{{controversial}}
{{scientology}}
''To view discussion of the Scientology article:
:Topic threads beginning Dec. 2001 through Feb. 2004, please see '''Talk:Scientology/Archive_1'''.
:Topic threads beginning Feb. 2004 through June 18, 2005, please see '''Talk:Scientology/Archive_2'''.
:Topic threads beginning June 19, 2005 through July 31 2005, please see '''Talk:Scientology/Archive_3'''.
*there are 8 million scientolgists world-wide, why keep taking this out of the article?
== Origins of the Official Scientology Cross Symbol ==
I was just curious why exactly the official church symbol is an extension of the Christian Cross. What affiliation does Scientology have with Christianity? In other segments of the article, we see this:
:In some of the teachings Hubbard had intended only for this select group, he claimed that Jesus had never existed, but was implanted in humanity's collective memory by Xenu 75 million years ago, and that Christianity was an "entheta [evil] operation" mounted by beings called Targs (Hubbard, "Electropsychometric Scouting: Battle of the Universes", April 1952).
::Whoever posted that one should sign it. I have myself read scientology articles which said without doubt that Jesus did exist and that Jesus did create some mircles or do some miracles. But none of these sorts of informations are central to Scientology's beliefs anyway but are selected individual datums that hostile people pick at without documentation.
Those inconsitancies aside, the official symbol is still confusing. I am curious how the symbology of the extended cross was picked and how it was picked. How does it reflect the teachings of the Churth of Scientology? I would appreciate a greater elaboration on these items. Gavin 05:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
:'''What is Scientology''', hardbound edition, page 909 states about the cross: The Scientology sunburst cross, the basic design of which was found by L. Ron Hubbard in an anciet Spanish mission in Arizona, is the official insignia for Scientology Ministers. Each of the eight points of the cross represents one of the dynamics. Terryeo 20:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
::Here is an interesting reading about the subject: Scientology and the Occult. Povmec 05:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
::It is called the "Scientology Cross." It has 8 points. Here is a scientology link that explains a little about it. {http://www.scientology.org/html/opencms/cos/scientology/en_US/news-media/faq/pg017.html]
Terryeo 21:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
::: I suppose.. I must admit that I am unconvinced so far that Scientology is anything but an entire sham. After reading many articles on how pricesly Scientology came about, I was looking for someone to prove to me otherwise. I mean no disrespect, this is just one human being's observation which people are free to accept or denie at your pleasure. However it appears quite obviously to me that they simply took an existing symbology so engrained in our American and global culture and slightly modified it. It's like marketing branding.
:::And this does not quite have me convinced either, it seems a weak attempt to defend the symbol. The page states, "As a matter of interest, the cross as a symbol predates Christianity." Sure, of course crosses predate Christianity. But -that- specific cross in the symbol is -Christian Cross-, it is a true cross with 4 extra lines. Or why else would they pick a symbol that would be so easily confused visually with a Christian cross? What does the longer, bottom-side of the cross represent. Do the shorter 4 lines represent a lesser importance to the religion of Scientology? It would seem to me that if they had created a symbol to truly reflect all facets of their own original, new faith, it would look nothing like the Christian cross. Again, this is just one human being's ramblings and no real offense is intended.
::: Gavin 17:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
::::The informations available to me are that Mr. Hubbard once dug up such a cross which was probably lost by a spanish explorer, that was somewhere in the western USA. And that the 4 major extensions which obviously make a cross represent man's four most known urges toward survival (self, one's family, one's groups and mankind), the remaining four (nearer in to the center) the less immediate urges toward survival (as life, as the physical universe, as a spirit, as god). Scientology does have its symbols but symbols themselves only have the power an indivudal grants them, thus not a huge amount of attention is placed on symbols in the scientology religion. Any more question gavin? Terryeo 00:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
:::::I note that Hubbard offered absolutely no proof of his claim, nor did he ever say where he found it. On the other hand, it ''is'' very similar to the Rosicrucian cross http://www.crystalinks.com/rosicrucian.gif and the "Golden Dawn" cross adopted by Aleister_Crowley http://www.hermeticgoldendawn.org/2003Head.gif. We know that Hubbard had connections with both Rosicrucianism and Crowley, so he would certainly have been aware of the symbology that they used, including the "crossed-out cross". -- ChrisO 00:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
== Neurofeedback mania ==
I'm reluctant to jump in and cut all this stuff unilaterally, but it apears that some editor's personal obsession with "neurofeedback" has led to a lot of dubious additions to the article, including a rather whacked-out "mindmap" with a pic of Hubbard in the middle. While no doubt there is some connection between E-meters and subsequent popularizers of neurofeedback, "neurolinguistic programming." etc., I don't think this pertains directly to a description of Scientology, and some, like the "mindmap" is utterly non-encyclopedic. I think pretty much all of that stuff should be removed. Thoughts? --BTfromLA 05:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
:I agree with you on the neurofeedback and the Mind_map additions. A Mind_map is an obscure way of taking notes; perhaps it is the editor's own creation. I am familiar with Neuro-linguistic_programming. NLP, which does not use any machines, is not founded on Scientology related beliefs and Scientology had nothing to do with its development. I notice that someone has similarly polluted the Neuro-linguistic_programming article with similar comments.--Agiantman 11:11, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
::I cut the neurofeedback stuff out. Some of those details belong in an article on neurofeedback, but not in a concise intro to Scientology auditing. The "mindmap" doesn't belong anywhere in wikipedia, far as I can imagine. BTfromLA 23:59, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
:::Hello BT. I think I understand what you mean. What is the definition of encyclopedic according to wikipedia though? Actually, just a bit of background, I added the map because it seemed very relevant to the section and added interesting and concise information. The map was produced(by me) at a scientology meeting, and summarises some of the strong connections between mind mapping(R) and scientology. The mind map was inspired (according to Tony Buzan) by the general semantic laden writings of science fiction writers such as Van Vogt and LRHubbard. It is similarly based on general semantics and reality distortion (the map is not the territory etc). Of course, the mind map and Buzan have developed their own vision and cult following. But it is clearly relevant and concise. Certainly that is encyclopedic! What is your opinion? W Conyers 10:22, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
::::W, the "mindmap" is basically unintelligible in this context. It doesn't offer any "relevant and concise" information at all--it comes across like someone's loopy doodle on the back of a paper placemat. It may help you to recollect some connections that occurred in your own mind as you made it, but it doesn't communicate information about Scientology to a reader who is not you. BTfromLA 16:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
==Age of the Universe==
(NOTE: the post below was a response to another post that mysteriously disappeared--the anon poster raised questions about a claim about the age of the universe in the article, and he or she mentioned that he or she didn't know how to sign a post...)
:I don't think you managed to edit the text, but I think it was a good editorial call, so I cut the line from the article. Not only was it factually dubious, it was superfluous to the description of the Scientology beliefs. You can sign your posts by simply typing the tilde symbol (~) four times in a row--the software will do the rest. BTfromLA 23:29, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
:: That would be me. Right after I made the decision to edit, I lost all ability to do so. For whatever reason, after I made the edit to this talk page, Wikipedia stopped accepting any edits from me, citing some kind of error I (being the new guy I am) didn't recognize. I tried multiple times, but it kept giving me the same error. Thanks for the advice, and removing the line for me. 68.35.71.22 05:27, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
== Authenticity of Information ==
IMHO: Opinions should not litter an article. Mostly facts should be presented, and authenticity of information should be traceable to credible sources. If some wish to influence readers towards a positive or negative opinion of Scientology then they should create a propaganda article elsewhere, not here.
AI 10:42 18 Apr 2004 (HST)
::The statements in the Scientology article about "critics" are not fact until the critics are named and claims proven.
--J.Tell 08:22, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::I'm always in favor of naming critics. However it is not necessary, or even wise, to try to prove or disprove their claims. In fact, we shouldn't try to prove or disprove anything on Wikipedia. We're here just to summarize verifiable information in a NPOV manner. If a notable critic says something, we should include that criticism along with any official rebuttals, without indicating a preference for one or the other side. Cheers, -Willmcw 08:36, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC) ::::I disagree with you about proving/disproving claims; Authentication and validation go hand in hand. Information not validated or authenticated should not be presented, this is not a tabloid or propaganda sheet.
--J.Tell 23:25, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::::Then you disagree with Wikipedia's fundamental goals; see Wikipedia:Original_research. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:53, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::::::We can't "prove" anything here. All we do is summarize verifiable information in an NPOV manner. If we can verify that a critic (or a supporter) said XYZ, and that comment seems relevant and notable, then it should be included, "true" or not. -Willmcw 04:26, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC) ::::::: I don't know anything about Scientology, other than that it's very controversial, but I have a general suggestion to make about choosing sources for controversial topics. The official policy in Wikipedia:Verifiability urges us to cite our sources, and says, "For an encyclopedia, sources should be unimpeachable." This means, I think, that we are not required to include claims by sources that are less than unimpeachable. Instead, we should try to present a variety of points of view from among the unimpeachable sources. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources gives good advice on choosing reliable sources, but for controversial articles, I think we should apply the highest possible standard of reliability: we should rely as much as possible on academic sources, rather than journalism. Academics who teach at major universities and research institutions are specialised in their subject and have been trained to study it. They are expected to be familiar with primary sources, and to cite those sources. Their work is often formally peer-reviewed, and informal peer review occurs when specialists critique each other's work in books and articles. Moreover, in reputable academic institutions, scholars enjoy a great deal of freedom to draw the best conclusions they can. Journalists, on the other hand, often write about a wide variety of subjects about which they lack in-depth knowledge. They rarely have the time to do adequate research on difficult subjects, peer review rarely takes place, and in any case journalists are not free to draw their own conclusions; they must follow the editorial line of their paper. I'm sure most people who know any subject well can think of examples of inaccurate reporting on that subject, even in major newspapers, particularly if the subject is controversial. Therefore, in the interest of making Wikipedia a reliable as well as NPOV source of information, I think that on controversial topics, we should stick to reputable academic sources as much as possible. --Beroul 11:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC) ::::::::The above claims are dubious--scholars frequently cite journalistic accounts of their subjects--but it is difficult to address them, because they are so general. Is there a specific criticism of this article in there somewhere? BTfromLA 19:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC) :::::::::BT, I'm sorry but I think yours is a weak argument which in my opinion is only made to support a perpetuation of anti-CoS POV. This discussion should involve the members of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Scientology, specifically User:Fernando_Rizo who has demonstrated a very neutral and civil approach. --AI 22:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC) ::::::::::What argument? The argument that one should be specific? While we're at it, please don't start accusing users of pushing a pov unless you can point to specific evidence for that. BTfromLA 22:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC) :::::::::::Would you really like me to start a documentation process? --AI 23:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC) I certainly don't want to encourage you to start feuding with me or anyone else. If you can point to specific examples of inappropriate POV in the article, though, and can offer an NPOV alternative, please do so. But first, please respond to my earlier question: what "weak argument" was I making above? BTfromLA 02:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC) :It is NOT accurate to introduce this topic as "a therapy" because it was never presented as a therapy and is not and was not intended to be a therapy. Mr. Hubbard made this distinction clearly when he first presented it in 1952. The recorded audio lecture is titled, "Scientology: Milsestone One" and is available through BridgePub.org == "The Australian Report" ==
Since the Australian Report section was getting a bit overly long, I thought I's start a new section header in response to your question above. It has been about five or six years since I recall seeing this info. I believe I found it on xenu.net, and this is what I recall from it: # Some investigative journalists in England attempted to do a story on exactly what goes on in an auditing session. # First they sent in this reporter who was wired with a camera in the frames of his thick glasses, you know the Inspector Cluseau look, very popular they say, into an auditing session, he also had a micro tape recorder with him. As I recall I think he spared the auditors from having to deal with one of those fake moustaches. ''Thank God '':-) . Somehow the auditors detected this, and called the police on the poor guy. ''What a shame '';-) . # Still the journalists didn't give up. Next they sent another guy in with no wires or recording devices, but with a good memory. It worked, but obviously he wasn't able to get a recording. In lieu of a genuine recording, the journalists then re-enacted the session from memory for the benefit of their TV audience, attempting to recreate the lighting, the uniforms, the tone of voice etc. etc. etc., as best they could. I would assume that this re-enactment was probably sufficiently close enough to the real thing that it at least gives us a fairly accurate general idea of what goes on in there. If you were interested, I could probably re-locate this for you. Let me know. Scott P. 02:23, August 6, 2005 (UTC) == Funny pictures == I believe the page has been vandalized. There are falsely captioned pictures from the film Star Wars . It's pretty funny, but those pictures don't have copyright information, which could cause trouble. == Reverting the overly bloated Scientology and other Religions section... == On August 12, 2005 at 20:02 (UTC) User:Irmgard did a complete rewrite of the ''Scientology and other religions'' section, nearly doubling its length, repeated some information twice, deleted some of the key summary statements that attempted to summarize Hubbard's exact views towards Christianity, added other new sections making Scientology out as a new form of Gnosticism and as a religion that is ''"only for individuals seeking higher awareness."'' Somehow in this edit he seemed to 'accidentally' bury the fact that Hubbard taught that Christianity, Jesus and Islam were essentially all forces of evil (entheta). This article is already long enough without having to read through additional pages only to find out that Hubbard was really a Gnostic in disguise, and that Scientology is a religion ''"only for individuals seeking higher awareness."'' Let's stick to facts that are pertinent and germane to the article, without trying to bury these pertinent facts in various irrelevant speculations. -Scott P. 01:03, August 17, 2005 (UTC) == Numerous recent POV edits to this article == I have just noticed that since the last edit by Antaeus Feldspar on Aug. 11, numerous POV edits have been made to this article with strangely worded editorial explanations that did not actually mention what the actual contents of the edits were. Entire sections, such as the Xenu section were deleted. Other sections were carved up or mixed up to the point where they were either no longer relevent to the article, or were supposedly being 'moved' to the Beliefs article. All of this while using very odd editorial comments. I have recently restored the ''Auditing'' section, the ''Xenu'' section and the ''Scientology and other religions'' section. Help from others to fix all of this would be much appreciated. By comparing Feldspar's last edit of Aug. 11 to the current version, one might more easily be able see what has been happening. -Scott P. 02:04, August 17, 2005 (UTC) :I've been somewhat busy this week, but rest assured that I am watching this page and I do try to pitch in to keep it NPOV as much as I can. Fernando Rizo ''T''/''C'' 02:08, 17 August 2005 (UTC) *In addition to what I've already restored and fixed, the new additions to the Critics of Scientology section need to be wikified and NPOV-checked. Fernando Rizo ''T''/''C'' 03:05, 17 August 2005 (UTC) == Scientology mindmap == I don't thinkImage:Scientology_Mindmap.JPG adds anything of value to this article. It's more confusing than anything else, and I think that the labelling of Hubbard as a pseudoscientist is NPOV. I'm going to remove it; if anyone objects, let's discuss it here. Fernando Rizo ''T''/''C'' 02:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
== Scientology Page Clean Up ==
Someone above mentioned that this page was popular so it shouldn't be changed. I beg to differ. This page became popular because of media and interest generated in the subject, by Tom Cruise. This page doesn't attempt to be factual, it attempts to forward every possible viewpoint (mainly on the negative side if I may say so). It seems those working on it have lost sight of the word "balance." There is so much concern to make sure there is no positive POV. Excuse me but at the risk of being accused of whining (as I am frequently accused of if I speak up)this page is not being edited for the user.
