Talk:Church of Scientology/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have deleted "Flag Ship", here is my explination

"Flag Ship, Freewinds" Sounds wrong and is wrong according to their own website at www.freewinds.org

It is not called that. Besides if I was to put kind of like that but in much better grammar, it would be "Freewinds(Flagship)" as it is literally the Sea Org's Flagship and that's actually where the name "Flag" and "Flag Ship"(a play on words), both came from. OR more correctly I would put it "Freewinds(Flag Ship Service Organisation)", but I think it's better if it was just deleted, as the original title and most of these suggestions(except the last one) sound like something Shirley Temple should be singing. "On the Flag Ship, Freewinds, where the RPF work and the..." you get what I'm saying. Colliric (talk) 17:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

looks fine to me.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of KCET and Building restorations

I deleted [sections added by Matipop]. The Kcet building is a section dedicated to the future media hub of scientology (published in 2011). I can't find anything as to if it actually has come into operation yet. I deleted it under WP:CRYSTAL, as topics don't acquire notability through their status in the future. I think it will be a fine addition as soon as we have sources that talk about its current operations. The second section I deleted under WP:WEIGHT. Buying a building with local significance in the middle of the city isn't notable, in fact in some cities it is the only way to gain space. Now if the building had it's own page that would be more than sufficient to establish notability within this article, but as of now the section comes off as promotional and makes it look like Scientology has a focused campaign to buy historical buildings, when in fact two of the buildings were from 20+ years ago, and then one current.Coffeepusher (talk) 00:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

We began this discussion because of your 2700-word deletion of the "other locations" section of "Headquarters, Bases and Central Orgs." You then offered to work together to build this section out and that's what I am doing. I discovered from the Hollywood Reporter that the church is "the biggest owner of historic buildings in Hollywood", which I think fulfills the requirement of weight and is a significant fact about the church. The three-page Hollywood Reporter article also meets the requirement of reliable sources and notability; it focuses on the major restoration efforts and real-estate holdings of the church which is noteworthy and notable. (THR is also an authoritative source). With all this being said, I don't understand how it sounds inherently promotional to you. Can you explain why? I think the building restorations information should definitely be retained, and moved under "Headquarters, Bases and Central Orgs," as it mentions the Hollywood Guaranty Building which is in fact, their "headquarters", a location the category you added includes, and the Celebrity Centre, a building based on my research, (http://www.kcet.org/socal/departures/landofsunshine/lost-landmarks/the-chateau-elysee-scientologys-celebrity-centre-before-it-went-clear.html) significant both to the city of Los Angeles and Scientology. My suggestion is to restore my proposed edit with a few changes, which I'm happy to make.Matipop (talk) 18:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

we are building an encyclopedia, not documenting every time Scientology is mentioned in the news. "in april 2012 the church set their sights on another restoration project, the hotel alexander in Boston" is peacock language and promotional. The point remains that the hotel itself isn't even notable enough to give it a wikipedia article, and a realestate transaction isn't a notable enough event to justify inclusion. Further it makes building restoration appear to be a key feature of scientology doctrine, yet I can only find the single article making that claim. Not even the Alexander articles mention L Ron Hubbard's instructions to buy old buildings for restoration. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 18:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't care about the Hotel Alexandra, that's a moot point dropped several conversations ago, but you still haven't explained why the mention of the headquarters is promotional. Even the LDS(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints) mentions the location of their headquarters in the lead.Matipop (talk) 19:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Um...I haven't touched the Celebrity center mention within the article.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

