Talk:Scientology/Archive 29

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

→

Archive 33

.com?

you should mention that most churches and non-profit organizations use .org not .com, the web domain itself brings one to question the religious aspect considering a .com domain points it to being a corporation....just a thought —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.136.249.233 (talk) 07:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 69.111.183.174, 22 May 2011

The below listed paragraph taken from the last paragraph of the first page of Scientology does not appear to be balanced and from a neutral point of view. The listed paragraph appears to be written by someone with a slanted perspective of Scientology and based on opinions. I have read your wiki articles on other religions and they don't list former member complaints or "litigation" tactics. Although the person that wrote this paragraph obviously has the right to do so in some newspaper article, I don't believe it deserves its place in a neutral encyclopedia. I believe that after reviewing the below listed paragraph one would agree that it does not fall in line with Wikipedia's mandatory core approach to neutral, unbiased article-writing. Thank you for your consideration into this matter.

"It has often been described as a cult that financially defrauds and abuses its members, charging exorbitant fees for its spiritual services.[9][18][19] The Church of Scientology has consistently used litigation against such critics, and its aggressiveness in pursuing its foes has been condemned as harassment.[20][21] Further controversy has focused on Scientology's belief that souls ("thetans") reincarnate and have lived on other planets before living on Earth.[22] Former members say that some of Hubbard's writings on this remote extraterrestrial past, included in confidential Upper Levels, are not revealed to practitioners until they have paid thousands of dollars to the Church of Scientology."

69.111.183.174 (talk) 04:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. I'm not sure how you're recommending the paragraph be changed. It seems reasonably balanced to me, in that it specifically cites relevant, reliable sources. That other religions don't have similar comments isn't particularly relevant; many religions, though, have full, independent articles of criticism (just as Scientology does). If you can explain, though, exactly what you think should be changed, please do so and change the "yes" in the template above to "no". Qwyrxian (talk) 04:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

It is stating facts and citing quotes, I don't see how this could be considered bias.--Jacksoncw (talk) 02:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The reason why most religion articles don't have sections on litigation is because most religions don't have a documented history of aggressively suing anyone who criticizes them. That's even more of a reason for it to be included in the article, and considering that it is citing quotes and reliable sources, as well as the fact that it is a documented part of Scientology history, I recommend that it remain unchanged. If you would like the article to have a more balanced point of view, perhaps include a couple of sentences detailing Scientology's official responses to such claims. Luvanger666 (talk) 17:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit to "Organization" section

Hello,

Per discussion with Coffeepushers, I am proposing adding to the Scientology page. I wanted to propose this edit for the "Organizations" section:

NEW CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY

David Miscavige initiated a strategy in 2003 to build new Churches of Scientology in every major city in the world. Since then, twenty-four new Churches have been opened, a number of them in the world's cultural capitals, including Madrid, New York, London, and Berlin. Miscavige has dedicated ten of these new Scientology Churches since 2009 in Italy, Australia, Mexico, Russia, Sweden, Belgium, Germany, United Kingdom, Spain, Canada and the United States, and 50 Churches are in design, planning or construction phases in 16 different countries.

The current expansion has been estimated at $500 million. Worldwide estimates have been made as to Scientology having more than 8,500 Organizations, Missions and affiliated groups in 165 countries. The expansion has included acquisition and renovation of many historical buildings, and has been said to be helping to revitalize the urban landscape. Total assets and property holdings of the Church of Scientology internationally have doubled since 2004.

Sources include: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/10/business/10scientology.html http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2012502517_scientology01m.html http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2010/07/12/scientology-opens-new-national-organization-mexico-city-palaces/#ixzz1PB3f3ILX

Is this a reasonable edit to make? If so, I'll go ahead and do so. Thanks, NestleNW911 (talk) 23:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I have applied this edit. Thanks.NestleNW911 (talk) 19:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Edits by NestleNW911 are church propaganda

I am not allowed to reverse the changes myself, but the addition by NestleNW911 is propaganda. The claim that there are 50 churches in design is not referenced. The claim that there are 8500 churches is church propaganda and patently untrue. Remeber there are only 25000 Scientologists in the US. Can somebody authorised to do so please reverse the change? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Startwater (talk • contribs) 14:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Leaving aside the "propaganda" claim, I have removed this section, because it didn't fit in the article... the place where it was put was a description of how Scientology is organized: this info had nothing to do with that. Info about specific church buildings and fundraising initiatives are better suited for the Church of Scientology article. That said, I don't think promotional material from press releases is generally relevant to wikipedia articles, and there is quite a lot of detail about orgs and missions already there. -- BTfromLA (talk) 22:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I will also request further follow up on a similar change Nestle made on David Miscagive's page. The problem of the change is that Nestle provides sources (two newspaper articles and one of their own press releases) which do not contain the claims that are made by Nestle in his/her change. Startwater (talk) 11:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit to 4th paragraph

I see that the 4th paragraph has been questioned by 69.111.183.174. I agree that this portion doesn't seem to comply with WP:NPOV. It jumps right away to negative perceptions of the church, without airing the other side. To give a more balanced point of view, I propose that the following be added:

The Church of Scientology has been recognized as a religious denomination in its home country, the United States and has received full recognition in various other countries such as Italy, South Africa, Australia, Sweden, New Zealand, Portugal and Spain.

Location: After "The Church of Scientology is one of the most controversial new religious movements to have arisen in the 20th century" on the fourth paragraph.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Scientology_status_by_country

Thanks.NestleNW911 (talk) 00:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Your suggested change is already in the second paragraph of the same section. It doesn't bear repetition in the fourth paragraph. It will only make the article less readable. Startwater (talk) 15:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

That statement is debatable and also incoherent with the rest of the section. Also, star is right, it is in another section. Also, look in the archives as similar discussions have been had many times.--Jacksoncw (talk) 16:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Scientology, Cult or Madness

Which proposed section is more relevant , is Scientology a Cult or is it Madness proposed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.219.233.72 (talk) 05:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Scientology "cult" drama

Someone keeps changing the opening sentence of the article to read "cult", which seems to be causing a little bit of drama, not to mention the fact that people keep requesting an edit to remove sections involving criticism of and crimes committed by Scientology from the article despite said sections citing reliable sources and being relevant to the article.

I don't think that the article should list Scientology as a cult due to the fact that "cult" is a poorly-defined term that could easily be applied to any religious group. It should definitely mention the fact that critics frequently refer to it as a cult, but certain crazy fundamentalist groups have over-applied that word to the point where it's a virtually undefinable term with extreme negative connotations. Pretty much any religious movement can be referred to as a cult. Since "cult" is such a subjective term, its use can't really be justified as neutral except in extreme cases where almost everyone regards the group as a cult (i.e. Peoples Temple, Branch Davidians), and even then, it's a bit iffy.

I also think that it's a little bit paranoid to imply that someone is a secret $cientology propaganda agent just because they recommend that something be changed in a Wikipedia article, which a couple of editors have been doing on the talk page lately, not to mention giving some strongly implied personal insults. We all know that Scientology does have propaganda agents, some of whom are probably trying to edit this article to make it more attractive, but we still have to maintain some semblance of maturity when editing an encyclopedia. I'm not a fan of Scientology myself to say the least, but I think that some users are really showing a lack of maturity when it comes to interacting with others.

There are also certain editors who repeatedly ask for sections of the article (especially those that cover criticism of Scientology) to be removed or rewritten despite being cited perfectly, being written from a neutral point of view, and being entirely relevant to the article. This seems to happen a few times per week, and it's getting plain ridiculous.

In any case, I was wondering if an admin could watch this talk page to quickly topic-ban editors who use personal insults or ask for the same damn thing over and over again, because this talk page has become a breeding ground for trolling, immaturity, and biased thought, none of which is particularly helpful to the development of an encyclopedia article. I'm not saying that Scientologists or critics of Scientology should be banned from editing the article and talk page, but something really needs to be done about the trolls and propagandists who clutter it with personal attacks, blatant propaganda, and other things that detract from edits that are actually relevant.

Any thoughts?

Luvanger666 (talk) 06:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

the last time the cult edit happened was over a month ago, and that editor apologized and wanted to make amends for the edit, which doesn't seem excessive. As for your request on topic banning editors who behave disruptively, the Scientology section of Wikipedia has some of the most stringent rules of any topic within wikipedia, if you feel an editor is being obviously disruptive you are welcome to bring it up here.Coffeepusher (talk) 11:03, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I feel stupid for writing that now. It made sense last night while I was tripping on MDMA. Now it doesn't. I do feel that people aren't being respectful enough on the talk page, but I jumped to a lot of conclusions and my suggestions were stupid. My apologies.

Luvanger666 (talk) 13:01, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles conflict re: Hubbard's endorsement/rejection of Freudian theory

I'm not a contributor to these articles, but thought to point out a glaring conflict between the wiki article Scientology and psychiatry, which states:

L. Ron Hubbard, Scientology's founder, was critical of both Freudian theory and biopsychiatry.[4][5][6]

and this article (Scientology and psychiatry), which states:

Sigmund Freud's psychology, popularized in the 1930s and 1940s, was a key contributor to the Dianetics therapy model, and was acknowledged unreservedly as such by Hubbard.[133]

Thought it worth pointing out so that those in the know could correct or clarify as appropriate. (I posted this same message at the talk page for the Scientology and psychiatry wiki) Allonepeople (talk) 02:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

unfortunately for me, the source for that statement in this article is in German. Do we have any German readers who could fact check "Willms, Gerald (2005). Scientology: Kulturbeobachtungen jenseits der Devianz. Bielefeld, Germany: transcript Verlag. ISBN 3-89942-330-5" and compare it to the other articles sources: "Hubbard L.R. (1969) Crime and Psychiatry" and "Hubbard L.R. (1980) Criminals and Psychiatry"?Coffeepusher (talk) 14:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is a translation of the passage from Willms (p. 58):

One of the few explicit intellectual influences on Hubbard, and thus the scientological model of reality, is the popular-science reception of Freud in the 1930s and 1940s, whose basic assumptions had a defining influence on the Dianetical understanding of therapy. This includes the basic elements of his teaching about the mind, the analytic and reactive mind, which are so closely modelled on the concepts of the conscious and unconscious mind that one has to assume an explicit and significant influence on the scientological model of reality (Wallis 1976a: 31ff., Whitehead 1987: 21) – even if Hubbard turns the Freudian intentions of psychotherapy upside down with the practice of Dianetics. [Footnote 24: What Freud was ultimately concerned with was using the unconscious as a means to open a pathway to the complexity of what it means to be human, while the practice of Dianetics is aimed at no less than the extinction of the unconscious (see Fromm 1950: 7 for general background on Hubbard's misunderstanding of Freud).] At least in his early works, Hubbard expressly acknowledged Freud positively: "[...] no praise can be great enough to give such a man, and the credit I give him for my own inspiration and work is entirely without reservation or bounds" [Footnote 25: Hubbard 1955a (216). See also: "A Brief History of Psychotherapy, DAB 1951, Vol. 2, No. 59, November 1951 in TB 1979, Vol. I: 181ff. as well as "The Hope of Man", Ability, Minor 5, June 1955 in TB 1979, Vol. II: 209. The constant reference to his close personal friendship with a declared Freud pupil and expert (Commander S. Thompson) likewise speaks in favour of an adaptation of Freudian thinking (ibid., I, again 1951a: Thanks, Hubbard 1952b: Dedication)].

The "no praise ..." quote is given in the original English by Willms. In the passage that follows this, Willms comments on Scientology's opposition to and conspiracy theories about any kind of psychological establishment in society, a contradiction which he says is solved by viewing Scientology not as a psychological teaching, but as the result of Hubbard's independent research into the basic nature of the mind. Bromley and Cowan are here. --JN466 22:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I've edited the passage slightly: [1] Some of the quotes Willms references are available here. --JN466 22:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

There is some confusion because Hubbard himself was greatly confused and changed his mind about the mental health industry a number of times. He had hoped that his Dianetics would be accepted along side of actual mental health and after having his pleas for paid psychiatric assistance from the Veterans Administration rejected, he sought to supplant actual mental health with his Dianetics beliefs.

