Talk:Timeline of Scientology/Archive 1

Comment

This should be a non-pov historical timeline. Please use verifiable sources for positive and negative information. If someone has a better way to format this data, I look forward to seeing it!

I don't think this article can ever function properly. There's just way too much stuff that belongs on a Scientology timeline, and the length of the article will reach its maximum long before even a tenth of that information can be added to it. wikipediatrix 16:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably correct. I wanted to trace major events in one place, but it already looks horrible and there doesn't seem to be much interest. I will not object if someone afd's it. Gallup 01:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serious Doubts...

About the very first timeline entry. Nowhere have I ever heard or read anything about that many novels, that many genres, or having anything to do with filmmaking, attributed to L. Ron... John 19:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thus I removed it. Timeline now beginswith the 1938 entry. Changed the wording to fit it being the first entry. Take a look at the previous version of the page to see what I removed. John 03:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, the article tells us that in 1998, Sonny Bono pushes for the passage of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, which extends the copyright protection of all copyrighted works (including Scientology teachings) an extra 20 years? Maybe he introduced it in 1998, but how much "pushing" could he have done, since he died on January 5? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.218.205.17 (talk) 21:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That bar bet

There is a persistantly circulating rumor, that has been spread over several decades now ( I myself first encountered it in the very early 1980's), that L. Ron Hubbard at some point placed a bet with a skeptic that he could launch a significant religious path based upon spiritual truths and symbolisms as expressed in his ideas and writings. (Note: given the often haphazard origins of many currently serious and meaningful religious paths, some now even quite ancient, this does NOT necessarily rule out Scientology as a relevant spiritual path. It would - if anything - merely grant it an interesting footnote of details included in its origin.) If there is proof either for or against this "bet" concept, it might be a point of interest (not necessarily relevant to the spiritual validity of Scientology) to either substantiate or debunk this rumor. (Perhaps this has already been done, and I am not privileged to have seen it yet...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.128.106.110 (talk • contribs)

I've looked into them. I think the ones with "see who can start a better religion" (usually involving Heinlein or Herbert) can be ruled out. Recently I stumbled across accounts from Judith Merril and Frederik Pohl that mention a bet. This was in the New York/New Jersey area in the post-war 40s where they were present, and involved an editor who (perhaps fed up with Hubbard's frequent "start a religion" comments) bet Hubbard to come up with an outline of his religion by the next day. Other than that, there aren't too many details, but this one has consistency that most of the others lack. Judy Merril and Fredric Pohl were a couple, were in that area at that time, this was directly told (separately) by them to a writer who was doing guest liaison for the Ad Astra Science Fiction convention where Fredric Pohl was a guest at least once and Judy attended frequently, and then from her to me. I think that there's another account out on the web separately sourced to Judith Merril and/or Fredric Pohl that mainly agrees with the one I had from Shirley Meier.

But.. So what? As a 3rd-hand verbal story, it still lacks details like the exact date and location, the name of the editor, and most of all it lacks any references and citations that can be verified. Perhaps if either Judy or Fred wrote this down in any of their published non-fiction writings or letters, it could be used in Wikipedia. (I know just the librarian to ask about that, but haven't yet.) AndroidCat 13:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Counter Protest?

An estimated 3,000 gather at Clearwater City Hall to protest the church coming to Clearwater. Across the street, Scientologists stage a counter rally, dressed as clowns and wearing animal costumes.^{[citation needed]}

Does anyone have ANY idea where this information came from? I'd like to know if there's any truth to this. Thanks. 216.16.225.194 (talk) 13:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times - Breaking With Scientology - Timeline

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/03/07/us/scientology.html

Timeline info, from source, The New York Times. Cirt (talk) 05:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with the timeline

