Talk:Scientology

To view discussion of the Scientology article:

Topic threads beginning Dec. 2001 through Feb. 2004, please see Talk:Scientology/Archive 1.

Topic threads beginning Feb. 2004 through June 18, 2005, please see Talk:Scientology/Archive 2.

Topic threads beginning June 19, 2005 through July 31 2005, please see Talk:Scientology/Archive 3.

Origins of the Official Scientology Cross Symbol

I was just curious why exactly the official church symbol is an extension of the Christian Cross. What affiliation does Scientology have with Christianity? In other segments of the article, we see this:

In some of the teachings Hubbard had intended only for this select group, he claimed that Jesus had never existed, but was implanted in humanity's collective memory by Xenu 75 million years ago, and that Christianity was an "entheta [evil] operation" mounted by beings called Targs (Hubbard, "Electropsychometric Scouting: Battle of the Universes", April 1952).

Those inconsitancies aside, the official symbol is still confusing. I am curious how the symbology of the extended cross was picked and how it was picked. How does it reflect the teachings of the Churth of Scientology? I would appreciate a greater elaboration on these items. Gavin 05:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Here is an interesting reading about the subject: Scientology and the Occult. Povmec 05:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Neurofeedback mania

I'm reluctant to jump in and cut all this stuff unilaterally, but it apears that some editor's personal obsession with "neurofeedback" has led to a lot of dubious additions to the article, including a rather whacked-out "mindmap" with a pic of Hubbard in the middle. While no doubt there is some connection between E-meters and subsequent popularizers of neurofeedback, "neurolinguistic programming." etc., I don't think this pertains directly to a description of Scientology, and some, like the "mindmap" is utterly non-encyclopedic. I think pretty much all of that stuff should be removed. Thoughts? --BTfromLA 05:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you on the neurofeedback and the mind map additions. A mind map is an obscure way of taking notes; perhaps it is the editor's own creation. I am familiar with Neuro-linguistic_programming. NLP, which does not use any machines, is not founded on Scientology related beliefs and Scientology had nothing to do with its development. I notice that someone has similarly polluted the Neuro-linguistic_programming article with similar comments.--Agiantman 11:11, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I cut the neurofeedback stuff out. Some of those details belong in an article on neurofeedback, but not in a concise intro to Scientology auditing. The "mindmap" doesn't belong anywhere in wikipedia, far as I can imagine. BTfromLA 23:59, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Hello BT. I think I understand what you mean. What is the definition of encyclopedic according to wikipedia though? Actually, just a bit of background, I added the map because it seemed very relevant to the section and added interesting and concise information. The map was produced(by me) at a scientology meeting, and summarises some of the strong connections between mind mapping(R) and scientology. The mind map was inspired (according to Tony Buzan) by the general semantic laden writings of science fiction writers such as Van Vogt and LRHubbard. It is similarly based on general semantics and reality distortion (the map is not the territory etc). Of course, the mind map and Buzan have developed their own vision and cult following. But it is clearly relevant and concise. Certainly that is encyclopedic! What is your opinion? W Conyers 10:22, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

W, the "mindmap" is basically unintelligible in this context. It doesn't offer any "relevant and concise" information at all--it comes across like someone's loopy doodle on the back of a paper placemat. It may help you to recollect some connections that occurred in your own mind as you made it, but it doesn't communicate information about Scientology to a reader who is not you. BTfromLA 16:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Age of the Universe

(NOTE: the post below was a response to another post that mysteriously disappeared--the anon poster raised questions about a claim about the age of the universe in the article, and he or she mentioned that he or she didn't know how to sign a post...)

I don't think you managed to edit the text, but I think it was a good editorial call, so I cut the line from the article. Not only was it factually dubious, it was superfluous to the description of the Scientology beliefs. You can sign your posts by simply typing the tilde symbol (~) four times in a row--the software will do the rest. BTfromLA 23:29, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

That would be me. Right after I made the decision to edit, I lost all ability to do so. For whatever reason, after I made the edit to this talk page, Wikipedia stopped accepting any edits from me, citing some kind of error I (being the new guy I am) didn't recognize. I tried multiple times, but it kept giving me the same error. Thanks for the advice, and removing the line for me. 68.35.71.22 05:27, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Authenticity of Information

IMHO: Opinions should not litter an article. Mostly facts should be presented, and authenticity of information should be traceable to credible sources. If some wish to influence readers towards a positive or negative opinion of Scientology then they should create a propaganda article elsewhere, not here. AI 10:42 18 Apr 2004 (HST)

The statements in the Scientology article about "critics" are not fact until the critics are named and claims proven.
--J.Tell 08:22, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm always in favor of naming critics. However it is not necessary, or even wise, to try to prove or disprove their claims. In fact, we shouldn't try to prove or disprove anything on Wikipedia. We're here just to summarize verifiable information in a NPOV manner. If a notable critic says something, we should include that criticism along with any official rebuttals, without indicating a preference for one or the other side. Cheers, -Willmcw 08:36, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with you about proving/disproving claims; Authentication and validation go hand in hand. Information not validated or authenticated should not be presented, this is not a tabloid or propaganda sheet.
--J.Tell 23:25, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Then you disagree with Wikipedia's fundamental goals; see Wikipedia:Original research. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:53, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We can't "prove" anything here. All we do is summarize verifiable information in an NPOV manner. If we can verify that a critic (or a supporter) said XYZ, and that comment seems relevant and notable, then it should be included, "true" or not. -Willmcw 04:26, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Scientology, other than that it's very controversial, but I have a general suggestion to make about choosing sources for controversial topics. The official policy in Wikipedia:Verifiability urges us to cite our sources, and says, "For an encyclopedia, sources should be unimpeachable." This means, I think, that we are not required to include claims by sources that are less than unimpeachable. Instead, we should try to present a variety of points of view from among the unimpeachable sources. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources gives good advice on choosing reliable sources, but for controversial articles, I think we should apply the highest possible standard of reliability: we should rely as much as possible on academic sources, rather than journalism. Academics who teach at major universities and research institutions are specialised in their subject and have been trained to study it. They are expected to be familiar with primary sources, and to cite those sources. Their work is often formally peer-reviewed, and informal peer review occurs when specialists critique each other's work in books and articles. Moreover, in reputable academic institutions, scholars enjoy a great deal of freedom to draw the best conclusions they can. Journalists, on the other hand, often write about a wide variety of subjects about which they lack in-depth knowledge. They rarely have the time to do adequate research on difficult subjects, peer review rarely takes place, and in any case journalists are not free to draw their own conclusions; they must follow the editorial line of their paper. I'm sure most people who know any subject well can think of examples of inaccurate reporting on that subject, even in major newspapers, particularly if the subject is controversial. Therefore, in the interest of making Wikipedia a reliable as well as NPOV source of information, I think that on controversial topics, we should stick to reputable academic sources as much as possible. --Beroul 11:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