There are endless conflicting quotes one can find in Hubbard's prolific written and audio works which merely reflect an unfortunate mind teetering on the edge of the madness for which he begged the VA's Office for assistance combatting, the contradictions do not indicate a failure with the validity of quotes attributed to him, it indicates the changes in Hubbard's mindset as his physical mental, and emotional states altered over time. Damotclese (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

File:ScientologyCenter1.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:ScientologyCenter1.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Bias under beliefs

Under the beliefs header, the way things are formated almost suggests a bias towards the religion. I think that someone might want to review this, and perhaps scan the rest of the article. --PiKaPi talk blog 19:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Can you elaborate and point to specific example or issues with it? Explaining how it is biased would prove useful in doing something about it. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 19:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The fact that this nonsense actually has an article is pretty biased in itself already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.1.49 (talk) 13:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Dubiousness of intro sentence

"Some former members claim that some of Hubbard's writings on this remote extraterrestrial past, included in confidential Upper Levels, are not revealed to practitioners until they have paid thousands of dollars to the Church of Scientology."

I've mentioned this a few times over the years, but this ridiculous must be resolved. The space opera and extraterrestrial stuff is clearly "revealed" in publicly available books and lectures like A History of Man and literally dozens and dozens of lecture series that may be purchased at any Church bookstore or perused in their Church libraries (and also can be found in plenty of regular libraries.) The OT levels barely contain any space opera except for the OT III Xenu and BTs business, and by that point, Scientologists have been fully indoctrinated to accept space opera via the dozens of lectures they are required to endure to attain eligibility for the OT levels.

So excuse me if I find the claims of a few disgruntled members who claim they were "shcoked" and "surprised" to learn that they suffer from clusters of BTs and were exploded in volcanoes by an intergalatic dictator. Its nonsense since OT eligibility requires a multitude of prerequisite courses which involve listening to hundreds of lectures and auditing past lives back to trillions of years and so forth. By the time OT III arrives, the Scientologist has been forced to audit so many imaginary incidents in distant galaxies that Xenu and the BT problem would not be surprising at all.

So, can we begin to clarify this issue for the average reader and enlighten them as to the reality that there is nothing secret in Scientology about space opera? Laval (talk) 05:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

You have a point. Melton pointed out that basically all the space opera stuff can be found in various openly available lectures etc., provided you know where to look. (See Talk:Xenu#Interesting_source). On the other hand, some former members have said things like that, and it is sourced. I believe I recall Atack for example writing that OT III was not what he had expected. --JN466 05:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, the Church of Scientology have on several occasions sued for keeping the OT III (the Xenu story) out of public circulation, citing copyright infringement or trade secrets. While much of the space opera in Scientology is openly available, the Xenu/body thetan story is not. I guess we'll need to differentiate between the publicly available stuff and the OT III and up material. Petter Bøckman (talk) 07:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Scientology says 'cult' tag defames the church

http://www.watoday.com.au/national/scientology-says-cult-tag-defames-the-church-20110709-1h7rq.html

Possible source for improving the article? DigitalC (talk) 18:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

That goes without saying, cult has a negative connotation. Also, scientologists have tried to get the term cult removed before, try again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.49.24.190 (talk) 23:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

That's because it is a cult Kfcdesuland (talk) 19:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Adding to Controversies

I do small edits and such, but I am not experienced enough at this site to even begin to want to touch this article. However, the recent claims that a woman was imprisoned for several years on a Scientology cruise ship may be a point of interest for section 7, controversies. The article is here http://www.limelife.com/blog-entry/Scientologists-Imprisoned-Woman-On-A-Cruise-Ship-For-12-Years/138132.html and their official statement is here http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-11-28/church-of-scientology-statement/3700214 Myrab51 (talk) 17:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Source Failure

A lot of the source links that are pro-scientology don't work. And many of the rest (260 being the first one that got my attention, but there are a lot) are referencing Wikipedia. A source (Wikipedia) can't site itself as evidence. This has to change or non-functioning and self-referencing links will be removed. StolenBlueBox (talk) 06:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

All links to other wikipedia articles should be replaced with "source needed". Petter Bøckman (talk) 07:31, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

This is not a citation to Wikipedia. When clicked on it leads to [2]. See Wikipedia:Cite#Short_citations. --JN466 12:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 January 2012

replace "controversial new religious movements" with "controversial of the new religious movements"

Erjoalgo (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Not done: Adds the unnecessary connotation that all new religious movements are controversial. — Bility (talk) 22:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Rathbun, Rinder, and "Independent Scientologists"

The article says: "more recently, high-profile defectors Mark Rathbun and Mike Rinder have formed the nucleus of a group of Independent Scientologists".

This is very problematic:

• What is "recently"?
• What exactly makes them more high-profile than other defectors?
• Are they really a nucleus of one group? Is this group organized somehow? The name is capitalized - does it mean anything?

This should be clarified or removed. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 21:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

... Now i watched the BBC documentary in which they are critical of the Church. It says that they are working to reform the movement, but i didn't get the impression that they are "the nucleus of a group". Are there any other sources which would be more specific? --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 13:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

"Rathbun, now a leading figure in a movement for Scientologists to practice independently of the church" "'Radical Corporate Scientology' is what I think Mike [Rinder] is referring to here, an epithet he and Marty Rathbun, another former high-ranking Scientology official, assign to the official church under David Miscavige." Rathbun, who was Miscavige's right-hand man for years, left the church in 2004 and runs a blog for "Independent Scientologists." and there are others like that. --JN466 16:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Radar online calls Rathbun "high profile". http://www.radaronline.com/category/tags/marty-rathbun Petter Bøckman (talk) 19:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

According to Inside Scientology, both were highly ranking members of the Church of Scientology before they left it. They have both been regularly featured in the media since then, so I believe the term accurate, although a more precise term, like maybe "former high-ranking members of the Church of Scientology," might be better. John Carter (talk) 19:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I read all the articles, and none of them clearly assert that Rathbun and Rinder are the nucleus of a group of Independent Scientologists. The Tampa Bay article says that Rathbun is a leading figure. Other articles say that they are many Independent Scientologists, but don't say anything clear about a "nucleus". So it's clear enough that Rinder and Rathbun are associated with one another, but it's not yet completely clear how are they associated with "a movement of Independent Scientologists" other than calling themselves "Independent Scientologists" and being outspoken about it.

I'm probably OK with saying that Rathbun and Rinder are the most prominent recent defectors, but their current role must be clarified. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 12:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Also see Sunday Times article. Some related primary sources: http://www.scientology-cult.com/ http://www.scientology-cult.com/scientology-blog.html (note mentions of both Marty Rathbun and Mike Rinder) http://www.freeandable.com/ The first Independent's Day meeting took place at Rathbun's home. [3] [4] As far as I can tell, Rathbun's blog has been a place where people have connected, so the description is basically accurate.

But to avoid the "nucleus of a movement" debate, perhaps we should simply say "have championed the cause of Independent Scientologists", based on the Sunday Times quote "Rinder lives and breathes Independent scientology", and "Rathbun, now a leading figure in a movement for Scientologists to practice independently of the church" in the Tampa Bay Times. --JN466 16:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done [5] --JN466 14:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

L. Ron Hubbard the Author

On the lede paragraph of this article referring to L. Ron Hubbard as a science fiction and fantasy author. Fact of the matter is that he wrote in many genres: adventure, western, science fiction, fantasy and articles for newspapers and magazines. He cannot be classifed simply as a "Science Fiction author." In the following reference: Encyclopedia of American religious history, Volume 3 By Edward L. Queen, Stephen R. Prothero, Gardiner H. Shattuck - this information is supported. This is the exact text in the encyclopedia:

"From the 1930's until around 1950, Hubbard spent much of his time as a writer of pulp fiction. Also best known as a science fiction writer, Hubbard also wrote western, fantasy, and adventure novels."

In order to acknowledge the wide scope of his writing and not limit him to two genres, I propose we change this to: "Scientology is a body of beliefs and related practices created by author L. Ron Hubbard (1911-1986)..."

Thanks.NestleNW911 (talk) 23:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Since he is primarily known as a science fiction author, I think it should be mentioned in the text. The current text may not be perfect, but the proposed text do not reflect the the source you cite, as the term "author" alone usually implies a writer with a somewhat distinguished career. My suggestion: "Scientology is a body of beliefs and related practices created by L. Ron Hubbard (1911-1986), best known as a science fiction and other pulp genera author, ..." Petter Bøckman (talk) 07:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I like Petter's proposal because he is correct that it better reflects theWP:RSCoffeepusher (talk) 15:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't be silly. He is certainly not best known as a science fiction and pulp author today. He is best known as the founder of Scientology. --JN466 17:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

In my view we should go back to simply referring to him as "L. Ron Hubbard" in the lead. That was a longstanding version of the lead sentence and in line with practice in the majority of encyclopedias I was able to find, including Britannica [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]; [12]. His writing career is appropriately covered in the body of the article. --JN466 17:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

2nd! Petter Bøckman (talk) 18:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm good with that, it will stop this yearly argument that keeps occurring. Ill make the changeCoffeepusher (talk) 18:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. --JN466 14:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Dr. Joseph A. Winter

Thank you for acknowledging my proposal. All for the continued improvement of this page. I've been doing some research on Dr. Joseph A. Winter, one of Hubbard's key supporters on his Dianetics ideas. The Dianetics portion of this article seems to be lacking NPOV, as it does not present exactly why it was supported by the people who did. It merely shows that the ideas were presented by Winter and rejected. It will serve the readers to know more about Winter, why he supported Dianetics, and ultimately, get a more balanced idea about Dianetics.

I would add after the sentence, "Two of Hubbard's key supporters at the time were John W. Campbell Jr., the editor of Astounding Science Fiction, and Dr. Joseph A. Winter."

"Joseph Augustus Winter is an M.D. who got into Dianetics in its early, science-fiction days. Physician Winter, a Manhattan psychosomaticist, was impressed by Hubbard's theory that the mind can register impressions ("engrams") even during unconsciousness. And he was soon convinced that the Dianetics technique of relieving emotional upsets by reliving them before another Dianetics devotee ("auditing") was an improvement on psychoanalysis."

Reference: Departure in Dianetics. Time [serial online]. September 3, 1951;58(10):53. Available from: Academic Search Premier, Ipswich, MA. Accessed January 9, 2012.

Thoughts?NestleNW911 (talk) 01:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

well after reading the article [13] I think that we would also need to talk about the fact that he completely abandoned scientology because L. Ron. was 'absolutistic and authoritarian' and that scientology "became less & less interested in research, more interested in spreading the word. Last winter, Winter flounced out. He was finding orthodox dianetics 'ritualistic and sterile.'" and that "Physician Winter tries to filter Hubbard's strange mixture and pick out the scraps fit for human consumption. He rejects such gimmicks as the mental 'file clerk,' invested by Hubbard to chase about in the mind in search of mislaid impressions, and scoffs at the Hubbardians' "Guk" program. "Guk" was a mixture of vitamins and glutamic acid which was supposed to make dianetics subjects 'run better.'"Coffeepusher (talk) 05:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I have added information on the scholarly view in order to achieve more NPOV. Thanks.NestleNW911 (talk) 22:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Reference to CoS

Should include reference to Church of Scientology in the Distinguish-Template 93.213.52.103 (talk) 11:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The distinction, with a link, is made at the beginning of the article. And the two are related, so I don't think that's needed, but I might be persuaded if somebody wants to make the case. By the way, why is there a disambiguation link to "epistemology"? Seems far-fetched to me that anybody confuses the terms, at least no more than any other unfamiliar word ending in "ology." I suggest we cut that. -- BTfromLA (talk) 00:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Gold Base protests

This section is at the Gold Base article:

Picketing at Gold Base

Keith Henson picketed Gold Base compound to protest the deaths of a Scientologist, Stacy Moxon Meyer, and a non-Scientologist, Ashlee Shaner.

Meyer, the daughter of lead Scientology attorney Kendrick Moxon, died in an underground electrical vault at the Gold Base at about the same time that picketers above ground were protesting the previous death of Ashlee Shaner. Shaner died in an auto accident on the road fronting Gold Base when a contractor working for the Church was moving a piece of construction equipment across the highway after dusk without adequate lighting. Nove manslaughter case (Ashlee Shaner)

I dont think the holysmoke.org ref is a reliable source. I would simply remove it, but i wanted to bring it to someones attention here, as the article gets very little attention, and i have of course noticed the strict concerns about NPOV for all COS articles. I have no connection with COS or any agency related or critical of it.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that holysmoke is not a reliable source, additionally it appears to be a cut and paste copyright violation. I have removed the section entirely as it appears that three established editors all agree that it's inclusion is a violation.Coffeepusher (talk) 06:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Notable countries that don't grant the CoS tax exempt status

The last sentence of the second paragraph of the lede states "In other countries, notably France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, Scientology does not have comparable religious status."

I would propose adding Canada to that list. The fact that a majority of G7 nations (ostensibly the most economically advanced nations, with similarly sophisticated legal systems and democratic ideals) don't extend the same rights to the Church of Scientology as they do to other religious organizations is notable, is it not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.52.240.108 (talk) 04:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

do you have a source for that?Coffeepusher (talk) 04:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The WP page Scientology in Canada has a reference (not online) listed [1] to what appears to be a book under the heading "Legal Status as a Religion." I'm not suggesting making the point about G7 nations and their legal systems (that would arguably be synthesis, and invite contention), but rather just that adding Canada as a notable nation that doesn't grant the CoS tax exempt status seems reasonable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.52.240.108 (talk) 05:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

looking through the page that information is already under the "status by country" section. I do not think it is necessary to put it into the lede.Coffeepusher (talk) 15:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Then why is there a line in the lede at all, then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.52.240.108 (talk) 02:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

To prevent the discussion from being reduced to pedantic linguistic circles, let me rephrase my point. While it could be debated whether or not Canada is "notable" enough to be included in the already existing statement, I am suggesting that when you consider that the other three nations listed are G7 nations, and that Canada is also a G7 nation, the fact that a majority of them don't extend tax free status to the CoS is notable. When I originally read the existing statement, I immediately scanned the article to see how other wealthy advanced nations treated the Church. Therefore, in THAT context, I think it is quite reasonable to include Canada in the statement in the lede. I'm also curious about Japan, but wasn't able to easily ascertain the Church's status in that country. Otherwise, if you object to duplicating information, then delete the statement altogether. The article is protected, or I would make the changes myself. I'm simply suggesting adding the one name. Other readers can draw (or not) the same conclusion that I did on their own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.52.240.108 (talk) 02:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Why is it notable that it isn't recognized by Canada. We aren't saying that Canada isn't notable, we are saying that the failure to recognize Scientology hasn't produced any notable controversy so in this context it isn't notable enough for the lede.Coffeepusher (talk) 02:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Dude, read the LINE I'm asking to be edited. It says "In other countries, notably France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, Scientology does not have comparable religious status." Read the context in which the statement is made. And then tell me that adding Canada in that list in no way makes sense to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.52.240.108 (talk) 02:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

ok, because it isn't notable that it isn't recognized as a religion in Canada. It has official ministers, can perform marriages, isn't the subject of a Canadian task force, has non-profit charity status, it's ministers have clergy privileges with the government, they just don't have religious tax status...HOWEVER those other countries restrict Scientology in the ways that Canada doesn't which makes it notable.Coffeepusher (talk) 03:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, please read the lede. The second paragraph in particular. The statement is talking SPECIFICALLY about tax exempt status. Why is this such a difficult discussion? I'm simply asking for a one word edit, that makes supreme sense to me, for reasons I've tried to very clearly convey. Every counter has been completely off point, as though the editor in residence is just trying to protect the page, without actually reading or caring about the material. Either explain why the proposed edit doesn't make sense in the CONTEXT of the existing lede, or just say "We own the page and are not making edits."

I apologize for being curt, but it seems to me that either I'm not making myself clear, or you aren't actually looking at the material I'm referring to here. Please tell me if I'm unclear, and I will either try harder, or accept my own failing and give up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.52.240.108 (talk) 03:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it is worth noting that it is the statement immediately preceding the proposed edits that discusses the Church's supposition that tax exempt status is proof that it is a recognized religion. And then the statement in question noting that those three countries don't grant the CoS comparable status. Neither does Canada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.52.240.108 (talk) 03:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm looking at the material...I've looked at it every single time you have accused me of not looking at it...I also know what a WP:LEDE is supposed to be and I have been asking you over and over again to explain why the fact that Canada doesn't recognize Scientology is notable...BECAUESE right now it is a one word mention in the body of the article and doesn't deserve a second mention up top if the ONLY thing that the article says is "here is a list of countries and Canada happens to be one of them" when those other countries have more information about them and it IS notable that they are restricting the religious status. NOW do you have a reason why it is notable or are you just going to keep asking me to re-read the same sentences over and over again all night?Coffeepusher (talk) 03:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

since you gave me a choice a little while back, I pick option "C" leave it the way it is. In the future you may want to work on those persuasion skills.Coffeepusher (talk) 03:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The option wasn't yours, it was mine. And you might want to work on your reading comprehension skills. But thanks for the input. My law school would beg to differ with you.

Paragraph 2 of the lede "...Scientology is legally recognized as a tax-exempt religion in the United States and some other countries,[10][11][12][13] and the Church of Scientology emphasizes this as proof that it is a bona fide religion.[14] In other countries, notably France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, Scientology does not have comparable religious status."

Let's deconstruct here, specifically, the word "comparable." In this instance, I don't believe that anyone could dispute that it means "tax exempt." OK, now that we're there (I hope), let's consider what I'm proposing. I propose that adding Canada to THAT statement is worthwhile, because the IMMEDIATE question that came to my mind when I originally read it was to wonder how the rest of the most advanced nations treat the Church. It isn't clear for Japan, it's tax exempt in Italy, and the article already explicitly states that it IS tax exempt in the US. It is NOT tax exempt in Canada. So, it would be reasonable if someone wanted to re-write the lede to take account of these facts, but what I'm simply proposing is that Canada be added to the already existing line in the lede. Alternatively, delete mention of individual countries, and just make the statement that the majority of G7 nations don't grant the CoS tax exempt status, although I would expect that statement to be more contentious. However, that FACT is far more notable than any of the individual countries mentioned, IMO. Since I expect stating it explicitly would be contentious, I propose simply adding Canada to the statement and allowing the reader to draw their own conclusion.

Your logic doesn't address the lede as it already exists. Why then are France, Germany and the UK, notable? Perhaps the statement should be deleted altogether if you feel that it's already included further in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.52.240.108 (talk) 03:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

thanks for sharing.Coffeepusher (talk) 03:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

IP, Coffeepusher is right. Also, the situation seems to be a little more muddled in Canada than it is in Germany and France in particular, making Canada a less useful example. --JN466 14:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello Wikipedians! I had observations regarding the statement -"The Church of Scientology is one of the most controversial new religious movements to have arisen in the 20th century. It has often been described as a cult that financially defrauds and abuses its members, charging exorbitant fees for its spiritual services."

Could we word this in such a way that is more balanced? Though there are references that regard Scientology as a cult, it has been recognized as a religion in many places as well. Based on Reference: Huus, Kari (2005-07-05) "Scientology courts the stars" (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8333804/print/1/displaymode/1098/ and a Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_status_by_country), we can word this to be more neutral. My suggested wording would be "Scientology, recognized by the U.S. federal government and various other countries such as Italy, South Africa, Australia, Sweden, New Zealand, Portugal and Spain as a religious organization but labeled by its critics as a cult, is one of the most controversial new religious movements to have arisen in the 20th century."

Thank you very much and looking forward to collaborating on this.Scifilover386 (talk) 00:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

please read WP:LEDE. The lede section is supposed to summarize the content within the article proportionally to the article itself as well as the external sources. you will notice that the paragraph you are referencing is in fact a summary of sections 6 and 7 or religious status and controversies. your proposal does not accurately summarize these sections in regard to WP:WEIGHT, while the original source does.Coffeepusher (talk) 05:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree that the lede section is "supposed to summarize the content within the article proportionally to the article itself as well as the external sources." The "Scientology status by country" section is very extensive yet this sentence on the lead shines on only one side of the story, that Scientology has "often described as a cult." Vague wording too, btw. Perhaps, we can change it to: "Scientology, accepted in many countries as a religious organization yet labeled by its critics as a cult, is one of the most controversial new religious movements to have arisen in the 20th century." It is only fair and neutral to shed light on both positive and critical perceptions of the religion.Scifilover386 (talk) 00:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

actually I was wrong, the section you are referancing is exclusively summarizing section 7, section 6 is covered in the first paragraph.Coffeepusher (talk) 00:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty to slightly modify the statement mention above. I think it is in the interest of making the page more balanced, and it is due weight to acknowledge that Scientology is accepted in many countries. I am open to discussion. Thank you very much!Scifilover386 (talk) 00:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit Scifilover386. It was not a "slight modification", it was a wholsale change in meaning and content. I have no objections to adding the information that Scientology is recogniced as a religion in some countries (notably the US), but I object to the removal of the well-sourced statement that Scientology is highly controversal. Thimbleweed (talk) 07:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

also it is mentioned in the second paragraph of the lede that Scientology is accepted in many countries, so I find no reason to mention it twice in the lede.Coffeepusher (talk) 10:57, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Thimbleweed. I acknowledge your protest of the removal of the sourced statement, however, I disagree that we can disregard my point altogether. We can still balance this out by mentioning that Scientology is accepted in many countries as a religious organization. Perhaps a version we can agree on is "Scientology, accepted in many countries as a religious organization yet labeled by its critics as a cult, is one of the most controversial new religious movements to have arisen in the 20th century. Its critics claim that it financially defrauds and abuses it members, charging exorbitant fees for its spiritual services." Let me know what you think.NestleNW911 (talk) 00:48, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

NestleNW911, it appears ("...we can disregard my point...") that you are also posting here as SciFiLover386, is that correct? -- BTfromLA (talk) 14:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, BTfromLA. Sorry for the confusion. I was merely supporting Scifilover's argument and providing input. I meant to say, "I disagree we can disregard his point altogether..." NestleNW911 (talk) 17:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

NestleNW911/SciFiLover386, I have no problem with the pont that Scientology is accepted as a religion in many countries (and not accepted as such in many other), but it is already mentioned further up, and I see no reason it should be mentioned twice in the lede. Thimbleweed (talk) 06:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Etymology

I've added information about the etymology of the word Scientology. I thought it was appropriate to include the perspective of Hubbard here.NestleNW911 (talk) 22:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Xenu

Why is Xenu not mentioned in the introduction of the article? It seems pretty important. 132.204.221.149 (talk) 00:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Belief in Xenu seems to be more of a matter of doctrine than practice, and some sources have indicated that Scientologists themselves do not necessarily take the story at face value. That being the case, it seems to me anyway to perhape be better included later. John Carter (talk) 00:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

mistake?

from the intro: "The Church of Scientology is one of the most controversial new religious movements to have arisen in the 20th century."

shouldn't that be just, "Scientology is one of the most controversial new religious movements..."? The Church of Scientology was described earlier in the intro as being an organization that oversees the implementation of Scientology; in other words, not the religion itself, but its church.

unless there's some meaning here that i'm missing; i'm uninvolved and unfamiliar with the terminology. 24.20.120.165 (talk) 03:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The same difference exists between the terms religious movement (= church) and religion (= beliefs and practices). JN466 03:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

hmmm. 24.20.120.165 (talk) 06:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Is the term "religious movement" a synonym for an organization? Doens't the term "new religious movement" cover both the religious doctrine as well as the organization itself? Thimbleweed (talk) 09:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm in support of that change. Especially with the many layers of organization and the specificity of the "Church of Scientology" I think that just saying "Scientology is one of the most..." will be the best edit in this case. I realize that this is splitting hairs in some ways so honestly I don't actually care one way or another, just putting in my two cents.Coffeepusher (talk) 11:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree it doesn't matter much, but traditionally I think we've said (and taken the view that sources say) that Scientology is the religion (or set of beliefs and practices), and the people involved with the Church of Scientology are the movement. JN466 12:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I think we need to tread carefully here. If we accept that Scientology is a faith (which we fairly much seem to have done for this article), then it follows that the Church of Scientology is not the total of Scientology, as anyone can believe in the faith whether they are members of the organization or not. There are for instance a few FreeZone groups, which are not at all affiliated with the COS. If I am not mistaken, the majority of controversies (litigation, disconnection, "fixed donations" etc.) seem a function of the organization. Unless one has any source specifying these also happens in the non-COS Scientology groups, I think the current edit is correct.

