Talk:Scientology

L. Ron Hubbard, Author

Forgive my lack of Wiki/HTML skill, but I think L. Ron Hubbard should be introduced as a "Science Fiction Author", as described on his page, and not just as an "author". I believe the title of simply "author" confers undeserved authority or prominence. Those who choose not to read beyond it may make the assumption that he authored non-fiction books, or was a prominent figure or expert in real-world matters. This is not the case, and because he wrote exclusively science fiction novels, I believe he should be introduced as such. Since Scientology, as a religion, seems to draw so heavily from fantasy fiction, I believe it would be a fitting, if not required edit.

I agree with this statement.--69.245.43.176 (talk) 21:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Hubbard wrote about a lot of things, not just science-fiction. He wrote The Way to Happiness, Dianetics, Have You Lived Before This Life? and many books which fall on the self-help category. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 21:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The word "sect".

Why is the word "sect" not used a single time in the whole text? It appears in the titles of several references. Also, some countries have placed Scientology on their list of sects (at least France, see the webpage of French parliament: http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/rap-enq/r2468.asp). I think this should be mentionned somewhere.Pestorr (talk)

Because a 'sect' is an off-shoot from a main religion, Scientology cannot be a religion, I dare say, due to the fact that it is based upon a Science fiction story that humans are possessed by the ghosts of 75 million year old aliens. As far as I am aware the term 'Scientology' means 'the word of truth' (logos, word and sciere, to know), by extension, that puts it in the realms of a philosophy, yes? Radiojonty (talk) 20:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

No it does not. Given the plethora of options in the realm of religion, I dare say that the Xenu story only hits at about a 6 on a 10 point scale of abnormal beliefs. I would say that the reason that Sect isn't used is because it has an ambiguous meaning. is there someplace in the article where the word "sect" would provide greater understanding than the way the word is employed now?Coffeepusher (talk) 21:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem with the word 'sect' is that in most European languages it has the same modern meaning as the word 'cult' in English. English media often use it as a euphemism to avoid saying 'cult', but as often happens to euphemisms 'sect' is now shifting in English to become the same as 'cult', a 'bad' word. This being English Wikipedia, 'sect' should be translated from other languages as 'cult' wherever possible. Hartley Patterson (talk) 16:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Hartley Patterson. I confess not being a native speaker, hence my misunderstanding. Cult is indeed more adapted. I guess this subsection can be deleted now.--Pestorr (talk) 09:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

It is not even a sect as defined in legal texts and officially acclaimed dictionaries. It is a cult based on a commercial enterprise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.88.125.20 (talk) 11:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I support the idea of describing the Church of Scientology as a sect. My research on the subject back in university placed it among classical sects - due to abduction and oppression techniques used on its followers and requisition of their property. The matter is subject to debate, but it at least should be mentioned in the first paragraph of this article, that a viable part of scientific community and general population considers CoS to be sect.

P.S. A sect is defined not by the truthfulness of its ideas, but by abuse practices it uses against its standing and potential members. There are multiple evidence of such practices being used by CoS, and that should be noted in the first place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.196.194.154 (talk) 22:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Jacksoncw: There is, in fact, a lot of evidence of such practices being used by CoS. Although in all cases Scientology makes claims like the act didn't have Ronald Hubbard's "blessing" as Operation Snow White is described. Just one of many examples of these practices is Lisa McPherson.--Jacksoncw (talk) 03:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree, there should be much more emphasis on the words cult and sect. I've read the article, it casts a very positive view on scientology in general, calling all accusations 'allegations'. I understand this is a powerful organization in the USA, but in the EU it is seen as a dangerous organization, even in Italy where it is legal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.82.27.1 (talk) 03:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request.

"In October 2009, a French court found the Church of Scientology guilty of organized fraud. Four officers of the organization were fined and given suspended prison sentences of up to 2 years. The organization was not banned or dissolved from activities in France and has appealed the judgment."

Could be rewritten as "In October 2009, a French court found the Church of Scientology guilty of organized fraud. Four officers of the organization were fined and given suspended prison sentences of up to 2 years. The organization has appealed the judgment. As the result of a law voted less than two months before the trial, the organisation was not banned or dissolved from activities in France."

Actually, the "not banned or dissolved" part is not interesting, since the Scientology could not have been dissolved: a recent law prevents organisations convicted of such frauds from being dissolved as a sentence.Pestorr (talk) 17:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• I've implemented something along the lines suggested above. [1] (I've also updated the source in the process.) --JN466 21:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

talk about sin, against psychology i would understand but psychiatry...sick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.42.105 (talk) 01:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Scientology and wiki policy

Does wikipedia like to been named as advertising scientology as a church. A newspaper article recently asked. I wish wikipedia to review this article as may break wikipedia policy. Including policy like

• Providing a neutral point of view
• and the use of strong persuasive words —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.91.88 (talk) 10:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Source???Coffeepusher (talk) 15:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, reading though the article itself, it does have a negative tone towards Scientology. Sadly, I think it is not WP policy being broken. I think it is an unintended side-effect. There are few sources that satisfy WP:RS which portray Scientology in any light other than negative. Most sources like that are primary, and are therefore excluded. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 20:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

i think he is saying that wikipedia is being criticized for not saying "Cult" instead saying church Weaponbb7 (talk) 21:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps Coffeepusher should have asked "What???". > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 21:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

well I really wanted the source of the newspaper. but yah, What??? is another way to summarize my reaction.Coffeepusher (talk) 22:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, anyway; "Church of Scientology" is the legal name of the organization, weather people like it or not... > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 02:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't make it a church, any more than Pottery Barn is a barn. I didn't feel the article had a negative tone regarding scientology, in fact I thought it a remarkably neutral discussion of a dubious subject.81.153.197.87 (talk) 15:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Wait, Pottery Barn isn't a barn?! My world just got turned upside down... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.81.210.119 (talk) 11:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

You probably mean religion instead of church. A definition for church is a place of public worship of a non-Christian religion. So, it fits a definition. The big issue is that, at least in the Americas, the word church is often associated with Christianity, but that doesn't mean it is exclusive to it. There are much more arguments (and more interesting) against the religious status of Scientology than there are for it not being a Church; and still both are widely contested. Also, it does suffer a negative tone, or at the very least it suffers a little from WP:UNDUE. This article has not one but two sections on criticism, and that goes without mentioning the occasional stones thrown at the end of some other sections. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 22:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Scientology does have a dubious history, and the fact that it has a history of litigation, and law breaking:Operation Snow White, makes it almost impossible to be neutral and not have a "bad tone". Also, "A definition for church is a place of public worship of a non-Christian religion" by Rul3r, doesn't seem like a neutral, WP regulation definition to me.--Jacksoncw (talk) 14:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It is still in a dictionary, the number one source for word definitions. Also, many sources describe it as a church. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 19:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Ron wrote Sci Fi books that is not Scientology

If the writings you are reading are not from Scientology.org, then it is possibly altered information.

Why- Go to scientology.org and find out

Confused- Go to scientology.org and see for yourself the truth of what is Scientology —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbsweden9 (talk • contribs) 07:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, but unfortunately we cannot rely on the Scientology website as a primary source of information for this article, as it is not independent. It sometimes seems strange that the website of an organisation is not counted as a reliable source of information, but in theory an organisation can put anything on their own website whether it was true or not. Requiring sources to be independent reliable sources means that someone not connected with the organisation (with no vested interest) has written about the organisation (please note that this does not include press releases, as they are written by the organisation). -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Phantom. However, it is possible to cite material from the site, as long as you correctly attribute it. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 16:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Scientology's United Kingdom(UK) Annual Returns (2008-2009)

These lists were leaked by sources unknown, but appear to constitute membership costs, which increase in-line with status in Scientology. Of course, such an article might be too biasing for WP:Npov policy but should wikipedia tackle the returns? I really need someone more experienced in formatting articles in wikipedia to answer for this sources inclusion (or not) in the Scientology article. Thank you.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 23:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

It would help a lot if you provided a link to the source so other editors could review it. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 23:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikileaks shut-down and the article was on there. --Cymbelmineer (talk) 22:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I found that a couple of days ago...however, does Wikileaks comply with WP:RS? --> RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 16:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Call Hubbard a "Science fiction writer"

There is ample consensus that Hubbard is to be described as a science fiction writer. See Talk:L._Ron_Hubbard/Archive_9#Neutrality I note that Jayen makes an inference from the fact that Dianetics sold well, not an argument that his preferred wording is more faithful to the sources. This seems to be a clear case of WP:SYNTH. MartinPoulter (talk) 11:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps one could describe him as "a science-fiction writer and self-described spiritualist". > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 15:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

personally I think we should source the sentence to stop this silly debate, we go through this at least once a year (check the archives).Coffeepusher (talk) 16:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I was under the impression we had agreed to Pulp fiction writer as that covered all his work including his non-sci-fi, but that could be my bad memory Weaponbb7 (talk) 16:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

This is why we need to back this statement up with WP:RS so that we avoid the WP:OR that is going on, as well as WP:SYNTHCoffeepusher (talk) 18:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

This question came up in WP:ARBSCI. At the time, I did a survey of reputable encyclopedias and found that the majority of them (including Britannica) did not describe Hubbard as a science fiction author in the lead sentence of their article on Scientology. This was what I found:

Answers.com

Britannica Concise Encyclopedia: Church of Scientology

• "International movement established in the U.S. by L. Ron Hubbard in 1954."

