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.

Topic threads beginning August 1, 2005 through September 30, 2005, please see Talk:Scientology/Archive 4.

Topic threads beginning October 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005, please see Talk:Scientology/Archive 5.

An essay I wrote

I am hesitant to add my own essay, as this is a controversial area. However, using Wikipedia (thanks!) I have put together my thoughts on Scientology. I argue that it is at its core a religion, and say why, and that it is and will continue to be protected by those interested in 'religious tolerance'. However, I also offer three areas in which it is not covered by religious tolerance - its business practices, its use of science, and its own intolerance. In essence I am trying to find new ways of criticising Scientology, while accepting its status as a religion that should be tolerated. If anyone thinks this can or should go anywhere to do with Scientology or cults, I will leave it up to you, as I don't think I should make such a decision on my own in articles as disputed as this. Alsvid 16:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Alsvid - Wikipedia has a strict rule against original research, so I'm afraid WP isn't the place for your essay. Hope you can find somewhere for it though! Robin Johnson 16:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Alsvid. Robin is correct. If you can get a newspaper or a reputable publisher to publisher your essay then it might be appropriate. Newspapers and large publishing houses generally have a staff of editors, fact-checkers, and lawyers. They also have assets to protect, and not just monetary assets, but also their reputation. Therefore these sorts of places tend to produce works that are more reliable and trustworthy. Vivaldi 18:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh. I forgot to ask. Have you published your thoughts anywhere on the web? I would still like a chance to read them. If you have done good research and cited your sources we might be able to use your citations if they apply to this article. Take care! Vivaldi 10:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Jwissick, please provide some validation

Jwissick, you keep posting in the introduction a paragraph about controversy. No arguement, there is controversy about the CoS, no arguement. But to understand what controversy exists some validation of controversy has to be cited, do you follow? Wikipedia:Verifiability spells out how to do that. The manner you have posted in the introduction is not per Wiki policy. The content might be valid, but until or unless some source of information is mentioned, who can know what is controversy, what is rumor and what is of your own conclusions? If you refuse to validate your postings in the article, Wiki Policy spells out what to do. Your postings are to be removed from the article and posted here for discussion and validation. Then, if you (and no one else) validates them, they stay out of the article. Do you see how this can result in an informative, balanced article ? I hope so. Terryeo 17:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

If you want sources cited for an intro statement that Scientology is controversial, that would look far more embarassing for Scientology than otherwise, because it will have to have a long string of citations after the offending sentence, delineating Scientology's many controversies. Surely that's not what you're suggesting? The sources for the word "controversial" are given in no small detail throughout the course of the article. wikipediatrix 00:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello again Wikipediatrix. I'll state my position. I believe wikipedia to fill a gap. On one one hand common encyclopedias have information but they lack the humanistic point of view that only personal experience in the area can provide. On the other hand, Wikipedia can present many points of view. The number of sources of information are vast and becoming vaster because information storage and retrevial are cheaper. We are all equally able to edit these articles but for this to work, we must all have equal rights. Your right, Jwissick's right and my right are all equal but this can only work if we follow common policies. Else the guy with the biggest hard drive would be writing every article. :) Terryeo 17:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

See my response below. wikipediatrix 19:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I what?? I have made few edits to this article.. mostly reverts after vandals... WTH are you talking about?? Jwissick^(t)(c) 07:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Intro made more NPOV

The first line struck me immediately, that "Scientolgy contained 20 million words of "knowledge" " Whether these words are knowledge, propaganda, or ignorence is exactly the nature of the controversy over this organization. There is no essential reason to use this word to describe this organization, and the article works quite well with my version that I feel is closer to NPOV. Arodb 06:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

What need to enjudge the 20 million words? Why state they are all knowledge, anti-knowledge, science, pseudo-science or anything? In 20 million words you gotta allow the guy makes a joke somewhere. heh. Terryeo 00:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: The "20 million words" phrase... it's repeated somewhat often. Often enough that I think it's a catchphrase, as I've now seen it here, and in a Miscavige interview [1], half of his 40 million here [2], but this site (it's a bridge publications site, BTW) [3] has Hubbard writing *60* million words (rather than 20, or 40).... uhm, who actually counted the words? And would you really want to do that kind of a thing for a living (imagine the poor guy, sitting there counting......) :-) Ronabop 01:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Counting wouldn't be that difficult if you had electronic copies of all his works, which we can assume CoS has since they supposedly have them all stored on CDs in underground vaults in various locations. Vivaldi 22:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

So why isn't there a neutrality tag on the article, if a neutrality tag was ever to be needed somewhere, i would have thought this article would be an exellent candidate? Bib 16:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The claim of 20million-60million words is a minor and nearly insignificant point. It doesn't matter one bit if Hubbard wrote 200,000 words or 200 million. We only need to point out that the CoS claims in various places that the number is 20 millon or 40 million or 60 million, or whatever they claim. If other people have sources that indicate fewer words are written, they can add them to the article. I'm not sure that there is any dispute over the claim that the "CoS says that Hubbard wrote 40 million words" and I believe the article takes a neutral view of their claim. I think the NPOV is most appropriate when an editor finds an article that is in a NPOV state and its not being actively edited and the editor doesn't want to take them time to correct it themselves. This article has MANY editors that are willing to remove any edits that are not neutral in tone, so instead of using an NPOV tag it seems more appropriate to point out specifically which sentences you believe are not neutral and discuss ways to fix them on the talk page. Vivaldi 22:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

(Oops, i meant the article in general, not especially those numbers, sorry.) Quote: "I think the NPOV is most appropriate when an editor finds an article that is in a NPOV state and its not being actively edited and the editor doesn't want to take them time to correct it themselves. This article has MANY editors that are willing to remove any edits that are not neutral in tone, so instead of using an NPOV tag it seems more appropriate to point out specifically which sentences you believe are not neutral and discuss ways to fix them on the talk page." Answer: To point out NPOV specifically would've been easy for the Ron Hubbard dude himself probably, but not for me. (Besides, chances are he would probably want to add more NPOV to the article.) Having many editors is positive, but it is a huge article, and it would take weeks to check out every fact with every source. Since there have been news about scientology persons continually trying to shut down, and have succeded occasionally, websites with scientology information, which also makes it even more possible that there are scientology members here at wikipedia trying to make the article positive for them. Am i not making any sense at suggesting a NPOV tag? Bib 00:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's making sense, but to give an analogy, suppose you call the police and say "Please come quickly! There's an assault taking place at 200 Washington Street!" Well, if 200 Washington is a one-story house, that may be all you need to tell them. If 200 Washington Street is a 40-floor office building, you're still right to call the police, but you have to be a lot more specific about where their help is needed. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Bib- I have similar feelings about this as Antaeus. You assume because Scientology is a controversial subject that the article is biased in some manner, but you can't even specify which side it is biased in favor of, nor can you cite even a specific instance of a biased wording or phrase. Just because an article is a large controversial subject doesn't mean we can't write each sentence and meet the requirements of WP:NPOV. For an example of this, check out the abortion article, which contains probably one of the most heatedly contested philosophical battles of modern time, but yet Wikipedia has managed to present both sides of the issue and keep a non-biased tone throughout the article. Now you might suspect that a hugely controversial subject edited by hundreds of people might also warrant and NPOV tag -- but you'd be wrong. This particular abortion article is even specifically mentioned in the policy as an example of how to handle a controversial topic. I think we are doing a pretty good job here cleaning up some loose ends, and rather than coming here and saying its biased and running off, I would appreciate your help in making this article better. Find a specific example of something that is wrong and rephrase it. Find a uncited claim and see if you can figure out how to cite it properly. I'd love to see you help to improve the article. Vivaldi 03:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

K, no NPOV tag then. Vivaldi, i'm not sure if you're hurting my feelings or not, by telling me what i belive and then contradict it, and i'm not sure you're using irony when you say you love me work, but ok, no NPOV tag. Bib 16:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Copyedit

The frequent edits the article gets have left the style choppy and caused some minor grammar problems. I've done a first pass of the first few sections (up to the end of 'auditing',) and will continue. I tried to tread lightly, and I'd like to humbly request that, if anyone finds any problems or anything they take issue with, they please make individual changes of the offending alterations, rather than a wholesale revert. There may be some things I've changed that are going to cause problems, but it can't all be bad. Thanks! -- Vary | Talk 21:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Is this mutilated/glossy form of buddhism?

I read this article out of curiosity thinking scientology is something about aliens.Actually the basic spiritual philosophy of scientology looks like a copy-paste of buddhist philosophy with minor changes.It seems they are just trying to project it as some kind of modern stuff using technological terminologies ,using some funky gadgets,and a lot of clever marketing.

That is an excellent and I would say, enlightened perspective because Hubbard once drew an exact parallel between Buddhism and Scientology. The goal of Buddhism is enlightenment. I have read but would have to find it, Scientology's Clear is Buddha's Enlightenment. Those are two different words, introduced 2500 years apart, for the same situation. If you prefer to call the state of enlightenment a potential "State of Man" then that would be accurate too. The two are the same, according to Hubbard. Scientology lays out a pathway for the common person to become Enlightened, or Clear. G.S. Buddha himself had just a real tough time becoming enlightened, from what I've read. He nearly died, by some accounts. Scientology takes those steps from completely unenlightened to enlightened and lays a pathway and calls it "The Bridge to Total Freedom." "Clear" is "Enlightened", "Enlightened" is "Clear." I can find you the source of information about this and post it here if you ask me to. Terryeo 17:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

please paste the reference link. and does this mean hubbard claimed himself to be 'the enlightened i.e. the buddha?'

In careful reading (there is a lot of it) I have not seen Hubbard state "I was the Buddha." Hubbard was what Scientology calls Clear and Scientology has produced a lot of Clears. Yes, Buddha's enlightenment - Scientology's Clear (according to Hubbard). I'll get you the reference I remember reading. Terryeo 21:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

How could Hubbard have been "Clear"? He died before "The Golden Age of Tech" and the church makes any Clears (that took their courses before "The Golden Age of Tech") retake all their courses again (paying for them again too), if they want to move up the OT Levels. This means that Hubbard himself could not have taken the proper courses to move up the OT Levels and he was an invalid clear. Vivaldi 08:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

In Hymn of Asia Hubbard makes a reference to Maitreya (a sort of Buddhist messiah, a great bodhisattva whose coming was predicted by the Buddha) in such a manner that it implies he is Maitreya. And I concur that much of Hubbard's SCN philosophy was inspired by (or outright ripped off from) Buddhism. 206.114.20.121 22:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Could I please ask you to explain how you arrived at those conclusions? I'm asking out of mere interest, of course; Ron quite openly referred to Buddhism as being the original ancestor of Scientology in some of his lectures, and indeed they do share beliefs in common. However, I cannot personally see how Scientology is "ripped off", as such, from Buddhism - the two subjects are radically different, both in theory and practice, and indeed Scientology is a far more Western religion than Buddhism. I would be most grateful to hear your point of view. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 20:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Its without question that Scientology is a the western version of Buddhism or Upanishadic Hinduism.

All he did was "borrow" Buddhists and Upanishadic beliefs, change the terminology, and then sold it to westerners.

as a Hindu/Buddhist, I see absolutely no reason why anyone should be a scientologist. Why be a Scientologist when they can be part of the original?

Being a Buddhist or Hindu is free anyways. While I respect Hubbard's fascination and obvious imitation of Indic religion, I cant see any reason why anyone would be a scientologist.

Re: Mystery Religion

The Xenu incident portion of the article begins with: "The "Hidden Truth" about the nature of the universe is taught to only the most advanced Scientologists" and this is just not accurate. Each level of the Bridge (including OT levels) address a specific sort of abberation or difficulty. The OT levels are the same as all the other levels about that. A spiritual difficulty is addressed. The end result of a Bridge Level is that a person becomes cause over that sort of spiritual difficulty. You know, a kind of a high level "I dropped a rock on my toe by accident and the pain of the incident doesn't let me remember it very well." But the OT levels are not brand new education about the very nature of the universe. Physicists have been working at that for years.

I think being told that the Universe is far older than mainstream science claims would quality as a hidden truth about the nature of the Universe. That, and revelations about entities populating it. wikipediatrix 00:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

If The Church of Scientology had not published that information about 50 years ago in History of Man then possibly it could be considered a hidden information which was only available to people who had attained "high levels." But the Xenu representation of Scientology falls apart under scrutiny. Hubbard's evaluation of the age of the physical universe was widely published. But if Hubbard's evaluation (60 to 70 trillion years) had not been published then there might be an arguement about that. Hubbard mentions his evaluation of the physical universe's age in a several publications but I think the first was History of Man. The Xenu site is a site dedicated to the destruction of Scientology. The CoS has not commented on the validity of the presented Xenu document. That document is in the public domain because a judge was convinced it was a "fairy tale" and he made his judgement of it being in the public domain, based on his stated (in court) reason. He thought it a fairy tale and didn't see any reason why the CoS should have it protected by copyright. Certain hostile-to-Scientology people have taken it and run with it and attempted to make an issue. lol. Terryeo 07:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, there are plenty of other laws-of-science-defying nuggets of information in the OT III that would necessitate changing one's view of the nature of the Universe to accept, if you really want to discuss them all. But if you're really going to deny the validity of the Xenu document and somehow blame the whole issue on hostile-to-Scientology people, then there's no point in trying to discuss it. wikipediatrix 14:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not denying the Xenu document exists nor where it came from. Myself, I simply don't care what was going on, on earth, 75,000,000 years ago. lol. Discuss away! But the site you mention is hostile to Scientology. As to the age of the physical universe? I don't know, but I'm willing to allow that you might. :) Terryeo 01:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

OTIII is available from more than one source, and not just critical sites. You can get a certified copy from the courts yourself. It is verified by the Church of Scientology to be a true and accurate representation of the OTIII, since the Church of Scientology said it was in the Fishman trial. Your analysis and understanding of the OTIII copyright and legal standing is lacking. "Fairy tales" and other works of fiction do not become "in the public domain" just because they are made up nonsense. OTIII and other "fairy tales" written in the last ~70 years are copyrighted works that are protected by US copyright law. Even if OTIII was not made up nonsense, but rather a true document representing actual history -- it would still garner copyright protection for original presentation of those ideas (the words, the phrases, the organization, the format, etc... ). Vivaldi 10:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The Church of Scientology tried to further protect OTIII (and other advanced course materials) by claiming that in addition to being copyrighted materials, they were also trade secrets. During this process the Church of Scientology said the Xenu story (from OTIII) was not a trade secret (because it is not legal to make historical facts a trade secret and Church of Scientology claims that the 75-million-year-ago story about Xenu and his holocaust was a true and actual event. The only parts of OTIII that Church of Scientology claimed were protected by trade secret laws were the parts that didn't involve history, but only the parts explained the methods of the OTIII "healing". So by the Co$ own admission, their Xenu story is not protected by trade secret laws. (even though in the US it is protected by copyright laws) Vivaldi 10:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Factually, nothing new or contradictory to publicly available Scientology is contained in the hostile sites. The reason for these sites and for the broad public distribution of their content is twofold: first, to rile up Scientologists; second, to heap adequate ridicule on the subject to influence public opinion against the subject, hopefully deny it open eyes, ears and minds for proselytizing, and that kind of thing. Terryeo is correct - essentially the exact same cosmology is in A History of Man, right down to lengths of time which are at odds with current "best knowledge" of science as to the age of the earth and the cosmos. So, "hidden truth" would be inapt vis a vis nature of the universe. The reason one would believe that a Scientologist would have to modify their view of reality in order to accomodate upper levels would be because one is unaware of what is in the lower level materials. If one wants to make much of how "off-the-beam" Scientology must be because "look how ridiculous" its belief systems are, then the opportunity to reliably source the mythos one wishes to highlight is readily available in the book just mentioned, in print some fifty-plus years, and obtainable in libraries and bookstores across the planet.

Similar criticism is leveled against Christian cosmology which would place the age of the Earth at some five or six thousand years. When scholarly criticism of that religion is put forth, this is a common point of emphasis.

Let's not assume that because Scientologists don't want certain material to be in an article or to be assigned undue emphasis, that this is prima facie evidence that there must good reason it SHOULD be there. Dialectic Materialism is hogwash. One does not synthesize truth by bashing two false extremes against each other. Ayespy 17:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The Religion Angle

In a letter to Hellen O'Brien, 1953 Hubbard wrote

DEAR HELEN

APRIL 10

RE CLINIC, HAS

The arrangements that have been made seem a good temporary measure. On a longer look, however, something more equitable will have to be organized. I am not quite sure what we would call the place - probably not a clinic - but I am sure that it ought to be a company, independent of the HAS but fed by the HAS.

We don't want a clinic. We want one in operation but not in name. Perhaps we could call it a Spiritual Guidance Center. Think up its name, will you. And we could put in nice desks and our boys in neat blue with diplomas on the walls and 1. knock psychotherapy into history and 2. make enough money to shine up my operating scope and 3. keep the HAS solvent. It is a problem of practical business.

I await your reaction on the religion angle. In my opinion, we couldn't get worse public opinion than we have had or have less customers with what we've got to sell. A religious charter would be necessary in Pennsylvania or NJ to make it stick. But I sure could make it stick. We're treating the present time beingness, psychotherapy treats the past and the brain. And brother, that's religion, not mental science."

