Talk:Scientology/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30

Speculative fiction

I thought this had been covered ad infinitum earlier, but oh well... Prior to writing Dianetics and other Scientology texts, Hubbard was primarily known as a writer of fantasy, horror, and science-fiction (collectively known as speculative fiction these days). JustaHulk states in his edit to the intro: "that whole bit sounds forced and is unnecessary, usually "sci-fi" is added for POV purposes. "Author" is fine and leaner reads better." Now personally, I think removing it is pushing a POV that the information isn't notable or pertinent, and that including it is somehow an attack on Hubbard. I think a simple definition of what kind of author he was ("speculative fiction" is just two words) is neither "forced" nor POV-pushing. There's no shame in writing speculative fiction, and hiding what he wrote -- especially when it's already widely known -- seems both POV-pushing and obfuscatory. Furthermore, "speculative fiction" encompasses a lot more than "sci-fi," and more accurately reflects what he wrote. So... Should we describe -- again, in nonjudgmental terms -- what kind of author Hubbard was in the intro, folks? --GoodDamon 16:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Hubbard also wrote a lot of western, detective, adventure, etc, for the Pulp magazine market and pulp writer seemed to be the most accurate description. Something has to be there or endless passers-by will insert something. AndroidCat (talk) 17:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

And it will usually be "science fiction," which is just too imprecise. I would go with "speculative fiction" because it covers the largest amount of his body of work, but if someone comes up with something better, I'm game. --GoodDamon 17:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe combine the two above, with something like "Hubbard wrote extensively for the pulp magazine market, most notably in the speculative fiction area?" John Carter (talk) 17:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

If it's too long, it'll encourage "one more thing..." edits. AndroidCat (talk) 17:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

We already get too many of those. "Speculative fiction" is broad enough, well-documented, and thankfully just two words. I think it should go back in. All in favor? --GoodDamon 17:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

No objections here. John Carter (talk) 17:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

All right, I'm putting it back then. --GoodDamon 17:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

(left) I can go with whatever the consensus is. Obviously, sci-fi is almost always added as a POV-push. Hubbard was always an author. By the time he formed Scn, he was not a fiction author at all but had been running Dianetics for a few years. So, by rights, Scn was not started by a fiction author because that is not what he was or had been for some time when he started it. I had removed the "author" bit entirely a while back and it stood until another red account inserted sci-fi and GoodDamon well-meaningly tried to make something better of that. Sorry, but one thing I've learned here is that you do not always have to try to improve a questionable bit; sometimes the best thing to do is remove it. If we must pigeon-hole Hubbard right off the bat in the article then I prefer "pulp-fiction" writer as it is more accessible than "speculative fiction" and I do not like the frequent tendency here in Wikipedia to use less accessible, if perhaps incrementally more precise, terminology in lead paragraphs. --JustaHulk (talk) 18:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

All understandable concerns, but I think you're fighting a hurricane here. He's noted overwhelmingly in the press as a science fiction author prior to Scientology, so every drive-by editor in the world's going to insert that bit. Preemptively having something more accurate there already is the best solution I can think of. --GoodDamon 04:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I also will go with the consensus. Just to put in a tidbit of information, in the interview with the BBC that L.R.H. did in the 60's (I believe the time frame is right) when asked about his fortune he stated "I was a highly successful science Fiction writer prior to Dianetics" so if the consensus leans toward Science fiction, it is probably appropriate considering it was his own identification. Coffeepusher (talk) 06:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

"Speculative fiction" is not a term Hubbard would have recognized. "Science Ficton," "Science Fiction and Fantasy" or "Pulp Science Fiction" are correct in this case. "Pulp Fiction" focuses on the publishing venue rather than the story genre, so it's true, but less specific. Everything I've read leads me to believe that by reputation and Hubbard's own characterization, "Science Fiction" is the best candidate here. Definitely not "Speculative fiction," though, which I think was introduced in the late 1960s as an attempt to cast SF as a more respectable literary genre (similar to the introduction of the term "graphic novel" as applied to what were universally known as "comic books." ) BTfromLA (talk) 16:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This article is too big

It is over 100K. Since the "Controversy and criticism" section has a "main" article, it seems appropriate to simply move its subsections to that page.--Blinadrange (talk) 15:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC) That was about 30K worth of material moved to the subordinate "main" page. The article is still somewhat large at 73K, but it's a start.--Blinadrange (talk) 16:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It is tempting to move more of the beliefs and practices to their "main" sub-page. Well...I hope somebody will add a reaction to this idea. Also, I think that the lead should not need references: it should summarize the rest of the article. I moved the 16 refs in the lead into the main body of the text. What else should we do to get this to GA?--Blinadrange (talk) 16:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You're definitely on the right track. I just reviewed your edits, and they've made the page much cleaner and easier to read. I think the next step should be some citation cleanup. Right now, the citations aren't all formatted the same way. I propose that each citation be reworked to fit the {{cite web/newspaper/whatever}} template formats, so that for each citation we can see clearly:

1. Where it originated (online, a magazine, a TV show, etc.)
2. Who produced it
3. Online versions (if any)

I'll see if I can find what I'd call a "model citation," and then we can start formatting the rest the same way. --GoodDamon 17:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

And come to think of it, this would be a good project for the entire Wikiproject... --GoodDamon 17:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I removed a bit as I noticed that someone had inserted the obscure (to Scientologists - and everyone else) "Zone Plan" under the training section, no doubt confusing the Zones with the Academy Levels. --JustaHulk (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It might not be a bad idea to request peer review from outsiders for the purpose of determining what is clear to those who don't know the subject and what needs clarifying. Also, the standard citation format would definitely be a good idea. But outsider peer review would definitely help. John Carter (talk) 18:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, scientology is famous for its controversy, not its beliefs and practices or anything else. Therefore, removing criticism from the main article is wrong. Lantios (talk) 03:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

One could argue that Scientology beliefs and practices themselves are more controversial than criticism of Scientology. So why present it in the opposite way, with all criticism confined to the controversy section? Jwray (talk) 09:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyone else interesting in AfDing Project Chanology

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Cirt, a prolific Scientology critic (references available upon request), has written Project Chanology. This is a "perfect" example of WP:RECENTISM, i.e. "create new articles which inflate the importance and effect of a topic that has received recent media attention." Cirt (as User:Wilhelm) has already written two, count 'em, two articles on Chanology for WikiNews. That is a more apt venue for this latest flash-in-the-pan and those articles are referenced here by means of the WikiNews insert in our article. I do not think it reflects well on this project to promote cyberterrorism to forward one's POV. Am I alone in that viewpoint? Thanks. --JustaHulk (talk) 21:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, i don't see why it shouldn't be merged with Scientology and the Internet.--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 22:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be in the Talk page of that article? AndroidCat (talk) 22:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I think the interested parties are more likely to see it here. The Scn project page might theoretically be a better place but again, a bit low on traffic so this is a better meeting place for us. More importantly most Scn regulars watch this article and many may not even be aware that the Chanology article even exists, let alone watch it. --JustaHulk (talk) 22:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) "Us"? "Us" Wikipedia editors, right? "Us" editors that want a neutral encyclopedia, right? Just nominate that article and we'll see how that goes.--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 22:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I sure as hell don't mean "us Scientologists" as I is the only one (laff). I mean editors interested in the Scientology articles. I am most assuredly interested in "editors that want a neutral encyclopedia" that may not be regulars. I would rather that another editor nom it as my motives might be questioned, esp. by those that do not know me and only look at the fact that I am a Scientologist. So if I am to nom it, I would like to see some support first. Thanks for yours. --JustaHulk (talk) 22:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - Certainly not yet. Any sort of discussion should wait, as there will likely be further developments, and even more coverage. There has already been coverage in multiple national and international news agencies, and other sources. Cirt (talk) 22:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I have nominated the article.--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 23:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Cyberterrorism? Seriously? And how is having an article on a recent event promoting it? BJ^Talk 02:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps JustaHulk (talk · contribs) thinks that Sky News, United Press International, Slashdot, National Nine News, CNET News, National Post, Wired, New Zealand Herald, Xinhua News Agency, PC World are also, as he put it: "promote cyberterrorism to forward one's POV" by writing articles on the incident? Cirt (talk) 04:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - This event is both prolific in media coverage and still ongoing. It would be better to wait till the dust settles and people are no longer looking for sources of information on it as much before we can decide the importance of the article and whether it is moved/deleted/merged. My opinion is that merging the article would remove content which is both necessary and encyclopedic.--AlexCatlin (talk) 03:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - Notability has been proven, though recentism tag should remain on the article until greater perspective is gained. I honestly don't see a problem with it, the article has neutral POV and could end up being very important in the history of Scientology. Plus having this conversation here rather than at the topic's page seems a blatant attempt to have it deleted without the creators and the rest of the community being aware such action is being taken. Request that this question be properly asked and debated at Project Chanology and not here.--Mcr hxc (talk) 05:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• I respect your opinion but I am sorry that you apparently misunderstand (or mistrust?) my motives in having the discussion here. My motives are outlined above and they are my only motives. Also, your claim that I am circumventing the articles creators is specious. I did not nom the article so I have no need to notify the authors. Had I nommed it, I would have done so. Further, the big box on the article page itself that starts "This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy." kinda makes "a blatant attempt to have it deleted without the creators and the rest of the community being aware such action is being taken" a bit difficult were that even my intention (or the intention of the nom, Yamanbaiia; whom you might want to consider apologizing to - don't worry about me, I am pretty used to this sort of treatment). --JustaHulk (talk) 05:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Your motives still offer no sound explanation as to why a deletion discussion for a different article is taking part here rather than at that article. They smack of self-interest and non-neutral POV. Instead of instigating the discussion here and adding a link to it at the Chanology page, you should've started the discussion at Chanology and added a link to it here. That way the debate is taking place on the page it is relevant to and regular watchers of this article are still informed.--Mcr hxc (talk) 06:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

For further discussion, see ongoing AfD, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Project Chanology. This is NOT a solicitation of any kind, just that this discussion of whether or not to have an AfD is pointless, when there is one ongoing. Cirt (talk) 06:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Change intro

The line "Journalists, courts and the governing bodies of several countries have stated that the Church of Scientology is a cult and an unscrupulous commercial enterprise that harasses its critics and abuses the trust of its members" is biased, since it implies that this view is eliteist or not shared by "the common man". It should be modified to read something like "One common view, held by both people and governments (references), holds that ... ". Court views should be stated next. Journalists aren't important enough to include - it makes it sound like this is a weird view only they have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.84.189 (talk) 15:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The common man isn't as easy to find citable references for. Such a criticism of Scientology without a solid reference would be fought tooth and nail by Wikipedia scientologists. Foobaz·o< 16:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, the "common man" generally isn't familiar with the accusations against the church, so that change wouldn't even be accurate. --GoodDamon 16:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Lost in transit

A few days ago, Blinadrange (now banned), trimmed a large amount of material off of the article without prior discussion, mainly from the Controversies section, to be moved to various main articles. I believe that some of these moves were reverted at the destination, and therefore completely lost in transit. As well, by moving controversy out to other articles, and not moving other sections such as Beliefs, Practices, Organizations to their respective main articles, I feel that this seriously unbalances the article. AndroidCat (talk) 17:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you propose as a solution? We could restore the missing content, or finish what Blinadrange started (only balancing it by doing the same with other non-controversy content). Heck, we could revert the page to what it was just before s/he started. --GoodDamon 17:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record, here are the differences between the current revision (187949133) and the revision just before Blinadrange started editing (186539726). --GoodDamon 17:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I think, for now, the controversy content (Auditing confidentiality onwards) needs to be put back and reviewed to see what was moved, what was lost, and what can be moved/trimmed as part of a general balanced trim of the article. AndroidCat (talk) 17:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC) Done. AndroidCat (talk) 18:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

In reviewing Blinadrange's edits, I'm not at all sure why that user was banned... All the edits appear to be in good faith, and the only problem with them I spotted was the POV issue you mentioned, which could easily have been balanced by doing the same kinds of cleanup in other areas of the article. I went through that user's other edits at different pages, and couldn't find any examples of wrongdoing. It looks like banning the user might have been a mistake, and this page was caught in the middle. --GoodDamon 18:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Same here. I didn't think a user would collect an indefinite ban just for drastically bold but otherwise solid edits. Certainly Blinadrange knew his/her way around Wiki, especially the Scientology articles. A return of a previously banned user? AndroidCat (talk) 18:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I just queried the blocking admin, here. --JustaHulk (talk) 18:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

See my talk page for the reply. --JustaHulk (talk) 18:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Project Chanology

Everyone should support anon! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.183.62.178 (talk) 03:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this worth mentioning?

[1]

--Some random jack off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.85.232.249 (talk) 06:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

No. --GoodDamon 06:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You sure? Ason Abdullah (talk) 08:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Positive. Some random hacker group announcing on its own page that it's going to mess with the Church of Scientology is:

1. Not notable
2. Not verifiable
3. Not reliable

Wait until it gets published in a reliable news source. Then it might be included. --GoodDamon 17:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[2] --84.245.22.189 (talk) 23:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Having read the article, it looks like a reference to it might be a good addition to Scientology and the internet. --GoodDamon 01:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I honestly hope that the media (if it decides to cover this) takes a neutral position and refrains from calling the *chans internet terrorists. I mean honestly, Scientology had it coming. It is sad for all those that have enlisted in the religion, and supported its "teachings." They truly were taken advantage of when they were at their lows, depressed and hopeless. Their money was taken away, their lives ruined. This just can't go unnoticed.

For once, the hackers of the *chans are doing something that is moral at its core.

That might be your goal, but that is not the goal of Wikipedia. Wikipedia's goal is to create unbiased, informative encyclopedia entries, and your stated goal is incompatible with that. Wikipedia is not a platform for promoting your beliefs and point of view any more than it is a platform for Scientologists to do the same. Please keep that in mind. --GoodDamon 17:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S. To sign your posts, which is considered polite, please include this at the end of your comments: ~~~~

Thanks. --GoodDamon 17:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

When I said the internet is united, I meant the major communities. I would never alter the wikipedia article, but this is a talk page. I believe this is worth mentioning, some people will disagree. I can't change that. The talk page is meant to profess your beliefs, and show your platform. And a note to the users that believe this not reliable: The *chans have already stolen documents that are restricted to Scientologists. You can search and find it, but I will not post it on wikipedia, for it is illegal content. Deleted the "internet is united" quote. Also, I was under the belief that this was discussion, not a suggestion for editing. You may disregard my argument, for until it is openly admitted by the Church itself, it ought not to be included in this article.

There is this mainstream media link: http://www.budapesttimes.hu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4412&Itemid=1/ --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 07:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:TALK discribes what a talk page is for...and what you discribed was a chat room or discussion board.

Oh, and No it shouldn't be included, although I really want to try out that teabag thing (just to see if it works), but unfortunatly I am over the age of 20 and have grown out of that stage of life.Coffeepusher (talk) 07:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion it should be noted in the article. I mean this certainly is a notable event, look at how many views there are of the youtube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCbKv9yiLiQ of Anonymous stating it's intentions. That in addition to the fact that the 'scientology' website has been shut down for the past view days makes this a very notable event in my opinion. Supra guy (talk) 21:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it is notable enough to be mentioned, but not in this article. It more properly belongs in Scientology and the Internet or perhaps Scientology controversy. --GoodDamon 21:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes that seems suitable. Supra guy (talk) 02:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

More media links: http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=uVaQG67eqwA --DestroyYouAlot (talk) 01:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• • • KNBC has featured a news video of The Anonymous DOS attack.
    • Skylive has featured a news video of The Anonymous DOS attack.

To say they are kiddy scripters is idiotic with the consistent +5 day removal of service of Scientology.org and many other scientology websites. http://video.knbc.com/player/?id=209215

I disagree with the reversion of the addition about Project Chanology. The referenced source was a mainstream media source (APC Magazine, which has been published since May 1980). This effort has also been reported in Wired.com, CNBC and other TV news outlets. It's certainly a notable part of the history of Scientology to date. Further, reporting that it has happened is a neutral addition to the article. Danwarne (talk) 05:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

At this point, I think there is enough coverage to include a piece on "Project Chanology" in the article. The group and their attacks have been covered on several mainstream news channels, and the group have done notable damage to scientology websites, as well as theft of scientology internal documents. Daler (talk) 16:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Except that they have not. Stolen internal docs. Not a one. Done much damage? Meh. Scientology.org seems to be loading just fine. --JustaHulk (talk) 16:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a Copy from my post below, however it states my opinion here as well:

"Right now it is a current event, hence the media coverage...but even that is sparce when it comes to actuall news agencies. a google news search failed to produce any nation wide "paper" papers...The New york times, Washington post, associated press, La times, USA today (gag! I hate that rag) etc. all failed to pick this one up it seems. now this isn't nesisarily a reliable test, but it does put it into perspective a bit."

