Talk:Scientology/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Citation

Here is a citation for:

Scientologists have claimed benefits from auditing including improved IQ, improved ability to communicate, enhanced memory, alleviated dyslexia and attention deficit problems, and improved relaxation.[citation needed]

"Scientology Orientation Video" http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3463204714566011542&sourceid=zeitgeist

It covers some of it, but not all of it. I just watched this video and then came to the wiki to learn more about it. In the video they say improved IQ and communication.

blizz

Xenu Incident - What was the middle bit?

Please fix syntactical point of confusion: Triple Negative

"While reliable information about Scientology membership is notorously elusive, there is little reason to doubt that most practicing Scientologists have not attained a sufficiently high level on "The Bridge" to have learned the details about Xenu and Body Thetans"

change to

While reliable information about Scientology membership is notorously elusive, there is reason to believe that most practicing Scientologists have not attained a sufficiently high level on "The Bridge" to have learned the details about Xenu and Body Thetans. 24.63.25.235 07:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

is it just me or is the 'Xenu Incident' section written in unintelligible gibberish? --Eamonnca1 22:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree and there is reason for that. The reason for that is that there is no primary source of information about Xenu whatsoever. Terryeo 23:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

As I recall, at one time you said that you hadn't taken the OT levels yet, so your opinion has less weight than accounts from people who have taken it. AndroidCat 03:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the reason for the unitelligibility was the fact that all description of Xenu had been edited out. BTfromLA 04:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It would be great if some ex-Scientologist that did the OT levels would write a section on the OT levels. Then perhaps the incident would "make sense" - within the context of Scientology Beliefs and Practices, of course.

It is unlikely that a verifiable source will be able to do this; even if they did, it would be original research. Chris Cunningham 17:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

erm...there is a primary source for xenu texts, hubbards own handwriting is used as evidence and this is accepted by ex members as a genuine document sourced from Hubbard, my research for my MSc into the subject led me to get this verified by ex members and handwriting speacialist link is http://sf.irk.ru/www/xenuleaf.htm, i have an audio recording of Hubbard speaking of this as well to those that want an audio example. kenscanna

another point to make is that there is a ton of ex OT level members online with their own accounts...I have interviewed 25 ex members (dude to ethics agreement cannot reveal names), and during my research found the library section of http://www.xenu.net to be most helpful, a couple of good examples are the sociological examination (though it is old) br Roy Wallis "The Road to Total Freedom" as well as "Bare Faced Messiah" and "A Piece of Blue Sky" are all available in text format free of charge. Wallis's book is least biased. kenscanna

erm, unless Hubbard was around and taking notes all those squillion years ago when Xenu was bombing the volcanoes with frozen aliens using his DC8s, he can hardly be considered a 'primary source' on the Xenu incident. --Eamonnca1 23:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Either it is done by someone that has personal reality or it will be butchered by critics but the material will be presented. That is unavoidable.--Justanother 03:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

References

As it presently stand, the References section presents that "Stephen A. Kent (1996)" is attributed with 88 cites. The reason it appears so is because of markup. The first four references which end with Kent's are not cited to by Wiki markup, (<ref>name of reference</ref>. It should be re-arranged, the title of References should change to Article References, the four first appearing references which include Kent's should be moved to a separate section, Additional References while the markup which flushes out the articles cited <ref>name</ref> which is <references/> should be inserted just under Article References. There would be other methods of handling the situation, this is my suggestion. Terryeo 23:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Is this policy? The current layout (general references used in creating the article first, cites following in the same section) is frequently used elsewhere. I don't think adding even more headers is going to make the article any clearer. Chris Cunningham 08:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you're both right. As I read the relevant section of WP:CITE, it looks like it's normal for pages to have both "general references" and footnotes where appropriate, but that they normally get their own section headings. I've gone ahead and made that change. TheronJ 13:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, its appearence is less confusing as you have done it. Terryeo 17:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Allegations of pro-Scientology bias

I could not be less sympathetic towards Scientology. However, as previously stated, if the article on time cube (which is accepted as crazy nonsense by approximately everyone-minus-one on Earth) can manage to maintain some semblance of a neutral tone then I don't see why this one can't. Feldspar's argument is the same one used by all advocates on WP, namely that "objective reporting" requires one to refute - in place - any mention whatsoever of something not generally held to be true. Of course when discussing a secret religion this policy is completely nuts, and turns articles into huge, long-winded critiques.

No attempt has been made to actually argue this with me, citing yet another maxim of the stoic WP revert police: "it's been discussed before". No evidence has been presented which indicates that when presenting a belief system, WP policy is to place criticism of said beliefs in-line right next to it.

And of course there's no reason that the barley water health issue (along with whatever other junk I removed) can't be added back; it just needs to be kept to its own section rather than making the article an unbearable swamp to read through. For now I'm reverting to the pre-Feldspar version and incorporating the good bits made since. I'll try to fish out those bits of the barley water paragraph which are of actual value (probably in the form of a "junk science" controversy) and add them back. Chris Cunningham 08:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I've added back the junk science stuff. It should probably sit higher in the article. Chris Cunningham 09:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

time cube is an amusing little topic with entertainment value for a small number of people and can apparently be handled with five easily obtainable cited references. Scientology is somewhat larger, more complex and involves many more issues than junk science. "it's the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning." By the way, archiving previous discussion because there had been nothing new in less than a week seems .. hasty. Some people can only spend time on Wiki once a week or longer intervals. AndroidCat 10:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the premature archiving. I find it hard to believe that the casual user could walk away from the information currently presented in this article thinking that it was advocating Scientology, assuming that the criticism section is well-written, and that readers can be expected to read the whole thing. Feldspar has previously argued for including superfluous information in the intro citing a supposed lack of attention span of readers. I believe it is this demeaning attitude towards readers which prompts people to refute arguments as soon as they are made rather than allowing the article to take its course. Chris Cunningham 11:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The "attention span" problem here arises when so much of the early paragraphs of the article give Scientology too much benefit of the doubt. I understand your noble NPOV-seeking rationale for doing this, but I posit that there are enough proven crimes, horrors, atrocities involved here that to minimize them from the getgo does indeed constitute whitewashing and bias.Al-Qaeda, whose article is actually longer than Scientology, has no problem with mentioning 9-11 and terrorism in its intro paragraph. The KKK article jumps right into talk of violence and cross-burning right off the bat, and rightly so. When an organization creates so much controversy for itself - and in fact, controversy is really ALL that they're known for - it really has to be addressed from the opening paragraph. wikipediatrix 13:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, one third of the intro deals with Scientology being steeped in controversy and the TOC makes clear that there is a whole section of the article devoted to reporting this. If the intro didn't mention the controversy at all I'd see your point. Secondly, both the KKK and Al Queda have what is generally considered to be rather more transparent motives than the CoS. Thirdly, the belief system already has "Hubbard said that" or the like before most every claim, to remind readers that the information isn't normative. Fourthly, it's important to remember that this is the root Scientology article and not the CoS one; that there is some minor degree of separation between the two concepts makes it sensible to present the controversies within differently in the two articles.

Anyway, yeah. I'd argue that not allowing the information to at least be presented as publicly available from Scientology literature before rebutting it is forcing a negative POV by disrupting the paragraph, as well as looking unprofessional and not reading well. It violates NPOV to coerce the reader into adopting a certain impression of the subject matter through disrupting one side's arguments, regardless of whether the subject is Santa Claus or Chemical Ali. Chris Cunningham 14:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm the new kid here and I know that a lot of you have invested considerable effort in this article, however motivated. My motivation is that I am sympathetic to Scientologists and feel toward them the way I do toward adherents of most systems of belief, i.e. if it works for you . . . (please notice I said most). This may not be a popular stance here but I feel strongly that a researcher that comes to wikipedia should be able to discover what it is that Scientology is to Scientologists. I am not saying that should be the entirety of the article but it should be a large part of it. I think some object to that and feel that the purpose of the article is to pass judgement on Scn. or to inform others of its "true" nature. I think that those people need to word-clear (smile) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, most especially "Fairness of tone". Here are a few concepts that I see violated; I am not quoting much, please review the article:

"Many articles end up as partisan commentary even while presenting both points of view."

"There's a temptation to rephrase biased or opinion statements with weasel words: 'Many people think John Doe is the best baseball player.'"

"Disputes are characterized in Wikipedia. They are not re-enacted."

I saw a caution against inline criticism of a controversial subject but I can't put my finger on it right now, perhaps another knows where it is.

The point is that the Beliefs and Practices section is not the place to debunk those beliefs and practices. It should show a true NPOV of what Scientologists belief and practice. How does criticism fit in that? It doesn't.--Justanother 16:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

By that same rationale, articles about serial killers, pedophiles, racists, etc. shouldn't include verifiably sourced third-party criticism of their beliefs and practices? I'm not being hyperbolic here: Scientology is primarily notable for negative things. Do a search of just news stories and you'll see it's almost entirely someone getting sued, someone getting attacked, someone getting killed, someone getting their life ruined, someone making an ass of themselves on TV. It's not a bias against Scientology: if a pro-KKK editor tried to soften the intro to their own article and say "hey, let's maintain a neutral POV about their beliefs, they do lots of positive things too, let's leave the controversial stuff for later in the article as it takes its course", I doubt anyone would take them seriously for a second. Organizations notable for negativity must have that negativity noted from the getgo. wikipediatrix 17:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Spare us the hyperbole; "serial killers, pedophiles, racists, etc." indeed! We are talking about a religion here with perhaps 500,000 members. There is plenty of positive press out there and I don't need to get in a debate with you over who stirs up what in the press. There are, however, some 16,000 testimonials to Scientology helping an individual on the Scientologist Online site but how many testimonials to being "harmed" by Scientology, a few hundred? So if it is numbers you are interested in, then the critics are the minority. I mean informed critics and critical ex-scientologists, not know-nothing vandalizers and people that you imagine would be critical. --Justanother 17:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

500,000 members? Sorry to disappoint (and nit-pick), but it's around 50,000Extanto 17:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a non-issue; I think it is agreed that NPOV sources put the total active parishioners at between 100,000 and 500,000, hence my "perhaps 500,000".--Justanother 17:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

As I said already, I was not being hyperbolic. I was dead serious. I'm not necessarily comparing Scientology to the KKK as far as their relative merit goes, I'm impartially comparing them in terms of how their articles should be treated. And please don't give me the "they help more people than they hurt" argument, because then I have to give the "There are more people Ted Bundy didn't kill than did" argument, and that way lies goofiness. wikipediatrix 17:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Again with the serial killer.--Justanother 17:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I think such comparisons are useful for the purpose of article discussion, because they both deal with subjects that are highly controversial, demonstratably hated and feared by large amounts of people, and literally found guilty of crimes in courts of law. The bad stuff is what Scientology is notable for, and it must appear prominently and early in the article. wikipediatrix 17:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we disagree. On most of your claims. However, luckily for me, that is not the issue. The issue is whether this article is "allowed" to be NPOV or whether it will be forever held hostage by critics. It boils down to this: Yours is not the only opinion. A LOT of people feel that Scientology has value (I also draw attention to the fact that this is the "Scientology" article and it is specifically distinquished from the Church of Scientology article). And you know what, that is a very important point because most, if not all of your complaints are with the CoS, not the "system of beliefs". But, on point, the introduction mentions the controversy and it is appropriate that the discussion of controversy follow an exposition of the true beliefs and practices, not be interspersed throughout. Otherwise it is not "Beliefs and Practices" it is "Beliefs and Practices and Disproofs Thereof". That will degrade into endless debate. Let the Scientologists say what they believe and practice and then let the critics say why that is just so f#cked-up. Isn't that fair? --Justanother 18:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I haven't given any of my own opinions in this discussion. I'm not interested in opinions, neither yours nor mine. I can provide valid sources that demonstrate what I've said. I can cite relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines that support what I am saying. I'll try to refrain from more comparisons, since they irk you, but I will tell you there is considerable precedent for controversial organizations having their controversy stated early-on, not buried deeper in their Wikipedia article. wikipediatrix 18:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Wikitrixie or whatever his or her name is. Aroundthewayboy 03:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Staying on track

Please let's not turn the talk page into a battleground for discussing the topic, again. Allegations of bais in the article are best addressed on a productive, case-by-case basis rather than on heavily-indented ideological debates. Chris Cunningham 17:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, we'll run out of colons =8-D --Justanother 17:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not having an ideological debate. I'm being completely impartial here, believe it or not. It is verifiable and provable that Scientology is world reknowned for many, many, many, bad, bad, bad things, and that these bad things are, in fact, its real claim to notability here. If anyone wants to show me overwhelming evidence from valid WP:RS sources that indicate that Scientology is, in fact, more notable for philanthropy or something, I'm willing to look and listen. But TIME Magazine's cover article was called "Scientology: The Cult of Greed", not "Scientology: The Nice People who help Little Old Ladies across the Street". wikipediatrix 18:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

While I would happily take this up on my discussion page or yours, Wikipediatrix, I'm not sure what I could cite more that the thousands of individuals who have written their personal attestations, published only by their initials and contrary of Time Magazine's presentation.

Terryeo 11:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I would just like to point out, that pointing out a groups point view is immaterial as far as NPOV is conserned, for instance tens of thousands of people are willing to testify that Hezbollah is a legitimate philanthropic organisation (as seen on TV), and that getting raped is a reason to stone the girl, that bombing abortion clinics is Gods work etc. NPOV is just a collection of facts, like cults are really dangerous. (user:just passing)

Luckily, we don't have to prove anything to one another. Or debate anything other than the point I make above as to whether or not this article will be "allowed" to follow NPOV.--Justanother 18:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to prove anything to you. I'm trying to edit an article. It isn't about you. wikipediatrix 19:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I've never made it about me. You, on the other hand, cannot claim that. "If anyone wants to show me overwhelming evidence from valid WP:RS sources that indicate that Scientology is, in fact, more notable for philanthropy or something, I'm willing to look and listen." I am upfront about where I am coming from, why do you pretend neutrality? No-one has to prove the Scn viewpoint to you or anyone else for it to be entitled to NPOV representation.--Justanother 21:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I am perfectly neutral on the subject as far as my editing goes. I have defended Scientology articles from "L.Ron Hubbard was gay" and "Scientology is a scam" vandalisms often. I'm not suggesting the article be loaded with negativity and criticism, nor am I suggesting the article cheerfully report that Scientology is just what it claims to be. I am in the middle. wikipediatrix 00:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Good, then we may not be so far apart. Do you then see my point that the "Beliefs and Practices" section should represent what Scientologists actually believe and practice, from an NPOV certainly? You can stress that controversy exists in the intro and exposit to your heart's content in the sections following B&P. That is my only point here. I came to the article and felt that the B&P section was sadly lacking any coherent sense of what Scientologists really believe and practice. I found it to be a disjointed collection of mostly accurate material but without much of a hierarchy or order and interspersed with blatent critic POV insertions. I think that I have laid out plenty of specific wikipedia policies that apply in my previous comments, the main ones being fairness of tone and sympathetic treatment. I think if a climate is allowed wherein persons familiar with Scn can actually edit the section that they are most qualified to edit without constant sniping by critics then a very valuable article can result and by valuable I mean that someone that wants to know what Scientology is about can get more than the criticisms of it. You know, if I personally go to the article on Sufism, for example, it is because I would like to gain some insight into what they believe and practice. Someone else might consider it really important to categorize it as an unauthorized alteration of Islam, an abberation if you will, and that should be there and it is, but I can go over there and, I hope, gain some understanding of the religion as a religion. I would like the same for this article.--Justanother 02:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and am I to understand that you are claiming that if Scn did not have detractors then it would have no place in wikipedia?? "these bad things are, in fact, its real claim to notability here."--Justanother 18:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that's what Wikipediatrix is saying at all, but she can certainly answer for herself. I'd like to address her concerns about the intro--Wikipediatrix, if I read you correctly, you think that the current three paragraph intro fails by deferring any mention of controversy and criticism until the third paragraph. Have I got you right? If so, and assuming that you agree that we want to keep the intro concise, what would you suggest as a remedy? Do we need to insert a line describing sharply opposing views in the first paragraph? BTfromLA 18:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there some other meaning to her statement ""these bad things are, in fact, its real claim to notability here.". Have you looked at the wikipedia definition of "Wikipedia:Notability". Scientology is "worthy of notice" in and of itself, regardless of negative press. Or are we disputing that? I think most of us wear our POV on our digital sleeves, some of us are more willing to admit to it.--Justanother 15:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I take it you are addressing me, Justanother. While I can't speak for wikipediatrix, I'll tell you how I interpret what she wrote: the history of Scientology includes a well-documented track record of highly controversial and even criminal behavior, and that is big part of what Scientology is noted for, and why it elicits far more concern from the public at large than, say, the Theosophical Society. If Scientology were merely a belief system or philosophy with a few thousand followers, it would still be notable, but the fact is, that is not the main reason it gets so much attention. As for the "POV on our digital sleeves"... I'm not clear on what you mean to say. BTfromLA 19:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey BT. Now you sound like a reasonable person (I assume that you are a person despite you handle). The 2nd remark was intended for people that have their POV clearly influencing their posts and edits and yet claim "impartiality". I didn't mean you. I have this bad habit of reading what people actually write; perhaps I am too literal. The 'trix didn't say something that needed interpetation, she said what she said. Please leave the rephrasing to remove objectionable content to the professionals; wait, that's all of us (laff).--Justanother 19:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

There's an old journalism trick about burying information "below the fold", in other words, being able to say "hey, we put the info right on page one" but knowing that if it's below the fold of the front page, it might as well be on page 2 or page 67. I'd like to see the controversy be "above the fold" here, meaning above the point which the user must scroll down, at the very least. Perhaps a concise but action-packed sentence that mentions that they have attracted voluminous controversy, with the word "controversy" linking to the Scientology controversy page, and quickly naming just a few, like Operation Snow White and Supernatural claims.

