Talk:Church of Scientology

Bad source link

The above source is dead and the article obviously has been a smear piece against Miroljub Labus (a pro-Western economist and vice-president of Serbia). Someone was using a faked article in an attempt to destroy his credibility. Unless there is a consensus here that Wikipedia is meant to be a political propaganda tool, I would suggest to take the above out. Misou 17:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Um, or unless we note instances where Wikipedia has been referenced as a press source even when it isn't to Wikipedia's credit. Are you suggesting that incidents like the above should be swept under the carpet? -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It is no news that Wikipedia is being used as a propaganda tool - or at least that attempts to have been repeatedly reported in the media. I would vote to leave it, as an example. CSI LA 00:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Earlier today, I edited it to clearly indicate what happened while removing the OR that was there. I have no problem leaving it in. --Justanother 01:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Yo, will leave it then as is. Misou 04:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Leadership of Church of Scientology

I would like to know what the leadership structure of the CoS is like. Is it centralized? -Northridge, 11:16AM Central, 18 August 2006.

I would also like to know.

-G Each individual church has it's own leadership. Aside from that, there are several different command chains for specific functions so that the international Church monitors what goes on. All leadership is required to follow policies on how every detail of the organization should be run that were written by Hubbard over 20 years of using trial and error and writing down what worked.Countesskrak 06:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Why does this article use the word "church"?

Scientology is a scam, L Ron Hubbard was a con-artist, and scientology is not a religion. Why call it a church?

You're just parroting something you read. Have you ever gone into one of these Churches? I thought not. So how would you know?Countesskrak 06:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Subgenius is a scam, "Bob" was a drill bit salesman, and slack is not a religion. See: Church_of_the_Subgenius. We call it a "church" because they have adopted that title. Praise Bob. Ronabop 02:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

It is registered as a Church in the USA and has tax-exempt status there, so technically it's a church. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

It has tax-exempt status, the same as a charitable, non-profit organization (boys and girls clubs), so although similar, not the same as a church.

Scientology is a religion, get over it. You can object to any aspect of the religion you like but you are wasting your time attacking whether it is a religion or whether it is a church. --Justanother 15:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

A religion?! Just because it's registered as so in the US, doen't make it so. In countries with sensible governments, and free-speech it is still refused charity or religion status. MHDIV ɪŋglɪʃnɜː(r)d(Suggestion?|wanna chat?) 11:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Scam? You're a hypocrit and obviously a religious troll, scientology isn't any different than any other religion, go ahead and disagree.. I have a feeling my money i'm "donating" in the baskets are not going where they should go. 75.25.107.84 18:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

If you believe that the anon is "obviously a religious troll" why are you feeding that troll? As for Scientology not being any different "than" any other religion, it's obviously false. Other religions don't deny being religions in nations where that would cause them problems such as Israel. Other religions don't even claim the impossible goal of being compatible with all religions, let alone claiming this while also claiming that they have produced adepts who are more spiritually advanced than Buddha or Jesus Christ. Other religions don't have written evidence from their founder calling the adoption of a religious appearance "the religion angle" while still talking in business terms about how many "customers" they can get with "what we've got to sell". Other religions don't have issued directives from the founder spelling out that their transformation into a 'religion' is "entirely a matter for accountants and solicitors" and "will not upset in any way the usual activities of any organization." -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Scientology is different than other religions, no doubt. CSI LA 04:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Scientology is different from most other religions in that it can be solidly debunked. Most religions are a matter of faith, but Scientology claims things that can be openly/scientifically/logically (what-have-you) disproven.FlaviaR 14:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

"Scientology is the study and handling of the spirit in relationship to itself, others and all of life. The Scientology religion comprises a body of knowledge extending from certain fundamental truths. Prime among these:

Man is an immortal, spiritual being. His experience extends well beyond a single lifetime. His capabilities are unlimited, even if not presently realized — and those capabilities can be realized. He is able to not only solve his own problems, accomplish his goals and gain lasting happiness, but also achieve new, higher states of awareness and ability. In Scientology no one is asked to accept anything as belief or on faith. That which is true for you is what you have observed to be true. An individual discovers for himself that Scientology works by personally applying its principles and observing or experiencing results. Through Scientology, people all over the world are achieving the long-sought goal of true spiritual release and freedom." Scientology Homepage CSI LA 04:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry. Scientology isn't the first cult or the last. Sure they may turn in a world wide 'religion' but they'll fall to another cult. And so on. We can't stop it, because the majority of people are idiots. Try to ride it out.

-G

it's not a religion it's a front to sell outdated books and get executives million plus salary's per year based on other people success. Markthemac 22:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC) Once again, you parrot off things you read about but have no personal knowledge or understanding about. It is a true religion but how would you know? You've only read opinions of opinions about it.Countesskrak 06:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Church of Scientology is the name of this organization, cult, thing. It's how it is named, that's all. I do have a LOT of objections to them, but I cannot change the name of their group. wildie·wild dice·will die 11:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

no knowledge just look into their financial records... Markthemac 17:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

information on Jesus

not sure where you're getting your information on Jesus, but he never denied his parents or siblings. His brother James and the others may have thought it a little weird to have God's son as a brother... but please show me where denies his family?

His brother James went on to be the head of his followers. Doesn't sound like he had much of a beef with Jesus to me.

Now Jesus did depart from his mother for much of his ministry, which seems natural. I left my family when I went to work full time too.

71.98.197.42 20:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Sean C.

Matthew 12:46-50. He clearly considered the church his true family, and blew off his genetic family. See also John 2:1-5, and the rather interesting Luke 14:26-27. Not really germane to this article, of course, but you seemed curious.Ronabop 07:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Last days of LRH

I believe that L Ron Hubbard spent his last days on a ranch near San Luis Obispo, California, between Los Angeles and San Francisco, rather than at the ranch near Hemet.

Please change the article, then. Wikipedia's motto is be bold when updating articles.  :)

NO. When your belief is published by a refutable source or when you yourself post a refutable source of that information or when anyone else cites a source of information that states what your belief states, then and only then should such an information become part of this article. It might well be included in several adjacent Wiki articles as well. L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology, for example. But untill an information is a published information (and sources with higher reputation for fact count higher) it is a rumor and should not be included in this article. Terryeo 21:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

membership statistics removal

I've removed that membership statistics chart for two reasons: First, the reference to "Scientology Inc." is not NPOV. However accurate that may be, it implies a strong bias towards a point of view that is not widely used by the general public at large, not even among Scientology's most dedicated critics. Second, the fancy numbers in the chart do project a trend of declining membership, but the chart really doesn't mean anything other than to provide a fancy-looking special effect, to emphasize the statement "Scientology's membership is shrinking." This is already demonstrated in the article text itself. The numbers are confusing, and rather than simplifying the text, they complicate it. --Modemac 11:49, 13 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Its cool that the article doesn't have membership statistics, or any statistics. But it is also pretty obvious that an article on The Catholic Church in France is going to link to the Vatican in some way. Its primary source. The Church of Scientology is a POV, you might say. Wikipolicy says Cite sources. Large, well published things have lots of published information. Lesser popular things, lesser information has been published. Backroom sweat shops don't publish.Terryeo 16:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

dangerous cult

You should be very prudent before asserting things such as: "By contrast, the governments of Germany, France and Belgium officially regard the Church of Scientology as a dangerous cult."

More appropriately, a parliamentary report listed the Church of Scientology as a sect. Parliamentary reports do not define the official position of the French government.

