Talk:Scientology

Sunglasses?

Is there something about sunglasses in this "religion". I've noticed that scientologists always seem to be wearing sunglasses in photos regardless of light levels. Is there something "sacred" with the eyes, or something strange like that? I know there are all kinds of things in this "religion" that are strange to most people, so I'm curious as to what it could be...and wouldn't even dare to guess. I did a quick search on google, but no real digging. Any insight is appreciated! Scientology as a whole is a tough thing to wrap your head around. SnaX 01:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I've been around Scientology most of my life, and I've never heard of any special reason for wearing sunglasses. Down here in sunny Australia, Scientologists don't seem to wear sunglasses more frequently than other folks. Maybe it's more that there seems to be a long-standing tradition for the people who like to be photographed - ie celebrities - to wear shades even in dim light. Cheers, DavidCooke 02:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I sure hope not! I don't own a single pair, and I'm a Scientologist. I hate the way they block my vision.Su-Jada 03:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks boys. I guess it is just the celebrity factor. SnaX 00:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this may have to do with a scientology rooted organization, I believe the name is Sunny Days marketing or something similar to that. I have known a few scientologists, some in my family (though I am not one and I am neither for or against the religion), that have conducted business under this. It is a similar to a franchise system in that they use common marketing material and resources, and are trained more or less uniformly, being allowed to use certain names and trademarks in exchange for using this company/organization as their primary supplier. The mission statement has something to do with enabling both members and non-members to carve out careers in which they are independent and can be their own boss and successful and so on. I am not well versed on the particular legal details but I can probably rustle up some documentation from them to get a citeable source on some of this if anyone feels it belongs in any of the article material. --Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 19:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

I just wanted to leave to link to the Scientology responce to this program: http://www.freedommag.org/bbc/video_flash.html

Afinity Warrior 21:02, 21 June 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)

Wow. Lets see how many people we can piss off and alienate all at the same time. For the sake of NPOV, I'll forget I read this and go back to my mission work. Lsi john 19:59, 16 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)

Don't blame me for not being able to quote exact references. Please specify the source of your nonsense - no sense/illogic - allegation. At least a tape number (they are all numbered in a standardized way) or the date of recording? The PDC - a "course" as the name says - has close to 80 individual lectures up to an hour and a lot has been said in there. And a lecture about assists (this type of stuff) is unlikely to talk about the reactive mind (aka R6 bank). I maintain that you bought lies, misinterpretations or inventions which you think are Scientology. And it does not help to build an encyclopedia on such a basis. COFS 15:29, 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 your 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)

what the heck is a smile supposed to mean...? John 23:10, 19 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)

Is there NO controversy whatsoever?

Reading the introduction as it now stands, one could easily be led to believe that there's no controversy surrounding Scientology whatsoever. This is a result of edits by Scientologist editors who apparently do not believe that the conflict of interest or neutral point of view guidelines apply to them, or perhaps simply think that they know best about what should go into this article. I don't know what the motivation is, but the result looks somewhat like a whitewash.

A succession of scientologist editors have repeatedly removed, and reverted efforts by several other editors to insert, a summary of the article's criticism and controversy section into the lead, per WP:LEAD. In [this edit], Editor User:Lsi_john removes the last mention of controversy from the lead on the grounds that it is "unsourced and therefore OR". Is there really no source to be found, anywhere in this article, that says there is any controversy surrounding the CoS? SheffieldSteel 20:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

SheffieldSteel and others who have participated in this discussion, my objection to the way critics of Scientology have treated this and other Scientology articles is that they have repeatedly tried to paint Scientology not as controversial, the definition of which comes from "controversy" which means "dispute, especially a public one, between sides holding opposing view," but rather as "guilty," for example, by saying in the lead that critics call Scientology an "unscrupulous commercial enterprise that harasses its critics and brutally exploits its members." Let's take another example in Wikipedia that I think will make this really clear. In the West, Salman Rushdie is a very well respected, award-winning author. But he is certainly a man of controversy, and it is that controversy that propelled him into prominence from what I remember (I may be wrong but personally, I don't think I ever heard of him before he was the subject of a fatwa). Now in the lead of his article it states, "His fourth novel, The Satanic Verses (1988), provoked violent reactions from radical Muslims. After death threats and a fatwa (religious ruling) issued by Iranian Ayatollah Khomeini calling for his assassination, he spent years underground, appearing in public only sporadically. During the last decade, however, he has resumed a normal literary life." The impression I get, as a Westerner, is that this is a man of courage who spoke up despite death threats. It could just as easily have stated "He was found guilty of public blasphemy that undermines the beliefs and morality of the Muslim world and was sentenced to death." And it would be wrong to do so because it would be POV. In summary, my complaint is that "controversy" as it has been covered in Scientology has been POV, deliberatly slanted to lead readers to believe there is something wrong with Scientology.Su-Jada 06:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Now you're overreacting. The lead does not say 'unconfrontational'. Why are you suggesting that the lead must contain the word in order for a reader to get the opinion? That seems to suggest that you feel the controversy is so weak it won't be obvious on its own merit. Why do you assume the lack of your word implies the presence of its opposite?

I removed a very positional statement which was not supported by secondary sources. We do not get to say 'often controversial' and then demonstrate the truth. We only get to cite sources. If you have a source that makes the statement:

Scientology refers to the often controversial.....

then by all means include it. Until then, I stand by my edit. Source it or don't include it.