Personally, I think its time for a revamp.
Firstly, I am suggesting to combine the "Controversy and Criticism" and the "Scientology Critics" sections.
Also as a note, I am reposting my comment regarding the external links. No one commented and I went ahead.
(I agree it was getting out of control, but I do insist that there is a balance of positive and negative sites, also having a few neutral sites from respected sites should also not be a problem. I don't see anything wrong with this, and in fact for the user who knows nothing about the subject, I think it is important that the pro and the anti and the neutral are clearly delineated. If someone wants to set a limit of how many links for each category, thats cool too.)
Please give me your feedback - only interested in hearing from editors who want to improve the page for Wikipedia's users, not for Scientology bashing purposes. Nuview 17:50, 23 Aug 2005 (UTC)
== Deletion of significant sections by anonymous editors with no reason or discussion provided is inappropriate ==
Recently user 168.209.98.35 deleted several sections without any editorial explanation or discussion. I have reverted these.
-Scott P. 22:31:39, 2005-08-27 (UTC)
== This Just In (joke)==
Scientologists have added Flux_capacitors to their DeLoreans so they can go back in time and shanghai the founders of psychology. Then they aim to use the founders' engrams to go Back to the Future. (/bad joke) 64.12.117.14 22:37, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the bigotry.
==Edits by Marbahlarbs==
I clarified the difference between Dianetics and Scientology, added some links, and changed the allusion to mystic religions to something a little less spooky.Marbahlarbs 07:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Cleaned up links.Marbahlarbs 07:31, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
I wish I had a DeLorean.Marbahlarbs 07:33, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Moved the list of controversial points about Scientology from the critics section to the one above. It's more visible there, and more on topic. I want to make sure that my edits are creating NPOV and improving the article. Most edits so far have been pro-Scientology, because the article is laden with anti-Scientology comments. My goal is to have the Scientology articles as clean as the The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-Day_Saints article. Lots of clean facts, and there's a section linking to controversies. Scientology is more controversial than LDS, so I think it should have a full section or two rather than just a link to the controversies and criticism page. Would like to get rid of every section containing a "critics say that" paragraph. Trey Parker and Matt Stone say that LDS is a big load of crap and people who believe it are idiots, but things like that do not belong on the main page in nearly every paragraph.
Anyway, happy editing!cool 08:00, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Moved the "most often cited criticism" paragraph to the criticism section. Revamped to indicate that Reader's Digest did not get the quote directly from Hubbard. This quote is also attributed to George Orwell. Marbahlarbs 21:46, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
I changed some of the wording in the Scientology Critics section. The paragraph about the Australian ruling CHURCH OF THE NEW FAITH v. COMMISSIONER OF PAY-ROLL TAX was difficult to read and needed some NPOV. By the way, RTFA.http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/154clr120.html VERY interesting, and provides a lot of insight on the legal nature of religion. Marbahlarbs 22:51, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
I reworked the paragraph about The Bridge in Beliefs and Practices. It subtlely made the whole process sound like brainwashing (not disputing that). Also expanded on why the Church claims that it makes everything so secret. Marbahlarbs 05:18, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
== Add a bit to Origins? ==
Could more be added to the Origin of Scientology about Saint Hill Manor in East_Grinstead, England where the scientology Http://www.scientology.org/en_US/religion/groups/pg007.html_website says Hubbard resided there and many scientology events happened. (BillPP) 3 Sept 2005
== Question about 'pre-clear', 'clear' and 'auditee' ==
It is my understanding that the Scientology term 'clear' refers to a certain stage of progress along the 'bridge', that once attained, is assumed to be a fairly constant state of awareness. If this is so, then I believe that the use of the term 'pre-clear' to refer to all auditees may not be accurate, because should a 'clear' Scientologist be audited, then that person would not be referred to as a pre-clear. Based on this understanding, I have revised the section about auditing to use the term, 'auditee' wherever the person being audited is being referred to. Should anyone have a better understanding of this terminology and when it is appropriate to use the terms, 'pre-clear' and 'clear', then I would certainly be open to being corrected here.
Thanks,
Scott P. 18:15:45, 2005-09-05 (UTC)
:You are quite correct, every scientologist is supposed to do auditing. Those of the OT levels just do it themselves with both e-meter cans in one hand. --metta, The Sunborn 18:40, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
:The phrase 'pre-clear' is suitable for anyone undergoing auditing, even if the person has already reached the state of Clear (level on the Bridge). The term dates back to Dianetics when Clear was the ultimate goal. After the OT levels beyond Clear were established, the phrase 'pre-clear' (often abbreviated as PC) was kept in common usage. Using 'pre-clear' is much better than 'auditee', but there may need to be a sentence or two explaning that it means ANYONE who is being audited no matter their actual case level.
== Appparent sock-puppet by user Mediatetheconflict ==
Judging by recent entry logs, it appears that the most recent page vandalism was most probably primarily the result of work by newly created sock-puppet user Mediatetheconflict operating under his own name, and also possibly under the apparent sock-puppet name of user Importancenn and possibly also as anonymous 70.24.216.133. Whatever Mediatetheconflict's true identity may be, this user appears to have most probably been involved with Wiki for some time, and to have a reasonably good understanding of various Wiki policies.
-Scott P. 17:36:30, 2005-09-10 (UTC)
== Cult? ==
Why can't it be considered a cult? Shouldn't Wikipedia strive for the truth and not bend down towards any person who claims to be struck with inspiration from a divine source? I think that a NPOV perspective would must likely be an average of the consensus of society, not the average of the furthest left and furthest right into something that not one person may agree on.
:As I understand it, wikipdia strives to be a source of accurate information, not an arbiter of "the truth." BTfromLA 23:35, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
"If information is accurate, then doesn't that make it the truth? ... Unfortunately in the US especially, people are so concerned with freedom that it allows cults to have the status of official religions
:Like it or not, Scientology does have the status of a religion (or more exactly, a charity) in the US, and it isn't appropriate for Wikipedia to assert that they shouldn't have that status. No, accurate information is not the same as a "truthful" interpretation of that information. The label "cult" is an interpretive one, a point of view, and while many (myself included) hold that Scientology, particularly the Sea Org, can fairly be described as a cult, it isn't appropriate to insist on that label. There is plenty of description of the cult-like aspects of Scientology in the articles here, and many mentions of the fact that they are often called a cult. BTfromLA 01:58, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
--[!]--Remember scientology is considered a religion IN THE US, but NOT in other parts of the world... this should be mentioned somewhere. Like Yes: USA, etc... No: Italy, etc..
The word ''Cult'' is used in a number of different ways. It's worth noting that ''nobody'' uses it to mean "a religion not recognized by the government", so it isn't reasonable to bring that up as a response to uses of the word "cult". Governments are many things, but they are ''never'' arbiters of what is real or what descriptions are valid to use for groups or people.
However, in most cases the word "cult" is used not as a neutral description of a group, but rather to either (a) ''insult'' the group that's called a "cult", or (b) to state that the group is ''dangerous or deviant''. Neither of these are within Wikipedia's mandate, and both raise NPOV issues. --FOo 04:09, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
:There are however other pages that label certain beliefs as cults, see Heaven's_Gate_(cult) or List_of_purported_cults. Also, according to wikipedia, "a cult is a relatively small and cohesive group of people (often a new religious movement) devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding culture or society considers to be far outside the mainstream. Its marginal status may come about either due to its novel belief system or because of its idiosyncratic practices." Since scientology can safely considered to operate outside of mainstream religious views, entails a novel belief system and idiosyncratic practices, and is listed as a likely candidate on the purported cult list, it seems that labeling it a cult is a matter of consistency. New_religious_movement is a possible label as well, lacking any of the demeaning characteristics of the popular meaning of ''cult''. Either term, imho, would be more accurate and concise than ''Scientology is a system of beliefs, teachings and rituals''. Anetode 06:53, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
::A few points:
::1. Definitions are dangerous things. We are not writing a dictionary here; the fact that one of the meanings of the word "cult" is "new religious movement" does not by itself justify using the word to describe any new religious movement -- particularly irrespective of the ''other'' issues discussed at Cult.
::2. You will notice that we have separate articles Scientology and Church_of_Scientology. The former deals with the beliefs, while the latter deals with the specific organization. If you take a "cult" to be a "cohesive group", then it would make more sense to apply that name to the latter. (There do exist practitioners of Scientology and Dianetics outside of the CoS.)