Just so you know, in French, the word "secte" has the same connotative and denotative meanings as the English word "cult"--a group like "Heaven's Gate" or the Jim Jones followers--while "culte" just refers to different denominations in mainstream religion, like Methodist or Anglican (like the English word "sect." It is the cause of much confusion among freshman French language students.130.160.122.200 14:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Courts have convicted some regional branches of Scientology as well as some Scientology executives for various offenses. Yet, that neither constitutes official condamnation of the Church of Scientology in general. David.Monniaux 00:09, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I don't know about the situation in France, but the statement is true as far as Germany goes. Scientologists are barred from holding public office there, due to the classification as a dangerous cult. Mkweise 01:35, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

To my knowledge, there is no official term for classifying an organization as a dangerous cult in Germany. However, there is a legal definition for organizations which are hostile to the free democratic basic order of German society as defined in German basic law (=constitution). Organizations may be deemed 'hostile to the constitution'. If this definition is established, the German secret service (office for the protection of the constitution) may observe members of such an organization. This definition became quite important in the late 70's and early 80's, when many Germans who were members of communist organizations wanted to enter civil service. Members of the civil service in Germany are required to take an oath on the constitution, and the government may reject applicants based on various criteria, including membership in an organization hostile to the constitution. There are these days often controversies surrounding extremist Muslim organizations, and the question to what degree such organizations can or should be placed under surveillance as well. In such cases restrictions on entering civil service may be applied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User8976 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Only in one province, Bavaria, is there a prohibition against Scientologists holding office. Vivaldi 08:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

As in the previous entry, restrictions against entering civil service may in some cases be applied to members of organizations which do not hold up the principles of the German society as defined by its constitution. The German governmental publication cited on the main page states that such a restriction to date has not been applied to any member of Scientology. In contrast to the US, most teachers at schools and universities are also civil servants, extending the list of professions potentially affected by this restriction. 'Holding office' is imprecise, because certainly any German can run for any kind of elected office; but not necessarily become a civil servant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User8976 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Following an important cold war decision by the Conseil d'État, the political opinions of a candidate may not be the sole motive for barring them from the French Civil Service. I suspect they'd do the same with religion. Do you have a pointer for this situation in Germany, preferably to a legal text? I fear that merely quoting a press article is insufficient, journalist often bullshit a lot when it comes to legal proceedings. David.Monniaux 07:09, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Such a pointer is included in the main article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User8976 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

German authorities deny Scientology the status of church, it is suspected to be a criminal organisation. See the annual reports of the Office for Protection of the Constitution (Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz/BfV): 2004, PDF, German, page 275 - "Scientology-Organisation (SO)" and 2003, PDF, English, page 248 - "The Scientology Organisation (SO)". Find information on German intelligence services here. --Tickle me 15:34, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

There is no legal definition for a church or religious organization in Germany. There is the issue of being a non-profit, tax-exempt organization, designed for the public good, and Scientology does not enjoy this status in Germany, on the basis of being instead classified as a commercial operation. Secondly, the charter of basic human rights in Germany includes 'freedom of religion'. To my knowledge no member of scientology has ever claimed that he was limited or restricted in the free right to engage in his religion. Such cases might be handled by the Supreme Court. That should be interesting, and it is highly indicative of the status of members of Scientology in Germany, that such lawsuits have not been filed. Scientology has not been classified as a criminal or terrorist organization. Membership in such organizations in itself constitutes a crime which is subject to court proceedings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User8976 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but isn't that old stuff from a couple of years ago? Hasn't the Church of Scientology has been recognized by the German government as a bona fide religion today? It was like that, I know, almost every religion was banned including Scientology. [1] . Terryeo 21:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is meant by suggesting that 'almost every religion was banned' a few years ago in Germany. Freedom of religion has been a principle in the German constitution since 1949. Of course communist East Germany has been known to persecute members of catholic and protestant churches, and possibly others, for their religion, but that is probably not meant here. Jehova's witnesses and Mormons do have tax-exempt status (s. text by German government cited in the main text), and it is possible that a few years ago that was not the case.

Beyond legal issues, it is certainly true that many Germans do not hold positive views of small sects, other than which can be easily classified under the main world religions, and are even highly doubtful and sceptical of any religion, including traditional Protestant and Catholic churches, which have the highest member rates in Germany. It is simply not a good place to start or fnd new members for any cult. (People are also sceptical, if it costs a lot.) Your neighbors may start debating your views, and they may not be convinced at all! (Germans love to debate issues that other nations may consider taboo in polite society.) Of course, this applies if you are interested in openly proselytizing for your cult, sect or religion. The tendency for secrecy and protected texts in Scientology is alien to most Germans, and makes them fearful of totalitaristic tendencies. This is my perception of an ordinary German citizen's point of view. It is reflected in the 40.000 signature petition to investigate any sects by an expert commission, which is mentioned in the German government text. However, the protection of human rights, such as freedom of religion, is also held at a very high level of importance. Therefore debates about extremist Muslim organizations are taken very seriously; and issues such as wearing a head-scarf as a school teacher, or where to build a mosque are often debated fiercely and with high emotional involvement. User8976 20:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

new words and terms

Someone please mention the heavy invention of new words and terms by the book dianetics and scientology in general. It rivals "bridge" for the number of technical terms.

You're after Scientology_beliefs_and_practices#Scientology_language_and_terms_.28Scientologese.29 :-) - David Gerard 17:30, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I want to mention again. In an introductory article for public assimilation, there is little need for a vast amount of Scientology jargon. The ideas expressed by particular terms, are, after all, only short ways of pointing to an idea that can be spelled out with a few more words. Terryeo 23:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

religion?

Wow, there are a lot of scientologist trolls around here making it seem like the article is biased. Having visited a COS in Coral Gables, FL, I must contend that it is NOT a religion. I spent a long time speaking with several people there, and while it has religious overtones, it is structured like a pyramid scheme. Religions are theologically consistent, while scientology plays more as a position paper, glossing over theological inconsistencies (their belief in reincarnation, for example, is at odds with their all-encompassing attitude and several other beliefs they hold). Sects are offshoots of consistent religions. Scientology is neither. Amicuspublilius 01:27, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Allow me to point you toward a Catholic's opinion who holds a Ph.D. in religion, is often called on by governments, etc. to testify about religion. Warning, this is in .PFD format.Dr. Frank K. Flinn's full opinion

Then, if you don't want just one Doctor of Divinity's opinion whether Scientology is a religion or not, you might look at this link which presents several highly qualified such person's opinions about Scientology, usually they mention its profit motives as well: [2]. However, your opinion is of course yours no matter what any high-falutin' doctor says, huh?  :) Terryeo 21:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Scientology is a religion. It holds the belief that man is a spiritual being who has an intimate connection with a creator and life at large. Sclientology, as a religion, also practices spiritual counseling called auditing which is designed to bring parishinors to a higher state of communication with life.

(Note that both the sites linked above belong to the Church of Scientology.) In some countries, the government won't or can't declare if something a religion or not. In the US, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment seems to prohibit that. I believe the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms does that as well. On the practical side, governments can decide which groups meet qualifications for tax and charitable status as well as performing functions like marriages (which are usually just a rubber stamp of the civil paperwork). Isn't the question rather a moot point, especially when CoS itself flips between religious dessert topping and secular floor wax for the same courses, purification and even auditing to suit the local laws that apply at that moment? For many critics, it's CoS's behaviour not their beliefs that are the real problem. AndroidCat 04:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, its an "applied religious philiosophy" based on the idea that a person can know things. How simple can secular floor wax be, huh? lol. Terryeo 23:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I've added citations from the U.S State Department Annual Reports on International Religious Freedom in which Scientology is specifically mentioned as a religion.Su-Jada 01:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous IP trying to add unknown names to Scientology member list

The last time this happened, about two months ago, a European newspaper just "happened" to use Wikipedia as a source to "prove" some Easter European official was part of Scientology. I don't want to see Wikipedia used for smear campaigns like this; therefore, if this starts to happen again, I'm going to temporarily protect the page. --Modemac 09:15, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree with you Modemac, while there are many high profile people that could be validly added, this was really left field. Thanks for picking up on it. -- Nuview 14:45, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It could be a problem but why try to keep such a list? Why not use the official scientology site which has the agreement of the members it lists. Travolta and others have posted their opinions and it prevents this kind of trouble altogether, especially as wiki grows larger. Here's the official COS celebraties and opinions link: [3] Terryeo 17:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Stray text

The following text looks like it's probably Polish or some other slavic language that uses the roman alphabet. I'm removing it from the page. If somebody can translate it and it's verifiable, we can put it back on the main page in English translation.

"Gospodin Vuk Marusic iz odeljenja III4 Gimnazije u Zajecaru je jasno pokazao svoje pretenzije i interesovanja za Jehove svedoke, tako da je izazvan mnogim kako on kaze "besmislicama" o sekti resio da kao odgovor uzme jednu osobu kao zrtvu... tako se sektaske trupe u gradu Zajecaru sire enormnom merom..."

--[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 13:17, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Oh, I see that it was part of a larger vandalism. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 13:21, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Reincarnations and Sea Org

there are, however, no reports yet of reincarnated Scientologists rejoining the Sea Org.

