Jump to content

Talk:Scientology/Archive 28

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30→Archive 33

Outdated membership statistics

The most recent data listed on the current Wikipedia article is 55,000 members in 2001.

Here is a credible, more up to date source

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/11/01/national/a100041S26.DTL&feed=rss.news_nation

"One major survey of American religion shows Scientology declining in the U.S., however. The estimated number of Americans who identify as Scientologists rose from 45,000 in 1990 to 55,000 in 2001, then plummeted to 25,000 in 2008, according to the American Religion Identification Survey."

Newbie and won't edit the main page before discussion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.20.145.189 (talk) 21:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

  • The article is from Associated Press, I've added the 25,000 number sourcing to the original article via the AP Google feed. Lest anyone ask, the figure does not appear in the 2009 ARIS report as Scientology had fallen below their cutoff line, but ARIS do respond to requests for it.
    It is highly inaccurate, +/- 103%, but I don't suppose I can add that as though number crunched from the provided ARIS data it would be 'original research'. All the ARIS figures indicate is that there are far fewer scientologists than claimed by the Church, they don't reliably indicate changes in scientologist numbers over time, only probabilities. --Hartley Patterson (talk) 17:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


As in Laozi and A Course in Miracles, Hubbard seemed to imply it could take just one Fourth Dynamic Auditor person to solve earth's ills, hence, so long as that one is still a member the Scientology membership will suffice? Or perhaps the yin-yang of it all requires that one to be a non-member...hmmm. 71.51.72.233 (talk) 23:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Beliefs and practices - Body and spirit

The statement "Scientology has an associated mythology that its adherents hold to reflect religious truth." kinda goes along with Scientology being a religion. It could be said of any religion. Scientologists don't refer to their teachings as "Mythology", so why is it there. Only the next sentence uses the word mythology and the word isn't used again until close to the end of the section. It's extra verbiage and I'm taking it out,rephrasing the next sentence and removing similar verbiage that can be done without. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 01:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

One billion dollar "war chest"

In an interview on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation current affairs radio program The Current with Hana Gartner, former high-ranking Scientology official Mark Rathbun commented that the decision to convict the Church of Scientology of fraud in France would not have a significant impact on the organization.[1] "On the France thing I don't think that's going to have any lasting impact, simply because they got a nine hundred thousand dollar fine I think - which is like chump change to them. They've got literally nearly a billion dollars set aside in a war chest," said Rathbun.[1]

  • Gartner, Hana (October 30, 2009). "Part Two: Scientology - Former Scientologist, Scientology - History". The Current. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved 2009-11-04.

Interesting stuff. Cirt (talk) 04:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Scientologys Anti Medicine and Payed Echelon Status

This is not biased article as I see it as Im betting alot of scientologists are writing in being troublemakers, you guys need to state your political/religious statements when makeing amendments to articles so we know where your comming from lol.

Also the article completely neglects to mentions the controversial effects of the cult/religion/beliefe system, including that members advance in scientology based on how economicaly prosperous they are wich is why spokesmen for the religion are generaly movie stars, all high ranking members are wealthy status members. Greed is also a factor in scientology as the more you buy into scientology products, the better scientolgist you are and more scientology information you have, wich of course just makes those running scientology richer. The fact that it seems to be a payed religion/beilefe system has drawn much critisism as its anti-medicine stances.

The other thing it neglects to mention is L.Ron Hubbards staple of scientology also adopted by Tom Cruise in his famous scolding of Brook Shields that medical problems are psychological in nature and dont need medical treatment. Aparently scientologists all must be immune to aids and swine flu as thats obviously all in our heads, according to cruise and other believers as L. Ron Hubbard must have had found a key by wishing us well and thinking happy that these things can be alieviated, according to L.Ron Hubbard who, of course, has all the good health psychological treatment you need for a price. Scientology is a mixture of psychology, accultishnessism, "advanced learning techniques (all privately given to payed members of course)" and a monetary product selling system. It can almost be compared to a strange non-monothiest offshoot to Freemasonry.

Also is missing is wether or not lack of medical care may have resulted in John Travoltas sons death as no medical treatment is a major staple of scientology. Sadly this cannot be proven as Jets body was mysteriously cremated early before everyone was notified of a blackmail attempt against the Travoltas, no body=no further autopsy. It can be infered that this may be the reason the blackmailer was blackmailing the Travoltas in an attempt to accuse them for not treating thier son due to thier scientology beliefes.If were going to be fair and paint a picture then warts and all of an ideology need to be addressed, including newsworthy misattempts to promote the organization by members of the organization such as Travolta and Cruise. Lets be fair and partial but not blind.

Also missing is an attempt to mention that scientologists have been banned from editing wiki articles after it was found they were doing so to support thier own beliefe system and modifying medical/psychological information, wich can be googled for verification.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightgamer360 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I seriously doubt this discussion would help improve the article. I also believe it might fit WP:FORUM. Does anyone agree with me? > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 04:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
well at least they were nice enough to expose their political/religious agenda throughout their comment. though looking at their edits I think WP:BITE should be observed, Nightgammer360 doesn't appear to understand wikipedia policy regarding this page.

Nightgammer, this page really tries to stress WP:NPOV in its edits, that tends to lead either one side or the other claiming preference. most of your comments are in fact contained in the article, but they don't use the same language as your comments because it would honestly be considered a little hostile and is written in such as way as to directly criticize the church as opposed to inform, and this is not the form to engage in such critisism.Coffeepusher (talk) 07:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think its meets WP:FORUM. Nightgamer360 is saying what s/he finds missing from the article, and what s/he believes would help improve the article if it were covered. I think that fully meets WP:TALK. DigitalC (talk) 18:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Often described???

From the article:

Scientology has been surrounded by controversies since its inception. It has often been described as a cult that financially defrauds and abuses its members, charging exorbitant fees for its spiritual services.[6][15][16]

Isn't that a bit like saying "Barack Obama has often been described as a president"?

I think that the following paragraph fits reality better:

As a cult which financially defrauds and abuses its members, Scientology has been surrounded by controversies since its inception. It has drawn frequent criticism due to the exorbitant fees charged for its spiritual services.[6][15][16]

Comments?

SubtractM (talk) 23:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe your rephrasing of the statement directly states that Scientology is a cult. Not suitable for WP. The statement is written as it is because of WP:SOAP, WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Cheers. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 00:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Hasn't this already been established? The references seem to agree so this isn't SOAP or OR. You could make a case for NPOV, but then we might as well change Earth to say "It has often been described as spherical" to accommodate Flat Earth Society. SubtractM (talk) 03:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Your examples are misleading. Barack Obama is officially the President of the United States because a verifiable number of electors voted for him, and he took the official oath at Inauguration Day, so, it is a fact. The Earth is oblate spheroid because of calculations based on gravity, movement, and pictures have been taken by several independent organization and support and confirm the claim, making this also a fact. In the case of Scientology, while it has been regarded as a cult by a number of scholars, and mostly critics, you have another number of adherents, governments, agencies, and other scholars who support the view that it is a religion. And the article carries references for both sides, so, it is an opinion. The lede of the article states "Scientology is a body of beliefs and related practices" because it is a middle ground between both, making no claim of either. You are comparing apples to oranges with your examples. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 06:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. There are still some scholars who question Obama's citizenship, if we apply the same rules and treat all articles equally then Barack_Obama should read "Barack Hussein Obama II is considered by most to by the 44th and current President of the United States". We should treat all articles equally, and I feel that taking this route is being overly politically correct. You can't please all the people all the time. Before I give this up I would prefer to get input from other editors. Cheers. SubtractM (talk) 14:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
And your concern about the Obama issue has been addressed with a 135Kb long article titled Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories (which, BTW, is longer than this.) What I mean is that it is a fact, he currently is the President of the US. And, unless rebuttals turn out to be successful, he will continue to be, at least until 2012. But Scientology here is not necessarily a cult, as there is no single, universal checklist for what a cult is. So, therefore, it is subjective, or in layman's terms, an opinion, and it should be treated as such. The POV exists, so it should be addressed, but sourcing the article, and stating who has this significant claims that the Church of Scientology is a cult. Your statement, on the other hand, just goes on to claim that Scientology is a cult which financially defrauds and abuses it's members. Anyway, let's see who else wants to take on this one. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 16:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

This article is literally filled with inaccuracies, claims without citation, and false citations.

For one thing, Aleister Crowley's religious philosophy is being described as "Satanism". In reality, it was Thelema, the religion he founded. This is just one example of the bias that pervades this article.

I'm not sure how much of this travesty of an article contains deliberate distortion of facts, and how much is just the result of a lack of knowledge on the subject.

Someone needs to go through the entire thing and ensure that every one of these rather suspect claims are cited, and not by the same 3 or 4 authors who waited until Hubbard had died to pump out sensationalized anti-Scientology books, if Wikipedia wants to even have a pretense at neutrality. 69.244.168.60 (talk) 09:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Changed to "Crowley's teachings". --JN466 15:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
In response to IP 69.244.168.60, I urge wikipedia editors to not be too swayed by those statements. There is more than adequate evidence and citations to back up the scientology criticisms. Please leave them in, it is important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.20.239 (talk) 00:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I urge wikipedia editors to consider both opinions, and not just ignore 69.244.168.60. Also, this is not a courtroom, Wikipedia shouldn't be written on "evidence" but upon reliable sources.

Not on evidence but reliable sources? Define "evidence"...Of course there is no evidence or reliable source for any of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.192.190.94 (talk) 05:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

This article is unreliable because of the unreliable sources being used.

