Talk:Scientology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
This is not a forum for general discussion of Scientology, or anything not directly related to improving the Wikipedia article. Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article.
You may wish to post your thoughts at the Reference desk, the Village pump, or the Help desk.
Scientology is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
January 19, 2004 Refreshing brilliant prose Not kept
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please discuss substantial changes here before making them, making sure to supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

Contents

[edit] The use of self-published sources

I just want to point out that self published sources can be used!!! WP:SPS states:

Using self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

the material used is relevant to the notability of the subject of the article;

  1. it is not unduly self-serving;
  2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
  3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
  4. there is no reason to doubt its authenticity;
  5. the article is not based primarily on such sources;
  6. the source in question has been mentioned specifically in relation to the article's subject by an independent, reliable source.
WABOB! Self-published sources are not reliable nor trustworthy nor in a way peer-reviewed. Everyone can publish his own thesis in a book, and there is no reason for taking that crap into wikipedia. --Yikrazuul (talk) 11:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Are we now saying that wiki is peer reviewed? It can't be used for anything academic. Am I missing something here? dmm2259
some common sense people. Firstly self published here means stuff that's been published by the topic of the article, not the random ramblings of some nut from the internet. Clearly some stuff people write about themselves is reasonable, I imagine the official website of the UN would for example be a reasonable source from which to cite UN membership, the name of the Secretary General, official languages etc. 84.172.205.129 (talk) 08:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
What is your purpose here? Are you trying to compare Scientology with the UN (or an official website with a self-published book)? if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. (WP:SPS) If you are not providing any usefull argument or specific issue I will delete this section according to WP:TPG. We are trying to write an encyclopedia, hence this discussion site is not a platform for personal opinions! Cheers, --Yikrazuul (talk) 10:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't aware I had a purpose (the above is me not signed in by the way). My point as it relates to this article is that in some instances it is reasonable to reference the subject of the article. For instance I really can't think of any reason why not to reference the Church of scientology on say 'Beliefs of the Church of Scientology' If they aren't a reliable source on their own beliefs then who is? That's seperate from establishing notability or quoting the church of scientology on say their history, where they may not be entirely reliable (or they may be, I'm not getting into an argument about that). Billsmith453 (talk) 19:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
The problem with Scientology being a reference for itself is #4 from above "there is no reason to doubt its authenticity". Scientology has been saying since 1950 that it is the fastest growing religion on Earth every year for the last 59 years while at the same time every study and survey of religion in the US has indicated that the total number of scientologists a few years ago was less than 50,000 and last years study the number was so statistically insignificant that it couldn't even be calculated accurately. There are hundreds if not thousands of other documented lies (and criminal actions) that CoS has committed, so there is always reason to doubt the authenticity of claims that put Scientology in a positive light when the only source for those claims is the church itself. The CoS can be used to document who their leaders are, presuming there is no contradictory evidence from outside sources. Vivaldi (talk) 10:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] re scientology being recognised as tax exempt religion in countries outside the US

Twice in the article it is stated that other countries recognise scientology as being recognised as a tax-exempt religion. Can anyone name some of these countries please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Celticspring (talk • contribs) 18:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Some of the countries are listed in the Scientology#Scientology as a state-recognized religion section. Examples include Australia [1], New Zealand [2], Spain [3], Sweden [4], and Portugal [5]; more countries and sources can be found in Scientology as a state-recognized religion. Most of these recognitions have come quite recently (i.e. during the last ten years). JN466 19:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
They aren't a tax-exempt religion there. Just a religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.5.153.67 (talk) 06:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] WHAT?

wait, so the church of scientology has been banned from editing this article? why? is not a form of discrimination? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qazxswedccdewsxzaq (talk • contribs) 15:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

No, discrimination would be if Scientologists were banned from editing the article because they’re Scientologists, or if the decision to do so was heavily influenced by some dislike for the Church Of Scientology.
Here, the Church Of Scientology and some of its members were banned for their behaviour. See [6] and [7]. — NRen2k5(TALK), 21:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I find that to be great news. I first heard about this on the Colbert Report, which, I believe, is one of the best places to get news from. I really get annoyed by antics done by people like that who go on wikipedia and shove down everyone's throat about how they think Scientology is so awesome. I'm gald that depraved behaviour has been dealt with. BacktableSpeak to Meabout what I have done 03:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Sad that it's not the case for the German Wikipedia article.85.5.153.67 (talk) 15:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] About the history and controversy sections.