Occultism & Parapsychology Encyclopedia (Gale Group): Church of Scientology (you need to scroll down to see the entry)

• "In 1950 writer L. Ron Hubbard announced the discovery of Dianetics as a new system of mental health. Several years later he announced the further development of Dianetics into a comprehensive system of spiritual philosophy and religion, which he termed Scientology."

US History Encyclopedia (by an unnamed Answers Corp. partner: Scientology

• "The religious movement known as Scientology originated in the United States with the 1950 publication of Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health. The book's author, L. Ron Hubbard (1911–1986), was a popular science fiction writer ..."

Encyclopedia.com

Columbia Encyclopedia, Church of Scientology

• "Philosophical religion founded by L(afayette) Ron(ald) Hubbard, 1911-86, b. Tilden, Nebr."

World Encyclopedia (Oxford University Press)

• "scientology ‘Applied religious philosophy’ based on a form of psychotherapy called dianetics, which was founded (1954) by L. Ron Hubbard in California, USA."

Highbeam.com

The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions (Oxford University Press)

• "Scientology. The creation of L. Ron Hubbard, who in the early 1950s, using his theory of lay psychotherapy (Dianetics) as its basis, developed a religious philosophy which was then incorporated into the Church of Scientology."

(Where encyclopedias were available on several sites, I only included them once in this listing. For example, the Columbia Encyclopedia is included on all three sites, the Oxford World Encyclopedia on two of them.)

So to summarise, there were Scientology articles from six encyclopedias featured on answers.com, encyclopedia.com and highbeam.com. Of these, five are definitely reputably published (Britannica, Gale, Columbia, Oxford University Press). Every one of these five encyclopedias says that Scientology was founded by L Ron Hubbard, without characterising him as a science-fiction writer in their lead sentence. This is the same approach as that followed by the immensely reputable Encyclopedia Britannica. Only one encyclopedia on the three sites sampled departs from this approach in its article on Scientology, the Encyclopedia of US History, "from an Answers Corp. partner". This was a random sample in the sense that the selection of which works to include was made by the operators of answers.com, encyclopedia.com and highbeam.com

Of course, our article mentions that Hubbard wrote pulp fiction, especially science fiction, and there is no dispute whatsoever about this. But he wrote in other genres as well, such as Westerns, adventure stories, travel writing, and screenplays. At the time the first Church of Scientology was established (1954), I think it is fair to say that he was best known as the author of Dianetics, which had spent the entire second half of 1950 on the New York Times best-seller list. And of course his writings about Scientology far eclipse in volume all the fiction he wrote (IIRC, he was acknowledged by the Guinness Book of World Records as the most prolific published author). Hence I think the most appropriate solution is to stick, in the lead sentence of the article, with saying "writer L. Ron Hubbard" or simply "L. Ron Hubbard", following the example of the above publications, and with saying in the article proper, as is currently done, that Hubbard first became notable as a writer of pulp fiction, especially science fiction. --JN466 01:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Jacksoncw: The fact that other sites don't call him a Science-fiction writer is not the point. Simply calling him a writer is not correct as it does indeed give him a sense of authority undeserved. The title "writer" comes with respect that isn't attributed to the term "science-fiction writer". I think that the fact that he was a "SCIENCE-fiction writer" also has extreme relevance since he founded SCIENtology. I agree with Jayen, we either take the "writer/author" part out completely or give him ALL due credit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacksoncw (talk • contribs) 03:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Jayen, once again you have made an impressive arguement I cannot reason away I agree we should take the highroad here minimize what or outright eliminate the "writer part" of the sentence. He is know for his Grand Revelation (invention, scheme whatever...) more than his scifi. Weaponbb7 (talk) 01:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for saying so. I am happy to drop the "writer" and just go with the name, if editors prefer. --JN466 02:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds fair. I support. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 04:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I am ok with dropping the classification.Coffeepusher (talk) 05:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done. --JN466 14:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

In recent years, religious recognition has also been obtained in a number of other European countries, including Sweden,[8][75] Spain,[75][76] Portugal,[77] Slovenia,[75] Croatia[75] and Hungary,[75] as well as Kyrgyzstan[78] and Taiwan.[8]

Taiwan is not a European country. Get it right. Sorry if this is in the wrong place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.134.206.94 (talk) 05:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Image for Auditing subsection

The image in the Auditing subsection claims that it depicts a Scientologist showing someone an E-meter, yet there is a sign on the table in the picture that reads "FREE STRESS TEST." As far as I know, an E-meter is not merely a stress test and I doubt Scientologists would call it that. So, is this vandalism or a valid picture? And even if it is a valid image, it's a confusing one and should possibly be replaced.Fyrael (talk) 21:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

It is a valid picture, not vandalism ... just that the Scientology organization claims to use the E-meter "spiritual device" for such purposes. -- Cirt (talk) 02:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

In any case, auditing is not performed outdoors (how could it be confidential if performed publically?), and the e-meter is used for many services, not auditing alone. I took the ethics course and I was put on an e-meter at the end and asked a couple of questions about said course, but it certainly was not auditing (the questions were nothing remotely like what any Dianetics book describes). Perhaps a little c/e to make this clear... --> RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 04:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, Cirt. Are you saying that they present the E-meter to people as a stress test? I'm not really sure what point you were driving at either, Ruler. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fyrael (talk • contribs) 15:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Fyrael, you would have to draw your own conclusions from the picture. However, please read here, starting with the text, "It is interesting that the following disclaimer accompanies the e-meter..." Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 16:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

My point was that the e-meter has many uses within the church, not just auditing. The image in itself is not vandalism, as it illustrates the device (though it should probably be placed on another section). BTW, I don't think citing skepdic for what the CoS claims is valid. Scientology.org is down so I can't get the official claims... --> RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 17:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, the site now works, here are the official clams of the Church of Scientology regarding the e-meter:

• [2]
• [3]

Cheers. --> RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 17:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Um, all I was really wondering was whether the picture was actually of a scientologist and an E-meter. The stress test sign seemed to point to this just being an image of a guy with a stress test that was shoved into the article. If the picture is of what it claims to be, then it's fine staying in this section even if it's not an audit because the section talks about the E-meter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fyrael (talk • contribs) 19:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, as far as I can tell, it most likely is a true image. These stress tests are common introductions to Scientology. --> RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 19:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed link in infobox to explain concepts

The infobox mentions "ARC and KRC triangles" and says they're important concepts in Scientology. I think they should be directly linked with the section that explains them: Scientology#ARC_and_KRC_triangles but I can't make the edit because I've never created an account. I think it would be helpful for a curious reader rather than expecting him/her to find where the concepts are explained. 131.118.229.5 (talk) 21:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done --> RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 00:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Steakyfask, 29 September 2010

scientology is considered to be a cult. The Cult Awareness Network are trying to make people aware of this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_Awareness_Network

Steakyfask (talk) 16:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

 Not done - this is already mentioned in the article, including the lead section. ("It has often been described as a cult that financially defrauds and abuses its members, charging exorbitant fees for its spiritual services." [...] "Starting in 1991, persons connected with Scientology filed fifty lawsuits against the Cult Awareness Network (CAN), a group that had been critical of Scientology.") --McGeddon (talk) 16:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, the CAN is now owned by the Church of Scientology, so that description by the "old" CAN is probably not what the "new" CAN states. Read the "New CAN" section of the article you linked. --> RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 17:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I would like to discuss support for a good article statement on this document.

