Scientology is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article candidate |
This level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Wiki Education assignment: Honors World Religions
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 8 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Trisandejarnatt (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Someonecute1.
— Assignment last updated by Someonecute1 (talk) 07:45, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Reduction project B&P
In line with the earlier discussions about article size and organization of content across multiple articles, I will be working on a project to push "beliefs and practices" type content to the article Scientology beliefs and practices (one subtopic at a time), and reduce the duplicate content from the Scientology article, with the goal of leaving a summary in Scientology. (Later to determine the scope and composition of Scientology.) Edits will be made in coordination with edits made to Scientology beliefs and practices. (A separate project will be to push & reduce content that should be in Church of Scientology.) ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 06:19, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
- Still working on this as time (and interest) permits. Lots more to be done. Anyone is welcome to jump in and pick a subtopic to work on. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 04:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
- This is a necessary effort, and the approach you state above is the right one (reduce duplication and leave a summary). To accord with WP:CORRECTSPLIT, don't remove content (like this) leaving a subheading with no article body text, or with only a single sentence. The article is moving towards the ideal range of readable prose size; it is unnecessary and undesirable to remove the summary content that is the purpose of this headline article. Cambial — foliar❧ 15:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Cambial Yellowing: CORRECTSPLIT doesn't apply, considering there are already several WP:CONTENTFORK articles: Scientology beliefs and practices, Church of Scientology, and others. We're not in the process of trying to split Scientology, but instead trying to remove the duplicates (forks) that have been left behind from a split, or were deliberately duplicated. The empty-ish sections will likely go away entirely (or be combined into a summary section) because the plan has been to remove the majority of the section "Beliefs and practices" in favor of the splitaway article with the same name. Do not re-add chunks of fork material as you recently did to sections ARC and KRC triangles (diff) and Opposition to psychology and psychiatry (diff). You are undoing incremental work already done and making future duplicate work. At 230K (150K text only), this article is still no way near a reasonable size, and I estimate a full half of it is still duplicate material. Removal of content is not dependent on article size, but on duplication of content. If you want to help, then identify material that is duplicate in this article and another, and push the majority of the content into the breakaway article. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 01:18, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Correct split applies. Just because the articles to which content is being split off to already exist, does not mean we should have headings or subheadings that are devoid of content. There is always to be summary content, and ideally this ought to consist of at least a couple of paragraphs. n.b. readable prose size, not page size, is the relevant metric. It's currently at 72 kB. Cambial — foliar❧ 07:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Cambial Yellowing: You are wrong. Per WP:CORRECTSPLIT, "
If all the content of the section is being removed use the "See" template.
" Where it refers to "couple of paragraphs", as in "Add a summary, usually of a couple of paragraphs and one image, of the newly created subtopic (unless complete removal is appropriate)
", that is for when you're actually doing a split of an article, not directing a minor subtopic to a duplicate section in another article. It is describing, of course, guidelines for when you're splitting an entire large article, then sure, I'll grant that a "couple of paragraphs" would be appropriate. But not here. Per consensus, the article is bloated with duplicate content. - It is not your place to "permit" me to shift out and summarize only bland and boring informational content about 'beliefs and practices' while reserving for yourself unilateral decision-making to keep all the juicy gossip bits... all the while moving them higher and higher up the page, which downplays the common and typical beliefs and practices by placing them below your chosen sensational subtopics. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 07:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Your opinion that they are "sensational" or "juicy gossip" is your own. According to the scholarship, the section discusses the mythological framework on which the rest of the belief system rests. It is therefore highly relevant to this article about "the system of beliefs and the associated movement". Cambial — foliar❧ 07:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Material invented after 1967 doesn't trump basic concepts from 1950 through 1967. What source says OT III and the Xenu story is the
mythological framework on which the rest of the belief system rests
? ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 07:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)- Rothstein in Lewis 2009. Scientology. OUP. It refers to it prominently as Scientology's founding myth. Cambial — foliar❧ 07:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- "Founding myth" as in the alleged story of the start of the universe, not the start of the religion. The Xenu story is not a premise upon which all other things Scientology hang. In fact, very few things in Scientology rely on the Xenu story. The vast majority of Hubbard's writings and lectures happened prior to his invention of the Xenu story, like 95% of the material he churned out. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 08:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Interesting original research, but not useful for page content. I'll simply quote Rothstein on Xenu/OT3, who says it provides the mythological framework for Hubbard’s Gnostic soteriology, and thus the machinery of the courses that take the patient devotee step by step over the “Bridge to Total Freedom,” Scientology’s metaphor for the path of salvation Cambial — foliar❧ 08:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Rothstein admits on page 374 to relying heavily on Wikipedia's explanation of Scientology, cites Wikipedia over 10 times, used 6 or 7 Wikipedia pages in his footnotes, and frequently refers to Wikipedia in his chapter, which means using his write-up as a source for a citation in Wikipedia is pretty much a violation of WP:CIRCULAR:
Do not use websites mirroring Wikipedia content or publications relying on material from Wikipedia as sources.
