Talk:Church of Scientology

It's own category
I think that the CoS is enough of an issue that it deserves it's own category. Is there any way we could do that while still having it in the "Cults" category? Greatnecro (talk) 18:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You mean like this category which we've had for six years & which this article is already in & always has been? 19:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * OK let me rephrase that. Can we get the category box on this article so people know that category actually exists?

Three Stooges
Interesting factoid: the huge Scientology building in Los Angeles located on L. Ron Hubbard Way was the site of the opening shot to The Three Stooges Film Men in Black, the movie has the famous "Calling Dr. Fine, Dr. Howard, Dr. Fine" routine. By the way, the LA City council mostly knuckled under to Scientology-pressure in 1996 to rename the street. Bongolian (talk) 04:18, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Unreadable text
What? 22:50, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

. I picked this topic from the latest recent changes. For the record, I don't think much of Scientology or its adherents. And I am not doing this to get you to change your mind about some other article. Consider the opening sentences

The  Cult Church of $¢i€nto£og¥ Scientology™ is a dangerous cult entirely legitimate faith that foists bestows its dogma wisdom and electronic snake oil miraculous technology upon the surprisingly gullible wisely receptive sheep public. It oversees the practice of the for-profit for-truth scam religion creat cooked up by writer of crappy science fiction,

I would think an average reader would be put off enough to go elsewhere for information about Scientology. You know I dislike cross-outs as a matter of style. The real problem with this form is it is ambiguous. A cross-out is a stop sign. The reader must stop and think before continuing. For example, L Ron was a writer of crappy science fiction. I believe this is a general consensus. Why the cross-out if it is true? The introductory paragraph is a mess. Ariel31459 (talk) 15:07, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No, this strike-out is atrocious. It's one of the worst I've seen in the wiki. A rewrite is due. 18:00, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is awful. This is one of the prime examples of where this technique, meant to convey snark, just makes the article look stupid. Cosmikdebris (talk) 18:22, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Reading comprehension is so much easier. It's a world of a difference. 18:35, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Silver
I support being gluttons for punishment. Bring on the Thetans! 20:12, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Irrational Nonsense
Religious Bollocks ∩ Quackery Bollocks ∩ Pseudoscientific Bollocks ∩ Paranormal Bollocks = Scientology According to Crispian Jago's Venn Diagram of Irrational Nonsense anyway: http://www.crispian.net/VDOIN.html Mr Larrington (talk) 10:41, 31 October 2022 (UTC)