A big problem in making the intro concise is that so much attention is lavished on the convoluted details of what it is and why it's called that. I know of no other article about a religion that spends so much time dissecting minutia in its opening paragraph. Instead of slogging thru the maze of "Is it a belief system? A self-help philosophy? An applied religious philosophy? A religion by its basic tenets? A non-profit organization?" language, can't we stick such analysis of nomenclature deeper in the article? wikipediatrix 19:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I took a stab at rewriting the intro in response to Wikipediatrix's comments, while keeping it concise (even shortening it a bit). Comments? BTfromLA 20:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm likin' it. Would still like to see Scientology controversy and Supernatural abilities in Scientology doctrine linked to somewhere before the contents box though. wikipediatrix 20:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. I linked supernatural abilities to "total freedom"--does that seem appropriate? BTfromLA 21:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Likin' it, although it would probably be more appropriate to have that phrase link to something that explains "The Bridge to Total Freedom".... how about following it with the sentence "Supernatural abilities are promised along the way"? wikipediatrix 00:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm likin' you likin' it, Wikipediatrix, but I'd like to keep that intro as concise as possible, and I'm not sure that promises of supernatural abilities are an essential part of the very first level of info about Scientology. The mention of multiple lifetimes in the second sentence already clues you to expect a supernatural element here. I might be persuaded, though... I have heard of people being attaracted to scientology by the promise that they could "exteriorize." How about adding a short section on supernatural abilities to the beliefs and practices section? That would also have the effect of mentioning supernatural abilities in the table of contents. And with a short intro like the current one, readers get to that contents list fast. BTfromLA 17:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

This page spells out what Scientology might mean to a person who begins. [1] My summary would include the word, "help", its information is helpful to people in their daily lives. Terryeo 20:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, Wikipedia articles are not here to induct people into practicing Scientology. I don't really see what your point is, here. The page you linked to doesn't use the word "help" (except for "how you can Help" with regard to Volunteer ministers). The current article intro does, however say "It claims to offer an exact methodology to help humans achieve awareness of their spiritual existence across many lifetimes and to, simultaneously, become more effective in the physical world." and "Church spokesmen attest that Hubbard's teachings (called "Technology" or "Tech" in Scientology terminology) have saved them from a plethora of problems and enabled them to better realize their highest potential in business and their personal lives." Seems to me the idea of Scientology helping people in their daily lives is clearly communicated, though it is stated (appropriately) as something Scientology says it offers, rather than a simple fact. BTfromLA 20:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The first external link is to the official Church page. Certainly someone that wants to find out how Scientology can help them can begin there. What is the point of a deeper link?--Justanother 23:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

A deeper link? I'm not clear what you are saying. Maybe it's because we interpreted Terryeo's post differently... I thought he was trying to offer that link as an example of how to introduce an article on Scientology (+ the word "help"), you thought he was trying to say that we should add a link to that introductory site, is that it? Terryeo, can you please clarify what your intention is here?BTfromLA 00:31, 26 August 2006 (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 18:46, 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)

Actually a "vandalism" would be any edit by any editor which was inserted toward a false (to that editor) representation of (that editor's) opinion, or, alternatively, an editor who inserted text and cited text from what he knew to be an unreliable source (such as a newsgroup). Anything clearly against Wikipedia policy which the editor knew was against Wikipedia policy. Terryeo 11:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The definition is narrow - if there is any doubt as to whether something is vandalism or a content dispute, it's always going to be considered a content dispute (e.g., no admin is going to intervene because somebody liked to a site some people consider unreliable). Now if there is clear consensus and the user ignores it, that's another story, but charges of vandalism should only be used when it's obvious vandalism. See Hanlon's Razor. (Oops - forgot to sign this before) VxP 15:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, we don't have a "Vandalism" guideline (as far as I know) which defines exactly what a vandalism is. But we can all recognize them when they happen. Usually an anon editor will insert an off the wall statement early in an article which doesn't fit. Such editing contradicts good writing style, contradicts WP:V and doesn't cite a source. Several things at once, you see. Of course it would be hard to know what the editor who makes the edit knows of Wikipedia, so a charge of "vandalism" could be made, but to actually make it stick would be more difficult. Terryeo 17:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

"Well, we don't have a "Vandalism" guideline (as far as I know) which defines exactly what a vandalism is." Gee, we don't? I wonder what Wikipedia:Vandalism is, then? I can't believe that you've developed so much traffic over accusations of vandalism and you never once checked Wikipedia:Vandalism to see if "vandalism" might just possibly have a very specific meaning on Wikipedia -- as other editors clearly informed you it had. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

the medium is the message

To avoid a cascade-thread, I'll move this down here to a new header. Responding to a comment above about how my comments seem more suited to Church of Scientology rather than Scientology, this is a fallacy so old it ought to have a long white beard, but here goes again: The argument that Scientology as a "thing" is totally separate from the Church and all its controversies is a false one, because:

• It was developed by the same people involved in the controversies
• It was developed for purposes directly related to the controversies
• It is currently promulgated by people involved in the controversies
• It is, in fact, central to these controversies
• And most importantly, Scientology auditing is only available from the Church of Scientology. Therefore, the two are inseparable. (Unlike Christianity, you cannot open your own Scientology church or write a Scientology self-help book without getting sued.)

The above are not opinions. They are verifiable from reliable sources as per WP:RS, and that's really all that matters here. wikipediatrix 18:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright already. I concede the point, if you'll refrain from treating the word "controversies" like you get royalties for saying it.

I don't concede that point at all and in fact I consider it un-informed. Scientology as a philosophy is believed and practiced by many non-CoS members whether they call themselves "Freezoners" or nothing at all. The CoS controls the use of the term as a trademark (trade = business) but they cannot stop people from practising Scientology off official lines, nor do I think they want to. In fact, in my experience, they will happily sell books and tapes to declared SPs, though likely not through front-line channels; the SP would have to go through ethics channels to purchase materials openly. LRH, by his own statement, "gave" Scientology as a gift to the world. While one could argue whether the CoS is true to that, it is irrelevant for this discussion, Scientology, as a "belief system", does have meaning apart from CoS. One should also further distinquish between "tech" and "policy", HCOB and HCOPL. The "belief system" of Scientology is contained in Ron's books and lectures; the "tech" for improving one's spiritual condition in the same and in HCOBs. The policies that most informed critics would agree are the most offensive aspects of CoS, e.g. fair game, are contained in policies to run the organization, HCOPL, not in theory or tech. Policy governs the CoS and its members, it does not govern someone that believes and practices Scn off official lines.--Justanother 16:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Last word from me on the hidden-under-the-fold thing: we are not, have not and probably will not be talking about the intro. We're talking about a section which already lies under a paragraph which says that Scientology is hugely contradictory and widely scorned. Chris Cunningham 20:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Speak for yourself. I am obviously talking about the intro. I find your current edit of it unacceptable. I am confused by your statement that you will not be talking about it. wikipediatrix 20:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. this diff shows that the intro hasn't change any dramatic manner since before I began editing the article, and if anything is more critical than it used to be. I'm disinclined to defend myself from something I, like, didn't actually do, and I try to avoid talk page banter which doesn't take the form of concrete suggestions or actions. Chris Cunningham 21:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I offer a sort-of apology, then: I have not checked earlier edits of this article in quite awhile, but since you announced your intention to come in and overhaul the article and have been doing so, I assumed the current state of the intro was your handiwork, or at least approved by you. And if you, as I infer, are content with the current state of the intro, then we do indeed still disagree, and I have indeed given - in copious detail - suggestions for actions. wikipediatrix 23:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not best pleased with any part of the article right now, so bits I haven't changed certainly aren't spared because I "approve" them. Go right ahead. Chris Cunningham 07:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Allegation of plagarism

Haven't you guys noticed that the whole basis of Scientology seems suspicioulsy like the Sci-Fi book "From Beyond Infinity" by Thomas Mawson. It was published in 1947 and was quite popular at the time. Could it be that L. Ron Hubbard simply adapted to someone elses ideas for his religion. Triumph's Hour 04:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

That's a difficult line of reasoning to follow. Scientology was introduced in 1952 at a lecture following 2 years of Dianetics sessions and results. It was introduced for the reason that people were recalling memories which were obviously not of the current lifetime. If the basis of Scientology is a Science Fiction book, the thousands of pre-this-lifetime memories, recalled by many people over a period of years would make its basis a widespread popularity. Does Mawson's book talk about memories and recalls of memories ? Terryeo 17:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect. It was introduced in 1952 after Dianetics was exposed as quackery. — NRen2k5 14:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I haven't heard of this book, and quick searches of Google and an internet bookserch engine find no mention of it, so I am skeptical that the named book actually exists. There is, however, plenty of influence of ideas from the science fiction of the 40s in Scientology--it would be a good research project for somebody to start to point out his sources in that realm; has someone done that already? BTfromLA 17:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Not found at the Library of Congress [2] either.--Justanother 23:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure? I picked it up at a garage sale in my neighborhood. Triumph's Hour 00:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe that was Mawson's garage. BTfromLA 00:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

That one put a smile on my face. — NRen2k5 14:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Google Groups as sources of information

Reference [35], http://groups.google.com/group/alt.answers/msg/f3716ab6b331c0d1 links to [3], an archived newsgroup. Newsgroups are poor quality sources of information because information on them is unattributable. WP:RS states, with its own emphisis, Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources.. The newsgroup postings are being used to reference Differing accounts of L. Ron Hubbard's life, in particular accounts of Hubbard discussing his intent to start a religion for profit. The google group should simply be removed as a reference because newsgroups are unreliable as sources of information and fall below the standard of information which our Wikipedia can present. Such a reference might be acceptable at Wikinfo [4] but not here. Terryeo 17:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed--not a reliable source (and press accounts of that make-money-by-starting-a-religion are plentiful, so a more suitable reference source shouldn't be hard to come by, if it is even needed). I cut the google group ref. BTfromLA 18:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Coolness. Now how often do I have to beat you to arrive at the next level of complience? Heh ! (personal websites!) Heh. TY. Terryeo 23:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

As a point of information (I'm kind of keeping track of editors who are willing to degrade Wikipedia by citing archived Google Groups, newsgroups, etc.) it was User:Raymond Hill who cited the Google Group posting which BTfromLA has removed at editing difference It quoted Donald C. Lindsay posting what Lindsay called "a rumor". Terryeo 01:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

In fairness to Raymond Hill, Terryeo, the whole point of that citation was that it analysed and attempted to separate fact from fiction in a variety of stories about Hubbard that have long circulated as rumors. So, of course, the author described some "rumors" in the course of his article. BTfromLA 01:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Good, let us consider Raymond Hill's edit in good faith, let editors take the small hint about newsgroups citations and let us press onwards toward a good quality, Wikipedic article ! Terryeo 02:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that unfortunately you're all wrong. They are clearly presented as "accounts" and not as matters of fact. So - regardless of their source - as long as they don't degrade the article (e.g. by the collection being obviously biased to lead the reader to a certain belief) they should stay. — NRen2k5 14:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Damn, I hate it when we are ALL wrong (laff). Point is, NRen, that a newsgroup can not be a credible source of anything except for discussion of the nature of the newsgroup (and then only if sourced elsewhere) and perhaps such obvious trivialities such as how many posts there are on a specific subject (and then you still are not going to use the newsgroup for source). Why? Because it is the least reliable of all unreliable sources, even for an "account". Newsgroups have zero credibility of themselves. There is no way of knowing who is claiming to be "a former Sea Org Member" or "David Miscavige's personal barber" or whatever. No newsgroup info, thank you. Let's not get into tracking them back using their PGP key or verifying their identity off the newsgroup, that goes way beyond what we do here; I am talking about simply using a newsgroup post as source. Newsgroups can, however, steer you to a reliable source or give you clues to find one. --Justanother 14:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Newgroups postings are well below Wikipedia's standards. WP:RS states in its own bold, "Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources." But this articles notes, Scientology#Notes at [81] cites an archived newgroup posting. Msg-ID <O9SdcKAVt9I2EwSW​@lutefisk​.demon​.co​.uk> Newsgroups alt.religion.scientology (initiated by our own administrator User:ChrisO, apparently) and archived at [5]. It degrades Wikipedia to use such sources of information. Terryeo 01:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

That particular archived newsgroup posting by Chris Owen was introduced into this article by administrator User:ChrisO at this editing difference. [6] Terryeo 02:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Harmonious Editing

I see that wikipediatrix treated my recent good-faith edits as vandalism, citing "POV scented". Please do not do that. That is not "Harmonious Editing". If you have something to contribute, then do; don't try to stop others from contributing. Again, I think my edits were in the direction of a clear NPOV exposition of the subject.--Justanother 00:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I can see what she was reacting to, though I don't think wholesale revert was merited--I've tried to salvage the best from both versions (including your removal of the Xenu cartoon). Seem ok? BTfromLA 00:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. If she is reacting to the vetting, sorry but that is a fact, central to the practice, and should be included.

Your change, about not disclosing in an "unauthorized manner," renders that sentence pretty meaningless. Aren't the authorized settings for discussion of the contents of the OT levels extremely few? It is my understanding that they cannot discuss them with their families, with other scientologists, or with non-scientologists. Correct? When can they discuss it?--We should be clear what the exceptions are. BTfromLA 01:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Dang it, got an edit conflict and have to type this again. They would discuss the materials with appropriate technical staff under an array of approved situations from training to word-clearing, repairs to botched sessions, or corrections to errors in their solo technique. But I think I put it best the first time and hinted at the penalties, which are stiff. "The contents of these advanced courses are held in strict confidence within the Church and individuals with direct knowledge may not discuss nor disclose what they contain without jeopardizing their standing in the Church."--Justanother 01:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

That is better, because it doesn't include "in an unauthorized manner." But I don't see why you needed to add that to the leaner version of the sentence, if it wasn't needed in your earlier version. By the way, you don't lose what you've written in an edit conflict, just scroll down the page, you'll find it, cut and paste it to the current edit window, and you're set. A little unweildy, but much better than a wholesale do-over. BTfromLA 01:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I looked for the lost edit but didn't find it, I'll look closer next time. OK, your "by any means." struck me as awkward. Better would be perhaps "in any fashion" but I couldn't write that because it was not true. In my original version, I left it for given that they would only get in trouble for unauthorized disclosing; I saw no reason to add more removeable material by listing authorized discussion. It is really too much detail. The important points are that it is forbidden and carries a penalty.--Justanother 01:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Just say that, then. "By any means" was trying to get at the fact that they couldn't put in writing, etc., either but that's probably implied, They are forbidden to disclose it and risk their standing with the church if they do. That covers it, right? BTfromLA 01:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Done--Justanother 01:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's talk about my original 2nd line "These courses are available by invitation only and prospective candidates are vetted by their contributions to the furtherance of Scientology and their behavior in accordance with Scientology Ethics principles." This is an important aspect of the upper levels and would be of interest. I wrote it NPOV; I don't characterize either of those requirements as good or bad. They are facts which I can reference by HCOPL and are commonly discussed online by ex-Scientologists.--Justanother 02:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this did have that whiff of POV that wikipediatrix mentioned--someone with a critical stance might say the contribution they're vetting for is monetary, and the "ethics" principals are a whole can of worms; Scientology ethics don't exactly correspond to the way most non-scientologists understand the word "ethics." This brings up security checking, loyalty tests, suppressive person doctrine, all kinds of stuff. So, while I understand that there is a vetting process, and no doubt it is important to Scientologists, I'm not sure it is so crucial that we want to wander away from this brief description of the OT levels and their place in the Scientology beliefs to hammer out all of the specifics related to vetting here. I think that is better left to the Operating Thetan article, or perhaps the dedicated beliefs and practices article. Remember, this page is an overvue that points to more detailed information elsewhere (and it is too long as it is, if you ask me). BTfromLA 02:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

This kinda speaks to my main complaint about the B&P section. It isn't organized or prioritized well. This stuff on silent birth and barley formula is, to a degree, somewhat obscure LRH advices. A Scientologist that is going to have a baby might research what LRH had to say about child care, or they might not. I would imagine that before TomKat most Scientologists might not even know what "silent birth" referred to although they should be able to figure it out from general Dianetics principles. These are not even close to core beliefs. But "Going OT" is, in a very real sense, the whole point of "doing Scn"; it is the carrot, and, for the believers, the solution to all ills across the dynamics from a runny nose to the war in Iraq. It should have more detail, much more. The vetting process is important and much more important to understanding Scn than barley formula. I can leave out the word Ethics and, sure, those further contibutions can be monetary, what is wrong with that? "These courses are available by Church invitation only and prospective candidates are vetted by the Church by their contributions to the furtherance of Scientology and their behavior in accordance with Scientology principles."--Justanother 06:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm ok with adding the above sentence (grammatically, should they be vetted for their contributions?), although others may have different reactions. Alas, some relatively trivial things will inevitably be featured in response to public demand, which is a driver of wikipedia articles, like it or not: if something shows up in the news, wikipedia jumps in to provide documentation, and editors want to at least mention topical items prominently in the principal article on a subject, like this one. So, the birth and baby-care stuff probably needs to be here, at least in a brief form, with a pointer to more info in dedicated articles, exactly because of all the people reading tabloids who turn to wikipedia wanting to know if it's true about Katie Holmes. For a similar reason, I put in a "Xenu" subhead afer you cut Xenu from the section name... we need to flag it, as Xenu has become a major symbol of Scientology's beliefs, even as he is unknown to many scientologists (although I've got to believe most "public" scientologists have heard or read something about Xenu by now). Sad to say, the relentless demands for citations and counter-examples in the scientology articles have made it difficult to edit with an eye toward concise, readable articles, or to ask questions like "does it really improve the article if we include this?" BTfromLA 06:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there are two firmly entrenched opposing POVs that are each dedicated, IMHO, to preventing clear and neutral exposition of the other POV. The Scientologists, however, are at a distinct disadvantage because it is trendy among netizens to oppose the CoS due to its heavy-handed defense against opposition while Scientologists, by and large, would avoid the site to avoid being affected by the perceived misrepresentations and revelations of confidential materials. So exposition of the Scn POV is generally left to a few Scientologists that often stress POV, neutral parties without much 1st hand experience, and critics, some of which are attempting to be fair.--Justanother 19:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

