Talk:Church of Scientology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Arbitration Committee has placed all Scientology-related articles on probation (see relevant arbitration case). Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages.

This is not a forum for general discussion of Church of Scientology, or anything not directly related to improving the Wikipedia article. Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Church of Scientology article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details

The Arbitration Committee has placed all Scientology-related articles on probation (see relevant arbitration case). Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages. Scientology Portal This article is supported by WikiProject Scientology, a collaborative effort to help develop and improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scientology. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on Scientology-related topics. See WikiProject Scientology and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments This article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Wikiproject Rational Skepticism seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudosciences, pseudohistory and skepticism. Please feel free to help us improve this page. See Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments

This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. The citation is in: "Miroljub Labus Scientologist.", Nacional, July 28, 2004. (details)

Contents 1 Questionable Ordering 2 Who's at the top? 3 Co$ 4 Chanology section

[edit] Questionable Ordering

Well I'm new to this section, just happened to stumble across it from some other linked page. Anyways, what alarms is that it seems to be a bit biased in that the controversy section has been moved to the very top of the article. I'm far from a fan of scientology, but under the current ordering - it seems extremely biased to bash or criticize the wiki topic before even explaining it. The current ordering is a brief 3-4 paragraph history, followed by the criticism section, I commend the length of the criticism section - as in other cult-like cases (see sai-baba wiki) the criticism section has been cut up and removed by much of its followers. Anyways, I think someone capable of reordering the article should move the controversy section down a bit, it should be #6 or 7 above Legal Waivers IMO. My rationale behind this is that the wiki topic should be explained before showing the criticism behind it, regardless of whatever the topic is. JayAlto (talk) 09:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with this. It probably doesn't need to move all the way to the bottom, but at least a couple of sections setting out the group and its activities would be a better introduction to the article. --12.47.123.121 (talk) 23:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The Scientology pages on Wikipedia are the result of a massive effort to discredit it. Don't bother. 90.128.44.163 (talk) 15:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Who's at the top?

I want to know more about the inner circle at the top of the CoS. Does the evidence suggest they're firm believers, or is there evidence that they know the whole thing is a scam? People pour money into the CoS. Where does that money go? Who's getting rich? Who's the CEO? Did these people rise up through the ranks (which would be evidence that they're believers) or did they skip the typical initiation phase?

[edit] Co$

Having Co$ redirect here (and thus placing it at the very top of the article) is way, way over the top. 90.128.44.163 (talk) 15:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

How so? It's a commonly used acronym (on the internet at least) for scientology. Articles such as Square Co. and Bbc.co.uk, the top results when searching for Co$ (or just co), isn't exactly relevant. What do you mean with "thus placing it at the very top of the article"? --Execvator (talk) 01:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

"Redirected from Co$" is at the top of the article when linked like this: Church of Scientology. My mistake. It's not such a big deal, otherwise. Do you think this is nit-picking? 90.134.51.3 (talk) 19:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chanology section

Why isn't there a Chanology section? It's done massive impact in the past 6 months, and serious business. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.183.106.150 (talk) 20:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

There is already a Project Chanology article. This article is about the Church of Scientology, not about its critics, however large a group that might be. There's a "See Also" link to Project Chanology, and I could see a mention of it going into the Controversy section, but I don't think it needs its own entire section here. --GoodDamon 19:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The majority of this article is about its critics. 90.135.48.133 (talk) 21:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

No, the majority of this article is about the various church and church-affiliated organizations, with critical content on much of it. It is not "about [the church's] critics." There is a difference. Critical content contrasts what critics say about the church. If the article were about the critics, we'd get to read all about xenu.net and Mark Bunker here. It's not about them. --GoodDamon 21:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)