy lines) that runs Scientology.
HCOB 21 September 1961 is currently published in the Red Volumes, vol IV, p378.
References
[[Category:Scientology beliefs and practices]]
Here's a rambling section that may include a few nuggets worth re-incorporating, but it seemed so weak that I took the liberty of excising the whole thing:
Churches of Scientology are busy places. Courses are taught days, evenings and weekends. Auditing goes on during many of a church's public hours. This is a contrast to the Sunday Church Service found in many Christian Churches. Scientology is an applied spiritual philosophy based on Mr. Hubbard's writings (perhaps as many as 25 million words); thus, education is a key element of what goes on in Scientology Churches. Parishoners can attend Sunday Service, though this has no special merit in Scientology scriptures. They often study auditing part time or full time in the evenings, weekends, or during the day. Introductory courses usually run from a day or evening to a few weeks. Part-time students of professional level courses maintain a schedule of 12.5 hours per week, while full time students might be in class as much as 10 hours a day, 7 days a week. They will often take part in a variety of groups and church activities, including artist associations, charity events and anti-drug crusades, among others.
Scientologists do not have any dietary restrictions, aside from good sense and cultural preferences. They are not opposed to modern medicine (excluding psychiatry), can receive blood transfusions, and receive routine medical care. A person is encouraged to maintain health using good sense. Parishioners must seek medical treatment for medical conditions before being accepted for spiritual counseling.
They are outspoken against the use of street drugs. There is no specific prohibition against social use of alcohol, as Hubbard himself mentions use as a young man. However, alcohol abuse is a concern. There are no particular prohibitions against hair coloring, music styles or body piercings. Maintaining good appearance is considered an exercise in good manners. In the Sea Org, perfume and even perfumed soaps or washing powders are frowned upon, especially in areas dealing with service to the public.
There are no specific daily rituals or prayers.
There are two opposing viewpoints in this, and some cleaning up (and fact-checking) needs to be done. There's the official Scientology line (unsourced, but presumably it's official) that Scientologists are able to worship God as he/she wishes. The other one is saying that the Scientologists don't let initiates worship God of any form. Can we get some sourcing of this? Because if it can be substantiated, it can stay.
Current paragraph: "Scientology acknowledges the existence of a Supreme Being and believes perception and worship of God is a personal matter. The Church of Scientology is non-denominational. Scientologists worship God as they choose to.
Scientologists who are undergoing auditing during the pre-clear and OT levels are forbidden from practicing any other religion. Also, the upper OT levels teach that belief in god is a result of implants received during the Xenu incident.
Thats not really whats being said. In general Hubbard was trying to fix what he felt to be booby-traps in religion. This goes all the way back to 52, @ least. Hubbard felt that beleif in a supreme being was implanted (not that there wasn't a supreme being, but that certain habbits of thought about it were implanted), and that auditing clears away ones tendency to fall into these booby-traps. Any Scientologist who professes a belief in god(s) and practices rites of a faith other than Scientology would likely be declared a suppressive person."
No. Much more seriouse offenses would have to be committed for that. In fact, I don't know of any other cosequences than that 1 would not be allowed to get further courses or processing for a bit, if they are thought to have engaged in practices that might alter case-gain measurement, either by helping case gain, or harming it (the latter is considered much worse an action, of course). Thaddeus Slamp 02:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
As of now, it's non-NPOV, but also deleting any legitimate criticism of Scientology is equally non-NPOV
Lifthrasir1 04:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
This section starts off arbitrarilly, and is clearly there so that the author may exercise a sensationalistic rant. Why should the first sentence of a section on auditor training say that an auditor is expected to be expert in the use of his e-meter.
You know much auditing w/ no emeter @ all has been conducted during the GRAND majority of scientology history. There is a course called the introductory processes and assists that has many non-metered auditing routines for use. One still learns non-metered auditing in the introductory dianetics course as well. Also, book one (auditing the way taught in Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health) auditing is done w/no meters.
How can you call that fair and balanced?
"Serously, scientology is a joke... a waste of money and a fraud." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.108.85.244 ( talk) 02:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I do subscribe to this position. It's not fair and balance. It is a scientology promo —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
84.221.84.58 (
talk) 20:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
The fact that the initial introductory paragraphs do not mention anything of scientology's space opera beliefs, which are core to the whole "religion", is a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.104.214 ( talk) 21:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree this article is not neutral and does not mention any of the controversy surrounding it or any verifiable claims-- Seraphimraziel ( talk) 13:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I've been reading through the scientology articles for the first time in over 6 months, and I have found the complete lack of neutrality to be disturbing. These articles read like something from a pro-scientology website and need to have the mentioned controversies added. Also, does a minor 'religion' defined as a cult in several countries really deserve all of these wikipedia articles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zanotam ( talk • contribs) 22:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
This is just absurd. It looks like the text of "What is Scientology" has been pasted verbatim into the article. WillOakland ( talk) 10:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
The following sections have been removed from the main page because they are not adequately described or sourced. If anyone can find any reliable sources to use which establish the notability of these terms, please do so. ← Spidern → 00:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
The Scientology Axioms are a condensation of all Scientology data until 1954.