The above claims are dubious--scholars frequently cite journalistic accounts of their subjects--but it is difficult to address them, because they are so general. Is there a specific criticism of this article in there somewhere? BTfromLA 19:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

BT, I'm sorry but I think yours is a weak argument which in my opinion is only made to support a perpetuation of anti-CoS POV. This discussion should involve the members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Scientology, specifically User:Fernando Rizo who has demonstrated a very neutral and civil approach. --AI 22:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

What argument? The argument that one should be specific? While we're at it, please don't start accusing users of pushing a pov unless you can point to specific evidence for that. BTfromLA 22:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Would you really like me to start a documentation process? --AI 23:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I certainly don't want to encourage you to start feuding with me or anyone else. If you can point to specific examples of inappropriate POV in the article, though, and can offer an NPOV alternative, please do so. But first, please respond to my earlier question: what "weak argument" was I making above? BTfromLA 02:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

"The Australian Report"

Scientology has also recieved criticisms concerning the manner in which auditing is conducted. The The Australian Report stated that auditing involved a kind of command hypnosis that could lead to potentially damaging delusional dissociative states. These are similar to the unethical covert command hypnosis, or hypnotic commands of neurolinguistic programming (NLP), which holds many New Age similarities with Scientology, such as belief in past life regression and super-human potential.

The preceding paragraph was removed because it fails to give enough information to let its claims be substantiated (what is The Australian Report??) and makes dubious POV assertions ("the unethical covert command hypnosis ... of NLP"). Someone else may have an idea where to go looking for what said Report is and what it actually has to say on the subject of auditing; I hope that if so they'll share their findings here. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Good cut... that may be some residue of the neurofeedback mania (see above) that I missed. BTfromLA 03:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Many apologies. Here is one source: http://www.suburbia.com.au/~fun/scn/press/651006au.htm?FACTNet It is a general criticism of this kind of hypnotic technique. Hubbard actually denied hypnosis, and he actually writes in a way to abolish it, but studies show that you cannot get away from hypnotic dissociation within auditing. The NLP connection comes about because it was inspired by the general semantics techniques that is used in dianetics and scientology, and NLP is to some extent adopted by auditors. The beliefs are very similar. It is also a common criticism of NLP.

I also hold good factual info for the claims of scientology and neurofeedback. We can discuss if you like. Dianetics and scientology use eeg meters in addition to e-meters. They use neurofeedback in this way for both research and practice. The claim is that it is convincing. I also have info to say that it is largely ineffective. I really would like to present it in a balanced way appropriate to wikipedia. Especially regarding which sections these facts would be most appropriate for integrating. Any pointers? DoctorDog 05:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi DocDog. You are very polite! But actually, what I was really getting at (none too clearly) was the criticism towards using the Korzybski connection in NLP and Dianetics. They are both criticized for using general semantics and hypnosis unethically, and NLP followed dianetics/scientology's lead in its use. They have both been criticized for using both unethical and potentially dangerous techniques. The criticisms are in the criticism section. I think it is fine to use the same strong language as the report.

The neurofeedback information seems plausible. Which sources did you have in mind? A.Warner 07:24, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Your anti choice argument is problematic as you are starting to suspect. Now, when you see the error of your ways, you will understand! And as you focus on that feeling you will start to realise how you have become weaker with your intention. And as you focus on that feeling, you will see how you need to stop! And consider how wrong you are. Because you must start to realise that your sources are wrong. Now, you must become more aware that scientology is benevolent. The best parts of your mind will start to realise how Scientology may indeed become more appealing when you start to consider. Yes, really consider, how much better you will feel when you let go and focus on that feeling. Now, just accept that you are free to choose Scientology. You may choose Scientology whenever you feel free. The world may choose it whenever they wish. All the best SpiritStar 16:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

SpiritStar! I am curious. Which planet are you posting from? Would it happen to be the planet NuLP, by any chance? Slightly concerned A.Warner 14:43, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I once heard a recording of an auditing session. It had many similarities with hypnosis. The auditor is trained not to modulate his voice during the session, and to deliver his commands to the auditee in a slow flat monotone, just as the hypnotist is trained to do. Hey Al! Is that the Allen I know?

Scott P. 15:24, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Scott. I'm actually an Albert Al. But your account of of an auditing sessions strikes a certain chord. There are some subtleties in the modularity though. It sounds monotone, but they are doing some thing special with the command words. Would you be able to give me some idea of your source? I am not interested in deleting what you have written because it does correspond strongly with my own studies. Regards A.Warner 16:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

"World renowned Scientologist Eden Shiferaw is reported to be the one and only Scientologist to attain the mythical OT IX, and, at the age of 18, is also the youngest" - a Google for Eden Shiferaw doesn't seem to return any relevant hits - is this a real person? If so, I think if they were "world-renowned" there would be more about them online. And where is it "reported"?

Cluseau records an auditing session

Hi A. Warner,
Since the Australian Report section was getting a bit overly long, I thought I's start a new section header in response to your question above. It has been about five or six years since I recall seeing this info. I believe I found it on xenu.net, and this is what I recall from it:

1. Some investigative journalists in England attempted to do a story on exactly what goes on in an auditing session.
2. First they sent in this reporter who was wired with a camera in the frames of his thick glasses, you know the Inspector Cluseau look, very popular they say, into an auditing session, he also had a micro tape recorder with him. As I recall I think he spared the auditors from having to deal with one of those fake moustaches. Thank God :-) . Somehow the auditors detected this, and called the police on the poor guy. What a shame ;-) .
3. Still the journalists didn't give up. Next they sent another guy in with no wires or recording devices, but with a good memory. It worked, but obviously he wasn't able to get a recording. In lieu of a genuine recording, the journalists then re-enacted the session from memory for the benefit of their TV audience, attempting to recreate the lighting, the uniforms, the tone of voice etc. etc. etc., as best they could. I would assume that this re-enactment was probably sufficiently close enough to the real thing that it at least gives us a fairly accurate general idea of what goes on in there.

If you were interested, I could probably re-locate this for you. Let me know.

Scott P. 02:23, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Funny pictures

I believe the page has been vandalized. There are falsely captioned pictures from the film Star Wars . It's pretty funny, but those pictures don't have copyright information, which could cause trouble.

Reverting the overly bloated Scientology and other Religions section...

On August 12, 2005 at 20:02 (UTC) User:Irmgard did a complete rewrite of the Scientology and other religions section, nearly doubling its length, repeated some information twice, deleted some of the key summary statements that attempted to summarize Hubbard's exact views towards Christianity, added other new sections making Scientology out as a new form of Gnosticism and as a religion that is "only for individuals seeking higher awareness."