Project Chanology is under the mistaken impression that they are the first Hacker group to attack the Scientology web site...they arn't. There are 3 others who have "declared war" on scientology that I can find. Note that none of these are on this page, because it really isn't notable for this page. Now if there is a wikipedia page for Anon (I havn't checked) then this would definatly belong there because it is a significant event for Anon, but as for Scientology...Lets be honast, how many groups are pissed off as scientology. Anon is just another one of thousands. Coffeepusher (talk) 18:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I just checked, and low and behold there is a wikipedia article for Project Chanology. it even links to the page "scientology and the Internet".Coffeepusher (talk) 18:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I just had my edit with an NBC source reverted as an "anonymous" advertisement lol. This is a major ongoing event, it has been covered by every major media outlet. I can't access any scientologist websites at the moment, much less the main page. They are all taken down. This definitely deserves mention in the article, anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't understand how wikipedia works. If its major enough for Wired, NBC, Skynews, AOL, and Fox and directly effects the subject of the article on a widespread level, it definitely deserves mention in the article. Learn to Wikipedia. Learn to reason objectively. --Pyrogenix (talk) 18:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Sigh, try http://www.scientology.org/index.html - works just fine for me. Gotta run, I've got lolicon to post. (Not) --JustaHulk (talk) 19:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It, along with most Scientology sites, are currently down and the mainstream media coverage is extensive. --172.202.230.119 (talk) 03:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The status of the Scientology site due to personal observations is inadmisable to Wikipedia, and really depend on when you try and access it (the attacks last on average of 30 min. then Quit), so I think that up to the min. coverage on the status of the scientology page is useless for the talk page.Coffeepusher (talk) 18:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

ps. That wasn't a WP:BITE at you hulk, I just didn't want this to snowball into...well what it was bound to become.Coffeepusher (talk) 18:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Intro

"He also established Religious Technology Center which is headed by David Miscavige [1][2] to see to the orthodox application of Scientology technology even after he passed away. [3]"

Where is the evidence that Hubbard personaly established RTC. I know that LRH established the policies to establish RTC like everything else in Scientology but I don't know believe he personaly did it.Bravehartbear (talk) 12:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

A business

Jwray in revision of 22:20, 28 January 2008 added "and a business" to the first sentence. Could that be removed? I feel it is POV and a bit redundant. Any organization could be "accused" of being a business if they have income and expenses. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 09:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's probably appropriate, as the church contains several for-profit corporate entities, something that can't be said of just "any organization." So saying that it is, among other things, a business is not a matter of subjective opinion. It's a statement of objective fact. And I don't see it as any more redundant in the article than saying it's a "body of beliefs and practices" and then going into those beliefs and practices in more detail. --GoodDamon 17:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree, while the church of Scientology is a religion, Scientology is an umbrella under which publishing companies and other buisnesses are directed. So I think it really is just an accurate statement. Coffeepusher (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

"Scientology" is a belief system, the Church of Scientology a non-profit organization - or a network of non-profit organizations. That "Scientology is ... a business initially created by American speculative fiction author L. Ron Hubbard." is factually wrong and disgusting POV pushing. That there are publishing houses publishing Scientology literature (since the 1970s!) does not change that. Those have not been created by Hubbard and had not been created as a business either. Shutterbug (talk) 21:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Shutterbug, it's not POV pushing. There are for-profit components of the church. This article is an overview of Scientology as an umbrella term, and contains information on organizations as well as the belief system you describe. Calling those organizations that are a business a business isn't POV pushing at all. It's a neutral statement of fact. The article Scientology beliefs and practices is devoted wholly to those beliefs and practices, but this article is the main overview of Scientology the beliefs, Scientology the church, and yes, Scientology the business. If there were no entities incorporated for profit, then "business" wouldn't factually apply, but there are, so it does. And seriously, it's not a big POV push to make statements of fact. --GoodDamon 21:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

"Scientology" as a single term cannot be used for a network of very diverse organizations. If you are convinced about the business allegation being a fact I am sure you have a reference. So what are the for-profit components of Scientology created by Hubbard? Shutterbug (talk) 22:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

How about Author Services Inc. or the Fort Harrison Hotel? There is a large list of scientology organizations, both for- and non-profit, at Category:Scientology organizations. Foobaz·o< 22:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Bridge Publications is a non-profit per the Guidestar.Org site. More digging around would probably show your cited organizations are non-profits or trusts. Can you identify who exactly is receiving profits from Scientology umbrella organizations? Can you show that somebody privately owns Scientology? If the answer is no, then "a business" is mis-leading. Rather then saying it POV pushing I would say it is a matter of semantics. But then matters of semantics are often monitored by POV. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 23:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but Bridge Publications isn't Author Services Inc., which is incorporated as a for-profit. --GoodDamon 16:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but that is a trust and as I understand they only deal with non-Scientology works. Besides, it is misleading to lump all the Scientology organizations together and claim there is some businesses among them. Does it mention in the description of Wikipedians that it is composed of straights and gays? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow your analogy. In any event, the problem with working this stuff out is that there are so many sub-groups and business names owned under the Church of Scientology umbrella, which makes it hard to determine what is and is not part of Scientology. For instance, ASI publishes Hubbard's fiction works under the Galaxy Press imprint -- for profit -- which certainly makes it a business. But it is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Church of Spiritual Technology, making it part of a church. It's an unusual arrangement that I can't think of another example of outside of Scientology. --GoodDamon 19:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

In my analogy, I suppose I should of said "men and gays" as a business is an organization. The point being if you said this to someone who was homophobic they would be incline to think all Wikipedians were gay. (More comments below.) Richard-of-Earth (talk) 23:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

As mentioned in the article, Scientology has officially been declared a business organization in Germany. --Einmaliger (talk) 09:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

OK folks, it's obvious there are some heated feelings about this, so let's all calm down and take care of it in as neutral a way as possible. I think first off, we should take a look through the various Scientology groups and figure out which ones are for profit and which ones are not. From that point, we can figure out if the business aspects of Scientology ought to be incorporated -- in a non-judgmental, neutral manner -- into the intro. I don't think restoring the text Shutterbug removed is the answer there, not because of any POV issues, but because the sentence was rather clumsy as it was. And if the for-profit Scientology organizations are too insignificant to partially classify Scientology as a business, then no harm done and we'll all have learned more about Scientology organizations. --GoodDamon 17:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Even if some are for profit, but are trusts or wholly owned by non-profits, then no one individual is receiving the profit. "For profit" is a tax category, it doesn't encompass the spirit of the thing. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

No one individual has to receive profits for an organization to be a for-profit. And for-profits are businesses. --GoodDamon 19:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The term for profit is meant to be lucrative for the owner. No one gets a profits from Scientology organizations they do get a salary but that is not considered coporate profit. Yes, someone has to recieve a profit to be considered "for profit".Bravehartbear (talk) 19:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

For Profit (of a business or institution) initiated or operated for the purpose of making a profit. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/for%20profit

My point was that "someone" doesn't have to be a human person. Profits can be dealt with in any number of ways. The fact is, some arms of the church, such as ASI, are incorporated as for-profits. Please bear in mind I don't say this as a judgment call. I make no claims that there is any problem with there being components of Scientology geared towards business. But to just flat-out deny that organizations incorporated as for-profits are indeed for-profits is just silly. --GoodDamon 20:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

There are many organizations that use Scientology technology like dental offices, ect. But these are not the Church of Scientology. We need to diferentitiate these organisations from the church and the beliefs. Mixing all these is simply confusing and will provide false information. For example Author Services sells fiction books so it is a non religious organization, if it own by the church it doesn't matter. The Christian church also has many corporate investments in many for profit organizations. That doesn't mean that the Christian church is for profit. Bravehartbear (talk) 20:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The difference between a normal for-profit business and the Church of Scientology is, the church goes to great lengths to hide its for-profit ventures, to keep its status as a religion with the government. Scientology courses are famously expensive. That money doesn't go to shareholders or an owner, it just gets redistributed higher up the hierarchy, like in a pyramid scheme. For example, field staff members get 10% commissions on all courses they sell. That sounds more like business than a religion to me. Foobaz·o< 22:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Now that's what I call confusing the issue... Let me cover a few things here:

• Dental offices aren't generally owned by the church to which the dentist belongs. Bringing them up is a red herring, because we're talking about subordinate organizations that are owned by the parent church.
• The fact that ASI sells fiction books is a moot point. It's a business that is owned by the parent church.
• Assuming you meant the Catholic church, I don't know of any subsidiary organizations inside it that are separately incorporated as for-profit businesses. You're confusing investments with ownership. I personally have a small investment in a software company, but that doesn't make it a wholly owned subsidiary of GoodDamon Inc. Of course, if you find a similar instance of the Catholic church owning a for-profit subsidiary, then I will happily hop over to the talk page for that article and point it out.

I want to stress something; I don't think that the church being partly a business is anything negative, and describing it as such is not an attack on it. I'm a little confused about why this is even an issue. This isn't a scandal, and it isn't a controversy. It's tax paperwork and filing statements with the federal government. --GoodDamon 22:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit: This was in response to Bravehartbear, not Foobaz. :) --GoodDamon 22:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Where is the Tax attorney when you need him? Bravehartbear (talk) 23:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I suppose this is a charged issue. When GoodDamon said to calm down I thought "we're just talking here". I suppose the reason it is objectionable is when you say it's a business you’re saying it’s about the money. I know from personal experience that when the international and local staff hear the Church's income went up, it gets applause, but when you tell of someone getting helped, it gets a standing ovation, kudos to COB (David Miscavage) for running the Church the way it's suppose to be and three cheers to Ron for making it all possible. So, when we see someone shy away from us because they're afraid we're after their money, it's builds up emotional charge. The fact I'm still talking about this after the change has been removed shows I got emotional charge about it. I tell you it is not about the money, money is a means to an end, people matter to the Church, the staff and anyone dedicated to the movement. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 23:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind, but I'm going to insert my responses between your points. It's just plain easier... Anyway, all of that sounds good, but it can't go into the article, because it's original research -- that is, none of what you described is information cited in a reputable source, and it all comes from your personal experience. This being the intarwebs, I could easily just spout off about anything at all, whether true or not, and claim it's from personal experience. If I make an original claim that at Scientology orgs everyone gets a pet monkey, it has just as much validity as your claims -- none at all, without reputable sources to back it up. --GoodDamon 00:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

GoodDamon, Thank you for your response, it was informative. I didn't intend any of that paragraph as content for the article or even an argument for the matter at hand. I just wanted to make clear my POV to bring about a little more understanding and to give me an opportunity to vent. I hope you'll all forgive my passion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard-of-Earth (talk • contribs) 07:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I challenged you to show who's making the money and some of you say it isn't important in defining a business. Fine. A business is an organization, saying he established organizations and businesses is redundant. It says later in the article it is viewed as a business. It needn't be in there in the beginning. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 23:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

A business is an organization, but not all organizations are businesses in the legal sense. Parts of the church of Scientology are. I don't understand why that shouldn't be in the introduction somewhere, since the article is an overview of multiple aspects of Scientology. --GoodDamon 00:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Richard from earth, you better get a stronger neck and stop being so sensitive if you are going to be here. GoodDamon, most churches also run businesses like daycares, schools and hospitals and as long the money goes to the church these are not for profit. To include this in the intro is just inrevelant and POV pushing because you are really implying that the church is for profit. The End. Any more arguments should be solved in arbitration. Bravehartbear (talk) 03:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

That's absolutely true, and beside the point. Yes, churches run a lot of individual non-profit businesses. One of my local hospitals is one, actually. The operative words here, again, are "for profit." There are incorporated for-profit businesses wholly owned by the church of Scientology or one of its subsidiaries, which as far as I know is a unique arrangement. I'm not familiar with any other large-scale religious organization structured that way. That's notable, and not POV pushing. Now, I'm happy to take this to arbitration if you really feel it should be there, but I'm sad that you regard this as controversial at all, because I just don't think it is. --GoodDamon 05:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Deciding what is and is not unusual in Church corporate structure is done by experts in that field. Do you have a citation stating that this structure is unusual? It is not enough that you think it is unusual or some government expresses some politically motivated opinion. Well I thought I'd look. I Googled "Church Corporate Structure" and the first thing that came up was a Foursquare Church page that mentions an on-line store selling books, cloths and accessories, clearly for profit. They also run camps (no doubt for some profit). They even have a central office and district offices. This smacks of a hierarchical organization. The Wikipedia page for the Foursquare Church mentions a previous president who lost $2 million in church funds. It looks to me like they could have a lot of profit hidden in all that structure. Looking further I remember that he Unification Church had a large and confusing cooperate structure. Here's an article about it. Google - catholic "for profit" - and you can find several for-profit Catholic schools. I don't think the Church of Scientology cooperate structure is unusual, I think your just not use to it. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 09:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Readership of this article

Editors may be interested to know that this article was one of Wikipedia's most read articles in January, with over 1.32 million views in the course of the month - 410,000 of them in one three-day period. See http://stats.grok.se/en/200801/Scientology for details (with thanks to User:Henrik). -- ChrisO (talk) 23:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

WOW! We'll have to send Anonymous a thank you card. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 09:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Intro again

With this edit, Bravehartbear added this sentence to the introduction: "Although the Church of Scientology is the biggest of these networks, organizations such as Narconon, Criminon and Applied Scholastics promote other aspects of Scientology." This is a strange sentence, since those are all subsidiary organizations owned by the Church of Scientology. Thoughts? --GoodDamon 05:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but that is not correct. The church doesn't own ABLE, all Scientology organizations are in fact individual corporations that license the right to use the trade marks of Scientology from RTC. This was done to protect Scientology from any external attack. If you sue the COS of New York that will not affect any other organizations. ABLE is inded at the same level as the Church of Scientology and does not take orders from the Church of Scientology. If you wanna learn about the Scientology organizational structure look here: http://stop-wise.biz/Command_Channels_of_Scientology.html Bravehartbear (talk) 13:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Scientology certainly seems to think that it controls those organizations. http://stop-wise.biz/WISE_IntScnNews.html As well, under the IRS closing agreement they are all grouped as Scientology-related entities. The license payments are as high as 10% of the organization's gross income (before costs, salaries, etc), with additional transfers on filed Form 990s. In practice, the isolation of Scientology corporations hasn't stood up well in court. (Lawrence Wollersheim and Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto, for example.) AndroidCat (talk) 16:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I notice the intro is attempting to regrow itself into the whole article again. I have a problem with refs for what the organizations say about themselves being used as RS refs for what the organizations actually are. And the ad-cruft essays buried in the refs don't help. AndroidCat (talk) 06:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I've got a few problems with the intro. This sentence "The U.S. State Department has commented in its annual International Religious Freedom Reports on countries that discriminate against Scientologists and their religious freedom" I have no idea why it's in the intro. I also have a problem with this sentence "Although they do receive much support from Scientologists and from churches of Scientology, they are secular programs and are not part of the church, per se". The articles are linked and it seems a bit weasily.Ticklemygrits (talk) 15:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Dubious edit by Ticklemygrits

Hi Ticklemygrits. I would like to ask why you reverted my edit instead of addressing my concern. You removed text, but did not remove a long list of references that were there to support that text. As a result, the list of citations moved up and attached to the previous sentence. I would appreciate greater care and discretion in the future, as it is not the responsibility of other editors to clean up after you. Thanks, Silly rabbit (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I reverted because the lead is supposed to describe Scientology. atm it seems to be he said she said rubbish. All the lead should do is describe the religion and its founding. Whether or not the US state department is in disagreEment with germany or Belgium is completely irrelevent. It should be a description of the organisation and nothing more.Ticklemygrits (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)edit

Yes, but you left a bunch of spurious crap in when you removed the sentence. Please be more careful in the future. Silly rabbit (talk) 22:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

If by "crap" you mean the refs, I left them there so that you could argue the merits of my revert. I would love you to describe Scientology in a better manner, but in the existing Lead it was complete rubbish.Ticklemygrits (talk) 23:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, indeed I mean the long list of references that no longer had anything to do with the text after you deleted the sentence that they were attached to. Please revisit the first sentence of this section with that in mind. Remember that you reverted my edit, with the summary that I should take it to the talk page. I offered an explanation, and you gave an irrelevant excuse for reverting. Silly rabbit (talk) 23:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You're not explaining why they are in the lead. Why was it in the lead? I have no problem with properly sourced information in the rest of the article, but the lead should just describe Scientology. It shouldn't be used to address critics. I don't think anything the US thingmyjigger on religous freedom represents a worldwide view, nor do I think it's relevent to defining what scientology is. And I don't appreciate extranious references being inserted because I actually read them, and it's very taxing on my eyesTicklemygrits (talk) 00:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Are we talking about the same thing here? I reverted you because the edit was sloppy, not because I thought something should or should not have been in the lead. In fact, if you had bothered to read my edit summary, I said please redo the last edit. Silly rabbit (talk) 00:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok tell me what is wrong with the revert. What is your problem with the lead as it standsTicklemygrits (talk) 00:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is your version of the final sentence of the lead:

Scientology officials argue that most negative press has been motivated by interest groups and that most of the controversy is past history.

Please explain how the reference to the state department support the statement "Scientology officials argue that most negative press has been motivated by interest groups and that most of the controversy is past history." That was my problem with the lead: the references given had nothing to do with the statement made. If you were more careful you would have deleted these references as well. I reverted so that you could reasses the edit, as well as the other reference removed. But, rather than do the responsible thing and address my concern, you instead opted to engage in a tendentious argument here. Silly rabbit (talk) 00:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm engaging in tendentious arguements on the talk page? I didn't remove the sentence you're refering to, and you still haven't addressed my concerns as to what the US state department haws to do with the definition of Scientology. It shouldn't be in the lead. If you've got a problem with that, tell my why what the US state department thinks belongs in the lead.Ticklemygrits (talk) 01:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are engaging in tendentious arguments on the talk page. You created a version of the article (here is the diff) in which a statement was sourced as belonging to the state department. There was nothing in any of the state department sources to support this statement. Do you at least acknowledge that you left completely irrelevant references in the article? Do you have the faintest idea what any of this discussion is about? Are you deliberately being WP:DENSE? Silly rabbit (talk) 02:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Redux

User:Ticklemygrits removed a sentence that he/she thought should not be there diff. However, User:Ticklemygrits forgot to delete the references to the state department which were attached to that statement. (Here is that diff again.) I reverted (diff), asking nicely and unambiguously:

please redo last edit, being more careful with references

Then User:Ticklemygrits immediately reverted, telling me to explain on the talk page, which I did. Then I corrected the problem caused by User:Ticklemygrits's edit, namely that he/she had placed bogus references on a statement in the text. Silly rabbit (talk) 02:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Inrevelant info in the lead

You know I totally agree with Ticklemygrits in this statement:

I reverted because the lead is supposed to describe Scientology. atm it seems to be he said she said rubbish. All the lead should do is describe the religion and its founding. Whether or not the US state department is in disagreEment with germany or Belgium is completely irrelevent. It should be a description of the organisation and nothing more.

But the same criteria should be used for Scientology controversy paragraph in the lead and should be removed just like the State dep sentence. Same rules. This paragraph is higly bias and puts undue weight on the church because it is not balanced.Bravehartbear (talk) 05:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Massive Improvement

This article is looking a lot better today than it was the last time I looked. Congraduations to all the editors who have contributed to improve this article. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia

What is allowed in Wikipedia are covered in WP:EL. This is what it says: Links normally to be avoided "Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject—and not prohibited by restrictions on linking—one should avoid:"

2. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research".

12. Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority.

Also is usefull to read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view Bravehartbear (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The "except those written by a recognized authority" is the sticking point, I believe. Some of those links Justanother removed today certainly don't belong to recognized authorities, but a couple do. --GoodDamon 22:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

As always, the definition of personal web page on that problematic page seems to get skipped over. AndroidCat (talk) 22:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

If you can specificy which should be returned and why, that would probably help a lot. John Carter (talk) 22:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned that Touretzky's site in particular passes muster as one operated by a "recognized authority," as the site and its operator are largely regarded as expert by reliable news sources. Sorry, I thought I'd mentioned that earlier, but I'm pretty busy today. --GoodDamon 23:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Damon, can you find any RS that refers to Touretzky's site in a manner that would warrant inclusion as an external link in this article? Otherwise, his site can go in his article. Can you even find RS that refers to Touretzky as an "expert", a term pretty loosely thrown around by the press. I usually see him referred to as a "critic". Neither Touretzky nor his websites are anywhere near NPOV or reliable. They are one-sided and consist mainly of his one-sided and extreme opinions. Inclusion of them does not serve the purposes of Wikipedia but only the purposes of POV-pushers. --JustaHulk (talk) 14:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

In other words, something like this from the SF Chronicle [3]:

"The teacher has teamed with David Touretzky, a computer science research professor at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh and a free-speech advocate who runs an anti-Narconon Web site that includes some controversial material."

hardly paints Touretzky as an "expert" - the paper went to five of what they really consider experts.

"Those ideas are rejected by the five medical experts contacted by The Chronicle, who say there is no evidence to support them."

--JustaHulk (talk) 14:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

But his websites do give information about the church that would be to extensive to put into the article itself, spacificly the otIII and the NOT's. The fact that the church suied him to take them down, and the government found them credible enough to keep them up (not beeing lible or slander in the ruling).

