Talk:Scientology terminology

criticism

I point out that this statement found in the article under the heading "criticism" has no validation to it.

Some critics of Scientology assert that this use of loaded language is used as a manipulation tool and that Hubbard's teaching that inability to learn is caused by going past words you don't understand is designed to keep students of Scientology from questioning the workability of the Scientology teachings and instead think it must be their own fault if they don't achieve the expected wins.

Further, "expected wins" is itself Scientology jargon and subject to misunderstanding. Can we at least talk about it before I proceed with the expected Wiki policy of cutting it from the article and pasting it here for discussion ? I might too point out that certain doctors of divinity and other qualified persons in the field of religion were invited by the CoS to publically state their opinions of Scn. I only read a dozen or so. Most of them mentioned the specialized language, none of them spoke of it as a manipulation technique to (as you've implied) supress people by making them think it is their own fault they can't win. Terryeo 01:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Terryeo's massive rewrite

I reverted it because as usual, Terryeo has completely rewritten almost every paragraph into a sanitized (and less coherent) version that puts pro-Scientology spin on everything. wikipediatrix 20:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I understand perfectly. You prefer definitions which are difficult to understand and contain within themselves, words of specialized meanings to beguile the reader. :) My definitions, cited and coherent, done per wiki policy don't have enough confusions in them to satisfy you, I understand. Well, gosh. But what about the poor reader? With the reversion you did (no creation on your part), the reader has a babble of confusion to work through, the subject is presented to prevent a reader from understanding. Terryeo 21:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Um, not to get involved more than to throw in an opinion, but since when do the articles require ease of understanding for prospective readers. Given that the prospective readers category includes anyone with access to the internet, it would be impossible to create an article they would all understand. If universal understandability were what we were going for, I can only imagine the rewrites in the various genetics, physics, engineering, and numerous other scientific categories, to say nothing of the philosophy department. Just my 2 meseta --G 1 17:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

What is the point of writing anything if nothing is communicated? Terryeo 00:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

We're not talking about "nothing" being communicated. I believe he's saying we shouldn't dumb down the articles to make them appeal to the lowest common denominator. wikipediatrix 01:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed

Can someoe who knows something about some actual founded criticisms of Scientology redo the criticisms section? if it's not soon done I'll do it soon myself. The section reads like a bitter ex-member of scientology criticising it under the guise of "some people" for therapy.

Elomis

I'm just saying, y'know ? For a statement that is broad and general like, the reason WHY Scientology developed vocabularly is to make the subject less accessible, a reference should be given. Because if a broad, general statement is not referenced some editor is going to remove it. It sounds like original research unless it is referenced. Terryeo 00:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Citation Nr. 8

Umm... ...sorry, but what does Leni Riefenstahl's biography have to do with anything?--Newbiepedian 11:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)