Talk:Church of Scientology/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Bad source link

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

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

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

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

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

Leadership of Church of Scientology

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

I would also like to know.

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

Why does this article use the word "church"?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-G

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

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

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

information on Jesus

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

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

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

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

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

Last days of LRH

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

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

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

membership statistics removal

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

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

dangerous cult

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

new words and terms

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

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

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

religion?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anonymous IP trying to add unknown names to Scientology member list

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

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

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

Stray text

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

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

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

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

Religion outside united states?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scientology dogma?

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

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

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

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

The Serious Things

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

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

depends on how much money you have :)

New changes in opening paragraphs explained

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changes by Marbahlarbs

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

Hurricane Katrina

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

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

Gold base details

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

Other notable buildings in Gold Base include:

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

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

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

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

Series Template

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

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

See:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Objective

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

Petrus4 03:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Sub-group cleanup

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

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

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

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

Poor lead

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

Obleron conflict

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From 'church of Scientology' article edit history:

An attempt to add the word 'Science':

22:12, 1 June 2006 66.65.192.160

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

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

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

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

(I wrote in error user Vivaldi, corrected)

Wikipediatrix reverts with a generality:

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

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

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

12:24, 8 June 2006 195.26.43.146

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your comment:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientology Public Relations

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

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

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

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

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

Oxford Capacity Analysis?

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

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

Missing the command structure

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

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

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

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

Bias?

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

pointlessforest 05:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kent cite

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Membership references

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scientologists online

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

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

Shinto

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

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

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

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

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

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

Added {{fact}} tag

The last phrase sounds like PR to me...

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

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

How many members?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First paragraph

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

I moved the sentences in question to a new paragraph:

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

"Brutally"

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

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

Recent European Convention on Human Rights decision

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

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

Sklar case

I am going to take this part out

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

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

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

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

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

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

East Asia

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

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

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

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

MASS DELETION

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

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

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

Fair use rationale for Image:Scientologycross.jpg

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

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

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

unrelated citations

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

15 million members

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

Introduction and Contents Rewrite/Reorder Suggested

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RZ, please tell me

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

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

Iconography (ie scientology cross)

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

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

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

Belgium charges Scientologists with extortion

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

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

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

Placement of 2002 court finding

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pulp fiction

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

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

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

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

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

Photo?

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

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

Let's talk Israel

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

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

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

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

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

The usual clash on these articles aside I find it disturbing that a source like that US State Department is removed as not "NPOV". Lev L'Achim is a group whose members are very much against anything not ultra-orthodox Jewish. Be that as it may, they have been complained about by other religious minorities in Israel which I find highly relevant in the context of their "accusations". The reference was not set at the correct place in the article, so I can see GoodDamon's concerns. This however does not justify the removal of genuine text. Makoshack 15:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the US State Department is NPOV and nobody disputeted the NPOV but that was not the reason for removal. The reason was that it was unrelated and not covering anything in the article. BTW. No authors nor their qualification mentioned in the source. Should that be mentioned ;) ? -- Stan _talk 15:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. And this may surprise you, Makoshack, but I think some detail on Lev L'Achim would be good in that section. I think within context, detailing Lev L'Achim's ultra-orthodoxy makes a good -- and balancing -- addition to the article. It's not that the link is inherently POV, it's how it was used; specifically, drawing out that particular quote without context made it into an attack on Lev L'Achim, instead of adding balance.

I think I've got a solution to this. I'll write a stub article on Lev L'Achim, which is where the State Department link more properly belongs as a reference, and then we can wikilink it. --GoodDamon 15:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Before it was misleading for readers if they would have followed the link to verify the Lev L'Achim vs. Scientology section. But latest changes from Makoshack justify the use of this reference. -- Stan _talk 16:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Makoshack 16:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Excellent work, everyone. The Lev L'Achim article now exists, the reference is used suitably, the tone is neutral, the quote makes sense... This is a prime example of Wikipedians working together instead of getting into a vicious revert war. I think this section is better than either version was before. --GoodDamon 17:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

R-ight. If now the tone could be tone=tone minus cynicism and editing=editing plus competence then we would be even better. But a start. Good Night. Misou 23:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm an even-tempered guy. I hope I've proved that here, because I don't say this lightly. There was no need to attack me, Misou. I didn't merit it, and I don't I appreciate it. I wasn't being cynical, and I wrote the Lev L'Achim article myself based on this discussion. Now then... I prefer to assume good faith, even in discussion pages, so I'm going to chalk this one up to you being over-tired or something, and pretend you didn't do it. --GoodDamon 23:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

GoodDamon, great that you wrote a new article due to this edit conflict and turned this unproductive thread into something really valuable. Thats great !

The cynicism accusation was for me I think. Admittedly my comment contained some irony wich was not really usefull like Misou pointed out. However, better than personal attacks from others! Humor isn't the worsed way to make a point! -- Stan _talk 01:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Next topic: Lermanet

I'm hoping to head off a revert war here, too. The subject is Lermanet references. As has been previously discussed (I'll find diffs when I can), documents hosted on Lerma's website aren't necessarily ideal references. But are they always unusable? Here's the situation:

• Makoshack removed a reference to Lermanet here, with "link to private site" listed as the reason for the removal.
• Foobaz added it back here, with "private sites not prohibited by WP:EL" as the reason.
• Misou -- who I should note still maintains a personal website at http://misou.awardspace.us that hosts various referenced documents -- responded with another revert here, with "Undid revision 163186719. Stop ignoring the rules, tks. WP:EL does not apply for REFERENCES" as the reason.

Now then... I've read WP:EL, and it doesn't preclude personal sites for external links, as Foobaz says, but WP:RS recommends against them for use with citations, with this exception:

"Self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. They may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications, but such use is discouraged; see WP:SPS for details. Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources. Articles and posts on Wikipedia or other open wikis should never be used as third-party sources. Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, but only under certain conditions; see WP:SELFPUB for the details." (emphasis added)

So this boils down to two questions:

1. Is Lerma an "established expert" on this topic?
2. Are there other, better sources for the same documents he hosts?

I'm in favor of removing all Lermanet citations if possible, but not before replacing them with better sources for the cited documents. --GoodDamon 23:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Lerma is a disgruntled ex-member who is running a private site. The document here is a newspaper article. I could not find it online but I also have never seen a Wikipedia policy requiring references to be online. It might increase the verifiability of the mentioned source but is not a must. On the other hand "courtesy" hosting of material on private sites is not in alignment with WP:RS as you correctly point out. This would open the door to forgery, "accidentally" missing sections, biased translations and the like. As for Misou's site or also the incorporation documents on this website: These are scans and should be uploaded to Wikipedia, if possible per copyright regulations (I think they can be uploaded due to the non-profit nature of the Wikipedia project). Makoshack 01:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Contentious link

It was claimed in an edit summary that i was ignoring rules by restoring this link in a reference. Is this true? What rule? Foobaz·o< 00:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I would have removed it again as well. Follow the discussion above for answer. Makoshack 01:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:ScientologySeries

Template:ScientologySeries has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 14:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Der Spiegel source for 8 million claim

The Der Spiegel article doesn't cite its source, but it's obvious that it came from the Church of Scientology and the writer didn't add the usual "claimed" qualifier. I think that unless an article goes into detail about the number and source, these text macros shouldn't be accepted as RS, otherwise Scientology was definitely founded by "Science-Fiction author L. Ron Hubbard." AndroidCat 04:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Growing list of Orgs

The list of very non-major orgs keeps growing in Church of Scientology#Churches, missions and major Scientology centers. Is there a need to list each one? If so, the AFD'd List of Scientology organizations could be recreated. AndroidCat (talk) 03:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed that anything on Wikipedia in a list format grows ad infinitum. Perhaps if the list of orgs was rewritten in prose instead of a list format, it wouldn't keep growing. Foobaz·o< 04:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Reincarnations and Sea Org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Word to that. PS: what about that billion year contract they enter when they first go into scientology? Does the article talk about that? 76.30.72.197 (talk) 22:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Germany Seeks to Ban Scientology

• Staff (December 3, 2007). "German Official Wants Scientology Ban". Associated Press. Retrieved 2007-12-04. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
• Staff (December 7, 2007). "Germany Seeks to Ban Scientology". Associated Press. Retrieved 2007-12-07. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
• Charbonneau, Louis (December 7, 2007). "German ministers say Scientology unconstitutional". Reuters. Retrieved 2007-12-07. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

---

This source info should be mentioned in the article. Cirt 10:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC).

Vandalism

I just undid some vandalism. Someone added in a sentence of offensive obscenities in the article. Is this article vandalized often? When you undo something, does it automatically sent a message to the wikipedia moderators who look over offensive things, and ban the person making them? Or does it record the IP address and if someone gets their additions undone a few times, then they look into it? Any ideas? Dream Focus (talk) 14:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Beliefs

I think a brief section explaining exactly what the beliefs of the Church of Scientology are. It can reference the main article "Scientology", but I think an article on a church is incomplete without what its beliefs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.61.70.97 (talk) 07:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. What kind of article wouldn't include that? I just checked the articles for the Roman Catholic religion and for the religion of Islam and both of those articles clearly define the beliefs of those religions. Dream Focus (talk) 00:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe we already have an article about Scientology beliefs and practices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GoodDamon (talk • contribs) 02:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

German Federal Labor court judgment

Does anyone have a translation of this PDF? It's being claimed as a reference for a court finding (and is the current topic of editing by Shutterbug and Wispanow), but I don't speak German and Google is failing me. --GoodDamon 22:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Note that www.menschenrechtsbuero.de is a site of the Church of Scientology, the document copyright is Scientology Kirche Deutschland. That's a WP:RS only for what the Church of Scientology says, not for the German courts. Find a neutral secondary source for a reference. AndroidCat (talk) 15:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a church-owned site? I wasn't aware of that (hence the "I don't speak German" comment). Thanks. --GoodDamon 17:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Damon, are you having technical problem with the translation? If so, stick this long URL in Babel Fish. Doing that, it looks like the document itself is a summary prepared by the Church. Council of Europe Human Rights rulings are available in English here and here is a search of the site. --JustaHulk (talk) 16:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but I tried Babel Fish and it came out really difficult to understand. In any event, we shouldn't be using this site at all, since it's Church-owned. --GoodDamon 18:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Shutterbug should reference the case itself, not a Church summation. --JustaHulk (talk) 18:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

That entire Labor bit is problematic as the main source was the Scn site and the first bit was not sourced at all. This is labor stuff and I pared it down to the labor stuff which is also sourced by religion-online.info altho I am not sure about that site either. --JustaHulk (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

fact that tom crusie is god

we should place that here too :) i am a scientologist and at level 3 that's what we get taught... 130.220.153.173 (talk) 10:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Its true, he is a God.. hes the only one who can help people in danger, thats what the messiah Hubbard has tought us. 58.106.109.136 (talk)/b/rother —Preceding comment was added at 14:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

agreed :) we'll place it in :D

130.220.153.173 (talk) 15:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Pyramid Scheme

Why does the article not mention that the church is, for all intents and purposes a pyramid scheme type organization? It's not meant to be flammatory. It's a matter of definition. This isn't putting down the faith, it's just an accurate description of the Church itself as a business. I think correct terminology is required to better describe what the Church of Scientology is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.214.205.150 (talk) 13:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

the hacking incident

we should place that on here :) it is of important encyclopediac value 130.220.153.173 (talk) 10:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Remember a few things... This is not a forum for general discussion of Church of Scientology, or anything not directly related to improving the Wikipedia article. Does it go per Wiki:Consensus? So unless you have any reliable notability sources, no. Ryou-kun16 (talk) 23:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Just wait until February 10th, that should more or less prove Anonymous is composed of several members, and not a single vigilante. Worldwide protests are scheduled for this date, and should bring some media attention as if even 10% of the people that say they are going to them, actually do, it will be reported in the news. There can be really no doubt that the large scale protests to take place on the 10th were announced and organized by "Anonymous". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.206.19.124 (talk) 21:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Recent Declaration of War

The new youtube video that was released backlashing the church of scientology should be included in somewhere on wikipedia. It's gained media attention and national recognition. Can someone create a section for "dissention from the Church of Scientology"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.9.64 (talk) 18:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Such a section might be appropriate if the "group" does something that proves it's more than one person with a voice synthesizer and a video camera. Probably not appropriate before then. - Nunh-huh 18:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You've obviously never heard of the group Anonymous before. Have you seen the new Die Hard movie? They're the group that has the potential to make that happen if necessary. Also, that's not a voice synthesizer, it's Microsoft Sam, a computer generated voice. The page definetly needs a section for it, because like the unsigned above said, it has made national news. Paper-Cut (talk) 19:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Good grief. A Die Hard movie? - Nunh-huh 20:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