Somehow in this edit he seemed to 'accidentally' bury the fact that Hubbard taught that Christianity, Jesus and Islam were essentially all forces of evil (entheta). This article is already long enough without having to read through additional pages only to find out that Hubbard was really a Gnostic in disguise, and that Scientology is a religion "only for individuals seeking higher awareness."

Let's stick to facts that are pertinent and germane to the article, without trying to bury these pertinent facts in various irrelevant speculations.

-Scott P. 01:03, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Numerous recent POV edits to this article

I have just noticed that since the last edit by Antaeus Feldspar on Aug. 11, numerous POV edits have been made to this article with strangely worded editorial explanations that did not actually mention what the actual contents of the edits were. Entire sections, such as the Xenu section were deleted. Other sections were carved up or mixed up to the point where they were either no longer relevent to the article, or were supposedly being 'moved' to the Beliefs article. All of this while using very odd editorial comments. I have recently restored the Auditing section, the Xenu section and the Scientology and other religions section. Help from others to fix all of this would be much appreciated.

By comparing Feldspar's last edit of Aug. 11 to the current version, one might more easily be able see what has been happening.

-Scott P. 02:04, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

I've been somewhat busy this week, but rest assured that I am watching this page and I do try to pitch in to keep it NPOV as much as I can. Fernando Rizo T/C 02:08, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• In addition to what I've already restored and fixed, the new additions to the Critics of Scientology section need to be wikified and NPOV-checked. Fernando Rizo T/C 03:05, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Scientology mindmap

I don't think [[Image:Scientology Mindmap.JPG]] adds anything of value to this article. It's more confusing than anything else, and I think that the labelling of Hubbard as a pseudoscientist is NPOV. I'm going to remove it; if anyone objects, let's discuss it here. Fernando Rizo T/C 02:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Scientology Page Clean Up

Someone above mentioned that this page was popular so it shouldn't be changed. I beg to differ. This page became popular because of media and interest generated in the subject, by Tom Cruise. This page doesn't attempt to be factual, it attempts to forward every possible viewpoint (mainly on the negative side if I may say so). It seems those working on it have lost sight of the word "balance." There is so much concern to make sure there is no positive POV. Excuse me but at the risk of being accused of whining (as I am frequently accused of if I speak up)this page is not being edited for the user. Personally, I think its time for a revamp.

Firstly, I am suggesting to combine the "Controversy and Criticism" and the "Scientology Critics" sections.

Also as a note, I am reposting my comment regarding the external links. No one commented and I went ahead.

(I agree it was getting out of control, but I do insist that there is a balance of positive and negative sites, also having a few neutral sites from respected sites should also not be a problem. I don't see anything wrong with this, and in fact for the user who knows nothing about the subject, I think it is important that the pro and the anti and the neutral are clearly delineated. If someone wants to set a limit of how many links for each category, thats cool too.)

Please give me your feedback - only interested in hearing from editors who want to improve the page for Wikipedia's users, not for Scientology bashing purposes. Nuview 17:50, 23 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Deletion of significant sections by anonymous editors with no reason or discussion provided is inappropriate

Recently user 168.209.98.35 deleted several sections without any editorial explanation or discussion. I have reverted these.

-Scott P. 22:31:39, 2005-08-27 (UTC)

This Just In (joke)

Scientologists have added flux capacitors to their DeLoreans so they can go back in time and shanghai the founders of psychology. Then they aim to use the founders' engrams to go Back to the Future. (/bad joke) 64.12.117.14 22:37, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the bigotry.

Edits by Marbahlarbs

I clarified the difference between Dianetics and Scientology, added some links, and changed the allusion to mystic religions to something a little less spooky.Marbahlarbs 07:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Cleaned up links.Marbahlarbs 07:31, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I wish I had a DeLorean.Marbahlarbs 07:33, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Moved the list of controversial points about Scientology from the critics section to the one above. It's more visible there, and more on topic. I want to make sure that my edits are creating NPOV and improving the article. Most edits so far have been pro-Scientology, because the article is laden with anti-Scientology comments. My goal is to have the Scientology articles as clean as the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints article. Lots of clean facts, and there's a section linking to controversies. Scientology is more controversial than LDS, so I think it should have a full section or two rather than just a link to the controversies and criticism page. Would like to get rid of every section containing a "critics say that" paragraph. Trey Parker and Matt Stone say that LDS is a big load of crap and people who believe it are idiots, but things like that do not belong on the main page in nearly every paragraph.

Anyway, happy editing!cool 08:00, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Moved the "most often cited criticism" paragraph to the criticism section. Revamped to indicate that Reader's Digest did not get the quote directly from Hubbard. This quote is also attributed to George Orwell. Marbahlarbs 21:46, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I changed some of the wording in the Scientology Critics section. The paragraph about the Australian ruling CHURCH OF THE NEW FAITH v. COMMISSIONER OF PAY-ROLL TAX was difficult to read and needed some NPOV. By the way, RTFA.[1] VERY interesting, and provides a lot of insight on the legal nature of religion. Marbahlarbs 22:51, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I reworked the paragraph about The Bridge in Beliefs and Practices. It subtlely made the whole process sound like brainwashing (not disputing that). Also expanded on why the Church claims that it makes everything so secret. Marbahlarbs 05:18, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Add a bit to Origins?

Could more be added to the Origin of Scientology about Saint Hill Manor in East Grinstead, England where the scientology [website] says Hubbard resided there and many scientology events happened. (BillPP) 3 Sept 2005

Question about 'pre-clear', 'clear' and 'auditee'

It is my understanding that the Scientology term 'clear' refers to a certain stage of progress along the 'bridge', that once attained, is assumed to be a fairly constant state of awareness. If this is so, then I believe that the use of the term 'pre-clear' to refer to all auditees may not be accurate, because should a 'clear' Scientologist be audited, then that person would not be referred to as a pre-clear. Based on this understanding, I have revised the section about auditing to use the term, 'auditee' wherever the person being audited is being referred to. Should anyone have a better understanding of this terminology and when it is appropriate to use the terms, 'pre-clear' and 'clear', then I would certainly be open to being corrected here.

Thanks,

Scott P. 18:15:45, 2005-09-05 (UTC)

You are quite correct, every scientologist is supposed to do auditing. Those of the OT levels just do it themselves with both e-meter cans in one hand. --metta, The Sunborn 18:40, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

The phrase 'pre-clear' is suitable for anyone undergoing auditing, even if the person has already reached the state of Clear (level on the Bridge). The term dates back to Dianetics when Clear was the ultimate goal. After the OT levels beyond Clear were established, the phrase 'pre-clear' (often abbreviated as PC) was kept in common usage. Using 'pre-clear' is much better than 'auditee', but there may need to be a sentence or two explaning that it means ANYONE who is being audited no matter their actual case level.