Please say whether or not you would support or oppose the above. Thank you very much.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 22:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Oppose this article still has some serious issues left over from the Whole WP:ARBSCI debacle, without a doubt it has vastly improved and stabilized. However it has some serious but subtle neutrality issues needs alot of clean-up and to give you an idea of the long-term issues of this page my first reaction to seeing this post was to see if you could be a WP:SOCK.The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Remember WP:PA, you don't have evidence that he is a sock. However, I agree with opposing the proposal. While the article has greatly improved, it is still not FA level. Perhaps reassessing into a B-class... --> RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 17:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I was not calling him a sock i meant only to point out the thorny history of this article and the automatic bad faith assumptions that get made when anybody tries do anything with it. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

True. I am not a Scientologist (scientologist?), nor connected to it, I just thought that considering the thorny history of this page, GA status may bring more impartial commentators over to have a look at it, and that can only be a good thing, can't it?--Cymbelmineer (talk) 21:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

In that case I believe it is better to request a peer review before nominating for GA or FA. I believe that is an acceptable middleground for those of us who oppose a direct nomination. At least I would support a PR. And for the record, I consider myself a Scientologist, but I am aware that WP standards might not always make me happy. --> RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 04:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The article still has a number of weaknesses. The history section for 1965 onwards still needs work. The controversies section is, in parts, just a haphazard list. The Scientology and the Internet section is bloated with too much detail. Reference organisation/template use is inconsistent throughout the article. Beliefs and practices and organisational structure are covered well, I think. All in all, I think FA is some way off, and even GA is not within immediate reach. A peer review might be useful, but even getting this article to GA will entail much work, a lot of it donkey work like getting the references straightened out.

Still, it's gratifying that you like the article! And it has thankfully become a lot more stable. --JN466 02:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Status as a religion?

Why is Scientology not introduced as a religion, and as a 'body of beliefs and related practices', which on most accounts describes a religion anyway? I am not an adherent to Scientology, so do not understand the complexity of the issue, but I propose to refer to it as a religion. DanEdmonds (talk) 06:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed previously many times:

• Talk:Scientology/Archive_5#Invented_religion.3F
• Talk:Scientology/Archive_28#Shouldn.27t_Scientology_be_considered_a_religion.3F

Those are but a couple examples. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 07:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I haven't read the previous discussions, but I believe the issue, other than differing opinions amongst Wikipedians, it that there are many differing opinions from scholars, governments and other religious leaders. While most accounts in the US government classify it as a religion, many other countries do not, and is it not a universally (or even widely) accepted description. So, body of beliefs and related practices serves as a very good middleground between those who believe it is a cult, those who believe it is a religion, and those who do not care about the issue, but about NPOV and the language used for the description. Cheers. --> RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 22:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Jacksoncw: I completely agree, until Scientology is at least widely accepted as a religion, this request doesn't even deserve to be here. There are less than 20 countries who accept is as a religion, most of these being 3rd world countries. Describing it as a religion would definitely not fit the bill. November 16, 2010

Nah. I disagree. And I specifically agree with DanEdmonds. If some people think it's a cult, that's fine. It's a religious cult. It is officially recognized as a religion. It's biased to specifically report otherwise. It is however appropriate to report the disputation in a section, which has been created for that purpose. Also, WP policy requires that it be described as a religion, this article's topic treated according to the same standards as every other. —Digiphi (Talk) 16:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

It is officially NOT recognized as a religion in a majority of the world. And as it stands, majority rules. Canada, Uk, Germany, France,all officially recognize Scientology as NOT being a religion. Those are just a few countries of many that have yet to recognize Scientology as a religion. If a few people see it as a religion, yet the rest of the world does not, does it seem correct to classify it as a religion? To me THAT in itself seems "biased". --Jacksoncw (talk) 17:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Jack. But majority does not rule. On WP reliable sources rule. For example let's consider your logic in the light of another topic. The Bald Eagle is officially NOT recognized as a national bird in a majority of the world. And, Canada, Uk (sic), Germany, France, all officially recognize the bald eagle as NOT being a national bird. However, it is a national bird, if only in the United States, and we report that in WP. We report in the articles content supported by sources. And especially in the case of topics in the Religions category, we don't make judgments for readers.—Digiphi (Talk) 19:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The Bald Eagle was not a very good comparison. I understand what you're saying but wouldn't we be making the judgement "for readers" that Scientology IS a religion if we put in in there? Wouldn't it be best to say it is arguably a religion or something like that?--Jacksoncw (talk) 20:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Overwhelming majority of WP:RS say it is, not even a size able minority opinion object to it. While not the most honest group of folks it is a religion for all intents and purposes. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Even Stephen A. Kent the only critic who has academic standing (at least off the top of my head) admits its a religion that also has many other aspect on top of the religion aspect. (like many other Churches these days) The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Jackson, the people practicing it have made the judgment that it's a religion. You know? Our job as editors is to accurately report that in the article. There are just under a gazillion forums across the net for the debate as to its validity, just as there are for the Lutheran sect, for example. —Digiphi (Talk) 23:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Then let us say, "Scientology considers itself a religion" I think that is an eve better middle ground than 'body of beliefs and related practices'.--Jacksoncw (talk) 01:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Would you suggest that for Candomble, or Bahá'í, or Christianity? What about Rastafari, Zoroastrianism, or Judaism? We don't give that treatment to any of the aforementioned topics. Why here? —Digiphi (Talk) 02:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about all of them but for Christianity there is absolutely no dispute that it is a religion. It is recognized everywhere as a religion, same for Judaism. According to the "reliable source" of the governments of the aforementioned countries' governments, Scientology is not a religion. Say a type of moss was found that was tiny. Most of the world's scientists consider it a moss. The scientists who discovered it, however, claim it is a bacteria. Would WP call it a bacteria because of the discoverers? --Jacksoncw (talk) 14:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

What? thats not even an apdt comparison... The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 14:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

It isn't. There are slightly different standards for hard science articles, the content of which can be determined by a wealth of peer-reviewed journals in the field, and evidence of academic consensus can be presented and reported in the article. You mean that you don't dispute Christianity. Some governments ban it's practice because it obviously isn't a religion. It's just a dangerous commercial cult. Consider Saudi Arabia for example. And what about Judaism? Would we not characterize it as a religion (and we do) in the article? is a religion. What about Voodoo. Would we treat those differently? This isn't the United Nations. We don't get to pick and choose from national governments' written policies (if they have them) on a group when deciding to report content in the article. —Digiphi (Talk) 18:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Would you consider that for Pastafarianism? Interestingly enough, I don't know that a "body of beliefs" makes for a good description of scientology, as they don't really HAVE any core beliefs. DigitalC (talk) 21:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with this, as Scientology does have core beliefs (thetans, reincarnation, arc/krc triangles...). However, despite considering myself a Scientologist, I believe the current wording is fine as it is. Many sources within Scientology itself classify it as an applied religious philosophy(example), and it also claims that one can practice Scientology regardless of any other religious belifs (even when Scientology has it's own)...So, I believe there is no reason to change the wording. It is neutral and descriptive enough. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 05:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that it is spelled -philosophy- that sounds good to me.--Jacksoncw (talk) 15:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

My bad...I am not a native english speaker... > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 16:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

• Agree the article is fine as it stands. --JN466 00:02, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

it isn't as long as it's requiring people to spend money, no other religion forces people to spend cash and thus Scientology is not a religion (religion should be free) Markthemac (talk) 02:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Is this even sourced? Or is this just your own interpretation? If one to were use especially NPOV reasoning, the christian church often collects donations during mass. The^FSAviator • T 17:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Actualy yes that is sourced in the article. He said "Required" to pay, in the Christian church, a majority of which doesn't practice mass because it isn't catholic, you are not required to pay. If you didn't give any tithes or offerings to the church they wouldn't kick you out and probably would say nothing about it. Within Scientology, on the other hand, the only thing that is free is the "stress test".--Jacksoncw (talk) 14:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

But where did you get a dictionary definition that requires that a religion can't require a donation? The^FSAviator • T 16:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Most churches ask for donations. I know this is voluntary and not fixed as in the Church of Scientology, but they ask for donations nonetheless... > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 16:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm simply saying it is sourced,not that it isn't a definition.--Jacksoncw (talk) 16:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

In any case, I am a second-generation Scientologist and no one in my family has given any money to the CoS in over 12 years... > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 17:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Couple points

1) I think this question deserves an RfC.

