Talk:Scientology/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Is Scientology a bureaucracy?

Based on the fact that Scientology, despite claiming to be a religion, operates more like a money-grubbing cult, I think that Scientology could be classified as a bureaucracy. However, the article isn't very clear on the structure of its organization, such as who ranks where, how labor is divided, the qualifications to be employed by an institution of Scientology, and how promotions can occur (among other features of a bureaucracy.) Could you guys please help to clarify the bureaucratic structure of Scientology? Thanks in advance, --Luigifan (talk) 20:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The same could be said of older and more established organized religions. The Catholic hierarchy for example is most certainly a bureaucracy and the Pope's opulent palace, fancy evening gowns and Prada shoes seem to stray from that religion's supposed core tenet of putting the poor first. A bureaucracy of excess and exploitation has never been mutually exclusive with the concept of "religion." It is true that Scientology takes this to new extremes, but the difference is clearly quantitative rather than qualitative. Scientology is in my view a religion that reflects the late-stage capitalist order from which it arose much like Catholic Christianity reflects the feudal society in which it was forged. ---24.47.154.230 (talk) 00:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. While it might be true that Scientology has a bureaucracy, that is a lot different than saying that it is a bureaucracy. Also, I have seen a few news articles in which Scientology recruits for new employees, including auditors, in which the church states that you don't have to belong to the church to get one of those jobs. So I'm guessing it isn't entirely "hiring from within". John Carter (talk) 01:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The church isn't necessarily a bureaucracy, but it operates very similarly to a business and I find it rather funny that the articles opening makes it sound like a bonafide religion without a lot of sources as I know in a decent number of countries it is not tax exempt and tax exempt status is not always given to just religions, and even defining a religion can be very difficult and is usually done by society as a whole instead of by government, because government means politics not religion. Zanotam - Google me (talk) 20:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The Roman Catholic Church is operated very similarly to a business as well. And think of all the countries it or some of its smaller divisions, like the Jesuits, have been thrown out of. One could argue whether it is a "religion" or a sect within a larger religion, Christianity, but that's a small point. Scientology, on the other hand, is more or less the only major sect in its faith family. Regarding being recognized by some countries is also a bit of a problem, particularly in Europe, for reasons which honestly don't make much sense to me as an American, but there you go. See Freedom of religion in Bulgaria for the various articles relating to Europe. And many of those countries don't grant tax-exempt status to any religions they haven't officially "recognized", so it isn't uncommon to see that. John Carter (talk) 21:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Lewis, "Scientology", Oxford University Press

The book by Lewis, with contributions from Bromley, Shupe, Willms, Grünschloß, Palmer, Dericquebourg, Cowan and others (Kent and Beit-Hallahmi are notable by their absence) is now available in the US and from US online booksellers (sometimes with the Look Inside function enabled). Jayen466 23:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, it will be interesting to see if "Scientology" editor James R. Lewis and contributor J. Gordon Melton will provide viewpoints that will add to or detract from their alleged reputations as cult apologists [1]. The Lizard (talk) 18:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

First, I know my anonymous address detracts from my credibility. I'm honestly not a sock-puppet or otherwise need to hide my identity, it's just that I used to waste too much time editing so I got rid of my account to curb the habit. I'm also not an anti-Scientology (let along an anti-New Religious Movement) activist, although I've read a lot of the journalistic commentary on the Church and my opinion of it is generally negative.

I saw this new book in the "new acquisitions" shelf of my university library, checked it out, and read it. I was struck by the apologetic tone of the book. Melton's overview of the Church's history, in particular, reads almost like a PR account. Throughout the book, discussions of the Church's payment policy for auditing are brief and offhand and don't contextualize it comparatively, i.e. they do not note that few if any other churches charge so much money so their essential religious rituals. The Church of Latter-Day Saints, for instance, expects a significant financial commitment from members, but they can still participate in all aspects of the Church (including, if I'm not mistaken, Temple rituals) while declining to contribute money.

Almost none of the book's essays, furthermore, refer to the Church of Scientology's aggressive and explicit policy of suing critics. The well-researched article by James Richardson on "Scientology in Court," for instance, ignores that subject to concentrate exclusively on the Church's struggles for religion status in various countries. And Anson Shupe's chapter on "The Church of Scientology versus the Cult Awareness Network" seems to take clear sides in favor of the Church.

I do not for an instant question NRM scholars' good faith, but I suspect that the nature of the research, beginning from an explicit (and appropriate, for scholarly research) posture of non-judgment, can slide towards apologetics -- especially since the Church makes an effort to win scholars' good will, as it does with celebrities. I wish that researchers would be scrupulous about declaring any financial support for their research from the Church (including paying travel costs and subsidizing conferences). The situation, I suspect, is similar to that of medical researchers who overtime become more or more compromised by the support for their research provided by pharmaceutical companies.