That would be an example. Paper-Cut (talk) 00:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You do realize that Die Hard 4.0 was fiction and that could never be accomplished in real life, as, for instance, much of the "controlled" technology in that movie is closed circuit and has no relation to the internet whatsoever (ie, the tunnel 'closed' sign that was manipulated by the "hackers" despite the fact that the only connection the sign has to anything is a power extension cord). In case you didn't know, even if it were possible to knock out the power of city power station (which isn't possible, as that's not controlled through any sort of network connection- perhaps you could steal information from their office's computer, or knock out their official website, but taking out their power is not possible), this wouldn't black out all the CAR'S LIGHTS in the city. It's a goofy movie, and "Anonymous", while probably being capable of messing up a lot of websites and personal computers, could reak havoc nowhere near that (as it's physically impossible). --squeakytoad (talk) 08:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Video's already received over a million views in 5 days, as well as making wikinews twice. And if you've never heard of Anonymous, they were featured on Fox News at one point (here) [10]. Still not notable, because you haven't heard of Anonymous and therefore that makes it not notable. Zchris87v 01:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You miss the point entirely. Anyone can put out a video and say they are anyone they want. When they start having an effect on Scientology, through actually launching denial of service attacks or whatever, they'll actually be newsworthy. Talk is cheap, action is what makes something significant. - Nunh-huh 01:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if they're newsworthy or not, what matters is whether or not they've been in the news, which they have. --Tango (talk) 14:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, more than a press release is required to be encyclopedic. - Nunh-huh 00:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The group has yet to prove to be notable enought to be included in the scientology page. 3 other hacker groups have "declared war" on scientology, Xenu TV already uses youtube to attack scientology, the Scientology website has already had multipal Denial of Service attacks since its conseption (some of the past attacks have been so disruptive that the church has offered finatial rewards for information leading to the perpertraters, these happened long before Anon), and many individuals and websites worldwide have already published the confidential documents the church has. in short, none of the activities are new and origional.

that beeing said, there is a discussion going on about the deletion of the main article of the site on wikipedia. Your efforts would probably be better served there.Coffeepusher (talk) 00:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

the attacks described by coffee puncher where allso done by anonymous, anonymous has been around at least since 1996 and has done some uncoordinated attacks on different so called "oppressors" (anyone who came in there way, or threatened free speech and anonymity)

to my knowledge they have made quite some arrests possible for pedophiles and other small criminals on the internet somehow —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.165.220.81 (talk) 14:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

This is untrue, Anonymous has only been around since 2004. Foobaz·o< 16:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The $5000 reward listed on RFW is unrelated to Anonymous or DDoS attacks. AndroidCat (talk) 19:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

and all of that is inadmisable to this encyclopedia unless you have a reliable source stating such...and such sources would not make this event any more notable as far as scientology is conserned.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is a Youtube video of a Global News Toronto (Major news network in Canada) discussing the arrest of a pedophile which was spurred by, and made possible because of, Anonymous. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_FE5COkPNY —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.206.19.124 (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

So I'm thinking (unless there are major objections) Of adding an actual section to the article that links to the controversy page because it is a little tricky to find right now. Any thoughts?--St.daniel ^Talk 20:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I would agree, but I believe this page is being actively monitored by NPOV pro Scientology editors, if you check the history pages you'll see any information critical or controversial about the organization is either deleted or minimized rather quickly. This is an important cross roads for the Wiki community I think. So I'd encourage an edit specifically making mention of the momentous events of the past week involving the CoS but I doubt it will be allowed to remain. If nothing else it will remain in the edit history so at some future date a truly unbiased editor/s can put it in context.--Ason Abdullah (talk) 23:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

If you check the history, you'll also find a lot of neutral editors doing their best with a controversial topic. Feel free to add to the article. Be bold. If your addition is objective, neutral-POV content and well-sourced, then the majority of editors will make sure it stays... and for the most part, that includes the ones who are themselves Scientologists. --GoodDamon 00:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Sanitization of this article by the forces of the Church of Scientology is unacceptable. If we need to deal with disruptive scientology editors, we have a process for it, and we should get rid of them if they're causing problems and censoring articles. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone's clearly scared. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.149.229.78 (talk) 16:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Tags

Generally when placing tags in an article, it's helpful to start a discussion about why the tag was placed. I didn't place any of them, so I can't give advice about them all. However we should work to identify and fix the issues cited in them. Anynobody 02:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

{{self-published}}/{{primarysources}}

I agree that too much use is made of CoS sources, and probably too much authority too. Indeed some Church sources need to be cited but it should be made clear that the Church's information by using descriptions which include qualifiactions like "the Church says" or "Church sources say" Anynobody 02:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

{{original research}}

??? Anynobody 02:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

{{refimprove}}

This tag is being addressed, per the above threads. I think it can be removed when several more of the identified sources have been worked in. Anynobody 02:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

{{expandlead}}

I understand this one, the lead is very small given this article's size. Since the article is going through an update with new information being added, I'd propose sorting this out last. Anynobody 02:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Judges Press IRS on Church Tax Break

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

This source should be incorporated into the article. Cirt (talk) 14:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree the material is certainly relevant. The question that arises is how much material should be added before the ruling, whatever it is, is handed down. The ruling would definitely be very significant, particularly if it goes against the Scientology tax break. Unfortunately, until then I think there is a question regarding how much weight to give the subject, which I unfortunately can't answer myself. John Carter (talk) 14:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It's there now. Someone else posted it, but I simplified the language and removed an excessive blockquote. --GoodDamon 16:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Editorial piece on the same issue. Cirt (talk) 14:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Ignored sources/issues

There are multiple reliable, verifiable sources which discuss the CoS that are being ignored:

TIME magazine has articles going back to 1952...

• The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power 1991
• Mystery of the Vanished Ruler 1983
• A Sci-Fi Faith 1976
• Victory for the Scientologists 1969
• Meddling with Minds 1968
• Remember Venus? 1952

The Washington Post has several articles too, one defending the CoS as weird but not a cult...

• Weird, Sure. A Cult, No. 2007
• Testing Openness to Scientology 2005

The Los Angeles Times has quite a few articles as well...

• Burglaries and Lies Paved a Path to Prison 1990
• The Man in Control 1990

The fact is that many people think of it as a cult while others don't, and that should be discussed. A more detailed discussion should also should be made of its history, including stuff like Snow White. (Obviously Scientologists don't think of themselves as being in a cult or that the church broke the law but we are supposed to be more concerned about the facts and not preferences.) Anynobody 04:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• In Canada, it's a matter of record that the church broke the law, with two serious and unique criminal convictions for breach of the public trust.
• Add to the list of forgotten articles is a Pulitzer Prize-winning report, composed of some 16 articles.

• Stafford, Charles (1980-01-09). "'Priority' critics of church faced special handling" (PDF). Scientology: An in-depth profile of a new force in Clearwater. St. Petersburg Times. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Stafford, Charles (1980-01-09). "Book spells out rationale for church's 'spy system'" (PDF). Scientology: An in-depth profile of a new force in Clearwater. St. Petersburg Times. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Stafford, Charles (1980-01-09). "Church entered Clearwater on path of deceit" (PDF). Scientology: An in-depth profile of a new force in Clearwater. St. Petersburg Times. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Stafford, Charles (1980-01-09). "Church infiltrated the Clearwater Sun" (PDF). Scientology: An in-depth profile of a new force in Clearwater. St. Petersburg Times. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Stafford, Charles (1980-01-09). "Church moves to defend itself against 'attackers" (PDF). Scientology: An in-depth profile of a new force in Clearwater. St. Petersburg Times. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Stafford, Charles (1980-01-09). "Church played dirty tricks on Cazares" (PDF). Scientology: An in-depth profile of a new force in Clearwater. St. Petersburg Times. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Stafford, Charles (1980-01-09). "Church tried to infiltrate Pinellas police agencies" (PDF). Scientology: An in-depth profile of a new force in Clearwater. St. Petersburg Times. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Stafford, Charles (1980-01-09). "Court tangle gave Scientology its first 'martyrs'" (PDF). Scientology: An in-depth profile of a new force in Clearwater. St. Petersburg Times. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Stafford, Charles (1980-01-09). "Dispute over tax status goes to court" (PDF). Scientology: An in-depth profile of a new force in Clearwater. St. Petersburg Times. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Stafford, Charles (1980-01-09). "Individual life force is focus of Scientology" (PDF). Scientology: An in-depth profile of a new force in Clearwater. St. Petersburg Times. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Stafford, Charles (1980-01-09). "Operation Bunny Bust" (PDF). Scientology: An in-depth profile of a new force in Clearwater. St. Petersburg Times. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Stafford, Charles (1980-01-09). "Scientologists' downfall began with phony IDs" (PDF). Scientology: An in-depth profile of a new force in Clearwater. St. Petersburg Times. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Stafford, Stafford (1980-01-09). "Scientology brings 4 years of discord" (PDF). Scientology: An in-depth profile of a new force in Clearwater. St. Petersburg Times. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Patterson, Eugene (1980-01-09). "Shedding light on Scientology's dark side" (PDF). Scientology: An in-depth profile of a new force in Clearwater. St. Petersburg Times. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Stafford, Charles (1980-01-09). "St. Petersburg Times topped 'enemies' list" (PDF). Scientology: An in-depth profile of a new force in Clearwater. St. Petersburg Times. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Cornwell, Bill (1980-01-09). "The mystery man behind Scientology" (PDF). Scientology: An in-depth profile of a new force in Clearwater. St. Petersburg Times. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

I'm certain that I'm missing credits for Bette Orsini in some of those articles, and will correct that. Otherwise, I've got a little list[11] AndroidCat (talk) 06:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

See comment in the above subsection by Titanium Dragon (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 17:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Were any of the above WP:V/WP:RS secondary sources ever previously in the article, and later removed by someone, or have they just never been added to the article before? Cirt (talk) 17:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, I'd buy any of the three scenarios you suggested. Regardless, they should be added now. Anynobody 04:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Snow White/Freakout

Since we have articles dedicated to these "actions", let's try to keep the sections here brief in accordance with summary style rules. Anynobody 04:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Dead people

Any suggestions on naming a section for deceased members documented in sources, such as Lisa McPherson, Noah Lottick(sp?), Elli Perkins, etc.? I know it may be tempting to call them "victims", it would probably be better to try finding another term. Anynobody 04:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I decided to try "Member's health and safety" for the title. Anynobody 05:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Banning from countries

Several countries in Europe have said the organization is organized crime, Germany is attempting to (or has) banned it, and IIRC some other country (Belgium?) is currently in the process of preparing to prosecute members of the Church for this reason. Seems like it'd be worth mentioning; I didn't notice any mention of it. Not sure if the intro is the best place, but given that it has been described as such by actual governments, I think it is relevant. Titanium Dragon (talk) 04:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I reverted your recent edits. Sorry, but neither did Germany bann Scientology nor attempted to do so(according to your source). It may be worth mentioning that several governing bodies in europe are very critical toward this organisation but it is not appropriate to insert a grossly inaccurate conclusion based on OR. -- Stan _talk 04:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems like it'd be worth mentioning; I didn't notice any mention of it. its mentioned and detailed in this section. -- Stan _talk 04:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean banned period or banned as a religion? Anynobody 05:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this question for me or Titanium Dragon? What do you mean with "banned as a religion"? Right now, neither the organisation nor the "religion" is banned in Germany or Belgium. The organisation(CoS) is monitored closely in Germany and some politicians want to ban it due to several reasons(since a decade). "Scientology as a religion" seems to be off topic anyway since only the organisation(CoS) would be affected due to possible sanctions from Belgium or Germany. The Free Zone for example is not even monitored by state authorities. -- Stan _talk 06:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It was for Titanium Dragon, I was wondering if he/she was talking about its status as a religion being banned. Anynobody 01:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Edits to Gold Base section

I just wanted to point out for Shutterbug that the Hemet compound does have razor wire, as corroborated by the LA Weekly in this story, among others. Heck, there are plenty of pictures available showing the compound, and the razor wire is clearly there. This took about a minute to find, even including discarding reports from known anti-Scientology websites.

Please be more careful in the future before deleting information that you could easily verify in a couple of clicks. --GoodDamon 02:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Government Opinion: Australia - wording

Under the Government Opinion - Australia section, this phrase appears:

The unanimous opinion of that Court was that Scientology is a religion.

