Talk:Free Zone (Scientology)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Free Zone (Scientology) 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: 90 days

Scientology Mid‑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 articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alternative Views Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

On changing the name/title of the topic

Hello,

I’m proposing a name change to this article’s title, on the basis of “Free Zone” being a long-outdated spelling/stylization — “Freezone” being the ubiquitous endonym, recognized as such from an Etic perspective as well.

The spacing and capitalization as “Free Zone” is not reflective of the reality within the community itself, Scientology discussion and criticism, or academic ethnography.

In short: no one has used “Free Zone” for a very long time; it fell out of favor decades ago. It’s even a source of correction among people who dane use it in the presence of Freezoners.

I think it would thus be pertinent and appropriate to change the article’s title for accuracy’s sake. “Free Zone” is an incorrect, outdated and rarely-used (in any context) exonym.

Thank you for your time!

-An experienced Scientology researcher -.+ThAYYta+.- (talk) 05:06, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I checked each of the external links to the indie scientology websites and there seems to be no standard. Some call it "Freezone" and others "Free Zone". Grorp (talk) 09:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's true for old long-established websites and groups, (like from the Usenet era to early 2000's) however in practice "Freezone" and "Independent Scientology" both take precedent over "Free Zone" almost every time nowadays. It's worth looking into what the current English-speaking Independent Scientology field (such as on Facebook, Ron's Org groups, or in the reporting of Tony Ortega) actually use in discussion. I've even witnessed newcomers and watchers get chewed out for using the outdated "Free Zone."

If I'm not mistaken, even the latest ethnographies on Freezoners use the non-spaced version.

It's not a huge deal of course, but it would more accurately reflect the self-identity of Independent Scientologists and lead to more standardization.

-.+ThAYYta+.- (talk)

Germany paragraph

@Jacquesparker0: I'm not sure I completely agree with the removal of the Germany paragraph. Yes, it was positioned awkwardly by being placed before the section "The Church of Scientology and the Free Zone". I'm thinking of reworking the article Scientology status by country and this Germany paragraph would be relevant (here). It shows the contrast between how Germany sees the Church of Scientology (dangerous organization) and Freezone (relatively harmless hobby). I wanted to at least make a note of this particular edit here for when I get around to reworking the "status by country" article. It's possible that that research would turn up other countries that shun CoS but don't care about the independents, in which case a section here called, perhaps, "Perception by government authorities" or something similar. On the other hand, that 'news' is 24 years old. Just tossing around the idea. Grorp (talk) 09:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Grorp. I think making a section called "Perception by government authorities" makes sense for that paragraph (plus it expands the article in a nice way). For now, I'll reverse my edit to retain the paragraph, so later we could rework it into something that better fits the article. --Jacquesparker0 (talk) 19:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article's factual accuracy is disputed?

According to WP:WTRMT:

"Maintenance templates are not meant to be in articles permanently. Any user without a conflict of interest may remove a maintenance template in any of the following circumstances: [...] When an article talk page discussion has not been initiated (for templates requesting it)"

The "This article's factual accuracy is disputed" tag was added here:[1]

The only discussion of this was here:[2]

I do not think that the above discussion from nine years ago justifies a permanent "This article's factual accuracy is disputed" warning when there was never an actual dispute over the article's factual accuracy.

Also, the wrong template was used. WP:RSPM is the correct method to request that the name of a Wikipedia article be changed. @Laval:, please follow the instructions at RSMP if you still wish to request a name change.

In the meantime I propose removing the template. --23:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC) by Guy Macon Alternate Account

Agree. I'll take it off. if somebody has a specific concern. please state it specifically. North8000 (talk) 03:12, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]