Our readers are not stupid, stick with facts. Leave the 'leading words and phrases' at home. Lsi john 20:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

and pssst. I'm not a Scientologist. I have no connection to, nor interest in, Scientology. Stick with relevant, reliable, sourced statements and its quite likely that you'll never hear from me. Lsi john 20:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Here are a few sources found from a quick survey regarding the controversial nature of Scientology:

• The Globe and Mail (1980): "Secret Ontario documents found in U.S. cult's files" by John Marshall (... files involving the controversial cult have also disappeared ...")
• Post-Gazette (2005): "Scientology comes to town" (... the controversial religious movement that recently captured international headlines ...)
• The Guardian (1980): "Papers reveal sect's 'dirty tricks' / Snow White's dirty tricks" (... growing political controversy over a long-standing Government ban on Scientologists ...)
• The Advisor (Apr. 1981): "Scientology-Narconon Link Protested" (... Church of Scientology, the controversial cultic organization ...)
• ABC News (1992): "Nightline: A Conversation with David Miscavige" (... leaving behind a church embroiled in controversy ...)
• The Globe and Mail (Jan. 1980): "The Scientology Papers: Cult harassment, spying in Canada documented" by John Marshall (... operations of the controversial Church of Scientology ...")
• The Advertiser (Adelaide, Australia): "Inside the cult" by Alison Braund (... had been shrouded in controversy for many years ...)
• Evening News (2002): "Scientologists back anti-drugs festival" (... Over the last 50 years, Scientology has attracted almost continual controversy ...)
• U.K. Channel 4: "Secret Lives - L. Ron Hubbard" (... Hubbard created one of the richest and most controversial cults of our time - the Church of Scientology ...)
• Frederick Post (1981): "Man continues crusade against church" by Tom Tiede (... The church had a controversial history of religious and secular squabbling ...)
• New York Post (2005): "SCIENTOLOGY 'PRINCESS' IS A SPOOKY SHADOW ON KOOKY KATIE" (... Cindy raised their kids as Scientologists, enrolling them in the controversial religion's many obligatory courses ...)
• Mail & Guardian(2007): "Ndebele flirts with Scientology" (... with direct links to the controversial Church of Scientology ...)
• BBC News (2007): "UK officials feared church 'evil'" (... files from the National Archives at Kew show controversy surrounding the church in the UK is nothing new ...)
• The Observer (2004): "Lure of the celebrity sect" (... the church, which for decades has been at the centre of lawsuits and government investigations, is no stranger to controversy ...)
• Las Vegas Sun (1976): "Scientology student death probe" (... Art Maren, publicity agent for the church, [...] said the church has been considered "very controversial" in recent years ...)

etc... Raymond Hill 22:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I still have an issue with saying the Church is controversial. It isn't proper english. Its decisions may be controversial. Its practices may be controversial. Its beliefs may be controversial. But it just isn't proper english to say that the church itself is controversial. In at least one of your citations, they were talking about Scientology, the movement, not Scientology the Church. This paragraph, where I removed 'controversial', is about the Church.

Would you agree that accurate wording would be:

The term "Scientology" is also used to refer to the Church of Scientology, the largest organization promoting the practice of Scientology. The Church of Scientology, often referred to as controversial, is itself part of a network of affiliated organizations that claim ownership of and sole authority to disseminate Dianetics and Scientology.

I'm not hung up on the wording 'referred to as'. I'm open to that being 'called' or 'cited as' whatever you prefer. Lsi john 22:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

How is saying the Church is controversial not proper English? Controversial is a adjective. Adjectives describe nouns. The Church is a noun. It seems to follow the rules of English as I know them.Poolboy8 00:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I already explained that. So I'll respond with a question. Where do you see anything that is controversial about the church itself. (not about Scientology (the religion), not its beliefs, not its practices, not its methods) but controversy about Scientology (the church), which I presume is a corporation. What is controversial about the Church? Controversy exists, certainly. But I do not recall seeing any cited controversy about the Church itself. My goal here is accuracy. I have no objection to the word controversy being added, as long as it is added correctly and accurately. Lsi john 12:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I admit I don't know anything about the church of Scientology except what I've read here in the last couple of days. I came to this article after a discussion about Scientology with someone from work. I was a little daunted by its size so I looked at its history. I was amazed by the number of recent changes and reverts. So that lead me to the discussion page. Again, it's huge (another huge page plus 16 archives!) so I just read the most recent topic at the bottom (this one). That's where I saw the "not proper English" comment. I think you explained why you don't like the wording. On that, I have no opinion. But it doesn't actually break any rules of English to say that the church is controversial. If you want to split hairs with the other people who edit this article whether there's a difference between calling the church controversial and calling the church's practices controversial, be my guest. That is the argument you made above, but you started that argument by saying it is not proper English. That just isn't correct. "Thought" is a noun. "Blue" is an adjective. If I say, "The thought is blue," that may not make any sense (how can something that you can't see have a color?), but it is still proper English. I'm using an adjective to describe a noun. Now do you see why I said that using the word "controversial" to describe the "church" is proper English? I've no desire to get in the middle of what appears to be something close to an edit war on this topic. (I'm thinking I'm going to regret even putting in these comments in the discussion.) I just want a fairly concise neutral point of view article on Scientology. Unfortunately, I doubt I'm going to find that at Wikipedia, and that's fine. I'm doubting I'm going to find that anywhere, actually, but I'll read what's available and hopefully will learn more about it. Though I do believe that the phrase "the church is controversial" does not break any laws of English.Poolboy8 01:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Introduction: 'first page' games

'First page games' on the Internet is when the advocates of one side attempt to drive their opponents off the first page in the hope that casual readers won't see them.

