Talk:Church of Scientology/Archive 2

Article Checklist for "Church of Scientology/Archive 2"

Workgroup category or categories	Religion Workgroup [Categories OK]
Article status	Developing article: beyond a stub, but incomplete
Underlinked article?	Yes
Basic cleanup done?	Yes
Checklist last edited by	Larry Sanger 23:43, 22 May 2007 (CDT); David Martin 20:46, 15 May 2007 (CDT)

To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist.

---

In its current form, this article is very difficult to understand. I would recommend writing to make it more accessible. --Peter A. Lipson 14:09, 1 May 2007 (CDT)

I've rewritten what I think you might be referring to, but please post more comments if you would like. I've tried to present the reason why Hubbard called it "a study of knowledge". I've tried to be specific about what he was talking about re:knowledge, as specifically as possible. Terry E. Olsen 18:16, 1 May 2007 (CDT)

I think it is still quite difficult to understand. And philosophically it sounds a little incoherent - perhaps its terminological. I think the problem might be that it is not a good idea to write about a topic from the inside - if ones a Christian it might be hard to write about Christianity objectively, since it's the framework with which one approach the world. More seriously, though, it seems to be making assumptions about epistemology that are quite sweeping and a little ill-informed: this area of philosophy had, for example, ideas of knowledge more sophisticated than 'book learning' about 2500 years ago with Plato. There is also a long tradition of ideas of practical wisdom, know-how contra know that, and so forth which seems to be relevant, but unmentioned in the article. Hope this helps. Damien Storey 18:47, 22 May 2007 (CDT)

I'm inclined to think that this article should be deleted on grounds that it probably has little usable content, and its sole author has left CZ. It says virtually nothing about the body of doctrine that is called "scientology" and in its current form is extremely misleading precisely because it omits everything that is essential to scientology. The Wikipedia article at least has an account of things like "auditing" and "thetans" and the rest of it. --Larry Sanger 23:42, 22 May 2007 (CDT)

Per discussion on Larry Sanger's talk page, I'm going to do my best to take over the responsibility of making this page a proper introduction to this topic, and bringing it up to snuff. As such, I'm going to remove the deletion notice for now, and do what I can. If I misunderstood this, do forgive. Michael MacNeil 10:10, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

Deletion would be music to my prejudices, but I agree that if it can be replaced with some informative, neutral content then this would justify its existence. A mammoth 'criticism' section perhaps. Damien Storey 18:47, 24 May 2007 (CDT)

Thoughts, anyone?

I don't know if anyone else will be interested in this article besides me, but I've decided it'd be a good idea to document my actions on the talk page and put anything I remove on here so it can be replaced if someone finds me to be in error.

I don't think the quotes from Hubbard are that useful. They're interspersed oddly throughout the article, and aren't simple or broken down enough to seem of use in an encyclopedic article. I plan to remove, for instance, these, which made no sense even to ME at first.

• "If we understand what we know--you know, that's an interesting thing; you have to understand what you know--if we understand what we know, we can go a long way ....."

This one strikes me as, well, rambling, and not pertinent to its placement.

• The Scientology religion comprises a body of knowledge, says the Church of Scientology

Err, this, aside from being a truism, is kind of equally irrelevant and would be quoted better in prose than as a sentence sourced all on its own. Also not to mention the "Dit-dah" quote.

• Don’t be like the signalman who goes up on the bridge of a battlewagon ... and there is a flashing light going dit-da, dit-da. And somebody says to this signalman, "All right, what’s he saying?" ..."Well, just a moment, I have to give it some more study." Oh no, he doesn’t. If he’s a signalman, dit-da means "A" to him. And a whole string of dots, sort of read en masse together, mean a word to him. He has conquered the barrier of meaning in light flashes.

While all of these may be significant to inductees of the Scientology doctrine, I think some clarification would be aided by converting it all to prose, and making the article about its topic: the doctrine. It should explain what Scientologists believe, their practices (I have experience and research about these, within my purview, and feel I can write ably), and generally I think should analyze the doctrine without espousing/using the language of the dogma. Just thoughts for now, though I'm already writing a version incorporating the information of the current in a more introductory form. So, do speak out if anyone has recommendations for what to include. Michael MacNeil 10:10, 23 May 2007 (CDT)