Loading AI tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 90 days ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
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I’m proposing a name change to this article’s title, on the basis of “Free Zone” being a long-outdated spelling/stylization — “Freezone” being the ubiquitous endonym, recognized as such from an Etic perspective as well.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 “Free Zone” is an incorrect, outdated and rarely-used (in any context) exonym.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)
@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)
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:
The only discussion of this was here:
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
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.