Jump to content

Talk:Scientology/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18→Archive 20

WP article on Catholic Church compared to article on Scientology

Roman Catholic Church. I think this article leans too far to the positive side, as the Scientology one leans to the negative. I wanted to find the article on anti-Catholicism expecting it to be linked there. There was no section on controversy or criticism, although there was a short section on the current sexual abuse scandals at the end. Steve Dufour 13:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

You'd probably be better off raising this issue on the RC Church talk page --h2g2bob 13:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
The issue I am concerned about more is the grossly unfair and mean-spirited treatment of Scientology here on WP, not the too friendly treatment of larger groups. Steve Dufour 13:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Welcome, Steve. Haven't seen you in discussions on this page before, so welcome. I've seen this issue raised before, frankly. Either the existence or at least perceived existence of an anti-Scientology bias on this and other pages. While I see the complaint a lot, I rarely see suggestions for solutions. See, one misconception you may or may not have is that the current article is in any way inaccurate. All that I can see are cited and factual sources. Thus, I'd request that you make known the parts of the article which you feel are unfair or fall short (leaving comparisons to other articles out of it, since comparing the problems of the RCC to the CoS, although both are numerous, is like comparing apples to oranges), and I and all others will surely work to make those sections comply with the encyclopedic and high standards of Wikipedia, irregardless of personal point of view. (POV is okay in editors, just not in articles, obviously.)
See, we can't do anything if you just say "This article treats Scientology too harshly", you instead have to do something about it, by pointing out the problems, and striving for concensus among all editors. Otherwise, we can't help, unless you identify the problems. Please do. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Raeft (talk • contribs) 20:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC).
Thanks. I will continue doing that. I don't want to change too much too fast. I am working on some of the other 236 or more Scientology related articles as well. Steve Dufour 05:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that Scientology should be called a church. Catholisism is a church, Scientology is a cult. 81.156.32.71 19:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

What's the difference? 24.86.59.67 02:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I know this comment doesn't add much to the discussion, but at least all religions that I am aware of can be traced back to either enlightened individuals or spiritual figures. The roots of Scientology derive from the ramblings of a pathological liar (Google 'Hubbard'; or better yet, read one of his books and decide for yourself).

ChaoticLlama 19:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that the use of cult is a nonbiased term, due to the connotations behind it. And the only reason we can't call Jesus a pathological liar is that he died a long time ago, and information on him is scarce. M 21 April 2007

From my point of view I have been highly enlighted by studying Scientology materials. And under my point of view LRH was a highly enlightened individual. In accordance with dictionary.com a Cult is:
1. a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies.Under this definition all religions are cults!
6. a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader. Any religion that you consider false is a cult (but Scientologist don't live outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader).So any religion can be a cult depending of the point of view of the observer.

For example: Jesus Christ was persecuted, captured and killed because he was considered to be a cult leader. Christians were persecuted and killed for centuries because they were considered to be cult members. To this day Christians in China have to worship in hiding (members often living outside of conventional society) . And in some Muslim countries the punishment for spreading the cult Christianity is death. I'm not trying to put down Christianity or any other religion. I'm just trying to explain that any religion can be considered a cult depending on your point of view.Bravehartbear 22:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

History Of Scientology

This is what I feel to be a very accurate and well-written history of Scientology and it should be added to the main article:

Image:Thehistoryofscientology.gif

I'm sure the Scientologists will try and remove this information and continue to suppress free speech and criticism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Snuffaluffaguss (talk • contribs) 19:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

Piffle. I'll remove it since it'll be gone in less than a week with current copyright info and there's no reason to have an extra 885k overhead when loading the Talk page. AndroidCat 21:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
You could try putting link to it at the bottom of the page. Steve Dufour 10:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Editing Error

Regarding [1] edit, my reason got cut off:

"it is said" constitutes weasel words. This is as bad in some ways as "claims". Changed to: "It (as in the philosophical belief of Scientology, that's the "it" I mean) professes ...". This removes the implied imaginary supporters who "say" this.

Sorry, I didn't see your comment before I changed it back. "The philosopical belief of Scientology" itself does not "claim", "say", or "profess" anything. One thing we could do is give the sentence a subject. Did Hubbard say this? If so then say something like "Hubbard said that Scientology..." Steve Dufour 05:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I made some changes along those lines. Steve Dufour 06:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
There's actually no directly cited source that Hubbard said it, thus, making him the subject of all of the sentences is not, of necessity, suitable. Also, look up "professes" in a dictionary.
What if we were discussing, say, legislation? How would be state what the legislation documents "say", in your vernacular? It is suitable to place the contents of a set of teachings or book into the context of what the book or set of teachings "say", "profess", et al. The author and the philosophical doctrine which the author wrote are seperable, but since the information is drawn from his teachings, it is appropriate here. Raeft 20:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
The English language can do lots of things, even make an abstract concept like "Scientology" come to life and start speaking. A while ago I was told that Scienology was entirely Hubbard's creation. What is wrong with having him the one speaking? Steve Dufour 02:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Celebrity trivia

Critics say the attention and care given to celebrity practitioners is vastly different from that of noncelebrity practitioners. Andre Tabayoyon, a former Scientologist and Sea Org staffer, testified in a 1994 affidavit that money from not-for-profit Scientology organizations and labor from those organizations (including the Rehabilitation Project Force) had gone to provide special facilities for Scientology celebrities, which were not available to other Scientologists:
Tabayoyon's account of the planting of the meadow was supported by another former Scientologist, Maureen Bolstad, who said that a couple of dozen Scientologists including herself were put to work on a rainy night through dawn on the project. "We were told that we needed to plant a field and that it was to help Tom impress Nicole ... but for some mysterious reason it wasn't considered acceptable by Mr. Miscavige. So the project was rejected and they redid it."[2]
Diana Canova, who experienced Scientology both before and during her period of TV stardom, expressed it in a September 1993 interview: "When I started, I wasn't in television yet. I was a nobody - I'd done some TV, but I was not one of the elite, not by a long shot - until I did Soap. Then it became…I mean, you really are treated like royalty."[3]

I would expect that this information is already given in some of the other articles that are linked from this section. It seems to me that this should be a short section saying that some celebrities are involved and then a short critical comment from someone on the other side. Steve Dufour 05:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and made these changes. Steve Dufour 17:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
While I, and I am sure many others, appreciate your many, many edits, you need to realize that discussion and concensus are key, and making unilateral edits to controversial articles is unwise. The celebrity information is not trivia, and reflects differing standards, given it is NOT mentioned in its entirety in other articles, I've restored it. Given the section it was in, and its relevance, removal would not be justified even if it WERE reproduced wholly in a linked article. This is a good article, and removal of relevant information serves, especially in this case, to make it less encyclopedic, not more. 12 hours may be a nice round time frame, but waiting a little longer next time would be advised, especially for large removals. Slow down the editing and give all people a chance to weigh in. Your changes of minor word inflections to "it is said" in many cases also constitutes creating a straw man of belief argument. Raeft 20:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I will wait awhile and see what other people have to say. If people think Tom and Katie romping in the wildflowers is important enough to be in the main article on Scientology I will not remove it again. (It's a very small point, but in my opinion the word "per" is not a good word to use in ordinary prose; just in legal documents and things like that.) Steve Dufour 02:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
This is not "celebrity trivia". The interesting part of this cited & verified anecdote is the treatment of the Scientology staffers, specifically that the organization has them pull long hours in order to impress celebrity members. This isn't "People Magazine" stuff. --FOo 08:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the information on Tom and Katie should be in the article on Scientology and celebrities. However I don't really think it is important enough to take up so much space in the main article. That is just my opinion however. Wishing you well. Steve Dufour 14:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this fair?

Critics say that celebrity practitioners receive more attention and care than noncelebrity practitioners and that less is required of them.

Here I tried to express the points that critics make about Scientology celebrities. Do you think this is fair? Is there anything important that I have left out? Thanks. Steve Dufour 02:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I see no problem with this... --Delf 19:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I think that celebrities get preference treatment at any church and any organization. To talk about this is just a waste of time. Bravehartbear 23:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I can't imagine what you would base that assertion on, considering how many religions emphasize that every form of earthly wealth and glory (including one's "celebrity") is irrelevant to God. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Steve, you left out the part about L. Ron Hubbard setting up incentive programs specifically to recruit celebrities into Scientology. I'd say that's pretty important. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You right into Scientology is unique because it has policies directed into how to deal with celebrities. Even it has entire organizations dedicated to cater celebrities (celebrities center) but still the main Scientology page is so FAT that it takes away from the main purpose of the page that is to say what is Scientology. Why don't you put this info in a different page like: Scientology Celebrities. The current Scientology page is so FAT that is difficult to read. An encyclopedia should be precise and to the point. This page is just a big blog. It is dificult to read and to understand. Bravehartbear 02:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

How many Scientology articles are needed?