::3. It isn't quite clear exactly in what way you'd like to use the word "cult" to describe Scientology. Can you give an example of a passage from the article which would be made more clear or descriptive, yet not run afoul of NPOV, by using this word? --FOo 15:04, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
:::Re 1: This has already been done: Heaven's_Gate_(cult), Concerned_Christians, Peoples_Temple. I can see how the term might be negatively regarded as a matter of political correctness, but as long as it is well defined and used consistently, neutrality can be maintained.
:::Re 2: Good point.
:::Re 3: Here are two examples that concern the opening sentences of Scientology & CofS. I'm going to shy away from using the "c" word, but other descriptors might be equally useful:
:::'''Scientology''' is a Mystery_religion based on the teachings of Science_fiction author L._Ron_Hubbard. Originally devised in 1952 as a Pseudoscientific alternative to Psychotherapy, it was later characterized by Hubbard as an "applied religious philosophy".
:::The '''Church of Scientology''' is a New_religious_movement founded by Science_fiction author L._Ron_Hubbard as an organization dedicated to the practice of Scientology.Anetode 19:53, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
::::I think the reason for introducing Scientology as a system of beliefs and rituals rather than a religious movement is that interested parties want to draw a clear distinction between Scientology—"the tech"—and the Church of Scientology (or any other organization or movement that utilizes that "tech"). BTfromLA 20:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
:::::The distinction may be artificial, all forms of Scientology depend on a systematic proliferation of its "tech" as in the CofS. Either way, there is a term for a "system of beliefs and rituals" that concern supernatural explanations of life and morality, and it is Religion. There is also a term for any organized body that imbues people with proprietary religious philosophies in exchange for money and devotion, and in this case, its NRM or cult. Anetode 20:55, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
==References==
Is it possible to use references that are NOT related to Scientology? Since most of the references point to Scientology "friendly" sites this article has at best a non-critical appearance. --Nomen Nescio 01:07, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
:It isn't Wikipedia's job to favor the views of Scientology or the views of its critics, but rather to attempt to represent the facts as best as we can show them. The purpose of references is ''not'' to provide a "link farm" or to claim that the referenced works are true, neutral, or praiseworthy. It is, rather, to show what sources we have used in compiling the article. --FOo 04:12, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
::As I understand it Wikipedia is meant to be '''neutral''' (NPOV). Although I agree that a multitude of links is not good, that is not my point. To use ONLY Scientology inspired references (few or many) does not suggest an unbiassed view. Therefore I would ask to refrain from using this much POV sites as reference. Or at least use an even amount of Scientology '''and''' non-Scientology related references.
::The lack of balance makes this a potentially POV article. --Nomen Nescio 14:52, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
:::A bit of correction: Wikipedia abides by the principle of NPOV, which isn't the same thing as "neutrality". Many people misunderstand this, however, and think that NPOV means that all POVs must be given equal amounts of discussion, equal numbers of links, et cetera. People may honestly in good faith thinking that they're ''bringing'' balance when they see X number of critical sites listed and start adding Official Church of Scientology links to bring their total up to X... but that isn't the way NPOV works, that's false balance. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
::::When the majority of statements is based upon one side I don't see how that is not POV. --Nomen Nescio 14:16, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
:::::Well, the distinction between "fair treatment for all" (NPOV) and "equal treatment for all" (false balance) can be subtle; nevertheless, it is there. To give an analogy, however, which of the following accurately describes fair treatment as regards witnesses and evidence in a courtroom?
:::::* Both sides are bound by the same rules and restrictions regarding what witnesses they can call, and what evidence they can introduce, or;
:::::* Both sides are allowed to call exactly the same number of witnesses and introduce exactly the same number of pieces of evidence.
:::::It's the former, of course. The latter leads quite obviously to absurdity, where if one side has ten witnesses who meet the requirements and the other side only has one, the side with ten witnesses is disallowed from calling nine of them or the other side is allowed to place nine people with no standing to testify on the stand, just to achieve numerical equality. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:22, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
==Citation==
Is it not easier to use citations as reference. Succinctly stating its conclusion is much more efficient and on top of that I don't think this project is meant to be a number of quotations put together. PLease state the conclusion and use the original as reference. --Nomen Nescio 14:20, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
:The problem is that your suggested statement of the conclusion is neither accurate, nor does it adequately represent the complexity of what the APA's actual recommendation was. Here is the phrasing you would like to suggest is a succinct statement of the conclusion of the resolution:
::the American_Psychological_Association advised its members against using Hubbard's techniques with their patients ''based upon its unscientific and potentially dangerous nature''. (italics mine to indicate the disputed conclusion)
:And here is the largest portion of the actual resolution I could find, as reported by the New York Times:
::"'While suspending judgment concerning the eventual validity of the claims made by the author of "Dianetics," the association calls attention to the fact that these claims are not supported by empirical evidence of the sort required for the establishment of scientific generalizations. In the public interest, the association, in the absence of such evidence, recommends to its members that the use of the techniques peculiar to Dianetics be limited to scientific investigations designed to test the validity of its claims.'."
:The proposed summary of the resolution simply doesn't summarize it accurately. The resolution says nothing about Dianetics' "potentially dangerous nature", and even if we overlooked the subtle distinction between "unscientific" and "not supported by empirical evidence", your proposed summary ignores that the APA actually brought up directly the possibility of its members testing the scientific validity of Dianetics' claims. If Hubbard was correct that Dianetics was scientifically sound and that the APA was trying to surpress realization of this, then the last thing that the APA's resolution would have suggested to their members is that they test Dianetics' claims themselves.
:If someone can summarize the text we have from the resolution more succinctly than the actual quote, without losing any valuable points and without introducing any points unsupported by the resolution, then I would be in favor of it. Given the choice between the quote itself and an inaccurate summary of it, however, there is no question that the quote is what we should use. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:46, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
:All right, we have a third version, this one by HistoricalPisces:
:"the American_Psychological_Association advised its members against using Hubbard's techniques with their patients until its effectiveness could be proven."
:This is an improved summary; however, I think there are still reasons to prefer the original quote. I think it's highly significant that the resolution didn't just say "do not use Dianetics until it's scientifically proven", but specifically addressed the possibility of its members doing the investigation necessary to obtain that proof; as I said before, if Hubbard's theory that Dianetics worked and the APA was trying to surpress it ''because'' it worked was true, you'd think the last thing they would do is bring up the possibility to its members that they could find out for themselves whether it worked. Also, I think the fact that this was a unanimous resolution, and the fact that the resolution did not say "these claims are not scientifically proven" but "these claims are not supported by empirical evidence" -- a rather substantial difference in magnitude. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
==Goofy picture==
I think Scientology is weird and harmful, but isn't having a picture of an extraterrestrial dressed like Santa just a tad juvenile? I know it's just in the talk page, but I think discussion itself makes what Scientology is pretty clear without all that. Added to that wouldn't Santa Xenu fit better at Talk:Xenu?--T. Anthony 06:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
:Laughter the best medicine?
:Hey T. Anthony,
:I put the image there to replace the old image of Marvin the Martian that apparently some Scientologist thought was inappropriate, and therefore had the old image of Marvin as a 'potential Xenu suspect' deleted. (Probably using some bogus copyright infringement type of claim.) As this is only a talk page, it seemed to me that there might be room for a bit of tongue in cheek levity here, all in good faith of course. Still, if there appears to be a consensus amongst other editors here that poor Santa-Xenu is a bit ''over the top'' in his ridiculousness for even this talk page, I will not object to having his graceful presence dismissed from this page. Other serious editorial opinions about the proposed exile of Santa Xenu?
:Scott P. 17:48, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
::I'm certainly no fan of their's and I'm cool with humor. I'm just kind of stodgy by nature so I guess I like jokiness being kept to a minimum. I'd be the same with a depiction of the Raelism's Elohim dressed as leprechauns or what have you. So I would think the Xenu stuff is best limited to articles specifically on Talk:Xenu or that Space Opera in Scientology talk. Still if Scientologists aren't offended I'm certainly not. Even if they are offended I'm not, except it maybe looking juvenile.--T. Anthony 00:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
:::It's not a matter of whether it offends ''us''. It's a matter of whether it shows a derogatory attitude towards the subject that we're supposed to be covering neutrally. And that it does. So I removed it. --FOo 03:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
::::Aww, Fooey! Scott P. 01:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
== Deletions ==
For those of you keeping track at home, Special:Contributions/64.65.189.42 who made such valuable contributions as this is an IP that belongs to Hollander consulting.
[/home/fvw] ''whois 64.65.189.42''
Eschelon Telecommunications, Inc. ESCHELON-2000A (NET-64-65-128-0-1)
64.65.128.0 - 64.65.191.255
Hollander Consultants ESCH-64-65-189-40 (NET-64-65-189-40-1)
64.65.189.40 - 64.65.189.47
# ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2005-09-27 19:10
# Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN's WHOIS database.
Always nice to know we still matter to them. --fvw* 18:01, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
* He/She just did it again.. the talk page this time. Jwissick(t)(c) 18:13, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
== Neuro-linguistic_Programming ==
I removed this paragraph... "The claimed unethical use of general semantics and hypnosis is common to both Neurolinguistic_programming (NLP) and Scientology, which both hold many New_Age similarities, such as the belief in past life regression and super-human potential."
Neuro-linguistic Programming (NLP) has nothing to do with Scientology, so I question the relevancy of it being mentioned here. Secondly, NLP does not "believe in past lives or super-human potential." Someone has been spreading these rumours on the Neuro-linguistic_Programming article as well. It is current in mediation about the term Engram a term uncommon in NLP yet very popular in Dianetics and Scientology. --Comaze 07:58, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
== "Radical religious cult"?! ==
Someone apparently thought it was acceptable here to call Scientology a "radical religious cult" in the introductory paragraph. I'd like to state in no uncertain terms that doing so was a violation of Wikipedia policy. The derogatory implications of the word "cult" are such that we cannot use this word in introducing a description of any group, even one with the egregious public reputation of Scientology.
For comparison, note that we do not use words such as "evil" or "fanatic" in the introduction to the article Nazism. We leave it to the ''reader'' to draw their conclusions about whether the Nazis were evil fanatics; and likewise we leave it to the reader to draw any conclusion on whether Scientology is a radical cult. If we present the ''facts'' sufficiently, the reader can draw conclusions such as this using ''their own'' value judgments.
I'd like to invite the editor who made that change to review our WP:NPOV policy, and more specifically our Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid. --FOo 23:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
== Free stress test picture ==
Who put that there? I think it would be better closer to text about the E-meter.--HistoricalPisces 17:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
I didn't put the picture there, but the E-meter is used for auditing, and the "free stress test" is the introductory audit for a potential recruit (several stalls for these tests can be found every day in around Times Square, New York, and in Times Square subway station, incidentally) . I think the picture is okay where it is (next to auditing), but probably should reference auditing in its caption. I'll add a few words to taht effect Bwithh 18:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks!--HistoricalPisces 18:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
== Using "that" when it makes the sentence clearer ==
I'm glad you're helping remove a lot of extraneous words, but I disagree that some of them aren't helpful. In particular, while people already familiar to the article may not have any trouble understanding what each sentence means beforehand, those completely new may stumble momentarily if we don't include "that"s in the sentences you removed them from, to make it clear when a new clause is beginning. For example, compare the following:
*Scientologists claim that government files, such as those from the FBI, are loaded with forgeries and other false documents detrimental to Scientology, but have never substantiated this.
*Scientologists claim government files, such as those from the FBI, are loaded with forgeries and other false documents detrimental to Scientology, but have never substantiated this.
On a first reading of the second line, wouldn't you most likely interpret the sentence as saying "Scientologists take government files, such as those from the FBI," and only begin to figure out what it really means when you get to the "are" and realize that the sentence is either poorly-worded or you've mistaken its meaning? Then you have to go back and reread this. All of that breaks the flow of the reading, and while it won't happen to ''everyone'' first looking at these passages, I think it will happen to enough that it's worth it to include one single word to solve all that trouble: no one reading "Scientologists claim that" will misunderstand the meaning. -Silence 00:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
== aliens? ==
I thought someone said that scientologists believed that humans descended from aliens. But that's not stated in the article. I would like some confirmation on this. Scorpionman 23:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
:I believe you're thinking of Raelians, although the story of Xenu and Space_opera_in_Scientology_doctrine are also worth looking at. -- ChrisO 23:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
:Scientology doesn't claim any sort of descent, but rather puts forth that we are all eternal beings. Hence, no descent possible. That idea might spawn from the Xenu website, but where ever it comes from its untrue because scientology's beliefs include no descendings but that individuals are eternal. Terryeo 21:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
== Original Research ==
The bulk of this article is based on original research of which there is no consensus agreement in the mainstream. Regardless of its truth, it is therefore unsuitable for Wikipedia per the guidelines you are all undoubtedly aware of.