The Introduction is being extended with details about Scientology beliefs that should not be in an introduction. One paragraph will suffice, the rest should go in the Beliefs section which in turn points to the main Beliefs article. In the 'controversy' paragraph for anti-scientology to be 'allegations' and pro-scientology 'revealed' is clearly POV. Whichever editor put this in is being silly, as it was never going to stand. Please read, yet again, the advice to 'discuss substantial changes here before making them'.

So I'm discussing. I propose to cut the two paragraphs beginning 'Scientology claims to offer' back to one restoring the status quo and to delete the next which is tautological - that scientologists say Scientology is good is not informative! The final 'controversy' paragraph should indicate that some activities of the Church are controversial and that the Church rejects all criticism of itself, referring to the 'Controversy' section for details. I don't even think there should be lots of references in the Introduction, since such references are best made in detail later. --Hartley Patterson 14:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up as discussion. I don't agree with your assessment of the lead section of this article. Looking through the articles on other religions in Wikipedia, some do cover the basic beliefs of the religion; some don't. I see no reason not to describe the most basic principles of Scientology right from the top, as that is, really, what defines Scientology. Since Scientology is an applied religious philosophy I think it is important to mention the basic concepts that provide the foundation for the religion in the lead. We can then expand on these and present more beliefs in the "beliefs and practices" section.Su-Jada 04:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Hartley Patterson. In addition the introduction should be based on reputable secondary sources. But now the major part is based on 10 primary sources partly quoting success stories from some scientologists without any relevance(looks like a scientology link farm). It is not infomative at all anymore and does not reflect the reputable mainstream on this issue. --Stan _talk 17:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Hartley Patterson and Stan En. The Introduction should give a concise and accurate summary the content of the article - see WP:LEAD for more on this. SheffieldSteel 19:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with Sheffield and Hartley. Sheffield is known to introduce bias in the article and just recently tried to put some ridicule in. Hartley, I would think you would understand that your criticism against the Church belongs in the article about the Church and not in the one on Scientology. You commented recently that Freezoners say that they are Scientologists. So why do you agree to a muddling of the two topics? On "Stan En", whatever that is, I won't comment since its only contribution consists of targeted vandalism so far. The article needs to be cleaned, corrected and made into one about Scientology, not the Church or any corporation or what-have-you. For the simple reason that it says "Scientology" in the title, not "Best of Controversy against the the Church of Scientology". COFS 23:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Stan is obviously a German (says he) and over there "clocks tick differently" (he might say). no surprise that Germany "sees Scientology differently", they got a history of polarization. COFS is right, this article is almost POVed beyond repair and vandalizing edits are no help. Misou 01:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

what is your statement on this ? Germans should be banned from WP? Or should be ignored? Maybe you stop personal attacks and point out what was wrong about my comment. lol clocks tick differently thats true, it is almost 4 o'clock here. Good Night !-- Stan _talk 01:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

This is the article readers reach when they type 'Scientology' into a search engine. It should therefore be a short overview of the whole subject with links to more focused articles. It is, of necessity, about both beliefs and organisation because most readers can't distinguish between the two and most of those who could don't want to, on both sides of the debate. That is not going to change overnight.

To Su-Jada - I know very well that Scientology is next to impossible to explain in a single book, let alone a couple of paragraphs! That should not be an excuse for not trying.

To Everyone: mass editing is pointless, it just annoys people and eventually gets changed back. For edits to stick they have to be consensus or imposed from above. There is no audience to preach to here, just editors. --Hartley Patterson 00:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

reducing Scientology to the ideology ...

I think it is not possible to extract the term Scientology from the Church of Scientology.

1. the term Scientology is copyrighted by the Church of Scientology. You will not find freezoners calling themselfs as Scientologists officially. They usually refer to LRH TECH.

2. In the public and in any dictionary or encyclopedia you will find under the the term Scientology the Church of Scientology and not only the ideology itself.

3. The article itself states right now: The term "Scientology" is also used to refer to the Church of Scientology, the largest organization promoting the practice of Scientology, which is itself part of a network of affiliated organizations that claim ownership of and sole authority to disseminate Dianetics and Scientology. ::: I highly agree with that!

4 and the ideology by itself is impossible without the organization as long the organizanion is the main part of the ideology -- Stan _talk 00:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Reverts from COFS in "Scientology as a state recogniced religion"

I did make the changes quite thoughtfull and carefull. There was no vandalism.

my changes: 1.changed the year of beginning surveillance from 1970 to 1997 in Germany(read the sources) 2. deleted redundant and double mentioned informations 3. deleted "Scientology is also regarded as a religious charitable organization in Holland, Hungary, Portugal, Switzerland, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mexico, India, Albania, South Africa, Slovenia, Croatia, Japan, Sweden, Austria, New Zealand and France" your own source states the opposite. I can give you various other sources if needed.

Please explain me why you reverted everything and what exactly was was wrong about my changes. -- Stan _talk 23:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Ouch. Check WP:BIAS, German. Misou 01:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

1.just bringing up false informations doesn't make anything unbiased or neutral. edit(; Your two sources suport my changes.