I intend this comment in the spirit of honest discussion, and would be interested in others' opinions on it. I'm cross-posting it to other relevant talk pages. 152.160.39.70 (talk) 14:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Current Legal Action

I think it is important to make mention somewhere in the article that there are at least 3 very high profile lawsuites against the "church".

http://www.scribd.com/full/13912796?access_key=key-elkvgaz37cbbx9pkg8h - Laura Ann http://www.scribd.com/full/12565013?access_key=key-1bdwxztds5mz3ryw8oei - Marc headly http://www.scribd.com/full/12565010?access_key=key-191r3kgtpfaqt9ytei17 - clair headly

These sources are irefutable in that they are on public record and are real lawsuites. It is only a matter of time before more and more people step forward and demand compensation for what they went through.

67.84.159.28 (talk) 14:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

These documents are only reliable sources for what they contain, which are as-yet unproven allegations about the CoS. I don't think we'd put them into the article because by our neutrality policy, we'd be giving undue prominence to pending litigation which may ultimately fail. Once a court has adjudicated on these matters, different considerations may apply. Until then, given that the CoS has faced much litigation in the past, this material does not appear to warrant inclusion, and no, I have nothing to do with Scientology. --Rodhullandemu 14:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I apreciate your choice. We shall see what happens in 14 months or so when they all get served. It is only a matter of time before this becomes a domino effect and hundreds of peoeple start stepping forward with complaints. 67.84.159.28 (talk) 19:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Celebrities?

I don't see the point of saying what celebrities are in this religion. i think thats only a promotional fact, not really interesting. If we had to put how many celebrities are in christianity for example, it would ocuped pages and pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.32.198.117 (talk) 20:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

C-class?

Just curious: This article has a pile of references and seems pretty substantial. Why is it rated only C-class? Shouldn't it be B-class? -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, until fairly recently it was an unreadable amalgam of badly written crap that was obviously just an attack piece. This article has improved a bit lately, but not knowing the Class criteria I cannot second your motion or answer your question. Slightlyright (talk) 06:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

No Primaries Rule Should Be Rescinded WAS: Help with Cites Please

I recently expanded the Bridge to total freedom section a bit and included a cite which is a link to a nice big copy of the Bridge on a CoS site. I reference the site three times in the section and don't know how to make all three of the references use the same note number. Will someone kindly fix that for me? Currently the cite occurs at the bottom three times, each with a different cite number. Much appreciate the help. Slightlyright (talk) 06:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Slightlyright, thanks for trying to expand the Bridge section. I'm glad you think the article has improved. It has. But I've reverted your recent additions because we're trying to get away from reliance on primary sources. Please help researching secondary sources, ideally scholarly sources, to expand and improve the article further.

For how to reuse a reference, see WP:NAMEDREFS. Cheers, Jayen466 07:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

yeah, we are gonna have to talk about the colossal idiocy of not being able to use primary sources. When a section entitled "The Bridge to total Freedom" cannot use a link to the ACTUAL DOCUMENT that IS the Bridge to total freedom, Then something is horribly, horribly, badly and stupidly misunderstood about the reason that primary sources are bad. And if these articles are ever going to have anything in them that is actually scientology instead of just criticism of scientology, then primary sources are going to need to be allowed.

Just a fact.

I had hoped that the recent activity on this article was indicative of someone somewhere wanting to get some scientology into the scientology articles. I guess not. Slightlyright (talk) 11:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The Christianity article is full of scriptural references, and if that is not a primary source then i don't know what the hell is. This aversion for Primaries is way outta hand here. It is being used as a device to keep the article quality here horribly low. Horribly, Terribly low, humiliatingly low. And it's pissing me off rather.

So someone better cogently explain to me why completely legitimate primary sources are being rejected out of hand even though they are the only logical reference for fluff's sake. Slightlyright (talk) 12:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Slight-- you don't understand. This article has faced some extreeme edit warring. Opening the door to primary sources will also pen the door a bunch of critical primary sources. a totaly bias article and edit warring. The solution was to agree to use only reliable secundary sources like schoolars and journalists. If you do your research you will some secundary source that will cover whatever you want to talk about. We are not lowering our standards, that would have daring consecuences. 114.180.77.4 (talk) 22:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, i know about the warring. It's why I left for a couple years. But here's the thing: Scientology articles should have Scientology in them. Google's Top link for 'Scientology' is this sad, tortured and pathetic article. Now, While i will grant that it is in fact much improved, I will not grant that it contains much Scientology, nor will I concede that it is good enough to be the first stop for someone trying to learn about the subject. An encyclopedia is supposed to be a good place to learn about something. Currently Wikipedia is positively THE ABSOLUTE WORST place to learn about Scientology. This is primarily because Wikipedia's reputation and authority is being hijacked by anti-Scientology hate groups. People come here expecting some sort of objectivity and authority on the subject, They do not get it but since it's Wikipedia they assume they are getting it and thus go away badly misinformed. This is not the result one expects from an encyclopedia. It is the result hoped for by certain hate groups though.

You see, the no primary sources... uhm... rule? - guideline? armistice? compromise? blight? idiocy? blatantly-obvious-evidence-of-rampant-braindeath? whatever it is - insures that there will NEVER be any Scientology in the Scientology articles, ever. There will only be what people have said about Scientology. And thus, the hate groups win. And thus, the Nazis get to control what gets said about the Jews. (and yeah, that analogy is gonna piss some people off, but that's how I feel about it.) Scientology primaries (At the very least Hubbard primaries) must be allowed to be included in Scientology articles. Other primaries don't. A source from an attack website is not on a par with something Hubbard said about Scientology. What a scholar said about Scientology is not as authoritative as what Hubbard said. The basic lie here is that a primary is a primary, obviously there are primaries and then there are primaries and the difference is obvious. (The not-quite-bright who cannot appreciate irony, need not comment on the previous sentence.)

