Template talk:Scientology/Archive 1

Removing alphabetization?

Why did you replace the alphabetizing I did? --GoodDamon 20:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, my apologies, but if you looked at your version, it was actually out of alphabetical order. Plus, I thought it only fair to change "Doctrine" and make it "Beliefs and practices", so that it would appear above "Controversies" in alphabetical order, and be more of an NPOV order as well. Is that okay? Cirt 20:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC).

Sure, that's fine, but I alphabetized the individual sections. Take a look at my edit again. For instance, in the section "Practices" I had it like this: Assists · Auditing · Comm Evs · Disconnection · E-meter · Holidays · Marriage · Rundowns · Silent birth · Study Tech —Preceding unsigned comment added by GoodDamon (talk • contribs) 21:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry about that. I'll try to go back into your edit, and copy the alphabetized entries within those groups, into this format. Hope that works out. Cirt 21:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC).

•  Done - Everything should be in alphabetical order now, by group in the footer, and by entry in each group. Cirt 21:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC).

Critics

I would suggest putting the link "Category:Critics_of_Scientology" under the "People" section. I think it would also be helpful to separate out the category "Critics" instead of having the critics under the "People" section.T g7 (talk) 21:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

You really think that's a good idea? We have a lot of sub-sects in the template as is... Cirt (talk) 21:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Correction: sorry, instead of "People" I should have said "Controversy". For me personally I want quick access to all the articles on critics of scientology, so I can read all the criticisms, and I think this would be helpful to others too. Thanks. T g7 (talk) 22:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Think about the counterpoint, though. Play devil's advocate to yourself and ask what the neutral way would be? Cirt (talk) 22:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

remove John Carmichael (Scientologist)

I suggest we remove John Carmichael (Scientologist) from this template. I think this template is only useful if we restrict it to the truly important articles. Otherwise, huge names, like Cruise, LRH, and Miscavige get lost in the clutter. Carmichael can still appear in the relevant list and categories. --Rob (talk) 23:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, he is the President of a major branch of the organization. There is more info out there in secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources about this individual but I just haven't had a chance to do a search for references yet. Cirt (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Note, I'm *not* talking about inclusion of the article in Wikipedia, but only whether a direct link is needed from this template. This template links to List of Scientologists where he can and should be found. He's on other articles as well. Keeping the number of links down, allows this template to be used as a convenient navigation aid. Remember, this template normally appears in most of the articles it links to. Carmichael may be a big deal locally, but he's much less important than Tom Cruise (who used to be the first "people" article link), L. Ron Hubbard (duhh), Mary Sue Hubbard, etc... A link to Carmichael, makes those other links less conveniently accessible. For somebody to get a basic understanding of Scientology, it's important to read about those other people, but it is essential to read about Carmichael. Remember, the type of behaviour/comments/views Carmichael is known for is discussed in other articles linked to by this template. Carmichael is notable per WP:N, but he hasn't played a defining role in the movement, as others have. It's hard for me to make my point, as it won't be clear, until one-by-one scores of other comparable people are added. --Rob (talk) 05:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hrm, perhaps you are right, I'll remove his entry in the template for now, pending more info to be added to his article regarding prominence within the movement/organization itself on a more national level. Cirt (talk) 22:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Noah Lottick

At this moment Noah Lottick is only a redirect, and sub-section of an article. Generally, I think we should only link to articles from this template. So, if he's really important, make it standalone article. If not, delink it. --Rob (talk) 20:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done, removed entry. Cirt (talk) 21:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

people organization

It seems the "People" section is really a "Proponents" section. If we keep it like that, that's how it should be renamed (rename it to "Proponents"). If it stays "People" (in the template), all "People" should go there. --Rob (talk) 20:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a change to "Leadership", or "Prominent Scientologists" ? Cirt (talk) 21:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

"Leadership" sounds good, but then there's the question of where to put non-Leaders, who are still prominent. --Rob (talk) 23:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe call that section "Leadership and prominent Scientologists" ? Cirt (talk) 15:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