I asked this question on the talk page of the the Scientology project and I thought I might ask it here on the main article page too. There are now 239 Scientology articles: 22 top Importance, 55 high, 95 mid, and 67 low. Three have been added in the last four days. How many articles do you think should there about this subject? Thanks. Steve Dufour 15:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Good question. The answer, from my perspective, is as follows:
There should be as many Scientology articles as there are coherent and individual informative occurrences, locales, people, or other originators of encyclopedic content related to Scientology. Adding information serves to make Wikipedia -more- coherent and encyclopedic, not less, and adding too much material to one article makes it overlong and clunky.
This is why we delineate, you see? We COULD put all of the information, 90 percent of which is unique, and the rest of which is justified overlap, into one article, called simply "Scientology". It would be hugely long, almost impossible to keep up with and police, and more than a little messed up. It would also be one hell of a thing to find anything on, and have at least 500 redirects to it from other searches. So, like with TV shows (Many of which have a page per episode), countries (Which have country pages, splits within country pages, regional pages, pages about people in them, pages about buildings, and any other notable thing which isinformative and constructive), and great moments in history (such as the civil war), along with so much else, we keep adding information in logically linked articles until all Scientology vanishes (at which point historical retrospectives of things we have just found out may still be added), or the sun explodes.
I hope my answer has been helpful, and I am happy to hear of three new articles having been added to the massive and amazing thing that is Wikipedia. I know their editors will make them neutral, interesting to read, and informative within a short time, being surely, like all Wikipedia editors, people of vision and scope whose sole interest, like yours and mine, is to better the truthful and well-informed understanding of every man, woman, and child on this earth. Peace out. Raeft 20:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I hope so too. :-) Steve Dufour 21:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Of the hundreds of articles listed, some of those that are ranked as Low on the importance scale might be susceptible to deletion, perhaps merging the most important material they contain into other articles. Personally I fear to tread there :-) SheffieldSteel 01:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I've been here on WP for a little less than a year and I've taken part in a couple of deletion discussions. The process really seems like a lot of work, but I guess that's a good thing because you wouldn't want it to be too easy. I expect that 10 or 12 new Scientology articles would be created in the time it would take to delete one. BTW, I'm thinking about putting a notability tag on the Xenu article. It is about a mythical being that only a few dozen people in the world believe exists. That doesn't seem very notable to me. Steve Dufour 02:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and tagged Xenu as non-notable. Steve Dufour 16:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

My troll-o-meter just exploded. AndroidCat 16:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
You are welcome to explain Xenu's notability on his talk page. Steve Dufour 16:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad you went ahead and did that, Steve. It really lets people know what they can expect from you. Tell me, where did you get the idea that the notability of an idea -- such as a posited entity -- is measured only by the number of people who hold one particular stance on the existence of that entity? -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
A mythical being in which only a few dozen people believe in does not seem very notable to me. The same with a character in a story that few people have ever read. Steve Dufour 20:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Your figure of "only a few dozen people" is highly suspect and your enthymeme that of all the people who have encountered or been affected by a particular construct, only those who believe in it count for purposes of notability, is counter to all logic. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it was telling that in the discussion about deletion nobody voted to keep the article because they said that Xenu was real. Steve Dufour 00:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, then, you're wrong. It isn't telling at all. The only way it could be perceived as even significant was if anyone had ever accepted your false talking point that notability of a construct can only come from those who believe in that construct. What is telling is that this false assumption of yours was pointed out to you multiple times and you never answered it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip Smee. I explained my position there. I could also mention the fact that only 5 or 6 people bothered to vote before the discussion was closed down is a clue that there is very little general interest in Xenu. Steve Dufour 04:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that's much of a clue you have there. Seven people in four hours is hardly a sign of "no general interest" unless you are proceeding on the immensely fascinating premise that "no person can be said to be interested in an article unless they are checking it every four hours." -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually Steve, I would re-read the text at WP:ANI before coming to such a conclusion. Also you might want to skim through the AfD discussion - it's particularly informative if you only read the words in bold type. Now, if the result of the discussion had been Speedy Delete, then I'd be in full agreement with you, but as it is, I can only recommend reading WP:N. SheffieldSteel 04:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, it was 7. I must have lost count. :-) Steve Dufour 04:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Misleading Paragraph

The paragraph beginning, "Based on an interpretation of Buddhist writings which described, among other things, a man from the west with hair like flames around his head..." is erroneous. It misleads you to believe that the Buddhist writings mentioned actually exist. If you go to the Wikipedia article on "Maitreya", it shows that the writings are claimed to exist by the editors in the preface of his book containing his poem in which he claims to be the Maitreya, but are unnamed. This is an unreliable claim by its self-sourcing nature. Furthermore, the fact that there is a reference at the end of this paragraph misleads you to believe there is evidence that there is an existing Buddhist text describing the Maitreya with those physical characteristics. I believe the paragraph should be changed to emphasise that it is L Ron Hubbard who is making this claim about the description of the Maitreya in the Buddhist literature and that is has not been substantiated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.165.205.30 (talk) 08:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

Is this important enough to be mentioned in the main article on Scientology? Steve Dufour 20:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
What would you suggest as a more appropriate article in which to mention it? -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Scientology beliefs and practices and L. Ron Hubbard Steve Dufour 15:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

How is "What Religious Scholars Have to Say about the Scientology Religion" - THAT LINKS TO A SCIENTOLOGY WEBSITE.... a non biased addition to Wikipedia? Pablo587 04:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm in favor of deletion --Pablo587 04:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed. Deceptive sources, such as those that imply they are by independent scholars when they are by Scientology, are not OK here. --FOo 04:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed.

Watch editor User:Justanother - that is his whole game here (paid by the "Church" of Scientology)

He'll apologize all day long for his actions.... but it's all just a game.

If you notice the main Scientology page and L Ron Hubbard page, they look a lot different and more favored towards Scientology than they used to just a few months ago. This is all thanks to him.

These are "wins" in Scientology.

What are they considered to Wogs? Pablo587 04:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

In reference to the removed link ("What Religious Scholars Have to Say...") it is what it claims to be. None of the authors are Scientologists. The deception lies elsewhere, in that the Church claims that if Scientology is a religion then the Church cannot be a cult. --Hartley Patterson 01:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Truth be told, there is greater use of anti-scientology links in this page than Scientology links. The link about "What Religious Scholars Have to Say about the Scientology Religion" is pertinent because it was written by religious scholars and not Scientologist. There is a need to see what religious scholars have to say about Scientology. In all fairness this link should be used. But I have another link here that could be used instead. http://www.neuereligion.de/ENG/index.html Bravehartbear 22:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
That's a worse link - a plain list leading to poorly arranged webpages. Put the old one back, if you don't I will.
The problem here is not one that directly relates to Scientology. Academia is deeply divided over the 'cult' question into two groups that hold separate conferences etc and are not on speaking terms. Naturally the two sides in this debate line up behind 'their' academics. All the papers here are from the less critical group, as the annotation indicates, so to be NPOV the other group should also be represented. --Hartley Patterson 02:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Done, and also added a link to Stephen Kent's 1977 paper which is the best known rebuttal of them. --Hartley Patterson 15:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Well done. Bravehartbear 20:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

CESNUR's website is a general one, not specific to Scientology. It and its material about Scientology are firmly in the 'less critical' academic camp. Plus, Wikipedia has an article on CESNUR. We could pile up lots of academic links relevant to Scientology, but I think one of each is enough. --Hartley Patterson 23:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

show effectiveness/hubbard opposition not established

I've yet to see any evedence that hubbard was even aware of the american psychological associations stance.


ONE THING I ALWAYS WONDER ABOUT: PEOPLE SEEM TO IGNORE THAT SCIENTOLOGY HAS ALWAYS BEEN TRYING TO TAKE OVER THE BUSINESS OF PSYCHOTHERAPY, SO OF COURSE IT IS THE MOST VOCAL OPPONANT. IT HAS THE MOST TO LOOSE. . IT CLAIMS TO BE A TOTALLY DIFFERENT AND SUPERIOR SYSTEM AND WAY OF THINKING WITH HUMAN PROBLEMS. THERE IS SOME REASON TO BELEIVE THAT THAT IS TRUE. LOOK INTO REMOTE VIEWING'S ORIGONS. THERE ARE OTHER PIECES OF EVEDENCE, THAT ARE MORE MINOR. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thaddeus Slamp (talk • contribs) 05:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

Slump

  • Names Slamp. Firefox must be on a bender!

