Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scientology

Old version of Main Page Old list of articles Tasks (2005), archived subsection History Article Project

Overlapping and duplicate histories, CONTENTFORKs

Currently, there is "history" content in 7 articles (at least):

• L. Ron Hubbard (lengthy)
• Early life of L. Ron Hubbard (a distinct topic)
• Military career of L. Ron Hubbard (a distinct topic)
• Dianetics (some)
• History of Dianetics
• Scientology (lengthy)
• Church of Scientology (small amount)

I propose that we focus on keeping just 3 history articles:

• Early life of L. Ron Hubbard
• Military career of L. Ron Hubbard.
• History of Dianetics and Scientology (taken initially from History of Dianetics; Dianetics is part of Scientology and really shouldn't be separated from it)

Dianetics, Scientology, and Church of Scientology should have only summaries of history and the pointer {{Main|History of Dianetics and Scientology}}.

L. Ron Hubbard would probably have a larger summary, but there is far too much detail in the current article.

To get there, we would have to do:

1. Rename History of Dianetics to History of Dianetics and Scientology
2. Clean up Dianetics#History, merging any unique content into History of Dianetics and Scientology
3. Merge content from Scientology#History to History of Dianetics and Scientology
4. Make a new summary for Scientology#History that covers just the key points necessary for this article.
5. Check Church of Scientology#History to see if there's any unique content to copy into History of Dianetics and Scientology, then clean up the summary there.
6. Go through L. Ron Hubbard to see if there's any unique content that needs to go into Early life of L. Ron Hubbard or Military career of L. Ron Hubbard or History of Dianetics and Scientology.
7. Check L. Ron Hubbard to see how it could be trimmed and focused for that topic.

Reasons why to do this: The three top-level articles — L. Ron Hubbard (155K), Scientology (270K) and Church of Scientology (175K) — are all rather lengthy and need trimming. Also, there is duplicate history content in many of these articles. There has been no designated 'master' article containing all of the history content for the life and work of Hubbard (including the organizations, up to today) so content has been haphazardly added to 'whichever' article, leaving gaps and duplications all over the place. Maintaining the content in its current state is difficult and it would be much easier if there were master [sub-]articles for the histories. Also, why would anyone go to those sub-articles if there's already massive amounts of history in the three top level articles (rather than summaries as is suggested in WP guidelines). Per WP:PROPERSPLIT, we should "create a good summary of the subtopic at the parent article." If we don't leave behind just a summary, but instead leave a honkin' great big chunk o' content, then that is a WP:CONTENTFORK (no matter how we got to this point).

Grorp (talk) 07:27, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Makes total sense to me. I've started on it. Feoffer (talk) 01:27, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@Feoffer: Thanks, for tackling this project. I see you're going gangbusters on it.  Thanks Grorp (talk) 06:37, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@North8000: I saw your edit-summary note in this revert. Feoffer is doing the above suggested program at the same time as working on the suggestions from Talk:L. Ron Hubbard/GA2. I've been reviewing all of his edits and so far seems to be right on point. I recommend that Feoffer's edit in Scientology be restored. Grorp (talk) 06:37, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@Grorp: @Feoffer: Grorp, thanks for your guidance and TFeoffer, thanks for this work. I reverted my revert. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:46, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@Feoffer: I'm impressed with the ease with which you have moved all those blocks of histories around; you seem quite familiar with the subject matter. I like the overview section you've added to the L. Ron Hubbard article; I anticipate you later shortening the lead in deference to the overview. I also like the subheadings you've added. That article is becoming comprehensive enough that maybe we will be able to delete (turn into a redirect since you will have merged the content) the Early life of L. Ron Hubbard article and leave the main history of the man right in L. Ron Hubbard. Perhaps that's already part of your plan. I'm enjoying watching you work. Carry on. Grorp (talk) 08:21, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words! Feoffer (talk) 21:18, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

The Miscavige coup : Power takeover after Hubbard's death

Has anyone noticed that Wikipedia has very little content related to David Miscavige's takeover of power and control of the Church of Scientology after L. Ron Hubbard's death? I also mentioned it at Talk:Pat Broeker § Broeker's role and the power struggle. There is quite a bit of material in several books about the power struggle, including Atack, Lamont, Miller, Reitman and Wright (four of which are available online) and possibly Rinder and Urban. Grorp (talk) 04:51, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

References

PROD v redirect

@Cambial Yellowing: I wanted to explain in more detail than an edit summary can cover. Though I have unPRODed 3 articles you recently nominated (The Great Secret, Dead Men Kill & Karin Pouw), I left edit summaries suggesting turning each into a redirect.