2) Arguing about whether Scientology is or is not a religion, is like arguing about whether some nudey picture is or is not pornography. It's inherently subjective, and there isn't really a final authority on the issue. Personally, I feel that, as we do with BLPs, we ought to lend some weight to "self-identification". Perhaps Scientology is a religion b/c it says it is..... NickCT (talk) 21:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

By criteria 2, Jedi would also qualify as a religion. We're discussing reliable sources here, and there are sources for both sides. The article already makes it very clear that descriptions of Scientology range from "bona-fide religion" to "cult that financially defrauds and abuses its members". I support the current wording on grounds of WP:NPOV, but I support the idea of an RfC to settle it. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 18:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Man.... why are people always hating on us Jedi warriors...? We're a legitimate religious institution as well.

No, but seriously, as with a term like "Art" what someone calls a "Religion" is largely going to be in the eyes of the beholder. You say "We're discussing reliable sources", I'm saying, subjects like this don't really have reliable sources. Part of the thinking behind WP:BLPCAT was that for topics like religion & sexual orientation where much is subjective, people can argue endlessly about what is a "reliable source" on the matter, or you can simply agree that "A gay person is someone who says they are gay". Obviously, WP:BLPCAT doesn't apply to this article, but I think the logic behind it does.

Anyways, we seem to agree on the RfC, so perhaps I will do that. Do you mind if I contact you to review a draft RfC?

P.S. Obviously, WP is not a reliable source, but it might be worth noting that lede for Religion is remarkably vague, and potentially all encompassing. I believe that supports my point.

P.P.S Just want to mention that I'm no Scientologist. Frankly, I think they're roughly as silly all the others. NickCT (talk) 14:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure, contact me on my talkpg. It's the trolling link on my sig. :) > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 20:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for insulting all religions, and religious followers, with that "silly" comment, Nick. Looking at your page, you stand for almost everything I am against, but I can accept that. That comment about religion was uncalled for. But as stated before, this isn't an online forum. Whether you think religions are stupid or just Scientology is stupid, the issue still stands. An RFC is necessary to put this at rest. Also, according to your logic, if I open a a business, sell bibles, and claim it is a religion, my business would be a religion. --Jacksoncw (talk) 18:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

again, no church forces u to give money but Scientology, the catholic church or any other church don't kicks you out if you don't pay (it's 100% exclusive to Scientology, and thus proving it isn't a religion as religion is based around free-will and not greed) Markthemac (talk) 00:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

but of course there is greed based around free-will, but it's still voluntary unlike Scientology Markthemac (talk) 00:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Mark, there is no definition saying that a church cannot require donations nor is there any proof that no other church does this. In this article we are trying to state the facts, not your opinions. This is not a debating forum. If you can find a reliable source that states your opinion that you can cite, please feel free to place it in the correct section of this article. Also, if you would use proper grammar it would make it much easier for people to understand your request. --Jacksoncw (talk) 19:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

it's not my opinion, it's actually the opinion of the EU. Markthemac (talk) 17:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You said, "religion is based around free-will and not greed" this is your opinion, not a fact. And, although it may be true, there is no proof that Scientology is the only religion that requires a donation. If there was any such proof, there is nothing that says a religions can't require donations. Like I said, if you can site "the EU" stating this, please feel free to place it in the correct section.--Jacksoncw (talk) 04:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Credibility of Auditing

At the top it says "Its method of spiritual rehabilitation is a type of counseling known as auditing, in which practitioners aim to consciously re-experience painful or traumatic events in their past in order to free themselves of their limiting effects." Auditing is not recognized as an official form of counselling nor has it been proven helpful. Describing auditing as a "form of counseling" seems completely off to me. I would call it an "attempt at counseling" or something along those lines.--Jacksoncw (talk) 14:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

What is an "official form of counseling"? Personally, I find your argument a little unspecific. Also, "attempt at counseling" implies failure, which is an evaluation for the reader, which in turn violates both WP:NPOV and WP:OR... > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 19:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

School counseling, marriage counseling, psychotherapy, even hypnotism has at least some proof/instances of helping people. To me, "attempt at counseling" implies lack of success, not failure. Trying to remember traumatic events in a past life does not have any proof of helping anyone. You certainly can't use it commercially. At least change "their past" to "their past life" since (If I understand right) that is what it does. If there are any counselors here, I would love you hear your opinion. --Jacksoncw (talk) 22:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

It is still an evaluation for the reader, which is unacceptable in WP. To me "lack of success" equals failure. Auditing, as far as I have read, is for both current and past lives. And, don't get me wrong, but aren't traumatic events the whole point of most forms of counseling? > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 01:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't really see how that is an evaluation for the reader. Yes traumatic events are the whole point of most counseling....--Jacksoncw (talk) 02:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

OK I will be a little more straight forward. You can't say "auditing lacks success" because it violates both WP:NPOV (by being biased against) and WP:OR (by not citing a source to back the claim). If you can link to an study or a reliable (unbiased, if possible) source, you can write something along the lines of "[A/B/C study(ies)/report(s)/paper(s)] on Dianetic Auditing have confirmed [P/Q/R benefit(s)/results] and/or [X/Y/Z drawback(s)/flaw(s)]". But WP can not evaluate weather or not auditing works. We here at WP write what can be verified. Now, the auditing subject is a very special case, as there as no studies on it's possible effects. Mainstream medicine was quick to dismiss it and there are few, if any, serious studies on the subject. Some guy apparently took a page from Dianetics, reworked some concepts, and developed "Traumatic Incident Reduction" and here are some studies on that kind of therapy. But I don't believe these will serve for the case of auditing, as there are no studies on auditing itself. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 04:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, tt was dismissed. It is not recognized as counseling. Saying that it is a type of counseling would be an evaluation for the reader would it not? Also, seeing as there is no verifiable proof that Auditing has ever succeeded, it does lack success.--Jacksoncw (talk) 22:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Auditing is described as a form of counseling in the cited and many other reliable sources. This does not imply any endorsement of its effectiveness, neither here nor in those sources. --JN466 02:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Lacking sources to verify success does not mean it does not have success. What it means it that it has not been tested by a reliable, unbiased third-party. The only studies for the effectiveness of Auditing come from the Church of Scientology itself, and are therefore unreliable due to conflict of interest. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 03:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Auditing Confidentiality

I found an article extremely relevant to this topic: http://oxfordstudent.com/2010/11/01/parasitic-circuits-the-secrets-of-scientology-2/ An Oxford student is left in a Scientology room. He finds documents that weren't intended for his eyes, it talks about a person's auditing session which was "confidential". I believe a paraphrase of this article or at least a mention of it is necessary to inform the readers. I would do it myself but I do not know how to make websites citable and know nothing of Wikipedia html--Jacksoncw (talk) 19:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Paraphrasing the article should be simple enough with little mark-up necessary, I can ref it for you. Just copy and paste the whole thing into the page where you want the little ¹to show. Also check out WP:How to edit a page and WP:BOLD.

{{cite web |url=http://oxfordstudent.com/2010/11/01/parasitic-circuits-the-secrets-of-scientology-2/ |title=Parasitic Circuits: The Secrets of Scientology |accessdate=28 November 2010}} The^FSAviator • T

Categorization

Scientology article under Scientology category defeats the purpose of categorization. UFO cult and Western Culture are non-descriptive and too general. Are there not more descriptive categories such as new religious movements or self-help scams, quackery or even pseudoscience that would be more appropriate? Seems WP is lacking in such categories that describe this type of fraud. Eroberer (talk) 11:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Dianetics is already under pseudoscience. Scientology is already under "new religious movements". Your other suggestions violate WP:NPOV as far as I am concerned. Cheers. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 11:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Symbols of Scientology merge

Could we discuss a merge of the article "Symbols of Scientology" onto this page? The whole article might as well be a section here. It's incomplete but could be added to the article as a collapsible table. At that point the old one could be deleted. The^FSAviator • T 21:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 74.64.25.109, 16 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

If you re ad the article you will see it is far from unprejudiced and would slant the readers attitude toward the subject. When you are dealing with a religion, that is not a good idea.