, please sign your comments and stop yelling around here, I am becoming deaf.

  • Roger, Wilco. Every 1ce/a while I have to remind myself how much people hate all caps.
Er, and get Firefox with inbuilt typo correction
  • Is there a spelling error?

Misou 05:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Slamp, not Slump. -- Antaeus Feldspar 06:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • You've yet to reply to my content.

Thaddeus Slamp 23:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is Wikipedia not a target?

As nearly as I can tell, the CoS adopts an extremely 'scorched-earth' policy re: those who host information on Xenu/the 'copyrighted' OT levels, or has material even vaguely critical of Scientology on their Web site.

Why, then, has the Wikimedia Foundation not been served with innumerable lawsuits reguarding Wikipedia's comprehensive material on Scientology, as we seem to fit both those criteria? -Toptomcat 22:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

My personal guesses are as follow:
  • The Church does not know about Wikipedia.
  • The information removed would just be brought back in by someone anyway.
  • The Church's image would be reduced a bit if they'd attack an encyclopedia.
  • They do not care about Wikipedia.
  • They leave it in as most info aren't very biased against the Church like a certain book.

--Delf 19:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The CoS in my experience presently only takes legal action against obvious copyright violations plus any quotes from the secret scriptures. Wikipedia has neither. --Hartley Patterson 17:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia IS a target. They have their own WikiProject so they can get instant consensus on removing /rewording anything a little too ... unflattering. ~ZytheTalk to me! 14:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Really? And where would I find that? COFS 16:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
That might be a reference to WP:SCN, perhaps? Ronabop 00:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Hoping we do not exceed the rights of discussion here, but I do hope they won't trace our IPs, thus our location if we ever add anything... unflattering. --Delf 12:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Patterson is right. Bravehartbear 22:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that they know about Wikipedia by now. Also, as much as attacking an encyclopedia will make them look bad, I think there is little they can do to make themselves look worse than they do already. The most likely reason is that maybe jsut maybe a few of them realize that they cannont change how people think just by sueing them. But then again, these people all think dianetics work, so you'd better call a lawyer of move to malaysia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.4.130.208 (talk) 06:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

Wake up

The Church of Scientology IS the source of information about the Church of Scientology. It is OBVIOUSLY self-published. And, because Mr. Hubbard entrusted the Church with his writings, the Church is the SOLE source of Mr. Hubbard's publications. WAKE UP. The Scientology dispute to self-published sources should become aware.

The article is hopelessly out of date. The Church of Scientology has won recognition AS A RELIGION in the European Union Court System. Earthtimes news. It is exactly has Mr. Hubbard said. About 20 percent of the population is PTS and will fight tooth and nail to prevent any mention of help. Meanwhile, the Church marches on. Where? In areas that make a difference, no matter how far back in the dust Wikipedia stands. 208.106.20.67 18:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Specifically and particularly the Earthtimes news article addresses this case (Holy Smoke's prediction). The results were: (Scientology 1, Russia 0, Russian paying damages and costs). However, the European Court of Human Right's recognition of The Church of Scientology as a religion (Court's publication) is valid in throughout the European Union. 208.106.20.67 18:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, please log in to comment! Check out the article: The ECHR decision is in there since hours (and valid throughout the EC, not EU, as I just learned myself). COFS 18:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Well 208.106.20.67, just because information from the Church of Scientology is self-published, that doesn't mean that it should all be removed as non-RS. The rules (last time I looked) say that you can use such sources, but carefully. Fortunatly there's no need to remove all the Church site External Links even if they aren't RS. The EL is a guideline and invokes the RS guideline/policy via an extremely weak clause. However, if there is a wish by some editors to strictly apply RS to ELs, then most of the CoS ELs would have to removed. Hope that helps. AndroidCat 20:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
What do we need the Earthtimes news for if there is a whole judgment to link? Fairly useless discussion or not? Misou 04:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Truth be told, there is greater use of anti-scientology links in this page than Scientology links. The removal of Earthtimes news could backfire with the removal of many anti-scientology links. Just think about that. Bravehartbear 22:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I look forward to the day when the CoS loses it's tax exempt status. Remember kids, scientology is not a religion. Scientology is a diasese. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.4.130.208 (talk) 07:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

Meadow story

There is a story in the article about a meadow being plowed under. This meadow existed/exists and was plowed under at time but the context around it was invented (i.e. that the grass was sewn because of Cruise or some such nonsense). There had been a mudslide in that area and the grass had to be replanted. It was done wrong and had to be redone (Source: US District Court of California, Church of Scientology International vs. Fishman/Geertz, CV 91-6426, sworn declaration of James Hall with evidence photos, 11 April 1994). Any objections to take it out? COFS 23:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. It would be better, given that the allegations are in the public doman, to include them, followed by the Church's refutation of them. That way, anyone who wants to know the truth of the story will be able to judge based on all the information. SheffieldSteel 23:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes. I can see your point and support it. But...not in this article. There is so much back and forth in each and any of the many legal cases involving Scientology critics that this page would explode right away. it should be in the article of the related court case. COFS 23:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
It seems, based on that, that this article should either state both sides of the story, or it should state the original allegations and direct the reader to the full details (including the Church's side) in the separate article. SheffieldSteel 00:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
The source of the allegation was paid $17.000 to invent it. The lawyer who did it was thrown out of the law firm for that and some time later even removed from the Bar. The allegations have been rejected by the court and they have been countered in a sworn - under penalty of perjury - declaration. This quote violates all basic principles of Wikipedia, not because it is a lie but because it is known as a lie by those putting it in there. If we would do as you propose every time somebody thought up some BS about someone in or about Scientology this article would be unreadable. There is already a Scientology controversy article. Feel free to move it in there. Otherwise I recommend you get acquainted with the Scientology issue a bit better. COFS 20:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
So is your position that all controversy should be moved to a different page, or is it just that sources critical of Scientology should be removed from the main article? This doesn't seem to gel with wikipedia's policy on presenting information neutrally. SheffieldSteel 03:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
No, I think there is enough sourced controversy so that unsourced, invented, half-true, alleged or paid stories do not need to be in there but can collect in some other article whose title does not give the expectation that you actually find information in there, like "Scientology Trivia", "Spamming Scientology" or so. And watch out, you are applying some prejudices on me ("sources critical of Scientology should be removed"), which is WP:BIAS. You might want to use your energy to get facts straight and help making neutral articles. Thank you for considering. COFS 03:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
That's not bias on my part, it's an empirically derived hypothesis. And since it isn't leaving the Talk page, it hardly constitutes WP:BIAS.
For the record, I believe you are absolutely wrong about allegations (or "stories" as you call them, or "lies" as one of your edit comments has, I believe, said). Wikipedia should report allegations that are notable, and if they are sufficiently notable to a subject, then they should be reported on that subject's main page. Of course, any allegation that is, as you say, invented (what a cool criticism to use in this, of all places) can be readily refuted using a reliable source. And Wikipedia should report that too. We must present both sides - neutrally - thus allowing the reader to judge for themselves. We do not sweep criticism under the rug, unless reporting it prominently would be giving it undue weight, of course. SheffieldSteel 03:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. Look at how many articles there are about all kinds of branches, sub- and subsub-subjects of Scientology. Filling the main article up with controversial back and forth is what I cannot accept. The declaration at hand has been introduced in the CSI vs Fishman/Geertz case. This case has even its own Wikipedia article (which is kind of overdoing it, honestly). So have Fishman and Geertz. I would settle for a one sentence like I just did. Don't revert, improve if there is a need to. COFS 05:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
The new twins SheffieldSteel/RookZERO have not put it up on the Controversy page. What does that tell us? It tells us that they are less interested in a readable article but in putting smear in this one here. Since RookZERO has been busted a couple of hours ago, there had been a 400% increase in anonymous vandals on this page and no other. Admins, you might want want to check into that? I am not making allegations but things happening at the same time sometimes have a source near to each other. Misou 01:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I did not put anything up on that page because I assumed that the material in question was a duplicate of material on the Controversy page, just as COFS implied. I shall go and rectify the situation. In the meanwhile, please try to remain WP:CIVIL and refrain from accusing other editors of "putting smear in". SheffieldSteel 01:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I feel the need to point something out. The meadow story is not there because it's a big "controversy"; it's there to illustrate the differing treatment given to celebrities as opposed to ordinary Scientologists. While there may be an argument for moving it to a different article, surely the more appropriate article would be Scientology and celebrities. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandal 24.168.118.136