Strings of epithets, gibbering in the darkness and disembodied voices are well within the psycho realm of engrams -- welcome to the world of Fox-news type accuracy and Republican-type multi- "truths." "Truth" is contained in engrams, too -- it's just a wee bitch more painful than the real thing. 71.51.72.233 (talk) 22:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I wonder what the above is supposed to mean? Maybe it should be added to the article as an example of Scientologic. 84.69.150.82 (talk) 18:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Uhh FYI crowley was in fact a satanist, he refered to himself as "the beast 666" on several occasions and it is worth note that scientology uses the occult cross for its cross. While wiccans wont admit it the bassis of thier religion was formulated by crowley.. The fact that there is any problem keeping the connections between crowley scientology and the occult upsets me. Just because the scientologists trolling this page are makeing valid points about the articles objectivity does not mean you should take thier word on specific situations as though they themselves were educated or unbiased. Aaron Bongart (talk) 22:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Thelema was the name of the specific group he eventually founded in 1904, according to the Thelema article. It would be very useful to know exactly when the material being referenced occurred. His referring to himself as 666 implies and his mistresses as the Whore of Babylon certainly indicates that he considered Satan, who did what he "wilt", to be a bit of a role-model, which while not actual worship strongly implies regard for. Checking the source which calls it "Satanist" would be in order, but that's something I probably can't do right now because of other factors. But I do agree that the phrasing might be altered, if the reliable independent sources disagree on that matter. John Carter (talk) 22:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
It was me who introduced these citations. Source wordings:
  • Willms p. 259 says, 'The public discourse refers to "satanist" aspects whith respect to Aleister Crowley and the Ordo Templi Orientis (OTO), a gnostic group with which Hubbard seems to have some connections during the 1940s [...] Although the Scientology cross or the often-used triangles may be influenced by these symbols (or may not), there is no further evidence that "satanism" leaves any marks in Hubbard's doctrines.' (The double quotation marks around satanist and satanism are present in the original.)
  • Melton does not use the word satanism, but speaks only of the Ordo Templi Orientis, which he describes as a "ritual magic group".
I don't think there are any sources stating that Hubbard was in direct contact with Crowley. However, Hubbard was in contact with the OTO and Jack Parsons, a pupil of Crowley's. --JN466 23:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Religious/commercial

Lots of eccentric and peculiar groups are designated religions by everyone. In this respect it is surprising why people should dispute the status of Scientology as a religion. There is absolutely no basis whatsoever in saying that Scientology is a 'commercial' organization. That can be said about ANY religion for that matter. Stonebronzeiron (talk) 18:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you on that, but Scientology is the only religion that has stablished, fixed donations for every service (most religions only have these for baptisms, weddings or funerals.) Also, I have never known about any church advertising on television, other than the Church of Scientology. That is a commercial practice, more that religious. So having a little from both sides, it seems reasonable that the description given on WP is "Religious / Commercial." I am a Scientologist and I find no problem with that description, seems descriptive enough. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 18:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I have seen religions advertise on TV, billboards, newspapers. LDS for instance and I understand BYU TV is their church-sponsored television station. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't agree fully with your reasoning behind the classification, but I do agree with the correctness of the description. so please understand that I am trying to steer the evidance away from something I find problematic to a reasoning that I feel has a stronger foundation, I am not trying to undermine your conclusion. personally I have been to religious services who let you know exactly what the expected donation practice is, and announce how faithful each member has been in their practice during the donation period, I have also seen advertisements on television for large religious organizations, billboards, and signs inside buses (including 12 step organizations, which are a psudo-religious organization with a non-profit status). the differences between these organizations and Scientology is that the Church of Scientology is directly tied to RTC, a for profit orgonization which is attached to different publishing companies, manufacturers, and employs a hierarchical flow chart that ends within a for profit orgonization (as opposed to say other religions where the head is in charge of the non-profit sections and any for profit subsections...publishing companies etc. take their marching orders based on the needs of the church itself). just my 2 cents.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Are you sure the Religious Technology Center is for profit? It was included in the 1993 tax exemption. [1] I fear what it says in our article (which cites the source I linked) is due to vandalism; older versions of the article stated it was non-profit. --JN466 01:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
What does it matter if its not taxed? Religious organizations that don't have private shareholders or don't provide benefits for one person as in a propreitership are tax exempt. There is no requirement that they not make profit. Look at the vatican, look at the ads the mormons run on tv. Don't confuse "nonprofit organisation" with "tax exempt". Generally the term of art "non profit" bears no relationship to the common menaing of those terms whatsoever, and you can make plenty of profit and still be tax exempt under US Code. The requirements are only, generally, that it is neither a propreitership benefiting one or several individuals nor issues stock to private parties. Such institutions are free to charge any millions of dollars they want. Hell, look at the cleveland clinic foundation, that's "non profit". Try getting a procedure done there or walking around without seeing a million dollars in advertising spent on this "nonprofit" institution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Δζ (talk • contribs) 07:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
See also [2]; I'll correct the RTC article. --JN466 02:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
In fact, one could argue that this article should describe Scientology as "Religion", or a similar term, since this article is about the concept of Scientology, not about the Church of Scientology, or the RTC, or the practices stablished by any of them. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 05:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
To be 100% fair, Scientology as a philosophy includes how to run a business. It's also a social movement and was so before it was a religion. Perhaps the type should read "Religion/Business Philosophy/Social Movement". The article overall strays from a description of the religion. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 10:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree on that. Most of the criticism described in the article is directed towards the organization, rather than the concept of Scientology itself. Your this suggestion also seems fine for a broad description of the concept. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 11:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Another point to consider is that views vary from country to country; an (increasing) number of countries have recognized Scientology as a religion, others haven't and insist that it is a commercial organisation. So the current type description in the infobox reflects that quite well. --JN466 13:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
But "Scientology" is not an organization. The same lede states it is a body of beliefs and related practices. The Church of Scientology is the organization that is not being recognized as religious, because of some of their practices. But Scientology itsetlf, other than the books sold, is not commercial per se. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 20:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
It is inherent in the Scientological esoterical system of progressive revelation that you pay for your progress along the bridge. To that extent, there is a commercial element built into its spiritual path; at least many people interpret it that way. A lot of Germans e.g. have argued that the teachings of Scientology are "just a pretext for commercial activity". Personally, I find that view disrespectful of Scientologists, but it is a view that many people hold. --JN466 21:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I would disagree with you on the "inherent pricing." Most religions have progressive revelation systems, the only difference is that, again, the main organization in charge established fixed monetary donations. There is of course the Doctrine of Exchange within Scientology, but that exchange is not necessarily monetary (i.e. you can work for the organization, there is even a co-auditing program in which you receive auditing from a fellow parishoner just by auditing him back.) So, I don't find it "inherent" to Scientology, it is just a method that the Church of Scientology to uphold the DoE. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 05:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I accept that, and much more could be said. But I am not sure we would satisfy NPOV if we dropped that view altogether, because it seems a significant (if declining) view out there: [3][4] --JN466 10:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Reading through those links, I can't find a single one that doesn't state that Scientology = Church of Scientology (which is not true, check Free Zone (Scientology).) The fact that the CoS holds all the copyrights to any Scientology material does not equal the organization with the practice. Too bad this will hardly reach consensus. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 21:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Why has this article been edit-disabled all of a sudden? Simply because someone made a pro-Scientology edit? I suspect that there is a conspiracy with Scientology. And the conspiracy is not being hatched by Scientologists, it is being planned by people who seem to get subconscious satisfaction by vilifying this religion. Dr Shankar Prasad Nandi 10:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drspnandi (talk • contribs) Well, editing by registered users has been enabled. That is good. Stonebronzeiron (talk) 10:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Disagree with this change. It claims to be a Religion, and is regarded by many WP:RS sources as commercial in nature. Cirt (talk) 20:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

These are just a few sources on a quick search. Please do not make this change again without significant talk page consensus. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 20:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Most countries do not recognise Scientology as a religion. Just because the USA seems to think that it is doesn't make it so. It's a commercial organization, a scam (as indicated by court verdicts in France and Germany) and its number one pursuit is money.--Xania talk 23:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
And nobody is discussing the controversial status of the Church of Scientology. What I argue is that this article is about Scientology the "body of beliefs and related practices", not the Church of Scientology the controversial organization, as they are not synonyms. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 23:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I understand your point but as the 'Church' does everything in its power to prevent splinter groups or people practising outside of their organization I don't see how it's possible for them to be separate entities.--Xania talk 22:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Yet, it happens, as groups widely less criticized than the Church of Scientology. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 00:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

There are major lies here

I am a Scientologist, and I asked the church about all that crazy Xenu stuff in the article. They said that it's a complete lie! You should remove it immediately!! 68.68.88.36 (talk) 23:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Nope, it is well sourced. Wikipedia is based on verifiability, not truth. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 23:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Rofl, of course they told you that. Would you really be a member if they had said "Yes, it's all true"? That's why they told you it was a lie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.250.176.131 (talk) 10:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

This article undermines the entire concept of Wikepedia. It is not meant to relay or share knowledge but to decide on who thinks what. If it would be up to Wikepedia Galilei would be banned from editing any articles related to keywords such as Sun, Moon and Earth. A Scientologist can not edit an article, it is banned. The article lacks actual information about Scientology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Csurmi22 (talk • contribs) 02:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom resolutions did not ban any Scientologist from editing or discussing Scientology-related articles. The ban is for computers operated from within a Church of Scientology network. Individual Scientologists are still allowed to edit. I am a Scientologist and I have edited and discussed changes to articles. Banning someone from editing Wikipedia based just on his religious (or cultish, if you prefer this word) beliefs would essentially be a Wikiholocaust. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 21:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It's Galileo, now who needs to get their facts right!!! JM

References to Scientology in Games and other medium

Hey, I just wanted to point out that the game Fallout 2 has explicit references to scientology and to hubbard himself. I am not sure but is it not relevent to have a section of this article dedicated to pop culture references. In the same way that music articles talk about games that make references to the band name or song title.

The following is a list of excerpts linking scientology to fallout 2 hubology.

"Dick Hubbell, the founder of Hubology, bears several resemblances to L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology. In early game files, the Hubologists are called the Elron, a pun on the name of "L. Ron" Hubbard."

"The belief in neurodynes, alignment, and the AHS ranking system mirror Scientology beliefs in thetans, auditing, and the OT system. The "space culture" aspect of Hubology is similar to the advanced Scientology belief in the Xenu incident. The Hubologist holodisc includes a glossary, as does every Scientology book of their esoteric lexicon. "Oppressives" in Hubology are similar to "Suppressives" in Scientology, the "scapegoat" of all woes to those within the cult. The aggressive tactics of Hubologists towards their enemies bear some resemblance to those of the actual Church of Scientology"

Just like DM the leader of COS irl has OT 9 so too does the leader in game list as a lvl 9 while the in game tom cruise equivilent is a lvl 7... So as you can see the connections are obvious and i see no reason why a connection would not be made to fallout 2 on this article.

There is even a mention of xenu, "Xeno program: The subject on which the Shi scientists had hoped to establish a series of meaningful experiments has disappeared, presumed either destroyed or stolen by the Hubologists."