Imagine an article on Geometry that couldn't include anything by Euclid. A Calculus article containing nothing by Newton or Leibniz. Absolutely, incredibly, moronically asinine. Asinine. Asinine. Asinine. And lest my position be misunderstood - not allowing Hubbard primaries in a Scientology article is ... uhm... asinine.

It is so simple: Hubbard Primaries have legitimate and overriding authority in an article about Scientology. They are authoritative on Scientology, primary screeds by apostates and hate groups or well intentioned others or knowledgeable scholars are not at the same level. Apostate venom on a par with Scientology doctrine??? PUUUHHHLEEEEEZE. Equating them is bogus. And almost certainly deliberate. There is probably a wikiword that has to do with Meta Editingingishness: using policies and definitions and precedence to skew local, consensus editing policy in order to create an editing environment that skews articles toward a given PoV. I don't know what this word is, but that's what's happening here.

Let's remember what started this thread: I expanded the section called "The Bridge to Total Freedom" by about 2K characters. AND I included a link to A Beautiful, High resolution scan of the ACTUAL DOCUMENT. THE ACTUAL GORRAM DOCUMENT. Complete. Unabridged. (couldn't resist) and because it was a primary source, my good faith edits were reverted out of hand. So let's make sure no one misses this: A LINK TO THE ACTUAL DOCUMENT THAT BEARS THE EXACT TITLE AS THE SECTION IN QUESTION, AND IS IF FACT THE EXACT DOCUMENT IN QUESTION WAS DISALLOWED based upon some sort of house rule. And now... instead of being able to spend time expanding another article or section and actually being of benefit to the encyclopedia, I have to spend time pointing out that the Scientology article should include some Scientology. Sorta annoying actually.

Look, I know y'all are battle weary, really, I get it. But the Scientology articles should allow people to learn about Scientology. That is the purpose of an encyclopedia. Honest. Really. That IS the purpose, I looked it up on Wikipedia. You can't pass rules that prevent this from happening, otherwise you're doing something, but whatever it is is not contributing to the mission of Wikipedia, it is something else. Allowing this asinine rule to stand is a pathetic and cowardly (or maybe just exhausted) surrender to the hate groups. It's also a grotesquely irresponsible abdication of the encyclopedic mission.

This rule has to go. And don't tell me that hate group primaries have to be allowed too then. They don't. A differentiation needs to be made between a primary from the creator of a subject and primaries of lesser magnitude. This would be the best solution. Barring that, allow the hate mongers but confine their bile (I mean balanced and objective wisdom) to the controversy section. I suspect that strict enforcement of such a rule would have prevented the need for creating the current idiocy we are forced to labor under.

That's my three cents. Slightlyright (talk) 21:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:OR

A discussion on this rule is better suited to this forum -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#Religious_primary_sources

Your comment reminded me of the following which, while a Scientology policy is not a Wikipedia policy:

Extract from HCO PL 7 Aug 79 entitled “FALSE DATA STRIPPING” “Where a subject, such as art, contains innumerable authorities and voluminous opinions you may find that any and all textbooks under that heading reek with false data. Those who have studied study tech will recall that the validity of texts is an important factor in study. Therefore it is important that any supervisor or teacher seeking to use False Data Stripping must utilize basic workable texts. These are most often found to have been written by the original discoverer of the subject and when in doubt avoid texts which are interpretations of somebody else’s work. In short, choose only textual material which is closest to the basic facts of the subject and avoid those which embroider upon them.”

78.16.206.27 (talk) 12:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the Scientology Study Tech method of "False Data Stripping" as defined above serves the purpose of removing any third-party observation or criticism from consideration, thus providing a stumbling block for any objective analysis or research of a subject outside of the oft-repeated Scientology exhortation that one must "try the 'tech' for yourself to see if it works". The Lizard (talk) 15:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

(od) All editors, both pro and critical would love to use Hubbard's writings, lectures, documents, HCOBs, etc, directly, but there's usually just too many problems with added interpretation, synthesis and messy looong arguments about context. Scientology is unusual in that there are few Scientologists writing to explain and interpret Scientology in secondary texts. ("Verbal tech"?) Failing that, there are non-critical scholars who have written about Scientology beliefs. See: Massimo Introvigne, Eileen Barker, Bryan Wilson, Derek H. Davis, Gordon Melton, James R. Lewis for starters. (True, I sometimes have problems with their fact-checking and referencing in areas outside of beliefs.) It will require some searching and digging (try GoogleBooks), but sometimes you have to do the work.

Meanwhile, I don't think the charged rhetoric about hate groups and false-data stripping is helping much. AndroidCat (talk) 17:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Wuao, for 1st time I totally agree with Android Cat. Bravehartbear (talk) 13:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I mangled an edit summary

The summary for my last edit (287768835) should've read "hitherto" does not help make the article neater or nicer, but does make it harder to understand. See e.g. Tony1's suggestions.