New Building additions

Matipop, I'm not trying to revert your changes, but you appear to be adding fluff to the article. If an article is full of fluff that reflects negatively upon the subject of the article. Again, this page isn't a place to document every single time a reliable source covers a scientology event, it is to write an encyclopedia article on the Church of Scientology. the opening of local org's, real-estate transactions, more real-estate transactions, and building restorations are not notable for a church as significant as Scientology and take away from the notable activities that the church actually engages in. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 01:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm reverting your reversion, because based on Wikipedia policy, Ocala.com is  is a major local publication and a reputable media source. There is nothing in reliability and notability guidelines that says that local publications are not reliable. What about the LA Times and the New York Times? Will we discount their reliability on the basis that they're local? Your assertion that my contributions are fluff are completely arbitrary. For example, in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints, a significant church as well, the sections "Programs and auxiliary organizations" and "Finances" include similar information. Would you consider this fluff as well? Secondly I can't help but notice that your contribution to "expanding" this section has been nothing but reversions or deletions. You expressed interest in working "together" to expand the section, but you have not contributed anything proactive and productive. Can you contribute some content apart from changing the heading and moving a section? I am happy to continue with my effort to expand it, but it seems that you almost always seem to put up a stop sign.Matipop (talk) 17:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually our opinion on the church of latter day saints is irrelevant to this discussion since that isn't the page we are discussing. I never said that the reliability of the source was in question, I said it was a local event without significant coverage. The notability guidelines say that it must have significant coverage. Does it have significant coverage or does every single reference cover the opening alone? If you want your "expansion" to stick perhaps you should read WP:WEIGHT.Coffeepusher (talk) 23:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
perhaps you could tell us why you chose this org rather than the Richmond Virginia org, or the Denver ideal org, or the Boulder Co. Org, or the Portland Origon org, or the Baltimore org, or the Hong Kong org, or the Mexico City org, or the Israel org, or the Sydney ideal org, or the Melbourne org, or the... The reason I said WP:WEIGHT is because this section isn't a listing for every org that gets mentioned in reliable sources, if that is the standard then you need to give the reason why this org is representative of all those other orgs.Coffeepusher (talk) 00:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Coffeepusher, you reverted my deletion of Matipop's addition. I think this is the reverse of what you're after here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 04:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
you are right, Ill pay attention next time.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:49, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Volunteer Ministers.

The Line that "Touch Assist" has been used to help victims of the Haiti quake is incorrect according to the source cited. The source says they are "claiming to use the power of touch to reconnect nervous systems" Never does the source say they have actually helped anyone with touch assist. The next line about the Volunteer Ministers have been a consistent presence in Haiti, executing continued efforts for the purposes of disaster relief. Information claimed to be in the Huffington Post source is cherry picking information out of the source, or completely altering what the article was about, mainly that the Scientologist were disorganized and taking valuable landing slots away from genuine aid agencies. I tried to remove this information once, but Matipop reverted it. Since this article is on probation I will not remove it again, so I thought a discussion was called for. VVikingTalkEdits 02:49, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Sea Org

The section regarding the Sea Org is a bit too long considering we have a very thorough main article on the subject. I've made some corrections and trimmed things a bit, but could use more trimming. I've removed the sentence regarding "overboarding" because that was mostly applied to non-Sea Org students who were on the flagship training on the Class VIII course as directed by L Ron Hubbard. So, it requires significant explanation and should be reserved for the main article. If there is not yet an article on "overboarding," there is a considerable amount of material that might warrant an article of its own, if there is consensus to do so. Laval (talk) 19:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Headquarters

I've been noticing in most of the articles the headquarters of Scientology is identified as Gold Base. While this is indeed the de facto headquarters of Scientology (which is verifiable in a multitude of sources), the official headquarters of the Church of Scientology International, Religious Technology Center, Office of Special Affairs, and other Sea Org management entities are located within the Guaranty Building on Hollywood Boulevard. This is verifiable through the church's own documents, including legal documents, incorporation documents, etc. How this should be dealt with, or whether or not it should even be handled, I leave to others to chime in and share their thoughts. Laval (talk) 19:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

If there's an issue here, it should be addressed case-by-case. Is there some place in particular where you think the "headquarters" reference is misleading? As you say, Gold Base/RTC is widely agreed to be the ultimate hq of the whole complex of Scientology-related organizations ("free zone" excepted, of course). -- BTfromLA (talk) 23:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2014

Attempting to quantify "membership" of the Church of Scientology is further confounded by many factors:

1) Some or many Scientologists do not think of Scientology as their "religion", particularly in Western nations where the word "religion" is highly associated with the concept of practices involving worship, praise, and communication with supernatural beings, especially of the Christian and Jewish religions.

2) Some, many, or most Scientologists are followers of the more established religious faiths such Judaism, Christianity, Muslimism, and others. If asked "What is your religion", many or most of these people are likely not to respond "Scientology", even if they subscribe to the religious beliefs of Scientology, because it is not their primary religion, or they do not associate their practice of Scientology with their concept of "religion".

3) Scientology does not demand or require any kind of "regular" registration from their members. Though the IAS is available to all Scientologists and public alike, membership is neither required of nor restricted to Scientologists. Though the local Orgs strongly encourage regular participation from it's local members, it is not required and thus it is not possibly to simply count activity in the Org (or Church) as a reliable means of establishing "membership".

