Talk:Scientology

message: For accessibility and display compatibility, the manual of style (MOS:QUOTE) indicates that quotes should be in blockquote format. Quoteboxes are not generally appropriate in articles as they display vertically on mobile browsers. Cambial — foliar❧ 14:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither of your assertions are correct. Mobile does NOT show  vertically. (See here https://ibb.co/V38F1Jk) And MOS:QUOTE does NOT say must be in , it says .    ▶ I am Grorp ◀  14:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: By display vertically I mean that it is not over to one side as it is on a computer browser - one image does not demonstrate otherwise. Instead it displays above the beginning of the following paragraph (i.e. in that case at the beginning of the section before our paragraphs in wikivoice). The text you quoted supports what I wrote:  - . It doesn't support your misrepresentation of what I wrote, but that isn't relevant. Cambial — foliar❧ 14:49, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

text:  see Safari on ios and Chrome on ios. Cambial — foliar❧ 15:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you had looked at the URL in the screenprint I posted, https://ibb.co/V38F1Jk, you would have noticed it IS the mobile version. If, however, you were referring only to a cell phone format, then please mention that next time. Not only is that quotation not very long, it is a key belief of Scientologists and as such should be more prominently placed than at the bottom of the section—which is where you put it at first, and it looked like crap, overlapping with the section which followed (not unlike placing an image too close to the bottom of a section). Now that you provided some screenshots, and I checked my own cell phone (which I do not use for Wikipedia), I can see how a cell phone version looks better as a boxquote, though short boxquotes on a larger screen look awful unless you add a |author= parameter. I suppose that's because wiki's mobile version uses a bar along the left of a boxquote making it obvious it is a quote, and the non-mobile version does not (making the indentation look like a mistake or oversight). I'll try to be more aware of cell and mobile version formatting, and hope you'll try to be more aware of non-mobile version formatting on screens bigger than a few inches. Question: I'm curious if you always/only use a cell phone to access Wikipedia, or do you use other formats/devices?    ▶ I am Grorp ◀  15:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotation formatting 

message: Scientology describes itself as a religion that was founded in the 1950s by L. Ron Hubbard. At the core of Scientology is a belief that each human has a reactive mind that responds to life's traumas, clouding the analytic mind and keeping us from experiencing reality. Vikas nalage (talk) 15:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: That would need strong sourcing. While that being a belief , a far reaching statement making it a singular item and, "at the core" is quite a stretch, and treating "scientology" as a monolith.  Also, since Scientology is so many different things, it would probably need calibration e.g. "at the core of it's teachings" or something like that.North8000 (talk) 16:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Things like a sect, a cult, a company, an organisation of organised criminality. Things like that. Encyclopédisme (talk) 21:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not disputing what you wrote but it's not really useful for this edit request.    Actually I was just discussing the contents of the edit request.   The more specific appropriate response is that of M.Bitton below.      Edit requests need to be very specific as described below.  Not just a general idea that somebody else needs to develop a specific edit for.   If anyone wants to discuss general ideas/suggestions, that is welcome in article talk, an edit request is not the place to do it. North8000 (talk) 23:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

text: 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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 15:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2024 

message: I agree that the article is too long. Opening a thread here in which to put comments and engage in discussion.    ▶ I am Grorp ◀  18:19, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: That inevitably leads to the idea of a top level article and top level sub-articles beneath it. Which then leads to the fact that we basically have two top level articles (this and Scientology beliefs and practices)which are 90% duplications of each other. And this is inherent in the title because "practices" is 80% of what Scientology is.  And we have many many sub articles but no organized usable set that this areticlecan me made more dependent on.     My thought for a 2 year plan is to make / keep this article as the top level one and decide on 4-6 main top level sub articles are just beneath it.   And "Beliefs and Practices" needs to be changed somewhow. Maybe refine / clarify it to only practices that are very closely related to beliefs.  North8000 (talk) 18:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree re: Sci beliefs and practices and this article. It should be merged into this one, in my view. The Church of Scientology and Scientology in religious studies sections ought to be considerably shorter. The controversies section ought not to exist (as per WP:STRUCTURE): its parts should be incorporated into the main narrative about the movement/scam. Cambial — foliar❧ 20:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