Please rewrite this article so that it conforms to Wikipedia standards, and cite reputable publications as sources (not websites).
:The above unsigned comment was left by 69.12.16.66, whose only other action on Wikipedia thus far has been to add a "vote" to a long-closed AfD on another Scientology-related subject. That "vote" was signed with a falsified date and a forged username that constitutes a personal attack. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Religious_Freedom_Watch&diff;=27610301&oldid;=23064476.
:It is worth noting, too, that the allegation above is simply false. This article is in substantive accord with neutral outside research on the subject of Scientology -- such as the preponderance of the articles and works that it cites directly. --FOo 13:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
::Heh. Subtle. The guy's right that some parts of the page need improvement, though. "Scientology and other religions" and "Scientology critics" in particular require some significant redesigning, added citations, and reorganization, with fewer orphan paragraphs and jarringly abrupt changes in topic. -Silence 14:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
:::If you look hard enough, you can find ''some way'' in which any statement -- no matter how wrong -- is "right". If you look hard enough you can find some grain of truth in "George W. Bush is pregnant". The original allegation is based on a misdefinition of "original research" and as Fubar Obscuro points out, it's by someone whose grasp of "Wikipedia standards" clearly didn't include No personal attacks. Trying to sieve the dross of what is plainly just a "I don't want it that way" whine for a few glittering bits of legitimate critique is frankly something we should not spend our time on. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:47, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
:::: Wow, I'm not sure how you got even ''that'' much out of the anon's accusation. :) --FOo 16:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
== Vandalism ==
Was wandering through, not a regular here, but I reverted some random vandalism. Cheers, all Antichris 23:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
:What I'm wondering is which "side" is the one proving they're the most petty and, philosophically, evil? Is it the people trying to censor Scientology, or is it Scientologists trying to censor the unflattering parts of the article? Sometimes, as several times today, Scientology-bashing text is inserted. But at other times...way more frequently than normal...the whole page is deleted. That could be either side...whomever it is, they're slime. Kaz 21:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
::Could be that they're a bit sore at the moment, as the latest episode of South_Park has been an extended dig at the CoS - Stan is revealed to be the reincarnation of L._Ron_Hubbard and the Xenu story is shown in considerable detail, accompanied by the subtitle "This is what Scientologists really believe". (See http://thenicsperiment.blogspot.com/2005/11/just-another-reason-to-find.html.) It looks like South Park's creators have been reading Wikipedia... -- ChrisO 23:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
== RFC: Sterling Management Systems ==
Would anyone here care to comment on the edit war in Sterling_Management_Systems? Should the follow comment stay or go?
''Critics contend that Sterling Management Systems is a front organization for the Church of Scientology.'' Should the following link stay or go? ''Sterling Management Systems & Scientology - A critical examination of Sterling Management Systems.'' Thanks for your input. Edwardian 19:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
:Instead of citing an opinion of critics I gave some facts - membership in WISE, court cases. --Irmgard 23:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
== External Links ==
Povmec, I reverted some of my link list, but I do like how you broke the list down into three, rather than two, categories. I met you halfway and only reinstated half of my original link list. It's true that with some digging, one could find these links, but the same could be said about anything. I think it's important to show that both sides have a considerable amount of info generated on many multiple websites. I also think a separate article could be done that lists the hundreds of domain names used by the CoS. There are also about a ''hundred separate websites'' for each of the Celebrity Centers and offices in each city, and I think this information should be presented here somehow, even without listing them all ad nauseum. Thoughts? Opinions? wikipediatrix 18:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
:There has been instances in the past where too many links crept into this article: External_links_needs_a_severe_cull and External_links. Here is my point of view on your latest changes. Narconon should have been left in the See Also section, rather than being replaced by a link to narconon.org in the official scientology sites. There are still way too many repetitive links whether being pro or critical: we should stick to just a few ones, at most three for each, most others can be found in other wikipedia articles (in the spirit of the previous necessary culling that occurred in the past as referenced above). I wish others will give their opinions about this issue. Povmec 20:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
::I agree with Povmec. We should keep the list of links small on the page to avoid overwhelming people. Pick the top 3 or 4 most popular links and leave it at that. As an alternative to listing all these links here we can add a link to a list of links such as http://www.altreligionscientology.org/ This seems like a good compromise.
== Legal status ==
There should be a table in the article which lists the legal status of hubbardism:
In some countires it is considered a religion.
In others it is tolerated as a non-religion.
In yet other, it is outlawed and it is a crime against the security of state to be a scientologist (e.g. France).
Such a table would inform scientology-addicted readers if it is safe to travel to a certain country.
Otherwise, what decides if the article calls scientology a religion? If the SCOTUS declared sci. is not a religion, whould we change it? Or a UN declaration stating that scientology is not a religion, that would surely force us to change the article. 195.70.48.242 10:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
:Legal authorities don't decide whether something "is a religion" or not. They may decide whether an organization is tax-exempt; or whether religious-freedom laws override other laws. (For instance, Catholic practice involves the consumption of wine in the Eucharist, even by churchgoers who are younger than the legal drinking age in various places.)
:I'm not aware of anywhere it would be illegal to "be a Scientologist" in the sense of belief or personal practice. In France, if I recall correctly, the legal concerns were not of that nature, but rather having to do with whether the ''organization'' was defrauding people. In Germany, there were specific concerns that CoS members were infiltrating government, as they had previously done in the U.S. in Operation_Snow_White. --FOo 21:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
== South Park online mirroring ==
The recent references to the South_Park episode that references Scientology include a link to a download page with a torrent for the episode in question and others. Surely this is a breach of copyright and not what we want here at all
:On the contrary, see this FAQ entry at South Park Studios:
::''August , 2003''
::''Q. - I was surprised that in the last FAQ you recommended downloading episodes on KaZaa and other file sharers. What are Matt and Trey's official stances on South Park episode piracy?''
::''A. - Matt and Trey do not mind when fans download their episodes off the Internet; they feel that it’s good when people watch the show no matter how they do it.''
:So I think it's perfectly fine to link to episode mirrors at southparkx.net. Since it's with the creators' permission, this is not "piracy" at all. --FOo 21:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Nevertheless, I'm not convinced that it's up to Matt and Trey to decide how their show is distributed once sold to a network. It's Comedy Central who have paid for rights to air this show and who also pay the costs of airing it, and they in turn can expect that it is viewed by those watching Comedy Central. I'm not a copyright activist at all, I'd just hate to see wikipedia in trouble for something so easily remedied.
:I agree. This link could be clearly cited by a court as an example of Wikipedia causing Comedy Central to lose money on South Park (by providing a free alternative to buying the DVDs or watching the TV episodes). We would need specific permission from the copyright holders of that episode before we could link to it. Plus linking to a torrent without providing the necessary immediate information on how to use torrents will baffle most Wikipedia readers and editors. Just leave these links on the Talk pages, as long as they aren't specifically confirmed. -Silence 20:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
::It is perfectly acceptable to link to copies of the South Park episodes. Comedy Central owns SouthParkStudios.com (see the bottom of the page) and SouthParkStudios.com says "Matt and Trey do not mind when fans download their episodes off the Internet; they feel that it’s good when people watch the show no matter how they do it." Now Comedy Central is the one hosting this text -- so its patently ridiculous to claim that aren't the one's holding the viewpoint that the episodes should be redistributed.Vivaldi 20:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
We can link to a Web site which distributes the South Park episode and provides information about BitTorrent if necessary. We should not link directly to a torrent file, since as you point out, most people don't know what to do with one.
If challenged on the copyright, we point to the permission from the creators. If we receive evidence that they don't have the right to grant that permission, ''then'' we take the link down. But we have no reason to believe that they're lying to us. (And if they were, that would protect ''us'', since we're acting in good faith. Moreover, if they were lying, then they'd be in big freakin' trouble with whoever ''does'' hold the rights.)
Evidence in favor of online distribution being permitted includes the fact that the South Park Studios FAQ says so specifically; and that spcomplete.com, southparkx.net, and other mirror sites are operating openly and not being shut down. In other words, distribution is both ''specifically authorized in writing'', and is also ''evidently tolerated''. What more evidence do we need? --FOo 22:19, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
But the creators have *sold* the rights to the show. They will have done this in exchange for royalties and such but now they have as much permission to distribute episodes for free as we do and I don't think that's much permission at all. -- added by anonymous user.
::SouthParkStudios.com is OWNED by Comedy Central. So Comedy Central itself is directly saying on web pages that they own that it is okay to download and trade copies of South Park. Vivaldi 20:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
:Do you know ''which'' rights Matt and Trey sold? They are two guys very much aware of the growing movement for creators to retain some rights to their work in the realms of cartoons, comics, and animation. If they say they have no problem why do you assume they don't know what they are talking about? Given that the whole of this article is given over to taking dubious claims – or outright lies – at face value it seems inconsistant to start questioning what appear to be reliable sources on the matter of their own work. 213.78.235.176 01:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
== Can't see baby for seven days ==
With the Cruise and Katie thing... what is this can't see the baby for seven days thing? Is this part of Scientology or just vandalism? - Tεxτurε 00:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
:I posted a question about Scientology childbirth on the project page. If there are special procedures it would be interesting to document them in some article. Perhaps a general article on non-psychiatric medical theories and practices?
::I can't find your referenced project page so I'll state what I know here. Scientology (as I understand it) recommends drugs and noise be kept to a minimum during childbirth to minimize stresses for the child. That would be called minimizing engramic stimulation in Scientology jargon. The idea being, within reason, to not have excessive noise, drugs or pain present at birth if those things can be reasonably avoided. Terryeo 21:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
== Invented religion? ==
''Scientology is an invented religon''
:Aren't all religions invented? If so, do we need to state that scientology is? --Croperz 01:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
::It's invented in the sense that until his later years Hubbard never denied that the whole Xenu thing was simply a story he made up, and fairly quickly too by the look of it. There was no idea that it was a revealed truth or that it grew out of other ideas, although it must have some influences. "Real" religons rarely have such clear-cut origins. Mormonism might be another example, although even there the founder claimed divine intervention. It's hard to know what to classify Scientology as, given the gulf between the followers, the founder, and the outside world, each with its own take on where it came from and why. There's certainly little doubt that Hubbard did it as a career move rather than out of any deeper motivation. Anyway, the revert police have taken that out already. 213.78.235.176 01:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
:::Hubbard never denied that he enjoyed molesting dead baby goats either, but "never denying" something is not a good basis for assuming that a proposition is true. Hubbard died before he could be publicly challenged about Xenu. Vivaldi 20:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
:For most people that are not scientologist, that would be true I guess. But see this: "Charlatanism is a necessary price of religious freedom, and if a self-proclaimed teacher persuades others to believe in a religion which he propounds, lack of sincerity or integrity on his part is not incompatible with the religious character of the beliefs, practices and observances accepted by his followers." - High Court of Australia http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/154clr120.html. They have a point. Whether we find their beliefs silly is not what matters. What matters is that scientologists are convinced that their beliefs are "Truth", the same way catholics are convinced their beliefs are "Truth", however silly they may sound to outsiders. Therefore, pointing that scientology is an "invented religion" is... pointless. Povmec 04:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
::As I said in the piece which was reverted, the value of the teachings is unconnected with the history of how or why the religion was founded. There is thus no reason to avoid that history, and simply repeating the self-styled Church's line on it is just as pointless in a factual article. Hubbard had for years talked about inventing a religion as a better way to make money than writing. For years afterwards he did not deny that was what he had done. So what? That fact should be reportable without making any difference to the question of whether the result "works" or not for those that follow it. In the article this issue is mentioned, but it is the "official" version which appears in the intro. There is no good reason – and few bad ones even – to accept that version of the origins (that Scientology was "intended as an alternative to psychotherapy" from the outset); it's flat out wrong. Scientology was not thus intended, although Dianetics '''might''' have been.