My finger slipped on the Enter key there, but the edit itself was as intended. --an odd name 02:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you heip me?

Dear sir.

First at all. I 'm patty . and I interest scientology. but i 'm can read and listen english not very good. but i would like to know about scientolg too much. Can you have thai language.? I would like to speak and listen english.but I cannot do it well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.24.191.85 (talk) 03:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

There are Scientology books in Thai, I just purchased a couple for my GF Waraporn. Just visit the Scientology official web site. Look for the basic books and select your prefered language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.1.122.63 (talk) 23:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOT#FORUM  Aar  ►  03:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Membership edit reverted

An edit of mine was reverted. I took the US figures on membership and put them in Scientology in the United States. Even though Scientology started in the US this article should not be about info specific to the US (or other countries for that matter) especially since a suitable article exists for such information. There are two reasons for this: to avoid systemic bias and to keep articles to a reasonable length. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Hiya, I disagree. The US as the country of origin of Scientology has the largest membership figure; I think this info is worth having in this generic overview. Also note that if you chop that single sentence out, the following paragraph about Scientologists disparaging general surveys, and the inflated membership statistics, loses its reference. There won't have been a prior mention of surveys then. JN466 21:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I mean, if you do insist on taking that sentence, then you have to take the following sentence along with it. Then we can lose this as a separate section here (because only two sentences will be left), and integrate the remaining sentences in the preceding section. JN466 21:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Project Chanology

Shouldnt there be a seperate heading for Project Chanology under "Scientology and the internet"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.205.119 (talk) 01:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

It links to the main article under the main heading, so I don't think it's necessary. Such a heading would require restructuring of the material. If people want a summary of the project they can just click on the main article. The Sartorialist (talk) 17:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia ban

I propose a link is added to the section that leads to WP:ARBSCI.

That is, a link directly to the source material, not merely links to newspaper articles about the decision. As it is, I found it by WP-searching for "arbitration committee" and then clicking "For Wikipedia Arbitration" onwards... Now that I turn to the talk page to write this, I see a section in the top of the page, however, this does not link me to the source page. And regardless, I do not believe a user should have to flip to the talk page to get relevant links in a comfortable manner. CapnZapp (talk) 10:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done for the moment; long-term it is not necessary I think. JN466 11:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Notes

I'm wondering why the scientology beliefs aren't mentioned in the article other than vague references? I think the article would be better if it explained the church's thoughts on Xenu and how the theatens cause humans problems. Maybe mention the similarities to Hubbard's sci-fi writings.

It just doesn't seem like a very thorough review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmm2259 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I also think the origins of the History of scientology should be explained, the histroty including Ximu and all that. did Hubbard claim to have arevelation or what? I do not understand where he got these idea's from. According to this article it seems feasible to think hubbard made it all up. If you could help me that would be great. (207.199.205.212 (talk) 14:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC))

Banned users

This should and could be added to the article. I need time for sources, but is it true that Scientologist have been banned from the artcile??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.151.56 (talk) 07:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

::No, just IP addreeses from the CoS, mostly because the user could not be distinguished from one another. There is need to ad this to the article. This is an internal wikipedia affair. Bravehartbear (talk) 09:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Nice work, and suggestions for edits

I'm afraid I don't have anything of substance to add, but this article has really come a long way towards adhering to the NPOV policies. I might even go so far as to suggest that it might be time to further edit some of the other articles in the Scientology family. In particular, I noticed that Scientology and the Legal System is a particularly nasty example of biased POV, and there doesn't seem to be anyone working on it, or at least discussing it. As for this page, I think what it most needs now is some significant cutting and summarizing. In particular:

• The introduction is four paragraphs long and includes a significant amount of information. I think it would be possible to include far more of this in the body, with the first paragraph expanded somewhat to include more basic descriptive information.
• Each of the sections go into a great deal of detail that might be best included in subarticles. History, for example, might be better served by expanding the Timeline article, which is rather poor, and merging it with that information; it could then be briefly summarized with key events. The section titled Beliefs and Practices is also fairly broad and could do with better summary, especially the Space Opera section, which is rather poorly organized.
• I think the top of the page might also better differentiate between Scientology and the Church of Scientology. It is not obvious in the article that the two have a meaningful separation. It might also behoove the editors of this article to summarize information about the Church of Scientology on this page, although that may prove difficult.
• If any meaningful difference exists between Scientology and the Church of Scientology, Free Zone might deserve more information in this article.