This section is very long and covers a lot of controversies. Has references that the controversies section lacks, and covers events on state recognition that are not covered on the specifically devoted section. I propose we use the history section to only cover the event per se and move any references and allegations of controversy to the corresponding section, to have a better structured article, and so that readers don't have to jump from one location of the article to another one. RUL3R (talk) 23:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense. --JN466 21:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Scientology is....

Scientology is a body of beliefs and related practices created by L. Ron Hubbard in 1952 as a successor to his earlier self-help system, Dianetics.

Hubbard created Scientology from 1952 until his death is 1986. He did not create a body of beliefs and practices in the year 1952. He started in 1952, finished in 1986 but worked steady through. His first public mention of that word was on March 3, 1952 in Wichita, Kansas. (Scientology: Milestone One)
Could we have;

Scientology is a body of beliefs and related practices created by L. Ron Hubbard, starting in 1952, as a successor to his earlier self-help system, Dianetics. Jim Bough (talk) 04:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, and Y Done. I've added the years of his birth and death in brackets as well. Cheers, JN466 04:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Purpose of Scientology

civilization without insanity, without criminals and without war, where the able can prosper and honest beings can have rights, and where man is free to rise to greater heights.

Per this link, would a primary source suffice to fill the purpose parameter of the Infobox? RUL3R (talk) 17:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Re: "Cult"

See WP:TERRORIST. I have to admit, out in the real world, I prefer to call Scientology a cult myself, but that sort of wording doesn’t belong on Wikipedia. — NRen2k5(TALK), 00:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

We (as in wikipedians) should definitely not label any sort of group as being a cult. However, many reliable sources do describe Scientology as a cult (and it is worded to reflect this) and as such should be mentioned.--Woland (talk) 01:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it deserves a mention. Of course, making clear that it is a third party view, not any editors POV. RUL3R (talk) 04:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
It's in the article already, both the lead and the main body. JN466 17:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Religion in the USA?

I don't think so. It's only defined as a "religious community" by the IRS as the constitution of the United States doesn't allow the congress to define religions. Everything else is just opinion of governmental representatives or groups.85.5.153.67 (talk) 15:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It is listed by the IRS as a non-profit group that is religious or charitable in nature. Marty Rathbun, a former executive at the Church, went to the IRS and persuaded them to give them this status in return for getting some 1,000 separate lawsuits against the IRS dropped. I don't think that the IRS has ever been in a position to determine for the country what is or is not an acceptable "religion". All they do is determine whether the group appears to be more related to making money for investors or if it is in engaged in education (spiritual or otherwise), healing, helping, contributing to society, etc... There are plenty of religions presumably that would never meet the requirements of the IRS (because they don't have enough members or because they strongly advocate positions that are in opposition to the United States interests). There are also a number of organizations that I believe are primarily designed to provide vast amounts of wealth to just a few individuals at the top (and their friends and families) that the IRS designates as non-profits...some of these are even popular Christian "churches". Vivaldi (talk) 10:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The use of non-reliable sources