::Does talking about the way in which Paul changed Christianity to suit his world-view undermine the validity of that religion for its followers? And even if it does, should a "neutral" encyclopaedia care? 213.78.235.176 10:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
:::I see no reason why the origins should not be mentioned.--Nomen Nescio 11:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
== The ways of Spin ==
I have no problem with the "religion as making money" comment being on the article, I just question the loaded bias of placing it in the very first paragraph. As it is now, the intro paragraph is completely biased against Scientology in every single sentence: It calls Scientology a "new religious movement" rather than a religion, it gleefully notes that its creator was a science-fiction author, it wields the "pseudoscience" epithet, and tries to further deconstruct any of the Church's credibility from the getgo by invoking the "making money" quote. Now, don't get me wrong - I'm no fan of Scientology and I understand that these elements I've pointed out are essentially TRUE - but loading the first paragraph up with all this negative stuff makes for obvious negative spin. It would be far more reasonable to open the article by briefly summing it up and referring to it as "controversial", then go on to explain what it allegedly sets out to do, and THEN go on to detail all its many shortcomings and misdeeds. wikipediatrix 19:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
:It is unclear whether it is a religion, the German government for one does not think so. It definitely is, however, a religious movement of some sort, at least in its outer teachings. The inner teachings are not religious at all, being obsessed with aliens instead. And I take exception to your suggestion that being a science-fiction author is in itself a negative comment. 213.78.235.176 19:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
::It is legally recognized as a religion in the country of its origin, and most other countries as well. And I didn't say science fiction was inherently negative: I'm saying that detractors of the CoS LOVE to point out that he was a "mere" science-fiction writer before starting the Church, as if that somehow disqualifies him. Why not refer to him as a "former Naval Officer", since this is factual as well? And hey, since when are aliens and religion mutually exclusive? wikipediatrix 20:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
:I agree with you. I think we need to go back to the first sentence (as it was in the past): "Scientology is a system of beliefs, teachings and rituals, originally established as an alternative psychotherapy in 1952 by science-fiction author L. Ron Hubbard, then recharacterized by him in 1953 as an "applied religious philosophy" for many reasons. First, "most non-scientologist" doesn't make sense, I doubt that most non-scientologists really care about scientology. It should have been "most critics" anyway. Second, the pseudo-scientific claims of scientology are not criticized "only" because Hubbard stated he would start a religion for the money, but for a lot of other reasons, which are covered in the rest of the article. Povmec 21:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Scientology's beginning date. Let's get it accurate. The word was first used by Mr. Hubbard on March 3, 1952 at Wichita, Kansas in a lecture titled, "Scientology: Milestone One." This is an audio tape and can be purchased. The first Church of Scientology was established in 1954, this too is linkable, accurate information. Let's make accurate, documentable statements or controversy descends into confusion. Terryeo 19:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
:I reverted to the original intro. I changed the date of establishment of scientology to 1952. It seems the case that Hubbard had the idea of scientology in 1952: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Fishman/atack-freedom-trap.html#part10, http://www.ami.com.au/~bradw/cos/Theology/Theology/barwell2.htm. Povmec 21:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
:In Wichita, Casas, on March 3, 1952 Mr. Hubbard gave a taped, audio lecture (which can be purchased from any Church of Scientology). The lecture may be found in the list of lectures in the hardbound book, "what is Scientology" which might be a public libraries. The title of the taped lecture was: "Scientology: Milestone One." He defines the word, tells what he means to accomplish with it and tells how and why it is different from Dianetics which he had been doing untill that time. Then in 1954 the first Church of Scientology was established. These are the earliest establishable data I can find. Terryeo 00:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
:Scientology was never presented as a therapy, Mr. Hubbard made that abundantly clear from his first use of the word in 1952. Dianetics was presented as a sort of therapy, but Scientology was not. The 'new' word was used by Mr. Hubbard because the subect matter had changed. I'm willing to spell out the difference and even quote portions of the lecture wherein he gives his reasoning for a new subjecta and thus, a new word.Terryeo 00:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
::The first Church of Scientology was actually founded in Camden, New Jersey, in December 1953; the signatories on the incorporation document were Hubbard, his son L. Ron, Jr. and his daughter-in-law Henrietta. The so-called "Founding Church" of Scientology, in Washington, D.C., was actually established three months later in February 1954. The Camden foundation seems to be ignored by the Church of Scientology for PR reasons - the claim is that the Church of Scientology was founded by individual Scientologists in response to popular demand. If Hubbard himself founded it, this claim clearly couldn't stand up. -- ChrisO 09:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
:The Church of Scientology which exists today was established in 1954, the policies under which it has operated are of the 1954 church. Here's the link http://www.bonafidescientology.org/. The earlier one in December 1953, while it was 3 months sooner, is not the Church of Scientology that is today known as "the Church of Scientology. A thorough history might include that information, but a general overview probably would not. Terryeo 19:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
==Introduction==
''This comment was placed on my talk page, since it is more appropriate to discuss it here I relaocate it. Feel free to continue at this talk page.''--Nomen Nescio 21:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Nescio, I had made the changes to the intro of the Scientology article and I explained my reasons on Talk:Scientology. You reverted these changes without giving consideration to what I brought in the discussion, and at the same time requiring that anyone that want to change to explain why on the talk page. I did explain my reasons (with some references), you didn't. Can we come to an agreement on this?
I disagree with the sentence "Most non-Scientologists, however, view his ideas about psychotherapy as pseudoscientific and point to Hubbard's own words describing "religion" as a simple means of making money". "Most non-Scientologists" would be the 6.5+ billions people that are not scientologist, and I'm pretty sure a sizeable chunk of them have no idea about scientology, or don't have a specific opinion, or they didn't look at it enough to make the claim that it is pseudoscientific.
Also, I don't think the sentence "point to Hubbard's own words describing "religion" as a simple means of making money" should be in the intro. By its placement in the intro, it looks as if it's the main argument of critics, while this is only one fact that confirm the more important reasons of why critics consider Scientology dangerous. Povmec 17:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
:Ooops, since I was busy reverting numerous instances of vandalism I apparently reverted your edit too. Sorry for that, next time I will look at more edits before reverting.
:As to the "Most non-Scientologists," I only wrote "Non-scientologists" and another editor added Most. Maybe you could agree on "Critics," or else just "Non-scientologists"?
:The reference to religion as moneymaker seems relevant in the intro, as it might be the principal reason for founding Scientology. Besides it is only a small sentence so why not let it be?
:My problem is with the psychotherapy. Scientology was not meant as psychotherapy, Diametics was. If anything wouldn't removal of this from the intro be more apt?--Nomen Nescio 18:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
The intro has been "restyled" into
:''Scientology is a new religious movement presented in 1952 by author L. Ron Hubbard at a recorded lecture titled: Scientology: Milestone One. His words included, "Scientology would be the study of knowledge rather than the small segment of therapy which has been Dianetics." The Church of Scientology was founded by Mr. Hubbard in 1954 and uses the methods of Dianetics to produce spiritual relief with its practitioners. Scientology has also been presented as an applied religious philosophy. Many non-Scientologists, however, view his ideas about psychotherapy as pseudoscientific and point to Hubbard's own words describing "religion" as a simple means of making money.''
To me it looks as good as it might get. Could we agree on this? Let's leave it for the moment and first discuss before changing it again. --Nomen Nescio 22:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for saying Nomen. Let's do slow down about changing the article. I would like to see that "artist's rendition" of the Xenu spaceplane out of there. The event puportedly happened 70,000,000,000 years ago so what use is some artist's rendition? Terryeo 08:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
== Paul Horner spamming his own web pages ==
Paul Horner is spamming links to his own web pages. Two of his IPs are now listed in Vandalism In Progress. He is now resorted to using a Juno account to spam links to his web pages. -- 69.254.232.67, 23:55, 10 December 2005
== intro paragraph again ==
I altered the intro paragraph thusly:
''Scientology is a religion created by L. Ron Hubbard, who coined the term in 1952 (although obscure prior uses of the term existed), intending its meaning as "knowing how to know". This early incarnation of Scientology was a successor to his earlier concept of Dianetics. The following year, Hubbard expanded the concept into his own religion, the Church of Scientology, described by Hubbard as an "applied religious philosophy".''
.....and it was quickly reverted by "Ombudsman" who called it obfuscation. He didn't deign to tell us what part he found to be obfuscating. I'm reinstating my edit in hopes someone will actually use the discussion page for its intended purpose, rather than hovering over a page and making it continue to say what YOU want it to say, without discussion. wikipediatrix 03:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
The earlier intro read: ''Scientology is a New_religious_movement established in 1952 by author L._Ron_Hubbard as a successor to the earlier psychotherapeutic practice of Dianetics, also devised by Hubbard. The Church_of_Scientology was founded by Hubbard the following year to advance what Hubbard described as Scientology's "applied religious philosophy".'' Deletions included the new religions link and the reference to its psychotherapeutic roots. In their place? A typical scientology distraction by dictionary definition, "knowing how to know," and less than informative filler words like 'coined', 'incarnation' and 'concept'. Ombudsman 04:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
:: Giving their definition of their own word is "A typical Scientology distraction"?? Whoa, Jack! I think your non-neutral POV is showing!! wikipediatrix 06:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
:I tend to agree with Ombudsman here. Saying Hubbard coined the term and then saying he didn't coin the term all in the first sentence is silly. Who cares if he coined the term or not, especially in the first sentence? Did he start the religion or not? What is the "''concept'' of Dianetics"? Is it different from Dianetics? And what is the purpose of "this early incarnation"? If the first paragraph needs altering from the prior version, we need a better rewrite than this. What exactly does Wikipediatrix object to in the original version of the intro? Vivaldi 06:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
::"Coined" does not necessarily mean "originated". Hubbard claims to have coined the term independently from the earlier usages. The purpose of ""this early incarnation", obviously, is to refer to the first incarnation of Scientology (seriously, what part did you not understand?) which was not quite the same as the version arrived at when he made it into a religion the next year. Which I stated in the intro already. And I'm baffled by your statement "Who cares if he coined the term or not, especially in the first sentence"... The first sentence ''is'' the logical place to define what the subject of the article is, and how it came into being. "Is it different from Dianetics?" Yes. Scientology is Scientology and Dianetics is Dianetics. And my intro said so. I didn't see a need to define Dianetics in the article since the article isn't about Dianetics, and they can always click the link to the Dianetics article. wikipediatrix 06:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
:Per Wiki policy, I reverted back to the version by Ombudsman until the discussion is completed. His version is what existed before the start of this edit war. And just 3 days ago we agreed to stop editing the intro paragraph. Wikipediatrix, if you think it should be altered from the existing state please explain why you feel it necessary. Vivaldi 06:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
::How is this an "edit war"? I reverted once, and only because Ombudsman didn't discuss his reasons for calling my edit "obfuscatory". One could just as easily say that MY version is what existed before HE began his "edit war". And who is this "we" that agreed to stop editing the intro paragraph?? wikipediatrix 06:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
:::Actually, "obfuscating" is a superb description of the above suggestion by Wikipediatrix. That paragraph is hella-confusing. Also, a word's etymology and origin belongs in "history" or "etymology" sections, not in the intro paragraphs, unless it specifically relates to the topic of the entire article (i.e. if the word is noteworthy for its origins, rather than for the movement it applies to; the opposite is the case here). -Silence 06:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
:::I agree with Silence that the etymology doesn't belong in the first paragraph, let alone the first sentence. Vivaldi 13:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Have restored to version it was when I requested a discussion. Furthermore, I already explained why I think the moneymaking scheme should be mentioned. This misteriously has disappeared yet again. Let's first try to reason before making alterations.--Nomen Nescio 10:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
:I edited the intro purely because I felt that the new changes would make a clearly more effective version than the one that was on the main page earlier, and it hadn't been suggested yet, and was based on a version that has much more history of agreement than the one Vivaldi reverted to (i.e. the one that existed before this dispute even ''began''); note that the "moneymaking scheme" wasn't in the intro to begin with when I began editing. Here's the version of the first paragraph I have (since there haven't been any objections to the other paragraphs yet):
::'''Scientology''' is a New_religious_movement established in 1952 by science-fiction author L._Ron_Hubbard. Originally promoted as an alternative to Psychotherapy, much like Hubbard's earlier system of Dianetics, it was recharacterized by him the following year as an "applied religious philosophy" under the organization of the Church_of_Scientology.