No doubt you are correct that the Scientologists are likely to be outnumbered here, but I also have to say that some of the Scientologist editors who have been here have behaved very badly, disrupting the editing process with an almost daily dose of ill-conceived charges, demands, personal attacks and incoherant edits, leaving Scientologist editors with a poor reputation. Justanother, you appear to be sympathetic toward and knowlegeable about Scientology, a competent writer, and willing to work with others. As such, I for one welcome you here, and I think a clear majority of editors want the Scientology material presented fairly and accurately, even if that goal sometimes gets lost in the POV wars. Previous editors have made your job more difficult, and establishing your credibilty may require quite a bit of patience on your part. I advise you to cut the other editors slack for a while if they revert or make dismissive comments about your changes--pretty much all the regulars here who have come to these articles to edit in good faith, whatever their personal bias with regard to Scientology, are thoroughly exasperated by the track record of the pro-Scientology editors, and are quick to become impatient with what they suspect as more of the same. With time, as it becomes clear that you are actually editing to improve the quality of the articles rather than interfere with unflattering information about Hubbard and Scientology, I predit they'll become much more accomodating and respectful. BTfromLA 20:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

One more thing that may save you some grief: the idea of presenting controversial material sympathtically before introducing commentary or criticism has been considered and rejected at Wikipedia: a parallel project, wikinfo.org, sprung up largely in response to that policy (wikinfo solicits seperate articles from multiple points of view as opposed to attempting a unified "neutral" presentation). BTfromLA 20:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

For example, Wikinfo article] Terryeo 23:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks BT, that is kind and good advice. I hope that I will edit more in the B&P section. I also hope that I can set an example and further the establishment of a climate where Harmonious Editing is the norm for all sides of the issue. Wikipedia is important to me personally and fast becoming, IMHO, the most important repository of knowledge on the web if it is not already so. It is important that Scientology be fairly represented here as more and more people turn, as I do, to wikipedia FIRST to begin their research on a subject. I hope that more Scientologists will aid in the effort by contributing to those areas they know best while limiting their attacks to clear violations of the three primary editing principles without attempting to whitewash the article. Amen--Justanother 02:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Religion references

I understand that editors have gone to some trouble to find a neutral, objective source for the claim that Scientology is a genuine religion, as opposed to a cult or pseudoreligion. However, the reference cited considers whether scientology is a religion, where religion is given a meaning roughly equivalent to 'belief system'. As this encompasses both legitimate religions and cults, would it not be appropriate to find a more applicable reference? Nimmo 06:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Those who seperate "real" religions from "cults" are likely to put Scientology in the latter camp, don't you think? Maybe there are exceptions... I don't know. That citation seems fine as an example of a scholar accepting Scientology as fiulfilling his definition of a religion--but it is just one voice, it doesn't verify that many scholars share that conclusion. There are a bunch of degreed people who've written papers to that effect at bonafidescientology.org, but those papers are dubious as reliable sources--they are clearly sponsored by scientology in order to get their desired result. So, I think an additional citation might be good, if somebody cares to find one. I doubt that will be difficult. BTfromLA 06:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

As I can not edit the page while it is protected could someone please change "Although many scholars accept Scientology as a bona fide religion" to "Although some scholars accept Scientology as a bona fide religion" as the word many is too inexact and ambiguous to have any useful meaning. If there are 10000 religious scholars in the world, how many is 'many'... 100.... 1000.... 10... 5001, 'some' although just as inexact does not convey any extra meaning about the quantity of scholars.

I don't agree--both are inexact, certainly, but "many" in this context connotes a significant fraction of the scholars who have considered this, possibly a majority, whereas "some" implies a minority, possibly a very small minority. I think "many" is more neutral and accurate here, unless I'm wrong about the level of acceptance of this view. An why not just establish a user name and edit? BTfromLA 17:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I would guess far less than 50% of scholars view Scientology as a religion, but that's just my opinion. I'd say if there's no reference related to scholars' view of Scientology, that the whole statement be deleted. VxP 21:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

What's the basis for your guess? It seems to me that it is routinely treated in discussions of "new religious movements," and, while their are real doubts about whether the CoS can be honestly characterized as a charitable organization, the Scientology beliefs focus extensively on spritualism, the traditional domain of religion. What we have now is documentation of one scholar who concludes that it counts as a religion. BTfromLA 21:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The basis for my guess is nothing more than a gut feeling, so it certainly would not belong in the article. For that reason I'm not going to get into it here (I don't want to turn this into a discussion about the merits of Scientology) VxP 22:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I've added a ref and made a small change in response to this discussion--please take a look. BTfromLA 23:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Scientology is a belief set. The Church of Scientology is an organisation whose members practise Scientology. The Church is often called 'Scientology' since it is the only widely known scientology group. This article does (or should) distinguish consistently between organisation and belief. Using 'Scientology' when the Church is meant should be avoided. Scientology could be a bona fide religion and the Church could be a cult. Both identifications are debateable and deserve an NPOV that sets out those debates, but they are seperate. --Hartley Patterson 19:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the Church of Scientology proposes certain beliefs. Beliefs, as used here are "tenets of faith". There is another definition of "Beliefs" and here are some dictionarys that define this meaning which is separate from the idea of "tenents of faith". definitions 1 and 2, from another dictionary, definitions 1, 2 and 3. Scientology is NOT a belief set. I have said this many times and no person who has not studied the subject could be expected to understand what I freely state. However, ask any Scientologist and they will tell you that there are no beliefs in the information which comprises Scientology. The word itself says, Study of Knowledge and in this sense "knowledge" is meant as a difference to "belief". It is not about belief, it has nothing to do with belief, it can not be applied from belief alone but can only be applied as knowledge. The very first time a person applies a new piece of information they have little confidence that it will work. But as a person applies a piece of studied knowledge, they gain confidence in their ability to apply the knowledge. And this is the situation with Scientology information. It is knowledge, belief plays no (or almost no) part in it. Terryeo 20:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I think that "belief" could be defined as "subjective knowledge". Take, for example, a saved Christian. We might say he "believes" he is going to heaven but for him it is rock-solid knowledge. How does he know? The Bible, the Word of God, tells him so. Terryeo, I know a basic premise of Scientology is "What is true for you is true for you" but there are some basic "truths" in Scientology that are shared and each Scientologist is informally expected to eventually come to accept as "true for them". Past lives are one and, you will not progress far in Scn until that is "true for you". So the point is not where you are going in the Scn belief system just how long it takes to get there. Ron presents as "knowledge" that past life incidents can affect you in the present. But there is no objective proof of that, it is totally subjective. A person audits a past-life incident, gets some relief, repeats, until they come to "believe". It is now "true for them", it is knowledge. But only for them. Such "subjective knowledge" can only be labeled "belief".--Justanother 21:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Perfectly that every person you have met has the "belief" of past lives, perfectly okay with me. That has not been my experience. I have met many Scientologists who did not believe in past lives and would happily tell you so. The Church presents that by Studying and doing Scientology a person can come to the knowledge that they are an eternal being. I'm pretty sure neither Scientology (the philosophy) nor the Church of Scientology suggest anyone believe in "past lives". Let me ask you something. Do I have 10 fingers, or nine? You can not know that unless I tell you. But do you trust what I tell you to be true? Is my knowledge mine to tell you? I say that the philosophy doesn't suggest anyone believe in past lives. I further suggest that you don't know how many fingers I have. If you grant that I know how many fingers I have, then you must also grant that I might know what I had for breakfast this morning, and by extension, what I had for breakfast 33 centuries ago (if individuals actually existed 33 centuries agao). How exactly can you divide my certainty into "oh, that is knowledge" and "oh, that is belief" ? You know what you know, I know what I know. And I know how many fingers I have and you don't. nah ! heh. Terryeo 04:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Help me to understand this, Terryeo. Say Jane Jones reads some books and takes some scientology courses. At a point she announces her conclusions: "There's no such thing as a thetan, that's not true for me. L Ron Hubbard lied about his personal history, those stories about him aren't true for me. But I think the study tech is very helpful, and true for me." Expressing that set of views, and showing no interest in altering her beliefs, would she be accepted as a scientologist in good standing? BTfromLA 05:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. That answer is yes. The only threshold for an individual being a Scientologist is their own declaration. From the Church's standpoint, any person with any beliefs is in good standing with the Church unless they become expelled from the Church. But even in that situation if they declare they are a Scientologist, I don't believe the Church as a thing to say about it because it is a self-declare, not a decree by authority. Terryeo 17:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I think I am starting to get his point. What he wants to call "knowledge" would be understood better as "teachings". As in, LRH presents what he terms the results of his research and you study and come to believe them (or not). So while the Church presents them as having the same validity as the physical sciences, Terryeo needs to realize that that viewpoint is not held outside of Scientology and therefore, the outside world will always view them as beliefs. I am not going to analyze Terryeo's example right now, perhaps I will later, but I would bet that he has only nine fingers. BT, per your question; I think Jane would do fine with the 1st claim (provided she is not obnoxious with it), that is very much "what is true for you is true for you" material". Re the 2nd she could hold that view but if she openly asserted it, especially in the academy, that she would eventually find herself under a "Non-enturbulation Order" which is only one step away from an SP declare. She might also be the recipient of "handlings" such as PTS-handling, dead-agenting, false data stripping, word clearing, etc. designed to find out where such an erroneous idea might have come from and address that. But not if she just kept it to herself and got from Scientology what she found to be of use to her. You really are allowed to believe what you like, you are not allowed to enturbulate (upset) others. One thing to always understand about Scn that they are a dedicated group on a life-or-death mission. If you understand that you will understand their actions a lot better. They really feel that if this world is to be saved it will be done by, well, them. There is no saviour coming and we ain't going to any better place. The work has to be done here and now and they see precious few people doing it and plenty screwing it up.--Justanother 14:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clear explanation, Justanother. So, then, is Terryeo correct in saying that many active Scientologists do not accept the existence of past lives? BTfromLA 16:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, any Scientologist might not believe in the existence of past lives and for sure, many beginning public persons would tell you they didn't believe in past lives. My experiences is along the lines of "well, I just don't know about that". Terryeo 17:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I will augment Justanother's explanation: If this girl with disagreements exercised her first amendment right to free speech in an innocent, non-malicious manner, she would likely be put under the so-called "non-enturbulation order" which is a political tool used to silence politically incorrect statements from cofs members, in addition to being presumed to be a potential trouble source, have false data, misunderstood words, or black propaganda. Rather than just outright tell her, "If you don't agree with us fully, you must leave or keep your mouth shut." a course of action is engaged in to dominate and make her wrong. Justanother's statement, "One thing to always understand about Scn that they are a dedicated group on a life-or-death mission. If you understand that you will understand their actions a lot better." could also be the statement of a terrorist group and I don't think his statement is accurate. Now back to the girl, if she continued to voice her disagreements with certain aspects of cofs doctrine, she would receive a military-style tribunal called a comm ev, then likely be declared a suppressive person, even though no procedure is done to verify she has a majority of suppressive traits most of the time. Some would say it is an authoritarian racket. Others would say it is a political organization masquerading as a church. You be the judge.--Fahrenheit451 17:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I completely disagree. Anyone is free to state what they know and what they believe at any time, in all circumstances. Jane's statements are hers alone. If she were to attack the Church that could be different but when she states what she knows and believes that is purely hers and she can quite easily be a Scientologist in good standing and state, "I don't believe the idea of Thetan is real at all ! Terryeo 17:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

You may disagree, Terryeo. Sure, a cofs member is "free" to state what they know and believe at any time, but not with impunity. There are too many documented cases to the contrary. On the subject of "attack", that can be broadly construed to mean persistently stating a situation and asking for answers. I suggest you do a websearch if you doubt me. --Fahrenheit451 17:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I doubt you. I did a websearch and still doubt you. I had a cup of coffee and it didn't help any, either. heh. Terryeo 18:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and I could make the analogy that "One thing to always understand about Scn that they are a dedicated group on a life-or-death mission." could be the viewpoint of the United States Marine Corps (USMC). But I did not make that comparison in my original post even though I thought of it because analogies are a form of persuasive arguement and I was not trying to associate Scn with an unrelated group for the purposes of advancing my position. Fahrenheit451 certainly does a decent job of advancing the critical position. He is entitled to his POV and it should be presented fairly in the article.--Justanother 17:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I think many Scientologists, especially newer ones, do not have a personal reality on past lives. That wording means that they understand the concept and accept that others accept it but it does not (dare I say "yet") have personal meaning for them. Some may not even have encountered the concept yet. The concept of past lives as being important is not presented early on. Once you start serious training it is all through the tapes you listen to and some processes actually require that a past-life incident be contacted in session. I would think that almost all staff members "believe" in past lives along with practically all OTs and most Clears. Things in Scn make a lot more sense if you make the leap of faith that what you are experiencing in session are valid memories of past lives and not some sort of self-fabrication.--Justanother 17:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Even on pre-OT levels, the reality of past lives varies greatly, from those who feel certain to those who think it is their imagination. So even a "leap of faith" does not give one more reality, but rather keeps one going with the hope that it may become real to them.--Fahrenheit451 17:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I see the "leap of faith" as a decision, perhaps not vocalized or clearly conceptualized, to accept as true for oneself that which cannot be proven. The leap of faith is, I think, an integral part of any religion and I think you could even define an agnostic as one who has not or can not make such a leap and an atheist as a person who will not. I see the acceptance of past lives as one of the key leaps in the Scientology religion. --Justanother 18:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, are you saying that you have exactly as much evidence, and evidence of the same quality, regarding the number of fingers on your hands as you have regarding what 'you' had for breakfast 33 centuries ago in a past life? Because otherwise, your argument that if you can "know" one you can "know" the other doesn't hang together logically. We are willing to grant that you "know" the number of fingers on your own hands, under the quite reasonable assumption that you have a variety of ways to test how many fingers are on your hands -- counting them visually, having someone else count them visually, drumming them on a countertop and listening for how many taps they make. On the other hand, we have remarkably little evidence for things that happened 33 centuries ago -- you might say you "know" that 33 centuries ago on the morning of August 28th you were such-and-such a person and you had this-and-such for breakfast, but where is your evidence? Suppose you say "I know I was a goatherd under the Babylon ruler Hammurabi and I know I had a sausage for breakfast that morning" and I say "I know you're wrong; you weren't even that goatherd, let alone having sausage for breakfast that morning" -- what then? If you can "know" something without evidence to confirm or deny it, then I can "know" the opposite without needing evidence to confirm or deny it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

That is the sort of logical chain it presents, truely. An individual might know how many fingers and what he had for breakfast. By extension, what he had for breakfast 33 centuries ago. Yes, that is the logic of it. No matter how softly or how vehemently I say what I had for breakfast, it would be really (often impossible) difficult to prove because it has been eaten, by the next day, digested. Breakfast last week would be even more difficult to prove. Breakfast 33 centuries ago? Ha! Who could prove it to another person? But, a person can know for themselves what they had for breakfast. Terryeo 16:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying now that to remember what one had for breakfast that morning, to remember what one had for breakfast a week ago, and to remember what one had for breakfast in a past life 33 centuries ago are all equal in difficulty? That if you can successfully remember what you had for breakfast less than 24 hours ago, then "by extension" you have the ability to remember what you ate 28,908,000 hours ago? Even though if there was a "you" eating 28,908,000 hours ago, it was a "you" in a different body, one that is almost certainly dust by now? I'm sorry, but your argument still seems to be boiling down to "If I feel really, really, really, really sure of something, that means I 'know' that something, rather than 'believe' that something. The difference between 'believing' and 'knowing' has to do with the strength of the conviction, rather than what actual reasons one has for concluding a state of affairs to exist." -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not as easy for me to recall breakfast this morning as breakfast last week. And breakfast a long time ago is harder still. But, when I am sure that I have recalled breakfast last week, I can tell you so because I know that. Of course my example of breakfast is a simplification, but I can be certain of at least one, memorable past breakfast that no one else could possibly know. For example, if I remember a breakfast at a good restaurant of, say, 30 years ago and everyone else who ate there at that time is no longer around. I know it and no one else does. I know it comparing it to memories of how I got to the restaurant, the weather that day, how large the resturant was and so on. The combination of several memories together creates a better strength of knowledge. And yes, that is what happens in auditing. (trying to be brief and to the point). Terryeo 17:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

You're still confusing the same points, Terry. What you seem to be saying here is that if you have beliefs and they are particularly consistent with each other, that means they are "knowledge" rather than "beliefs". How does that follow? And why are you not addressing the differences between your example and the point under debate? If by some chance we discovered previously unknown film footage taken 30 years ago of you having breakfast in that restaurant and the film footage confirmed everything you were saying, that wouldn't be utterly surprising; it's well-established that people can remember things that happened decades ago in their own lifetime (though it's also well-established that people can misremember things under the same circumstances...) By contrast, when you say you "know" what "you" had for breakfast 3300 centuries in another life, you're telling us that we should accept "knowledge" that came from your memory of your own first-hand experience, and "knowledge" that came from the unproven process of auditing, as equally reliable! For someone who spends such a prodigious amount of time complaining about "reliable sources" it is absolutely dumbfounding that you are asking us to overlook this vast difference, and give Scientology a privileged promotion, certainly not awarded to any other religion, from "belief system" to "knowledge". -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I would never (well probably never) ask anyone to accept what I remember. I would never ask someone to base their own beliefs on what I remember. I really doubt any Scientologist will ask you to. I can demonstrate some of what I know, You can demonstrate some of what you know, but neither of us can demonstrate some of the things each of us know. Even if a video of my memorable breakfast came into your possession, there would still be many things I know that I can not demonstrate. This idea of indemonstrable knowledge is precisely where Hubbard did his work. And there's the difficulty. Western Society is built on Science which is based on demonstrable knowledge. No, I don't ask anyone to believe or even accept my indemonstrable knowledge. However, I know that everyone over the age of, say, 5 years old has at least some indemonstrable knowledge. And you won't see me placing my indemonstrable knowledge into articles, either. Articles use substantial, previously published sources of information. I can't convince you that we exist as thetans, it is indemonstrable. On the other hand, it is possible to sketch out the idea with words. Thetan Terryeo 15:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, do you see a qualitative difference between verifiable "knowledge" and memory ("subjective knowledge"). A neutral observer could count your fingers and report "Terryeo has nine fingers". That same observer could ask you what you had for breakfast today and only report "Terreo says he had oatmeal for breakfast". The only way to say more than that would be to pump your stomach and that would only help for today's breakfast, not for last week's. So we would report "Terryeo says . . ." Now, when a group of people "say" something that cannot be verified objectively and what they say does not have very broad agreement in the overall culture, we call what they say a "Belief". Whether they are right or wrong has no bearing on the term used.--Justanother 16:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Well that is true and I suspect it is the demarkation point that Hubbard used in 1950. And the demarkation point today, too. People insist, "you can't know it because you can prove it to someone else". While Hubbard used, "if it is true for you then it is true, period". That demarkation point, that's a biggy ! One is "demonstrable knowledge" (science) and the other is "personal knowledge". Terryeo 17:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I keep saying, "Scientology isn't a belief system" and other editors scoff and say, "obviously its a belief system". Here is a Scientologist who doesn't say exactly as I do, but talks about "belief" as applied to Scientology. at experts.com Terryeo 05:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC) And here's another, 3) I was not/am not required to accept anything on faith. [7] Terryeo 05:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC) And finally, What's the one thing you wish people would understand about Scientology? Laurie Hamilton Terryeo 06:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo; OK, we can say that Scn is a collection of LRH's theories (which could be called his beliefs) about the nature of the universe and a system of techniques (the Technology) developed by LRH to bring people to higher states of spiritual awareness and ability. There is not "Sunday School", "Hebrew Academy", or whatever to school young people in the "beliefs". Nor much of a Sunday Service for adults either (there is what I consider a rote service for PR purposes to appear more "church-like" and promote Scn). So it is clear that "beliefs" are not the mainstay of Scn. What is the mainstay is the tech and the Bridge. So people either study the tech or have the tech applied to them. When you study Scn you are drilled hard on the tech, the theory or beliefs are there in the material pretty much as background and you can take them or leave them. So perhaps we have reached a point of agreement???