Hi. I'm wondering how a statement like "It has been widely criticized as a cult that financially defrauds and abuses its members, charging exorbitant fees for its spiritual services." gets into a wikipedia article. It appears to be based on opinion sections from newspaper accounts and not WP:RS. Can I delete this? It also appears to begin with weasel words.RSuser (talk) 13:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree on the weasel words. Not sure about the RS issue. Boston Herald and MSNBC are RS as far as I know. Scotsman, maybe not. Not sure how much the fact that some of the articles quoted are columns detracts from their reliablity. They were approved for publishing in the RSs after all. — NRen2k5(TALK), 20:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
The first reference is an obvious opinion piece, not a news article. The second reference is to something called "Apolegetics Index", which has re-sourced and contextualized a Boston Herald extended piece. I don't see where that piece explicitly states the exact hypothesis "financially defrauds and abuses its members, charging exorbitant fees for its spiritual services" though it may support it. If it is there I should not have to go through 100 pages to find it. The third reference is incidental and also has the "critics say" weasel words. If you take out the weasel words you get a sweeping statement of the broadly critical kind. My own leaning would be to soften the statement focusing on the fact there are controversies, but leaving out the judgemental skew in describing them - "widely criticized for its financial affairs and dealings with some members". Then sharpen the hypothesis in the 'Controversies' section, perhaps leaving the reader to form their own conclusions based on some actual information - specific documented major incidents for example. In fact, that is probably there already. What do you think of this? RSuser (talk) 14:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I have added another scholarly source, Beit-Hallahmi, and have changed the wording to "often been criticised". Beit-Hallahmi details many such criticisms by judges and journalists, and I think even the most charitable observer could not deny that many such criticisms have been made.
On a more formalistic note, new discussions should always go to the bottom of the page. I missed this discussion ealier, because I always look for new contributions at the bottom. If it's alright with you, I'll move this discussion down to its proper place in a day or two. Cheers, JN466 15:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Whoops, sorry. Will look for it there. I agree that the fact of criticism should be mentioned, but the sentence seems biased as written. It sounds like someone has an agenda from the choice of language - "cult", "defrauds members", "exorbitant fees". 67.43.136.134 (talk) 02:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, what to do? People have raised these criticisms, and their language has not been moderate – see [8], for example. What would you suggest? JN466 02:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps if "criticized" is changed for "regarded" or "described", so that it is clear that it is not the authors opinion but a paraphrase of another writer? RUL3R (talk) 03:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Y Done [9] JN466 04:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Better, still not happy. :) I'm a casual, resistant reader on this subject. If you're trying to tell people about the controversy, then a sentence like the following would be better - "Its activities have been surrounded by protests, article exposes and legal cases especially regarding its financial affairs and member relations." I can pretty well accept that based on the cites provided. I've softened the secondary clause to make it less arguable and sharpened the primary one. RSuser (talk) 18:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I am wary of watering it down too much – the second sentence, which refers to suing the critics, still needs to make sense in relation to the first, i.e. the reader must understand the severity of the dispute. But could you post a draft here of the entire paragraph as you would imagine it? JN466 17:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Sure ... give me a little time, and I will at least make an attempt. I'll actually read all the sources through first.RSuser (talk) 04:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] History section

Re [10], I having nothing against anyone creating a more comprehensive stand-alone article on the history of Scientology, but I think that the level of detail we have here is appropriately right. I wouldn't be in favour of losing the history section in this article. The CoS subsection is still really only a long list of controversies; but then again, there were a lot of those. JN466 17:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

There may be actually no need to split into a separate article as we have for countries or other organizations (like the History of the Roman Catholic Church article, for comparison purposes only). Scientology has less than 60 years in existence, it is a very short history in comparison to other beliefs. We could have a really short "History of Scientology" article, or a very long History section. Could be done, but I believe "consensus" above was that it is not really necessary, and that, while details may be polished, the current state of the section complies with most policies. RUL3R (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I propose this revised Dianetics History:

Scientology was developed by L Ron Hubbard as a successor to his earlier self-help system, Dianetics. Dianetics uses a counseling technique known as auditing, to enable conscious recall of traumatic events in an individual's past.[1] It was originally intended to be a new form of psychotherapy and was not expected to become the foundation for a new religion.[2][3]

Hubbard, first published his ideas on the human mind in 1948 in a self-published book entitled The Original Thesis that only saw private circulation.[4][5] The first mainstream publication was on the May 1950 issue of Astounding Science Fiction magazine, with support from John W. Campbell Jr.[6] Dr. Joseph A. Winter, another key supporter of Dianetics, submitted papers outlining Hubbard's research to the Journal of the American Medical Association and the American Journal of Psychiatry in 1949, but these were rejected.[7][8]