The cited source is http://www.austlii.edu.au//cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/HCA/1983/40.html?query=Church%20of%20the%20New%20Faith%20v%20Commissioner%20of%20Pay-Roll

This document states (Section 5):

The question whether Scientology is a religion cannot be answered, for there seem to be important, perhaps critically important, tenets of Scientology which the parties left without full examination. The question which can be answered is whether the beliefs, practices and observances which were established by the affidavits and oral evidence as the set of beliefs, practices and observances accepted by Scientologists are properly to be described as a religion.

The "unanimous decision" wording clearly needs to be rephrased to indicate that the decision was based on information withheld by the relevant parties. 59.101.139.51 (talk) 12:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Kids against Scientology

Good source, should be added to article

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

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

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

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

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

Another source

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

Cirt (talk) 18:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikileaks Airs Scientology Black Ops

1. kdawson (March 11, 2008). "Wikileaks Airs Scientology Black Ops". Slashdot. SourceForge, Inc. Retrieved 2008-03-12. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
2. Goodin, Dan (March 12, 2008). "Wikileaks exposes Scientology's zeal to 'clean up rotten spots of society': A billion-year commitment". The Register. Retrieved 2008-03-12. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

• Relevant link to Wikileaks

A place to list more sources re: this new development as they become known. Cirt (talk) 22:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This article breaks wikipedia's neutrality rules

The organization has throughly been exposed in the courts of the united states, united kingdom and many other countries as a sham, fraud, confidence trick, and that its beliefs on drug cures and physchiatry have verifiably and scientifically been proved utterly false. Using the kind of diplomatic language in the article to present it as a legitimate organization with some controvosy is clearly incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.32.109.75 (talk) 13:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

its beliefs on drug cures and physchiatry have verifiably and scientifically been proved utterly false.

So, too, have the beliefs of religions the world over. While it may be clear to you that the Church of Scientology's beliefs are just a bunch of bullshit, it's obviously not the case of the Church's adherents. I feel the same about denominations and sects of Abrahamic, pagan, and a host of other world religions, but I'm in no position—nor do I have any desire—to demand changes in the respective articles to reflect this. — 129.15.131.246 (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

All religions are, at their hearts, scams in some way or another. However, they are also belief systems, and while WRONG, much as creationism, flat earth, 9/11 conspiracy theories, and the like are wrong, that's not what Wikipedia is about. The purpose of the encyclopedia is to provide a neutral point of view on these subjects, and while this is often going to be pretty bad for these groups/organizations/belief systems, likewise the purpose is not to say "these people are morons" but rather to explain what the organizations/beliefs/groups are; ideally, if the group IS wrong/evil, the information present in Wikipedia should allow the reader to discern that and understand why. We don't say Nazis or the KKK are evil, but hopefully those articles show why those organizations are evil; we don't say creationism and intelligent design are wrong, but the articles should give the reader the understanding that they are. Likewise, if the Church of Scientology is a money-making criminal organization, hopefully the information present in this article will reflect that. But the point is to report from a neutral point of view, not to promote any of these viewpoints; if these groups are such, then it should fall out from the information provided from the NPOV standpoint. Titanium Dragon (talk) 19:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

NYU cruises to the moon!

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

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

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

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

Actually it sounds like an April Fools joke to me. (A funny one too because for two seconds I believed the CoS might just try something so stupid, but not for SPs :) Then I remembered, space travel is REALLY expensive, but even more expensive is maintaining people in orbit since they need food/water/new underwear requiring additional pricey launches. No way the CoS is that rich, we're talking like tens of billions of dollars to make something like that work. Anynobody 07:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it was most likely a joke by Washington Square News for April 1, 2008. Cirt (talk) 08:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

One aspect that threw me a bit though was affiliation with NYU, have the two (CoS and NYU) done stuff together before or is this just campus rivalry? Anynobody 01:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Tottenham Court Road photo

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

So take a new one :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.226.170.33 (talk) 12:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Grammar

"Member's health and safety" should be "Members' health and safety"

I fixed this. Foobaz·o< 13:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Criminal Actions

I think the intro should contain the phrase 'criminal organization' or something similar. The entire church is based on the actions of the Hubbards are their crimes are well documented (Snow White, etc), as are the ongoing harassment campaigns, baseless lawsuits, etc.

As it's fact (proof available on many Wikipedia pages) that the "church" and prominent members routinely engaged in intentionally criminal acts, with full church authority, it seems that this should feature prominently. Anything less horribly misrepresents the situation.

How about "The Church of Scientology is [a large criminal] organization devoted to the practice and the promotion of the Scientology belief system."?

Anything less hardly seems NPOV, as the current intro makes scientology look like any law-abiding organization. It's like opening an article on the mafia with "A large organization run for the appreciation of Italian culture". Far more important to a lay reader is what CoS does, not its purported goal. It's not for the practice of a religion, it's for the financial gain of its leadership and the complete extra-legal ruin of those who oppose it. Hubbard said as much, and the CoS's actions and his routinely demonstrated their intent.

Anyone who disagrees with me is fair game - I'll fake crimes in your name, attack you, file false lawsuits against you, and openly advocate your murder. Oh wait, that's Scientology's tactic... I'll just challenge your points. :) 24.82.203.201 (talk) 13:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Though I personally agree that there have been and are probably (tax evasion type stuff, not anything really seamy) criminal activities connected to the CoS, none of the sources have come out and labeled them a criminal organization. For us to cite the examples they do give and add the label ourselves we'd have to throw our rule about synthesis out the window. Anynobody 21:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

btw, is it considered kosher to edit other editor's comments?

I had meant this with a joking tone ('fair game', etc), so I apologize for its sound.

You make a very good point about synthesis. I realize my first phrase 'criminal organization' makes it seem like the CoS exists for the purpose of crime, where my point is that it is simply an organization which is now acting criminally. In my discussions with GoodDamon I thought of potentially better phrase - [organization with a scandalous criminal? past].

I feel the information in other CoS-related pages, such as (Operation Snow White) paint a different image of the church than this page. A more accurate picture from the point of view of someone researching the church. Details of the church's physical locations seem less relevant than allegations of ongoing conspiracy and attacks on ex members. This page doesn't address the issues of CoS-related crimes by its founders, which surely (at least in mentioning the scandal) should be part of the history section.

As it's the central power structure of the CoS that is implicated, it seems more accurate to make these claims on the CoS page than on the scientology page, which presumably should be related more to their teachings than the church's actions. Currently the header of the Scientology page contains more mention of criticism of the CoS than the CoS article does. This seems backwards, as presumably the religion itself is blameless while the members and organizations (church) may not be.

The Enron article (sorry for the comparison) header contains the phrase '... it was revealed that its reported financial condition was sustained mostly by institutionalized, systematic, and creatively planned accounting fraud'

How about 'Striking evidence of illicit and sometimes criminal actions by the founders and early leadership of the church cause many/some? to question the validity of the church'? That could be linked as appropriate to OSW and other pages, and the 'many' could be cited.

I'm really willing to work on this. I don't intend to slander anyone's religion, but I think it's imperative that the article about the organization mention the scandals and really quite abusive actions that the power structure have been involved in, or it paints a picture of an group whose worst secret is a tiff with the IRS over tax-exemption status. Ideas? 24.82.203.201 (talk) 22:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

One thing you'll notice about Wikipedia is that there are many different ideas about what's kosher, so while I don't mind (to a point, obviously changing the message would be most taboo) you're bound to encounter individuals who feel "violated" by anyone editing their comments.

I totally understand your points, but the rules honestly don't support associating the church with the term criminal. However even if there were a good source saying they are criminal, you're bound to encounter trouble getting such an assertion into the article and I'll explain with a better term that is sourced. in 1991 Time ran a story called The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power, it's Time so there really aren't any concerns about reliability etc. and therefore one could format an intro like this:

The Church of Scientology is the largest organization devoted to the practice and the promotion of the Scientology belief system, and has been identified as a cult in pursuit of money and power.¹

This doesn't have a chance of making it into the article because of questions about neutrality and most likely the strong feelings of Scientologist editors. I'm pretty sure this is why Good Damon felt discussing this would be an exercise in futility and possibly invite angry responses from Scientologists. (He is usually a pretty fair editor and does a lot to fight vandalism, so I think your style coupled with your lack of account made him think you were trolling. Another thing about Wikipedia is that editors don't usually seem to work very well with anon users, I'm not saying you have to get an account, just that you tend to get a bit more good faith if you have one.) Anynobody 02:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

My concern is I see two representations of Scientology on Wikipedia and I want to bring them more into line. Pages such as Operation Snow White and Scientology controversy criticize the church, but this page links to those issues in an off-hand way that doesn't suggest required reading.

The controversy page even says that most scientologists prefer to note that the Church is the organization implicated, not the faith itself. I suggest the same. So the article here needs to note that all the criminal controversy revolves around this organization. This page says that the CoS is the largest organization [for] scientology. That implies fairly strongly that its practices reflect on the majority of the followers. To bring this page the distance that is sought on the controversy page we need to prominently display that many feel the need to distance themselves from the church's actions.

I want to make sure that people who read these articles in any order have a consistent impression. Currently if you start at some pages (OF or OSW) the church appears fascist and intentionally criminal, but if you start here, the church appears to be honest and non-abusive to its members and others.

That some find mention of this distasteful is irrelevant. These actions happened and have had and continue to have a grave impact on innocent people. This is fact. The pages I've mentioned are full of cites. The church is the organizational body that brings these attacks against people. This article needs to be representative of the range of scientology articles. As in the Enron article, a major scandal such as malfeasance of the directors against the members warrants significant mention.

The lead text currently reads 'The Church of Scientology is the largest organization devoted to the practice and the promotion of the Scientology belief system.'

I propose adding 'The church's actions have raised much controversy.' to that.

Then in the 'History' section, changing the text 'Church organization has faced allegations' to 'Church organization has faced [[Scientology Controversy|controversy] and allegations'.

And to the paragraph beginning 'Hubbard had official control ...' I propose appending 'Despite this distance, the Hubbards were both implicated in church scandals to frame or imprison critics and destroy evidence of this and other events in Operation Snow White, an international conspiracy.'

These edits are minimal, well documented on Wikipedia and externally, and are intended to highlight the church's and leader's involvement specifically, avoiding casting dispersion on scientologists in general.

What do you think? 24.82.203.201 (talk) 21:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I totally understand where you're coming from, I didn't know much about Scientology when I started editing here. After reading mainstream sources like the Time article, or LA Times series I think they in general show it as having monetary gain and suppression of dissent as its two primary goals. Moreover that they're capable of going to great lengths in pursuit of them. In a perfect world we'd be able to simply state both sides of the issue and then let the sources provide POV. The problem is that though you are quite correct in pointing out that personal taste should be irrelevant, here it is not because once you make the changes and no matter how well sourced they are, this is a site anyone can (and usually does) edit, including Scientologists who will generally not tolerate such information being added without a fight.

I also want to make sure you understand that what I've been saying here is just my opinion, you're welcome and encouraged to actually make the edits in question to see if they "stick". I honestly don't plan to edit this page (I get enough quality time with Scientologists on L. Ron Hubbard and L. Ron Hubbard and the military. Plus even though I don't think the changes have much of a chance staying in, doesn't mean I'm right.) Anynobody 04:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for helping me come up with better edits. I've made them, we'll see what the reaction is. 24.82.203.201 (talk) 20:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

On the recent coverage of Tom Cruise as #2

I noticed an attempt to include the video being mentioned in the news. Your instincts are probably correct in that it's worth briefly mentioning here, and the desire for a better link is definitely correct, though asking for one would've been more appropriate on the talk page. Also the heading Popular Culture tends to be read as Trivia and treated as such. Instead you'd probably want to make an edit like:

(Under the History section)
In May 1987 David Miscavige, one of Hubbard’s former personal assistants, assumed the position of Chairman of the Religious Technology Center (RTC), a non-profit corporation that administers the trademarked names and symbols of Dianetics and Scientology. Although RTC is a separate corporation from the Church of Scientology International, whose president and chief spokesperson is Heber Jentzsch, Miscavige is the effective leader of the movement. Just over two decades later, a 2008 unauthorized biography by Andrew Morton has placed Tom Cruise as the second in command at the Church of Scientology, who was shown discussing his feelings about the church in a leaked video from 2004 provided by a disgruntled member at the same time.
References

I would only add the words "de facto" or "effective" second-in-command, as not including such language gives the impression of official status, which may not be the case here. John Carter (talk) 16:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

On the video

The video is simply part of the presentation made to all Scientologists at the annual celebration and awards ceremony of the IAS. It is no secret and anyone can walk into any org on the planet and view the DVD from the event and see that bit for themselves. I saw the video when it was first presented. It is simply a treat for rank and file Scientologists to see that Cruise truly shares their dedication and is not simply a "Hollywood Scientologist" (my term). It shows Cruise affirming that he would like to use Scientology in a no-nonsense manner to improve conditions on this planet - pretty scary stuff!! But nothing special - most Scientologists would say the same sort of stuff ... and frequently do. --JustaHulk (talk) 16:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

On the 2nd-in-command

Who knows. I certainly don't. But it is one report in a book that also claims that Suri is from Hubbard's frozen sperm? [12] The church denies it emphatically. Sounds like tabloid trash talk. --JustaHulk (talk) 16:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I've got to side with you on the book; without some damn good corroboration on that sperm thing, I don't think the book would pass muster as a reliable source for much of anything. How in the world could the author even substantiate such a claim without a sample of Hubbard's and Suri's DNA?