Yes. In the sense that those presentations are not actually wrong. A middle ground between how I would state it and how it is stated. A middle ground which neither side actually likes a lot, but is willing to tolerate. Terryeo 15:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Laurie Hamilton has some good things to say and she makes a good point about Scientologists editing in wikipedia in another of her articles. I think she is being unrealistic when she says that What's the one thing you wish people would understand about Scientology? bit. Yes, Scientology is a "school of religious thought, aka a religion - a way of looking at the universe" but it is also an organization some find oppressive or worse. You don't get one without the other. It sounds like she discovered that when she was on staff for 12 years and I wonder if when she says she has not experienced the oppression (my term, not hers) in 27 years if it is because she left staff about that long ago?? Scientology is very nice to do if you are public and play by the rules but woe unto you if you do not, especially if you are staff or Sea Org.--Justanother 13:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes. Somehow I knew it would be Laurie Hamilton, at the so-called "experts.about.com". It amazes me that you whine so continuously at the use of supposed "personal websites" and then cite Laurie Hamilton's personal opinion as if her opinion essays were somehow meaningful because about.com pays the hosting bills as opposed to, say, blogger.com. (I have to say, insofar as I can laugh at grotesque self-deception, I got a good belly-laugh out of Hamilton's attempt to deal with Hubbard's notorious multiple 'start a religion for money' statements. She tried to argue that because there were so many witnesses who said that they personally heard Hubbard say that he wanted to start a religion for money, that meant their stories were inconsistent and therefore not believable! Haha! And I guess Ted Bundy never killed anybody, ever, as proven by the fact that people produced evidence of him killing so many different women, in different places, right?) -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

"Whine?" I am trying to understand how those words can be thought of as a "whine". At best that is a very biased manner of understanding what I have said. Whine? I place someone else's response in the area which we are discussing not to cause any editor to sympathize, I don't want sympathy. The least useful reaction would be sympathy. I place Hamilton's comments in an effort to at least recognize that User:ChrisO has said several times about getting other editors into the mix. She won't edit here, I'm sure but, on the other hand, perhaps her statements could round out the point of view I speak of. I don't expect to rouse your sympathy or your refusal of feeling sympatheic. I don't want your sympathy, I simply want you to understand there is a viewpoint that exists, Scientology is not a belief system. Terryeo 14:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

From various answers on expert.com, the responders have control of what they answer, but once they submit they then have no control. Once in, forever in. No response required. So it isn't a personal website, the respondees more or less write an email response to an email question. BTW, there would be 100 ways a person might joke about creating a religion to making a million dollars. And Bill Gates might well have joked with his high school buddies about defeating "BIG BLUE", long before he defeated Big Blue with his operating system. Terryeo 15:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Please explain how the system you describe in operation at experts.about.com makes the personal opinions of those responders one iota more reliable than if they were using a personal website to house their personal opinions? Yes, there could easily be 100 ways a person might talk about creating a religion in order to make money. And if multiple witnesses stated that they had heard that person talk about exactly that subject, in many of those ways, the obvious inference is that that person talked about that subject a lot. Trying to draw the conclusion instead that that person never said any such thing is simply ludicrous, and shows the folly of starting at a desired conclusion such as "Hubbard never talked about starting a religion for money" and trying to manipulate the evidence to look like it supports the conclusion. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Good man, I do not attempt to create reliability by linking to Hamilton's personal opinions. I attempt to create editor understanding. In the situation you mention, she has presented a more extensive breadth of the history of that (purported) quote than we have here, but I am not suggesting Wikipedia use her words as a secondary source. Terryeo 19:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Debbie Collins has a higher rating and she says "Scientology can give you: 1.A higher IQ to handle your problems 2.Higher awareness to get a better job 3.More energy to make more money 4.Better health to breast life 5.Better morale to handle upsets 6.Less despair 7.More life 8.More years to live". AndroidCat 02:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

AndroidCat, you forgot to mention that she is "licensed". :-)--Fahrenheit451 05:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Cat, I think you might have some bad info. This is what I found at the allexperts for Debbie "This expert has elected not to be rated". Further I see that Laurie has contributed a very large number of answers and is highly rated while Debbie has contributed, well, nothing. I really don't know why she would enter this discussion other than to point out that a certain Scientologist is a bad writer?

The experts.com is essentially a collection of personal websites. Hamilton has appointed herself as "scientology expert". It is very POV and she trashes those who disagree with her in various covert and overt ways. Experts.com is essentially like a kiosk where different people and stick notices. It is unreliable. --Fahrenheit451 00:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Fahrenheit451, After reading a number of Laurie's answers, I do not see any support for your trashing her. Would you please provide some quotes from her so that I may see what you refer to? Thank you. --Justanother 12:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I am going to make a comment here. I was asked for substantiation about an opinion and provided a link to a Scientologist's statements in the area. User:Fahrenheit451 completely, utterly ignores the issue which prompted my response. That is, We are talking about apples and I'm asked, "can you substantiate that piece of information about apples". So, hey, why not. I present a link about apples. In complete, utter ignorance of the discussion about apples, several editors tie up the discussion with sniping comments about the source of information I provide about apples. It ends the discussion about apples. It brings up all kinds of nonesense which isn't about apples. "she is very POV" is not about apples. "She trashes those who disagree" is not about apples. Then too, the use of language, "trashes", "POV", those are emotionally enhotting terms which do not contribute to the subject of apples. But User:Fahrenheit451 is not the only editor who refuses to understand the issue is about apples, other editors too, User:AndroidCat ignores the apple issue and offers up his opinion about why my response is inappropriate. All of that being done in invective language, presenting the source of information as being unbelievable, unreliable, biased, useless and implied "trashy". While ignoring the subject. User:Antaeus Feldspar doesn't get it either, he challenges me to prove to him that the source I have pointed to fulfills his idea of quality. What's the point guys? You ask for something, I provide it. You do nothing but attack the quality of the source of information while ignoring all of the information applicable to the question I responded to. Terryeo 06:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, Terryeo was just trying to establish that Scn should not be labeled a belief system because that is not how it is presents itself to Scientologists nor is that what Scientologists see it as. He was pointing at Laurie to support his stance in this forum, not for inclusion in the main article. But based on what I have seen of of Laurie's posts there she certainly is knowledgable enough about Scn and able to get the POV of the neutral observer also, especially on those issues where she is being asked to explain Scn and not defend it. While she might not be appropriate to define what Scn is in some idealized NPOV statement such as the introduction, she is certainly relevant to what they study (a better term than "believe"?) and what they practice and could certainly serve as a source in the main article for those areas.--Justanother 12:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Non-English secondary sources

Presently, Scientology#Notes numbered [55], [61] and [70] point to non-english webpages, [8], [9] and [10], respectively. In some articles it might be a real contribution to cite non-english sources but surely Scientology has been widely published about and is itself widely published in English. Wouldn't our readers be better served if they did not have to sort through information they can not read ? Terryeo 01:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I would say the English language Wikipedia should only use English language sources. VxP 05:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS#Sources_in_languages_other_than_English AndroidCat 05:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Where do we stand? Testing the waters.

I am thinking about how I might contribute to the article. As I have mentioned, the only area I am really interested in contributing is in that area where I have direct knowledge, the beliefs and practices section. I think I can add something to what I perceive to be a bit of a hodgepodge as in "Look, I found something they believe; here's something else they believe; I think they believe this too". There are central themes to their beliefs and practices and their behavior usually follows logically, even inflexibly, from those themes. So, without further ado, I would like to test the waters. Below are two versions of a description of TR-0. I do NOT propose this become part of the main article, it is too detailed, I only use it as an experiment. Assume all claims can be documented.

"Sympathetic NPOV approach"

As part of the Communication Course, Scientologists perform an exercise called TR-0 where they are required to sit still and look at another person for an extended period, often up to two hours or more. The drill is passed when, in the opinion of the Scientology supervisor, the student can comfortably "be there and confront" another person without exhibiting signs of nervousness such as fidgeting or excessive blinking.

Then under the criticism section we might find:

Some cult experts say that the TR-0 drill puts the prospective Scientologist into a suggestive trance-like state wherein they are more receptive to accepting Scientology concepts. Etc. (I would not contribute this part)

"Unsympathetic NPOV approach"

As part of the Communication Course, new members are made to sit absolutely still and stare into the eyes of another person for an extended period, often up to two hours or more. They are sharply rebuked with "FLUNK" if they so much as blink. According to cult experts this "TR-0" drill puts the prospective Scientologist into a suggestive trance-like state wherein they are more receptive to accepting Scientology concepts. Etc.

Please tell me what you think. I will tell you what I think now. The first presents TR-0 from a POV that UNDERSTANDS both the purpose of the drill from the Scientologist's perspective and the criticism that it instead has some nefarious purpose. It presents both. The second example shows no understanding of the former and only contributes to an understanding of the criticism. It does not contribute to any real understanding of Scientology. I think wikipedia is better served by presenting both understandings.--Justanother 20:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

It's hard for me to know what I think, partly because of that "then under the criticism section." Are you saying that the criticism is segregated elsewhere in the article from the description of the process? In this case only, or all cases? Your "sympathetic" description seems fair, but the line about the "Flunk" rebuke also seems perfectly germaine to a description of the process, so I can't see why that couldn't also make it in to an NPOV description. The real issue is about the extent to which critical views need to be incorporated in the descriptions of the practices. I'm afraid that'll have to be hammered out case-by-case, article by article, at least for now. Maybe some general principals will emerge. Offhand, it seems to me that some beliefs, like the ARC triangle, can be described without critical comment, while others, like the Suppressive Person doctrine, are so embroiled in controversy that the controverial views have to be immediately acknowledged. And as someone else pointed out, the appropriate format may be different for dedicated articles as opposed to introductory overvues. BTfromLA 21:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

You are both discussing how to arrange the herd of horses which you both envision being behind the fence. If you will both agree to abide by the policies and guidelines then all else will simply fall into place. Quotations and citations can be presented. In between areas can be created by simple text which is not original research. Newgroups shouldn't be used and personal website should not be used. Presenting TR0, as an example, quote the purpose and the reference and don't say a word about hypnotism until a reference which says TR0 is hypnotic is found. Then quote it and cite it. Yo Oh, heave ho. Where's the problem ? Terryeo 21:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem is writing-related, not about sources. It has to do with 1. the implied point of view in the author's choice of words and choice of details and 2. the organizational structure of the articles--the order in which the info is presented and the way those choices impact the reader's understanding of the topic. Policies and guidelines don't write articles. BTfromLA 21:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Terryeo. Please show us how you would write the bit on TR-0. That is the point of this exercise. Assume all information presented can be referenced. Assume the critics will have their say (you can just put "blah blah" for their stuff).Justanother 21:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

TR 0 CONFRONTING (revised 1971)

Position: Student and coach sit facing each other a comfortable distance apart -- about three feet.

Purpose: To train a student to confront a person. The whole idea is to get the student able to be there comfortably in a position three feet in front of a person, to BE there and not do anything else but BE there. This drill is one of a series of drills which practice each of the elements of a student communicating with a person. Various criticsms have been made of this drill because the position of the student and preclear are fairly close to each other, i.e. three feet apart which will mean their legs will touch. Depending on the degree of proficiency required by the student, the the drill procedure might require him to do nothing else for some period of time, i.e. hours. As it is unusual in any social situation to simply sit three feet in front of another person and do nothing but confront the other person and be there, several criticisms have been made of this drill. Terryeo 22:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the horses are "over there". We are not horses. We are attempting to understand horses without becoming one. To the degree that is possible we will have a good article.--Justanother 21:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The "sympathetic-unsympathetic" dichotomy is nonsense and has nothing to do with Wikipedia policy. Any such discussion belongs on the talk pages of the relevant wikipedia policy page. NPOV has worked quite well and prevails as wikipedia policy. --Fahrenheit451 22:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

To the contrary, all points of view contribute to Wikipedia. Any attempt to curtail or otherwise control discussion page chat, reduces the potential for editor creation by just a tiny bit. Better to bring these issues up, better to discuss them, come to understanding and concensus of editor opinion on such situations than to constrain them to some small undefined zones. Many issues are discussed which "have nothing to do with policy", it leads toward a concensus and agreement. Terryeo 22:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

451, Hey. I think you need to read the WP:NPOV policy. "Sympathetic treatment" is mentioned at least twice there:

"Let's present all significant, competing views sympathetically."

"There are numerous other success stories of articles that began life as virtual partisan screeds but were nicely cleaned up by people who concerned themselves with representing all views clearly and sympathetically."

We will continue discussing the best way to create this article here, if you don't mind. I would be interested to see how you would write the above bit.--Justanother 22:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Justanother, Hey. I think you need to read my statement again,"The "sympathetic-unsympathetic" dichotomy is nonsense and has nothing to do with Wikipedia policy." I was not condemning "sympathetic". Please understand comments before you reply, if you don't mind. Regards--Fahrenheit451 02:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Then perhaps you can explain. Are you saying there is no such thing as "sympathetic-unsympathetic". I doubt you will get much agreement there. And are you saying it has nothing to do with wiki policy when it is clearly stressed in the policy on NPOV, especially as regards "Fairness of Tone" and I have given many, many examples and references throughout my comments on this page. I don't think your position is defensible; it is just an unsupported statement on your part.--Justanother 03:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Justanother, just read my comment as it is. It appears to me that you are going off on a tangent and arguing non-existent issues. And your position of doing that is definitely not defensible, and it is an unsupported statement. --Fahrenheit451 16:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Jeez, am I a slow n00b. Give me another one, I think I'm starting to get it.--Justanother 04:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I would say that your frivolous arguing is not "getting it" at all.--Fahrenheit451 16:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Gentle reminders of WP:CIVIL and its complaint line, WP:PAIN Terryeo 17:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Fahrenheit451, I do not appreciate the insulting and confrontational tone that you are taking with me and I would appreciate if you would address me in a more respectful fashion. Thank you--Justanother 17:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Justanother, I would appreciate your being civil in your discussions here and you seem to be assuming bad faith. Please be advised that "Respect" is NOT wikipedia policy, but rather civility and assuming good faith are. --Fahrenheit451 17:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Fahrenheit451, thank you, you make my point exactly. Calling my disussions here "frivilous" and claiming that I am not "getting it" is certainly neither civil nor assuming good faith on my part, especially when my comments speak to the very structure and tone of the article. My calling you on your incivility to me is not being incivil on my part. Thank you --Justanother 17:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Justanother, you are verifying my point exactly. I am not calling you frivolous, but this particular discussion of yours for reasons I pointed out above. Same thing with your term "getting it". I point out that you are being uncivil and are not assuming good faith. Please correct yourself.--Fahrenheit451 17:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

451, hey. This is fun but I fear we are boring other users. If you care to contnue this please do so on my talk page. Thank you --Justanother 17:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Justanother. You think this is fun. I disagree. I want it to be productive and end right here. Your talk page is currently inaccessible, even though I have no interest in carrying on what you consider to be "fun".--Fahrenheit451 17:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

OK then, let's end it here then. We do other users a disservice with our sparring over what constitutes incivility. If we disagree then so be it. I will not argue that point further with you but I will continue to take an interest in instances of incivility directed at me. --Justanother 17:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, thank you. First, do you see that my statement pretty well covers the position and purpose as per the HCOB? I think that you will need to get over any idea that paraphrasing is "alter-is" or "verbal tech". This is not the Academy. I don't think any PR person in Scn would think that yours is better than mine and mine is defensible as NPOV. I would like you to offer up readable prose that accurately reflects the truth as you know it and back it up. And Terryeo, umm how do I say this, the criticism is not that their knees will touch, it is that they are being BRAINWASHED by a form of sensory deprivation. Better you just write "critical blah blah" and leave it at that. I know that particular criticism is hogwash but I can duplicate it (i.e. wrap my brain around it).--Justanother 22:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

You asked for it, I stated it. Since I won't be putting any portion of it in the article, it is obviously everyone's to substitute "blah, blah" at any point they wish to. I've cited that portion which is quoted. Editing the page exposes the citation which can likewise be used. Or not. Terryeo 04:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Historical note: March, 1952. Hubbard introduced the term Scientology and lectured its definition and scope. He developed it until his death. He wasn't even close to today's technology until some years after 1952. I don't know exactly the development sequence but the Saint Hill Special Briefing Course spells out the whole tree and he didn't begin that until 7 May 1961. Terryeo 14:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the word was introduced by a German philosopher in the 1930's. Hubbard knew it had already been in use, but he decided to use it anyway. In truth, a number of people besides Hubbard developed the subject, except Hubbard subsumed it under his works. You may or may not know about John Galusha, John McMaster, and David Mayo, and actually many lesser known folks who contributed to the development of the subject. Hubbard went off organizational involvement in mid-1976 and off active research involvement in 1982. --Fahrenheit451 15:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

That's an interesting line of thought and probably deserves at least its own subtitle on this page. Terryeo 18:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'm rather surprised at the lack of mention of David Mayo in here at all. Given the rather crucial role he (and the Church's reaction to him) played in changing the nature of Scientology, it probably deserves a mention. Before him, I think things were much more open. After, it was all copyrights and protectionism. Of course, I was like...5 at the time, so my memory could be faulty, and I don't trust it enough to edit without more research. I remember what my parents and their friends said, though. Chaleur 23:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Scholars

In the lead it says "some scholars accept Scientology as a bona fide religion" with two refs. The first paper explicitly makes no judgment about whether it is a good or bad, true or false religion, the other says "Although some social scientists insist that Scientology is a religion, the more appropriate position to take is that the organization is a multi-faceted transnational corporation that has religion as only one of its many components", and names one such in the few pages I read. I would be inclined to change this to "some scholars accept Scientology as technically a religion" or "some social scientists accept Scientology as a religion". Rich Farmbrough 17:24 30 August 2006 (GMT).