He is also seen as an expert by the critics of scientology, beeing quoted many times on operation clam bake among other sources. He is also notable enough to recieve a posting on religious freedom watch. Coffeepusher (talk) 17:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify -- "personal Web page" does not mean a Web page maintained by an individual expert or researcher on a subject. It means a Web page that is autobiographical, in the nature of a personal blog or journal. --FOo (talk) 23:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thus meaning that not every "personal Web page" reflects this definition. --Olberon (talk) 12:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Surely point "2. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material..." means no links to any sites that contain belief based information over factual content, e.g. any religious doctrine?!? Did I miss something? :) --Angryjames (talk) 19:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Tom Cruise Video

I was wondering if it should be mentioned in the article. --MahaPanta (talk) 23:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Major news sources are talking about it. Scientology made You Tube remove it. The New York Post still has a copy (for now) http://www.nypost.com/seven/01162008/news/nationalnews/star_raving_mad__68340.htm . It is VERY funny. Creepy even. Angry Christian (talk) 23:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

If there is some major reaction because of the video, then yes it should probably be mentioned...however the content is not notable at all. it is your standard "buy in or get out" speech, I have heard the same rant at every school pep rally,every 12 step program, Fraturnety life, Political rallies, every church since the creation of God (and probably since the creation of fire) In fact Ralph Waldo Emmerson gave a better version. the only notable thing in the entire program is that Tom Cruse has given scientology technology to 1.037 billion people (or the ENTIRE population of Europe, Russia, and America)(note that the world population is 6.644 billion by the world population clock...so 1 out of every 7 people are scientologists...not shure if I buy that one). Coffeepusher (talk) 00:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is the Video display http://gawker.com/5002269/the-cruise-indoctrination-video-scientology-tried-to-suppress —Preceding unsigned comment added by XenuCareBear (talk • contribs) 15:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Coffeepusher, you're missing one bit about Tom Cruise's talk. It's not just "buy in or get out", it's about erradicating all those opposed to the church (the part about SPs being something to read in history books) with no mercy. That's what makes Scientology not just laughing stock for many, but a true danger to humanity. It's not a light thing to be ignored or underestimated. 200.80.164.35 (talk) 00:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand your consern...however as for content we can use on wikipedia I stand by my statement. As tempting as it is to respond, I would only be digressing this talk page into a chat about the interpritation of the video... WP:TALK and all.Coffeepusher (talk) 07:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The Cruise video and the storm that followed is a significant moment in recent CoS history. What argument is there for excluding a reference to it? Here in the UK, CoS was a point of news after the Panorama programme (mentioned on this page) and even more so after the Cruise video release. What was the US reaction? It would appear to be of significant interest. Also Cruise's comment appear to be a return to some of those LRH "fair game" ways. Any comments? --Angryjames (talk) 20:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Primary sources tag

I have tagged several subsections of this article with {{Primary sources}}. Multiple sections of this article fail the very letter of the primary sources tag - specifically, these subsections cite no other sources other than the Church of Scientology website and affiliated self-referential publications. Per the text in the primary sources tag:

This article or section needs sources or references that appear in reliable, third-party publications. Primary sources and sources affiliated with the subject of this article generally are not sufficient for a Wikipedia article. Please include more appropriate citations from reliable sources, or discuss the issue on the talk page.

Please find some secondary sources, and try to phase out this over-dependence on the Church of Scientology websites and affiliated publications for this article - we do not want the Wikipedia article on "Scientology" to be mainly a duplicate of the Church of Scientology websites, in many sections. Cirt (talk) 12:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Please note

Please note, I have only tagged those subsections where all of the sources cited in those subsections are to Church of Scientology websites and affiliated publications, primary sources and self-referential sources - i.e. sections which contain zero citations to secondary sources not affiliated with the Church of Scientology. Cirt (talk) 12:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Cirt, what you ask is easier said than done. The third party sources that have studied the Scientology beliefs and practices are almost non-exitence. If you want to talk about the U.S. Contitution and you cite the contitution it self what better source can you have. If you talk about a book and cite the book it self what better source can you have. Bravehartbear (talk) 13:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it would be incredibly POV to think that it is appropriate to build entire subsections of an article only using a primary self-referential source. Yes, in an article about the United States Constitution you could cite the primary source document. But you could never get away with creating an entire article, or even whole subsections of an article - only citing the Constitution. Cirt (talk) 13:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the article United States Constitution is a Featured Article on Wikipedia. In that article, yes, the primary source document is cited, once. All other cites are to secondary sources that satisfy WP:RS/WP:V. Cirt (talk) 13:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I see your point but Third party citation are only required for "direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged." This is not the case here. No one is challenging these concepts. Anyone can read these from the scientology books. The websites are only used for ease of use. But I can quote directly from the books if it makes you happy. But if you can find any realiable third party source go for it. Good luck finding them. Bravehartbear (talk) 14:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

We should not rely solely on these primary, self-referential sources, for reasons I already stated above. If we do, those sections of the article read like pure advertising, and are unencyclopedic. Cirt (talk) 14:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Unless we want to make the entire article about criticism of Scientology it is entirely appropriate that sections of the article be based on primary materials. So if we actually want to write about what Scientology teaches and what Scientologists believe then we will need to use a lot of primary material. To do otherwise is a disservice to the reader and to the project. --JustaHulk (talk) 14:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Response

Unless we want to make the entire article read like blatant advertising for Scientology it is entirely appropriate to severely limit the use of primary source self-referential links to Scientology websites and Scientology affiliated organizations and sources. To do otherwise is a disservice to the reader and to NPOV. With an overdependence on such primary source, self-referential sources there would be no point to this article and the entire page could just be a soft-redirect to www.scientology.org - because that is what the article would be like with so many links to those websites. Cirt (talk) 14:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Use of primary, self-published, sources is entirely appropriate in an article to discuss what the subject of the article says about itself, what it believes, or what it teaches. This is by no means a violation of NPOV and could even be considered the embodiment of NPOV. This looks like an attempt to gut the article of anything not critical of Scientology. --JustaHulk (talk) 14:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps as a supplement to secondary sources, yes. But not to their exclusion. Here we have whole entire subsections crafted out of over reliance on primary, self-referential sources. Cirt (talk) 14:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think we should revert to an earlier consensus version of the article, perhaps from early January. Right now, I see a lot of things in the article everyone is going to disagree with. For instance, the intro contains nine primary-source references before getting to the first reliable source. That is unacceptable. The grammar has gotten clumsier, and it just doesn't inspire confidence right now. Instead of trying to fix a broken article, can we all agree on an earlier revision and work from that? And can whoever added the primary-source references please promise not to do that again? ;) --GoodDamon 18:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, now the first eleven references are to primary-source material. --GoodDamon 01:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

---

Cirt I apologise. You are right is just that the third party sources are just not there. This is a new subject and the studies have not been done. This is why there is a controversy. This place has been a battle field of self published sources. Almost everything here is self published. This place used to be a mirrow image of xenu.net and it was hard to change that. But you will find that the third party sources contradit each other, so it is imposible to make conclusions. The reader will have to come up with his own conclusion. We really don't have conclusions here, just facts, allegations and opinions. And we try to balance things up. But I agree with you, but that would cut these pages into a few paragraphs. And I think that would be fine. But the editors here will really be against that. Thank you for trying to bring some sanity here. Bravehartbear (talk) 15:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I found a source that appears to be very NPOV, and comes from an established religious studies Proffessor. I used it for the 8 million membership number, and I am shure we can work alot more information into the article...but I just don't have time today. here is the link Frank K. Flinn Adjunct Professor of Religious Studies at Washington University interviewCoffeepusher (talk) 19:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

More evidence that Scientology is spreading among Christians

[CNN: Scientology: A Way to Happiness?] Maybe we should talk about this in the page.Bravehartbear (talk) 23:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Unless I missed it, the video doesn't mention any statistics on the number of people practicing both belief systems and how those numbers have changed. Are there any such statistics out there? It's not a bad idea to include them if they're available. --GoodDamon 00:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Note

Removed external link to copyrighted material. Cirt (talk) 16:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Numbers of churches, missions and groups

In the intro, the text "Today there are more than 4,378 Scientology churches, missions and groups worldwide on 155 countries." is clearly the St. Peterburg Times quoting PR material from the Church of Scientology, which never provides any sources or documentation for its claimed numbers. I don't think that should remain as it is in the intro. AndroidCat (talk) 16:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The whole intro is full of primary-source material like that. It looks shoddy and, frankly, lessens the article. I wanted to replace it completely with an earlier consensus version, but didn't get any responses to that -- and I think that would be too big of a change to be bold and just do. --GoodDamon 16:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

As I see it, the two candidates for rollback would be Pre-Blinadrange comb-out and Post-Blinadrange. The post comb-out looks the best, but I don't know some editors can resist the temptation to make sure that the first dozen or so refs of the article are from one POV non-RS source. AndroidCat (talk) 17:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Those are exactly the same ones I would pick. But first, we should put such a reversion to a consensus vote, then select the version. The question is, should we revert to a previous version of the article that was largely accepted by all the editors here to undo fairly systemic problems with over-reliance on non-RS material and lost content? Edit: I should clarify that I don't think all the edits since those revisions have been bad, and that after such a revert I think we should comb through the prior version for material and references to bring forward. --GoodDamon 19:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• I vote yes no (see below). --GoodDamon 18:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• I vote yes - if that means removing information from primary, self-referential sources. Cirt (talk) 18:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• comment I am assuming we are just talking about changing the intro, not the whole article. If intro I vote Yes, if whole article I vote NoCoffeepusher (talk) 16:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• reply - When I made that initial proposal, it was for the whole article. But since then, the article itself has been cleaned up and updated very well, and it's only the intro now that I find pretty egregious. So as an addendum, I'll say yes, it's only the intro I'm currently concerned about. --GoodDamon 17:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• I vote no. I like the new intro and I believe it has more potential in it. Foobaz·o< 18:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think the consensus so far is that we need to remove info from, as Cirt put it, "primary, self-referential sources". I no longer think reverting part of the article is the answer to that. So let's get editing, folks... --GoodDamon 19:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope. I vote no. There should be more references but the text reads ok per policy on lead. Shutterbug (talk) 02:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

At this point, so do I. I don't think the text is perfect, but editing it instead of reverting to an earlier version is the answer. --GoodDamon 04:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but I hope that editors will restrict themselves to refs needed while briefly introducing subjects that will be covered in detail later in the article. There are always too many attempts to get in the last word or rebuttal in the introduction—where they don't belong. AndroidCat (talk) 04:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Placement of refs

I see that reference placement has gotten a little confused again. So do people prefer to see referenced before or after punctuation? We should probably standardize that. --GoodDamon 20:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

MOS is directly after punctuation. Cirt (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I like it after punctuation. Foobaz·o< 20:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought it would usually be placed after punctuation if a whole section is cited but before if only the sentence is cited ?! -- Stan _talk 19:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

"Speculative fiction"

Yeah right -- L-Ron wrote SCIENCE FICTION. Why not say so?--71.202.121.130 (talk) 21:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

20% of Hubbards work was Sci Fi the rest was westerns and regular action adventure. He even wrote a romance once. Also he did a few screnn plays like the original Treasure Island and Dive Bomber. Bravehartbear (talk) 22:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Hubbard wrote science fiction, fantasy, and the whole gamut of what we call speculative fiction now. Calling him a science fiction author, while technically accurate, hardly covers his pulp career. --GoodDamon 00:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick side note, just because I got confused in the discussion. He wrote the screenplay to The Secret of Treasure Island which is based on the novel Murder at Pirate Castle...it also came out 4 years after the first Treasure Island film.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

also, his ties to "The Dive Bomber (1941)" are iffy at best...he did write a short in a pulp mag in 1937 by that title, but he isn't mentioned at all anywhere that discusses the movie...and as I recall (its been a while) there is little to no resembelence between the pulp and movie.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Judges Press IRS on Church Tax Break

• Gerstein, Josh (February 8, 2008). "Judges Press IRS on Church Tax Break". The New York Sun. The New York Sun, One SL, LLC. Retrieved 2008-02-08. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

This source should be incorporated into the article. Cirt (talk) 14:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• New York Sun Editorial (February 8, 2008). "A School Case To Watch". The New York Sun. The New York Sun, One SL, LLC. Retrieved 2008-02-08. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Editorial piece on the same issue. Cirt (talk) 14:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

this article is not accurate

Whom ever wrote this article must have been a scientologist. The reason they don't like psychiatry is because if a member was ever to be evaluated they will be diagnosed clinical nut jobs. This is putting it nicely. Scientology promotes itself not philosophy, religion or anything about spirituality. This is a commercial enterprise. Some people give it an example of the Amway of religions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.4.186 (talk) 06:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a platform for cult propaganda. Jayz0r (talk) 14:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Then why is this article locked and filled with nothing but pro-Scientology cult propaganda?

It states their beliefs, nothing more. Jayz0r (talk) 21:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Your talking rubbish, unlock it then and let us normal people edit it? Why lock it, what are you trying to hide...the truth? 12:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC) Jezza —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.149.111 (talk)

Well, maybe their beliefs ARE cult propaganda, in which case there is nothing wrong with the article (or everything wrong with it.) Fultron89 (talk) 03:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Five pillars is a useful article to read. AndroidCat (talk) 21:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Page falls off the side.

What I mean by that, is that the horizontal scroll bar appears when you visit the main article. It's from a little [citation needed] thing in one of these paragraphs.

Well, we aren't allowed to edit the page. Are higher-ups allowed to? If there are higher-ups that are allowed to, can this please be fixed? 71.238.211.166 (talk) 05:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Login with a user name, and you too can be a "higher-up". :0) It looks fine on my screen/browser, so some information about your browser/OS, screen size, full screen or window would be useful for trying to duplicate this problem. (And where this citation is needed, since the best fix would probably be to add a ref.) AndroidCat (talk) 05:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Aliens

I did not see what any mention of Aliens in the article.Isnt that A beleif of Scientology?It would also explain why people think its a cult. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.1.245.18 (talk) 00:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

What's so cult-like about believing in aliens? Many rational, scientific people believe there is other intelligent life in the universe. Foobaz·o< 00:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

See Space opera in Scientology scripture. --FOo (talk) 04:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

And those same rational, scientific people believe the chances that anything could travel to earth are almost none. Contrary to science-fiction (which ultimately is all that scientology is) faster than light speed travel is impossible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.42.210 (talk) 14:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Am I right in thinking that the toning down of the "alien" content is in direct relation to the Scientologists' own position? Should we not have something in the page that explains a shift in expressed views. Forgive me if I'm wrong about this, having grown up with CoS news, I felt the whole "alien" thing was openly expressed and then suddenly or perhaps gradually it disappeared. Is that true? --Angryjames (talk) 20:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Angryjames. I have followed this article extensively along with the history of exposure of the belief in Scientology. I'm surprised there is not a complete section that talks about Xenu, volcanos, trapped spirits, nuclear explosion, spacetravel in DC-10 aircraft, etc. This entire backstory used to be in the article and has been slowly whittled down until it's completely disappeared. Did CoS send a copywright infrigement notification? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mneipert (talk • contribs) 03:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Dangerous Cult redirect

Someone (probably in reference to the Googlebombing campaign) has created a page that redirects Dangerous Cult to this article. While it's probably true, it's certainly not neutral. Would someone who knows how to remove a redirect please consider fixing it? Vonspringer (talk) 05:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

fixed, asking for speady deletion nowCoffeepusher (talk) 06:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Deleted, it was evidently the second creation of that redirect. I will check from time to time to make shure it hasn't resurficed.Coffeepusher (talk) 06:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a note to all editors, I wikilinked Dangerous Cult, if it is blue (not red) it means it is active again, and needs to be fixed. thank you Coffeepusher (talk) 20:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone know if "Alan W. Black is a scientologist?

Please give references http://www.bible.ca/scientology-is-a-religion-black.htm Bravehartbear (talk) 00:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I assume you're talking to me Braveheart. He acknowleges that he he is follower of Scientology in one of his studies. As such he isn't a RS, and strangely enough I may well have been a student of his. Please look at his studies because I really can't be arsed right now. I will be looking late, so please don't add material unsupported by refs.Ticklemygrits (talk) 01:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Well you have the burden of proof on this one, I will wait. Bravehartbear (talk) 04:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

So far I have seen no evidence that Alan Black is a Scientologist. In his paper he clearly states: "I am not a Scientologist. In formulating my conclusions, I have made a detailed study of Scientology publications, as well as observing activities at the Church of Scientology in Sydney and interviewing some of the participants. I am also familiar with various sociological studies of Scientology in other parts of the world."Bravehartbear (talk) 00:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Membership

In the Frank K. Flinn interview, he clearly states that the source of his number was the Church of Scientology. "Scientologists count about 8 million people worldwide, but that includes people to took just an introductory course without necessarily continuing." AndroidCat (talk) 19:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The source itself, Frank Flinn is a third party, and it also clarified how they came to that number "those who just took an introductory cource". Which is actually believable. I will buy the fact that 8 million people worldwide have been introduced to scientology and many didn't continue...I don't buy the 1.03 billion number that they say on the Tom Cruse video. Personaly I think that even if the initial source is the church itself, the fact that the interviewee (horible grammer) is outside the church and a religious studies professor makes it admissable in the article. additionaly this number was beside the churches claim of 3.5 million in the united states...so I am wondering why the worldwide number is inadmisable?Coffeepusher (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

As near as I can figure on the 1 billion, that must be the number that has ever heard Cruise say anything about Scientology, i.e. the viewership of every program he has ever been on where he mentioned Scientology. --JustaHulk (talk) 01:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

That's gotta be it. You'd have to be living in a mud hut 10 miles from the nearest source of electricity to have not heard Tom Cruise mention Scientology. In any event, I find 8 million pretty believable as the number of people who've been introduced to it, and it comes from a reliable source, but the article should probably include his caveat that it isn't the number of practicing Scientologists. --GoodDamon 16:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Its in there, there is also another source later on that challenges this number as "the number of practicing".Coffeepusher (talk) 16:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Frank Flynn was presumably quoting the well known Heber Jench interview in which he said the same. Why has this replaced an up to date quote from a CoS spokesperson in a newspaper? I'm mystified. What's wrong with stating the official number? --Hartley Patterson (talk) 01:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal.