4) The meaning of the word "membership" is not clearly understood or defined. The Church of Scientology recognizes a large portion of it's active constituents as "public". Public individuals may or may not consider themselves to be members, even if they regularly subscribe to Church services. Conversely, there are public who might consider themselves to be Scientlogists who are not affiliated with or even known to the Church.

5) "Scientology" is not an exclusive practice of the Church of Scientology membership. There are Scientologists who do not think of themselves as members of the Church of Scientology, though they self-identify as "Scientologists". At the same time, the Church may count some individuals as members who themselves do not self-identify as Scientologists, and in fact would likely be surprised to discover that they are included amongst the ranks.

It seems likely that the only way this question can be resolved is to conduct a properly sampled study with a selection of questions that adequately take into account the diversity of ways in which people engage in Scientology, it's study, and it's practices.

208.54.4.237 (talk) 05:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Not done: These appear to be your ideas, rather than an edit request in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Furthermore, you have not cited any reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 10:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Addition of a section devoted to Lawsuits for or against the Church

I think there needs to be a section devoted solely to lawsuits against the church or lawsuits the church is involved in. I am going to work on it and add bits to it every so often. I am confident that it will get pretty big. What do you guys think? Dead Goldfish (talk) 13:05, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I think that would be a good idea, provided we get proper reliable references (not from the scientology website though). Hendrick 99 (talk) 15:29, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Commanding officers/executive directors

It should probably be noted that each individual Church of Scientology run by the Sea Org are run by Presidents who also hold the title "Commanding Officer", while the non-Sea Org orgs are run by "Executive Directors". These are simple basic facts that others keep removing or are just omitted in most if not all Scientology-related articles for years now. There are a lot of these omissions in articles that get confused between Sea Org orgs and non-Sea Org orgs, but these corrections are most often reverted by unknowledgeable editors who don't take the time to check the facts and sources before reverting. So why bother correcting them? Laval (talk) 13:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Basis in Fact

Is there any basis in fact for these teachings and assertions before L Ron Hubbard established the C o S? If so it should cited and recorded here. Or have I missed something? P0mbal (talk) 11:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

No, there is not. The entire religion is the invention of L. Ron Hubbard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.177.253.145 (talk) 01:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Copyrighted religion?

Are there any other examples of a "religion" copyrighting or trademarking elements of itself? I'm guessing that the CoE haven't trademarked the use of Queen Elizabeth II, the Catholic church don't protect uses of the image of Pope Francis and the Lutheran church haven't forbidden the use of the colour white and empty churches. There seems to be no prior basis for a religion doing these things. On the few occasions in the article where the cult is referred to as a religion is that just because it's been recognised by governments as a religion?--XANIA - ЗAНИAWikipedia talk | Wikibooks talk 23:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

No, there is a definite religious aspect to the Church of Scientology, particularly the aspect of thetans being some sort of reincarnation of earlier entities. This group is at variance from most groups because it also has a strong tendency toward making a profit from its religious work, and that is seen only in a very few other groups of a broadly religious nature. The only one I can think of is Landmark Education. In both those cases there is a definite profit motive for the group and some of its leading practitioners, and it is hard to make a profit on something which is given away freely. John Carter (talk) 23:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Ordo Templi Orientis and other Thelema-related groups have used copyright as a means of protecting the privacy of their rituals and such. Seems to me like new religious movements are the only groups who would even have that option, since older material is not copyrighted. Grayfell (talk) 00:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Church Membership?

Latest movie - GOING CLEAR cites global membership now at 50,000, down from 100,000 in mid 1990's. Apologies for edit - not sure how else to capture this information. http://mashable.com/2015/01/25/sundance-review-going-clear/#:eyJzIjoidCIsImkiOiJfbXJvaW9mczNqMGNwcXg5MyJ9 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:CCC3:BA00:A922:A2ED:F053:FA9D (talk) 23:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2015

A new scientology kids camp is being createed in Angelus Oaks (Seven Oaks, Ca) by Bob and Jane Warner (clear),

184.228.1.192 (talk) 20:42, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 21:27, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Scientology is Bullshit

Most of the information on this page is marketing, and has nothing to do with the work that this organisation does, please keep wiki clean of propaganda.