Best Regards, Ron

Shouldn't this issue be included in the main article? By the way, Ms. O'Brien was later indicted and convicted of various crimes Hubbard et al ordered her to commit. Desertphile January 5, 2006

Since the letter is a personal sort of document, perhaps it be better placed in an article of a personal sort of nature. Such as L. Ron Hubbard Terryeo 01:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Please rename this article back to Scientology

Get rid of the "Scientology (practice)" name and revert it back to just Scientology. This article is about the religion (or "workable technology") called "Scientology", it is not just about the practice of Scientology. Vivaldi 19:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I tried to fix it myself but the "Mistress" quickly reverted my edit and accused me of vandalism. wikipediatrix 22:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Seconded, thirded, fourthed, and fifthed. Worst page-move in Wikipedia history. -Silence 00:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Probably because you did it exactly the wrong way (do not do copy-and-paste moves, they make the page history become really confusing. Instead, use the move button or ask an admin if you can't). However, it cannot be considered vandalism; I've warned the user about it. Since the consensus so far is against the rename, I will move the page back to its previous title. --cesarb 00:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The page is now back to its previous name. The discussion that was going on the other talk page is now at Talk:Scientology (disambiguation). Have a nice day. --cesarb 00:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Heck, we could have Scientology, Scientology (Practices), Scientology (beliefs), Scientology (legal), Scientology (purposes) and Scientology (sandwiches). Thanks for the reversion, makes sense to me too. Terryeo 01:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Mmmmmmmmmm.... sandwiches. wikipediatrix 02:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Sandwiches rock! Terryeo, you forgot the most obvious: "Scientology (desert topping)" and "Scientology (floor wax)". Since in places like Israel, the place where one goes to learn about Scientology "technology" is not a church, nor is Scientology even referred to as a religion there (it's an educational facility or Hubbard College). Scientology is a religion in places where it is economically profitable to be a religion. Scientology is a "workable technology" in places where it is economically profitable to be so instead of religion (since they figured out that selling another religion to Jews in Israel is not a profitable adventure). Isn't it wonderful to have a religion/workable technology/desert topping/floor wax that shifts its teachings and viewpoints based on the location of the "church" / "College" / "whatever makes us the most money" ? Vivaldi 07:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, disambiguity is not needed here

We already have numerous references and a link to Church of Scientology in the first paragraph. There is not a need for yet another disambiguity notice. It is clear from the article already that there is an organization known as theChurch of Scientology that promotes Scientology. Vivaldi 10:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Removed list of popular references

This article is too long already for a list of meaningless pop culture references to Scientology. These references do not help people seeking an understanding of Scientology, but they do make the article cluttered and too long. Therefore I removed them. There's already a link to these references elsewhere in the article for people that are interested in this sort of trivia. Vivaldi 10:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: References

This article's references appear to be entirely bipolar. The "pro-Scientology" links all lead back to the Church of Scientology or members of it, while the "Con" links lead to personal websites of self-proclaimed critics of the religion. Are there any neutral sources available? Myrad 01:21, 10 January 2006 (EST)

I've put this link into the article several times as a shot at a neutral link. After all, the U.S.Navy can't be completely biased, huh?

The U.S. Navy's information to its troops click "About various faiths" click "Scientology" Terryeo 12:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Hrm... Doesn't sound too neutral to me. "CAN closed in mid 1996 and its assets were liquidated. In an ironic twist, its name, logo, phone number and other assets were purchased by a new group run by a multi-faith board which is dedicated to promoting religious tolerance. (12) The original CAN's bankruptcy was caused by costs assessed by a court as a result of their association with a vicious kidnapping and assault." Not mentioning that it was the Church of Scientology itself that was the 'new group run by by a multi-faith board...," and the comment on why CAN went bankrupt. What does that have to do with Scientology? Ehurtley 06:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

It is hard to find a "neutral" reference about Scientology. Anyone that has studied it seriously soon discovers that its a viscious cult and a global scam, and therefore their "neutral" report becomes a critical report. There are sources in the media like Richard Lieby (now at the Wash Post) that have written numerous newspaper articles exposing the cult. There has been an article in Time Magazine about the cult that was reprinted in Readers' Digest. 60 Minutes has done a couple of exposes on the cult as well, but none of these have been flattering for Scientology. The task you are expecting is akin to asking someone looking into the pit of hell and write a neutral non-POV article about Satan incarnate. Unfortunately, it just isn't possible. Vivaldi 11:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

There is a page that purports to be a neutral resource at [Bernie's Scientology Pages], but even a cursory examination of his site shows that 99% of his words and pages are either criticizing critics of Scientology or making excuses for the Church of Scientology. Most critics of Scientology believe that Bernie is in fact doing the work for the church. Vivaldi 11:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

"Studied it seriously," well, it sounds like all of that study did not read a word of Scientology. I guess you mean, "Studied seriously the words written against Scientology"  ? heh ! A "Scam" is a situation where you give something and get nothing back. In the Church of Scientology you give something, but people obviously think they get something back. Else they would not give something yet again. Scam doesn't describe what happends, personal attests say "I got something." Where is the "Scam" you are talking about ? Terryeo 18:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I am using the word "scam" because that is what Time Magazine and Readers' Digest both used in the title of their articles about Scientology. Here is the full title as it was printed in Time Magazine on the cover: ["The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power: Ruined lives. Lost fortunes. Federal crimes. Scientology poses as a religion but really is a ruthless global scam -- and aiming for the mainstream"] I can also point out numerous other usages of the word "scam" (referring to Scientology) by other neutral sources. Vivaldi 10:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course you are free to use the word scam and to endlessly repeat the word at every opportunity. If Time Magazine used it, why should you repeat ever word of the article? :) Or, alternatively, you could look up the word "scam" and see what it means and understand how it does or does not apply. It is up to you. Accept the word of persons hostile to the <any subject here> or read the subject for yourself and make your own decision. Terryeo 14:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, The word "scam" applies quite well. Perhaps you should do a little word clearing yourself. Scientology promises things to its members that it does not and cannot deliver. Once a person has already wasted tens of thousands of dollars they find out all the money they wasted in the past is not retrievable, even though the promised abilities are never reachable and the words of L. Ron Hubbard are demonstrated to be lies. Scientology is a fraudulant business scheme and a swindle. The Church of Scientology uses deception and fraud to extract money from its members. These facts make the word "scam" apply very aptly. I'm beginning to think that you have reading difficulties, Terryeo. Have you not read the article in Time Magazine at all? Vivaldi 10:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The word "scam" is available to everyone in a dictionary. Generally it means you give something and get nothing back, or get back something of lessor value. I already said that. When people give money to the Church of Scientology and get something, and then give money again for another service, doesn't that remotely imply that people thought they got something? Of course you have an opinion. On the other hand lots of people don't agree. If people did agree the church wouldn't own millions of dollars worth of physical property. You state "deception and fraud" and I know otherwise. On the other hand, your opinion is yours to enjoy. I have myself aided several people in fairly major ways with the technology. I have myself seen people's lives significantly improved with the technology. It is a technology that has little or no physical aspect that you can hold in your hand and show to another person. Unless maybe you count your gross income :) No, you're prefectly welcome to your opinion. I don't want it. I've formed my own by my own efforts. My edits are not toward preaching the word, your opinion is yours. It is a body of information. You can learn it or not, your choice. Terryeo 12:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

As to "giving something, and getting nothing back". The Church of Scientology claims 10 million people are members, whom they apparently define as anyone that has ever spent money on a course or taken a service of some kind. However, recent studies show that approx 55,000 people are self-professed Scientologists. Therefore it appears that Scientology has had over 9 million people that have fallen for the scam and decided to disavow themselves of Scientology (or else Scientology is lying about the number of members). Apparently these 9 million members who refuse to claim Scientology as their religion don't feel that Scientology has given them anything of value, right? Or else they'd all stand up and be proud of the money they have spent on it, right? And there are numerous examples of the Church of Scientology taking advantage of elderly and sick people. Some have committed suicide after having been bankrupted by the church. Also there are a number of former high-ranking members -- from Michael Pattinson (an OTVIII), and Tory Bezazian (an OTVII), and many others that continue to speak out about how they were scammed by the Church of Scientology (and how they are still harassed and fair-gamed). Both Tory and Michael will tell you right now that they gave tons of money and got nothing back of value. They give speeches and write about it quite often.

Vivaldi is obviously, by the tone of his language just above, an ardent critic himself - so his rationale must be regarded at self-serving. CESNUR.org contains objective studies of dozens of religious issues, including those having to do with Scientology. One might look there.Ayespy 21:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

CESNUR.org was set up with the specific purpose of fighting critics of cults. http://www.cesnur.org/about.htm And like I said before. Anyone that has studied both sides of Scientology with an open mind, by default becomes critical of all the horrid acts that Scientology is responsible for. (For just one example: you'd have to be an awfully sick person to think that Scientology's treatment of Lisa McPherson that resulted in her death is an acceptable behaviour.) Vivaldi 10:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Not very many horrid facts, really very few. I have no idea how many people have done Scientology services and in the early years there were some mistakes. There is real effort to deliver good service and if you want your money back you have only to ask for it. That was an issue once or twice in the early years, before policy had formed. I might as well say. No amount of reading of people's opinions will cause you to understand Scientology. Terryeo 12:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

To disagree with both you and Vivaldi: being critical of Scientology does not mean that one's rationale regarding this article is necessarily "self-serving". It is possible, for instance, to acknowledge on John Wayne Gacy's discussion page that Gacy is a pervert and a sicko, but still be impartial regarding his Wikipedia article. An "objective" view of Scientology doesn't mean one that doesn't criticize it - there's no getting around much of the Church's misdeeds, just as there's no getting around John Wayne Gacy's. Still, one CAN be neutral about these subjects by reporting the facts and leaving out the invective and wrath. wikipediatrix 21:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me, wikipediatrix. I did not state that being critical was evidence of a self-serving rationale, just that the rationale used by a person who likens investigating Scientology to "looking into the pit of hell" is likely to be self-serving. Again, not because there is criticism, but because the tone of the speaker is intemperate, indicating a likelihood of hostility, and therefore absence of impartiality. Even, for instance, to refer to Gacy as sick and perverted in an encyclopedia article entails value judgment - which an encyclopedia is supposed to leave to the reader rather than the author. Eg, I once read and did a school report on a biography of Hitler which included an account of the holocaust. There was no conclusory or judgmental language in it. A mere detailed reportage of the facts left one with such feelings of devastation and desolation that one almost felt one had witnessed it. Job well done by the author.

I truly appreciate the efforts of those who have never set foot in a Church, never read a book, do not personally know a single active Scientologist, yet whose feelings have been turned against Scientology by hostile, slanted and unbalanced accounts, and who still try to keep invective, hostility and gratuitous bashing out of the article. I do not appreciate the efforts of those who answer neutral questions with vicious answers. Ayespy 17:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

You're not understanding me, either. I know "to refer to Gacy as sick and perverted in an encyclopedia article entails value judgment", but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about saying those things on this discussion page. As long as no one says such obvious NNPOV things on the actual articles, all is well. And my whole point was that it IS possible to speak your mind on the discussion page without doing so on the actual article. But being impartial in an article does NOT mean that one has to ignore that people died because of Gacy. (Or, for that matter, Scientology). wikipediatrix 17:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Like all rational people that have read about Scientology, I am a critic of many of its practices. Especially the practice of fair-game. I am also not fond of the practice of letting people die in RPF instead of taking them to the hospital. If the Church of Scientology would stop abusing people, scamming them out of money through fraud, and would halt their practice of fair-game -- then I wouldn't be critical of the group. Vivaldi 10:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Then we're both right. He's an ardent critic so you can't rely on his rationale that it's impossible to be objective about Scientology without savaging it, and even if he (or you) are critics that doesn't mean he (or you) can't put best foot forward in the article itself. My remark was not aimed at the article, but at the response to Myrad's question. Myrad asked what seemed to be an honest question, and my stance was that the response to that question was unreliable. Ayespy 17:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I've yet to see any objective study of the Church of Scientology that doesn't shed bad light on the organization. I proposed that the reason for this is because it is impossible to study Scientology without discovering the awful truth about it. Just as any objective study on Hitler will undoubtably uncover some awful truths, so will any objective study about Scientology. And if someone would ask me, why aren't there any neutral articles about Hitler and the holocaust? I'd say, because Hitler and the holocaust are not a neutral topic. The mere presentation of the facts about Hitler and the holocaust present both subjects in very poor light. Thus, Encyclopedia Britannica and every other "neutral" encyclopedia present Hitler in a way that would make even an uninformed unbiased neutral reader turn into a critic of Hitler and his policies. And while I certainly don't mean to suggest that the Church of Scientology is comparable to the evil of Hitler in scale -- I do believe that many of its practices are worthy of contempt. Vivaldi 10:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Your logic, Vivaldi, is unfortunately circular. If I point you to an objective study which finds no fault, you will automatically disqualify it as objective... because it finds no fault. In your mind if it's not negative, it's not neutral. If it's neutral, it's biased. Scholars with no connection whatever to the church, and nothing to gain or lose one way or the other have published any number of objective studies. In exchange, they have been labeled by critics as "shills," "apologists," "agents," "ridiculous," and any number of other gratutitous labels bearing no relation to the facts, because "Scientology is bad, they studied it and did not find it bad, ergo their methods, motives or mental faculties are defective."

Also, if you point me to any objective study that shows that Hitler was just a misunderstood soul, then I will also call you an idiot. If you point me to an objective study that shows that Scientology and all its related e-meters, purification rundowns, and space alien history have any basis in scientific fact or accepted scientific principles then I will also point out that you are a complete dullard. You can babble and bleat about it all you want, but the unfortunate fact for you is that Scientology's version of the history of the world is complete hullyballoo. Scientology's e-meter is a machine that has not demonstrated the ability to do anything of value. It has not been able to "see a thought". Scientologist OT's have not demonstrated scientifically any particular ability to control M.E.S.T. Scientologists OT's cannot increase their weight by 30 lbs just by thinking while on a scale (which LRH claimed he could do consistently) None of the supernatural activities promised by L. Ron Hubbard can be demonstrated in any scientific environment. There has been over 50 years of research into Dianetics and not one single objective scientific study has been able to demonstrate any particular benefit or ability that is produced through the practice of Dianetics, despite there being an obvious benefit to Co$ if such a study could be completed. (James Randi is offering a $1 million prize to the first OT that can demonstrate their ability in a controlled scientific environment....this has been publicly offered for a number of years and has yet to be claimed by any OT). 69.254.232.67 10:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Your misinformation and non-information on the subject itself is glaring to the informed, as I see where you have claimed among reasons for your distaste of the subject here and there, things which never happened, events which have been altered to add shock value, accounts which have since been shown inaccurate, things which are not a part of Scientology, or things which have been granted undue importance:

Perhaps you can be more specific about what you claim to be misinformation? It's a little disingenous to claim that my information is not correct, and then not provide specific correction. What events have never happened? What events were altered to add shock value? What accounts have been shown innaccurate? What is not part of Scientology? What has been granted undue importance? Vivaldi 10:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

eg: harm is of huge importance, good done is of no importance; thousands of pages of sensible utterances and advices by the church are "cover story," while paragraphs or sentences which can be held up to ridicule, scorn or opprobrium are "the real story." Hundreds of thousands or millions of happy parishoners are "brainwashed," and cannot accurately describe their church experience but a few dozen ardent critics uniformly and in every case can.

Again you restate a blatant and intentional lie. There are not HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of HAPPY PARISHIONERS. There are not MILLIONS of HAPPY PARISHIONERS. The latest numbers show that only 55,000 people in the United States claim to practice Scientology. (According to the 1954 Declaration of Human rights, a person's religion is defined as what the person says their religion is). Vivaldi 10:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, in coming to my conclusions about Scientology I have weighed all the good and bad and I started with a balanced and unbiased opinion having never heard of Scientology or LRH until I picked up a found copy of Dianetics as a youngster and read it and applied it for myself. You have made a grave error in assuming that I have ignored all the good things that Scientology has done. I am well aware of positive aspects of the cult. I am aware of many things that new members of the Church cannot possibly know about because I have spent thousands of hours studying it, when they have not. I have interviewed and discussed at great length with Scientologists the meanings of Body Thetans, clusters, Xenu, and the Marcabian Confederacy. I've talked with dozens of people that were in the Sea Org for dozens of years. I've talked with people for countless hours that have completed OTVII and OTVIII and they have been willing to help me research the importance and value of those teachings. I've never claimed the Scientology had absolutely no positive attributes and that it wasn't helpful to some people. It would be folly to claim that. It is quite obvious that many people get something from Scientology and are quite happy spending their money of Co$ services. It is a complete misrepresentation of my position to claim that my view ignores the positive aspects. Scientology has good parts and bad parts and when they are weighed on unbiased scale, the bad parts greatly exceed the good produced. Therefore, it is an organization that I believe should be avoided. Vivaldi 10:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

If Scientology does no charity this proves it has no social value. If it does charity, this is a "front group" or "disguised recruiting effort." If Criminon reduces recidivism in a given correctional institution from 90% to 20%, thereby sharply reducing crime in a region, this is a trick or a false report.

Would you care to let us know what correctional facilities here in the United States are using Criminon and provide us with some independent studies on its effectiveness? I don't think the VM efforts around the world are a "disguised recruiting effort". These are very blatant recruiting efforts. I'm still on a VM mailing list and the people asking me to go to New Orleans, Florida, and Houston last year made it very clear that what they wanted most (if I couldn't go myself) was tracts and pamphlets to distribute to the people affected by the tragedy. I know that many individual VMs are honest and good people that want to help others, but I also know that L. Ron Hubbard says the most important goal right now is to CLEAR THE PLANET and the VM efforts here and globally are all promoted as a means to help reach that goal. Vivaldi 10:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

If one or a dozen Scientologists are convicted of crimes, they are an example of what the church is REALLY about. The principles within 99% of the body of scripture which one studies from the start and is urged to use repeatedly throughout one's association with the church are "window dressing" while a few-page document one may or may not see a single time some 2/3 of the way up the "Bridge" and may never think of again is "core belief." Ron wrote a few thousand pages of science fiction and hundreds of thousands of pages in other genres (Westerns, adventure, mystery, romance, screenplays, philosphy, religion, education, managment, geographic study, seamanship, gliding, etc.) but he is first and foremost a science fiction writer. The vast majority who succeed at Scientology are out of touch with reality. The very few who fail at it and the fewer still who turn on it have the REAL truth. I could go on all night.