Galactic Confederacy seems to be nothing but fancruft, and as it stands now it lacks sources and fails WP:FICT, WP:N and WP:PLOT. Unless these issues can be rectified, it would be a good idea to merge a concise summary of the article into this one. - YYN (talk) 04:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

No wai.Chump Manbear (talk) 23:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

No I am a little unclear as to how it fails the notability in fiction and plot section, since it is not a fictional orgonization (according to CoS) and has the same notability as say the Twelve tribes of Israel does to Jews and Christians...in fact I am unclear as to why it should be murged. That would put even more information under this article (which is massive by Wikipedia standards) Coffeepusher (talk) 03:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

No, for the same reasons as Coffeepusher. The Galactic Confederacy is a significant part of Scientology's OT III and higher mythology, not a work of fiction as the term is used in WP:FICT. In fact, the citing of policies meant to be used for fiction in this merge proposal reads to me as a POV-pushing attack. --GoodDamon 14:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

No. Setting a precedent that any religious subject qualifies as "fiction" by wikipedia guidelines is very much a very bad idea. John Carter (talk) 14:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Please understand that the Wikipedia project has standards for fiction-related content, and this is fiction-related content. Even if it weren't, the article lacks reliable, secondary sources and doesn't demonstrate notability. - YYN (talk) 03:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Whether it is "fiction" by the dictionary definition or not is entirely immaterial. It's not fiction for the purposes of WP:FICT. Let me give you an analogy... In the bible, the story of Lot's wife is scientifically impossible, and thus historically unlikely; human beings can't transform into pillars of salt. Outside of the context of faith, it is probably a piece of fiction per the dictionary definition. But if you went into the article on Lot and tried to apply tags to it meant for fiction, you would be reverted as a vandal. And as for reliable sources and notability, sources can be fixed and I disagree on notability. And by the way, a much better candidate for a merge proposal would be Space opera in Scientology scripture. --GoodDamon 17:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

No. If Galactic Confederacy was merged anywhere, it wouldn't be all the way back to this article. Xenu or Space opera in Scientology scripture would be better. AndroidCat (talk) 03:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

No. Per Coffeepusher (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 05:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Where the article is merged isn't an issue, if you feel it would better the Wikipedia project to merge it into another article you may do that. The only thing that matters currently is that Galactic Confederacy doesn't have enough notability demonstrated to be a stand-alone article. Fictional sub-articles that can be concisely summarized in the main article, it should be so. Articles such as the one noted do not inherit notablity because the wider subject is notable. - YYN (talk) 16:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, your repeated statements regarding this being fictional content, whether you choose to acknowledge that or not, are not supported by the facts. This article in question is about a subject of "religious belief", which does not qualify as "fictional". Please understand that you are approaching this issue from a very clear POV, that this matter of "religious belief" is fictional, and that subjects of religious belief do not qualify as fiction. John Carter (talk) 16:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose merge. The subject appears to be a standard part of Scientology beliefs, and Scientology, while a controversial organization with controversial beliefs and practices, is nonetheless clearly notable as are its core practices. Galactic Confederacy appears to be sufficiently notable and require sufficient detail to explain to stand on its own. The basis for merge seems to be, not that the subject is non-notable or not a belief of Scientology, but that the beliefs of Scientology as a whole (including this one) are fictional The status of Scientology as a religion is certainly controversial. While this controversy should be explained fairly in the relevant articles including criticism, a particular view on it does not seem an appropriate basis for merge decisions under WP:NPOV Readers are capable of deciding for themselves whether the beliefs of Scientology are fictional or not, just as is the case for all POV controversies. Best --Shirahadasha (talk) 17:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Please cease bringing POV into this discussion. From a completely neutral point of view the article in question is almost completely unsourced, and thus by Wikipedia's standards cannot stand as its own article. - YYN (talk) 17:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You were the one who introduced POV by using the word Fancruft. And I do find it quite remarkable that, as per here, your first edit was on the 11th of February, and this discussion is seemingly the only activity you have taken part in. As such, there is reason to believe that you may qualify as a Single-purpose account, given your remarkable level of knowledge of guidelines and policies for a newcomer. I acknowledge that there are two quotations which aren't specifically cited yet, and that is a problem. However, I think it would make more sense to tag those quotations as needing a citiation than to make such claims as you have made above. John Carter (talk) 17:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I've started cleaning it up and have been getting it tagged for additional sources. As the person who started this discussion, I'm interested in what you think about the changes. --GoodDamon 18:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Brainwashing

I noticed that the article does not say anything about the rumours of Scientology brainwashing its members. Is there any truth to that or is it just a conspiracy theory? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.45.183 (talk) 17:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• It's very true, but Scientologists and non-Scientologists struggle over this article to determine what should and should not be permitted in it. For the most accurate information about Scientology, please see Xenu.net.--71.202.121.130 (talk) 21:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Of course, Scientologists (like myself), don't feel brainwashed. However I looked at the article on brainwashing and it would seem the accusation of being a cult and brainwashing members goes hand in hand. While you can find individual scientists who will call any method of changing a person's mind about anything brainwashing, there seems to be no scientific consensus as to what is or isn't brainwashing, mind control, thought reform or "re-education". Ask yourself: if someone accused me of being brainwashed, how could I disprove it. So ultimately there is no RS about who is or isn't brainwashing who. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 00:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

How do two Wrongs Make a Right? "Attacking the Attacker"

I read on Wikipedia that Scientologists believe in "attacking the attacker." But, no where have I seen any explanation of why Scientologists believe that smearing people is good—for any one. Is there any sort of explanation that they have offered that explains how doing evil (e.g., disclosing personal information, pestering people, filing frivolous law suits, intimidation, kidnapping, stalking, etc.) is good? To clarify, how does "attacking the attacker" improve either attacker? Simply disputing a falsehood about Scientology would be a different matter. What I am talking about is making an attack against an individual, rather than an argument or a belief. Ad-hominem arguments seem to be their first line of defense, however irrelevant they may be to any debate. How do they justify that morally?--Guywithdress (talk) 14:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I wonder this myself. Spreading scientology to the entire planet is their goal, and they believe a small number of "suppressive persons" is all that is stopping them. Attacking these individuals therefore serves the greater good. I'd love to hear from a scientologist about this, but the few times i've asked they've refused to answer. Foobaz·o< 15:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Check out Ethics (Scientology).Coffeepusher (talk) 06:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

See Tit for tat. Also some of these "Attacks" are possibly paranoia. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

By the by, better read this answer fast as this conversation has nothing to do with page content and so will be soon removed. Unless "tit for tat" should be Incorporated into the article somehow. Finding a ref might be hard. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Check the dates—the conversation you say "will be soon removed" is already more than a week old. Foobaz·o< 19:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)why don't we just wait for it to archive. I personaly abhore deleting from talk pages except in the case of outright vandalism or stupidity (the bin laden question on this page is a perfict example of that "is osama bin laden a scientologists?"...um...no he is a muslem, duh!) and while it is a stretch to say that this refurs to the article, I do see some value in keeping it, for no other reason than if someone comes up with the same question they can see that Ethics (Scientology) already adresses it.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• I favor keeping it. I didn't say I would delete it, I just figured someone would soon. Particularly after I added to it and thereby brought attention to it. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 09:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Article still has overreliance/overweighting of primary, self-published/self-referential sources

I disagree w/ this edit, which removed tags that were still appropriate. Just look at the References section. There are still way too many cites to primary, self-published/self-referential sources, affiliated with the subject of this article. Cirt (talk) 06:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your disagreement. Although many secondary sources are used for certain apspects, there are still many paragraphs and even whole sections which are sourced inappropriately. See tone scale, triangles etc. As long as "success stories" are used as references the tag should not be removed. -- Stan _talk 17:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Controversy -> "Hypnosis" and "Scientology as a Cult"

It seems odd to me that these two are one section in the article. The section itself doesn't seem to relate the two. Might it be better to split that section? Perhaps the first paragraph (the only part that talks about hypnosis) into a "Hypnosis and Scientology" section and then the rest as "Scientology as a Cult?"--Tyranastrasz (talk) 23:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Scientology and the internet

Sorry for using TW without any comment. I reverted Su Jada because she smoothly excluded other actions against the internet from the first section. It is not just about some legal actions. (sporgery on ARS) -- Stan _talk 23:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not certain where else to but this info, but someone should take a look at Scientology's practices on ebay. Not sure if there's any 'reputable' sources for this info, but slashdot mentions a letter from ebay, and I think ebay is reputable. It's not flattering to ebay. At the very least, this may be something to watch. http://realitybasedcommunity.net/archive/2008/02/scientology_abu_1.php http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/04/27/1712248 74.67.17.22 (talk) 00:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

That is an opinion by a lawyer on his personal blog. I don't even think it's true but that does not matter because blogs are non-RS. Shutterbug (talk) 22:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree about the first link, but surely Slashdot is a reliable source. Right now there's one e-meter on eBay, so perhaps the Church no longer removes them. Foobaz·o< 23:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Found a better source. Personally, I'd prefer an actual legal doc, but this is what I found looking on google for a minute. [4] Daler (talk) 08:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

There are a bunch more secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources that have reported on this controversy. Cirt (talk) 09:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I am fairly unfamiliar with editing wikipedia articles and what the rules are as far as 'valid' sources go. But I did a search on google news and found these 3 articles (ex-cluding slashdots) on the scientology / ebay saga. You can find them here, here and here.

They are from Dailytech.com, radaronline.com and shortnews.com. They all seem like very reputable sources, but again - I can't confirm, as I don't know the rules well enough. Hopefully these can be used; if not hopefully someone can shed some light on why they can't. Thanks. Cdynas (talk) 02:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

They don't look RS to me. The one from Dailytech.com is a blog, so no evidence of fact checking; the one from radaronline.com is a scandal sheet, they print any rumor; the one from shortnews.com is secondhand it gives a source www.realitybasedcommunity.net, a blog. I could write an article and say anything I like and post it on at least 2 of these sources. Look for an official release from ebay or an article that has one. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Kids against Scientology

Good source, should be added to article

• Staff (February 29, 2008). "Kids against Scientology". Web Scout: Spinning through online entertainment and connected culture. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2008-02-29. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

A very interesting development, indeed. Cirt (talk) 21:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope, not a good source. Interesting development, but it's just a blog posting about the existence of the website, not a vetted news article. I'm sure with Jenna Miscavige Hill as a founding member, there will be real news stories about it shortly, but a very brief blurb about it on a blog isn't an appropriate citation for the main Scientology article or the Church of Scientology article. --GoodDamon 00:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Update, now mentioned in WP:V/WP:RS secondary source

• Sarno, David (March 3, 2008). "Scientology taking hits online: A growing number of critics and disgruntled ex-members are using the Web to attack the church's tightly controlled image". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2008-03-03. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Cirt (talk) 05:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Another source

• Shah, Neel (March 3, 2008). "Scientologists Not As Litigious as Previously Thought". Radar Online. Radar Magazine. Retrieved 2008-03-03. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Cirt (talk) 18:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

problem with "Div 6" or "for WOGS only" content in Beliefs

All refs from 27 to 67 are primary sources mainly available on the internet. It looks a bit like an ammasment of PR quotes which are not informative at all and not concise. Many are misleading or controversial but are not attributed correctly. see Wikipedia:NPOV#Attributing_and_substantiating_biased_statements.

example for missing attribution in this section(its also not really informative):

Therefore, a therapy which asks man to adapt his subjective environment to the obective environment, and not the other way around, is like psychiatry enslaving and is unworkable simply because it is not true.

another example: (substantiation and attribution missing)

It is a personal thing that an ethical person does by his own choice.[63]

The Scientology Ethic book and most scholars don't descibe Ethics as "a personal thing in Scientology" and the second part "ethical person already indicates that this "PR statement" is a kind of workaround. "Ethic Orders" and Conditions are directly assigned by the church to the individual on the "3'rd dynamic" in general and on "lower conditions" on all "dynamics".

... or should Coca Cola on Wikipedia be descriped as surpisingly refreshing and very beneficial because "everytime you have a coke,you help support your community" ?

I would like to clean it up but would like to reach consensus on this matter first. BTW, "Admin Tech" and PTS/SP doctrine is completly missing in the belief section. -- Stan _talk 00:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is WAY too big/long

This article is over 115 kb. It should really be trimmed down/summarized/phrased more succinctly. Too many sections of the article go into specific details on things that should be summarized instead, w/ links to more specific articles on tighter topics. Cirt (talk) 13:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Any specific suggestions? Note that a lot of the length of this article is in the references, which are rather essential given its controversy. --FOo (talk) 18:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, its too long but it will be hard to find conensus on any deletion. However, last time we established consensus to delete or move some content (mainly critical content) and the article was reduced to 89 kb[5]. I would suggest this time to:

• summarize Origin and definition (no consensus last time)
• summarize Scientology#Membership Benitez was an inmate who found a book by Hubbard in the Arizona State Prison library and got himself and other inmates off drugs.[118] is this really needed ? (there was a consensus to summarize the section last time but no one actually did it)
• summarize Chanology (recent event which may not need a half page)
• summarize befief system and make it more concise
• remove The Association for Better Living and Education, licenses the use of Scientology doctrine in affiliated organizations such as Narconon,[6] Criminon[7] and Applied Scholastics.[8] in the lead section. It is already mentioned in the first paragraph.(done) -- Stan _talk 00:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Chanology has too much here and in Scientology and the Internet for a subject with its own main article. It needs to be the tl;dr version with far fewer references needed. AndroidCat (talk) 13:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Meh.

This article seems to be speaking on behalf of what L. Ron Hubbard said post-creation of Scientology, after it had already gained status. I'm pretty sure it was developed as a joke when L. Ron Hubbard was going through a period where he had been on many prescription drugs, and he found there could be some truth to it...

That's pretty contentious - if you can't provide a source it fails WP:V. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)All you need to do, then, is to find a reliable source for that, and the whole article can be rewritten on that basis. Until then, however.... --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

wtf

why is this article protected 212.149.252.23 (talk)¨ —Preceding comment was added at 16:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It should be obvious.. are you a member of the movement by any chance? Mijcsmu (talk) 17:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It is also said that Danny Masterson (HYDE off of that 70's show) is another supporter of scientology —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.5.231.118 (talk) 22:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Still sites its own sources

Can anyone find any third party sources for alot of the stuff here.

Also would it be acceptable to post a 'spark-notes' version of the OT3 documents--Sylvok (talk) 12:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Scientology and the internet

under scientologoy and the internet it says that anonymous' next protest will be on march 15th, this already happend and another protest is scheduled for april 12th. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.162.203 (talk) 18:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC) Anonymous members are members from the 4chan.org message boards. More importantly, they are from the random message board otherwise known as /b/. They are the ones who started the protests. The reason they wear Guy Fawkes masks is because they use the image of the mask on a stick figure and refer to it as EFG or Epic Fail Guy. Why has this information not been added? All of these protests come from members of that forum.

That's not true; many other chans are involved. /b/ is the largest but they didn't organize this. Foobaz·o< 14:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Scientology, A Profit Orginization.

I have as of yet, failed to find ANY proof that Co$ is a non-profit orginization. There is absolutely no evidence to support them as being non-profit. The fact that Co$ has had SEVERAL 'Leaders of Anoynomus' arrested at protests world wide (Mostly the people doing most of the chanting and or leading people in the chants or reading articles against the church published by third parties mostly news articles.) People that drove to the protests, have had notices placed in their post by "Representitives of the Church of Scientology." and it just so happened to be a law firm... a very reputable one at that. I personally have been contacted by "Representitives of the Church of Scientology" However I took no part in the protest, yet my place of work is directly across the street from an office of The Church of Scientology.

The 'Church' of Scientology is hardly a 'Church' at all. Direct or Indirect oppression against those who disagree with the church, or publicly speak out against their practices and beliefs is (Not sure about most countries but i'm sure it is in Aus.) illegal.

HOWEVER, it is not wikipedia's job to refuse an article to a cult, There is insufficent references, and third party information regarding the church of scientology's article. All of it's sources are from either it's own publications, or publications by it's members and affilate orginiazations.

Either Deletion or some other form of action should be taken on this article. The article is full of lies, half truths, self promotion and defamation of the group anonymous. (Last i checked Wiki articles were supposed to be netural.)

AnnaJGrant (talk) 09:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

other than the churches status as a non profit by the united states government you mean...and your rant seems to stem from personal opinions rather than third party sources. if you want to contribute to this article please feel free to list your WP:RS and they can be inserted, but using weighted language or pushing a pov (from either side) isn't what this is for. note that scientology is in fact a religion, and that fact is indifferent to what you believe about its helpfullness to its followers or society (we have a third party source for that statment), the definition of Cult is tricky at best, and there is no legal clasification of a cult in the united states at least (and most people would be reduced to discribing a cult as a "brainwashing orgonization" which would also put AA, NA, some psyciatry, and institutionalized education programs [Read altusare] in the same catagroy). and this isn't the only article about scientology on wikipedia, just the one that deals with its basic beliefs and practices...so you can look up Scientology and the internet, scientology and space opera, scieltology and ethics...and you will find that wikipedia tries to be non-bias...but the issue is HUGE and can hardly be treated in a single article.Coffeepusher (talk) 18:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

NYU cruises to the moon!

• Zenon (April 1, 2008). "NYU cruises to the moon!". Washington Square News. New York University. Retrieved 2008-04-01. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

This will be the university's first satellite campus on a satellite. It will be completely funded by the Church of Scientology, NYU spokesman John Beckman said in a joint news conference with actor Tom Cruise.

The "NYU L. Ron Hubbard Center for the Study of the Universe" will be able to host nearly 200 former SPs each semester, with potential for expansion in the future.

Sounds like an ambitious project. Cirt (talk) 09:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, I get it, it's April Fools. This is kinda close to trolling though, wouldn't you think? --GoodDamon 15:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, if posting a cite on a talk page is, then I don't know what you would call the Today's Featured Article, Did you know, and lots of other stuff goin around today... Cirt (talk) 19:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It's no worse than a lot of other stuff today, including at least one request for Jimboship, and I've seen weirder comments on talk pages. Actually, I've made many weirder comments on talk pages. And it is a valid website. The content probably could be included in a "April Fool's media hoaxes" article of some kind. John Carter (talk) 19:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is an article with listings of stuff like this, at April 1, 2008... Cirt (talk) 19:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I yield... It just seemed more targeted than the rest of the 4/1 shenanigans, but maybe that's just me. :) --GoodDamon 21:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Scientology denied church status in germany

In germany scientology is officially marked as sect and therefore denied church status. This should be mentioned in the controvesity section. And it would be interesting to see where else scientology is denied church status ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arotto (talk • contribs) 13:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Scientology is not classified as a sect in Germany. It is officially a voluntary businness association, with non-profit status being denied so far. It's status as a de jure religious or philisophical community is disputed and no definite jurisdiction has been issued. The CoS has been under surveillance by Gemany's domestic intelligence agency since 1997 because of suspicion of "activities against the free democratic order". -- megA (talk) 15:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Mentally-ill child denied psychiatric help, kills Scientologist parents

"A Sydney woman has been ordered to stand trial after pleading not guilty to the stabbing murders of her father and sister. The 26-year-old will also defend a charge of inflicting grievous bodily harm with intent to murder her mother. The attack allegedly happened at the family's Revesby home in Sydney's south-west in July last year. The Supreme Court was told mental health will be an issue at the trial, which will start in July. It is alleged that the woman was denied psychiatric help because of her parents' belief in Scientology."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/04/04/2208153.htm

Wageslave (talk) 05:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the first such case, and the article you link to is not very informative, presumably to protect the privacy of the people involved. So unfortunately I don't think we can use it in this article. Oh, and by the way, a 26-year-old woman is not a child. --FOo (talk) 07:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

speculative fiction?

this article makes no mention of Hubbard's science fiction writing in the intro, his arguably most famous book 'battlefield earth' was clearly science fiction.i am not saying that he was not also a speculative fiction writer, but if that term is included in the introduction then the term "science fiction writer" should be included also

if i am beating a dead horse i apologies, i went though the archives looking for a debate on this topic but could not find anything, if this has already been resolved then could you please point me to the talk pages in archives? Rubico (talk) 17:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem, it has actually been discussed. you can find it on [fiction] and ["Speculative fiction"] Coffeepusher (talk) 17:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

it does not look like a consensus was reached, and i saw a couple of good arguments for the inclusion of "science fiction author" including Hubbard himself identifying himself as a scifi writer. and being commonly addressed by reputable sources as a scifi writer. i do understand the POV issues, but i dont think facts should be sacrificed at the expense of a perceived bias Rubico (talk) 21:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Im fine either way, from what I saw there where strong feelings toward the Speculitive Fiction beeing included while the Sci-fi people kinda felt like it was not worth the struggle...at least that was how I remember the discussion (I was the one who pointed out the Hubbard interview). I agree that Science Fiction encompases a limited amout of his work, just saying "a Fiction writer" would probably be most accurate but produce a hellstorm of opinions on his non-fiction work, so Speculitive fiction seems to be the best for all conserned...so I guess I do have an opinion afterall.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

But doesn't science fiction constitute the bulk of what he is known for? i think this article should reflect that Rubico (talk) 07:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

ok, its been 3 days and no one elce has commented. If you want to change it, you have no objections from me.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Hold on, hold on... This got hashed out a while ago. I didn't see that someone had brought it up again, but I do object. Hubbard may be primarily known now for his science fiction, but it doesn't accurately portray his fiction career. He published stories in multiple genres, which are covered best by the "speculative fiction" catch-all. If you'd like to replace it with "science fiction", I'd prefer to see several of his other notable genres mentioned, such as fantasy and horror. --GoodDamon 22:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

'comment hay, no problem, As you can see the post is almost a week old with no other comments, thus my statement. again, I am going to see how the conversation goes before I comment.Coffeepusher (talk) 22:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

i understand his diversity in writing, but what he is known for (and what this article emphasizes) is his science fiction writings, he describes himself as a science fiction writer as well as most sources, i think undue weight is given to his other lesser known works by putting it on the same level as his science fiction writer. also im not saying that speculative fiction should be taken out either. but that science fiction should be added along side it Rubico (talk) 08:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

im going to go ahead and change it, have not gotten a response in over a week, revert if you want but please adress in talk Rubico (talk) 16:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I am going to go ahead and revert that, because speculative fiction encompasses science fiction. Speculative fiction includes scifi, fantasy, horror, magical realism, alternate history, and so forth. Saying he wrote speculative fiction and science fiction is redundant. A better edit would be to say he was a science fiction and fantasy author, but that would still be excluding everything else he wrote. --GoodDamon 06:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

"American speculative fiction" should not be included when referencing LRH on the Scientology page. It's fairly obvious that referring to him as such is an effort to discredit the religion, and such descriptions should be confined to a biography page, not a discussion of a religion. I know I'll get flack for this, but, you wouldn't refer to Christianity as a religion based on Jesus, a carpenter, because not only is that not what he was was most known for, but it's only relevant in a biographical sense, not relevant to the religion itself. I don't know if this should be its own heading or not, if so, please advise. Nihiletnihil (talk) 09:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree for several reasons.

