Category talk:Scientology/Archive 1

Archive 1

Reoriented

The introduction states: "Scientology is a system of beliefs and teachings, originally established as a secular philosophy in 1952 by author L. Ron Hubbard, and subsequently reoriented from 1953 as an "applied religious philosophy." It is most prominently represented by the Church of Scientology, which has aroused considerable controversy since it was founded in 1954." but there is no reorientations and never was one
Because he introduced it as "a study of knowledge" and went on to spell out that because such a study would include all knowledge both about the physical universe and about man's behaviour and about man's past, present and future and about man's emotion and so on, that it would necessarily include religion. When a person applies knowledge to religion the natural result is, "an applied religious philsophy". There was no recharacterization. That was his intent from the evening he opened his mouth and first used the word in a lecture in Kansas. He makes it plain in his lecture though he does not use the exact phrase "applied religious philosophy" at that time. (as I recall, but I could check). Anyway, it was not a recharacterization and even as phrased above, isn't a recharacterization. Terryeo 01:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's a better link to the beginning date for the Church as it is today, as it is organized, as it runs it webpages, etc. etc [1] ("established in 1954" appears near the top of the page)Terryeo 10:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and I'm not sure why they make that claim. The New Jersey incorporation was clearly the first of several Church of Scientology incorporations in various states, with the Church of American Science incorporated at the same time to be the umbrella organization. (This is obvious in the incorporation papers of the California church: To accept and adopt the aims, purposes, principals and creed of The Mother Church "The Church of American Science," of Camden New Jersey [..]) The NJ incorporation was the founding step of transition from the "Scientology Clubs" of 1952 to what became the Church of Scientology of today. That particular corporation may have been dissolved and the byzantine structure reorganized several times, including dissolving the CoSC, but there it is.

Possibly, in the aftermath of Operation Snow White, it was useful to claim that LRH hadn't founded the controlling California church of the day, just like the claim was made that he stepped down from any control in 1966, but I don't see the point in continuing that story today when the documentation doesn't support it.

To save you further time, of the 1117 official sites that I have, here are the ones that mention 1954 on the main page: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] (Several of those seem to be duplicates all running on the same server.) AndroidCat 13:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not an accurate statement

Presently: "Scientology is a system of beliefs and teachings, originally established as a secular philosophy in 1952 by author L. Ron Hubbard, and subsequently reoriented from 1953 as an "applied religious philosophy." It is most prominently represented by the Church of Scientology, which has aroused considerable controversy since it was founded in 1953."

• Scientology (the philosophy) is statements on a page or in a lecture or on a film. A belief is a thought in the mind of an individual. The philosophy does not present its information as beliefs, it encourages individuals be skeptical. It might be considered "teachings" but it is far more accurate to state it is a philosophy.
• In 1952 Hubbard introduced Scientology. It was not established in 1952, it was not established until 1954. what is scientology.
• From the first introduction in 1952, in Kansas, Hubbard presented that it would be a "Study of Knowledge" and that, as a "study of knowledge" it would intrude into religion because of its broad nature. More specifically, if a man learns how to smash an atom then makes a bomb, a "study of knowledge" must also include the man's actions (such as making and using such a bomb). He presented it would intrude into the realm of religion from his first lecture which used the word. That was Scientology: Milestone One.
• There was no "reorientation", see the previous point.
• It is most prominently represented (and presented) by the Church of Scientology, but not the 1953 Church of Scientology which was a short lived affair, spelled out at what is scientology, but by the 1954 Church of Scientology which is a world wide concern, in many languages and in most countries. (something like 140 of the 191 countries recognized by the United Nations).
• Very minor rewriting of that paragraph would make it accurate. As it stands it is misleading and makes false statements. Terryeo 23:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The Church of Scientology of California (1954) was later dissolved, without a thin dime in assets. Should we date the founding from the incorporation of the current Church of Scientology International in 19 November 1981? AndroidCat 00:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The entire series of articles rests on the fact that Scientology is an active organization. Well, what was its founding date? this link (February 1954) gives those basic datums. But if there were strong, compelling evidence (publications that said otherwise) then those should be presented, too. As the Church begin, more than one attempt was made to establish an organization. Well, a religion isn't real simple, a false start or two was made. Those false starts could themselves be an article. However, some "date of introduction" of the idea is stated. (1952, Kansas, Scientology: Milestone One). And the network of Churches and Organizations today rest on the 1954 date, spelled out in that link. Obviously the articles are talking about today's Church and not a small organization that briefly existed and no longer exists. Make sense to you, or am I missing your point entirely? Terryeo 05:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Introduction, false statements.

Scientology is a system of beliefs and teachings, originally established as a secular philosophy in 1952 by author L. Ron Hubbard, and subsequently reoriented from 1953 as an "applied religious philosophy." It is most prominently represented by the Church of Scientology, which has aroused considerable controversy since it was founded in 1953.