Having said that one can always claim these practices have their root in Scientology scripture, and that the controversies this springs from Scientology as a faith rather than the organization. It would also be right to say that the controversies pertain to Scientology rather than to the COS if the controversies are directly linked to the Scientology cosmology (Xenu and all that) or the religious practices (liker auditing). Is that what you guys are arguing?Thimbleweed (talk) 13:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

It is quite true that there are Independent Scientologists outside of the Church of Scientology. They would also say that Scientology is their religion (the Church, naturally, would disagree). But the simple fact is that what has been most controversial is the Church, i.e. the organisation and movement, rather than the teachings per se. The disputes have never been purely abstract and theological, but focused on social tensions – critics allege financial exploitation, harassment of critics, mistreatment of members, destruction of family ties, etc. It is correct – in fact, a truism – to say that the Church of Scientology is an NRM, and that that NRM has been controversial. Even where the doctrine has been challenged, it has been challenged because of these other tensions. Nobody for example spends the same amount of energy deconstructing the beliefs of the Raelians, because even though their teachings too are very far from the mainstream, they, as a movement, are not in as much tension with their social environment. Most people are content to say the Raelians' beliefs are nuts, if they have even heard of them, but nobody really cares as long as they don't hurt anyone. --JN466 12:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

i think that the current wording will trip up many general readers; it just feels wrong (then again, maybe not - how many have read this article, and this issue apparently hasn't come up before!). but imagine reading that the christian church is a controversial religious movement. rather, you'd expect to read that christianity is a controversial religious movement. 24.20.120.165 (talk) 17:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I can perhaps understand that. However, I do believe that it probably makes sense to refer to Scientology, rather than the Church of Scientology. What seems to be the center of controversy are the beliefs, rather than the organization itself per se. Comparing it to Christianity in some ways is useful. So, if this were a world where the doctrine of the Roman Catholic church is controversial, I think it would make sense for an article to say that the doctrine is controversial, considering that there might be splinter groups (like the Free Zone in Scientology) which also adhere to that doctrine, and it would probably be just as controversial for them. If some groups specifically did not adhere to certain points of such doctrine, however, they would probably be considered less controversial. I think. John Carter (talk) 23:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

John, I actually completely disagree with you that "what seems to be the center of controversy are the beliefs, rather than the organization itself per se". It is the organization that has been at the center of most of the controversy (disconnection, fair game, excessive litigation, abuse by those in power, cover-ups, infiltrating government organizations, harassment of ex members, etc.) and sometimes they say "oh yah, and Xenu" just as icing on the top.Coffeepusher (talk) 00:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

"What seems to be the center of controversy are the beliefs, rather than the organization itself per se". This could not be further from the truth.

The Church of Scientology is a new religious movement. Scientology is the belief system of that movement.

The term new religious organisation is also used in NRM literature, this might be a better choice here. Semitransgenic _talk. 10:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I think Semitransgenic hit the nail here, the offending term is "movement". Is a "movement" a belief or an organization, or is it both? By using "new religious organization" like Semitransgenic suggested, we remove the ambiguity. Thimbleweed (talk) 20:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Additional Scholarly View

Regarding this section, "While acknowledging that a number of his colleagues accept Scientology as a religion, sociologist and professor Stephen A. Kent wrote: "Rather than struggling over whether or not to label Scientology as a religion, I find it far more helpful to view it as a multifaceted transnational corporation, only one element of which is religious" [emphasis in the original].[194][195] Kent also holds that the US government sees Scientology not as a religion, but as a charitable organization due to their religious claims."

There is a need to add more information here to make it more NPOV. I've found some information on a well-known scholar, J. Gordon Melton, who speaks from an alternate perspective. I've added the following text:

Religious scholar J. Gordon Melton asserts, “The Church of Scientology is very much a religion in the fullest sense of the word.” Reference: http://www.neuereligion.de/ENG/melton/page01.htm

Thank you.NestleNW911 (talk) 22:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Melton is known for his extreme apologetic (in the academic sense) stance on NRMs and his shoddy field work. Read the article on him and check the Aum Shinrikyo debacle. His all out assertion of Scientology as a bona fide religion is no surprise. Presenting his view here uncommented is not NPOV. I think we should ad a bit about about the apologetic school. A more modern understanding can be found in Urban's writing. Thimbleweed (talk) 07:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe it would be poor form to insert commentary on each person quoted in this article. I have opposed many attempts by scientologists who try and slander their critics within the articles, and I will also oppose people who try and discredit Scientology supporters proposing the same methods. Now Melton has a wikipedia article, and that article does address all these criticisms as well as gives a good rundown of his views. So while I do not think we should insert commentary on each author, wikilinking the name would be considered good style.Coffeepusher (talk) 14:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

You are right, singeling out Melton would be bad form. I was thinking more along the line of giving his (and Kent's) statement some context, explaining that there historically are different schools with different emphasis within NRM research, perhaps finding something from Urban as a more modern approach. Thimbleweed (talk) 16:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

well it is wikilinked to articles that explain that in detail. Is that satisfactory?Coffeepusher (talk) 21:01, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit Requests

May 25, 2012

Within the sub-section marked 'Auditing confidentiality', in the section 'Controversies', it currently states "Charges that private information from auditing files has actually been used against individuals have not been upheld in court." using a book by J. Gordon Melton as reference. However, this is false. I suggest the statement either be removed completely, or followed by another statement relaying the following quote from the court file of 'Larry Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology of California' (http://www.xenu.net/archive/CourtFiles/occf105.html): "There is substantial evidence Wollersheim divulged private information during auditing sessions under an explicit or implicit promise the information would remain confidential. Moreover, there is substantial evidence Scientology leaders and employees shared this confidential information and used it to plan and implement a "fair game" campaign against Wollersheim."

Riffraff913 (talk) 00:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know much about law and what kind of document this is so I'm not going to be bold and make the edit, but it looks reasonable to me. The section in which the requested quote comes from in the source is "E. Scientology's Improper Disclosure of Information Wollersheim Gave During Confidential Religious Sessions Is Not Religious Expression Immunized From Liability by the Constitution".

(Jonathanfu (talk) 19:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC))

The question to my eyes seems to be about the phrase "upheld in court", which is in the existing article, and the phrase "substantial evidence" in the source linked to. I am no lawyer myself, but I think that it might be certainly possible for a court to say there is "substantial evidence" for something, but still not officially "uphold in court" those claims. I do know one lawyer around here, who is also an administrator, and I'll ask him to review this. John Carter (talk) 22:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm doing some research on this ... for the moment, this is as far as I got:

• The above quote is from the 1989 Court of Appeal judgment in the Wollersheim case, and its context is as follows:

  E. Scientology's Improper Disclosure of Information Wollersheim Gave During Confidential Religious Sessions Is Not Religious Expression Immunized From Liability by the Constitution
  There is substantial evidence Wollersheim divulged private information during auditing sessions under an explicit or implicit promise the information would remain confidential. Moreover, there is substantial evidence Scientology leaders and employees shared this confidential information and used it to plan and implement a "fair game" campaign against Wollersheim. Scientology argues there also is substantial evidence in the record supporting its defense that Scientology leaders and employees shared this confidential information only in accordance with normal procedures and for the purpose of gaining the advice and assistance of more experienced Scientologists in evaluating Wollersheim's auditing sessions. However, the jury was entitled to disregard this innocent explanation and to believe Wollersheim's version of how and why Scientology divulged information he had supplied in confidence.
  The intentional and improper disclosure of information obtained during auditing sessions for nonreligious purposes can hardly qualify as “religious expression.” To clarify the point, we turn once again to a hypothetical situation which presents a rough analogy under a traditional religion. Imagine a stockbroker had confessed to a cleric in a confessional that he had engaged in “insider trading.” Sometime later this same stockbroker leaves *900 the church and begins criticizing it and its leadership publicly. To discredit this critic, the church discloses the stockbroker has confessed he is an insider trader. This disclosure might be said to advance the interests of the cleric's religion in the sense it would tend to discourage former members from criticizing the church. But to characterize this violation of religious confidentiality as “religious expression” would distort the meaning of the English language as well as the United States Constitution. This same conclusion applies to Scientology's disclosures of Wollersheim's confidences in the instant case. And, since these disclosures do not qualify as “religious expression” they do not qualify for protection under the freedom of religion guaranties of the Constitution. (See Discussion at pp. 887-889, supra.)

• This seems to have been stated in response to some argument in the Church's appeal. While it's a primary source, it may indeed contradict Melton. One thing I haven't been able to locate online, oddly, is the original July 22 1986 judgment this appeal related to, so I don't know whether breach of confidentiality was an actual court finding.
• For reference, the relevant paragraph in Melton reads:

  As with any counselling process which survey a person’s entire life, many intimate, embarrassing, and even questionable incidents may be highlighted. A file of information concerning a person’s past actions which may be compiled as auditing continues might offer the possibility of misuse. For example, were the content of a file leaked, it could be used to blackmail an individual who had disclosed past illegal or immoral acts. Some former Scientologists have charged that, in fact, such illicit use of their auditing files has occurred. Going far beyond those reports, some critics have charged that the misuse of auditing files are (or have been) a common practice within the church in an attempt to control undisciplined members. Generally speaking, although amid the hundreds of thousands of hours of auditing done in the church an occasional abuse may have occurred, the charges of abuse have not been substantiated when presented in courts of justice, and we are thus left with a lack of verified evidence of any invasion of members‘ auditing files or invasion of their privacy. Such actions would run counter to to the basic rules taught by auditors in their professional code of conduct to which each must adhere. Each auditor promises “never to use the secrets of a pre-clear divulged in session for punishment or personal gain.” Any auditor found operating in violation of “The Auditor’s Code” would be dismissed from the church’s staff.

• For context, the entire paragraph in our article presently reads:

  During the auditing process, the auditor may collect personal information from the person being audited. Auditing records are referred to within Scientology as preclear folders. The Church of Scientology has strict codes designed to protect the confidentiality of the information contained in these folders. However, people leaving Scientology know that the Church is in possession of very personal information about them, and that the Church has a history of attacking and psychologically abusing those who leave it and become critics. On December 16, 1969, an Guardian's Office order (G. O. 121669) by Mary Sue Hubbard authorized the use of auditing records for purposes of "internal security." Some former members have said that while they were still in the Church, they combed through information obtained in auditing sessions to see if it could be used for smear campaigns against critics. The Church of Scientology of California responded by stating that the letter which gave Mary Sue Hubbard authority to cull confessional files was not official policy and had been previously canceled. Charges that private information from auditing files has actually been used against individuals have not been upheld in court.

• Hope that helps. Regards, --JN466 11:45, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
• On reflection, I have taken the sentence out for now. I note that Melton wrote, "Generally ... the charges of abuse have not been substantiated when presented in courts of justice" – which theoretically allows for the odd exception – and that he said it after presenting the argument that such abuse was widespread. The article wording was both more definite and lacked that context, so I propose we are indeed better off without it. I've also removed the sentence "The Church of Scientology of California responded by stating that the letter which gave Mary Sue Hubbard authority to cull confessional files was not official policy and had been previously canceled." – it's unsourced and, at any rate, we are not talking about a letter granting MS Hubbard the right to cull files, but about a letter by her authorising others to do so. --JN466 12:24, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Good call! The statements would have to be presented with their full context (in which case it would be a dominant part of the article), be summarized (with all the pitfalls that follows) or just dropped. Thimbleweed (talk) 17:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Done sentence removed, no need to add any more ; article reads fine Mdann52 (talk) 10:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

August 2, 2012

An addition to the the membership section:

I just saw an ad for Scientology on YouTube where they claimed to have 10,000 churches and add 4.5 million new members per year. I was going to add this claim to the membership section when I saw the article is locked. I think it is important to ad this information because there is a huge difference between what the church is claiming and what others are saying about it. I suspect both sides are biased and that the real numbers are somewhere in between. One way to promote a movement is to say many people are involved. One way to squash a movement is to say that few people care enough to participate. We see this every time there is a demonstration in Washington DC. People always argue about how many protesters were there. The protesters always argue there were more than what the news agencies are reporting while those who are against the protesters always argue there were fewer people. Often the two sides have drastically different numbers.