While amusing, this seems like a rather POV jab at Scientology. -- Khym Chanur 05:44, Nov 21, 2003 (UTC)

What's more, those who died in the early days of the Sea Org would just now be coming of age - assuming they reincarnated immediately after death. Mkweise 18:49, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

It can be interpreted as a jab at Scientology, yes, but it can also be a valid question: Does Scientology in fact believe that any of the people who signed contracts with the Church of Scientology promising to come back and take up the same job after they reincarnate have, in fact, done so? If they do, who, and what is their evidence? If not, how do they explain the absence? (While Mkweise's point about the timing is a good one, I don't know if that's their explanation for the absence, or if in fact they do have Sea Org members who are considered to be reincarnations of previous signers?) -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:40, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There have been Sea Org members who claim to be past life Sea Org. However, there are no official releases regarding them. Marbahlarbs 16:32, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

C'mon people get real. Suppose for a flashing instant it was all real, that people drop a body, pick up another body and with the new identity, get active in Sea Org again. If the Church of Scientology claimed such a thing had happened, do you think anyone could keep a straight face while reading it? lol. Do you think such a person would come forth and announce himself? Does the phrase, "prove it !" come to mind? lol Terryeo 21:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm these Scientologist have been playing too much Second Life by the sounds of things... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.63.47 (talk) 17:42, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Religion outside united states?

The article seems to suggest, but I don't think explicitly states that the CoS is not recognized as a religion by any government other than that of the United States. Is that so? I am specifically interested in the Canadian interpretation.

Here is an official Scn Site which tells how many countries, somewhere in there I saw an actual list of countries but I don't recall whether Canada was included in the official list: [4] Terryeo 21:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure what their legal status, but they have been convicted in at least two cases; one involving the largest ever libel award in Canadian history and in the other they became the only Canadian religious organisation to be convicted for breaching the public trust. Check out these wiki articles: Scientology and the legal system, R. v. Church of Scientology of Toronto, andHill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto. --Csnewton 23:08, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

that was amusing, wasn't it? LOL. they got on the steps of the city hall or something and did a parody thing. lol. Terryeo 23:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Amusing?? Umm, no. The serious convictions for criminal breach of the public trust were the result of operating a spy ring exactly as in Operation Snow White, and the Canadian Supreme Court, in Hill v. Church of Scientology, used phrases like "the very real and persistent malice of Scientology", "recklessly high-handed, supremely arrogant and contumacious", "there was such insidious, pernicious and persistent malice that the award for punitive damages cannot be said to be excessive" to descibe what you call "a parody thing". AndroidCat 15:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, Terryeo, I think you need to find out who's supplying you with bad information. When Scientology went into court as a result of having staged a press conference on the steps of a Toronto courthouse and disseminated damaging statements that were untrue and without foundation and which damaged the reputation of an individual, they argued that the law of the land was outdated and should be changed to a different standard under which what they did would not be might not have been found illegal. At no point did they mention or suggest or intimate that their false and unfounded accusations against Casey Hill and the whole press conference at which they disseminated their lies was "a parody thing". -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

In Canada, CoS's application for charity status was denied in 1999, and it is not tax-exempt. I don't think that there is any offical "recognition as a religion" that the government of Canada does or even can do under the Charter. (Note that, in theory, the US government is prevented by the 1st Amendment from declaring something a religon or not. Claims that the US government "recognizes" a religion should be carefully examined to see what is really being said.) AndroidCat 15:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

In the UK, charity status was also denied in 1999 (England and Wales), but CoS operates in the UK as an Australian-incorporated charity under a reciprocal agreement. AndroidCat 15:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Scientology dogma?

I wonder why no one has written in the article about the "church"'s dogma, as is the case in Mormonism, Unitarianism, etc. Anyone know enough to pick up on this omission? Sfahey 1 July 2005 03:46 (UTC)

The thing you run into almost from the top is that Mormonism, and even Christianity are systems of belief. So yeah, you got dogma. Scientology had knowledge, it doesn't encourage its parishoners to believe anything. In fact, it strongly encrouages every parishoner to make their own, individual decisions about what is true for them and not to rely on anything else, including church dogma, statements, and so on. Terryeo 21:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

See Scientology beliefs and practices and, for more detail, Category:Scientology beliefs and practices. -Willmcw July 1, 2005 06:07 (UTC)

Unitarianism doesn't have a 'set in stone' dogma. Mormonism has a dogma John Smith discovered some tablets I believe and from them he wrote his own book on how a Mormon is supposed to act. With Scientology, you have to earn the right to know what it is by earning levels. -Barthalamule May 8, 2006 3:45 (UTC)

The Serious Things

OK, we know from Tom Cruise what Scientology thinks of psychology/psychiatry and regarding humans as physical/animal beings. So where does Scientology stand on big issues like abortion and euthenasia? Tom S.

You do your own thing and I'll do my own thing. Terryeo 04:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

depends on how much money you have :)

New changes in opening paragraphs explained

I understand that the opening paragraphs in the article are very important and should not be changed on a whim, but there was need in this case. The following is an explanation of the changes and the reasons for the changes:

1. 1) I adjusted the last sentence of paragraph #1 because it was confusing, starting with "Scientology has expanded worldwide" -- which seems to imply (to me) that the organization has been expanding in each country that it has been introduced, which is certainly not true. In recent times Scientology has been declining in some countries and almost completely removed from others.

1. 2) I rewrote paragraph two because it had incorrect statements of fact.

a) The original church established in Camden, NJ was never incorporated.

b) The first Scientology organization was the secular Hubbard Assoc. of Scientologists established in 1952.

c) The first incorporated church was in Calif. in 1954.

d) The legal battle over the tax-exempt status of the Church of Scientology began in 1967 and ended in 1993.

e) I removed the word "religious" from the phrase "religious nonprofit organization". For one thing, the IRS is not in charge of determining if an organization is a religion -- their only responsibility is to determine the tax-exempt status of an organization. If we are to accept that the 1993 tax agreement is an endorsement of Scientology as a "religious" organization, then we must also accept that the Leukemia Foundation, American Medical Association, and the Red Cross are religious organizations -- a logical absurdity.

The tax agreement is officially a confidential agreement between the IRS and the Church of Scientology - so it's absurd to conclude that the agreement makes any claims as the "religious" nature of the church, since nobody here has an "official" copy of the text.

The tax agreement that was leaked to the Wall Street Journal and reportedly is a copy of the "secret agreement" does not indicate in any place that the IRS has made any determination of fact that the Church of Scientology is a "religion" -- the only thing it says is that it meets the requirements of a tax-exempt organization, which include charity groups, religious groups, and groups dedicated to research. The IRS does not ever specify which type of group they determined CoS to be -- only that they now met the requirements of a tax-exempt group.

I forgot to sign this when I wrote it: -- Vivaldi 06:41, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Those changes were excellent. Great research! --Agiantman 00:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Impressive ! Terryeo 21:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Changes by Marbahlarbs

I broke the Church vs. Business section in two. Added the World View of Scientology. Hopefully they will present themselves as two seperate issues. Moved the Israeli social movement against Scn to the World View section. Marbahlarbs 10:03, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Hurricane Katrina

The Volunteer Mission section lists 9/11, the Southeast Asian tsunami and 7/7/05 London bombings. I'm wondering if they're helping New Orleans in Katrina's aftermath.--HistoricalPisces 17:40, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

There is a team of Volunteer Ministers in New Orleans, and more on the way. My mom works for FEMA, and she saw them this week. Marbahlarbs 18:04, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Gold base details

I cut the following from the bit on Gold Base on the grounds that it seemed unfocused, overlong, and was not integrated into the article. There may be some info here worth preserving, though I don't think that building-by-building physical description is appropriate to this article. BTfromLA 17:29, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Other notable buildings in Gold Base include:

• Upper Villas - where David Miscaviage and other high level Scientologists and celebrities stay
• "BonnieView" - the home for L. Ron Hubbard in case he returns in his next life.
• Staff berthing - 4 buildings where staff live
• CMO Int - Commodore's Messengers Organization International. CMO Int has the function of establishing and forcing to run all management units under Church of Scientology International (CSI)'s control.
• OGH buildings - Old Gilman House. Probably used for auditing or solo auditing.
• Del Sol - auditing rooms for staff
• Qual Gold - Headquarter for Qual Sec, in charge of "quality control".

Gold Base also has recreational facilities, including a running track, basketball, volleyball, and soccer facilities, an exercise building, a waterslide, a small lake with a training ship (the "Laissez-Faire"), two beaches, and a golf course.

Sucker is 500 acres. Big place. Terryeo 16:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't act like you've been there, Terryo. You don't have enough cash or prestige. No one posting here does. Also how come no one mentions how horrible the common staffer is treated at places like "Gold Base?"