▶ I am Grorp ◀ 09:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Rothstein admits on page 374 to relying heavily on Wikipedia's explanation of Scientology, cites Wikipedia over 10 times, used 6 or 7 Wikipedia pages in his footnotes, and frequently refers to Wikipedia in his chapter, which means using his write-up as a source for a citation in Wikipedia is pretty much a violation of WP:CIRCULAR:
- Interesting original research, but not useful for page content. I'll simply quote Rothstein on Xenu/OT3, who says it provides the mythological framework for Hubbard’s Gnostic soteriology, and thus the machinery of the courses that take the patient devotee step by step over the “Bridge to Total Freedom,” Scientology’s metaphor for the path of salvation Cambial — foliar❧ 08:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- "Founding myth" as in the alleged story of the start of the universe, not the start of the religion. The Xenu story is not a premise upon which all other things Scientology hang. In fact, very few things in Scientology rely on the Xenu story. The vast majority of Hubbard's writings and lectures happened prior to his invention of the Xenu story, like 95% of the material he churned out. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 08:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Rothstein in Lewis 2009. Scientology. OUP. It refers to it prominently as Scientology's founding myth. Cambial — foliar❧ 07:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Material invented after 1967 doesn't trump basic concepts from 1950 through 1967. What source says OT III and the Xenu story is the
- Your opinion that they are "sensational" or "juicy gossip" is your own. According to the scholarship, the section discusses the mythological framework on which the rest of the belief system rests. It is therefore highly relevant to this article about "the system of beliefs and the associated movement". Cambial — foliar❧ 07:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Cambial Yellowing: You are wrong. Per WP:CORRECTSPLIT, "
- Correct split applies. Just because the articles to which content is being split off to already exist, does not mean we should have headings or subheadings that are devoid of content. There is always to be summary content, and ideally this ought to consist of at least a couple of paragraphs. n.b. readable prose size, not page size, is the relevant metric. It's currently at 72 kB. Cambial — foliar❧ 07:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Cambial Yellowing: CORRECTSPLIT doesn't apply, considering there are already several WP:CONTENTFORK articles: Scientology beliefs and practices, Church of Scientology, and others. We're not in the process of trying to split Scientology, but instead trying to remove the duplicates (forks) that have been left behind from a split, or were deliberately duplicated. The empty-ish sections will likely go away entirely (or be combined into a summary section) because the plan has been to remove the majority of the section "Beliefs and practices" in favor of the splitaway article with the same name. Do not re-add chunks of fork material as you recently did to sections ARC and KRC triangles (diff) and Opposition to psychology and psychiatry (diff). You are undoing incremental work already done and making future duplicate work. At 230K (150K text only), this article is still no way near a reasonable size, and I estimate a full half of it is still duplicate material. Removal of content is not dependent on article size, but on duplication of content. If you want to help, then identify material that is duplicate in this article and another, and push the majority of the content into the breakaway article. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 01:18, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
The author does not "admit to relying heavily
" on Wikipedia's explanation. He notes that Hubbard’s text has been rendered into more coherent prose on many occasions, most reliably by the anonymous author of the Xenu entry on Wikipedia. He notes that his scholarship is based on checking various renditions (including that on Wiki) to the original, and that he will build on the Wikipedia material but primarily try to say something different. He does not refer to Wikipedia when noting that the Xenu story is the mythological framework for the courses central to Scientology practice. The section in this article is based on a variety of scholarship and other reliable sources, and there are numerous other reliable sources examining this founding myth not currently cited (e.g. Lewis 2016,[1] which also refers to this as a foundational myth). If you believe you can build a consensus to delete this section, present on the article for at least fourteen years and built by numerous long-time editors, you're free to seek to do so.