First give a source that that are gods or science gods, without a source thios page needs to be removed, wiki is not a maketing or propaganda machine for Bullshit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.80.157.6 (talk) 07:51, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Because of the limits on posting for this article, it is likely people are not getting good information on the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.193.59 (talk) 22:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits

Hello Grayfell. Thank you for considering my edits. I acknowledge that the oldness of the Neusner source is not a basis for removing the bit about the Xenu story. However, I do stand by the value of adding more information about the theta mythology and have restored it. Can you also comment about restoring: "Descriptions of space opera incidents are seen as true events by Scientologists." The source of this bit is based on a question and answer site, similar to Quora. This is not a reliable source. Can you provide a better source which I would gladly add? I have added the "citation needed" template for the meantime.Benjetson (talk) 01:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

That the Space Opera / Xenu myth is kept secret and revealed at OT III level is pretty well-established fact by now. A Google Books search gives some pretty good sources. Here are a few:
  • Lewis, James R. (2009). Scientology. Oxford University Press. p. 421. ISBN 9780199887118.
  • Atack, Jon (1990). A piece of blue sky : Scientology, Dianetics, and L. Ron Hubbard exposed. New York, NY: Carol Pub. Group. pp. 32, 248, 382. ISBN 9780818404993. Retrieved 1 December 2015.
  • Urban, Hugh B. (2011). The church of scientology : a history of a new religion. Princeton: Princeton University Press. p. 74. ISBN 9780691146089. Retrieved 1 December 2015.
  • Wakefield, Margery (2009). The road to Xenu : life inside Scientology. Raleigh, N.C.: Lulu.com. p. 213. ISBN 9780557090402. Retrieved 1 December 2015. (Note: This is not a "reliable source", because it's a self-published insider account, so don't use it in the article, but it's really instructive to read!)
--Slashme (talk) 08:41, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2016

The last sentence of the "Beliefs" section reads as follows(emphasis mine): "A large bust of Hubbard is placed IN IN the chapel for Sunday services, and most sermons reference him and his writing." The word "in" is used once too often in that sentence. It should be changed to: "A large bust of Hubbard is placed in the chapel for Sunday services, and most sermons reference him and his writing."

72.49.235.222 (talk) 04:16, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done Oops. That was probably my fault. Thanks! Grayfell (talk) 04:37, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Scientology

While I was watching the show What On Earth, they brought up Scientology, and they showed these strange markings with two interlocking circles with two diamonds in both , plus what is even more interesting is that there is a house right behind the markings, that as the show says could possibly be linked to the strange markings Purplemath (talk) 01:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Church of Scientology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:31, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Lewis

Grayfell, my intention was not to post the "most positive POV." I just discovered this term "safepointing" from your comment. It was a POV presented by one of the most notable scholars on the subject, and nowhere does he point to "safepointing" in the entire reference. NPOV isn't necessarily posting neutral and critical at the same time. I'm just representing Lewis. Others can always post their related edits after mine.Nonchalant77 (talk) 17:15, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Church of Scientology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:26, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Church of Scientology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

List of Ideal Orgs

The section on Ideal Orgs includes a listing of many different opening events. Why are we bothering with this? The sourcing is uneven, but is mostly routine event news articles. This list also omits several such events, such Portland, OR's Sherlock Building, which came after the failed attempt to convert the Stevens Building, and I'm sure several others. Selectively listing some, but not all, of these events/orgs is not neutral. Selectively sourcing these entries is making it worse. Grayfell (talk) 20:28, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Church of Scientology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

"organisation" is misspelled

"organisation" is misspelled — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.193.216.148 (talk) 19:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

 Fixed per WP:ENGVAR. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 03:59, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Church of Scientology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Where is it?

Where is the category named "The fall of Scientology"? mshelton (talk) 05:38, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Church of Scientology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:25, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Update

The article would be better with the last year facts update like from information from CNN: https://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/22/us/believer-what-is-scientology/index.html Lawtheagoraphobic (talk) 17:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Sea Org is a "legally nonexistent paramilitary organization"??