2. and show me only one citation which states that the UN hearing brought up criticism and I will accept your changes. It is bios to write about a hearing and leaving out the decisions at the end. -- Stan _talk 01:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

1998, UN Special Rapporteur slammed Germany for Scientology treatment. Another one here. I remember some reports he published that time, same content. Later today, gotta run. You stay where you are. Misou 01:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

the first source is trash. The second is reputable but without any criticism or consequences for Germany regarding treatment of Scientology. Just give me a citation that fits from the second or another reputable source. Otherwise I will change back your edit.-- Stan _talk 01:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Source to the source here, just a click away: "In another addendum (E/CN.4/1998/6/Add.2), Mr. Amor reports on his visit to Germany. He writes that as regards legislation, the provisions of the German Constitution fully guarantee freedom of religion and belief. Within this overall framework of freedom of religion and freedom of belief, people can and do express themselves. The Jewish community is able to flourish as a religious minority and enjoys very active political, institutional and financial support from the State. The situation of the Muslim minority is markedly less favourable, although on the whole it is not unsatisfactory. Concerning other groups and communities, there is no obstacle to the exercise of their activities, with the exception of the Church of Scientology. What that group faces can be described as a climate of suspicious, or latent intolerance. The Special Rapporteur concludes that the State, beyond day-to-day management, must implement a strategy to prevent intolerance in the field of religion and belief. He recommends a campaign to develop awareness among the media." (here, this guy is the Special Rapporteur for Religious Intolerance. Another one here. The German Government ran like chickens that time, trying to show how "harmless" they are and why their attempted annihilation of Scientologists is ok. They pulled back those "measures", sneakily, over the last years. My whole point, German, is this: If you would be interested in a Wikipedia article it would be easy to find neutral documents. But what you put in is old German propaganda and what you want to delete is sourced information and that is not cool. This world has more countries and viewpoints than just German Government policy. Misou 02:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to bring up "old German propaganda" at all and I don't want to bring up german sources as well. I think there are enough reputable english sources. I only changed 1 German source wich came from a Scientology front group to a reputable secondary source, which by the way stated exactly the same.-- Stan _talk 04:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Aaaah, yes, I understand now. You didn't read WP:BIAS! Well, please do that and add WP:RS so I don't have to fight nausea every time you write "reputable", thanks! And then, let's take apart what the Germans did here in the US, who was paid for spreading false information about Scientology and others and what exactly your agenda, pardon, purpose is, German, when you selectively use those sources. Misou 18:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

in the article: In individual court and administrative cases Scientology was regarded as a religious charitable organization in Holland, Hungary, Portugal, Switzerland, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mexico, India, Albania, South Africa, Slovenia, Croatia, Japan, Sweden, Austria, New Zealand and France. and here what your source actually says: In early 2003, a German court granted a tax exemption for 10% license fees that are sent to the United States. This exemption, however, is related to a German-American double taxation agreement, and has nothing to do with exemption as a charitable organization. Germany is at the forefront of countries that remain somewhat hostile to Scientology. Most significantly, in January 2003, the German Federal Finance Office granted the Church of Scientology International, the mother church of the Scientology religion, full tax exemption on monies given in support of the mother church by nine churches of Scientology in Germany--a decision reported in hundreds of newspaper articles across the country. Similar recognitions have been issued in Holland, Hungary, Portugal, Switzerland, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mexico, India, Albania, Hungary, Holland, South Africa, Slovenia, Croatia, and Japan. lol and here a citation from the same source: Germany and France are at the forefront of countries that remain somewhat hostile to Scientology, especially in the court of public opinion. So this edit by misou should be reverted or corected as well-- Stan _talk 01:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

@misou thanks that you took out at least France. But you missed my point. Your source states that all the listed countries have a simalar position like Germany. quote from your source:"This exemption, however, is related to a German-American double taxation agreement, and has nothing to do with exemption as a charitable organization. .... Similar recognitions have been issued in Holland, Hungary, Portugal, Switzerland ....." Do you get it now? Thats why I want to delete it because your source states exactly the opposite. And here you state the exact opposite as well. However, some of the listed countries like hungary may indeed recognize Scientology as a religion. Bring up reputable sources for this countries and everyone will be happy. But I will take out the false sentence again. -- Stan _talk 04:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Misou, the cofs does a very good job at creating its own adversaries. Please stop blaming Germans and Germany for the cofs's own lunacy and problems. You come across as a racist and a bigot.--Fahrenheit451 16:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Introduction AGAIN