• First, Hubbard is primarily known for two things: His fiction writing and Scientology. Both are quite notable and encyclopedic in nature, and not mentioning his writing career prior to founding Scientology would be an unnecessary obfuscation of perfectly useful and non-biased information. Stating that Scientology was founded by a writer is in no way POV-pushing or discrediting. And frankly, I'm not sure why any offense could be taken here. There's nothing shameful or embarrassing about being a popular science fiction and fantasy writer. Heck, it's something a lot of people aspire to.
• Second, I should point out that biographical information about people who have done multiple notable things almost always shows up in the articles about those notable things, for the purpose of providing context. For an example, see the article on Rockefeller University, which describes John D. Rockefeller as both an oil baron and a philanthropist.

I hope this helps. --GoodDamon 19:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Get real, people.

I think the article should say somewhere in the first paragraph that scientology is a scam. Why the hell should it cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to be "treated" by the "church"? A real religion would do that out of sheer goodwill. Anyone with half a brain can figure out that this is nothing but a total scam. Unbrady (talk) 01:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:V. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'v read those, and guess what? Scientology is still a blatant scam. I was at their "head base" in LA a few months ago, and they had security gaurds walking around with 7 INCH BLADES on them. What kind of religion has freakin armed gaurds in their churches? (the Swiss gaurd in Vatican City is just ceremonial). This whole organization screams "Scam! Scam Scam Scam Scam Scam!" Unbrady (talk) 01:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

See the purpose of the talk page at the top of this page:"This is not a forum for general discussion of Scientology, or anything not directly related to improving the Wikipedia article." Keep the comments about improving the article, not personal opinions about the topic. Alanraywiki (talk) 01:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, find proper sources that say beyond all reasonable doubt that CoS is a scam and add them to the article. I would have thought that if they existed, it would have happened by now. Hmmm? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The accurate, neutral and well referenced material already available on it's wikipedia page is more than enough to convince most clear thinking individuals that scientology is a scam. Theres no reason to add anything to blatantly criticize scientology, the facts are critical anough. Scientology survives on ignorance, people only join if they don't know what it's about, and anyone who reads tthis wikipedia page will learn what it's about. As far as scientology is concerned, anything about them that is factual and neutral, may as well be libel and slander. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.217.109.71 (talk) 21:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Well put. It’s only a matter of a count down to the end of the global scam when you can read an un-bias article and still come to the conclusion that it is a scam. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 07:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Though I think all religions are retarded, I think Scientology is the most retarded. Can't we have this article as the exception to the NPOV rule? - 211.30.197.132 (talk) 10:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Reality Check

Things change, times change.

On Sunday, December 25, 1994, The Washington post publishes the article: In Scientology Fiction - The Church's War Against Its Critics and Truth. A favorite between Scientology critics.

Now the Washington post published: XENU-PHOBIA Weird Sure. A Cult, No. The same magazine now says that Scientology is not a cult.

The New Yorker now writes about Scientology Celebrity Center like it was a Gala Dinner. Château Scientology

This other journalist writes about the fun time she had in church of Scientology. An afternoon with the Scientologists

This other one writes about her experiences with auditing. | The Invasion Begins, Scientology's Plan To Conquer Cleveland

The reality is that the Scientology controversy is dying out. People are more concern with Will Smith being a Scientologist and Tom Cruise videos than anything else. No one considers Scientology a dangerous cult no more. They may find it weird but that's all. The court cases against Scientology in the U.S. have almost disappeared.

There is just a handful of desperate Scientology critics left that the worst thing they can do is to bog down the website and post stupid messages.

In writing this because the last paragraph in the lead is just bias. Is based in old obsolete information that is no longer current. Is simply an offensive insult with no real data. I want a vote to have that paragraph removed.

I vote YES Bravehartbear (talk) 14:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Ummm... Have you been paying attention to whats been going on concerning the cult lately? as in 2008? Theres been an explosion of bad press and controversy. Public sentiment against scientology is currently the highest it's ever been! Your post is obviously disinformation that nobody with any interest in this subject will ever believe. And, as a friendly word of advice, ignoring the facts will probally hurt your e-meter readings. You'll never reach OT3 at this rate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.217.109.71 (talk) 21:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I vote NO as, checking the links, you've not disproved a single thing.

---

I vote that your links are broken—only the New Yorker one works for me. Foobaz·o< 16:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Foobaz (talk · contribs). These above presented links also do not present an appropriate worldview. Cirt (talk) 17:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I vote NO. Bravehartbear is proposing that Scientology is no longer controversial in part based on a newspaper article that begins "Scientology, the controversial religion..." Preposterous. --BTfromLA (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment

Please see WP:NOT#FORUM, as well as the related header at the top of this talk page. Cirt (talk) 17:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Response

It is not misuse to discuss how RS treats the exact subject of this article and how that directly impacts the manner in which this project treats the exact subject of this article. BTW, here are the Washington Post links (from just Googling the titles) 1, 2. --JustaHulk (talk) 17:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Here are the other two links; 3 4. --JustaHulk (talk) 17:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I vote NO. None of those links indicate any "dying out" of Scientology's controversies.

• First link: The opening sentence for Mark Oppenheimer's opinion piece begins with "Scientology, the controversial religion..."
• Second link: Do you really want to cite an investigative report that refers to Scientology as the religion that "incorporates aspects of Eastern philosophy, management theory, and science fiction"?
• Third link: Whoa, nelly... Did you read it? "It sounded like a pretty sweet deal. Who doesn’t like free things from an organization that’s well known for being controversial? We approached the ornate wooden doors and entered without knowing it would be another three hours until we would manage to escape." It goes downhill from there. The "fun" they had appears to be in making fun of Scientology. The tone is very mocking.
• Fourth link: Again, I have to wonder if you read it. After getting past the picture of the alien -- presumably a dig at Xenu -- I read through it and I have to wonder how you could possibly have gotten the idea that it regards Scientology as non-controversial. It discusses Scientology's opposition to psychiatry in some detail, and not in a flattering light.

If anything, the tone used to describe Scientology in the news since the Tom Cruise video is getting worse, not better. They all mention Xenu, they all describe its controversial nature, and I couldn't find any text indicating the court cases have "almost disappeared." I would be hesitant to include any of these links because they're all opinion pieces, and they're all largely mocking in tone. Even the first one, in which Mr. Oppenheimer says Scientology isn't a cult, goes into some detail about the perceived weirdness of it, and describes it as controversial. If we include them, the tone of this article will get more negative, not less, while we'll be using opinion pieces written by non-experts as reliable sources -- and I don't see any reason to do that. --GoodDamon 19:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. - This is a very good analysis by GoodDamon (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 19:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I vote NO. Cherry-picking a few articles out of a very large number[6] isn't significant. AndroidCat (talk) 05:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC) I vote NO. 129.174.226.5 (talk) 00:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I too vote NO, and WOW you really neglected to read the information that you linked as evidence, because some of the articles contradict what you are trying to argue.--iF (talk) 04:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I vote NO, Now there is a HUGE controversy with the Church of Scientology thanks to its censorship of YouTube videos. --Chinese3126 (talk) 17:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Controversy redirect

Hi, I've redirected the controversy page, for several reasons:

• We have a summary of Scientology's less-than-savoury practices in this article.
• The controversy article was 60kb, half of the main page.
• The controversies page has been problematic for over a year.
• The page is full of NPOV against the Church, with only one paragraph detailing the CoS' response.
• There's more weaseling in that article than I have ever seen, with statements such as "Critics say" or "oft-cited rumour"

It's articles like that which lower Wikipedia's credibility. We're supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a soapbox for anti-or-pro-anything rants. The page is completely against our policy of neutral point of view. And for the record, I'm against Scientology. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong. Shouldn’t there been some form on of group consensus before you did this?

I disagree with your removal of the controversies page without prior discussion. I think you should withdraw your edit until a general agreement is met. Cdynas (talk) 23:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

So you redirected a page that is a main page for a subset of articles without discussion or any attempt to clean it up. Essentualy you have deleted an article without any prior discussion or authoraty. I will be removing your redirect, and if you wish to have the article deleted, nominate it for such and go through with the prossess.Coffeepusher (talk) 02:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose unilateral redirect without discussion - Scientology controversies is its own valid full article with multiple sources, and has been for quite some time now. If an editor feel that it is not notable enough to have its own separate article on Wikipedia, this should be discussed in an WP:AfD. Cirt (talk) 04:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose - Per Cdynas, Coffeepusher, and Cirt, this kind of major change is what WP:AfD is for. Changes such as this one should never be enacted unilaterally, and I see no reason why the article can't be cleaned up instead of deleted. --GoodDamon 19:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

For the record, Sceptre's redirect has been reverted and the article is now being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientology controversies. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

My own feeling is that the article needs work, but shouldn't be deleted. The controversies surrounding Scientology are many and quite notable. The fact that they largely put the church in a negative light has no bearing on the encyclopedic merit of such information or the article in which it is contained. --GoodDamon 21:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

IRS Infiltration

Although I lack the faculties to develop a well-referenced and definitive article on the subject, I find its abscence worrisome. I have heard on many accounts the Scientologist infiltration of the IRS remains the largest known act of its kind to find success against the US government. This deserves at the very least a footnote.

http://www.xenu-directory.net/news/austindailyherald-19770708.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.252.17 (talk) 23:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The link provided may or may not be considered a questionable source as it obviously has a bias (as a website devoted to Scientology). It does however provide substantial amounts of referencing and is seemingly objective in its approach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.252.17 (talk) 23:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

See also: Operation Snow White

AndroidCat (talk) 02:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The two articles should be merged. Or at the very least, a reference should be made on the main page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.252.17 (talk) 08:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

So you want to be a scientologist - Slate Magazine

• Goldstein, Bonnie (April 30, 2008). "Hot Document: Primary Sources Exposed and Explained - So you want to be a scientologist". Slate Magazine. The Washington Post Company. Retrieved 2008-04-30. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Good source for discussion of primary source documents, "contract". Cirt (talk) 19:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

"Some journalists" vs. "Journalists" in intro

There is some ongoing edit... well, not edit-warring, as such, but let's say edit-disagreement... over one of the lines in the intro. Specifically, this line: "Journalists, courts and the governing bodies of several countries have described the Church of Scientology as a cult and an unscrupulous commercial enterprise, accusing it of harassing its critics and abusing the trust of its members."

Su-Jada has tried a couple of times to change that line so it reads "Some journalists..." Those edits have been reverted.

The problem with "some," as I see it, is that it would be perceived as indicating that the sentence doesn't reflect majority opinion, while in reality, the overwhelming majority of significant journalistic inquiries into the Church of Scientology really have described it in that manner. (Please note: I make no judgment call on the validity of that determination, I only mean to point out that the negative depictions of the Church far outnumber the positive ones).

Limiting it to simply "journalists" bypasses any quantitative analysis; it's up to the reader to determine whether that means "a few," "a lot," "the majority," or "almost all." I'm not sure this is the right approach either, but appending "some" to the beginning is definitely the wrong one. If anything, it should be "almost all."

So... Thoughts? --GoodDamon 22:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand Su-Jada's issue, since the lack of a quantifier might be interpreted as implying universality. How about "several"? Ayla (talk) 23:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sure that works, either. If there's any quantifier there, it should be one that reflects what the reliable sources actually say. "Several" doesn't accurately reflect the fact that most journalists who have researched Scientology have written negative stories about it. But saying something like "most journalists" reads like negative POV pushing. Aaargh... --GoodDamon 03:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with GoodDamon (talk · contribs)'s initial comment, supporting simply leaving in "Journalists.." as is. Cirt (talk) 03:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The word "Multiple" would work in this case I think. It would imply many, but not all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.65.7.34 (talk) 03:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The proportion of 'reliable' sources qualifying the subject as a cult has not been precisely determined within the scope of wikipedia. Until this determination is done, one can't use "some" nor "most" nor anything else that would indicate a direction.

The quantifier 'multiple' or 'many' would also indicate a direction because the phrase refers to a cult and there is no balanced phrase in the introduction to quantify the subject as a 'religion'. The introduction very much refers to the subject as 'a body', 'an organization', and not as a religion except from Hubbard's characterization.

An option, requiring additional work, would be to count the number of 'reliable' sources, courts, countries that have made such claim and compare it to opposite claims to determine an undisputed proportion. I don't think the later would be original research other than through the selection of what is a 'reliable' source and was is not.

In the mean time one might find a compromise to emphasize that a determination has not been accomplished (yet). One such indeterministic quantifier could be 'A number of'.

Likewise the quantifier 'several' before countries may not have been verified and is no better than 'many'.

The phrase could then read "..., a number of journalists, courts and the governing bodies of a number of countries have described the Church of Scientology as a cult...".

Uiteoi (talk) 10:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

This article needs a real good cleanup

Large, contentious articles contributed to by a horde of editors end up being a bit sloppy, usually because many contributors are looking at content rather than the standard of writing. This article is no exception, and it truly looks like it grew like Topsy. I tightened one sentence today, here, but am a little reluctant to do the whole thing knowing my efforts might be reverted simply because someone prefers verbosity. I am neutral re Scientology. Any comments? Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 02:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the article needs editing like this. Thanks! Foobaz·o< 17:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Any other cleanup needed besides length? Hyacinth (talk) 03:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Third party sources

What information needs to be cited in third party sources? Hyacinth (talk) 03:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Self-published sources

What information is inappropriately cited in self-published sources? Hyacinth (talk) 03:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that applies to much on the beliefs and practices, largely cited to promotional Scientology sites. We should give preference to scholarly works over Scientology's PR materials. Of course, we shouldn't cite privately-run anti-Scientology sites either, unless they are cited in the academic literature. Jayen466 11:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Contrast With Traditional Organized Crime

I think this article on Scientology would benefit greatly by comparing and contrasting the way that the Scientology crime syndicate is different than more traditional organized crime syndicates -- such as the Italian, Irish, and other Mafias.

At one time in the past, the Scientology crime syndicate was global in scope and constituted a serious threat to the national security of the nations that it invaded in ways that more traditional organized crime gangs did not.

It would be good to see an in-debth, definitive description (research would be a heavy requirement) of the ways in which Scientology is different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Damotclese (talk • contribs) 01:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Criticism & Controversy

I have noticed that this isn't mentioned until the 3rd paragraph down (and the paragraphs are pretty bulky) I have scoured the net and considering the amount of public criticism Scientology has got, i think this needs to be mentioned higher up (end of 1st paragraph?) to form a more unbiased article.

--Petersmith140 (talk) 01:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Link not working, should remove?

The external resouce 131, Verfassungsschutz Bayern (Constitution Protection Bavaria: Publications (German), leads to a page not found. Should the information that came from this link be taken out? 68.77.187.144 (talk) 20:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

No, the page has moved & I've updated the link. --Rodhullandemu 20:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Cult

Is Scientology a cult? It seems like it if so lets put it in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plyhmrp (talk • contribs) 22:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It's in the List of groups referred to as cults.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Valuative (talk • contribs) -->

Calling something a cult does not make it so. I have no axe to grind for Scientology, but this has been thrashed out ad nauseam to achieve consensus as to what the article should say. I suggest you review prior arguments and if you feel there is a strong reason to seek a new consensus, do so. Please also see thread above.--Rodhullandemu 14:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, in the U.S. it's a religion, as per the IRS and the State Department. Jayen466 14:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

But if you leave the US it is a cult? Hyacinth (talk) 23:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

"Cult" and "religion" are not mutually exclusive; it's just that, despite the Constitutional separation of church and state in the US, the taxation rules are framed such that CoS fall within those rules. However, the practical problem is one of definition; just like "terrorist", I've yet to see an organisation of any sort define itself as a "cult" other than satirically; and in that sense, the argument is somewhat barren because there is little objectivity to be had, let alone a mutually acceptable definition of any relevant term of reference. --Rodhullandemu 23:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous

No Anonymous members have been found conclusively to have performed DDOS attacks on Scientology websites. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 05:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Scientology in fiction

How about a section on Scientology in fiction? It's usually depicted under a different name to avoid legal actions, but its appearances include:

• "Systemotics" in "Law & Order" (season 18, episode 15, aired April 30, 2008, depicting a fictionalization of the deaths of Theresa Duncan and Jeremy Blake)
• "Movementarianism" in "The Simpsons" (season 9, episode 13, "The Joy of Sect", aired February 8, 1998)
• "Selfosophy" in "Millennium" (season two, episode 9, "Jose Chung's Doomsday Defense", aired November 21, 1997)
• As itself in "South Park" (season 9, episode 12, "Trapped in the Closet", aired November 16, 2005)
• "Transformationalism" in Norman Spinrad's 1985 novel, [Mind Game].

I know I've seen several others, as well.

Lippard (talk) 14:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Scientology in popular culture? AndroidCat (talk) 20:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It's on my list of articles to work on at some point, just not at the moment. Cirt (talk) 23:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight on Anonymous/Project Chanology?