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Hubology http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/AHS-9

So can we please add a section for this as well as for the many other games that have scientology references? Also senator Xenophon... nuff said Aaron Bongart (talk) 22:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather not have a section with computer game references. --JN466 13:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Jayen. Also, there is no confirmation that Hubbology was intended as a reference to Scientology, so, it is not verifiable. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 17:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Your jokeing right? Did you bother to read any of what I have posted? The references are so strikeingly obviouse that to ignore them would be like ignoreing the connections between bullets and guns. I think its critical to the timelyness of this article that references like this be included. The connections are just to obvious to sweep this under the carpet and pretend like there is no connecyion. Not just games but all types of media that references scientology are worthy of some mention if not thier own section or stub. There was a scientology episode of the simpsons and I dont see mention of it here. Surly that would be relevent givin that south park is mentioned here. It helps establish how the outside world percives scientology while not adding bias.Aaron Bongart (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Like it or not, Wikis are not reliable sources. And even if we take it as a reliable source, the same article on this wiki states that developers denied every connection, and that similarities are merely coincidental. Therefore, noting a connection with this game here would constitute original research, which the wiki you link does. The South Park case is different, as producers intended to mock Scientology, as they have mocked other religions previously. The bullet/gun analogy is also different, as bullets are made to be shot from a gun. But you cant possibly read this:
While the game creators insist that any relation between Hubology and real-world persons and organizations is coincidental, Hubology is an obvious parody of Scientology.
And then come and tell me this is not OR. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 09:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
It goes in Scientology in popular culture. I don't find it notable enough to go in this article. Probably the South Park stuff should be moved to the sub-article. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 03:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I just looked and I don't see where South Park is mentioned in this article. It is in the sub-article. What are you talking about? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 03:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree that per weight (not notability as that policy has nothing to do with this, and only whether articles should exist) that Scientology in Fallout2 doesn't belong in the main article. However, from my quick browse of the article, there is no summary of Scientology in popular culture in the main article. Shouldn't there be? DigitalC (talk) 04:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
No. Other articles about religions don't. Christianity, Christian Science, Judaism, New Age, Bahá'í Faith, Hinduism and Islam for instance. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
What about tarvuism? There is a very small mention of tarvusim on wikipedia and it is not mentioned in relationship to scientology which it is a spoof of.

http://www.youtube.com/user/fnogman333#p/a/f/0/4ABS0dA8KqI <-- original http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOU-s28Zn4A <--- Spoof

Just for a moment watch both videos and if you can tell me that there is absoluty no possible legitimate way to incorporate pop culture references and mock ups of scientology like this in the article then I will drop it. But Word for word phrase for phrase, there is intentional and satirical parody of a SPECIFIC scientology advertisement in the tarvu video.. As such I think there should be a section of the scientology article to include religions that were made as a spoof like tarvuism and the church of sub genius... Don't just skim actually watch the two and then try and tell me there is no provable connection between the two.Aaron Bongart (talk) 18:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Just for a moment, consider the size of the article, it is already over 100k long (around 130k, I believe). If we ad every single pop-culture reference that vaguely resembles Scientology, the article will became EXTREMELY HUGE (I'm talking of over 180k). I would agree to add all those which can be reliably sourced under Scientology in popular culture and take a small excerpt of that into this article. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 20:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Sure a seperate article, thats fine.. But will you at least admit the strong connection between the two videos I listed?Aaron Bongart (talk) 21:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I concede it is a parody, my only concern is about the notablility of taruvism. If it fits inclusion criteria, go ahead. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 04:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Well I am a huge wiki noob and I do not know all the rules which is why I suggested this here. So that maybe other people could use my idea and make the choices. I dont do this for credit so you dont have to cite me or anything like that.Aaron Bongart (talk) 19:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Well a Google search for "taruvism" returns no reliable sources. Yet, Google searching is no definitive indicator for notability, so if you find any reliable source offline, you can add the content and cite your source. Taruvism doesn't seem notable enough for inclusion. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 19:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Does this sound biased?

from the article:

"Unlike other religions, Scientology charges precise amounts for its services which may or may not help others deal with their mental or spiritual problems but it most certainly makes it extremely expensive for people to admit their therapy has been anything but a resounding success.[202]"

38.109.88.194 (talk) 21:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it needs copy-editing. But doesn't sound so biased. Services from the Church of Scientology are considered very expensive for the average person. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 22:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I see that, but since Wiki isn't only used by average folk, it could be written more neutrally. How does this sound instead: "Scientology charges precise amounts for its services which may or may not help deal with the payees' mental or spiritual problems. This process may become costly with the repetition of previously rendered/received services. [202]" 38.109.88.194 (talk) 01:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good. What do you feel about:
The Church of Scientology charges precise amounts for mental and spiritual processing and counseling. This process may become costly with the repetition of previously rendered/received services. Payments are received by the Church as tax-deductible donations. Results of the processes are not guaranteed.
Any other suggestions? > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 03:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I think we can imbue more information into these sentences and keep a reference while doing it.
Unlike other religions, the Church of Scientology charges precise amounts for mental and spiritual processing and counseling. This process may become costly with the repetition of previously rendered/received services. While payments are received by the Church as tax-deductible donations, the result of these processes are not guaranteed. It has been argued that the cost of these services make it difficult for some to accept that their treatment was unsuccessful.[202]
SubtractM (talk) 05:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I believe that last sentence indirectly states that Scientology is always unsuccessful.
Unlike other religions, the Church of Scientology charges precise amounts for mental and spiritual processing and counseling. This process may become costly with the repetition of previously rendered/received services. While payments are received by the Church as tax-deductible donations, the result of these processes are not guaranteed. It has been argued that the cost of these services make it difficult for some to accept that their processing might not have accomplished the expected result.[202]
Is this better? > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 05:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
You may be right, it was unintentional. I approve of that revision. SubtractM (talk) 06:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 Done Thank you > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 06:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure I totally agree here. Saying "It can be argued..." means that the information is subjective and not wholly base in fact all the time...I mean, I'm 5'9" and it could be argued that I'm going to be chosen as point guard for the LA Lakers. See? In fact -and most importantly-, upon my review of the source, no such argument (that some have such difficulty accepting treatment failure because of economic factors) is presented. The source only discusses the repeated costs, not the effects on payees and practitioners. This last sentence should be removed entirely from the revision. 38.109.88.194 (talk) 18:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Quoting from page 273 of the Google books preview of the book referred:
...Scientology may or may not help anyone solve psychological problems. But it most certainly makes it extremely expensive for people to admit their therapy has been less than a resounding success...'
I believe the source supports the claim. Any other comments? > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 19:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I still disagree, for two minor reasons. 1- The claim in that book is based on a reference within which is listed solely as "Bandura, 1969". The source is not only highly aged (even more than the 24-year-old book), but whose full reference is not included in the author's Google Book preview. 2- Even through a brief scan of the book preview while somewhat educational, seems to be skewed toward proving a specific point and includes a multitude of "might", "may have", "possibly", and "if"s on every page. These two points make the reference questionable. Not invalidated, mind you, but questionable. Is there a way to either find other resources to back up this possibility or to reword the sentence? In reviewing the first post in this thread, not very much has changed in the intent of the sentence, except to add that the costs are tax-deductible. 38.109.88.194 (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
PS- The book says the cost may make it expensive for people to admit treatment failure, not difficult. 38.109.88.194 (talk) 21:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
The phrase "It can be argued..." appears nowhere in my paragraph, nor RUL3R's. And your first criticism doesn't apply to the "It has been argued..." sentence. It is perfectly legitimate to mention arguments made in books written by recognized authors. On your criticism of the book, are you seriously criticizing a book on religion for using a passive voice? I'm sorry but given the subject matter(religious matters are inherently subjective) that is wholly appropriate. I am left wondering what bias you find in this paragraph. It is factual, this matter has been discussed by an Author who frequently publishes about religion. And I feel that it is notable enough to mention.SubtractM (talk) 23:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

- ease of reading break - I actually like Rul3r's first suggestion better. It's clear, concise, doesn't imply anything about what may or may not be expensive and what expensive treatments may or may not cause practitioners to admit or deny. We've both made our opinions clear. Your wording is in the current edit and will remain, I'm assuming, until a middle ground or understanding is reached, yes? I don't believe it's quite there yet.

Note: from your current revision: "...processes are not guaranteed. It has been argued that the cost of these services..."

For the record, I am not a Scientologist, nor do I have strong feelings about them or their practices one way or another. I care about keeping Wikipedia neutral and factual and reliably sourced. 38.109.88.194 (talk) 04:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's find that middle ground then. What about rewording the last sentence to: On this matter, Rodney Stark, an American sociologist specialized in religion, noted that Scientology may or may not help anyone solve psychological problems. But it most certainly makes it extremely expensive for people to admit their therapy has been less than a resounding success[202] ? > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 05:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


The whole imbued reading hasn't varied very much from my initial concern. Compare:
Perhaps splitting the included information to more appropriate sections of the article would help.
Under 'Scientology as a commercial venture' (where it stands currently): "The Church of Scientology charges precise amounts for mental and spiritual processing and counseling. While payments are received by the Church as tax-deductible donations, successful results are not guaranteed. This system becomes increasingly profitable for the Church with repetition of previously rendered/received services. [202]"
And under the 'Beliefs and practices' or 'Ceremonies' section: "The repeated expense for repeated services to attempt a desired result -while tax-deductible- may make it difficult for some practitioners to recognize and/or admit that their processing may not have accomplished the expected result."
In this way, there is a break between the effect fees have on the Church and the effects the fees may have for the practitioner.
I guess I'm kind of putting a lot of thought into this detail I'm truly surprised by the assumption: Scientological mental/spiritual care is expensive, so a practitioner will falsify their wellness (or possible lack thereof) to save money? So that they can move "up the ladder" and receive even more expensive guidance within the religion? It's just not logical or clear to me. And I'd like to make it clearer not only to me, but also to others who come to this article. 38.109.88.194 (talk) 22:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
PS- Per the Author article, it seems that the reference in question was co-written with William_Sims_Bainbridge. Shouldn't he also be credited in the ref? 38.109.88.194 (talk) 22:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
So? Any thoughts before I include the changes as I described, or perhaps an alternative suggestion? 38.109.88.194 (talk) 23:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
38.109.88.194, You haven't addressed any of my concerns, nor have you demonstrated how this section is bias. You say "so a practitioner will falsify their wellness (or possible lack thereof) to save money?" and I don't think you understand what the original authors are arguing... SubtractM (talk) 04:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Then I guess I don't understand what your concerns are, Subtract. But you're right, the authors using a passive voice doesn't make their point less factual. But from this article, I don't understand what the authors of the book were saying. To this reader, based on this Wikipedia entry, it seems illogical. But whether I understand what the author is saying is not important: what important is that Wikipedia is using a reliable source and is doing so in a factual and true manner, included in an appropriate way that most can understand the intended meaning. I'm still interested in finding middle ground. 38.109.88.194 (talk) 20:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't think this book -with an argument generated/observed in 1985 from a study published in 1966- includes information that is particularly relevant or factual today. The info certainly appears dated, if not historical. I think a comment that Church members may fake spiritual or mental health because treatment is too costly is a biased one, without more references. Are there any other resources besides this one that says practitioners of this religion find it hard to admit treatment failure because it's too expensive to achieve treatment success? 38.109.88.194 (talk) 20:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
If the paragraph were written to focus on the "Church as a Commercial venture" (which is the subheading where it currently stands), perhaps instead of switching midway to how expensive it may or may not be for the practitioner, it could be re-worded to reflect on how this process makes repeated therapy increasingly profitable for the Church. But if you would like to leave this as is and feel it's not irrelevant or incorrect, then I suggest expanding the paragraph with a direct quote from the same page of the book: "One can usefully think of Scientology as an elaborate and most effective behavior modification program in which potent reinforcement schedules are employed to cause individuals to act like clears and to keep their doubts and problems to themselves." It is from THIS quote that the authors came to the conclusion to which you are referring, and indeed, seems that the costliness involved is not the author's main intent. 38.109.88.194 (talk) 20:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
From the current edit: "Unlike other religions, (-not true, Hindus, Zoroastrians, Jainians, and many other Middle Eastern churches (even Judaism sometimes) follow the same process-) the Church of Scientology charges precise amounts for mental and spiritual processing and counseling. This process may become costly (-not to the Church-) with the repetition of previously rendered/received services. While payments are received by the Church as tax-deductible donations (-wholly misplaced in this paragraph-) , the result of these processes are not guaranteed." 38.109.88.194 (talk) 20:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Additionally, the Author of the book still remains incorrect.38.109.88.194 (talk) 20:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