Series Template

Removing this Series Template from across the Scientology related pages. This is not correct usage of Series Templates per the guidelines. They were set up to show the history of countries and were different articles form a sequential series. This is not the case with the Scientology pages, which are random pages on different topics – not a sequence of any kind. Wiki’s definition of a series is: “In a general sense, a series is a related set of things that occur one after the other (in a succession) or are otherwise connected one after the other (in a sequence).” Nuview 11:25, 10 January 2006 (PST)

Reference please? Article series doesn't appear to state that an series template must be a sequential series. "For example, the article Israeli-Palestinian conflict could contain a table that provides links to all the major issues surrounding that subject." AndroidCat 00:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_article_series

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Navigational_templates#Religion

There are both timeline-specific series, and series based a unifying theme. Ronabop 00:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I want to point out that it would be theoretically possible to develop a historical template. Dianetics and then Scientology did develop, after all, in a sequential fashion. In a few instances several sub-organizations of it sprang up at the same time, but most of it is linear because, after all, it was all created by one man. Terryeo 04:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but that wouldn't be much use in making sense of the purposefully confusing current organization of Scientology, would it? Perhaps we need Hubbard's seven division org chart? AndroidCat 06:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I understand what you said. However the things Hubbard wrote say things other than "I am creating a purposefully confusiing organization ..." In fact, his 7 division org board write ups define why 7 divisions, what the purpose and use of such an organization is, its advantages, etc. etc. However, it is a less easy read than say, Battlefield Earth. Terryeo 23:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Objective

It is gratifying to observe this article return to a state of reasonable objectivity. I will admit that I had begun to dispair of Wikipedia's ability to display authorial integrity on many subjects, but thankfully it appears that there is some cause for hope.

Petrus4 03:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Sub-group cleanup

I've added proper main article links to several of the sub-groups. I've also moved most external links and some content from the sub-group sections to the main articles. In the end, I'd like the sections for the sub-groups to be mere summaries, based on the main article introductions. I don't think we should have external links in a summary section for a sub-group of Scientology when the sub-group has a main article. --Davidstrauss 18:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

On the subject of links, there are already more than enough critical links throughout this article. As I have mentioned in other edits – there needs to be some objective balance.--Nuview 21:25, 23 April 2006 (PST)

Using xxxx.net as a reference is not suitable. This website is a personally owned site and the information on it is not credible and cannot be used as a reliable source. There is no evidence on the page that authenticates the “emails.” --Nuview 10:20, 5 May 2006 (PST)

I don't see any references to xxxx.net on the page. AndroidCat 17:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Poor lead

This article's lead section needs a serious expansion. As of right now, all it consists of is one sentence that states the church was founded by L. Ron Hubbard in 1953. --tomf688 (talk) 23:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Obleron conflict

I'm having a hard time believing that Obleron just happened to add yet another link to the Michel Snoeck site the day after that site was revised by Michel Snoeck to incorporate new information that I provided Obleron last week. Granted that it's an external link and not a reference, but the whole idea of allowing editors to add links to their own personal appendix material for Wiki pages has to be way over some line. Sure, I'd love to make my own commentary links on pages so I can keep my POV and text just the way I like it and outside the meddling of other ruthless editors and Wiki rules, but I can see where that would lead.

I'm not accusing Obleron of bad faith (overenthusiasm for the truth perhaps), and I certainly don't object to the information or its sources (why would I? :), but I'd be happier if it was moved to a new or existing Wiki page. AndroidCat 11:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It's Olberon, not Obleron. If an external link or a reference link is proven to be valid it can be used. If it is invalid it should be proven to be so with proper arguments. That is not with some association about who is who, and who is not who. Therefore there is no Obleron conflict and there is no Olberon conflict. --Olberon 07:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

But Giant Floating Head, er, Olberon, if that were all that there was to it, why would you object to other personal web sites? Why not just prove them invalid with proper arguments? AndroidCat 02:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

If you make the accusation, then state and substantiate your case. --Olberon 12:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Acts of 'Vandalism', user Antaeus Feldspar, Wikipediatrix and sockpuppets (Hubbard as SF(?) writer)

It used to say on the various Scientology related pages on Wiki that L. Ron Hubbard was a 'Science Fiction writer'. Documentation however confirms that no more than about 25% of his fiction legacy could be considered Science Fiction. Someone put a statistic together about it using the Bibliography of William Widder here. One should though consider that for example the decalogy 'Mission Earth' which consists of 10 large volumes are counted as 10 stories, whereas various of his other fiction could be reasonable short stories. There exist however also some controversy about the actual authorship of the 'Mission Earth' series and even 'Battlefield Earth'. Robert Vaughn Young has claimed in affidavits that he was involved rewriting/writing it. It is confirmed that L. Ron Hubbard has not solely written Science fiction stories, there exist Detective, Western, Romance, Fantasy etc., therefore solely addressing him as a Science Fiction writer would be inappropriate. Some argue that he was mostly known for his Science Fiction, and this is why they think that addressing him as a 'Science Fiction' writer would be correct. They are 2 issues here. This SF label is mostly due to 'Battlefield Earth' and the 'Mission Earth' as it seems, both which received a considerable amount of media coverage. Also these were published at the end of his carreer, and at a time that L. Ron Hubbard had gone into total seclusion. Another point is that L. Ron Hubbard often is associated with Scientology as being Science Fiction, which is just an opinion.

It should also be noted that the 'Fiction of L. Ron Hubbard' bibliography compiled by William Widder (published 1994) only covers the fiction legacy of L. Ron Hubbard, when in fact he has also written and published a variety of non-fiction material as early as the '30's, all prior to Scientology. Various has been published in magazines such as 'The Pilot'. So even addressing him as a 'Fiction writer' would be inaccurate.

It was basically I that changed these entries and simply removed the focusing on 'Science Fiction'. The history of the editing on the various Scientology related Wiki articles will reveal that I had to battle for it. For a few weeks now it appeared stable, and then various start to change to 'Science Fiction' again. Why?

From 'church of Scientology' article edit history:

An attempt to add the word 'Science':

22:12, 1 June 2006 66.65.192.160

06:01, 5 June 2006 Olberon m (remove vandalism by user 66.65.192.160)

Another attempt by Antaeus Feldspar, he does not indicate that he adds the word 'Science':

15:40, 6 June 2006 Antaeus Feldspar (revised description; "late" is not needed for everyone who is no longer alive)

12:13, 8 June 2006 Olberon (Removed Vandalism by user Antaeus Feldspar, added was the word 'science' foregoing 'fiction writer. This claim defies Widder's bibiliography.)

(I wrote in error user Vivaldi, corrected)

Wikipediatrix reverts with a generality:

12:16, 8 June 2006 Wikipediatrix (rv Olberon's latest act of needless disruption over minutia.)

12:19, 8 June 2006 Olberon (rv One more attempt to Vandalism and I will file a complaint as such, it's up to you. If you have an argument you forward it.)

Only 5 minutes later we see another revert with no explanation what is being done (adding the word 'Science'):

12:24, 8 June 2006 195.26.43.146

I don't think this ever will be 'safe'! Sock puppets if needed will be used to introduce the word 'Science' again after a while. Why? Simply because some want to make the association 'Scientology' and 'Science Fiction'. If one is unable to stop this kind of Vandalism (and this is what it factually is) I don't think that Wikipedia will have a future. At any time someone (either a fool or a scholar) can jump in and edit and attempt to change anything they want. --Olberon 09:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

What defines us - what we did most of or what we are known for? The purpose of the word 'Science' before 'Fiction' is not to associate Scientology with Science Fiction but because L Ron Hubbard was best known for his science fiction writings. That's anecdotal - that's all I knew of him. 203.214.41.192 14:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

"American pulp fiction[1][2] author L. Ron Hubbard"

Why is being focused on his fiction legacy? (i.e. 'pulp fiction' legacy) It is wel documented that he wrote more non-fiction than fiction. This even as early as the 30's in a variety of magazines.

To say "American author [1][2]L. Ron Hubbard" is neutral. To say "American pulp fiction[1][2] author L. Ron Hubbard" is not neutral and in fact gives the impression that Scientology is just something invented by some person who wrote 'pulp fiction' which adds a degrading flavour to the subject. The reader of the article is to decide about these things. Wiki is supposed to just provide actual information which bear relevance to the article and that in a neutral way. It is not neutral to focus on only some part of his writings. --Olberon 06:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

"Scientology is just something invented by some person who wrote 'pulp fiction'" is in fact a POV held by many people on the subject; see, for instance, Hayakawa's famous review "From Science-fiction to Fiction-science". To call Hubbard a non-fiction author is problematic as actual non-fiction means sticking to the facts, and it's documented that Hubbard often chose not to. Even if we were able to trust that Hubbard was trying, in any given piece, to stick to the facts, there is the fact that his research was notably slipshod (see, for instance, his declarations about how Western dime novels are a treasure trove of usable fact. For a fiction author, they probably were; for a non-fiction author to declare them so is to express unbelievable naïvete.) -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Define neutral! Fiction writer is only partly true. Pulp fiction writer is only partly true. Nonfiction writer is only partly true. Writer or author without specification is true on — founding a religionall counts. What problem do you have with that?