The summation of all the Scientology ideas about the spirit and the physical universe until 23 April 1953.
The Logics are the basis of what Scientology describes as "empirical thinking."
The Prelogics are divided in the Qs. In Scientology belief, the Qs are the highest echelon of knowledge from which all other knowledge is derived. Q simply means the most common datum that sums all other data.
Differentiation, Association and Identification are the three Scientology concepts that explain how man processes data. These concepts form a scale of knowingness from full knowingness to unknowingness.
Differentiation is the action of observing the differences and similarities between items, people and ideas etc.
Association occurs when understanding is accomplished by association with other data. This is Logic and is considered a step down from Differentiation because never two apples are alike. A person that is in good shape knows what is right and knows what is wrong, he does not need to use logic to figure it out. A criminal always uses logic to justify a crime.
Identification is the mental process of the mad man where all data is the same. "Insanity is the inability to associate or differentiate properly."
None of the Wikipedia articles on Scientology call it a religion. I'm curious why not since most governments have concluded that it is, and it is neutral to state that it is a new religious movement like Jehovah's Witnesses and Latter Day Saints. I'm not a Scientologist and I don't want to be attacked, but this is my suggestion. There are other suggestions I could make, but the Scientology articles appear far from neutral and are really messy, so I don't want to get too involved. Laval ( talk) 12:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Some recent edits have been reverted with the explanation that Secondary sources are preferred. I don't see how this makes sense. If you want to know what the beliefs of a given group are, look at their primary sources. If the primary sources explain a certain belief, such as the need to celebrate a given holiday, then that ought to be recognised as legitimate. If there is an article that lists Christian beliefs and practices, references to the New Testament would be expected. So, why the bias against Scientology's primary texts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.154.240.162 ( talk) 02:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Self published sources can be used!!! WP:QS states:
Using self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves
Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
the material used is relevant to the notability of the subject of the article;
Bravehartbear ( talk) 13:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
While that is what Wikipedia's policy is, it's hardly enforced in that way. A lot of projects on wikipedia are being downsized because of a minimal amount of third party reliable sources. Lots of the fictional universes, even the big ones, are suffering, why shouldn't this one?
Zanotam - Google me (
talk) 01:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
As much as I disapprove of Scientology in its entirety, I disapprove of vandalism on Wikipedia even more. The "Creed" section of this article has been messed up for some time (as evidenced by previous revisions of the page). I reverted it. I would suggest semi-protecting this page. Chrisbrl88 ( talk) 04:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
This really needs clarification. Hubbard called all psychiatrists anti-social? Called all anti-social people psychiatrists? Had any trauma? Any other references to psychiatrists in his work? -- 187.78.76.100 ( talk) 14:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
This article should include what Scientology's beliefs in God are.-- 174.95.66.253 ( talk) 17:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Scientology, and its holy book, dianetics, was an attempt by its author, L. Ron Hubbard, at world domination. Not a bad approach, considering how well it worked for ancient europe
for so damn long. He must've been very good at brainwashing his followers for that to happen. Therefore, his life and his following should be taken as a lesson in the dark arts, not as a religion to be taken seriously. Although, it's not like they're much of a threat today. Now they just use brainwashing tactics to trick people into handing them more money. Hmmmm... Sounds like a good idea... Muhahaha!!!!
You have no idea how right you are -----> [6] LutherVinci ( talk) 00:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Posted additional information in the lede from Bromley and Cowan's 2008 book on religion. NestleNW911 ( talk) 20:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Added more information to the "Auditing" section. NestleNW911 ( talk) 17:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Added more information to lede. NestleNW911 ( talk) 20:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Added more information about Scientology and other beliefs to the lede. NestleNW911 ( talk) 22:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello, apologies for this. I was under the impression that one could add content directly from sources as long as they are attributed to the source. I have rewritten the content, please review and let me know if it is okay to add.
"According to Jacob Neusner, Scientology does not warrant that their members must exclusively believe in Scientology, distinguishing it from biblical religions. Scientologists may profess belief in other religions such as Protestantism, Catholicism and may participate in their activities and sacred rites."