"Legally nonexistent" seems like a poor term. Is there a better way to put this? I suppose the point is that it's not a state-run organization but that hardly seems necessary to point out. Equinox ◑ 23:51, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Section about the Netherlands is outdated

The Dutch supreme court has annulled the verdict that is mentioned in the section about the Netherlands (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Scientology#Netherlands). (See http://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument?id=ECLI:NL:HR:2014:3565, in Dutch) A year after that annulment, a lower court ruled that Scientology is not a charitable organization and so it is not exempt from paying taxes (See http://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument?id=ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2015:2875, in Dutch)

I wish to update the section myself, but I do not have the rights to do so. Therefore, is there anyone who wants to do this update? ERIKER (talk) 23:07, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Middle Class

Regarding this edit:

There are several problems, but to summarize the deeper issues, Scientology articles have a sustained problem with SPAs adding paragraphs of mundane details supported by relatively obscure academic religious studies sources. These edits are always almost identical in format and style, down to pat-phrases and cite template idiosyncrasies. Regardless, taken individually these kinds of edits would be easy to overlook, but not when viewed as a long-term pattern. These edits disrupt and damages articles by overwhelming them with oddly-selected trivia which has been stripped of surrounding context or due weight.

As for this specific edit, who, exactly, is being quoted? Donald A. Westbrook, or Harriet Whitehead? If the latter, why is the former even mentioned at all? Are we providing readers with a reliable way to assess their expertise? Why are these lengthy quotes from 1987 useful as a concluding paragraph for a section with more recent and much more specific details? This seems to me like yet more filler in an already convoluted article. Further, it's not clear to me what, exactly, this quote is even saying. "Occupations cannot be without significance"? Why would we assume otherwise?

As with this group of editors' other additions, these works are always available on Google Books, although links are never included in the citations. The actual source provides significant context to the provided quote. Westbrook specifically says that his own research "disputes the implication that Scientologists are only, or merely, attracted to Scientology for reasons of secular self-improvement" Westbrook isn't attacking Whitehead's paper (OCLC 14002616), but he is quoting is specifically to elaborate on it and fill-in details. Quoting this supremely obscure work without any of this important context is cherry-picking. Westbrook is very sympathetic to the Church, but even so, he is still saying that it's much more complicated than this. If a source is quoting something specifically to say it's more complicated than that, we shouldn't misrepresent this as a simple factoid.

As I said (here and elsewhere) this is typical of many of the academic quotes found in Scientology articles. Every time I look at these edits I find the same problems. Grayfell (talk) 18:12, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Recapping, I reverted your removal and you reverted my revert. I applaud your vigilance and your reasoning established above. Ironically, my initial concern was that you might have been one of the those SPA's that you are being vigilant about. I concur with your reasoning and removal of the material. North8000 (talk) 02:36, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Government opinions of Scientology

The majority of this section needs moving to Scientology. That Scientology is a religion seems to me like a self-evident fact, but any extended discussion of legal opinions about Scientology's recognition as such belongs on a page about the religion. The caveat being that judicial bodies have not always been careful to distinguish between the Church and the religion itself so it needs to be done with some care. Cambial Yellowing(❧) 11:01, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't quite follow the logic, the section details governmental responses to the church and its activities within each country's jurisdiction, including legal status and official position. It seems perfectly suitable to be placed here, with internal links to the main pages. Mramoeba (talk) 14:26, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2019

Please fix some usage errors in the statistics section.

  • In 2011 census the number of scientologist rose to 1,745. ==> The number of Scientologists rose to 1,745 in the 2011 census.
  • said to have experience ==> said to have experienced

208.95.51.53 (talk) 19:57, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:44, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Scientology and COVID-19 section

What I’ve added to the United Methodist Church and Church of Scientology are verifiable by third party resources and adhere to WP:NPOV. The editor who reverted the COVID-19 section simply said “not needed, thank you” without explaining exactly why it is not needed. To call straightforward information on how a religion has responded to pandemic is not public relations or spam. How is the collaboration of the United Nations and a religion to respond to a crisis public relations? How is a link to official statements spam? Official statements by religions to COVID-19 is just as relevant as links to official websites, and most, if not all of these statements live on official URLs. What concerns me is there seems to be a concerted effort from denying the role of and effect on religions that COVID-19 has had by denying the addition of this information. As evidenced by the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_of_the_2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pandemic_on_religion, the coronavirus has had a great effect on religion and their response to it should be reflected on Wikipedia.Greatawakening2020 (talk) 18:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