Abuse reported to: Road Runner HoldCo LLC, RRMA, 13241 Woodland Park Road, Herndon, VA 20171

COFS 20:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

What you just posted here seems like deliberate harassment. While I too dislike vandalism, it's a common fact that people vandalize articles all the time. Reporting Wikipedia abuse to an ISP is a waste of their time and of yours. Unless, of course, you wish to ressurect thoughts of the Fair Game policy ... Maxvip 22:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
No, I actually only did this to see who would attack me for it. Thank you. COFS 02:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, is THAT why you did it? How remarkably clever of you. (Mawkish1983 14:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC))


deletions

COFS et al appear to be deleting or modifying material that is critical of scientology even where it was sourced. (RookZERO 00:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC))

Indeed. I am trying to ensure that important material (and neutrality) is retained but it's an uphill struggle. SheffieldSteel 00:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Nice, that you two are one soul here. But the quality of your edits has only messed up the article. Do some homework or find some sources instead of putting up or supporting stuff without citation or reference. This is biased and edit warring. You don't like COFS? Ok, so what. Does not give you the right to vandalize pages or put up cynic nonsense. Misou 01:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Please either substantiate or retract this remark: "This is biased and edit warring." Thank you. SheffieldSteel 01:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Diction, diction, familiar, hmmm... Here RookZERO messes up the article, reverting 10-12 edits by different editors at once. That was not you. But YOU "applauded" him for this here. Your message: "Great action, beat the Scienos", or something close to that. That is bias and your support of vandalism by RookZERO is support of vandalism. I also have not seen you jumping on another vandalism happening later here. You actually supported it again. The damage had to be repaired by several editors, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. Probably I overlooked half of them. And on top you almost started an edit war, by repeating cross-deletion. Misou 02:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
That's all very well, but it's all based upon your definition of vandalism, which is apparently "a reversion that I disagree with". SheffieldSteel 02:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and the if you compare the various versions inbetween, you will see that they change relatively little, so its not as though I am changing some massive amount of content. My changes have been to return unjustifiably deleted information. (RookZERO 02:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC))

I have no agenda here. My interest is simply in keeping all relevent perspectives and materials in the article. Were someone trying to delete material that reflects positively on scientology without cause, I would oppose that as well. If you do not agree with the material, then find a sourced rebuttal (note that the rebuttal is a response, counter-claim or a counter-statement, not a "refutation" which implies the rebuttal to be correct and the origional claim to be incorrect). (RookZERO 01:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC))

GOOD! Why don't you do just that, then! Misou 02:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and incidently, the material COFS keeps deleting is cited from the Los Angeles Times, which is hardly "cynic nonsense" sources. (RookZERO 01:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC))

The context needs to fit too, man. The Los Angeles Times weather forecast in an article about mustard wouldn't make sense either, right? Misou 02:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Since the objection is now one of context, would it be acceptable to include the disputed material in the Controversy section? SheffieldSteel 02:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Sure, let's say the context is "affidavits of former Scientologists" or "disputed experiences of former staffers". Right now you are trying to connect two topics like "Organizational structure of Scientology" (introducing "Celebrity Centers") with "Mud throwing in legal cases" (where the rules are different than in publications - telling a disputed story not even happening at a such a Center and mixing up times and being illogic like hell (notice the "we", "they", "I" mess up in the L.A. Times article)). Misou 02:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Huh? How is the material not relavent to the article? The Times articles deal DIRECTLY with scientology - no weather forcast in a mustard article here. (RookZERO 02:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC))
All "Scientology" as you "understand it" (for your little own purposes there) is more than some city library I worked in. You might want to read the top of this discussion. It's there already. Misou 02:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
It's there already... and the consensus (exception: Seteve Dufour) was that the material should be included. SheffieldSteel 02:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Heeeeeello! F****in' nice of you to forget me. And there was COFS as well. And BTW, what is "a consensus" per Wikipolicy? Misou 02:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought you were talking about the Celebrity Trivia section above, which deals with exactly this material. SheffieldSteel 02:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm still having trouble figuring out what your objection is Misou. Regardless of whether or not you believe what the LA Times wrote is irrelevant. If you find a sourced counterargument, then by all means post it as a rebuttal. The LA Times material deals directly with the Celebrity Centers, and I have difficulty seeing how it could be seen as not related. (RookZERO 02:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC))
How about putting the L.A. Times source in? The other part is covered already above anyway. These quotes are just inappropriate in context and in size, considering that this is an article about Scientology as a whole and considering that this data has been quoted elsewhere in Wikipedia (3 or 4 different places, I think). CSI LA 02:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Where is the other part quoted? (Honest question, I haven't seen it). (RookZERO 02:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC))

Reference 58. I just saw that 59 and 60 are double again. Will fix that. Misou 03:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Panorama Photo

I removed a photo that SheffieldSteel has now restored and moved into another section of this article. I don't agree with that photo appearing anywhere on the Scientology page. Using a cartoon, invented by the Panorama show to "illustrate" a point of Scientology doctrine is ridiculous. Why not use the Muhammad cartoons to illustrate the main page of Islam, while we're at it. This is supposed to be an encyclopedic source. It just denigrates Wikipedia to do this.Grrrilla 01:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

You are not the first editor to have removed this image. Its removal has previously been reverted on the grounds that it is relevant, and notable. I was merely emulating the actions of another absent editor.
More importantly, though, your actions are at odds with the wikipedia editing process. You should seek consensus before making changes to the article, particularly so when the subject is liable to dispute or contention. You have recently made a large number of edits to this page without any attempt at gaining consensus, and your attitude as expressed in your edit comments[[2]][[3]] - putting the burden on those you disagree with to convince you, otherwise your version will prevail - is also fundamentally incompatible with wikipedia policies and guidelines.SheffieldSteel 02:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Fubar Obfusco

Ah, I had been waiting for you, somehow. Did you notice that you just produced double-content? That what you put it IS ALREADY BEEN REFERENCED one line before that? You are not as green but still you did not SEE that all that data is already in there? Misou 02:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Absurdities

After reading the whole article from top to bottom there is two absurdities about it: 1) the wording tends to be negative about Scientology (and language can be bent a lot) and 2) there is so much emphasis on "past live stories" and "space opera" that one could think that these are the basic tenets of Scientology. Well, they are not. And 95% and more of all Scientology doctrine and practice does not even remotely deal with that. The article is a mirror of what has been spread on the internet about Scientology but not a mirror of real life. I want to change that. Who else? CSI LA 03:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure. How about putting some references in to start with? The "space opera" section is not referenced at all. Misou 03:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Which sections have negative wording? If I see it, I'll gladly change it. On the whole, this article actually seems rather positive relative to the articles on many other religions. (RookZERO 03:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC))

No other religion has 250 articles on Wikipedia and for sure not such ones which only consist of "a lost court decision" (there is no article about those which were won) or other religions do not have 40 or more pages of "former members", some dead ones, some alive ones, some of them thrown our in disgrace. The "Scientology" article specifically has slanted wording in the sections:
"The upper levels of Scientology" (which is totally nonsense and blown out of proportion), :"Scientology and other religions", a loose collection of trivia of what others supposedly have said (sometimes one priest somewhere, now presented as general viewpoint of a whole religion), :"Scientology as a state-recognized religion", the list is incomplete and omits a lot of pro-Scientology data so as to bent the reader's conclusion in the wrong direction,
"Scientology as a cult", this is obviously slanted,
"Scientology as a commercial venture", same,
"Scientology versus the Internet", this is the biggest nonsense. The Church has this and that fight and did some legal blunders in the past, but also has been deliberately misinterpreted in its efforts. This fight is artificially upheld right now and might be a great sociological study but not the loose leaf collection there in this section is just ridiculous.
"Scientific criticism of Scientology's beliefs", paradoxon. I think we can agree that religions cannot be scientific, some practices might be or could be but never religion as a whole.

