Talk:Scientology#Steven A. Kent

{{Not a forum|Scientology, or anything not directly related to improving the Wikipedia article}}

{{ArticleHistory|action1=RBP

|action1date=January 19, 2004

|action1link=Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - History and religion

|action1result=removed

|currentstatus=FFAC

|action2=PR

|action2date=13:19:11 25 September 2015 (UTC)

|action2link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Scientology/archive1

|action2result=reviewed

|action2oldid=936292077

}}

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|1=

}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config

|maxarchivesize = 150K

|counter = 34

|minthreadsleft = 4

|minthreadstoarchive = 1

|algo = old(90d)

|archive = Talk:Scientology/Archive %(counter)d

}}

{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Talk:Scientology/Archive index|mask=Talk:Scientology/Archive <#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=no}}

{{Backwards copy

|title=Frommer's Britain For Free|url=http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=TUHkd-NNY8YC&pg=PA29&dq=%22in+return+for+donations%22+scientology&hl=en&ei=2GLuTIa2FsGzhAfHuL3JDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22in%20return%20for%20donations%22%20scientology&f=false|author=Ben Hatch, Dinah Hatch|year=2010|org=John Wiley and Sons

|title2=Ultimate Truth, Book 1|url2=http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=e3kf6GtwaT0C&pg=PA128&dq=scientology+rationality&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Jpv4T8XVJoL-8gPN6rCYBw&sqi=2&ved=0CF0Q6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=scientology%20rationality&f=false|author2=Peter C Rogers|year2=2009|org2=AuthorHouse|

|comments=Frommer's Britain For Free uses parts of the lead and beliefs section of this article, apparently copied some time in 2009, without attribution

Ultimate Truth, Book 1: Description of Scientologist beliefs is largely plagiarised from this article

}}

Question for User:ModernDaySlavery

{{reply|ModernDaySlavery}} What problem are you trying to solve by adding "by experts" at the end of the second sentence? Each 'label' is described in more detail in the first section "Definition and classification" and even more discussed in its subsection "Debates over classification". Per MOS:LEAD, the lead is supposed to be a summary of what is in the body of the article. Could you further explain your thinking about why you consider "by experts" an important addition? ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 02:55, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

: {{reply|ModernDaySlavery}} Per WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, you should try to discuss this here until a consensus is reached, not lay out your arguments in edit summaries while reverting. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 00:49, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

"Scam"

Apologies if I've missed anything, but is anyone able to point to any of the given (academic) references that support the "scam" label for Scientology? I've had trouble accessing a few, but none of the given references I've been able to check contain this term. Cult, business, religion, sect, "scheme" and "racket" – but not "scam". GhostOfNoMan 22:26, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:Google led me to "Scientology: Sect, Science, or Scam?" by James Lewis. I've added it to the article. Feoffer (talk) 02:37, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you! I've also added it to the list in the lead. GhostOfNoMan 09:06, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:Contrary to your claim, Behar 1991 – the first citation – and Beit-Hallahmi 2003, both of which are cited immediately following that sentence, use either that word or an exact synonym of it. Cambial — foliar❧ 07:52, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::The first, an article in Time magazine, doesn't describe Scientology as a scam; rather, it accuses the group's members of engaging in financial scams, which is quite different. But you're right – that one does at least contain the word "scam", contrary to what I said. (I wasn't able to access the full text of Beit-Hallahmi 2003, I only noted "racket" in the abstract.) I'll see if I can find further references. GhostOfNoMan 09:24, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::Ah, Beit-Hallahmi is perfect actually, now that I've been able to read the full text. I thought "racket" was a mention in passing, going by the abstract, but it's actually the exact sort of reference I hadn't been able to locate. Clearly supports the "scam" label. My fault for not digging further initially. Thanks. GhostOfNoMan 09:40, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::: {{reply|GhostOfNoMan}} You should try to get access to WP:The Wikipedia Library because most of these academic/scholar papers are available through there. It's a great resource. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 14:43, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I'll check that out – thank you! GhostOfNoMan 04:35, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Point of view isn't neutral

Most of this article leans towards Scientology being a cult/scam when it should be written from a neutral point of view. See: WP:NPOV BeefyBoi1223 (talk) 03:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:Welcome! How could this article be improved? in specifics supported by sources? Feoffer (talk) 09:52, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Statement about secrecy in beliefs and practices section

The point right before citation 120 says:

"Much basic information about the Scientology belief system is kept secret from most practitioners."

This is straight-up untrue. While some things are hidden unless you pay for it, all of their churches have a library which contains most of their books, and you can look at them for free. BeefyBoi1223 (talk) 04:48, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:The claim is now attributed directly to the quoted scholars rather than stated as fact. Inclusion of the free libraries would be an improvement but it'd require a reliable source. Feoffer (talk) 05:13, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:The statement is reported as fact by three expert academics published by two of the most highly-regarded university presses. Are there secondary reliable sources of a similar calibre that dispute this statement about information being kept secret? In the absence of scholarly sources disputing this, a neutral framing avoids stating as opinion material that the most reliable sources give as fact. Urban devotes an entire chapter of his book on religion and secrecy to Scientology. Cambial — foliar❧ 14:24, 18 May 2025 (UTC)