Hi. I am kinda new but have already seen discussion of the "some/many" question with "many" seeming to be the consensus. My read of the second reference's section "2) Is Scientology a Religion?" seems to support using the term "many" and this from someone that seems critical of Scn. I quote below:

"Many of my social scientific colleagues had examined some Scientology documents and possibly participated in some Scientology events, and they had deduced that the organization is religious in nature."

"Nevertheless, the historical reasons behind Scientology's religious claims, as well as the organization's selectivity in making the claims, do not diminish the probability that many Scientologists view their commitment as a religious one."

"Similarly, from a social scientific perspective, a belief system is religious if it contains supposedly supernatural elements, regardless of the accuracy of those elements."

I think it is clear that "many" is the more accurate term. --Justanother 17:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is a link to Scientology's presentation of what "some scholars think of Scientology as a bona fide religion". 21 Scholars in English (Ph.D's, 'Eight Holder of the Secrets', Professor of History of Religions, etc). Eight of and in French, 6 of and in German. 7 of and in German. 8 of and in Spanish [11]. Re: what leaders think of Scientology. On this page and following ones, some leaders give their opinions. Simple, one brief opinion per webpage [12]. Justanother seems to be presenting what these webpages state. Terryeo 17:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we have both a pro-Scn and an anti-Scn source that would say many, if not most social scientists and religious experts would call Scn, at the very least in the philosophical part, a religion. I will put it back to many and adjust the refs to support that pending further discussion. --Justanother 21:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Why not just use the neutral "a number of scholars"? AndroidCat 01:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

That could work. Another method, we might each list the scholars (recognized scholars who have published their personal opinion in the area) from 'our side' ? Terryeo 07:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The two refs quoted at the start of this section are talking about different animals. One suggests that the beliefs of Scientology constitute a religion, the other that the Church is not a religion. These are not contradictory - both could be true. All that is required is to be consistent and say 'Scientology' for the beliefs and 'Church of Scientology' for the organisation. Yes, I am aware that there are propagandists on both sides who don't want to do this. --Hartley Patterson 15:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Writers of the Future

I'm not sure where it would fit in this article, or I'd add it myself, but some mention/linking of Writers of the Future is probably warranted. While the judges and winners are not scientologists, they do milk it for all the publicity they can get. The judges all stay at the celeb centre, and then there are the ceremonies, etc. etc. I think it should at least be mentioned somewhere for completeness. Chaleur 23:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The judges may not be scientologists, but there is nothing prohibiting scientologists from winning: The contest is open to all sci-fi writers. Any prohibition would be discrimination, and I cannot see a Hubbard Trust excluding scientologists as a policy.--Fahrenheit451 04:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you think they would exclude Freezoners? Terryeo 16:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Odd question, Terryeo, but I stated "scientologists" which includes cofs members and "freezoners". So, it would include the latter as well.--Fahrenheit451 13:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Cult Status

Please provide a discussion here as to why facts pertaining to the reasoning of Scientology's status as a cult should not be pointed out in the article.

In your discussion, please take into account the referenced facts from published peer reviewed articles such as "Psychiatry and Scientology" [13] by L. J. West, M.D. which was printed in "The Southern California Psychiatrist," July 1990, pp. 13-16 where doctor West describes the Scientology as "a pseudo-scientific healing cult". You may also wan't to review other references, such as the legal copyright notice on Scientology's main web page describing the illicit black market trade in their scriptures, which are not broadly released, and are only made available to parishioners who have advanced in rank through study and payment to the church. This stepped aquisition of secrets, arranged in a pyramid structure [14], is claimed to lead to super natural abilities. Other facts include the definition of a cult as being controlled by a single powerful individual.

These are all relevant facts. Please discuss why they and other referenced facts supporting cult allegations should not be included in the article. Sysrpl 09:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Check the Scientology#Scientology as a cult section. It was moved out of the introduction during a recent periodic trimming because introductions are supposed to be short and shouldn't try to grow into the entire article. Also check Talk and Talk:Scientology/Archive_13 for discussion of the changes. I don't agree that anything critical or differing from Church of Scientology POV must be shoved into a critical ghetto, but I do think that introductions should be kept as short as possible and not suffer from "over cite".AndroidCat 11:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I concur with AndroidCat's remarks. BTfromLA 17:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

It could be argued that a section on whether the Church of Scientology is a cult properly belongs in the article on the Church of Scientology. Cults, in the modern meaning, are organisations not a belief set.

As it is, the section is a mess and doesn't address its title, but that's a wider issue. --Hartley Patterson 16:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Harley Patterson on both counts, with the caveat, as his been discussed here many times before, that, like "form" and "content," "Scientology" can never be fully seperated from "Church of Scientology." Still we have separate articles, and I agree that the cult section here could be reduced to a brief paragraph acknowledging the main claims about cult-hood, then pointing the reader to Church of Scientology or Scientology Controversy (maybe even Sea Org) for a fuller examination of this question. BTfromLA 17:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Who believes this load of bollocks other than Issac Hayes and Tom Cruise? --66.218.11.241 03:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, yeah, I kinda have to agree with 66.218.11.241 here. This stuff is kinda stupid. I mean, I can understand them disagreeing with prescription drugs a little bit, but, I mean, it's BS! --68.98.162.253 21:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding "# 4.2 Scientology as a state-recognised religion"

In Germany, scientology is not only not held as a state-recognised religion , moerover even under surveillance from the Verfassungsschutz (domestic intelligence service).

Quote (as by September 4th, 2006): "The "Scientology Organisation" (SO) is still being monitored by the offices for the protection of the constitution. Concrete evidence of activities directed against the free democratic basic order continues to be available. This is why the legal requirement for the organisation to be monitored by the offices for the protection of the constitution is met. Therefore, the relevant decision made in 1997 by the Permanent Conference of the State Ministers of the Interior and the State Senates remains valid." Source: Homepage of the Verfassungsschutz/ english version[15]

In Germany, most of the years of harrassement by government has quieted down. The Federal Supreme Administrative Court in Leipzig has ruled that the Hamburg state government violated the constitutional right to freedom of religion of a Scientologist. In a judgment issued from the bench, the Court held that the government had no legal basis for disseminating a “17:17 12/21/2005filter” that required companies to demand that anyone employed by or conducting business with them disavow the works of L. Ron Hubbard, founder of the Scientology religion. [16] There have been other court cases too, which, after years of harrassement, have forced government not to discriminate against a person's religion because the German Constitution declares freedom of religion. Terryeo 18:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You have slightly rewritten history there, Terryeo. The German government never did discriminate against religion. It "discriminated" against an organisation: The Church of Scientology, which they considered a threat, in much the same way that your government "discriminates" against Al-Qaeda (no, don't get angry, I'm not comparing your organisation to Al-Qaeda...). The debate was on whether to consider Scientology a religion, in which case it was constitutionally protected under Germany's extremely strong laws guaranteeing freedom of religion (and we all know why that is), or not, in which case it could be considered a criminal organisation, as it's founder was tried and convicted in neighbouring France, both Germany and France being part of interpol. Yandman 13:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I am flattered to think that I can rewrite history. <sigh> Thank you very much. Oh, by the way, perhaps you are aware of the difficulties freedom of religion has in France? Perhaps you are aware of religious discrimination as it manifests elsewhere in the world? Turkey? Iran? I can't agree that by posting what I know to be true (Scientology has won in Germany though challenges in German courts, based on German constitution), that I have rewritten history. Flattering of you to state it like that. :) Terryeo 16:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Toe the line. — NRen2k5 15:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The German government may have intended to discriminate against the Church, but the actual law discriminated against followers of the teachings of L Ron Hubbard. This included members of Ron's Org as well as the Church. It was a law against religious belief, not an organisation, and the courts as Terryeo points out didn't like it. --Hartley Patterson 19:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The German Constitution guarentees freedom of religion. Therefore, any person may adhere to any religious belief in Germany. As in the USA, the government tightly scrutinized the organization and individuals for a number of years and came up with nothing. Terryeo 19:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

You are talking out of your ass. The German gov't came up with plenty, and rightfully should outlaw the Scientology organization. Unfortunately it seems that the writ of the law imposes too much against the practise of Scientology to be constitutional.— NRen2k5 15:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

But you are going so far as to twist this into Germany "[coming] up with nothing". That is irrelevant to the topic of discussion as well as being an outright lie. As I said further above, toe the line.— NRen2k5 15:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I am beginning to get the impression that you yourself are a Scientologist, which means you are not in any position to make changes to the article. "NPOV" and "conflict of interest" come to my mind. — NRen2k5 15:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Umm, NRen2k5, you are free to observe my user page if you wish to. However, whether you do or don't, it would behoove your relationship with other editors to understand the foundation on which we all edit. You have stated the idea that an editor who holds a point of view is disqualified from editing Wikipedia and that is not the case. You seem to present that, for example, no Catholic should edit the Catholic articles, no Muslim the Muslim articles no Eskimo the Eskimo article, no apple farmer the Apple article. Which is why I invite you to read the policies which we edit under which include WP:CIVIL and WP:PAIN. "You are talking out your ass" is an uncivil statement. And, since my statement is more a quotation to a reliable, published source than an original research, it wouldn't apply anyway. Terryeo 00:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Cult category

The term "cult" carries definite negative conotations in modern usage. Use of the term can be a form of ritual defamation, calculated to demean and discredit groups, perhaps deservedly in cases, perhaps not. Clearly many experts and "laypeople" consider Scientology to be a cult. However, not everyone is in agreement on this. To not acknowledge, within the text of the article, that many consider Scientology to be a cult would be disingenuous. However, to place the [Category:Cults] tag on the article is to render a judgement for the reader that the group is in fact a cult, even though it is a matter upon which reasonable people can disagree (even if less than 20% of the population would disagree). It is also a subtle way of hanging an offensive epithet on the article. A close analogy would be to place the [Category:Queers] tag on articles about gay/lesbian people. Not all gays or lesbians would be offended, some might even describe themselves as queer, though the majority would probably take some offense. That a dictionary definition for "queer" is met is still no justifaction for doing that. [Category:Homosexuals] would be fine. Many Scientologists take offense to their religion being branded a cult. Because the term is considered offensive, and because there is not universal agreement that they meet the definition, it is wrong, at least in the context of a NPOV encyclopedia to place the [Category:Cults] tag on this article. Dr U 04:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I concur with this. Category inclusion must be unambiguous. Since there are people who don't consider Scientology to be a cult and there is no "cult jury" to determine membership, it is POV to include scientology in the Cult category.--Tbeatty 04:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

And yet TIME refered to it as a cult as early as 1952 as have endless other sources since then. [17] The category isn't a judgement, doesn't say "This is a cult", and not to include it under the category of things involving cults would seem to be POV. AndroidCat 10:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

When Time Magazine creates a reliable, published source then that reliable published source can be quoted. But, since there are other reliable publications which state otherwise, it would not be appropriate for the article to present only one point of view. Terryeo 00:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

As a modern religion or religion-like organisation whose members are encouraged to believe in ideas which differ significantly from the mainstream, the CoS is a perfect example of a cult. Insofar as this definition is used this is indisputable. That 20th century cults have given the word negative connotations does not mean it should be bowdlerised out of existence. Chris Cunningham 13:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I took a look at the Wikipedia article on Cult. The word 'Scientology' appears six times and 'Scientology' is on the 'see also' list. The Church is widely regarded as a cult and the question as to whether it is a cult or not is one that Wikipedia readers want information about.

I tried the reference we are discussing. Did anyone else take the trouble to do that? :-) It leads not to a list of cults, but to all kinds of articles that include some discussion of cults. Our article certainly has that, a whole section entitled 'Scientology as a cult'. Are people misunderstanding the Wikipedia meaning of 'Category'?

On balance, I think Wikipedia crossreferencing should take precedence. --Hartley Patterson 20:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Since the objections seem to be that 1. a lot of people say they're a cult 2. cross referencing is important; I find it extremely odd that no one has expended the energy to add many additional categorie OTHER THAN cult. Hell, the article claims they are a business and all other sorts of things too, not the least of which being a self-described religion. Since the claim is that Category:cults isn't a judgement that they are a cult, and the article clearly states that some don't consider them a cult, surely it shouldn't be a problem to put them under [cat:alleged cults] as a subcat of cults, and to add the [cat:religions]. Dr U 23:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Errr, no. The CoS is not an "alleged" cult, it is a cult. An allegation is a charge of wrongdoing, a cult is just a category for non-mainstream religious groups. I've change this back. I don't have a problem with cat:religions. Chris Cunningham 11:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Errr, no. Cult has a number of meanings and contotations different than just a non-mainstream religious group. It is often used as a smear word, sort of like nigger or fag. Black or gay describe the same groups of people, without the bigoted conotations. The ARTICLE ITSELF makes it clear that their status as a cult is not universally accepted. Dr U 23:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. I'm not interested in pussy-footing aroung descriptive terms any more than I'm interested in introducing critical "fact-checking" to the article. "cult" is no more loaded than "liberal". Chris Cunningham 01:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

THANK YOU FOR MAKING MY POINT!!!! There is no Category:Liberals or Category:Liberal politicians!!! (There is one for conservatives). Dr U 03:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Give it up. There are so many sources which call this a cult that to omit it smacks of whitewashing. If people can't be bothered ot find out what cult means that is their problem, not ours. Guy 23:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I can find a 10,000 sources that say Bush is an asshole. Am I justified in adding [Category:Assholes] tag to his article then? Dr U 23:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

"Scientology is a cult" 11,900 hits

"Scientology is not a cult" 13,600 hits

"Bush is an asshole" 94,900 hits

Borrowing your logic, if we don't add the [category:organisations that aren't cults] tag here and the [category:assholes] tag to the Bush article, then we are whitewashing. Dr U 00:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

This may help: Amazon search for "scientology" + "cult". I personally am of the opinion that it would be quite hard to find a published work on cults that doesn't include Scientology. --Modemac 01:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

People who spend their lives researching cults and publishing lists of cults, and books about cults are, with exceptions, generally not the most tolerant or NPOV group of individuals around. Scientologists generally deny being a cult. The text of the article makes it abundantly clear that many people think they are a cult. Changing the category from one which is often considered a slur to one which aknowledges that there is more than one opinion on the issue is clearly the more polite, less bigoted, less POV thing to do. Dr U 01:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Seeking further guidance I tried Wikipedia:Categorization. What we are disputing is in the general guidlines as "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category". Which can be overruled by the Wikipedia superrule "ignore rules if they get in the way" of course, but.. OK, I changed my mind, I vote to drop the Cult category and to link to the Cult article instead. --Hartley Patterson 11:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:Categorisation is a guideline, not a policy. If cult is a useful and accurate category, then it should stay. Jefffire 11:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:Cults says "This category includes topics related to cults. If you are looking for a list of cults, see the category Category:Alleged cults which is also a member of this category or the List of cults. Specific individuals and groups should be added to one of the subcategories listed below."