Reference - consitution of the USA

74.64.25.109 (talk) 09:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I've no idea what you're saying about the American Constitution, but your request is far too vague to be actionable. Feel free to make specific suggestions. Ideally you should read Wikipedia's policy on neutrality first and explain how this article does not comply. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 11:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Restricting editing of articles such as this one violates the founding premise of Wikipedia

This is your 10th anniversary, Wikipedia. Such abject disregard for your own principles and policies (the originalones) is a shame. Are the people who run Wikipedia Scientologists? Please read The Scandal of Scientology by Paulette Cooper for an opposing view. Your Scientology article reads like a puff piece. There isn't even a category such as the Controversy subheading in the Chiropractic article. The article on Scientology and others like it demand such access to opposing viewpoints, if they are part and parcel of the subject (and you can't argue that in this case it is not).

You may have seen that the history of this Wikipedia entry has been one of repeated vandalism, lawsuit threats, joke edits and such for a number of years thanks to the Scientology organization's efforts to try to stop information about what the Scientology Corporation is and what it does from being disseminated on the Internet.

The criminal enterprise's efforts to silence information about Xenu, Body Thetans, murders, kidnappings, quack medical frauds (such as their narconon frauds) and such have decreased in the past two or three years, but prior to that the various owners/operators of the criminal enterprise spared no effort to make this Wikipedia entry basically more false advertising for their scams and frauds.

The result has been a strict limitation on edits to the article which results in legitimately-needed updates being restricted and reversed and hotly argued.

The Wiki entries on more traditional organized crime syndicates like the Gambino Mafia don't suffer the same problems simply because the Gambino Family don't have a dozen or more mobsters and customers trying to Operation Snow White their criminal organization's shoddy reputation.

So restrictions are in place. Also since the neutral point of view is desired, the article is allowed to have false claims routinely made by the criminal enterprise as a concession to the effort to be neutral even though Scientology's public relations falsehoods are known to be false. Damotclese (talk) 15:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Damotclese, please note that talk pages are not a place to express your opinions on the subjects of articles. While it is acceptable to discuss the need for semi-protection on the article, you may not use that as an opportunity to attack Scientologists or the organization. This behavior is specifically forbidden by WP:CIVIL and WP:SOAPBOX, and can result in your comments being removed.

As far as the original concern, it is generally preferred, per WP:NPOV, to not have a wholly separate "Controversy" section--ideally, such concerns should be incorporated into the text. Second, please note that you are welcome to edit the article, in one of two ways. The first is to sign up for a free account (you don't have to give any identifying information), and after a short introductory period you'll be able to edit here. Second, if you do not wish to sign up for an account, you may instead propose specific changes here. It doesn't help to just say "The article is biased, fix it." Instead, pose specific language that you think should be added/changed, along with reliable sources to support your recommendations. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Also...what are you talking about, OP? Not only is there a whole section on "Controversies," there's a link to a whole article titled Scientology controversies? I should have checked before commenting, but your concerns don't seem valid. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Damotclese You should consider re-reading Wikipedia policy, as the objective is to realiably source an article. You can't say that this article is intentionally lying just to hold on to NPOV. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 01:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 92.37.9.164, 14 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Helo! I would like to request a correction in the page. Under the Scientology cross it is written Religious/Commercial. The reference is a simple opinion from somebody very seriously anti-Scientologist who is presenting straight lies about the status of the Church for example in Germany. I do not know about France, but in Germany the church has always been registered as a non-profit organization. The German courts have recognized Scientology's religious bona fides (original, true religion status) in over 40 cases. (!) On 12 December 2003, the Administrative Court of Appeal of Baden-Würtenberg determined that the Church of Scientology Stuttgart is a religious organization protected under the German Constitution.

In June 2004, the Hamburg State Administrative Court of Appeal determined that actions taken by the Hamburg government to discriminate against Scientologists interfered with their right to religious freedom protected by Article 4 of the German Constitution.

The European Court of Human Rights issued an unanimous landmark decision on 5 April 2007 in favour of the Secientology religion, upholding the religious freedom of Scientologists and their religious associations throughout the 48 nations that have signed and ratified the European Convention for the Protection of Human rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), adopted by the council of Europe in 1950.

In 1993 the American Government ruled that: 1.) Scientology is a bonafide (original, true) religion; 2) The Churches of Scientology and their related charitable and educational institutions are operated exclusively for recognized religious purposes; 3) The Churches of Scientology and their related charitable and educational institutions operate for the benefit of the public interest rather than the interest of private individuals. So anyone calling Scientology a cult or sect is in the best case not well informed and is getting information from the wrong source that is one of the most basic mistakes a Journalist can do. In fact Scientology is officially recognized as a true religion already in Australia, Croatia, Albania, Slovenia, Hungary, Portugal, Indonesia, Kyrgyzstan, South Africa, Sweden, Taiwan, USA, Venezuela, Brazil, New Zealand, Nepal, Tanzania, Kenya, Zimbabwe, Kazakhstan, Ecuador, Costa Rica, India, Philippines, Sri Lanka ... furthermore it is recognized by administrative and judicial decisions in: Italy, Denmark, Austria, united Kingdom, Norway and in Germany.

So what is written under the cross, that Scientology is "commercial", should be really removed. It is really not fail, not clever, not OK and it is just pure defamation and anti-Scientology propaganda, carefully invented by ill-intentioned people.

And I really really do not understand why is it that any anti-Scientologist can edit the Scientology web site, because it is full of anti-Scientology hate propaganda, and Scinetologists can not respond to it. It is like only Musims could edit the pages on Israel and only people from Tel Aviv could edit the Muslim pages. Makes sense? Of course not ... What is going on between Wikipedia and Scinetology?! I am shocked on this!!!

Anyeay, this "commercial" stuff is really not OK. Then I did not even read the article further, because as a Scientologist, I think it is just open provocation, and I do not agree to get provocation against my own will. I have the right to my own peace of mind.

But if any editors who have questions about my religion, can write to me: Istvan@volunteerministers.eu

P.s.: Could you please also include a link to my new web site: http://www.volunteerministers.eu ?

Best Regards, Rev. István Szaniszló Church of Scientology Europe

92.37.9.164 (talk) 00:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it shoud be described as religious, as this article is about Scientology the body of beliefs and not Scientology the organisation. It is, however, the current consensus of WP that it should be listed as it is now. I support your edit, but keep in mind that this will require a larger consensus. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 02:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the page Scientology status by country, you will note that it's status isn't just questioned in Germany, but is officially not a religion in Denmark, Finland, Greece, Ireland and others, with some countries such as Switzerland explicitly calling it commercial. As such, we are compelled to include both appellations here, given that Wikipedia doesn't make the rules--we just follow what other sources say. As for your claim that Scientologists can't edit, that's both false and would be impossible to enforce. For example, if you hadn't volunteered that you are a Scientologist, we'd have no way of knowing. There are two restrictions in effect here. One is that there was a general Arbcom ruling banning a certain set of editors from Scientology pages, as well as all people editing from IP addresses known to be operated by the Church of Scientology--note, though, that Scientologists may still edit from privately owned computers/networks. Second, this particular page is under what is called "semi-protection". That protection actually prevents anyone who does not have an autoconfirmed account (i.e., anyone who hasn't signed up for a username and editing for at least a few days) from editing. According to the logs, this was done to prevent vandalism. If you sign up for an account, you'll be able to edit the page directly (following all guidelines and policies, along with the special Arbcom restrictions on Scientology topics); otherwise, you're welcome to keep making edit requests here on the talk page.

As a side note, RUL3R, do you know specifically of where previous discussions on this matter might be found for reference? Qwyrxian (talk) 06:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

A quick look at the archive gave me: [4] [5] [6]. However, I believe this might require an RfC, as commercialization is not an inherent aspect of Scientology. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 11:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Prevailing scholarly opinion is that Scientology is a religion. Some scholars (like Kent) assert that religion is only one aspect of Scientology, and that there are commercial aspects as well. Some governments recognise Scientology as a religion; other governments, like the German government, state that it is a commercial organisation. Present article status is a reasonable attempt to reflect these different viewpoints in a neutral manner. --JN466 04:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

You say "The European Court of Human Rights issued an unanimous landmark decision on 5 April 2007 in favour of the Secientology religion, upholding the religious freedom of Scientologists and their religious associations throughout the 48 nations that have signed and ratified the European Convention for the Protection of Human rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), adopted by the council of Europe in 1950,".This means that they recognize their religious freedom, not that they recognize them as a religion, same for Germany. I see how you try to misconstrew the words towards your viewpoint. The truth is that neither Germany nor The European Court of Human Rights have recognized it as a religion, therefore it is commercial.--Jacksoncw (talk) 16:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

And you should keep in mind that WP is a worldwide organisation not restricted to a single country. Therefore, all view points should be covered. If the US and the EU have different views on Scientology, then both should be mentioned. Also, I find it fun that the EU recognizes "religious freedom" of Scientologists while not recognizing Scientology as a religion. Isn't that a huge contradiction? I think that, at best, one can argue that "As of 2011, the EU, while defending the religious freedom of Scientologists, has not taken an official position on Scientology", instead of saying that it is seen as a business. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 00:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I meant to say it is commercial in EU, not the world. Either way I think that is fine, although there are European countries that do classify it as a commercial enterprise.--Jacksoncw (talk) 03:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it's best if we just leave it like it is now. Consensus is going to be very hard to reach and this discussion has been had multiple times... > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 06:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Recognition as a religion

The section "Recognition as a religion" contains text covering the granting of tax exemption status by the enterprise however this is misleading, they were not recognized as a religion by the IRS, they were granted tax exemption as a charitable organization which is entirely different. The Scientology Corporation's crime bosses and ringleaders like to proclaim that the IRS tax exemption was a legal recognition as a religion, and that falsehood is repeated here.