But that said, the video isn't "nothing special", it is Tom Cruise making unequivocal statements about Scientologists such as "When you drive past an accident, it's not like anyone else, as you drive past you know you have to do something about it because you're the only one that can actually help." (Emphasis added) To be frank, that is a bizarre -- and factually incorrect, as accident victims need paramedics more immediately than spiritual counseling -- statement made by the most publicly visible member of the church. And I'm not taking that quote out of context; since that is one of the quotes appearing all over the news, I watched the entire video to be sure. I think the notability of the person making the statements, combined with the bizarre content of those statements, elevates the video's own notability quite a bit. --GoodDamon 16:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It is just a misunderstanding of Scientology - that video is for a Scientology audience that would not misunderstand it. Of course, any Scientologist that stops at an accident scene is going to call 911 if needed and apply first aid if needed and if competent in first aid. But you well know that at most accidents scenes the injuries are minor but the participants are often disoriented and upset. That is where the Scientologist can help and, in the eyes of the Scientologist, others cannot. There are simple techniques that all Scientologists know that help immensely in non-critical situations and even in critical situations as an adjunct to first aid. I don't know what the big deal is - all he is talking about there is responsibility - the responsibility to do something if there is something you can do as a Scientologist. It is analogous to me not doing CPR on someone that needed it - I am trained in CPR and any CPR, no matter how unsure, is likely better than none if the situation calls for CPR. Does that make more sense to you? --JustaHulk (talk) 17:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It is sorta like this. The responsibility to use what you know to help others. --JustaHulk (talk) 17:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't those "techniques" be the Scientology spiritual counseling I described? That's precisely the strange "help" I was referring to. Unless there's a study I'm not aware of that shows Scientology techniques stabilize disoriented and upset people after accidents, it's an entirely baseless claim. If the accident has resulted in a serious medical condition, the victim needs 911 as you say, and if they don't, then I don't see how a Scientologist would be better at providing comfort after an accident than any other decent human being with a measure of empathy.

What exactly would Scientology offer in that situation above and beyond what paramedics and any non-Scientologist passers-by could provide? --GoodDamon 17:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

(EC) So if you have a technique or techniques that you know work to help "stabilize disoriented and upset people after accidents" - you've studied it, used it to excellent results on numerous occasions, etc. - you would not use it until there was a peer-reviewed study on it? I don't think you nor any other reasonable person would truly take such a, pardon the term, silly stance. You would not object to a stranger giving an upset person a hug - does the hugger have a peer-reviewed study on hugging in his back pocket? I have applied these techniques to strangers in a public environment and have spoken to many others that have also. The usual result is that bystanders are respectful of what you are doing, perhaps interested, perhaps appreciative. All Cruise is saying is that Scientologists have to get off their butts and use what they know. Trust me, when there is a situation to be handled, any help is appreciated and anyone that steps up to help is appreciated. That is what the article I linked to shows also. --JustaHulk (talk) 17:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking, although I can't be sure of this, that maybe Cruise was implying that people in such a position, if they can be persuaded to accept the possibility of Scientology doctrines being accurate, might maybe be able to improve their situation the next go-round, maybe like a lot of Catholics like me want to have our version of "one for the road", the viaticum, shortly before our own deaths, in the hope that it might improve our subsequent situation? John Carter (talk) 17:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi John. Believe or not, you often do not even tell them it is Scientology. Scientology is for spiritual, not physical, treatment so even if the person were physically hurt, you are only concerned about the spiritual factors and only treat those factors (using first aid, if you know it, for physical trauma - or standing aside and letting someone who does know first aid tend to the person). Scientology is not for broken bones or gushing blood. It is for upset, disorientation, even psychosomatic pain (and a lot more pain is psychosomatic than people realize). Again, all Cruise is saying there is that he is a dedicated Scientologist and recognizes his responsibility to help if he can and not just drive by. It was shown to Scientologists to inspire them to do the same as Cruise has no official standing or authority in the Church to tell any Scientologist what to do but many Scientologists look up to him and respect him for his accomplishments. --JustaHulk (talk) 18:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't make what Cruise said sound any better. If anything, I'm afraid it puts it in a dimmer light. If he's referring to activities that basically amount to proselytizing without saying that's what you're doing, and applying Scientology "handling" techniques to accident victims, it goes from just a bizarre statement to a really creepy one, at least for non-Scientologists. It certainly gives me the heebies.

In any event, we're getting off-topic. The real point of discussion should be whether or not this video is notable, and should be used in this (or maybe another) article. I think it's notable enough for inclusion, myself. --GoodDamon 18:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you think it creepy to help someone with something that helps them regain their composure and sense of self and for with they sincerely thank you, then . . . OK. Is the video notable? IDK, but no reason for it not to be mentioned in his article as "Cruise was awarded a special Freedom Medal by the International Association of Scientologists for his work in disseminating Scientology. The awards ceremony included a nine-minute video presentation of Cruise discussing his commitment to Scientology. This portion of the event was posted to the internet but quickly removed for copyright reasons." That is all there is to it. --JustaHulk (talk) 19:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

(Indent reset) That looks pretty good. Neutral tone, just a statement of facts. I would add to it that the content of the video, once released on the internet, stirred up some controversy, but I don't see a way to put any of the actual content in the article without treading close to OR. --GoodDamon 19:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Folks, I know it may sound abstract but in this case the book isn't actually our source, it's the Telegraph article: Tom Cruise Scientology video leaked on web The video comes as a new book by the royal biographer Andrew Morton says the actor has become the de-facto second-in-command of the Church of Scientology and is consulted on every aspect of the controversial group's planning and policy. It's the source's source.

It's notable because it was discussed in popular media, and that actually overrides our opinions. Hell I think it's dumb; Cruise has been alleged to have authority in the CoS, not exactly a shock. Then there's the video where he describes how he feels about being a Scientologist, also not a big deal in my estimation. However The Telegraph thought it was worth mentioning, so my opinion takes a back seat. Just like all of our opinions are secondary to what the sources cover. Anynobody 01:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't mean to come off sounding like the book itself should or shouldn't be used as a source. You're absolutely right that the article you referenced is the correct choice. I was just arguing that the video and the controversy around it are notable enough for a mention. I wasn't trying to say X or Y source meets WP:RS. --GoodDamon 16:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The current brouhaha has generated a bit of news but I do not really think it encyclopedic. I guess the video was released earlier and pulled and this is the second time around but much more notice taken this time. --JustaHulk (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It may be relevant to our article on Tom Cruise, but doesn't shed any new light on scientology. Just because something is in the news doesn't mean it should be in Wikipedia. It's more celebrity gossip than anything else. Foobaz·o< 20:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand where this may indeed seem like Entertainment column bs, it's actually listed as news at the source and says:The video comes as a new book by the royal biographer Andrew Morton says the actor has become the de-facto second-in-command of the Church of Scientology and is consulted on every aspect of the controversial group's planning and policy.

GoodDamon I personally agree with your statement about the book's reliability, and wasn't trying to imply you were commenting on its use here. (It's easy to imagine some editors citing the book's lack of reliability as a reason to disqualify the Telegraph article, and while that would indeed make sense in most cases, here it'd be wrong since we can't second guess sources ourselves.) The article says Cruise has become the de facto number 2, even though they are basing that on the book, we're quoting the paper. Anynobody 01:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

You might want to check the book itself before deciding on its reliability. That whole bit on Suri seems to have been taken by tabloids quoting each other (and Cruise/CoS lawyers) and used all out of proportion to what's actually in the book: a short passage that Morton dismisses as impossible. AndroidCat (talk) 15:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I had assumed it wasn't as bad as the CoS was making out to be, as far as reliability, but unless the book includes evidence it's left up to us to decide whether we believe the people Morton talked to. Not the most solid foundation IMHO. Anynobody 02:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Criminal Activity Subsection

That they have been/are involved in past/present criminal activities should be noted in the introduction, but more importantly, the criminal activities the organization has been involved in should be their own section. Operation Snow White, Operation Freakout, ect. should all be included. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support. - Agree with Titanium Dragon (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 12:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support. - It seems like a major portion of their activities.Celarnor (talk) 02:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support. - Agree with Titanium Dragon (talk · contribs). Absolutely. I am really tired of people trying to water things down in the interest of NPOV. There are some things for which there is simply not an NPOV. For example, evil death cults.Ndriley97 (talk) 01:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support. - This is definitely required for the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beamathan (talk • contribs) 00:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Mention in lead, yes; but very concisely. Separate sections, also yes, but also leave most material to child articles. LotLE×talk 03:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality of Article

Although I understand that the Church of Scientology is looked down upon by some, the neutrality of this article must be maintained. In most Wikipedia articles, the section titled "Controversy" is generally last. However, here it is first, possibly making a reader think differently. That's just my opinion. 98.207.50.162 (talk) 07:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

While I would tend to agree, part of the notability of the organization is its long history of criminal activities and human rights violations, as well as its nature as a money-making scheme. I am unsure how to reconcile the two; while it is true that controversy sections typically are put at the end of articles, it is also true that the most notable thing ABOUT the organization is the controversy which constantly surrounds it. Titanium Dragon (talk) 19:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Ulyanovsk police search local branch office of Church of Scientology

Interfax (April 18, 2008). "Ulyanovsk police search local branch office of Church of Scientology". Interfax-Religion. www.interfax-religion.com. Retrieved 2008-04-18. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Potential source to use in this article, the building searched was the Narconon Center of Promoting Healthy Lifestyle, in Dimitrovgrad. Cirt (talk) 11:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Tom Cruise

I don't think he's a great fit under 'see also' - but maybe others do? - I've taken him out for now.... Privatemusings (talk) 00:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I could've sworn there was a section discussing the Church's effort to court actors and such. Since they do, and there wasn't a section before, I started one and reintroduced Mr. Cruise. I've seen quite a bit of discussion about Cruise and Scientology relating to this aspect of their recruiting practices so I'm assuming other editors will be able to fill out the new subsection. Anynobody 02:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

So you want to be a scientologist - Slate Magazine

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

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

Questionable Ordering

Well I'm new to this section, just happened to stumble across it from some other linked page. Anyways, what alarms is that it seems to be a bit biased in that the controversy section has been moved to the very top of the article. I'm far from a fan of scientology, but under the current ordering - it seems extremely biased to bash or criticize the wiki topic before even explaining it. The current ordering is a brief 3-4 paragraph history, followed by the criticism section, I commend the length of the criticism section - as in other cult-like cases (see sai-baba wiki) the criticism section has been cut up and removed by much of its followers. Anyways, I think someone capable of reordering the article should move the controversy section down a bit, it should be #6 or 7 above Legal Waivers IMO. My rationale behind this is that the wiki topic should be explained before showing the criticism behind it, regardless of whatever the topic is. JayAlto (talk) 09:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with this. It probably doesn't need to move all the way to the bottom, but at least a couple of sections setting out the group and its activities would be a better introduction to the article. --12.47.123.121 (talk) 23:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The Scientology pages on Wikipedia are the result of a massive effort to discredit it. Don't bother. 90.128.44.163 (talk) 15:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Co$

Having Co$ redirect here (and thus placing it at the very top of the article) is way, way over the top. 90.128.44.163 (talk) 15:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

How so? It's a commonly used acronym (on the internet at least) for scientology. Articles such as Square Co. and Bbc.co.uk, the top results when searching for Co$ (or just co), isn't exactly relevant. What do you mean with "thus placing it at the very top of the article"? --Execvator (talk) 01:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

"Redirected from Co$" is at the top of the article when linked like this: Church of Scientology. My mistake. It's not such a big deal, otherwise. Do you think this is nit-picking? 90.134.51.3 (talk) 19:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Who's at the top?