In May 1950 the book Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health was published. The book spent the entire second half of 1950 on the New York Times bestseller list.[6] Dianetics was embraced by people who used instructions from the book and applied the method to each other, becoming practitioners themselves.[6][9] Afterwards, Hubbard established the Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation in Elizabeth, New Jersey, where the first auditors were trained.[6][9]

Morris Fishbein, then editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association, dismissed Hubbard's book;[10][11] in January 1951 the New Jersey Board of Medical Examiners instituted proceedings against the Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation for teaching medicine without a license, which eventually led to that organization's bankruptcy.[12][13][14]

Some practitioners of Dianetics reported experiences which they believed to have occurred in past lives, or previous incarnations.[9] In early 1951, reincarnation became a subject of debate within Dianetics gruops.[15] Campbell and Winter, still seeking support for Dianetics from the medical community, championed a resolution to ban the topic.[15] But Hubbard decided to take the reports of past life events seriously and postulated the existence of the thetan, a concept similar to the soul.[9] This was an important factor in the transition from secular Dianetics to the religion of Scientology.[9]

Also in 1951, Hubbard introduced the "electropsychometer" (E-meter for short) as an auditing aid.[15] The device is held by Scientologists to be a useful tool in detecting changes in an auditee's state of mind.[15]

This preserves all references and content, and avoids weasel words. It is nothing but a more neutral, compact version of the current text. RUL3R (talk) 20:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Much of that seems useful. I've revised the text in line with many (though not all) of your suggestions above. Please review. JN466 20:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't quite agree with "a debunker of quack medicine". This statement indirectly compares Dianetics with "quack medicine", and therefore is not NPOV. Also, I italized Scientology jargon to comply with WP:TTD, since nobody ever responded my comment above regarding this. RUL3R (talk) 20:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Morris Fishbein was known as a debunker (see his article); that is why his opinion was noteworthy. Fishbein is no longer well known today, so I think it makes sense pointing out what he was famous for (Melton, the cited source, specifically mentions it). He seems to have been a bit like a 1950s' Robert Todd Carroll or James Randi. I had rephrased it a little bit to make it more clear that we were describing him rather than Dianetics.
It's always good to try and make the wording more neutral, but we should also beware of reading either criticism of Scientology or "peacockery" (see below) into commonplace expressions.
I remember a passage, in another article, that referred to different membership estimates; Scientology's own, and those of official observers. The text pointed out that the two estimates differed "considerably". One reader commented that the word "considerably" cast undue doubt on the accuracy of the official observers' figures, as though we were implying they were lying. Another editor would have said that the same word "considerably" implied rather that the Scientologists were lying. I took the word out, simply because it seemed apt to be filled with any pre-existing emotional stance. But I was still struck by how the same word could be read one way or the other, depending on the reader's state of mind.
As for technical terms used in Scientology, I would suggest placing them in quotation marks the first time they occur, and afterwards treating them as ordinary words. JN466 12:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
First of all, we are not to say everthing or references say, just what is relevant to the article. And second, we already made clear what he worked on ((...)the editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association(...)). Current rewording seems fine, can't come up with any better. Also WP:TTD suggests italizing the first ocurrence, then treating like any other word. RUL3R (talk) 18:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
And how about:
  • [...] well-known at the time for noting medical practices considered unscientific [...]
? RUL3R (talk) 18:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
It would be a would idea to have an article exclusively on the history of Scientology beginning with this portion up to the point "membership statistics". Then one would build from there on a separate page but this history section should not be taken out of the Scientology page. It should stay there for the simple reason that a reader would acquire a historical perspective of the subject.JDPhD (talk) 20:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
In the sentence, "In January 1951, the New Jersey Board of Medical Examiners instituted proceedings against the Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation for teaching medicine without a license, which eventually led to that organization's bankruptcy," I have changed "organization" to "foundation." Two distinct organizations are named in the sentence prior to the use of the word, and while it would not be common, a reader unfamiliar with the material could be forgiven for being uncertain to which organization the word refers. Honus W Scruggs (talk) 08:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Re: "the entire second half of 1950"

I removed this peacock wording from the article. Since the reference for this statement is paper rather than digital, I can't check it at the moment, so I can't determine whether the best action is to remove the statement altogether, or use more neutral wording. So in the meantime I've just gone with more neutral wording. If anybody else has easy access to the work in question, don't by shy. — NRen2k5(TALK), 01:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I've reworded it again to make it a bit nicer. The source wording is as follows:

Dianetics, the Modern Science of Mental Health [...] publication on 9 May 1950 [...] The next month it hit the New York Times bestseller list and there remained for the rest of the year."