This article is not really a timeline of scientology, it is closer to a timeline of scientology controversy in which case the title should be changed or should be deleted altogether as there is already a pgae for scientology controversy. According to this article L.Ron Hubbard only wrote Excalibur,Dianetics, History of Man and OT3. This does not give any real information on the timeline of the church. This is nowhere near neutral. DoctorRed (talk) 18:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it would serve better to delete this article, and split the Scientology article to make a History of Scientology article. The history section of Scientology is very long, and most Scientology-related articles have become a mess... RUL3R (talk) 21:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. It looks like the article's referencing has improved much relatively recently. Cirt (talk) 00:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But the issue here is not refencing, but neutrality RUL3R (talk) 00:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right this is not really a timeline of scientology just of controversy.References number 2 5 are attack sites and should not be used at all. How about everything that says reference needed gets taken out and the article gets done to show a HISTORY and not just highlight controversy.DoctorRed (talk) 02:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The references themselves are WP:RS sources, but per WP:COPYLINKS the links to copies of the references can be removed. Cirt (talk) 02:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well can the book Hidden History of Scientology written by Omar Garrison be used to contribute to this article?DoctorRed (talk) 03:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The book is described here [1] as "a more sympathetic treatment". Hidden History of Scientology came out in 1974, here is some more info on author Omar Garrison's collaborations with the Church of Scientology: What really happened with the L. Ron Hubbard biography by Omar Garrison. Also, per A Piece of Blue Sky: Omar Garrison, who had been commissioned to write the biography. So I think we'd have to treat this with suspicion, it is likely this work was also commissioned by the Church of Scientology, and is therefore not a reliable secondary source. Cirt (talk) 03:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And why are attack sites a reliable one? Shouldn't bias in references be avoided both ways? There are serious NPOV issues all around this topic... RUL3R (talk) 04:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This whole thing is kind of crazy. Can't use Hidden history of scientology because it sides with with scientology but a piece of blue sky can be used because it is against scientology? So something has to be attacking scientology for it to be NPOV? So all an attack site or book has to do is say that anything that supports scientology is commissioned by it and it is no good? That would be the same thing as using White Nationalist sites to write about Martin Luther King Jr.DoctorRed (talk) 06:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what I said. I actually support removing links to sites that reproduce content, as per WP:COPYLINKS. But that does not mean we have to remove the entire citation, just the link as part of the citation. Cirt (talk) 06:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still, we are citing sources which are biased against Scientology and deeming them "reliable", while not allowing sources biased in favor of Scientology by deeming them "unreliable." We should reference an unbiased book/site/newspaper, not a book written with the specific purpose of attacking and/or creating controversy. RUL3R (talk) 07:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the best sources to use would be "an unbiased book/site/newspaper". Can you suggest any particular citations to use? Cirt (talk) 08:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you are going to allow bias you have to allow it on both sides. This article should be simple even though that is has become alsmost meme to post negatively about the church of scientology, the article should focus on the timeline of Scientology. It should be straight forward events and dates, comments by critics are not significant and i highly doubt that it would be tollerated if someone were to put in the article positive things the church has done.DoctorRed (talk) 01:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you suggest some WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources for "positive things the church has done" ? Cirt (talk) 04:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am searching for some now. There are news articles that show the positive things the volunteer ministers have done here. Can i use the hidden history of scientology? A critic saying that omar garrison was paid is no more valid than Omar garrison saying he wasn't. But the positive/negative thing should not be an issue for this article, this is about the timeline of scientology as a religion. There should not be any bias in any direction it should be a list of dates and events. I will get the release dates of the books and stuff like that put on the article but some things here are just wrong.I believe The lisa Mcphearson case was dropped. And if anyone were to examine the Landmark education page you would find it is done in a much more neutral fashion and those articles are edited by cirt.DoctorRed (talk) 22:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quite some speculation on Wikipedia administration... RUL3R (talk) 23:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but look at the articles on Est and Landmark eduaction, very neutral articles. They are not littered with comments by critics like the scientology pages. They say nothing like est was founded by Werner Erhard a used-car salesman or that it has made millions off of it's followers. Look at the timeline of Erhard Seminars Training, just dates. There is no reason why the scientology articles cannot be as neutral as the Landmark and EST articles.DoctorRed (talk) 20:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I understand, and agree, that many Scientology related articles are very critical of the organization activities. What I am saying is that your comment con Cirt's identity is very speculative. You might very well have violated WP:PA RUL3R (talk) 21:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Got it i appoligize and it is fixed. I was just trying to illustrate that the admin overseeing this article is fully capable of writting a neutral article about a controversial subject he just chooses not to.DoctorRed (talk) 21:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And, now, returning to the topic. The problem is not that Scientology hasn't done any "positive things." The big issue here is that there are few, if any, secondary sources that fit WP:RS and WP:V and cover whatever good deeds the church makes. I believe this is mostly because the organization is attacked in, and despised by, every major news outlet (starting with TIME Magazine's The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power, referenced in many Scientology-related articles), and the only publisher that is willing to portray Scientology in a good light is Bridge Publications, but it won't fit because its primary, and has ties with Scientology. We would have a hard time finding sources for positive doings of Scientology. RUL3R (talk) 22:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