You can go on and on making straw man arguments that do not hold water all night. All of the scripture of L. Ron Hubbard is from source and is unerring. So the same 99% body of scripture is also a core belief just as the 1% is a core belief. Most Scientologists never reach OTIII because they either figure out its a scam before they reach it, or they run out of money, but just because the low-level plebes never reach the spiritual enlightenment of the OT levels doesn't mean they aren't "core beliefs" of LRH and the Church of Scientology. Vivaldi 10:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you claiming that the OT Levels and the upper levels are not an important part of a Scientologist's spiritual journey up the Bridge? You realize that these are the levels that the truly dedicated are spending upwards of $300,000 paying to receive? Do you deny the existence of Body Thetans now? Was L. Ron Hubbard right about engrams that he talks about in Dianetics, but wrong about the Body Thetans that he wrote about in OT III and beyond? Vivaldi 10:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Can you answer these questions? ARE THE OT LEVELS AN IMPORTANT PART OF THE SPIRITUAL JOURNEY OF A SCIENTOLOGIST? Do the OT Levels give a Scientologist useful tools to control MEST? Do the OT Levels make a Scientologist a better person? Are the OT levels filled with truthful information? Vivaldi 10:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Ron wrote a "few thousand" pages of science fiction? Surely you jest. Even Ron says that he was primarly a SF writer from 1938 to 1952. Then again later in his life he wrote over 1/2 million words in Battlefield Earth and then he wrote another 10 volume set, Mission Earth, over 1.2 million words, which the Church of Scientology calls L. Ron Hubbard's "Magnum Opus" [[4]]. Vivaldi 10:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Hubbard is well known for his science fiction writing. Hubbard called himself a science fiction writer and even spent a lot of words writing about what it meant to be a science fiction writer and the importance of science fiction. Trying to minimize the importance of Hubbard's science fiction makes you appear silly. Vivaldi 10:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

All of these skewed assignments of value are necessary to make the scale tip in the proper direction from your point of view.

Of course you have learned all this without putting in 2 1/2 hours a day of study, reading a book cover to cover, learning how to audit, joining staff, using Scientology to help your neighbor or spouse or kids, sitting down for a few afternoon chats with a Scientologist, or any such first-person activities.

You are a liar. You know nothing about me and your postulates about me are completely made up bullshit. I read my first LRH book when I was in grade school. I've spent thousands of hours reading and studying Scientology and reading the works of L. Ron Hubbard and many other works created since LRH was turned into fish food. I've read far more words by L. Ron Hubbard and about Scientology and about LRH than you have even dreamed about. My collection of Scientology and related texts numbers in the thousands. I have spent MANY MANY hours talking to Scientologists and I continue to speak with Scientologists on a frequent basis to this day. I speak to Scientologists at afternoon chats and I have taken them to dinner and I have shared my bed with Scientologists and I have eaten breakfast with Scientologists. I have also chatted with many Scientologists that have had their lives destroyed by the CoS and I continue the witness the fair-game tactics being applied to any that dare oppose. (e.g. Right now 30 year ex-CoS-staff member, Chuck Beatty is having his PC folder confessionals and RPF admissions tossed out into the public forum by Scientologists. You can watch it happen right now, this very week! Vivaldi 10:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Scholars who have done weeks, months or years of hands-on investigation are "duped." One knows this because Scientology is bad, but they do not find it so.

Which scholars are you referring to specifically? Vivaldi 10:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Empirically, a thing which attracts large and growing numbers of people (users/adherents/followers/fans) over more than half a century has a perceived value to those people.

Again you are a stating a lie. The Church of Scientology has less than 60,000 adherants in the United States and has less than that number for at least 20 years. This is not a large number of people. (for a comparison of scale, there are over 5 million muslims and 66 million catholics in the US. Since 1950 the numbers of muslims in the US has grown by 4.9 million. The number of Catholics has increased by over 15 million. These are what you call LARGE and GROWING numbers of members. The Church of Scientology is a very small organization. It's numbers are comparable to the General Assembly of Korean Presbyterian Churches which have around 350 actual church buildings with Sunday services (which far exceeds the number of CoS Sunday church services in the US) and there are around ~55,000 Korean Presbyterians in the U.S. Now, this is a church that can truly say its growing because they actually doubled in size in the last 10 years while the Church of Scientology remained nearly stagnate. Vivaldi 10:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

When certain (fewer) other people disagree, any analysis which relies on the logic of the antis without comprehending the logic of the pros will be flawed. Certainly an analysis of its popularity which rejects out of hand all non-anti (say, scholarly) accounts will be flawed.

I am all for bringing out any "scholarly" research you would care to discuss. Do you know of any good biographies of L. Ron Hubbard? You want to provide some names of independent researchers that do independent study of the organization? Vivaldi 10:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I am put in mind of Windows vs Linux et al. Windows is hugely profitable, widely used, universally supported, arguably the most popular OS in the world. Linux is by all accounts less buggy, more elegant, more powerful, more reliable - yet less popular and less profitable. OS2 and Mac, likewise. Then there's IE versus Firefox, Opera, etc. I personally HATE some of the attributes of Windows, and find some of Microsoft's business and licensing practices anti-consumer, anti-competetive, and despicable. There is no doubt MS has forced some superior technologies out of the markeplace, and this is unjust. Yet here I sit, using Windows (though not IE) on a PC. Further, to use one of my webmail sites, I am forced into IE or it won't work. I could focus on all the bad things about MS and Windows and IE and make a powerful case why Microsoft should be hamstrung or forced out of business so the "little guy" could prosper. If I am going to be dispassionate and objective in comparing the merits of software companies or evaluation the "goodness" or "badness" of any single comany, however, I have to study and understand what it is about Microsoft's software and business model that account for its successes. If the "little guys" wish to better their market position, they could use a little study, too. Conversely, MS and various pundits held early that Open Source was ridiculous, would never work, was a non-viable business model, and that Nestcape, Linux, etc. were doomed. That appears not to have been the case. If MS wants to be be best IT can be, it might do well to study the upstarts, as well. Obviously neither the little guy studying the big guy nor vice-versa will result in any actual learning or understanding, so long as fault-finding between them is the primary focus of any study.

I am further put in mind of the U.S. Congress. The best government money can buy. It can reasonably be said that each elected member began his political career with an idea of civic duty. It can further reasonably be said that, in the scant time left over between currying favor and raising money, the vast majority of members tries to do what's best for what he perceives to be his constituency. Each party holds that they are the custodians of the holy grail which embodies the true spirit of American Democracy, and that the other party are vacuous spewers of party line, deceivers of the electorate, and the pawns of illegitemate special interest forces. I think it could be argued with some basis that Iceland and Switzerland "do" democracy better than we do. Is there a reasonable consensus in the US, however, that Congress is "evil?" Does any single impartial observer really believe the hyperbole of either side? Is is possible to examine the workings of the 2-party system, lobbying, mass media campaigning, etc. without having to state at some point "Group A LOVES American Democracy because... and Group B HATES American Democracy because..." I believe that, vis-a-vis Wikipedia, it is a failure of logical process to believe that NPOV must entail presentations "for" and "against" anything at all. I think it is possible to present a statement of characteristics, a history of events and a statement of status quo without having recourse or reference at any point to a value-laden statement made either by a supporter or a detractor.

A student wishing to understand Scientology and its history, who reads a GOOD encyclopedia article addressing the subject will come away "getting" who started it and when; "getting" what some of the basic principles are and why someone might find them sensible; "getting" what some of the observances are, "getting" an idea of its scope and reach, "getting" that there are a number of detractors and a larger number of adherents; "getting" at least generally why detractors detract and why adherents adhere, "getting" or at least being able to reason out why court actions, enforcement actions, PR campaigns by detractors and unfavoable media coverage have not reduced the reach of the church (This is of historical importance. Was it opposed? Why? Did it survive? Why? Is it flourisging? Why? Is it fading into the mists of time? Why?); "getting" what about it is religious/charitable and why more scholars and governments recognize it as religious/charitable all the time; and "getting" where it stands in comparison to other lines of religious and philosophical thought and practice. He will not come away feeling as though he came to rest in an undecided position, having been brought there by the equilibrium of two inexorable forces pulling him in opposite directions until stasis was reached.

Truth is not in the tension between false extremes.

You, Vivaldi, are a detractor. You are not a scholar, a neutral party, or an impartial observer. You are at one of the false extremes. (I would put worshipers of Ron, believers in "perfect" Scientology and the uniform blamelessness of all Scientologists at the other extreme.) Your entire perception of the study is colored by your animus. No need to pretend otherwise. No point in pretending that your personal distaste is somehow the inevitable product of some inherent quality in the subject, and that a failure to agree with you on this point is prima facie evidence of someone else's failure in rational thinking.

That was too long, but worth saying, regardless (I think). FWIW Ayespy 04:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Ayespy, there is no pretending about any of it. I am truly a scholar of Scientology and if there was some sort of academic degree one could obtain by studying Scientology then I would have my doctorate many years ago. If you spent the amount of time that I have researching this organization then you would come to the same conclusions as the rest of the scholarly researchers. Vivaldi 10:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you can read about the concentration camps and the holocaust and come away with a completely blaise attitude and say, "Hitler was neither 'good' nor 'bad', but rather there are two extremes. People either dig Hitler or they don't dig Hitler!" But that is absurd. Vivaldi 10:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The Church of Scientology has committed many crimes. The very "source" is filled with foul and evil words. To those that stick their heads in the sand and willfully ignore the dead bodies and the voices of the families of dead and destroyed ex-members, then shame on you. Vivaldi 10:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

HEH ! Amuse yourself, Vivaldi. There is the point of view of a healthy, normal person who reads with skepticism and evaluates information. Below that is the point of view of a person completely convinced against something and can do nothing but criticize. Note that for some people, that's as good as it ever gets, some people can simply not do anything but criticize.

I am also a healthy "normal" person. I differ from Ayespy only in that have read and possess a body of knowledge on the subject that he has only begun to scratch the surface of. I can do much more than criticize. I know many things that the Church of Scientology is effective at accomplishing. I have just come to the conclusion, as have the vast majority of my colleagues, that all-in-all Scientology is a corrupt fraud and a global scam. You seem to think that just because I have came to the inevitable conclusion that CoS is a harmful and hurtful group that my research is not valid. That is your mistake. I've spent thousands of hours interviewing people, reading books and other texts that you have never even had the opportunity to lay your eyes on. I know what I am talking about and I have come to conclusions based on an immense body of knowledge. When I first read Dianetics as a youngster, I had a completely open mind and absorbed the material like a sponge. I can still recite passages from it to this day and I even know where to quickly find many of my favorite passages in the book when I hold it in my hands. I started off with a completely unbiased view on Scientology and I held a mostly positive view about Scientology and LRH for nearly 20 years. Vivaldi 10:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I am very willing to add or keep all the positive aspects of Scientology that help the reader understand the subject as long as the article doesn't become a big long advertisement for the criminal cult. Vivaldi 10:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

For example, Islam today. If you only look at those who side with Bin Laden, you have plenty of hot fuel to fire up your hatred of modern civilization. No shortage of hatred. On the other hand, you can use a little good sense. In the case of Scientology, there is plenty of hot fuel. On the other hand, it owns millions of dollars worth of property across the planet. It must be doing something that people are willing to spend their money on. So you are stuck with one of two possibilities. Either the planet has many fools. Or, Scientology does something that a lot of people feel is worth spending money on. So where do you go to find out about Scientology? You can go to the hot fuel sites. They will fire up your hatred to a fever pitch and you can go forth, forever holding a torch against scientology. Or you can explore the source, you can read a scientology book or website. I will tell you this. If Scientology offered nothing it would not have the money it does today. Copyrights on the internet are protected as they are because of what Scientology has done with court cases. Terryeo 14:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe the accumulation of wealth (or even vast amounts of wealth) is an acceptable measure of good ethics in an organization. Money can be extracted from many people through fraud, bribery, extortion, theft, and coercion. I believe that Scientology has amassed a large amount of its wealth in a highly unethical manner. As Chuck Beatty (a 25+ year full time staff and member of Sea Org) is currently finding out, Co$ doesn't save all the confessional materials in the auditing room for nothing. They are often used to extort people into staying in Scientology and continueing to give money. When that doesn't work, the material is used to shudder them into silence. (But that's okay to divulge PC folder material as long as it will "Keep Scientology Working"! Vivaldi 10:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I also believe that these value judgements about good, bad, and evil don't belong in the article itself. The reader can come to their own conclusions quite easily without being told what to think. The article should just present the facts in a neutral tone. (e.g. Lisa McPherson was a Scientologist with severe psychiatric problems. After a particular bad psychotic break, she presented to a hospital, where she was recovered and released to a group of Scientologists. Lisa McPherson died while in the custody of Scientology for over 14 days doing a Scientology process called the Introspection Rundown. When the Scientologists realized that she was dying, she was eventually taken to a hospital 45 minutes away from Clearwater in order to visit a hospital with a CoS doctor, rather than the closer hospital within 10 minute drive. She died soon after arrival at the hospital. When she died she was severely dehydrated, having not received water for a number of days and she was photographed by the medical examiner with cockroach bites covering her body. In 2005, the Church of Scientology agreed to settle the lawsuit with the McPherson family, who had sued for her negligent death.) Vivaldi 10:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

This is about as POV as you can get. I am removing them since what is the reliable source for this? And spare me by quoting critic sites. This page needs some serious work to be anything close to “neutral.” Personally, I think this article needs a whole revamp. Streamlight

Response to Terryeo from above

Your answer is a total non-sequitur to my question, but, be that as it may: Wikipedia is not here to present all points of view as equal. The page on World War II does not give neo-nazis an uncritical right to their own opinion. The page on 9/11 does not give Al-Qaeda equal rights to push their philosophy, nor benefit of the doubt. Historically, Scientology has committed so many reprehensible acts (and that's not me talking, that's judges, juries, and governments all around the world) that after decades of such behavior, Scientology has long since passed the point where the weight of their long history of proven malfeasance cannot be edited out of history. This is not picking on Scientology or being unfair to it in any way: look at other examples. There can never be a proper biography of Michael Jackson that does not mention his child molestation accusations. There can never be a proper history of Germany that doesn't mention that it started both World Wars. There can never be an article on Jim Jones that doesn't mention the kool-aid. Actions have consequences, and if O.J. Simpson wants to get on Wikipedia and get mad that his article mentions Nicole's death, I'll say the same thing to him. wikipediatrix 19:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm perfectly willing to respond to your question, Wikipediatrix, I guess I don't understand what you asked? Wikipedia's policy about citing sources, generally, insures many points of view can be presented, then the reader can understand the various sides of a situation. Largely based on the quality of the cited sources. Wikipedia:Citing sources. But you reference Scientology's reprehensible acts, I think you are saying your point of view is; you are convinced Scientology has done so many horrible things that it has fallen to contempt in your view. Your point of view is yours, you are welcome to it and I am willing to understand. So what are you asking me that I am not yet understanding? Terryeo 23:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Good people can do bad things. In fact, the Scientology view of the Anti-Social personality (a person, the balance of whose acts in life are more destructive to those around them than constructive, and knowingly and intentionally so) is that it is a basically good being who has become stuck in an illusory situation wherein EVERYONE presents a potential threat to their survival. Unable to solve the problem of being under constant attack from all directions from everyone in a positive fashion, they instead resort to harming others in order to protect themselves from the imagined danger.

In order to view any reprehensible acts by Scientologists (not Scientology, as it is a body of thought, not a personal actor) in a truly balanced manner, it is necessary to do two things, neither of which critics seem capable of getting their heads around - first, balance the good against the bad and put it in perspective (the chief critics will tell you there is no good, so why bother - and that hundreds of thousands or millions of happy adherents are collectively hoodwinked, unable to think); and second, understand the actual history of any bad acts themselves, their genesis, intent and result. (again, the chief critics will claim evil intent as the sole cause of bad acts, but will, in the final analysis, be unable to point to an illegitemate gain to have been accomplished in furtherance of the evil intent.)

As to the balance of good to bad, count people. How many people (hundreds of thousands by the most conservative estimates, probably into the millions if you stop for a moment to realize that globally, there are over 15,000 STAFF, much less public) say Scietology has helped them, and how many (a few hundred perhaps, if that) actually say Scientology has personally harmed them.