Thanks. NestleNW911 ( talk) 20:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
The mention of the e-meter on this article needed further substantiation in my view, so I've included some excerpts about it from Deseret News. Matipop ( talk) 21:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
The introduction is far too long and does not appear to be very wikified. It should be broken up into sections, or integrated into existing section. Laval ( talk) 15:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Such as
"Processing is the actual practice of "auditing" which directs questions towards areas of travail in a person's life to get rid of unwanted barriers that inhibit, stop or blunt a person's natural abilities as well as gradiently increasing the abilities a person has so that he becomes more able and his survival, happiness and intelligence increase enormously"
Surely we need to qualify this by saying something like "According to Scientology", or "Scientology claims", or something? We should not be using wiki's voice to say that "intelligence increase enormously". Gaijin42 ( talk) 18:46, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Binksternet. I do not comprehend your explanation for reverting my edit. I have used critical sources but I have not misrepresented them. As I said, I have not altered their perspective at all. I have not violated NPOV. The edits I added are neutral and encyclopedic. How can information about New Year's Day and Scientology terminology be non-NPOV? It is not promotional or adhering to any kind of bias. If anything, they add to the article and give more knowledge to the reader. If neutral information is found in otherwise negative sources, we should be able to refer to it. Matipop ( talk) 17:54, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
According to WP:NPOV: "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Remove material only where you have good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage." How does my addition misinform or mislead? They are simply encyclopedic facts about Scientology. The material I added should be retained. Matipop ( talk) 18:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help){{
cite encyclopedia}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)Thank you for your response, Binksternet. While I understand your point, I stand by the fact that I made sure to stick to NPOV when I posted these edits. The edits in themselves are neutral and most are references to Scientology beliefs, which neither promotes nor criticizes the religion. They are mere facts. I took the content from the references that are relevant to the section on the Wikipedia article, in order to make it contextually sound. You also put meaning into my non-inclusion of the ISBN and the link. These are not deliberate omissions to confuse; but I will include them in later edits if that makes it easier for everyone concerned. You have interpreted my edits and even my citing of references based on your own opinion. "The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view." I have not endorsed a particular perspective and made sure the tone of my edits was impartial. Matipop ( talk) 23:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Seems like an article of this length would benefit from an illustration or photo to break up the wall of text. Maybe one of these two?
Just an idea. Grayfell ( talk) 02:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Common Scientology terms include:
References:
The body is connected to the sole.The the action of the living body can change the sole.Darken it to evil or cleans it for good.And the learning of life sole searching etc.Aliens can and will abduct and inject to change behaviour to darken the sole.While demons wait in the darkness.The future direction of the sole is in the hands of the Church.Aliens and Demons.The Churh Roman Catholic know this.There will soon be a war to change this forever.All humans should always check the spirit and through of aliens.self/higher self/inner self.Try it you may be surprised.Many have come to earth as a nuron vapourized cloud and entered the human body.God is the non toxin light from the sun.That gives us life.We live on the passover to darkness.Half dark half light day night etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.74.108.57 ( talk) 05:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Scientology beliefs and practices's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "urban2006":
{{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello Grayfell. Regarding my addition of passage from Alan Black's paper. I am dumbfounded as to why you seem to arbitrarily label this is an "unreliable" source. The same paper has actually been cited at #2 on the same Wikipedia page. Who is to decide that this is unreliable? You mentioned also that this is an SPS. How so? How are you able to determine that this paper is "extremely obscure?" According to whose standards? Please enlighten me as I want to understand what can be used as a reliable source. I believe that my edit on the Dynamics is sound and adds much to the section, and I attest that it should remain. The edits on the lead section are also meant to enrich the section from direct quotes from Scientology text, to further contextualize the information here. Livetoedit1123 ( talk) 23:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback. I will stay away from similar references in the future. Livetoedit1123 ( talk) 16:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Grayfell, the text I posted is well-referenced and directly supports the first sentence: "The church considers itself scientific..." It does not promote and is quite specific, not vague at all, elucidating the whole idea that the church claims its beliefs as scientific, based on its own literature. It is clarified and contextualized by the rest of the section and IMHO, reads well as an encyclopedic addition. I do not see how it is promotional, and this is an easy label to slap on it, and is quite subjective. Do you have other ideas? Greentrailblazer ( talk) 00:16, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Scientology fulfills the goal of religion by addressing the spiritual nature of man and his role in eternity. Yet it approaches the traditional questions of religion from a standpoint of reason, an approach that science can hardly argue with.
