Talk:Church of Scientology

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

good factual bits[edit]

@North8000: Which bits? cheers Cambial foliar❧ 00:45, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First, thanks for your work and I'm with you overall on this. But following is good factual information for the article, including the text contained in the references:
churches, especially in the area of applying Hubbard's teaching and technology in a uniform fashion.[1][2] At a local level, every church is a separate corporate entity set up as a licensed franchise and has its own board of directors and executives.[3][4]<ref>"Each church corporation is organized on a nonprofit basis with its own board of directors and executives responsible for its activities. What is Scientology? Published 1998 Bridge Publications ISBN 978-1-57318-122-8<
Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:01, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but my edit didn't remove any of that article text, only two sources: one is this book, which is quite old and out-of-date and hence the more recent "RTC" source (which supports the text) can be used in an ABOUTSELF way; the other is "The Church of Scientology" (Studies in Contemporary Religions, 1) (Melton, 2000). The latter is a publication of CESNUR; community consensus has determined that its publications are generally unreliable as a source. As such I'm going to restore the edit. Cambial foliar❧ 01:13, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just work that factual content back into the article? BTW it looks like "sky is blue" structural stuff regarding them. North8000 (talk) 01:20, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean the quote from one of L. Ron Hubbard's books used in the first citation? Before I removed it, it only appeared as a quote in the citation pop-up, not as article text. But if you think it should be used in article text as an LRH quote I have no particular objection; I'm mainly working on erasing more pervasive issues of language bias left unresolved since 2008, removing non-RS along the way. Cambial foliar❧ 01:33, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

.

References

  1. ^ "At the top of the structure is the Church of Scientology International (CSI), the mother church for all Scientology. Located in Los Angeles, CSI provides overall direction, planning and guidance for the network of churches, missions, field auditors and volunteer ministers which comprise the Scientology hierarchy it spans, and ensures these various organizations are all working effectively together." What is Scientology? Published 1998 Bridge Publications ISBN 978-1-57318-122-8
  2. ^ "description of the Scientology ecclesiastical structure on www.rtc.org". Rtc.org. Archived from the original on September 27, 2011. Retrieved November 22, 2011.
  3. ^ Mikael Rothstein (2009). James R. Lewis (ed.). Scientology. Oxford University Press USA. p. 98. ISBN 978-0-19-533149-3.
  4. ^ The Church of Scientology (Studies in Contemporary Religions, 1) By J. Gordon Melton Publisher: Signature Books in cooperation with CESNUR, September 2000 ISBN 978-1-56085-139-4 "The various missions, churches, and organizations, all autonomous corporations which fellowship with the larger movement, receive licenses to use the church's trademarks, service marks, and copyrights of Hubbard's published and unpublished works from RTC."

celebs[edit]

sections about incidents of celeb endorsement should be added 216.164.249.213 (talk) 04:40, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Missing sections[edit]

This article is missing a section for "Service organizations". It should be placed before "Headquarters". Subsections should be:

  1. Class V orgs (missing)
  2. Ideal orgs (existing)
  3. Advanced orgs (missing)
  4. Freewinds (existing)

Service orgs are the Church of Scientology organizations where public individuals ("members") go to get their services (auditing and training). It is the income-producing strata of the entire network. Grorp (talk) 00:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Long footers/captions of pictures[edit]

Long texts under pictures can stretch the picture frame sideways, much broader than actual pictures, and in some cases so much that on some monitors almost no text can be flowed by it's side.

I have tested putting line breaks </br> on suitable places in those lines and because in preview it reclaimed the wasted monitor space, published them.

User: Grorp reverted one of those with comment

Revert caption changes. they looked good on a cell phone but awful on a computer web browser. long captions automatically wrap

It seems my solution was not suitable for every configuration, but at the same time it seems his remark is not true in all environments. I worked on comp screen; before my change (and after revert) in my case long captions didn't. (and don't) automatically revert. It seems the problem (no automatical varp for long captions), which I fudged by inserting newline tags, might be environment (e.g. browser, and maybe even version) dependant. I used and older version of firefox at the time.

And you (Grorp) seem to have been right: in Opera on the same comp long captions do seem to get automatically warped, so I am reverting my other recent patchy picture caption changes.

edit: he already reverted all of them before I could. In Firefox 115.4.0esr on this comp long picture captions are not automatically warped, and are again looking awful on this version of this computer web browser. When I am at some other comp I'll see if it's just this version or FF in general.

Marjan Tomki SI (talk) 16:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I checked 3 computer browsers (Firefox, Edge & Brave) looking at the current version (wrapping captions) and your version with the line-breaks in them. I tried it logged in and logged out, and tried two Wikipedia skins: Vector 2022 (default) and Vector legacy 2010 (my preference). The non-line-break version wraps correctly in all cases.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 18:42, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]