Appparent sock-puppet by user Mediatetheconflict

Judging by recent entry logs, it appears that the most recent page vandalism was most probably primarily the result of work by newly created sock-puppet user Mediatetheconflict operating under his own name, and also possibly under the apparent sock-puppet name of user Importancenn and possibly also as anonymous 70.24.216.133. Whatever Mediatetheconflict's true identity may be, this user appears to have most probably been involved with Wiki for some time, and to have a reasonably good understanding of various Wiki policies.

-Scott P. 17:36:30, 2005-09-10 (UTC)

Cult?

Why can't it be considered a cult? Shouldn't Wikipedia strive for the truth and not bend down towards any person who claims to be struck with inspiration from a divine source? I think that a NPOV perspective would must likely be an average of the consensus of society, not the average of the furthest left and furthest right into something that not one person may agree on.

As I understand it, wikipdia strives to be a source of accurate information, not an arbiter of "the truth." BTfromLA 23:35, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

"If information is accurate, then doesn't that make it the truth? ... Unfortunately in the US especially, people are so concerned with freedom that it allows cults to have the status of official religions

Like it or not, Scientology does have the status of a religion (or more exactly, a charity) in the US, and it isn't appropriate for Wikipedia to assert that they shouldn't have that status. No, accurate information is not the same as a "truthful" interpretation of that information. The label "cult" is an interpretive one, a point of view, and while many (myself included) hold that Scientology, particularly the Sea Org, can fairly be described as a cult, it isn't appropriate to insist on that label. There is plenty of description of the cult-like aspects of Scientology in the articles here, and many mentions of the fact that they are often called a cult. BTfromLA 01:58, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

--[!]--Remember scientology is considered a religion IN THE US, but NOT in other parts of the world... this should be mentioned somewhere. Like Yes: USA, etc... No: Italy, etc..

The word cult is used in a number of different ways. It's worth noting that nobody uses it to mean "a religion not recognized by the government", so it isn't reasonable to bring that up as a response to uses of the word "cult". Governments are many things, but they are never arbiters of what is real or what descriptions are valid to use for groups or people.

However, in most cases the word "cult" is used not as a neutral description of a group, but rather to either (a) insult the group that's called a "cult", or (b) to state that the group is dangerous or deviant. Neither of these are within Wikipedia's mandate, and both raise NPOV issues. --FOo 04:09, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

There are however other pages that label certain beliefs as cults, see Heaven's Gate (cult) or list of purported cults. Also, according to wikipedia, "a cult is a relatively small and cohesive group of people (often a new religious movement) devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding culture or society considers to be far outside the mainstream. Its marginal status may come about either due to its novel belief system or because of its idiosyncratic practices." Since scientology can safely considered to operate outside of mainstream religious views, entails a novel belief system and idiosyncratic practices, and is listed as a likely candidate on the purported cult list, it seems that labeling it a cult is a matter of consistency. New religious movement is a possible label as well, lacking any of the demeaning characteristics of the popular meaning of cult. Either term, imho, would be more accurate and concise than Scientology is a system of beliefs, teachings and rituals. Anetode 06:53, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

A few points:

1. Definitions are dangerous things. We are not writing a dictionary here; the fact that one of the meanings of the word "cult" is "new religious movement" does not by itself justify using the word to describe any new religious movement -- particularly irrespective of the other issues discussed at Cult.

2. You will notice that we have separate articles Scientology and Church of Scientology. The former deals with the beliefs, while the latter deals with the specific organization. If you take a "cult" to be a "cohesive group", then it would make more sense to apply that name to the latter. (There do exist practitioners of Scientology and Dianetics outside of the CoS.)

3. It isn't quite clear exactly in what way you'd like to use the word "cult" to describe Scientology. Can you give an example of a passage from the article which would be made more clear or descriptive, yet not run afoul of NPOV, by using this word? --FOo 15:04, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Re 1: This has already been done: Heaven's Gate (cult), Concerned Christians, Peoples Temple. I can see how the term might be negatively regarded as a matter of political correctness, but as long as it is well defined and used consistently, neutrality can be maintained.

Re 2: Good point.

Re 3: Here are two examples that concern the opening sentences of Scientology & CofS. I'm going to shy away from using the "c" word, but other descriptors might be equally useful:

Scientology is a mystery religion based on the teachings of science fiction author L. Ron Hubbard. Originally devised in 1952 as a pseudoscientific alternative to psychotherapy, it was later characterized by Hubbard as an "applied religious philosophy".

The Church of Scientology is a new religious movement founded by science fiction author L. Ron Hubbard as an organization dedicated to the practice of Scientology.Anetode 19:53, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I think the reason for introducing Scientology as a system of beliefs and rituals rather than a religious movement is that interested parties want to draw a clear distinction between Scientology—"the tech"—and the Church of Scientology (or any other organization or movement that utilizes that "tech"). BTfromLA 20:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

The distinction may be artificial, all forms of Scientology depend on a systematic proliferation of its "tech" as in the CofS. Either way, there is a term for a "system of beliefs and rituals" that concern supernatural explanations of life and morality, and it is religion. There is also a term for any organized body that imbues people with proprietary religious philosophies in exchange for money and devotion, and in this case, its NRM or cult. Anetode 20:55, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

References

Is it possible to use references that are NOT related to Scientology? Since most of the references point to Scientology "friendly" sites this article has at best a non-critical appearance. --Nomen Nescio 01:07, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

It isn't Wikipedia's job to favor the views of Scientology or the views of its critics, but rather to attempt to represent the facts as best as we can show them. The purpose of references is not to provide a "link farm" or to claim that the referenced works are true, neutral, or praiseworthy. It is, rather, to show what sources we have used in compiling the article. --FOo 04:12, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

As I understand it Wikipedia is meant to be neutral (NPOV). Although I agree that a multitude of links is not good, that is not my point. To use ONLY Scientology inspired references (few or many) does not suggest an unbiassed view. Therefore I would ask to refrain from using this much POV sites as reference. Or at least use an even amount of Scientology and non-Scientology related references.

The lack of balance makes this a potentially POV article. --Nomen Nescio 14:52, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

A bit of correction: Wikipedia abides by the principle of NPOV, which isn't the same thing as "neutrality". Many people misunderstand this, however, and think that NPOV means that all POVs must be given equal amounts of discussion, equal numbers of links, et cetera. People may honestly in good faith thinking that they're bringing balance when they see X number of critical sites listed and start adding Official Church of Scientology links to bring their total up to X... but that isn't the way NPOV works, that's false balance. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

When the majority of statements is based upon one side I don't see how that is not POV. --Nomen Nescio 14:16, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, the distinction between "fair treatment for all" (NPOV) and "equal treatment for all" (false balance) can be subtle; nevertheless, it is there. To give an analogy, however, which of the following accurately describes fair treatment as regards witnesses and evidence in a courtroom?