Your comment:

13:32, 13 June 2006 Antaeus Feldspar (we should be neutral and accurate. Hubbard was an author of pulp fiction and proud of it.)

is not relevant. You are not being neutral!!! --Olberon 14:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Olberon, you changed the Scientology and Church of Scientology article and summarized your edits with as "per discussion #22", while I don't see any consensus here... About your statement "gives the impression that Scientology is just something invented by some person who wrote pulp fiction": well, that is exactly what Hubbard was when he invented Dianetics and Scientology, a pulp-fiction writer, and it is my opinion that it's significant enough to mention it, and your opinion that this adds a "degrading flavour" to the subject actually confirm that this particular fact is important. What is not important is your perception of this fact, that means you are trying to taint the article with your personal opinion. After being a pulp fiction writer, Hubbard went on to become the founder of the Scientology religion, mostly dedicated to write scriptures for his religion. Raymond Hill 21:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

It is obvious. Feldspar's statement, Scientology is just something invented by some person who wrote 'pulp fiction'" is in fact a POV held ... exactly reflects the attitude of a number of editors. So, time after time, those editors edit the article to present their, personal point of view. The actual facts include that Hubbard authored science fiction. But, the article's purpose is to present information to the reader about the Church of Scientology, today's Church of Scientology. When editors attempt to make small of Scientology, editors include "created in 1953" (today's church was not created in 1953). And "Science fiction author.." etc. But these dispersive presentations are not the gist of Scientology, hello !? Can we get an article which states what it is instead of an article that reeks and smells of POV? Terryeo 04:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

How is this even an arguement? What non-fiction writings are you talking about? He wrote fiction and he wrote Scientology books. It seems pretty straightforward. If LRH were to have died before creating Scientology he would have been known as a fiction writer, right? Robert A. Heinlein wrote non-fiction as well, but if you were to ask me what he did, I would say he wrote sceince fiction. Similarly, if you asked me what LRH did, I'd say he invented scientology. If you asked me what he did before that, I'd say he wrote pulp fiction or I might say he wrote science fiction. It may not look good, but NPOV doesn't mean coverring things up because they don't look good. It means that reasonable arguments, which are verifiable, against the facts are aired. It probably sounds crazy to a lot of people that christianity believes a guy died, was put in a tomb, stayed there for three days, then went to face his archnemisis in the bowls of the earth, and then rose up to the heavens to be redeemed for the sins of the world, which he had miraculously taken from every human being. But, thats what christians believe. Even though it sounds crazy, it remains in wikipedia because it is verifiable and it has relevence to the christian faith.

By the way, wikipedia says that Jesus was a carpenter before he was the savior of mankind(according to christians). Should we take that out too? -- Bantab 01:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure, but couldn't identifying L. Ron as a pulp fiction writer fall under "terms that are technically accurate but carry an implied viewpoint"? It seems to me it would. Not only that, but his being a pulp fiction writer has nothing to do with the CoS. I think just author should be used, since there's no real reason to label him as a pulp fiction author (in this article).

The statement is clearly meant to convey a viewpoint about Scientology. There is no purpose in specifying that L. Ron Hubbard was a pulp fiction/science fiction writer in the article on "The Church of Scientology." The information should definitely be included in his article, but not here. For those of you who believe scientology is a fraud, and that Hubbard's previous occupation will further convince people of your viewpoint, I submit that the best course of action is simply to state the facts and allow other's to form an opinion for themselves. Natsirtguy 08:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Bantab L Ron Hubbard was a science fiction writer before he founded Scientology, and yay for him. Christian's don't dispute that Jesus was a carpenter (though it could perhaps imply that his religion was similarly held together by nails). It's a fact, an undisputed fact and not at all POV. Leaving it out is, I feel, derelict to the aim of presenting the important facts. 203.214.41.192 14:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientology Public Relations

I'd appreciate it if Scientologist wikipedians would explain to TheFarix and Orsini that the page "Scientology Public Relations" is an obvious attack on Scientology by the vandal Lord Xenu.

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientology Public Relations for the discussion. These users have both falsely accused me of making personal attacks when I pointed out that this user is a vandal. Thanks, Republitarian 18:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Republitarian, "vandalism" on Wikipedia means edits which make their bad-faith nature inarguable. "L. RON HUBBARD WAS A GAYBOY" is vandalism. An article about some aspect of Scientology -- even if incoherent, even if unflattering to Scientology -- is not vandalism.

In short, TheFarix and Orsini were correct; you are incorrect and you are compounding your own error by trying to summon "Scientologist wikipedians" only to the AfD discussion to push your erroneous agenda. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, rallying people who agree with you is "meatpuppeting" and heavily discouraged. --Davidstrauss 17:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Who's at the top?

I want to know more about the inner circle at the top of the CoS. Does the evidence suggest they're firm believers, or is there evidence that they know the whole thing is a scam? People pour money into the CoS. Where does that money go? Who's getting rich? Who's the CEO? Did these people rise up through the ranks (which would be evidence that they're believers) or did they skip the typical initiation phase?

Oxford Capacity Analysis?

I don't see what the deal is - the test is clearly rigged and has no relation to Oxford. What is the problem citing that here? We cite the same information on the OCA's entry in wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScienoSitter (talk • contribs)

Reverted Tilman's edit based on the following discussions: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:COFS&diff=prev&oldid=137602599#June_2007_My_Mistake http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kukini#Third_OpinionSu-Jada 01:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Missing the command structure

We are missing a big thing here - the command structure; Watchdog Committee, CMO, Int Mgmt, FOLO, a ton of stuff. I was editing Mary Sue's article and wanted to link to CMO, which I did find after a false start. I will do something here as I can but if someone else wants to start, please do.--Justanother 22:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Some kind of org chart with a lot of boxes and arrows would probably be needed. :) AndroidCat 22:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I have a ton of stuff packed up; it would be great if I had that glossy "Command Channels of Scientology" publication. --Justanother 05:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I love how a "religion" needs an intelligence agency, oh I'm sorry, "Office of Special Affairs..."

Bias?

Is it just me, or does this article show a bias against Scientology? I'm a Catholic, and if I read a similarly non-objectively-stated piece on my religion, I'd be dismayed.

pointlessforest 05:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Since you haven't given any specific examples of what needs changing, I'm not sure what you expect anyone else to say or do. wikipediatrix 14:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Trust me, we are dismayed. --Justanother 17:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Reality has an anti CoS bias 72.137.24.194 10:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, quite the opposite. The internet chat universe, which is a very specialized form of "reality", and of which wikipedia is a part, does have "an anti CoS bias", however. --Justanother 14:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Naturally! then who is wielding the sledgehammer [5] ? - Jpierreg 4:40, 06 Feb 2007 (GMT)

Swinging it at the rain. Which, nonetheless, blows steadily against the wielder. --Justanother 04:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Having read the full article, I agree that there remains a feeling that this piece is biased.

Maybe it is the strange time jumps in the "History" section, the Church being founded 1953 and then someone got arrested in 1979. Then, while some european governments don't like the Church of Scientology, the IRS recognized them in 1993, then something Hubbard back in 1966, up to some Miscavige in 1987, etc. A line of logic only shows on the basis that the author wants to throw as much mud as possible in as few lines as possible. Misou 05:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Something like that. Editing is welcome. --Justanother 05:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Misou 17:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad someone finally brought this up. I completely agree. The article is so slanted I hardly know where to start. But I'm going to give it a try.Grrrilla 19:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, all right then. How about summarizing the membership statistics paragraph? This seems to be a collection of unsourced numbers and statements. Jimmy Wales actually recommends fast removal of such "encyclopedic" entries, so you might consider this as well. Misou 04:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll tell you what I find the worst example of bias and bad research. That's quoting Stephen Kent as an expert and crediting him with the line that Scientology is a "transnational corporation." Even the German courts have thrown out that specious allegation.Grrrilla 02:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I made that change on Dr. Kent. But in doing so I found another point I find badly written because it is just redundant. It currently says: "The Church of Scientology asserts that such groups are not practicing true Scientology, but unauthorized variants, and regards itself as the only source of "true" Scientology." The entire second clause is unnecessary. Don't you think?Grrrilla 02:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

And I've put it back in. This is properly sourced. Your theory about the german courts isn't. Quite the opposite - a not-so-old court decision allowed CSI to collect tax free license fees. So this supports that scientology is "trans-national". --Tilman 15:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

In his article Kent just gives his personal opinion (and honestly says so). Sure someone here wanted to understand "fact" to keep the article nicely biased. Go ahead and nuke that one.