Similarly, deleting entirely the Psychiatry section (diff), on the article for eight years having been added by Feoffer in 2015 and built by several editors since, is not justified by mere reference to a "reduction project
" for this page in which you are the only participant.
As you know, Scientology is a big subject, and there is a lot to cover in the article. It is bound to be large. It is currently well below the "must be shortened" prose length of 15,000 words. Nevertheless, there could be room for making it shorter, much of which could be achieved by simply tightening up the language. Wholesale deletion of sections, on the basis that you think they are "juicy gossip
", that you don't like them, or that they are covered in far greater detail on their own article, is not a productive way forward. Cambial — foliar❧ 11:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
References
- ^ Lewis, James R. (13 January 2016). "Technological Exorcism, Body Thetans, and Scientology's Secret Mythology". Numen. 63 (1). Brill Publishers: 33–53. doi:10.1163/15685276-12341407.
Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2023
Change "Hubbard maintained that 20 percent of the population would be classed as "suppressive persons" because were truly malevolent or dangerous:" to "Hubbard maintained that 20 percent of the population would be classed as "suppressive persons" because they were truly malevolent or dangerous:" Code807 (talk) 17:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2023
Key Scientology beliefs include reincarnation, and that traumatic events cause problematic "engrams" in the mind which can only be removed through an activity called "auditing". A fee is charged for each session of "auditing". Once an "auditor" deems an individual free of "engrams", typically after several years, they are given the status of "clear". CHANGES BEGIN HERE: Change Scholarship differs to Scholars differ on the interpretation of these beliefs: Disneybuff2002 (talk) 23:26, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
-
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.WanderingMorpheme 00:15, 30 October 2023 (UTC)- Done. I did it. looked like a simple issue of which sounds better in a general English sentence. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 02:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you I didn't notice they were asking for a simple typo fix, I saw that it was on Scientology so I thought they were trying to add unsourced information, thank you for looking out and I'll be more careful. WanderingMorpheme 02:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
- The solution may have been simple, but the deciphering of the request took me a bit. LOL. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 03:37, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you I didn't notice they were asking for a simple typo fix, I saw that it was on Scientology so I thought they were trying to add unsourced information, thank you for looking out and I'll be more careful. WanderingMorpheme 02:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
- Done. I did it. looked like a simple issue of which sounds better in a general English sentence. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 02:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
@Cambial Yellowing: Oy. Please explain further why you think this change was not acceptable. Re "Both written text and authors can do this
", note that only authors make written text. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 21:11, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
- Don't know about "not acceptable": I didn't say that. But the relevant fact here is that sources - i.e. scholarship about the subject from which this article draws its information - differ on the nature of these beliefs. "Scholars differ" suggests or implies an argument or debate (yet to exist explicitly). Scholarship differs indicates the facts: some sources say a. some sources say b. Cambial — foliar❧ 21:20, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Edit request
The opening sentence should be edited to read "Scientology is a cult, invented by the American author L. Ron Hubbard, claiming to be a religious movement" (or something similiar). The article must be clear that it is a cult, not simply that some believe it is a cult. Cult analysts strongly believe it is one of the world's most destructive cults. It has done countless harm to many people, ruining their lives. Only people within the cult believe it is legitimate. By stating that "it is variously defined as a cult", you imply it might not be. Wikipedia has indicated other cults are indeed cults in the opening sentences of those other pages - including other cults that are less destructive than Scientology is. Wikipedia must be accurate and not feed into any lies that are sometimes perpetuated by problematic groups. Relegating the concern to the "Controversy" section is not enough, especially since that section is not very explicit that the movement is indeed a cult. All cult experts agree about the destructiveness of Scientology - it is not an opinion. If you define other cults as indeed cults, you must also do the same about the most destructive cult our world faces. Please note: I am not, nor have I ever been, affiliated with Scientology. I am a social worker and have followed news of world-wide cults for many years. 97.120.78.249 (talk) 15:47, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- Can you provide citations from reliable sources to support your assertion? TechBear | Talk | Contributions 04:30, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Unused sources
The following sources are not actually referenced in the article (Harv errors). Putting them here in case someone needs to grab them for future use.