See WP:NOTNEWS. Theroadislong (talk) 19:09, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
To make sure I wasn't missing anything, I looked for WP:INDY sources on Scientology's handling of Covid-19. Here's a handful:
As these sources indicate, it's far from simple, and far from "effective". Still, this absolutely doesn't rise to the level of encyclopedic significance, at least not yet, and not without a ton more sources. Grayfell (talk) 22:39, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Membership statistics - duplicate point

Hello everyone,

in the membership statistics the bullet for "Switzerland" is written doubly, as an exact duplicate ("In 2011 support for Scientology in Switzerland was said to have..."). One of these two should be removed. --2001:8003:4E64:CA00:106E:6651:EE0A:E22A (talk) 05:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Volunteer Ministers section

Hi Grayfell. We meet again. You seem to be using WP:NOTNEWS to deter any kind of religion and COVID-19 related edits, which I frankly do not understand. I reviewed the policy and it does not apply to the content I added. I’ve added similar content to several other pages and it was accepted by the community. You seem to also be mainly fixated on Scientology related pages. Why this policy does not apply: it is not breaking news, it is not a routine news report and it is definitely not a diary. It relates to the efforts of the Church of Scientology through the Volunteer Ministers in the historical event of the COVID-19 pandemic. I stand by my edit and request that it be reinstated. If anything, discussions for modification should take place, not complete, thoughtless removal.Greatawakening2020 (talk) 16:47, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

This is already discussed in the above section. Speculating about my motives is entirely inappropriate. The burden is on you to gain consensus for disputed changes. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate listing of events. The lasting, encyclopedic significance of these these publicity-minded events has not been demonstrated by significant coverage, and your summary of these activities was incomplete and lopsided. Again, the burden is on you to gain consensus for changes anywhere. This applies on an article-by-article basis, and this is especially true for Scientology-related articles, as Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia has been a serious problem in the past. This is also indicated by the lengthy information boxes at the top of this talk page. Grayfell (talk) 20:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Grayfell and have concerns with Greatawakening2020's edits even beyond those expressed by Grayfell.North8000 (talk) 21:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
The author of one of the refs inserted is a scientologist, the Krugersdorp article is basically a press release/puff piece on the church and should not be considered. Given the style of the second ref I would guess the same. Either way, none of this is encyclopaedic and the page is not here for Scientology press releases. Mramoeba (talk) 09:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Why is the anti-scientology persecution hidden in Wikipedia?

Why does Wikipedia support the US dictatorship and its propaganda? Rowemotto (talk) 01:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

@Rowemotto: To put it simply, it doesn't. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 01:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2021

Change typo "Scientoogy" in reference #142 to "Scientology." Comhozisf233 (talk) 18:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I did it. Thanks for spotting.North8000 (talk) 18:37, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

headquarters is incorrect

The “headquarters” op value is incorrect. the correct value is: Flag, Clearwater, Florida.

“Flag, its spiritual headquarters in Clearwater, Florida.”

source: https://www.scientology.org/churches/flag-land-base/ Joostgriffioen (talk) 06:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

professionalize description

Maybe we could professionalize the description by making it less assaultive, and more accurate. For example:

“In 2014, a panel of the UK Supreme Court unanimously ruled that a Scientology chapel is a "place of meeting for religious worship", affirming Scientology‘s status as a religion in the country. While many, theologians in particular, critically approach the idea, social scientists widely agree it "satisfies the abstract criteria for recognition as a religion".”

source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_status_by_country Joostgriffioen (talk) 06:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Several problems here. First of all, the description is not "assaultive", so the premise for the needed change does not exist. Second, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Third, "Social scientists"[who?] are not the only group whose view is relevant; we reflect all views in secondary reliable sources according to their prominence. Fourthly, the source cited for that assertion is an editorial, not a peer-reviewed article, in Anthropology Today. The assertion they make about social scientists is sourced to a single "white paper" written by one social scientist in 1980. That's one social scientist 40 years ago; hardly a case for "widely agree". The full quote is "Social scientists generally agree that Scientology satisfies the abstract criteria for recognition as a religion. But is there not more to be said by social scientists than limply agreeing with Lord Toulson’s judgement – which taken to its logical conclusion would give accreditation to any verbally dexterous group claiming the status of a religion?" Quite. Cambial foliage❧ 09:03, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Recent additions to Government opinions of Scientology