:Short, simple, effective.
::I agree that the short version by Silence is more appropriate for a first paragraph. Vivaldi 13:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Nescio's version has the following problems, for starters:
::#Intro paragraphs must use Wikipedia summary style. They should not have external links (notes are acceptable)
::#Intro paragraphs should not have any quotations, or at most the most minimal ones necessary.
::#Instead of Wikilinking to our Church of Scientology article, for some reason Nescio gives an external link to the CoS website from the first "Chuch of Scientology" mentioning.
::#"Presented" is a weaker word than "established".
::#The very first paragraph of the intro paragraphs about Scientology should not go into so much detail regarding its origin as to mention "Milestone One", much less quote excerpts from that speech (even though admittedly the excerpt is a relatively apt one for the section); such details are merited in the section on Scientology's origins, not in the first few words of the article! Remember that the ideal intro paragraphs should be as short as possible while conveying only the most vital facts.
::#Dianetics is linked to twice. Extremely redundant. Previous versions of this article didn't even link to it ''once'', since this article is about Scientology, not Dianetics; my version compromised by briefly mentioning it, but this version repeatedly names it without actually giving any real information on it readers would find useful. Remember that this is neither the CoS article nor the Dianetics article.
::#"to produce spiritual relief with its practitioners." - Poor grammar, doesn't make much sense.
::#Replacing "the following yet" with "later" seems to be unnecessarily vague, and removes valuable information in exchange for filler, don't you think?
::#The "pseudoscience" claims you added to the end of the first paragraph are 100% redundant, as the third paragraph of the article already mentions such claims.
::#The addition of the phrase "and point to Hubbard's own words describing "religion" as a simple means of making money http://groups.google.com/group/alt.answers/msg/f3716ab6b331c0d1." to the very first paragraph is '''blatantly POVed''', in that it's not directly related to Scientology to such an extent that it merits inclusion so early, and in that it apparently only addresses what he ''once'' claimed his views were regarding ''religion in general'', not Scientology in particular, and in that such details belong in sections like the origin of Scientology, and are far too specific for any neutral encyclopedia to include in the article. Only an article with a specific agenda, as you clearly have, to attempt to discredit Scientology, would include such a tidbit so early; and the problem with such obvious attempts to discredit Scientology, is that they're unnecessary: '''Scientology discredits itself with astonishing efficiency'''. So, please stop trying to push your POV with that sentence; it's an interesting fact, but not one of the central, overarching aspects of Scientology. At the very most, you ''might'' be able to get it mentioned in the third paragraph of the intro, since that's the one dedicated to criticism of Scientology, but certainly having it in the first paragraph is out of the question (almost as much as the "pseudoscience" repetition is).
:So, for those reasons, I feel that my version is more appropriate than yours for the Scientology page while we continue to discuss the particulars. There; you requested that I reason, and I've fulfilled your requirement.
::I agree with your points above Silence. The first paragraph needs to be NPOV and this version by Nescio doesn't succeed. Vivaldi 13:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
:Anyway, though I'll wait for a response on the above points, I'll immediately revert this edit, as it couldn't be more clear that the user has little to no experience with Wikipedia, else he'd be aware that a disambiguation message is practically ubiquitous to Wikipedia articles, and having one at the top is in absolutely no way indicative of its being the "first line" (how hilarious). For the other changes, let's talk. -Silence 10:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
::Christian Science is not ambiguous with Scientology. Why not put up a line that says, "If you are looking for information about Cosmology, then see that article", or "if you are looking for information about Science, see the Science article", or, "if you are looking for information about seismology, check out that article". There is no ambiguity worth mentioning on the first line of this page. Vivaldi 13:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
:In my opinion, that version 23 September 2005 was fine. I would like to bring it back closer to that version. Povmec 15:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
::Er, isn't that exactly what I did with my previous version? I tried to reach a compromise between versions from weeks and months ago, which I thought were quite satisfactory, and the current one (with its new tidbits of information like the Dianetics link). What about the version I proposed is lower in quality than the one from months ago?
::Anyway, since there doesn't seem to be any support at all for Nescio's version and it clearly is inconsistent with the rest of the opening and heavily redundant and POVed, I'll revert it to the previous version for now to continue discussing; it's hard to get an idea of the new version when two of the paragraphs are changed forwards and the other is changed backwards.
::Also, to those who have said that there's not enough confusion between Christian Science and Scientology to merit a disambiguation notice (though there seem to be a large number of people who disagree with you): if that's true, then obviously there's absolutely no reason to include it as the fourth paragraph in the intro, either! (or anywhere in the article, for that matter.) The ''only two options available'' for mentioning Christian Science are either a disambiguation notice like the one I did at the top of the page, or to remove it altogether. -Silence 22:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Please remember that the intro should be a '''brief''' overview. Quoting from specific Hubbard lectures is simply too much detail to be appropriate in an intro. If you want to quote Hubbard, do it lower down in the article. Also, Silence is absolutely right about the disambiguation: it goes at the top, or not at all. -- ChrisO 00:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
I reverted again, for some strange reason it is impossible to first discuss the matter! Thank you for the above discussion regarding the intro. First of all it is not my intro. I merely wanted to revert to the version I thought was more accurate to have this debate. As to the argumetns given here
'''ad 1''' Of course I have no problem with this and the links can be corrected to refer only to Wikipedia.
'''ad 2''' Removing quotations seems reasonable. So, if there is no objection from others it may be deleted.
'''ad 3''' I did not link to external, as I explained earlier, but once again I accept it is more appropriate to link to the Wikipedia article. Feel free to do so.
'''ad 4''' Style, grammar or that kind of suggestions are welcome. Therefore I agree with this point.
'''ad 5''' I Agree.
'''ad 6''' Probably by mistake, but I don't see any problem with just one link.
'''ad 7''' See ad 4.
'''ad 8''' see ad 4.
'''ad 9''' Disagree, although it is mentioned in the article it is an important and factual critique and therefore should be mentioned in the introduction. As you know, any introduction is Ipso_facto redundant. It tells the same story for which the details can be found in the article itself.
::As I just explained, ''it already is in the intro!'' In the third paragraph of the intro, which is devoted to criticism of Scientology! Your mentioning it again just means that it's mentioned ''twice'' in the intro, in ''addition'' to its later mentionings in the article proper. Clearly both redundant and heavily POVed to repeat the same claim twice within a space of three short paragraphs. Introductions should be redundant to the rest of the article, '''not internally redundant'''. -Silence 16:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
:::You clearly missed that I removed the 2nd reference to it. But I understand you agree it is warranted in the intro. You fail to explain how mentioning facts is POV.--Nomen Nescio 10:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
'''ad 10''' Since Hubbard did mention religion could be used as moneymaking scheme I fail to see why it is POV. Furthermore, it is evident this opens the '''possibility''' that Scientology was created just for that purpose. This seems highly relevant and therefore should be included in the introduction. By ignoring this, evidently factual information, I think that would be POV and should be avoided. Clearly it information not in support of Scientiology. But as I understand it, Wikipedia is not meant as PR but to advance facts. Suggesting ignoring less positive information sounds like POV to me.
::It's not POV to include it in the ''article'', it's POV to include in the ''first paragraph'' of the article, which is meant to define the very concept of Scientology, not to go into a random speculative attempt to discern a possible motive of Hubbard for creating it. To do so is to implicitly suggest that ''that is the one and only absolutely sure reason for Scientology's origin'', since all ''other'' details that ''aren't'' mentioned in the intro are implicitly assumed to be less important for gaining a basic understanding of Scientology. Therefore, even if true (which it not necessarily is), it needs removal to ''later in the article, where it already is and where it belongs!'' -Silence 16:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
::For the record, I also disagree to have this sentence in the first paragraph of the intro. Povmec 17:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
:::Since this could be the very reason for establishing Scientology, it surely must be mentioned. You fail to explain why important info, maybe the most important regarding the founding of this religion, should not be mentioned in the intro.--Nomen Nescio 10:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I have this suggestion for the intro
:''Scientology is a new religious movement established in 1952 by science-fiction author L. Ron Hubbard. In 1954 Mr. Hubbard founded The Church of Scientology and based it on the methods of Dianetics which he claimed was a form of psychotherapy. Scientology was later recharacterized as an "applied religious philosophy." Critics, however, point to Hubbard's own words describing "religion" as a simple means of making money.''
Also, I think the following is incorrect:
::''Scientology's principles have been characterized as pseudoscientific by '''many''' mainstream medical and psychotherapeutic practitioners, .....''
Which mainstream medical or psychotherapeutic practitioner supports Scientology? Deleting the term ''many'', seems to be more accurate. Making it:
::''Scientology's principles have been characterized as pseudoscientific by mainstream medical and psychotherapeutic practitioners, .....''
Could we discuss this before editing again?--Nomen Nescio 11:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
:: Hi Nescio....... I agree that discussion is better than editwarring. I've already enumerated my problems with the intro paragraph, though, and your new proposed version doesn't address any of my concerns. The "new religious movement" may ''feel'' neutral because there are so many who prefer to use the word "cult", but it remains a fact that they are recognized as a religion in the country of their origin, and many others as well. The use of the word "claimed" is classic negative spin - why not say Dianetics was "presented as a form of psychotherapy"? And I remain opposed to loading up the first paragraph with negative comments such as the "making money" bit, which could just as easily find a home elsewhere in the article. Can we at least ''pretend'' to be impartial here? wikipediatrix 16:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
:::I don't have ime to get involved in point-by-point discussion, but I concur with POVmec that the 23 September 2005 version was good, and superior to the subsequent versions that are being tussled about. I vote to revert to that one. BTfromLA 21:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
:::: Agreed. It's short, sweet, simple, and spin-free. wikipediatrix 22:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
::::And so is mine. '''Does anyone have any actual problems whatsoever with the version I proposed?''' Considering that it's still there on the main page, except for the first paragraph, which Nescio altered to endorse his clearly very unpopular version, I'm going to try to revert it to that version again. I've waited several days and haven't yet heard a single problem with that version, and it meshes better with the next two paragraphs than the out-of-date 23 September 2005 edit does. Please give some actual reasons why the paragraph doesn't work if you find it unacceptable, or simply fix the problems with it manually if they aren't overwhelming; I don't mind disagreement, but blind reversions aren't the answer. -Silence 09:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Clearly discussion is not possible. Contrary to what has been stated my version is less POV than the current which apparently had to be reinstated. Very decent of you all to await the discussion on arguments. Since debate is impossible I will once again ask you what the problem is but will leave it at that.
'''1''' Hubbard's moneymaking scheme is not merely a statement. It is possibly, if not probably, the major reason for founding Scientology. Nobody has denied that, and nobody has explained why such important information should be withheld. Which of course constitiutes '''POV'''.