I did it to record for future editors that there is at least one other editor—me—who agrees that these articles fail to show general notability. I have found that in the past there have been Scientology-topic articles turned into redirects without any discussion or apparent consensus, often resulting in reverts, re-reverts, and disputes. Though I don't agree with each one done in the past, at least the redirect method saves the edit history and the contents, including citations.

Even if the content in Karin Pouw doesn't rise to the bar for notability for a standalone article, I could see some of the content added to List of Scientology officials into a section of its own at the bottom of the lists. Pouw's name crops up often, and for the last several decades, so readers might well want to search for her by name.

I wanted to explain my de-PROD rationale more than the short edit summaries I left, and give you the opportunity to be the one to turn them into redirects if you thought that was a good way to go with them. Grorp (talk) 02:33, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

While I disagree, I can see your point of view on the short stories. They can redirect to written works of L. Ron Hubbard. I don’t think they’re a useful redirect tbh because links are basically zero and virtually no-one is going through these pages (I would think that many landings on “the great secret” are a false positive). But I’m not going to dispute them as the Hubbard bibliography is undoubtedly an appropriate article.

If ever there was an article that fails WP:LISTN, List of Scientology officials is it. Just been searching for an RS that describes or refers to this as a group or list. I’m fairly confident (and not remotely surprised) that none exists. I’m going to seek to delete that article – and Karin Pouw – as totally lacking notability. If you’ve seen any evidence of WP:LISTN criteria let me know @Grorp:. Cambial — foliar❧ 07:31, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

n.b. The closest I’ve seen is this article; but it’s a list of "defectors" – i.e. individuals who are not officials. There’s a pretty strong case for a list of Scientology defectors article. Cambial — foliar❧ 07:44, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

JFC! I don't have the time or energy to look for this right now. Do whatever you're going to do. If an AfD gets anywhere near close to a delete-result, I'm sure the content will get wedged into some other article such as List of Scientologists or Church of Scientology (then the original article kept as a redirect in order to preserve the edit history of the copied content). I'll be blunt, it's exhausting just trying to collaborate with you. Grorp (talk) 08:16, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

@Grorp: What is JFC? I’m a little surprised by your response to an agreement to retain two of the articles you mention in your OP.

Do you think LISTN is likely met for list of officials? Happy to dig deeper in the literature if you have an idea where coverage of this as a group might be found.

Its not clear what you find exhausting - the above was a measured response based on my reading of the literature. I find the emotional reaction to the fact I disagree with you bizarre. Cambial — foliar❧ 09:23, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

"RS that describes or refers to this as a group or list." is not a requirement for a list article, it's merely mentioned as one possibility. As the guideline notes, (for better or for worse) there really isn't a requirement. The fact that every entry on the list is individually notable / has an article means that it meets a higher standard than a typical list article. I think that that list of officials article is pretty useful and informative. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:37, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Cambial, you cannot possibly be clueless to the effect you have on others—judging by the frequency of [mostly edit war] warnings that get posted to your user talk page. There is no way you're surprised at my reaction, and your little gaslighting attempt looks bad on you.

Having watched your edits in Scientology topics for quite some time, it is clear to me that you have extreme contempt and hatred for Scientology. Many of your edits lean to heavy POV-pushing, and most of the time I just turn a blind eye because I don't want to deal with it right then and figure I'll just work around it or work it over later. I earlier would try to revert your worst or most destructive edits, but you would just re-revert and never quite discuss to any agreement, so I gave up that tactic. I'm tired of trying to figure what approach would work with you. I prefer a direct explanatory approach, but that sure doesn't work.

Though I try to work with you, I rarely get any true collaboration, and my attempts often backfire. One recent example is the prior thread where you had tried to push your POV by categorizing Hubbard's Scientology books as fiction and added pseudoscience labels, and I tried to point out how that's not quite right. Instead of you mentioning the reasonable solution which you did come up with, your response to me suggested I was forcing something on you—"There's no reason to force a dichotomy where none exists". Followed by the second example: you starting a Categories for Discussion to delete the non-fiction Scientology category (without any notice left on this WikiProject talk page), and when I attempted to support your nomination another person ramrods me over a lack of "proper wording", which just adds to my exhaustion related to your editing choices. A third example is this thread: I start out to explain where there is agreement on some articles and notability, and instead you add an announcement that you will seek to delete even more articles... including ones that I'm working on! Those recent examples are just the tip of the iceberg. You make more work for me.