In general, I think this article simply needs to be more summarized, moving much of the information to subarticles which need far more work than this one at this point. I'm sorry that I'm unable to participate in these edits myself; Wikipedia doesn't play nice with satellite internet, and I can't keep a user name logged in long enough to do any serious editing. I hope my comments were helpful; nice work, and good luck. Cheers, 97.73.64.167 (talk) 04:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi! Could you sujest more specific changes in the talk page? It would be more helpfull if you do. :-) Bravehartbear (talk) 10:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Dispute of religion status

Scientology as a commercial venture

Add to the list of noted science fiction authors to whom L. Ron Hubbard proclaimed that the way to make a million dollars was to start a religion my former neighbor the late Dr. Isaac Asimov. I believe I read his quoting of LRH in his memoir I. Asimov. Dick Kimball (talk) 16:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

External sources

Hello, I am proposing more references in the wiki-articles on Scientology. The ones I have added below are impartial, qualified, professional treatises on the subject. I feel that it must be possible for people using an encyclopedia and for all people using wikipedia, that when reading an article, they must be able to consult the available expertises on any subject and to be able to access them as easily and directly as possible in order to evaluate their information and attain the hightest possible level of truth by doing so. That is just as important to their own continuation of existence as to everybody elses. The analyses below have been undertaken from a plain research viewpoint, by learned people in related fields, who have no vested interests in the results. These qualities make these sources highly valuable to the public. In that perspective I would like to know if they can be added: 1) Scientology, Social Science and the Definition of Religion, by James A. Beckford. Ph.D, Prof Sociology 2) Scientology, Comparison with Religions of the East and West, by Per-Arne Berglie, Prof History and Religion 3) Is Scientology a Religion?, by Allan W Black, Associate Prof of Sociology 4) Scientology, a New Religion, by M Darrol Bryant Ph.D, Prof Religion and Culture 5) Scientology, by Régis Dericquebourg, Prof of Sociology and Religion 6) Scientology and Contemporary Definitions of Religion in the Social Sciences, by Frank K Flinn Ph.D, Associate Prof of Sociology 7) Scientology and Contemporary Definitions of Religion in the Social Sciences, by Alejandro Frigerio, Ph.D, Associate Prof of Sociology 8) Scientology a True Religion, by Urbano Alonso Galan, Doctor of Phylosophy and Licenciate in Theology, Gregorian University and Saint Bonaventure Pontifical Faculty Rome 9) Scientology, its True Nature, by Harri Heino, Prof of Theology 10) Is Scientology a Religion?, by Dean M Kelley, Counsellor on Religious Liberty 11) The Reliability of Apostate Testimony about New Religious Movements, by Lonnie D Kliever, Dr.Phil, Prof of Religious Studies 12) Religious Philosophy, Religion and Church, by G C Oosthuizen, Th.D, Prof (retired) Dept of Science and Religion 13) The Religious Nature of Scientology, by Geoffrey Parrinder, Ph.D, Prof Emeritus 14) The Church of Scientology, by J Pentikainen, Ph.D 15) Scientology, its Historical and Morphological Frame, by Dario Sabbattuci, Prof of History and Religion 16) The Relationship between Scientology and other Religions, by Fumio Sawada, Eighth Holder of the Secrets of Yu-itsu Shinto 17) Scientology and Religion, by Christiaan Vonck, Ph.D, Rector Faculty for Comparative Study of Religions 18) Apostates and New Religious Movements and Social Change and New Religious Movements, by Bryan Ronald Wilson, Ph.D 19) Scientology, An Analysis and Comparison of its Religious Systems and Doctrines, by Bryan R. Wilson, Ph.D. Awaiting reply, Taodeptus (talk) 13:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)Taopeptus

It depends where they were published. This above list seems to at least overlap with a list of testimonies published by the Church of Scientology again and again on Usenet. Are they submissions to a court case that the experts were paid for? Have any undergone peer review? More details, please. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Martin, many of these works were done by highly acclaimed schoolars and can be found in google book. The fact that the CoS provides courtesy links to them doesn’t retract of their value. A courtesy link is not a self published source. I have never seen such scrutinity for works done by schoolars critical of Scientology. For your information Stephen Kent has recieved good money for his work in many court cases, he has also recieved terrible peer reviews and he is still used in this page.[2]

Per WP:RS # Scholarship

• The scholarly acceptance of a source can be verified by confirming that the source has entered mainstream academic discourse, for example by checking the number of scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes. A corollary is that journals not included in such indexes should be used with caution.

Bravehartbear (talk) 16:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Bravehartbear and MartinPoulter make good points. How many citations have these papers received? How many of them were published in peer-reviewed journals?

We currently have the wording "Overall, however, most scholars have concluded that Scientology falls within the category of religion for the purposes of academic study, and a number have defended the Church in judicial and political proceedings on this basis." in the article. Melton mentions that "the overwhelming majority of religious scholars and sociologists who have studied the church" have come to the conclusion that it is a religion, and that "a number of [them] have been willing to put their opinion in print." I think Melton here is probably referring to the above authors, many of whom are very notable indeed. The fact that many scholars have spoken up for the Church may be more notable than the individual essays. JN466 18:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the essays came from the list here: [3] JN466 22:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Clearly a Scientologist's personal website; the connection is obvious if you look at the index page at http://www.neuereligion.de/ . I don't think it's a satisfactory source, though. There are clear signs that the pieces have been edited. See for instance the following page - [4] and click through to the next page [5]. A large chunk of the paper appears to be missing - even though it's trailed as "a critical opinion on Scientology", any actual criticism has been omitted. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Making things clear.