Volunteer Ministers

I have added more information about the Volunteer Ministers in the Technology Application Organizations section.NestleNW911 (talk) 21:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I have also added a qualifying statement to the "Status by country" section.NestleNW911 (talk) 21:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Aims of Scientology

I tell you! Without the explicit citing of "Aims of Scientology", the credibility of this article only goes that far! You could almost remove the 10 commandments from the page of Christianity in violating the encyclopedic commitment of Wikipedia when this article is to give precise and factual information of the CoS! There is a deleted section here. Why is this? Please, be aware of the quality level here. Thank you. LFOlsnes-Lea 04:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LFOlsnes-Lea (talk • contribs)

This purpose of this article is actually to give precise and factual information on Scientology, not the Church of Scientology. I'm not seeing a deleted section for the "Aims of Scientology" in the history of changes. (Jonathanfu (talk) 05:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC))

Edit request on 25 June 2012

NestleNW911's edit on 19 June 2012 should cite a different source, or be rolled back. The source currently cited doesn't back the statement made in the edit ("The IRS’s examination of Scientology was reported to have been the most exhaustive review of any non-profit organization in history"). PlanetaryIntergalactic (talk) 00:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Done Mdann52 (talk) 16:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

See also

put in Church of Scientology? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.16.241.158 (talk) 05:59, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Church of Scientology is put inside the Scientology "menu box" toward the bottom of the article. But still it might be useful to put it under "See also" as well, so as to readily supply clarifying information of Scientology as teachings and Church of Scientology as religious community. This may also lead to a better article, Scientology in itself, directing the most "interested" critics to the appropriate page, Church of Scientology. LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 11:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

You know, that the article has a "guiding" quality to it, without destroying the quality of presentation. LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 11:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Space Opera and Confidential Materials

Regarding this section:

"In the OT levels, Hubbard explains how to reverse the effects of past-life trauma patterns that supposedly extend millions of years into the past.[121] Among these advanced teachings is the story of Xenu (sometimes Xemu), introduced as the tyrant ruler of the "Galactic Confederacy." According to this story, 75 million years ago Xenu brought billions of people to Earth in spacecraft resembling Douglas DC-8 airliners, stacked them around volcanoes and detonated hydrogen bombs in the volcanoes. The thetans then clustered together, stuck to the bodies of the living, and continue to do this today. Scientologists at advanced levels place considerable emphasis on isolating body thetans and neutralizing their ill effects.[122]

We need to frame this in the proper context for NPOV. This version presents it as default truth, but we need to reflect the discussion around this bit of information. I propose to add: "There are varying statements from the Church of Scientology about the truth of the Xenu Story. Senior members of the Church of Scientology have several times publicly denied or minimized the importance of the Xenu story, but others have admitted its existence. "

This is based on another Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenu#Church_of_Scientology.27s_position This is one third party reference: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/03/16/scientology_xenu_confirmation/

This statement reflects the debate around the Xenu story, thus promoting NPOV.

Thanks.NestleNW911 (talk) 23:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this discussion would be complete without mentioning the lenght the COS has gone to to hide the story. As for sources on the Xenu story being part of the Scientology cosmology, we have plenty to choose from, ranging from hubbards own handwritten scrip and Reitman's 2011 Inside Scientology: The Story of America's Most Secretive Religion to more scolarly tretment like Lewis' 2004 The Oxford Handbook of New Religious Movements and Urban's 2011 The Church of Scientology: A History of a New Religion. If we quote the COS officials minimizing the stories, we should also quote autors who claim the story is fundamental to the higher OT levels (OT III-VIII), like McGovern 2007 Chambers Dictionary of the Unexplained and Streeter 2008 Behind Closed Doors: The Power and Influence of Secret Societies, New Holland Publishers. All this is well covered in the main article about Xenu though. Thimbleweed (talk) 12:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

As you said, this discussion is well covered in the Xenu article. It is worthy to mention it in more general terms in this article, since it is a high traffic article that is pivotal to the subject of Scientology. I wasn't suggesting that we quote any COS officials. If you examine my suggestion closely, it merely provides an overview of the current reaction and sentiment to the Xenu story from the church. To go to in detail is yes, unnecessary. But to provide an overview is helpful and necessary.NestleNW911 (talk) 21:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Your suggestions also gives the impression that the OTIII is somehow unimportant and not necessarily taken literally. Considering what we know of the upper OT levels, the Xenu story is not only pivotal, the idea of the disembodied alien spirits is absolutely central to Scientology teachings. Thimbleweed (talk) 06:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Dreaming up Scientology

The article has a loose reference that says: "In Scientology, rationality is stressed over morality.[101]". One should consider the biconditional relationship instead (if.. then.. and vice versa) because of the God dynamic and clearly that this article seems to want to undermine both the Aims of Scientology and the fact that Scientology is strongly ethical, not that crazy cult that some people believe it is! I hope you can find a better source and pay respect toward the pyramid symbol of Scientology. There is no reference in Scientology that says that the human life only has relative value as you know a relative value on a human life is highly dubious to hold! LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 20:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I've checked on (Jacob) Neusner and he may have a motive for not acting correctly toward Scientology, hoping to draw funds and "win hearts and minds" to Judaism instead. Check the Wikipedia article on him [here] Agree? LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 20:19, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Not only this, but Neusner is a prolific writer and has several books in 2003. The reference should therefore be named more carefully, i.e., perhaps not only as Neusner 2003a-z, but with the title also. LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 20:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Precise publication details for Neusner are given further below in the article (the Neusner 2003 is a clickable blue link). My impression from reading Neusner is that he is quite sympathetic to Scientology. Similar ideas can be found in CSI publications; e.g.: "Scientology ethics subsumes moral codes, but goes further in affirming the essential rationality of Scientological ethics, the application of which is seen as the only way in which the deteriorating condition of contemporary morality and the activities of anti-social personalities can be redressed and mankind redeemed." [14][15]. Or even more emphatically in What is Scientology? (1998), p. 285, "The Scientology system of ethics is based wholly on reason. Whereas morals, Mr Hubbard pointed out, are essentially laws of conduct laid down from accumulated experience out of ages past and thus may no longer be entirely relevant to survival, ethics consists wholly of rationality toward the highest level of survival for all dynamics." --JN466 20:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

(It seems John Carter has withdrawn and that the two answers below are to him over a phrase of rationality "vs." (by illusion) ethics in a book from them, effectively Bridge Publications. Please, read further if you want as these answers do not relate to Jayen466 above. Cheers!) LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 13:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I disagree on your interpretation of the above, given that Rationality can never transcend Ethics like because they are bound to one another like two sides of a coin! While your link to "What Is Scientology? 1998" is good, I'd like to point out that Scientology publishing happens by Bridge Publications in New York and New Era Publications in Copenhagen. Scientology.org as internet domain deals with the rest, by and large (there are others, side-projects, but not...). But, of course, we who have an honest approach to Scientology clearly understand why the opposition wants to stress how Scientology in hidden blatantly violates its own Ethics code (The Way to Happiness) by holding Rationality higher and therefore (by Xenu and other idiocy as allegations) they are outside of Rationality and therefore as conclusion they BLOW their whole Rationality and Ethics altogether. Clearly, Scientology isn't like this! No, they merely say in plain that people need to stick to The Way of Happiness and see if it works for them. By implication of the Scientology system, relying on people for being constructive toward society, IT HAS TO because "being constructive, good people in society" simply relies on it! So here you go. I hope you all can afford the understanding, throwing off that negativity for some time! Cheers! LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 18:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd also like to present a much more clearcut version at Amazon as "What Is Scientology?", 1993, Bridge Publications still and at 836 pages. Here! However, as before, this anti-understanding to the text inside this book leads nowhere!!! LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 19:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The Cross

I find it offensive that this page still has the cross on it despite the fact that it is now removed from the Scientology online pages and falls under (a slight) breach against notions of Aberration and Engrams. There are strict rules for this in Scientology and as I understand it, it has now been rolled back to the usual "two triangles of ARC and KRC and the S". Can you remove the Cross, please? LFOlsnes-Lea 18:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I am confused with regards to your reasons for removing the image. Are you saying that the Church of Scientology considers it a slight breach to use the icon? If so, I'm afraid Wikipedia is not obligated to adhere to the rules of Scientology. Moreover, wouldn't the existence of this and this directly contradict your claim that the Scientology cross has been "removed from the Scientology online pages"? (Jonathanfu (talk) 02:10, 23 June 2012 (UTC))

Thanks for notifying me. It seems they haven't fully complied then. But the cross is gone on the upper left corner where it has been earlier. Either way, they are liable by own rules and texts. So what do I mean? Yes, the cross is indeed a classical, ancient instrument of torture, one that is likely to invoke Aberration and Engrams in people, something that should logically be banned by themselves according to the above, ref. A New Slant on Life, fx.

Second, the notion of "Fair Game" this article uses is also deeply mistaken. Fair game is meant for self-defence only. Fair Game should perhaps best be read, if consistent with "The Way to Happiness": By FAIR GAME is meant, may not be further protected by the codes and disciplines or the rights of a Scientologist. Can we add a link to the Fair Game Wikipedia article, please? As before, by the pyramid symbol, Scientologists are committed to the Ethics as being a fundamental part of "The Basics". But you know what, reality is not some simple, little thing that fits into your pocket and Scientologists are human too and subject to the writings of Erich Fromm and the like, and when it really comes to it, we're all only human beings, with this motive or that! Therefore, can we have in the "Pyramid symbol" (usually green) too, please, as you seem to remember the "S and two triangles" and to forget the "pyramid", please? LFOlsnes-Lea 18:49, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I am confused. You say "they haven't fully complied then". Who hasn't fully complied with what? If you are saying that there is some sort of official directive from headquarters, please be so kind as to provide a source saying so. Also, I would ask that the above editor perhaps more fully acquaint him or herself with some of the relevant policies and guidelines. These include WP:VERIFIABILITY, WP:RS, WP:SPS, and WP:POV. Multiple external sources have referred to "Fair Game" in a way consistent with the language of this article. Your own statements seem to indicate that you have some sort of internal evidence from the Church of Scientology regarding the current usage of the term, and it would be useful to see some sources verifying that. However, the independent reliable sources which have addressed this refer to it in this way, and that is consistent with our policies of verifiability and reliable sources. And, lastly, while there is to my eyes no objection to the "oyramid symbol," please provide sources which indicate that the symbol is used so frequently and so clearly attqched to the body that it qualifies for inclusion. I am in no way saying in advance it doesn't, because I honestly don't know, but as per WP:BURDEN it is incumbent on those who would add content to the article, like the pyramid symbol, to indicate why it should be included. John Carter (talk) 21:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for feedback. Just let me make the list: suppressive people, green pyramid, the basics, the way to happiness, aberration and, finally, engrams! Note: You must be able to look up concepts. "Internal evidence?" NO! "They haven't fully complied then" -> This has to be "Scientology by RTC hasn't fully complied with notions of aberration and engrams"! Good? LFOlsnes-Lea 20:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I find it dubious and ill-intended if the article is to remain this closed and you can't manage to get in a very important symbol of Scientology, the green pyramid! Please, remember that L. Ron Hubbard studied engineering and that he had credits from back home to do so, in the capital. So, therefore, it is reasonable to assume that Hubbard had in his mind that the very gravity point of the pyramid is one that lies almost on the lowest section! So, with his background of engineering studies in mind and where "life is hard", please have some charity! There are limits to how much non-sense you can put on a man who liked navigation and who came out as an officer with work in the Intelligence Services. You need to raise the standards here toward the primary sources so that all the beer-talk is kept OUT! To start where I've begun then: Pyramid in please, hopefully within the next 7 days! Cheers! LFOlsnes-Lea 20:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

It is also the first religion that I've heard about that grants FULL autonomy to the individual religious person, i.e., absolutely NO indoctrination, and FOR THIS you have the 33 to 44, but especially the pages 33 to 34 from the "A New Slant on Life". Please, be of good will! LFOlsnes-Lea 21:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LFOlsnes-Lea (talk • contribs)

I feel like you're moving further and further away from any reliable sources. We will not be moving forward with any of your requested changes until you return with some sort of citation from a reliable source. Regardless of how "reasonable" you find it to assume ___, Wikipedia is not based on assumptions, rather sources.

