Talk:Scientology

Comment in Intro

In the introduction it calles the ECHR (European Court of Human Rights) "this highest European Court". This is unnecessary and technically incorrect. The sentence even mentions immeadiately afterward what the jurisdiction of the court is. I would suggest that the words "highest European" simply be removed. This sort of silly, minor piece of poor style is easily avoided and taints the rest of the article, IMO. Thanks. LM-Mac 11:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has pointed that this page has exceeded its ideal size and sub-subject need in its own pages

Any suggestions of what sections need to go? Bravehartbear 04:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Apart from shortening every section, and serious editing of the intro: the origins section should come before the beliefs section, and the section on ceremonies only talks about funerals and should go unless it can be filled out with other scientology-specific ceremonies. The whole section on controversy needs to be heavily summarised, as it is extremely prolix. Turkeyplucker 09:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

bias

It is clear that this is a controversial subject and it is imposible to make it 100% un-bias. So I posted a POV check for neutrality. Bravehartbear 15:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Which I removed. Most of the edits to the article lately have been by YOU, so why would you complain about the article's POV now? If there's anything in the article that you think is biased, speak up and say specifically what. wikipediatrix 15:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok boss I'm working on it. Bravehartbear 21:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a controversial subject, but much better neutrality and writing can be achieved if Bravehartbear and others stop spamming this page, having irrelevant arguments, and enforcing a personal agenda. Some commentators, notably Bravehartbear, are becoming the very personification of the criticisms they find so offensive, so show a degree of humility please! Because of this general bias, the main page desperately needs major revision, and the petty squabbles below achieve NOTHING. Stop bickering, start editing!Turkeyplucker 10:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

What should be in the Intro

• When you introduce any subject you should clearly state what the subject is and what areas it covers.
• The origin of the subject.
• In this case we are talking about Scientology, so the intro should who are the Scientologists and where are they located. Numbers please!
• What activities are they involved in and what is the effect of these activities? Both positive and negative out looks should be included.
• is scientology really a Cult?

The intro states However, some former members and outside observers—including journalists, lawmakers, and national governing bodies of several countries—have described the Church as an unscrupulous commercial enterprise that harasses critics and defectors and exploits its members ….others view it as a pseudo religion, a cult, or a transnational corporation. This line stresses on the negative POV of Scientology with out addressing the positive. In order to make this page NPOV the positive aspects should be exposed too. Also the line about the Russian court ruling shouldn’t be there. In order to make this page These specific facts should be in the ‘Scientology as a state-recognized religion’ section--Bravehartbear 18:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Braveheartbear, as I said in my edit summary, the current version--the one you keep restoring--mostly reads like Scientology PR literature, not disinterested encyclopedic writing. It is also meandering, including a lot of stuff that belongs later in the article, and rather awkwardly written. I really hadn't planned on jumping in here, but when I saw that, I thought it was important to bring the intro back to something concise and clear, hence my version, which you have now twice reverted. As to "what should be in the intro?," my answer to that is implied by my edit.

Here is my recent edit [1], and here is the verson Braveheartbear prefers [2]. I invite other editors read both and to express an opinion on which is more concise, neutral or well written. I also wonder whether you think my edit was deserving of being immediatly reverted in full, as Braveheartbear has now done twice. BTfromLA 19:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The Braveheartbear intro version is way too long and rambling. Those three huge paragraphs have a lot of fat that should be some place other than the introduction. AndroidCat 19:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

“If there's anything in the article that you think is biased, speak up and say specifically what." This is what I have been told many times. You can't in one swipe change everything. You can't delete correctly cited info just because you think there is a bias. This is a NPOV (Neutral Point of View). Both positive and negative points are addressed the intro addresses both positive and negative points. The intro requires a complete explanation of what is Scientology and who are the Scientologist and what they do. Then you can address the plus and minus keeping a NPOV in accordance with Wikipedia policies. It there is some negative point you want to address, do it. But you have to keep the positive there too. Bravehartbear 19:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The intro should present a concise explanation, not a complete one—that's what the rest of the article is for. AndroidCat 19:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It is still has to be NPOV. So Intro can't explain what is Scientology exactly but it can have a full explanation of the controversy? I should be able to know what is exactly Scientology by reading the intro. That is what encyclopeias are for. Anyway you can't just change everything in one swipe. You can't have to do changes one at the time. I want specifics should be there and what shouln't not generalities.Bravehartbear 20:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: One swipe. You've practically doubled the size of the intro over the last two days. AndroidCat 20:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

You won but the last line is bias.

"However, outside observers—including journalists, courts, and national governing bodies of several countries—have alleged that Scientology is an unscrupulous commercial enterprise that harasses its critics and brutally exploits its members."

There are also outside observers—including journalists, courts, and national governing bodies of several countries that have recognized Scientology for its positive efforts.

I will ad this info to the page with proper citations to make this page NPOV

Also you forgot to ad the deleted info in other parts of the page. I will take care of that. :-) Bravehartbear 20:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It was not vandalism. You had the responsibility to discuss your changes before making then. Now that the discussion is over the changes are appropriate.--Bravehartbear 20:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

If you can improve things, go for it. But I'm concerned about your charge of "bias"--the fact that you might find a positive news article or a town that gave Hubbard the key to the city does not deserve equal weight to the overwhelming number of authoritative third-party sources who have concluded that the Scientology organization makes false claims, deludes vulnerable followers, and engages in unethical or criminal conduct. This is is big part of what Scientology is in the perceptions of those outside of the organization, and, like it or not, it needs to be clearly stated in any short summary of the topic that aspires to neutrality. (This is a perpetual sticking point in these articles--Scientologists see "controversy" and "misunderstanding" that is irrelevant to what they understand Scientology really is as practiced. Third party observers, however, tend to see the group's history of misrepresentation, venality and criminality as essential to understanding Scientology.) BTfromLA 21:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

That's your POV. My POV is very different. Regardless we should be able to reach a middle ground or a NPOV. I'm not going to argue again. I'm tired of arguing. You are as responsible as me to respect my POV as I respect yours. Bravehartbear 21:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. My third party citations are as valid as your! Bravehartbear 21:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Although I support BTfromLA's version of the intro, I have to say I'm appalled at his statement that "Third party observers, however, tend to see the group's history of misrepresentation, venality and criminality as essential to understanding Scientology" - that's way off base. Despite the best efforts of all the sites dedicated to "exposing Scientology's evils" out there, most people do NOT see Scientology as "venal" and "criminal". "Weird", yes, "Kooky", yes, "Colossal waste of time and money", yes. (Not that it matters anyway, because since when do we gear articles towards the public's perception?) wikipediatrix 21:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Wikipediatrix. Sorry to appall; I think that my intention was unclear. By "third party observers" I meant to refer to the sort of professional investigators we'd been talking about directly above (and who are mentioned in the intro)--investigative journalists, judges, etc. I certainly did not mean to suggest that the typical "man on the street" harbors such views about scientology, nor that the general public's perception should guide the article. BTfromLA 00:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The intro should give a brief overview of the topics in the article, and if people want to know more then they can read the rest of the article. A large part of the Scientology article is the Controversy and criticism section, so therefore it is quite reasonable to put a brief summary of that section into the intro. If, for example, the Controversy and criticism section refers to several criminal acts by the CoS, then it is not out of line to briefly refer to those acts in the intro. Understandably this may be unpleasant to you if you like the CoS, but the intro should describe the article, and not be written to suit your preferences. HiEv 21:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Bravehart, good job on adding sourced material, that is a Good Thing. I do think that you made the intro a bit bloated and that BT's version reads better. But your additions are good and I took a stab at a compromise to incorporate them. Please take it as a starting point. Keep up the good work, and you are right about the need to break this article up. Feel free to take the lead. --Justanother 23:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

ps Bravehart, if you do not know the players, you have a good group here to work with. --Justanother 23:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

RE: [3]. Oy! BTfromLA 04:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Both introductions are too long, and both are biased. They read very badly as there are far too many (and unecessary) citations and POV issues. Rather than it reading as an encylopedic entry, it seems like a desperate attempt at justification. How about a simple 10-line intro with some bare facts about who created it, a brief list of tenets, and how many followers/celeb followers. On the subject of controversy, all that needs to be said is that it has attracted plenty; from countries, courts and jounnalists. BUT, list them later on.Turkeyplucker 09:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOV doesn't require "a middle ground", else an article on Hitler or phlogiston would leave a reader with no clue as to their actual nature. The view of Scientology from outside Scientology -- by governments, courts, investigators, scientists, former members, concerned citizens, SP's ... is almost uniformly negative, and an NPOV article (and introduction) must reflect that. -- Jibal 08:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Problems with directly using CSI text

"an organization that grown into more than 4,378 Scientology churches, missions and groups worldwide since the inauguration of the Founding Church of Scientology of Washington, D.C.in 1955."