BTW, what happened to this guy? Per his homepage he seems not to be actively working on the sect issue anymore. I guess the germans ran out of money.

I might add this one: “Kent’s essays suffer from methodological flaws so grievous as to call into question the validity and reliability of Kent’s conclusions, especially as the foundation for sound legal or legislative action (with regard to conflicts with new religious movements at either the individual or collective levels). In fact the methodological inadequacies detected are indicative of a prejudice inappropriate to the practice of the social sciences (given the consensus on maintaining at least the regulative ideal of objectivity and value-neutrality).”

Dr. Lorne L. Dawson, Associate Professor of Sociology and Religious Studies, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario. COFS 03:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC) (logged in now)

I tagged the membership section. Anybody having some real information please come out and play. Misou 04:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

You tagged just about every line in it. That's overkill for that tag, which should be used once per section. {{cn}} perhaps, although the year and country should be all the ref needed for national census data. There's no requirement for an online copy. AndroidCat 07:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. Now we better find some sources. Misou 04:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Mardi Gras is over, five days have passed by and nobody came up with some sources. Well, I guess there are none then. Misou 23:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Kent cite

I haven't seen any good reasons for removing the cite for the published Kent paper. The web flame by Introvigne doesn't seem very scholarly. AndroidCat 07:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

You have not read it then. The reasons are IN the paper. He - someone having been paid by Scientology opposition for giving opposing views - gives his opinion and says so. Does not seem scholarly to me either. If Kent is passed as "scholarly" we will have to add all pro-Scientology expertises which provenly have been paid by Scientology. Would be only fair. Misou 23:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

And Melton, Kliever, Wilson and Hadden worked for free when they parroted scientology PR?

All what Kent did was to allow the city of Hamburg to publish a scholarly text (that existed already before as a draft) as a booklet. And I hope he was paid. --Tilman 15:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

"Melton, Kliever, Wilson and Hadden": Who were they paid from and how much, sources ?

Here is the one for Kent: Cesnur: Kent --Jpierreg 03:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you claiming that since they didn't mention that they were paid, it is "proven" that they worked for free?

Yes, Kent gets paid. But unlike the well known cult apologists, he has been honest enough to write it right into his affidavits. While $200 is more than many of us earn per hour (Sea Org members earn less than this per month!!), it is much less then what scientology attorneys make per hour ($300 - $600). --Tilman 16:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't know about what Scientology attorneys make but their intention is pretty unequivocal, isn't it, while Kent is claiming to be an expert. Misou 00:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he is an expert. And experts have to be paid. Some people even live solely from the fees they collect as expert witness. For example, car damage experts. --Tilman 00:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

True, those experts however need to provide court-proof material and not - like Kent - something being used for publicity only or to underline somebody's theories. Misou 02:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You are aware that Kent has provided expert material for court cases, right? AndroidCat 04:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Membership references

I can't fit this reference in the article in its current form, but I will drop it here in case it becomes useful: Spiegel Online (Jan 2007): Berlin Concerned about Huge New Scientology Center: "The [Church of Scientology] has an estimated 6,000 members in Germany, but experts believe the church has only 150-200 members in Berlin." Raymond Hill 21:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Why are you leaving out the other data on membership (same article)? The whole paragraph says "The Church of Scientology was founded in 1954 in the US by science fiction author L. Ron Hubbard. It has around 8 million members worldwide, including several celebrities such as actors John Travolta and Tom Cruise. The organization has an estimated 6,000 members in Germany, but experts believe the church has only 150-200 members in Berlin." I put it in then. Misou 23:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I saw the interest in this article for the 6,000 members figure it mentions, but I was doubtful it could be used because the source for this figure is not attributed. The 150-200 figure for Berlin is attributed to 'experts', but I doubt we want to provide stats up to city level, unless its Clearwater or Los Angeles. Regarding the 8 million figure, most likely this is from the Church of Scientology spokepersons — they have claimed 8 million to 10 million, we don't need this particular Spiegel article for that. As for the 6,000 members figure, you removed the source, German Office for the Protection of the Constitution, which is much better than an unattributed figure. The only parts left to cite were the IAS numbers. Raymond Hill 01:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

"Most likely" (even though I agree) is dangerous think for such articles. Why not state the source and the statement and leave it up to the reader of the article. WP:RS applies ("Using reliable sources assures the reader that what is being presented meets the Wikipedia standards for verifiability, originality, and neutrality. Accurate citation allows the reader to go to those sources and gives appropriate credit to the author of the work."). Misou 05:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

1) Concerning the 8 million members: Nowhere did I suggest to use "most likely" in the article. I suggested to use a cite in which the figure is unambiguously attributed. I found such a source and put it in the article, and because of that, it is pointless in my opinion to provide another cite which does not provide the source of the figure.
2) Concerning the 6,000 members in Germany: You again removed a cite which attribute the source for this figure, namely German Office for the Protection of the Constitution. There again, I disagree with replacing this cite with another which is ambiguous, and which does not provide the source for the figure.
Your edit is contrary to your own statement that "accurate citation allows the reader to go to those sources", since the Der Spiegel article does not provide the source for the figures. The Deseret News and German Office for the Protection of the Constitution do. Raymond Hill 06:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

How would the German government be a reliable source Status_of_religious_freedom_by_country#Germany Human Rights Germany while WP:RS states that extremist views are not RS -- Jpierreg 06:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The issue is not WP:RS here, but rather to have the source attributed if possible. And it is possible. Let's see: both Der Spiegel and Verfassungsschutz offers a figure of 6,000 members in Germany. Now, Der Spiegel doesn't mention where the figure comes from. On the other hand, Verfassungsschutz is identified as the source for the 6,000 figure. Now, why would we pick Der Spiegel as a cite over Verfassungsschutz? That is the point I raised, and it happens that Misou also seems to favor "accurate citation", as per her own statement — although his/her edit contradicts this same statement. Raymond Hill 07:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I have attributed it to an article of 2004 that quotes the Verfassungsschutz. If anyone needs the german text, please say so.

I see that the 2005 report [6] has the same number, p292. --Tilman 15:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Reading this twice I can only assume that Raymond Hill disagrees with SPIEGEL being a reliable source. Thanks, Tilman, for adding something constructive. Misou 04:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course I didn't say that, I think I explained my point well enough. Raymond Hill 07:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

"Assume" means that you did not say that so I had to assume. But the German Verfassungsschutz is just the more incomplete source, since they only give one guess, while Tilman found three in one source. I hope you are learning something here. Misou 00:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't understand the point you are trying to make: Tilman put back the same source (2005 instead of 1998) that you just characterized as 'incomplete', and which you removed twice previously, here and here. The source that you characterize as 'incomplete' happens to provide attributed figures, as opposed to Der Speigel in which the figures are not attributed. If I ask you the source of the figures in Der Spiegel, can you answer me? Answer: no. Der Spiegel doesn't provide them. If I ask you the source of the figures in Verfassungsschutz, can you answer me? Answer: yes. That was my point, which I would think you would agree according to your preference for accuracy as you stated sooner in the discussion. I still think Der Spiegel is best left out as a cite here since it does not provide the source for the figures, we already have good cites that provide sources. (by the way: sarcasms are best left out of discussions on wikipedia, they are in no way helping respectful debates.) Raymond Hill 02:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The Verfassungsschutz is a pretty good source. They have a lot of resources for their work, and they risk being sued if they report wrong data. --Tilman 06:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Scientologists online

I actually counted 15,418 online scientologists back in January 2007... I guess my count can't be used though, as this would go against WP:OR, unless this fits the "only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable" portion of the policy, but I doubt. Raymond Hill 15:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

My last count (January) is 16134. I counted with Xenu's Link Sleuth, then removing all scientology links. Although I did not check whether the links to "personal pages" actually worked, since this would put more load on their server. --Tilman 16:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Shinto

A source is missing for this allegation: The Church says that in 1994, a joint council of Shinto Buddhist (Yu-itsu Shinto) sects in Japan not only extended official recognition of Scientology, but also undertook to train a number of their monks in its beliefs and practices as an adjunct to their own meditations and worship.