CSI LA 03:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

You forgot the Scientology controversy section which is a linklist of allegations. Misou 03:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
That's right, but that is what I meant with "250" articles. CSI LA 03:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


Targ story

I delete the "targ" story as being unreferenced since months and months and not doctrine or practice in Scientology. To the contrary, such tapes are "research material" and L. Ron Hubbard is quite straight about the fact that "anything can be in there", but not necessarily something to be called "truth". Especially the pictures the PC sees in auditing sessions. CSI LA 03:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Point well taken,CSI LA. Notes of auditing session are not and never have been Church doctrine and representing them as such is completely wrong. Glad you removed this.Grrrilla 03:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, but there is some ignorance to overcome. "Better dubious data than none" and some such thinking. Never forget the hallmarks of Wikipedia (dialectic materialism). CSI LA 03:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
If you want to delete something as "unsourced" then add a{{fact}} tag and wait two months. Then, if no one has found a reliable source, go ahead. At least, that's how I understand the policy. SheffieldSteel 03:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Can I read this somewhere? WP:??? CSI LA 03:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
One other point, SheffieldSteel, this poor paragraph starts of quoting a supposed 1952 auditing session (records of which have never been published) to prove Mr. Hubbard had a dim view of other religions. I've read the so-called session and it says nothing of the kind. Then the paragraph goes on to collapse this supposed 1952 data with something LRH discovered in 1967 which says nothing about Christianity, and then veers off onto "prooving" the whole thing with a document the Church has repeadly stated is a parody and forgery. Outrageous. I'd flunk any student who tried to foist this off on me in a research paper.Grrrilla 04:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
As for the material being "not doctrine or practice", the article doesn't imply that it is anything other than high-level (i.e. secret) CoS policy. The article does point out that the veracity of this allegation is uncertain. (Now with any other religion (with the exception of the Vatican Library perhaps) it'd be pretty easy to find out what the truth was but in this case it's very difficult to prove.) SheffieldSteel 03:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Just shows ignorance and lack of homework,SheffieldSteel. It is very clear to anyone studying Scientology what is doctrine and what is not. You just haven't bothered to study it before editing about it in a quote encyclopedia. For shame. This is the kind of irresponsible editing that has brought so much criticism down on Wikipedia of late.Grrrilla 03:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I am sure I could write books about secret things which are just true for that one reason that nobody knows about them and nobody exists to deny their existence. I could then add that "those who do know about them have to be silent as they are confidential". Vicious circle and can be used for anything. The data about OT VIII/Jesus is not true and has been refuted in affidavits by those who did OT VIII. The targ-stuff is irrelevant by definition - "session data" is never practice or doctrine. CSI LA 03:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Harhar... Well spoken. I think the "party" is over and the twins went to sleep. But hey, great arguments! Misou 04:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you look at the Mormon related article for how to deal with rumored and actual practices and doctrines rather than turning this into an unnecessary conflict. Last I was looking at them, they manage to put criticism and proported practices along with rebuttals in a pretty NPOV form spread over multiple articles. Consider most of the articles on this list for a start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_regarding_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints(RookZERO 04:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC))

(Edit conflict) Rooky, your comparison does not work. The Mormon article is neutral, not peppered with weird illogical allegations by ex members (who very seldomly will tell you a true story) but the whole quarrel HERE is to move this nonsense about planting grass over to the controversy article and not letting it trash up the main article. And, if you are still the same on this keyboard, you might look in your own edit history and let me know what justified your vandalism a couple of hours ago??? Misou 04:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I think this is pretty optimistic. RookZERO is holding up the Mormon article as an example of how to properly handle contentious issues with a neutral point of view. Misou is pointing out how different this article is from that one. It shouldn't be too hard to reconcile those statements, really. SheffieldSteel 05:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

(1) Which "vandalism" are you talking about? (2)Mormons have plenty of angry ex-members (as do most religions... there are no shortage of people from ANY religion who have not like their experiances and take to the net to vent. There is nothing exceptional about scientology in that regard)I'm five minutes from turning in for the night. (RookZERO 04:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC))

There is a big difference between vandalism and an edit that you disagree with. If we can agree on that, we can move forward and seek consensus about the article. If not - if changes continue to be made in large number and without consultation or discussion - we're going nowhere. Now, as I've said before, it is not an improvement, in general, to remove cited material - and it raises a big red flag when all the material you remove is critical to Scientology (hence RookZERO's use of the word "whitewash" in his bold revert).
  • Instead of removing material you don't sagree with, try adding material (reliably cited, of course) that you do agree with.
  • If something is unscourced, tag it ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› [citation needed] and allow a decent interval for an editor to find a citation. Better yet, look for one yourself.
  • If it is bunk, debunk it. It really should not be hard to provide a rational counterargument.
You see? Most of the time, you simply don't need to unilaterally remove things in order to improve the netrality and the quality of the article. SheffieldSteel 05:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
You are sounding like the "Voice of Reason" now. Earlier you applauded gross vandalism and that is how I see RookZEROs changes. How about heeding you own words and ADDING something or WIKIFYING the article, e.g. by checking out of the references. Those are usually either not existent - instead of tagging them you could find out how to source them or throw them out - or allow a lot for interpretation, which is usually towards the negative for the article subject, Scientology. COFS 15:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
There is a big difference between vandalism and an edit that you disagree with. Is it any clearer with the new formatting? SheffieldSteel 16:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Fact is, that since 2 days you have contributed absolutely nothing but dispersal and "yes, but's" and got the subject close to an edit war. On top of all you try to invent WikiPolicy (like here: "If you want to delete something as "unsourced" then add a{{fact}} tag and wait two months."). Are you a Wiki editor or do you mix this place up with a newsgroup? COFS 16:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay then, if you want to change the subject to my conduct, I suppose we can discuss that for a while, but it may not be productive.
Thank you for comparing and contrasting my behaviour on this article's Talk page with my behaviour on another user's personal Talk page. It's a sobering reminder to us all that anything we write anywhere on the internet can be seen and intepreted in a way that we might not like. I will certainly think twice in the future before making such comments. But I'm still not exactly sure what point you are trying to make. And I don't think that on top of repeatedly accusing RookZERO of vandalism you really want to accuse me of pushing this article towards an edit war. Please restate (or rephrase) your views for clarity.
As for trying to invent wiki policy... I was trying to provide a concise and reasonable interpretation of the existing policy as I understand it. I'm sure you've seen the SmackBot going around tagging undated {{fact}} tags with the month that they were added. Now, if someone adds a tag on the last day of March, then on April 1st, the tag will be out of date by approximately one month. It would clearly be unreasonable to delete material on the grounds of being unsourced after only one day. Therefore, on the basis of the information available, it would be neccessary (in the example given) to wait until May 1st before deleting the material (which, remember, is tagged as {{fact|Date=March 2007}}) as unsourced. This guarantees a grace period (minimum one month) for editors to find a source - but as I'm sure you can see from the example, it can only be concisely defined as "do not delete material until two months after the tag date." Of course, you are quite right that the "letter of the law" does not stipulate any exact time period. It relies instead on the good faith and reasonable behaviour of the editors. SheffieldSteel 16:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I still fail to see how may restoration of deleted material classifies as vandalism. Ussually members use that to refer to additions of gibberish or blatently POV material, or the DELETION of relavent information. (RookZERO 17:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC))
Be fair, guys. Work together to try and make this as proper and as truthful as possible. You should all know what counts towards legitimate information: There's no point in breaking out like a choir of school children fighting for a ball - That's why people keep calling Wikipedia a joke. Make sure all things are verified, without slander or slant, and fair. If you all can't agree, then it stays omitted until you can. It's worked on various other pages, and I don't see why it can't be implemented here. Thanks for your time 70.50.199.27 18:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


Auditing confusion

There's a gramatical error in the page, and I suggest it be correected because its damn confusing. It says (about auditing) "The auditing process is intended to help the practitioner (referred to as a preclear or PC)". The general meaning of a practictioner is the person pracitcing, not the patient/recipient. I thought a preclear was the auditor from my reading of the sentence which didn't make any sense. Perhaps the original author was trying to avoid using the term patient, as its not a medical patient, but surely there's a more appropriate term that makes sense. {{editprotected}} Reillyd 06:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

This sort of change needs to be discussed and agreed upon beforehand, because this kind of wording chang can be contentious. Since the page has been protected, it wouldn't be appropriate to edit it in this way until the protection is lifted. CMummert · talk 12:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
This should be simple. Here is the church description: "A person receiving auditing is called a preclear – from pre-Clear, a person not yet Clear. A preclear is a person who, through auditing, is finding out more about himself and life.".[4]. So let's change "practitioner" into "person" and everyone should be happy. Misou 02:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Space missing out between words