• The 4,378 number is unverifiable. (And has increased by percentage even faster than the "10 million Scientologists" claim.) The number of orgs is approx 147. Missions range from tangible bricks and mortar [4] to post office box to non-existent, and RTC lists some 400 of them. Groups are completely undefined and there's no way to verify them.
• What did the "Founding Church" found in 1955 exactly? The first Church of Scientology of New Jersey was incorporated in 1953, California, Arizona and others in 1954. AndroidCat 01:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The Founding Church of Scientology is called like that because it was the first church with an academy that was training auditors. The other earlier groups where just groups of Auditors doing their thing.

The addresses of the churches is verifiable by using the world locator in the Scientology Web page that is used to find the nearest scientology church of mission around your home. By my experience the world locator is accurate because I personally visited many of those locations in Latino America.

But you are right that that number is deceptive in the sense that it includes all types of Scientology organizations including CCHR, Narconon, Able and WISE.

Don’t batter I will change it. Bravehartbear 02:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem isn't so much with the numbers as the "who" that is saying it in the article. It needs something like an "According to .." to frame it, even if it is referenced. We can verify that the Church of Scientolgy said it, but not the actual figures. This happens frequently, so I'm discussing it rather than biting. (Here's the RTC's list as of 2004 [5]. My org numbers could be bumped up depending on how day/foundation orgs are counted.) AndroidCat 03:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

That's fine dude I believe you. But what are you doing checking out info like that? Obsesive anti-Scientology disorder? I'm just joking have a good day. Bravehartbear 04:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Bravehartbear, please do not cloak personal attacks in the guise of jokes. AndroidCat's points were perfectly valid, and checking info is about half of what anyone does around here. Even making joking insults can create a more stressful and unpleasant atmosphere, so you should refrain from making any more in the future. Thank you. HiEv 19:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

No biggie. We joke at lot more than that at the ARSCC [wnde] SigInt meetings. AndroidCat 04:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

show effectiveness/hubbard opposition not established

I've yet to see any evedence that hubbard was even aware of the american psychological associations stance.

ONE THING I ALWAYS WONDER ABOUT: PEOPLE SEEM TO IGNORE THAT SCIENTOLOGY HAS ALWAYS BEEN TRYING TO TAKE OVER THE BUSINESS OF PSYCHOTHERAPY, SO OF COURSE IT IS THE MOST VOCAL OPPONANT. IT HAS THE MOST TO LOOSE. . IT CLAIMS TO BE A TOTALLY DIFFERENT AND SUPERIOR SYSTEM AND WAY OF THINKING WITH HUMAN PROBLEMS. THERE IS SOME REASON TO BELEIVE THAT THAT IS TRUE. LOOK INTO REMOTE VIEWING'S ORIGONS. THERE ARE OTHER PIECES OF EVEDENCE, THAT ARE MORE MINOR. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thaddeus Slamp (talk • contribs) 05:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

Slump

Names Slamp. Firefox must be on a bender! , please sign your comments and stop yelling around here, I am becoming deaf.

Roger, Wilco. Every 1ce/a while I have to remind myself how much people hate all caps. Er, and get Firefox with inbuilt typo correction Is there a spelling error? Misou 05:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Slamp, not Slump. -- Antaeus Feldspar 06:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC) You've yet to reply to my content. Thaddeus Slamp 23:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thaddeus Slamp (talk • contribs) 04:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't care. Bravehartbear 04:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify; everything above the unsigned tag I just added (04:28, 7 May 2007 by Thaddeus Slamp) is one post. I guess he pasted in a thread from another location. --Justanother 14:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a copy of the text from the recently archived version of the show effectiveness/hubbard opposition not established topic from this section. I'm guessing he is looking for further discussion on it, though I'm not sure about what part he wants to discuss or how it relates to the Scientology article. The original text isn't that clear either, since "it" could refer to either Scientology or psychotherapy at various points. HiEv 18:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Do we really have to tolerate this sort of garbage on talk pages? It does nothing to improve articles and a lot to make the pages unreadable. -- Jibal 08:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Scientologist

Scientologists are horrible people look what they are doing to this poor people:

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRe0jsfZxr4
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85Wn4MtwsN4\
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gde2hdzG8h0
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sNg_v4a4_k
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXa7Sx3FBR4
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVfT-jZw33A
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wPEvESwKs8
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dl0b_IaYh34
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-wwVXMPtA0
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McBMe-Ng1xc

I tell you man is a cult and it needs to be stop! Bravehartbear 06:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Please stop spamming the talk page, and proving that you haven't a clue about how to evaluate claims and have no desire to meet WP's goals. -- Jibal 08:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Either that or he has me Xenu. Bravehartbear, CofS is a cult, and no amount of sending "volunteers" to disaster areas will stop that being true. Everyone in this project is aware of the volunteers, and also why they are used, a bunch of YouTube videos won't change that. Darrenhusted 12:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Neither Bravehartbear's spamming of this page with youtube videos nor your assertion that the CoS is a cult, have anything to do with the editing of this article. Talk pages are for discussing edits, not idle chit-chat about the subject. wikipediatrix 14:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Bravehartbear, your above comment is not relevant to the article. Uncivil comments like this are not helpful and only serve to create more conflict in an area already heavy with conflict. Groups can do both good and bad things, so showing that Scientologists do some good things does nothing to prove that they do not also do some bad things, if that's what you were trying to show. Darrenhusted, by some definitions of the word all religions are "cults." Still, the word is prejudicial, and so it is also uncivil. Everyone, please try to keep your comments civil and on-topic. Thank you. HiEv 18:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Facts aren't uncivil, and whether CoS is a cult is an issue of fact. Claiming that "the word is prejudicial" is itself prejudicial. -- Jibal 08:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Facts may not be uncivil, but the way they're presented can be. Besides, I wasn't just referring to the "cult" reference at that point, I was also referring to the spamming of YouTube links. That fits Wikipedia's rough definition of uncivil behavior that is "personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress." As I said earlier, all religions could be called cults, however the word has unnecessary emotional baggage that only serves to increase conflict here. Think about any racial slur, it's much the same thing. If someone is black you say "black," you don't use the N-word unless you want to create conflict and stress. And pointing out that a word is prejudicial is not itself prejudicial, it's just reminding people of a fact. -- HiEv 03:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

This debated is irrelevent. The purpose of an encyclodedia is not to criticize or promote any organization no matter how good or how bad. The article and the talk page should focus on informing rather than convincing people of any particular viewpoint. There are plenty of places on the internet to bicker over the merits and demerits of scientology (or any other religious view for that matter). Lets not waste space having that debate here. (RookZERO 03:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC))

Citation number 45

Citation number 45 is a dead link and needs to be removed, and the statement in question needs an actual citation.

71.136.22.96

I have provided a citation that's not dead, and removed the one that was. Interestingly, there was a valid link there until, well, *coughs* COFS... but that's a story for another time. SheffieldSteel 03:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Religious Persecution of Scientology and Scientologist

The US state department and the UN have condemned Germany, France and others of religiously persecuting Scientology and other religious groups. The introductions states "However, outside observers—including journalists, courts, and national governing bodies of several countries—have alleged that Scientology is an unscrupulous commercial enterprise that harasses its critics and brutally exploits its members." But this criticisms have been condemned as being unfounded bigotry and prejudice by other groups and governing bodies. And these Scientology critics have been found guilty of being bias against other religious groups too. We must differentiate between a real concerns and just plain hate, bias, bigotry and prejudice. The fact is Scientology has been joined by many religious groups, politicians, governing bodies and the UN to counter the anti-cult movement that I consider a hate group. I'm going to expose this point.