On reflection, I am almost in favour of losing the para altogether. 38.109... is right; the source does not make its argument in the context of Scientology as a business. The source says that clears generally do not say that they aren't in fact clear yet. They would lose group status by doing so, and it would cost them money to repeat their courses, so they keep any doubts they have to themselves, and hope that the OT levels will clear these remaining issues. That is the author's argument, as best I can make out. Our paragraph creates the impression as though Scientology gets rich off people repeating their courses, exactly the opposite of what the author says: clears tend to dissemble and hide their doubts so they don't have to pay for courses a second time. --JN466 21:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC) If we keep the paragraph, we would have to frame it in terms of there being powerful intra-group disincentives to voicing customer dissatisfaction with services received. --JN466 21:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Rul3R agrees, (per this edit), as do I. I will remove it. 38.109.88.194 (talk) 15:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Public response to Scientology advertising

“Typically when a logo or advertiser name appears in an ad there’s a decline in interest and/or believability. However, I have never seen such a precipitous decline in curves as was seen when the Scientology identification was shown on the screen,” noted Glenn Kessler, president and CEO, HCD Research. Interesting stuff. Cirt (talk) 13:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment

Please see Talk:Scientology_controversies#RfC:_Alleged_oppression_of_Scientologists_in_Germany. Cirt (talk) 13:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Frank K. Flinn

Why cite an adjunct? Adjunct means "you know enough to teach stupid classes but your research isn't good enough to be a professor". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.2.131.238 (talk) 20:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

"An adjunct professor is a part-time professor who is hired on a contractual basis, rather than being given tenure and a permanent position." - Anything beyond that is your opinion. -----J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. The interpretation proverred previously is ridiculous. I prefer these profs in many subjects- they generally teach or research cuz they want to, not cuz they're obligated to and have got nothing better to do in the private sector. --Δζ (talk) 20:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Removed link flagged as highly dangerous (Due to virus, spyware, spam and phishing scams) as per Web Of Trust Services. Users who access this link may leave their machine vulnerable to malicous software and practices. MindWraith (talk) 23:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

What is this "Web Of Trust Service"? A quick google returned nothing SubtractM (talk) 23:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Found nothing either. Restored the link per WP:ELOFFICIAL. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 23:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Web Of Trust appears as the first item when searched in google. It is one of the largest internet saftey services available on the internet today. And has dubbed scientology.org as a 'high risk site'. As such the link will be removed to protect unsuspecting users. MindWraith (talk) 00:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I, for one, would like to know more about this "Web of Trust". The website has some rich content and may well have been temporarily redirected, but this site seems to be OK and I see no reason not to include it, since none of the tools I have flag it as suspect. Rodhullandemu 00:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
You haven't provided any links to corroborate your claims, I notice. Link restored. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

First item that appears when searched for in google. Not hard to find. http://www.mywot.com/ The number of rated and reviewd sites exceeds 25 million. MindWraith (talk) 01:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but rated and reviewed by whom? They don't appear to publish their criteria, and being on Tucows isn't necessarily any indication. As P.T. Barnum said "there's one born every minute". Rodhullandemu 01:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I found it - see [5]. Apparently Web of Trust allows its users to categorise sites as they see fit. This is all about individuals (ab)using the service to express their dislike of Scientology. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
At least they like us, but

How to increase your site's ratings
Trust is your greatest asset. You can improve your reputation, build trust, and add credibility to your site.Read reputation building tips

is a big giveaway. In short, bollocks. Rodhullandemu 01:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

It is reported as "containing viruses, malware, spyware, or other malicous software" wether people like scientology or not, you cant change those facts. As such, a link like this should not be present on Wikipedia. MindWraith (talk) 03:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

And if that site disliked WP, would you still come and visit? Read the comments below. You'll find the typical Scn critic calling Scientology a scam, a cult, and the like. None of my tools list scientology.org as a dangerous site. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 04:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
mywot.com appears to just be a popularity contest. SubtractM (talk) 02:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I would also point out that Scientology is a subject that is highly vandalized, and not just on Wikipedia. I don't wish to debate the legitimacy of Web of Trust, but that service may have been vandalized simply because of the topic. McAfee's SiteAdvisor report for scientology.org looks fine. --Tpk5010[Talk] 17:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

We have an article about the Web of Trust, interestingly enough. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Having an article about a source does not make it reliable. We have an article on Blogger, yet we don't use them to source articles. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 21:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Your arguing against a point I wasn't trying to make. -----J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Well I am sorry. What point were you trying to make? > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 22:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Nothing obscure or hidden... just exactly what I said. Several people claimed they couldn't find the Web Of Trust website, so I was pointing out that we have an article on the topic. We show up third on the Google search results. -----J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

You guys are puppies. This entire argument could be avoided by looking at the WOT article on wiki, scrolling down to Rating Quality and noticing the glaring word "opinions". 99.236.221.124 (talk) 06:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

OUTER SPACE EDITS

Thread unrelated to improving the article (WP:NOTFORUM)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The way the article is layed out is very frustrating for anyone attempting to edit this while traveling through the Delta Quadrant. I for one have been attemptig to make edits while in deep space and the website is preventing me. Is there some sort of error with wikipedia or do I need to be closer to Earth for the edit feature to be functional? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.68.100.16 (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

this page has a semi-protected status, which means you need to have an account before you can edit this page (this is due to vandalism in the past). all you need to do is set up an account for a few days and then you can edit.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I am astonished. This is either an editor with a very crude sense of humor, or a very creative troll. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 05:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Please help. I am having a similar problem when I am driving my space car across the rings of Saturn. My intergalactic computer SHOULD work as I have upgraded to advanced A.I., however I am getting interference. Perhaps radiation from the recently destroyed optic sphere has something to do with this? Please advise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.68.100.16 (talk) 17:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
This is why I am a devout non-believer of Scientology. Fruit.Smoothie (talk) 05:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Very frustrating

Can somebody please clarify what it means that Scientology is "banned" in certain countries? That could mean many different things, but surely it can't mean that "it is illegal to be a Scientologist, practice Scientology, or believe in Scientology." If the "Church of Scientology" as a corporate organization has been banned, that's a far cry from the mere practice of Scientology by individuals, being banned. We need more precise language on this point. Tragic romance (talk) 00:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

In Australia, Scientology was actually outlawed, and Scientologists registered under the name "Church of the New Faith" as a result. As for Greece, I don't know the developments there over the past 10 or 15 years. Judging by the latest religious freedom report for Greece, the Church does not appear to be "banned" in any meaningful sense of the word: [6]. Compare this earlier source: [7]. We need to do some research: google books, google news. Can you help having a look through these? Something may have changed since 2003. --JN466 02:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
"surely it can't mean that "it is illegal to be a Scientologist, practice Scientology, or believe in Scientology." That's exactly what it means. Why is this confusing or frustrating? 99.236.221.124 (talk) 06:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

That is because Scientology is a joke. Hubbard started the "religion" on a bet that he could not star ta religion based on total BS. Biggest scam sine 2 hour martinizing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.127.158.4 (talk) 06:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Good man. Hubbard also started is because he was unable to succesfully sell his "Dianetics" book, so he made a religion out of it so people would be COMPELLED to buy it. Read it in a Rolling Stone article. That, plus LRH was involved in some kinky, sexually twisted black magicky stuff. I could probably find the article and offer it as a source of info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.34.212.59 (talk) 16:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

please respect WP:TALK. this is not a forum for discussion on your opinion of Scientology.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Suggested edit to the picture of "Anonymous"

Beneath the picture of the Anonymous protestors, I wish that there were an edit to it.

Rather than saying:

"An Internet-based group which refers to itself as 'Anonymous' held protests outside Scientology centers in cities around the world in February 2008 as part of Project Chanology."

I feel it would be more appropriate to say:

"'Anonymous' picketters protested at Scientology centers in cities around the world in February 2008 as part of Project Chanology."

Anonymous is not an Internet-based group so much as it is... well... anonymity. Anonymous is anyone who doesn't reveal their identity, thus, how can they be grouped together if they have no affiliations?

That in mind, I also feel that this would be more appropriate if the first does not suffice for ye editors:

"'Anonymous' 4-chan picketters protested at Scientology centers in cities around the world in February 2008 as part of Project Chanology."

Thank you for understanding.

And for the record, I do not believe in Scientology or L. Ron Hubbard - much less his moral character. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.34.212.59 (talk) 16:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I feel the current edition should stand because the casual reader may not know what "anonymous" is, and it was an internet BASED group that spread to IRL actions which included people not normally associated with the internet. The protests were started on the internet, they used the internet for the primary orgonizing methods, people not associated with 4chan found out by the Youtube video...etc.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Also, Anonymous' actions are performed and organized mostly online. Their HQ is the internet itself. So, they are based on the internet. Other than Chanology, and the recent protests against internet censorship in Austrailia, I can't recall any serious, big-scale, notable enough, IRL movement organized by Anonymous. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 16:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The New York Times - Breaking With Scientology

The New York Times, page A1. The New York Times is a WP:RS source for info. This is a good source for inclusion in this article. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 05:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely, this article should be cited. In addition, some of the dissident internet resources, especially Anonymous and Independent Scientologist, should be linked under External Links Cognoscente18 (talk) 18:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

FYI - 2010 Australian TV Documentary

ABC TV in Australia broadcast a documentary about Scientology on 8 March 2010. The program can be viewed online from the ABC's webpages about it at http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/default.htm Additional program-related material and links can be accessed there. Just in case anyone wants to make such an accusation, I am in no way associated with the ABC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.230.112.86 (talk) 11:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I saw the documentary too. Relevant material might include the references to the Sea Org and the Rehabilitation Force, as well as the money from the books and everything. Twice people (very young people) had to clean out dumpsters. --Bronwyn Gannan (talk) 08:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't Scientology be considered a religion?

In the first sentence it says "Scientology is a body of beliefs and related practices" well that pretty much means it is a religion. Just because Scientology has only existed sicne the 1950s does not make it less of a religion just a more recent one.Xx1994xx (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC).

Not really. A good definition of religion would be "Belief in a supernatural force or being, and the organized body of lore, myth, worship, texts, and clergy that surround it."