Line 4 of "Scientology and celebrities", there should be a space between "as" and "celebrity centres". Please correct it. Blackkrash 14:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

bias regarding scientology

This page, and pages that link from this page, seem extremely biased. I'd like to see more citations and references, examples, and evidence, rather than empty claims and paltry arguments that support them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.105.238.38 (talk) 00:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

Well, it's usually best to give specific examples, rather than just generalities. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, what I have seen is a lot of use of derogatory adjectives that gives the page a very bias feel. For example the constant use of the word 'controversial' really doesn't ad to the data of the page. I think that the use of this derogatory adjectives should be avoided as much as possible. Bravehartbear 22:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


Whether you think that the word 'controversial' is derogatory or not, Scientology is controversial. The definition of the word means that it is closely related to controversy, which is entirely true of Scientology. I contend that the word does add to the information on the page, since it puts Scientology in the view of society at large. Most people view it as controversial, and the only people I have met who do not are Scientologists. Any article about a religion should be edited by members as well as those who have differences of opinion. If you wish to create a page that only has pro-Scientology arguments, feel free to do so - on your own webpage. -Joe —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.226.34.1 (talk) 07:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

Self Help Guide

Hello all.

Authoritative Guide to Self-Help Resources in Mental Health, Revised Edition (Clinician's Toolbox, The) by John C. Norcross, John W. Santrock, Linda F. Campbell, and Thomas P. Smith (Hardcover - Jun 6, 2003)

This book rates Hubbard's Dianetics, Clear body clear mind, and Scientology books as "Strongly not recommended" (Page 348). Not sure whether it is appropriate here or on the scientology article or both. It basically says that if a guide condemns normal medicine it should be avoided. New age books such as these and NLP tend to do so so they should be avoided according to source. Seflhelpsanity 07:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

COFS harassing users?

User:COFS obtaining people's IP addresses, reporting to their ISP for abuse (I'm pretty sure ISP's care less about Wikipedia vandalism) and posting that information here seems like harassment, no? Any opinions? Panfakes 16:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

After reading this page, it seems like a minority of "pro-scientology" users are fighting with a majority "pro-neutrality" users. Obviously I don't have my own account, but I'm worried about the harrassment from the former, which, in light of what is written here, is justifiable. I am strongly opposed to the banning of users who edit Wikipedia without valid reasons, but it appears as if Misou and COFS are explicitly concerned about their POV appearing on the Scientology page, without concern for the rest of Wikipedia, including it's NPOV policy.

It is EXTREMELY important to remember that Wikipedia is here to present a NEUTRAL point of view - a view which expresses both sides of the argument to the fullest extent possible. While I've highlighted individuals, I'm not here to point blame or make accusations, I'm just trying to remind everyone that EVERY viewpoint should be expressed.

I have no bigotry or desire to discriminate against anyone for their beliefs, but if you're here to remove one side of the argument, then I don't think you should be here at all.

- Lyndon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.199.157 (talk) 17:08, April 25, 2007 (UTC)

This is actually a WP:NPA violation in the guise of some anonymous "voice of reason". I applause your claim for Neutral Point of View but at the same time you are violating it. Your "reason" not to have an own account is a joke and gives your statement a propaganda slant. Might be that you don't know but you are probably more traceable when posting with an IP than with a user name as in that case everybody can see it. CSI LA 19:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Exactly how do you figure that, CSI LA? How can anything that Lyndon wrote here be considered more of a personal attack than your own words at Talk:L. Ron Hubbard? "Why would you want to lay words in my mouth which I did not say? Curious. Maybe so you can complain along about hot air. Or to cover up that you have no full concept on the development of Scientology, its literature and founder. You seem to be part of the "alternative" Scientology scene which uses altered materials. I am just guessing, because what you state does not make sense. What is still unexplained is why you want to smear L. Ron Hubbard with altered quotes." I fail to see how your direct accusation that I "want to smear L. Ron Hubbard with altered quotes" (the quotes, of course, came directly from Scientology publications and were not altered in the least, which was something you were already informed of) is any less of a personal attack than anything that Lyndon has said here. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
FYI, CSI LA is a COFS sock puppet. There was a checkuser request on COFS and CSI LA and it was confirmed that they are the same user. HiEv 01:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of source by COFS

In Scientology#Origins, COFS has misrepresented a source.

In later research the Sunday Times in UK (1969) found out that Hubbard's contact to O.T.O. had been an intelligence operation for the U.S. Government to prevent leaks of confidential information to O.T.O. (midst of the Cold War Parsons was working as a solid fuel rocket scientist in California)<ref>Sunday times "Scientology: New Light on Crowley", 28 December 1969, (Hubbard) "...went to life at the house and investigated the black magic rites and the general situation ... . Parsons wrote to Crowley in England about Hubbard. Crowley "The Beast 666" evidently detected an enemy and warned Parsons. This is all proven by the correspondence unearthed by the Sunday Times. Hubbard's mission was successful ... . The black magic group was dispersed ... ."]</ref>

It was not based on any "later research" of any kind. It was a statement from the Church of Scientology and printed as is. From A Piece of Blue Sky [5]: "In 1969, the London Sunday Times exposed Hubbard's magickal connections. The Scientologists threatened legal action, and the Sunday Times, unsure of its legal position, paid a small out-of-court settlement. Without retracting their earlier article, they printed a statement submitted by the Scientologists" AndroidCat 01:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

No. They looked at the facts and agreed to print another article in which they wrote that this is "all proven by the correspondence unearthed by the Sunday Times.". They had been too lazy in the first place and now caught up on their duty to research before writing. COFS 17:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry COFS, but that is not true. Here is the article, complete with a scan of the original. It says "The Church of Scientology has sent us the following information". I found that in a couple of minutes Googling, as you should have done. --Hartley Patterson 18:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
"all proven by the correspondence unearthed by the Sunday Times.". They printed that only because they blindly believed the Church that time, because they has such a great trust relation? COFS 18:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Hubbard presumably threatened to sue. At a guess, I'd suppose that neither side believed they could prove in court that the other was lying or was willing to risk a large sum of money in attempting to do so, so they compromised. --Hartley Patterson 15:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Not for the first time. In this diff [[6]] a quotation from a court ruling
is moved from the article into the citation, implying that the citation supports the claim made in the preceding sentence, "Supporters of Scientology assert that no actual violation of the Auditor's Code #19 has been documented." COFS edit comment: "synthesis."
When I re-inserted this information into the article: "However, a California court found evidence that former members had suffered abuse based on the information in their PC folders" User COFS changed the sentence to read: "However, a California court deciding on the theft of files by a former member mentions cases of abuse suffered based on the information in files the Church kept on them." implying perhaps that the former member might have been in some way responsible. COFS edit comment: "clarification."
Hardly. SheffieldSteel 12:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Ha, Mr. I-Applause-Vandalism is back. Now, what EXACTLY is wrong with those edits? COFS 17:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
There is a big difference between vandalism and an edit that you disagree with. Please tell me how I should format this text in order to make it comprehensible for you. SheffieldSteel 18:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Psychiatry section

This statement in article:

Many of the areas in which his criticism is directed have since been discredited in mainstream psychiatry - electro-shock therapy, for example, is now only used under anesthesia and muscle relaxants, and lobotomy is a defunct procedure.

is innacurate, as can be seen in the electro-shock therapy section in the Anti-psychiatry article (which is not a scientology article). Also, lobotomy (now called psychosurgery) is still practiced today. It’s not defunct. —Cesar Tort 18:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Since there are no less than three articles on the subject I propose to drastically reduce the Psychiatry section and place instead the relevant links:

Main articles: CCHR, Scientology and psychiatry, and Psychiatry: An Industry of Death

—Cesar Tort 19:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok. CSI LA 02:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
If no objections I'll drastically reduce the Psychiatry section today. —Cesar Tort 18:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

With the exception of this paragraph —:

Christopher Gillberg, professor of child and adolescent psychiatry at the University of Gothenburg, Sweden, alleged that the destruction of patient files in May 2005 by two of his colleagues and a university administrator had been prompted by the Church's criticism of his research.[5] Gillberg said that Eva Kärfve, an associate professor of sociology at the University of Lund who in 2003 had obtained a court order to access his patient records relating to ADHD, was a Scientologist or was acting for the Church. The University professor opposed this access on the grounds of patient confidentiality. However, in July 2005 the lower criminal court in Gothenburg fined Gillberg for "misuse of office" and upheld Kärfve's right to see the remaining data.[6]

—most of the paragraphs are iterated in the other Scientology/psychiatry-related articles. Frankly I don’t know what to do with the above paragraph. Personally, I would leave it out of mainspace. The remaining para. which are not iterated elsewhere I have left in this article. —Cesar Tort 21:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Broken links http://www.ami.com.au/~bradw/cos/Theology/Theology/eastern.htm http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/special_packages/sunday_review/12042623.htm Both do not link to the article.