Ok, so, I made an edit to remove several information covered in a main article and was reverted because I removed a lot of information. I also believed that when I saw it amounted to about 13K, so, I try to edit again, step by step as requested, not to delete that much information, but to make a shorter article which still covers the topics while linking to other articles for people who want a deeper insight, and now I am branded as a vandal. Is it vandalism to try to make shorter, more reader-friendly articles? Because I don't think I am a vandal myself... RUL3R (talk) 00:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Not vandalism, perhaps, but I've already set out the position; if you take it step by step and explain where the information you delete is replicated, then we disinterested observers have a reasonable chance of being able to follow your edits. A 37K deletion of text is too much for most to grasp at one take. Rodhullandemu 00:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

My problem is not making step by step edits, the problem came on my second edit, I removed a couple of paragraphs on the body and spirit section so the article is shorter, since this article is not about Scientology beliefs and practices, nor is it about thetans, or many of the topics covered too deeply in this article, that also have articles of their own that are not listed or linked where they should be. I just believe that, since all this information has independent, standalone articles, then the topic should not be as profoundly covered here, but rather be mentioned in a brief description so readers have a general idea, and whoever wants more information, can visit the conviently linked article. I am a Scientologist myself, but I have tried to remain NPOV about the topic. RUL3R (talk) 00:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Then it is all the more important that you (a) do things in manageable chunks for the rest of us to follow your reasoning and (b) explain fully in an edit summary what you are doing. Managing large articles such as this is difficult at the best of times, and more so when the topic in general has been subject to recent top-level and external scrutiny. It's in your best interests to do so, to avoid accusations of conflict of interest. Hope that helps, but mass-edits raise red flags at present. Rodhullandemu 01:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• RUL3R (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Changes by this user seem to have removed huge chunks of sourced material with no discussion whatsoever about it. This type of drastic change should be significantly discussed before it is made against consensus. Cirt (talk) 05:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, here I am to discuss my point. I, and many will agree with me, find this article to be EXTREMELY long.

• Why do we cover in such great detail the History section, when we already have a Timeline of Scientology article?

This is the Scientology Main and everything here is covered somewhere else. The Scientology Main is like a intro to Scientology and for more info you go to the subpages. The page was built for a very long time by agreement of all the editors and even arbitration... What we don't like is that you just come here and take ownership of the page and you try to dictate what should there or not. Bravehartbear (talk) 08:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

It's still a huge history introduction for a 60 year old organization. RUL3R (talk) 16:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Why do we expand for over 15K information on the Beliefs and practices section when we already have a Scientology beliefs and practices article?

Only the basic principles are in the Main, the subpage is there for greater info. Bravehartbear (talk) 08:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

And I agree with a basic coverage. In a reverted edit I removed 13K of information, and it was not half of it. 13K is a lot for such a young organization that has an independent article covering the same topic. RUL3R (talk) 16:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Why do we have an extensively covered Organization section, when we already wrote independent articles on the Church of Scientology and pretty much every single Scientology organization?

See the above awnser.Bravehartbear (talk) 08:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Why shall we carry such a long Dispute of religion status section, when we have an article for Scientology as a state-recognized religion and an article for each and every country where Scientolgy's status a religion has caused any sort of controversy?

Same awnser.Bravehartbear (talk) 08:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• My screen resolution is at 1280x1024. Yet, I have to scroll down two full screens to read the Controversies section, when we already covered in other articles Scientology controversies, Scientology and the Internet, Scientology and the legal system, and if you look at the Scientology template box you will find articles for every single controversy Scientology has ever arised.

So, my edits are in the interest of making smaller articles, easier to read and manage. I am now ready to discuss. RUL3R (talk) 07:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Scientology is a big subject. I expect the main page to introduce all the main aspect of Scientology including the controversy. Maybe some things could be stream down. You could present sujestions to do this, but removing entire chunks just because the info is in a diferent page, nope. Bravehartbear (talk) 08:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

RUL3R, being bold is generally a good idea, but with such a controversial article you should make a case based on a stated WP policy or by analogy with Featured Articles. (Choosing one at random) Australia is a big article about a complex subject, with lots of sub-articles. That includes an amount of content from sub-articles in the main article, and the fact that it's an FA suggests that it embodies what's thought of as WP best practice. These sorts of comparison may or may not help your point. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the Australia example is misleading and can't be compared. Australia has over 400 years of recorded history, Scientoloy has about 60, and both are covered in almost the same detail. Also, you will find that the article could be improved with what I suggest. Both the CoS and it's detractors brought mayhem upon Scientology-related articles, and the mess has to be fixed. RUL3R (talk) 16:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Expanding comment. Perhaphs I am wrong to just delete it. But I am not suggesting to remove information. I am suggesting to order information. RUL3R (talk) 16:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

How about conforming to Summary style, while migrating the detailed information to their respective articles? This way we preserve a sufficient outline of the content, with further details given elsewhere. We definitely need to find a healthy balance, because admittedly this article is too long. ←Spidern→ 16:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I just copied the full article in my namespace to write a draft. I also found this on WP. RUL3R (talk) 18:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Scientology is an important topic. This article is viewed 7,000 to 8,000 times a day, and ten times as often if there is a related news event. The subarticles generally are one or two orders of magnitude below this. I think the article length is nearly right; if there were anything to delete, I would cut things like the detailed reports on Anonymous protests in spring 2008 (dated information). I am strongly opposed to jettisoning things like "history" or "beliefs and practices". Readers expect to find this information in this article. JN466 18:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