As to your current round of requests, a search on scientology.org returns 0 results for "green pyramid" or "pyramid". There is already a wiki-link to the Fair Game article within this article. Your description of the policy does not match what is to be found there. From what I've read, Scientology does not even come close to granting "FULL autonomy" to individuals, and the church routinely indoctrinates its members.

You have not yet provided a single primary source beyond a handbook for Scientologists, only vague ramblings and requests. Please follow up some of your requests with sources before returning to this talk page. (Jonathanfu (talk) 21:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC))

First, the pyramid. You're right, "Green pyramid" doesn't yield any. However, "scientology symbols" and choosing images do, and here you have several pyramids of Scientology, this, this and this. The green one is here here. Good? For "A New Slant on Life", it is recemmended reading for beginners and is a central part of "the basics". This must be considered a primary source! Directly from Scientology themselves: here! Please, raise your efforts! LFOlsnes-Lea 22:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I've also downloaded this talk page for the scant comment above on information that I've provided! This way of blaming me for falsehood is something I consider WP:VAND. Can you stop it, please? Cheers! LFOlsnes-Lea 22:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Your links are not reliable sources to back up your claims that the green pyramid should be mentioned in the article. What you've done is a Google image search. By the same logic, the Scientology cross (which you claim is offensive), is just as important to Scientology, if not more, seeing as there are 8 Scientology crosses that show up before the pyramid. Continuing down that line of thought, this and this are also important scientology symbols.

Thanks for providing the link to the book, I've now read the aforementioned pgs 33-34. The text does not seem to grant "FULL autonomy", it merely appears to suggest to the reader that he/she be open-minded. This says nothing of whether or not Scientology does not indoctrinate its members (and there are a number of existing news articles that would argue that it does). For a parallel, there are passages in the Bible that are not followed by modern Christianity. Example: Deuteronomy 22:22 "If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die". Moreover, your lack of knowledge on something does not undo its existence. If Zimbabwe were the first country that I'd heard about that grants "FULL autonomy" to it's individual citizens, that would simply mean I am ignorant, not that Zimbabwe is the first nation to do so.

Sidebar, WP:VANDALISM applies to vandalism of articles. I think you're looking for a different Wikipedia guideline. And while I applaud your foresight for downloading this talk page, please note any administrator would simply look at this talk page if needed. (Jonathanfu (talk) 04:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC))

Of course, you being so "nice" not to cite it, having a clue of who you are, I WILL! Here is: (In reversal of order), p. 34, "There is a way to answer these questions to his [Meaning us!] own satisfaction: find them himself [us again]. These are fundamentals and every student should undertake to discover them himself [us again], thus raising Scientology above an authoritarian category." Note: thus raising Scientology above an authoritarian category. And you expect to represent intelligence... One thing... LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 19:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, p. 33.: "He should make up his mind about each thing that is taught - the procedure, techniques, mechanics and theory. He should ask himself these questions: Does this piece of data exist [Also sceptical of "Scientology data"]? Is it true? Does it work? Will it produce the best possible results in the shortest time?" Goodbye to you, mister! LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 19:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I regret to say that we need reliable sources as per WP:RS to add such a symbol to this article. For all your comments above, you have yet to provide such sources. In fact, nothing in your last comment above so far as I can tell even refers indirectly to any sort of pyramid image. As per [{WP:BURDEN]], which I suggest you read, it is the responsibility of anyone who seeks to add material to an article to provide reliable sources to indicate that the material should be added. To date, you have not done so. Other comments, such as the last one above, do not even apparently address that matter. Please provide the required reliable sources indicating the importance of a pyramid image, and please refrain from any off-topic commentary. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 23:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, there may be something to what LFOIsnes-Lea is saying. For example, the Buffalo Church building was recently rededicated: [16]. The outside of the building used to sport the Scientology cross; it now only shows the pyramid and the two triangle/S symbol. If the cross now plays second or third fiddle as a symbol of Scientology, we should make it less prominent. JN466 21:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I have to correct myself; looking closely at the images of the building at the above URL, there is still a large cross on the building's side. But for reference, here is the Google Street View of the building from September 2011: [17][18] So there used to be five crosses on the building, vs. no pyramids and triangle/S symbols that I can make out, and now it is one cross, one pyramid, and one triangle/S symbol. --JN466 21:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing that there might not be something to the claims, I'm just thinking that at this point there aren't any clear RS sources to indicate that the image should be added, as a separate image, to the article. Including an image of a building with a triangle on it would be reasonable and perfectly acceptable, but for all we know at this point that could be some form of signature mark of an architect or two. Similarly with "downplaying" the cross, in neither case could we really meet guidelines and policies for including any text in the article, probably even including an image caption for the pyramid, without some sort of clear indication from an independent or internal RS to indicate that it is now some sort of official or unofficial symbol. John Carter (talk) 21:34, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

We don't have any source to make the cross the main image, and in fact, it was me who put it there a couple of years ago or so, based on the observation that it was prominently displayed on various Church buildings. The main image used to be the ARC/KRC triangles with the S. So I do wonder whether we should swap them around. --JN466 21:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

By the way, the Google Street View links I gave above don't really work. For those interested, the building is located at the corner of Virginia Street and Main Street. --JN466 21:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe the RTC's trademark page here would help resolve which symbol means what? John Carter (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

just did a google of scientology while the "offical" scientology sites do use a dual gold triangle linked with a S as their logo almost all major buildings/curches including american HQ, Aus HQ and sea org still have the cross above their buildings. it may be ona to do list to remove but until it occurs it is still technically an identifying symbol of the curches and followers beliefs. it should also be noted that Hubard himself defended the cross and stated wearing one was required by high ranking members. this has been changed under modern practices to the new symbol. as such keeping the cross for historical purposes is probally not a bad thing as only anti scientologists or cathlic/christian people would be truly offended by it.152.91.9.153 (talk) 00:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I haven't bothered so much checking these crosses, but I can report of one more in Hamburg with a cross on it. Despite this, as one knows from corporate life, re-branding can often demand a great deal of time if the de-Cross-ing only has happened recently. And where do they do it first? On the Internet, of course, with a few strokes on the keyboard. So, as you have reported these crosses above, I can also, plausibly, say that they can very well be gone within the next 2 to 5 years. The key issue is that the Cross violates, more or less directly with aberration and engram and that no matter how subtly you like to insinuate that Scientology silently supports torture of people by using the torture instrument of a cross, this type of idiot critcism gets NOWHERE! So, clearly for this too, the Cross-es are probably gone not before long! (Scientology doesn't support torture BECAUSE its ethics code is, entirely and without omissions, The Way to Happiness! Good? LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 19:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

As John Carter posted above, the RTC lists the Scientology Cross as one of it's trademarked symbols. I've still yet to see evidence that the CoS is removing the cross and replacing it with the pyramid of Dianetics. As a sidenote, the cross as a symbol does not necessarily refer to torture, e.g. the Scientology Cross. Jonathanfu (talk) 04:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I dispute that the Cross is this peaceful symbol. It doesn't provide peace by the fact that Jesus Christ has been crucified on it (and thus tortured), it is still an instrument for torture. When Christianity uses the Cross as their symbol for religious faith, this doesn't in any way take away the fact that this refers directly to the torture of Jesus still! Things are still not improving when Scientology of late facetiously imports it into its set of religious symbols. IT IS STILL A SYMBOL FOR AN INSTRUMENT OF TORTURE! (I need to be able to answer Jonathanfu in relating to aberration and engram as central concepts of Scientology. BTfromLA doesn't seem to have a clue about its behaviour, given the central aspects of Scientology, only recently contributing to the article. WP:VAN?) LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 21:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Your thoughts on the meaning of scientology or its symbols do not belong on an article talk page. Look at the top of every talk page: "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." Ranting about issues that wander completely away from the article's subject, such as the meaning of cross symbols, is also something this is not a forum for. Your opinions are not relevant to editing the article. It is established beyond doubt that the church of Scientology embraces that cross as one of the chuch's primary symbols; this has been true for decades and remains true today, as current websites and recent church remodels clearly show. So there's no issue about the cross being used in the article. Your personal views about scientology, or crosses, or scientology's use of crosses, have no place here. (By the way, despite my apparent cluelessness, I have edited scientology-related Wikipedia articles from time to time for the past eight years.) -- BTfromLA (talk) 22:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I've merely stuck to these four concepts: "torture", "cross", "aberration", and "engram"! Your provocation for my attention will not carry you anywhere and I'd like to have your references while supplying my own: "A New Slant on Life", p. 345, as indexing of "aberration" and "Dianetics - The Modern Science..." pp. 648 - 649 for start. The Cross is known to have entered as a much used symbol only lately, but unfortunately I don't have the date for this! I also note the concept of "honesty" if you do not stick to FACTS!!! LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 11:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

A google search for "scientology cross" will yield several examples of Hubbard writing about it, dating back to about 1955. According to Wikipedia's Scientology cross article, the cross began to be widely displayed in churches in 1969. As someone noted above, the cross is prominently displayed on the web site of the Religious Technology Center, as well as other official CofS websites. In Los Angeles, the "big blue" Pacific Base has been remodeled in the past year or two; it features a large Scientology cross on top of the building, and another at the front of the building, facing Sunset boulevard.

But the main issue here is not the cross. It is that you seem impervious to the efforts of several editors to guide you to an understanding of what wikipedia is and how editing is conducted; without a dramatic change in your approach to the project, I expect that administrators will soon block you from participating. If you have a sincere interest in contributing to wikipedia, I strongly urge you to read and make an effort to implement the editing policies to which various editors have provided you links. -- BTfromLA (talk) 16:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

"most exhaustive review"

Just checked out the new source from NestleNW911. I don't know squat about law and how these documents work, but this header "DECLARATION OF DAVID MISCAVIGE" stands out to me. Was Miscavige under oath? Or is he able to say whatever he wants? If so, excellent source. If not, we could change the tidbit from "The IRS’s examination of Scientology was reported to have been the most exhaustive review of any non-profit organization in history." to "David Miscavige claims that the IRS’s examination of Scientology the most exhaustive review of any non-profit organization in history." (Jonathanfu (talk) 05:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC))

Whether it was under oath or not, do David Miscavige have the knowledge to ascertain whether the IRS review was "the most exhaustive in history"? He is the leader of the COS, not an IRS historian. Using his affidavit as a source, I would think the only thing we can say is that "the COS claim the review was the most exhaustive etc". As for Miscavige's veracity, further down in the affidavit (near the end) he claims (quote, section 66): Since 1981, I have heard this allegation of Fair Game literally thousands of times. Yet, I had never even heard the term until I saw it used in civil litigation, and to this day have never once heard the term used within the Church.(unquote) Considering "fair game" is actual COS scripture (Hubbard Communications Office (HCO) Policy Letter of 18 October 1967, Issue IV), and Miscavige is the chairman of the board of the RTC whose task it is to oversee all Scientology scripture, the statement is very hard to believe. As such, it indicates we should treat the affidavit with some skepticism. Thimbleweed (talk) 07:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Jonathanfu (talk) 04:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Apotheosis: relationship?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apotheosis - is there a relationship to Apotheosis/deification and also to the idea of The Fall and the idea of rebirth and Salvation and Justification restoring a lost vestige of divinity? The story of Thetans forgetting their true nature also echoes extra-canaonical and conspiracy stories of fallen angels breeding with people. The article suggests links to the Bhuddist Taoist and Hindu and generally 'eastern thought' and gnostic thought but there is arguably a christian part in the blending of these ideas as well; this isn't too strange a suggestion without supporting quotesg; scientology was born in the US! But can people find any? Kathybramley (talk) 18:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The idea of the god-like powers of a thetan held back by the limitations of the flesh and/or life experiences is found in any number of Western turn-of-the-century esotheric traditions. Hubbard appears to have been mainly influenced by Golden Dawn movement of Aleister Crowley, the father of modern Satanism. See Urban, H.B. (2012): The Occult Roots of Scientology?: L. Ron Hubbard, Aleister Crowley, and the Origins of a Controversial New Religion. Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions Vol. 15, No. 3 (February 2012), pp. 91-116 Thimbleweed (talk) 06:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

"Cult"?