• Both sides are bound by the same rules and restrictions regarding what witnesses they can call, and what evidence they can introduce, or;
• Both sides are allowed to call exactly the same number of witnesses and introduce exactly the same number of pieces of evidence.

It's the former, of course. The latter leads quite obviously to absurdity, where if one side has ten witnesses who meet the requirements and the other side only has one, the side with ten witnesses is disallowed from calling nine of them or the other side is allowed to place nine people with no standing to testify on the stand, just to achieve numerical equality. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:22, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Citation

Is it not easier to use citations as reference. Succinctly stating its conclusion is much more efficient and on top of that I don't think this project is meant to be a number of quotations put together. PLease state the conclusion and use the original as reference. --Nomen Nescio 14:20, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that your suggested statement of the conclusion is neither accurate, nor does it adequately represent the complexity of what the APA's actual recommendation was. Here is the phrasing you would like to suggest is a succinct statement of the conclusion of the resolution:

the American Psychological Association advised its members against using Hubbard's techniques with their patients based upon its unscientific and potentially dangerous nature. (italics mine to indicate the disputed conclusion)

And here is the largest portion of the actual resolution I could find, as reported by the New York Times:

"'While suspending judgment concerning the eventual validity of the claims made by the author of "Dianetics," the association calls attention to the fact that these claims are not supported by empirical evidence of the sort required for the establishment of scientific generalizations. In the public interest, the association, in the absence of such evidence, recommends to its members that the use of the techniques peculiar to Dianetics be limited to scientific investigations designed to test the validity of its claims.'."

The proposed summary of the resolution simply doesn't summarize it accurately. The resolution says nothing about Dianetics' "potentially dangerous nature", and even if we overlooked the subtle distinction between "unscientific" and "not supported by empirical evidence", your proposed summary ignores that the APA actually brought up directly the possibility of its members testing the scientific validity of Dianetics' claims. If Hubbard was correct that Dianetics was scientifically sound and that the APA was trying to surpress realization of this, then the last thing that the APA's resolution would have suggested to their members is that they test Dianetics' claims themselves.

If someone can summarize the text we have from the resolution more succinctly than the actual quote, without losing any valuable points and without introducing any points unsupported by the resolution, then I would be in favor of it. Given the choice between the quote itself and an inaccurate summary of it, however, there is no question that the quote is what we should use. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:46, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

All right, we have a third version, this one by HistoricalPisces:

"the American Psychological Association advised its members against using Hubbard's techniques with their patients until its effectiveness could be proven."

This is an improved summary; however, I think there are still reasons to prefer the original quote. I think it's highly significant that the resolution didn't just say "do not use Dianetics until it's scientifically proven", but specifically addressed the possibility of its members doing the investigation necessary to obtain that proof; as I said before, if Hubbard's theory that Dianetics worked and the APA was trying to surpress it because it worked was true, you'd think the last thing they would do is bring up the possibility to its members that they could find out for themselves whether it worked. Also, I think the fact that this was a unanimous resolution, and the fact that the resolution did not say "these claims are not scientifically proven" but "these claims are not supported by empirical evidence" -- a rather substantial difference in magnitude. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Goofy picture

I think Scientology is weird and harmful, but isn't having a picture of an extraterrestrial dressed like Santa just a tad juvenile? I know it's just in the talk page, but I think discussion itself makes what Scientology is pretty clear without all that. Added to that wouldn't Santa Xenu fit better at Talk:Xenu?--T. Anthony 06:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Laughter the best medicine?

Hey T. Anthony,

I put the image there to replace the old image of Marvin the Martian that apparently some Scientologist thought was inappropriate, and therefore had the old image of Marvin as a 'potential Xenu suspect' deleted. (Probably using some bogus copyright infringement type of claim.) As this is only a talk page, it seemed to me that there might be room for a bit of tongue in cheek levity here, all in good faith of course. Still, if there appears to be a consensus amongst other editors here that poor Santa-Xenu is a bit over the top in his ridiculousness for even this talk page, I will not object to having his graceful presence dismissed from this page. Other serious editorial opinions about the proposed exile of Santa Xenu?

Scott P. 17:48, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm certainly no fan of their's and I'm cool with humor. I'm just kind of stodgy by nature so I guess I like jokiness being kept to a minimum. I'd be the same with a depiction of the Raelism's Elohim dressed as leprechauns or what have you. So I would think the Xenu stuff is best limited to articles specifically on Talk:Xenu or that Space Opera in Scientology talk. Still if Scientologists aren't offended I'm certainly not. Even if they are offended I'm not, except it maybe looking juvenile.--T. Anthony 00:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

It's not a matter of whether it offends us. It's a matter of whether it shows a derogatory attitude towards the subject that we're supposed to be covering neutrally. And that it does. So I removed it. --FOo 03:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Aww, Fooey! Scott P. 01:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Deletions

For those of you keeping track at home, Special:Contributions/64.65.189.42 who made such valuable contributions as this is an IP that belongs to Hollander consulting.

[/home/fvw] whois 64.65.189.42
Eschelon Telecommunications, Inc. ESCHELON-2000A (NET-64-65-128-0-1) 
                                 64.65.128.0 - 64.65.191.255
Hollander Consultants ESCH-64-65-189-40 (NET-64-65-189-40-1) 
                                  64.65.189.40 - 64.65.189.47

# ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2005-09-27 19:10
# Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN's WHOIS database.

Always nice to know we still matter to them. --fvw* 18:01, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• He/She just did it again.. the talk page this time. Jwissick^(t)(c) 18:13, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Neuro-linguistic Programming

I removed this paragraph... "The claimed unethical use of general semantics and hypnosis is common to both neurolinguistic programming (NLP) and Scientology, which both hold many New Age similarities, such as the belief in past life regression and super-human potential."

Neuro-linguistic Programming (NLP) has nothing to do with Scientology, so I question the relevancy of it being mentioned here. Secondly, NLP does not "believe in past lives or super-human potential." Someone has been spreading these rumours on the Neuro-linguistic Programming article as well. It is current in mediation about the term engram a term uncommon in NLP yet very popular in Dianetics and Scientology. --Comaze 07:58, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

"Radical religious cult"?!

Someone apparently thought it was acceptable here to call Scientology a "radical religious cult" in the introductory paragraph. I'd like to state in no uncertain terms that doing so was a violation of Wikipedia policy. The derogatory implications of the word "cult" are such that we cannot use this word in introducing a description of any group, even one with the egregious public reputation of Scientology.