If nobody else adds a few words underscoring that charity exemption is not recognition as a religion, I will do so. Damotclese (talk) 15:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Based on the IRS exemptions, the U.S. State Department formally criticized Germany for discriminating against Scientologists and began to note Scientologists' complaints of harassment in its annual human rights reports,[51] as well as the annual International Religious Freedom Reports it has released from 1999 onwards.[71]

By this, it can be safely assumed that the US recognizes Scientology as a religion. Check sources 51 and 71. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 02:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of the endless political posturing of paid lobbiests, public relations contractors, and politicians working for the employ of Scientology's corporate owners/operators, the Scientology Corporation is not designated or recognized as a religion in the United States.

The organized crime syndicate's inclusion in putative "Human Rights" reports by State Department contractors is merely political, not a statement of lawful recognition or designation; it's one of the reasons why 'legitimate human rights organizations condemn the inclusion in the State Department's politisized reports.

If there are any legitimate, lawful Federal documents which classify the criminal enterprise as a religion, they need to be located and referenced so that the claim can be verified. As it stands, the claim is without merit and should be removed so that the article becomes more neutral. Damotclese (talk) 00:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok. First off, as a Scientologist, I would like to ask you to tone down your comments. While I concede that the organization has a long list of controversies and criticisms, and I am not deeply involved nor a staff member (and even much less in the Sea Org), I believe it is not necessary to state that Scientology "pays lobbiests" or "is an organized crime syndicate" or "a criminal enterprise" to get your point across. Your point is that there is a misleading statement and you are welcome to present arguments for that, but insulting the topic in question and pushing your anti-Scientology agenda is unnecessary, low, and against Wikipedia policy (which, by the way, you should read again). Please remain WP:CIVIL.

Note that everything I say in my proposed updates is entire civil and, for that matter, accurate. The Scientology crime syndicate is organized crime at core, and it is not recognized as a religion in the United States. Civility doesn't disappear just because the truth about something makes one uncomfortable.

Also I notice that the FBI has been looking in to the criminal enterprise's extensive human trafficking, kidnapping, and other felonies Human Trafficking which are arenas which also qualify the Wikipedia page for updating if only to include the expected indictments. Once the new indictments are handed down, the Wikipedia entry will need to be updated, and appeals to how updating the page is some how "uncivil" can once again be expected, quite possibly.Damotclese (talk) 08:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:CIVIL#Identifying_incivility <- Your comments border on 1b. I am not saying you should become a Scientologist or anything like that, you're free to not like it. I am just asking for a little bit of respect. You can respect something even if you don't like it. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 03:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

And second, the problem you describe does not concern neutrality. It concerns reliable sources. Your concern does seem valid and worth discussion, so, a rewording can be worked out, if no other Wikipedians present any objections. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 02:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Please note that I have warned User:Damotclese that this page is under discretionary sanctions, and, as such, any continuation of this way of speaking about Scientology can result in his being topic banned.

As for Damotclese's point, as far as I know, the production of such a document is 1) impossible, because no such document exists for any religion. It is possible that we need to be more careful about how we phrase the sentence. It sounds like Damotclese may be correct that the IRS does not recognize Scientology as a religion. The problem with RUL3R's point is that, while I understand what you are saying and it seems like a logical conclusion to draw, Wikipedia doesn't allow it's editors to draw conclusions, especially from primary documents. Perhaps we need to say something like "The IRS does not formally recognize Scientology as a religion, instead classifying it more generally as a charitable organization. The Church of Scientology has been listed as a religion in the U.S. government's annual International Religious Freedom Report since 1999." This would help show that the US government position appears to be conflicted (not really all that unusual, actually). Qwyrxian (talk) 04:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

That is quite true, Qwyrxian, the IRS undeniably does not classify the Scientology Corporation as a religion. No United States agency does. To do so is a violation of the Separation Clause of the U. S. Constitution. The article under discussion states that Scientology is recognized as a religion in the United States when in fact that is false. The mistake is not rectified because removing the claim is considered a non-neutral point of view, ergo the falsehood remains unremoved.

So, no religion is recognized as such in the US? > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 03:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

It's also true that some organizations classify Scientology as a religion predicated upon the IRS' granting of tax exemption in 1983 (as noted below) however the no United States governmental agency officially and unambiguously considers Scientology to be a religion. Bluntly they're not allowed to even if they wanted to.

Ultimately I expect that the page's statement will remain simply because few editors feel any desire to rectify the mistake. :) I certainly do not. Damotclese (talk) 08:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Then why are we discussing? > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 03:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, that reminds me! (A day later.) Lt. Ray Emmons of the Clearwater Police Department was tasked by the FBI with the detailed planning of dismantling the Scientology organization as organized crime, working with the Ontario Canadian law enforcement agencies as well as Interpol. The summary report of expenditures, manpower, expected court time et al. to arrest, indict, try, and convict the organization's leaders were all detailed in documents he provided to his supervisory people and to the FBI offices which, in brief terms, asked what it would cost to dismantle Scientology completely. Parts of Lt. Emmons' summary report are on line, but the appeal for the Congressional funding needed ended specifically with the words "organized crime."

Last night while trying to get some sleep the Officer's name suddenly came to me. It's something of a shame that very little of what Scientology actually is and what Scientology actually does is reported in the Wiki entry, but then I suppose that Wikipedia is not intended to be a novel. :) Any way, thanks. Damotclese (talk) 15:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Source? > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 03:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• US State Department reports on religious freedom regularly include Scientology, with statements referring to the treatment of "religious minorities, notably Scientologists" [7]. Nicholas Burns, the spokesman for the US Department of State, said in 1997, However, for our purposes, we classify Scientology as a religion because they were granted tax-exempt status by the American Government. (New York Times). --JN466 04:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
• Also see this letter sent by the IRS to Angela Merkel in 1994, with clear references to Scientology's religious status: [8] --JN466 04:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The IRS reports on religious freedom include Scientology,yes. It also includes many other cults and pseudo religions. IRS reporting on religious freedom and recognizing something as a religion is completely different. I can worship a broomstick if I want, but the IRS probably isn't going to give me tax exemption. Religious freedom and religious recognition are not the same thing and this misconception has a lot to do with why people think that the IRS has recognized it as a religion when, apparently, it hasn't. If, as Damotclese stated before, the IRS gave Scientology tax exemption strictly for charitable reasons, there should be no confusion about the matter. Not only should we not make assumptions as JN said, but we should not misinterpret what has been said.--Jacksoncw (talk) 15:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Since the IRS produces no "official" recognition for any particular religion, it is probably not even necessary to clarify this. In any case, if necessary, this can be solved with a sentence like "while this does not constitute legal recognition as a religion, Scientology has been cited on US State Department International Religious Freedom Reports." However, this means that no religion is recognized in the US, since the excemptions the Church of Scientology uses are the same for religious and charitable institutions; the IRS does not seem to make a distinction between them for fiscal or legal purposes. The US goverment position does not appear conflicted with any religion however. It looks kinda like an I-won't-regognize-nor-deny-any-religion, neutral, position. I am no lawyer, but to me, this debate seems moot. By not making a distinction, we can pretty much write anything without lying. Also, does anybody have an actual source? > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 21:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that we can find more reliable sources than a letter to a single church that may or may not be worded right. Also, if you found it, you would have to find an equally reliable source for a religion that isn't debated or else someone would find something to wrong with it. I would love to see a similar letter that the IRS wrote to a Christian Church or a Mosque.--Jacksoncw (talk) 13:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• We have good sources (cited in the lede, with verbatim quotes given in the footnotes) for Scientology being officially recognised as a religion in United States. Above, we have an official statement by a spokesman for the State Department, which represents the US government in international matters (However, for our purposes, we classify Scientology as a religion because they were granted tax-exempt status by the American Government. (New York Times)). Note that the letter linked above was to Angela Merkel, the present Chancellor of Germany, and a government minister at the time. There is no room for debate here, especially not for debate uninformed by sources. --JN466 22:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

R.I.F.A. Acorn etc. all got letters saying "religious or charitable purposes". Tax exemption isn't synonymous with religious status. We don't put it in the Christian or Muslim portal that the United States has recognized them as a religion although they got those same letters. --Jacksoncw (talk) 18:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Islam and Christianity are generally recognized as religious groups, so there is no need to make that statement. Scientology, on the other hand, has a widely disputed status, which makes it worth mention. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 00:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Is J. Gordon Melton reliable?