I removed the sections in the introduction regarding controversy that include unnecessary anecdotes about how those who bring allegations agains the church are seeking large settlements, and to discredit members of the CoS. This seemed blatantly POV, and I felt that these concerns would be more appropriately addressed in the "Criticisms" section. Keep it objective. The Great Attractor 02:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The Great Attractor, your idea of "unnecessary anecdotes," would suggest a possible lack of research or POV on Scientology controversy, which is the very subject you are editing. However, I can see that the way I worded the citations I included my need some clarification, since if you could come away with the conclusion that these were mere anecdotes, it is possible that others, who are uniformed about this might also draw the similar conclusions. You are quite new to Wikipedia, and so perhaps you don't realize this, but you cannot simply edit based on your opinions, which it would appear you have just done. Let me explain, so you understand the background of this subject. Frankly, I don't agree that the two sentences you left at the end of this section on Scientology being controversial should be mentioned in the lead, and would prefer to simply delete it, since there is a "controversy" section below, but, as a compromise, I provided citations to show that litigants and persons with vested interests (paid expert witnesses) generated much of the so-called controversial media by deliberately providing false and misleading statements to journalists and netizens in an attempt to foster a negative climate so as to pressure the church, for the purpose of personal renumeration. This is salient information, and, ironically, neglecting to include it whilst stating that Scientology is controversial could be argued to be an example of the resultant systemic bias that was so generated. Of course this is only my opinion, and I am not going to state such in the article. However, I would request that you and Stan En refrain from simply deleting this section and its citations again. Su-Jada 17:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I may be new, but I'm not uneducated. The word "anecdote" does not imply a lack of truth. Look it up. I think I am completely correct for removing those anecdotes since they obviously intend to cast doubt on those who criticize Scientology. That's not NPOV on your part, pal, like it or not. The Great Attractor 01:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The Great Attractor I am certain that you think you are completely correct. I would never accuse you of deliberately doing something you thought was illogical or faulty. What use would that serve you? But I don't agree with your point of view, and I'm getting pretty tired of my edits being reverted based on what someone "thinks is correct." I also find your calling me pal offensive, which you no doubt intended. I have tried to keep the tone of my discussions reasonable and on a high plane, and request that you do the same, which is Wikipedia policy. I also disagree with your interpretation of the events I cited as anecdotes. I would not classify admissions by two former Scientologists that they deliberately perjured themselves to extort money from the Church through the legal system, and spread these false allegations to and through the media to generate the very kind of "controversy" we are now trying to resolve with this discussion as a "short tale narrating an interesting or amusing biographical incident." If we are going to keep the "Church is controversial," and "claims of harassment and harm to critics" caveats, NPOV calls for balancing that with the actions taken by persons who deliberately created such claims in order to profit from them financially. I am not set on having to have my section there vs. including it below. But if the prejudicial and un-cited description of Scientology stays in the lead, so does my documentation to show this is only one opinion.Su-Jada 04:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The quality of debate here sucks

I am gonna chime in here with a little note to every editor here. Why don't we all read again WP:BIAS and WP:NPOV so we know what we are talking about. "Stan" and "Sheffield", please take note of this: "Disagreements over whether something is approached the Neutral Point Of View (NPOV) way can usually be avoided through the practice of good research.". Wikipedia policy, you sure have heard of that. Read it. Misou 18:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

No offense, but could you actually try explaining why their statements are biased instead of throwing the same wikilinks and unsupported assaults on their research ethics around? After taking a long look at this you seem to be engaging in the same practices you are preaching against. --Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 19:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You might be right, I am getting too much into the tune set by these guys. Example? Check the history of this article. Just a minute ago RookZERO reverted together with a little WP:NPA violation against me. What did he revert? Something he can't have, something showing that the so called "allegations" in the lead section (which should be in a different article anyway) are made up and paid for. This edit is clearly trying to delete data out of WP which would give more insight about how the Church of Scientology has been made "controversial". I said earlier that I don't want to mix the Church and the belief in this article about the belief but as this means that all slander would need to go you can witness biased operations going on. This all is diverting from actually editing and improving articles. Which is where my beef comes from. Pure repetition of unsourced allegations and its correction can eat your day and smash all the joy one can have when participating in WP. Misou 19:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

how can you talk about WP:NPA by RookZERO when you call any edit from other editors as vandalism ?

"Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.", WP:VAN. This is an encyclopedia, not a "my opinion is more important than yours". May I call to your attention, German, that you just called bribery a "misdemeanor" and used this as an argument to remove "content ... in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia"? At least I understand WP:VAN this way. Noch so'n Ding, ... und unterschreiben nicht vergessen. Misou 21:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

my comment was about this person and not wikipedia or editors here. -- Stan _talk 21:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

So you took out half a page of text by mistake? Anyway, let's go over this per WP:BRD (no, not BRD[7], but BRD). Misou 21:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Misou, it looks like you are in violation of 3RR for reverting the "paid as expert witnesses" section into the lead four times within 24 hrs. Why is this so important to you? It seems POV to me, and certainly doesn't belong in the summary. Hemidemisemiquaver 22:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

as a followup, the references for this bit are located at http://www.whyaretheydead.net, which clearly is not a reliable source. just my 2 cents. Hemidemisemiquaver 22:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

What is important for me is that WP:BRD is kept in and I must say that except for me nobody seems to care about that. WP:3RR says, "Since the rule is intended to prevent edit warring, reverts which are clearly not such will not breach the rule." so I am not in the counting category. The "reverters" Sheffield, RookZERO and Stan En are on the appropriate Admin boards since hours to get them to stop edit warring, that is: stop destroying sourced edits without comment or discussion and stop WP:NPA violations. Yep, whytheyaredead.org is not a RS. A quote should be used as ref, with date etc. The whole section is not important. It should go and I said that. But then all of it goes and not a part and some anti-POV is left behind. You see, Sheffield did good changes just now, so I am not complaining. Misou 23:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

kinda new subject

(un-dent) There has been, I think, a fair bit of discussion about whether the CoS can be separated from Scientology. Perhaps academically a case can be made for this - although it has not been demonstrated on this page, with editors weighing in on both sides - but an uninformed reader wishing to learn about Scientology, the CoS, or both, will come to this page. Therefore this main article should contain a summary of what sub-articles describe in more detail about the CoS and Scientology, providing a reader with enough information and links to make an informed decision about where to go next, should they wish to read further. The lead paragraphs should contain a brief, accurate and neutral summary of the material in this article. It should not contain point-counterpoint argument that is better placed elsewhere in this article, or indeed in other more specific articles.