JN466 11:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Rathbun and Mike Rinder in special report on Scientology and David Miscavige

First article in series
Overall report page for multiple articles

Sources to be included in this article. Cirt (talk) 06:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Y Done. Added to controversies section, based on material in Miscavige article. [11] JN466 17:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
N Not done, there is a wealth of additional information in these series of articles. Cirt (talk) 00:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Beyerstein refs

I see past mention of Barry Beyerstein's criticisms in the talk archive, but for some reason they do not seem to be mentioned in the article at the moment:

From Beyerstein, B. L. (1990) "Brainscams: Neuromythologies of the New Age." International Journal of Mental Health. Special issue on quackery 19(3):27-36.

“The areas of science that enjoy the greatest prestige at any moment are the most tempting targets for appropriation by pseudoscientists. Capitalizing on dramatic progress in the neurosciences, the merchants of personal success were quick to commandeer neurological jargon to provide a patina of authority. Scientology's "engrams" and its notorious "e-meter" were pioneers in this trend.” (quoted earlier in Talk)

From {{cite journal|last=Beyerstein|first=Barry L.|title=Fringe Psychotherapies: The Public At Risk|journal=[[Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine]] |publisher=Commission for Scientific Medicine and Mental Health|volume=5|issue=2|issn=1095-0656|url=http://www.selfhelpfraud.com/uploads/3__Fringe_Psychotherapy.pdf|accessdate=2009-06-27}}:

"(O)n balance, psychotherapies founded on ill-conceived assumptions may still prove beneficial if they furnish needed reassurance in an atmosphere where clients can mull over solutions to their dissatisfactions about life. That said, the dangers posed by fringe therapists arise principally in three ways. One is the potential for manipulation and fraud. Cult-like pseudo-therapies can prey on the dependency needs of vulnerable people while extracting unconscionable amounts of money. The nonsensical prattle of Scientology is but one example. (...) All told, these victims could have been helped much more ethically, effectively and cheaply by scientifically-trained counselors who would target specific, tractable problems in their lives."

Note that both of these papers have been cited in academic sources. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


WHat happened to info about them being sued by the country of france and maybe forces to leave the country? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.191.25.169 (talk) 19:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Current news are not needed in the article unless the outcome has completely been realized. Because this is issue in development, is not ready to be used in the article.Bravehartbear (talk) 04:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Free Stress Test?

The picture on the auditing section should be changed to show the 'free stress test' tactic that is employed to have people unsuspectingly take a religious test, maybe also the way in which they are so persistent until the point you have to say you want to strangle them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.219.19 (talk) 02:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


[edit] UFO Religion?

Why is this article in the category "UFO Religions" if none belief ,practice or basic mentions any "UFO God" or deity. Scientologists don't believe in extraterrestial beings as holy ones or something similar. It must be removed from this category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.245.241.187 (talk) 20:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