For example in Germany Scientologist:

• have been dismissed from jobs
• have been dismissed from schools
• have been dismissed from political parties
• have been dismissed from social, business and political organizations
• have been denied the right to professional licenses
• have been denied the right to perform their art
• have been denied the right to open/maintain bank accounts and open loans
• have been denied the right to use public facilities and concert halls
• are regularly blacklisted, boycotted, vilified, ostracized and threatened simply due to their association with the religion of Scientology.

Years of monitoring of Scientology by the German government have resulted in nothing. I intend of creating a whole new section about religious persecution of Scientology and Scientologist. And presenting the support that Scientology has received from other religious groups, governments and the UN to combat this bigotry. Currently I'm working in collecting all the citations. Bravehartbear 14:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You have previously been warned about filling the talk pages with LONG diatribes such as this one that are not specifically about a particular edit to the article. Please do not use talk pages to bloviate in this manner. This is not the place to make a speech or to lecture us. wikipediatrix 14:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

No I'm talking about introducing a new section talking about Religious Persecution of Scientology and Scientologist have faced. This is revelant and specific. I'm not lecturing or making a speech. Your inputs on this subject are apreciated. Bravehartbear 18:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

So write it. If it's rubbish it will be thrown out, if it's valid it won't. If you can't persuade people by reasoning with them, you certainly won't by shouting at them. --Hartley Patterson 12:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It's important to include Scientology's support, lobbying etc. of those organisations that exist to protect people's religous freedom and human rights, and that protest over the persecution of people for their beliefs. SheffieldSteel 13:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't bother with a whole section on the religious persecution of scientology, because the title itself is biased for goodness sake! It is part of the controversy so leave it there. Some people might just see it as disagreement not persecution; that is a far too emotive noun to use.Turkeyplucker 11:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

ScienoSitter still in use?

I noticed a couple days ago that someone fixed a bad link in a reference, which, when traced back, was introduced by COFS just before the freeze. In it, www.xenu.net is altered to www._vetted_.net [6] I'll assume good faith and that it wasn't deliberate vandalism, but then that means that some automatic filter altered it during the edit process. This isn't the first time this has happened with editors from that Church of Scientology IP block. I believe it happened to Nuview more than once. So, could editor(s) behind the PAC Base firewall please figure out when the filter kicks in and switch it off or avoid it? That kind of damage to articles is hard to spot, especially when Wiki's diff highlights the whole block as changed. AndroidCat 05:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe that the church would be involved in such a childish behavior. That kid COFS must be acting on his own. I don't have a problem with any disiplinary steps to be taken to correct this situacion. Bravehartbear 05:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

link 90

Before I delete something and everybody screams foul I want to point out that link #90,

"Several states published pamphlets about Scientology (and other religious groups) that detailed the Church's ideology and practices. States defended the practice by noting their responsibility to respond to citizens' requests for information about Scientology as well as other subjects. While many of the pamphlets were factual and relatively unbiased, some warned of alleged dangers posed by Scientology to the political order, to the free market economic system, and to the mental and financial well being of individuals. Beyond the Government's actions, the Catholic Church and, especially, the Evangelical Church have been public opponents of Scientology. Evangelical "Commissioners for Religious and Ideological Issues" have been particularly active in this regard."

links to a state department report critical of Germany for discrimination against Scientology and it doesn't have anything to do with the quote. Maybe the link was vandalised or something. Please fix this. Bravehartbear 05:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Got it. Please disregard, I understand now. :-) Bravehartbear 05:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Community Outreach Programs

Doesn't this added section belong in the Church of Scientology article? AndroidCat 06:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Probably, yeah. It has to do with the Church as an organization, not with Scientology as a belief system. --FOo 08:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it's mostly about membership and criticism rather than core belief. It sure would make the Church of Scientology a bloody big article though. Trinen 01:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Heck, isn't much of the "Church of Scientology" section unnecessary? A list of sub-organizations of the CoS is not particularly relevant or useful in describing the religious philosophy of Scientology. Also, many of those programs in the "also sponsors" section aren't even mentioned on the actual Church of Scientology page. I'd recommend deleting or moving everything in the "The Church of Scientology" section starting from the "This includes:" line to just before the start of the "Scientology splinter groups" section. The whole thing is already summed up on the previous line that says, "Nowadays the Church forms the center of a complex worldwide network of organizations dedicated to the promotion and implementation of L. Ron Hubbard's philosophies in all areas of life." If somebody wants more specific detail on those sub-organizations then that's what the Church of Scientology page is for. Plus, removing it will help cut down on article bloat. Any objections? -- HiEv 06:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

No disagreement here. If we're taking "Scientology" to mean the religious philosophy rather than just one organization, then this article shouldn't have to cover CoS/RTC/etc. very much at all.

It would probably be oversimplifying to just say that the largest organization practicing Scientology is the CoS ... after all, there are huge controversies between CoS and the Free Zone ... but really, that's not too dissimilar from (say) early Protestantism. :) --FOo 06:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Most of the information removed from that section does not seem to have made it intact into the CoS main article. (RookZERO 00:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC))

The vulcanic alien mass-murder cult is now threatening the BBC!

The vulcanic alien mass-murder cult is now threatening the BBC: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/05/13/nbbc113.xml

Wow. Just one sentence in that article on the subject of what Scientology actually is. "Scientologists believe humans are tainted by the remnants of aliens' souls who were dumped on Earth and blown up with nuclear bombs." To be fair, I suppose a one-sentence summary of most religions could be written to make them sound kooky. Anyway, for those that are interested, this subject is covered in the Scientology controversy article. SheffieldSteel 18:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

In this link is John Sweeney trying to cause trouble in the premier of wild hogs. This link clearly proves that John Sweeney had his own agenda. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRfMrvpDzj8And that his hot tomato act isn't isolated. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxqR5NPhtLIIn this other video Sweeney keeps chasing after a Scientology official after that official steps away from him because Sweeney he was being offensive.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HGM8DSnYh0&mode=related&search= About the Xenu incident I'm a Scientologist and I have never heard about it. It is alleged that that material is in OT3 but with out complete release of the materials no one can for sure identify what is in there. You can't say that Scientology is about something that the wast mayority of Scientologist don't know about. That would be an alteration of what Scientology is. Anyway what does that has to do with this article? This is not a chat room like I have been told many times. Afinity Warrior 20:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

PS this is my new nick name!:-)

Those links are all posted by Scientologists and part of the Sceintologists propagandist and quite frankly libelous DVD. a) All taken out of context b) At the Hogs premiere he was shouting to be heard much like all press do at such events. Chrisp7 11:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

You're a Scientologist? I couldn't tell by the strikeouts of all(or most) of the bad things in the Scientology in Popular Culture talk page ;) haha Wikidan829 20:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that the BBC article had to end with the abrupt and deliberately-sculpted-to-sound-kooky sentence "Scientologists believe humans are tainted by the remnants of aliens' souls who were dumped on Earth and blown up with nuclear bombs." It's hard to nudge Wikipedians into having higher standards of writing when even the BBC tosses off nuggets of crap like that. How difficult would it have been to say "Many Scientologists quit the religion when they finally reach the OT III level and are told their bodies are covered in ghosts of dead aliens murdered by an intergalactic ruler millions of years ago"? Stating it that way would not only be more factually correct, it would have even more of the kook-spin they obviously desired. wikipediatrix 20:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

That was the Daily Telegraph (a UK newspaper), rather than the BBC. SheffieldSteel 20:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I misspoke. Had the BBC on the brain, of course. heh. Hey, does anyone know where I can get one of these DVDs the CoS is giving away to counter the documentary? wikipediatrix 20:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

They'll send you one if you give them your details on bbcpanorama-exposed.org/ Trinen 01:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You can watch the whole propagandist film on youtube actually - its hilarious and makes countless unsubstantiated accusations but by all means get the DVD! Chrisp7 11:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Is any of this section relevant to the article either!?Turkeyplucker 09:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. wikipediatrix 12:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

This subject is covered in greater depth in the Scientology controversy article. In this article, it's included (somewhat awkwardly) at the end of the "Scientology as a cult" section. Does anyone have an objection to deleting the entry here in favour of that coverage? SheffieldSteel 18:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Delete it. wikipediatrix 18:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The Basic Tenets of This Religion