I understand the comment on weasel wording, and have modified the text to accommodate the feedback. A modification is enough to rectify the issue and I don't think warrants a reversion. However, I am confused as to the question on whether Lewis' work is the best reference to use for the text. Scientology by James R. Lewis is a central, reliable reference in scholarship about Scientology, and includes scholarship from various noted scholars on the subject. It has been cited time and again in Scientology-related articles. Which other reference cites these specific ideas? If there are others, I would gladly add it as a citation. Thank you. Nonchalant77 ( talk) 21:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
I think that wikilinking Spiritualism and James R. Lewis would be a good and quick fix to address the problem. To over-explain on James R. Lewis' controversial status would be digressing. The point here is not the movement of Spiritualism but about Scientology being built upon the perceived legitimacy of science, which I think was already clearly explained in the preceding passages. The significance of Spiritualism to the rest of the ideas stated in the passage is also explained. I think the connection of Scientology's "tech" as being considered by the church as a contribution to existing technologies is the foundational idea as to the church basing its technology on science. The use of the word technology, being used in the spiritual text is connecting science to the spiritual realm. The purpose was merely to add another scholar's input on the subject, to add to the variety of perspectives include in this section. I would love to fully explain the full context of the passage, but this text captures the heart of it, and is not meant as "cherry-picking." It is meant to provide an overview. Neglecting to work with the text and just resorting to reverting it without sufficient cause I think is as detrimental to the article, expansion would not be possible if we didn't consider additions from various works of scholarship. I would like to work with you in being able to represent the section without making it too long, and I think it's possible to do it with an additional sentence or two. Nonchalant77 ( talk) 22:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
You mentioned in your edit summary "Let's finish the discussion you started before restoring," which gave me the impression that you wanted to discuss the text in the effort of restoring it. This makes me think you had no intention of working to restore it to begin with, and you have not really acknowledged any of my arguments as to why the edit is significant. As I've alluded to, James R. Lewis is by no means an "obscure scholar," (he was notable enough to warrant his own Wikipedia article) and the context has already been laid out in the new passage that was added, and in the section in itself. You said the burden is on me - what I can suggest and would add if there is no objection, is just to say: "According to James R. Lewis (scholar), Scientology adopted a rhetoric of basing religion on the perceived legitimacy of science. The church refers to their practices as religious technology, or in Scientology, simply called “tech.” Lewis writes that the church views its psycho-spiritual technology as contributing the missing ingredient in existing technologies, which is “the therapeutic engineering of the human psyche.”
I don't see how this is not neutral, as it presents a scholar's perspective and frames the perspective on spiritual technology as the church's "view" not assuming it automatically true at all. In a Wikipedia article about Scientology's beliefs and practices, I don't see how this well-referenced passage on how the church views its own technologies and the whole idea of its tech based on the perceived legitimacy of science (placed in a section about science) is not relevant. Nonchalant77 ( talk) 00:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I still do not understand how the book Scientology by James R. Lewis can be considered a "relatively obscure" book, when as apparent in its own Wikipedia page, it has at least been studied by various scholars and considered, albeit having a controversial reception. Contributors to the book include Melton (a well-known scholar who has written plenty on the subject), Lewis, Bainbridge, Cowan and Bromley (who have their own unobscure and published work on Cults and New Religions with a chapter on Scientology). The Oxford University Press says that it "the only comprehensive resource for scholars, students, and others interested in this controversial and little-understood religious movement." Noted scholar Marco Frenschkwoski wrote a 30-page review for the book, saying "simply put it is the most sophisticated academic item published on Scientology so far." It seems there is an arbitrary rendering of what complies with WP:RS here, only considering something reliable when it leans towards a negative representation of Scientology. (BTW, I don't see anything in Wikipedia policy that says that "obscure" (not saying the Lewis is, but just to make a point) scholars cannot be considered reliable. "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses." This book meets that requirement. The book has been used several times for various edits on Scientology-related Wikipedia pages, and all of a sudden, it is "relatively obscure." By the way, Lewis was cited a staggering nine times in the main Scientology Wikipedia page, reference numbers 52, 65, 70, 278, 402, 407, 413, 418, 424 (this instance the book we are discussing here is cited). I can cite many more examples where Lewis' work is considered a basis of the big body of information on Scientology in Wikipedia. In the Church of Scientology page, the book is cited three times, and another work of Lewis's, "New Religion Adherents: An Overview of Anglophone Census and Survey Data" is also cited. With his vast body of work on not only Scientology, but also other religions and cults, the claim that he is a "relatively obscure" scholar has no basis. I'm not the one with the POV problem here. Nonchalant77 ( talk) 16:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Even if, as you say, it's not the main problem, it's worth discussing, because it was mentioned in the edit summary and seemed to be a part of the reason why you reverted the edit in the first place. I just don't want the situation to fall in the slippery slope of being able to arbitrarily label any reference obscure for subjective reasons. Scientology is not a mainstream movement and of course, there would be only relatively a small group of scholars who would write about it, but that doesn't make them any less credible. To write about Scientology comparatively, and not as an attack, is not necessarily non-neutral. As a compromise, and per Slashme's comment and your comment that the quote makes things bloated, I have posted the edit in short form, removing the parts that seem unacceptable to you and him. Nonchalant77 ( talk) 22:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
This page reads a bit like an advert for scientology, especially when compared to the main scientology page. Would adding a 'criticisms' section be agreeable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.71.53.226 ( talk) 19:03, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Scientology beliefs and practices has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I wish to add the content from this section of the Scientology article /info/en/?search=Scientology#Scientology_ceremonies to this article
Here is the content:
=== Scientology ceremonies ===
In Scientology, ceremonies for events such as weddings, child naming, and funerals are observed. [1] Friday services are held to commemorate the completion of a person's religious services during the prior week. [1] Ordained Scientology ministers may perform such rites. [1] However, these services and the clergy who perform them play only a minor role in Scientologists' religious lives. [2] Bob Page ( talk) 07:37, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
References
This
edit request to
Scientology beliefs and practices has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Bold textThis is totally crap. Jdhgrty ( talk) 19:48, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
My last edit on how Scientology defines ethics was labeled as promotional. I'm not sure why, I do not use promotional language here at all, and simply added straightforward information that is neither positive nor negative. I recently added a new section, Aesthetic Mind, because it is a wide doctrine in Scientology that has not been given coverage. I have taken care not to use promotional language. The language here is neutral. Nonchalant77 ( talk) 16:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
I've removed the term pseudoscience from the mention of general semantics, since the article on general semantics nowhere mentions it being considered a pseudoscience. That's on the professional level. On a more personal level, having looked into the matter, I'd say general semantics blurs the distinction between science /pseudoscience quite fundamentally, since it's mainly an ethical position that general human speech should b informed by the lingual habits scientists have come to find needed to avoid being misunderstood, /techniques supposedly supposedly useful in creating formal scientific lingual/thought patterns in people not professional scientists. Most scientists have never heard of it, but might or might not advocate for it due largely to whether they feel science should b understood by more peeps, or merely think they have a real job/know how to to that job In any case, a good scientist (1 who knows philosophy of science) has no need for it/, upon hearing of the subject might b @ 1st puzzled/ say something like "ah...u mean semantics...why do we need the word 'general' in the title?". Dig? Slarty1 ( talk) 03:06, 9 August 2019 (UTC) Slarty1 ( talk) 03:20, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
This section of the article is bizarrely skewed/arbitrary, in relation to the actual history of Dianetic/Scientology spin-off groups, a subject on which there is some literature/study, tho not that much. I'm trying to figure the goal of this skew, but the best I can come up w/is that its skewed bizarrely. Surely an actual sincere discussion of that on the subject would mention California Association of Dianetic Auditors (C.A.D.A.) b4 mentioning Dianology/also cover it much more extensivel. It's not even clear why Dianology is mentioned. There were about a doeson, I believe, Dianetics spin offs by 1952, the subject was covered in a book highly critical of Hubbard's work, who's name I don't recall. Church used to publish a list of enemy squirrel groups (maybe still do). If 1 really wanted to know this subject, that might not b a bad place to start
This
edit request to
Scientology beliefs and practices has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There needs to be a critique section, due to the widespread and clearly attested violations of human rights done on behalf of the “church” of Scientology 104.169.184.152 ( talk) 23:25, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Scientology beliefs and practices has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would also like a criticism section for Scientology beliefs. I think there are valid criticisms of Scientology's beliefs that are separate from the organization. For example, South Park famously parodies and critiques their religious beliefs, and others have critiqued whether it's possible to believe in scientology in addition to other religions. DazzleNovak ( talk) 03:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. As above.
Jack Frost (
talk) 08:56, 10 January 2021 (UTC)This article is an ad for Scientology. It has no balance and includes no actual critical responses to the claims of Scientology. 2601:409:200:B640:7109:DE59:CC7D:A1BC ( talk) 02:01, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
There is an error in this page as on the 2nd dynamic it says second for (a) and second for (b) 2A02:C7F:3145:3400:21C0:A6E6:5BA4:8F10 ( talk) 20:48, 29 March 2023 (UTC)