:I will play devil's advocate then and deny that Scientology was created with the primary purpose to make money. The Church of Scientology specifically denies that L. Ron Hubbard ever stated that he created Scientology to make money. The CoS says he created the church to improve the world. The one quote about LRH saying that starting a religion was a good way to get rich is a disputed quote, and one that is not accepted by all scholars of LRH or Scientology. Since the question of whether Scientology was created as a moneymaking scheme is contested by the church, it seems like contradicting their official position should be included with critical information in the body of the article -- not the intro. Otherwise to be completely non-POV, we should have to present both positions in the intro if we are going to include one -- and that would only make it bloated. So I say, leave out the "money-making scheme" aspect until later in the article. Vivaldi 12:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
:Nescio, we don't want the information about religion-for-money to be withheld, we just don't agree that it should appear in the first paragraph (it appears later in the article.) I think Vivaldi explained well the issue. Povmec 18:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
'''2''' ''The use of the word "claimed" is classic negative spin - why not say Dianetics was "presented as a form of psychotherapy"?'' No leading (main stream) psychiatry or psychology organisation thinks it is "''a form of psychotherapy.''" This would make it a "'''claim'''." I fail to see how just saying it is, makes it so. I appreciate you feel it is negative, but as with the previous point it is also more factual. As long as it is not accepted as psychotherapy, anyone saying it is only makes a "'''claim'''."
'''3''' As you are well aware not everybody accepts Scientology as religion. Although the US does, many other countries do not. One might even debate the way in which the US came to accept it as religion. To merely state it is a religion contradicts views around the world and would make this article US orientated.
:Countries governments are not the authority on what is a religion. Otherwise we'd say that every religion is disputed, because in Saudi Arabia the only religion is Islam, and all others are non-religions.
:Also, Scientology is a religion according the definition of religion given at www.Dictionary.com: "3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader." Also, religious scholars classify Scientology as a religion (cults are religions too!). It has the ingredients of a religion and an intricate mythology and all the other aspects that are found in other religions. (It's also a dangerous cult and a global scam, but that doesn't mean it doesn't fit the definition of religion). Vivaldi 12:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Maybe you think this is POV, but it is evident that factual criticism is considered POV which means this article has an agenda: to push Scientology and delete any nuance. But we already knew that. Thank you.--Nomen Nescio 10:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
== Scientomogy article ==
Why is Scientomogy notable enough to warrant an article separate from this? Operation_Clambake has its own article, but has been around for 10 years -- many other, older and more extensive Scientology-related sites (Lermanet, FACTNet and so on) do not have distinct entries.
:Scientomogy presumably deserved an entry because it got reported in the media and got millions of site visits. Far more than many of the other more established sites. Whether or not it continues to get large amounts of hits is a good question. Personally, I don't think Scientomogy is useful to be mentioned in an encyclopedia article at all. It's not that kind of site. It's a fun playful site that should be distributed and promoted in some other forum. Vivaldi 13:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
As this article appears to have manifested after the latest edit-war controversy over links to this site, doesn't it seem that the Scientomogy article has been created mainly due to Wikipedia politics?
:Yes. That is probably true. The recent battle between Paul Horner's scientomogy.com and Glen Stollery's scientomogy.info played a part in the creation of the article. I think a point was being made that Paul's version was not the popular one. But regardless, I don't see the value of either site to the encyclopedia. Vivaldi 13:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Povmechttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/User:Povmec wanted an explanation for my suggestion to merge, but I thought it might be self-evident. Can anyone provide an explanation to justify the existence of a separate Scientomogy article? It seems almost frivolous. 71.131.196.204 11:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
:I suggest something even more. Instead of merging, just delete it completely from the database. Let's keep 3 or 4 of the long-standing sites that provide factual information, those that are bound to be here for a long time. Then lets remove the extraneous ones. Too many links is very distracting. And this is nothing against Glen's site, because I like it, I just don't think it is appropriate for a mention here on Wikipedia Vivaldi 13:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
::I would agree with that. I didn't see Scientomogy important enough to have its own paragraph within the Scientology article: the web site is mainly a parody of Tom Cruise and his faith. I also had a problem seeing the Scientomogy article as part of the Scientology category. In my opinion, removing the "parody links" in the Scientology article is also a good idea. The links are there to complement the information appearing in the article... there are a few others I would removed. I tried to cleanup the links a few weeks ago, but that didn't last long http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientology&oldid;=28436097 (see my post above Talk:Scientology#External_Links). Even there, I restrained myself from removing more, I figured four pro/four critical sites was enough: with all respects to their due owner, I would remove http://www.keytolife.org, http://theta.com, http://fortharrison75th.info, http://www.scientology-kills.org and http://www.amazing.com/scientology/cos-fronts.html (it has been suggested to have an article about all the Scientology fronts though, I think that is a good idea.) Povmec 15:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
::Seems like a good idea to me, though judging from the Scientomogy article creator's hostile reaction to even a merge suggestion I doubt this idea will be met with much graciousness. 71.131.196.204 08:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
::: Can we lose the hyperbole? The very link you provided shows that I did NOT have a "hostile reaction" to the idea of merging. However, I ''do'' oppose merging, as do several others. wikipediatrix 16:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
::::The Scientology article is already too long. It has a great deal of pro and a great deal of con. Shouldn't a web-rich, current parody event be expressed as a single link within the Scientology article?Terryeo 17:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
::::: The parody site itself is not what makes it notable. The ongoing lawsuit with Scientology and resultant media attention, is. Had there been no lawsuit, I would never have given a simple parody site its own article. Scientology has made Scientomogy notable by finding it worthy of litigation. wikipediatrix 17:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
:::::: ''There is no lawsuit against Scientomogy.info''. Scientomogy received a notice from Scientology's lawyers, but so have at least 50-100 other sites over the years. I see nothing that impressive about the Scientomogy page that makes it notable enough to include in an encyclopedia article about Scientology. If you want to create a list of sites that have been actually shut down or had their content altered because of Church of Scientology court action, it would be a very long list. Scientomogy hasn't been sued, it hasn't been shut down, its fame is fading, and frankly its not that relevant to this article. Vivaldi 03:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
::::::: I suppose the lawsuit is implied rather than manifest yet, because Moxon & Kobrin's cease and desist letter expresses their intention to sue if Stollery's website is not removed and turned over to them, and Stollery response was essentially "No. See you in court". wikipediatrix 12:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
::::::: The Church of Scientology has threatened many web sites and people with lawsuits, but they very rarely go through with them. They just try to bully and intimidate people. They understand that parody is a protected form of free speech and they won't attempt to sue someone for engaging in what is clearly parody. (They would be subject to penalties themselves if they brought a lawsuit that had no merits). If I was a betting man, I'd say that Co$ will ignore the whole thing rather than risk creating more turmoil for itself and more visitors to Scientomogy.info. So, maybe in the rare chance that Co$ actually sues Glen, then maybe it would be noteworthy again, until then I don't think it is. 69.254.232.67 19:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
::::What hyperbole? Hostile means antagonistic. Speaking of hyperbole, who are the several others who are for keeping a Scientomogy article? 71.131.196.204 05:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
::::: "Hostile" carries a different spin than "antagonistic". And I didn't say there were others for keeping, I said there were others who oppose merging - I agree that the Scientology article shouldn't be weighted down with this. wikipediatrix 12:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
== WTF? ==
Last night Ombudsman essentially accused me of being a Scientologist simply because I want the article to be fair and free of spin. Now this morning I come here to find paranoid speculations about why the Scientomogy article was created. '''I created it because it's been in the news lately and it certainly seemed relevant. Simple as that.''' Vivaldi says: "The recent battle between Paul Horner's scientomogy.com and Glen Stollery's scientomogy.info played a part in the creation of the article." That's not only incorrect, it borders on being an absolute lie, because how could Vivaldi claim to have any psychic insight about MY motivations? This bullying mob mentality and utter lack of good faith is very bad for Wikipedia. I am neither pro-Stollery or anti-Stollery, I am neither pro-Scientology nor anti-Scientology. I do think this article as it stands is unnecessarily skewed against Scientology, and I obviously think a Scientomogy article is notable enough to remain here. It's especially frustrating because I've been watching the fuss over at Daniel_Brandt in which a large gang of Wikipedians have ganged up and insisted that the articles are relevant and should be kept, despite the fact that, like Scientomogy, are about a guy and his small website that got a few minutes of fame and press. The Scientomogy pages have garnered far more major news coverage than Brandt's, and yet now we have people using the same standards to urge for scientomogy's deletion that were used to urge to keep the Brandt article. wikipediatrix 16:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
:I didn't know who created the Scientomogy article. I just know that Paul Horner has been agressively link spamming this article with www.Scientomogy.com and he removed www.Scietomogy.info. I don't believe it was paranoid of me to suggest that somebody decided to set the record straight about Glen's site and Paul's site. I think you are vastly overstating the importance of the Scientomogy.info web page. It was a brief media event that is now over and I don't see why it deserves any serious mention in an encyclopedia, YET. Perhaps at some later date, Scientomogy will become a very important site for Scientology criticism or study or parody, but right now, I don't believe that 1 week of high click rates warrants an encyclopedia mention. Vivaldi 02:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Scientomogy.info currently has a higher Alexa Internet rating (33402) of both scientology.org (37033) or xenu.net (44483) - I'm not sure if this shows anything other than current interest in this subject, which would add to the argument of it having it's own page perhaps? Nor is the battle between Scientology and Scientomogy over... barely beginning. Recent corrospondence with their local office would seem they are about to file lawsuit. As one of the highest profile net vs. Scientology battles to date with 5 terrabytes of data downloaded from Scientomogy, bringing to light Tom's lunatics antics to probably millions with 14 million hits on the site, articles in LA Times, NY Post, National Enquirer, Drudge, E-online, MSNBC, most newspapers since the Associated Press picked up on it, and now the word "scientomogy" produces 22 THOUSAND pages on google! That would seem "worthy" to me! Glen Stollery 14:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
:Glen, I believe the Alexa ratings take into account that you were receiving like a 50 times increase in visitors for a one or two week period a month ago, right? Can you tell us what the average number of unique visitors to your web page were for the most recent week? Then maybe we can compare your numbers to some of the other sites.
:And this is not to say that pure numbers are the only reason to include a link. I think its important also to consider how long a site has been up and how likely it will exist in the future and the nature of the material on the site. While I find your site quite humorous and I appreciate you providing host to large video files, I still think most of these are unrelated to an encyclopedia article about Scientology. It isn't a huge deal, and I am willing to agree to leave it here without starting a catfight about it, but there have been a lot of other critics that have had web sites up for years that don't get a mention in this article or elsewhere in wikipedia and when I compare your site to theirs as far as information about Scientology, yours seems lacking. I think we should keep just 3 or 4 critics sites at the most, and I'm not sure your site should be one of the top 3 or 4. It's just something to think about. Vivaldi 19:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
== This article is way out of wack POV wise ==
there are clearly passges taken straight out of some scientology porpaganda
I even seen a paragraph repeated about past lives etc.
:Why not fix the passages in question or be more specific? Vivaldi 02:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Way out of line, I agree. I am once again posting a documented introduction because a subject should first be introduced as its source intended it to exist before controvery about it can be understood. To state Scientology was introduced as an alternative to psychotherapy might even be legally actionable. It is plain wrong.
== That intro ==
I've reworded the intro. Five points:
1) I've restored the disambiguation with Christian Science. It's clearly justified here. I've seen this confusion for years; it's common, it's well-known and it happens often enough for professional sociologists to have to clarify it (see e.g. http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/chrissci.html ). The people who've been deleting it from this article don't seem to get this point, or perhaps don't ''want'' to get it. Bear in mind that the disambiguation isn't a POV thing - it's simply, and literally, a way of reducing ambiguity. It's not a comment on the nature or merits of either Scientology or Christian Science.
2) We should not be quoting specific lectures in the intro. An intro is simply a summary of the key points in the article. User:Terryeo's preferred version is simply too detailed for this intro; the Hubbard quote doesn't belong there.
3) I've reworded the psychotherapy point, since that seems to have been the main issue of disagreement. BTW, it's not "legally actionable" at all - that's nonsense. I suggest that people read Wikipedia:No_legal_threats, as it's something that can lead to immediate blocks on editing.
4) I've changed "Church spokespeople attest" to "Members claim", as (a) it's not just spokespeople who make those claims and (b) they ''are'' only claims, given the lack of independent testing.