Can that possibly be NPOV? It's my personal opinion that Scientology IS a cult, but can we really say something like that here at all, let alone without a citation? Christianity is a cult too (and I'm a Christian), but I doubt we'd ever dare refer to it as such. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 00:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing. It was changed to cult a couple of days ago and it seems no one spotted it. I've restored the longstanding version of the lead sentence. --JN466 00:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

No need to lie, evanh. It is a consistently used tactic for scientologists to use "im with you" jargon to get people to agree with them, if you actually have a legitimate reason for removing the term please say so, otherwise stay out of the discussion page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.49.47.34 (talk) 18:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

yeah evanh or shes going to wiki kick you off the internet. wiki has become a place for intelligent trolls to argue. I'm starting to enjoy this... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.169.224.100 (talk) 14:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

It is usually refered to in a negative way by most media and often refered to as a cult by them and by governments around the world. Is anyone actually denying that it is a cult (apart from Americans and Scientologists)? Personally, I think that cult is too weak as scam or crime is more suitable but I will settle for cult.--151.59.146.148 (talk) 19:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

If you look at what the generally accepted definitions of contemporary usage of the term are, every religion and a great many businesses are cults, and the Scientology crime syndicate certainly classifies as a business cult much as more traditional organized crime syndicates such as the Gambino crime family can classify as business cults. Christianity and Islam are cults according to all generally accepted terms, so there is no reason to consider the term to be either positive or negative, the term's definitive usage is neutral. Damotclese (talk) 22:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

it's definitive usage being neutral isn't relevant. It implies something negative, and it implies that it's a false belief. I'm actually Catholic and think Scientology is absolutely freaking nuts, but cult is a loaded word. I'd remove it until there is a thorough sourced section on the opinion that it's a cult. --Cabazap (talk) 21:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

please see WP:TALK, this is not a forum for the usage of the word "cult." no where in this article does it describe scientology as a "cult" except in places where it is quoting criticism from WP:RS, the original post was referring to something that was identified as vandalism. please check the article and identify a problem.Coffeepusher (talk) 22:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm surprised that this article isn't tagged with the Category:Destructive cult. I'd like to add that category, but I'm seeking input here before doing so. 66.90.146.89 (talk) 23:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

please see the talk archives, there isn't a consensus to do so.Coffeepusher (talk) 04:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll just add that "cult as a "loaded" word, a word with definite associations to the extent that nothing that goes on in one has anything to do with religion or proper conduct, hence sex cults! One should mind this as one "tries it" against Scientology with the use of "cult" when Scientology has a trademark of appearing decent and well-clothed, as Hubbard note that "these suppressive people usually fail to dress properly and are unable to properly conduct themselves in the public" or thereof...

Indeed, the whole 1st chapter of "The Way to Happiness" is "Take Care of Yourself" and "it get's no better" with chapter 15 that says "Fulfill Your Obligations". Contrary to the Catholic Church (with slight reference to the above writer), the code also says, by chapter 18, "Respect the Religious Beliefs of Others". LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 13:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Organization Name

I have made a couple of minor changes in the lead - changed the vague mention of the Scientology Volunteer Ministers and WISE to their proper names. Why mention them vaguely when these organizations are noteworthy enough to have their own Wikipedia articles?NestleNW911 (talk) 22:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

References

This article fails to comply with academic standards when it comes to references, hence Chicago Manual of Style. The article contains this, several places: 7.^ Neusner 2003, p. 227, 8.^ a b Melton 2000, pp. 28. I also find it academically dubious that this article has little or no references to the original material, and that references with "hearsay" are supposed to enter by default as in "finding something on them", the blind persecution by idiots! Do you mind amending, please? LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 00:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not enforce a single style of citation. See [19]. I also disagree with you on the necessity of references to Hubbard's original material. The article on Christianity has a single reference to the Bible itself, the other 300 citations are from other sources. I'm not quite sure what

references with "hearsay" are supposed to enter by default as in "finding something on them"

is supposed to mean. Which references are you referring to? Jonathanfu (talk) 07:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

This seems right. However, there is NO controversy over the facts with the Bible (Septuagint, Vulgate, King James) as you seem to assert relating to the Scientology material. How are we supposed to KILL lies about Scientology or even make sure the article looks good as actually presenting the very Scientology itself??? Do you seriously claim a right to lie about it? And how would you feel if I'm writing about IBM and already in the introduction start mentioning the punchcard-systems to the Nazis in exterminating the Jews as if IBM would primarily BE ABOUT PUNCHCARDS TO THE NAZIS? The point(é) is to be right, to be factual about something you have no right to report a dubious motivation to as much as I have no right to report dubious motivation of pedophilia connected to the author of "Alice in Wonderland"! We simply can't have all the lies in here!!! End. LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 14:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree. Wikipedia should not perpetuate lies. However, I would like to know which specific references you are pointing to within this article that are "lies". Jonathanfu (talk) 19:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Like the Bible for Christianity, Hubbard's writings for Scientology are primary sources. Wikipedia greatly prefers WP:Secondary sources and even tertiary encyclopedic sources. Primary sources are used only rarely, such as when the secondary sources do not agree, or when a particular fact is challenged. I do not think this article requires any references authored by Hubbard, nor would it be improved in any way by them. Binksternet (talk) 20:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Rephrasing, I have no further objection to the references as the titles are now finally in, we can now begin to read all academic books. However, while the titles now are easy to know, the article's writers apparently don't know the proper use of "References" vs. "Footnotes" because, to my knowledge, "References" are primary and footnotes only complementary, and when used with "References" "Footnotes" are usually given by plain (complementary) text. This article seems to miss this point! But mind, please, Melton and Neusner are popular references here. (Original text replaced.) LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 12:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Can someone ban this idiot already? --98.243.198.124 (talk) 18:15, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Listing countries

In this section, the countries that Scientology is recognized in is referred to as "some other countries" and the countries where Scientology "does not have comparable religious status" is enumerated. There is subtly hidden rhetoric that pushes the POV that Scientology in a greater sense is not a bonafide religion. In order to achieve more NPOV, I have edited so that a few of those countries where Scientology is recognized in be enumerated as well.NestleNW911 (talk) 19:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I think this section "listing countries" is useless, in a lot of countries in South America they said "you can belive in anything you want" so the scientology dont have a special treatement or status, for example countries with few members in Asia or South America just apply his regular law, not because it's specific for scientology but because it's his regular law, i dont see a point for this section,maybe if you count the countries with a specific treatment as US, France o England. or when exist some debate in his internas laws about scientology. 27/july/2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.28.116.97 (talk) 23:00, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The "recogniced as a religion" status is only relevant in a handfull of countries, notably the Anglophone ones. The whole "The COS is recogniced as a religion in this and that country" is a strawman argument to imply the group is 1) socially accepted in this country and 2) is a large group with branches in numerous countries. The fact of the matter is that in most countries the majority of the poppulation sees the group as a cult (which does not mean it isn't a religion) and on a world basis it is a very small group, perhaps 40 000 active adherents. The COS routinly claims membership in the millions, which is obviously not true and an attempt to increase their importance and visibility. I think the emphasis the "religious status" has in the lede is currently too much, and the question of number of countries belong further down in the article. Thimbleweed (talk) 07:15, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I propose changing the sentence to: Scientology is recogniced as a religion for tax purposes in some countries, notably in the USA. The rest really belongs in the main text. I will edit it unless someone has any objections. Thimbleweed (talk) 09:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

From Hugh B. Urban book

In the light of NPOV, I've added a counterstatement expressing the view of the church in the fourth paragraph of the lead section. This is to balance out the information and represent all sides. Thanks.NestleNW911 (talk) 00:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I've paraphrased the quotation, and have added the missing page number. JN466 14:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I've modified it to reflect source closer. "Suffering a concerted campaign" seems to express a whole other meaning entirely not asserted by the Urban book. I think it would be safer to make the edit as close to the source as possible, so as not to distort the meaning.NestleNW911 (talk) 23:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Dianetics

The development of Dianetics and various reactions to it are recorded in a detailed manner on this section. What is lacking is a more thorough definition of what Dianetics actually is, since it is the title of the heading, not "The History of Dianetics." I have added more information to this section from an article found through JSTOR.NestleNW911 (talk) 22:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Copy-edited; have a look if it's okay for you.JN466 14:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

This looks great. Thanks.NestleNW911 (talk) 23:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I've added more information about Dianetics that I found in a scholarly journal and in Melton's Church of Scientology book. Thanks.NestleNW911 (talk) 23:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Scientology as a commercial venture

Added a clarification sourced from J. Gordon Melton's text.NestleNW911 (talk) 23:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

That addition flies in the face of all experience. The waste majority of members do not "procede up the bridge", but quits after a few courses. The senction as it now stands is misleading. I needs to be rewritten. Thimbleweed (talk) 06:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Organization

This section could be improved by removing the short forms (orgs, stats). I suspect that the write included those because those are the terms used by members in common speech, but since that is not said explicitly this just introduces vagueness and an unnecessarily informal tone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.148.98 (talk) 01:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

J. Gordon Melton reference

On the statement, "According to several of his fellow science fiction writers, Hubbard had on several occasions stated that the way to get rich was to start a religion." I verified this statement against the cited J. Gordon Melton resource (Book:Studies in Contemporary Religion: The Church of Scientology ISBN: 978-1-56085-139-4) and an important part of the sentence was left out. Melton specifically mentioned "there is no record of Hubbard having ever made this statement." It is a grave misconception that must be corrected. I have inserted the qualifying text referencing the abovementioned book and added a bit of information I found from the Scientific American in order to improve this section for accuracy and NPOV. Thanks.NestleNW911 (talk) 22:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, you who cite this seems to be unable to separate the Scientology and the Church of Scientology. To get rich by starting a religion isn't part of official Scientology material and thus should be moved to the article on "Church of Scientology". Do you mind doing it? There is also a possibility to raise this as a matter of dubious motivation, but I find it implausible to say that "getting rich by starting a religion" is characterised in the official teachings! I mean the basics only cost 3 or 4 good academic books, it doesn't take much and readers need to want to buy it! Are you therefore questioning the popularity of L. Ron Hubbard as being cited by Guiness Book of Records as the Worlds most bought or read author? I mean, if you read the Basics, I think there's no doubt that this is written by an intelligent man. Again, the most bought and read author on planet Earth... Get Earth-connected, please! LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 23:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Just so you know, Nestle was pointing out that Hubbard never said the statement in question, according to the reliable source that he lists. Furthermore, a search on the Guinness website for "hubbard" does not say he is the most bought or read author, merely that he has the records for most published and most translations. It also appears he is not the most bought author. This states Hubbard has sold over 100 million works. List_of_best-selling_books#More_than_100_million_copies shows a number of single works that have sold over 100 million copies. Jonathanfu (talk) 06:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Melton is but one reference here. I have heard the claim that Hubbard said something to the effect of the way to get rich is to start a religion, from numerous sources. The only one emphatically stating he did not say it is Melton. Thus I think the only correct way to go about this is to report the saying (with sources), and then say Melton believes he never said it. Has anyone read Meltons work? Do he cite any sources for his statement? Thimbleweed (talk) 07:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The point is that you sit there like kings (and queens) of intelligence and refuse to compare the popularity of academic books with the popularity of sold books authored by L. Ron Hubbard in being honest to it in itself! It is, surprisingly or not, reasonable to think that indeed the books are bought by intelligent readers and that they like them, not that they are indoctrinated by them or in them or that millions of books are bought by Forbes and then burnt or any other lunatic idea. Alright? LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 14:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why it would be necessary to compare the number of works Hubbard has sold to any academic book, seeing as Hubbard was a prolific writer of fiction(see L._Ron_Hubbard_bibliography). Furthermore, given Scientology's status as a religion, it would seem to be more appropriate to compare any Scientology/Dianetics/etc. works by Hubbard to books like the Bible, the Quran, etc. I'm not entirely sure it would be reasonable to assume the books are necessarily being bought and read by intelligent people who are not being brainwashed. I think it would only be reasonable to assume that the books are being bought, and would decline to speculate why without more information. Jonathanfu (talk) 20:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Melton does not say Hubbard didn't say it, just that it cannot be substantiated that he did say it. On page 55 Melton says, "[the IRS] cite a statement attributed to Hubbard to the effect that anyone who wanted to make millions should found his own religion, an item quoted in most anti-Scientology books but apparently unsubstantiated.²" Footnote 2 on page 74 then says, "There is no record of Hubbard having ever made this statement, though several of his science fiction colleagues have noted the broaching of the subject on one of their informal conversations. The actual quote seems to have come from a cynical remark in a letter written by Orwell published in the The Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters of George Orwell, edited by Sonia Orwell and Ian Angus (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1968), 304. My impression is that there are ample sources for Hubbard having discussed the matter, though none attributes this specific quote to him. What's in the article now is a bit suboptimal, as it says much the same thing twice and does not mention Orwell, just "someone else". In my opinion we should say that the statement is often attributed to Hubbard, that SF colleagues recall him discussing the matter, and that it apparently was Orwell who first said it. JN466 16:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Jayen466's proposal sounds reasonable to me. John Carter (talk) 16:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Jonathanfu (talk) 20:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with saying that there are many sources that attribute this thought to Hubbard in the 1940s science fiction milieu, though there is no documented quotation. I don't think there is good reason to bring in Orwell, unless we feel the need to go point-by-point with the church of scientology's refutations of everything troubling in Hubbard's past. The Orwell quote--a tossed-off line that seems to be intended as a joke--occurs in an obscure 1938 letter (first published, as best I can tell, in 1968), and really has nothing to do with the Hubbard story. Robert Vaughn Young, who was Scientology's public relations spokesperson when Hubbard was alive, has written how he came across the Orwell quote, told Hubbard about it, and used it as a way of deflecting charges that Hubbard had said such a thing. (It also served their promotional purposes to make it appear that Hubbard could be confused with such an eminent writer as Orwell.) So the only reason Orwell is part of this story is that it was Scientology's PR counter-story. It isn't persuasive, as you have about half a dozen of Hubbard's 1940s SF colleagues who have independently reported Hubbard saying it. Not to mention the guy who thought up the Orwell-related PR approach (RV Young) later debunking it. Since we're not talking about an exact quote, and since the basic idea that religion can be a source of profit goes back much further than Orwell (I suspect you could find a similar sentiment in the correspondence between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, for example), I suggest we leave poor Orwell out of this. By the way, Nestle's summary of Harlan Ellison's account is rather misleading: Ellison says that he was present at a SF writers' group with Hubbard, where a joke about religion making money came from Lester Del Rey, and Hubbard seized on the idea. (Nestle's account suggests much more distance between the comment and Hubbard.) -- BTfromLA (talk) 21:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

