Talk:Scientology and controversy

From Wikinfo

This hardly seems like a discussion of "controversy." It's a very santitized view of controversy, if it is. Is this from a Scientology pamphlet? And don't we already have an in-depth "Scientology controversy" article? This seems like a Trojan horse article designed to minimize the effects of the real Controversy article. - Nhprman 22:24, 6 November 2007 (EST)

This is not from a pamphlet. We do have an in-depth Scientology controversy that overflows with detail. What I wanted to do here was present a overview of the two, the basic divide. Both sides are large. Both sides have a vast amount of material. Scientology controversy presents a lot of detail. Whereas Scientology presents a lot of detail. And both sides draw from a larger body of information. But what divides the two sides, why do critics go to such lengths, when you have to actually walk into a Church and then you have to actually donate good money in order to obtain their services? It has always been a puzzle to me. That divide, you see, prompts big critical but personal websites. I begin the article with the idea, there is some basic bit of attitude, or information that motivates critics. And I tried to present what I knew of that. Does this make sense to you? Terryeo 12:05, 8 November 2007 (EST)

Not really, no. We have a Scientology article, and we have a critical article (both of which are standard for Wikinfo, based on its policies) but why the need for a THIRD article on this, apparently responding to both of them? It seems like a rather transparent attempt to neutralize the "controversy" article, or perhaps confuse people into going here instead of that one. But I could be wrong. - Nhprman 15:00, 8 November 2007 (EST)

Okay. Well, if it seems like a transparent attempt to neutralize the Scientology controversy article, then I didn't write what I intended to write. I was attempting to present Scientology's action, reaction and writings about Scientology controversy. In brief, Scientology's say so or attitude about controversy. At the same time, I wanted to present the foundational motivation of people who create Scientology controversy, the motivation that has prompted people to put so much effort, energy and expense into it. I mean really, have so many people ever gone to so much effort to criticize an organization that you have to walk in the door, to become aquainted with? And then, you have to donate them money? Not all at once either, but time after time in bits and pieces. That is the area, you know, the general area, I was trying to address. As opposed to the many details found in Scientology controversy. So, I see I failed. So, what do you think of the basic idea I've spelled out? (Y) / (N) / (A)bort. Terryeo 16:58, 8 November 2007 (EST)