Talk:Scientology/Archive 11

message: Although its fairly minor, I question the need for the following quotes:
"In May 2001, the Russian Orthodox Church criticized Scientologists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Unificationists and Mormons as being dangerous "totalitarian sects".[37]"
Not that bad, but it's just saying that the Russian Orthodox Church criticizes scientology and it makes the other religions listed seem as similar to scientology.
"The Lutheran Church[38] in Germany has at times criticized Scientology's activities and doctrines, along with those of several other religions. According to the U.S. State Department's 2004 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, "The Lutheran Church also characterizes the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons), the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Church of Christ, Christian Scientists, the New Apostolic Church, and the Johannish Church as 'sects,' but in less negative terms than it does Scientology.""
The first sentence is the only necessary part of this paragraph, the rest is just junk.
I would change it myself but on a controversial topic like this I'd like to get someone's opinion first.
--Boccobrock 06:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmmm, I have to disagree with you on this one.  On a controversial subject, the best that a Wikipedia article can do is explain what people believe on a subject, and why reasonable people might believe it.  Some people may believe that when the Russian Orthodox Church and the Lutheran Church in Germany criticize Scientology, it's an overreaction.  If you don't know anything about Scientology, but you look at the other groups that are criticized by the same source and say "well, hey, I think all those groups are okay" then you may agree with those who think the listed sources are off-target with the criticism.  Or, on the other hand, you might say "well, I do know about those other groups and I think they are groups to be wary of, so that makes it more meaningful to me that these churches place Scientology in the same classification."  It's a matter of context. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmmm, I don't think so.  On this subject, Dianetics and Scientology, beliefs are an incredibly small piece, incredibly small.  As a philosophy, there are no Scientology beliefs in the sense that a church has beliefs.  The presentation of the knowledge which comprises Scientology, as published by its primary source and as opionions and observations from secondary sources and the occassional Doctor of Divinity is about has good as we can go, I believe.  For 2 reasons. 1) Beliefs are a trivial potion of Scientology and 2) Unlike some religions, organizations take great pains to make sure they don't study Scientology.  Particularly Psychology which doesn't spend a farthing with such studies. Terryeo 16:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Terryeo, why are you trying to change the subject?  What you are saying has absolutely nothing to do with what you replied to.  (also very little to do with the real world, where psychology is not an organization.) -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I replied because the preceeding was headed present what people believe and why they believe it.  Scientology (the philosophy) does not present beliefs, unless you call the idea, "man is basically good and trying to survive" a belief.  The philosphy presents information.  The reader reades it and is invited to use it or discard it.  The reader is not invited, by the Scientology philosophy, to belive it nor to disbelieve other information.  Certain information is stated. What the reader does with the information is up to the reader.   In no case does the philosophy Scientology, suggest that a reader should believe a datum. Terryeo 18:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unnecessary Quotes 

message: Wikipedia:External links#Occasionally acceptable links states:
:External sites can possibly violate copyright.  Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page in question is not violating someone else's copyright. If it is, please do not link to the page.  Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry).  Also, linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on us (see Wikipedia:Copyrights and in particular Contributors' rights and obligations).
I just http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientology&diff=61152680&oldid=61114751 removed a link to a probably copyright violation.  A web site that has an *entire* copy of an article, is going way beyond fair use.  Even though we don't host it here, it is the wrong thing to do.  Also, its patently absurd to have a convience link, when there's a link to the story at the official source, at washingtonpost.com.  Even if an article isn't available for free, a "convience" link is not ok, if you make it convenient to steal something.   --Rob 06:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  convenience to copyvio 

message: In the second paragraph of this article it talks about how Church spokespeople claim that Hubbards teachings have saved them from addiction, arthritis, depression, learning disabilities, mental illness, cancer and homosexuality.  I feel that homosexuality should be taken out of that statement.  There us currently no medical proof that homosexuality is a disease or a disorder, so if it isn't a disease or a disorder how can someone be "cured".
~Tony (14:05, June 29, 2006 by )
:Regardless, this is the statement that was made at the time, when homosexuality was viewed in that manner by the psychiatric and medical community. The purpose of encyclopedia articles is to establish facts, not truth. - CobaltBlueTony 19:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second paragraph of article 

message: www.ereader.com/author/detail/1552 L. Ron Hubbard at eReader.com
This "reference" from an e-bookstore is just quoting Bridge/ASI/Galaxy Press PR materials which contain a number of dubious claims. (I don't think anyone has ever been able to track down a statement directly from the rather nebulous "American Book Readers Association" about that poll, and the "publication of over 250 works of fiction" isn't supported by the Hubbard bibliography written by William J. Widder of Bridge Publications.) This is second or third hand at best and there's no indication that ereader does any fact-checking of PR material from publishers.
I can find much better references that Hubbard was a sci-fi writer, but the issue has always been: should he be listed for what he is known for, or for what he published most of (by number, not by volume)? Personally, I'd go with the former, but pulp writer (which includes his SF publications) was the compromise. AndroidCat 16:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it would depend on whether we wished to present a historical development of the philosphy, Scientology.  Or, if we wished to present Scientology as it appears today.  If we were to present the historical development, then, in 1950 when Hubbard published Dianetics: the Modern Science of Mental Health, he would be introduced as a well known science fiction writer.  He was, at that time, a member of the New York Explorer's Club, and so was known for his wide travels, and was a known Navy Officer.  But, by 1952 when he begin to lecture about Scientology, he was probably best know for his Dianetics publication.  After all, it went to the top of the charts and became a best seller, while his science fiction writing was know (at that time) by the relatively few science fiction buffs.  Science Fiction was a narrow field in those days.  While his Dianetics book was a best seller.  Therefore, if we do a historical approach, Hubbard, the creator of Dianetics.  Terryeo 18:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference challenge eReader.com

message: A minor point, but the article claims that belief in past lives is incompatible with Judaism, Christianity and Islam.  I don't know about the latter, but Judaism does believe in the transmigration of souls.  Its a major part of the Kabbalah.--ben-ze'ev 13:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Judaism and Past Lives

message: The WP:EL style guide has been significantly changed over the last few months, and I think it would be a good idea to discuss it before doing any major scrapes of links from Scientology-related articles to conform to the current version of the style guide. AndroidCat 15:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Retro-application of the expanded [[WP:EL]] style guide

message: This article is getting vandalized very often.  Perhaps scientology should be nominated for protection against anon users?  --Bmk 05:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I've semi-protected it now. -- ChrisO 07:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection