Talk:Scientology

The use of self-published sources

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

Using self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves

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

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

1. it is not unduly self-serving;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
4. there is no reason to doubt its authenticity;
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources;
6. the source in question has been mentioned specifically in relation to the article's subject by an independent, reliable source.

Protected edit requests

Minor spelling error

Ceremonies In Scientology, cereonies such as weddings, child naming, and funerals are observed.[73] In addition, Friday services are held to commemorate the completion of a person's religious services during the prior week.[73] Ordained Scientology ministers may perform such rites.[73] Just for the sake of discussion, I realize that anonymous is continually struggling against them but it's a bit inconvenient to have to request a spelling correction as opposed to just performing it myself. 72.234.227.31 (talk) 08:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done Jomasecu ^talk _contribs 09:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Secondary source

The point is well taken. One secondary source is "What is Scientology?". For that particular "citation needed": What is Scientology?, pp.68-70, Bridge Publications Inc., 1998 ISBN 1573181226 (JDPhD (talk) 16:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC))

That is a primary source in that it is a Church of Scientology publication (Bridge being the in-house publishing firm). --Justallofthem (talk) 17:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Probable secondary source

O.K. As the "citation needed", here is another more probable secondary source from the Computer Science Dept.& Center for the Neural Basis of Cognition at Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA. written by David S. Touretzky stating specifically: "Scientology teaches that human beings are composed of three parts: the thetan (or spirit), the mind and the body." The address: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/pubs/sfn98/[1] (JDPhD (talk) 20:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC))

Oh, I do not think we need to go there - a paper allegedly presented somewhere by a noted critic of Scientology and self-hosted? No, thanks. The basic concepts of Scientology are presented in a number of published texts on NRMs. Here is one Google search. --Justallofthem (talk) 20:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

This looks fine. --Justallofthem (talk) 20:32, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

How about this one: on p. 60, it reads "...the Spirit of the person in Scientology, the real person, is the thetan, which inhabits a body. The body is controlled, up to a point, by the mind."

Mary Farrell Bednarowski, New Religions and the Theological Imagination in America, p. 60, Indiana University Press, 1995 ISBN 978-0253209528 (JDPhD (talk) 01:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC))

Grammar Issues

Under History, third sentence from the bottom:

"An organization called the Cult Awareness Network who once provided assistance former cult victims received more complaints concerning Scientology than any other group."

Tense conflict. Should be changed to "...receives more complaints..." or a date or time reference should be given at the end of the statement (i.e., "in 2008"). LittleNuccio (talk) 22:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

 Not done The reference doesn't clarify when, and simply states the CAN received more Scientology complaints "in many months". It's also a primary source and can't be used to substantiate this claim. A consensus rewording should perhaps be discussed on this page. Euryalus (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

---

Under "Influences," the term "dianetics" is a proper noun and should therefore be capitalized. LittleNuccio (talk) 22:53, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done Euryalus (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

---

Referencing "Scientology as a commercial venture," "...it was announced at the Book Expo America a dianetics Racing Team..." should be changed to "it was announced at the Book Expo America that a Dianerics Racing Team...displays a large Dianetics logo" to conform to demonstrative pronoun and capitalization standards. LittleNuccio (talk) 22:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done Euryalus (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

---

In Beliefs and practices, "...were first formulated in Dianetics--Hubbard's earlier writings which precede Scientology" should be changed to "were first formulated in Dianetics, Hubbard's earlier writings which precede Scientology", or the antecedent should be removed entirely (as it is referenced by the link), to conform with Em dash standards. LittleNuccio (talk) 23:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done Euryalus (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

(Homophone) spelling error - 2nd paragraph under History- "led" to the organization's bankruptcy, not "lead" 96.231.102.180 (talk) 00:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done Euryalus (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Introduction

The "citation needed" that appears just before the table of contents may be:

John A. Saliba, Signs of the Times, p. 30, Médiaspaul, 1996 ISBN 978-2894203262. It reads "...Scientology does not demand blind faith but endeavours to help the individual discover past experiences and shed the trauma and guilt (sin) which encumber".

(JDPhD (talk) 16:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC))

I only just noticed this section exists. I made a new heading down below but will repeat myself here (should the new heading be deleted?): I take some issue with the line from the article's introduction: "Although Scientology is recognized as a bona fide religion in the United States and other countries, it has been widely criticized as a cult that financially defrauds and abuses its members." I think it should instead read "Although the Church of Scientology is recognized..." rather than just Scientology. There are sects of Scientology that do not charge its members when seeking teachings. These Scientologists cannot be considered to be financially defrauding their members. - 67.166.134.243 (talk) 19:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.134.243 (talk)

They can't really be called "Scientology", though. Scientology exclusively refers to the official organisation - it's trademarked and everything. I think the breakaway sects are very careful not to refer to themselves as such. - makomk (talk) 11:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Typo in reference

"Thomas G. Whittle and Linda Amato. The continuing search for answers: Behind the Terror - A proble into masterminds of death and violence" please "proble -> probe" per the link given. LilHelpa (talk) 15:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done Euryalus (talk) 22:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Spelling of City

Please could the german city in this [2] paragraph be corrected to Stuttgart? 87.86.180.66 (talk) 14:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done --Rodhullandemu 17:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous section

I think the present coverage of "Anonymous" activities in the "Scientology and the Internet" section is unduly detailed for this overview article, giving dates of individual demonstrations a year ago and so forth. Could we please shrink this section? Also note the current RS/N thread related to the Wikinews box in this section. Jayen466 17:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely it is overly long but I won't be the one to shorten it. Maybe Spidern will help us out here, he did very well at shortening the sections more related to Scientology proper. --Justallofthem (talk) 03:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not appreciate tongue-in-cheek remarks about my edits which imply a POV inclination. When I stepped in, many of the "Scientology proper" sections suffered from sourcing issues and problems with editorial tone. The two paragraphs (out of 6 in the section) which talk about "Anonymous" are 375 words in length, which is roughly 4.8% of the total words in the article (7838 words). I am more than willing to make specific improvements when text conflicts with our quality standards, but will not shorten for the sake of shortening. ←Spidern→ 14:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for tongue-in-cheekiness. --Justallofthem (talk) 16:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Would you agree that the listing of individual demonstration dates that took place a year ago in various cities, each attended by a few dozen people, is excessive detail? I would also suggest we have just one picture of Anonymous protesters (I'd prefer the one on the right). Jayen466 14:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Not tongue in cheek

As Spidern has objected to my light mention of his reducing this article, let me present a more serious look, especially as I believe that Spidern's edits are an unattributed contributing cause of the current arbitration. (Spidern shows 262 recent edits in Scientology [3])

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientology&diff=248737791&oldid=248720071

Removed ~2500 characters altering the tone in many instances so as to exclude Scientology's spiritual underpinnings and techniques. Claims to have a problem with primary sourcing but relocated (instead of removed) a very strong statement about psychiatry that was similarly sourced.

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientology&diff=249149147&oldid=248749646

Removed ~4000 characters including many key Scientology concepts including what Scientology considers its "ultimate goal" and the definition of the "thetan", arguably the most important definition in Scientology, while again exhibiting selective use of primary sources.

3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientology&diff=250183196&oldid=249831701

Remove almost 5000 characters including totally removing key Scientology concepts such as ARC, tone scale, etc (which can be easily sourced in secondary materials, see ARC and tone scale), presumably because they are sourced from primary material but continues selectively allowing such with http://freedom.lronhubbard.org/page078.htm which he relocated again.

4. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientology&diff=250183196&oldid=249800383

Removed >4000 characters repeating removal of key concepts that I guess were reinserted.

5. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientology&diff=253833720&oldid=252158618

Removed almost 30,000! characters further reducing the tone of the article from being about "Scientology" to being about "criticism of Scientology".

I respect Spidern but Spidern is a critic of Scientology and his edits mainly served to make this article even less about Scientology (as opposed to criticism of Scientology) that it already was. I don't claim to object to every one of his edits, just to the direction he seemed to be taking the article. I also object when Scientologists that try to make relatively minor efforts to reverse that course are given grief all out of proportion to any errors they may make in those efforts. We need to stop harassing the Scientologists here and try to get this article back in balance. It is after all, an article on Scientology. As a Scientologist that got worn out very quickly here once said: "The incorrect and counterproductive consideration that seems to pervade the community is this: Scientology is not a subject - it is instead controversy about a pseudo subject." --Justallofthem (talk) 19:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

it appears you only mentioned Spidern in referance to Anonymous to bait for a soapbox to engage in attacks...poor form...Coffeepusher (talk) 18:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

By 30,000!, did you mean the mathematical 30,000!, as in 1x2x3x4x5...x29,999x30,000? If so, then your point about the article having too much material was well founded, as that number is considerably larger than the sum of all the neutrons, protons and neutrons expected to exist in the universe. According to my calculator, (the calculation took about four seconds), the rounded number is 2.759537246219384599421664255e+121287. Asperger, he'll know. (talk) 20:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Removal of A Piece of Blue Sky by Jon Atack

In previous discussion of this issue, no good reason was given for removal of this key resource (described in an academic source as "the most thorough general history of Hubbard and Scientology" and "the starting point for all further researches"): Frenschkowski, Marco (1999). "L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology: An annotated bibliographical survey of primary and selected secondary literature". Marburg Journal of Religion. 4 (1): 7. ISSN 1612-2941. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) The purported reason was that it is a primary source, and the reason in turn for that is that Atack himself was involved in the events that the book is about, but this is only true of part of the book (chapters 1 to 4 out of a total of 37). In the bulk of the book, Atack is writing from hundreds of credited primary and secondary sources and interviews, not from the first person. Another offered reason is that the book is "critical". That's clear POV-pushing. I think removal of these references to what is umabiguously a secondary source is a serious mistake to say the least. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, Frenschkowski also says that it is "very bitter", and that "Atack - who was a Scientologist from 1974-1983 - is also violently opposed to Scientology, but tries to stick to facts". Let's have the whole para:

Which brings us to Jon Atack, A Piece of Blue Sky. Scientology, Dianetics and L. Ron Hubbard Exposed, Secaucus, N. Y. 1990. This is the most thorough general history of Hubbard and Scientology, very bitter, but always well-researched and on the whole to be prefered to Haack. It has a very fine documentation and omits many unproven sensationalist claims made by Corydon and others. Atack - who was a Scientologist from 1974-1983 - is also violently opposed to Scientology, but tries to stick to facts (whereas Corydon often speculates). The starting point for all further researches. Atack has since then only written minor pieces on Scientology, but is a collector of pertinent material much of which he has made available on internet.

Given the acknowledged extreme POV nature of this work, I think the decision to stick to secondary literature is sound. What is important and generally accepted fact in Atack will have been picked up elsewhere. Jayen466 16:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing a good reason in terms of WP policy for this book not being a RS for its factual content. Trying to deny that it's secondary literature (note that you're just denying this without argument) just continues the distorted representation of the book. MartinPoulter (talk) 18:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Editors here agreed it's a primary source, as defined in WP:PSTS, and agreed we should do without primary sources (from either side of the debate), to have a basis for collegial cooperation.

Put another way, if something is only found in Atack or any other primary source, and not a single one of the dozens of scholarly works discussing Scientology, and not a single one of the thousands of news articles reporting on Scientology mentions it, then it's undue weight on a primary source to include it here. Jayen466 18:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I have to wonder whether you or those unnamed "editors here" have actually read the book. It is in no way a primary source. As Martin has said, the vast majority of the book is written from secondary and tertiary sources - books, reports, documents and other items, about which it makes "make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims" (as WP:PSTS puts it). It's a source-based history of Dianetics, Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard, not a personal memoir, and although it's coloured by the author's views, it's very much fact-based and source-based. (In fact it uses largely the same corpus of sources as Russell Miller's Bare-Faced Messiah, which was widely praised.) It's not an autobiography in any meaningful sense, and for the vast majority of the subjects that Atack discusses, he had no personal involvement. The book is widely cited in at least several dozen other works. There is no good reason to exclude it. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

This published book's full text is available online, as is the Wikipedia policy definition of primary and secondary sources. It does not require much time to verify that the book is not a primary source; it is precisely an "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative" work. --FOo (talk) 10:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is an insider's account, or exposé. Miller is not. If both present the same material, let's go to Miller rather than Atack. Miller (also online) is widely considered the best and most important critical book; it is mentioned as such by Melton in his 2000 book, as well as the Encyclopedia Britannica article on Scientology. Even so, we should bear in mind that Miller is extremely polemical and in part refuted. Jayen466 11:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

That article does not seem to agree with you. Frenschkowski describes A Piece of Blue Sky as "quite valuable" and "the most thorough general history of Hubbard and Scientology", albeit "quite bitter" ... and generally favors Atack over Miller for reliability. --FOo (talk) 19:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

True, though having said that I'm not sure why Frenschkowski thinks that Miller has been "in part refuted" with specific reference to Hubbard's war record. If anything, Miller's account is less damning than it could have been, given what's come out since he wrote his book (e.g. Hubbard's purported notice of separation being a crude forgery [4]). I'll have to ask Frenschkowski for a clarication on that issue. On a separate matter, I don't think it's any kind of mark against Atack that he's an "insider". If anything, that's a mark in favour, considering that he has a far deeper understanding of the underlying ideology than most other writers who weren't members of the CoS. Note that Blue Sky is largely written as a general history of the CoS, not as a "what I saw in CoS" narrative. As I've pointed out, it's been widely cited and referenced by other authors, so there is no good reason for us not to do the same. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

We have the full quote by Frenschkowski on Atack above. As I mentioned in the earlier discussion, Eugene V. Gallagher, who is a very reputable scholar indeed, describes Atack's book as an "autobiography and bitter indictment from a former member". (And I am aware that much of its content is not written from the "I did this and saw this" perspective.) The thing is, if Atack has been widely cited, as editors are asserting, then there is no problem. We can and should cite the works citing him. As for what Frenschkowski says about Miller, it's

- Russell Miller, Bare-Faced Messiah: The True Story of L. Ron Hubbard, New York 1987. London 1988. The most important critical biography of Hubbard. Like Haack's and Corydon's books it is extremely polemical and very much tries to pull Hubbard to pieces who is seen as a dangerous megalomanic and notorious liar (especially when talking about himself). Miller has definitely exposed some inflated statements about Hubbard's early achievements, as they are represented e. g. in the preface to Mission into Time. On the other side the Church of Scientology has been able to disprove some of Millers assumptions. Hubbard's assertions about his military career in WWII, e.g., have been much nearer to the truth than Miller is trying to show, as can be seen from his naval records that have been made public during the processes following the publication of Bare-Faced Messiah (a complete set of the relevant documents is part of my collection). The Church of Scientology has also been able to verify Hubbard's statements about "Comander Thompson", the source of his early acquaintance with Freudian psychoanalysis. Joseph "Snake" Thompson (1874-1943) was Commander in the US Navy Medical Corps; his personal relation with Freud is documented by a letter written by Freud and addressed to him (in the Library of Congress, Washington. Copy in my possession). This material so far is not part of any bibliography of Hubbard.

— http://web.uni-marburg.de/religionswissenschaft/journal/mjr/frenschkowski.html

If you are in touch with Frenschkowski, by all means ask him for further details, and whether they are published anywhere by now. Jayen466 23:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem with Atack, and other writings by former members, is that it is a bit like using a husband's affidavit made in a divorce case as a source on the character of the wife. Jayen466 23:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

No, that's a completely false analogy. A husband's affidavit is based on the personal experiences of the husband. It's a primary source, by definition. Atack's book, by contrast, is a secondary and in some respects tertiary source - an "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative" history of the Church of Scientology, based on a very large collection of source materials. I really don't know why you keep arguing or implying that it's a primary source when it plainly isn't. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

There's a good faith explanation of what's happened here. A couple of editors have noted that Atack is a former Scientologist and made the plausible but wrong inference that his book is a first-person account (and thus primary by WP policy). Some books about Scn such as Vosper's The Mind Benders could probably be excluded under that policy, but a separate book is under question here. An inspection of A Piece of Blue Sky - which other editors have done and can do - reveals it to be researched from sources and unambiguously a secondary source by WP policy: not only that, but a particularly recommended one. So with that policy argument gone, we have Atack's moral reaction to the subject he is writing about, which Jayen calls "extreme NPOV". No WP policy has been cited for why this invalidates the source, and of course the same argument could be used to reject any source on any strongly controversial topic. We'd have to check the sources for Female Genital Mutliation to establish that the authors do not have strong feelings on the practice (NB the analogy is not between Scn and FGM, but between the sources on each). MartinPoulter (talk) 09:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed completely.

Wikipedia's NPOV policy does not, and cannot, mean that secondary sources must be value-free or viewpoint-neutral. NPOV means that the article is a neutral compilation of facts taken from sources ... not that each individual source must itself be neutral or written by a person with no particular opinion on the subject.

Indeed, rather frequently, the facts are not "neutral", if "neutral" means "value-free". We would expect that a good article about Albert Schweitzer makes him come across as a nicer guy than Adolf Hitler ... not because the article is written from a non-neutral stance, but because Schweitzer actually was a nicer guy. NPOV allows us to neutrally represent a set of non-neutral facts. --FOo (talk) 16:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

And in fact this specific point is addressed explicitly in WP:NPOV#Neutral point of view: "As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy on the grounds that it is "POV"." The requirement for neutrality falls on us, not our sources. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

What is at stake here

As I said before, it is Gallagher who characterises the book as an "autobiography and bitter indictment from a former member". Insider accounts are primary sources by definition. I think if you look at autobiographies, you will find that any one of them will contain material that the author did not observe with his own eyes, but researched. This does not change that the motivation for writing is autobiographical, and that is so in the case of Atack. He wrote because he was a Scientologist, and left the movement in disgust. Other Scientologists are in the movement, and think it is the best thing since sliced bread. According to our gentlemen's agreement here, if Nancy Cartwright gushes about her making clear being the best thing in her life, that is out here as much as Atack. Likewise, Jentzsch's reports about having achieved exteriorisation in a car park are out as sources, and so are Scientology websites (which, like Atack, are copiously cited by scholars).

Please understand that we tried to get away from all primary sources, both those by Scientologists and those by ex-Scientologists. In doing so, we went beyond the policy requirements for excluding primary Scientology sources, such as Scientology websites. As you know, there is no policy reason to exclude primary Scientology sources from this article, as long as these are only used to make descriptive claims, do not involve claims about third parties etc. We could return to basing the entire Beliefes and practices section on Scientology's primary sources.

So please consider the pros and cons – if Atack is in, then so is scientology.org. Again, let me emphasise that this was a voluntary restriction editors from both sides of the debate here agreed to, in order to make it easier to find common ground and get away from both the use of promotional Scientology material as sources, and the use of the most biased countermovement sources. Jayen466 19:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm wikibonked at the moment, but I'll try to tackle this one. There are so many complicated issues here, it's hard to know where to begin. For instance, if we allow primary sources for Scientology beliefs and practices, how do we deal with the problem of the church leaving portions of those beliefs out of their materials, and even denying their existence? The secondary sources we have make mention of the hidden OT materials, while the Church avoids doing so. Therefore, on at least the topic of beliefs and practices, autobiographical materials from former members are generally more reliable as primary sources than the church itself. But I don't see much to gain by going through the trouble of deciphering what is and what is not a reliable primary source, when we have copious secondary sources available to us. It may be better to continue avoiding primary sources entirely. --GoodDamon 19:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Repeating "it's a primary source!" does not magically turn a secondary source into a primary source. The book is not an autobiography. It contains a autobiographical section, yes, but that is not what is being cited here. Honestly, Jayen, have you actually read the book? -- ChrisO (talk) 20:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Now that is a different issue. I'll be honest, I haven't read the book, and was going by how Jayen described it. If it's not an autobiography, then I don't see any problem with it. --GoodDamon 22:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why Jayen is describing it the way he is. I have a hard copy of it in front of me. It has 4 autobiographical chapters out of 46, consisting of 33 pages in a book of 428 pages. The non-autobiographical chapters are heavily referenced, with up to 26 references per chapter and many hundreds throughout the book. The references are almost entirely to primary and secondary sources, such as books, published lecture transcripts, published memoranda and newspaper reports. Atack did not take part in almost all the events that he describes in those 42 chapters; he seems to have been quite a low-level Scientologist well away from the centre of the organisation. The book is indisputably a secondary source, "rely[ing] for [its] facts and opinions on primary sources, often to make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims" (per WP:PSTS). It is quite simply false to describe it as a primary source. "Nancy Cartwright gushes about her making clear" is a totally different matter - it's an uncorroborated personal viewpoint with no attempt at using secondary or tertiary sources and no references. Comparing the two is like comparing chalk and cheese. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Jayen, any reply to this? I've been operating on the assumption that Atack's book was autobiographical in nature. If ChrisO's description of it is correct -- and I have no reason to doubt him -- then cutting references to the book from the article is unsupportable with current policy. --GoodDamon 00:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

As for "Have I read the book": I have never read through it from cover to cover. In arguing for its exclusion as a primary source, I went primarily by a description of it, in a reliable source, as an "autobiography and bitter indictment from a former member". I hope that explains why "Jayen is describing it the way he is"; I gave the link several times before.

Having said that, I have had the pdf of Atack's book (available free online) on my hard disk for a good few months, have read sections of it and have dipped into parts of it to verify sourcing etc. What I saw did not strike me as inconsistent with Gallagher's description as an "autobiography and bitter indictment from a former member". Having leafed through the whole thing now, I do understand some of ChrisO's indignation at seeing the book described as an autobiography. While autobiographical elements come up in later chapters as well, ChrisO's description above of the book's contents as a whole is correct.

That does not necessarily mean the book isn't a primary source. WP:PSTS says, "The key point about a primary source is that it offers an insider's view to an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on." The key qualification that Atack had for getting the book published was that he was an insider. He didn't to my knowledge have any journalistic or scholarly qualifications, nor any prior track record as a writer.

Carol Publishing Group, the publisher, seem to be most notable for having published a quiz book on Seinfeld that was found to infringe a copyright (see Castle Rock Entertainment, Inc. v. Carol Publishing Group). Judging by their other publications, they appear to publish celebrity stuff, joke books, similar insider accounts (Stalin's interpreter on Stalin, or "Alzheimer's, a Love Story: One Year in My Husband's Journey"), an out-of-copyight Encyclopedia of Occultism from 1920, etc. At any rate, both Frenschkowski and Gallagher seem to consider it worth pointing out that the book is "bitter", i.e. informed by the author's personal feelings, rather than a neutral study. Jayen466 15:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone know if the Church published a rebuttal of this book and whether it is online? Jayen466 16:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Gentlemen/Ladies - I may be missing some of the subtleties here, but reading the comments above I would have thought that this is a comparatively simple issue. If content written in Atack's book is properly referenced then it is a reliable source. If content is personal account then it isn't. There is no reason why this seemingly noteworthy book should be discounted in entirety if it contains valid material, nor that it should be accepted in its entirety if some of the material is unreliable. This is NOT a binary issue; we would expect editors to have differentiated which parts of the book are viable for inclusion and these contributions should only be removed if they are demonstrably false or unreliable. I would also note that whatever the motivations for the author for writing it, the publisher for publishing it or indeed the overall tone are essentially irrelevant - few people would write on something they have no interest in. If the source material is reliably referenced it is valid. End of argument.-SupernautRemix (talk) 16:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm as confused as anyone as to why Jayen is still pushing this issue, now bringing in a third and fourth lines of argument that have still less to do with WP policy. SupernautRemix above is entirely correct. The references to the book have been removed without good reason, or if you prefer, a reason that has turned out to be misconceived. MartinPoulter (talk) 17:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you point me to any content that was cited to Atack that has actually been removed from this article? And is there a problem if the same information is cited to a more reputable journalistic or scholarly source, published by a reputable publishing house? And note that we are at the moment excluding world-renowned religious scholars like Bryan R. Wilson, whose writings appear on the Scientology website and in publications by Scientology-owned publishing houses, as sources, based on the argument that the publisher is not good enough. Wilson is a lot more reputable than Atack ... This article has had long problems that are currently subject to an arbcom. Avoiding polarised sources, and sticking to reputable media and scholarly sources, seemed like a good idea at the time. Let's face it, there is enough scholarly and journalistic criticism to draw on. Jayen466 18:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised that you feel that you can be so definitive about a book you haven't even read in full, and that you're relying on a nine-word summary in a bibliography that you doubtless found on Google Books. Your arguments against using Blue Sky are not supported by policy, and your claims about the book are faulty. Let me knock down another one: you make claims about the publisher. New York magazine wrote dismissively of them in a January 1992 article, to which their editorial director and publicity director replied (in the March 27, 1992 issue): "Carol has been responsible for numerous works of history, sociology, biography, science, and current events as well as some books of literature and as well as some books of literature and poetry. To mention just a few: Crusaders: Voices From the Abortion Front, by Marian Faux; The Rushdie Affair, by Daniel Pipes; Arafat, by Janet and John Wallach; Blood & Banquets: A Berlin Diary, by Bella Fromm; A History of Knowledge, by Charles Van Doren; Five Minutes to Midnight, by US senator Tom Harkin; A Nest of Simple Folk, by Sean O'Faolain; Why Black People Tend to Shout, by Ralph Wiley; The James Jones Reader; A Whole Different Ballgame, Marvin Miller (selected by the New York Times as one of the notable sports books for 1991); Evenings With Horowitz, by David Dubal; and Good Morning Revolution: Uncollected Writings of Langston Hughes. Anne Tyler, Louise Erdrich, and Tobias Wolff have served as judges for the American Fiction series of the Best Unpublished Short Stories, published under the Birch Lane imprint. Moreover, our back-list of more than 1200 books includes works from Simone de Beauvoir, Soren Kierkegaard, Jean-Paul Sartre, and Albert Einstein. Carol also has one of the most extensive lists of books of African-American interest in the industry." So there is no doubt that they are a serious publisher with a record of publishing serious books.

As for Atack's supposed "insider" status, if you had read his book you would know that he had no involvement at all in the vast majority of the events that he describes. The book covers the complete history of Dianetics, Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard from Hubbard's birth in 1911 through to around the late 1980s. Atack himself appears to have been a very peripheral figure, involved at a junior level in a couple of the CoS's UK branches, far removed from Hubbard and the CoS leadership. Atack's book is a conventional history, rather well-written, which (other than the short autobiographical section) is sourced to his vast archive. Russell Miller describes it in his introduction to the book: "In the loft of his house in East Grinstead, he had collected literally thousands of documents, letters, pamphlets, books and pictures, all of it indexed and cross-referenced on computer." It requires no special knowledge to write a source-based history if you have good sources and you know your way around them. I could probably have written Blue Sky if I had that archive. The book is not a "friendly" source towards Scientology - which seems to be the underlying issue here - but it is indisputably a reliable secondary source from a mainstream publisher and in terms of Wikipedia policy, its exclusion is unsupportable. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

ChrisO, you are repeating yourself, and you are partly missing the point. The decision not to use the book was one based on editor consensus, rather than on sourcing policy, as was the agreement not to use Scientology's own publications, whose use policy would permit here as well. Secondly, if New York magazine wrote dismissively of Atack's publisher in 1992, which was news to me, then that makes my point rather than yours. Third, if a claim in Atack is well-referenced, we can cite the source he cites. If all his book says is "Interview with former employee" – and there are a lot of references like that, to protect those giving information – then that is really just hearsay, and I'd like to see that hearsay repeated in a more reputable source before deciding that it is significant enough to be included here. We have dozens of scholarly works (and high-end press articles) on Scientology available, written by people who are well aware of Atack's book. The decision how much weight to give to it should be theirs, not ours. Jayen466 23:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem with your approach is not just that it's based on faulty assumptions about particular works, but that it violates a fundamental principle of NPOV. Let me quote again: "The neutral point of view is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints. As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy on the grounds that it is "POV". Article content should clearly describe, represent, and characterize disputes within topics, but without endorsement of any particular point of view... Neutrality requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view) — what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article." If we have reliably published secondary sources, from any source - CoS, Carol Publishing Group or whatever - than they are equally valid as a possible source for us. We do not eliminate sources because we consider them to be "POV" - that is a fundamental violation of NPOV. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

NPOV means representing significant viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in the most reliable sources. Atack is not among those, however much you may promote the book. The publisher is at best so-so, Atack's qualifications other than those of being an insider are non-existent. We have not even done a proper job here of reflecting all the scholarly literature available. The works of authors like Kent, Wilson and Melton are used in university syllabi; Atack's are not, for very obvious reasons. It is not a violation of NPOV to want to base an article on the most reliable secondary sources, which in the case of critical viewpoints are scholars such as Kent, Zellner, Beit-Hallahmi etc. The best and most legitimate use of Atack's primary material is where a scholar sympathetic to him, like Kent, has cited him. Lastly, given that you have openly acknowledged here that you are involved in what scholars term online propaganda efforts against Scientology, you have to be prepared to have people take your championing of NPOV with a grain of salt. Show me edits here in Wikipedia where you have cited scholars or other sources that are sympathetic to Scientology in its battles against its critics, and I will believe that your interest in NPOV is genuine. Jayen466 11:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Jayen - I appreciate that this is an issue you feel strongly about and respect your passion, knowledge of subject and editing efforts on the article. However, as I am sure you are aware there is no reason why statements can't have multiple sources; there is no reason for why these apparently 'scholarly' references cannot be added alongside references to Atack rather than replacing them. I would also, with respect, suggest that yourself and one other person espousing one view vs. one editor espousing another is not the most robust example of an editorial consensus and certainly not the last word in whether to use this particular source; this particular thread goes into substantially more detail over the quality of the source and makes some very strong points for inclusion. While I appreciate that your points may have merit, they do not provide an overwhelming argument for removal in the face of the support shown for inclusion. I am not someone who enjoys throwing around links to wikipedia policy; I find it churlish and often done in an attempt to legitimise biased decisions. However, I would always recommend to ALL editors involved in a lively debate a quick refresher look at Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith, particularly when arguments start bordering on ad hominem attacks on the motives of fellow editors. SupernautRemix (talk) 11:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Just as an aside, GoodDamon, the Church has publicly commented on each of the OT levels according to this (bottom of p. 264, top of p. 265); it's not as though they claimed the stuff didn't exist. But I have no problem with using other sources on it as well. Jayen466 16:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

There is plenty of reliable sources and secondary sources, I don't see any point on wasting time arguing about a primary source. This is counter productive.Bravehartbear (talk) 15:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Bias

I have read the article and find it extremly and ecssicelybias. I ask someone to find a third party editor, to review this article completly.60.234.151.56 (talk) 02:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Your comment is useless to anyone else without pointing out specifically which parts that you consider to be biased.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 00:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Furthermore, whomever is yapping at us from IP 60.234.151.56 needs to work on his or her grammar, so that we can actually figure out what the hell he/she is saying without spending several minutes trying to decipher his/her garbled and mangled language. --Luigifan (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Prior usage

I removed the bit about prior coinings of the term Scientology or Scientologie. That is entirely WP:OR based on primary materials without so much as a secondary source mention. I guess it is kinda interesting but also kinda off-topic and the OR nature is obvious. --Justallofthem (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Jayen466 17:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Atack p128 is a secondary source mentioning the Nordenholz and Upward coinings. See also Fahlbusch, Erwin. The Encyclopedia of Christianity. Wm. B. Eerdmans. p. 556. ISBN 0802824137. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) at [5]. You made a major edit replacing sourced material with unsourced material. A simple flag would have sufficed. MartinPoulter (talk) 17:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I restored the bit that is sourced as you mention. I will look at the Atack book now. --Justallofthem (talk) 17:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Those sources were not mentioned. The Atack piece is suspect as that is an "attack" piece (yuk yuk) and follows the minority view of some critics that Hubbard "stole" the term. Mention of previous coinings by critics is done in a POV fashion to take a jab at Hubbard. What does the "The Encyclopedia of Christianity" say about those terms as related to Scientology? IMO, it is extremely unlikely that Hubbard knew of obscure previous coinings of the term. His coining of "Dianetics" establishes that he is perfectly capable of coining his own terms. We should treat POV pieces like Atack with the highest degree of care and not as reliable sources. Critics like to use Wikipedia to promote minority and non-notable views that only show up in extemely one-sided and unscholarly material. --Justallofthem (talk) 17:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no Wikipedia policy in place prohibiting the use of POV sources, per se. Our only concern is that the content we present must be presented in a neutral way. ←Spidern→ 17:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The Atack bit is a good example of a critical and unscholarly book "getting it wrong". Atack says:

The word "scientology" was not original to Hubbard, having been coined by philologist Alan Upward in 1907. Upward used it to characterize and ridicule pseudoscientific theories.

To the somewhat discerning reader, Atack may be pointing out the irony that Hubbard chose a term for his "pseudoscientific theories" that was previously used to ridicule such. But that is not how Upward used the term based on my quick read of our article here and the source book. Upward used the term to relate to something that I might call scientism, the elevating of Science to Dogma. I wrote on that subject and the "Scientological" (in Upward's usage) predilections of many editors here on my old Justanother user page. My point here is that critics often color material to suit their agenda and that is why such critical books must be treated very carefully indeed. --Justallofthem (talk) 18:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Once again, regardless of how "wrong" Atack's opinion may be classified as by some, we will not run in to trouble here if we portray (verifiable) fact as fact, and opinion as opinion. ←Spidern→ 18:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually we are "wrong" and we are doing the reader a disservice if we include the unscholarly musings of a critic of Scientology on a subject on which he is likely not an expert. We would only do that if we had a vested interest in furthering any critical musing that we can possible forward. It all has to do with one's purpose here. Is one here to write the best encyclopedic article one can or is one here to toss as many harpoons as one can get away with? Here is one way to tell. Has one ever seen a sourced criticism that one did not want to include? That would be the lowest bar possible. Hopefully, the standard is higher than that. --Justallofthem (talk) 18:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that we have included these musings in the past? If so, where? Policies exist to prevent that sort of editorial problem from happening. I.e. the tone of the article addresses the issue by stating that "Attack opines" or "Bromley concludes". Other than that, if it's sourced well enough to begin with there is no issue. ←Spidern→ 19:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• For reference, Upward's definition of Scientology is here. It sounds to me like what Upward is calling "Scientology" is the ability to give verbal descriptions of outward behaviour, without really being able to explain or understand it. I have to agree with Justallofthem. Atack seems to be misrepresenting Upward to suit his own aim. Jayen466 02:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• Upward came up with "Scientology" as a parallel to "theology" and seems to be saying that his Scientology is at a remove from true knowledge of science in the same manner that perhaps theology is at a remove from the true experience of religion. In any event, Upward was certainly not talking about "pseudoscientific theories" but of one's relation to science. Upward's book is very off-putting at quick study but it seems something that if one invested the time to understand it there may be something of value there. Perhaps I will print it out and read it over the weekend. And for Spidern, when I was referring to a critic's musings, I was referring to Atack's misrepresentation of Upward. --Justallofthem (talk) 14:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, Upward's difference between "scientology" in his sense and "science" sounded a bit like the difference between phenomenon and noumenon. Jayen466 15:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• The way that can be spoken of is not the way :) As far as Upward, I am intrigued and will speak no more of him until I endeavor to understand what he was trying to say as a "thing in itself". --Justallofthem (talk) 17:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I have to laff

I just read the section entitled "Church of Scientology" thinking I might find some description of the Church - how if was organized, how it grew, how many churches there were and how many members; you know, regular stuff. Like in an encyclopedia. What I found instead was "Critics timeline of notable controversies involving the Church of Scientology. In other words, the entire section was turned into a criticism; the entire section looks like it was written solely by a critic with no awareness of anything related to Scientology except what he has read on critical websites. Oy. (and please spare me the {{sofixit}}.) --Justallofthem (talk) 17:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Justallofthem, as much as I'm willing to listen and attempt to address your concerns of this page, I simply cannot glean any usable suggestions from your comment here. All I can really pick out from what you are saying is that there is too much criticism. I'm willing to help, but WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments are not going to solve anything. If we are to neutrally cover the subject, then let's hear some suggestions on events which you think should also be included which aren't. Otherwise, we're not going to get anything done. ←Spidern→ 17:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

If one makes the section look like my "elephant" article below then one's motives are suspect as one is obviously only searching out and/or including sources that are critical of the Church. There is plenty of material in the press and even in the critical books of the simple, boring, encyclopedic, history and nature of the Church of Scientology. My suggestion, find it and use it. One's commitment to finding and presenting fair and favorable material about the Church should be proportionate, IMO, to the amount of editing one want to do in the article. If one wants to revamp the article then one should do a proper job and not turn it into a caricature.. --Justallofthem (talk) 18:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

As an aside to this issue, perhaps some of the material that you refer to could be summarised and the fuller text be moved into the Church_of_Scientology or Scientology_controversy entries (if it isn't there already)? I'd have thought that these would be more appropriate for detailed citations on the Church's controversial actions than this one.-SupernautRemix (talk) 18:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

You cannot criticize someone based on what they don't do. And if you expect them to improve their behavior, it would be most appropriate if you could cite examples of what can be done. ←Spidern→ 18:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

You can most assuredly criticize someone based on what they don't do. If you have new tires put on your car and the mechanic fails to tighten the lugnuts, you might have grounds for criticism. Especially if the wheel or two falls off at speed and there is a great gnashing of teeth. If someone takes it upon themselves to revamp and rewrite an (encyclopedia) article then certainly they should make an extra effort to do it right. Anyway, "how it was organized, how it grew, how many churches there were and how many members". Et cetera. Less criticism, more encyclopedia. --Justallofthem (talk) 18:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

An editor's driving force is their own business; you'll find that chastising people for not doing what you want done will not get very far. Instead, it is far more productive to make specific suggestions on what can be done to improve the situation. Your analogy is not quite relevant because the professional realm is very different than a large collaborative project where volunteers can contribute at their own leisure. And there's also a difference between criticism (opinion) and verifiably-sourced information. If you can find an opinion being expressed herein, point it out and we'll reformulate it to read as X's opinion. Now to address your suggestions in order:

• "how it was organized" - Do you mean the organizations that were created to promote Scientology? We talk about that some in the organization section, although I suppose we could find dates of creation and include them here.
• "how it grew and how many churches there were" - Got any good sources for this?
• "how many members" - I'd really like to find additional reliable information on this, but the number isn't widely known. The best I could find was on adherents.org, which indicates roughly 55k Scientologists in the States as of 2001. Some of this is described here. Do you have any sources that talk about the growth of Scientology in a historical context?

←Spidern→ 19:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Melton (2000) has a useful summary. If you email me, I can send you some materials. Jayen466 01:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Since when is there such thing as a "pre-specified donation" in return for material goods? That's PURCHASING. Tsetses (talk) 02:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Elephant

Elephants are large land mammals of the order Proboscidea and the family Elephantidae.

In 2004, a 39-year-old park attendant was mauled by an elephant at Six Flags Marine World in California.

In 2006, an elephant terrorized Mary Sinigi's Narok, Kenya village, chased her husband down a dirt path and ripped the roof off her home while she and her five children cowered inside.

In 2007, a male elephant mauled one of his mates to death at an Israeli zoo in front of crowds visiting during the Jewish Passover holiday..

In 2008, a wild elephant mauled a Tennessee man while he was visiting China.

I think I had better go over to elephant and fix that article right now! Way too much encyclopedic information over there and hardly any "controversy". --Justallofthem (talk) 17:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

How is the elephant article coming along? If you need extra sources to balance the article's POV, this may be of help. Jayen466 15:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I lol'd. Thanks. --Justallofthem (talk) 17:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Removing verifiable content

The content removed in this diff can easily be verified:

• "Meet the Aussie behind Wikileaks - New Zealand's source for technology news on Stuff.co.nz". Retrieved 2009-02-19. Assange claims there have also been censorship attempts by the Chinese Government, the Church of Scientology and Thailand's military junta.
• "FOXNews.com - Watchdog Web Site Draws Legal Threats from Scientologists, Mormon". Retrieved 2009-02-19. Three weeks after posting the manual, Wikileaks received a notice from the Church of Scientology warning that the material was copyrighted and that the Web site was infringing upon the church's intellectual-property rights.
• "Mormons, Scientologists face uphill battle against Wikileaks". Retrieved 2009-02-19. But the Mormons aren't the only religious group targeting Wikileaks. The site has already amassed an impressive track record when it comes to irritating powerful and litigious groups, so it was really just a matter of time before Scientology got involved. That happened back in March, when the group's lawyers demanded that Wikileaks remove a set of "Operating Thetan" documents.
• "Immune to Critics, Secret-Spilling Wikileaks Plans to Save Journalism ... and the World". Retrieved 2009-02-19. That secrecy lets Wikileaks stay online even when one of its domain names is shut down. Similarly, it has thwarted efforts by the Church of Scientology to have a document removed using U.S. copyright law.

←Spidern→ 18:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The line that was removed is not inappropriate to the article in that it is sourced and relevant. However, and IMO, it fails to reach the bar for inclusion in the main article as to its importance. It should go in one of the more detailed junior articles. --Justallofthem (talk) 18:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

When I checked google news I found only this: [6] That didn't seem quite enough to justify inclusion here. We are not here to do wikileaks' PR work for them. Jayen466 18:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree. It can go in the Wikileaks article. If at all. --Justallofthem (talk) 18:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted the deletion. As Spidern discusses above, these facts are easily verifiable and well-sourced. It is not acceptable conduct on Wikipedia to delete things just because you don't like them, and to falsely call a set of verifiable facts an "advert". --FOo (talk) 05:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I would also agree that the deletion could hardly have been based on "no consensus" as it is referenced outside Wikipedia and therefore consensus is irrelevant. And if it is in the wrong place in the article you should be polite and move it, not REmove it. Debresser (talk) 12:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Come on guys, we are trying to arrive at an encyclopedia article on Scientology here. Do you think the Encyclopedia Britannica would mention the Operating Thetan document on Wikileaks, because the Register had an article on it? Stick it in Scientology vs. the Internet if you like. There are lots of other areas in this article that could do with improving.