• "secular" means "Worldly rather than spiritual" [17]. On March 3, 1952 in Witchita, Kansas, Hubbard first used the word Scientology in a public lecture titled, Scientology: Milestone One. He did NOT introduce it as a secular philosophy. Quite the opposite. He defined Scientology to be "a study of knowledge" and then stated, "as soon as we start to study knowledge, we find out we're studying man's mind again". And, "Before you can use Scientology to its fullest extent, the computer has to be cleared" (a reference to Dianetics clearing a human's mind of false computations brought about by engrams). Hubbard mentions Dianetics several times in the lecture. While some might call Dianetics "secular" (because it deals with thought and a human's mind), Scienotlogy goes further. Hubbard presented it from its inception in 1952 as an applied religious philosophy, but he did not use exactly those terms at that time.Terryeo 19:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Today's Church of Scientology was founded in 1954. There was an organization of a somewhat similar name established in 1953, but it no longer exists, it only existed briefly. To attempt to convince the reader that "The Church of Scientology" was established in 1953 is misleading, that organization of 1953 was brief and no longer exists. Today's Church of Scientology was established in 1954. The last statement of that paragraph is just plain false. Terryeo 19:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

This could be dealt with by simply removing all this text and replacing it with {{Catmore}} which is the way category pages usually appear. Definitions, and certainly when dealing with a highly contentious issue such as this, are better contained in the main article about the phenomenon. We do not need a discussion like the current one on the category talk page. __meco 19:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

That sounds sensible. Terryeo 16:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no it doesn't. It sounds like bending over backwards to accomodate a mendentious editor's unreasonable requests. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

All of the talk page traffic is due to Terryeo making the same statement three times, and never being satisfied with the answers. AndroidCat 00:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it would be much simpler to just remove the false statements from the article's introduction rather than attempt to make valid statements. Good idea. On the other hand, Android, thank you for the recognition. Terryeo 22:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the statements already there are valid, it's just that we have certain people who also like to pretend that Scientology does not have beliefs trying to argue that according to their own misuse of the English language, the statements are somehow incorrect. A single editor's unreasonable requests don't magically become more reasonable simply because he repeats them over and over. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, its gone now, and therefore a moot point, no matter how carefully I documented my statements. happy Ho Ho's. Terryeo 05:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The history goes like; LRH lost the right to use the name "Dianetics" to Don Purcell in Wichita after Purcell and Winters did not like the spiritual direction LRH was taking (i.e. past lives) and forced him out. LRH moved to Phoenix and started Scientology, taking up where he had left off. I would not term it secular. I think it is simply:

Scientology is a body of teachings and related techniques, originally established in 1952 by author L. Ron Hubbard as a renamed continuation of his work in the field of the human mind and spirit that had begun as Dianetics, self-defined in 1953 as an "applied religious philosophy." It is most prominently represented by the Church of Scientology, which has aroused considerable controversy since it was founded in 1953.

Secular is kind of an odd term there and we can easily leave it out.--Justanother 15:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we just leave it out, as per the discussion. Terryeo 15:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Leave what out? The word "secular" or the entire blurb?--Justanother 15:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the entire blurb should probably be removed. I just checked a number of categories (Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Government, Science) and none of them have an intro blurb. What say we leave it out? Less work for all of us.--Justanother 16:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please leave it out. This discussion simply results in diverting the focus away from the scientology article. There is nothing that has been discussed here regarding the beginnings of Dianetics and Scientology that hadn't better been discussed elsewhere than on a category talk page. __meco 16:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah good. Since other catagories don't have a blurb, why should this one? Terryeo 02:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Antaeus Feldspar has reinstated the blurb noting in the edit summary: "It is the exception, rather than the rule, for a category page to say NOTHING AT ALL about what the category is about." I would like to assert that this is simply and easily verifiably incorrect. It most certainly is unusual to include this type of "extra-articular" summary on the category page. __meco 07:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The introduction blurb was placed [18] by User Dysprosia, 5 June 2004. Almost all of the discussion on this page is about that blurb. I've pointed out its inaccuracies, 3 editors agree it should simply be removed. Yet Feldspar holds high his cross and has reverted 3 times, keeping the blurb on the page. And, in addition, Feldspar doesn't discuss the issue. This is pretty common for Feldspar, his discussion isn't done on discussion pages like everyone else. Instead Feldspar "discusses" by edit summary as he reverts back to what HIS POV. "POV editing" he often uses as an edit summary. Why don't you join the crowd, Feldspar, why won't you discuss here ? Terryeo 17:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Verbatim from scientology article

• I'd like you all to take a step back, take a deep breath, and remind yourselves that you are all human beings on this planet together. I took the current text directly verbatim from the intro paragraph to the main Scientology article, trimmed it down, and put it up as description. I'm not really vested in this, not yet being versed enough in Scientology lore, but I would rather not see my edit reverted. Instead, perhaps this can be a neutral compromise, seeing as how those first few lines in the Scientology article were relatively stable. What do you all think? Yours, Smeelgova 17:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC).
  • I am not on a crusade there, or anywhere, for that matter. I simply make the point that the blurb is superfluous and the categories I checked had no blurbs so why argue about something we can more easily do without. I still vote for removal but a few stable lines are OK if I am outvoted. Smeelgova, I will take your vote as neutral if you don't mind, and only delete if the consensus here in the next few days is strongly for delete.--Justanother 17:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Sounds good, and thanks for offering to wait a few days before making a decision. Anyone else have any input? On another note, I must say, User:Justanother, from the very little bit that I have interacted with you so far, it is a pleasure. For a topic like Scientology that though I am new to, I'm sure can get pretty contentious, so far you have been very polite and gracious to me, and I appreciate that. Trust me, this can be very rare at times on Wikipedia...Yours, Smeelgova 18:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC).

Archive 1