Misou, Why have you brought up this issue of nationality so many times? Please refrain from what looks like a racist attack against Stan En. SheffieldSteel 21:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I did not know that the Germans are a race. Never noticed that and I lived there for a bit. Anyway, and I am happy to repeat that here once more, my critic goes against "Stan"s German-way-of-bashing-Scientologists-slants, not him personally. But good that you hang in here and help to document a few folks chronically lying about themselves and their intentions. Just note

this one for that. Cryptically, Misou 21:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I hope Misou is not flaunting bigotry. Let's assume he just needs some enlightenment and overlook it this time.--Fahrenheit451 18:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Controversy in the Lead, Again

The lead currently includes the following statement: "A variety of reports and allegations have been made by journalists, and legal cases have been brought by and against the Church, claiming harassment and harm by and against Church critics." The Church has not brought cases claiming harassment by critics, so that goes. Also, that someone "brings" a case against the Church (and there have been very few of them over the past 10 years or so anyway), means nothing unless they prevail. So this statement infers wrongdoing based on the generality that critics have sued the Church. Also, "journalists" do not make claims unless they are writing editorials, in which case they are expressing opinion. Journalists only report claims (in this case, claims by critics). So really, all we have left is "critics have claimed harassment by the Church." But unless they have proven it, I can't see including it in the lead. Based on this, and because my earlier solution of balancing these claims with citations showing that key claims were fabricated solely to put pressure on the Church of settle for large sums of money, I am removing this section.Su-Jada 04:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The stories by journalists over the entire history of Scientology that don't mention controversy are rather small—not to mention it in the introduction would be a serious POV breach. This seems to be yet another whitewash attempt to clean Controversy into its own little section. AndroidCat 11:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

the changes in the introduction have gone way to far! I would like to put up a "neutrality sign" in the article. its not just about smaller POV issues anymore !

1 intro is sourced by 10 primary sources (link farm)!

2 only some beliefs and practices are explained and not a concise and acurate summary of the article.

3 the beliefs and practices report conveniently only "Scientology dissemination materials" and stuff from "introduction courses" in Scientology. I dont't want to set Xenu in the introduction but am missing all this stuff like "PTS/SP", "ethic System" , "Disconnection" etc.That is not just whitewashing, it is "Scientology Promotion". This was archived by some editors due to making numerous smaller edits without consensus on talkpage.It must happen something here, otherwise this article becomes entirely riducolus ! Any other ideas how to accomplish an introduction which does not violate WP:LEADWP:NPOV etc. ? -- Stan _talk 12:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Stan En. Our only option is to try to follow the principles and guildelines that you mention, to try to discuss and obtain consensus, and to hope that the admins will step in to stop those who want to disrupt this process. SheffieldSteel 14:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it is more norm in this project to describe what something is before we get into the criticism of it. That said, it is useful to discuss ALL of Scientology; the "regular" tech (auditing), Study Tech, Ethics Tech, Admin Tech, etc. To truly understand Scientology you must understand that it is an effort to understand the entire scope of existence and that covers a lot and Scientology covers a lot. It is all built on the basic Theta-MEST theory. All due respect, but the problem with most Scn articles here is they are heavily influenced by people that have little if any understanding of what Scientology is and often only a basic understanding of what the criticism of Scientology is. Sorry if that sounds harsh but I have 30 years in Scientology and 25 years researching criticism of it and I know whereof I speak. I may take a stab at a lead as time permits. --Justanother 15:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Justanother that we should describe Scientology before documenting any controversy or criticism. In the context of the article lead, my understanding of the guidelines is that it should provide a brief summary of the article's coverage of controversy and criticism after a summary of the rest of the article - which means describing and defining Scientology and the CoS first. But I don't think that the summary of criticism/controversy should be postponed until after the rest of the article.

Also I'd like to thank User:Justanother for providing all of us with such a good example of how to avoid heated comments and edit-warring, even in a controversial situation where accusations of bias and conflict of interest are common. SheffieldSteel 17:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the changes. I see some very intelligent people working here. Only proven facts should be in the intro not allegations. Thanks for your efforts. Afinity Warrior 21:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Controversy

"The Church of Scientology and its activities have been the subject of controversy in the past decades. A variety of reports and allegations have been made by journalists, and legal cases have been brought by and against the Church, claiming harassment and harm by and against Church critics."

Discuss it here. Since there is no reason to revert this at all, then consensus needs to be reached through discussion only Wikidan829 19:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• The opening paragraphs need to provide a quick overview of Scientology. The facts that controversy surrounds Scientology and that litigation by and against the Church exists are at this point both irrefutable and universally acknowledged, with even members of the cult agreeing that controversy exists and that court cases are taking place. The very least that this introduction should include is a referance to the existance of the contreversy and the court cases. The introduction doesn't even give specifics about the historical or present activities that brought on the controversy and court cases (contrast this with, say, Salmon Rushdie where exlicit referance to the alledged "crimes" and his death warrant are explained in specifics). (RookZERO 20:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC))

• My 2 cents is that it's fine, if not necessary. Regardless of one's beleif in the merit of the various controversies that have surrounded a subject of any sort, when controversy exists in such volume it is an intrinsic part of that subject's image. Scientology is famous at least in part for its controvesial views (again not questioning or asserting any merit to these views), as well as the general stigma that follows it. Not mentioning well-publicized controversies would be no different if they were the false convictions on a man later set free or the proven allegations of corruption on a fortune 500 company. --Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 20:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• I agree, I don't care either way. It is, however, well known that Scientology is a negative thing in the eyes of most of the public. It is a real point, it is relevant, and it is true. This should not be reverted because a Scientologist thinks that it's only there to "attack" the religion. To remove such a thing, when it is pertinent, is just trying to represent Scientology in the best possible light, at the cost of losing accuracy. It would be unencyclopedic at that point. Wikidan829 21:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