[20]. JN466 13:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikiquote: L. Rob Hubbard has much useful info on this. Best source seems to be Eshbach: "The incident is stamped indelibly in my mind because of one statement that Ron Hubbard made. What led him to say what he did I can't recall — but in so many words Hubbard said: "I'd like to start a religion. That's where the money is!"" (L. Ron Hubbard to Lloyd A. Eshbach, in 1949; as quoted by Eshbach in his autobiography Over My Shoulder: Reflections On A Science Fiction Era (1983) ISBN 1-880418-11-8) --Mknjbhvgcf (talk) 14:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Possible source for future use: Der Spiegel 08.03.1993, "Die wollen den totalitären Staat" ("They want a totalitarian state")

I'm researching Narconon, just came across this source which might be useful for the main Scientology article.

It's a German interview with a Scientology defector, in 1996.

I think it provides an interesting perspective on the German government's attitude to Scientology.

Original article in German is here, machine translation to English is here.

--Mknjbhvgcf (talk) 13:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Deep Mistake in the Article (line 350)

These sociologists do not live apart from reality and thus Kent needs to see that "In plain English, the purpose of Scientology ethics is to eliminate opponents, then eliminate people's interests in things other than Scientology.", even though Scientology has clearly defined its ethics as common sense ethics, i.e., ethics that everyone can identify with." Abrupt lies can't be accepted as part of article!!! LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 04:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Stephen Kent is a notable scholar on the subject, and is just articulating a sentiment I have seen from numerous others. As it is now, the sentence is in the controversies section, which is where it belongs. The view you cite (unsourced) would belong in the ethics section. I have removed the sentence. Thimbleweed (talk) 07:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The view is cite is directly from the Basics (7 or so books/manuals) and it says "right on it" there, "The Way to Happiness - A Common Sense Guide to Better Living", and probably contrary to this Kent, I sit right here with the book in front of me, all 248/250 pages, with 248 last mentioned. Well, well, I note you stick it out for Kent... They even offer you to read the book online: http://www.thewaytohappiness.org/#/precepts . You know, the thing about their ethics isn't that it's awful because it reads Judaism, Christianity and Islam there inside-out, although not as stated by Sharia-laws or anything, but in essence... So clearly, the ethics must be for other people to rise up to and not the other way around, as Scientology has an explicit tolerance code connected to it as (firm) part of belief-system! LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 11:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Aims of Scientology

A bit more from mr. Grumpy: Aims of Scientology
I tell you! Without the explicit citing of "Aims of Scientology", the credibility of this article only goes that far! You could almost remove the 10 commandments from the page of Christianity in violating the encyclopedic commitment of Wikipedia when this article is to give precise and factual information of the CoS! There is a deleted section here. Why is this? Please, be aware of the quality level here. Thank you. (This is actually undoing a former Talkpage notification.) LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 04:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean like the COS' stated aim of "Clearing the planet"? Thimbleweed (talk) 07:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

They write the "Aims" on the back of every IAS-card (Intern. Assoc. of Scientologists). WHAT DO YOU THINK? Auditing is something else... and "clearing the planet" does sound ridiculous, but they probably think this and that... well, well, it can't be about nukes, that's for sure! The "Aims" as official and direct as you could possibly want them: http://www.scientology.org/what-is-scientology/the-scientology-creeds-and-codes/the-aims-of-scientology.html , right there under the official domain, Scientology.org! LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 11:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that Scientology's stated aims are quite interesting, in a number of different ways, and are very relevant to this article. The relevant sentence is

THE AIMS OF SCIENTOLOGY (Written by L. Ron Hubbard in September 1965). A civilization without insanity, without criminals and without war, where the able can prosper and honest beings can have rights, and where Man is free to rise to greater heights, are the aims of Scientology.

I find it interesting that these aims are for the whole of 'civilisation', not just for Scientology or Scientologists (i.e. that scientology wants to impose its aims on the whole of civilisation - this ties in with independent commentary from Der Spiegel, linked above). Discussion of the Scientology definitions of some of the key terms in the aims:

• 'insanity' (given Scientology's rejection of the mental health field, who decides on the definition of 'insanity'? I'm guessing it's Scientology.),
• 'criminals' (does this mean SPs? or 'criminals' in the civil law sense?),
• 'the able' (those who are allowed to prosper. what happens to those who aren't 'able'?),
• 'honest beings' (those who deserve rights - are non-Scientologists included in this?)

would also be very interesting, although perhaps other articles on Wikipedia already get into some of these issues. Perhaps we can find a secondary source which talks about these issues? --Mknjbhvgcf (talk) 12:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

First of all, there are limitations to how much protesting you can wage against people who "are demonstrating for (World-)peace" as in "give peace a chance". I also find that the above is spurious when one should know that Scientology ethics also says "don't do anything illegal" as rule nr. 9. I think it's the other way around: they (CoS) accept the (common sense) concepts of insanity, criminals, the able and the honest beings. Also mind that this has been written back in the 50s and 60s where one might wanted to skip the harder questions of "caring for relatives in hardship out of cancer and whatever accidents. By the ethics, there is no doubt that Scientology (as people) probably care for their loved ones in hardship/disability as much as mr. Mknjbhvgcf does. Therefore, I suggest that you need to read more than a little, good man with the comment above this one! Cheers! LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 12:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi LFOlsnes-Lea - I'm finding parts of your comment quite difficult to understand. Can you re-phrase it? I don't understand the part about "waging protesting", peace protestors, and the John Lennon song Give Peace a Chance, at all.

I'm sure most Scientologists are good people.

Where my comment above addressed phrases like 'insanity' and concepts such as honesty, that's because Scientology seems - like most faiths - to have its own particular definitions of these concepts.

In particular, I think that Scientologists would be the first to declare that psychiatrists' definitions of 'insanity' are not acceptable to them. My understanding is that Scientology totally rejects psychiatry.

I'm not quite clear of the relevance of your point about legality, but my understanding is that Scientology preaches that 'wog law' (non-Scientology law) does not (or should not) apply to Scientologists. I'm not clear what "rule number 9" you're referring to, maybe you could supply a link?

So I think that if we cover the Aims of Scientology - which I agree that we should - then it would be appropriate for us to cover what those Aims mean (to Scientologists). If we can find a suitable source.

Your point about how the interpretation of those Aims might have changed over the years since they were written by Hubbard is an interesting one.

Feel free to supply me with sources where I can do some more reading.

Kind regards, --Mknjbhvgcf (talk) 13:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

"To wage a protest" means to take part in a protest and to actually protest (as in a demo). This is also plain English. My point is that you seem to place Scientologists outside society as if they had no life outside the Church! I find this "accusation"/claim idiot! Yes, finally, (then other people can take over here) rule nr. 9: http://www.thewaytohappiness.org/thewaytohappiness/precepts/dont-do-anything-illegal.html . So there you go! I suspect you're a bit lazy and your attitude may need to pick up in order to come across to other people with whom you seek to interact with. Well, well, good luck to you anyhow! Cheers! LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 14:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the link, LFOlsnes-Lea. I'll certainly take a look at that. I'd be interested in any sources you have on how that rule against illegal acts fits in with illegal Scientology operations such as Operation Snow White.

I understand the meaning of the word 'protest'. I don't understand what you meant when you said "First of all, there are limitations to how much protesting you can wage against people who "are demonstrating for (World-)peace" as in "give peace a chance"." I'm not clear what peace protestors you're talking about, or how they're relevant to Scientology.

I'm not making any accusations or claims at all. I'm agreeing with your suggestion that the Aims of Scientology should be included in the article.

Concerning my laziness: I'm sure you're right.

Best wishes, --Mknjbhvgcf (talk) 14:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Also:

I've been looking at the article (and elsewhere on Wikipedia) to see where the Aims of Scientology might fit in best, and I've found that they're already here:

Church_of_Scientology#History

The page cited is this one: [21]

--Mknjbhvgcf (talk) 14:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for information to CoS, that's most excellent that they've now made the entry there. However, I still think it belongs here as well as it is much more an idealistic goal than a direct practice in a difficult World, often with unfair treatment. As for Operation Snow White, it goes for the Church of Scient. article and that's one of the reasons I write under Scientology so that I don't need to stick my head up for every "g*d d*mn" little disturbance to what the member mass is doing. I'm sure however that every Scientologist (of legal age) knows that laws and regulations are to be followed and that they are liable in case they breach the letter of the law insofar as police bother to file charges! For the "protesting" the simple message is this, if Scientologists say "peace" why should you bother to annoy them, hassle them or argue with them? Aren't they kind enough for you? As if you would ever seek the Satanist a block away from your neighbourhood for kindness? I believe you don't!!! As for the World today, I just happen to think that Scientology (at least as teachings, orig. books only) is far too nice to generate this non-sense from these crap mor*ns and I for one is to stand up for this because I think it makes a difference in the World, away from idiot sociologists and others with (only) HATE in their hearts! Alright? Best wishes, Ollie LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 15:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

No problem, Ollie. Perhaps you're right that the Aims belong in this article as well.

Concerning peace protests: I didn't know that Scientology had been involved with peace protests. Can you provide a source for this? Perhaps we should include that information in the article too.

If I understand you correctly, you're arguing that Scientology is a idealistic, kind and harmless faith, and is unfairly persecuted by sociologists. Have I understood that right?

Best wishes, --Mknjbhvgcf (talk) 15:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

No, only that the Scientology movement in general are "better in saying "peace"", principally, than many other people on planet Earth. Yes, they are kind, but as with other people, they are human beings too, with a lier here and there, just like yourself. There's isn't much more to say over this. I bet you find the CoS article much better "because they (8 million or 30 million) are doing A LOT"! So you see, there you have A LOT to keep your eyes on! Alright? God bless you (and your good spirit too)! LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 16:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

See WP:NOTFORUM. Also, do you have anything even remotely close to a WP:RS to support your claim that Scientologists are generally "better in saying "peace"", whatever that means, than other people? Jonathanfu (talk) 08:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)