You keep repeating these same lies even after you have been exposed numerous times. If you can show some 3rd party research that shows 15,000 staff and millions of members, then its time to step up and present it. I'm showing you the numbers straight from the US Gov't about the number of cult members in the Co$. Vivaldi 09:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

No matter how many times you deluded cult members try to postulate that you have "millions of members" and "tens of thousands" of staff -- it does not make it true. According to the United States Gov't and the U.S. Census, the Church of Scientology has ~55,000 members in the United States. See http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/04statab/pop.pdf Visit No. 67. Self-Described Religious Identification of Adult Population: 1990 and 2001. Scientology has 55,000 members in US as of 2001 and 45,000 members as of 1991. Vivaldi 09:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

If you guys have 15,000 staff handling 55,000 members, then I'd say you have more than a slight problem with over staffing. I live in the one of the 50 largest cities in the U.S. (one of the few with an actual Co$ "Church" that holds Sunday services) -- and this "Church" has less than 10 public in it on their busiest day -- Sunday. Vivaldi 09:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

There are millions of people that have read Scientology books and taken courses that currently say THEY AREN'T SCIENTOLOGISTS. Either, they never considered themselves as scientologists, or they abandoned Scientology after professing it for some time. There are far more than "a few hundred perhaps, if that" dissatisfied and scammed ex-Scientologists. There appear to be MILLIONS of people that have been scammed. Luckily, most of these people were just scammed into buying a book (Dianetics) that did not offer many of the things it promises in the hundreds of infomercials selling it. Vivaldi 09:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

As to motivation for any "bad" acts, document the history from day 1. Since Scientology began a blink of an eye ago, historically, this is possible. Now, early, Ron bad-mouthed the medical and psychiatric establishment, and said they were full of it and he had a better way. He took no affirmative act against them, merely said they were bad. I personally think he proved it, too, but let's just say it was his mere opinion, for fun. The reaction was swift and extreme, and began the month following the publication of Dianetics (relying on the original documented research of Omar Garrison, here, - a guy who's now personally switched sides - in his book Playing Dirty) with an AMA effort which soon was joined by the APA, the FDA, FBI, IRS, etc. The oft-written (by the participants themselves) aim of the effort was the eradication of first Dianetcs, and once it was mentioned, Scientology. The record is clear that at this early stage, before any Scientologist ever did anything bad to anyone in furtherance of a purported church-sanctioned effort, there were 'way more people who had been whipped in to frenzy of trying to eradicate Scientology than there were Scientologists. After 25 years of IRS attacks, for instance, we finally find a single instance of a single Scientologist convicted of actually getting inside the IRS to find out what was in their files (over 100 linear feet of file drawer space in investigative results without a single actionable offense found). Why would he do that? Well, could it be that he believed Scientology was the salvation of man, and the IRS was illegitemately trying to wipe it out? Similarly with other attack-counter-attack scenarios. Without including the documented history, the bald statement that "a Scientology agent infiltrated the IRS" conveys only that he did a bad thing, and not that he may have had ample reason to feel it justified.

Other Scientologists may have done other things evincing poor judgment, wrong-headed hostility, personal malice, self-protective instinct, a hundred possible reasons. But a catalog of "every bad thing a Scientologist ever did or was accused of" is not evidence that Scientology gives up its right to be viewed dispassionately on its own merits.

I don't think any serious scholar would hold forth the position that the Catholic Church is evil incarnate (granted, there are thousands of detractors who will - you know, "Whore of Babylon," Antichrist and the rest). Even in spite of the undeniable evils of first the crusades and later the inquisition, which were many, horrifying, and protracted in duration, on balance that church is viewed as a valid religion of respectable pedigree and current overall good influence in the world.

Scientology, to the eternal chagrin of those who would wish otherwise, has already in its short history and despite intense opposition from some quarters, surpassed its make/break point and is no longer in danger of vanishing from the scene, either with a bang or a whimper. I think it's pretty safe to say the philosophy, and probably the church, are here to stay. It already has survived the passing of its founder in good order (a watershed event in the analysis of a movment's viability) and has adherents belonging to four generations. Rather than to casually remark on certain adherents' "so many reprehensible acts," as though these were somehow part of the innate character of the core teachings, a scholar will look at what's been accused, what's actually been done, what was the historic context of and the rationale behind such acts, and in view of all this, what REALLY accounts for the movement's viability? What is it in the substance of the subject itself which draws more favor than ridicule among those touched by it? Why is it still here and growing? Why has it survived past efforts by multiple governments to eliminate it, to a state of official acceptance by those same governments? If you're gonna look at something that grew from nothing to (probably) millions of followers in 55 years and is still growing, you have to credit the idea first, that there may be something of real substance to it in the eyes of these followers and second, that good people can do bad things. When and if bad things really are done by good people, it is useful to us to understand why.

Again, the major critics have two main explanations: "brainwashing" and "paranoia" and a third, more minor and more easily discredited; "money." Followers are brainwashed and the leadership is paranoid, so the paranoid leadership influences the brainwashed followers to do evil things. Yes, people SAY these things, but to put it bluntly such a scenario falls apart under scrutiny (brainwashing does not exist and an entire management structure overseeing tens of thousands of staff cannot all at once be paranoid. This is only possible when the leaders have guns and judicial or extra-judicial authrity over the existence of citizens - the power to imprison and to kill anyone at any time - ie totalitarian governments). Money doesn't work because no individual is enriched in Scientology organizations. That's only been proved beyond doubt by multiple investigations by multiple governemnts. So - the easy, facile and shallow explanations for "does evil though seen as good by adherents" are denied us. Summary labels which would make good headline copy cannot be made to stick. An honest researcher must go deeper than internet games of "gotcha" to see what's really true.

Maybe Scientology is genuinely useful to its adherents. They say it is. Maybe the movement's struggle for survival has been a messy one, with bad acts on both sides. Maybe that's basically over. Maybe a balanced look doesn't have to praise on one side and demean on the other. Maybe it can actually be dispassionate.Ayespy 03:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

"reprehensible acts by Scientologists (not Scientology, as it is a body of thought, not a personal actor)"

The trouble with this statement is that Scientology the philosophy is extremely hard to divorce from Scientology the organization (and thus its adherents). One can more easily create a distinction between the corpus of belief in Christianity and its adherents because no one Christian sect has a monopoly on interpretation of Christian doctrine. Scientology's beliefs and practices are copyrighted, and guarded vehemently by the organization's lawyers. There are no real splinter sects that are acknowledged as equally valid as the Church of Scientology, and while Scientologists are encouraged to test the philosophy's tenets and determine if they are true or not, an individual is generally not allowed to know some of these tenets until such a time as he would be favorably disposed towards them anyway. This makes for a general orthodoxy of belief, and that orthodoxy stems rather visibly from the Church itself. The hierarchical nature of it is dizzying, and stratified well in excess of many organizations save perhaps Freemasonry.

Some of what you say, Rosicrucian is true. For example, I'm confident the Church of Scientology will never, under any circumstances, recognize a splinter group as practicing Scientology (copyright and patent of symbols). On the other hand, if a tenet is a "doctrine, or principle" then it is untrue that any person can not learn them. They are widely published. But it sounds like you have a particular thing in mind, what is it? In regard to the organization of the Church of Scientology, I can only agree that it is complicated. Some organizatons correct others and some keep tabs on others and there is quite a management structure, whose jobs are spelled out by thousands of pages of policy. But, it isn't secret. W.I.S.E uses the exact same policy and publicaly applies it in the public sectorTerryeo 18:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I think my main argument was just that the Church of Scientology keeps stricter controls upon what is and is not Scientology, and those in a position to know some of the finer points of it are often those who carry real authority within the organization. Between this and meticulous image management, the Church is a far more cohesive entity than other religious organizations. So I guess what I'm saying is if they keep it this tight it's harder to say "Scientologists acting independently did this" than it is to say "Baptists acting independently did this."

I suppose a lot of my trepidation about seperating the two terms comes from the somewhat unique combination of entities associated with the Church of Scientology. Other religions have advocacy groups and lobbying organizations that are not directly affiliated with the spiritual leaders of the religion. Catholics and Jews have a vast array of unrelated groups seeing to the secular and cultural issues that face their respective constituencies.

In the case of the Church of Scientology groups that would otherwise be organized by private citizens are under the umbrella of the Church itself in some form or other, and thus it is hard not to assume that the philosophy is the organization, and the organization is its followers.--Rosicrucian 21:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I see your point more clearly now. No other religion that I know of is well organized. The philosophy of it is so tight in its organizational policy that it isn't possible to read its policy letters without an education in its philosophy. W.I.S.E applies the organizational policy to the business world, but again, to read very much policy requires some education in its philosophy because words often pop up in policy which are spelled out in its technology (read philosophy). Still, not every individual acts under the umbrella of the church. Tom Cruise in his television interviews acted as an individual, John Travolta in his interviews and his acting acts as an individual. I do see that you are saying the relationships is less diverse and doesn't have a clear parallel.Terryeo 04:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Given this, I'm not sure where to draw the lines between Scientology the philosophy, Scientology the international multi-million dollar organization, and the individual Scientologists themselves. --Rosicrucian 16:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Individuals do individual actions no matter what their faith is. Individuals use individual reasons. The body of information which is Scientology is comprised of various books and other materials. Its vast. Did you have a particular thing in mind which might be used as an example, that we could talk about and perhaps draw lines about ? Terryeo 18:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Whether it seems difficult or not, it is incumbent upon us to differentiate between the study and the adherent or staffer. One simply cannot say that "Scientology" did this or that any more than one can say the "democracy" did something or "Islam" did. We can recognize that there can be GROUP action, or action by a corporate "person" (Legally a corporation has standing as a "person."), but when at all possible, individual actors must be recognized as such. This is especially important in such instances as, say, person "a" committed a crime, he was a member of a group of other persons who were innocent of the crime and innocent of knowledge of the crime, and there is no controversy over this fact (both defense and prosecution in open court agree on the record that this is the fact.) To attribute the crime to the group would be inaccurate, prejudicial, and non-probative. Ayespy 04:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Is it not possible to relegate NPOV to NPOV? The point of NPOV is not APOV, it's to present fact for the sake of fact. Facts being defined as independently verifiable or debunkable statements about a person, place, thing, or idea. For example, claims above of the number of current adherents to Scientology, are factual. They may be correct or incorrect, however, they are verifiable, and such verification is repeatable by an outside organization. Factual information about events transpired to earn Scientology it's animus is contained in numerous court cases and firsthand accounts. Factual information about events having transpired to cause Scientologists to continue to espouse their religion are contained mostly within firsthand accounts. As such, this information is largely believed to be opinion, and discounted as such. The majority of factual, verifiable events about the church of scientology are negative, ergo the opinion of them is largely negative among non-members.

Additionally, the arguement that Scientology is or is not a 'scam' runs largely into the realm of either a: unverifiable opinion (for two reasons, firstly, the value of a religious doctrine is entirely based on the reader, not the seller, and two, very few, if any, other religions *charge* their parishioners for such materials beyond a single book in many cases unless they wish to have an ornate, decorative copy: A gilded bible, a tapestry-bound torah/talmud in scroll form with hand-inked passages in original hebrew or aramaic), b: critical ranting, or c: fanatical zeal. Largely, unless Scientology is proven or disproven to have defrauded people (whether large numbers or small) of their material posessions, it cannot truly be called a 'scam' in fact. 'Proof' that scientology is not a scam consisting of sales numbers is a circular arguement. If religious materials are valuable, people will buy them. Because people buy them, they are valuable. Therefore, they must be valuable. This is circular logic because it assumes the truth of statements which have not been proven to be true. The logical converse is that they have not been proven to be false either, however, such a statement must be considered false merely out of lack of proof (as any other logical statement would be). Ergo, Scientologists' religious materials are treated as a commodity (having no inherant value until they are proved to have an inherant value [such as precious metals, tools, media devices, etc; functional value, value based on rarity, or relative value to similar products]), and as such, have the value of what a: the Church feels they can safely charge for them and turn a 'profit', and b: the parishioners will willingly pay for them, and assign to them as 'value' as any other commodity. [Non-user, observation] 11:09 AM, 15 March 2006

An outsiders point of view... From reading the various arguments presented on this paage, I believe the issue of whether scientology is a "scam" or not is being largely misunderstood. All religions accept monetery donations and many encourage a contribution that is a large percentage of ones earnings. The question that seems important to me is: Is the higher level understanding of the religion cost prohibitive, and if so this would seem to be contradictory to any "religious" philosophy, including Scientology. Another reference that comes to mind is that of Martin Luther's attack of the sale of indulgences and the beginning of the Reformation. The issue of whether or not the person believes the money is well spent is actually completely unimportant from an objective point of view. The central idea is whether the act of donating money to the Church of Scientolgy is independent of one's standing in the church. This doesnt seem to be the case (or am i missing something?)

I have also noticed a great deal of discussion regarding the "reprehensible acts" of the Church of Scientology. Is this question more appropriate for a page regarding the ethics of religions in general, or a more philosophical question regarding the inherent hypocricies of faiths and the "church". It seems quite ignorant to try to force this topic given the history of almost every major and minor world religion (although many Eastern Religions to a far lesser degree)and the atrocities that have been carried out by and in the name of the "church". I just think a topic like this is better suited elsewhere.

Removed here for citing and re-insertion about ADD

The article stated that scientologists claimed an improvement of ADD. I don't believe that has been published, but the article (with no citation) says it has been published. Here is the line from the article, cite it or lose it: and attention deficit problems Terryeo 20:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Scientology does do this in a two step process: (1) There is no such medical problem as ADD, (2) The problem your child does have can be solved with Scientology. Would a more qualified phrasing help? "Scientologists have claimed benefits from auditing including (..) what they say is a mislabelling as attention deficit problems," This Church of Scientology site appears to offer help to parents of children labelled with ADD. (And note the page keywords.) --AndroidCat 21:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

There is a failure in that logical chain. If you tell me there is no such thing as apples, then can I assume that you can cure me of apples? The Church of Scientology's position is: "There is no such thing as ADDs" Which Scientologist said, "Scientology has helped me with ADDs?" That information would be a verification if it were cited. The ADDs statement was in the article but not cited. It comes down to some particular and specific (or several) persons being quoted in a publication that "Scientology has cured my ADDs." But even if that does exist it is not cited, therefore the line does not belong in the article. And, additionally to that, your reasoning lacks. heh ! Terryeo 21:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Scientology tells me that there are no apples, but the red thing in my hand is an orange and they can cure that. Analogies always expand to fill the argument available, however I do have one cite: '"As an educator, I have been able to teach using the methods of L. Ron Hubbard. One 12-year-old boy was sent to me labelled as with [attention deficit hyperactivity disorder]. He had to learn to read from scratch. Five years later he returned to tell me he was now studying at one of the much renowned high schools and was eagerly learning." — R.S., Danish Teacher' Normally unindentified initials wouldn't be good enough, but since it was buried in a CoS document. --AndroidCat 22:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

lol, lol Terryeo 18:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I think we just have to lose the ADD claim unless we want to go into more depth. I don't think you will find an adherent claiming "Scientology cured my ADD." You will for sure not find the church making the claim. If it has to be in there (can't see why - the appropriate claim is that Scientology helped a person improve their ability to study) then one has to say that Scientology disputes psych labels, specifically disputes the very existence of ADD or ADHD, and claims that children or adults so "diagnosed" can be helped by remedial programs tageted at learning how to study. That wrecks the flow of the original sentence. Ayespy 05:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

A discussion/debate about Scientology can be found here at the POV wiki

Scientology censorship and vandalizing

When I was at school, I read the Scientology article. Now I come home to link to it on my LJ, and it turns out there was a lot of that article that I hadn't seen before.

Someone has been deleting large swaths of the Scientology article. I'm glad to see that wikipedia doesn't tolerate this type of blatant censorship.
It seems that the vandal's goal was to strip the article down to it's bear bones, so to satifty the readers curiousity about scientology, while stifiling his access to controversal information. --ScWizard 00:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Citation 19

Citation 19 (http://www.cchr.org/educate/e_sr.htm) just leads to a 404 page. Ransak 06:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Sources to German judgement

Verwaltungsgericht Saarland 6 K 149/00 March, 29th 2001 Scientology tried to stop surveillance in Saarland -> Case lost. Verwaltungsgericht Berlin G 27 A 260.98 December 13th 2001 -> The court prohibited the recruitment of paid undercover agents in Scientology, but did not prohibit surveillance. Verwaltungsgericht Köln (Cologne) 20 K 1882/03 November, 11th 2004 Scientology tried to stop *federal* surveillance -> Case lost.

That is interesting but I've read recent court cases which went against certain portions of the German government and its surveillance of Scientology, within Germany. We do want a balanced picture of what is going on, don't we?Terryeo 21:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem. The identification numbers of the court cases in Germany (preferably with their dates) which went against Scientology surveillance would be fine. At least cite the sources with the date of the decision so I can recheck it in the juristical database. --136.172.253.132 04:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

After Terryeo has asked for a more balanced picture I rechecked the Scientology sites. www.humanrights-germany.org is....not so good; court cases mixed with own propaganda, "reinterpretation" (more of that later) of the cases and a total lack of sources except the dates. To check this, please read the articles under "Press Releases" and compare that with what I found out. www.menschenrechtsbuero.de gives sources as PDF files; unfortunately even these contradict their own press releases.

Tracing the legal ins and outs is difficult. There are wins, loses, partial wins, partial loses and everything inbetween. So many countries have so many different laws. Germany maintined "freedom of religion" for years while government agencies reported their harressement of individual Scientologists. France maintains its citizens are free to worship as they wish, but can't wear some symbols they wish to, in some places. Sweden only has one official religion but allows some other kinds of recognition. I would say in general Scientology doesn't take shit and breaks ice toward freedom of religion. This is the link about "expert opinions" that makes most sense to me. [5]Terryeo 09:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Neither one of both sides mention the cases where decisions went against Scientology; so much for a "balanced picture" on Scientology's side.

Now the cases:

December 15 th, 2005 Bundesverwaltungsgericht Leipzig 7C 20.04

June 17th, 2004, Oberverwaltungsgericht Hamburg, 1 Bf 198/00

April 7th, 2000, Verwaltungsgericht Hamburg, 16 VG 2913/97

In all these cases it is a Scientology member who sued Hamburg for the use of the so-called "Hubbard Technology" draft (Firms who want to exchange goods or services with Hamburg officials must testify that they don't use Hubbard Technology). In 2000 the court decided against the Scientology member, (not a single word about that in the websites), in the next instance the court redecides that the draft may be only handed out if a firm is seeking help for itself, but actively supporting firms with drafts violates the neutrality principle. That the member believes in Scientology and shares the believes with others is enough to protect their rights to believe in article 4; the status of Scientology as religion itself is irrelevant in the case.