I would propose that J. Gordon Melton, along with his books, is not a reliable source. The fact that he is a researcher of Vampirology is enough in my mind to write him off, but he is also known to have conflicting interests. On his page under section: Criticism, it is stated that: Stephen A. Kent and Theresa Krebs published a critical article When Scholars Know Sin, in which they characterize Gordon Melton, James R. Lewis, and Anson Shupe as cult apologists. Melton was also characterized as an "apologist" in an article in the San Francisco Chronicle, and by a Singaporean lawyer as a "cult apologist who has a long association of defending the practices of destructive cults" in The Straits Times, and in an article: "Apologist versus Alarmist", in Time Magazine. This is all sourced on his page. Please note I am referring to his biographical page and not his talk page. I propose a deletion of all information sourced from him since he clearly has conflicts of interest.--Jacksoncw (talk) 14:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

HAHAHHAHHHAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHHA....... The sad thing is.... I fear you are serious. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 17:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

ResidentAnthropologist: Biting an editor who has made 100 total edits isn't very helpful.

Jacksoncw: Melton has authored dozens of books on different religions. There's no indication that he is being paid by Scientology to promote their point of view. If authors didn't have some type of personal opinions, many books would be rather dull. WP:NPOV specifically requires a neutral point of view; it does not ban sources that express any type of view. You can add material with a different point of view from another reliable source. You will probably find that getting some experience with non-religious articles first will prepare you better for the wiki minefields. —UncleDouggie (talk) 17:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

If you Really Wish to Pursue this Reliable Sources Notice board is the proper venue as this page cannot not make that call. His Encyclopedia of American Religion is in the some at least 3100 Libraries and is sources in many other article here. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I was under the impression that in this case, sources had to be reliable, non bias third parties. From the article I read, Melton seems to be the exact opposite. I thought that he wouldn't be allowed for the same reason Scientology.org isn't allowed.--Jacksoncw (talk) 19:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Melton's crendentials and netrality are impeccable the only people who complain about him being unrelaible are either WP:FRINGEor are severly misinformed. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Stephen A. Kent believes him to be unreliable in the the subject of Scientology; he is neither WP:FRINGE or severely misinformed. Nevertheless, I will give up this pursuit if it is so drastically erroneous.--Jacksoncw (talk) 20:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Kent is extremely [[WP:FRINGE] see New Religions and the Anticult Movement in Canada by Irving Hexham in Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions, Vol. 4, No. 2 (April 2001), pp. 281-288. When People are from your own University are calling you fringe... You got some issues with Credibility. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Jacksoncw: There's a difference between a conflict of interest per Scientology.org and a specific point of view as Melton sometimes exhibits. We don't ban sources based on an attack from a couple of peers. That just escalates into an unresolvable conflict, as you and RA have so expertly demonstrated, and we end up with empty articles. Melton is widely cited. IMHO, his book referenced in this article has a good degree of balance and makes references to documents and witness accounts on both sides. Other reliable sources may have a different point of view. It's not for us to judge which is correct. —UncleDouggie (talk) 07:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Melton's works on Scientology are required reading in dozens of university courses. He writes the Encyclopedia Britannica article on Scientology. --JN466 22:53, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Jacksoncw asks a legitimate question here. The measure of the man's legitimacy should be predicated upon how he is held in esteem (or otherwise) by his colleagues, if any. Melton is reportedly dismissed by human rights organizations and by legitimate scholars of dangerous cults for a number of reasons, the most glaring of which appears to be Melton's inability to address the core criminal history and RICO predicate acts which comprise Scientology.

Also Jayen466 notes that Melton's apologetic texts concerning Scientology are indeed required reading in some academic settings however one may perform Google searches to find Mr. Melton's writings and then compare them to the wide body of extant information that is available on line, and one can note that Mr. Melton persistently fails to cover the extent of the organization's criminal history or contemporary activities.

Aside from all of that, reference to Melton's writings should remain since Melton is part of the "Scientology lore" despite his failings of accuracy. Damotclese (talk) 08:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Have you ever figured there is a difference between Scientology the belief system and Scientology the organization? Melton is used as a source mostly for the first case. And that is why he is not the only source. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 02:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Congratulation on a well balanced article, considering

I just wanted to chime in and applaud all the work of the editors of this article. It seems to me that all things considered, this is mostly fair. I've heard people complain that highly contentious articles simply can't be done well on Wikipedia, but I think this is a fine example of things done right. I wanted to speak up because I know most of the requests above are people either complaining that the article is Scientology propaganda or far too hard on Scientology. The fact that both types of comments are occurring at the same time just show the fine line that you editors have to walk. Bravo and well done.

To add a little constructive criticism to my comment, I though I'd try to help the process of NPOV along by identifying some lines I though may stay slightly from NPOV. I understand that my opinion is just one of many, and am simply highlighting these lines as potential candidates for change. Overall, I feel that the introduction has a subtle skeptical slant. I understand the need to highlight sourced skepticism, but at times it feels as though the writer herself, assuming one writer, is skeptical. I will try to give concrete examples:

"and the Church of Scientology emphasizes this as proof that it is a bona fide religion.[14]"

I checked the source on this and it is a book so I couldn't determine the nature of the source. But somehow the emphasis on on "bona fide religion" seems odd, and the first point when Scientology's religious status is brought into question. Now I have no problem with the religious status being brought into question, since it obviously is. But the roundabout way it is done here in the writing seems to me a violation of both WP:ALLEGED, implicitly because the article writer assumes doubt in a sort of way, and more importantly WP:CLAIM because, as the link states, "To write that someone claimed or asserted something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence." Perhaps I am inserting too much nuance, but "bona fide" comes off as slightly sarcastic as well.

"Further controversy has focused on Scientology's belief that souls ("thetans") reincarnate and have lived on other planets before living on Earth.[22]"

This line seems written fine, I suppose. Something seems misplaced about it, but I can't articulate it, so it can stand. The real issue is that I followed the link, hoping to find an account of what controversies have have happened in the past, but instead I got an article that was simply describing the belief of "thetans" in a slightly sarcastic manner. Which, I suppose, is a good example of someone stirring up a controversy. But it seems to me that to conclude the above line you have to do a small bit of original research to get from the article to the line. Perhaps this line would be better gone? Perhaps a better source documenting "thetan" controversy would be better. I don't really think it is a good example of controversy to put in the opening. Personally, I'm not really sure if theological differences can be called controversy. To use a possibly loaded example, no one call the status of Jesus as the Messiah a controversy, even though Jews disagree. It would be called dogmatic difference.

"For the inner cadre of Scientologists in that period, involvement depended not so much on belief in a particular doctrine but on absolute, unquestioning faith in Hubbard.[55]"

This line struck me as extra harsh while reading through. And I can't decide if it is or isn't. It is hard for me to disentangle my feeling properly. If this article were about Jesus or Mohammad, it wouldn't seem that odd, but attached to a contemporary it seems to subtlety highlight the inherent weirdness of the situation. I tried to look at the source, but again it is a book, with a range of 23 pages for this one sentence and the one before it. Certainly whoever wrote it was summarizing, not quoting, a large section of the book. Seeing that it is merely a summery, perhaps we could tone down the repetitive phrase "absolute, unquestioning faith" to just one of the two adjectives. Unquestioning in particular has negative connotations and is already covered in absolute. I understand that we aren't supposed to sugar-coat a topic to maintain NPOV, but "absolute, unquestioning" seems a little redundant. I think the facts of the issue are conveyed with only the word absolute.