I suspect that this is somehow related to Fumio Sawada, a guy who became a "japanese" expert for scientology in the 90ies. (All google searches for his name find scientology related pages). --Tilman 06:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I found something: [7]. So the source might be International Scientology News Issue 39. Could someone check it? --Tilman 06:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a laugh riot. Does it need mentioning that Shinto and Buddhism are entirely seperate from each other? Shinto is a faith and way of life unique to Japan. As for Buddhism, well, you're at wikipedia.org, go look it up.

I decided to leave a note refering to here to perform a rewrite of that section because Every time I tried to fix it the results came out choppy so I'll leave it to you skilled guys.68.9.223.94 18:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I highly doubt this claims are correct. Get a proper citation or take it off —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.250.83 (talk) 10:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Added {{fact}} tag

The last phrase sounds like PR to me...

In the years since its foundation, Flag Base has expanded as the church has gradually purchased large amounts of additional property in the downtown and waterfront Clearwater area. Its relationship with the city government has repeatedly moved between friendly and hostile, but the church has worked with the city in attempts to establish better relations.

... so I tagged it. If it's not verifiable, it should go. SheffieldSteel 19:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

How many members?

Unless I overlooked it, the article does not give any estimated number of CoS members. I think this would be important information. Thanks. Steve Dufour 15:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Church of Scientology#Membership statistics AndroidCat 17:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks AC. Sorry I missed it. Could something be said in the opening section? I think this is important information to give people an idea of how important the CoS really is. Thanks. Steve Dufour 18:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I added a sentence based on the data given in that section. To me it seems like the kind of basic information that should be given. I'm not too happy about the wording of my sentence, that could be improved. Steve Dufour 02:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed that sentence as it's wildly inappropriate to select a figure (at random? I sure can't see how you picked that one) out of so many differing figures and present it in the lead uncited with the weasel worded "outside estimates". Of course, I can see how someone who had a particular desire to portray Scientologists as "a small group to begin with" would have an interest in selecting one of the smallest estimates they could find. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

True. I think that the importance of Scientology has been greatly exagerated by both its members and its critics. However it seems to me that any article about a group of people should give some information about the number of its members. In the article's section: Church of Scientology#Membership statistics the estimates which were connected with reality, for instance the phone survey, suggest about 50,000 American members. In fact all the "statistics from other sources" seem to be in agreement on a number of around 50,000 in the USA and 2,000 to 6,000 in each of the other major English speaking countries and in Germany. I don't see where a number higher than 100,000 total could come from. Steve Dufour 20:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with some of your points, and disagree with others. (I also thank you for finding that citation regarding the US Census Bureau not asking about religion, BTW.) "... it seems to me that any article about a group of people should give some information about the number of its members." Yes, it should, and in this case it does -- it gives the information that there are many different accounts given by many different sources about how large the number is. If we were to put anything specifically in the introduction about the numbers, it would have to be simply the fact that there are no agreed-upon figures. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I will go ahead and say that, if you haven't already. Steve Dufour 01:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

First paragraph

Two thirds of the first paragraph is not about the subject of the article. Steve Dufour 17:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I moved the sentences in question to a new paragraph:

Other organizations exist which say they practice the techniques developed by Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard; these groups are sometimes collectively called the "Free Zone". The Church of Scientology asserts that such groups are not practicing true Scientology, but unauthorized variants, and regards itself as the only source of "true" Scientology. Steve Dufour 01:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

"Brutally"

To me the word "brutally" more describes something like the Nazis or maybe slavery in United States history. I don't think that the average CoS member is really treated "brutally" and putting such a strong opinion at the start of the article is a distraction to the readers. Steve Dufour 15:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely.WP:WTA lists similar guidelines. Antonrojo 14:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Recent European Convention on Human Rights decision

The article mixes up the European Union and the European Convention on Human Rights. The convention pre-dates the EU and is distinct from it, despite there being a large overlap of members in each. There are certainly not 46 EU states, as the article suggests.

Yes, this should be CoE States (Council of Europe States). The EU has 25 member states. CSI LA 23:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Sklar case

I am going to take this part out

In a legal case involving a married couple attempting to obtain the same deduction for charity to a Jewish school, it was stated by Judge Silverman "An IRS closing agreement cannot overrule Congress and the Supreme Court.

If the IRS does, in fact, give preferential treatment to members of the Church of Scientology—allowing them a special right to claim deductions that are contrary to law and rightly disallowed to everybody else—then the proper course of action is a lawsuit to put a stop to that policy."To date, such a suit is not known to have been filed."

unless someone can tell me what this has to do with the Church of Scientology or why this would be in any way relevant. I am sure that the list of "never filed cases" against Scientology is long. CSI LA 23:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Grounds for removal are very weak I will reinstate unless anyone objects. This is information relevant and fully referenced to Scientology so why remove it? Chrisp7 12:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Looking again at the user profile he has been blocked for posting pro Scientology bias Chrisp7 12:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It shows that the church of Scientology may be receiving treatment from the IRS which it shouldn't legally be getting

Tottenham Court Road photo

The photo of the Scientology Centre on Tottenham Court Road is out of date. The centre has since been refurbished and the front of it looks rather different - red sign rather than blue and a glassier doorway.

East Asia

No such thing as a "Shinto Monk" this unsourced section should be removed--Caligvla 02:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I changed it to Pending Rewrite refer to discussion for details but it'll be reverted even though its been shown to contain a large number of innaccuracies and such 68.9.223.94 17:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Is this going to be re-written? It's been 4 days since that was added, so I'd be proposing it be restored or removed entirely (if that's what consensus is; I know nothing of the subject matter so I can't comment) if nothing is going to be done re: a rewrite. Beeawwb 04:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

They never got a consensus on if the references were bad or made up and if it should be considered valid so I dunno what they should do 68.9.223.94 22:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

MASS DELETION

There seems to have been a mass deletion of the entire "history and contreversy" section as well as the entire listing of locations that was present in this article. This appears to be vandalism. (RookZERO 19:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC))

Yes. I think you have done a good job of restoring the removed bits. --Justanother 22:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Any idea who did it? Foobaz·o< 19:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Scientologycross.jpg

Image:Scientologycross.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 21:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

unrelated citations

The claim that Hubbard wrote non-fiction has two "citations." One links to an ebook (with no specified page or passage that is relavent to the claim.... ideally, the page on which the statement is supported (if any) should be the one cited, rather than the whole ebook). The other links to a newspaper article published by LRH which also makes no referance to him being a nonfiction writer or for that matter having anything to do with the article. (RookZERO 00:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC))

15 million members

According to Derek H. Davis (Freedom Magazine human rights award winner), scientology has 15 million members. The source is: Religionsfreiheit und Konformismus. Über Minderheiten und die Macht der Mehrheit, Lit. Verlag, Münster, 2004, ISBN 3825876543, page 113. --Tilman 20:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Introduction and Contents Rewrite/Reorder Suggested

In viewing this document, I noticed that the introduction does not seem objective, as it moves too quickly into controversies. Moreover, the first subsection is titled "History and Controversies" rather than "History" as one section and "Controversies" as a separate, later section.

Compare that to the articles on the "Unification Church" (known to some as the "Moonies") or the Roman Catholic Church, each of which have their own controversies, and that should obviate the need for a rewrite/restructuring.

As a staff member at a Church of Scientology, I think it is okay for people to express their positive and negative feelings about any subject, including Scientology.

However, I think that the flow of this particular article and its almost immediate reference to controversies is not fair. It does not blend with what is being said about other churches in other articles, and therefore, it is less valid as an educational tool.

Most certainly, there will be those among you who disagree. That's fine. But I will not ignore something that I feel is an injustice, as this feels to me.

To give an analagous example: Imagine you submitted an essay to a teacher and received a response that said, "This paper was a pathetic waste of words" and in the marginal footnotes on page three there was a comment that said, "Oooh. I like this sentence." The positive comment lacks weight when the negative smacks so quickly.

That isn't to say that the whole of this article is absolutely negative, but consider: It's not just what you say, but the order in which you say it which would guide someone's thinking.

Let's be fair, please. How about the key authors collaborating on a rewrite?