For comparison, note that we do not use words such as "evil" or "fanatic" in the introduction to the article Nazism. We leave it to the reader to draw their conclusions about whether the Nazis were evil fanatics; and likewise we leave it to the reader to draw any conclusion on whether Scientology is a radical cult. If we present the facts sufficiently, the reader can draw conclusions such as this using their own value judgments.

I'd like to invite the editor who made that change to review our WP:NPOV policy, and more specifically our Wikipedia:Words to avoid. --FOo 23:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Free stress test picture

Who put that there? I think it would be better closer to text about the E-meter.--HistoricalPisces 17:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I didn't put the picture there, but the E-meter is used for auditing, and the "free stress test" is the introductory audit for a potential recruit (several stalls for these tests can be found every day in around Times Square, New York, and in Times Square subway station, incidentally) . I think the picture is okay where it is (next to auditing), but probably should reference auditing in its caption. I'll add a few words to taht effect Bwithh 18:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!--HistoricalPisces 18:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Using "that" when it makes the sentence clearer

I'm glad you're helping remove a lot of extraneous words, but I disagree that some of them aren't helpful. In particular, while people already familiar to the article may not have any trouble understanding what each sentence means beforehand, those completely new may stumble momentarily if we don't include "that"s in the sentences you removed them from, to make it clear when a new clause is beginning. For example, compare the following:

• Scientologists claim that government files, such as those from the FBI, are loaded with forgeries and other false documents detrimental to Scientology, but have never substantiated this.
• Scientologists claim government files, such as those from the FBI, are loaded with forgeries and other false documents detrimental to Scientology, but have never substantiated this.

On a first reading of the second line, wouldn't you most likely interpret the sentence as saying "Scientologists take government files, such as those from the FBI," and only begin to figure out what it really means when you get to the "are" and realize that the sentence is either poorly-worded or you've mistaken its meaning? Then you have to go back and reread this. All of that breaks the flow of the reading, and while it won't happen to everyone first looking at these passages, I think it will happen to enough that it's worth it to include one single word to solve all that trouble: no one reading "Scientologists claim that" will misunderstand the meaning. -Silence 00:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

aliens?

I thought someone said that scientologists believed that humans descended from aliens. But that's not stated in the article. I would like some confirmation on this. Scorpionman 23:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I believe you're thinking of Raelians, although the story of Xenu and Space opera in Scientology doctrine are also worth looking at. -- ChrisO 23:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Original Research

The bulk of this article is based on original research of which there is no consensus agreement in the mainstream. Regardless of its truth, it is therefore unsuitable for Wikipedia per the guidelines you are all undoubtedly aware of.

Please rewrite this article so that it conforms to Wikipedia standards, and cite reputable publications as sources (not websites).

The above unsigned comment was left by 69.12.16.66, whose only other action on Wikipedia thus far has been to add a "vote" to a long-closed AfD on another Scientology-related subject. That "vote" was signed with a falsified date and a forged username that constitutes a personal attack. [2].

It is worth noting, too, that the allegation above is simply false. This article is in substantive accord with neutral outside research on the subject of Scientology -- such as the preponderance of the articles and works that it cites directly. --FOo 13:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Heh. Subtle. The guy's right that some parts of the page need improvement, though. "Scientology and other religions" and "Scientology critics" in particular require some significant redesigning, added citations, and reorganization, with fewer orphan paragraphs and jarringly abrupt changes in topic. -Silence 14:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

If you look hard enough, you can find some way in which any statement -- no matter how wrong -- is "right". If you look hard enough you can find some grain of truth in "George W. Bush is pregnant". The original allegation is based on a misdefinition of "original research" and as Fubar Obscuro points out, it's by someone whose grasp of "Wikipedia standards" clearly didn't include No personal attacks. Trying to sieve the dross of what is plainly just a "I don't want it that way" whine for a few glittering bits of legitimate critique is frankly something we should not spend our time on. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:47, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Wow, I'm not sure how you got even that much out of the anon's accusation. :) --FOo 16:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

Was wandering through, not a regular here, but I reverted some random vandalism. Cheers, all Antichris 23:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

What I'm wondering is which "side" is the one proving they're the most petty and, philosophically, evil? Is it the people trying to censor Scientology, or is it Scientologists trying to censor the unflattering parts of the article? Sometimes, as several times today, Scientology-bashing text is inserted. But at other times...way more frequently than normal...the whole page is deleted. That could be either side...whomever it is, they're slime. Kaz 21:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Could be that they're a bit sore at the moment, as the latest episode of South Park has been an extended dig at the CoS - Stan is revealed to be the reincarnation of L. Ron Hubbard and the Xenu story is shown in considerable detail, accompanied by the subtitle "This is what Scientologists really believe". (See [3].) It looks like South Park's creators have been reading Wikipedia... -- ChrisO 23:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

RFC: Sterling Management Systems

Would anyone here care to comment on the edit war in Sterling Management Systems? Should the follow comment stay or go? Critics contend that Sterling Management Systems is a front organization for the Church of Scientology. Should the following link stay or go? Sterling Management Systems & Scientology - A critical examination of Sterling Management Systems. Thanks for your input. Edwardian 19:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Instead of citing an opinion of critics I gave some facts - membership in WISE, court cases. --Irmgard 23:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

External Links

Povmec, I reverted some of my link list, but I do like how you broke the list down into three, rather than two, categories. I met you halfway and only reinstated half of my original link list. It's true that with some digging, one could find these links, but the same could be said about anything. I think it's important to show that both sides have a considerable amount of info generated on many multiple websites. I also think a separate article could be done that lists the hundreds of domain names used by the CoS. There are also about a hundred separate websites for each of the Celebrity Centers and offices in each city, and I think this information should be presented here somehow, even without listing them all ad nauseum. Thoughts? Opinions? wikipediatrix 18:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

There has been instances in the past where too many links crept into this article: External_links_needs_a_severe_cull and External_links. Here is my point of view on your latest changes. Narconon should have been left in the See Also section, rather than being replaced by a link to narconon.org in the official scientology sites. There are still way too many repetitive links whether being pro or critical: we should stick to just a few ones, at most three for each, most others can be found in other wikipedia articles (in the spirit of the previous necessary culling that occurred in the past as referenced above). I wish others will give their opinions about this issue. Povmec 20:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Povmec. We should keep the list of links small on the page to avoid overwhelming people. Pick the top 3 or 4 most popular links and leave it at that. As an alternative to listing all these links here we can add a link to a list of links such as http://www.altreligionscientology.org/ This seems like a good compromise.

Legal status

There should be a table in the article which lists the legal status of hubbardism:

In some countires it is considered a religion. In others it is tolerated as a non-religion. In yet other, it is outlawed and it is a crime against the security of state to be a scientologist (e.g. France). Such a table would inform scientology-addicted readers if it is safe to travel to a certain country.