I'd like to clarify that I don't really have any personal associations with the CoS, and my only real experience is this article. By nature I am a little skeptical, which is why I tried to identify occasions that resonated with my natural outlook and highlight them for revision. I feel that I am in too biased a position to identify pro-scientology slant, since I come from the other side. Although to be truthful, I can't really identify that much. You guys and gals have done a good job. 66.129.58.144 (talk) 11:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the praise. It is much appreciated, given the contentious history of this topic area here. I agree with you about the double adjective and have taken the 'absolute' out. I can't see an easy way to fix the other two passages. If something comes to me, I'll work on it. Cheers, --JN466 23:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Winston Churchill's image and quotations on Scientology fundraising literature

The Independent has published an article about the use of Churchill's image and quotations on Scientology fundraising literature, and the protests of Churchill's descendants.

Should a mention of it be added to this WikiProject? Maybe to Nicholas Soames as well? --Codex01 (talk) 10:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a fairly common behavior of Scientology's owners/operator and literally an entirely new Wikipedia page could be created just addressing the organization's efforts to acquire legitimacy by quoting famous people or by claiming to be supported by governmental officials. The Scientology organization claimed that an Icelandic Parliament endorsed them, and also once claimed that the British Royal Family quoted the Scientology enterprise favorably, both acts prompting immediate demands from same for retractions given the reputations being threatened.

The most famous such lie was when Scientology claimed to have educated tens of thousands of African children to the point where they could read and were literate thanks to Scientology's "Applied Scholastics" fake front. In that case the African agency referenced by Scientology in their public relations sales releases confirmed that Scientology lied and that no such literacy project had taken place. Scientology had not expected anyone to go through the trouble of checking out the legitimacy of their claims, nor did they content with the possibility that the so-called "ARSCC" would widely expose the attempted fraud.

Another widely famous incident was when the Scientology organization attempted to sneak in to Bowdon, Georgia under numerous fake names, attempting to install one of their "NarCONon" fake drug treatment front. Scientology claimed to be endorsed by the "Black Businessmen of America," as I recall without immediately looking for the actual reference. Human rights advocates contacted the organization being claimed to endorse Scientology and the organization not only confirmed that they did not endorse Scientology, they demanded that the enterprise refrain from making such claims.

Another almost as famous incident was when Scientology attempted to purchase a retirement home in Norway using fake names and trying to keep their identity a secret. They tried to work with a local radio station to acquire legitimacy through public relations however the radio station contacted me and gave me a photograph of their lead person which allowed me to positively identify the individual as a Scientology individual. I provided the information to the radio station which then confronted the individual who was then forced to admit he and his organization were in fact Scientology. The radio station was able to get the local citizens informed which resulted in Scientology being thrown out of town -- literally.

How about researching the history of such behavior and creating an entirely new page which addresses specifically that behavior? It certainly should be added to the suit of articles covering Scientology, and a page dedicated to this aspect of Scientology would likely require its own page any way given that the details of claims-then-exposure might tend to be lengthy. If you want to create such a page, message me and I can provide links to some materials which cover the phenomena, including the Bowdon and Norway incidents. Damotclese (talk) 09:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

That's basically the reason why I brought this up. There are several allegations that the Church of Scientology has fabricated endorsements by certain famous people and companies, and then was asked or forced to remove them.

I think it warrants at least a paragraph somewhere, probably in the Controversies section. If there are enough of such incidents, backed up by reliable sources, it might deserve a more detailed page as well. Perhaps more experienced editors could share their opinion on this. --Codex01 (talk) 12:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

As for the use of famous people, I would start by expanding the rather short Scientology and celebrities to include implied or disputed celebrity endorsements. Eventually, perhaps one line could be added to the summary in Scientology. If Damotclese can indeed produce references for the government agency endorsement attempts, that seems like a better fit for Scientology controversies, possibly growing into a full subpage. There's a difference between using an image to imply an endorsement the way that thousands of companies use a national flag vs. stating an outright lie that a certain agency has made an endorsement. —UncleDouggie (talk) 14:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I added The Independent to the Scientology and celebrities article.--Codex01 (talk) 10:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks good. I cleaned up the article a bit. —UncleDouggie (talk) 11:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The Scientology Cross

I'm not sure whether this is important enough or relevant enough to fix or not however there is a caption for a photograph which reads The Scientology cross has eight corners representing the eight dynamics of existence which is not accurate. L. Ron Hubbard took the "crossed out cross" symbol from Aleister Crowley's Ordo Templi Orientis and the Thoth tarot deck designed by Crowley and Lady Frieda Harris. The back of every card in the OTO's Thoth deck contains the identical symbol since the origins are OTO, not Scientology.

The Scientology cross does not represent "eight dynamics." The OTO's crossed out cross existed long before either Crowley or Hubbard came along and long before Hubbard met Jack Parsons who was a friend and contemporary of Aleister Crowley. It is true that Hubbard adopted the OTOs symbol and applied it to his own enterprise however the miss-attribution of the symbol's meaning seems to me to be rather stark, more so when the origins of the symbol are readily researched.

It seems reasonable to suggest that the origins of the symbol be accurately described or at minimum a reference or footnote be provided which accurately describes the origins of the symbol. A quick check of how symbology is describe elsewhere by examining the Swastika page, I see that perhaps a new entry describing the symbol's origins might be appropriate.

What do you think? Damotclese (talk) 08:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Source? > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 02:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

New Yorker Article

The New Yorker has just published an article on their website intended for the February 14, 2011 issue. It's long and has some potentially useful information for this and other Scientology articles. —UncleDouggie (talk) 06:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunatly very little new information The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 15:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree with this. This source serves better for the Paul Haggis article. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 03:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

note on origin of scientology

i used to live in toronto and would visit the Spaced Out Library of science fiction started by famous author and editor judith merril, which is now part of the toronto public library. she claimed to have a friend who was present on hubbard's yacht when he came up with the idea for scientology. it was begun as a bet off the cuff he said to a friend "i'll bet you a million dollars i can start a religion." i have no references for this outside of my personal experience, plus the fact that judith was a pretty smart and canny gal.184.74.68.133 (talk) 19:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)grumpy the alien

Indeed rumors of the kind have circulated for years. Could Possibly be true but unfortunately (if true) no contemporary wrote at any length about it. No letter discovered in any author's estate or the such. Lacking WP:RS we cant add it any where. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Some info has already been added to the Scientology controversies page, in case anyone missed it. --Codex01 (talk) 22:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Editor Sam Merwin, for example, recalled a meeting: "I always knew he was exceedingly anxious to hit big money—he used to say he thought the best way to do it would be to start a cult." (December 1946) Writer and publisher Lloyd Arthur Eshbach reported Hubbard saying "I'd like to start a religion. That's where the money is." Writer Theodore Sturgeon reported that Hubbard made a similar statement at the Los Angeles Science Fantasy Society. Likewise, writer Sam Moskowitz reported in an affidavit that during an Eastern Science Fiction Association meeting on November 11, 1948, Hubbard had said "You don't get rich writing science fiction. If you want to get rich, you start a religion." Milton A. Rothman also reported to his son Tony Rothman that he heard Hubbard make exactly that claim at a science fiction convention. In 1998, an A&E documentary titled "Inside Scientology" shows Lyle Stuart reporting that Hubbard stated repeatedly that to make money, "you start a religion." I took this from the Scientology Controversies article.--Jacksoncw (talk) 04:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

"Implants" in Scientology

The Xenu story refers multiply to "implants". It is explained elsewhere in Scientology literature that this is a metaphor, not for physical implants, but a mental concept like belief in Christ. It seems to refer to pre-existing beliefs taken by Scientology's as pathological

However after attracting their attention by mocking the Xenu story with a teenager's abandon in the nineties, they stuck me with a real life, physical implant three years ago. It's a chip or something, I've seen its output on an EEG but not an image of it. It produces cartoon faces in my head that act happy or excited when it's not appropriate, depriving me of dignity, privacy, and peace and quiet daily. I know how this sounds

I think it should appear in the article that Scientology's "implants" have become real devices like a pacemaker. Given their interest in other machines designed to work on the mind (E-Meter, etc?) this is not beyond belief, though bizarre.

Thanks. I'd appreciate it, if you think this topic is crazy or inappropriate, if you just ignore it until the 30 day limit for archival rather than (keep!) deleting it

65.92.108.223 (talk) 10:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)