well it should not be slanted one way or the other. For example:

1951-First published work on Dianetics appeared in the Winter/Spring issue of the Explorers Club Journal entitled "Terra Incognita: The Mind". At this time he offered his findings on the mind to both the American Medical Association and the American Psychiatric Association. Both organizations rejected them

Why even put that it was rejected? This is a timeline and should be neutral Dianetics being rejected by the AMA has little to do with scientology. I can find sources that are pro-scientology but putting them up would make this less neutral. look at the timeline on the Erhard Seminars Training article this should be more like that. The Sbuject of scientology has been put in numerous other articles just to slant the subject further look at Front organization and it's history. At first scientology was the only religious group that had "front organizations" now it has it's own section.DoctorRed (talk) 22:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: DoctorRed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked indefinitely as an abusive sockpuppet. Cirt (talk) 06:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although he did made a point. Per WP:YESPOV:

Article content should clearly describe, represent, and characterize disputes within topics, but without endorsement of any particular point of view.

Most, if not all, Scientology-related articles seem to endorse a negative POV (which, IMHO, is reinforced by the ArbCom block)...I mean, we make a controversy around Scientology's concept of reincarnation. Why is the Hindu concept of reincarnation not controversial? I understand and agree that the scientific community rejects Dianetics and it's medical claims, but why is a spiritual belief controversial? RUL3R (talk) 08:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep this talkpage dedicated to improving this article's content and discussion of WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources, not as a forum for discussion of the topic. Cirt (talk) 10:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you point somewhere that general improvements to the whole topic can be discussed? As for the WP:RS/WP:V sources, I sadly have none...All sources on that are mostly primary. RUL3R (talk) 17:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what there is to discuss, if you have no secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources to suggest. Cirt (talk) 22:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I talked about general improvements to the whole Scientology topic. Or should I make sections on each stand-alone talk page for every article I believe can be improved? RUL3R (talk) 04:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be more appropriate to discuss at WT:SCN, not here. Cirt (talk) 06:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article appears to be predominantly a timeline of legal issues, and is useful as such. The sequence of charges levied (church accused or sued), then later resolution (sometimes temporary), then final resolution (settlement, conviction, charges dropped, judgement overturned, etc,). It possibly should be renamed to simple "legal timeline of..." I do not see this page as a history of controversy as such.Neededandwanted (talk) 04:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with History of Dianetics

Duplicate subjects. Tgeairn (talk) 04:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I see nobody else has commented, so I don't think this is going to go anywhere, but for the record, here's why the article shouldn't be merged. First, a timeline is not a narrative account. They are two different types of articles. It couldn't work unless this article was rewritten to be a narrative (in which case it would no longer be a timeline) or the history article was rewritten to be a timeline (in which case it would no longer be a history). Second, they focus on different (though slightly overlapping) periods. This article focuses primarily on events after 1952. The other one focuses on events before 1952. Third and perhaps most important of all, they cover different things. Scientology evolved from Dianetics but is distinct from it. Dianetics is not Scientology. Prioryman (talk) 21:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]