On the other hand, you are right about the Apologetics Index page, and I apologise for the revert. While most of the material hosted on the Apologetics Index is hosted without publishers' permission and thus violates copyrights, this particular page you are linking to explicitly states that it is hosted with permission of the publisher, so it's good. Sorry. Jayen466 13:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• FYI, I have inserted the Wikileaks story in Scientology vs. the Internet: [7]. The most I would support in this article is a brief mention of a dispute between Wikileaks and CoS in the (already bloated) Internet controversy section. Jayen466 13:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Um, about this whole debate...

What exactly is this "Wikileaks" you speak of? --Luigifan (talk) 20:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Scientology in Italy

In italy Scientology isn't a religion recognized by the State becouse for it, it need an agreement. The italian judge (Corte di Cassazione) said that without agreement, every time Scn is in trial, is the Judge who have to say if Scn is a religion or not. In one trial (about narconon) the judge sayd "incidentally" that scientolgoy can be considered a religion but the italian law is not a "common law" system sorry for my english.. I hope it's enough clear --Ignlig (talk) 15:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Ciao, Not a problem, your English is clearly better than my Italian. :-) I hadn't actually seen your post here, so I posted to your Italian user talk page as well. The thing is, we have several reliable sources that assert quite confidently that Scientology has been recognised as a religion in Italy: see e.g. [8], [9] and [10]. Could you clarify? Could you point us to sources stating the opposite? Jayen466 17:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

In Italy if you say that the Suprem Court recognize Scn as religion doesn't mean that it is a religion recognize by the State. In other way you can't say that it is a "recognized religion"
In italy we have to distinguish:

• who is recognized as religion by the State. It can happen only with an agreement between the State and the association (religion).
• who is qualificated as "Ente di culto" (more or less: association to pray). It need an act from Minister. Scientology doesn't have it and scn didn't ask for it
• who is qualificated as "confessione religiosa di fatto" (more or less: religion as "fact"). It's important when you are in a trial and the judge has to decide which law has to use... In the Narconon sentence the Judge said: "even if we consider Scientology as a religion, narconon has to pay the tax".
  

Even if we read teh sentence in the way to say that the Suprem court said that Scn is a religion, in italy the sentences are not binding and another previous sentence said that the "status" of Scn has to be definited trial per trial. Every judge will decided time to time. All the source are in it.wiki here --Ignlig (talk) 18:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

in other words: you can't say that Italy (State of Italy) recognized scn as a relgion, you can only say that the Suprem court said that Scientology can be considered a religion --Ignlig (talk) 18:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I think this has to do with the difference between incorporation as a religious organisation under Italian law ("ente di culto") vs. recognition of a faith as a religion. As far as the faith is concerned, Scientology is recognized as a religion, and auditing fees e.g. are tax-exempt; but the Church of Scientology as a body corporate does not have the same legal standing, or legal form, as the Catholic Church. Is that it? Jayen466 19:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

This document, while primarily on Islam in Italy, explains the different types of organisational forms under which religious communities operate in Italy, and also mentions the status of Scientology. Jayen466 20:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to you for your actention. .. Who recognized this faith as religione is a Judge. Another Judge in another trial can say something differente even if thay usually follow the sentences of Suprem Court. Cattolich Church, Jew, Pentecostalism, Lutheranism and others are recognized by the State (yes, it's legal form) by an agreement. For them you can say that thay are recognized. And no judge can say different

About the link.. I'll read it , and i'll write about it About the document, it's a very good explication (Categorization of Religions), only one thing, the mining of "Non-profit associations and common law associations" it's nothing particulary, I mean me and you can create an associazione (association) and have that status.. --Ignlig (talk) 22:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

POV section about Germany

To maintain neutrality, it has to list the freedom and justice in Germany, which include any believer, particulary even the organisation. Only the tax-exemption and the recognition of the ORGANISATION as a religious organisation is FINALLY unresolved, because Scientology did not call the courts. Normally only list facts not viewpoints or valuations. If its important, please add the answers and the facts. Details see tags.

The hole paragraph about Pastor F. W. Haack seems irrelevant. Please proof relevance. Wispanow (talk) 07:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Is Scientology a bureaucracy?

Based on the fact that Scientology, despite claiming to be a religion, operates more like a money-grubbing cult, I think that Scientology could be classified as a bureaucracy. However, the article isn't very clear on the structure of its organization, such as who ranks where, how labor is divided, the qualifications to be employed by an institution of Scientology, and how promotions can occur (among other features of a bureaucracy.) Could you guys please help to clarify the bureaucratic structure of Scientology? Thanks in advance, --Luigifan (talk) 20:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Lewis, "Scientology", Oxford University Press

The book by Lewis, with contributions from Bromley, Shupe, Willms, Grünschloß, Palmer, Dericquebourg, Cowan and others (Kent and Beit-Hallahmi are notable by their absence) is now available in the US and from US online booksellers (sometimes with the Look Inside function enabled). Jayen466 23:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, it will be interesting to see if "Scientology" editor James R. Lewis and contributor J. Gordon Melton will provide viewpoints that will add to or detract from their alleged reputations as cult apologists [11]. The Lizard (talk) 18:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

New Zealand

The article claims that 'Scientology is considered a legitimate religion in such countries as ... New Zealand.' Are you sure? I was under the impression that Scientology was recognised, in as much as tax exempt status, as being a religous charity. This is not the same as being a religion. For comparsion The Salvation Army is clearly a religous charity but no one would claim it as being a relgion. Does anyone disagree that the article wording should be modified to reflect this status in NZ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.22.238 (talk) 08:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

For reference, the actual wording we have in the New Zealand Herald is "Announcing its decision on December 24, the IRD said the church was a charitable organisation dedicated to the advancement of religion and its income would be tax exempt". So both aspects, tax exemption and religious nature, are mentioned. Jayen466 11:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi - but that is my point. The IRD is charged with matters related to tax and not deciding what organisations are or are not religions. That the IRD recognises a charity only can be found referenced in many places, including

• "Inland Revenue Department (IRD) declared it a charity" [12]
• "2002: Scientology recognised as a religious charity in NZ, with the IRD granting it tax-exempt status." [13]
• "The Church of Scientology® will not pay any more income tax after the Inland Revenue Department (IRD) declared it a charity.." [14]
• And the official listing of [15]

Would you agree that in abscence of any reference to support the official recognition of Scientology as a religion in NZ the article needs to be slightly re-worded? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.22.238 (talk) 18:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Any comments before the article is modified?

I don't quite see the problem. We have a mainstream source saying that according to the IRD, the Church of Scientology is "a charitable organisation dedicated to the advancement of religion". Which religion would you say they meant, if not Scientology? The official listing you linked to includes the words "(Provides religious services / activities)". I suppose we could say "has gained religious recognition" rather than "is considered a legitimate religion". Would something along those lines address your concern? Jayen466 01:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

• The point is the given citation, and all other references, do not support the current description in the article of Scientology in NZ.
• The status of Scientology in NZ is a religious charity[16] at is not ".. a legitimate religion in such countries as ... New Zealand."
• Consider that in NZ The Girls Brigade[17] has the same offical status as Scientology. I am sure you would not claim that The Girls Brigade is a religion:-)
• I can see no reason to describe Scientology NZ as anything other than a 'Religious charity.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.22.238 (talk) 07:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi - so any comments before changing?