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

For information related to leadership of the organization, you may wish to see articles David Miscavige and Religious Technology Center. Cirt (talk) 00:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Chanology section

Why isn't there a Chanology section? It's done massive impact in the past 6 months, and serious business. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.183.106.150 (talk) 20:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

There is already a Project Chanology article. This article is about the Church of Scientology, not about its critics, however large a group that might be. There's a "See Also" link to Project Chanology, and I could see a mention of it going into the Controversy section, but I don't think it needs its own entire section here. --GoodDamon 19:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The majority of this article is about its critics. 90.135.48.133 (talk) 21:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

No, the majority of this article is about the various church and church-affiliated organizations, with critical content on much of it. It is not "about [the church's] critics." There is a difference. Critical content contrasts what critics say about the church. If the article were about the critics, we'd get to read all about xenu.net and Mark Bunker here. It's not about them. --GoodDamon 21:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I was making the mistake of including the References section. The Controversy and Government opinion of Scientology sections comprise somewhat less than 50% of body the article, which makes information about Scientology's critics in the minority. The rest is, as you said, primarily critical content about Scientology, not information about its critics. 90.135.239.234 (talk) 22:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Section Order

I understand the heavy controversy surrounding the Church of Scientology, but I find it a bit biased/NPOV that the article practically leads with the controversy section. I suggest moving it to after the finances section. Amboo85 (talk) 15:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the Church of Scientology is notable largely for the controversies surrounding it. Accurate or not, the overwhelming majority of news and scholarly articles about Scientology are largely concerned with such topics as the Fair Game policy, lawsuits and harassment, and the secret OT doctrines. It's not our job as Wikipedia editors to make any judgments as to the validity of the facts we get from reliable sources, but we do have to go with what they say. This stuff's always difficult to navigate, because this is a controversial topic. --GoodDamon 17:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Amboo85 has actually right. It should be moved downwards, it is out of sequence. You FIRST lay out the characteristics of the organization itself, THEN you may address these other things. It's controversiality has also already been addressed briefly at the very beginning of the article in where there is also a link to the article dealing with exactly that. I support the motion of Amoo85! --Olberon (talk) 18:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree with GoodDamon (talk · contribs), very well-stated. Cirt (talk) 19:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You provide for no argumentation. Does this mean we can look past your opinion? I think we can and we should. That what GoodDamon says in fact bears no relevance. There is a sequence that is proper when one presents a subject. --Olberon (talk) 20:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Ummm, no. WP:NPOV is very, very clear on this. The article has to represent "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors." All of the reliable sources have negative views of Scientology and the Church of Scientology in particular. There is no way around that. There are a very few exceptions, but we can't give those undue weight at the expense of the overwhelming majority of other sources. Look... If it weren't for the controversies, the Scientology article series would be very short and very small. By most non-Church estimates, there's only around 55,000 members in the United States, putting the religion's membership far behind Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, and even the Bahá'í Faith, which has 150,000 members. To be blunt, the belief system is not all that notable on its own. --GoodDamon 03:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You ignore my comments about having a correct sequence. It is then already mentioned at the very beginning about its controversiality. In ADDITION you already got a separate Wikipedia article addressing this. You don't need to do that as well in this article that aims to address the Church, i.e. already at its beginning. That is improper and overdoing it.

It is not even a 'belief system'. --Olberon (talk) 07:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, then what order would you propose it be in? I'm simply suggesting that the most notable aspects come first, as they already do. It isn't even a complete section on its own, it just gives an overview of the controversies and points readers to the main article on the subject. That's all well in keeping with the manual of style and with summary styling. I'm not trying to be confrontational about this, I'm just trying to be realistic. The rest of the article goes into detail about other aspects of the Church of Scientology, such as how it's organized and what status it has under various governments. But I think the most notable information should come first, as it usually does in other articles. Can you give us a good reason why you think it should be changed? Also, if it's not a 'belief system,' then what is it? --GoodDamon 13:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The controversy is already addressed at the beginning with: "The church has been the subject of much controversy and was convicted in 1979 of illegal activities, including the largest theft of government documents in U.S. history". See, the article does not read very well! The factual organizational set up information is mixed within controversy data. I would probably place the #1.1 controversy, #7 Legal waivers & #8 Government opinion of Scientology, followed by #11 Scientology splinter groups (in this sequence) at the end with a heading describing what they are about. These 4 in particular address other aspects. Do you get my point? --Olberon (talk) 23:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks like you'd prefer to just remove the 1.1.1, 1.1.2, and 1.1.3 sections, correct? But that would be a violation of the summary style section of the Wikipedia manual of style. Whenever you have a splinter article like Scientology controversies, you have to summarize it in the main articles that link to it. Besides, the History section has those subheadings because so much of the church's history is controversial. Discussing its history without the controversies would be like describing baseball without the ball. I could see some logic to moving the entire History section, if you could provide a Wikipedia policy or style guide that says we should, but without either, I frankly don't see the point. --GoodDamon 05:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

So then arrange 3 main sections, a general section at the beginning, then you fold out (section 2) the set up of the organization and such, then (section 3) takes up the other angles, controversy, opinion of media, etc.! I don't find that you have the intent to improve the article. At present it is pretty lousy. Get some logical sequence and order in the damn article!! --Olberon (talk) 10:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't help but notice that your proposed changes would put all of the criticism and controversy at the end of the article. But I am interested in seeing how your proposals would play out, so be my guest. --GoodDamon 15:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You don't want to get that you start with the actual layout of Scientology its organization. I supported the motion of Amboo85. I wish to spend no time actually editing myself in Wikipedia, I've passed that. --Olberon (talk) 07:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

This is funny, there is 5 days of arguesing and then GoodDamon relents and says change it to see what it looks like. And then person argueing (Olberon) suddenly doesnt have time. He must have really care about rearrnging it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.104.222 (talk) 04:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed cult category

I removed the cult category. Given what it says on the cult category page ("This category includes topics related to cults. It does not include groups themselves"), it was clearly inappropriate. Skoojal (talk) 06:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Der Spiegel source for 8 million claim

The Der Spiegel article doesn't cite its source, but it's obvious that it came from the Church of Scientology and the writer didn't add the usual "claimed" qualifier. I think that unless an article goes into detail about the number and source for it, these text macros shouldn't be accepted as RS, otherwise Scientology was definitely founded by "Science-Fiction author L. Ron Hubbard."

Previously mentioned: Talk:Church_of_Scientology/Archive_1#Der_Spiegel_source_for_8_million_claim AndroidCat (talk) 12:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Scientology's Money Trail

• Smith, L. Christopher (December 2008). "Scientology's Money Trail: Celebrities! Tax shelters! Bart Simpson! A glimpse into the finances of the secretive church". Condé Nast Portfolio. 2008 Condé Nast Inc. Retrieved 2008-11-19.

Good source of material on financial info about the organization. Cirt (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Hubbard Center closed up in Samara

• Staff (November 20, 2008). "Hubbard Center closed up in Samara". Interfax. www.interfax-religion.com. Retrieved 2008-11-20.

Relevant source of info for this article. Cirt (talk) 16:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement thread

FYI there is a thread on the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard, which is currently open here: Wikipedia:AE#Scientology_and_related_articles. Cirt (talk) 13:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Meta-issue: Court documents and reliable sourcing

Please see the topic for discussion at Talk:Scientology#Meta-issue: Court documents and reliable sourcing. Thank you. --Justallofthem (talk) 23:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

headquarters

In this diff, the headquarters was changed from Gold Base ("informal name of the international headquarters") to Church of Scientology International ("mother church"). Has the official headquarters moved recently? Was Gold Base ever the official headquarters? How do we decide which is the "headquarters"? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Golden Era Productions ("Gold") is the Audio/Video branch of the Church of Scientology. "Headquarters" would be "a place from which a commander performs the functions of command" or "the administrative center of an organization" (Websters). The Church of Scientology International in Los Angeles is the administrative center of the Church of Scientology. Sources: Scientology Today[13], St. Petersburg Times[14], Scientology.org [15]. Proximodiz (talk) 19:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

introduction to the article

This sentence strangely sticks out: "The church has been the subject of much controversy and was convicted in 1979 of illegal activities, including the largest theft of government documents in U.S. history.[7][8]". It is not true (not the Church but several of its members were convicted), not backed up by the references given and even it it were true it seems to me that undue weight is given to a single conviction about 30 years ago, especially in view of many other things the Church of Scientology did between 1954 and 2008 not only in the United States (where the conviction took place) but in more than 100 other countries in the world. Additionally, the same story is mentioned in the article twice, one time indirectly under the heading "Illegal activities" (first item) and then again under "Government opinion of Scientology/United States" (likewise). I propose to remove the sentence for the above reasons. Proximodiz (talk) 04:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Good point. We could also mention Canada where it was convicted, Greece... Things mentioned in the introduction must be covered in detail later on, so of course it's mentioned twice. AndroidCat (talk) 05:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I understand that issues raised in the introduction must be covered later in the article. But the issue here is the opposite. Not all incidents and issues covered in the article have to be covered in the introduction. Especially if that would give them undue weight. Does anyone oppose the removal of the sentence as covered above? Proximodiz (talk) 19:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be the opposite problem in the article. The lead is far too short, and should briefly mention some of top areas of controversy. Currently, the lead is deficient, in only mentioning one. --Rob (talk) 08:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

If one cofounder is convicted of a major felony in service to the church, and the other cofounder is listed as an unindicted conspirator in the same major felony that was carried out in the interests of the church (these people didn't just invade fed. buildings for their own gain, they did it for the church and that's very clear) then the church is clearly notable for having done something so massive and egregious. Also, I would say that the CoS is very notable for being part of the largest incursion into the USFG in history-it should be mentioned several times. The fact that the CoS has done a lot of other things doesn't mean that this incident SHOULDN'T be mentioned, it only means that other things should be mentioned IN ADDITION TO this major event. On another hand, it bears noting that NOT including this event and placing the appropriate (read, a lot) emphasis on the fact that this is an aggressive and law breaking organization slaps of POV in favor of the CoS. Wikipedia is not a free advertising service, if the Catholic church was supporting similar policies of aggression, law breaking, and often times violence wikipedia would place significant emphasis on that, to do otherwise is negligent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiyae (talk • contribs) 12:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikinews

Green Squares (talk) 02:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Germany

Neutrality disputed. Please see tags and other articles. Wispanow (talk) 08:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The above comment is not particularly useful. Please provide clearer evidence regarding your own statements. Your own statement above is far from being clear as to what it is that is being disputed. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 17:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

delete Church of Scientology info.

this page is evil and speaks untruths that are vile and aginst god. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.7.243.254 (talk) 20:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

If you want it deleted, you can nominate it, but you'd better have a better reason for doing that other than you don't like it. - Raziel  teatime  22:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Beliefs

A section on beliefs of the religion should be included, I am without sufficient knowledge to write such a section. Anti dan (talk) 21:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe you can find the religion's belief system more thoroughly discussed on the Scientology page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.130.223 (talk) 19:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I came to this talkpage to discuss the same issue. While I realize the belief system is detailed in the Scientology article, I still believe it is appropriate to include a WP:SUMMARY style section in this article. I should think this should belong between the history and controversy sections. -Verdatum (talk) 14:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Controversy section

The controversy section (by nature of it using {{main}}) is supposed to be a WP:SUMMARY of Scientology controversies. Now, I'm only just starting to look at the section in detail, but it appears to be overly detailed for a summary style section. This leads to redundant information which must/should tediously be kept in sync. I also believe such a large controversy section contained within the main body (as opposed to a spinout), unbalances the article and skews POV.

I realize there is a subtle difference between "Scientology controversies" and "Church of Scientology controversies". Keeping that in mind, I'd like to reduce the section to better represent summary style. -Verdatum (talk) 15:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It already looks like the controversy section does use summary style. Cirt (talk) 19:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It's out of sync with the sub-sections covered by the sub-article, and it goes into specific details and supporting statements, as opposed to an inverse pyramid overview. Size wise, (by bytecount) it's over 25% as long as the main article, which I consider pretty long for a summary. -Verdatum (talk) 20:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The key would be to expand other parts of the article, not trim the sourced info. Cirt (talk) 20:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I never proposed removing sourced information altogether. Any information in the controversy section not covered by the sub-article should be merged over. Once it is, the section can be altered to present an organized overview of that sub-article. -Verdatum (talk) 15:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous?