- Frenschkowski, Marco (1999). "L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology: An annotated bibliographical survey of primary and selected secondary literature". Archived from the original on September 2, 2005.
- Garrison, Omar V. (1974). The Hidden Story of Scientology. Citadel Press. ISBN 978-0-8065-0440-7.
- Grünschloß, Andreas (2004). "Waiting for the "Big Beam": UFO Religions and "Ufological" Themes in New Religious Movements". In James R. Lewis (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of New Religious Movements. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 419–444. ISBN 978-0195369649.
- Hunt, Stephen J. (2003). Alternative Religions: A Sociological Introduction. Ashgate Publishing. ISBN 978-0-7546-3410-2.
- Kent, Stephen A. (2001a). "The French and German versus American Debate over 'New Religions', Scientology, and Human Rights". Marburg Journal of Religion. 6 (1). Retrieved March 28, 2009.
- Lewis, James R.; Hammer, Olav (2007). The Invention of Sacred Tradition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-86479-4.
- Shupe, Anson; Bromley, David G.; Darnell, Susan E. (2004). "The North American Anti-Cult Movement". In James R. Lewis (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of New Religious Movements. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 184–205. ISBN 978-0195369649.
▶ I am Grorp ◀ 04:05, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Medical claims, cancer, illness, PTSness
Has anyone noticed how there's nothing in Wikipedia about Hubbard's ideas of the cause of cancer (especially his claims re babies), and how he codified his idea that "all illness in greater or lesser degree ... stem directly and only from a PTS condition" (meaning there is a suppressive person around). There are his medical claims for Dianetics, Scientology and the Purification Rundown, and numerous instances where governments/agencies accused Hubbard/Dn/Scn of practicing medicine without a license. And don't forget how many top of the Bridge Scientologists have died from cancer (seemingly their leading cause of death).
Hubbard's ideas about illness are far-reaching within the Church of Scientology, and factor into the organization's everyday actions. It is used as a recruiting tool as well as a reason to break up families, and absolutely is wielded heavily when someone is "sent to ethics" even for things as benign as being 5 minutes late for class.
- Hubbard said: "Cancer is not caused - never has been and never will be ... It always requires a second-dynamic or sexual upset, such as the loss of children or some other mechanism to bring about a condition known as cancer. This is cancer at the outset. I have examined too many cases not to have recognized this, because it is present in every single case that had cancer that I've ever examined - real wild curve on the second dynamic. And where we have helped a case with cancer we have processed such things as wasting babies and accepting babies, and mocking up babies and throwing them away, and doing suchlike and so on, and we have had a considerable change in the condition of the case. However, a person can get so far gone that he can hardly be processed or not processed at all, and when this is the case, why, the cancer gets him." L. Ron Hubbard, The Scale of Havingness, lecture of 29 Nov 1959
A few quick links to illustrate:
- Hysterical Radiation and Bogus Science
- Kirstie Alley's Death Sparks Debate About Scientology's Views on Cancer
- PTS Handling
I have tried searching Wikipedia to see if these topics are covered; not finding them. Maybe we need a Scientology and medicine type of article.
▶ I am Grorp ◀ 04:32, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
Adding some sources which might be useful in the creation of a Scientology/medicine article.
- Owen, Chris (December 19, 2023). "How a police raid in Detroit prompted the creation of the Church of Scientology". Tony Ortega.