So if you really are clueless, then it's time to get a clue. And if you're not clueless, then you're doing all this deliberately. Either way, it's untenable, disruptive, exasperating, and exhausting. Grorp (talk) 09:21, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Cambial, I don't know the situation, but just generally commenting, out in the real world I dislike Scientology. But when editing here, it is our job to make such feelings irrelevant rather than pursuing them when editing. And, whatever one's viewpoints are, providing accurate information to people is useful. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:15, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Your evidence-free accusation of gaslighting does not go unnoticed, and that assumption of bad faith sets the tone for the rest of your emotional outburst. Given that context, and the fact you offer no evidence that supports your accusations that my edits constitute "destructive edits" [destroying what - inappropriate content?] or lean to heavy POV-pushing, I see no reason to defend against them at length. My views on the topic are irrelevant. All the sources I use are scholarship, legal publications, or the most in-depth mainstream journalism.

It is my observation, already expressed several times on article talk in clear terms including in discussions in which you took part, that the articles on Scientology suffer from pervasive bias. This is in part a result of unresolved issues from the events of 2008 and those of 2009. This is not merely content and sourcing issues but extends to problems with language, framing, and depth and breadth of coverage. I've deleted numerous articles on absurdly fatuous subjects such as Freedom Medal of Valor, sourced entirely to CoS promotional material. It's appropriate to do so.

You cannot be unaware that my proposing of the deletion of the article on Karin Pouw, long on my watchlist, was occasioned by you pointing out the lack of notability for the subject, quite correctly. As you say, the reliable sources are all trivial passing mentions. Virtually all material actually about the subject is sourced to CoS promotional websites. I therefore took action to address your expressed concerns. You then cite another instance in which I agreed with your suggestion that fiction was not quite the right category and acted as a result of your statement. In that light your accusation of being disruptive, which apparently in your interpretation means failing to sufficiently agree with you, looks quite ridiculous.

It's unfortunate you feel exhausted. No-one is forcing you to follow my editing or talk page in as close detail as you evidently choose to. I certainly pay little or no attention to yours. I'll be continuing to remove inappropriate content and add scholarship to the project. If you attack me with spurious and groundless accusations again I'll raise it at the appropriate central noticeboard. Cambial — foliar❧ 00:27, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

@Cambial Yellowing: If you make any further remarks about "emotions" or insult me rather than focusing on content or actions then I will escalate the matter. Your repeated personal attacks—including referring to my reasons, reasoning, statements, and arguments as "emotions, histrionics, outbursts, ridiculous", etc.—needs to cease. I always start with focusing on content, and even when I express agreement with your actions or plans, you often respond with an insult, or say I'm being emotional. It is untrue and it is attacking me personally, for whatever [unknown] reason or game. It is unprofessional and against Wikipedia policies. The objective of a personal attack is to provoke an emotional response when none existed beforehand.

Evidence-free accusation? The gaslighting I referred to was your comment directly before mine. I shouldn't have needed to present a diff for you to know exactly what I was referring to, since you just did it. Because you asked, or maybe you were feigning ignorance ("Its not clear what you find exhausting"), I expressed why I was exhausted with dealing with you. Exhaustion isn't an emotion, and my expressing that I'm exhausted dealing with you isn't an emotional outburst.

There is nothing spurious and groundless about my accusations and I can and will back up my statements with diffs when the time comes. Where I have been patient or tolerant before, there will be no quarter from me from here on out. Grorp (talk) 07:56, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

@Grorp: Yes, you claim the prior post is “gaslighting”, I understand that. That’s not evidence for it, and you rely for your claim that it was “gaslighting” merely on your own assumption of bad faith. You say you’re tired, it’s exasperating, (another editor (!) “ramrods” you, you use the acronym “JFC” presumably (by urban dictionary) meant to mean “Jesus Fucking Christ”, etc: those are emotional phrases and descriptions of emotion. I’ve not insulted you – referring to emotion is not an insult – and I note I’m not the first editor to take a dim view of you misrepresenting other’s actions. Claiming someone is acting in bad faith based on your assumption is widely understood as a personal attack. That behaviour needs to stop immediately. Cambial — foliar❧ 11:05, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Grant Cardone & Draft:Chrissie Carnell Bixler

Someone recently created a stub for Bixler, and someone a while back created one for Cardone. Cardone has a LOT of reliable sources written about him, but finding them (needles) in the haystack of google after his own massive advertise-self... pretty hard to find. I've edited that article some, but it is full of puffery and needs a cleanout. If anyone is interested, you now know where it is. (Draft space is pretty much a hidden cupboard of articles.) Grorp (talk) 08:14, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I am pretty sure the Bixler article could be expanded over time, especially with the coverage of the civil case(s) following Danny Masterson's conviction. Drafts get auto-deleted if they are not edited for 6 months; I just made a token edit to both of these to ensure they stick around for another 6 months.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 22:42, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Military career of L. Ron Hubbard

Military career of L. Ron Hubbard has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Spinixster (chat!) 12:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)