I think this page dwells too much on the contoversy surrounding Scientology, and not enough on the tenets of the religion itself. I want to hear more about BooBoo the Space Warrior and Captain Shagnasty of Zorg who blew up these volcanoes 75 million years ago. They sound like cool characters and totally believable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.253.132 (talk) 09:58, May 15, 2007 (UTC)

The new leader of scientology is a man named Christopher Gibsonfrom south shields in the United Kingdom. He is the illegitamate lovechild of Captain Shagnasty of Zorg and Angelina Jolie, who was with him before she went with Brad Pitt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.193.188 (talk) 16:39, May 15, 2007 (UTC)

Do not remove the above paragraph - it is not junk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.116.232 (talk) 18:40, May 15, 2007 (UTC)

The above unsigned contribution is indeed "junk." Jokes about "Captain Shagnasty" have no bearing on this article. Please refrain from cluttering the talk page with such irrelevancies, especially when they are (deliberately, I presume) offensive to some of the editors here. BTfromLA 23:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, forgive us if we got some of the names wrong, but you'll find that even L Ron Hubbard was vague on this point. The fact remains that the article could dwell a little more on these characters of 75 million years ago and the nuked volcanoes (and of course the flying across the galaxy in 1950s aeroplanes) as they constitute the central dogmatic origins of this religion and should be presented more clearly and not buried under the controversies this religion faces. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.9.253.132 (talk) 09:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

The Xenu story is there, with a link to a dedicated article. And while that does seem to be an important origination myth in Scientology, it clearly isn't a "basic tenet," as it is only revealed to a minority of "upper level" members after they have long been involved with Scientology. Most Scientologists have never been taught anything about Xenu, volcanoes or Body Thetans. Concepts like auditing and the whole track are far more basic to Scientology. Also, this article provides an overview of the whole subject of Scientology, not only their beliefs and rituals, but their history. You may be looking for the article Scientology beliefs and practices. BTfromLA 15:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It depends on how you define "basic tenet". It's true that the whole Operating Thetan thing is almost a cult of its own within the Church, much like Opus Dei is a neo-cult within the Catholic church. But when the higher secret levels are making claims about the very fundamentals of human existence, it's hard not to think of them as "basic tenets" in a sense, because such things are usually what the basic tenets of a religion are supposed to be about, even though most Scientologists out there are probably simply content to reach Dn Clear. wikipediatrix 16:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if you interpret "basic tenet" as meaning "starting point of a religious cosmology," the Xenu story is basic. If you interpret "basic" as meaning "of primary importance to (or the starting point of) the actual practice of Scientology," then many other tenets seem more fundamental. As I recall, that "Orientation" film that is played to introduce newcomers to Scientology is pretty light on the tenets: humans are spiritual entities that exist beyond their current bodies; auditing will enhance your life immeasurably; psychiatrists are awful; there is a bridge to total freedom. That's about it, along with much reverence for LRH, and the promise that Scientology will provide you with lots of friends. I don't think we disagree here, unless you mean to say that the main Scientology article needs more coverage of Xenu. BTfromLA 18:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm just pointing out that generally, the "basic tenets" of any religion are those that express that religion's belief about how we got here, what we're supposed to do while we're here, and where we go when we die. Therefore, Space Opera material would be part of Scientology's basic tenets whether they're secret or not, and even whether most Scientologists know about them or not. It would be something akin to a fundamentalist Christian trying to distance themselves from the material in the Book of Revelations (and it still would be, even if the Christian church kept the entire New Testament secret until one reached a high enough level). wikipediatrix 18:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to generalize very well. The "basic tenets" of Buddhism (for one) don't have to do with how we got here whatsoever, or where we're going, although many sects of Buddhism have opinions on the matter. The "basic tenets" do deal with what we're supposed to do while we're here -- or at least, what we're likely to benefit from doing, which is a little bit different. The idea that the basic tenets of religion have to have the same form across all different religions doesn't seem to hold water. --FOo 05:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, if we want to talk about "basic tenets" ... it would seem that one of the "basic tenets" is a belief in the unique spiritual accomplishments of L. Ron Hubbard in mapping out the "bridge to total freedom", solving the reactive mind and implants, etc. The idea of Ron as Source, as having uniquely discovered and documented the human mind and spirit, seems to be much more "basic" than Xenu, certainly. --FOo 18:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Solving the reactive mind really isn't a core religious issue, it's part of Dianetics and is largely a secular issue. Dianetics deals with the body and mind, Scientology deals with the thetan. And the thetan is an extraterrestrial being from a parallel universe. Therefore, Space Opera (including Xenu) is about as fundamental to Scientology as it could possibly be. wikipediatrix 19:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough on Dianetics / Scientology, although the practices of Dianetics, Study Tech, and other supposedly "secular" bits of Hubbard's writings seem to be a requirement of Scientology.

My point was really the centrality of L. Ron Hubbard in Scientology -- for instance, the reference to him as "Source"; the reference to his writings and lectures verbatim, rather than commentaries, lessons based on them, and so forth. --FOo 07:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

(un-dent) I think part of the confusion arises because "basic" can mean trivial, and it can also mean fundamental. But mainly I think the problem is that Scientology does not behave like religions tend to behave regarding information about its mythos. The distinction between "basic tenet" and "core belief" is not a meaningful one for most religions, since all such information tends to be readily available to anyone who asks. I would venture to say that no editor here knows what the true core beliefs of Scientology are (has OT IX been released yet?) and all we can do is provide the most comprehensive picture we can, based on what has come to light. SheffieldSteel 22:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The space opera stuff cannot be considered a basic tenet, whatever rationalizations. That stuff is unknown to 99% of the Scientologists!!! It only comes about at the level of OT III and is "secret". By comparison, Affinity-reality-communication or study tech appear in several basic books or lectures and are part of eh first services given by the church. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leocomix (talk • contribs)

Not all of the "space opera stuff" is OT III. There are a lot of references to extraterrestrial life throughout Hubbard's writings and lectures. --FOo 03:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

And the world's fastest growing religions are...

Source

• Staff (May 2007). "The List: The World's Fastest-Growing Religions". Foreign Policy. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Religions

1. Islam
2. Bahaism
3. Sikhism
4. Jainism
5. Hinduism
6. Christianity

Smee 03:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC).

Ummm... Relevance? I don't see what this has to do with the article. -- HiEv 05:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I read somewhere that Scientology claims to be "the world's fastest growing religion." Just thought that that claim, along with this fact backed up by citation from highly reputable source above, should be added into the article. Smee 08:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC).

It's not relevant since it doesn't indicate which religions were considered for inclusion. Find the Scientology figure that matches these if it exists and it would be. Plus, it's a secondary source - see bottom of the article. --Hartley Patterson 13:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Forget about "relevancy". What about accuracy? I think that everyone will agree with - saying that any religion is the fastest growing implies that the rate of conversion from religion A to this "fast growing" religion B, is very high. Look at the factors behind the "fast growing" religions above, all have to do with birth rates. I highly doubt that we'll ever have so many people born into Scientology. I think this whole thing is a misnomer. Wikidan829 17:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

"Fastest growing" is a deliberately deceptive term, because it doesn't say in what sense growth is being measured. Therefore, it's meaningless. The CoS knows that people will generally assume that membership is what is being referred to by "fastest growing", but such is not the case - their high rate of growth is in the constant inflow of new Missions being opened every week, which does indeed look impressive on paper and on scientologytoday.org, but it loses some of its lustre once you realize that a Mission can be started by one person and it can be run from their living room. wikipediatrix 17:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

My point was that I couldn't find anywhere in the article where it claimed Scientology was the fastest growing religion, so bringing that up was not relevant to the current state of the article. If that was claimed somewhere in the article then I could totally see the relevance, but as it is now you're making an argument that doesn't need to be made. If the Church of Scientology frequently claims that, then in the Church of Scientology article (not here) a reference should point to an example of the church making that claim followed by an abbreviated version of what's in the Claims to be the fastest growing religion article. If you shoot down the claim without citing the group actually making that claim, then it just looks like a straw man argument. -- HiEv 12:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Opposition to Scientology