Xenu

Scientologists have argued that the published accounts of the Xenu story and other teachings are distortions of their practice, presented out of context for the purpose of ridiculing their religion.

This wording should be changed, or the comment removed entirely. First off, it's unsourced. Secondly, we should only print a rational Scientologist view, not false claims. What this statement says is that Xenu is a "distortion" of Scientology's teachings. But the source for Xenu comes directly from Scientologist source books and text written in LRH's own hand. And the "out of context" claim is meaningless-- Christians have similar incredible stories, such as the Resurrection, which they will defend no matter what context they are presented in, because Christians believe strongly in the veracity of the Gospels. Perhaps boiling this response down to "Scientologists claim the story of Xenu requires proper context to be understood" would be a better way of putting it. 137.22.2.65 18:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You're quite right about this unsourced material. But we have to take care not to put words into the mouths of Scientologists - any new version would be equally unsourced. I wonder what "other teachings" they mean? Without a cited source, it's pretty meaningless. I would propose this form of words...
Scientologists have argued that the published accounts of the Xenu story are presented out of context for the purpose of ridiculing their religion.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› [citation needed]
...since it should still be sourced if it's to remain. I'm sure a knowledgeable Scientologist will be only too happy to provide a source. SheffieldSteel 18:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed with SheffieldSteel. The only real question is the source. Whilst the anon takes issue with the merits of Scientologists' claims, saying they are "false", that is irrelevant: what matters is whether such claims have actually been made. (The anon has made the epistemic fallacy of equating one's knowledge or belief about a thing with the thing itself, the "thing" in this case being the question of whether published accounts about Xenu are distorted or presented out of context to ridicule their religion).
Query: Has Scientology ever taken a position on Xenu or even publicly acknowledged that the teaching exists? As far as I know it hasn't. If this sentence is only intended to reflect what some unnamed, individual rank-and-file Scientologists have supposedly said sometime/somewhere, there are WP:RS and notability problems as well. I am removing the sentence per WP:BOLD until a proper source is provided. -- Really Spooky 12:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, a senior Church official, in court, under oath and many legal letters claiming copyright. Even I have one of those! See Xenu. --Hartley Patterson 15:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Oops -- turns out the page can't be edited, at least not by an underling like me. So as per the reasons above I make a request for the sentence's removal to the higher powers that be at Wikipedia :) -- Really Spooky 12:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC) {{editprotected}}
Mike Rinder in the rolling stone magazine interview said:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/9363363/inside_scientology/4
Bravehartbear 17:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Every time a Scientology spoke person is asked about Xenu their response similar. OT3 is an auditing level, the materials of this level can only be understood in relationship to the level itself. I don't think that Scientology has an public position on Xenu story but the sentence: ‘Scientologists have argued that the published accounts of the Xenu story and other teachings are distortions of their practice, presented out of context for the purpose of ridiculing their religion.’ Is the best sentence to describe how Scientologists feel about media exposure to this Scientology level.
It should stay!!! Bravehartbear 18:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone notice that there is a cartoon character associated with the article? Can that be removed since it has zero relevance to Xenu? It's just an artists rendition, and honestly quite insulting. Nihiletnihil 20:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Do they allow parodies?

At first it was Isaac Hayes, then there was a smaller controversy involving Nancy Cartwright... My question is, if Jewish people are allowed to make fun of their own faith all the time, what makes Scientology different? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jnelson09 (talk • contribs) 02:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

Sorry, I just forgot to sign. I'll remember this time. --Jnelson09 02:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a question for a forum discussing Scientology, not a Wiki Talk page discussing an article about Scientology --Hartley Patterson 22:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Scientologist point of view on Wikipedia

Greetings, I'm new and still learning the ropes. I have seen that you had some troubles dealing with some Scientologist that are offended by some of the materials here. For example COFS was just banned for being a vandal. I totally agree with his punishment. And I want to assure that I'm not like that, I look forward to work with all of you to post well sourced materials. I'm not really interested into getting into discussions about Scientology beliefs, I just interested in working with well sourced historical facts. You can see my edits in the Lisa McPherson page and others. I think that having a Scientologist point of view included will ad to the veracity of Wikipedia. Bravehartbear 22:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Lots of words, to say what? That you are a Scientologist and please don't beat me? I don't get it. Misou 16:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the warm welcome! Please look at my posting about: Members wishing to leave Scientology, your inputs are apreciated. Bravehartbear 23:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Members wishing to leave Scientology

In the second paragraph says: "Although Scientologists are usually free to practice their beliefs, the organized church has often encountered opposition due to their strong-arm tactics against critics and members wishing to leave the organization." There is no citation for this line. I have to agree that Scientology is very intolerant of critics but I have never seen a person having trouble by trying to leave Scientology. All what you have to do to leave Scientology is not to pay the next course and you are out. What are these strong arm tactics against members wishing to leave the organization? I have never seen it. Could someone bring a good citation or delete this part of the sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bravehartbear (talk • contribs) 12:50, May 1, 2007 (UTC)

There are plenty of stories of people stuck in Scientology for one reason or another. For example, see here. It tells the story of one family's son, whom Scientology's Office of Special Affairs (OSA) had even set up fake "parents" to try to keep his real parents, along with Tory Christman (who had trouble leaving herself) and Jesse Prince, two former CoS members and Scientology critics, from seeing him, and the various dirty tricks they used to try to keep him in the CoS. Also, please remember to sign your comments using the four tildes. Thanks. HiEv 01:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