Regarding this revert, I have several issues. This lengthy addition was undue based on a single obscure source. The cited edition is not online, either, making this difficult to verify. The quotes were poorly attributed and excessively long. The language used was also non-neutral. Informal and overly promotional phrases such as "opened opportunities" and "paving the way" should not be used in a neutral encyclopedia. Further, much if the added information is redundant with the following subsections of the same section of the same article. This is not merely a summary of the section, it is added bloat to promotional effect. This addition of tedious redundancy so closely matches previous edits to this topic that WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT must be considered. Grayfell (talk) 01:48, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with your post and reversion, and the new material had even more problems than you noted. As a sidebar, your "not online so...." was a sidebar note and not the basis for your reversion. North8000 (talk) 01:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, thank you, being offline is not a valid reason for reversion. In the past, multiple sock farms editing this topic have obfuscated sources to make them harder to verify. When these sources are tracked-down, they are often accessible online, just not linked. This one is no exception. These sources also often do not actually support the attached content, or at least only support a warped version of it. This particular edit included the OCLC number without bothering to link to a page number or Google Books, which is, if nothing else, precocious. This is also consistent with the pattern. This doesn't prove anything, but I do not think it's a coincidence. Grayfell (talk) 02:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. I am not really understanding some of the other context here but I can provide a source that discusses this reference. https://freedomofbelief.net/articles/how-scientology-changed-the-legal-definition-of-religion Also the source directly supports the attached content and I can paste the reference text here if necessary. Some modification of what is perceived is promotional language can be done instead of removing the important information altogether, also this feedback does not address that a reliable author published some notable information about Scientology. I have also seen several undisputed "facts" in Scientology related pages only sourced to one book or one author.Luckystars1981 (talk) 22:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Freedomofbelief.net doesn't appear to be a reliable source, as it appears to be a blog used mostly by lawyers. The connection to CESNUR via Bitter Winter is also a red flag. Being verifiable is necessary, but not sufficient, for inclusion. The info is not inherently important. The article needs less bloat, not more. Grayfell (talk) 22:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
IMO the insertion has a long list of problems, including the 6-8 problems noted in the post at the beginning of this section.North8000 (talk) 22:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Erroneous link

I cannot make edits for whatever reason, but there is a place where "stress test" links to the article on stress tests of hardware. clearly a mistake, and confusing.2601:642:C481:4640:0:0:0:6FB7 (talk) 06:57, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I took it out. North8000 (talk) 12:57, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Church of Scientology - Section Membership Statistics, members in Germany

The article states: 'In 2005, the German Office for the Protection of the Constitution estimated a total of 5,000 – 6,000 Scientologists in that country, and mentioned a count of 12,000 according to Scientology Germany.'

In their most current 2020 report, date of issue June 2021, the Bundesverfassungsschutz (German Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution) estimates the number of Scientologists in Germany to be approx. 3,500 including the statement 'the same as 2019'. (According to these figures Scientologists account for .004% of the German population of 83 million)

Scientology's own figures are not reported.

The reason seems to be that Scientology Germany no longer publishes follower numbers. After an exhaustive search in the official website of Scientology Germany, I did not find any information about the number of their followers in Germany.

Scientology in Germany seems to be in decline since 2005, see the figures of the German statistics portal de.statista.com: https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/36931/umfrage/mitgliederzahl-von-scientology-in-deutschland/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8070:180:A4E0:1CA8:118F:811B:C538 (talk) 10:54, 8 January 2022 (UTC)


Note: I would call public Scientologists (as opposed to staff or the sea org) followers or clients rather than members. Members, as in an association or a regular church, have certain statutory rights of participation and co-determination, which Scientologists do not have. They simply come in and buy materials or services - as in a store or beauty parlor.

Source: link to the official homepage of Bundesverfassungsschutz. They even have an English version of their 2020 Report on the Protection of the Constitution:

https://www.verfassungsschutz.de/SharedDocs/publikationen/DE/verfassungsschutzberichte/2021-06-brief-summary-2020-report-on-the-protection-of-the-constitution.pdf;jsessionid=2F46AB4298B793C80298DBA8AA47395A.internet532?__blob=publicationFile&v=11

This is the link to the original German version:

https://www.verfassungsschutz.de/SharedDocs/publikationen/DE/verfassungsschutzberichte/2021-06-verfassungsschutzbericht-2020.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=8

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8070:180:A4E0:1192:3C63:A29B:E9F4 (talk) 15:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2019 and 12 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lexykayy.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Church_of_Scientology/Archive_2&oldid=1136613782"