In contrast to the top passage in www.menschenrechtsbuero.de it does *not* mean that the draft may not given out. Moreover, I haven't found the citations in the court paper which the passage is claiming. Apart from that the text contains several errors, it was the *Ober*verwaltungsgericht in 2004 and there is not a single court case where Scientology was acknowledged as religious organisation.

In Saarland Scientology was successful in the second instance to prohibit the use of surveillance techniques because Scientology had only 16 (!) active members and there was no complaints or dangerous tendence during eight years. So the court decided that surveillance is out of proportion to the degree of perceived threat and prohibited further use.

In Berlin Scientology tried to prohibit surveillance in 2003. But the MOI declared simply that since the 2001 court decision to prohibit the use of paid undercover agents it ceased surveillance. Scientology wasn't able to continue the case, but rightly accused that the MOI included information about Scientology in the 2002 reports which may only contain current information. That is not possible if they ceased observation in 2001, so the report must be rewritten.

More important, I haven't found a filed complaint in the HUDOC database (http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/search.asp?skin=hudoc-en) of the European Court of Human Rights concerning Scientology. I searched for decisions from July 2005 and found 25 entries; none of them concerned Scientology. In the pending cases there are only two against Germany; one is Jalloh which is most probably meaning Oury Jalloh who died in a police station and Sürmeli which seems to be a Turkish name.

So no complaint is filed until proven otherwise. --136.172.253.132 00:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Jerry Seinfeld (former)

Should Jerry Seinfeld really be listed on this page as a Scientology celebrity? He might be a celebrity (now), and he's ex-Scientologist, but as far as I know his involvement wasn't more than a few years and he was never pushed as a "Scientology celebrity" while he was in. He's on the List of Scientologists page. Shouldn't mention on this page be more for people who actively combine their scientolgist and celebrity status?

(Following up my unsigned comment) Since the paragraph starts with "Publicity has been generated by Scientologists in the entertainment industry such as .." and Seinfeld didn't have any crossover between being a Scientologist and being a celebrity that I know of, I dropped his name. I think there's a tendency to add anyone in the entertainment business who is or was a Scientologist, but that's what the List of Scientologists page is for. AndroidCat 13:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Um, who really coined the word Scientology?

I've noticed the intro paragraph says that L. Ron Hubbard coined the word "Scientology" in 1954. However, I thought it was really coined around the turn of the century by a German scientist... or something like that. Does anyone have more information on this issue?

There was at one time a section (rather distractive section) about historical uses of the word, "scientology". It isn't clear that Hubbard's first use of the word was 1954, but it is clear that his first public introduction of the word was a lecture to Dianetics people in Witchita, Kansas that year. Historically, from earlier statements, it appears 2 or 3 people used the word in various ways. Hubbard apparently was the first to use the word as a description of an honest attempt to study knowledge. Maybe a month ago, the edits in the article contained references to the 2 or 3 people who had used the word earlier (there was some german language use of it too). Terryeo 19:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

See the Scientologie article. I haven't examined Nordenholz' philosophy so I don't know whether or not that is an "honest attempt to study knowledge", if that's what you want to call Hubbard's Scientology. (Entheta 19:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC))

This boggles my mind. Should the origin of the word even be in the intro for this article? Or perhaps clarified... "The first use of Scientology in the religious sense was in..." and so forth.

Hubbard NOT the first to use the word Scientology

As is already mentioned in the article he was decades late, regardless of any debate on the issue most certainly the word "first" added in the last edit should and has been removed: "The word scientology has a history of its own. Although today associated almost exclusively with Hubbard's work, it was originally coined by philologist Allen Upward in 1907 as a synonym for "pseudoscience". [4] In 1934, the Argentine-German writer Anastasius Nordenholz published a book using the word positively: Scientologie, Wissenschaft von der Beschaffenheit und der Tauglichkeit des Wissens ("Scientology, Science of the Constitution and Usefulness of Knowledge").[6]" Glen Stollery ^{(My contributions)} 23:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The "popularized" compromise is good, but "coins" means that he created it:

"He coined the word..." Brainhell 02:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I propose that it be changed to:

He interpreted the word as combining "-ology" (study of) and from "Scien" (from Latin scientia - knowledge).

I'll try that in a couple of days. Brainhell 18:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Correct yes I missed the second usage of the word "coined" which actually makes the first change redundant as the article still states he created the word. Your suggestion is a very good one and I see no reason not to impliment the change immediately as there is no dispute that Hubbard was not the first to use it - the article states so itself further down as noted in my comment above. Nicely spotted :) Glen Stollery ^{(My contributions)} 23:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Glenn. Your edit is better than my suggestion. Brainhell 23:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Its silly, the word is hardly recognized in litature, isn't found in dictionarys and finding a rare use or two of "scien" and "-ology" is more like grasping straws than contributing to what appears before the public today as Scientology. You don't spend paragraphs discussing how the sun goes around the earth in an article about how the planets go around the sun. Its not a useful information for a piece on today's Scientology. Terryeo 09:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

(Google and Yahoo now link to web sites that are critical of Scientology, including this article).

Doesn't sound NPOV to me! Perhaps a rephrasing is in order? Glen Stollery ^{(My contributions)} 18:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

"Embraced" in Italy and Spain?

I think this line should be removed, or at least reworded in some way. Scientology is not seen favourably here in Italy. Some years ago about 30 Scientologists have been sentenced to jail for criminal association, and some centers are still under investigation. Some sources even say that the entire organization is under investigation but I can't confirm that. I don't know about Spain and Thailand, but I think that generally speaking saying that any country is "embracing" Scientology is misleading, if not plain untrue - unless the country officially recognizes at state level the status of bona fide religion. What do you think? - Quatonik

That entire paragraph seems to be nothing but unsupported assertion and should be removed or referenced.

Request for help on Forgiveness article

I have been working on the Forgiveness article. Would someone be willing to take a stab at adding a Scientology heading under the "Religious and spiritual views of forgiveness" heading in that article and trying to concisely state Scientology's view on forgiveness? Any help would be appreciated. --speet 04:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Scientology beliefs and practices

A new user proposed that Scientology beliefs and practices be merged into Scientology. I oppose such a merge: the two articles are too large to make a merge practical, and the user's comments at Talk:Scientology beliefs and practices seem to exhibit some confusion about Wikipedia's practice of having summary articles and subsidiary articles going into greater detail: "There are already many pages about beliefs and practices of scientology. Its pointless to make a new article." The article is over 2-1/2 years old, hardly "new" in that sense. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

No, doesn't seem like a good idea to me either. This article (Scientology) is the main article and the other one is specifically about the beliefs, like the Church of Scientology is about the CofS. There are also sub-articles to Scientology beliefs and practices, such as E-meter and auditing, and if you follow his reasoning, all Scientology-related articles should be merged into this one, and I don't even want to think about what a mess that would make and how far too long the article would be. (Entheta 18:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC))

Considering we're starting to split out beliefs and practices because it's gotten too big on its own, uhm... sounds like a bad idea to me. Ronabop 07:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I concur it is a bad idea. It would produce a very bloated Scientology article. --Fahrenheit451 06:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose, per above. Ombudsman 21:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Scientology's beliefs and practices are verifiably more complicated than most other religions, and require more articles, not less. Especially since certain Scientologist editors have been quite vocal about the subject being dealt with in too general terms. wikipediatrix 14:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, the proposal to merge has been aired long enough to gather support but it hasn't gathered any. I think it's justified to take it off the table now. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Streamlight's assumption of bad faith

Antaeus – you aren’t even trying to be helpful as an editor. You don’t put anything in the discussion, or if you think some part of this is okay, you don’t even attempt to edit it. You just accuse me of “censorship,” a word you seem to use pretty loosely. There is nothing wrong with getting rid of something that has a biased POV and wild unverified, generalized statements. Streamlight 17:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to this edit of yours. The principal effect of your edit was to remove the third paragraph of the article and of the introduction. That's the only paragraph of the introduction which acknowledges the fact that there is any controversy about Scientology or the Church, and you removed it without so much as an edit summary. If you think that is not "biased POV" then think again.

As for "wild unverified, generalized statements", let's separate that into accurate and inaccurate parts. Generalized? Yes, and almost deliberately so. This is, please realize, the introduction. It is what gives a reader an idea of what they will read about in more detail as they progress in the article. As for "wild, unverified", well, why don't we go through them one by one.

• However, the Church of Scientology has attracted much controversy and criticism.
• Critics — including government officials of certain countries — have characterized the Church as an unscrupulous commercial organization
• and it is accused of harassing critics and exploiting members.
• Scientology's principles have been characterized as pseudoscientific by many mainstream medical and psychotherapeutic practitioners
• and the Church has frequently been characterized as a cult.

Now, if there are any that you think are untrue and can't be verified (if you think the Church has never been accused of harassing critics, for instance) let us know; I'm quite certain we can add sources and document the truth of each and every one of these claims, right in the very introduction of the article, if that's what you want. In the meantime, please try to abide by the Wikipedia policy of Assume good faith and refrain from such accusations as "you aren’t even trying to be helpful as an editor". -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

It is untrue that Scientology's principles have been characterized ... by many medical practitioners. There have been a small handful. If there had been many then their official organizations would probably have commented, or passed a resolution or something. A small handful who made a large amount of noise and got a lot of attention on their particular point of view, but not "many" Hello, since there are hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of medical practitioners world wide, "many" would be, would you say, at least 2 percent of them? Surely not, surely not even 10,000 medical practitioners have characterized Scientology, much less characterized Scientology as "pseudoscientific". Hell, most doctors pay it no attention at all and don't attempt to characterize something which is not in compitition with them. In fact, Scientology is very careful to state its position with regard to the medical community. Its position is something like, "if you have a medical problem, go see a medical doctor. First. Then come to us." Terryeo 01:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

And we saw how extremely well that worked out for Lisa McPherson. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Is this true?

I dont know, but if it was, how do you prove it? if we are a spirit that has been here since before time, and always will be here, why are there no memories?

Also, if it werent true, where do we go after we pass on? Is it oblivion, does everything go black for you? is it like sleeping deeply, you cant keep track of time? Who knows? 67.53.195.38 19:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

fcuk the system...

...Yeah! What he said? --DragonWR12LB 09:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Hm... now to figure out what, exactly, he actually said.... Ronabop 10:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I have some points

"However, the Church of Scientology has clashed with other religious groups, including the Church of England[1], the Russian Orthodox Church[2] and the Lutheran Church[3], all of which have at times criticized Scientology's activities and doctrines. Many members of the Roman Catholic Church reject Scientology, because of the CoS's views on Jesus, and believe Scientology to be a form of agnosticism, which many Christians regard as a heresy."

This is very strange – the footnotes given do not support these statements at all. I am removing this paragraph. If it is needed I can add in a lot of material showing the Church’s interfaith activities and other church’s support of Scientology’s work in the community. I can also provide references that back this up. This paragraph is just another attempt to breed “controversy.”

Also...

"Beginning in the middle of 1996 and for several years after the newsgroup was attacked by anonymous parties using a tactic dubbed "sporgery" by some, in the form of hundreds of thousands of forged spam messages posted on the group. Although the Church neither confirmed nor denied its involvement with the spam, some investigators claimed that some spam had been traced to Church members."

Looking over this page, this is just an unfounded, unsourced insinuation that are nothing more than POV. And the external links – same deal, critic and divergent sites abound while there are only 2 official links. I am removing these 3 links. --California_guy 18:47, 15 March 2006 (PST)

Well, it looks like we have a new user who doesn't quite understand WP:NPOV. Of course, one might wonder how such a new user got in the habit of calling things "POV" before comprehending NPOV, and one might also get a sense of deja vu from the argumentation style... -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

With WP:AGF, I'd merely assume that the editor simply doesn't understand that having a POV in an article is *not* a problem. Most of the "POV warriors" (for lack of a better term) in these articles for a month or two already understand that NPOV means that we represent *multiple POV's*, and we don't, and can't, ever represent something as difficult to grasp as any actual "truth". Of course, since Truth (with a capital T) is an *extremely* relative (to each individual) construct in the CoS, the deja vu is something that should be anticipated, IMNSHO. We will (as long as we have articles on Scientology, or any another religion which brokers in such difficult abstracts as right/wrong, true/untrue, good/evil, etc) always have clashes between those who "know" truth, like "they know their hand", and those who try to represent multiple perspectives without ever stating a final, actual, "Truth". All that being said... I think unsourced stuff needs WP:CITE and WP:V, regardless of who is deciding "Truth", "truth", or whatever. Ronabop 11:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

ReligiousFreedomWatch

I pulled these links, here's an example why: [7]. In the link, absolutely *no* actual physical connection is made between two people. No statements of emails, sympathy, social interactions, or even meeting at a random birthday party, or even something as trivial as both of them liking to eat pie. Instead, the site insinuates (without any basis, only by URL linking alone) a link, without ever actually showing one, documenting one, or even overtly insinuating one. This site makes wikipedia look good when it comes to WP:CITE and WP:V. Ronabop 12:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

RfC on Dianetics

Hello editors. It's been some time now. An RfC has been filed on the Talk:Dianetics article regarding its npov status (the main page, not the talk page). As Scientology and Dianetics apparently have some links, I thought you all might be interested to weigh in here. Admins on this page, I'd be especially interested in your comments on the revert war firing across that page (4 content reversions, and 1 content deletion out of a total of 6 edits for a day?). Thanks for your time and interest. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 07:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Isaac Hayes

According to Roger Friedman at FoxNews, Isaac Hayes did not resign from South Park, the implication being that someone from CoS did it for him. See http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,188463,00.html

This information might be worth adding to the section mentioning Isaac Hayes.

This afternoon the article was edited to read:

Isaac Hayes was rumored to have quit the television show South Park, amidst a row concerning a controversial episode on Scientology, but further details showed this to be untrueFull article.

I removed the link, which didn't work anyway, and changed the wording to:

In March 2006, Isaac Hayes reportedly quit the television show South Park, amidst a row concerning a controversial episode on Scientology.

Friedman is a gossip columnist, and cites no sources. Sample line: "It’s also absolutely ridiculous to think that Hayes, who loved playing Chef on "South Park," would suddenly turn against the show because they were poking fun at Scientology." This is opinion, backed up by an unnamed 'source' which may or may not have actual evidence. Full Story Here. I think we're going to need something more conclusive, preferably a statement from someone involved, before we can say that reports of Hayes's quitting have been 'show(n) to be untrue'. -- Vary | Talk 19:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia isn't Wikinews or Scanalyzer, the page doesn't have to and probably shouldn't have the latest breaking news until it's had a chance to stabilize and be confirmed or at least be attributable. AndroidCat 06:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

South Park episode tonight on the subject. Not only reinforces Stone and Parker's criticism of Scientology as a brainwashing cult, but also likened scientology to child molestation, which is of course one of their favorite themes. This should probably go in the article in some form. Ghamming 22:52, 22 March 2006.

Or break Scientology vs South Park out into its own article. AndroidCat 05:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of, is there a Scientology vs. Southpark article? Because there totally needs to be, you could fill that thing up in a heartbeat. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Or move it into List of Scientology references in popular culture. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Amazing, I didn't have that one on my list. Yet Another Page with pieces of the same stuff that's spread over other pages. Parts of L. Ron Hubbard#Parody could probably be sentenced to there.

Hubbard's Definition of Scientology

These two points are in the article:

1. Hubbard defined the word "Scientology" to mean "a study of knowledge".
2. its usage of the word ["Scientology"] is not greatly different from Hubbard's definition, "knowing how to know".

So which one is it, both? If he defined it to mean 2 different things then shouldn't the article say that, instead of saying he defined it as one thing in the introduction, and saying he defined it as something else further down? –T_if_eg_o^(t) _{00:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)}

L. Ron Hubbard: "The term Scientology is taken from the Latin word scio (knowing in the fullest sense of the word) and the Greek word logos (study of). In itself the word means literally knowing how to know. Scientology is further defined as the study and handling of the spirit in relationship to itself, universes and other life. Any comparison between Scientology and the subject known as psychology is nonsense." (Emphasis added.)

I couldn't find a CoS site that actually says Scientology means "a study of knowledge". A few CoS Org sites say "The word Scientology means “the study of knowledge or truth.”", but none of them supplied a Hubbard reference for that quotation. (Almost all the Org sites are based and operated in LA, so they should be considered a single source.)

I don't know if the "although that does not follow etymologically" should be kept or not, so I left it for now. AndroidCat 03:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

So, should the "a study of knowledge" definition be removed from the article as inaccurate hearsay? That would get rid of the "although that does not follow" part too, which I also wasn't sure of. –T_if_eg_o^(t) _{00:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)}

I believe he did describe Scientology as a study of knowledge, and someone might be able to run down a cite for that "Scientology means “the study of knowledge or truth”" quote. I did a minimum change to remove the contradiction but the exact wording will probably be batted back and forth for a week until it settles down again. AndroidCat 04:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

In that case, I think it would be a good idea for the introduction to give both of those descriptions/meanings, because even with that minimal rewording it still seems contradictory that the article calls it 2 different things in 2 different places. Something like "Hubbard defined Scientology as "knowing how to know", although he is also known to have described it as "a study of knowledge"."
I'll let someone else make that improvement since it got an unexplained speedy revert the last time I tried it. –T_if_eg_o^(t) _{00:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)}

Well, I'll try my luck one more time... –T_if_eg_o^(t) _{00:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)}

There is a pretty good description of what happened if you visit the Isaac Hayes page... you guys could just link to that.