That seems clear enough to me. 'Church of Scientology' is the alleged cult, and properly belongs in that Category. 'Scientology' is the lead article, but I guess we can also squeeze it into 'alleged cults' on the grounds that readers are more likely to look for the single word than the Church. Neither, by the Category definition, belongs in Category:Cults. --Hartley Patterson 22:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Including Church of Scientology and Scientology in Category:Alleged cults seems like the way to go, for the reasons Hartley stated. TheronJ 13:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The relevant question would be, "What is widely published", "which point of view is more widely quoted, accepted" ? In 1952 "cult" probably did apply. Today the Church owns millions of dollars of property, is active in the United Nations, has ministers show up at disasters, well knwon celebrities belong, etc. The term "cult" is less widely used by reliable publications. Still, a classification should be based on reliable, published information. If most of that says "cult", then that would be the way to classify the Church of Scientology. Myself, I don't think "cult" is used as widely as other descriptions, today. Terryeo 03:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a silly debate to have. Whether Scientology is or isn't a cult, it's commonly perceived as one. No group believes themselves to be a cult, they all see themselves as bona fine religeons. VxP 15:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[18] tells of Germany's recognition of the Church of Scientology. The United States has made similar statements, Sweden, and other countries too. When a government recognizes a Church to be a bonafide religion, the arguement at least exists that the religion is not a "cult" but is a religion. Please understand, I am not trying to say there is only one viewpoint. But I am presenting there is a fair amount of "official" viewpoint which makes statements from the opposite point of view. Terryeo 15:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Governments often fail WP:RS. They have a political agenda that undermines the accuracy of their statements, usually in the form of "whitewashing." --Davidstrauss 15:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

My comment referred to publication, because publication from a reliable source, in a verifiable way, would be the basis for editor concensus. With 10,000 publications stating "cult" and 10,001 stating "not cult" we arrive at "not cult". But my statement is not attempting to dissuade the issue, instead I am pointing out there is reliable, published information which says "religion" instead of saying "cult". Terryeo 16:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability is not a vote of published sources. At least, it's not an unweighted one. Your "reliable" sources are generally only a reliable indicator of what Scientology says about itself. --Davidstrauss 17:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

My link, [19] is but one link and is to WorldWide Religious News which says it "is a non-profit service providing the international academic and legal community with up-to-date religious news from around the world." I meant it to be representative and not definitive. To my knowledge it is not a Church link, though I'm willing to spell out a number of Church links which define what governments have stated, courts have found, newspapers have published, etc. Terryeo 19:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Not only did you miss my point by continuing to cite the number of sources as your argument's justification, the link you provided is clearly a reprinted press release from the CoS. --Davidstrauss 20:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

In the instance: Is Scientology considered to be a cult or not a cult, the issue resolves to How many reliable published sources have published it to be a cult and that compared to How many reliable published sources publishe it to be other than a cult. Verifiability does enter into to. The reason I post an example link is because it is one of the many possible reliable published sources which have published that Scientology is a bonafide religion and not a cult. For example, court findings which find Scientology to be a religion are a source, newspapers are a source, government laws are a source, etc. etc. I realize there are many personal website essays and opinions but those are not published by reliable sources, hence, don't meet WP:V and hence, shouldn't be considered. Terryeo 03:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

We're not trying to resolve whether it's a cult, as editors we're trying to resolve whether that perception exists for the sake of presenting the entire issue. It can be seen as both a cult (by some) and a religion (by others), there's no need for them to be mutually exclusive (in other words, it should be in both categories of Wikipedia). There was a 1992 Time cover story (which prompted a CoS rebuttal) where it was called a cult on the front page, that to me is maintstream enough. VxP 13:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

That's a point, though there are not many publications which have published on the Scientology Religion. And there are Doctorates of Divinity and other recognized "experts" in the field of religion who have publically stated that Scientology is a bona fide religion. So the article should present both "widely published" points of view. Terryeo 18:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The editors of Category:Cults have once again made this debate irrelevant. The 'alleged cults' Category has been deleted, Category:Cults has reverted to its previous random selection of included pages which should be trimmed rather than having Scientology added, and readers are referred to the List_of_groups_referred_to_as_cults which includes Scientology.--Hartley Patterson 11:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Bet Origin

I'm surprised that the rumour Scientology has roots in a bet between Hubbard and Heinlein isn't mentioned in the Origins section, even if it's only to discredit it.

See Scientology_controversy#L._Ron_Hubbard_and_starting_a_religion_for_money AndroidCat 03:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Interpreting the Constitution

This article states:

"The First Amendment to the United States Constitution forbids the government from officially recognising religious groups as this would be "an establishment of religion."[citation needed]"

This is a misinterpretation of the Constitution...the United States government recognizes religions in order to grant them tax-exempt status, hear cases concerning them in courts, and the like. The First Amendment does not in any way prevent the U.S. from "recognizing" a religion, and recognition does not in any way constitute "establishment." This sentence should be struck from the article as patently false (and any school kid in a civics class could tell you that). Please don't make me break out a huge amount of case law to prove it--just look up cases with the keywords "Peyote" and "Navajo" and see but one example for yourself...

Different governments recognize religions differently. In the USA it was this, while in France it was this. Italy yet different and in Germany some churches enjoy certain monetary advantages (state supported churches) while others (including Scientology) do not. But freedom of religion is guarenteed by the German constitution. The USA government, by its tax exemption, recognizes the Church of Scientology believes it is working toward a betterment of society, that is, is not working toward accumulating wealth, but with a charity of intent. BTW, new editors can click the "History" tab at the top of a page to see recent edits. Terryeo 03:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

XENU Story and its Background

When you compare the Xenu story with the story of the Hyperborean of the Thule Society and the later Viril Society you will see that must have been a sort of Connection. As I heard the founder of Scientology was a personal friend of Alister Crowley. The connection between Crowley and the Thule society was thru some of the early spiritual teachers of Hitler's Munich years, witch where connected to Crowley’s ( Silver Star society , note the initials) and the OTO. Crowley and others may have used the Scientology founder, without his deeper knowledge to refound the Thule Society witch was nothing ells then the ideological core and basis for the SS ( see note before). The inner story of the NS-Leaders believe and the story of the inner believe of Scientology are just variations of the same story and that that is only by chance, together with the direct connection over Crowley, that cant be.

OK I shortend it to the most importend part.

Possibly your inputs would be more helpful at the Xenu article. This article covers the philosophy, its development, activites and a fair bit of ground, whereas your information might be of more interest to the people editing that article. Terryeo 15:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid this page isn't a newsgroup for discussing Scientology. It's a place for editors to discuss changes to the Scientology article. If you want to publish your musings online, you could try MySpace. Thanks. Yandman 15:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, some of the information presented here is incorrect. Hubbard, the founder of Scientology, was not a personal friend of Aleister Crowley, though he was known to imply otherwise, calling Crowley "my very good friend" during one of the "Philadelphia Doctorate Course" lectures. He was a personal friend of Jack Parsons, who was one of Crowley's followers -- at least they were friends until he cheated Parsons in a business deal and went off with Parsons' girlfriend (who later became Hubbard's second wife, though he wasn't divorced from his first.) Crowley knew of Hubbard through Parsons' descriptions, and seems to have perceived Hubbard more accurately than Parsons did, as he wrote of the situation to a deputy "Suspect Ron playing confidence trick, Jack evidently weak fool obvious victim prowling swindlers." -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It it rather an interesting point how some critical to Scientology persons present their idea of Hubbard's work, while Hubbard's words (years later) seem to be present a different point of view. I recently ran into Hubbard speaking of Winter's book which is cited here and there in the articles (Winter was a medical doctor who got involved in Dianetics). Terryeo 01:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

People actually believe this?

What on Earth are people thinking, to believe in such a prepostorous religion/philosophy/scam to earn money for a random guy. I mean what type of retarded religion involves ALIENS invading with people- why did they have people in the first place- and they came in aircraft "which can carry billions of people". Also, if "Xenu" blew up all the people with hydrogen bombs, what did the soles join on to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Damareinu (talk • contribs)

I think Yandman said it well above. You are entitled to your opinion; wikipedia is NOT the place to tell us about it.--Justanother 12:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. And You Know some other religions believe some far fetched things why don't you think about your beliefs before you crticize others. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.105.172 (talk • contribs)

Actually, Scientologists use wikipedia every day to manipulate the post about Scientology- using opinions of themselves and others that they then list as fact. How many times have contradictory statements of L. Ron been removed by Scientologists? Look at the history here and you'll see that the actual sayings of L. Ron have often been switched out in favor of opinions of Scientologists about what they "think" he meant. Infant Botulism, outlawed in Germany, banned as a charity in the UK.... the Miscavige bribe to the United States internal Revenue Service...

Come now, facts aren't what Scientologists are all about. For instance, did you know when you contact the biggest Cult deprogrammers from the 70's and 80's- The Cult Awareness Network- you're contacting Scientology. They bought the Cult Awareness Network, of whom they were a a major target previous to their ownership. Something smells fishy in the land of "Scientology truths."66.229.41.25

Since this is the article on Scientology, not L Ron Hubbard, what scientologists 'think' he meant is probably more relevant than what he actually meant. But either way anti-Sci POV is just as out of place in the article as pro-Sci POV. Ashmoo 23:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't agree, except in those instances where Scientologists have publically stated (published sources only), what they "think" Hubbard said. Actually I can recall any active Scientologist doing that. But of course there is one or two "former" Scientologist or Dianeticists (who disconnected in various ways) who are completely happy to publish what they "think" Hubbard meant. In any event, as long as its published, (reliable sources please) why not ? Terryeo 18:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

What they think he meant is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is what he actually said.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.1.55.153 (talk • contribs)

Not true. The only thing that matters is that it is On Topic, verifiable, notable and sourced. Ashmoo 02:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Also not true. It's important that it is neutrally presented as well. For example, if I present four collected personal opinions which are against Scientology and two personal opinions which are for Scientology – when many more exist – then I am not making a neutral presentation. — NRen2k5 15:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

No-one actually believes in Scientology really. It's actually a spoof perpetrated by a large number of members of Hollywood with the express intention of seeing just how much they can make Tom Cruise believe.

Even so, I hardly think that we can say that the Xenu story is ridiculous compared to telling everyone that some guy who rode a crosstree 2000 years ago is your bestest buddy. Hippoking 16:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

A little NPOV

We must add some critizing, some more things happened and there are even references in the web. We must add evil things, cause there are so much positive things, i think. User:82.50.115.12 12:56, 9 October 2006

Wikipedia is real clear on that. First everything has to be "published by a reliable source" or it can't be included WP:V. This is to keep out original research, ideas posted on bulletin boards, blogs, newsgroups, rumors, and such. Without that, Wikipedia would soon be glutted with all kinds of advertisements and stuff which was not at all encyclopedic. Its got to be good, reliable, published information. Well, the Scientology data is something like 40 million words. But you are hard pressed to find good, reliable publication against it. And critical stuff is mostly not about aspects of Scientology but more like, "critical to the reputation of Scientology". I've yet to find a critical, well reasoned, article about Scientology Technology. Terryeo 09:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

You mean "well reasoned" by your own standard and your own opinion, of course. There are dozens of critical, well reasoned, articles about Scientology Technology out there and you've certainly seen them, because you used to routinely delete them as references from articles back before you got banned from editing Scientology articles. wikipediatrix 13:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Getting back to discussion appropriate to talk pages, I mean "well reasoned" as a concensus of editors considers "well reasoned" to mean. The standards of WP:V and WP:RS are the standards by which I mean "well reasoned". Terryeo 18:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

You're talking a lot but you aren't saying anything. WP:V and WP:RS have nothing whatsoever to do with sources being "well reasoned". wikipediatrix 18:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

"Well Reasoned" was your brief manner of addressing what I said. Now you suggest that it doesn't apply? I do suggest that WP:V and WP:RS apply, in the manner I stated. Terryeo 18:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

SpeedyClick

The below was added to the controversy section. I wonder if we need to include the foibles of every OT in their personal and business life. SpeedyClick is gone but apparently this pair has a history of engaging in not-illegal spamming.

• OT VIII Scientologists involved in WISE Organization SpeedyClick are significant contributors to world spam volume, according to Spamhaus[20].

What do we think?--Justanother 03:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

There's no point putting this in. It's just not important enough compared to the rest. It would be like going to Pele's page and putting "in the summer of 1951, he scored a goal in the opening match of his school's 5-a-side tournament". yandman 07:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It lacks a connection between a company's spamming and the founders' membership in Scientology. Neither are notable by themselves, so why does putting them together make them notable for including here and other places? There have been a number of Scientologist spammers over the years, but I don't know if even the Spam Queen (ret) herself is worth mentioning, except on her own page. AndroidCat 11:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The only reason this article is so long is because of the DISGUSTING tolerance in this country. Tolerance is spouted from every orifice in every stupid liberal's body and Americans are FORCED to believe that tolerance and respect of all perspectives and beilefs is actually a 'good' thing. Anyone of sound mind can see Scientology is a ridiculously idiotic cult with stupid science-fiction based beliefs. Nothing but a blatant commercial venture with illegal harrassment and threat tactics used against ex-members and critics. Why can't this article have bias? A bias towards truth isn't really a bias. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.9.47.5 (talk • contribs) .

Funny, the current CONSERVATIVE government fully protects Scientology. Am I missing something, or is it possible that there's a lot that you are missing? — NRen2k5 15:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we should tolerate only your beliefs. I see that now.--Justanother 19:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

In any case, Wikipedia is not the right place for airing these kind of views. It's not a forum or soapbox, or a site for demolishing Scientology - it's an encyclopedia. Walton monarchist89 13:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Settled points

I wonder if there is a mechanism to summarize and store in an easily accessed fashion those points that have been discussed and where some agreement has been reached to have something presented in a certain way. Isn't there a tendency by new editors to make pretty much the same changes and change something that have already been hashed out? I am wondering if this will work.

Talk:Scientology/Settled Points|Settled Points: Please see if your proposed edit is on this list before making a change. Otherwise discuss first.

What do you'all think? --Justanother 15:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately), it is the way of Wikipedia that all things in the article are eternally for up for revision, and that nothing is ever truly "settled". In a way, it's good because it means articles can't become locked into stasis just because a group of editors decided on something long ago. On the other hand, it does mean that there's a whole lot of backtracking, repetition, and recapitulation goin' on. wikipediatrix 15:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I would make it very clear that any "settled point" can be reopened at any time, all the editor would need do is open a topic on the talk page first. If there is not interest in discussing it he can do what he pleases and take it from there. I don't have as much experience here as you do. Aren't there some issues that just go on and on and on? --Justanother 15:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Wikipediatrix: "settled points" won't work in the context of Wikipedia. However, maybe there could be something along the lines of "a note for newcomers" or "Scientology articles FAQ" that reviews some of the predictable questions and long hashed-out debates. That might short-circuit some of the repetive exchanges--at least it'd give editor's something to point to, rather than having to re-explain things at length. The danger, of course, is that the FAQ file itself becomes a site of contention. For better or worse, Wikipedia is set up to remain, like a zombie or an accursed ghost, eternally unsettled. BTfromLA 16:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course this sort of situation is not confined to our Scientology Series articles. The same points are discussed again and again at NPOV, V, and RS. "Same points" are probably raised in other religions and philisophies. But, as an article matures, it tends to become better and better referenced (hopefully). Reminding newcomers about the guidelines we work by (don't removed referenced statements) (supply references for new information), etc should handle situations. The single element that comes to mind is the category issue, "Pseudoscience", which has popped in and out as a catagorization. There might be a small handful of points to include in the top of this page's template that would streamline editor discussion. Terryeo 20:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Terry, it looks like it won't fly. No biggie, so long as editors understand what a limited definition modern science is and how religion and the spiritual cannot and should not be classified either scientific or pseudoscientific until the definition of science includes much more than the merely mesurable. --Justanother 20:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The 'Disputed' template at the top of this page gives due warning. New editors who make undiscussed and controversial edits aren't likely to take heed of any extra advice beforehand. --Hartley Patterson 18:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Too true. OK, forget it then. Thanks--Justanother 20:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

How about using a non printing comment embedded in the article? something like <!- NOTE to Editors: this topic has been [link to discussion | debated] and is considered a [link to settled issue page |settled issue] -> just an idea. Slightlyright 07:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Linguistics

Is it just me, or is the word 'Scientology' itself a tautology, as well as a Latin-Greek mix? Scientia(Latin) logos(Greek), 'the knowledge of knowledge'. Or have I got the words wrong (I'm not a classical scholar)? Walton monarchist89 10:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

There's a section on the origin of the name in the article. I don't think it's a strict tautology, as the logos ending translates as "the study of/ the discipline of", which is not quite the same thing as science, which refers to any system of knowledge attained by verifiable means. For example, astrology is "the study of the stars". It's definitely a mix, though...yandman 11:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

According to the article, the CoS itself translates the word as 'the study of truth'. I suppose the Greek logos could be translated as 'truth'; it's certainly carried a wide variety of meanings (in the Bible it's translated as Word, as in Word of God). Walton monarchist89 10:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Scien- is the same root word as "Science" and means "knowledge", "truth" or, conceiveably, "wisdom". -ology is the study of that, for example "Biology, the study of life". Terryeo 01:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The Aims of Scientology

I put the below in the intro because it is an important, no, essential, descriptive element of Scientology. If there is any one quote that explains all the good and all the excesses of Scientology it is this quote. Scientologists live and breathe this line. It is the motivation for the self-sacrifices of the Sea Org and other staff and the self-righteousness of those that go up against critics. Scientology is NOT about some rich guys going OT; it is about a ton of people believing that they can make a difference with Scientology. It is not "Pro-Scientology" unless you think it is pro-Scientology to report that they "claim" to be operating on lofty goals. But for the rank and file Scientologist and for every Scientology exec I have ever met (and I know a few high ones) this IS Scientology.