[edit] SCIENOTLOGY, secondary sources

I would like to (again) present some good scholarly sources on Scientology with the suggestion of adding them to the rest of the secondary sources in the Wiki-article on the subject: 1) Scientology, Social Science and the Definition of Religion, by James A. Beckford. Ph.D, Prof Sociology 2) Scientology, Comparison with Religions of the East and West, by Per-Arne Berglie, Prof History and Religion 3) Is Scientology a Religion?, by Allan W Black, Associate Prof of Sociology 4) Scientology, a New Religion, by M Darrol Bryant Ph.D, Prof Religion and Culture 5) Scientology, by Régis Dericquebourg, Prof of Sociology and Religion 6) Scientology and Contemporary Definitions of Religion in the Social Sciences, by Frank K Flinn Ph.D, Associate Prof of Sociology 7) Scientology and Contemporary Definitions of Religion in the Social Sciences, by Alejandro Frigerio, Ph.D, Associate Prof of Sociology 8) Scientology a True Religion, by Urbano Alonso Galan, Doctor of Phylosophy and Licenciate in Theology, Gregorian University and Saint Bonaventure Pontifical Faculty Rome 9) Scientology, its True Nature, by Harri Heino, Prof of Theology 10) Is Scientology a Religion?, by Dean M Kelley, Counsellor on Religious Liberty 11) The Reliability of Apostate Testimony about New Religious Movements, by Lonnie D Kliever, Dr.Phil, Prof of Religious Studies 12) Religious Philosophy, Religion and Church, by G C Oosthuizen, Th.D, Prof (retired) Dept of Science and Religion 13) The Religious Nature of Scientology, by Geoffrey Parrinder, Ph.D, Prof Emeritus 14) The Church of Scientology, by J Pentikainen, Ph.D 15) Scientology, its Historical and Morphological Frame, by Dario Sabbattuci, Prof of History and Religion 16) The Relationship between Scientology and other Religions, by Fumio Sawada, Eighth Holder of the Secrets of Yu-itsu Shinto 17) Scientology and Religion, by Christiaan Vonck, Ph.D, Rector Faculty for Comparative Study of Religions 18) Apostates and New Religious Movements and Social Change and New Religious Movements, by Bryan Ronald Wilson, Ph.D 19) Scientology, An Analysis and Comparison of its Religious Systems and Doctrines, by Bryan R. Wilson, Ph.D. Awaiting reply, Taodeptus (talk) 16:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Taopeptus

Would you be able to give the publication information so we can see if they qualify as reliable sources, because what we have now is just a bunch of individual qualifications of individuals who don't count as notable, so if they are self published they won't hold up.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Ok, so far...and I have only been through the first 12, but I am going to stop because the result is the same. Those that arn't published by the Church of Scientology have been self published on line, and at least 3 of the individuals cradentuals are in question as well (one doesn't have any record of existing outside of this publication, and 2 others I can find PhD's who's names match, but one is a linguist and another's vita doesn't match the cradentuals presented in the publication). So again, do any of these publications count as a reliable source?Coffeepusher (talk) 23:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

1. While the author is indeed notable, this publication does not show up anywhere in his Vita which covers publications, books, internet publications and lectures…which makes this self published at best, and a fabrication at worst. http://www.sociology.emory.edu/cv/cv_flechner.pdf

2. The only links to this article (including scholarly searches) came from the church. This is published through “freedom publications” and the search results on the website for all the freedom publications I could find did not turn up a 9 page article on scientology, no ISBN or other qualifying information could be found.

3. The only Allen Black PhD. I could find came from Harding University…While I am pretty sure what the Church of Christ has to say about anyone who aren’t Fundamentalist Christians, I checked out his vita with the same results as #1. http://www.hugsr.edu/community/CVs/Allen_Black.pdf Other than him, there is no Allen Black PhD. At the University of New England.

4. Can’t find any publication information, all websites that host doc are connected to the church. Appendix 5 of “scientology critique” on Scribd, uploaded by the church (you will begin to see a pattern…

5. Appendix 4. All publications…yada yada…

6. While less affluent than others, still no mention of this publication on his personal website. http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~fkflinn/

7. Appendix 6. And this man has only done one thing as shown here http://www.zoominfo.com/people/PersonDetailLimited.aspx?PersonID=4256627&lastName=Frigerio&searchSource=page&firstName=Alejandro&id=4256627&page=1 Have I mentioned that it is interesting that all these foreign nationals have been doing English publications while the rest of the stuff coming out of their universities appears to be in the native language.

8. Appendix 7…you know what. I think I am going to stop until someone comes up with any information validating these publications.Coffeepusher (talk) 01:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Scientology"
Personal tools