Talk:Scientology

Return to "Scientology" page.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Scientology page.


Moved some quotes to talk pageEdit

Five quotes removed from the article can be seen in this diff.

Moved above quotes to talk page, per MLKLewis (talk · contributions) complaints. Hopefully this is satisfactory. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 16:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I have redacted them from the talk page: they can be seen in the article history via the above linked "diff". ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the gesture in removing some of the quotes, however I merely used those quotes as examples. I do not agree that the remaining quotes regarding est and Erhard belong on this page. I made some comments about these edits at the Village Pump here:[1].

I do not think that the quotes that remain on the Scientology page have anything to do with Scientology itself. They are tangential to the topic of Scientology and do not concern themselves with the actual topic of this page and as such they do not belong.--MLKLewis (talk) 00:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, MLKLewis (talk · contributions), I'm glad you appreciate the gesture I made in removing sourced quotes from the page. What other specific sourced quotes would you like to discuss here on the talk page for possible removal? -- Cirt (talk) 06:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I think he referred specifically to "the remaining quotes regarding est and Erhard". Is there some ambiguity that neeeds to be resolved? ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:31, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, his reasoning as to why he feels they don't relate to Scientology other than vaguely stating that this is his opinion. -- Cirt (talk) 14:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Ok, so there was no question of "what other specific sourced quotes" are in dispute. If you disagree with the reasoning for his stated opinion about them, then that is another matter: you may want to offer a rebuttal. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
No, what I want is for MLKLewis and I to be able to amicably discuss individual specific quotes, here on the talk page. That is much more difficult to do after those quotes have been censored from even appearing on the talk page where I wish to discuss them! -- Cirt (talk) 18:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
You wrote "What other specific sourced quotes would you like to discuss" [emphasis added] Those other quotes have not been removed, and are still visible in the article. Feel free to discuss the argument MLKLewis has put forward for removing them. ~ Ningauble (talk) 12:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Right. All the quotes on the page do have to do with Scientology itself. Absent specific concerns by MLKLewis elaborated about specific quotes, discussed here on the talk page, individually, the quotes should remain. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 18:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
It is the quotes about est or Erhard that are only tangentially related to Scientology that I object to. Specifically because their appearance on this page does not serve to provide anything quote worthy about Scientology itself. In looking at the history of the page, there were 17 additions to the page relating to est or Erhard done by you, Cirt. - see [2] And while I do appreciate your removing 5 of them when I said something, I do still have objections to the rest because this is a page for quotes about Scientology and these quotes are not.--MLKLewis (talk) 01:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
MLKLewis (talk · contributions), I understand that you represent a POV that wishes to remove mention from the Internet of Scientology related to Werner Erhard and Landmark Forum, and remove mention of Landmark Forum and Werner Erhard related to Scientology. But history begs to differ from your altered view of reality with that regard. Specifically history as represented in books by academics and scholars. For these reasons I'd like to discuss the quotes you wish censored, individually here on the talk page, and not to just remove them all wholesale in one big swoop of whitewashing. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 09:57, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Cirt, I have started a new section to discuss individual quotes that I feel do not represent the topic of this page in a new section below.--MLKLewis (talk) 04:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks very much, MLKLewis, I most appreciate your willingness (at least now, apparently) to discuss quotes specifically on an individual basis. -- Cirt (talk) 19:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Quotes added back to talk page for archival purposesEdit

It is standard practice on Wikiquote to move quotes "unsuitable" for the quote page to the talk page.

This is routinely done for example for unsourced and poorly sourced quotes, they get moved to the talk page for further discussion and sourcing improvements.

The talk page then eventually may get archived and is available for future researchers for archival purposes.

Please do not remove this archived material again, thank you.

-- Cirt (talk) 14:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

For example, Ningauble (talk · contributions) has himself moved quotes "unsuitable" for the quote page to the talk page, here: "moving unsourced attributions to talk page". Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 14:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Per my reply to UDScott (talk · contributions) at User talk:Ningauble, I have self reverted, here, DIFF. I feel like this is censorship of my research and blocking of even the attempt to have a format to discuss quotes on the talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 15:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
As I stated on User talk:Ningauble, if you were you truly placing quotes on the Talk page to discuss the appropriateness of keeping them, it might be a different matter. In this case, it appeared more that you were just putting them there to preserve them so that they would be archived - which is what was objected to. It had the appearance of subverting the process in an attempt to preserve what you felt should have been included. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
My intent has always been both! I always wish for people to please discuss specific quotes, individually, with me, instead of vague annoying complaints that are nonspecific. -- Cirt (talk) 15:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I am not seeing the dual purpose: there was no rationale offered for adding them back to the article, only an express intent to archive them. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:45, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I always wish to discuss individual quotes specifically, despite some individuals' resistance to discussion of individual quotes specifically on the talk page, which is what the talk page is for, discussion of quotes. -- Cirt (talk) 18:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to add back quotes removed from talk pageEdit

  1. I would like to add back to this talk page the quotes that were censored by Ningauble, with this edit "please do not use talk pages to archive material found unsuitable for the article".
  2. Ningauble has himself recently moved quotes to the talk page on Wikiquote here, "moving unsourced attributions to talk page".
  3. In that other example the quotes were unsourced. Here the quotes were all sourced to secondary sources.
  4. In the instance where Ningauble moved unsourced quotes to the talk page, due to the fact that the quotes were unsourced, it is possible the information could have been factually inaccurate or falsely-attributed.
  5. In this case, the quotes I moved to the talk page had valid citations.
  6. I wish to discuss the individual quotes further for the possibility of maybe adding one or two back someday.
  7. I also wish to have them on the talk page for educational archival purposes so that my research is not censored.
  8. I do not see the harm in having these quotes being moved to the talk page, and eventually archived, only an increase in posterity.