For the time being I think a change to just "Leadership" is appropriate. Cirt (talk) 18:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that was a good change. Perhaps we can make one or two more sections for people (and visually group them together). I think we could create a "Critics" section, taking people out of "Controversies", which is cluttered and overly broad (what or what is not a "controversy" in Scientology?). A "Followers" section might be good for non-leadership Scientologists, as well. --Rob (talk) 19:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Hrm, that might be getting to unwieldy, but we could always try it and see how it looks, and go back if warranted. Cirt (talk) 19:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Consolidated

Consolidated "Concepts" in with "Beliefs and practices" - the "Concepts" articles were all already in the category Category:Scientology beliefs and practices. Cirt (talk) 06:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Countries

Added "Countries", see also Category:Scientology by country. Cirt (talk) 06:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Xenu

Why is xenu and the xenu story not listed? 173.27.241.12 (talk)

It is. Cirt (talk) 20:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Criminal proceedings / litigation?

Don't know how many other times the CoS and/or (some of) its members have been outright prosecuted, but should (e.g.) United States v. Hubbard be added to the "Litigation" section of the template, or maybe a new category "Criminal Prosecutions" be added? -- Zen Swashbuckler -- (talk) 22:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Added to litigation section, which I think is fine for now. Cirt (talk) 06:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Diskeeper Corporation

I believe Diskeeper Corporation should be removed from the template, or at least reclassified. While it is linked to the Church of Scientology, it is not directly dependent of it. It is an autonomous organization that uses Scientology doctrine, but not a part of the organizational structure. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 01:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I just checked and the same case could be argued for e.Republic_Incorporated and Moxon_&_Kobrin. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 01:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Independent reliable secondary sources show otherwise, obviously so. Cirt (talk) 01:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Like which? I can't find anything that says that Diskeeper is a subsidiary of the Church of Scientology. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 01:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Diskeeper is a member of World Institute of Scientology Enterprises. Cirt (talk) 01:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

That does not make it a subsidiary organization of the CoS. Check that section. Save for those 3 I mentioned, all other are subsidiaries. Perhaps it would be less confusing if they were listed under affiliated organizations, or in a new subsection for WISE. In the section they are they seem to be dependant of the CoS, which they are not. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 01:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Being confirmed as being part of "Scientology enterprises" is pretty conclusive in and of itself of the relation. Cirt (talk) 01:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Relation does not equal dependence. Being a "Scientology enterprise" just means it is an enterprise that adheres to Scientology scripture. Shall the CoS and WISE and other disappear, this 3 would not, becuase they are independent. I believe it fit better under "Affiliated organizations" than "Organizations". > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 01:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• World Institute of Scientology Enterprises formally promotes the application of Hubbard’s teachings to the workplace. It licenses the application of Hubbard’s methods in business.
• the consulting firms that sell Hubbard's business methods must pay WISE 13% of their annual gross income.
• World Institute of Scientology Enterprises, known as WISE, is a recruitment vehicle for Scientology.

That pretty much sums it up. :P Cirt (talk) 01:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done. I did not see your above suggestion to move them down to "Affiliated organizations". I have done so. ;) Cirt (talk) 01:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Missing (?) entries in the template

I'm forgoing my usual edit first and defend later approach and allowing those more in the know to revise this template as they see fit. Below are Wikipedia Scientology articles not in Template:Scientology as of 06:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC). Some probably should be in the template (e.g., Scientology in Russia) and perhaps others should be sent to AfD. I'll leave it up to you:

-- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I feel that this template is no longer sufficient. We should split into smaller subtemplates if we are to add all this information. I am talking about a Template:Scientology bibliography to encompass publications by the Church of Scientology, and independent texts about Scientology. More smaller templates may be needed to prevent making this a clusterfuck. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 07:49, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

This template should continue to be used on "core" and "main" type articles, but it would be a great idea to create some sub-topic templates, such as the one suggested, above. -- Cirt (talk) 17:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I have been bold and created the new template on my userspace, awaiting discussion for that. We should also discuss other possible templates. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 03:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)