Thank you for the links.
  • The page of Tory Christman doesn’t mention that she had any trouble leaving the church. She left on her own volition when she wanted. It does states that she was concerned about: “she would lose all of her friends, and her husband.” But this happened because she became critical of Scientology not because she left Scientology. I don’t see any “strong arm tactics” here.
  • The page of Jesse Prince doesn’t mention anything about him having any trouble leaving Scientology.
The other links that you sent me are from anti-Scientology web sites that I don’t consider reliable but I did read them.
  • The link “Leaving and Leaves” is correct. When a staff member wants to leave he can only tell the ethics officer, do a confessional and do the ethics formulas. The ethics formula of doubt will help him resolved his decision to leave staff or not. I have seen people do this formula and concluded that they want to leave staff. The outcome is something personal. But this is not a about Scientologist parishioner wanting to stop being Scientologist. This is about Church workers wanting to leave staff. Still I don’t see any “strong arm tactics” here.
  • The link “The Rescue at The Burbank Hotel” doesn’t make sense. If the kid was an underage child all what they had to do is call the police to get the child. To hold this child would have been kidnapping. This link is just like other sites in the internet that say that the US government is responsible for 9/11 are simply not reliable. Only reputable links like newspaper, CNN, should be cited.
What I’m looking for is newspaper article or a reliable source that shows that Scientology used “strong arm tactics against parishioner that wanted to stop being Scientologists.” The way this sentence is constructed makes you believe that people that want to stop being Scientologist are acted against by Scientology and this is just not true. If you mean that staff members get a hard time when they want to quit their work, state it. But still these are not “strong arm tactics”.
My experience by being connected with Scientology over 16 years is that people come and go from Scientology at will. I have never seen any “strong arm tactics” or nothing even close.Bravehartbear 06:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I never said Jesse Prince had trouble leaving; I don't know if he did or didn't, I just included the link for informational purposes. Tory's Wikipedia page may not detail her escape, but she tried to sneak out the CoS, was somehow tailed to two airports, and had to have a police escort to keep the Scientologists away at the second one (see here.) My main point was the "Rescue at the Burbank Hotel" link, and whether it makes sense to you or not, it is a fine example of strong-arm tactics by the CoS to keep members from leaving. If you need more, here are 25 reports of false imprisonment by the Church of Scientology, including news reports and court documents. HiEv 01:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Wuao, this is the craziest thing I have ever heard. I'm aware of interest groups that are interested in Scientology demise. But I was not aware they were capable of making up such a wild combination of lies. I can asure you that these allegations are not true. And that under examination these lies will not be able to stand. But this is not the place to talk about this. Good luck! :-) Bravehartbear 08:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
This cannot have happened because scientologists would not do such things is not a valid response. Widespread child abuse in the Catholic Church was once ignored because everyone knew it didn't happen - priests would not do such things. Your assumption that the allegations are organised is also just that, an assumption. --Hartley Patterson 16:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
It is a fact that millions have been spent to buy testimonies to attack Scientology. Bob Minton spent 10 millions to attack Scientology and he later testified that he gave money to buy witnesses for the Lisa McPherson case. In accordance with Jesse Prince, Bob Minton was presented with a Rico lawsuit by Scientology that forced him to come clean. A Rico law suit means money laundering. It doesn't take a genius that figure out that Bob Minton was just a front guy and that the money that was being channeled from Europe for his efforts and he was claiming as tax deductions was not his. He even admitted that he was pocketing part of that money (a commission?). All this info you can find in the Saint Petersburg Times archives a paper that has been very critical of Scientology.
http://www.sptimes.com/2002/07/07/TampaBay/How_Scientology_turne.shtml
http://www.sptimes.com/2002/04/20/TampaBay/Church_s_leading_foes.shtml
http://www.sptimes.com/2002/05/01/TampaBay/Scientology_foes_cont.shtml
http://www.sptimes.com/2002/06/13/TampaBay/Scientology_turncoat_.shtml
An example of false and absurd testimonies to attack Scientologist Jesse Prince, testimony to try to get David Miskavich involved in the law suit that was thrown out because Jesse Prince was not a reliable witness and the accusation was absurd.
Another interesting fact is how quickly the Lisa McPherson trust broke away as soon as the money stopped flowing in. These anti-Scientologist were hired guns to attack Scientology, they don't work for free.
As I said these are just absurd lies that can't hold examination. That's why they never hold in court. Bravehartbear 19:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Small point: The judge ruled that Jesse Prince was not a reliable hostile expert witness, which is a very narrow and specific ruling in that one case. As an expert witness, Jesse Prince would have testified about things that he had not personally witnessed (notification of the upper management about Lisa McPherson), but about what he thought happened according to his expertise on the subject. Obviously judges have to hold expert witnesses (even hostile ones) to a very high standard for what would otherwise by hearsay evidence at best. (IANAL, and this finally answers justanother's question from a while back) AndroidCat 21:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Bravehartbear, I gave you exactly what you requested and more, including court documents, and you dismissed all of it out of hand, or at least you provided no evidence specifically against all of the examples given, just your disbelief and heartfelt assurances. Based on that response it seems like no evidence could possibly convince you. Unfalsifiable beliefs are antithetical to uncovering the truth. Scientology members have committed illegal acts in the past, including stealing information from the IRS in Operation Snow White, so I don't see how it's impossible that things such as these could have occurred. I'm sure they believed they had the victims' best interests at heart, but what occurred was nonetheless illegal. Regardless, I think this satisfies your request for a citation that shows strong-arm tactics by Scientology members against those attempting to leave the CoS. This evidence may upset you or seem offensive, but that doesn't mean it's untrue. Please carefully examine these cases before you reject them. HiEv 02:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The Bridge to Total Freedom

{{editprotected}} Can we unprotect this article now? I'd like to wikify the phrase "Bridge to Total Freedom" in the article to link to its article. wikipediatrix 20:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I changed it to semiprotected, so any established username can edit the article. For the record, the "right way" to request unprotection is to ask at WP:RFPP. CMummert · talk 18:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I have seen a lot of discussion about which links are unbiased and which aren't. For example the link about "What Religious Scholars Have to Say about the Scientology Religion" was debated (see External links above) and I think deleted because it pointed to a Scientology website. This link was pertinent because it was written by religious scholars and not Scientologist. Truth be told, there is greater use of anti-scientology links in this page than Scientology links. Is this Fair? What are the criteria to determine if a link is biased or not? If Scientology links are not to be used then anti-Scientology links shouldn't be use neither. Bravehartbear 23:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

By and large, links to sources which are critical of Scientology are used to provide material on what critics say; as such, they are perfectly reliable. There is no problem with saying "critics say Scientology smells like weasels" as long as we can provide a link to a notable source that says so. Of course, stating any allegation or criticism as plain fact ("Scientology smells like weasels") is out of the question. SheffieldSteel 03:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

If it was written by non scientologist I see no reason why it should be deleted but the Church of Scientology is notorious for being extremely biased if not outright lying and I fail to see how they could be a reliable source for anything, that said I do agree people are trigger happy when they see anything remotely connected to the Church of Scientology. Joneleth 22:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

So we agree that both sides need to be exposed equally. So both types of links will be used equally. This is the only fair way to do it. Bravehartbear 23:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

No the only fair way to do it is to give both sides equal opertunity to be exposed, not forcefully equally exposure by both. Joneleth 02:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Hubbard’s literary output

Joneleth removed (in my opinion interpreting WP’s writing style adequately) the sentence “Hubbard explained Dianetics and Scientology in more than 5,000 writings and 3,000 lectures”. Does anyone knows if the 5,000 writings claim is accurate? I mean, which percent of those writings were really written by Hubbard according to reliable sources? —Cesar Tort 03:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the verifiability of it, I didnt not remove it because of that but because it had no relevant significance to the synopsis which should be kept short and simple. Joneleth 22:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
The 3000 lectures are accurate because that is his voice in the tapes and there are historical files on when he did the lectures. I have probably listened to a couple hundreds of those lectures.
The writings are definitely his writing style. Many of which were hand written. This includes:
  • The technical bulletins that are found in the red volumes that are a compilation of all the Tech bulletins in numerical sequence.
  • The Admin (administrative) policies that are found in the Green volumes. These volumes are the base of WISE administrative technology.
  • Other Scientology related articles by LRH that are presented in the 'Research & discovery' volumes by date.
  • And many other books and manuals.
If you go to a Church of Scientology you will usually find a library the size of a big room to store these materials.
A Scientology executive has studied every single policy in the green volumes.
A top auditor has studied every single bulleting in red volumes.
But all this is not surprising due to the fact that LRH was the king of high speed writers during the 30ties. It is a well know fact even in anti-scientology books that LRH could write an entire pulp fiction story in a single day. In fact he produced two hundred stories and novels between 1927 and 1941. http://www.lronhubbard.org/profile/auth.htm
Just go to e-bay and type L Ron Hubbard.Bravehartbear 00:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Hubbard’s writings only reveal an extremely immature prose, as Martin Gardner noted in the Nature book-review of Russell Miller’s bio. Why isn’t this mentioned in the article? Tito58 17:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, even though it's true and even though it's sourced, analysis of the quality of Hubbard's writing doesn't belong in the Scientology article, whether pro or con. I'm not even sure it would belong in the L. Ron Hubbard article. For any well-known writer, a quick Google search can give us sources for people who say they're great, and for people who say they suck. wikipediatrix 17:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I didn't mean to say he was good even though I think he is very good. I meant to say he was freakishly fast. He was the fastest writer in his time. I don't know of any other writer as fast as him or that has produced as much as him. I'm not saying there isn't I just saying I don't know of anyone.-Bravehartbear 21:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Sociological grouping

Hello. I'm researching the sociology of religion and I noticed this article is very well sourced. I've picked up some useful sources already. I do have some interesting sources on Scientology also. It seems to be grouped by some a self development movement along with other similar groups. What standard of source is required for the information to be added here? Realbie 02:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know there is no definitely answer for that. We keep bumping head in that subject. Basically if you think it goes there just put it there and explain why. Everyone has a different opinion so try to reach the middle ground. Bravehartbear 02:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
OK I'll work out the brief version. Its very neutral research and agrees and extends some of the information thats already there so it probably will not cause any real problems. Please review it when I add it on. Realbie 02:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh don't wory I assure you it will be review by everybody. Bravehartbear 03:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  1. ^ Affidavit of Andre Tabayoyon, 5 March 1994, in Church of Scientology International vs. Steven Fish and Uwe Geertz.
  2. ^ Hoffman, Claire (2005-12-18). "Tom Cruise and Scientology". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2006-11-14. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)<
  3. ^ http://rickross.org/reference/scientology/Scien12.html
  4. ^ http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/a1/breckenridge-decision.pdf
  5. ^ http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/329/7457/72
  6. ^ http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/331/7510/180-f
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Scientology/Archive_16&oldid=1137176131"