I was wondering whether this is worthy of a mention in the article - http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/-Scientology/

Obviously it is only a petition but maybe a mention of opposition in the form of petitions could be mentioned? Thoughts? Jamie 08:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

While it's interesting that it's on a UK government site, apparently anyone can submit a petition and anyone (with a UK IP address) can sign it. e.g. Dargor, Shadowlord of the Black Mountain. Without secondary sources reporting on it, it still seems to be down in the trivia level of notability. AndroidCat 12:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

To sign these petitions requires name, postal address and postcode (a dozen houses in my case). These can be easily checked. But yes, unless newspapers reported it as more than trivia, it's trivia. --Hartley Patterson 14:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

That bar bet story again

Another point to make, is this, scientology has been disputed for years, ever since its creation, but one thing has been overlooked everywhere, the church of Scientology was set up by the founder so that he could (a) win a bet he made with another si-fi writer, and (b) make him money. Bear this in mind as you read on.User: Sharpysharpysharpy

See Scientology_controversy#L._Ron_Hubbard_and_starting_a_religion_for_money. If you mean the version that involves Heinlein, that's unlikely. I have heard of a version via Judith Merril and Fred Pohl of a bet in the New Jersey/NYC area after WWII and before 1949, but it's only been second-hand verbal accounts so far, and no usable references. AndroidCat 04:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Etymology

It seems that only a minority of people are interested in or care about etymology. However, a simple basic analysis of the two components of the actual name indicates that the word does appear to be a clearcut example of a misnomer. Many may find this of some interest, but no doubt, some will miss the point entirely and see it as not relevant. Perhaps Mr. Hubbard was also one of the people who would have little interest in this aspect of the now famous word 'scientology'! AussieOzborn au 07:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a made-up word, it means whatever Hubbard says it says, regardless of the actual root elements within the word. Just because no one else agrees with you that it's important doesn't mean everyone else "misses the point entirely". wikipediatrix 15:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

One of the features of pseudoscience is that it often attempts to mimic/imitate authentic science. So a word like scientology has the 'flavour' of science because the two sub-units of the word both have a strong connection with science! Thus Mr. Hubbard has used a title that sounds like something scientific when it is nothing of the kind. His ideas are much more to do with science fiction & faith than science. Therefore, I consider that the etymology is, in fact, relevant to an article on "Scientology" and I totally reject the idea that the word can simply be whatever a single human (viz. Mr. Hubbard) wishes it to be. AussieOzborn au 01:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

In Scientology's Standard Tech, it's a common occurrence that neologisms are coined (including the word "Scientology" itself) and common words are redefined to have their own special and specific meaning within Scientology, which often has nothing to do with the standard definition. This is why Hubbard published his own dictionaries, glossaries and encyclopedias giving the Scientology definitions of words, as opposed to the normal ones. You are correct, however, in stating that Hubbard probably chose the word because it sounded scientific and impressive... but lots of brand names for all manner of products, be they legit or shoddy, do the same thing. wikipediatrix 02:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Greetings Wikipediatrix! I found your comment about Hubbard having his own Scientology dictionaries most interesting indeed & relevant to our dialogue! Sincere thanks and regards from .... AussieOzborn au 08:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Further greetings to Wikipediatrix: Based on what you wrote on 27 May 2007 (above), I was just wondering if you regard Scientology as a brand name? AussieOzborn au 06:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

AussieOzborn au, the comments on etymology you seek to introduce are original research and therefore do not belong in a Wikipedia article. -- Really Spooky 09:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Really Spooky, my original source for giving the etymological ORIGIN of the word 'scientology' was a 1999 edition of an OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY, as published by OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS. Is this not an acceptable basis for a contribution to the English version of Wikipedia? If not, then kindly please explain fully and carefully; otherwise I really think I will not understand the basis of your objection. AussieOzborn au 11:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, AussieOzborn au, I haven't seen the dictionary passage to which you refer, but unless it directly gives the etymology of the word "scientology" (for example in an entry under that word, in which case you should include the reference) then it is almost certainly original research contrary to WP:OR, namely your interpretation of a primary source or a synthesis of published material to advance a position.

If you do have a direct reference, however, any comments on etymology at best only belong in a trivia section, since, as wikipediatrix points out, it is a made-up word, thus the only meaning relevant to the topic of the article is the meaning in which it is actually used or has been attached to it by its author. If it meant something else as well, then the proper appraoch would be to create another article on that topic, as well as a disambiguation page to separate the two. -- Really Spooky 13:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi again Really Spooky, if you are still there, thanks for your explanation! If you are still at all interested, I did track down a direct reference to the etymological origin of the word 'Scientology' according to another edition of an Oxford English Dictionary, as published by Oxford University Press. See also Oxford English Dictionary. This direct reference is to page 652 of THE COMPACT OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY (SECOND EDITION) (1991) where it says:- [f. scient- (in L. scientia knowledge) + -OLOGY.] Also, my 1999 edition of 'The Australian Oxford Dictionary' says on page 1208:- [ORIGIN: Latin scientia 'knowledge' + -LOGY.] Furthermore, if you look at Wikipedia in the section on Meaning of the word 'Scientology', it is evidently almost the same as what Mr. Hubbard is quoted as saying in his own claims of the origin of the word.-- AussieOzborn au 10:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

On further reflection, my speculation (mentioned above) that perhaps Mr. Hubbard would not have been interested in the etymology of the word scientology appears to have been mistaken, based on the information in the Wikipedia section on Meaning of the word 'Scientology'. Hubbard evidently said in a 1962 lecture:- “ So Suzie and I went down to the library, and we started hauling books out and looking for words. And we finally found 'scio' and we find 'ology'. And there was the founding of that word. Now, that word had been used to some degree before. There had been some thought of this. Actually the earliest studies on these didn't have any name to them until a little bit along the line and then I called it anything you could think of. But we found that this word Scientology, you see—and it could have been any other word that had also been used—was the best-fitted word for exactly what we wanted. ” Still I am intrigued by the quote that: "Now, that word had been used to some degree before." Was Hubbard thereby clearly acknowledging that the word scientology was indeed already in existence prior to his so-called "founding of that word"? I wonder! What do the rest of you following this Talk page make of it?? -- AussieOzborn au 11:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Inflammatory POV

“ "However, some outside observers—including journalists, courts, and national governing bodies of several countries—have alleged that Scientology is an unscrupulous commercial enterprise that harasses its critics and brutally exploits its members; ”

Is an inflammatory POV that doesn’t represent the opinion of most outside observers and is as good as the POV of other observers that cherish Scientology, as these videos show.

“ " while others recognize Scientology as a bona fide religion and the church of Scientology as a highly involved and valuable contributor to society. ”

In my opinion both POVs should be removed and we should stay NPOV.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bravehartbear (talk • contribs) 20:04, May 30, 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there are a couple of problems with what you've written.

• You've taken the initial quote out of context. It was a counterpoint to the pro-scientology sentence that came before it (the word "However" at the start of the sentence is a bit of a giveaway). Therefore, adding more pro-Scientology information would not tend to rebalance the lead, but unbalance it.
• Adding an extra pro-scientology clause would leave the paragraph saying, effectively, "Group A says Scientology is good. However, Group B says it is bad, while others say it is good." This is simply bad style.
• There are already two adjacent paragraphs in the lead saying similar pro/anti things. I don't see that adding more information would improve the lead (see WP:LEAD for the things a lead paragraph should be, e.g. concise).
• The first sentence you quote is not inflammatory POV by any stretch of the imagination. It is an entirely neutral report of what people have said about the subject matter. If you have problems with this assessment, please review WP:NPOV in particular the principle of fact vs opinion. It is very important for editors to be able to distinguish between how we report and what we report. If you can't see this, it might be worth considering moving to work on articles that you don't feel so strongly about. SheffieldSteel 20:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Further problems with the added text are the citations provided. Two are YouTube links (already spotted by another editor) and one is a Church of Scientology publication, therefore it is not an acceptable citation for the statement that "others recognize Scientology as a bona fide religion." Of course it would be acceptable as verification that the CoS claims such recognition, but that has been covered extensively in other places. SheffieldSteel 21:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

In this video United States Congressman Charles B. Rangel and Mr Maurice Strong the under secretary general of the United Nations are showing support for Scientology. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPwRY5W6TGI

In this other video the Mayor of Buffalo is showing support for Scientology and declares that day the church of scientology day. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSjygMwSAMI

The fact is that most countries recognise Scientology as a religious institution (over 50). That a handfull of journalists, courts, and governmental bodies of several countries believe that Scientology is an unscrupulous commercial enterprise that harasses its critics and brutally exploits its members is not the popular belief. Now you say that there is a balanced counterpoint in that paragraph and there isn't. That paragraph is about Scientology allegations vs journalists, courts, and national governing bodies. Allegations by Scientology should be counter pointed by detractors. Allegations by journalists, courts, and national governing bodies should be counter pointed by other allegations by journalists, courts, and national governing bodies.