Otherwise, what decides if the article calls scientology a religion? If the SCOTUS declared sci. is not a religion, whould we change it? Or a UN declaration stating that scientology is not a religion, that would surely force us to change the article. 195.70.48.242 10:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Legal authorities don't decide whether something "is a religion" or not. They may decide whether an organization is tax-exempt; or whether religious-freedom laws override other laws. (For instance, Catholic practice involves the consumption of wine in the Eucharist, even by churchgoers who are younger than the legal drinking age in various places.)

I'm not aware of anywhere it would be illegal to "be a Scientologist" in the sense of belief or personal practice. In France, if I recall correctly, the legal concerns were not of that nature, but rather having to do with whether the organization was defrauding people. In Germany, there were specific concerns that CoS members were infiltrating government, as they had previously done in the U.S. in Operation Snow White. --FOo 21:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

South Park online mirroring

The recent references to the South Park episode that references Scientology include a link to a download page with a torrent for the episode in question and others. Surely this is a breach of copyright and not what we want here at all

On the contrary, see this FAQ entry at South Park Studios:

August , 2003

Q. - I was surprised that in the last FAQ you recommended downloading episodes on KaZaa and other file sharers. What are Matt and Trey's official stances on South Park episode piracy?

A. - Matt and Trey do not mind when fans download their episodes off the Internet; they feel that it’s good when people watch the show no matter how they do it.

So I think it's perfectly fine to link to episode mirrors at southparkx.net. Since it's with the creators' permission, this is not "piracy" at all. --FOo 21:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I'm not convinced that it's up to Matt and Trey to decide how their show is distributed once sold to a network. It's Comedy Central who have paid for rights to air this show and who also pay the costs of airing it, and they in turn can expect that it is viewed by those watching Comedy Central. I'm not a copyright activist at all, I'd just hate to see wikipedia in trouble for something so easily remedied.

I agree. This link could be clearly cited by a court as an example of Wikipedia causing Comedy Central to lose money on South Park (by providing a free alternative to buying the DVDs or watching the TV episodes). We would need specific permission from the copyright holders of that episode before we could link to it. Plus linking to a torrent without providing the necessary immediate information on how to use torrents will baffle most Wikipedia readers and editors. Just leave these links on the Talk pages, as long as they aren't specifically confirmed. -Silence 20:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

We can link to a Web site which distributes the South Park episode and provides information about BitTorrent if necessary. We should not link directly to a torrent file, since as you point out, most people don't know what to do with one.

If challenged on the copyright, we point to the permission from the creators. If we receive evidence that they don't have the right to grant that permission, then we take the link down. But we have no reason to believe that they're lying to us. (And if they were, that would protect us, since we're acting in good faith. Moreover, if they were lying, then they'd be in big freakin' trouble with whoever does hold the rights.)

Evidence in favor of online distribution being permitted includes the fact that the South Park Studios FAQ says so specifically; and that spcomplete.com, southparkx.net, and other mirror sites are operating openly and not being shut down. In other words, distribution is both specifically authorized in writing, and is also evidently tolerated. What more evidence do we need? --FOo 22:19, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

But the creators have *sold* the rights to the show. They will have done this in exchange for royalties and such but now they have as much permission to distribute episodes for free as we do and I don't think that's much permission at all.

Do you know which rights Matt and Trey sold? They are two guys very much aware of the growing movement for creators to retain some rights to their work in the realms of cartoons, comics, and animation. If they say they have no problem why do you assume they don't know what they are talking about? Given that the whole of this article is given over to taking dubious claims – or outright lies – at face value it seems inconsistant to start questioning what appear to be reliable sources on the matter of their own work. 213.78.235.176 01:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Can't see baby for seven days

With the Cruise and Katie thing... what is this can't see the baby for seven days thing? Is this part of Scientology or just vandalism? - Tεxτurε 00:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I posted a question about Scientology childbirth on the project page. If there are special procedures it would be interesting to document them in some article. Perhaps a general article on non-psychiatric medical theories and practices?

Invented religion?

Scientology is an invented religon

Aren't all religions invented? If so, do we need to state that scientology is? --Croperz 01:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

It's invented in the sense that until his later years Hubbard never denied that the whole Xenu thing was simply a story he made up, and fairly quickly too by the look of it. There was no idea that it was a revealed truth or that it grew out of other ideas, although it must have some influences. "Real" religons rarely have such clear-cut origins. Mormonism might be another example, although even there the founder claimed divine intervention. It's hard to know what to classify Scientology as, given the gulf between the followers, the founder, and the outside world, each with its own take on where it came from and why. There's certainly little doubt that Hubbard did it as a career move rather than out of any deeper motivation. Anyway, the revert police have taken that out already. 213.78.235.176 01:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

For most people that are not scientologist, that would be true I guess. But see this: "Charlatanism is a necessary price of religious freedom, and if a self-proclaimed teacher persuades others to believe in a religion which he propounds, lack of sincerity or integrity on his part is not incompatible with the religious character of the beliefs, practices and observances accepted by his followers." - High Court of Australia [4]. They have a point. Whether we find their beliefs silly is not what matters. What matters is that scientologists are convinced that their beliefs are "Truth", the same way catholics are convinced their beliefs are "Truth", however silly they may sound to outsiders. Therefore, pointing that scientology is an "invented religion" is... pointless. Povmec 04:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

As I said in the piece which was reverted, the value of the teachings is unconnected with the history of how or why the religion was founded. There is thus no reason to avoid that history, and simply repeating the self-styled Church's line on it is just as pointless in a factual article. Hubbard had for years talked about inventing a religion as a better way to make money than writing. For years afterwards he did not deny that was what he had done. So what? That fact should be reportable without making any difference to the question of whether the result "works" or not for those that follow it. In the article this issue is mentioned, but it is the "official" version which appears in the intro. There is no good reason – and few bad ones even – to accept that version of the origins (that Scientology was "intended as an alternative to psychotherapy" from the outset); it's flat out wrong. Scientology was not thus intended, although Dianetics might have been.