text: I agree about this being the top-level, and that there is no reason to look to structures from other articles. My view is that this article is not and ought not to be about organisations, but about what the opening sentence says: the set of ideas [beliefs and activities], and a movement that follows those ideas. That movement as a whole specifically not being an organisation, insofar as it is disorganised. You're right that we obviously cannot ignore that CoS organisation is by some margin the most publicly visible part of that movement (and, historically, its source). But we can't say that it's representative of the whole. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that you have disputed my use of the  word "organization" but if you knew the limited way I intended it perhaps you would not.   I just meant it as the only vague-enough term to include all of the above listed things. Nothing more.    If it will clear it up, I'll use the word "agglomeration" instead.  So, when when are trying to figure out coverage structure we need to recognize that Scientology is an agglomeration of all of the above things. North8000 (talk) 13:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate that clarification, and agree. I think the distinction is useful: Scientology (the non-ideas meaning) is an agglomeration (nebulous, disparate, but with common characteristics); Church of Scientology is an organisation (connected legal entities, has a CEO, etc). Cambial — foliar❧ 13:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

text: North8000, where do you suggest the administrative practices go?    ▶ I am Grorp ◀  18:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: That sort of relates to what the "top tier" sub articles are.  The subject being such a complex agglomeration I'm  still trying to think of an idea. North8000 (talk) 11:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

text: Looks fine apart from "Controversies". We ought not to be separating content based on the apparent POV subject, so as to maintain NPOV. Scientology as a business would also come right under this article in a hierarchy. Cambial — foliar❧ 14:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Very long" tag 

message: Change: 
to: 
I have twice attempted to correct the information, but  reverted it here and here. I believe Cambial Yellowing is unable to correctly evaluate this issue considering their edit summaries, such as the derisive personal opinion about auditing "let's not assume this actually occurs when it's just a made-up lie", the incorrect "make clear it's pay-per-hour", and the snide comment to me while still being incorrect "nevertheless, this is not a one-time payment" (oh yes it is). I am tired of dealing with WP:OWNBEHAVIOR games. Someone else (besides Cambial) should make the determination of this content dispute.
Reasons for the change: The longer sentence is incorrect; the shorter sentence is correct. The longer sentence makes it seem like scientology auditing sessions are one hour long (or some fixed period), and paid per-session like you might find in psychology counseling. Scientology auditing sessions are not one hour long, nor fixed; they could be 5 minutes, or they could be several hours long. A Scientologist purchases auditing in blocks of 12.5 hours, called an "intensive". Intensives have long been paid in advance, and at the end of each session the used minutes during the session are deducted from the number remaining on account. It is administered like retainer fees in professions like lawyers and accountants. Before starting an auditing program, scientologists must purchase in advance the estimated number of intensives the case supervisor told them they would probably need for that program. That might be a much as 4, 8 or more intensives (50 or 100 hours or more). The Church of Scientology is suppose to deliver one intensive (12.5 hrs) per person per week. Early on in COS history, an "intensive" meant auditing within a single week, and sometimes that target was 25 hours of auditing in a single week per individual. So one session does not equal one hour like is common in psychology therapy. (Side note re stats: Registrars count their stats as dollars income (however many intensives they could sell that week); HGCs count one "paid start" each time a 12.5-hr intensive is started; auditors count "well done auditing hours".)
Here are just some of the sources to back up what I have written.
   ▶ I am Grorp ◀  03:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing in the sentence  makes it . You evidently accept that an hourly/time-based rate is charged for auditing, so the sentence is not incorrect, as you claim. Your increasingly tiresome repetitive charge of ownership lacks merit, so there's no reason to respond to it. Cambial — foliar❧ 04:04, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  Cambial: A fee is charged for auditing services (inferred correctly in the short sentence). Fees are not charged for auditing sessions (inferred incorrectly in the longer sentence). I sense your English is good enough to understand the difference between those two sentences. However, it is a fact that your insertion of "for each session" was accompanied by the erroneous "this is not a one-time payment", and when thus combined implies you meant a payment for "each session". So either you did not understand the source material or you chose not to. But I believe your reading comprehension is good enough to understand the underlying sources, so I lean toward the latter explanation because here you are—again—deliberately insisting and defending your version directly in the face of sources and facts to the contrary (a repeating behavior with you and the main articles of Scientology). So if this is not OWNBEHAVIOR, then you tell me what it is.    ▶ I am Grorp ◀  06:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Your false dichotomy is not a serious argument: "" - your implicit claim these are the only possibilities is unsupported. I understood the various sources materials, and the sentence accurately reflects them. Your claim that  is inaccurate, almost to the point of absurdity. Many other editors have made both small and comprehensive changes to the page. Where their edits are based on reliable scholarship, or correct the grammar or improve the flow of the text, I welcome them. Edits based on someone's personal interpretation of a primary source, or which introduce a grammatical error already fixed by another editor, are not improvements. Cambial — foliar❧ 10:49, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request / content dispute / re auditing sessions