When Hubbard first used the word "Scientology" in a lecture he introduced it as "a study of knowledge". Page 369 of the Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary, ISBN 0884040372 states:

it is formed from the Latin word scio, which means know or distinguish, being related to the word, scindo, which means cleave. (Thus, the idea of differentiation is strongly implied.) It is formed from the Greek word logos, which means THE WORD, or OUTWARD FORM BY WHICH THE INWARD THOUGHT IS EXPRESESED AND MADE KNOWN: also THE INWARD THOUGHT or REASON ITSELF. Thus Scientology means KNOWING ABOUT KNOWING, or SCIENCE OF KNOWLEDGE. Terryeo 01:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

All right, who did this?

"Different countries have taken markedly different approaches to Scientology - such as Durkadurkastan. "

DURKADURKASTAN is not a country. It's a joke. Needs fix to what actually is supposed to be,

It was vandalism introduced in this edit under a false edit summary. It was fixed approximately 35 minutes later. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

That IP address seems to enjoy petty vandalism. [8] with a history of being blocked With the current volume of this sort of thing, it's important to check that you're reverting to an untampered version. AndroidCat 00:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Heinlein quote

The Heinlein quote is being repeatedly removed because there is a dispute over whether it is accurate or not. Presenting only one side of the dispute is pushing a POV and presenting both sides on this particular point seems excessive and almost pointless for an already too long article. We have discussed this issue numerous times starting here Vivaldi 13:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

This urban myth seems to be mutating a little (as they do to memetically "survive"). This one claims a published note by Heinlein, and Heinlein asking Hubbard to stop the bet. (But no sources.) If anyone offers any serious proof of those or other claims in the story, it might be worth looking at, again. I'm not holding my breath. If anyone feels I was abrupt in removing it, that there should have been discussion, request for cites, no--it's been done previously, many times. One debunking was published as part of a Usenet FAQ over ten years ago. If anyone wants to dust off the various attempts by debunkers to finally kill this myth, and put it up on a "That Heinlein bar bet story" page, I'd be happy. AndroidCat 16:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Question of the Bar Room Bet

Around 1965 I was in school and was told the following statement as fact: "L. Ron Hubbard and Hugh Hefner were sitting in a bar and Hubbard bet he could make more money creating a fake religion based upon a sci-fi story than Hef could with his Playboy magazine". Has anyone else ever heard of this or is it an urban legend?

Urban legend. [9] The Hugh Hefner addition to the story is a nice twist. I'm sure Big Foot and Elvis will be along soon. AndroidCat 20:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

That story is a variation on a more widely-disseminated (and more credible) anecdote, wherin Hubbard is supposedly heard to say words to the effect of "the way to get rich is by starting a religion." Most versions of that story involve people in the science fiction subculture that Hubbard was a part of in the 40s--I think Forrest J Ackerman, who was Hubbard's literary agent for a time, claims to have heard such a remark, and Harlan ellison, too. Enough people have claimed to have heard that one that it seems very possible that Hubbard did say such a thing, and more than once. But there's no evidence of any bar bet, and Hef just seems to have dropped in from some other anecdote. BTfromLA 20:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm being abrupt (have cold), and should be clear that the "bar bet with Heinlein" story is a parasitic urban legend on the documented "start a religion" ones. AndroidCat 20:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

AndroidCat Reverts

The link works with me, even under anonymous IP; if it doesen't work: delete the link, but not the reference. A hardcopy reference is just as credible as (if not more than) a website link. I left "criminal", because the anti-cult activists here certainly want to keep "criminal" and you can also be convicted in civil court. What is misleading about "branch"? The conviction was against the CoS of Toronto. "unique distinction": That's sarcasm; not encyclopedia style (I like sarcasm, but not in an allegdly neutral article) --Fossa 23:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't go with "branches of". The court has found that CoS's corporate shell game is exactly that. Also, the Church of Scientology of Toronto is the "continental" office for all of Canada and not merely one city. AndroidCat 23:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I changed that, you obviously know more than myself about this matter. What about the other things?--Fossa 00:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

No problems, except that the link doesn't work and searching their site can't find the article. Wider search found a copy of it. It doesn't really seem to be relevent to the convictions except for a short paragraph. Is that reference really needed in that place in the main Scientology page? I could add a number of other articles which have much more detail, but I think they would be better placed in R. v. Church of Scientology of Toronto which badly needs fleshing out. AndroidCat 00:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I generally find texts under URLs that start with "www.rickross.com" not very credible, but in this case, he did copy the article from the Ottawa Citizen 1:1. However, it's very likely a copyright violation. For this reason, I would be hesitant to link to that version, as I don't condone copyright infringement. But if you want to link to rickross.com: Be my guest. I'd rather simply keep the hardcopy reference.

Is it a necessary reference? Well it's the only credible reference I could come up with to demonstrate that this type of conviction against a religious organization is singular in Canada. If you have another (not anti-cult activist source), put that instead.--Fossa 01:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

LRH Birthday Event 2006

I just saw this event at a local Church of Scientology, and I was very shocked at the claims made by the "LRH Biographer" concerning L Ron Hubbard's affect on the formation of the US Air Force, among other things. I think it would be a good thing for anyone who is interested in expanding the scope of this page to see this event (which I think all churches will gladly replay to anyone who asks), and see if there's information in it that should be added or mentioned on this page that would be of an objective nature concerning the life of L Ron Hubbard and/or the current/latest achievements of the church in various countries. I have noticed that this site updates quite rapidly in reaction to "bad PR" and "broad media scoops", I think to be unbiased there should also be updates to this site that come from news originating from Scientology sources (such as the aforementioned event on DVD in every church world wide), if it can be communicated according to the rules of Wikipedia in an unbiased nature that is not "preaching the extravagant claims of Scientology", but rather stating objective information about it's accomplishments and other relevant data that would be pertinent to this Wikipedia page on Scientology.

This argument is a similar fallacy to the common misperception that the media focuses only on "bad news". When any entity, be it a person or a church, has become the center of so many controversies and court battles, it is not "unbiased" for Wikipedia to mention them, nor is it the job of Wikipedia editors to try to present equal time to "good PR" for the Church, because to do so would be a deliberate POV effort to try to minimize bad news with good news. Wikipedia is not obligated to do damage control for the Church of Scientology, nor protect them the "bad PR" which they have brought upon themselves. wikipediatrix 14:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

See the L. Ron Hubbard page for information on his life and links to additional information. AndroidCat 14:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no common misperception that the media focus on "bad news", because countless academic studies have shown that the media do focus on conflict, violence, episodic stories (yellow page stories) etc. Wikipediatrix is, however, correct that according to Wikipedia "NPOV" policy, the existing societal bias against Scientology ought to be replicated:

NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification. Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority).*

The flat earth example is, in tune with Wikipedia's natural science bias, a bit misleading, but it is clear that Gallileo wouldn't have been allowed voice his opinion in Wikipedia. No harm done, you might say, but when it comes to statements about persons rather than natural science "facts", the situation becomes even more tricky: If a large enough group of people holds a bad opinion about certain groups then this bias ought to be replicated in Wikipedia. Thus, the 1935 German Wikipedia would give the "neutral point of view" that Jews would be a treacherous race, the 1950 Wikipedia would say something really nasty about "unamerican people" and, indeed, the current Wikipedia, according to the NPOV policy should give extensive coverage to anti-semitic and racist views, because undoubtedly, such views are held by significant minorities. Fortunately, some editors had the sense not to adhere to Wikipedia NPOV in these cases.

These are, of course, extreme examples, but they are instructive: What is reported in all Scientology articles reflects basically mainstream media discourses, which have eagerly lapped up anti-cult propaganda (not because it is credible, but because it sounds credible, and because there's conflict), which large consists of rumors, allegations and some demonstrable wrongdoings of CoS, which would receive little no attention in established comparable groups.

In other words, under the guise of neutrality, the bias of the anti-cult movemnent is replicated.

As to LRH effect on the Air Force, that's, of course, bollocks and, just like anti-cult propaganda does not belong into a encyclopedic article. Fossa 16:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Celebrities and "Closetgate"

I just reorganized the celebrity section, in the hopes of making it a little more coherent and better presented. It's still not up to the standards of the rest of the article, though. There's too much material on very current events (Closetgate) and not enough on the history of celebrity Scientologists.

I wonder if we should fork Closetgate off as a separate article, and make this section into a more general discussion of celebrity Scientologists? --FOo 22:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I would support spinning out Closetgate as its own article; in fact, I was going to suggest the very same thing. As for the history of celebrity Scientologists, I've felt for a long time that List of Scientology references in popular culture would actually be better if turned into a more general article on Scientology and popular culture -- covering such things as the Celebrity Centres, Hubbard's "Project Celebrity", the pressure/intimidation campaign over Delirious, etc. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Money/Donations

I have heard from several people that the Advanced Lectures in scientology cost lots of money for members to take - if that is true, it seems like a very relevant thing to note - that religious advancement is contingent on payment. If it is not, it seems common enough that something stating that it is not true should be in the article.

Please sign your comments and new topics should go to the BOTTOM of the page, not the top. The analysis of the costs over at xenu.net are from 1994/95 so they are a little out of date, so the costs are probably higher. They estimate that the "total cost for the whole bridge to OT9 readiness is estimated at $365,000 - $380,000." [10][11] Chiok 18:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Scientology teaches immortality and that is something I quite like. The money taken and given probably is a good thing but I wouldn't know since I have never delved right into the area. Like many religions, I imagine that they would teach something that would bring all sorts of people there and basically when people find something that they like, they probably would want to pay good money for it. Scientology of recent has been misreprsented however noting the programme called The Simpsons whereby a man who calims to be Tom Cruise has been making quite a nuisance of himself. He tries to upset another fellow believer for being in a programme which he is foregtting is actually a programme whereby everyone can learn adequately. Perhaps Cruise is seeking attention. Whatever his motive, he has behaved in a very stupid way. I dont think that anyone should speak for any religion in certain cases especially when another fellow member is involved. Tom Cruise must therefore have raised his own opinion and not one that everyone approves of. I have a problem with Tom Cruise talking about a retreat for Scientology in Neverland ranch. I think that he is now out of control and should be put straight in his place as quickly as possible. He has behaved in a most irresponsible, fruitless and despicable manner because Neverland Ranch is not on sale and has not been on the market. Suggesting the property of another is a barren and despicable thing to have done. He is a very ugly thinker and a very ugly speaker too. Neverland Ranch is a place where Michael Jackson's kids have grown up in. The ranch is Michael's joy and to hear such a filthy ugly speech uttered from this silly barren crazy man has made me really, really, really angry.

Representing Scientology or any other religion is not acceptable and shall not be tolerated. One must always make a silent inquiry from the Landlord of a property before making an irritating and hateful comment about a home that is so much loved like immortality itself.

• This article may likely not be directly related to the specific prices in Scientology, though I am making inquiries.

Copyrights (@Android Cat)

I admit that I don't like to link to Penthouse articles, but I think that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works

clearly states that you shouldn't link to pages that violate copyright. So what's wrong with deleting the link. --Fossa 23:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

How do you know that permission to republish this article was not given by Penthouse? Vivaldi 00:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Uum, a wild guess? A scanned(!) article that does not link to Penthouse and does not acknowledge Penthouse's copyright? Of course, how would I know that the copy of latest Madonna record on edonkey violates copyright? And that $2 Windows XP copy I found at the swap meet surely also is totally legit. Fossa 02:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The article clearly identifies the source of the article and it acknowledges that is copyrighted by Penthouse in 1983 where it says, "(c) 1983 Penthouse". This article is not comparable to a $2 Windows XP or a Madonna record, because Penthouse is not marketing this item for sale and hasn't done so for over 23 years. It is clearly being used in a manner that does not deprive Penthouse of any profits. It is not being used by lermanet to sell advertisements or other products. It is used only for educational purposes. In fact, I would suspect that Penthouse has granted permission for this article to be reprinted for this purpose. Until it is more clear that permission was not approved or granted, then I don't see the harm in leaving this here. Vivaldi 02:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

unsourced statement removed from article

"Although Hubbard attacks psychiatrists and psychology as a whole, his grievances is with materialistic psychiatrists and psychology rather than psychology as a whole. Materialism is concerned with MEST and materialistic psychology attempts to change our spiritual soul entity by changing physical entities."

Where is the source for these claims, if any? -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

"this dialectic materialism psychology mess that we have inherited in our modern times" (Control and the mechanics of SCS)

"The word _psychology_ means 'study of the soul," from the Greek word 'psyche,' meaning 'the soul.' But today, psychologists proclaim that there is no soul and instead human and animal behaviour... The original definition of psychology died with the unproven idea that an individual's actions were simply a response to stimuli perceived by the organism and were not related to any nonmaterial part of a person. According to Wundt, there was no nonmaterial part of man, no mind, no soul..."

"This was the 'new' view of man and life. All is material... Materialism quickly ascended to supremacy in many fields... The grave error, however, has been to apply these same materialistic principles to man himself. This is, the fact, _the something_, the basic source of the troubles in our modern era..."

"The materialist idea that some peoples are genetically inferior to others and need to be wiped out for the greater good of mankind us a lunacy created and perpetuated to this day by psychiatry.... Materialism decrees that any personality problem is physical in nature... All societal problems which existed before the rise of materialism have drastically worsened through the use of materialistic solutions. And, in particular, it is easily provable by statistics that any segment of society in which psychiatry has dabbled had considerably deteriorated..."

"Medicine, psychiatry, and psychology, however, try to solve the problem of human nature by classifying man in material terms: body and brain--motivated by force." (The Scientology Handbook foreword) Chiok 02:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm, interesting. The original removed statements, however, seem to be claiming "Despite what Hubbard actually did, here are the true motivations that were inside his mind" and, well, there's an obvious problem with stating which of the things people said or did represents their "true" beliefs/aims. The second sentence also has the problem that it's essentially stating, as fact, a claim that I'm not sure even makes sense outside of a Scientology paradigm, let one being accepted by Scientologists and non-Scientologists (ask any non-Scientologist who they go to in order to change their "spiritual soul entities" and I guarantee that not even the psychologists and psychiatrists will say "psychologists and psychiatrists".)

Also, since we have an article specifically about Scientology and psychiatry, any attempt to refine Wikipedia's coverage on the topic should really be done there rather than here. -- Antaeus Feldspar 13:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Church vs church

Can we come to a consensus about the use of Church or church within this and other Scientology articles? (One that doesn't involve discusions of anything other than standard English usage.) Looking at pages like Christian denomination, church seems to be used unless its the actual full name. I have no axe to grind either way, I'd just like to know which way the periodic flip-flops should go. AndroidCat 16:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest following Wikipedia:Capitalization#Institutions. So always capitalize when it's part of a title - "Church of Scientology", and not when it isn't - "members of the church". I have no axe to grind apart from being a style pedant :) Pseudomonas 16:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

If it's "members of 'the Church", then obviously capitalization is in order, because the definite article signifies that this is a case by itself (Tony Blair is a "Member of Parliament" and a "member of a parliament".). If it's "this church", then it's one instance out of a larger set of curches; so it's the context that matters.--Fossa 00:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Myth or reality? Doublethinking a little...