The article refers to "an anonymous Scientology-founded group called 'Southern Land Development and Leasing Corp'". If the group has a name, how can it be 'anonymous'? 'Anonymous', both in its etymology and popular usage, means 'unnamed'. Alpheus (talk) 07:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Bart Simpson voice

Wasn't there something about Nancy Cartwright using the Bart voice on a voicemail about a meeting and she could have been sued? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.118.247.222 (talk) 03:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. See Bart Simpson used to promote Scientology. Cirt (talk) 03:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Membership statistics

I raised a similar point on the 'Scientology' article the other day: Each article (Scientology and 'Church of Scientology') has a section on membership statistics. Shouldn't both sections make it clear if there is a way to distinguish figures on membership in the 'Church of Scientology' versus adherence to the beliefs identified as 'Scientology'?70.109.216.103 (talk) 17:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The Banality of Evil

Hail to all XENU disciples!

I am here in the murky world of Scientology because of the Main Page news article (2009-10-28) regarding the huge fine and conviction of fraud made by a French Court.

Perusing the articles, I can only surmise that there seems to be a huge amount of deferential treatment offered to this group and its message. Despite the contrary evidence, i.e. various cited news articles and general controversy that surrounds its operations, these articles generally convey gentle admonishments and at worst, examples where this group have been taken to court.

What clearly comes across is that criticism is subjected to more attacks (claims of veracity/proof/NPOV) than helpful, informative commentary on Scientology.

It's quite clear from the discussion pages that critical evidence is severely censured. Simple statistics show that the most notable number of discussion concern statements that pertain to criticism of this group.

Consider this analogy: A power saw has a fault. It occasionally cuts the users' fingers off. There are four law suits.

Now is this a "dangerous machine" or just a "machine" with a note about its fault further down the article?

Scientology articles have a lot of weighted focus on the banal and functional rather than the questionable and dubious. This article, in particular, creates the impression of an organisation (the word used in the intro), which at the very least, is criticism lite because its work is ethical, correctly operated (in a legal sense) and within the expectations and ideals of its users. The very banality drowns out the questions: law suits; accusations regarding dubious business practises; treatment of its members; veracity of its claims.

These Scientology pages reinforce the fact that true wrong happens because it feels and looks banal, dull, normal, non-threatening. Evil is never the dramatic cinematic version, L.Ron in volcano hide-out planning world domination. It's perpetuated by a clean-cut, friendly face with an understanding ear.

In my example, is it a useful power tool (that occasionally malfunctions) or a "dodgy" cutting machine that is dangerous? In this case, banality is not the answer!! Should that not be the case with the Scientology? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.154.30 (talk) 12:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

What exactly are you proposing? Using more inflamatory language? Every religious group will have its critics (and I am a critic of Scientology) but wikipedia is just supposed to present the facts with NPOV. If you think there are relevant pieces of information being left out that are supported by reliable third party sources, please share. Tarox (talk) 20:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

As The organization has been convicted for criminal activity, it should be noted in headpart of any associated articles (church of Scientolgy and Scientology in France)87.205.155.227 (talk) 15:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

While I am inclined to agree, I took note that the Catholic Church's opener doesn't mention at all any of the various controversies that it has been involved in over the centuries. I expected the allegations of child molestation to be mentioned. Also, the opener for Islam doesn't mention terrorist extremists. In a different vein, Judaism's opener doesn't mention the Holocaust, even though that was a hugely import event. Considering consistency, I'm not sure that individual events like this belong in the opener on a page or a religion or religious body- it seems to be primarily an overview of the group, what they believe, recent statistics regarding number of adherents, notable sects, and contributions to society (public service groups, etc.). My gut is to include the criminal history as well, but looking at comparable articles, i don't think it's consistent. I can't speak for the Scientology in France article either way, although a quick look at its lead in suggests it does need some beefing up. Tarox (talk) 19:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Scientology is a cult

Why did my edit saying that scientology is a cult get reverted? A cult is defined as "a religious group with relatively few adherents whose beliefs or practices are regarded by others as strange or sinister." Regardless of whether you personally are a scientologist, the Church of Scientology fits that description. --204.184.214.2 (talk) 16:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

My issue is with the term "relatively few". Can you provide some evidence to support this? I'd be happy to support you if you can - as I believe there are more than a "few" followers, as stated in the Membership Statistics section of the article! Cpl Syx ^[talk] 16:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Here you go. --204.184.214.2 (talk) 16:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Very well, that article states that the numbers are exaggerated - but it doesn't give any actual figures! A survey by ARIS showed 55,000 people identified themselves as Scientologists - definitely more than a few. [16] Cpl Syx ^[talk] 16:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't call 55,000 in a religious country of 300 million more than a few. Especially considering the fact that Scientology is a newer religion and one different from the majority. If we were speaking of 55,000 followers of an offshoot of Christianity or of an older religion like Judaism, then I could see that being acceptable. But I think it fits the definition of cult nicely. At least within the US. - 67.187.245.98 (talk) 02:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Further to this, please refrain from editing the article page whilst this discussion continues! Cpl Syx ^[talk]

Possibly, in the name of NPOV, a line such as "some media reports have described the church of scientology as a cult" would work in this circumstance?

• http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/29/scientology-france-legal
• http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/gyrobase/atlanta_underground_film_fest_looks_up_to_ask_big_questions/Content?oid=1012392
• http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090921/blumenthal

Just an idea to reach consensus. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 19:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

There has been a consensus on the Scientology pages to avoid describing it as a cult. While many editors have brought the argument that there is a benign definition of the word "cult" "which applies to the church of Scientology with no negative meaning" there is another definition of the word "cult" which is more frequently used and whose purpose is to discredit the church. for this reason I think we should avoid references to the church as a "cult" since the combination of "Scientology" and "cult" has not been used for benign purposes in either the popular media or websites regarding the church, and in a vast majority of the references used for political purposes.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)So, it should just be avoided altogether, even though rather well-used as a term to describe it? It's one reason why I suggested "some media reports have described it as a cult". To totally ignore it, is, well, just not scholarly, IMHO. But, also, keep in mind consensus can change. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 20:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand consensus can change...but take a look at the definition of cult proposed by our IP friend, and compare it to "those media reports." What additional information will be gained by the addition of "some media reports" that isn't already covered in the article or in the Scientology controversy page?Coffeepusher (talk) 20:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

True (About the not gaining anything by it being here). Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 13:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

There are under 9000 in EU, so I guess it could be considered a cult there. Even in USA, they still haven't breached the one million mark.99.236.221.124 (talk) 04:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Fairness

I don't think it's fait that "controversy" comes to early in the article. I know many people feel that Scientology is bullsh*t and all that, but that's not objective... --Torsrthidesen (talk) 22:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Zenu

Hi. How is there nothing about Xenu in the "beliefs" section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.22.177.233 (talk) 05:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Cite it and put it in there 99.236.221.124 (talk) 06:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Vandilism is a NS

Seriously, when you have a crazy hacker division of the CoS running around vandilizing websites you should lock it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chairsenses (talk • contribs) 01:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The New York Times - Breaking With Scientology

• Goodstein, Laurie (March 7, 2010). "Breaking With Scientology". The New York Times. The New York Times Company. p. A1.

The New York Times, page A1. The New York Times is a WP:RS source for info. This is a good source for inclusion in this article. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 05:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The Rundown Truth: Scientology Changes Strategy in War with Media

• Urban, Hugh B. (March 17, 2010). "The Rundown Truth: Scientology Changes Strategy in War with Media". Religion Dispatches. www.religiondispatches.org. Retrieved 2010-03-18.

Hugh B. Urban is a professor of religious studies at Ohio State University. This article is a good source of info on multiple topics. -- Cirt (talk) 19:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Scientology: A History of Violence

See postings at news.turner.com and www.newsonnews.net/cnn

In a special series beginning Monday, March 29th, CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360° takes a close and revealing look at the leadership of the worldwide church of Scientology. The week-long series, Scientology: A History of Violence, will examine allegations that Scientology leader David Miscavige has for years beaten, kicked and choked top members of the church. These are allegations the church aggressively denies, saying violence from inside came from those making the claim.

This series on the CNN program Anderson Cooper 360 starting March 29, 2010 will have a good deal of WP:RS source material. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 15:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

It's Time to End the Church of Scientology's Tax Exempt Status

Hassan, Steven (April 28, 2010). "It's Time to End the Church of Scientology's Tax Exempt Status". The Huffington Post. HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. Retrieved 2010-04-28. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

A most interesting piece by notable cult expert, Steven Hassan. -- Cirt (talk) 21:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Scientology in Greece?

. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.218.159.38 (talk) 10:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Another front

http://documentaryheaven.com looks to be another front: pretends to be an idenpedent site about documentaries, however is full of Scientology movies and adverts for them & their other fronts such as Citizens Commission on Human Rights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.57.163 (talk) 18:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

disputable terms used

I would like to see terms like "church" and "ecclesiastical", which have strong historic backgrounds, and whose meanings don't include any affiliation with Scientology (refer to current dictionaries of proper english) removed from the article in a free context. Thus "Church of Scientology" is fine, but "church" in a single way not. If these words cannot be avoided they should be put in double quotation marks to indicate that they are not used here in their predominant sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.7.120.188 (talk) 22:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'm a bit confused by your acceptance of "Church of Scientology" but not "church" on its own. On a broader note, whatever we think of Scientology, I don't think we can restrict the use of the terms you're concerned about to the established churches. Saying that newly self-declared religions cannot use such terms would be a POV position. HiLo48 (talk) 22:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I guess, if you look at it from that POV, what constitutes a religion? People worshiping and having faith in an entity, correct? I do not see how this religion differs from many others. This is obviously my own personal opinion, and is not supposed to be offensive to anybody. But from what I understand, the COS is not forcing people to convert, nor intruding other religions. They are simply having faith in the things they believe in.

GreenNintendo (talk) 00:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Human Trafficking allegations removed by ResidentAnthropologist

I have removed a choice piece of gossip. Please do not re-add it until charges are filed. In compliance with WP:NPOV, WP:NOTGOSSIP, WP:NOTSCANDAL. This could be true about the investigation but whether it found anything worth filing charges over is another matter. AOL new However, a federal law enforcement source told AOL News the investigation has fallen short and no criminal charges are expected to be filed. Laura Eimiller, a spokeswoman for the FBI in Los Angeles, declined comment. Until such allegation result in inditement, arrest, prosecution, warrant or similar legal action it is in our best interest not to have it in the article. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

How exactly is it "in our best interest"? That's a rather pregnant statement. And you're way off base describing this as gossip. I invite comment from other editors as to whether the very brief summary I added, based in an impeccably reliable source, is appropriate. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Your statement fails WP:V as the source does not state what you put in. If you look at the source the New Yorker article really plays loose with what what is going on It encourages the reader to make conclusions that are not stated. The source speculates what the investigation was about. The source does not actually state anything about what the investigation was about. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

My edit said nothing at all about "what the investigation was about". You are correct in stating that the source doesn't say what the investigation was about -- and that's why my edit didn't convey anything along those lines. Instead, the edit indicated that the investigation involved an [FBI] task force devoted to human trafficking -- which is exactly what the source says. There's no problem whatsoever with WP:V here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The source doesnt even say that much! It rather oddly says "Whitehill and Venegas worked on a special task force devoted to human trafficking." which is odd way to put the entire thing... The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