"To remove such a thing, when it is pertinent, is just trying to represent Scientology in the best possible light, at the cost of losing accuracy." Thank you... that is exactly the point I have been trying (unsuccessfully) to articulate about some of what is going on here.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 21:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Oni Ookami Alfador for your calm discussion on this matter. I don't disagree. My point is that if we are going to state there is controversy, state it, but not is such a way as to assert that it is true, and if there is a counter argument, allow that to be shown as well. That is all I tried to do, but my contribution continued to be deleted, leaving only the assertion of the controversy, stated in such a way as to give it un-challenged credence.Su-Jada 21:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for joining in. I cannot dig through the history at the moment, could you please paste in here as a reply, what your proposal for change. What do you think it should say? Once we know, we can gather a collective opinion, make the change(or keep it as it is), and even have it here as documented proof that this is what the community agreed on. Thanks! Wikidan829 21:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

"POV"

I would like ask everyone to refrain from using the acronym POV as a term indicating biased statements. Per Help:Describing points of view#Usage note, it is clear that this is not actually a useable definition of the word and that it inhibits fully effective communication between editors. In cases where neutrality is in question, I would like to remind everyone that words and phrases such as bias, non-neutral, opinion/opinionated, subjective/subjectivity will more clearly get your point across. --Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 19:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks for posting the link to Help:Describing points of view. That page deserves more publicity. SheffieldSteel 19:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

suggestions about a new intro for everyone interested in a WP:LEAD

@everyone who wants to contribute here! Please lets first discuss the structure of the introduction here and reach agreement. For detailed contributions on the content I would recomment to open up a new section !!! -- Stan _talk 00:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

My suggestions would be:
1. general informations about scientology(members worldwide, the founder, different groups)
2. explain the beliefs and practices
3. overview of the controversy
any comments, additions or corrections for that ? If we could reach agreement on this we could start to discuss in detail. -- Stan _talk 21:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like an excellent starting point. Building from your suggestion, taking into account the "contents" section of the article, and applying a bit of WP:UNDUE, suggests this:-

1. Brief definition/origin (inc LRH, Dianetics)
2. Beliefs and practices
3. Origins
4. Membership (The Church of Scientology and Scientology splinter groups, probably no mention of celebtrities here)
5. Controversy and criticism (either super-brief summaries or just try to document the amount and type of controversy that exists)

However, I may have applied my own WP:BIAS in selecting the sections to summarise. What do others think? SheffieldSteel 21:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems pretty much the way it is there already! Bravehartbear 21:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think the section that reads "Another principle of Scientology and Dianetics is that the basic command followed by all life is "Survive!" and that this urge can be best understood by subdivided it into eight "dynamics" (dynamic meaning urge, drive or impulse). Scientology holds that as a person becomes more aware and able, he or she naturally tends to care about and want to take responsibility for wider zones in life: family, group and even mankind and life forms in general. [5] Accordingly, Scientologists become involved in groups that apply Hubbard's teachings to such diverse areas as drug rehabilitation[6], criminal rehabilitation[7] and community outreach programs [8]" should be shortened or deleted entirely, and the section dealing with criticism and controversy should be lengthened to give a brief insight into WHY scientology is controversial and WHY it is in court. (RookZERO 22:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC))

Until we reach a consensus, I won't delete existing parts of the introduction. I think at the very minimum, the introduction should include information to the effect that: 1. Scientology was created by LRH 2. It is an outgrowth of Dianetics 3. It is very "controversial" and involved in many court cases. (RookZERO 22:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC))

SheffieldSteel: Brief definition,origin(inc LRH, Dianetics) , I agree that it is notable. With membership I wanted to make statements related to the demographics. (How many members wordwide, in wich regions of the world with higher representaion etc.) I agree with you and RookZERO that on "beliefs and practices" must be applied a little bit WP:UNDUE. I think it should be reduced to 1/3 of size of the introduction. -- Stan _talk 23:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah but I have found out that the Scientology demographics are not very clear. The amount of members and organisation are disputed. Part of the problem is that Scientologist can be part of other religions so is imposible to determine an exact amount. You can mention the countries Scientology have reached though.Bravehartbear 00:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I will not go into detail now. How to determine the amount we can discuss later. And if it is not possible we could just mention that the demographics are not clear. -- Stan _talk 00:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that there is any unbiased source on the demographics. If you can find one, we can include it. (RookZERO 01:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC))

It seems like the consensus is that the demographics are unclear and/or disputed. I've certainly seen some widely varying figures mentioned. This is a tricky thing to sum up briefly and fairly. It might be better to say less on this particular subject, rather than say more and risk tempting further edit-warring as individual editors add opposing viewpoints to the lead. Perhaps I'm being too pessimistic :-) SheffieldSteel 01:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

There are some scientific estimations about this issue but you are probably right. To get an agreement would probably take years or numerous different estimations would go into the lead wich would expand it unnecessarily. And a range between 80 000 and 15 000 000 is not informative at all in the lead. I give up on that. Keeps at least the intro a bit shorter ! -- Stan _talk 03:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

detailed suggestions to the intro

1. Brief definition/origin

Scientology is a body of teachings and related techniques created by American author L. Ron Hubbard. Created in 1952 as an outgrowth of his earlier self-help system, Dianetics, Hubbard later characterized Scientology as an "applied religious philosophy" and the basis for a new religion.

The term "Scientology" is also used to refer to the Church of Scientology, the largest organization promoting the practice of Scientology, which is it self part of a network of affiliated organizations that claim ownership of and sole authority to disseminate Dianetics and Scientology.