- Anderson, Kevin Victor (1965). "Report of the Board of Inquiry into Scientology". Government Printer, Melbourne. (html version)
- Reitman, Janet (February 8, 2011) [February 23, 2006]. "Inside Scientology". Rolling Stone. Archived from the original on May 2, 2018.
- Hubbard, L. Ron (2002) [1990]. Clear Body, Clear Mind: The Effective Purification Program. Bridge Publications. ISBN 1573182249. OL 1949412M.
- Hubbard, L. Ron (1950). Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health. OL 6069624M.
▶ I am Grorp ◀ 00:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Maybe a good idea. Could cover it in more depth than the "beliefs and practices" article. One tricky part is that in Scientology beliefs are just disparate pieces that are a part of / support for their system. But I think that that can be navigated. North8000 (talk) 15:10, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Misuse of maintenance templates
@Grorp: Please do not misuse maintenance templates on the article. Re the inline "failed verification" template, as described in its documentation:
The {{Failed verification}} tag is used when an editor tried to verify the information in an article with its sources, but failed to do so
Use this tag only if:
* an inline citation to a source is given,
* you have checked the source,
* the source does not support what is contained in the article, and
* despite the source not supporting the article, the source still contains useful information on the topic.
The article text you tagged was
Hubbard and his early Dianetics organization were prosecuted for practicing medicine without a license in the early 1950s.
and
Throughout the early 1950s, adherents of Hubbard were arrested for practicing medicine without a license. In January 1951, the New Jersey Board of Medical Examiners brought proceedings against the Dianetic Research Foundation on the charge of teaching medicine without a license. In January 1963 U.S. Marshals raided the Founding Church of Scientology in Washington.
The sources, with page numbers, state:
Not surprisingly such claims drew the attention of the FDA and various state medical boards, and throughout the early 1950s, Hubbard’s followers across the United States were arrested for practicing medicine without licenses. Thus in January 1951, the New Jersey State Board of Medical Examiners accused the Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation Inc. of operating a school for treatment of disease without a license; in March 1953 two Dianetics and Scientology practitioners were arrested as part of an investigation into running an unlicensed school and practicing medicine without a license; and in late 1953, a Scientologist in Glendale, California, spent ten days in jail for practicing medicine without a license...On January 4, 1963, U.S. Marshals acting on an FDA warrant launched a surprise raid on the Founding Church of Scientology in Washington, DC, confiscating over a hundred E-meters and more than three tons of literature and equipment. [Urban 2011]
the Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation in Elizabeth went bankrupt in 1951. This was precipitated by a New Jersey Board of Medical Examiners investigation into the practice of medicine without a license. [Westbrook 2019]
While researchers must not minimise financial motives for Hubbard's decision to present Scientology as a religion in the early 1950s, they must also not neglect the fact that occasionally Hubbard's followers across the United States were being arrested for practicing medicine without licenses...Hubbard proclaimed in 1950 that, with the proper application of the techniques he outlined, "arthritis vanishes, myopia gets better, heart illness decreases, asthma disappears, stomachs function properly, and the whole catalogue of ills goes away and stays away". Because of claims such as these (to which Scientology still adheres), the New Jersey State Board of Medical Examiners accused the Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation, Inc. of "operating a school for the treatment of disease without a license" in January, 1951, which contributed to the organisation's departure from Elizabeth, New Jersey, in April—prior to its pending trial in May. b). In late March, 1953, two Dianetics and Scientology practitioners were arrested, along with the confiscation of an e-meter, as part of an investigation into "running an unlicensed school and practicing medicine without licenses" in late 1953 or early 1954, a Glendale, California, Dianeticist or Scientologist apparently spent ten days in jail for "practicising medicine without a license"...Some two months later, on January 4, 1963, US Marshalls (acting on authority of an FDA warrant) raided The Founding Church of Scientology in Washington, D.C. and took away more than three tons of literature and equipment. [Kent 1996]
If you had checked the sources on the pages indicated, a step which only if you had done should you use the template, you would have seen the above which verifies what is in the article text. Remember to actually look at reliable sources before adding templates making claims about their content. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Sounds like something that at most needs removal of the templates, not a big nasty epistle. North8000 (talk) 15:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- I wrote a grand total of eighty-five words [the rest is copypasta]. If you perceive eighty-five words to be a "
big epistle
", I pity those receiving your thank-you notes. Which text do you perceive to be "nasty