ResidentAnthropologist, your claims here are wildly off-base. The New Yorker is one of the most scrupulously fact-checked sources in all of journalism; it is absurd to dismiss their well-documented accounts as "gossip." There is nothing remotely weird about the past tense in that sentence you partially quote above, as at that point in the article the author was describing an aspect of the investigation that had occurred in the past. Later in the piece, the author verifies with "two sources in the F.B.I. who are close to the investigation" that the same investigation remains open. Along the way, there are numerous details about who was interviewed by the FBI, where, and in regard to what allegedly criminal behavior on the part of the Church of Scientology. Perhaps the mention you deleted was too vague, and a more complete recap should be addded to the WP article. -- BTfromLA (talk) 03:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

forgive the article is excessively long, split between 29 pages on the New Yorker website I missed at quote about the FBI saying the case was still open. But I do stand by statement that this would be in violation of WP:NPOV,WP:NOTSCANDAL, WP:NOTGOSSIP, WP:NOTNEWS. We dont need to post every thing that has ever occured to the CoS we are an encyclopedia not a news aggeragte of material. This investigation maybe turn into charges Though we have a WP:RS saying its closed published more recently than the the article. Until charges are filed such investigation is just that an investigation that may or may not be significant. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 04:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no source that says the case is closed. What there is--and this has been publicized extensively in the Church of Scientology's counter-article statements--is an AOL article that says an anonymous "federal law enforcement source" claimed that things have "fallen short" and no charges are expected. In the same article, an FBI source is asked about it; their representative had no comment. Note that the AOL source is merely associated with "federal law enforcement," (I presume the reporter would have said FBI if the source was FBI) whereas Wright's two sources are in the FBI and "close to the investigation." Furthermore, the AOL article appears to have been a quickly put together news story, whereas the Wright piece was many months in the making, reportedly involving a team of five fact checkers who sought confirmation of 971 facts from the Church of Scientology alone! Not to mention that many of the witnesses the FBI interviewed spoke on the record to Wright. The whole Wright article is worth reading... I read it in the print edition, but the web version has a "single page" option which may make it a little more readable online. Contrary to what the Church says, I think you will find it is extremely scrupulous and fair-minded. -- BTfromLA (talk) 05:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The issue is whether this material is encyclopedic "yet", and whether it is appropriate to include "yet." I dont think it fails as WP:RS or too biased outright "false." The fact is its just an investigation that has occurred but ultimately its just an investigation that has no significant impact on anything yet. We are not here to report the news on the latest investigation into CoS practices, many have occurred and more will occur. If charges are file then inclusion would be warranted as that would be a significant but right now its a non-event that may or may not be significant in ten years. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 17:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that this is not just some routine investigation, this is an unusual and rare incident, similar to the Snowwhite raids. It does have some encyclopedic value, because a lot of readers are wondering what is the government doing after so many reports. This shows that they are doing something. Even if it won't have an impact on anything, it shows that a major investigation did occur.

It's much more than gossip. As for being appropriate "yet", the investigation may require a few more years to close the case. There's no need to wait for its conclusion to post a paragraph here.

I think that the removed paragraph should be reworded a bit, though. --Codex01 (talk) 08:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Why is there nothing on Anonymous except for an external link?

I am very surprised, considering Anonymous is linked to them significantly. They've also received a lot of free publicity from Anonymous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.161.218 (talk) 04:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, the Talk page is to discuss improvements to the article. What do you think should be included? And what reliable sources could we use? HiLo48 (talk) 04:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that there should be some information on operations Anonymous has executed and various protests. Various news sites would work for the sources, such as Wired, Pcworld, Newsweek, CNN, and pretty much any of the many news stations that have done a report on the protests. Anonymous protests have been covered in more depth on the Project Chanology page, but I think there should at least be a passing reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.161.198 (talk) 12:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Unreliable source - Xenu.net

If you look at citation 130 "Jesse Prince Affidavit at Operation Clambake", it directs to xenu.net. I petition for removal of this source as it does not adhere to Wikipedia Policy.Scifilover386 (talk) 18:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:BOLD I went ahead and made this change. Scifilover386 (talk) 18:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

It has been established that the documents on xenu.net are reliable. While I can agree with you that an affidavit may not be a good source, the fact that xenu.net is hosting it can not be used as justification for removal. Petter Bøckman (talk) 09:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from VonProxy, 8 October 2011

Please update link for referenced article: Tapper, James (2008-01-07). "Diana author names Tom Cruise as 'World Number Two in Scientology'" with title-specific link given; the link currently used is bringing up an entirely different article.

Referenced at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Scientology#cite_ref-16

Link currently used: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/showbiz/showbiznews.html?in_article_id=506359&in_page_id=1773&ct=5

New, title-specific link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-506359/Diana-author-names-Tom-Cruise-World-Number-Two-Scientology.html

VonProxy (talk) 17:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Done --Jnorton7558 (talk) 03:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 31 October 2011

173.215.189.91 (talk) 04:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC) scientoogy is the devil religion.

 Not done Not an edit request. Zidanie5 (talk) 04:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Corporation

I reject the notation that Scientology is a "church". It is a corporation that uses a pseudo-religious foundation. I understand that people in the USA aren't smart enough to realize that, but you can rest assured that we see Scientology as the corporation that it is. 93.82.80.58 (talk) 00:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Please do not POV push. Especially on this topic. 174.95.194.251 (talk) 22:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Would like to suggest a minor rhetorical change in the sentence "The Church of Scientology is an organization devoted to the practice and promotion of the Scientology belief system." At first glance, this lead sentence seems to be sound; but it avoids calling Scientology a religion and uses the word "promotion" to imply that Scientology a business. Citing Melton’s article: http://www.neuereligion.de/ENG/melton/page01.htm, where he clearly positions Scientology as a religion, I propose the following text: "The Church of Scientology is a religious organization devoted to the practice and the promulgation of the Scientology belief system." Thoughts?NestleNW911 (talk) 00:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Nestle, the existing language is correct and preferable to your suggested changes. There is a significant amount of dispute about whether the Church of Scientology is fundamentally a religious organization; stating such as a plain fact would be misleading and promote the church's POV (as you know, the church has campaigned extensively to have itself accepted as a bona fide religious organization). One could easily produce sources that contradict Melton's assumption (e.g., governmental rulings in France and Germany). -- BTfromLA (talk) 13:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

NPOV

On the section that says, "Though it has attained some credibility as a religion[by whom?],[31] Scientology has also been described by many[weasel words] as both a cult and a commercial enterprise."

There is a need to add missing resources, achieve NPOV, and reword to avoid weasel wording. This information is incomplete, vague and general, and thus not present the entire, neutral perspective. I propose the following text in its place:

"The Church of Scientology has been recognized as a religious denomination in its home country, the United States,[2][3] and has received full recognition in various other countries such as Italy,[4][5] South Africa,[6] Australia,[7] Sweden,[8] New Zealand,[9][10] Portugal[11]and Spain;[12] it thus enjoys and regularly cites the constitutional protection afforded in these nations to religious practice. Scientology has also been described by its critics as both a cult and a commercial enterprise.[32]"

One can find all this information in the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_status_by_country. One can use the same references used in this Wikipedia page. Some information on recognition here as well: http://www.religioustolerance.org/scientol3.htm

Thank you. Thoughts, comments?NestleNW911 (talk) 22:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that listing the countries is a bit too much filler. Why not pipe the scientology status by country article into this section?Coffeepusher (talk) 22:11, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with Coffeepusher here. Phrases like "such as" are ones I prefer to avoid, because of the inherent ambiguity. A full list is preferable, and I think a link to the status by country article is probably the best way to ensure that no one questions why individual countries are and are not chosen for inclusion in this article. John Carter (talk) 22:31, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I recently got into a depute with one editor who was wondering why his country of origin was not notable enough to be listed in a section similar to this one. Pipeing it will avoid such issues.Coffeepusher (talk) 22:40, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your input! I am amenable to the alternative of "piping" the Scientology status by country article into this section. Could you assist in adding this, as I am not certain exactly how you want this added.NestleNW911 (talk) 20:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Would like to follow up on this. Can a concerned admin assist in adding the material? Thanks.NestleNW911 (talk) 21:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I have piped the Scientology status by country article into the appropriate section and text.NestleNW911 (talk) 01:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

sorry to jump onboard here but i want to ask 2 questions. first does anyone have a source to Australia counting scientology as a curch in Aus? as an aussie myself the media and government only ever label it as a cult and normally in a derogative light. also i did not see it in my first read but is it worth mentioning that Hubbard who invented scientology did so as a tax dodge, confessed late in life and was imprisoned and then spent the last years of his life trying to shut down the curch of scientology which he feared had been ripped away from him and corrupted for nefarious ends. this is all tales i have read when researching scientology and there are reports Hubbard did go to prison over the tax avoidance but i do not know what you lot claim as a reliable source or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.91.9.153 (talk) 21:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Member's Health and Safety

Section name “Members’ Health and Safety” is misleading and false. This is a case of one Scientologist among many, and should not be taken as a determinant of the welfare of the rest of the congregation. I propose that this section be moved and transfered reference to controversies, or have section removed altogether as it does not belong to the article. Or, mention Lisa McPherson in controversies while hot linking to article. Thoughts?NestleNW911 (talk) 00:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Any takers on this? This is a pivotal part of the article and should be positioned properly. As it is, it is very misleading does not follow Wikipedia's NPOV policy. This event should be situated under the proper heading so as not to give the false impression that this embodies the health and safety of all members of the Church of Scientology.NestleNW911 (talk) 21:24, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree that it's misleading. Death might not the usual outcome, but it illustrates risks that go with participation in some key activities of the Church of Scientology -- so I think it's fine as it is. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Surprised to see you here. I agree with you and the section is important. Although it should have a better intro similar to what you wrote. Something like, "Some key activities of the Church of Scientology carry risks for members, especially members with mental illness" or "The Church of Scientology's rejection of psychiatry means that some key activities carry risks for members". What do you think? Andrew (talk) 20:17, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I just made some changes to the paragraph, let me know what you think. Andrew (talk) 18:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Scientology in Israel

I have reverted the edit by "Unindicted Co-conspirator" that removes the information about Scientology Organizations in Israel. This information is well-sourced and enriches the information in this section and therefore belongs there. The editor did not give sufficient explanation to make this deletion - it seems to be arbitrary and whimsical. This removal also works against NPOV - the remaining information only represents one side of the story of Scientology in Israel. The reinstated information offers a more wholistic picture.NestleNW911 (talk) 18:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Missionary Activities

Added more information to this section.NestleNW911 (talk) 22:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

You didn't "add information" -- you copied information from the source. I have reverted this per WP:COPYVIO. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 00:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello Nomoskedasticity, apologies for this. I was under the impression that one could include information directly from the source as long as there is a Wikipedia citation. I have rewritten the text, please review and comment on whether it is okay to add.

According to Jacob Neusner, under the guidance of L. Ron Hubbard, Scientology developed programs that aimed to address important social issues in the early 1970’s. These programs focused attention on providing drug education and fighting illiteracy, criminal behavior and learning disabilities. The programs, which operate under the banner of Association for Better Living and Education (ABLE), have expanded and proven effective. The specific organizations that operate in a similar way are Narconon, Criminon and Applied Scholastics.

Thanks.NestleNW911 (talk) 20:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The passage is not copied, at least. But I'm not sure this is an NPOV presentation of these programs. Our article on Narconon makes for some interesting reading, and I think we'd need a presentation here that is more consistent with what is in that article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:01, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Nomo, how is this information not NPOV? It is objective, encyclopedic information and I fail to see why you would see it otherwise. The language is not promotional in any way.NestleNW911 (talk) 19:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Please do have a look at Narconon to see how that article portrays the range of sources available on this program. Again, our article would need to be consistent with the presentation there, and using only Neusner would not accomplish that. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Controversy section

I have added a clarifying piece of information to the "Controversy" section sourced from Jacob Neusner. I have paraphrased his ideas and quoted him when necessary, while attributing the writing explicitly in the text. Thank you for the early correction.NestleNW911 (talk) 19:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Non verified/ No-source for Beleifs section

this section quotes other articles that quote a single source for their content in the quoted section. One source could be just an opinion.

suggested revision till additional source added to quoted section of source article

add a [citation needed] tag till an additional source can be found.

68.53.202.0 (talk) 11:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Scientology in Belgium

The addition by Wikilolo is false and not supported by the reference material. The prosecutor did not bring any charges. What is correct is that in December 2012 the Belgian prosecutor repeated the claims of 2007, with no further action following that public statement. I have changed the entry reflecting developments without including false, misleading information.NestleNW911 (talk) 23:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Property in Ojai

I've added a recent piece of news about a Scientology-linked property acquisition in Ojai, CA. Matipop (talk) 23:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I propose The Nation Of Islam be added to the Affiliated Organizations section, OR the Controversy section.