The Aims of Scientology, as stated by Hubbard are:

“ A civilization without insanity, without criminals and without war, where the able can prosper and honest beings can have rights, and where man is free to rise to greater heights. ”

Amazingly, it is nowhere to be found in the main article. I think it rightly belongs in the intro. How about you'all. --Justanother 00:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. It's mostly very general platitudes, and doesn't really tell us anything vital. Most organizations have similar lofty-sounding mission statements, but they're rarely included in the intros of articles about said organizations. wikipediatrix 00:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Whether an article addresses the United States Government, the UN or the Church of Harmmondale, an organization has a purpose for existing, a direction it is heading in, a goal it means to achive. Most articles include the organization's stated goal. Terryeo 00:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Generally, Churches don't have "goals" per se, except to further glorify their deity in the way see fit. The religion itself is their purpose for existing, obviously. Also, this is the Scientology article, not the Church of Scientology article. Both articles already have ample (and far more specific) info on Scientology's purpose anyway. wikipediatrix 01:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The Charter (goal) of the UN is here. It states the reason for the UN's existence. The goal of the USA government is contained in the preamble to its constitution. Scientology's is here (also quoted above in justanother's post). Buddhism has a goal, local Churches of any denomiation sometimes state their goal (promoted fellowship, spread the word of the Lord). Terryeo 01:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

NPOV requires not just that both sides be presented, but that they be presented fairly and without bias. It is

The use of direct quotation, especially with the obtrusive {{cquote}} template, must be watched very carefully or it violates NPOV, its rhetorical strength advocating a POV instead of neutrally describing that POV. In the main body of the article, we could probably find an appropriate place to present that Hubbard quote, particularly if you can find some sort of evidence that it is as "essential" for Scientologists as you say. But the introduction is not the place for it -- not even if we were to balance it in the introduction with a similar quote capturing the critical view of Scientology, such as that of Justice Latey:

“ Scientology ... is corrupt, sinister and dangerous. It is corrupt because it is based upon lies and deceit and has as its real objective money and power for Mr. Hubbard, his wife and those close to him at the top. It is sinister because it indulges in infamous practices both to its adherents who do not toe the line unquestioningly and to those who criticize or oppose it. It is dangerous because it is out to capture people, especially children and impressionable young people, and indoctrinate and brainwash them so that they become the unquestioning captives and tools of the cult, withdrawn from ordinary thought, living and relationships with others. ”

Both of those quotes have a place in our discussion. Neither of them has a place in the introduction. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The quote belongs in the article, but I wouldn't suggest putting it into the introductory paragraph. VxP 14:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

There's no doubt that Scientology has roused strong statements. Where and when did Justice Latey state that one? As for using a template to make a quotation, well, I think templates are overused anyway. I believe it discourages a new editor to have to learn every template and its complexities, where to find it, etc. before making an honest go at placing his / her contribution. Terryeo 20:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

With very slight difference, it is in the final opinion of an English family law judge in a child custody case from 1984. The father was a Scn, the mother had left the CoS. The judge awarded custody to the mother (obviously). It is basically one man's opinion. --Justanother 20:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

An example of bias creeping into the article is the recent reversion to: The name "Scientology" is also used to refer to the controversial Church of Scientology. If it were widespread, undisputed and clear to everyone that the Church of Scientology were "controversial", then the statement would not require reference. But that is not the situation. With a handful of editors the Church is (clearly) controversial. But it is undisputedly controversial with everyone? Well, no, it isn't. For example, it isn't controversial with the IRS of the USA, it isn't controversial as a Church according to the government of Germany, it is accepted as a charitable organization in Australia, and there are many more examples. So it isn't obviously controversial everywhere. For Wikipedia to present it is a "cult" or "controversial" without any reference makes the article immediately biased. Since it should be easy enough to find a reference which states "controversial" (if that is true), then that statement should be referenced. Terryeo 20:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The same sort of word games can be played with virtually any adjective used to describe anything in any Wikipedia article. Is that all you got? wikipediatrix 20:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It is kind of inflammatory to use that as the primary descriptic word in the first appearance of CoS. I could just as easily say it should be "lauded" and point at all the awards the CoS has received. There is plenty of opportunity to indicate the controversy (and the awards). No need to jump the gun. --Justanother 20:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

We've just been through this on my talk page. It is not "inflammatory" to call something controversial when almost every piece of media attention related to the topic mentions controversies. Controversy, more than anything else, is what Scientology is famous for. Controversy isn't even necessarily a bad thing, so what's the big deal? There comes a common-sense point when is it not a POV issue to call a controversial organization a controversial organization. wikipediatrix 21:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

There are news articles which include "controversial" and there are news releases which do not. News releases are one source of information. Almost every large organization has some controversy associated with it, including the government of the USA. But to introduce the subject as "The controversial government of the USA" or "The controversial Catholic Church" isn't encyclopedic. Why not introduce there is controversy in the introduction and provide fuller details later in the article? It introduces an unnecessary bias you see, that could be written in a more encyclopedic manner. Terryeo 18:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

It would be wize and reasonably neutral, to put these two quotes near each other, in antagonism, to show neutrality towards scientology. Of course not in the introductory page! Drop them in the controversy sections. As my personal opinions are irrelevant here, I will not comment further. Rotten Venetic 21:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

"sometimes lauded" by who?

Justanother has tried what he calls a 'compromise' by inserting "sometimes lauded but controversial". It's not so offensive to my sense of logic that I would revert it, but I still think it's really, really silly... lauded by whom?? Even the KKK is "sometimes lauded". So what? Since this is an encyclopedia, I think the reader would expect for "sometimes lauded" to mean "sometimes lauded by people of note" and not just "sometimes lauded by Mort Kowznofski, a cabdriver from Massapequa who read Dianetics once in 1982". wikipediatrix 21:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, how about Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida.[21] I can find tons, do I need to? Actually, I think that we do not need a sweeping POV description of the Church in its first appearance and I am fine with removing them both. --Justanother 22:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Why do you maintain that "controversial" is POV? Why is it so important to you that this word be removed? It's completely verifiable and provable that controversy is practically all that they're known for, for better or for worse. wikipediatrix 22:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

That is, I think, the heart of your POV viewpoint of Scientology. That Scientology is primarily a "controversy". Scientology is a philosophy, a religion even, practiced by hundreds of thousands of people. There is controversy associated with it, mostly fueled by internet buzz, but Scientology is not a "controversy". It isn't even all that controversial once you move off the internet and sensational media (Ohhh, TomKat. OMG HE'S JUMPING ON A COUCH!). That is my POV. We both have one. How many Google newsgroup posts = one award from the Governor of a state? How many? How many Google newsgroup posts = religion status granted by one national government? How many? Do you really think counting Google hits matters? Let's leave the sweeping POV description out of the 1st mention, both pro and con. --Justanother 22:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I have figured it out, wikipediatrix. I am going to apologize up front if this seems a bit personal but it is not really intended to be personal and if there is a specific part that you object to let me know and I will clarify. For you Scientology is controversial because you have aligned yourself with Scientology critics. That is not meant to be a criticism of you. You have every right to your opinion but please take ownership that you are a critic of Scientology. It is pervasive throughout your comments to me starting with your assertion that it is 80% nonsense and 20% obvious and derivative. I am not making you wrong for that, I am simply pointing out that, for you, Scientology must be controversial because you are invested in the controversy, the criticism. This ends the personal part. The rest is more general. I am not invested in the controversy. Many editors here are not invested in the controversy. Gov. Jeb Bush is not invested in the controversy. For us, Scientology is not controversial. It an organization, a Church. Like any human endeavour it has bad and good about it. It may do some things we don't agree with but that does not make it controversial. It is a recognized religion. Critics would like to make it controversial. They would like the question to be about whether Scn should even be allowed to exist or should it be squashed like a bug. Scientology would like to make psychiatry controversial. Making something controversial is the first step toward eradicating it. That is how the Nazis attacked the Jews. (Remember this is NOT the personal part.) First make them controversial. People (critics) have been trying to make Scientology controversial for years. Scientology is not controversial. I strongly object to the effort to make Scientology, by its very nature, controversial. I do not object to describing every single thing that is wrong with it. --Justanother 23:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

After the marathon talk-page discussion we had, you still don't get it: I am not "aligned with Scientology critics". I am neither a critic or a hater, nor am I a Scientologist. Therefore, I believe I have a fairer perspective than either you or, say, Tory Christman. It's completely self-evident that Scientology is controversial, and your reaction to the word is increasingly bizarre - to compare calling Scientology "controversial" to the Nazi persecution of Jews is just jaw-droppingly absurd. Uncontroversial organizations do not get called "The cult of Greed" on the cover of TIME magazine. Most GOOD things in history have ALWAYS been controversial, anyway, so from a PR perspective, I would think you would welcome the word. (Then again, it's been shown time and time again that the CoS has an appallingly bad sense of PR.) wikipediatrix 00:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is a hodgepodge of answers - and I am glad you did not take it wrongly as a personal attack. Nazi comparison: Not absurd at all. Simply an example of why someone would first like to make something controversial. Don't you think that critics like Touretsky would like to see Scn squashed?? Do you know of the anti-Scientologist laws that were passed at one time not long ago in Germany. A Scientologist could not hold a government job. Read the bit on the Jews in Germany. There are parallels. I am not saying that anyone wants to kill all the Scientologists. I am saying that to destroy something you first make it controversial. You as a critic: How can you say you are not critical of Scn when you think it is nonsense and continually compare it to entities like KKK or mass murderers? Can you please explain that to me because I can't wrap my brain around that. -- Justanother 00:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Because I'm cold-hearted, lol. I am intellectually aware that the CoS has committed crimes and broken laws. That's all that's necessary to edit articles. Bad organizations exist, and there are always people willing to join them, as P.T. Barnum noted. That's life. I don't care. I'm not on a crusade to expose Scientology. They're already pretty well exposed anyhow, thanks to their own gaffes. I just want articles to be sourced and correct, and the idea that Scientology is uncontroversial is wishful thinking at best, and flat-out nuts at worst. wikipediatrix 01:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I think I get it. Scientology is a bad organization and you are not a critic because you are not trying to prove anything, you are just reporting on a bad organization; one that has been so adequately proven to be bad that the whole "critic" question becomes moot. I mean does Adolf Hitler or Ted Bundy have "critics". Do I have it right?. --Justanother 01:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

As I told you already on my talk page: "I think it's common sense that once an entity reaches such infamy, it can't be glossed over in the interest of "appearing fair". This is why the Ku Klux Klan article doesn't devote equal space to detailing their personal philosophy, beliefs and tenets. This is why no one cries POV with O.J. Simpson's article mentioning Nicole's murder in the very first paragraph." Whether Scientology is "bad" or not depends on how you feel about their crimes and misdeeds. And as for Ted Bundy, yes, you are correct: Ted Bundy committed crimes, therefore it is not POV to call him a criminal. Would you prefer we call the CoS "criminal" rather than "controversial"? wikipediatrix 01:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Just so I can put this to rest. Do I have it right in my preceding post? If I can state your stand in my own words I can understand it. If I don't have it right how would you adjust my statement? Thanks --Justanother 02:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

No, you don't have it quite right. Repeat it the way I just said it and you'll have it right. wikipediatrix 02:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

(smile) OK. Let me work on it. You feel that the organization should be mostly defined by their misdeeds (because Hubbard mostly spouted nonsense so the tech doesn't really count) and whether you think it is bad or not depends mainly on whether you feel their misdeeds are inexcusable or excusable? Is that getting closer? --Justanother 02:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

"Should be mostly defined by their misdeeds" is a misleading way of putting what I've already said. I've already stated it in the clearest, simplest way I know how. wikipediatrix 02:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I am trying to put it in my own words. By the way, you know that you are "spouting" Scientology? The most perfect duplication (understanding) of a statement would be a restatement in the exact same words but understanding the meaning of each word the exact way the speaker meant it. But since I may not have the same meanings of words that you do I am trying to translate "wikipediatrixian" into "justanotheran" --Justanother 02:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Scientology has reached such a level of infamy that the infamy outweighs any possible good so by attempting to present the two sides equally in an effort to be "fair" one would be making an error. I think that is a good summary of your statement in my own words. --Justanother 02:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. You seem incapable of summarizing my words without changing them. I never said "outweighs any possible good" or anything remotely like that. I'm starting to think I'm being trolled to see how much of my time you can make me waste in rebutting the words you keep putting in my mouth. I'm done. wikipediatrix 03:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I am sorry that you are now longer interested in helping me understand your position. I say "outweighs any possible good" because you say "I think it's common sense that once an entity reaches such infamy, it can't be glossed over in the interest of "appearing fair". I don't know what you mean by "such"; that has subjective meaning to you, but not to me. I am trying to discover what level is "such" a level. Are you saying forget about the tech for now and let's just look at the infamy - the infamy should not be glossed over in the interest of being "fair". Because if that is all you are saying then we agree. --Justanother 03:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I think wikipediatrix would like me to summarize her view like so: "Scientology has reached such a level of infamy that by attempting to present the two sides equally in an effort to be "fair" one would be making an error." But I don't know what she means by "such" and I am unsure of what she might consider "the two sides" (assuming she perceives two sides). --Justanother 03:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Um, excuse me here a second, Justanother. I just want to make sure I'm understanding you correctly. Are you saying that the organization that committed the single largest infiltration of the United States government in history, that framed an innocent journalist for bomb threats with the stated intention of putting her in prison or a mental institution, that committed a phony 'hit and run' accident to sabotage a political enemy, and that let one of its own members die by passing up four hospitals in order to take her to one where a fellow Scientologist worked is controversial ... because of critics?!?! I'm serious, I want to know the answer, you actually believe that? You can't figure out why they might be controversial because of their history of violating the law and abusing their own members? -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• I find it hard to believe that Snow White was the "largest infiltration of the United States Government in history," the claims of a free weekly notwithstanding. I buy "largest private infiltration," but is there really a reliable source to say it was larger that the Soviet Government's 50 years of infiltration? TheronJ 22:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I don't know if I can get wikipediatrix to follow through with my desire to understand her position (I thought I was getting close) but I will have to tackle this tomorrow because I certainly have something to say here.

Perhaps I misunderstand what is happening here. It sounds like Wikipediatrix and Justanother are healthily discussing how Wikipediatrix views Scientology and Justanother is attempting to understand. It goes back and forth and understanding, appears in glimmers. It is an enlightening discussion and a healthy one (my opinion). But then User:Antaeus Feldspar posts and the discussion is no longer about two editors understanding each other's POV. The discussion migrates to something like "Scientology is good or evil". As a point of information, WP:NPOV#Undue weight says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. That is the policy the article should follow and it doesn't mention that any editor constrain him (or her)self to one point of view. Indeed, it doesn't require that any editor convince any other editor of the validity of his (or her) point of view. Instead, we just present the points of view. Terryeo 18:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

"Another unmarried marriage counselor. Sigh." wikipediatrix 18:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Antaeus, in his presumed desire to keep me honest, is rightly challenging a rather provocative claim I made. I cannot address it now because I left my lighter at home. --Justanother 18:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• How about "popular but contoversial"? If Justin wants to balance out controversial, but we can't agree that Scn is "sometimes lauded," is there some variation of "popular" or "fast-growing" that would fit? TheronJ 22:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's a common-sense basis to state that Scientology is "popular". Despite their claims to millions of members, a leaked 1987 internal CoS memo stated that there were then only 25,000 active members. And despite the recent controversies Scientology has generated via Tom Cruise, Katie Holmes, Silent Birth, South Park, etc., I don't know of any media reports of Scientology gaining "popularity" from it, a la Kabbalah's newfound popularity via Madonna. wikipediatrix 00:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

"Popular" might describe an accumulation of wealth. Certainly a church doesn't accumulate wealth unless it contributes something in return. How much wealth should a church, corperation or group accumulate before it is "Popular" ? How infused into people's daily lives must a group be, before it is "popular". How widespread in how many countries, how much effect must it have in the U.N. before it is "Popular" ? Terryeo 16:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

"Egg" might describe an accumulation of cabbage. "Sodium" might describe an accumulation of apathy. "Pineapple" might describe an accumulation of seltzer. "Arbeit Mach Frei" might describe an accumulation of ice cream. You're talking nonsense. wikipediatrix 16:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me take a quick stab at responding to Antaeus.

Yes, I think that some critics seek to make Scientology controversial as a precursor to outlawing it completely as a organized activity. Scientology is not controversial. Scientology is an applied religious philosophy that many people have found helpful to them in their lives. The Church of Scientology is the organization furthering LRH's vision of a "cleared planet" through the use of Scientology and is the primarly source of the "self-help" aspects of Scientology. Scientology was controversial in different parts of the world in different periods of its history. Right now, in the US, Scientology is NOT controversial. Right now, in the US, Scientology is ACCEPTED. Critics of something, that want that thing eradicated, have to change it from ACCEPTED to CONTROVERSIAL to REJECTED and OUTLAWED. That is what you see now with tobacco in the US; it was the historical action of the Nazis against the Jews, and it is what Scientology would like to see happen to psychiatry. And it is what some critics would like to see happen to Scientology. Now, by saying that Scientology is accepted, not controversial, I am not denying that there are problems or issues that need to be addressed. Take the Catholic Church scandal. Does anyone think that pedophile or pederast priests make Catholicism or Christianity controversial? Of course not, it remains accepted; only the actions of the priests and those that make have fostered or covered up their actions are criticized. Similarly the actions of OSA do not make Scientology controversial. Catholicism is not a pederast priest and Scientology is not an OSA goon. I repeat, in order to destroy a social institution like Scientology you have to take the spotlight off specific wrongdoings or issues to be addressed and broaden it into a floodlight that casts the entire activity in an aura of controversy. That is accomplished by a relentless PR campaign; in the case of Scientology it is mainly being attempted via the internet and from there to the popular media, especially the tabloid aspects of popular media that feed on sensationalism. When well-made critical materials show up on YTMND, that is part of a PR effort.

The funny thing is that critics that would make Scientology controversial have very little material to work with. There is just not that much you can point to since the GO was disbanded. Poor Lisa, a fluke and a lucky one for the critics; she would be most sad to know what she has come to symbolize, I think. What else in the last 20 years? OSA acting stupid and hiring PI's to dig up dirt on critics? Mary DeMoss yelling at picketers? Big deal. Not OK, but big deal. So all your great "controversy" boils down to: actions by the GO 20-plus years ago that were dealt with harshly by the CoS; a fluke of a wrongful death by good intention (all they really wanted to do was help her in the manner that she would have chosen to be helped had she been able to state her preferences); being rude to critics. None of that is "Scientology" and none of it makes Scientology controversial. --Justanother 18 November 2006 (UTC)

You're overlooking a number of similar events since the FBI raids and the GO-11 convictions that happened afterwards in other countries, as well as stating the questionable claim that CoS somehow dealt "harshly" with GO. And I think your "relentless PR campaign" has as much evidence of existance as that the Marcabs are behind it. AndroidCat 03:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, there is a relentless PR campaign. What you don't get is that it is very much an internet phenomena; the PR campaign is "open source". Anyone can join, anyone can "contribute". No Marcabians, just people that allow their reality to be shaped by sensationalism and misrepresentations. --Justanother 04:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's ask Google:

Yes, I know the "Google Test" isn't perfect, but it does provide a nice quick and easy poll to see which way the wind is blowing:

• scientology+controversy - 1,100,000 hits. Negative and critical sources abound.
• scientology+controversial - 505,000 hits. Ditto.
• scientology + dangerous - 852,000 hits. Ditto.