" in "Please do not misuse maintenance templates on the article. Re the inline "failed verification" template, as described in its documentation... The article text you tagged was...and...The sources, with page numbers, state...If you had checked the sources on the pages indicated, a step which only if you had done should you use the template, you would have seen the above which verifies what is in the article text. Remember to actually look at reliable sources before adding templates making claims about their content." ? Cambial — foliar❧ 15:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)- I think it's time for you to mellow out. That would be much more pleasant for everybody, including you. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- I wrote a grand total of eighty-five words [the rest is copypasta]. If you perceive eighty-five words to be a "
- @Cambial Yellowing: Sorry, I've been rather busy. I'd be delighted to answer your question in detail when I get a chance to sit down with it. Responding to what amounts to a gish gallop can be tedious and is why you only get one or two things answered at a time. My short answer is: yes... I checked the sources you cited... the older ones and the newer ones you added like a REFBOMB. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 17:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- It’s a shame you perceive it be “
like a REFBOMB
”. It isn’t a “refbomb”, by the definition used on this website. I didn’t ask you a question. Cambial — foliar❧ 17:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)- @Cambial Yellowing: Not a question? Then it really was intended to be an epistle as North8000 suggested. Maybe you're just telling me how it's gonna be, instead of discussing content disputes. Is that it? Bulldoze your way through the article, bully the other editors until they all go away and leave you to your POV-pushing version in all its glory. Do I have that right yet? When you post like you did above, the assumption is there is, or has been, some sort of content dispute. The purpose should be to open a discussion. If you don't like the way I introduce a concept (such as using the phrase "I'd be delighted to answer your question") then what you shouldn't do is tone police with
I didn’t ask you a question
. You will get an answer when I have some time to sit down and detail out why I added those three "failed verification" tags. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 18:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)- "
Bulldoze your way through the article...to your POV-pushing version in all its glory.
" Wow, the projection is strong with you buddy. I know you were keen to remove, without discussion, all that terrible, as you put it "sensational...juicy gossip
" that multiple scholarly sources describe as the foundational myth of the article subject and that has been on the article for sixteen years. - There is plenty to discuss about Wikipedia content. There is even plenty to discuss about phrasing, grammar etc. My grammar regularly gets corrected on this article, and my phrasing improved. The question of whether the three quotes from reliable sources above support the four sentences of article text listed above is one of fact. The fact is that they do support them. Cambial — foliar❧ 19:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- "
- @Cambial Yellowing: Not a question? Then it really was intended to be an epistle as North8000 suggested. Maybe you're just telling me how it's gonna be, instead of discussing content disputes. Is that it? Bulldoze your way through the article, bully the other editors until they all go away and leave you to your POV-pushing version in all its glory. Do I have that right yet? When you post like you did above, the assumption is there is, or has been, some sort of content dispute. The purpose should be to open a discussion. If you don't like the way I introduce a concept (such as using the phrase "I'd be delighted to answer your question") then what you shouldn't do is tone police with
- It’s a shame you perceive it be “
Answer from Grorp
@Cambial Yellowing: When I saw the content, I read the sources. The early sources didn't verify the content and I knew them to be wrong anyway, so I wasn't going to go looking for alternative sources to cite. I simply removed the false content. You re-added the information and added more sources. I looked them up and read those too, and determined that the content was still incorrect and did not verify. Editing the content was not an option because your content was exaggerated and incorrect as to the facts. So I tagged the three instances instead.
I just completed another dive into this subject. According to all the sources, they allege 3 incidents: 1951 New Jersey, 1953 Detroit, 1954 California. Kent 1996 is the one which mentions the actual sources. I suspect Urban 2011 and Westbrook 2019 rely on Kent, and possibly the original newspaper articles. I present links to online copies of the Kent-cited news articles (all are very short):
Basically, 1951 was a charge against the HDRF organization (not Hubbard) for "conducting a medical school contrary to the law"; the case was dropped without coming to trial. In 1953 Detroit, the charge was against a couple for "operating a vocational school without a license". In 1954 California, this is a gossip sentence in Aberree, a Scientology newsletter which maybe happened but is so vague it could have been an arrest without charges or a full trial with sentence of 10 days, we don't know and neither does Kent 1996.