I will of course wait here on the talk page for further (hopefully polite, kind and amicable) discussion, before taking actions.

Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 18:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Quotes Not Related to Topic of PageEdit

The first of the quotes I'd like to see removed from this page because it is not very quoteworthy and is only tangentially related to Scientology, having more to do with "very different kinds of NRM":

The prospect of a new global order is also central to many variants of the Human Potential and New Age movements and Scientology. All these very different kinds of NRM nevertheless share a conviction that human beings have, perhaps for the first time, come into possession of the knowledge required to free them from traditional structures of thought and action. Hence, the confidence of the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, founder of Transcendental Meditation, and of Werner Erhard, the founder of est (now largely reconfigured as the Landmark Trust), that the state of the entire world would improve if a sufficient number of people became sufficiently energetic and disciplined about their spiritual practice. - Beckford, James A. --MLKLewis (talk) 04:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
This quote compares and contrasts multiple different new religious movements together in one fascinating statement by a scholarly academic on the subject, and is most certainly directly related to Scientology. -- Cirt (talk) 19:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I can see the first part of the quote fits with what you are saying - I think we should trim it down to the first two sentences and it would work fine. It also reads better as a quote that way too..... "The prospect of a new global order is also central to many variants of the Human Potential and New Age movements and Scientology. All these very different kinds of NRM nevertheless share a conviction that human beings have, perhaps for the first time, come into possession of the knowledge required to free them from traditional structures of thought and action."--MLKLewis (talk) 21:42, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for agreeing with me that the first part of the quote fits with what I am saying. The ending of the quote is key: "that the state of the entire world would improve if a sufficient number of people became sufficiently energetic and disciplined about their spiritual practice." It makes more sense with the full quote, instead of censoring it. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 22:03, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the second part of the quote is key to what the author is saying, but it is really a broad generalization about some varieties of movementarians, not about Scientology in particular. Including it here is like including remarks about some general aspect of religious belief in the Christianity article if they happen to mention it among a half dozen religions.

Furthermore, this does not compare and contrast the identified movements, as you indicate, it merely observes a common element. I don't see anything particularly "quotable" in this observation of something that such movementarians generally say of themselves. Omitting such observations is hardly what I would consider an act of censorship.

The actual thesis of the paragraph, which lies in the next sentence, is somewhat more interesting in that it draws a conclusion from the foregoing observation: "Such movements hold out the prospect of globalization based on a combination of liberal individualism and discipline—the very ingredients of modernity". This is what he compares and contrasts, in other paragraphs, with other new religious movements having globalist aspirations that do not exhibit the liberal individualism of modernity. It is a very general point, and Scientology is only named as one several examples. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:45, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Ningauble, I agree with your suggestion that the quote makes more sense with the next sentence included. I have therefore added it. Hopefully this is now satisfactory. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 19:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I did not suggest adding it to the article, as you say.[3] I said "It is a very general point, and Scientology is only named as one several examples", which goes to MLKLewis's original point in this thread.

In pointing out the "somewhat more interesting" context, I was only to underscoring that the passage you originally selected didn't even capture the point he was making, not suggesting that these remarks about "many variants of the Human Potential and New Age movements..." &etc. belong in this article. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, well, now thanks to your helpfully commenting to us about the rest of the quote, it does capture that point, with the addition to the quote. So thanks again for that, -- Cirt (talk) 17:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
The point that doesn't get taken into account with your new revision is that it still does not belong on a page about Scientology. Someone coming to read quotes about Scientology should find quotes directly related to Scientology. This quote is only peripherally related to the topic. I don't agree that your addition improves the quotability or the relevance to this topic and still say that it should be removed.--MLKLewis (talk) 17:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
The first sentence of the quote directly mentions Scientology. -- Cirt (talk) 17:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
First, the mere mention of the topic is not the criterion on which inclusion on a WQ page is based. But second, I believe that MLKLewis has already offered a compromise earlier in the discussion, suggesting the use of the following: "The prospect of a new global order is also central to many variants of the Human Potential and New Age movements and Scientology. All these very different kinds of NRM nevertheless share a conviction that human beings have, perhaps for the first time, come into possession of the knowledge required to free them from traditional structures of thought and action." ~ UDScott (talk) 18:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes but Ningauble helpfully gave us the text of the wording of the rest of the full quote, and the full quote makes more sense with that inclusion. -- Cirt (talk) 18:52, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svgY Done, I've made a good faith attempt at compromise and trimmed the quote, per above recommendation by UDScott, please see diff, thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 18:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Another quote along the same vein is this one: "Scientology is thus one of several groups that form part of the Human Potential Movement (HPM) - an umbrella term for organization that offer enhanced quality of life. Werner Erhard, founder of Erhard Seminar Training (est - now Landmark Forum) previously studied Scientology, but other groups have no such influence: for example Silva Method, PSI Mind Development and the School of Economic Science (SES), the last of which is influenced by TM." -- as with the quote dealt with earlier, this one is only peripherally about Scientology - the first part of the quote places Scientology in the category of the Human Potential Movement. While this part is about Scientology, the remaining part of the quote is referring to other groups under the umbrella of the Human Potential Movement, not Scientology. I recommend the removal of this quote as well, and if not the entire quote, then certainly we should only keep the first sentence which pertains to the topic of the page.--MLKLewis (talk) 22:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I would agree that only the first sentence of this quote is really directly relevant to Scientology, with the rest removed. ~ UDScott (talk) 02:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svgY Done, I've made a good faith gesture here and trimmed this quote to the first sentence, please see diff. -- Cirt (talk) 05:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Last modified on 6 March 2014, at 05:21