There's a lot of information about this in the article, and it seems like there is too much importance given to Chanology etc., per WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM.--Hyperpaddling (talk) 22:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

-- i dont think so, project chanology is a significant factor in raising public awareness about this cult. since this happened, i have studied the topic, made videos about it on youtube that got 60000 views in total, and have been protesting in reallife against the church of scientology here in munich 3 times. and scientology threw eggs at us (the protesters). from my perspective, this needs to be in the article, because it has already been so significant that it will get a long-term place in this story. Kurtilein (talk) 22:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurtilein (talk • contribs) 22:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

---I agree with Hyperpaddling, especially in light of the fact that said group seems to be fading away faster than they appeared.FreedomFighter4all (talk)

---Considering that the Anon vs CoS situation has only been going on for six months, the Chanology info does need to be trimmed down somewhat. Three paragraphs is a bit too long.The Lizard (talk) 16:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Overusage of large amount of quoting within footnotes

I fail to see the need for this. These large amounts of quoted text within footnotes should be removed, it is not needed to satisfy WP:V. Cirt (talk) 22:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Brainwashing

In the article, the psychiatrist William Sargant who worked for the British MI-6 appears as having influenced L. Ron Hubbard. Sargant wrote a book elucidating the principles of brainwashing; the book was published as Battle of the Mind. Sargant inspired the Scottish Dr. Donald Ewen Cameron who was a CIA recruit for the LSD-25 special project MK-Ultra; they were looking for ways and means to bring about the Manchurian Candidate. Hubbard himself got hold of the alleged textbook of Psychopolitics used by the Russians, their textbook on brainwashing and the Church of Scientology published it. In 1979, John Marks wrote The Search for the Manchurian Candidate and was published by New York Times Books ISBN 0-8129-0773. It seems that to include this material in the article is very pertinent and is far from being contentious or vandalism.JDPhD (talk) 23:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

JDPhD, this article is about Scientology and notWilliam Sargant. Its unrelated to mention that William Sargant also "inspired Donald Ewen Cameron". Can you specify your reference with a page number and an citation? What part did you find in Marks book exactly and wich part not. If the content would be properly sourced it still may be better to move it to William Sargant,Anti-psychiatry or Donald Ewen Cameron-- Stan _talk 10:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

BTW. William Sargant isn't mentioned at all in the online version of the book you cited. -- Stan _talk 10:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is something I believe to be a relevant source on brainwashing by Scientology, and fairly unbiased. It's created by the Lisa McPherson Trust, an organization describing itself as one that helps people abused by the church, but in this video they almost exclusively demonstrate auditing and discuss whether or not this qualifies as brainwashing its members. Aside from the possibility of bias from a critical organization, this appears to be a very education video, but from the looks of things here, it looks like I should ask here before either trying to make mention of this. Google Video --Smokeresearcher (talk) 04:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Unnecessary references

A number of the references recently added by JDPhD seem to be extraneous. For example, refs for Alfred Korzybski and Sigmund Freud's work. No article text is based on those works and there were already wikilinks to the proper articles. AndroidCat (talk) 20:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree w/ AndroidCat (talk · contribs) regarding above comment. Using references as cites in this manner borders on WP:OR/WP:SYN violation and disruption. Cirt (talk) 04:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Lack of Sources

Large chunks of this article, especially the controlversial section about "Secret levels" etc. contains paragraphs of unsourced information, and much of the sourced data is very unreliable. I move that at least the unsourced information be moved (unless sourced) and at most the entire section be removed for poor sources. If Wikipedia cites any website as fact, what value does Wikipedia have anymore? FreedomFighter4all (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

If you think information is unsourced you can tag it with {{fact}}; that way other editors are alerted to the issue. It's somewhat customary to allow a reasonable time for sourcing to appear before deleting that material. Websites are fine as sources as long as they satisfy policy, and in fact the vast majority of articles, including Featured Articles and Good Articles, rely on online sources to a great extent. These days, not everything is in print. --Rodhullandemu 14:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I am unable to edit this article, which is why I requested someone else do it. I assumed there was some soft of lock on it (as I've never been in violation before). FreedomFighter4all (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Cult status?

In terms of referring to it as a cult, the term has a number of emotive negative connotations associated with its everyday use that overshadows its sociological definition of referring to a group whose belief systems are typically syncretic, esoteric, and individualistic , and a better term to use to describe Scientology is that it is a new religious movement as this better reflects this religion in a more neutral fashion. Xiaan77 (talk) 05:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Scientology is certainly a cult and recognized as one by multiple religions and Hubbard's own son. It's a mix of cult and money-scheme. Somebody should mention with sources the Baptist convention's declaration of Scientology as a cult. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Countryfan (talk • contribs) 22:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Here scientology is referred to as a "cult", but surely it is more of a world-affirming religion? World affirming religions are tolerant of peoples religious beliefs - even it's own members (for example some scientologists are catholic) and don't force its members to cut themselves off from their friends, family and society (as a cult would) but rather try and make the world a better place through scientology?

Hardly "world affirming." They are tolerant only to the point they would like to be associated with other faiths to avoid criticism- ie, standing behind more established faiths to fend off critics as 'religious bigots.' The openly stated goal of Scientology is world dominance of Scientology and the 'clearing' of the entire planet. Also, while they outwardly claim tolerance and publish pretty 'interfaith' videos, they believe religious leaders of the past were false alien implants and Hubbard personally claimed Jesus was a violent pedophile. This is neither tolerant nor affirming.24.130.199.233 (talk) 18:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

err- there is plenty of proof of scientology destroying families and cutting off relationships. it is a cult. its is misguided and rediculous attempt to make money. off of aliens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ANONANONANONANON (talk • contribs) 08:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC) Any criticism is welcome or if anyone has anything more to add, please do. I just think that that should be clarified in the article itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptinHairybely (talk • contribs) 00:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

A number of major news organizations, academics, and novelists have reported that Scientology is a cult. It's not up to Wikipedians to decide whether or not they are—that would be original research. Instead, we try to make the article match the information given by the reliable sources out there. This is a controversial article with editors of many opinions, so we follow the rules strictly. Foobaz·o< 02:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

No need to link to the original research page, asshole. No need to act like you know it all. You are the bane of wikipedia.

And a number of major news organizations, academics, and novelists have reported that Scientology is NOT a cult. Opinions, opinions and opinions. Sadly both sides need to be documented regarless of how ignorant they are. Bravehartbear (talk) 08:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, Bravehartbear has a point. It's probably presumptuous at this point to use the loaded word "cult" except to state that "some" have called Scientology a cult. Scientology certainly has cult-like or conspiratorial elements (charismatic leader, repression of alternate points of view through misuse of copyright law and ingrained doublethink), but also has elements of a "life-affirming religion". Certainly the Church is neither complete evil nor purely saintly. We should keep in mind the need to merely point out both points of view and leave personal investment out of this.71.35.252.65 (talk) 00:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

If those are the only requirements, then no religion can be or not be a cult, because there are always going to be people who say that it is, and people who say that it isn't. Amphibienne (talk) 08:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Reading all this I nave an impression, that Wikipedia, and especially this particular entry, is being edited by folks without proper education. Know definitions of the words, know history and history of religions. Most importantly chec the facts regarding Scientology. With that knowledge it is clear what is a cult (like Scientology) and what is not. In many cases it is not that important. In case of this organization it is crucial to inform people, not misinform. This cult is dangerous, money grabbing and brainwashing scam. Simple as that. Folks - read up a bit about this organization, then edit this entry here. I think it should be clearly stated that Scientology is a cult, just like Earth is round, evolution is a scientific fact etc. Or do we have to do with some SeaOrg manipulation here, or better yet silly political correctness in the same league as recent bashing of "three little pigs" form being "offensive to Muslims" in the UK. Do some fact checking, and lets not be silly to the point of absurdity. Scientology = cult, and so it should be made clear in this article. For those arguing against stating, that it is a cult - consider this: if Scientology is not a cult, then what is? You can't get more "cultish" than this. It is is not a cult, then this word should be erased form all dictionaries and languages. Lets not be silly here. Lets not be manipulated by the functioning Sea Org members romping about the Internet. --Pitdog (talk) 16:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey Pitdog. If you are going to criticize people for not having proper education on the subject, then maybe you should display your knowledge on the subject rather than just restating that it's a cult. Maybe if you stated YOUR sources for the information, then we could check them out ourselves and determine on our own if they're reliable enough to make an entire judgement on. The way you write makes it clear that you have an extreme biased against this organization, but if you used neutral sentences and backed up your accusations with reliable evidence or sources, then people might be able to take you a little more seriously, and think of you less like a person with an extreme prejudice. I'm not a scientologist, nor do I know any, nor do I really care about this or any religion, but I'm just pointing out that if you want to argue a point to get people to believe your claims, then you should usually back it up with more than psycho-babble. If you're so informed, please let us all in on this cold, hard evidence which you claim to possess. --[Non-user] March, 17 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.45.43 (talk) 05:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

This is an interesting point of discussion. CaptinHairybely, one of the things that makes Wikipedia work is that it uses reliable sources (I highly recommend you read that policy in its entirety, by the way). One example of a reliable source would be a news magazine with a strong history and reputation for basic fact-checking, such as Time or Newsweek, or the peer-reviewed books and articles of academic scholars. The interesting thing is that the materials produced by the subject of an article on Wikipedia are not generally accepted as reliable sources:

Questionable sources
Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves ... Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources.

— Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable_sources (emphasis added

Generally speaking, the only things we can use Church of Scientology-produced material to support are statements like "The Church describes Scientology as..." and "According to the Church..." We can't use any material they provide to support a statement of fact, because it is automatically biased, and by definition not peer-reviewed.

To a large extent, the same applies to certain critical websites. It's all about peer-review and fact-checking, and many critics do not have established track records for either.

One difference -- and I'm afraid this puts the Church at a bit of a disadvantage here -- is that several of the critics do have established track records and scholarly credentials. But in the Church's favor, as Bravehartbear pointed out, there have also been a few peer-reviewed "news organizations, academics, and novelists" that support the Church's stance that Scientology is a religion. There are sections of the article that reflect that.

Basically, if a major media outlet or academic publication fact-checks statements from the Church or a critic and finds the statements verifiable, then we can use them, but otherwise they're assumed to be biased. --GoodDamon 21:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Scientology originated as an applied religious philosophy and its purpose was to initially be a guidance to life, just like all the other religions out there. It is not fair to marginalize scientology ideas and the people related to the church, just because one doesn't agree with it's practices. It currently continues to exist because of a huge dedicated following that has faith and support in the institution. The church should be recognized like any other established religion, regardless of how many people exist to disagree and disdain. Yes, criticism of the religion should be accessible and available, but not on an introductory basis (like how it is currently on its wikipage). Just because the media is constantly questioning the credibility of the religion with major bias, doesn't mean it should be introduced as a cult for the person seeking the common knowledge of Scientology principles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.149.225.218 (talk) 07:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not Wikipedia's job to dictate what is and is not a "cult," a "religion," or whatever. Wikipedia has to rely on the dominant findings of reliable sources. Please read that link for a better understanding of Wikipedia's requirements. Reliable sources are a policy of Wikipedia, and anything that doesn't match that policy may be removed. Now, I'm sorry to say this, but the vast majority of reliable sources describe Scientology and the organization that promotes it in less-than-flattering terms. Scholarly papers, investigative reports, and other such pieces generally refer to it as a controversial cult that is destructive to its members.

Now please be aware, I'm not saying that any of that's true. I'm saying that this is what the sources Wikipedia finds to be reliable say, so that's what Wikipedia has to report. For all I know, Scientology may do great things for you and the majority of its members, but I can't take your word for it for Wikipedia. That would be what Wikipedia calls original research, which isn't allowed. In other words, I can't cite my own experiences or investigations in a Wikipedia article. It has to come from a reliable source, which other people can verify. --GoodDamon 16:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a cult, unfounded beliefs, totally new ideas, and very controlling and extorting of its members. Reapermage 00:36, 10th December 2007 GMT —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reapermage1990 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a cult but it's recongized as a religion by many governments including that of the United States so it should be referred to as such. Maybe refer to it as a cult if/when it loses it's status as a government recongized religion. Also, is Scientology considered a religion by the UN or do they have no stance on that? FalseMyrmidon (talk) 00:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

If as you stated above it is a cult, why we need government's approval of that fact? If a certain dish is called pizza, does it have to be officially recognized by a given government in order for us to speak of it as pizza?Or it just is a pizza. Since when any government should have the influence on simple facts and definitions in an encyclopedia on the net... --Pitdog (talk) 17:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The first definition of cult in Dictionary.com is "a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies." So it's a cult... and so is Christianity, so is Islam, so is Buddhism etc etc etc. Bazonka (talk) 12:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

that is a true deffinition, however that isn't the one we are talking about. That isn't even the definition that is commonly accepted when people say the word "cult". this discussion is better explained by the sociological definition of a Cult which states (I am paraphrasing, however I can get the source if neccisary) an orgonization that is charictorised by four things 1. strong central leadership, 2. hidden agenda/knowlage (they don't let you know everyhting about the orgonization untill you have become invested in the group), 3. Promice of special powers only avalible through the groups central leadership (Sobriaty through the central leaders teachings, promice of salvation through loyalty of the leader) 4. coersive or brainwashing tecqnecs.

when I hear the word cult that is what I think of...not the Boy Scouts religious services. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coffeepusher (talk • contribs) 17:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

If anyone gets a chance to check this source, there is an interesting article on Scientology in it related to your "cult status" question, from above:

• Cletsch, William A. (1989), "Scientology", World Book Encyclopedia, vol. 17 (S-Sn), Scott Fetzer Company, p. 207, ISBN 0-7166-1289-5, Library of Congress Card Catalog Number 88-50304

Cheers, Cirt (talk) 05:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC).

It does not in any way improve this article to argue over whether Scientology "is" or "is not" a cult. There is not one true definition of "cult"; the word is largely used as a slur. We are much better off describing what Scientologists believe, what Scientologists do, and the history of the Scientology organization -- and leave it up to readers whether these things show it to be a cult, a praiseworthy religion, an organized crime syndicate, a happy summer camp, or a high-heeled shoe. --FOo (talk) 17:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. Foobaz·o< 17:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I vote for high-heeled shoe. --JustaHulk (talk) 15:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I vote Cereal Grain 05:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.255.179.144 (talk)

I vote "Get another hustle." That means spread your hustle.--76.248.230.194 (talk) 03:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I would term it an "Officaly Recognised Religion" and then, possibly state where it is official, or make it a link to a point on the page where they do state it. I believe it is a cult, but that is an opinion. It is definately a religion, so we should state it as that, as it is a fact. Cults are still religions. 82.74.121.248 (talk) 00:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Assuming your current list of countries is accurate, then you should not call it an officially recognised religion at this point. It would be preferable to have a section entitled "Recognised Religion" and simply state those countries that do. This is fair to both sides of the argument. This is pretty much what you have now, although the current edit is somewhat less succinct. --Angryjames (talk) 19:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

With regards the term "Cult". The same argument should be used. If various countries and or significant groups refer to the organisation as a "Cult", then that should be listed in a section head something like "Is it a Cult?" or "Cult Status". To argue about the meaning of the word is pointless, and especially to argue that most religions fall into that definition. We know they do. We are here to report the facts as significant trusted sources would. Significant sources/countries might use the term "Cult" to describe Scientology, but not use it to describe say Christianity, even though we know the latter started as a cult --Angryjames (talk) 19:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Man, I strongly strongly dislike Scientology, but as there is no generally accepted definition of a cult (a word that is loaded with controversy) and it carries widespread negative connotations I think it should be classified as a weasel word and therefore not used. One of the best things about Wikipedia is its objectivity and although it seems ridiculous to people like us, we have to realise that that is just our opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.136.36 (talk) 22:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I have looked-in the term "CULT" in Wikipedia and also the term "RELIGION" and in my understanding Scientology indeed falls under the category of Cult. And if you look into it you'll understand why they keep on saying they are a religious group, it is for tax purpose only.Reinbowe (talk) 06:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should watch what we say - a 15 year old kid is apparently being prosecuted in Britain for calling Scientology a cult. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/may/20/1 Pearce.duncan (talk) 22:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it; the Crown Prosecution Service have today announced that there will be no prosecution, because (they say) the word "cult" is neither threatening, nor abusive, nor insulting within the specific legislation. --Rodhullandemu 23:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It strikes me as fascinating that the Church of Scientology has chosen to take issue with the term cult and its usage in relation to them. In doing so they are in violation of their own beliefs as passed down by L. Ron Hubbard.

Scientologists are required to "clear words" to insure that they properly understand said terms. One such word which is required is the word Cult, for which a definition is given within the index of "Science of Survival" which states, "cult: an exclusive group of people who share an excessive devotion or dedication to some person, idea, or thing."

Clearly they meet their own criteria, and based on their policy of "clearing words" in relation to their own internally defined meanings, any instance in which this term is misinterpreted to mean anything else would indicate that said Scientologist has not properly cleared the term.

                                                       13Heathens (talk) 09:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

"Scientology has opened the gates to a better World. It is not a psycho-therapy nor a religion. It is a body of knowledge which,when properly used, gives freedom and truth to the individual." -THE CREATION OF HUMAN ABILITY, A Handbook for Scientologists BY L. RON HUBBARD  Esper  rant 20:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Tanzania and Zimbabwe

• Church of Scientology Not WP:RS for this.
• Operation Clambake message board Not RS and the thread is entirely unrelated.
• U.S. Dept. of State International Religious Freedom Report 2007 For those countries, there's no mention of Scientology.
• U.S. Dept. of State International Religious Freedom Report 2005, print edition That report is also online, and again, no mention of Scientology.

Could JDPhD please stop adding bad references for Scientology as a recognized religion in these countries? Since they've been without references since November 5th (previously to a non-RS CoS page), I'm removing them until a valid WP:RS surfaces. AndroidCat (talk) 18:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Of possible interest

Might have been mentioned before, quite lenghtly article about this cult, see here. --Allemandtando (talk) 09:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

edits and refs contributed by JDPhD

JDPhD added new refs galore to this article in recent past. I'm not able to check and keep track of all of his additions and therefore can't judge every single contribution made by him. However, most references and additions contributed in particular by JDPhD I actually checked were either unrelated, plain wrong or non existent.

What is the consensus in Wikipedia to deal with questionable contributions and refererences by editors who repeatedly make "malicious" contributions ? I'm not even talking about POV edits or bad interpretations of sources but disruptions like this one(where his actual source turns out to be completly unrelated to his edit). I'm aware that references should not be deleted easily by other editors but it is extremly time consuming to proof that every single source he inserts is wrong or unrelated since many sources are only offline available.

Continue WP:AGF and research strange sources which turn out to be by 90 % plain wrong or revert such suspicious edits unless they are prooven by the editor on talk page?

Yes, my suggestion to ignore WP:AGF is quite harsh but I don't know how to deal with this problem in any other way espescially since JDPhD usually doesn't participate on talk page and many edits of him look like plain disruption rather than well-intentioned contributions. -- Stan _talk 03:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course, if anyone else can keep up with JDPhD's edits and actually check all his "new" references, this thread would be unneeded and can be closed. -- Stan _talk 03:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Scientific criticism and the E-Meter

The quote used in this section is not presently accurate and the note number 284 does not link directly to the info. The Church of Scientology states the following: "A Hubbard Electrometer, or E-Meter, is a device which is sometimes used in Dianetics and Scientology services. In itself, the E-Meter does nothing. It is not intended for the diagnosis, treatment or prevention of any disease or for the improvement of health or any bodily function. Ownership or use of the E-Meter is strictly limited to duly ordained ministers of the Church of Scientology and ministers in training and is otherwise absolutely prohibited."