The cases weren't "practicing medicine without a license", and they weren't against Hubbard. Only one was against HDRF, the other 2 were against individuals operating privately and not part of HDRF.
So the following 3 content excerpts from the article at the time of my tagging, contained these falsehoods:
Following the prosecution of Hubbard's Dianetics foundation for teaching medicine without a license
Hubbard and his early Dianetics organization were prosecuted for practicing medicine without a license in the early 1950s
Throughout the early 1950s, adherents of Hubbard were arrested for practicing medicine without a license. In January 1951, the New Jersey Board of Medical Examiners brought proceedings against the Dianetic Research Foundation on the charge of teaching medicine without a license.
1: Was that a "prosecution"? It was dropped and never came to trial. The word (at least in lay American English) implies a trial or final determination, not simply charges or setting a court date.
2: Not Hubbard. Not "his" organizations. Not for "practicing medicine without a license".
3: "Throughout the early 1950s" is an exaggeration. "Adherents of Hubbard were arrested for practicing medicine without a license" is a stretch since Aberree is not reliable and there was only one couple arrested for (but was dropped) "practicing medicine without a license" in favor of "operating a vocational school without a license" (an easier case to win in court, per the source). "Brought proceedings against" is better wording than "prosecution" (in #1).
Checking Kent 1996, Miller 1987 pages 174, 213 & 222, Westbrook 2019 pages 81-84 (and several other sources that weren't even cited), none of them say Hubbard was prosecuted. None but unreliable source Aberree suggest "practicing medicine without a license".
Two arrest incidents (Detroit and California) do not fit Urban 2011's page 62 exaggeration: "throughout the early 1950s" and "Hubbard's followers across the United States were arrested for practicing medicine without licenses", especially when he immediately follows with the same 3 incidents in a way that doesn't fit his prior exaggeration.
Westbrook 2019's wondering out loud on page 84, "Perhaps this is an allusion to the earlier legal difficulties that arose from allegations of practicing medicine without a license" isn't really reliable (he's guessing) and is a stretch since he's referring to the April 1953 letter to O'Brien after the March 1953 Detroit arrest. California hadn't even happened yet.
What we have here is circular reporting. All could have had access to the same sources: the newspapers (or copies of them), one Scientology-rag, and the other writings that preceded their own.
Even so, the imprecise claims in the cited sources do not amount to the exaggerations or imprecision you added. You have added further content since the time I tagged the above 3. "Prosecution" for medical now appears 3 times in the article.
Did Hubbard run from New Jersey because he was afraid of prosecution for "practicing medicine without a license"? Sure. Was he concerned at "the writing on the wall" after the Detroit news? Yes. Hubbard acted like the criminal and coward he was: scared of getting caught, running when the heat got too close, and swapping corporations, locations and policies so he wouldn't have to worry as much.
▶ I am Grorp ◀ 07:44, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Grorp: The “failed verification” maintenance template is for use only if...the source does not support what is contained in the article [emphasis in template page]. It’s not for use when the Princeton University Press book and Routledge academic journal cited both support what is in the article but you don’t agree with it because of your original research.
- You claim that after I
re-added the information and added more sources. [You, Grorp] looked them up and read those too, and determined that the content was still incorrect and did not verify
. You also claimNone but unreliable source Aberree suggest "practicing medicine without a license".
- Urban (Princeton UP, 2011):
throughout the early 1950s, Hubbard’s followers across the United States were arrested for practicing medicine without licenses. Thus in January 1951, the New Jersey State Board of Medical Examiners accused the Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation Inc. of operating a school for treatment of disease without a license; in March 1953 two Dianetics and Scientology practitioners were arrested as part of an investigation into running an unlicensed school and practicing medicine without a license; and in late 1953, a Scientologist in Glendale, California, spent ten days in jail for practicing medicine without a license.
