Talk:Scientology/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Proposing to remove this "business" section

Nothing in this section makes Scientology a commercial venture. Just about every major Church in the world has real estate, other religions “sell” their religion – so what – are you telling me that the Jehovah’s Witnesses are also “a commercial venture” because they proselytize? This is pure generated controversy (which has already been mentioned in the controversy section) and doesn’t warrant a section of its own. Let’s not make a mockery of high profile Wikipedia articles through poor editing. I am proposing to remove this section altogether. California guy 22:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Precisely which "business" section are you refering to? If you mean "Scientology as a commercial venture" in "Controversy and criticism", nope, can't agree with you there. AndroidCat 10:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

This is different from religions in general, since you have to pay to get to the higher ranks. If you want to become a priest, or confess your sins, or get circumsized or baptized, you don't have to fork over thousands of dollars (except maybe for indulgences in catholicism, but that's a pretty rare practice). If you do your pilgrimage to the Mecca, you only pay for the hotel and the plane fare, not for some lunatic's mansion and luxury yacht. Unmitigated Success 11:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Pay to get higher ranks, There is an excellent example of how these article mis-present Scientology's levels. There are no ranks at all, the levels of training and processing are not about ranks or ranking. The training is about education and only about education. A person trained to deliver Class XII processes is exactly of the same "rank" of Scientologist as a person who has taken a single course and calls himself a Scientologist. On the processing side of the bridge to total freedom are the processing levels. Again, no ranking, no one is better or worse than anyone else. OT VIII describes a state of beingness, a state of freedom and not a rank. You will find in some organizations that the person who is the executive director of the organization has very little processing or training, though he is trained in administration. Terryeo 03:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it is notable that, unlike other religious organizations, Scientology was founded and is operated on a structure where the teachings are protected by copyright, and some people who attempt to publish those teachings are sued for breach of copyright, even those who are pro-dianetics (see Free Zone (Scientology)). While there are many religious organizations that have real estate holdings and financial organization (the Mormon's 10% tithe and welfare system are a good example), I cannot think of one that focuses on charges for teachings to the level of Scientology. This seems to me to make it notable enough for inclusion. The section seems (minus occasional vandalism to be a fair portrayal of Scientology's business focus, with sources to support the position. Also, Scientology does have "ranking" or "levels" to progress through, of increasing cost, reguardless of what they are called, and there are many published documents, from the COS and other sources, describing the COS heirarchy and levels. Zeke pbuh 03:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe he is referring to Scientology as a business. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 12:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the issue is more complex. There is intact procedure which you describe, but the idea that each level costs more and the next level yet more is not accurate. The situtation is more complex than any single statement could cover. One person might get through OT I in, perhaps, 10 hours and the same person might have spent 50 hours getting to Clear. It is just impossible to say because every person is different and because the Church doesn't publish statistics about the amount of time to achieve each level, so we have no know of knowing a typical, or average, cost. I'm not sure how I could document this for you. Terryeo 19:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

It is perfectly reasonable that in the section on criticism of Scientology, that one discuss the fact that Scientology has been described frequently -- by critics, by media sources, and in some cases by the judiciary -- as a business or a money-making scheme. --FOo 04:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Certainly there is no reason not to reference reputable sources which have stated their analysis about Scientology being a business. It might be worthwhile too, to present how Scientology's pay-as-you-go practices have resulted in expansion. Lastest estimation I read, Scientology owns property whose total cost is in the billions. Terryeo 02:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Citing that should be interesting, although I suspect the primary source will be the same as the 10 million Scientologists figure. AndroidCat 02:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Androidcat, that is the section I am talking about. I'm sorry you can’t agree with me but you are not the only editor that has any say and I would like to hear from some neutral editors, there may be other editors who see what I am saying. Fubar seems to put this more in perspective, but I don’t see the point in leaving in an actual section. Please read my original reasoning above, which specifically answers the points in that section. California guy 20:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Please restrain your tone when responding to other editors. No editor is a "neutral editor", and Wikipedia practices recognize this. AndroidCat's contributions here have markedly improved the article.

There is a clear point in leaving a section on this subject, since it is a major point of discussion and reference in sources dealing with Scientology. For instance, the famous or infamous TIME Magazine article entitled "Scientology: The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power" made a point of Scientology's business or moneymaking aspects. It has also been a point of contention in legal cases, for instance in cases where ex-members have accused CoS of being a fraudulent enterprise and demanded their money back.

Because it is a major point of contention and controversy , it needs to be discussed and made clear. --FOo 07:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Why not move it to Scientology Controversy, then? Or to Scientology and the Legal System? Terryeo 20:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

This article needs trimming down, however, if there is no agreement to remove an over abundance of generated controversy, I will edit and add to the relevant sections to put it in perspective. I highly object to any clean up action I take being reverted with no attempt by anyone else to actually do something constructive to improve the professionalism of this article. It is already huge, and messy which has been pointed out by other editors on more than one occasion. Fine to block me at every turn, but does anyone actually have any editorial pride here and will DO SOMETHING.

In terms of the edit I just made, I am again putting the specifics in here, as above, the article is huge enough so I didn’t include all of this.