Yes, but, Scientologists DO believe in God. It says so on their websites & books about their religion--174.95.66.253 (talk) 16:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we Scientologists believe in a Supreme Being. But there is no specific, Scientology doctrine on God. Worship and prayer are considered a personal choice and a moral obligation, but there is no specific doctrine for the Supreme Being.> RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 16:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

While scientology has supernatural elements, there's no worship involved, so it fails the technical litmus test. It just ACTS like a religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.16.110.87 (talk) 20:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Tell that to Buddhists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.30.198.79 (talk) 14:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The CoS officially labels Scientology an 'applied religious philosophy', which seems good enough to me. There are unfortunately a number of people who refuse to accept that Scientology is a religion for irrational emotional and propaganda reasons, so saying that that it is will be constantly reverted. Hartley Patterson (talk) 16:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

It isn't good enough to say that just because the article will be vandalized that it shouldn't be classified as a religion. If we're going to call it a body of beliefs instead of a religion we need a better reason why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.51.239 (talk) 08:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Gonna poke my head in here out of semi-retirement to help with this one. One problem with classifying Scientology as a religion is that Scientologists themselves dispute that characterization depending on the circumstances, hence L. Ron Hubbard's description of it as an "applied religious philosophy." Another is that whether Scientology is widely recognized as a religion by non-members and governments varies greatly from country to country. Compare and contrast this ambiguity with, for instance, Buddhism, which is almost universally recognized as a religion. Definitively calling it either a "religion" or a "cult" would be problematic. --GoodDamon 16:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Not really. If we have a particular definition of "religion" and an objective assessment of scientology conforms to that definition, then we would be bound to declare it a religion, regardless of how many scientologists or non-scientologists describe it as one. The Wikipedia entry for religion states that it is "the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or any such system of belief and worship." Scientology does not fit this definition, so let's not call it a religion. Freddygetty (talk) 13:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I was only describing one problem. Agreed, there are other reasons calling Scientology a religion on Wikipedia is problematic. --GoodDamon 20:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
It is not a unanimous assessment, so we can't state it as uncontested fact. --JN466 21:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Jayen above. While I am a Scientologist, the ethics standards of Wikipedia (namely WP:NPOV in this case) request that articles cover all notable viewpoints. As the status of Scientology as a religion is widely contested, I believe the current wording satisfies Wikipedia policy and can be satisfactory for Scientologists and Critics alike. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 06:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I now also agree with that approach in this context. And keeping the article as it is and retaining a section on its recognition as a religion seems fair enough. Would it be desirable to have a brief account of the arguments that have been proposed for and against Scientology's status as a religion? As it stands, the article focuses more on its varying successes in being recognised as one. Freddygetty (talk) 10:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I think that section wold degrade into a discussion on the ambiguity of the word "religion" and its interpretation and supposed legitimizing functions, a discussion I think that would not help the article or inform the reader.Coffeepusher (talk) 23:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
It could be an interesting topic for a side article though - perhaps Religious status of Scientology or something like that. I know various sociologists have written on the issue, so there wouldn't be a shortage of sources. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Yup, I agree. The topic has sufficient coverage and is notable. I wouldn't object. There are sufficient RSs for both sides of the debate. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 05:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Minor edit request

{{editsemiprotected}}

From: The movement quickly spread, both in the United States and other English-speaking countries such as Britain, Ireland, South Africa and Australia.

To: The movement spread quickly through the United States and to other English-speaking countries such as Britain, Ireland, South Africa and Australia.

"Both" implies "two", but we're referring to five countries. Thank you. Zapriori (talk) 09:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

(puts on best Yul Brynner voice): "So let it be written. So let it be done." -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

'both' refers to the United States and other English-speaking countries and is therefore completely valid. both doesn't necessarily mean two distinct things, but can refer to groups of things. also 'quickly spread' sounds better than 'spread quickly' even if the former is a split infintive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.102.240 (talk) 12:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC) I just wanted to add a celebrity (Giovanni Ribisi) to the celebrity section.


Haleyjordan (talk) 20:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Have you a reliable source for this? Rodhullandemu 20:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
There were 2 in the Giovanni Ribisi article, but the links seem dead. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 06:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Ron wrote Sci Fi books that is not Scientology

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

Why- Go to scientology.org and find out

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

Thank you for your comment, but unfortunately we cannot rely on the Scientology website as a primary source of information for this article, as it is not independent. It sometimes seems strange that the website of an organisation is not counted as a reliable source of information, but in theory an organisation can put anything on their own website whether it was true or not. Requiring sources to be independent reliable sources means that someone not connected with the organisation (with no vested interest) has written about the organisation (please note that this does not include press releases, as they are written by the organisation). -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Phantom. However, it is possible to cite material from the site, as long as you correctly attribute it. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 16:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Image for Auditing subsection

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

It is a valid picture, not vandalism ... just that the Scientology organization claims to use the E-meter "spiritual device" for such purposes. -- Cirt (talk) 02:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
In any case, auditing is not performed outdoors (how could it be confidential if performed publically?), and the e-meter is used for many services, not auditing alone. I took the ethics course and I was put on an e-meter at the end and asked a couple of questions about said course, but it certainly was not auditing (the questions were nothing remotely like what any Dianetics book describes). Perhaps a little c/e to make this clear... --> RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 04:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're trying to say, Cirt. Are you saying that they present the E-meter to people as a stress test? I'm not really sure what point you were driving at either, Ruler. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fyrael (talk • contribs) 15:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Fyrael, you would have to draw your own conclusions from the picture. However, please read here, starting with the text, "It is interesting that the following disclaimer accompanies the e-meter..." Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 16:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
My point was that the e-meter has many uses within the church, not just auditing. The image in itself is not vandalism, as it illustrates the device (though it should probably be placed on another section). BTW, I don't think citing skepdic for what the CoS claims is valid. Scientology.org is down so I can't get the official claims... --> RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 17:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok, the site now works, here are the official clams of the Church of Scientology regarding the e-meter:
Cheers. --> RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 17:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Um, all I was really wondering was whether the picture was actually of a scientologist and an E-meter. The stress test sign seemed to point to this just being an image of a guy with a stress test that was shoved into the article. If the picture is of what it claims to be, then it's fine staying in this section even if it's not an audit because the section talks about the E-meter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fyrael (talk • contribs) 19:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, as far as I can tell, it most likely is a true image. These stress tests are common introductions to Scientology. --> RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 19:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Edit request from Steakyfask, 29 September 2010

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

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

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

 Not done - this is already mentioned in the article, including the lead section. ("It has often been described as a cult that financially defrauds and abuses its members, charging exorbitant fees for its spiritual services." [...] "Starting in 1991, persons connected with Scientology filed fifty lawsuits against the Cult Awareness Network (CAN), a group that had been critical of Scientology.") --McGeddon (talk) 16:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Also, the CAN is now owned by the Church of Scientology, so that description by the "old" CAN is probably not what the "new" CAN states. Read the "New CAN" section of the article you linked. --> RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 17:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request.

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

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

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

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

Scientology and wiki policy

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

Source???Coffeepusher (talk) 15:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, reading though the article itself, it does have a negative tone towards Scientology. Sadly, I think it is not WP policy being broken. I think it is an unintended side-effect. There are few sources that satisfy WP:RS which portray Scientology in any light other than negative. Most sources like that are primary, and are therefore excluded. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 20:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
i think he is saying that wikipedia is being criticized for not saying "Cult" instead saying church Weaponbb7 (talk) 21:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps Coffeepusher should have asked "What???". > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 21:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
well I really wanted the source of the newspaper. but yah, What??? is another way to summarize my reaction.Coffeepusher (talk) 22:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, anyway; "Church of Scientology" is the legal name of the organization, weather people like it or not... > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 02:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Doesn't make it a church, any more than Pottery Barn is a barn. I didn't feel the article had a negative tone regarding scientology, in fact I thought it a remarkably neutral discussion of a dubious subject.81.153.197.87 (talk) 15:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Wait, Pottery Barn isn't a barn?! My world just got turned upside down... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.81.210.119 (talk) 11:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
You probably mean religion instead of church. A definition for church is a place of public worship of a non-Christian religion. So, it fits a definition. The big issue is that, at least in the Americas, the word church is often associated with Christianity, but that doesn't mean it is exclusive to it. There are much more arguments (and more interesting) against the religious status of Scientology than there are for it not being a Church; and still both are widely contested. Also, it does suffer a negative tone, or at the very least it suffers a little from WP:UNDUE. This article has not one but two sections on criticism, and that goes without mentioning the occasional stones thrown at the end of some other sections. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 22:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

It would help a lot if you provided a link to the source so other editors could review it. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 23:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Wikileaks shut-down and the article was on there. --Cymbelmineer (talk) 22:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I found that a couple of days ago...however, does Wikileaks comply with WP:RS? --> RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 16:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Call Hubbard a "Science fiction writer"

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

Perhaps one could describe him as "a science-fiction writer and self-described spiritualist". > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 15:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
personally I think we should source the sentence to stop this silly debate, we go through this at least once a year (check the archives).Coffeepusher (talk) 16:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I was under the impression we had agreed to Pulp fiction writer as that covered all his work including his non-sci-fi, but that could be my bad memory Weaponbb7 (talk) 16:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
This is why we need to back this statement up with WP:RS so that we avoid the WP:OR that is going on, as well as WP:SYNTHCoffeepusher (talk) 18:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Answers.com
Britannica Concise Encyclopedia: Church of Scientology
  • "International movement established in the U.S. by L. Ron Hubbard in 1954."
Occultism & Parapsychology Encyclopedia (Gale Group): Church of Scientology (you need to scroll down to see the entry)
  • "In 1950 writer L. Ron Hubbard announced the discovery of Dianetics as a new system of mental health. Several years later he announced the further development of Dianetics into a comprehensive system of spiritual philosophy and religion, which he termed Scientology."
US History Encyclopedia (by an unnamed Answers Corp. partner: Scientology
  • "The religious movement known as Scientology originated in the United States with the 1950 publication of Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health. The book's author, L. Ron Hubbard (1911–1986), was a popular science fiction writer ..."
Encyclopedia.com
Columbia Encyclopedia, Church of Scientology
  • "Philosophical religion founded by L(afayette) Ron(ald) Hubbard, 1911-86, b. Tilden, Nebr."
World Encyclopedia (Oxford University Press)
  • "scientology ‘Applied religious philosophy’ based on a form of psychotherapy called dianetics, which was founded (1954) by L. Ron Hubbard in California, USA."
Highbeam.com
The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions (Oxford University Press)
  • "Scientology. The creation of L. Ron Hubbard, who in the early 1950s, using his theory of lay psychotherapy (Dianetics) as its basis, developed a religious philosophy which was then incorporated into the Church of Scientology."