The old quote as it presently appears on the page should be erased together with its false reference. The new quote should be written in its place with the new reference. JDPhD (talk) 19:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a cite for that text? The broken link is archived here. AndroidCat (talk) 20:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it appears in L. Ron Hubbard's book "Introducing the E-Meter" right under the copyright and trademark notices. By the way, the link you showed above is pretty good. However, it seems the one that appears in all the E-meter books as cited above is the one standardly used by the church in the copyright and trademark notices page of all the E-meter books. Thank you for your prompt reply. JDPhD (talk) 20:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The link of note 286 does not mention Scientology at all. "Gullibiligy", apparently an alteration of "gullibility", appears in the article cited but there is no indication of it being Millar's or Oxford biologist Dawkins'. Perhaps the question of "gullibility" lies somewhere between pp. 60-68 of Dawkins' book where according to the index of the book the subject of self-deception is discussed. As Prof. Dawkins is a self-proclaimed atheist, does gullibility refers specifically to Scientologists only or to all religious people? The question arises due to the fact that one of the book sellers has the following quote from Dawkins' book 'The God Delusion': "...One religion that was intelligently designed, almost in its entirety, is Scientology, but I suspect that it is exceptional". (p. 234). JDPhD (talk) 20:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes it does mention Scientology and Dawkins is quoted as using gullibiligy:

A man who holds no truck with established religion is unsurpris-ingly unlikely to have much good to say about Scientology, which purports to use scientific tools such as its controversial “E-meter”. “It’s purely made-up. It just taps into some ‘gullibiligy’. They find some film star or somebody like Tom Cruise or whatever his name is who’s thick as two short planks and he becomes a sort of advertisement.”

AndroidCat (talk) 00:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Scientology as a Cult and Hypnosis

The following seems irrelevant to the article, and possibly implying a link where no suggestion of one has been cited.

"Like Dr. Milton H. Erickson, M. D., founder of the American Society of Clinical Hypnosis and widely recognized as the world's foremost medical hypnotist who went on to influence the development of NLP, L. Ron Hubbard demonstrated his professional expertise in Hypnosis by going on to discover the Dianetic engram."

There's no citation for any link between Milton Erickson and L. Ron Hubbard, or for any link between Milton Erickson and the Dianetic engram (and AFAIK there isn't any link). Also, there's no citation for L. Ron Hubbard having professional expertise in Hypnosis, just that he wrote about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.110.159 (talk) 12:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

possible vandalism or something?

does anyone else see the phrase "Scientology: It is not good" at the bottom of the page below the religion template boxes? i think that ought to be removed, but my status as an inexperienced new wiki user makes it a little difficult since the article seems to be safeguarded against edits. cheerio 144.92.83.141 (talk) 14:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done --Rodhullandemu 14:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Why remove fact? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.193.110 (talk) 03:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Failed WP:V --Rodhullandemu 19:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

"Body of Beleifs and Related Practices" or "Scam"

There is sound evidence that Scientology is not a "body of beleifs and related practices" as stated in the first sentence of the article, but rather a moneymaking operation disguised as a religion.

This evidence includes:

1. The fact that the founder of scientology L. Ron Hubbard once said, "The easiest way to make money is to start a religion."

2. The fact that there is absolutely no scientific merit to the operation of an E-Meter as described by scientologists.

3. The fact that the Church of Scientology charges what many deem to be unreasonable sums of money for "counseling".

4. The Church of Scientology actively hunts down people who criticize their beleifs/practices and harass them via frivolous lawsuits or ad hominem attacks.

5. The Church of Scientology has been outlawed in Germany on the grounds of fraud (amongst other charges)

The first sentance and the nature of the rest of the article should be changed accordingly. 75.1.243.85 (talk) 23:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I perceive that all these issues are dealt with in a neutral manner in the article and related ones; it's up to our readers to make up their own minds, not for us to do it for them. --Rodhullandemu 00:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

With all do respect, surely it can be argued that point number one should be verified before being brought forth. I may be biased, but a claim needs evidence. Surely we can agree that the section concerning controversy does a great deal of good presenting the controversies in a neutral light. That is the point of wikipedia right? to present as little bias as possible? I believe that the allegations of stalking, mudslinging, and Ad Hominem attacks should be disclosed in the controversies section. I am still wondering how anything can claim it is a religion when it copyrights it's own material. I have to argue that more criteria need to be put forth when evaluating something as being religious. Pseudoscience should be brought to light as well. Kashmirxincx (talk) 23:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair game

Should we devote a section to how people who are critial of scientology are treated? BBC reporter John Sweeney found a trong resistence from scientology members (most notably Thomas W. Davis) when he tried to interview people about Scientology. Some references: BBC: Scientology & Me Shawn Lonsdale, a fierce Scientology critic Jaap (talk) 19:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I CONCUR. -LR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.222.9.110 (talk) 07:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no rule against making an article over scientology critics, and claims. it doesn't even have to be biased (It shouldn't be). Many people are interested in scientology critics. I mean, if Neo Nazis can have a Wiki on there movement, rational people can have one too. Kashmirxincx (talk) 23:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Editing "multiple issues"

The requirements on "sources of references", "cleanup" and "self-published sources" appear to have been satisfied. If not, what else is there? JDPhD (talk) 19:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Still way too much reliance on primary sources affiliated directly with the Church of Scientology, as opposed to reliance on secondary sources that satisfy WP:RS/WP:V, among numerous other issues. Cirt (talk) 20:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

more secondary and tertiary sources are needed. Because one primary source, specifically the when the one primary source is also the subject of an article, presents high possibility for bias. Though at a certain point it becomes a game of "What conjecture should we pick". Further discussion is needed on confirmation by use of multiple sources when usually, the two sources differ greatly in opinion and claimed "fact". Kashmirxincx (talk) 23:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

L. Ron Hubbard: speculative fiction writer or science fiction writer

Hi, The Encyclopedia Britannica states "science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard (1911–86)" in its coverage of Scientology issues. Available at: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/274475/L-Ron-Hubbard#tab=active~checked%2Citems~checked&title=L.%20Ron%20Hubbard%20--%20Britannica%20Online%20Encyclopedia. Could an editor provide a reputable source claiming that Hubbard was a speculative fiction writer?OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 17:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

This just keeps coming up, doesn't it... Let me explain. L. Ron Hubbard wrote science fiction, certainly. But he also wrote in the fantasy, horror, and alternate history genres, as well as doing some work in westerns, crime thrillers, and the odd romance. Speculative fiction encompasses the majority of the genres he worked in. While the term was not in use during his time, it more accurately sums up his fiction career than science fiction does.

Now, the term "science fiction" itself used to be used inaccurately to describe writing in any fantasist setting, whether there were spaceships and aliens, or flying carpets and elves. In modern usage, however, it's come to refer to fiction taking place in a setting where the fantastical originates in extrapolation on scientific reasoning instead of in physics-defying magic. So you can't simply classify a writer as a science fiction writer if he or she works extensively in other genres. Thus the term "speculative fiction," which allows us to describe in two words a writer whose works cross multiple genres. Our other options are to use "science fiction," which is inaccurate, or use a laundry list of the genres he wrote in, which nobody wants. Since the bibliographic record indicates the majority of his work was in science fiction, fantasy, and horror, we can use the "speculative" umbrella without having to expand the introduction unnecessarily. Anyone interested in what "speculative" means can click the link and get a good idea of what Hubbard wrote. --GoodDamon 18:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't find a ref that refers to him as a speculative fiction writer, and when news articles refer to him outside Scientology, science-fiction writer is almost universally used. Speculative fiction is possibly more accurate, but it's an invention and perhaps giving his other work a notability that it just doesn't have? AndroidCat (talk) 11:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you feel like opening that can of worms, be my guest. But if you do, you're going to have to somehow work in the fact that he wrote in multiple genres or you'll probably end up with an edit war on your hands. There are plenty of POV-pushing editors who will jump all over that line once we open it up for editing again. --GoodDamon 16:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't help but think that of all the debates over terminology in this article, this one is perhaps the least meritorious; I'm wondering exactly what difference it makes to a reader to have one over the other. Sleeping dogs, indeed. --Rodhullandemu 16:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I have brought this issue up because the claim that he is a "speculative fiction" writer is at odds with the reputable source I cited (The Encyclopedia Britannica, which refers to "science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard (1911–86)"). As well, although there are a number of terminology disputes, this one has a relatively high profile, because it is in the start of the lede section. Based on my understanding of Wikipedia policies, I argue that IF we find that the majority of the most reputable sources call him a "science fiction writer", then that is how we should refer to him in the article. Note I am not saying that this is the case. I am saying that if, after doing the research, all of the encyclopedias on fiction writers and English Lit call him a "sci fi" writer, then we have to follow the consensus of the experts in the field. I will check out the "speculative fiction" source that was posted above, Thanks OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 16:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings about that. First, I have to wonder if this is an instance where WP:IGNORE applies. Things to think about:

• That sentence was a vandalism magnet before we reached consensus on "speculative fiction" as a neutral term.
• Beyond mere vandalism, POV-pushing editors will make hay with the sentence. When it said "science fiction," we had a lot of Scientologists coming in and deleting the reference outright, causing more work for everyone else, and a lot of anti-Scientology activists trying to expound on Hubbard's status as a sci-fi writer... Again, more work for everyone else.
• The term "science fiction" itself has several different meanings. In its most modern usage, Hubbard's bibliography can't be described as that of just a "science fiction" author.

But like I said, I'm willing to wash my hands of it if consensus begins to lean the other way. --GoodDamon 17:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi everyone, thank you for your comments and input. The Reliable sources policy states that "articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". The "most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." There are a number of mainstream, reputable encyclopedia articles and magazines that define Hubbard as a science fiction writer. The World Encyclopedia (2005) says "Hubbard, L. Ron ( Lafayette Ronald) (1911–86) US science fiction writer and the guiding spirit of the Church of scientology.(World Encyclopedia 2005, originally published by Oxford University Press 2005.) The Oxford Pocket Dictionary of Current English ( 2008) states that Scientology "was founded by science-fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard (1911–86) in 1955. THe Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition (2008) says that "A prolific author, Hubbard wrote many works on Scientology and is also noted for his science-fiction novels and short stories." A TIME magazine article from May 6, 1991 By RICHARD BEHAR states that "The Church of Scientology, started by science-fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard to "clear" people of unhappiness, portrays itself as a religion( www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,972865,00.html). An article in the UK paper The Guardian from June 2007 says "The Church was the creation of L Ron Hubbard, the American science fiction author, as the religious development of his earlier secular ..." (www.guardian.co.uk/theguide/features/story/0,,2097544,00.html). The Scifi Horizons!

magazine refers to him as "L. Ron Hubbard, science fiction author and founder of Scientology( http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:WaO6EioBUxwJ:www.scifihorizons.com/issue10.htm ). MSN Encarta's article on Science Fiction states that "...Campbell’s magazine introduced many soon-to-be famous science-fiction writers, including L. Sprague De Camp, Lester del Rey, Theodore Sturgeon, L. Ron Hubbard, Fritz Leiber, A. E. Van Vogt, Arthur C. Clarke, and Robert Heinlein." (emphasis added). ( http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:Ab-5ltObMw8J:encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761563123_3/science_fiction.html )................................................................As far as sources for Hubbard being a speculative fiction author, most of the sources I found were Scientology sites, blogs, promotional websites, book advertisements, and so on. The most reputable sources referring to Hubbard and speculative fiction were Reuters articles discussing Hubbard's Writers of the Future Contest(see www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS179622+15-Jan-2008+PRN20080115 ). Perhaps I have been unsuccessful in finding authoritative sources for the "Hubbard = speculative fiction author" claim. If so, please provide these sources. As far as the vandalism issue, and the IGNORE rules policy, I acknowledge your (GoodDamon's) greater knowledge of Wikipedia and its policies and rules. However, I humbly argue that the "reliable sources" policy is one of the policies that we ought to defend. :) OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 20:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I don't see anything in your argument that conflicts with Wikipedia policies whatsoever. By Wikipedia policies, you're absolutely right. I'm simply arguing that this might be a very particular situation in which WP:IGNORE trumps the other policies. But you're absolutely right that the reliable sources almost all refer to Hubbard as a "science fiction" writer. The term "speculative fiction," while more accurate, was decided on way back when to head off the issues I listed earlier.

On the other hand, times have changed. There seem to be fewer pro-Scientology editors in these pages now, and frankly, they were causing the biggest problems with that line. So while I'm unwilling to, may I suggest you be bold, change the line, cite sources accordingly, and open this can of worms? --GoodDamon 00:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

In fact it bears little relevance if such sources all tell that he would be a 'Science Fiction' writer. All these sources, either way, have to submit to what the actual statistics are. Time after time people have purposely made the association with Science fiction. Somehow this got stuck in people's minds, and in those that wrote these source entries. The fact is that he wrote in all genre's of fiction (and other), and the majority of them (and most certainly prior to 1950), it was by far not Science Fiction. Try here. As I have predicted a while back already, this matter will be an everlasting war. This time around the 'authority' argument is being tried, rather than the statistically correct argument. Propaganda rules, this is always going to rule in controversial subjects in such media such as Wikipedia where any unprofessional can interfere. --Olberon (talk) 18:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

arbitrary section break 1

(this is copied from my talkpage) --Olberon (talk) 20:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Thank you for your letter. As you are probably aware, the goal in Wikipedia is to set out what the most reputable, verifiable sources say about a subject. I think it is interesting that all of the sources I listed have called him a science fiction writer. Obviously he wrote many genres. Why do they categorize him as a science fiction writer? To explore this issue in a general sense, I would like to draw your attention to Medieval and Renaissance scholars. Many of the most famous ones were involved in many intellectual pursuits: alchemy, theology, art, medicine, etc. Nevertheless, the reputable, mainstream sources (encyclopedias, historians, etc) often make a judgement call, and categorize a thinker in a certain "box". Thus, if you look up scholar X in Encyclopedia Britannica, it will call them a "Medieval alchemist" (even though he did theology, art, medicine, etc as well). Why does the Encyclopedia Britannica do this? We don't know. That is one of the limitations, or if you wish to see it another way, the weaknesses of the Wikipedia approach. If 10 Encyclopedias say that the sky is green, that is what gets reported in the Wikipedia article on "SKY". Verifiability from reputable sources, not aiming at a truth beyond those sources, is my understanding of what we are aiming at with Wikipedia. If you have a source that refutes the encylopedia articles and magazine articles I put as sources, put your counter-source in the article as a reference. Thanks OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 19:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

This is not about authority worshipping. Your sources are no more than brief summaries. They fail in regards to Wikipedia rules Wikipedia:Verifiability & Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. You say it yourself that you don't know why your sources say these things. Are these your 'authorities'? Once upon a time these supposed authoritive sources would have said that the sun is moving around the earth instead of the other way around, or that the earth was flat. In this case I gave you statistical sources that clearly show and you neglect them? Instead you want to blindly hold on to 'opinions'?

I quit editing on Wikipedia a while back exactly because of such issues. One has to monitor matters into eternity. The entry as it is now is subjective and proven incorrect, it is propaganda. Did you actually consult the link I provided? --Olberon (talk) 20:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You said: "Once upon a time these supposed authoritive sources would have said that the sun is moving around the earth instead of the other way around, or that the earth was flat." Are you honestly arguing that Wikipedia should stop relying primarily on academic journals and news sources because half a millennium ago religious institutions insisted scientific evidence was wrong? Seriously? Come on... --GoodDamon 20:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is NOT about "relying primarily on academic journals and news sources". There is a lot that goes under the name of Science when it is not, even to this very day. --Olberon (talk) 22:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:TRUTH is our guide here, I feel. --Rodhullandemu 20:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

And this is why we nicely submit to our agreements that counteract objectivity. Why not saying, "But listen, we don't like this Scienceficolology (something) thing, therefore it should reflect here that it is bad somehow." And thus we submit to adding such associations like this. We submit to pure propaganda.

See, THIS is why Wikipedia has no future, and THIS is why I quit it a while ago. Ecce homo. No scientific approach, we just reason our way out of that, and make it appear as if we have right.

The opposing arguments received are outright silly! --Olberon (talk) 22:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Correct, in a sense, that expert opinion on Wikipedia takes second place to consensus. However much I have striven to seek objectivity, the less I am convinced that it can actually exist. Most of the major edit wars I have seen here, for example in relation to Evolution/Intelligent Design, and other debates, have not been predicated on truth as an objective aim as to putting forward a POV as truth; but of course in the absence of empirical evidence, such a goal is unreachable; and even if it were, such evidence is open to criticism on grounds of misinterpretation, inaccuracy and pure politics. That is tragic. The best we can do here is NOT to seek "the truth"; the best we can do is to present the arguments and leave the conclusions to be drawn open to our readers. In my opinion, that's what an encyclopedia is for. If you think otherwise, please feel free to start your own website; however, will it become a top ten hit in Goggle? --Rodhullandemu 23:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

That's the problem. The conclusion is drawn for the reader not by the reader. Bottom line is that the presentation is counter objective.

I have already an own website. I do intend to address this matter as it is interesting pattern of behaviour. --Olberon (talk) 08:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

arbitrary section break 2

(Resetting indent) - Olberon, if you have specific issues with Wikipedia's policies, you should take it up on those policies' talk pages. Each policy, such as WP:RS -- which appears to be the one you're objecting to here -- has its own discussion page for making changes to it. Right now, the position that the reliable sources we're using say "science fiction" instead of, for instance, "speculative fiction" has won against the position that Hubbard's bibliography has more than science fiction in it. And that's well in line with the policy. So as you appear to have an issue with WP:RS, I strongly suggest you take it up there. This is not the proper venue for that discussion. --GoodDamon 23:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not counter Wikipedia's policies. I pointed out that this 'agreed upon' presentation in fact is violating its rules. In addition it is also querying the established previous consensus. Consensus --Olberon (talk) 08:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree with GoodDamon (talk · contribs). We should stick to how L. Ron Hubbard is described in WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 00:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

And thus violating Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. From Verifiability article: "Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies. The others are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with all three." --Olberon (talk) 08:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're flat-out wrong. By your argument, the article on Pol Pot should avoid using WP:RS and WP:V sources about him, because they all portray him negatively instead of neutrally. The notion that we should cut out the majority of verifiable, reliable sources on a subject because those sources don't portray the subject in a positive light is ridiculous. It is NOT a violation of WP:NPOV to accurately reflect the consensus of well-researched, academic and news sources. On a side note, I take strong issue with the notion that calling Hubbard a science fiction author is an insult. While he did write a lot more than sci-fi, it certainly made up more of his literary production than any other genre. Furthermore, I am a science fiction author, and I certainly don't regard my chosen profession to be insulting or derogatory in any way.

On another side note, I'd like to point out that in the original discussion, the consensus reached was extremely tenuous, with my own vote (I'm the one who proposed "speculative" as a compromise in the first place) as the deciding factor. I've been convinced otherwise, and have changed my mind. --GoodDamon 17:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I have not a clue what your Pol Pot example got to do with anything in this matter! You admit it is wrong to call L. Ron Hubbard as just a SF writer, and still you submit to it?? I call that weird!