It´s 1984 (George Orwell), so let´s doublethink! Chrintianity made bold statements against CoS. Had they forget their own share of contradictions? Doublethink! CoS attacked psychiatry, claiming their lack of scientific method or proof? When did (S)(s)cientology started caring about scientific method? Doublethink! The list could go on and on. The fact is that the FACTS doesn´t matter! We try to create arguments to critizise the "church". Many, if not all, arguments against CoS could also be made against any (or all) major and minor religion or cult today. The facts doesn´t matter. While there are fools to fund such endeavors, we will have to live with that. "Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens" (Against stupidity even gods contend in vain), Schiller. Regards Loudenvier 17:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Sound and fury, signifying nothing. What's your point? AndroidCat 17:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Did my words really meant nothing? It´s meaning is straightfoward to me. We criticize Scientology very hard (you may not, but the majority does), but did not criticize Christianity, Judaism, Islamism (oops... now it´s being criticized for obvious reasons). I think it´s unbalanced, perhaps unfair. I think Scientology to be laughable if it was not tragical, but it´s not fair to criticize it while one endorses Christinaity, for example. My point is: What´s the essential difference between those belief systems? Loudenvier 19:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

For someone who's talking so much about "the FACTS doesn´t matter!" you don't seem inclined to provide a single one yourself -- generalizations, after all, are not facts. -- Antaeus Feldspar 13:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Did scientologist provides any facts after all? I was talking about facts in a general sense. They really do not seem to matter, because people will fall prey to Cognitive dissonance and believe in whatever they want to believe despite many/any facts to the contrary. This is exactly what happens with any religion. Despite it´s many contradictions, one will believe and endorses it, even when it goes against their own teaching (if it was not this way, how could there be any war in the name of God? Isn´t God all about peace and tolerance?). I´m not attacking Scientology, I´m just saying it´s unjust to criticize it while the majority of its critiques are endorsing other religions. But wikipedia is not a place to discuss religion or any other matter, since I´m not contributing to the article I will refrain from further comments (unless they are about the article itself). Loudenvier 15:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

You state that "the majority of its critiques are endorsing other religions", but in the 10 years that I have been criticizing the Church of Scientology for its abuses, I have not ever endorsed another religion in its place. In fact, I don't recall ever any of the well-known critics of Scientology endorsing any religion. Do you know David Touretzky's religion? Tory/Magoo's religion? Chuck Beatty's religion? Michael Pattinson's religion? Arnie Lerma's religion? What is Roger Gonnet's religion? What is Tilman's religon? What is my religion? What is Antaeus's religion? In the 10 years I have spent discussing the criminal cult of Scientology with hundreds (if not thousands) of critics, never have any of the critiques advised people take up another religion instead of Scientology. Did you just make up this "factoid" on the spot? Vivaldi 19:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Please Vivald, don´t think I´m against you... I can say for sure, I am with you! I just think that the majority who criticize Co$ are Christians/protestants just because the majority of USA are adepts of the religion of Jesus Christ, and the majority of westerns around the world are too. I do not want to criticize Co$ here because it´s not the place, but if it´s possible I will try to contribute to the article, but there are much, much more knwoledgeable people on this matter that I will not "dare" interfere. In no way I did criticize the article itself, I read it all and I think It´s a good, well balanced article. Loudenvier 01:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

"But wikipedia is not a place to discuss religion or any other matter, since I´m not contributing to the article I will refrain from further comments (unless they are about the article itself)." Uh-hunh. Translation: "I will run in and make malicious accusations against 'the critics' and then when someone points out that I have no support for my accusations I will declare that the subject is now off-limits for reasons that would have made it off-limits when I brought it up. This will surely convince people that I have made some sort of point." Well, except for the last part, seems like your plan worked... -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Very deep thoughts! Now even I am think I´ve planned sothing like that... I´m one of the critiques of Scientology myself (mainly a private one, since I did not make any of my concerns public yet), so I criticize myself in some way! And the support to my "accusations" are only based on statistics and personnal observations. Maybe both do not matter to you, who knows. Maybe your reasoning are the only valid one. Loudenvier 01:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that Loudenvier is but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more. It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing. AndroidCat 06:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh! How poetic! I think I heard that part about sound, fury and significance before, I just can´t remember where? I really think that you are the one who is aggressive here. I could be wrong, or right, but you will say again that it signifies nothing, I think I´ll have to live with that. Loudenvier 01:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

"Additionally"

Why is Fossa being so insistent that the word "Additionally" be removed from the second paragraph? (Fossa's edit summary: "rv; non-POV language") It really doesn't seem to make much difference as far as I can tell, from either a pro-Hubbard or anti-Hubbard POV. It is, however, somewhat clunky from a "good writing" sense. wikipediatrix 01:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, but one edit probably isn't too insistent. I think additionally sounds better and makes more sense logically, so I will change it back. The Ungovernable Force 01:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I was looking at it more and I just changed the order of the sentences and it makes more sense, and in this version, additionally is unneeded. The Ungovernable Force 01:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The Global Scam

Whoever it is that is changing the word "scam" to "new religous movement", please stop. There is no doubt that if you look at this cult from an objective point of veiw, it is indeed a scam and nothing else. All "cures" are simply the result of the human mind on some level scientifically unknown. crazyfurf 5, April-3:50 (EST)

Then your task is before you, crazyfurf, you are to understand WP:V which states, "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability." Simply find any quantity of published sources you wish and include the source and what the source says into the article and no one will be able to state nay, unless you begin to own the article with your quantity of such inclusion. Terryeo 01:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

While I agree with you that Scientology is a scam, I also understand that such language is pushing a particular POV. There are at least 50,000 Scientologists in the US alone that would disagree with you that their religion is a scam. Its best to use neutral language. There is a section about controversy that should be used to make note of the fact that many researchers have determined that the religion is a scam. Vivaldi 20:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, whether it was you or not, Vivaldi, someone has found an agreeable term for this cult. I also see your veiwpoint. And as a devout Christian I do see it as important to not offend people, merely to get the word out.

It's not necessary to use loaded language to expose the abuses of this religious cult. Neutral language is best. Intelligent people can figure out for themselves that Scientology is "a cult" and a "bad thing" just by reading the facts presented in clear and NPOV manner. Vivaldi 23:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with crazyfurf's above comment.. but let's not single out Scientology. All religions are scams to the end of having control over people, milking them for cash and having them raise the next generation to live in fear as they did. My logic for validating this is ; If Jesus (who is a personal hero of mine even though I am not religious, a church goer, or affiliated with any religion) was here on Earth today and going about his benevolent & compassionate teachings and actions.. at the end of each day would he live in an extremely humble, modest and inexpensive dwelling?

Or would he live in a multi-million £/$ fortress that is overflowing with opulent, priceless relics, paitings, works of art, statues, etc ? (as the Pope does)

Catholicism is everybit as much a scam as scientology, in fact probably even more wicked.. as the people who ran it back in the day up to the people who run it now are twisting and distorting the words of Jesus to suit their own ends. Where as R.L.Hubbard is slightly less blasphemous by just making up sci-fi shit and claiming it to be a religion.

The Pope is the Catholic Churches version of Tony Soprano, and that sirs/madams is a fact. (Dirk Diggler Jnr) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.13.116.249 (talk • contribs) .

This article is about Scientology. If you want to point out that Rastafariansim, Satanism, Christianity, Hinduism, and whatever else have a long recorded history of abuses, then luckily there are articles where you are free to make those claims provided you can back them up following the policies of WP:V among others. Good luck! Vivaldi 20:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I read this argument over and over again: "If you think that Christianity/Judaism/Islam/Hinduism/$your_favorite_religion has some bad points then raise the issue there." Sorry, that argument is nonsense: First of all, the myriads of zealot Chrisitians on Wikipedia would never allow for such massive "criticism" to be made in the articles on Christianity. And, secondly and more importantly, it is just preposterous to amass all sorts of "criticism" in an article about a phenomenon, while the article should be chiefly about the phenomenon itself (there could be a short note on controversies surrounding Scientology, about 15% of the article, I reckon). Fact is: Even though many allegations posted here might be factually true (not all, but some) they don't belong here. If the same method would be used in the article on Chritianity, that article would be ca. 57987598 pages long to list all the Christian misdeeds. Obviously, such an article would be just as ludicrous as this one is. (I'm not 82.13.* BTW) Fossa 18:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

"Sorry, that argument is nonsense: First of all, the myriads of zealot Chrisitians on Wikipedia would never allow for such massive "criticism" to be made in the articles on Christianity." -- First of all, I would argue that most of the editors of Wikipedia and probably a super-majority are not "zealot Christians". It sounds like your problem has more to do with the Wikipedia guidelines that involve developing Consensus for your controversial edits. I doubt you'll be able to fix the inherent problems that are involved when your own viewpoint is a minority to the viewpoint of the WP:Supermajority. You can either work to change those guidelines and policies, or you can start your own Wiki and run it your own way, perhaps even offering up free hookers and blackjack (TWAJS). Vivaldi 02:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

"And, secondly and more importantly, it is just preposterous to amass all sorts of "criticism" in an article about a phenomenon, while the article should be chiefly about the phenomenon itself (there could be a short note on controversies surrounding Scientology, about 15% of the article, I reckon). Fact is: Even though many allegations posted here might be factually true (not all, but some) they don't belong here." -- Some might argue that the misdeeds, abuse, and evil aspects of Scientology are the most significant aspects of the religion. Certainly, we are free to report that in Flat Earth that the majority view is that most folks don't think the Earth is flat anymore. In fact, you'll notice most of the article consists of evidence that in fact the Earth is of a spherical shape. Now this probably pisses off the members of the Flat Earth Society, but they, like you, have a similar problem. Namely, Wikipedia works by a process called consensus building. You'll also note that in the article about the Holocaust that most of the article is devoted to pointing out how bad the Holocaust was, rather than all the good things it accomplished. Another example: the article KKK appears to be a complete smear job on an organization that supporters might argue is one of the greatist institutions around. There are numerous other similar articles that point out the flaw in your argument. If Scientology stops its repeated and consistent abuses of people, then perhaps the consensus viewpoint here will change, but I'm not holding my breath. Vivaldi 02:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

"If the same method would be used in the article on Chritianity, that article would be ca. 57987598 pages long to list all the Christian misdeeds. Obviously, such an article would be just as ludicrous as this one is." -- The same method is used on the article about Christianity and the article isn't that long. The method is called consensus building. And we haven't listed ALL the misdeeds of Scientology here. I can point out thousands of other misdeeds that have not been reported, but out of space concerns (and in some cases problems with WP:V), these thousands of other abuses are not reported. We've tried to point out a reasonable number of the significant controversies related to Scientology and we are prepared to discuss the issue and help to improve the article.

So I'm guessing our anonymous friend is atheist? crazyfurf

You are more anonymous than 82.13.* whose identity can be partially traced (German IP). Fossa 18:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

crazyfurf's identity can also be traced by IP. Just not by you. Vivaldi 02:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

OT Levels and and Xenu

Could someone please restore the passage removed by 72.240.213.218? [12] anonymously added 21:02, 5 April 2006 by 216.13.72.153 (talk · contribs)

The passage and this article is already too long. This article is about Scientology not Xenu. That is why there is a link to Xenu in the article so that people that want to find out more about him can click on it. Vivaldi 02:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Was Hubbard a pederast?

Above titles says it all really.. Was L. Ron Hubbard a buggerer of young boys ? (Dirk Diggler Jnr) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.13.116.249 (talk • contribs) .

Despite that recent South Park episode drawing parallels between Scientology and a pedophile club, the answer is "almost certainly not". There are allegations that Hubbard was not averse to relations with his prettier female students, but as far as I know, none of him having anything to do sexually with children. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any documented evidence of relationships with children. There have been some suggestions of relationships with female Sea Org members (such as alleged in the Eltringham declaration) but, to my knowledge, I haven't even read claims of paedophilia or paederasty in the more rabid critical sources, which is usually the acid test. Certainly, none of the authoritative critical sources, such as The Scandal of Scientology, A Piece of Blue Sky, etc. have contained any claims to this effect. So I'd concur with Antaeus above in saying the idea LRH was a paedophile is highly improbable. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Being a scholar and critic of Scientology for over 10 years, I've never seen any evidence of Hubbard having a sexual interest in children. In fact, I've never even seen it seriously put forth as accusation by any of the critics that I have dealt with over the years. Vivaldi 03:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, okay thank you very much. Aren't the South Park guys open to legal action from Hubbard's living relatives then? (Dirk Diggler Jnr) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.13.116.249 (talk • contribs) .

I think it was L. Ron Hubbard jr aka Ron DeWolf (son by 1st marriage), who made some claims of improper conduct by LRH towards children of his 3rd marriage. However, I wouldn't waste more than a dime betting between LRH and LRHjr in a truth contest without evidence to back it up. As for South Park, Hubbard is dead and they were talking about some "fruity little club", not Scientology. AndroidCat 19:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually in the SP episode about Scientology they wrote that Hubbard was on a ship for a long time filled with nothing but young boys. In any case, there is no legal actions that can be taken (in the U.S.) against someone that is defaming someone that is dead. Once you are dead, anybody can freely say whatever the hell they want about you, whether it is true or not. Also, even if LRH were still alive, this would be acceptable because SP is using parody to make fun of LRH and it is not representing that cartooon character Cartman is a person that is to be believed. Heck, these guys also pretend to talk to walking and talking peices of poo. It's a joke! And, as a joke, they are protected from libel laws, just as they are protected from the law when they accuse the homosexual Tom Cruise of being "in the closet" repeatedly. Vivaldi 20:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

False Opinions

Look,the entire basis of Scientology is on preserving technology that works. Unfortunately, the best and most successful sources of information which bring the inquirer to a greater understanding of the subject itself are those which quote Scientology texts exactly, aside from the obvious, which would be to read an actual Scientology book. While Wikipedia does do that in some instances, it is continually surrounded by comments, always negative. Where is the other side of the coin, first of all? How can this be a "factual" online encyclopedia, when ideas and opinions are the main body of each article? While it is one thing to state a THEORY, as in a scientific article, it is another to state a critical opinion, which in fact has no basis at all, and are given from people who have no ground to stand on. Such obviously would not have any business in an encyclopedia. (Obviously, to me,anyway)

The last thing I have to say is this: While I understand your thirst to include everything you can about a subject, you should seriously consider SUMMARIZING the articles, instead of having simply very long-winded opinions. I have got to be honest here: you can ask any Scientologist on the street, and I can guarantee 99% of them will never have heard of the term "Xenu", whatever that is. Which also reminds me of the actual last thing I want to say which is that I can not believe an episode from SOUTH PARK, a CARTOON SHOW, is being referenced in an encyclopedia. Really, I am disappointed. I hope you will consider revising the whole outline of the article so as to actually communicate what this subject is all about, and so that the readers can learn something about it they can really use. I don't think you would be happy if an article on "Wikipedia" consisted only of critical comments, like the ones here. In fact, you would think it would be insane to do that. And that is how I feel about this set of articles on Scientology. 69.180.41.191 03:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The fact that a large number of Scientologists have not yet paid enough to reach the level where they learn the Xenu story does not change the fact that Xenu is part of Scientology doctrine, as has been confirmed in court by senior Scientology officials testifying on behalf of Scientology. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Yup, yup, I was sure you would feel a reply was necessary. Alas! If only editors would understand the context of that thing. Anyone who can look at what actually happend 75 million years ago, please stand up and tell us all about it ! I for one will let it go, I haven't a clue and it doesn't much matter in my daily life, anyway. heh. BTW, 69.180.41.191, if you take a look at WP:V you will find the foundation on which Wikipedia is created. Editors place informations smoothly (ha) together to form articles, each information itself is necessarily verified or verifiable. A body of editors together then form a smooth, flowing article (ha) which includes many points of view.Terryeo 01:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Why do I have to "look at what actually happend 75 million years ago"? It doesn't seem relevant; what is relevant is that according to senior Scientology officials testifying in court as Scientology's witnesses, Scientology claims it knows what happened 75 million years ago and offers this claimed knowledge as a reward for reaching certain levels within the organization. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Right, sorry I didn't exclude you when I made my statement, please don't take it as a personal statement. I was attempting to lighten the situation up a little and should have added, "except for Feldspar" because that might have lightened it up even more, heh. Terryeo 05:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Links to Gnostic Thought?

Perhaps someone better versed on the subject could further examine Scientology's parallels to Gnosticism. I'm admittedly no expert, but its seems Hubbard borrows key concepts from what is known of Gnostic tradition(I know the ties to eastern spirtuality have been well documented here). SteelyDave 03:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I've speculated that Gnosticology might be a better name for a few reasons. [13] Other have suggested gnostic roots. [14] AndroidCat 05:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Mystae.com has a page concerning links between Scientology and Gnosticism. [15] --70.28.33.52 19:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The question now becomes "Is the Gnostic connection worth inclusion as an influence on Scientology?"SteelyDave 19:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

2000s fads

As requested, I am bringing up here on the talk page the question of whether or not Scientology should be in the category of Category:2000s fads. To aid discussion, I'll reprint the edit summaries that constitute the discussion that's already gone:

• "removed 2000s fads category, as scientology was founded in 1953" -- Hoopydink
• "RV - regardless of when it was founded, it became a fad of the 2000s" -- User:SteelyDave
• "calling a person's religion a "fad" is a bit callous and a fad is something that has already faded away, while scientology, at least in pop culture, is still very much visible" -- Hoopydink
• "RV - Fads need not be a PAST phenomenon. If anyone wants to take up the issue of faddism, please take it to the talk page. I don't want a revert war here." -- User:SteelyDave

My reply to the above points:

• The fact that Scientology was founded in 1953 doesn't prevent it from being a 2000s fad; many fads are in fact specifically retro fads, where the fad artifact not only originated long, long before the craze but is the subject of a craze because it comes from that past time.
• I strongly disagree that the information on Wikipedia should be shaped by perceptions of whether or not it is "callous". Factual or dubious -- yes. POV or NPOV -- yes. "Callous" or "not callous" -- no. I can't see that leading down any good road. If that goes through then suddenly every true fact that's inconvenient to someone's agenda is something that's too "callous" to bring up.
• "A fad is something that has already faded away" "Fads need not be a PAST phenomenon." -- mmmm, I can see both sides of this. On the one hand, part of the definition of a fad is that the surge of popularity fades away -- if it goes up to an elevated level, and stays at an elevated level indefinitely, it isn't a fad. On the other hand, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; since it is generally not in the nature of things which show a fad-like spurt of growth to stay at those elevated levels, it would be rather presumptuous to presume that this is somehow an exception which will not lose its popularity. However....
• "regardless of when it was founded, it became a fad of the 2000s" -- I just don't see this as true, actually. Did Scientology experience a sudden increase in the amount of exposure it gets in the 2000s? Yes, definitely -- thanks in no small part to vehement Scientology promoters like Tom Cruise. However, an increase in exposure doesn't mean an increase in popularity; most of the reaction I have seen in the press and in the blogosphere is not "Gee, Tom Cruise says he's a Scientologist -- I think I'll try Scientology too!" but rather "Gee, Tom Cruise says he's a Scientologist -- and he also jumps around on Oprah's couch and spins these weird crazy stories about psychiatrists being Nazis and instead of backing up what he says he just tells anyone who doesn't agree with him that they're "glib" and don't know things the way he does. If that's what Scientology does for you, no thanks!" So unless we can actually document that Scientology in the 2000s actually experienced the increase in popularity that's crucial to the definition of a fad, then I don't think the category is appropriate. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi all... As I was the one to revert the category placement in the first place, I figured it was necessary for me to explain further. Scientology is a religion for some and to label it as a fad seems to be a bit inappropriate. Scientology already has an extensive history. Simply because it is now at the center of the pop culture limelight due to certain celebrities acknowledging their religious preferences, it does not mean it should be labeled as a fad. A fad is something that isn't of significant importance that will be a lasting entity. Therefore, to directly label a religion a fad is demeaning to those who practice said religion.