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

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

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

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

Jayen, once again you have made an impressive arguement I cannot reason away I agree we should take the highroad here minimize what or outright eliminate the "writer part" of the sentence. He is know for his Grand Revelation (invention, scheme whatever...) more than his scifi. Weaponbb7 (talk) 01:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for saying so. I am happy to drop the "writer" and just go with the name, if editors prefer. --JN466 02:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Sounds fair. I support. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 04:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I am ok with dropping the classification.Coffeepusher (talk) 05:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 Done. --JN466 14:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Oppose this article still has some serious issues left over from the Whole WP:ARBSCI debacle, without a doubt it has vastly improved and stabilized. However it has some serious but subtle neutrality issues needs alot of clean-up and to give you an idea of the long-term issues of this page my first reaction to seeing this post was to see if you could be a WP:SOCK.The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Remember WP:PA, you don't have evidence that he is a sock. However, I agree with opposing the proposal. While the article has greatly improved, it is still not FA level. Perhaps reassessing into a B-class... --> RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 17:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I was not calling him a sock i meant only to point out the thorny history of this article and the automatic bad faith assumptions that get made when anybody tries do anything with it. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
True. I am not a Scientologist (scientologist?), nor connected to it, I just thought that considering the thorny history of this page, GA status may bring more impartial commentators over to have a look at it, and that can only be a good thing, can't it?--Cymbelmineer (talk) 21:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
In that case I believe it is better to request a peer review before nominating for GA or FA. I believe that is an acceptable middleground for those of us who oppose a direct nomination. At least I would support a PR. And for the record, I consider myself a Scientologist, but I am aware that WP standards might not always make me happy. --> RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 04:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
The article still has a number of weaknesses. The history section for 1965 onwards still needs work. The controversies section is, in parts, just a haphazard list. The Scientology and the Internet section is bloated with too much detail. Reference organisation/template use is inconsistent throughout the article. Beliefs and practices and organisational structure are covered well, I think. All in all, I think FA is some way off, and even GA is not within immediate reach. A peer review might be useful, but even getting this article to GA will entail much work, a lot of it donkey work like getting the references straightened out.
Still, it's gratifying that you like the article! And it has thankfully become a lot more stable. --JN466 02:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Credibility of Auditing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Auditing is described as a form of counseling in the cited and many other reliable sources. This does not imply any endorsement of its effectiveness, neither here nor in those sources. --JN466 02:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Lacking sources to verify success does not mean it does not have success. What it means it that it has not been tested by a reliable, unbiased third-party. The only studies for the effectiveness of Auditing come from the Church of Scientology itself, and are therefore unreliable due to conflict of interest. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 03:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Auditing Confidentiality

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

Paraphrasing the article should be simple enough with little mark-up necessary, I can ref it for you. Just copy and paste the whole thing into the page where you want the little 1to show. Also check out WP:How to edit a page and WP:BOLD.
{{cite web |url=http://oxfordstudent.com/2010/11/01/parasitic-circuits-the-secrets-of-scientology-2/ |title=Parasitic Circuits: The Secrets of Scientology |accessdate=28 November 2010}} TheFSAviator • T

Categorization

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

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

Symbols of Scientology merge

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

Edit request from 74.64.25.109, 16 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

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

Reference - consitution of the USA

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

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

L. Ron Hubbard, Author

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

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

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

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

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

You may have seen that the history of this Wikipedia entry has been one of repeated vandalism, lawsuit threats, joke edits and such for a number of years thanks to the Scientology organization's efforts to try to stop information about what the Scientology Corporation is and what it does from being disseminated on the Internet.
The criminal enterprise's efforts to silence information about Xenu, Body Thetans, murders, kidnappings, quack medical frauds (such as their narconon frauds) and such have decreased in the past two or three years, but prior to that the various owners/operators of the criminal enterprise spared no effort to make this Wikipedia entry basically more false advertising for their scams and frauds.
The result has been a strict limitation on edits to the article which results in legitimately-needed updates being restricted and reversed and hotly argued.
The Wiki entries on more traditional organized crime syndicates like the Gambino Mafia don't suffer the same problems simply because the Gambino Family don't have a dozen or more mobsters and customers trying to Operation Snow White their criminal organization's shoddy reputation.
So restrictions are in place. Also since the neutral point of view is desired, the article is allowed to have false claims routinely made by the criminal enterprise as a concession to the effort to be neutral even though Scientology's public relations falsehoods are known to be false. Damotclese (talk) 15:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Damotclese, please note that talk pages are not a place to express your opinions on the subjects of articles. While it is acceptable to discuss the need for semi-protection on the article, you may not use that as an opportunity to attack Scientologists or the organization. This behavior is specifically forbidden by WP:CIVIL and WP:SOAPBOX, and can result in your comments being removed.
As far as the original concern, it is generally preferred, per WP:NPOV, to not have a wholly separate "Controversy" section--ideally, such concerns should be incorporated into the text. Second, please note that you are welcome to edit the article, in one of two ways. The first is to sign up for a free account (you don't have to give any identifying information), and after a short introductory period you'll be able to edit here. Second, if you do not wish to sign up for an account, you may instead propose specific changes here. It doesn't help to just say "The article is biased, fix it." Instead, pose specific language that you think should be added/changed, along with reliable sources to support your recommendations. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Also...what are you talking about, OP? Not only is there a whole section on "Controversies," there's a link to a whole article titled Scientology controversies? I should have checked before commenting, but your concerns don't seem valid. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
User:Damotclese You should consider re-reading Wikipedia policy, as the objective is to realiably source an article. You can't say that this article is intentionally lying just to hold on to NPOV. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 01:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The word "sect".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Status as a religion?

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

This has been discussed previously many times:
Those are but a couple examples. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 07:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
I haven't read the previous discussions, but I believe the issue, other than differing opinions amongst Wikipedians, it that there are many differing opinions from scholars, governments and other religious leaders. While most accounts in the US government classify it as a religion, many other countries do not, and is it not a universally (or even widely) accepted description. So, body of beliefs and related practices serves as a very good middleground between those who believe it is a cult, those who believe it is a religion, and those who do not care about the issue, but about NPOV and the language used for the description. Cheers. --> RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 22:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Overwhelming majority of WP:RS say it is, not even a size able minority opinion object to it. While not the most honest group of folks it is a religion for all intents and purposes. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Even Stephen A. Kent the only critic who has academic standing (at least off the top of my head) admits its a religion that also has many other aspect on top of the religion aspect. (like many other Churches these days) The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Jackson, the people practicing it have made the judgment that it's a religion. You know? Our job as editors is to accurately report that in the article. There are just under a gazillion forums across the net for the debate as to its validity, just as there are for the Lutheran sect, for example. —Digiphi (Talk) 23:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Then let us say, "Scientology considers itself a religion" I think that is an eve better middle ground than 'body of beliefs and related practices'.--Jacksoncw (talk) 01:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Would you suggest that for Candomble, or Bahá'í, or Christianity? What about Rastafari, Zoroastrianism, or Judaism? We don't give that treatment to any of the aforementioned topics. Why here? —Digiphi (Talk) 02:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't know about all of them but for Christianity there is absolutely no dispute that it is a religion. It is recognized everywhere as a religion, same for Judaism. According to the "reliable source" of the governments of the aforementioned countries' governments, Scientology is not a religion. Say a type of moss was found that was tiny. Most of the world's scientists consider it a moss. The scientists who discovered it, however, claim it is a bacteria. Would WP call it a bacteria because of the discoverers? --Jacksoncw (talk) 14:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
What? thats not even an apdt comparison... The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 14:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
It isn't. There are slightly different standards for hard science articles, the content of which can be determined by a wealth of peer-reviewed journals in the field, and evidence of academic consensus can be presented and reported in the article. You mean that you don't dispute Christianity. Some governments ban it's practice because it obviously isn't a religion. It's just a dangerous commercial cult. Consider Saudi Arabia for example. And what about Judaism? Would we not characterize it as a religion (and we do) in the article? is a religion. What about Voodoo. Would we treat those differently? This isn't the United Nations. We don't get to pick and choose from national governments' written policies (if they have them) on a group when deciding to report content in the article. —Digiphi (Talk) 18:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Would you consider that for Pastafarianism? Interestingly enough, I don't know that a "body of beliefs" makes for a good description of scientology, as they don't really HAVE any core beliefs. DigitalC (talk) 21:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with this, as Scientology does have core beliefs (thetans, reincarnation, arc/krc triangles...). However, despite considering myself a Scientologist, I believe the current wording is fine as it is. Many sources within Scientology itself classify it as an applied religious philosophy(example), and it also claims that one can practice Scientology regardless of any other religious belifs (even when Scientology has it's own)...So, I believe there is no reason to change the wording. It is neutral and descriptive enough. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 05:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

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

My bad...I am not a native english speaker... > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 16:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
it isn't as long as it's requiring people to spend money, no other religion forces people to spend cash and thus Scientology is not a religion (religion should be free) Markthemac (talk) 02:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Is this even sourced? Or is this just your own interpretation? If one to were use especially NPOV reasoning, the christian church often collects donations during mass. TheFSAviator • T 17:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Actualy yes that is sourced in the article. He said "Required" to pay, in the Christian church, a majority of which doesn't practice mass because it isn't catholic, you are not required to pay. If you didn't give any tithes or offerings to the church they wouldn't kick you out and probably would say nothing about it. Within Scientology, on the other hand, the only thing that is free is the "stress test".--Jacksoncw (talk) 14:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
But where did you get a dictionary definition that requires that a religion can't require a donation? TheFSAviator • T 16:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Most churches ask for donations. I know this is voluntary and not fixed as in the Church of Scientology, but they ask for donations nonetheless... > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 16:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm simply saying it is sourced,not that it isn't a definition.--Jacksoncw (talk) 16:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
In any case, I am a second-generation Scientologist and no one in my family has given any money to the CoS in over 12 years... > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 17:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Couple points
1) I think this question deserves an RfC.
2) Arguing about whether Scientology is or is not a religion, is like arguing about whether some nudey picture is or is not pornography. It's inherently subjective, and there isn't really a final authority on the issue. Personally, I feel that, as we do with BLPs, we ought to lend some weight to "self-identification". Perhaps Scientology is a religion b/c it says it is..... NickCT (talk) 21:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
By criteria 2, Jedi would also qualify as a religion. We're discussing reliable sources here, and there are sources for both sides. The article already makes it very clear that descriptions of Scientology range from "bona-fide religion" to "cult that financially defrauds and abuses its members". I support the current wording on grounds of WP:NPOV, but I support the idea of an RfC to settle it. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 18:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Man.... why are people always hating on us Jedi warriors...? We're a legitimate religious institution as well.
No, but seriously, as with a term like "Art" what someone calls a "Religion" is largely going to be in the eyes of the beholder. You say "We're discussing reliable sources", I'm saying, subjects like this don't really have reliable sources. Part of the thinking behind WP:BLPCAT was that for topics like religion & sexual orientation where much is subjective, people can argue endlessly about what is a "reliable source" on the matter, or you can simply agree that "A gay person is someone who says they are gay". Obviously, WP:BLPCAT doesn't apply to this article, but I think the logic behind it does.
Anyways, we seem to agree on the RfC, so perhaps I will do that. Do you mind if I contact you to review a draft RfC?
P.S. Obviously, WP is not a reliable source, but it might be worth noting that lede for Religion is remarkably vague, and potentially all encompassing. I believe that supports my point.
P.P.S Just want to mention that I'm no Scientologist. Frankly, I think they're roughly as silly all the others. NickCT (talk) 14:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Sure, contact me on my talkpg. It's the trolling link on my sig. :) > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 20:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for insulting all religions, and religious followers, with that "silly" comment, Nick. Looking at your page, you stand for almost everything I am against, but I can accept that. That comment about religion was uncalled for. But as stated before, this isn't an online forum. Whether you think religions are stupid or just Scientology is stupid, the issue still stands. An RFC is necessary to put this at rest. Also, according to your logic, if I open a a business, sell bibles, and claim it is a religion, my business would be a religion. --Jacksoncw (talk) 18:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