What is the purpose of reaching a consensus? How long did the previous one last? Meanwhile I wrote about this on my site and published it. --Olberon (talk) 23:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

There is apparently a language barrier. I mentioned the article about Pol Pot as an analogy. And I don't "admit" anything. In addition to writing in other genres, he wrote science fiction. And he wrote more science fiction than he wrote of any other genre. Looking at his bibliography, about 40% of what he wrote was sci-fi, and the other 60% was made up of a bunch of different genres. So calling him a science fiction writer makes sense. But more importantly, the reliable sources say he was a science fiction writer. That's what counts. --GoodDamon 23:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

With other words you humbly and for all blindly 'submit'! Your percentage of 40% is statistically and proven seriously incorrect! What study are you referring to?? Suddenly you also say that "he wrote more science fiction than he wrote of any other genre", which is an outrigth lie! It does not even pass the 25%. Where is your study?? I also see that you ignored my comments on 'consensus'. You also have a misinterpretation of these particular sources being "well-researched", if they are well-researched they tell where they got the data from where it is based on. They all fail to mention that! As I said I wrote this all down, analyzed it and published it on my site. --Olberon (talk) 09:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to a "study." I just took a look at a list of stories he published, and guesstimated at the number. I could be wrong about the exact amount, but it does appear he wrote more science fiction than westerns, more science fiction than adventure, more science fiction than romance, etc. And no, I didn't lie. You misunderstood me. The other genres, added together, certainly appear to outnumber the science fiction he wrote, but the science fiction appears to outnumber the other individual genres. Look... We have to go with what the verifiable, reliable sources say, whether or not its accurate. That's Wikipedia policy. If you don't like those policies, you really do need to take it up on the talk pages for those policies. And you are certainly welcome to publish whatever you like on your site. No one here will argue that you can't. --GoodDamon 02:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Statistically you are wrong. The Adventure genre outnumbers the science Fiction genre (especially if the unpublished legacy is included), so why not call him an Adventure fiction writer. You are ignoring ALL my arguments. About Consensus and its purpose. In addition you ignore the rule Neutral point of View. Both these are seriously violated. And once again your 'reliable sources' present 'no' studies in this matter, and therefore are junior to actual studies made in the area. The following work actually does: "William J. Widder, M.A.; The Fiction of L. Ron Hubbard: A comprehensive bibliography & reference guide to published and selected unpublished works.; Los Angeles, CA, U.S.A.; Bridge Publications, Incorporated, 1994; ISBN 0-88404-936-1" See also analysis here.

To sum it up the article already in its very first sentence contains 2 serious incorrectnesses, the other one being "a body of beliefs". The subject itself never was. See, those that want to oppose the subject will not permit an objective presentation. It's all about propaganda.

Per your interpretation one is allowed to actually lie on Wikipedia and that with permission! Nice going! --Olberon (talk) 06:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

First off, we can't count the "unpublished legacy," because it's unpublished material. It may be published eventually by the Church, and if it is, perhaps some news articles will appear describing Hubbard as an "adventure" author. I would have no problem with that. But right now... --GoodDamon 17:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't matter really as the data has been officially published in William J. Widder, M.A.; The Fiction of L. Ron Hubbard: A comprehensive bibliography & reference guide to published and selected unpublished works. --Olberon (talk) 00:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• With Mission Earth, Battlefield Earth, and his published pulps, I'm pretty sure science fiction outnumbers the other individual genres. It certainly outnumbers them in sheer volume of words... Mission Earth and Battlefield Earth are absolutely, mind-bogglingly huge.--GoodDamon 17:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Their authorship has been questioned, then more importantly this is not part of the 1932-50 published fiction stories, which is predating the Scientology/Dianetics publication period. The article doesn't reflect that. --Olberon (talk) 00:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• He is best-known for his science fiction. Aside from the Earth books, his most notable, well-known characters, like Ol' Doc Methuselah, come from his science fiction.
• The mainstream media refers to him by his best-known genre, calling him a "science fiction" writer.--GoodDamon 17:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

In fact irrelevant as we had a Golden Age of SF during these years. Popularity does not denote him as SF writer primarily. The article does not reflect that! --Olberon (talk) 00:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Mr. Widder, no matter how well researched he is, cannot be used as a reliable source, because he works for and is a member of the Church of Scientology.--GoodDamon 17:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Entirely irrelevant. It is an official published fiction bibliography and HAS to be regarded as such. Till you or someone comes up with some other detailed study THIS publication is what you have to deal with!! Widder does not actually even work for the Church of Scientology. --Olberon (talk) 00:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Your own site is also off-limits, because that would be original research.--GoodDamon 17:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I have not proposed that even. In addition that what should be looked at is if some information on some site is ITSELF REFERENCED. --Olberon (talk) 00:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Look, you may be right, but in the end it doesn't matter. According to Wikipedia policy, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." It really seems like you have a conflict with that policy and with WP:RS, not with me. You need to take up this argument on the policy talk pages. --GoodDamon 17:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

As I pointed out pretty clear it is not me that is in conflict. You continue to simply ignore various of my arguments. Why are you doing that?--Olberon (talk) 00:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

(Resetting indent) OK, I'm going to point out policy one more time, and then we're done.

1. We can't use church-published material to support statements of fact. At all. No exceptions. They, and the people who work for them, are not reliable sources. Wikipedia has a policy called WP:RS. That is the policy that dictates this. Not me. You really need to take up this argument on that policy's talk page if you disagree with the policy. I am not the person to be arguing with on this.
2. William J. Widder does work for the Church of Scientology and publishes on their behalf. Claiming that Galaxy Press is somehow not associated with the church is disingenuous. He is not a reliable source. We can't use him. If TIME or Newsweek quotes his work, we can use them, because they are reliable sources. Until then, Mr. Widder can publish as many editions of Hubbard's bibliography as he likes, and we can't use them. You say "THIS publication is what you have to deal with!!" and I say, OK. I've dealt with it. It doesn't pass muster as a reliable source. We can't use it. I strongly -- make that vehemently -- suggest you read WP:RS now. Because if you want to include Church-published materials to support statements of fact, the first thing you will need to do is change that policy.
3. Why exclude Mission Earth and Battlefield Earth from his sci-fi bibliography? I've looked at the citations used in this article that refer to him as a science fiction writer, and almost all of them date from 1990 or later.
4. That the media calls him a "science fiction" writer is not irrelevant. Again, they are Wikipedia's "reliable sources." I think I've pretty much beaten this one into the ground, so that's all I'll say on this matter.
5. I have not ignored your arguments. I've answered each point, and explained repeatedly that I'm simply adhering to Wikipedia policy.

That's it. I think we've taken this as far as we can go. If you want to, I suggest you take this up with the Arbitration Committee (whoops, meant to link dispute resolution, but I was pretty tired when I wrote this), but I can promise you they'll quote Wikipedia policy to you as well. You would be best served by reading, understanding, and arguing your case at WP:RS. --GoodDamon 05:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee would not take this case; it is a content dispute, specifically outside their jurisdiction. Several options listed in WP:DR, however if Widder is in doubt, the Reliable Sources Noticeboard is the place to go. Beyond that, a Request for Comment is as far as it'll get. --Rodhullandemu 11:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed the bottomline is that you have no interest to improve objectivity of an article. You persist in having a subjective presentation! You hide behind your personal interpretation and take of rules.

1.-2. William Widder does not work for the organization, he is not a Scientologist. In fact this article tells he is a scholar in the field of especially SF. http://www.sfwa.org/News/wwidder.htm It is irrelevant who published the book. And no you have NOT dealt with the book. I CHALLENGE you to find and point out a single error in the book.

3. You nicely ignore once again various of my forwardings. For example to not let the article tell that the pre-Scientology period was not predominantly SF at all. To only let it state and focus on SF is a false representation.

4. It is quite irrelevant in fact if available studies and further data (even found elsewhere on the Internet) show something else.

5. That's a lie. Per your interpretation Wikipedia resulted into a propaganda medium. Supposed reliable sources don't have to answer to anything. They are not obliged to provide for source references that support their claims. You ignore things that are unconvenient to you. You see, in the case you would have right in what you say, then you very, very clearly pointed out to ALL of us how incredibly inferiour and flawed the Wikipedia system actually is!!! --Olberon (talk) 11:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I said I was done, but you've come up with a few things I really should answer. First off, it's not my "personal interpretation and take of the rules." Really, read WP:RS. It's very, very straightforward. Now for your other points:

1.-2. I'm going to blow your mind right now. I own the book. It's a pretty good book, if you disregard the overall tone of adoration and lionization. But it repeats the same stories about Hubbard's life that other biographies of him written by the Church use (like the known-to-be-false Blackfeet blood-brother story). It's written from a Church perspective. It's one of two books Mr. Widder wrote about Hubbard's fiction, and I haven't been able to find any other book he wrote, ever. He wrote them for Bridge Publications and Galaxy Press. I haven't made a study of Mr. Widder's life, but if he wasn't a Scientologist, then he wasn't a very good researcher, because he accepted the Church's statements about Hubbard at face value, including the ones known to be wrong. In any event, the book is published by the Church, and that, right there, means it can't be used as a reliable source for statements of fact. If you feel the book can be used that way, great. Take it up with WP:RS/N, like Rodhullandemu above suggests.

3. OK, provide us with an independent -- that is, not published by the Church of Scientology or any branch of it -- reliable bibliographical source that indicates science fiction was outnumbered by, say, adventure stories, and I'll happily include a reference to that in the article and change it myself. I want to be clear with you on something: I'm not trying to push an agenda here one way or the other. I'm the one who originally proposed referring to him as a "speculative fiction" author because I'm well aware that he wrote more than sci-fi. All I'm doing now -- and frankly, it's reached levels of absurdity -- is adhering to Wikipedia policy. Please read WP:RS. I'm literally begging you now. Stop arguing with me, stop arguing against policy here, and actually read that policy. It will make it abundantly clear why we can't use Church-based sources.

4. If that "further data" is church-published, it can't be used here.

5. So you are arguing that magazines like TIME and Newsweek aren't reliable? Good luck with that one. I'm done here. I've been more than fair, but until you read and understand Wikipedia policies, there's no point in arguing this any further. --GoodDamon 19:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Bottom line is that you know the presentation is inferiour and biased, but nonetheless you fully support it. You don't deal with: "Supposed reliable sources don't have to answer to anything. They are not obliged to provide for source references that support their claims." If you submit to this you will not ever get something that is worth to be called an objective encyclopaedia. --Olberon (talk) 07:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The Fake Navy

Should this article mention the scientologist's Sea Organization? It's a fake navy where the dress up like Admiral Farragut and sign a BILLION YEAR CONTRACT and basically become David Miscavige's personal slaves.

Generalanonymous (talk) 00:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Put in those terms, no. Probably wise to take a look at WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE here. Also the banner at the top of this page and generally, WP:TALK --Rodhullandemu 00:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

To learn more go to xenu.net

Generalanonymous (talk) 01:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I detect a pattern in your edits so far. Probably worth also looking at WP:SOAPBOX before you're blocked for disruption. --Rodhullandemu 01:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree w/ Rodhullandemu (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 03:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Criminal activity?

Didn't there used to be a section in the main article regarding Criminal activity? Have I managed to miss it entirely?

I'm looking for information on the critical writer Scientology framed and the battle with the FBI, but I could no longer find it.

Thanks, --UnicornTapestry (talk) 00:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you're looking for Church of Scientology. That article is about the organization. This one primarily covers the belief systems. --GoodDamon 01:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

No proof that Hubbard studied Freud as a twelve-year-old (suggestion for edit)

I'm a new registered user so I can't edit this myself, but:

In the article it is stated almost as a fact that LRH would have studied Freud as a twelve-year-old, under the guidance of a personal student of Freud himself. However, in LRH's diaries from this time, nothing of the sorts is mentioned. No references to freudian theories and no mentioning of anybody tutoring him in this field. This information from "A Piece of blue sky /Dianetics, Scientology and L.Ron Hubbard exposed", Jon Atack, "A Lyle Stuart book", ISBN 0-8184-0499-X

Rujaraju (talk) 11:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I added your comment and reference in the main article, trying to keep it neutral. Thank you for that insight.

kind regards, --UnicornTapestry (talk) 00:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Rujaraju (talk) 09:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

"CULT" Status

This is from the Wikipedia definition of the word, "cult:"

"New religions are often considered "cults" before they are considered religions[12] by social scientists, and usually by Christian Evangelical/Fundamentalist theologians, and by the secular public – yet these three groups do not usually have the same understanding of the term "cult". People understand the term "cult" through the most popular usage in their cultures and subcultures, which can result in homonymic conflict, a communicative conflict with people who hold a different definition of the same term. This often results in confusion, misunderstanding, and resentment between members of "cult" groups and non-members." This applies here in spades.

The fact that Scientology has certain beliefs or practices to which its members strongly adhere does not justify using a word generally accepted as having negative connotations in a definition of the subject. I went to Wikipedia to find the meaning of the word, "Scientology," and what I found instead was a debate more suited for blogs and forums. In fact, it was hard to tell what Scientology is according to the aforementioned, "definition," other than a controversy, which leads me to conclude that the definition is not a definition at all, but representative that the protocols of value in editing Wikipedia are being bypassed in order to further rather hateful agendas and inner-Wiki blogging.

The references listed on the definition page of Scientology make it all seem valid as being utterly and only a controversy, but if one looks at the pages devoted to Christianity, for example, he will not find pedophelia, murderers and war lords, even though these practices are well documented as having been furthered by so-called members of Mother Church. Nor do I find on the pages devoted to Muslims, a history of terrorism, or on the subject of Judaism, a history of lobbing mises into neighboring countries. In fact, on these subjects I found rather comprehensive definitions and historical studies, none of which were attacks by their respective, "victims," or by the disaffected and so on. This is because, for some strange reason, these subjects have been presented as they were meant to be presented on Wiki's; as definitions.

Certainly Scientology has had it's share of controversy. One writer notes the statements by the son of L. Ron Hubbard himself against the church. I believe, however, that the churches founder has another son who is a devoted Scientologist. What is his opinion? Or, don't you want to know? Of course not - not for these purposes. Neither son represents an objective definition, which is what I, as a lay person, was looking for. And nor do the individuals responsible for posting the hate group, "Anonymous,"'s photo in the middle of a page devoted to a definition of Scientology. If this group had any courage, any real point to make, they would not hide their identities, nor would they post hateful text into what is supposed to be an objective look at a subject.

On the subject of sources like Time magazine and other media, it is my personal opinion that in the past 20 years or so, almost all media sources have become rather glamorized. I read an article on the Church of Scientology where they referred to Narconon, an L. Ron Hubbard related drug-program, as believing that drug addiction could be handled with a sauna and some vitamins. In fact, the medical sauna (also called the Purif) is an integrated part of Narconon, but that represents only a fraction of an entire process devoted to ethics, suppression, integrity, relationships, control, communication, etc. I know this because I have a very close family member who went through the program and came out quite changed for the better in my view. Very solid individual, contributing member of society, etc. And, yet, none of these aspects were mentioned. So, the value I place on media sources, to say nothing of the circus that is the news on television these days, is next to nil.

Another gray area is the idea of, "..beliefs generally agreed to be outside the mainstream." in terms of defining Scientology as a cult. I know from my study of Narconon that Hubbard teaches a rather mainstream code of ethics, from monogamy to respecting one's parents, to being drug free to supporting persons of good intent. In fact, there was an entire "course" on integrity and honor. Something I found quite refreshing and made quite clear.

I don't know that it's really fair, responsible, or objective to insist that Scientology be classified as a cult on Wikipedia. I think that there are all sorts of forums to bash religions as much as you want, but what I do not appreciate is being dragged into the middle of it in an encyclopedia definition.

Captinhairybely (interesting name by the way) states, "...there is plenty of proof of Scientology destroying families and cutting off relationships. it is a cult. its is misguided and ridiculous attempt to make money. off of aliens."

Even a brief look at news articles and debates over the past thousand or so years shows this to be the case of most religions. The adherence to a belief system itself often is cause for familial separation when one member strongly believes or "follows" something and another argues against it. As far as I know, the Catholic church has made billions more than the church of Scientology, and I don't know how much the Mormon establishment pulls in every year based on it's per member 10% "tithe." And insofar as aliens - they seem no less..alien than a guy turning water into wine and parting oceans with a wave of his hand. And, in the Scientologist's defense, I don't see Scientologist's lobbying for more money on our present day war machine.

But do these controversies define the subject of each religion? Do wayward Scientologists define the practices of fundamental Scientology any more than Christians Deacons and priests having sex with grammar school aged altar-0boys define the fudamental practices and written dogma of the Catholic church? Of course not. These are choices made outside the churches themselves, and have less to do with the definition of the practice than they are a reflection of the disgruntled or disavowed, or wayward condition of the individual, who should, be it Christianity, Islam, Mormonism or Scientology, probably get back to their church and start doing whatever it was that the church actually preaches or practices. And, if it doesn't work out for them, then they should find something that does, or create something that does, instead of spending all day trying to disavow something that others find beneficial in their lives.

But the question of "cult" in the Wiki definition seems displaced. Members who are insisting that the word be used appear to insist too much to me. There seems to be an aggressive and unwarranted bias against the church, and these contributors seem hell-bent on placing their footprint in the Wiki. I say we don't. As a group, let's blog and flog and batter and shatter ideas in other forums. Get yourself a website, write to the editor of your local paper, bash away! But not here, not in the "sacred" halls of Wiki.

I would be happy to help write the whole thing up, inclusive of Scientology's controversial history, because I think it's an important academic point, but focusing on the evolution of Scientology as an applied religious practice. The article definitely needs more info on the elements of Scientology, like Auditing, the triangles in the logo and what they mean, the development of Scientology from Dianetics (I think that was the progression if I'm not mistaken), and yes, the controversies, especially in the 70's through the 90's. But again, not as a focus, just as an aside.

In all fairness, we should add in the historical gore in every other religious definition as well. I still wonder if this is really the place for all of that, but the debate should end with some sort of general agreement, since that would be the most conducive to the Wiki public at large looking for a general description.

In summary I think we should avoid "opinion leaders" as much as possible, since this could turn into an endless, "he said, she said," and be a simplified definition of the practice itself. Just my opinion. Steven K. Bruno CCDC (talk) 00:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)gr8dna (talk) 22:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

First, I want to apologize for editing your comments, but they were unreadable before. To put spaces between your paragraphs in Wikipedia, you'll want to use two carriage-returns if you're editing at the top level of a thread (as is the case here). If you're answering someone else's comments, it's customary to indent your own comments using colons(:) at the beginning of each paragraph, as I'm doing here in response to you. I'll only need to use a single carriage-return between my paragraphs because I'm starting each one with a colon. For further indenting, just use two or more colons (::).

In any event, a lot of what you're bringing up is discussed in detail above, in the other threads. It would probably be more helpful if you answered specific points in the individual threads, then bring up just your new points in a new thread. But be that as it may, I'll try to respond to your questions and comments, but it may take me a while to get them all organized. --GoodDamon 02:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I replied to your questions on my talk page. Feel free to answer here or there, but I'm beginning to feel like these kinds of questions that don't directly relate to article improvement really belong off the article's talk page. --GoodDamon 19:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Please add Jesus in Scientology as seealso link under the subsection "Scientology as a religion"

—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Add Cults and governments, Church of the New Faith and List of groups referred to as cults as 'see also' links

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Valuative (talk • contribs) -->

Excesive citation in very first sentance

I know that the fact that Hubbard was a science fiction author is bound to be contentious but are 8 citations really necessary? They are breaking up the very first sentence of the article. Wouldn't 2 or 3 RS be enough? -IcĕwedgЁ (ťalķ) 05:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, however it would probably be prudent place the remaining links to the References section. - -NotHugo- - (talk) 12:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)