Okay, let's see if we can't find some happy people with nice things to say:

• scientology + beneficial - 110,000 hits! But...but wait, they're still almost entirely from negative and critical sources. Oops.
• "Scientology helped me" - 1210 hits. Hmmm. And again, mostly critical sites.
• "Scientology saved me" - Uh.... Oh dear.

wikipediatrix 22:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I already say above why the Google test is meaningless but at least don't stack the deck your way by overly restrictive searching. "Your" side gets to just search on two words while "my side" has to meet a specific quoted string? Puh-leese.

Let's see how I do using wikipediatrix' preferred searching method to support her stand:

• scientology+help 3,980,000 hits. Good for the goose . . . I think I've made my point, no reason to continue this exercise.

Now let's see how I do if I were actually trying to find something positive:

• How about Scientology "helped me" - 90,600 hits. I think I've made my point, no reason to continue this exercise.

--Justanother 14:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't think it was necessary to have all searches be in the same format. I think if Scientology helps as many people as the Church claims, there should be plenty of blogs, sites, posts, etc. out there stating "Scientology helped me". There aren't. But that's not the point. The point was the "controversy" and "controversial" search queries and your bizarre claim that Scientology is uncontroversial. The others were just thrown in as a little Lagniappe. wikipediatrix 14:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you kidding? I can find you plenty of blogs, myspace pages, etc. Go to myspace and search "Scientologist" for a start. Heck, there are 16,000, repeat 16,000, right here. Oh but those don't count because they are hosted by the CoS not by myspace or blogspot. Right. Mine is there and so are many people I know. They are all legit. Yes, we were asked to create them but that does not make them less legit. --Justanother 14:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Are *YOU* kidding? You're actually claiming that the existence of *MySpace* pages claiming that Scientology has helped people is proof of said help? I could find a similar pool of MySpace pages claiming that hooking up with underage girls on the internet "helps" improve lives; that doesn't make it "legit", to use your term. Please pull the other one. -- Weirdoactor 16:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Mmm... I typed "myspace" and "scientology" on Google instead, and most results are about Myspace.com deleting critical sites of Scientology. Dragice 05:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Weirdoactor, but you are entirely missing the point of that exchange. I am responding to this claim by wikipediatirx "I think if Scientology helps as many people as the Church claims, there should be plenty of blogs, sites, posts, etc. out there stating "Scientology helped me". There aren't." So I will leave your "other one" alone for now. --Justanother 16:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ, Justanother; I believe it is you who is missing the point of my statement. I will do you the service of diagramming the exchange below, in context with my statement:

wikipediatrix: I think if Scientology helps as many people as the Church claims, there should be plenty of blogs, sites, posts, etc. out there stating "Scientology helped me". There aren't.

Justanother: Are you kidding? I can find you plenty of blogs, myspace pages, etc. Go to myspace and search "Scientologist" for a start.

Weirdoactor: I could find a similar pool of MySpace pages claiming that hooking up with underage girls on the internet "helps" improve lives; that doesn't make it "legit", to use your term.

I do hope that the above helped you to understand my statement in the context of your exchange with wikipediatrix. Please feel free to contact me should you need further elucidation on this matter. -- Weirdoactor 16:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

And you also entirely miss the point of what I was calling "legit". I was calling the CoS OurHome pages "legit" because, IMO, Scientology critics want to dismiss them as somehow "not legit" but they are exactly the sort of material that wikipediatrix says cannot be found on the internet. Nice job on the diagram though. --Justanother 16:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

My sentence "that doesn't make it 'legit', to use your term" was not in reference to the CoS websites; it was in reference to MySpace blogs, and your claim "I can find you plenty of blogs, myspace pages, etc. Go to myspace and search 'Scientologist' for a start", that statement referring to wikipediatrix's assertion that there aren't "plenty of blogs, sites, posts, etc. out there stating 'Scientology helped me'." I have no opinion on the legitimacy of CoS blogs, nor did I state as much. My problem would be with the legitimacy of MySpace blogs as a citation for improving one's life through any outlet; as MySpace is a social networking website used by bands, PR firms, and aspiring porn stars; and not, as far as I know, a self-help/life improvement journal dedicated to helping the world. I thought that I had made that clear, I apologize if it was not.

Somewhat related; may I ask the meaning of your statement "I will leave your "other one" alone"? I'm not being obtuse, I'm genuinely baffled. And thank you for your compliment on my diagram. I primarily use them for myself, as I tend to be more visual than verbal. Not the best tendency for a professional writer, to be sure... -- Weirdoactor 17:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Since you seem to have a sense of humor:

Weirdoactor: Please pull the other one.

Justanother: So I will leave your "other one" alone for now.

I am not speaking to the legitimacy of Myspace. I simply say that they exist. Wikipediatrix says things like blogs and posts (how "not legit" is that?) don't exist. This was just about the existence, not the legitimacy. But, as an aside, do you think that a Myspace blog that says "I am a Scientologist and find it has helped me a lot in my daily life" should be doubted out-of-hand? --Justanother 17:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Anything Myspace says should be doubted out of hand whether it has anything to do with Scientology or not. (And incidentally, the net is filled with fake Scn blogs like this one.) wikipediatrix 17:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

My OTHER one. Ha. Sorry. I KNEW I should have had fish (in a white wine and ginkgo biloba reduction) for dinner last night. Nice one, sorry I was slow on the uptake. -- Weirdoactor 20:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

No, no, not your fault. It just needed a diagram 8-D --Justanother 21:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I made a mistake by putting the Indonesian translation on this page.Stephen 18:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Where's the Scientology?:

Has anyone else noticed there is remarkably little Scientology in the Scientolgy article? It seems like it is just packed with critical POV. How about the Axioms, a summary of the bridge, an entry on KRC, maybe a bit more about auditing since Auditing is what Scientology is actually all about... I'll go dig through the archives and see if I can figure out why there is no Scientology in this "article". This thing feels like a black PR hatchet job to me... Slightlyright 09:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Err... there's an entire article on auditing, which is linked to in the paragraph named.... "auditing". yandman 09:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It sounds as though you want the article on Scientology beliefs and practices, HTH. --Modemac 10:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I still don't see a good KRC article/paragraph anywhere... which seems big enough of a subject that we should cover it, no? I'd start it, but I know very little about it. Ronabop 02:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there is a fair amount of "Scientology" but it is presented in a skewed fashion. Because it is, by and large, written by editors that have little personal knowledge of how it actually works and how it "hangs together", it tends to be presented in a disjointed and disbelievable fashion. The editors here are not really to blame for that; they are filling a vacuum. The problem is that knowledgable editors like you or I often interiorize into the personalities and the "battles" rather than simply contribute. The solution is to exteriorize from the games condition and be pan-determined rather than self-determined. Stop resisting the "exposure of Scientology". Let the critics "expose" as much as they like provided it is verifiable. What wikipedia needs more is Scientologists writing about Scientology. --Justanother 18:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

An interesting response, considering I recently gently suggested that your time might be better spent in simply adding more info about Scientology to Wikipedia, rather than engaging in picayune battles with editors over trivial non-issues like whether Helena Kobrin, winner of the Usenet Kook of the Year Award, could be considered "infamous" on Usenet. See:"User_talk:Justanother#meanwhile...". (In fact, the KRC Triangle was one of the things I specifically mentioned as needing fleshing out.) Also, I highly disagree with the idea that Scientologists know better how to write about Scientology than others. As long as proper citation of sources occurs, it doesn't matter what an editor's background is, and in fact, less bias is likely to occur. wikipediatrix 18:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

'..."Less" bias is likely to occur.' This statement (not the person) is troublesome and seems to me to illustrate the fundamental reason that this article is so poor (by objective encyclopedic standards). I came here originally wanting to find one of the Scientology axioms so I could compare it to some mathematical statements made in an old physics paper called EPR. I wasn't able to find the axioms here. The axioms are the foundation of Scientology. They should be here. So should a discussion of how a few auditing procedures are derived from the axioms and maybe an informed narrative of what might happen as one traverses the bridge, etc. But that is something we can get in here if we can revise a fundamental postulate held (possibly unknowingly) by some in this community. The incorrect and counterproductive consideration that seems to pervade the community is this:

Scientology is not a subject - it is instead controversy about a pseudo subject.

If this consideration is true, then of course it makes no difference whether a contributor knows anything about Scientology - the controversy is freely and easily available to anyone – it requires no study, no practice to learn how to apply it, no prior knowledge of Scientology at all to comprehend and comment upon and point to the controversy. In support of my assertion, consider this: if the 'Trix had stated instead, (NOTE: altered quotation follows) "Also, I highly disagree with the idea that physicists know better how to write about string theory than others. As long as proper citation of sources occurs, it doesn't matter what an editor's background is, and in fact, less bias is likely to occur." This altered statement is of course weak, if not ridiculous, but only if the writer believes that physics is actually a subject that is not instantly understandable upon casual inspection. If physics were simple to understand for the unstudied, then this might have some merit.

Scientology is, however, a technical subject. It has axioms upon which are built procedures which when applied by a competent, certified practitioner deterministically bring about predictable results. The results are spiritual in nature and have to do with increased ability, freedom from the negative present time effects of past troubles, past traumas and past failures to achieve desired goals. The results are subjective and not objectively verifiable, so Scientology will generally fail a strict test of the strict definition of science. But it is still technical. Study is required to understand it and speak about it in an informed manner. Practice (in the form of formal internships) is required to correctly use Scientology auditing procedures.

Please read through the article on string theory. Notice:

• This is a pretty darned good article, it teaches the reader about string theory – which seems to me to be a logical thing for such an article to do.
• String theory is controversial.
• String theory is widely held to be inaccurate - even totally bogus - by many very knowledgeable people.
• The controversy is confined to the controversy section.
• If every sentence in the article contained links to the controversy about that statement, the article would be terrible – it would feel like the article on say... Scientology, for instance.
• Even discussing the controversy in a credible manner requires some knowledge of the subject at hand; not just an understanding of what the critics say.

If we can achieve some community consensus that Scientology is actually a subject, then we might have some chance of building a decent article or set of articles about it. If we cannot, then the article will continue to be a shining example of a horribly bad encyclopedia article.

-*- begin facetiousness -*- If in order to maintain “proportional coverage” we need to have 2 billion articles on the controversy and 1 on the subject then so be it. But lets agree that somewhere in an encyclopedia there should be an article that actually contains the technical information of Scientology. Hell, even if we have to call it, Scientology: What (Obviously Batpoop Crazy) People Who Actually Bothered to Study it Have to Say. -*- end facetiousness -*-

I wish the effort I put into this could have gone into the article itself, but without some agreement that it should be written about accurately by the technically informed, contributing here is just an invitation to perpetual squabbling with people ignorant of the subject's technical aspects who will likely use and misuse rules in a possibly well intentioned manner to keep the quality of the article poor while continuing to insist that they are perfectly qualified to make determinations about accuracy regardless of their knowledge level of the subject. Frankly, I have other things I would rather do with my time than engage in such futility.

My primary assertion is this: If people come to an Encyclopedia to learn about Scientology, they should be able to learn about Scientology. Currently they can only learn about the controversy related to Scientology. I believe I have spotted an underlying reason for this and would appreciate the thoughts of others on the matter.

Finally, I am just going to go ahead and beg that no one take the facetiousness and mild sarcasm here, hit it with a spotlight and try to invalidate the entire message and good faith effort based on that. Or take some other relatively minor point and try to invalidate it based upon that... Please? Please? Pretty please???)Slightlyright 09:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Left. Wow, you certainly figured this place out pretty quickly. Kudos. I guess you lurked some and learned from others' missteps. Good for you. I kinda jumped right in and made some n00b errors but I think that is behind me now. Of course, I agree wholeheartedly. You have put very succinctly in that one line; re: Scientology being considered a controversy, not a subject; something that I have been trying to verbalize. But I especially like the point you make of the difference between what it takes to intelligently discuss the "controversy" (which as I have asserted is mostly a figment of critics' imagination, especially in the US at present) vs. what it takes to intelligently discuss Scientology. Give wikipediatrix credit that she at least has familiarized herself with source materials; most critics have not even bothered to do that. That she found them 80% nonsense and 20% obvious and derivative is her right and reality. If this were string theory, she would have gained the right to intelligently discuss the controversy. So if we have an article on ARC and wikipediatrix wanted to contribute a sourced section saying it was nonsense and here is why she would probably be the best person here to do that. It does not give her the right to block someone that knows how it works and can use it from writing the main body of the article from that viewpoint. Nor do I particularly think she would disagree with me. I forget what brought me here; I use wikipedia a lot as a general encyclopedia but had pretty much not bothered looking at the Scn articles. Something brought me over to "silent birth" and my jaw dropped. It reminded me of when I first started reading critical materials over 20 years ago and how the depictions of basic Scientology stuff like TRs resembled nothing I was familiar with. I guess things don't change much in the world of critics' representation of things that they don't understand and seek only to criticize, not to understand. I hope that we do not have to continue that tradition here. One thing to realize certainly is that the vast majority of editors here are fair and intelligent people that would not object at all to you or I or any Scientologist contributing great material to the effort. The material that is here is here by default; it is what was easily available to the casual researcher and I would say that most editors here, especially on the subject of Scientology, are casual researchers. I am the same way; when I edit an article other than Scientology I combine my knowledge of the subject with a quick web search and improve an article that I consider below my understanding level of the subject. Trouble with Scientology articles is, of course, that most netizen's understanding level is pretty much what you and I might consider "skewed" (to use a polite term) and they start from there; throwing out most everything the Church and Scientologists say and believing most everything that critics claim. Certainly LRH and the Church itself can take their fair share of responsibility for the present situation with foibles that you or I might consider minor in comparison to the value of the technology and the efforts of good people in Scientology. These foibles being expoited for maximum effect by critics. Add to that the Church's heavy-handed tactics vis-a-vis the internet creating a climate ripe for critics' exploitation. The unknowing netizens, encountering only the blown-out-of-proportion "controversy", predisposed against the Church for their actions against the net, and having little or no reality on the the value or good efforts then form that skewed starting point. Thus wikipedia. So in conclusion and in answer to your proposal: I think we need to avoid "inspection before the fact". For the non-Scientologist, that means fixing something before you even know if it is broken. It is part of what LRH termed "fast-flow system" of production. Wikipedia very very much operates on fast flow with guidelines like WP:BOLD, WP:IAR, and WP:SNOWBALL To make a big deal about seeking agreement is just that, inspection before the fact. Rather, let's assume that most editors get the point and that if Scientologists play the game according to the rules then they can contribute the representation of the tech that they want to. So instead of fighting some imagined cabal, just add the material and defend it. Therein, of course, lies the rub. To paraphrase LRH; "The price of an accurate and NPOV article; constant alertness, constant willingness to fight back". Fortunately and unfortunately, nothing is static on wikipedia. So if you create that ideal bit you have to forever defend it. Other editors will help you, once you bring them around and once you gain credibility. So the question for you or I is do we want to invest that effort? --Justanother 17:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I have said from the beginning that the thing to do here is contribute. Look at my work-in-progress guide that you recently referenced. I did not "battle" about Helena; I simply took a few seconds to remove a WP:BLP violation. I had to spend a few more minutes because you queried my action and I felt it would be courteous to you to explain it. I also told you that, for myself, I feel my time is better spent on the overarching work of what is going on here with the Scientology articles and how can Scientologists best address the continued misrepresentation of Scientology. Case in point is your replacing the unsourced misrepresentation that TR-8 ("yelling at ashtrays") is about levitaiton. It has nothing to do with telekinesis or levitation and you have no source that says it is but you put it back anyway. That drill is about intention and the yelling makes perfect sense - you yell until you realize that intention in communication is not a function of volume (think of "speak softly and carry a big stick", if you like). You quite deliberately put back an unsourced misrepresentation. Why did you do that? --Justanother 19:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

That's a matter for that article's talk page, not this one. (But the short answer is that the source is the "Narconon Communication and Perception Course, Book 4a", as well as the solitarytrees article which is already cited.) wikipediatrix 19:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The solitarytrees is a personal site, not a source. The Narconon book does not deal with the levitation/telekinesis issue that I object to. Solitarytrees is a misrepresentation by a critic that would willfully misrepresent Scientology to press his point. It is not a "source" for the purposes of wikipedia. You have no source and deliberately entered a misrepresentation into wikipedia after I removed it. Learning why a person might do such a thing and how a Scientologist might best counter such actions is my mission here. --Justanother 19:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I repeat: That's a matter for that article's talk page, not this one. wikipediatrix 19:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is about why there is so little Scientology in the Scientology articles. I responded on-topic. You came in with somewhat personal references to a communication between you and I and to a minor edit I had made. I responded to your personal references (not attacks, just references but you seemed to want to make it about me). I bring it back to the topic. Why is there so little Scientology here? Because editors unfamiliar with the topic parrot what they read from unreliable sources on the internet. Scientologists, instead of contributing, get caught up battling with personalities and waste time better spent contributing. --Justanother 19:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

In the time you spent typing that, you could have been contributing. Instead of complaining "Why is there so little Scientology here?", PUT SOME IN as you see fit. If the community consensus is that your contribution is good, it will stay. If not, it will not. wikipediatrix 20:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I already stated what my interest is. --Justanother 20:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I liked your previous version of this retort better before you changed it. Anyway, if your interest is not in contributing to articles, then you are basically admitting that you're here to disrupt. If your interest IS in contributing to articles, then stop complaining and start contributing. wikipediatrix 20:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I liked it better too (smile). Now who's putting words in mouths. I do my share of contributing, so knock off the personal attack, please. --Justanother 21:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

If your interest is not in contributing to articles, then you are basically admitting that you're here to disrupt. If your interest IS in contributing to articles, then stop complaining and start contributing. wikipediatrix 21:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Is there an echo here?? I do my share of contributing, so knock off the personal attack, please (or I'll put a BIG RED STOPSIGN on your talk page - laff). I could tell you to stop complaining about Scientology and go do something worthwhile but I'm not. So how about extending me the same courtesy. --Justanother 21:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I've said nothing that could even begin to be construed as a personal attack. Good luck on your "mission". Bye-bye. wikipediatrix 22:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Take care. --Justanother 22:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)