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

but of course there is greed based around free-will, but it's still voluntary unlike Scientology Markthemac (talk) 00:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Mark, there is no definition saying that a church cannot require donations nor is there any proof that no other church does this. In this article we are trying to state the facts, not your opinions. This is not a debating forum. If you can find a reliable source that states your opinion that you can cite, please feel free to place it in the correct section of this article. Also, if you would use proper grammar it would make it much easier for people to understand your request. --Jacksoncw (talk) 19:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
it's not my opinion, it's actually the opinion of the EU. Markthemac (talk) 17:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
You said, "religion is based around free-will and not greed" this is your opinion, not a fact. And, although it may be true, there is no proof that Scientology is the only religion that requires a donation. If there was any such proof, there is nothing that says a religions can't require donations. Like I said, if you can site "the EU" stating this, please feel free to place it in the correct section.--Jacksoncw (talk) 04:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

In the USA Scientology isn't officially recognized as a religion. They get tax exempt status from the IRS for it but that isn't any kind of officially recognition. If you started up the Church of Dave that worships all things dave you could easily get the same exempt status. It's apart of that whole freedom of religion thing and separation of church and state bit. If the federal or state government questioned anyones beliefs that they claimed were religious beliefs or stopped anyone from making a claims of religious belief then that wouldn't really be a separation of church and state. The religious tax exempt status granted to the church of Scientology is only a recognition that the federal government has no reason not give them religious tax exempt status. There are groups in the United States denied the same tax exempt status. Groups that world wide would be recognized as religions even where Scientology would not be. Scientology using this as proof they are a real religion is Scientology grasping at straws. Someone start the church of anonymous and they'll likely get the same tax exemption.70.15.191.119 (talk) 14:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 92.37.9.164, 14 January 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Best Regards, Rev. István Szaniszló Church of Scientology Europe


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

I agree that it shoud be described as religious, as this article is about Scientology the body of beliefs and not Scientology the organisation. It is, however, the current consensus of WP that it should be listed as it is now. I support your edit, but keep in mind that this will require a larger consensus. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 02:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
If you look at the page Scientology status by country, you will note that it's status isn't just questioned in Germany, but is officially not a religion in Denmark, Finland, Greece, Ireland and others, with some countries such as Switzerland explicitly calling it commercial. As such, we are compelled to include both appellations here, given that Wikipedia doesn't make the rules--we just follow what other sources say. As for your claim that Scientologists can't edit, that's both false and would be impossible to enforce. For example, if you hadn't volunteered that you are a Scientologist, we'd have no way of knowing. There are two restrictions in effect here. One is that there was a general Arbcom ruling banning a certain set of editors from Scientology pages, as well as all people editing from IP addresses known to be operated by the Church of Scientology--note, though, that Scientologists may still edit from privately owned computers/networks. Second, this particular page is under what is called "semi-protection". That protection actually prevents anyone who does not have an autoconfirmed account (i.e., anyone who hasn't signed up for a username and editing for at least a few days) from editing. According to the logs, this was done to prevent vandalism. If you sign up for an account, you'll be able to edit the page directly (following all guidelines and policies, along with the special Arbcom restrictions on Scientology topics); otherwise, you're welcome to keep making edit requests here on the talk page.
As a side note, RUL3R, do you know specifically of where previous discussions on this matter might be found for reference? Qwyrxian (talk) 06:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
A quick look at the archive gave me: [11] [12] [13]. However, I believe this might require an RfC, as commercialization is not an inherent aspect of Scientology. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 11:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

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

You say "The European Court of Human Rights issued an unanimous landmark decision on 5 April 2007 in favour of the Secientology religion, upholding the religious freedom of Scientologists and their religious associations throughout the 48 nations that have signed and ratified the European Convention for the Protection of Human rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), adopted by the council of Europe in 1950,".This means that they recognize their religious freedom, not that they recognize them as a religion, same for Germany. I see how you try to misconstrew the words towards your viewpoint. The truth is that neither Germany nor The European Court of Human Rights have recognized it as a religion, therefore it is commercial.--Jacksoncw (talk) 16:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
And you should keep in mind that WP is a worldwide organisation not restricted to a single country. Therefore, all view points should be covered. If the US and the EU have different views on Scientology, then both should be mentioned. Also, I find it fun that the EU recognizes "religious freedom" of Scientologists while not recognizing Scientology as a religion. Isn't that a huge contradiction? I think that, at best, one can argue that "As of 2011, the EU, while defending the religious freedom of Scientologists, has not taken an official position on Scientology", instead of saying that it is seen as a business. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 00:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Recognition as a religion

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

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

Based on the IRS exemptions, the U.S. State Department formally criticized Germany for discriminating against Scientologists and began to note Scientologists' complaints of harassment in its annual human rights reports,[51] as well as the annual International Religious Freedom Reports it has released from 1999 onwards.[71]
By this, it can be safely assumed that the US recognizes Scientology as a religion. Check sources 51 and 71. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 02:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Regardless of the endless political posturing of paid lobbiests, public relations contractors, and politicians working for the employ of Scientology's corporate owners/operators, the Scientology Corporation is not designated or recognized as a religion in the United States.
The organized crime syndicate's inclusion in putative "Human Rights" reports by State Department contractors is merely political, not a statement of lawful recognition or designation; it's one of the reasons why 'legitimate human rights organizations condemn the inclusion in the State Department's politisized reports.
If there are any legitimate, lawful Federal documents which classify the criminal enterprise as a religion, they need to be located and referenced so that the claim can be verified. As it stands, the claim is without merit and should be removed so that the article becomes more neutral. Damotclese (talk) 00:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Ok. First off, as a Scientologist, I would like to ask you to tone down your comments. While I concede that the organization has a long list of controversies and criticisms, and I am not deeply involved nor a staff member (and even much less in the Sea Org), I believe it is not necessary to state that Scientology "pays lobbiests" or "is an organized crime syndicate" or "a criminal enterprise" to get your point across. Your point is that there is a misleading statement and you are welcome to present arguments for that, but insulting the topic in question and pushing your anti-Scientology agenda is unnecessary, low, and against Wikipedia policy (which, by the way, you should read again). Please remain WP:CIVIL.
Note that everything I say in my proposed updates is entire civil and, for that matter, accurate. The Scientology crime syndicate is organized crime at core, and it is not recognized as a religion in the United States. Civility doesn't disappear just because the truth about something makes one uncomfortable.
Also I notice that the FBI has been looking in to the criminal enterprise's extensive human trafficking, kidnapping, and other felonies Human Trafficking which are arenas which also qualify the Wikipedia page for updating if only to include the expected indictments. Once the new indictments are handed down, the Wikipedia entry will need to be updated, and appeals to how updating the page is some how "uncivil" can once again be expected, quite possibly.Damotclese (talk) 08:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:CIVIL#Identifying_incivility <- Your comments border on 1b. I am not saying you should become a Scientologist or anything like that, you're free to not like it. I am just asking for a little bit of respect. You can respect something even if you don't like it. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 03:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
And second, the problem you describe does not concern neutrality. It concerns reliable sources. Your concern does seem valid and worth discussion, so, a rewording can be worked out, if no other Wikipedians present any objections. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 02:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Please note that I have warned User:Damotclese that this page is under discretionary sanctions, and, as such, any continuation of this way of speaking about Scientology can result in his being topic banned.
As for Damotclese's point, as far as I know, the production of such a document is 1) impossible, because no such document exists for any religion. It is possible that we need to be more careful about how we phrase the sentence. It sounds like Damotclese may be correct that the IRS does not recognize Scientology as a religion. The problem with RUL3R's point is that, while I understand what you are saying and it seems like a logical conclusion to draw, Wikipedia doesn't allow it's editors to draw conclusions, especially from primary documents. Perhaps we need to say something like "The IRS does not formally recognize Scientology as a religion, instead classifying it more generally as a charitable organization. The Church of Scientology has been listed as a religion in the U.S. government's annual International Religious Freedom Report since 1999." This would help show that the US government position appears to be conflicted (not really all that unusual, actually). Qwyrxian (talk) 04:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
That is quite true, Qwyrxian, the IRS undeniably does not classify the Scientology Corporation as a religion. No United States agency does. To do so is a violation of the Separation Clause of the U. S. Constitution. The article under discussion states that Scientology is recognized as a religion in the United States when in fact that is false. The mistake is not rectified because removing the claim is considered a non-neutral point of view, ergo the falsehood remains unremoved.
So, no religion is recognized as such in the US? > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 03:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
It's also true that some organizations classify Scientology as a religion predicated upon the IRS' granting of tax exemption in 1983 (as noted below) however the no United States governmental agency officially and unambiguously considers Scientology to be a religion. Bluntly they're not allowed to even if they wanted to.
Ultimately I expect that the page's statement will remain simply because few editors feel any desire to rectify the mistake. :) I certainly do not. Damotclese (talk) 08:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Then why are we discussing? > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 03:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh, that reminds me! (A day later.) Lt. Ray Emmons of the Clearwater Police Department was tasked by the FBI with the detailed planning of dismantling the Scientology organization as organized crime, working with the Ontario Canadian law enforcement agencies as well as Interpol. The summary report of expenditures, manpower, expected court time et al. to arrest, indict, try, and convict the organization's leaders were all detailed in documents he provided to his supervisory people and to the FBI offices which, in brief terms, asked what it would cost to dismantle Scientology completely. Parts of Lt. Emmons' summary report are on line, but the appeal for the Congressional funding needed ended specifically with the words "organized crime."
Last night while trying to get some sleep the Officer's name suddenly came to me. It's something of a shame that very little of what Scientology actually is and what Scientology actually does is reported in the Wiki entry, but then I suppose that Wikipedia is not intended to be a novel. :) Any way, thanks. Damotclese (talk) 15:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Source? > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 03:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • US State Department reports on religious freedom regularly include Scientology, with statements referring to the treatment of "religious minorities, notably Scientologists" [14]. Nicholas Burns, the spokesman for the US Department of State, said in 1997, However, for our purposes, we classify Scientology as a religion because they were granted tax-exempt status by the American Government. (New York Times). --JN466 04:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Also see this letter sent by the IRS to Angela Merkel in 1994, with clear references to Scientology's religious status: [15] --JN466 04:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Since the IRS produces no "official" recognition for any particular religion, it is probably not even necessary to clarify this. In any case, if necessary, this can be solved with a sentence like "while this does not constitute legal recognition as a religion, Scientology has been cited on US State Department International Religious Freedom Reports." However, this means that no religion is recognized in the US, since the excemptions the Church of Scientology uses are the same for religious and charitable institutions; the IRS does not seem to make a distinction between them for fiscal or legal purposes. The US goverment position does not appear conflicted with any religion however. It looks kinda like an I-won't-regognize-nor-deny-any-religion, neutral, position. I am no lawyer, but to me, this debate seems moot. By not making a distinction, we can pretty much write anything without lying. Also, does anybody have an actual source? > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 21:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I am pretty sure that we can find more reliable sources than a letter to a single church that may or may not be worded right. Also, if you found it, you would have to find an equally reliable source for a religion that isn't debated or else someone would find something to wrong with it. I would love to see a similar letter that the IRS wrote to a Christian Church or a Mosque.--Jacksoncw (talk) 13:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • We have good sources (cited in the lede, with verbatim quotes given in the footnotes) for Scientology being officially recognised as a religion in United States. Above, we have an official statement by a spokesman for the State Department, which represents the US government in international matters (However, for our purposes, we classify Scientology as a religion because they were granted tax-exempt status by the American Government. (New York Times)). Note that the letter linked above was to Angela Merkel, the present Chancellor of Germany, and a government minister at the time. There is no room for debate here, especially not for debate uninformed by sources. --JN466 22:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
R.I.F.A. Acorn etc. all got letters saying "religious or charitable purposes". Tax exemption isn't synonymous with religious status. We don't put it in the Christian or Muslim portal that the United States has recognized them as a religion although they got those same letters. --Jacksoncw (talk) 18:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Islam and Christianity are generally recognized as religious groups, so there is no need to make that statement. Scientology, on the other hand, has a widely disputed status, which makes it worth mention. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 00:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Just a detail about the chapter "Scientology status by country": France does not recognize any religion, it's the law since 1905 (www.assemblee-nationale.fr/histoire/eglise-etat/sommaire.asp). I will precise it in the article. P.S: Forgive my poor english please, it is not my mother language.--Cécile Fruchon (talk) 15:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, I wanted to precise a detail (see above) in the article, but I was anable to find the "button" Edit. Why? Can somebody help me? Thanks, --Cécile Fruchon (talk) 16:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

You probably can't edit the article because it is semi-protected. You must be auto-confirmed to edit a semi-protected article. --Jacksoncw (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Is J. Gordon Melton reliable?