I'll modify the article to reflect the status in New Zealand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pigplucker (talk • contribs) 08:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• Well, the thing is that the Girls' Brigade is a Christian organisation. Christianity clearly is a recognised religion, and this affiliation is the reason why the GB has the status it has. On the other hand, I am not aware that the Church of Scientology of New Zealand promotes any religion other than Scientology. If offering Scientology auditing etc. makes an organisation an "organisation offering religious services", that implies a recognition that Scientology services are religious services. <shrug> Jayen466 14:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

"See Also" section POV?

Can anyone explain why the link to Jesus in Scientology should not be included in the "see also" section of this article? I have added it and it was removed... will add it again as i do not see how this addition does anything but improve this encyclopedic page. Sarah Katherine 21:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I think we have something like 400 Scientology-related articles, all of them are of potential interest. The present list of 5 strikes me as a fairly oddball collection. Jayen466 22:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Removed the See also section. (Feel free to add it back if you like) - It is quite a large article with lots of wikilinked terms throughout, and then there's also the navigational aid at the bottom anywayz. Cirt (talk) 05:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

It's more in keeping with the Wikipedia format to have a few more Wiki pages that are related so people can easily read more in the "See also" section. This includes pages that also have a lot of Wikilinks and even "portals". Thanks! Sarah Katherine 18:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, no worries. Cirt (talk) 23:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Historical context?

How are any of the facts presented here disputed by current secondary sources? Is there doubt that Hubbard wrote most of Scientology's teachings? Has it been disputed that the writings are contradictory? Does a source explicitly state that involvement no longer involves an unquestioning faith in Hubbard? ←Spidern→ 15:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

First, we have already described Hubbard as the originator of Dianetics and Scientology. Second, the developments from a science or therapy to a religion, the incorporation of beliefs in past lives etc. are already described in the History section. Third, Hubbard is dead. The beliefs, practices and doctrines are now usually described as stable. The third source expressly described a period of time (in the past tense, not in the present tense in which it was put here) in which Hubbard was alive and would, according to the source, change doctrine. Jayen466 16:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Well put Sir! Ka'Jong (Ka'Talk) 20:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

"The beliefs, practices and doctrines are now usually described as stable." Really? Only by superficial observers. The Golden Age of Knowledge revisions/corrections which fixed all the lurking typos and layout problems going back over 50 years was just in 2007. Everyone was urged to buy the new copies and toss away the old ones, right? BTW, that third source doesn't use the word stable, and I don't see where it supports that claim at all. AndroidCat (talk) 06:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I see the argument in Jayen466's reply, but even taken at face value, it seems to be an argument not for removing the disputed text (apart from the first sentence), but for moving the text to the historical section, or just for changing the tense of a verb. For the removal of two academic sources from the article, as Jayen466 has done, it's only reasonable to require a strong argument based on sources. The Lindholm ref explicitly uses Scientology as an example of groups that "have a strong tendency to develop highly committed charismatized inner cores of intensely loyal devotees gathered around a leader taken to be a demigod." This is important context for any presentation of beliefs and doctrine in Scientology. Jayen hasn't provided a source saying things are different today: also, the argument that beliefs are not as important as subordination to Hubbard is based not just on whether the doctrines are stable but whether they are contradictory. Is there a source saying that Scientology doctrines stopped being contradictory? MartinPoulter (talk) 00:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I have read a good number of sources on Scientology published over the last 15 years or so. They show very good agreement on what the beliefs and practices of Scientology are, and none of them express any confusion or hesitation about the matter. They also make clear that there is no concentration on any living figure; for example, they mention that Miscavige, while respected, does not have the kind of status or significance that Hubbard had while alive, and still has now, as the founder of the movement. If you find a neat way of working your sources into the history section, by all means go ahead. Certainly, that people were intensely devoted to Hubbard is worth mentioning. I'd suggest that of the sources you cited, Wallis is the most useful here. Jayen466 05:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Whether the sources on Scientology are confused (I never claimed they were) is a different issue from what's being discussed here. The "no concentration on any living figure" point is similarly uncontested and irrelevant. You haven't given an explanation of why you removed two academic sources from the article, and it doesn't clarify things that you personally endorse one of them. You invite me to make further edits, but I'm not convinced that you will not similarly remove them unilaterally and with opaque justification. MartinPoulter (talk) 21:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Try me. Jayen466 21:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

An internal justice system

I removed what appeared to be an opinion, while asking for in-text attribution: [18] It was placed back on the article, without any attribution: [19]. This is not common knowledge and is a comparison made by a single scholar. We should either attribute the comparison to Melton, or remove it altogether. ←Spidern→ 23:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Science fiction writer

I have removed science fiction writer from the lead sentence, following the example of both Columbia Encyclopedia and Encyclopædia Britannica. The history section now contains a reference to Hubbard having a been "an American author writing in several pulp fiction genres, especially science fiction" (he wrote fantasy and Westerns as well). This is again as per CE and EB, who offer this information later on. Jayen466 08:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

A letter to Orwell

"although according to Linda Edwards author of A Brief Guide to Beliefs, it is a well known fact that Hubbard did write a letter to Orwell saying "...the easiest way to make a lot of money, is to start a new religion."" O RLY? That's the first that I've ever heard of Hubbard writing to Orwell, let alone that this is a well known fact. Another fluff book with poor research? AndroidCat (talk) 06:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Definitely a fringe viewpoint. That claim is mentioned in no other book about Hubbard or Scientology that I've ever read. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

According to Melton and other sources we are already quoting, Orwell wrote something similar to that in a letter to someone (not Hubbard). I've never heard of Hubbard having written something like that to Orwell either. I've taken it out. Jayen466 17:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Technology Application Orgs

Spidern, would you mind restoring the Tech Application Org section? I was planning to expand it; much more is available in the sources. As for the categorisation, both Melton and Bromley/Cowan use the exact same tripartite categorisation (practice/training, tech application, social reform), and we have already said at the beginning of the org section that there are three kinds of Scientology orgs. So please let's stick with the threefold categorisation present in the sources; more material will be added to the Tech Application Orgs to justify a separate section for them. Jayen466 17:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Article "clear" and homo novis

If anyone can explain me what is the reason "homo novis" is not mentioned under article Clear_(Scientology) ? I think it's really important to explain to people what state clear meaning is for them - how they see other around them who is not jet "cleared". According to L. Ron Hubbard from Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary ( Scientology_terminology ) people who are not "clear" are no more useful as ants, field mice or zombie vs. "clear" people who are only hope for this sector of galaxy. Also would be appropriate to add the mission for "clearing up the planet" - what that means - it has nothing to do whit environment. As we know,before final stage of "clear" aprox 20% of population are in prison camps as long they become clear and aprox 2.5% of world population( suppressive persons ) should be disposed and gay's among others. - I do not think it's a minor information, it's final stage of entire religion ideology - clear up the planet. Waffa 22:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)