Then again in following paragraph it states again: "others view it as a pseudoreligion, a cult, or a transnational corporation." Why is it that there are 2 different sentences in the intro stating basically the same point?

And nowhere there is a sentence stating that Scientology is recognised as a valuable religious institution that has been awarded by many third party observers.

And what are the citations for that paragraph? A single WA post article and a cnet article "Scientology subpoenas Worldnet" that is not even revelant to the sentence.

Now I agree with you that my edit didn't has a proper flow.

I'm sorry but this is not fair or balanced.

I propose counterpoint pro-scientology allegation against anti-scientology allegations by detractors. This would compare apples to apples. What you think? Afinity Warrior 03:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not true ! Scientology is not recognized in 50 states as a religion ! It rarely spreaded itself in 50 states but is not recognized by all of them. There are only a very few, wich recognize SO as a religion (ca. 10). Please, don't go into that propaganda and stay by facts ! --82.82.89.78 01:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

There are currently 245 countries, so "over 50 countries" does not count as "most countries" unless it's way over 50.

Regardless, reporting significant opinions, no matter how offensive you personally find them, is still NPOV. If I can find a number of sources that all say that "Limburger cheese smells like stinky feet" then that may sound offensive if you are a big fan of Limburger cheese. However, if the fact is that many people say that's true then I would not be expressing my point of view on the issue, merely reporting a fact. Whether I like Limburger cheese or not is irrelevant if that common opinion can be established as significant and factual. NPOV is not a sledgehammer to block any views that disagree with your own and that you feel are "inflammatory", and doing so may actually a violation of NPOV if you are preventing a proper representation of real world views.

The fact that there are opposing views does not mean that either or both views cannot or should not be represented in the article. If you can show that any view is widespread enough to be significant then it should be included in the article, regardless of what that view happens to be. The view doesn't have to represent "most" people, otherwise no view held by 49.999% of people could ever be represented in Wikipedia. All that's important is that it's common enough to be significant, and in Wikipedia "significant" generally means common enough to be cited from a couple of diverse, reliable, and hopefully unbiased sources.

The fact that you had to include "journalists, courts, and governmental bodies of several countries" as groups that have spoken out against Scientology should make it obvious that you were talking about more than a "handful" of people with that opinion, as you claimed. Now, this is merely anecdotal evidence, but quite a few of my friends and co-workers have either had negative experiences with Scientology or know someone who has, and I've rarely heard anything favorable about them (one friend praised their communications course, however he also said that outside of that course he "didn't agree with most of what they said, and definitely not with their methods.") I don't know if you've had to "disconnect" with non-Scientologists, but I've got to say that it's been my experience that almost all non-Scientologists (who are also not in any of the groups you named above) either hadn't heard of Scientology or had a negative opinion of it. IMHO this is probably because Scientology generally only gets publicity from things like South Park, TIME magazine's "The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power" article, the Lisa McPherson case, and Tom Cruise loudly attacking psychology and Brooke Shields.

If the majority of the opinions out there are negative, then presenting both favorable and negative sides equally is not neutral because it doesn't match the real world. If 4 out of 5 dentists hate sugared gum, the opinion of the one doctor should not get equal time with the other four simply because it's an opposing view. You are demanding equal (or greater) time, and are also assuming that the opposing view is in the minority, however you are comparing a Congressman and a mayor with numerous "journalists, courts, and governmental bodies of several countries." Trying to get the first and last word regarding the public opinion of Scientology, when that word is actually in the minority, is more of a POV problem than simply presenting pro- and anti- positions.

In addition to WP:NPOV you should read the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ too.

For others, please note that "Afinity Warrior" is the same person as "Bravehartbear", the person who started this topic. -- HiEv 11:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Just re your last. Yes, Afinity started this topic. He failed to sign and the bot signed for him. I know that a lot of users do that informal handle change thing but, for myself, I would just change my username formally if I wanted a different one. I do not think Afinity meant to decieve anyone nor is that accusation being made by HiEV. --Justanother 12:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not true ! Scientology is not recognized in 50 states as a religion ! It rarely spreaded itself in 50 states but is not recognized by all of them. There are only a very few, wich recognize SO as a religion (ca. 10). Please, don't go into that propaganda and stay by facts ! --82.82.89.78 01:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Why are you using the word states, the US has over 50 states and Scientology is recognised as a religion in the US. I meant countries. These are the countries were Scientology is recognised as a charitable religious institution: Albania, Australia, Austria, Croatia, France, Holland, Hungary, India, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mexico, New Zealand, Portugal, Russia, Slovenia, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Tanzania, Thailand, United States and Zimbabwe. I count 25 so far.

Now what are the countries were Scientology has aplied for recognition and it has been denied? I know about Germany, England, Grece and Canada. That makes 4 so far. Afinity Warrior 14:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

States = nations to many non-US speakers of English. It is "nation" in US English too (hence US Dept. of State) but US also has the other meaning in wider use, hence ambiguity. I think the IP meant nations is his (mistaken) claim. --Justanother 18:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did mean nations and not states and are not a "US speaker of English". However, Your claim 50 states(+ähm nations+) recognize SO as a religion is not true.

@Afinity Warior, Your new count of 25 nations is also false because the listed nations do not all recognize SO as a religion. Don't put up lies here ! Most countries you listed do not recognize SO, besides the propaganda of SO. --82.82.72.93 00:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

just one source wich proves that the listed nations don't recognice SO. 1 If you want sources for the rest of the nations you listed false, just tell me (; --82.82.67.193 00:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Afinity Warrior, being recognized as a "charitable religious institution" is not the same as being recognized as a religion. What you have described is a religious based charity, not a religion. It is far easer to be recognized as a charity than as a religion. Also, you have France and Russia in your list, however that contradicts Scientology controversy: The legitimacy of Scientology as a religion which states that it is rejected as a religion in those countries. -- HiEv 22:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Spying on US federal agencys

Why is there no info about the clash that scientology and the US goverment during the 70? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.96.132.194 (talk) 14:12, June 1, 2007 (UTC)

See Operation Snow White and others. AndroidCat 16:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Scientologycross.jpg

Image:Scientologycross.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 21:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

"It is named a religion by some and a cult by others."