- Similarly Kent (Routledge, 1996):
Hubbard's followers across the United States were being arrested for practicing medicine without licenses...Hubbard proclaimed in 1950 that, with the proper application of the techniques he outlined, "arthritis vanishes, myopia gets better, heart illness decreases, asthma disappears, stomachs function properly, and the whole catalogue of ills goes away and stays away". Because of claims such as these (to which Scientology still adheres), the New Jersey State Board of Medical Examiners accused the Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation, Inc. [he was listed as its director] of "operating a school for the treatment of disease without a license" in January, 1951, which contributed to the organisation's departure from Elizabeth, New Jersey, in April—prior to its pending trial in May. b). In late March, 1953, two Dianetics and Scientology practitioners were arrested, along with the confiscation of an e-meter, as part of an investigation into "running an unlicensed school and practicing medicine without licenses" in late 1953 or early 1954, a Glendale, California, Dianeticist or Scientologist apparently spent ten days in jail for "practicising medicine without a license"
- If you want to make the argument that this scholarly work by a subject-matter expert published by one of the leading academic publishers in the United States, and this journal article by another subject-matter expert published by a leading international academic publisher, are both incorrect, by all means make your case centrally. For now, academic publishing is considered the best kind of source available, so we can rely on it for statements of fact. Using inappropriate maintenance templates is not a way to address your issue with the sources. Cambial — foliar❧ 15:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Cambial Yellowing: You ignored the main point entirely: None of your scholarly sources use the term "prosecuted" and none accuse(d) Hubbard directly. Your decision to cherry-pick a few phrases from out of a few sources, remove them from the context of their source, exaggerate the language (WP:OR), knit them together into the WP:SYNTH that you did, and repeat the concepts three times in the article, shows your penchant for POV pushing on this topic. Focusing on use of "failed verification" template and your interpretation of when it should be used is a red herring. Suggesting a publisher would fact check every minute sentence and turn of phrase in a scholarly work they publish is a fantasy. That you defend your actions with such vehemence, refuse to get the point, and waste enormous amounts of other editors' time on this (and similar, earlier debates) shows either a lack of willingness or an inability to neutrally edit in this topic. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 16:16, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- You need to stop wasting editor’s time with inappropriate templates and fabricated claims. You said
None but unreliable source Aberree suggest "practicing medicine without a license"
. This is categorically untrue, as anyone who read the sources cited would be aware. You claim there was no prosecution, despite Kent pointing out there was an “impending trial”. Hubbard set up the Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation – as is recorded in multiple reliable sources, including but not limited to those already cited – the same organisation that Kent indicates was facing an impending trial; thus it’s fair to describe it as his organization. Your increasing desperation to deflect from the obviously false claims you made about what the sources say, and claims about what you said about the sources, merits little response. If you would like to change the words in the Elizabeth case from “practicing medicine without a license” to "operating a school for the treatment of disease without a license” because you think it’s an insufficiently exact synonymous phrase that results in a libel against a man dead for 38 years, be bold and change it. I’ll not object, even if I hold the distinction to be nil. Cambial — foliar❧ 17:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- You need to stop wasting editor’s time with inappropriate templates and fabricated claims. You said
- @Cambial Yellowing: You ignored the main point entirely: None of your scholarly sources use the term "prosecuted" and none accuse(d) Hubbard directly. Your decision to cherry-pick a few phrases from out of a few sources, remove them from the context of their source, exaggerate the language (WP:OR), knit them together into the WP:SYNTH that you did, and repeat the concepts three times in the article, shows your penchant for POV pushing on this topic. Focusing on use of "failed verification" template and your interpretation of when it should be used is a red herring. Suggesting a publisher would fact check every minute sentence and turn of phrase in a scholarly work they publish is a fantasy. That you defend your actions with such vehemence, refuse to get the point, and waste enormous amounts of other editors' time on this (and similar, earlier debates) shows either a lack of willingness or an inability to neutrally edit in this topic. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 16:16, 6 January 2024 (UTC)