Also, if my choice of diction (see "callous"} threw anybody, I apologize. As it can be a loaded word, I want to mention that it was not meant as an attack on anybody; it was a simple case of logorrhea ;) Hoopydink 16:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I think your argument has a flaw in it. You state "A fad is something that isn't of significant importance that will be a lasting entity." That may be true, but it's only necessary that it be true in respect to the people to whom it is a fad. In other words, something can be of significant importance and a lasting entity to some people and a passing fad to others. At times, entire national cultures have become fads to other nations; for example, the sudden rush of interest in 1960s Britain for Indian culture ... including interest in Hinduism. Can we argue that Indian culture was not of significant importance or a lasting entity to India? Clearly not. Can we honestly say that it was of significant importance and a lasting entity to all the British teens who went out suddenly buying sitar records and trying tandoori chicken? No. To some of them? Perhaps -- but for the others, it enjoyed a brief period of high popularity which then dropped off, making it a fad. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I just happened to be browsing around and saw this discussion. Although I agree that the "callousness" of calling Scientology is a fad is irrelevent, I think that "2000s Fads" is a pretty poor category for Scientology to fall into. Has Scientology suddendly exploded onto the cultural scene since the year 2000, and has it subsequently quickly faded away? Neither of those two suppositions seem remotely valid to me. 159.153.129.39 17:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

You have to admit that there is a faddish element to it. The celebrity treatment has made it a hip thing to join, which is what the Church seemed to be going for by promoting their celebrity members. Scientology has undeniably become a buzzword lately, and something of a phenomenon. Membership has been accelerating. I believe this qualifies as a fad unless these changes are made permanent. PS When I said I didn;t want a revert war I didn't mean feel free to revert what I had just done. Please save the battles for the talk pages. SteelyDave 18:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe it is appropriate to label Scientology a "fad". I might be persuaded to change my mind if you can cite a reputable and reliable source that says that Scientology is a 2000s fad. Even this seems silly, since Scientology was also called a "fad" 50 years ago and it seems to have a similar and probably many more adherents now than 50 years ago. It certainly has spread to more countries over this time frame as well. Who is to say that Scientology will not continue to spead and grow and take over the world? Something that is faddish tends to imply that interest has grown and faded over the span of the fad period. Vivaldi 20:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I just think it deseerves some consideration. What other religion is regularly featured on VH1 and Saturday Night Live? SteelyDave 21:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of its appearance on SNL or VH1, but I know that there exist a number of pop-culture references to it lately. South Park and the Colbert Report are two that readily come to mind. This is mainly due to the misguided efforts of actor Tom Cruise who pretended that he knew more about mental health than medical doctors. None of this necessarily indicates that Scientology itself is a fad, but rather, "pop culture" currently has a fad of making fun of Scientology. I think those aspects are fairly well covered in this article already without having to add the fad template here. Vivaldi 22:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I'm pretty sure that most of the well-known Scientologist celebrities have been adherents since well before the 2000s. Second of all, I believe they've been promoting their membership through celebrities for almost as long as they've been around. The celebrity arguments don't support Scientology as a "2000s fad"

Do you remember Tom Cruise talking about his religion on television before the year 2000? I don't. The racheting up of Scientology's pop culture status in the last few years has been a trend, the question is does this become a fad or is it just a phenomenon. Unless it continues to grow like this on a long term scale, I see it as a fad. Others disagree. SteelyDave 20:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, SDave, but I think consensus is against you on this. Yes, Tom Cruise is talking up Scientology on TV but that doesn't translate to a fad -- there's no signs that Scientology is becoming more popular because of any of this exposure, and multiple signs of the reverse. It's "fads", not "things that got increased exposure". -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. BTW, Scientology just got a shout out on the Colbert Report last night. At the very least I think it has become a culturally significant pop culture flashword.SteelyDave 00:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Most of us are well aware that Scientology has become more involved with pop culture over the last year.  :) Thanks for mentioning the Colbert Report. I will check it out, since he often posts videos from the show online. Thanks for being a part of Wikipedia are for participating in this discussion. Vivaldi 02:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Weasel words need to go

In this article, far too often weasel words are used. The problem with saying "Scientologists say...." and "Many critics contend...XYZ" is that we don't know which people you are talking about and when and where they talk about them. Instead of saying "Critics claim that XYZ happened", we need to write, "In the article, Scientology is a Global Scam, Richard Behar of the Newsweek wrote, "XYZ"". Alternatively, you can also cite another source that meets the policy of WP:V that says "Critics contend XYZ". But just leaving unsourced comments that certain amounts of unknown critics make claims is not an acceptable practice. I would encourage people here to help make this article MUCH better by providing actual references for each of the unique claims made. Once this is done, we can avoid many of the arguments about verifiability and start focusing more on style. I was recently reverted by Fubar Obfusco (talk · contribs · count) after I inserted a couple of tags into the article. I thought I explained my case fairly well in the edit summaries, but I was reverted anyways. I will try one more time now that I have explained myself here. Before these tags are removed again, I would appreciate it if you can please actually provide the citations that back up the claims. I am looking to make this article and Wikipedia MUCH better and providing citations for your claims is essential to that process. Vivaldi 04:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Well actually I'm not going to replace the tags tonight because I'm tired and I want people to have a chance to read my arguments before the quickly revert my work, but you can look in the article and see many places where it says things like "Critics say...", "Scientologists believe...", "Critics contend....", "Critics believe....", "Scientologists counter...". These claims need to be sourced properly. Perhaps everyone can pick just one of the "critics say..." or "scientologists say..." and dig up a reference to prove the claim according to the policies at WP:V. If we do this it will make the article much better and it will demonstrate that the article is written in a neutral point of view. Vivaldi 05:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Quiet Birth vs. Silent Birth

The most common term used for this practice is "Silent Birth" not "Quiet Birth". Do a search on Google News for both terms to see what I mean. I recently fixed this problem and was reverted by Fubar Obfusco (talk · contribs · count) without any explanation other than "bogus". Vivaldi 04:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

See my response to your comments on my talk page. It was a mistake. Sorry about that. :( --FOo 06:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The Fable shouldn't be cited as a source

I removed a link in the Scientology celebrities section that cited THE FABLE as a source for some claims. The link is at http://www.xs4all.nl/~fishman/fable.htm. I removed this because THE FABLE says in its own preface, "No claim is made by the anonymous author(s) that any statement in this fable or its accompanying appendices is factual. To help the reader evaluate the relevance of this fable in the proper skeptical state of mind, treat this document as purely fictional and layered full of allegory, metaphor and symbolism, waiting for each reader to decrypt and interpret its meaning each in their own way. Also treat all names and places in this fable as fictional. Any similarity of names or places in this fable to any place or real person living or dead is purely coincidental.". While it is clear that much of The Fable is in fact true, it doesn't seem appropriate to use it as a reputable and reliable source since it specifically says that it is a work of fiction. Vivaldi 05:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, much of the same information in it can be obtained from more solid sources anyway, such as Andre Tabayoyon's affidavit. wikipediatrix 18:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Cleaned up the section about tax issues and religious recognition

I made a number of edits to clean up and clarify the section about Scientology and the tax exempt status of its many tentacles. This included renaming the section header, rearranging the order of the presentation, and adding new information. I have also added citations for most any claim that can be disputed and I believe each of the sources meets the requirements of WP:V. It still probably needs to be checked to make sure it is presented in a neutral tone. Vivaldi 10:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Cult

If noone objects i'll place this article into Category:Cults for it fits all the conditions in the definition of cults. These conditions are quite neutral, they do not impose any negative connotations (POV) on scientology except if you were to regard cults as negative per se but then the problem would lay with the entire category and not with scientology being in it.--62.251.90.73 23:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Really? How much property does a "cult" own before it is no longer a cult, but part of the establishment? 10 million dollars worth? 20 ? And how about publications? How many millions of books in how many dozens of languages must a cult publish before it is no longer a cult, but part of the establishment? Scientology has sold perhaps 50 million books in dozens of languages, including audio tapes and donates to public libraries these days. But you're sure that it fulfills every element of "cult?" Terryeo 05:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

(This may offend you: you've been warned) Every religion is a cult, it's just that some are more popular than others. Scientology, specifically, is a crazy wacky cuckoo cult that only crazy wacky cuckoos join. Like Tom Cruise. Scientology is crazy and stupid.

But that's just my personal opinion. --Animarxivist 20:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Please remember that we're not here to share our personal opinions but to discuss improvements to the article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

One neutral rule of thumb that I've heard is that it's religion when you're born into it, it's cult when you join as an adult. Any new group would first be a cult and then settle down and become a relgion. As well, any established group that goes through a rapid expansion phase would edge towards cult status as the number of converted increased. By Scientology's real numbers and the generations of people now raised as Scientologists, they might be approaching religion for a majority of their members under this rule. This rule of thumb seems to fail with the classic cult of Thuggee where members were usually born into it. AndroidCat 20:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

There are multiple definitions of "cult", and for most of the important ones (such as Robert Lifton's) religiosity isn't even a prerequisite, so it's definitely not true that "'cult' is just a derogatory synonym for religion" or that a cult whose members are born into it is a religion -- and definitely not that owning a certain amount of property or selling a certain number of books turns a cult into "part of the establishment". -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo's revised introduction

Let's go through it sentence by sentence.

"Scientology is a word used by author L. Ron Hubbard in 1952 at a public lecture in Kansas.."

Hmmm, let's see. "is a word". Well, that's very informative! Just think of all the words that we could have followed with "is not a word". And of course, since our focus is on the word "Scientology", rather than what the word "Scientology" refers to, what readers will want to know right away is when and where and by whom the word was first used. A public lecture in Kansas? How shocking! I would have thought that the word had first been used in Nebraska!

"He spent most of the lecture defining the term but began with: "Scientology would be a study of knowledge"."

Whew! I'm glad we're really packing in the really important things to know, like when in the lecture he got around to defining it!

"It is a new religious movement based on knowledge about spiritual matters and was presented as a philosophy."

Wow! Again, we're just shearing away the layers of imprecision and leaving a glittering, crystalline gem of truth! Scientology is surely set apart now from all those new religious movements based on knowledge about plumbing matters.

"The current Church of Scientology was first established in 1954, "The word Scientology literally means 'the study of truth.' It comes from the Latin word 'scio' meaning 'knowing in the fullest sense of the word' and the Greek word 'logos' meaning 'study of.'""

Yes! We will rebel against this horrible entheta notion of writing grammatical sentences! We will show that we are twice as good as the rest of the world by trying to cram two unrelated sentences into one! Why, instead of writing "John said 'Mary is no good'", we will write "John was born in 1973, 'Mary is no good'!"

Translation: This introduction is no improvement. The old version will be restored. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

etymological overkill

In the interest in further removal of obfuscation, I'm going to try moving this part of the introductory paragraph to somewhere else further down in the article:

Hubbard defined Scientology as "knowing how to know", [1] although he first introduced it with the words, "Scientology would be a study of knowledge."[2]. The current Church of Scientology writes, "The word Scientology literally means 'the study of truth.' It comes from the Latin word 'scio' meaning 'knowing in the fullest sense of the word' and the Greek word 'logos' meaning 'study of.'"[3]

I can find no other "-ology" article that bothers to spend over half of the introductory paragraph with a long and convoluted analysis of the word's etymology. Articles for other religious beliefs such as Zoroastrianism, Kabbalah, and Islam do not go into the etymology of their names in the intro paragraph. The article for Unarius doesn't even go there until the article's third subsection, deep into the article. wikipediatrix 15:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion for article improvement

I feel that the current article has an unusually (compared to other Wikipedia articles) large amount of content that is critical of Scientology....so much that it distracts from what the article really needs.....a clear description of what Scientology is. I think criticisms of Scientology should be restricted to one section of the article. That section should be short and link to other Wikipedia articles where the criticisms are already discussed at great length. If this were done, it would allow those who know about Scientology to edit the bulk of the article so as to become a clearer presentation of the topic. In blunt terms: those editors who have adopted the mission of including criticisms in nearly every section of this article distract from what should be the main goal of the article: a clear description of what Scientology is. Scientology is not the criticisms of Scientology. Accounts of all the criticisms can go in articles such as Scientology controversy. --JWSchmidt 04:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Scientology is about Scientology. Abuses of people are part of Scientology, and thus, those abuses of people should be in an article about Scientology. The article about the KKK is about the KKK while still pointing out in the article that the organization has a long history of abuse. We can argue about whether abuses and other such negative aspects of Scientology are the most relevant or most notable parts of Scientology, but I don't think we can just assume that Scientology.org is the group most capable or qualified to explain the long and ardous history of Scientology. In fact, we have proof that much of what they say about themselves is a lie. Now, I also admit that what many critics have said is also untrue, but I think its very important to include both sides of the issue on many of the points that are brought up. A hypothetical example of how it should be handled: Scientology.org says in the video tape ABC123, "Scientology teaches that people should do XYZ, only after doing PDQ", however the award-winning Washington Post reporter Rich Leiby notes in an article DDFDEFF that, "Many high level Scientologists are on video tape doing PDQ before XYZ, in an apparently contradiction to their advertisements". Now this seems perfectly reasonable and fair to me, although we must always keep the tone as neutral as possible. Vivaldi (talk) 05:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Are the abuses by Catholics like Hitler, or the inquisition, or most modern catholic schools, in most of the Catholic articles? Yes, CoS, is new, but we shouldn't give undue weight. While the roman catholic church's actions maybe have only killed thousands this year, they have millions, and millions, of followers. Same goes for CoS, Calvanists, etc. We have to keep it all in many various perspectives, I think. Ronabop 05:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

This article is about Scientology. Not Catholic death squads. --Mboverload 05:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Except that there isn't an active contingent of editors attempting to whitewash articles concerning the Catholic inquisitions. ˉˉ^anetode╞┬╡ 10:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Restricting criticism of Scientology to one section would turn this article into a Church of Scientology pamphlet. The history of Scientology is invariably tied to the personal history of L. Ron Hubbard, who, like other prominent religious figures, has a fairly long and verifiable history of documented statements, claims, and personal vendettas. His relentless redifining of Scientology as a medical therapy, self-help method, and finally religion necessesitates that Scientology must be considered an entity which encompasses all those facets. It is not merely a new religious movement, it is not merely a diversified company, it is not merely an alleged sham. To focus entirely on one function of this complex subject, thereby presenting only the current public-relations-prescribed face of Scientology, is contrary to the goal of neutral, comprehensive coverage.

That's not to say that there's no room for improvement, or that ephemeral issues like the South Park and Tom Cruise controversies deserve such a prominent mention in the article. Surely the Origins and Beliefs sections could be better integrated and the Church of Scientology introduction could use a rewrite. Yet there is a difference between having a neutral article on a controversial movement that has been censored by governments and discredited by scientists and a benign endorsement written in proprietary jargon by a sympathetic minority. There are many editors here who add verifiable, if critical, information to Scientology precisely in an to attempt to clarify the purposefully vague and elitist claims made by zealous Scientologists. ˉˉ^anetode╞┬╡ 10:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• • Vivaldi & Anetode- I am not suggesting that Wikipedia should fail to describe any situation when an "organization has a long history of abuse"....."abuses" are an important part of the description of any ideological or religious movement. For example, it would be interesting to have Wikipedia editors willing to catalog and describe the arrests and crimes of all high-ranking members of every religion and political organization. As a Wikipedia reader, I want to be able to learn about the tenets, history and practices of a religious movement and also hear from the movement's critics. The current article provides this, but I feel that the existing description of the tenets, history and practices is not in good balance with the commentary by critics. As an editor of Wikipedia, I am looking for ways to work towards incremental improvements in this article....I feel that the voice of critics swamps the description of scientology itself. I agree that it would not be constructive to allow this article to be a "Church of Scientology pamphlet" and I do not suggest that only members of some scientology organization be allowed to edit the article. I feel that there are other Wikipedia articles dealing with controversial topics that can be our guide for improving Scientology. For example, I think the Abortion article does a good job of describing abortion; it has a short section called "Abortion debate" that links to other Wikipedia articles such as Religion and abortion and Abortion debate. I think there have been some good editorial decisions made for the Abortion article. For example, the word "murder" is not used in the Abortion article. A neutral description of abortion does not involve the term "murder". Many critics of abortion do use the term "murder" and it makes an early appearance in the Abortion debate article. In contrast, the term "cult" makes an early appearance in Scientology. In my view, this is indicative of an excesive amount of editorial control over the Scientology article being exercised by the critics of Scientology. In my view, as someone who came to Scientology wanting to learn what scientology is, an editorial approach that is too strong on criticism distracts from my first learning about what it is that is being criticised. Categorizing scientology as a cult is controversial and an issue that arises from critics of scientology, not within scientology itself. Just as Wikipedia can describe abortion without using the term "murder", I think it would be possible to provide an article that describes scientology without using the term "cult" or restricting the term "cult" to a small section of the article called Controversy and criticism. That section should link to the many Wikipedia articles that contain criticism of scientology. There could even be an entire Wikipedia article called "Scientology viewed as a cult". Terms like "cult" and "murder" are loaded terms and their use in controversial situations is indicative of the editorial bias in articles. --JWSchmidt 17:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Changing the pciture...

While I laughed for about twenty minutes when I saw that the picture of L. Ron Hubbard had been replaced with an image of Mayor McCheese, of McDonald's marketing fame, the original needed to be restored. Don't forget, Wikipedia's for everyone, even Mayor McCheese and L. Ron Hubbard, so let's try and keep it neutral...