These changes have already been made to the Nation's official pages where they have been recieved and revised by Nation of Islam interested editors. The Nation is currently an official "Dianetics Organization" based on the old pre-Scientology 1950s model, but officially sanctioned and recognised by the Church Of Scientology. It is only based on the old model so that The Honourable Louis Farrakhan can claim he is not in fact a Scientologist(and therefore did not convert from Islam to another religion) The public announcement of the NOI becoming a Dianetics organization was in 2010. This should be monitored by Scientology interested editors and the proposal should be discussed here. The organization is the first non-Scientology Dianetics Org to be officially recognised by the Church of Scientology, since 1953. Colliric (talk) 03:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Which source are you proposing to use with this information?Coffeepusher (talk) 03:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, i've taken a look at the edit and it looks fine to me. I would have put the Tampa Bay reference first in line to show that you are in fact using a Reliable source, but otherwise I have no problems with the edit.Coffeepusher (talk) 04:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

It's just another one of those freaky developments in the history of the Church that proves the saying "the truth is stranger than the fiction" is 100% correct. Also Final Call is that organization's official media page. If you really want to hear some crazy stuff, search "Farrakhan Scientology" on YouTube! Colliric (talk) 04:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I understand that, which makes it a primary source and not a reliable source. The Scientology section of wikipedia is really not big on primary sources that are not backed up by secondary sources since the church official publication tends to publish a lot of questionable stuff.Coffeepusher (talk) 04:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Lol, I agree. Hence secondary sources were provided. I would think NOI would be more inclined to fudge the numbers then claim they were a Dianetics Org and not actually be one. The "Farrakhan Scientology" Sermons are more damning then the sources listed here, but videos are not that good a reference to use, especially if to youtube(even if Final Call also published them too, which they did). But at least you'll hear it from the horses mouth himself. Farrakhan's Wikipedia page has a link to one in the "Videos by Farrakhan" section. Colliric (talk) 06:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Hotel Alexandra

Hello, Coffeepusher. Pardon me, but I really don't understand your statement "The article doesn't mention the hotel anywhere in the article." I see that you assess my edit as being of "good faith," but I don't understand the reasoning behind reverting it. The edit is consistent with the section "other locations" section that it was placed in, which starts with "The Church of Scientology is continuing to purchase properties.." The mention of Hotel Alexandra is an update to this section, and the building is important enough to be mentioned -- it is a historic building in Boston, and the Boston business journal seems to think it is significant as well! I have complied with WP:RS. I am reverting this edit in good faith. Thank you.Matipop (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

No problem, the reason I reverted is because the building is in the process of being purchased, it doesn't fit into the heading of major scientology centers yet. It isn't owned by the church, it has the potential of being owned by the church IF the sale closes. Looking at the subsection of "other locations" I think the entire subheading is a big WP:WEIGHT issue. The hotel Alexander, even if it is turned into a scientology center isn't significant to the church, at least operationally in comparison to the other centers located on the map above. I'm going to remove the section because I can't find a single entry in that subsection which fulfills the weight requirements. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 20:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

The main issue is Coffeepusher's deletion of the entire 2,777 word "Other locations" section in the Church of Scientology page. Here are the details of the edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Church_of_Scientology&diff=553247820&oldid=553223538. From whichever angle you look at it, this is a completely arbitrary move that is supposedly based on WP: weight. I was simply adding an update about Hotel Alexandra, an edit that Coffeepusher deleted without sufficient reason, saying, "The article doesn't mention the hotel anywhere in the article. Adding a sale to properties they own is interesting." I asked the editor what he meant by this and he resorted to not only deleting my edit, but the entire section that it adds to. The deleted section complies with WP:RS, citing reference such as SPtimes.com, NYobserver.com, LAtimes.com, LosAngeles.cbslocal.com, VCstar.com, and finally, the edit most recently added, Bizjournals.com. The section also complies with notability and verifiability. He has "blanked a section" of 2,777 characters with no sufficient discussion and reasoning, and as far as I've researched, the practice of blanking sections violates many policies. He has violated WP:CONSENSUS, WP:PRESERVE, WP:VANDALISM, and WP:NOTCENSORED. This editor has edited disruptively. I am simply asking the community to clarify the Wiki policy correctness of Coffeepusher's action. I would appreciate your input.Matipop (talk) 00:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry you feel that way. I am a little unclear as to how you believe this edit violates WP:CONSENSUS, WP:PRESERVE, WP:VANDALISM, and WP:NOTCENSORED. Could you please clarify exactly how you feel my edit violated those policies, citing from the policy itself while maintaining both the letter and spirit of said policy. I'm not a big fan of enthymeme's as I feel they really conflict with a consensus building process. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 00:56, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Sure thing. I am happy to point this out to you. Please see this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blanking_sections_violates_many_policies. You have blanked a section without community consensus, not discussing beforhand before you removed the edit (violating WP:CONSENSUS) You have not preserved the text, and WP:PRESERVE policy states that "text should be preserved, as much as possible," You have vandalized, because you have blanked without sufficient explanation - saying it is due to Weight doesn't really say anything - how is this section not complying with WP:weight, it is based on valid third party resources, and articles have been written about subjects that are less "weighty." It seems that you have also violated WP:CENSORED.Matipop (talk) 01:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

ok, I think you should probably calm down, it appears that you have taken this a little personal. I didn't violate those policies, I removed content which wasn't significant compared to the section they were in. Wikipedia shouldn't document every single historical building that the church of scientology buy's unless the building is significant to the church (and some of the buildings listed were not even locally significant...I'm reading "a church" opened in florida). The other buildings listed are significant in the context of the church of scientology, the buildings in the other location section were not. I'm reading subsections for each base located in the world, the headquarters in England, and then there is a "other locations" section which has announcements for a bunch of buildings which may have local historical significance, but don't have any significance to the church compared to Gold base, etc. that's why they were removed and why they violated WP:WEIGHT. Please read WP:Hitler, and WP:AGF. I can't work with you if you don't assume good faith.Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 01:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

you may want to take a look at the introduction to that subsection of the article. Notice that the consensus for this subsection is a listing of "major headquarters" of the church. None of the locations listed in the "other locations" section which I deleted even comes close to qualifying as a major headquarter, rather it is a listing of sales done since 2007. Now if you would like to expand this section I noticed that there isn't anything about the DuPont Circle org, a fact I actually find disturbing since I personally believe it is more significant to the church than most of the other locations on this list. I would be glad to help you with that project, even making a main page for it if you would like. What do you think? Would this be a good compromise? Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 02:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I would like to clarify that I still believe that the deletion was unwarranted. I still don't agree with the mass blanking of the section; it appears to me that a haphazard deletion of 2700 words is a violation of policy, and it's a bit subjective to state that the properties mentioned in the deleted section are insignificant without adequate justification. I would have to look into reliable references to determine that. However, in a spirit of good faith and fair interaction on Wikipedia, I will assist in expanding the section with the criteria of significance, verifiability, weight and notability and will get back to you with proposed content. Thank you.Matipop (talk) 02:55, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

no problem. Just to reiterate, the section is a listing of "major headquarters." I personally don't see anything wrong with removing information that doesn't hold up to wikipedia criteria, in this case weight. The entire section was a listing of properties purchased by the church, with the only thing I can see tying them together is that the purchase got a write up in local news sources. That doesn't qualify as a "major headquarter." I wasn't trying to upset you, I was just making sure that this place didn't become a dumping ground for every newspaper article about the church. An encyclopedia article shouldn't read like a real estate listing "and then they bought this for $#xxxxx, and then they bought this for $xxxxx and then they bought this for $xxxx.etc etc etc" I read a section like that and my first thought is how insignificant that church must be if they list every single building they have bought in their encyclopedia article. it also sounds a little promotional, and that never looks good. Cheers!Coffeepusher (talk) 03:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I would like to see a locations section listing their current main "Orgs" from the other major continents(like their head "Org" in Brussels Europe, the Melbourne "Ideal Org" in Australia, and that one in South Africa) rather than anything about currently purchased properties they currently own or developing. And I think the section title should be changed to "Overseas Headquaters" or "Major International Locations". Just my suggestion. Colliric (talk) 05:45, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I like that, or something similar. My main concern is that there should be some sort of criteria for inclusion. Outside of the "other locations" section that was deleted, the locations listed were all significant to the COS although a little focused on American and England. I also don't want this to become a dumping ground for listing every single location of the Ideal org program (which seems to be the classification for every single metropolitan org nowadays). I like Colliric's suggestion, "Major International Locations" or "International Headquarters" would cover what we have so far, and offer a good criteria for future inclusions. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 14:41, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Howdy! I have changed the heading from "Churches, missions, and major Scientology centers" to "Headquarters, Bases, and Central Org's." While that title deviates with the verbiage that is being discussed, I think it is in compliance with the spirit of the discussion and offers a specific criteria for inclusion that will both inform the article and prevent this section from becoming a fluff piece full of random trivia that is useless to the operation of the church. I also changed the subheading for the picture at the top, specifying that it was specific to the United States and England. I chose to name the United States first only because in the picture the United States has more locations, not because of any ethnocentric bias. I hope this works for you people. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 15:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I receive all your points with careful consideration, and I see why there might be some debate on what should be included, what the heading should be and such. Our discussion on this has prompted me to look at the church structure, and I realize the there's various facets to it, and there may be Church additions or constructions that may not fall under "Headquarters, Bases and Central Orgs." I also agree with Colliric's suggestion that the Ideal Orgs should be mentioned - I've searched the term and there seems to be a lot of third-party material on it - it seems that the "Ideal Org program" as Scientology calls it is a major undertaking by the church and is consistent with the spirit of the whole article in presenting Scientology, the religious organization. I've also seen that in the David Miscavige page there is a healthy mention of the Ideal Orgs in the "Current role in Scientology" section For the purposes of the expansion of this section, I think the best heading would be "Church of Scientology Structure," then we can go ahead and add subheadings as we see fit. Some of my research-based headings the I would suggest are: Ideal and Service Orgs, Missions, Headquarters, Production Facilities. The Hotel Alexandra and KCET acquisition has a lot of media coverage and I don't think we should discount it entirely as well.

Another issue I would like to discuss is the placement of this section. Shouldn't it be after the "History" section since it is central to the article's core ideas? The lead starts with "The Church of Scientology is an organization devoted to.." I would think that a church's organizational structure would be important information that should be given priority. I suggest that we move this section after "History."Matipop (talk) 22:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

a quick clarification, Colliric didn't suggest that Ideal Orgs be mentioned, just the headquarters for Australia. I would not support an addition of the Ideal org campaign as it is a PR campaign rather than a structural change within the church.

Now I do agree that the structure of this article is problematic. I'm going to make a few changes including your suggestion that it be moved up in the article. Check the change and see what you think. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 22:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it definitely made sense to move up the section in the article. However, the statement that the Ideal Orgs program is "a PR campaign rather than a structural change within the church" seems to me an arbitrary statement, I'd like to know what you are basing this on? I looked more into the validity of your statement by comparing the Wiki pages of other religious groups and I found that all of them contain in some form or another, the churches that obviously in any religion would signify a significant role as the primary location of religious practice. I see the evidence of it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church#Autonomous_particular_churches, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Methodist_Church#Local_churches and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints#Programs_and_auxiliary_organizations. To not have something so central and so fundamental to any religion or religious organization mentioned in its wiki page baffles me. In my research as I find content for the expanded section, not only did I find massive information about the Ideal Orgs, I also saw that The Hollywood reporter (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/scientologys-hollywood-real-estate-empire-213565?page=3) mentions the Ideal Org program, saying, "In the past five years, Scientology has purchased 62 buildings worldwide. And the organization has another 16 historic or notable properties in various stages of completion. The expansion is part of a push by the church's ecclesiastical leader, David Miscavige, to open better facilities, called "Ideal Orgs," around the world. The campaign began in 2004." The inclusion of the Ideal Org seems to me to fulfill important wiki policies, such as Weight, Notability and Verifiability. To exclude it because of an arbitrary viewpoint seems unsound to me.

As per this talk page communication, I have made the changes that I propose, including the change in section heading and the Ideal Orgs segment.Matipop (talk) 01:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I base it on the fact that when the church announced the "ideal org campaign" several press releases suddenly made it to wikipedia articles verbatim, and the fact that it was the "ideal org campaign" which is best stated in the following statement from your sources "The church has responded to the bad publicity by denying the accusations and calling attention to a worldwide building campaign that showcases its wealth and industriousness." Worldwide campaign. Now I didn't agree to the addition to the ideal org section, I actually specifically stated that I disagreed with it. It isn't notable by wikipedia standards based on your sources, there isn't a single article which is about the campaign itself, they all have one or two sentences mentioning the campaign. perhaps you can find a reliable source which is specifically about the ideal org campaign.Coffeepusher (talk) 01:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I have changed back the title, a list of buildings and bases is not the church of scientologies central structure, that is an organizational claim and this section isn't about the organization of the church of scientology.Coffeepusher (talk) 02:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Church of Scientology/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

*60 citations, 3 images. Smee 09:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

Last edited at 09:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 20:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)