How much more weasily POV can you get? Well, I leave it to the Christian and anti-cult quacks here, just don't have the nerve to discuss these moronic statements with the missionary men. Fossa_?! 03:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Was that a suggestion for improving the article? If so, please try to remain civil while discussing it. SheffieldSteel 03:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't intend to be "civil" with uncivil POV pushers. See here, why. But, you win for now, I don't discuss banalities. (It took me about 12 months and endless discussions to improve de:Scientology, I'm not gonna volunteer to do the same here. Let it be Wikipedia, not an encyclopedia. Fossa_?! 03:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

PS: Don't kid yourself. This obviously does not apply when you indulge in your prejudices on Scientology. Fossa_?! 03:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so you accuse another editor of writing something "moronic" (though you may believe you're accusing me when you wrote it), you do accuse me of being uncivil and prejudiced, and you are apparently looking through my contribs for something to use in argument against me. Anything you'd like to add? What's particularly sad about the turn this coversation is taking is that it could easily be much more productive (though perhaps less entertaining to onlookers) since you seem to be genuinely interested in improving the article. So why not discuss that instead of my shortcomings as an editor? (We can get back to that topic later, if you'd like.) You say the sentence above is a problem. I don't disagree. But following it with the sentence "Still others consider cults religions" doesn't solve its problems. Let's not leave the lead of this article saying, "Some people say A, others B, but still others say A is B." because at best it leaves the reader wondering why we bothered to include it, and at worst it looks like an attempt to nullify the criticism. There is certainly an overlap between the words "cult" and "religion". The solution is not to cite a source discussing that overlap, but to increase the distinction between the two, as they have been used in this context. For example, "It is named a bona fide religion by some and a dangerous cult by others." SheffieldSteel 03:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

"It is named a religion by some and a cult by others, but it noted be noted that those 2 does not mutually exclude each other." Grammatical and style errors aside, the problems described above are repeated in this version. Taking this to its logical conclusion, we could state that all those who accuse Scientology of being a cult are actually recognising it as a religion. However, the CoS does not make that mistake, and nor should we. Combining factual statements with a different interpretation of the words than the sources used, as in the sentence above, is arguably synthesis and to be avoided. SheffieldSteel 13:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

With all the above in mind, I've changed the sentence to this form: "It is named a bona fide religion by some and a dangerous cult by others." I believe that form is pretty non-controversial; it matches what sources say further down the page. Also, I notice that, as WP:3RR reckons things, I have now reverted this article three times in one 24-hour period. Therefore, safe in the knowledge that I won't be changing it again, another editor could simply revert back to the awful version that preceded this one; however, that might be viewed as gaming the system. If you have problems with the lead as it stands, this is the place to say so. SheffieldSteel 13:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

"It is named a bona fide religion by some and a dangerous cult by others." Couldn't that be said about any religion? They all have their boosters and detractors, it just comes with the territory of having more than one religion on Earth. My point is that is the statement really necessary in the article? It's like saying "Some people consider fire to be dangerous, other people say it is good for cooking food." Trinen 16:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think there are many religions who criticism is so vehement - and notable. The number of people who claim, for example, that Catholicism is a dangerous cult is small enough that under WP:UNDUE we barely need to mention it in passing. Even Islam's detractors don't make that accusation in significant numbers - their criticisms tend to be different. For Scientology, however, I think it's significant enough to be mentioned in the lead of the article. I'm interested to see what others have to say though. SheffieldSteel 17:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure but what about Catholocism when it was just 50 years old? I would imagine most people in the civilized world have considered it a cult. Shakers, Quakers, 7th Day Adventists, Mormons, Jehova's Witnesses, Nation of Islam..most every new religion goes through a period where people call it a cult. Then it gets old enough to just be a religion.Trinen 14:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

'Bona fide religion' refers to the beliefs. 'Cult' refers to the Church. The previous paragraphs distinguish between the two, the sentence promptly conflates them again, and what it says is already in the Intro later. So can I delete it please? --Hartley Patterson 23:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fine by me, but other editors might not think so. I don't know who added it in the first place. SheffieldSteel 00:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

rem unsourced. You guys are confused - that line could go with the Church of Scientology not the religious philosophy.--Justanother 01:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

First page people come to about Scientology is this page therefore it should be here and not all differentiates between CoS and Scientology. Joneleth 15:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The Introduction should be as short as possible. It should not be repeating itself. The import of the sentence we are considering is already covered later in the introduction in such places as "others view it as a pseudoreligion, a cult, or a transnational corporation". Or would you prefer to delete the later paragraphs? --Hartley Patterson 16:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Glad, the discussion moved on to, if this applies to the CoS, but not the Free Zonies, or not. The sentence (w/ or w/o "bona fide") is simply here to mark the territory: Scientology is BAD, that's why some consider it a "cult". Never mind that neither "cult" nor "religion" are neatly defined concepts (they come in all sorts of shades). "Cult" sounds BAD, so let's stick it up to those big bad Scientology wolves. The sentence itself is of course, true: Some do call it a religion, and others do call it a cult. However, we are at loss, who exactly calls it a cult (the competitors, i.e., the Christian Churches, for example) and what the hell is a "cult"? Due to these ambiguities, we don't learn anything about Scientology, except that it's somewhat distasteful. Fossa_?!

'bona fide religion', in case you missed it, is CoS code for its claim that if the beliefs constitute a religion then the CoS cannot be a cult. It has a special meaning in the context of scientology - see www.bonafidescientology.org/ Hartley Patterson 16:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I do not believe that the Church of Scientology has anything enclopedic to offer, so I would not put their POVs into the introduction, either. Especially, if you don't attribute them as in "some say, others say". Fossa_?! 17:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not know how it is in other countries, but in Germany Scientology is not so much seen as a Church per se, but more as a company network - of course it depens whom you ask. However, I think this point of view could be included in the main page too. By the way, the question of the DEFINITION isnt so important if we DO mention in good detail facts - Scientology loves to describe and colourize events to their likings. Last but not least, the article gets a bit big, maybe it should be splitted a bit?

What would you propose to split off? I think that "Church of Scientology" is actually an unneeded article, it is neither a corporation nor its own entity but rather a network of "Churches of Scientology". As Hartley says, or defined in bonafidescientology.org, "The Church of Scientology is formed into an ecclesiastical structure which unifies and aligns a multitude of diverse religious activities including not only auditing and training, but proselytization, ecclesiastical management, relay of communication, production of dissemination materials and many other functions." COFS 20:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The article's first mis-statement

The article states: Hubbard later characterized Scientology as an "applied religious philosophy" and the basis for a new religion. The actual information is: On 3 March 1952, Mr. Hubbard gave a lecture titled, Scientology: Milestone One. It was his first public use of the word Scientology. He spent an hour defining the word. When Hubbard first introduced the term he defined it to mean, an applied religious philosophy. There was no later. In the same lecture he went on and used the often seen words, study of knowledge. But he didn't stop there, either. He said what he meant by study of knowledge. He clarified. He disambiguated. He separated knowledge -- as is commonly thought of -- from understood, useable knowledge. And this is the datum that individuates Scientology. As he defined it, Scientology is the study of knowledge, to understand knowledge. And his lecture of 3 March 1952 defined, once and for all, all of the dianetics actions before or since. Because understood knowledge is what Dianetics does. A person recalls a past event and understands what they already know more throughly. Thus, understood, useable knowledge. Precisely what Hubbard presented the word Scientology to mean at his first public use of the word on 3 March 1952. 216.102.9.150 23:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Split off Church of Scientology references

This article majorly confuses Scientology and Church of Scientology. Those two are not interchangeable. A belief system and an organization to support it are not the same. I am therefore planning to move the references to the nature and conduct of the Church of Scientology network to the proper articles, i.e. Church of Scientology and others, or at least to the appropriate places in the article itself. COFS 20:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Will you also be planning to remove "Scientology beliefs and practices" since that has a separate article? How about deleting everything under "Controversy and Criticism" and moving it to the separate article of the same name?

The purpose of this top-level article is to bring together and provide a summary of the major subjects which fall under the umbrella of Scientology. Removing a summary of criticism and controversy from the lead on the grounds you've quoted is simply not justified.

Just because the COI warning posted to your Talk page is now archived doesn't mean you can ignore what it says before making sweeping changes to this article's structure and layout. On the contrary, you should be taking more care than ever to seek consensus before making such edits. SheffieldSteel 21:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPA violation not appreciated. If you can't respond to a Scientologist without smirking or nonsense comments go edit somewhere else. Your edit is a) unsourced and b) muddies up the article. Stick to the Wikipedia rules, please. COFS 21:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The text that you removed contains citations. Therefore, you can not reasonably describe it as "unsourced".

I am rather concerned about being accused of making a personal attack, assuming that was your intent when quoting WP:NPA. Please could you elaborate on what I said that constitutes an attack in your opinion. Thank you. SheffieldSteel 21:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

You are alleging me doing COI edits. A real COI edit would be to totally delete this POS article and restart from scratch. However I intend to stick to the rules and I am doing so. I assume - and I would like to be wrong on that - that your continuous reverts of my edits are based on some prejudice. You don't even seem to read the refs you are reverting. Prove me wrong. COFS 22:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It is wrong to delete cited material on the grounds that it is uncited. It is wrong to delete cited material on the grounds that the citation does not in fact match the material (the correct procedure would be to remove the incorrect citation and either look for a citation yourself or request that another editor do it for you). It is wrong to treat as a personal attack a reminder that a Scientologist engaging in edit warring in the Scientology article may have a conflict of interest, particularly when all the disputed edits are removals of criticism. SheffieldSteel 23:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Repetition

The following sentence appears no fewer than three times throughout the article:

"Reports and allegations have been made, by journalists, courts, and governmental bodies of several countries, that the Church of Scientology is an unscrupulous commercial enterprise that harasses its critics and brutally exploits its members."

