Talk:Scientology beliefs and practices

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Scientology beliefs and practices article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 30 days

Scientology Start‑class Low‑importance

	This article is supported by WikiProject Scientology, a collaborative effort to help develop and improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scientology. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on Scientology-related topics. See WikiProject Scientology and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.ScientologyWikipedia:WikiProject ScientologyTemplate:WikiProject ScientologyScientology
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Scientology and science was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 29 February 2016 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Scientology beliefs and practices on 15 February 2016‎. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Alan Black reference

Hello Grayfell. Regarding my addition of passage from Alan Black's paper. I am dumbfounded as to why you seem to arbitrarily label this is an "unreliable" source. The same paper has actually been cited at #2 on the same Wikipedia page. Who is to decide that this is unreliable? You mentioned also that this is an SPS. How so? How are you able to determine that this paper is "extremely obscure?" According to whose standards? Please enlighten me as I want to understand what can be used as a reliable source. I believe that my edit on the Dynamics is sound and adds much to the section, and I attest that it should remain. The edits on the lead section are also meant to enrich the section from direct quotes from Scientology text, to further contextualize the information here.Livetoedit1123 (talk) 23:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have removed it from the rest of the article, as well, thank you. Neuereligion.de is a dead site, but it appears to have been part of the CoS, and the article itself is a research paper with no clear indication of having been published, much less peer-review or similar. The link to Bible.ca was previously removed (back in 2008) by an editor who characterizing it as a "kook site". I agree with that. There is no reliable source for this, and no publication information indicating this is a WP:RS, so this source is not usable. Grayfell (talk) 02:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. I will stay away from similar references in the future.Livetoedit1123 (talk) 16:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]