Mr. Staffmember, please sign your contribs. I like your idea somewhat. Too vague though. How about an outline? Misou 04:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

RZ, please tell me

..why it is ok to claim that a ref says something which is not in the ref. Misou 04:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Please specificy exactly which ref you're referring to. John Carter 17:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Iconography (ie scientology cross)

How does this symbol relate to the church of scientology? It seems to be the icon they using more and more in promotional material. How does it serve to signify the church? What is its history? It looks exactly like Crowley's cross. Is that a coincidence? When was it first deployed? Wikipedia has done an impressive job of accounting for changes in how the promotional identity of this corporation has conducted itself, is there any significance to the blackout regarding why they're going with a cross now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.171.0 (talk) 22:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The 8-pointed Scientology Cross has been a commonly used Scientology symbol since 1955 or so. What "blackout"? wikipediatrix 23:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, according to the Scientology Crossentry it was only used once the ecclesiastical legitimacy of the organization came into question-- over a decade later than your 1955 date, which was pretty much what I suspected. As for improving this page, a section outlining CoS iconography would be relevant: the symbols are as cryptic as they are common in CoS promotional material. An emblem on the RTC features a 5 layered pyramid, under the interlocking S triangles within what appears to be a border of lightning bolts(?). While it is possible that these should have entries dedicated to them, keeping an inventory of them here explicitly directing to places to find more information would be well within the spirit of this entry, and would eliminate difficulties like the one I just had. Also, since the CoS has chosen to use a symbol of particular history--a cross--, which is also prominently featured in this entry,an effort to disambiguate its sponsorship of the symbol would be useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.171.0 (talk) 23:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Belgium charges Scientologists with extortion

How do people feel about the inclusion of material referencing http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/scientologists-charged-with-extortion/2007/09/05/1188783277713.html in the history and controversy section? Alans1977 06:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It should be put in there due to the fact that it possibly will be named a "criminal organization" in the nation, and here is another source on the subject. [8]--Kranar drogin 11:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Stuff like this goes on every day in the world of Scientology. If we listed all these types of incidents, they'd overtake the article. The matter is already amply covered in its proper place at Scientology as a state-recognized religion and Scientology in Belgium. wikipediatrix 14:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Placement of 2002 court finding

Heads up, Shutterbug. I don't dispute the claim you're making. It's referenced fine; in 2002, the court did -- if my terrible German is up to snuff -- find that Scientology organizations don't work for profit.

But it doesn't contradict the prior finding. "Doesn't work for profit" is not the opposite of "uses 'inhuman and totalitarian practices'", and placing it in such a way as to indicate the court somehow reversed its earlier decision when it didn't -- and when the citation you used makes no indication of such -- seems like bad form to me. You even said (diff) "the court decided the opposite just seven years later" when the 2002 ruling did not, in fact, reverse the earlier ruling.

Go ahead and include the claim somewhere, but not in a way that indicates something the citation doesn't support. I'm going to go ahead and leave it for someone else to revert, since I don't want to get into an edit war over this, but I think it would be best if you made the change. --GoodDamon 16:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and one more thing... You said (diff) "No reason given for deleting entry" when you reverted my change. I did give a reason. I said (diff) "Not disputing the claim, but it's mischaracterized as "the opposite". --GoodDamon 16:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, you deleted referenced data on a "reasoning" not related to the deletion. That's non-sequitur. As for the original claim, "uses 'inhuman and totalitarian practices'", the court did not decide that in 1995. The 1995 judgment is on whether the court has jurisdiction to take on a certain individual case or not. They decided not to - lack of jurisdiction - and added some obiter dicta to this decision. There was no fact finding and no trial in this case and what is using up space here prominently in the article is nothing but an opinion presented as a "court comment". It is just shabby to use this piece of crap in the intro section. So yes, I am with you to move the whole thing down somewhere else. Shutterbug 16:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the inspiration. Shutterbug 16:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It most certainly was related to the deletion. Like I said, I don't contest that the court, in 2002, opined that Scientology organizations don't work for profit. What I contest, and continue to contest, is the idea that this somehow negates the court's earlier opinion, when it doesn't. I know it wasn't a fact finding; both are just court opinions. What I'm saying is that they aren't *opposing* opinions.

And I see now that you've also referenced this discussion as an excuse to move a huge section, while I've only been arguing a tiny detail. As it happens, I don't disagree with the move; maybe general criticism should go into the higher criticism section, while country-by-country criticism might be better in individual country sections. But claiming this discussion as the basis for that move? That is very bad form indeed. Again, I'm not going to get into an edit war over this, but I strongly suspect you'll find all these changes reverted quite soon. --GoodDamon 17:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this is where I got the inspiration from. You proposed to move things to relevant sections and I did it. What's your problem? Shutterbug 17:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I proposed to move one individual claim, or at least rephrase it so it doesn't convey the impression of contradicting something it doesn't actually contradict. You taking that to mean "make wholesale changes to the entire layout of the page" seems POV-pushing, even if I happen to see some merit in those changes. And I'd like to point out you left that little detail, the one that started this, unchanged. --GoodDamon 17:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Pulp fiction

"Hubbard has written more non-fiction than fiction". Almost all of that was Dianetics or Scientology materials (or HCOBs?). Wouldn't most of that count as self-published? AndroidCat 03:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what your question is. Hubbard wrote more non-fiction than fiction. Isn't that simple enough? The "pulp fiction" classification which is continuously (re-)added by editors otherwise known to push anti-Scientology viewpoints has only the purpose to create the impression as if Hubbard's non-fiction is actually also pulp fiction. The intent is clearly to slant the article right from the beginning. Shutterbug 04:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

How on earth could Dianetics or Scientology materials be classified as non-fiction? They clearly are not. Just as the Christian bible, while containing some parts that are based on reality, is not non-fiction. Alans1977 19:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

As a non-scientologist, i knew L. Ron Hubbard as a pulp fiction author long before i knew of him as a religious leader. There's nothing wrong with that, i love pulp fiction. This career obviously influenced Scientology, as the dogma borrows themes from fiction of the era. There's nothing wrong with that either; it may be more relevant to modern life than careers of ancient prophets. I'm not sure if his previous occupation is relevant to this article, but it's certainly not meant as an insult to Hubbard. Foobaz·o< 20:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I think what AndroidCat is trying to assert is that most Scientology books are self-published and therefore should be regarded as somewhat lesser than his pulp fiction works. However, the line in question says "written" not "published", so the question is moot. Further, even if some of Hubbard's works could be counted as vanity publications in their first printings, his works are obviously no longer self-published. wikipediatrix 20:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Photo?

I was just down at the Hollywood and Highland complex (Hollywood Blvd, CA) and got a picture of the scientology center. Would this be helpful to add? It's a decent picture. I did not walk far enough down to get a pic of the L. Ron Hubbard Library though (there were scary bums there and I was by myself). How do I add the picture? I've never done this before Shinku Hisaki 01:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

You are still in L.A.? Go to Sunset/L. Ron Hubbard Way and shoot there. At least a Church of Scientology there (or four of them on one spot). How upload works? Look on the left column, below the Wikipedia Ball. Lower, lower, see it? "Upload file". There you go. Misou 05:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's talk Israel

Misou, I only removed that ref because it was redundant. The sentence fragment you have it in reads like this: "There also is a Jewish-orthodox organization..." You have it placed as if to prove that Lev L'Achim exists, but it's unnecessary for that. Frankly, it reads like you inserted it only to take a swing at Lev L'Achim, considering the quote from the ref you used, and the fact that the ref doesn't even have anything to do with Scientology. I'm not saying they don't deserve it -- frankly, what I've heard about their activities scares me -- but if you want to point out their bias and ultra-orthodoxy in the article, do it honestly. Or better yet, write an article about them, and wikilink it. --GoodDamon 05:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Man, you should not delete valid references, oK? The achims are biased and ultra-orthodox, right extremist, scary. But that's not the topic of this article. So it goes in footnotes, whoever wants more information can click on. Please don't give me some wishy-washy "do it honestly" crap. Give the Wikipedia policy that applies - or not. Misou 05:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's a Wikipedia policy that applies, although I could argue WP:NPOV. I thought it was a simple matter of pointless redundancy. There was no need for another reference to prove the existence of Lev L'Achim, and the quote you chose to apply to the extra reference was definitely a swing at them. But hey, I don't get into revert wars, so I'm going to take a step back from this. --GoodDamon 05:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Misou, don't mark your reverts as minor edits! BTW. you misrepresented the source quite a bit: Not "anti-missionary division" but anty-cult division. It also states "fronts for Scientology" and not "Scientology groups" Lev L'Achim last month set up an emergency hotline for people seeking information. Rabbi Shteiglitz says the organization received upward of 500 calls in the first month, many from chareidim, checking if certain advertisements or programs were fronts for scientology.[9] wich alters the statements from the source into a POV/OR direction. The new source you inserted is unrelated.(appropriate in a Jehovah's Witnesses related article or Lev L'Achim but has nothing to do with CoS or the content of the article). -- Stan _talk 06:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

my change makes it more NPOV. gotta blind eye there? "misou change=pro-scientology crap" or something? better have another look, mister, could be called "COI problem" otherwise. bye. Misou 06:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)