They are still covered in enormous detail. We are supposed to give a short introduction on the history of the topic. Yet, by reading this article you would have no need to read the Dianetics or the Timeline of Scientology article. RUL3R (talk) 18:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Check the detail policy and read what I mean. RUL3R (talk) 19:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Yet, by reading this article you would have no need to read the Dianetics or the Timeline of Scientology article. This is just not true. Both of the articles you name cover vastly more detail than this one. JN466 19:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The Scientology article on the Australia ban:

• In the mid-sixties, the Church of Scientology was banned in several Australian states, starting with Victoria in 1965.[59] The ban was based on the Anderson Report, which found that the auditing process involved "command" hypnosis, in which the hypnotist assumes "positive authoritative control" over the patient. The report concluded that "most scientology and dianetics techniques are those of authoritative hypnosis and as such are dangerous... The scientific evidence which the Board heard from several expert witnesses of the highest repute [...] leads to the inescapable conclusion that it is only in name that there is any difference between authoritative hypnosis and most of the techniques of scientology. Many scientology techniques are in fact hypnotic techniques, and Hubbard has not changed their nature by changing their names."[60] The Australian Church was forced to operate under the name of the "Church of the New Faith" as a result, the name and practice of Scientology having become illegal in the relevant states.[59] Several years of court proceedings aimed at overturning the ban followed.[59]

The Timeline of Scientology article on the same Australia ban:

• The Church of Scientology was banned in several Australian states, starting with Victoria.[10] The ban was based on the Anderson Report, which found that the auditing process involved "command" hypnosis, in which the hypnotist assumes "positive authoritative control" over the patient."[11]

So...? RUL3R (talk) 19:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, the quote above is in the Church of Scientology section, whereas it should be on the controversies, state recognition or history sections. RUL3R (talk) 20:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• The Timeline article is not a replacement for a narrative history, and the Dianetics article has a lot more detail than we give here. We have something like 400 Scientology subarticles. JN466 21:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Still this article needs major revisions. The Australia ban is nowhere to be mentioned in the state recognition section. The History section covers far more controversies than the controversies section. The "introduction" for several Scientology beliefs and practices includes several rebuttals and detractor comments, whereas it should be only an introductory paragraph. If you read the History section you will find it is written like a fairy tale. And I am only beginning to list several issues with this article. As I said, wikipocalypse fell on this article and it needs major cleanup. My bad, and I am sorry for the eager deletion of content, but I am now writing a draft to be assessed later if so you wish. RUL3R (talk) 21:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think your writing a draft and then presenting it for approval is the way to go. It would be better to discuss issues here, on this talk page. JN466 22:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok then, first of all, the introductory paragraphs need to be rearranged. It starts of well, pointing what Scientology is...then, out of the blue (around line 3), it starts speaking of the beliefs, but suddenly changes into the affiliated organizations, and then bounces back to beliefs, and closes on controversies. Check my draft for my proposed rearrangement. The draft also includes proposed paraphrasing and rewriting of the Etymology and Dianetics sections (the latter being about 10 lines smaller, but keeping most information and references.) RUL3R (talk) 22:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Now, so far the draft is about 2k smaller, by paraphrasing and rearrangement alone, without removing references. Also, this article covers a few details on Hubbard's life that may not even need mention, like tha fact that he moved to England... It is also perhaphs over-referenced, reference numbers reach 30 before the first subsection...RUL3R (talk) 00:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree the lede needs attention, but I am not convinced by your rewrite. Below a draft that stays a little closer to the outline of the article, and topicalises the paragraphs a little better. Views? JN466 10:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone realized that we carry two (2) different sections to cover Scientology as a state-recognized religion as well as the artcle and a category? Perhaps we should only cover recognition in the USA in the History section, and the rest in the second... RUL3R (talk) 02:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

As for there being two paragraphs on Scientology's recognition as a religion, that is correct, and I agree there is some unnecessary duplication. However, I think it is legitimate to address the topic twice, once in the history section, and once in the Controversies section (into which the "Dispute of religion status" section should ultimately be integrated), because its recognition as a religion is both important from a historical perspective and a controversy in its own right. But let's look at how we can minimise the duplication without losing any information. JN466 10:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

In this case we shoud only cover the event itself in the history section, with little detail, and all the controversy surrounding the event in the status-recognition section and/or article. I also found that the history presented there is about twice as long as the excerpts presented for the Australia example...quite an achievement for Scientology, given it is about 340 years younger...Probably splitting into a second article for history and deleting the timeline article would be a way to go. RUL3R (talk) 16:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Quicke question

Should Scientology terminology (jargon) words used "in quotes" or italized? I haven't been able to find any WP on this... RUL3R (talk) 23:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I just found WP:TTD. Would words like thetan or engram be considered technical terms for this article? RUL3R (talk) 00:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Revised lede

Scientology is a body of beliefs and related practices created by L. Ron Hubbard in 1952 as a successor to his earlier self-help system, Dianetics. Hubbard characterized Scientology as a religion, and in 1953 incorporated the Church of Scientology in New Jersey.