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

HAHAHHAHHHAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHHA....... The sad thing is.... I fear you are serious. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 17:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
ResidentAnthropologist: Biting an editor who has made 100 total edits isn't very helpful.
Jacksoncw: Melton has authored dozens of books on different religions. There's no indication that he is being paid by Scientology to promote their point of view. If authors didn't have some type of personal opinions, many books would be rather dull. WP:NPOV specifically requires a neutral point of view; it does not ban sources that express any type of view. You can add material with a different point of view from another reliable source. You will probably find that getting some experience with non-religious articles first will prepare you better for the wiki minefields. —UncleDouggie (talk) 17:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
If you Really Wish to Pursue this Reliable Sources Notice board is the proper venue as this page cannot not make that call. His Encyclopedia of American Religion is in the some at least 3100 Libraries and is sources in many other article here. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I was under the impression that in this case, sources had to be reliable, non bias third parties. From the article I read, Melton seems to be the exact opposite. I thought that he wouldn't be allowed for the same reason Scientology.org isn't allowed.--Jacksoncw (talk) 19:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Melton's crendentials and netrality are impeccable the only people who complain about him being unrelaible are either WP:FRINGEor are severly misinformed. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Stephen A. Kent believes him to be unreliable in the the subject of Scientology; he is neither WP:FRINGE or severely misinformed. Nevertheless, I will give up this pursuit if it is so drastically erroneous.--Jacksoncw (talk) 20:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Kent is extremely [[WP:FRINGE] see New Religions and the Anticult Movement in Canada by Irving Hexham in Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions, Vol. 4, No. 2 (April 2001), pp. 281-288. When People are from your own University are calling you fringe... You got some issues with Credibility. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Jacksoncw: There's a difference between a conflict of interest per Scientology.org and a specific point of view as Melton sometimes exhibits. We don't ban sources based on an attack from a couple of peers. That just escalates into an unresolvable conflict, as you and RA have so expertly demonstrated, and we end up with empty articles. Melton is widely cited. IMHO, his book referenced in this article has a good degree of balance and makes references to documents and witness accounts on both sides. Other reliable sources may have a different point of view. It's not for us to judge which is correct. —UncleDouggie (talk) 07:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Melton's works on Scientology are required reading in dozens of university courses. He writes the Encyclopedia Britannica article on Scientology. --JN466 22:53, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Jacksoncw asks a legitimate question here. The measure of the man's legitimacy should be predicated upon how he is held in esteem (or otherwise) by his colleagues, if any. Melton is reportedly dismissed by human rights organizations and by legitimate scholars of dangerous cults for a number of reasons, the most glaring of which appears to be Melton's inability to address the core criminal history and RICO predicate acts which comprise Scientology.
Also Jayen466 notes that Melton's apologetic texts concerning Scientology are indeed required reading in some academic settings however one may perform Google searches to find Mr. Melton's writings and then compare them to the wide body of extant information that is available on line, and one can note that Mr. Melton persistently fails to cover the extent of the organization's criminal history or contemporary activities.
Aside from all of that, reference to Melton's writings should remain since Melton is part of the "Scientology lore" despite his failings of accuracy. Damotclese (talk) 08:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Have you ever figured there is a difference between Scientology the belief system and Scientology the organization? Melton is used as a source mostly for the first case. And that is why he is not the only source. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 02:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Congratulation on a well balanced article, considering

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Winston Churchill's image and quotations on Scientology fundraising literature

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

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

This is a fairly common behavior of Scientology's owners/operator and literally an entirely new Wikipedia page could be created just addressing the organization's efforts to acquire legitimacy by quoting famous people or by claiming to be supported by governmental officials. The Scientology organization claimed that an Icelandic Parliament endorsed them, and also once claimed that the British Royal Family quoted the Scientology enterprise favorably, both acts prompting immediate demands from same for retractions given the reputations being threatened.
The most famous such lie was when Scientology claimed to have educated tens of thousands of African children to the point where they could read and were literate thanks to Scientology's "Applied Scholastics" fake front. In that case the African agency referenced by Scientology in their public relations sales releases confirmed that Scientology lied and that no such literacy project had taken place. Scientology had not expected anyone to go through the trouble of checking out the legitimacy of their claims, nor did they content with the possibility that the so-called "ARSCC" would widely expose the attempted fraud.
Another widely famous incident was when the Scientology organization attempted to sneak in to Bowdon, Georgia under numerous fake names, attempting to install one of their "NarCONon" fake drug treatment front. Scientology claimed to be endorsed by the "Black Businessmen of America," as I recall without immediately looking for the actual reference. Human rights advocates contacted the organization being claimed to endorse Scientology and the organization not only confirmed that they did not endorse Scientology, they demanded that the enterprise refrain from making such claims.
Another almost as famous incident was when Scientology attempted to purchase a retirement home in Norway using fake names and trying to keep their identity a secret. They tried to work with a local radio station to acquire legitimacy through public relations however the radio station contacted me and gave me a photograph of their lead person which allowed me to positively identify the individual as a Scientology individual. I provided the information to the radio station which then confronted the individual who was then forced to admit he and his organization were in fact Scientology. The radio station was able to get the local citizens informed which resulted in Scientology being thrown out of town -- literally.
How about researching the history of such behavior and creating an entirely new page which addresses specifically that behavior? It certainly should be added to the suit of articles covering Scientology, and a page dedicated to this aspect of Scientology would likely require its own page any way given that the details of claims-then-exposure might tend to be lengthy. If you want to create such a page, message me and I can provide links to some materials which cover the phenomena, including the Bowdon and Norway incidents. Damotclese (talk) 09:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
That's basically the reason why I brought this up. There are several allegations that the Church of Scientology has fabricated endorsements by certain famous people and companies, and then was asked or forced to remove them.
I think it warrants at least a paragraph somewhere, probably in the Controversies section. If there are enough of such incidents, backed up by reliable sources, it might deserve a more detailed page as well. Perhaps more experienced editors could share their opinion on this. --Codex01 (talk) 12:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
As for the use of famous people, I would start by expanding the rather short Scientology and celebrities to include implied or disputed celebrity endorsements. Eventually, perhaps one line could be added to the summary in Scientology. If Damotclese can indeed produce references for the government agency endorsement attempts, that seems like a better fit for Scientology controversies, possibly growing into a full subpage. There's a difference between using an image to imply an endorsement the way that thousands of companies use a national flag vs. stating an outright lie that a certain agency has made an endorsement. —UncleDouggie (talk) 14:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I added The Independent to the Scientology and celebrities article.--Codex01 (talk) 10:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Looks good. I cleaned up the article a bit. —UncleDouggie (talk) 11:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The Scientology Cross

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

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

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

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

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

New Yorker Article

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

Unfortunatly very little new information The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 15:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Agree with this. This source serves better for the Paul Haggis article. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 03:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

note on origin of scientology

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

Indeed rumors of the kind have circulated for years. Could Possibly be true but unfortunately (if true) no contemporary wrote at any length about it. No letter discovered in any author's estate or the such. Lacking WP:RS we cant add it any where. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Some info has already been added to the Scientology controversies page, in case anyone missed it. --Codex01 (talk) 22:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Editor Sam Merwin, for example, recalled a meeting: "I always knew he was exceedingly anxious to hit big money—he used to say he thought the best way to do it would be to start a cult." (December 1946)[2] Writer and publisher Lloyd Arthur Eshbach reported Hubbard saying "I'd like to start a religion. That's where the money is." Writer Theodore Sturgeon reported that Hubbard made a similar statement at the Los Angeles Science Fantasy Society. Likewise, writer Sam Moskowitz reported in an affidavit that during an Eastern Science Fiction Association meeting on November 11, 1948, Hubbard had said "You don't get rich writing science fiction. If you want to get rich, you start a religion."[3] Milton A. Rothman also reported to his son Tony Rothman that he heard Hubbard make exactly that claim at a science fiction convention. In 1998, an A&E documentary titled "Inside Scientology" shows Lyle Stuart reporting that Hubbard stated repeatedly that to make money, "you start a religion."[4] I took this from the Scientology Controversies article.--Jacksoncw (talk) 04:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

"Implants" in Scientology

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

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

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

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

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

The 30 day limit is only for the automatic archival. Any user can archive this sooner if it doesn't contribute to improving the article. To qualify as material for the article, you need to provide reliable sources for your claims. Do you have any? —UncleDouggie (talk) 12:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't intend to WP:BITE, but the insistence of this user of having this text posted on the page makes me believe this is an act of trolling... > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 12:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
This doesn't look like a troll to me, unless we keep talking about it. If there aren't any sources provided in the next 2 days, we can just archive it. No harm done. —UncleDouggie (talk) 12:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

{ The new link to Stephen Kent's article ("Scientology -- Is This a Religion?") is http://www.uni-marburg.de/fb03/ivk/mjr/pdfs/1999/articles/kent1999.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maierstrahl (talk • contribs) 00:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.Please say why this link needs to be on this page, also please put {{Editsemiprotected}} when requesting a semi-protected edit request.--Breawycker (talk to me!) Review Me! 21:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Breawycker did you even look at to the article? the source is cited several times but the link broke and this user is trying to update it. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 22:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 Done The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 22:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b Gartner, Hana (October 30, 2009). "Part Two: Scientology - Former Scientologist, Scientology - History". The Current. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved 2009-11-04.
  2. ^ Miller, Russell (1987). Bare-faced Messiah, The True Story of L. Ron Hubbard (First American ed.). New York: Henry Holt & Co. p. 133. ISBN 0-8050-0654-0.
  3. ^ Sam Moskowitz affidavit, 14 April 1993
  4. ^ "Inside Scientology". A&E Network. 1998-12-14. Retrieved 2007-01-27.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Scientology/Archive_28&oldid=1169725026"