5) Terms should be linked to Wikipedia articles, not external sources. Linking "Church of Scientology" to an external website rather than Church_of_Scientology isn't a wiki-friendly thing to do (see Wikipedia:Build_the_web). Wherever possible, link to internal Wikipedia articles; external links are best used when referencing sources, rather than as links for specific terms or phrases. -- ChrisO 22:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
--J.Tell 08:22, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::I'm always in favor of naming critics. However it is not necessary, or even wise, to try to prove or disprove their claims. In fact, we shouldn't try to prove or disprove anything on Wikipedia. We're here just to summarize verifiable information in a NPOV manner. If a notable critic says something, we should include that criticism along with any official rebuttals, without indicating a preference for one or the other side. Cheers, -Willmcw 08:36, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC) ::::I disagree with you about proving/disproving claims; Authentication and validation go hand in hand. Information not validated or authenticated should not be presented, this is not a tabloid or propaganda sheet.
--J.Tell 23:25, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::::Then you disagree with Wikipedia's fundamental goals; see Wikipedia:Original_research. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:53, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::::::We can't "prove" anything here. All we do is summarize verifiable information in an NPOV manner. If we can verify that a critic (or a supporter) said XYZ, and that comment seems relevant and notable, then it should be included, "true" or not. -Willmcw 04:26, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC) ::::::: I don't know anything about Scientology, other than that it's very controversial, but I have a general suggestion to make about choosing sources for controversial topics. The official policy in Wikipedia:Verifiability urges us to cite our sources, and says, "For an encyclopedia, sources should be unimpeachable." This means, I think, that we are not required to include claims by sources that are less than unimpeachable. Instead, we should try to present a variety of points of view from among the unimpeachable sources. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources gives good advice on choosing reliable sources, but for controversial articles, I think we should apply the highest possible standard of reliability: we should rely as much as possible on academic sources, rather than journalism. Academics who teach at major universities and research institutions are specialised in their subject and have been trained to study it. They are expected to be familiar with primary sources, and to cite those sources. Their work is often formally peer-reviewed, and informal peer review occurs when specialists critique each other's work in books and articles. Moreover, in reputable academic institutions, scholars enjoy a great deal of freedom to draw the best conclusions they can. Journalists, on the other hand, often write about a wide variety of subjects about which they lack in-depth knowledge. They rarely have the time to do adequate research on difficult subjects, peer review rarely takes place, and in any case journalists are not free to draw their own conclusions; they must follow the editorial line of their paper. I'm sure most people who know any subject well can think of examples of inaccurate reporting on that subject, even in major newspapers, particularly if the subject is controversial. Therefore, in the interest of making Wikipedia a reliable as well as NPOV source of information, I think that on controversial topics, we should stick to reputable academic sources as much as possible. --Beroul 11:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC) ::::::::The above claims are dubious--scholars frequently cite journalistic accounts of their subjects--but it is difficult to address them, because they are so general. Is there a specific criticism of this article in there somewhere? BTfromLA 19:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC) :::::::::BT, I'm sorry but I think yours is a weak argument which in my opinion is only made to support a perpetuation of anti-CoS POV. This discussion should involve the members of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Scientology, specifically User:Fernando_Rizo who has demonstrated a very neutral and civil approach. --AI 22:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC) ::::::::::What argument? The argument that one should be specific? While we're at it, please don't start accusing users of pushing a pov unless you can point to specific evidence for that. BTfromLA 22:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC) :::::::::::Would you really like me to start a documentation process? --AI 23:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC) I certainly don't want to encourage you to start feuding with me or anyone else. If you can point to specific examples of inappropriate POV in the article, though, and can offer an NPOV alternative, please do so. But first, please respond to my earlier question: what "weak argument" was I making above? BTfromLA 02:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC) :It is NOT accurate to introduce this topic as "a therapy" because it was never presented as a therapy and is not and was not intended to be a therapy. Mr. Hubbard made this distinction clearly when he first presented it in 1952. The recorded audio lecture is titled, "Scientology: Milsestone One" and is available through BridgePub.org == "The Australian Report" ==
Scientology has also recieved criticisms concerning the manner in which auditing is conducted. The The Australian Report stated that auditing involved a kind of command hypnosis that could lead to potentially damaging delusional dissociative states. These are similar to the unethical covert command hypnosis, or hypnotic commands of Neurolinguistic_programming (NLP), which holds many New_Age similarities with Scientology, such as belief in past life regression and super-human potential.The preceding paragraph was removed because it fails to give enough information to let its claims be substantiated (what is The Australian Report??) and makes dubious POV assertions ("the unethical covert command hypnosis ... of NLP"). Someone else may have an idea where to go looking for what said Report is and what it ''actually'' has to say on the subject of auditing; I hope that if so they'll share their findings here. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC) :Good cut... that may be some residue of the neurofeedback mania (see above) that I missed. BTfromLA 03:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC) Many apologies. Here is one source: http://www.suburbia.com.au/~fun/scn/press/651006au.htm?FACTNet It is a general criticism of this kind of hypnotic technique. Hubbard actually denied hypnosis, and he actually writes in a way to abolish it, but studies show that you cannot get away from hypnotic dissociation within auditing. The NLP connection comes about because it was inspired by the general semantics techniques that is used in dianetics and scientology, and NLP is to some extent adopted by auditors. The beliefs are very similar. It is also a common criticism of NLP. I also hold good factual info for the claims of scientology and neurofeedback. We can discuss if you like. Dianetics and scientology use eeg meters in addition to e-meters. They use neurofeedback in this way for both research and practice. The claim is that it is convincing. I also have info to say that it is largely ineffective. I really would like to present it in a balanced way appropriate to wikipedia. Especially regarding which sections these facts would be most appropriate for integrating. Any pointers? DoctorDog 05:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC) ::Scientology uses one and only one meter, an e-meter. There are several versions which have been created but probably very little is done with early versions as the newer ones are hugely more responsive. There is no neurofeedback except in the very broad sense that an auditor observes changes in a Preclear's (auditee's) bodily resistance to electricity. A battery much like a flashlight battery is used for that. The manner in which the auditor speaks is very important. I don't believe you will ever find any documentation that says anything but that the auditor be in good communication with the PC, this means no hypnotism, no flat tone of voice. A great deal of practice and drilling are done to insure the audior can communicate naturally and easily with the PC under any conditions that might come up in a session. Terryeo 00:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC) ::Hi DocDog. You are very polite! But actually, what I was really getting at (none too clearly) was the criticism towards using the Korzybski connection in NLP and Dianetics. They are both criticized for using general semantics and hypnosis unethically, and NLP followed dianetics/scientology's lead in its use. They have both been criticized for using both unethical and potentially dangerous techniques. The criticisms are in the criticism section. I think it is fine to use the same strong language as the report. ::The neurofeedback information seems plausible. Which sources did you have in mind? A.Warner 07:24, 4 August 2005 (UTC) Your anti choice argument is problematic as you are starting to suspect. Now, when you see the error of your ways, you will understand! And as you focus on that feeling you will start to realise how you have become weaker with your intention. And as you focus on that feeling, you will see how you need to stop! And consider how wrong you are. Because you must start to realise that your sources are wrong. Now, you must become more aware that scientology is benevolent. The best parts of your mind will start to realise how Scientology may indeed become more appealing when you start to consider. Yes, really consider, how much better you will feel when you let go and focus on that feeling. Now, just accept that you are free to choose Scientology. You may choose Scientology whenever you feel free. The world may choose it whenever they wish. All the best SpiritStar 16:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC) :SpiritStar! I am curious. Which planet are you posting from? Would it happen to be the planet NuLP, by any chance? Slightly concerned A.Warner 14:43, 5 August 2005 (UTC) I once heard a recording of an auditing session. It had many similarities with hypnosis. The auditor is trained not to modulate his voice during the session, and to deliver his commands to the ''auditee'' in a slow flat monotone, just as the hypnotist is trained to do. Hey Al! Is that the Allen I know? Scott P. 15:24, August 5, 2005 (UTC) :Hi Scott. I'm actually an Albert Al. But your account of of an auditing sessions strikes a certain chord. There are some subtleties in the modularity though. It sounds monotone, but they are doing some thing special with the command words. Would you be able to give me some idea of your source? I am not interested in deleting what you have written because it does correspond strongly with my own studies. Regards A.Warner 16:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC) "World renowned Scientologist Eden Shiferaw is reported to be the one and only Scientologist to attain the mythical OT IX, and, at the age of 18, is also the youngest" - a Google for Eden Shiferaw doesn't seem to return any relevant hits - is this a real person? If so, I think if they were "world-renowned" there would be more about them online. And where is it "reported"? == Cluseau records an auditing session == Hi A. Warner,
Since the Australian Report section was getting a bit overly long, I thought I's start a new section header in response to your question above. It has been about five or six years since I recall seeing this info. I believe I found it on xenu.net, and this is what I recall from it: # Some investigative journalists in England attempted to do a story on exactly what goes on in an auditing session. # First they sent in this reporter who was wired with a camera in the frames of his thick glasses, you know the Inspector Cluseau look, very popular they say, into an auditing session, he also had a micro tape recorder with him. As I recall I think he spared the auditors from having to deal with one of those fake moustaches. ''Thank God '':-) . Somehow the auditors detected this, and called the police on the poor guy. ''What a shame '';-) . # Still the journalists didn't give up. Next they sent another guy in with no wires or recording devices, but with a good memory. It worked, but obviously he wasn't able to get a recording. In lieu of a genuine recording, the journalists then re-enacted the session from memory for the benefit of their TV audience, attempting to recreate the lighting, the uniforms, the tone of voice etc. etc. etc., as best they could. I would assume that this re-enactment was probably sufficiently close enough to the real thing that it at least gives us a fairly accurate general idea of what goes on in there. If you were interested, I could probably re-locate this for you. Let me know. Scott P. 02:23, August 6, 2005 (UTC) == Funny pictures == I believe the page has been vandalized. There are falsely captioned pictures from the film Star Wars . It's pretty funny, but those pictures don't have copyright information, which could cause trouble. == Reverting the overly bloated Scientology and other Religions section... == On August 12, 2005 at 20:02 (UTC) User:Irmgard did a complete rewrite of the ''Scientology and other religions'' section, nearly doubling its length, repeated some information twice, deleted some of the key summary statements that attempted to summarize Hubbard's exact views towards Christianity, added other new sections making Scientology out as a new form of Gnosticism and as a religion that is ''"only for individuals seeking higher awareness."'' Somehow in this edit he seemed to 'accidentally' bury the fact that Hubbard taught that Christianity, Jesus and Islam were essentially all forces of evil (entheta). This article is already long enough without having to read through additional pages only to find out that Hubbard was really a Gnostic in disguise, and that Scientology is a religion ''"only for individuals seeking higher awareness."'' Let's stick to facts that are pertinent and germane to the article, without trying to bury these pertinent facts in various irrelevant speculations. -Scott P. 01:03, August 17, 2005 (UTC) == Numerous recent POV edits to this article == I have just noticed that since the last edit by Antaeus Feldspar on Aug. 11, numerous POV edits have been made to this article with strangely worded editorial explanations that did not actually mention what the actual contents of the edits were. Entire sections, such as the Xenu section were deleted. Other sections were carved up or mixed up to the point where they were either no longer relevent to the article, or were supposedly being 'moved' to the Beliefs article. All of this while using very odd editorial comments. I have recently restored the ''Auditing'' section, the ''Xenu'' section and the ''Scientology and other religions'' section. Help from others to fix all of this would be much appreciated. By comparing Feldspar's last edit of Aug. 11 to the current version, one might more easily be able see what has been happening. -Scott P. 02:04, August 17, 2005 (UTC) :I've been somewhat busy this week, but rest assured that I am watching this page and I do try to pitch in to keep it NPOV as much as I can. Fernando Rizo ''T''/''C'' 02:08, 17 August 2005 (UTC) *In addition to what I've already restored and fixed, the new additions to the Critics of Scientology section need to be wikified and NPOV-checked. Fernando Rizo ''T''/''C'' 03:05, 17 August 2005 (UTC) == Scientology mindmap == I don't think