Does talking about the way in which Paul changed Christianity to suit his world-view undermine the validity of that religion for its followers? And even if it does, should a "neutral" encyclopaedia care? 213.78.235.176 10:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I see no reason why the origins should not be mentioned.--Nomen Nescio 11:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

The ways of Spin

I have no problem with the "religion as making money" comment being on the article, I just question the loaded bias of placing it in the very first paragraph. As it is now, the intro paragraph is completely biased against Scientology in every single sentence: It calls Scientology a "new religious movement" rather than a religion, it gleefully notes that its creator was a science-fiction author, it wields the "pseudoscience" epithet, and tries to further deconstruct any of the Church's credibility from the getgo by invoking the "making money" quote. Now, don't get me wrong - I'm no fan of Scientology and I understand that these elements I've pointed out are essentially TRUE - but loading the first paragraph up with all this negative stuff makes for obvious negative spin. It would be far more reasonable to open the article by briefly summing it up and referring to it as "controversial", then go on to explain what it allegedly sets out to do, and THEN go on to detail all its many shortcomings and misdeeds. wikipediatrix 19:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

It is unclear whether it is a religion, the German government for one does not think so. It definitely is, however, a religious movement of some sort, at least in its outer teachings. The inner teachings are not religious at all, being obsessed with aliens instead. And I take exception to your suggestion that being a science-fiction author is in itself a negative comment. 213.78.235.176 19:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

It is legally recognized as a religion in the country of its origin, and most other countries as well. And I didn't say science fiction was inherently negative: I'm saying that detractors of the CoS LOVE to point out that he was a "mere" science-fiction writer before starting the Church, as if that somehow disqualifies him. Why not refer to him as a "former Naval Officer", since this is factual as well? And hey, since when are aliens and religion mutually exclusive? wikipediatrix 20:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you. I think we need to go back to the first sentence (as it was in the past): "Scientology is a system of beliefs, teachings and rituals, originally established as an alternative psychotherapy in 1952 by science-fiction author L. Ron Hubbard, then recharacterized by him in 1953 as an "applied religious philosophy" for many reasons. First, "most non-scientologist" doesn't make sense, I doubt that most non-scientologists really care about scientology. It should have been "most critics" anyway. Second, the pseudo-scientific claims of scientology are not criticized "only" because Hubbard stated he would start a religion for the money, but for a lot of other reasons, which are covered in the rest of the article. Povmec 21:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Scientology's beginning date. Let's get it accurate. The word was first used by Mr. Hubbard on March 3, 1952 at Wichita, Kansas in a lecture titled, "Scientology: Milestone One." This is an audio tape and can be purchased. The first Church of Scientology was established in 1954, this too is linkable, accurate information. Let's make accurate, documentable statements or controversy descends into confusion. Terryeo 19:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I reverted to the original intro. I changed the date of establishment of scientology to 1952. It seems the case that Hubbard had the idea of scientology in 1952: [5], [6]. Povmec 21:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

In Wichita, Casas, on March 3, 1952 Mr. Hubbard gave a taped, audio lecture (which can be purchased from any Church of Scientology). The lecture may be found in the list of lectures in the hardbound book, "what is Scientology" which might be a public libraries. The title of the taped lecture was: "Scientology: Milestone One." He defines the word, tells what he means to accomplish with it and tells how and why it is different from Dianetics which he had been doing untill that time. Then in 1954 the first Church of Scientology was established. These are the earliest establishable data I can find. Terryeo 00:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Scientology was never presented as a therapy, Mr. Hubbard made that abundantly clear from his first use of the word in 1952. Dianetics was presented as a sort of therapy, but Scientology was not. The 'new' word was used by Mr. Hubbard because the subect matter had changed. I'm willing to spell out the difference and even quote portions of the lecture wherein he gives his reasoning for a new subjecta and thus, a new word.Terryeo 00:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The first Church of Scientology was actually founded in Camden, New Jersey, in December 1953; the signatories on the incorporation document were Hubbard, his son L. Ron, Jr. and his daughter-in-law Henrietta. The so-called "Founding Church" of Scientology, in Washington, D.C., was actually established three months later in February 1954. The Camden foundation seems to be ignored by the Church of Scientology for PR reasons - the claim is that the Church of Scientology was founded by individual Scientologists in response to popular demand. If Hubbard himself founded it, this claim clearly couldn't stand up. -- ChrisO 09:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The Church of Scientology which exists today was established in 1954, the policies under which it has operated are of the 1954 church. Here's the link [7]. The earlier one in December 1953, while it was 3 months sooner, is not the Church of Scientology that is today known as "the Church of Scientology. A thorough history might include that information, but a general overview probably would not. Terryeo 19:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Introduction

This comment was placed on my talk page, since it is more appropriate to discuss it here I relaocate it. Feel free to continue at this talk page.--Nomen Nescio 21:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Nescio, I had made the changes to the intro of the Scientology article and I explained my reasons on Talk:Scientology. You reverted these changes without giving consideration to what I brought in the discussion, and at the same time requiring that anyone that want to change to explain why on the talk page. I did explain my reasons (with some references), you didn't. Can we come to an agreement on this?

I disagree with the sentence "Most non-Scientologists, however, view his ideas about psychotherapy as pseudoscientific and point to Hubbard's own words describing "religion" as a simple means of making money". "Most non-Scientologists" would be the 6.5+ billions people that are not scientologist, and I'm pretty sure a sizeable chunk of them have no idea about scientology, or don't have a specific opinion, or they didn't look at it enough to make the claim that it is pseudoscientific.

Also, I don't think the sentence "point to Hubbard's own words describing "religion" as a simple means of making money" should be in the intro. By its placement in the intro, it looks as if it's the main argument of critics, while this is only one fact that confirm the more important reasons of why critics consider Scientology dangerous. Povmec 17:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Ooops, since I was busy reverting numerous instances of vandalism I apparently reverted your edit too. Sorry for that, next time I will look at more edits before reverting.

As to the "Most non-Scientologists," I only wrote "Non-scientologists" and another editor added Most. Maybe you could agree on "Critics," or else just "Non-scientologists"?

The reference to religion as moneymaker seems relevant in the intro, as it might be the principal reason for founding Scientology. Besides it is only a small sentence so why not let it be?

My problem is with the psychotherapy. Scientology was not meant as psychotherapy, Diametics was. If anything wouldn't removal of this from the intro be more apt?--Nomen Nescio 18:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The intro has been "restyled" into

Scientology is a new religious movement presented in 1952 by author L. Ron Hubbard at a recorded lecture titled: Scientology: Milestone One. His words included, "Scientology would be the study of knowledge rather than the small segment of therapy which has been Dianetics." The Church of Scientology was founded by Mr. Hubbard in 1954 and uses the methods of Dianetics to produce spiritual relief with its practitioners. Scientology has also been presented as an applied religious philosophy. Many non-Scientologists, however, view his ideas about psychotherapy as pseudoscientific and point to Hubbard's own words describing "religion" as a simple means of making money.

To me it looks as good as it might get. Could we agree on this? Let's leave it for the moment and first discuss before changing it again. --Nomen Nescio 22:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC) Thanks for saying Nomen. Let's do slow down about changing the article. I would like to see that "artist's rendition" of the Xenu spaceplane out of there. The event puportedly happened 70,000,000,000 years ago so what use is some artist's rendition? Terryeo 08:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Paul Horner spamming his own web pages

Paul Horner is spamming links to his own web pages. His IP is now listed in Vandalism In Progress