This first paragraph goes strait to the point. The second paragraph is too much info for the intro. I recommend change the second paragraph to:

The term "Scientology" is also used to refer to the Church of Scientology.

2. Beliefs and practices

Scientology claims to offer an exact methodology to help people achieve awareness of their spiritual existence across many lifetimes and, simultaneously, to become more effective in the physical world. Scientology holds that the individual is a spiritual being (called a thetan to avoid confusion with concepts of the soul or spirit in other religions). The goal of Scientology is "making the individual capable of living a better life in his own estimation and with his fellows," and thereby "the attainment of complete and total rehabilitation of man’s native, but long obscured abilities."

Another principle of Scientology and Dianetics is that the basic command followed by all life is "Survive!" and that this urge can be best understood by subdivided it into eight "dynamics" (dynamic meaning urge, drive or impulse). Scientology holds that as a person becomes more aware and able, he or she naturally tends to care about and want to take responsibility for wider zones in life: family, group and even mankind and life forms in general. Accordingly, Scientologists become involved in groups that apply Hubbard's teachings to such diverse areas as drug rehabilitation, criminal rehabilitation and community outreach programs.

Scientologists claim that Hubbard's teachings have remedied a wealth of problems and enabled them to better realize their highest potential not only in their spiritual awareness but in all aspects of their lives including their business and family and personal pursuits.

The first paragraph goes strait to the point. The second is nice but could be elsewhere is the article, there isn’t enough coverage on the different applications of Scientology like drug rehabilitation and educational programs. The third paragraph is ok.

I recomend adding this paragraph:

Scientology is said to be applicable to all facets of life and to have enabled the creation of management, educational and drug rehabilitation systems currently in use by Scientologist and non-Scientologist alike.

3. Membership

• List of the MAJOR Scientology organizations, location and activities.

4. Controversy and criticism

The Church of Scientology and its activities has been the subject of controversy in the past decades. A variety of reports and allegations have been made by journalists, and legal cases have been brought by and against the Church, claiming harassment and harm by and against Church critics.

This line introduces the controversy and criticism nicely. The intro is no place for explanations, just introductions.

Bravehartbear 23:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

"Outgrowth" may not be the best word to decribe the relation of Scientology to Dianetics. Dianetics is a particular technique while Scientology is the broad study. The distinction seems unclear in some of the lectures from 1951; LRH later said that Dianetics deals with the mind, Scientology with the thetan. Here's my suggestion for the Brief introduction/origin bit:

Scientology is a body of teachings and related techniques created by American author L. Ron Hubbard as a development of his earlier self-help system, Dianetics. Hubbard later characterized Scientology as "an applied religious philosophy" and the basis for a new religion. The term "Scientology" is also used to refer to the Church of Scientology, founded by Hubbard in 1952. DavidCooke 01:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the cofs was founded in late 1953.--Fahrenheit451 01:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

We are not talking about when the church was founded. We are talking about when LRH presented Scientology to the world. Bravehartbear 06:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Bravehartbear, I remind you of WP:CIVIL. I responded to DavidCooke's statement, "The term "Scientology" is also used to refer to the Church of Scientology, founded by Hubbard in 1952." My response was sequitur. I suggest you read what was responded to before you waste time making erroneous statements. --Fahrenheit451 16:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

You could be right, I'll check sources on that. - DavidCooke 02:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

DavidCooke, sounds like a good start to me. (RookZERO 01:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC))

DavidCooke, You got good points. Go ahead, do the honors.Bravehartbear 01:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

For the Church of Scientology and the word founded, the key date would be December 1953 when the first Church of Scientology of New Jersey was incorporated (and the parent Church of American Science). Before then, there were loose Scientology Clubs and HASI, with no religious organization. (TIME's Remember Venus and the incorporation papers for refs.)

The controversy paragraph implies that only journalists and critics were involved in the "reports and allegations", and "harassment and harm". The "back and forth" with governments should also rate a terse mention. AndroidCat 03:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

AndroidCat: A government is a big entity with thousands of workers, maybe some that are Scientologist. Not because some government official have a view point means that it is shared by all government officials. (I work for the government, US military). Also what government are we talking about? Even in Germany some government officials have ruled in favor of Scientology. Now if you tell me that a goverment has pass a resolution into law by congress stating such then I could consider that as an official position of that goverment. I oppose putting an arbitrary or a generality in the intro. If you want to write specifics it can’t be in the intro. And you have to be very specific about an accusation of such magnitud.Bravehartbear 06:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

That said, it should say something of a group if at least two governments have formed task forces to deal with percieved threats to the constitution, as Germany has with the Hamburg Task Force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_Task_Force_of_the_Hamburg_Interior_Authority) and Russia has with its FSB Task Force on Scientology. (RookZERO 18:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC))

Please explain FSB Task Force on Scientology. Source? COFS 19:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Silent birth and infant care

I found information in this article that is false. The original barley formula was made with honey, I remember this clearly. I think it is in the book “the second dynamic”. Later because a warning about bacteria in honey, honey was changed to corn syrup. This change was not made by LRH. I remember reading the change. Bravehartbear 01:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Honey is certainly more consistent with the recipe dating from Roman times. SheffieldSteel 01:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

There was a Guardian's Order from the late 1970's that mentioned infant's deaths occuring from consumption of raw honey and vegetables, allegedly from botulism.--Fahrenheit451 16:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Guesses x4, sigh. F451, please state date and serial number of that GO. COFS 19:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)