Many of the major religions require financial payments as a prerequisite for participating in their “core” religious services:

· In Judaism, synagogues have fixed membership dues and access to High Holy Day services is based on payment of a fixed price.

· Numerous Christian denominations, including the Church of Latter Day Saints (Mormons) and fundamentalist Christian churches, including Seventh Day Adventists, Pentecostal Assemblies of the World and the Worldwide Church of God, require parishioners to pay a 10% tithe of their gross income in order to participate in religious services.

· In the Catholic Church, a payment is usually required for the celebration of a Mass for a special purpose or special intention.

· In the Church of England, marriage, funeral, memorial and dedication services are subject to a fixed charge. In addition, regular churchgoers are asked to covenant £400 or more a year to the Church. Approximately 400,000 parishioners do so. Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_England

· Hindus set fixed payments for sacred rituals performed by the priest in the temple (pujas), considered an exact science in which the priest is trained. Hindu temples provide a price list for different types of pujas. The typical price for a puja is £100, and typically a Hindu will purchase two a month. California guy 11:00, 8 August 2006 (PST)

I've reverted your edits, as you removed a substantial amount of well-cited text with what you admit is a lack of consensus. --InShaneee 18:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

JzG delinking

JzG, why are you changing comments by other editors by removing web-links? If you're applying something in WP:EL, I've already stated that retro-applying significant WP:EL changes over the last few months, weeks, days... should probably be discussed. Frankly, that article seems to be in a real mess at the moment. Regardless of the justification, it seems rather rude to alter other editors' comments. AndroidCat 02:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, that this article is a real mess at the moment and unfortunately it doesn't seem anyone is making a move to clean it up. Starting with the fact that the ELs were brought up as a point for discussion by AndroidCat (and rightly so)but no-one responded. Based on this I am going ahead and making these edits in alignment

with the Wiki guidelines page on external links http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:EL, particularly point 4:

“On articles with multiple points of view, a link to prominent sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one point of view should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view. If one point of view dominates informed opinion, that should be represented first."

A similar thing is needed on the other Scientology related pages.Nuview 14:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

But you didn't read my comment at all, did you? You just used it as a springboard for your usual two-three week deletion spree. AndroidCat 01:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry you are taking this attitude AndroidCat, you are quick to attack. Actually, I did read your comment, and I agree with you whole heartedly on the state of this page. My concern is that no-one has attempted to clean it up, trim it down and turn it in to some sort of professional looking article up to Wikipedia standards. We all seem to agree its not in shape so I started with the external links, following point 4 of the EL guidelines, which is not under any debate, so don’t see the point in waiting while the rest gets thrashed out. Nuview 23:20, 6 August 2006 (PST)

First use of the word Scientology

On March 3, 1952 in Wichita, Kansas L. Ron Hubbard first publically used the word Scientology. He said: Scientology would be the study of knowledge, rather than the small segment of therapy which has been, up to this time, Dianetics. Terryeo 16:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Article = Cluttered?

This article is longer even than the Christianity article. There really is a lot of stuff that can be taken out. Just throwing the thought out there, don't start another argument over this!

Might AS Well Protect

Within an hour of this article being unprotected, it was immediately vandalized. The maturity level of individuals to warrants protection of this article IMO. Allisonmarieanne 20:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)Allison

Amused by an appropriate use of that term. lol Terryeo 03:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

hsssst. Who cares? Every religion has its critics. The only real difference is the money stuff we hear about so often. Ben Rogers 02:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed Jason Lee

• Ambiguous name (goes to disambig)
• Not cited
  • While other names aren't cited, we need a high standard for new additions

--Davidstrauss 06:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

POV tag

I've reverted this [1] {{POV}} tag, since the tag was added without any explanation -- if anybody feels it should remain, please discuss and edit as appropriate, since that's ultimately what the tag is supposed to accomplish, anyway. :) Luna Santin 09:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. It's improper to add a POV tag without stating some (hopefully new) point of dispute. Otherwise folks could clutter up anything they don't like with such tags. --FOo 09:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

This article is helpful, but...

It sounds to me like it may not be completely impartial. While it is very factual, it seems only to present facts that would disprove scientology. I am in no way saying that that is wrong, just wondering where the facts supporting it are? Are there any? _{(comment added by Imajen on 7 August 2006, 14:26)}

Well, a number of passers by have said, at one time or another, that the article(s) about Scientology aren't very evenly presented, that they are pretty obviously created with a negative point of view in mind. Terryeo 19:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

However, if any of these people would do more than whine, the problem is easily fixable. --InShaneee 19:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand perfectly the sort of 'fix' you imply User:InShaneee. You stated it to me earlier. You suggested that I "fax you over certain unpublished, copyrighted, confidential documents" by which you would "fix up the articles". I understand perfectly. However, you see, there are certain standards of legality, certain standards of reputability, which Wikipedia hopes to achieve. The statement above points out a lack of such achievement. Terryeo 21:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to remind you that you're doing nothing to further the content of this article, and are in fact on probation for trolling these pages. I'd suggest if you have nothing constructive to say, you keep your accusations to yourself. --InShaneee 21:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