It is well sourced (giving at least four different sources for the allegations), yet maintains the exact same wording in each instance throughout the article. I think the sentence should at least be paraphrased, and in the instances in the "Criticisms" section, have the repetition of the sentence removed, just to reduce clutter and make the article more academic. The Great Attractor 21:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you read the actual two sources, compare it to the requirements of the WP:RS, reliable source, and see whether this is enough for this severe claims "by journalists, courts, and governmental bodies of several countries". If this one passes as a quality standard on Wikipedia, well, that's going to be a bonfire for POV-pushers. COFS 22:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Before SheffieldSteel got on the role I had actually moved the above quote in the controversy section as it gives some generality nonsense about the Church organization and not Scientology. The "extra" copies are now removed. Back to square zero. COFS 22:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

COFS, I don't think you can reasonably deny that the Church of Scientology has been intesively investigated by these institutions. The government of Germany in particular has been very active in is scrutinization of the church. As for the media, well, you shouldn't need me to tell you that it gets plenty of coverage. American media in particular are obsessed with the church due to the membership of celebrities. You'd have to live under a rock if you were to deny that these allegations have been leveled at the church. The Great Attractor 01:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, I don't understand why you are so adamant about censoring allegations against Scientology. As a member of Project Scientology, you are supposed to support an NPOV article regarding the subject, not advocate the creation of an article consisting only of glowing praise. Just for perspective, consider that the major Western religions (Christianity and Islam, notably) have been criticized as institutions determined to oppress the rights of women through demonization and the implementation of a patriarchal religious structure. Christianity and Islam and Judaism, among other faiths, were also once dispairaged as "cults" by the dominant believers of their ages. Personally, I wouldn't put Scientology on the same boat as these major faiths, but I think your objectivity is seriously called into question by your inability to accept and reasonably refute criticism. The Great Attractor 02:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

How best to summarise criticism/controversy in the lead

Since the article contains quite a lot of coverage of criticism and controversy, it seems appropriate to provide a summary of that in the article lead. How should this best be worded, or should there be no mention of it at all? User:COFS has stated that there should be none, on the grounds that the criticism applies to the Church of Scientology, rather than Scientology itself. What do other editors think? SheffieldSteel 23:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Jeez, when I said that I had an issue with that sentence about controversy being used multiple times, I didn't mean it should be expunged entirely. Shef has a good point; I'm putting the sentence back in the intro, and paraphrasing the repetition in the criticisms section. I think the sentence as it was worded originally is a more concise version, so it works better in the introduction. I do not think a distinction should be made between Scientology and the Church of Scientology; this is essentially creating a barrier between the beliefs and the believers. He who believes the New Testament is a Christian; he who believes in Scientology is a Scientologist.The Great Attractor 01:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Some of the controversy applies largely to the Church, for instance the prosecution and conviction of Church officials for doing various illegal things in the interest of the Church; or the abuse of dissident members, former members, and of critics. These are actions of Church officials and representatives.

However, some of it applies to the doctrines and practice of Dianetics and Scientology. For instance, there's the issue of Scientology's claimed compatibility with Christianity and other religions, whereas higher levels claim that Christianity's notions of God, Jesus, and Heaven are implants created by evil aliens. Likewise there are issues of the therapeutic efficacy of auditing; the medical claims that have sometimes been made about E-meter use; and so on.

And then there are the issues where Church practice seems to be directly informed by particular aspects of doctrine. For instance, some Church abuse of dissident members is informed by the Tone Scale, e.g. placing people in "conditions of blame" or the like. Likewise, the Church has claimed in court that "Fair Game" is a matter of religious doctrine. Also there is the question of whether particular Hubbard pronouncements are "Church" or "Scientology" matters. --FOo 03:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for this open answer. I see where you are coming from and as a practicing Scientologist I want to let you know that you got heavily misinformed about some things, especially the doctrine. You kinda expected that, didn't you?

The alien story and opposition to Christian belief is a sad lie, made up by Fishman et al in an affidavit submitted to court after the case was over. The whole intent of this "affidavit" was to spread this lie and create a controversy between Christians and Scientologists, just to make sure that no one would talk to Scientologists anymore. As OT materials are confidential and not normally known to all members this falsehood had some chance to grow until finally dismissed by affidavits of Scientologists (and statements of ex-Scientologists who had read the originals) that this "Jesus/Heaven-Implant-story" is not part of any OT material and not part of Scientology doctrine.

I can't say much about criminal members/ex-members except that they existed but also that they left the Church in droves, mainly in the 1980s (some of them are here now attacking Scientology).

I am sorry to say but what's missing in Wikipedia and on the internet are people who actually know what is in the Scientology books and materials because they read them and have no reason to falsify them. But honestly, the amount of utter nonsense which passes as "truth" online would not survive a minute in real life and thus I understand why Scientologists are just sick and tired to debate internet-only lunacies, out-of-context quotes, intentional misinterpretations and other slanderous nonsense. I can research, tell or document you the real deal behind most of such stories, if you listen and if you are honestly interested. If not, stop wasting my time, thanks. COFS 04:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't referring to the Fishman Affidavit's erroneous copy of OT VIII for the incompatibility of Scientology and Christianity. I was referring to Hubbard's "Assists" lecture and the "Philadelphia Doctorate Course", in which Hubbard claims that the image of Christ is derived from the "R6 implant" and that Christianity was established by means of this implant.

(The falsified OT VIII is the one that refers to Jesus as a "lover of young men and boys". That's not the material I'm referring to. I'm talking about audio tapes that Hubbard made in his own voice, which are rather more widely used than OT VIII.)

Obviously I'm not going to copy the exact material for you here, thanks to the Church's past misuse of copyright and trade secret claims to harass and abuse. But you can look it up for yourself, if you have that material, or you can find the various excerpts that have been used by scholars on the Web and elsewhere. --FOo 08:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course I agree. I restored it, and I was a few minutes later accused of "blind bashing"... Controversy is a definite characteristic of Scientology. So I agree this needs to be part of the introduction. Raymond Hill 05:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Which I maintain because your revert added a second copy of identical text in the article. Check you talk page. COFS 15:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

"Undue credence" to the Xenu story?

Su-Jada thinks that if a summary of the Xenu story appears before the Scientologists' stance on that story, it gives the story "undue credence". I think it's more logical to present the story first, then to present Scientologists' stance on it. I fail to see how it would give the story "undue credence": the story has been proven true at this point, aside Hubbard 's own handwriting, there are many former Scientologists who have reached OT3, and even the Church of Scientology claimed copyright on this story (which is prelude to the many other OT levels following, so it is quite important in that respect.) I know Hubbard warned of harm those who would read the story before they are ready to do so, but Wikipedia is not bound by the specific beliefs of a particular religion. Raymond Hill 05:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Wait wait wait... Did you just say "the story hasbeen proven true?!" Did you really say that...?!

John 06:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

:-) Raymond Hill 06:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Reverted myself

I tried to correct a change that was made, and I wished to correct many others that were made, but I had to revert myself, as I couldn't restore properly. Problem is, way too many changes were made, and it is very difficult to put back what was proper while keeping the changes that are appropriate. I would suggest that next time, before performing sweeping changes, each point should be agreed upon before on the talk page. Some of the reasons given for not mentioning the controversial nature of scientology in the intro is that this would create 'redundancy' with the main content of the article. However, this redundancy issue was non-existent before the paragraph in the intro was moved to the main body of the article. Raymond Hill 06:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, especially as when beliefs are being explained changing one word can make a major difference theologically. It would helpful if editors made easily viewed changes in one section only then sat back and dealt with possible objections etc to those before continuing. --Hartley Patterson 13:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Degrades Wikipedia to a debate club. What are Wikipedia policies for then? COFS 15:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)