<undent> Here is the statement which you say I "accuse" you of: User:InShaneee; Fax us over some of those high-level OTs and I PROMISE you it'll get fixed up. [2] The article really isn't presented in an neutral way, is what I'm saying. But my statement is only an echo of the anon's statement above. Terryeo 22:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

...Which shouldn't be there anyway, for the same reasons yours shouldn't; you're not saying what needs to be worked on, you're just complaining. --InShaneee 03:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The anon states his opinion. Are you suggesting anons should not be free to edit discussion pages? Are you saying the anon should not have made the statement? Are you suggesting a change in WP policy? Terryeo 23:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting anything. I'm STATING that this is not a message board, and 'opinions' are not welcome here, and that goes double for the nonconstructive whining you so energetically defend. --InShaneee 19:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Specifically, User:Antaeus Feldspar's most recent reversion places a historically early use of 'Scientology' back into the article. The article is long, complicated, difficult to follow and Feldspar, insists a historical study of the term is important to the article. Just under ===Meaning of the word 'Scientology'=== Feldspar reverted to produce:

[3]. The piece of information is not very important as any editor can find by reading Atack's book and the historical uses of the term have been few. Why not do exactly as the heading states? Why not present where and when Hubbard first used the word that is known around the world today as orignating from Hubbard? That citation is on this page at [4] Terryeo 16:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, it wasn't a reversion, Antaeus simply fixed a cite which was mistakenly taken out in a prior edit. This kind of statement where you misrepresent the work of an editor doesn't help productive discussion. Raymond Hill 17:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You don't agree the word reversion appears in the edit summary? Terryeo 23:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not a matter of agreement: the word reversion doesn't appear in his summary, to which you provided a link. Raymond Hill 23:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You really should check your facts more carefully before you make accusations like that, Terryeo. You even provide the diff, but you can't describe its effects correct and you can't even describe the edit summary correctly -- really, it would be enough to make one suspect you were just trying to waste time and energy. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Sort of along the lines of the chap on the right, you mean? I can see why you might suspect that... -- ChrisO 00:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

More like utterly ignoring the issue raised because a particular word (such as reversion) stimulates some portion of the stimulus-response mechanism of the particular human body, thus rendering useless and profane and words appearing after the stimulating word. In this case, I point to the tiny piece of data (history of the term "Scientology" having appeared once or twice before in history), and further point out that such a tiny piece of information in an article already too long, is hardly critical to the article and further point to the rather poor citation thereof. But of course all of that flies right past everyone's long nose because the previously used term, "reversion" so stimulates the body's cortex that any further words are simply chopped off. Terryeo 05:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight. You are not only complaining about (and misdescribing) an edit that restored a citation to the article, because you didn't like the fact that was being cited, and misdescribing it further as a "rather poor citation" by which I can only suppose you mean citing a book that was not written by L. Ron Hubbard, but on top of all that, you are essentially asserting that any editor who disagrees with you on this matter is not actually thinking but rather slavishly obeying "some portion of the stimulus-response mechanism of the particular human body"? So, basically, your view of you in relation to your fellow editors is that you are thinking, but they are merely reacting like an experimental dog salivating at a bell? What a grandiose view you have of yourself, Terryeo. Frankly, I think such a despicable demeaning of your fellow editors probably violates your personal attack parole. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

To "get it straight" it would first be necessary to understand the statement I made. I talked about how a rare use of the term "scientology" contributes very little to an article which is too long. Your comment refering to my statement as "a complaint" is personal and unecessary toward understanding the issue raised. Terryeo 18:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I really don't see the problem with giving an earlier meaning of the word. Several articles have etymologies where the original meaning of the word didn't match a subsequent usage. (See the article on Truthiness for an example.) The article very clearly avoids an actual link between the original term and L. Ron Hubbard's later use of it. It's highly unlikely that someone would draw a negative connotation from the two, but even if they were to, it's through no fault of the article: it WAS L. Ron Hubbard who chose to co-opt an existing term. Vpoko 18:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing wrong with citing every use of the term since the dawn of man, absolutely not ! If it would contribute to a person understanding the subject of the article, then it should have such citations and quotes and so on. Terryeo 23:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's only two, but if there were more I'd say include them as well ;) I think we're splitting hairs here. Maybe instead of including it in the text of the article it should be included under its own misc heading (similar to how the Ice 9 article mentions other uses of the term. In any case, I don't feel strongly enough about it to make the change, but if that's an agreeable compromise then somebody else can take the initiative. I do vehemicly disagree with removing the information *outright*. Vpoko 03:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Imajen, I don't understand your comment. You say the article "is very factual", and one sentence later you state "where the facts supporting it are?" You need to be more precise: what would you add/modify to improve this article. Be specific, point to a particular passage/paragraph that you think is incorrect, otherwise we can't agree/disagree with you, since we don't know what you have in mind. --Raymond Hill 06:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

crazy stuff

when i first saw the south park episode "trapped in the closet" i thought they were just making it up when they said this is what scientologist actually believe but then i looked it up and i was wow thats some crazy stuff i mean Xenu wtf?! what are these peoples problems