Scientology teaches that people are immortal spiritual beings who have forgotten their true nature. Its method of spiritual rehabilitation is a type of counseling referred to as "auditing", in which practitioners aim to consciously re-experience past traumatic events in order to free themselves of their limiting effects. Study materials and auditing courses are made available to members in return for specified donations. Scientology is legally recognized as a tax-exempt religion in the United States and other countries, and the Church of Scientology emphasizes this as proof that it is a bona fide religion.

A large number of organizations overseeing the application of Scientology have been established, the most notable of these being the Church of Scientology. Scientology sponsors social service programs. These include a set of moral guidelines expressed in a brochure called The Way to Happiness, the Narconon anti-drug program, the Criminon prison rehabilitation program, the Study Tech education methodology, a volunteer organization, and a business management method.

Scientology has been surrounded by controversies since its inception. It has been widely criticized as a cult that financially defrauds and abuses its members. The Church of Scientology has consistently used litigation against such critics and its aggressiveness in pursuing its foes has been condemned as harassment. Further controversy has focused on Scientology's belief that souls ("thetans") reincarnate and have lived on other planets before living on Earth. Former members say that some of Hubbard's writings on this remote extraterrestrial past, included in confidential Upper Levels, are not revealed to practitioners until they have paid thousands of dollars to the Church of Scientology. Another controversial belief held among Scientologists is that the practice of psychiatry is destructive and abusive, and must be abolished. JN466 10:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't quite agree with your lede because of topic order issues. In the second paragraph you talk to me about beliefs and religion status, then you go to organizations, and then bounce back into beliefs in the fourth. The example I proposed arranges a second paragraph for beliefs only, a third for affiliated organizations only, and a fourth for its controversial status as a religion. Your example is well written (although we could change "aggreesiveness pursuing its foes" to "Methods used by the Church of Scientology againts its detractors have been condidered both strong-arm and harassment" or something in the like, to stay NPOV), but i believe it could be better orded to avoid topic bouncing. RUL3R (talk) 15:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The thing is that certain aspects of the beliefs (Xenu etc.) are a source of controversy. What the above tries to do is first to present the beliefs, then the organizations, and then the various controversies, roughly following the outline of the article itself. JN466 16:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

But you would agree that most of the article needs to be rearranged, reordered and verified, so that we have a clean article. Because some portions of it are very confusing, and many would agree that it is a mess. Also, why is a thetan reincarnation a source of controversy, while hindi reincarnation is not? I do agree that Xenu and some space opera are controversial, but Wikipedia should not pursue that. Wikipedia has to be bold. So I suggest a lede structure that answers:

• What is Scientology?

• What does Scientology believe?

• Who are Scientology?
• Why do they deserve a Wikipedia artice? (because if it wasn't so controversial, it wouldn't have been notable enough, not for an article this long at least)

No particular order intended, but topics have an order to be covered. I am not anymore saying we should remove things, but we should paraphrase and rearrange. I think a good 10k could be removed by this alone, making NPOV what is not, and keeping the general spirit of the rest of the article and WP. And that is my opinion regarding the order of topics. Also, I take this chance to request that links to Engram (Scientology) and Reactive mind be placed on the Emotions and the mind section, because those need to be there. RUL3R (talk) 16:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Scholarly views on Scientology's status as a religion

This section looks more like a collection of quotes than a real Wikipedia article. It says this professor says this but that other one disagrees and says that. Instead of having so many quotes what if we just write:

Although "most scholars have concluded that Scientology falls within the category of religion for the purposes of academic study", there is disagreement on whether or not the Church of Scientology should be considered a church with religious status or not.

There in one sentence I just sumarized the entire 3 paragraph. Bravehartbear (talk) 14:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it should be summarized that briefly; doing so throws away a lot of information about the basis for the disagreement. Nonetheless, I think you've made one point quite clear: the scholars' disagreement is not about whether Scientology is good or bad, or whether it operates in good faith or not. The scholars' disagreement is about whether it is useful for the purposes of academic study to group Scientology among religions, or instead with "personal development movements", or with corporations, or something else. --FOo (talk) 04:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Corrpution

I am worried there may be corupption on this article. There has been alot of contrevesy, I do not care if this is an internal affair, something needs to be done. 60.234.151.56 (talk) 01:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

But everybody's hands are tied until further notice (yes, I know my initial effort was wrong, but every solution I propose is met with refusals)... RUL3R (talk) 01:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Something was done: Scientologists were banned from editing it. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 09:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

But the problem isn't solved yet, this article still has a lot of bias against it. For instance, the history section states that "the church of scientology persuaded the IRS" when the official statement is that there was no such persuasion, and that violates WP:CRYSTALBALL. The Dianatics section claims that "a noted debunker of quack medicine" dismissed Dianetics, which is an indirect camparison that portrays Dianetics in a negative light, and therefore violates WP:NPOV. Also, the article notes all the controversy surrounding several Scientology topics before covering what the actual event/organization/belief/practice/policy is controversial, therefore predisposing readers to controversy, so to speak. I haven't been able to find a policy for the latter, but it's rather one of several prose issues, more than a policy or content problem. RUL3R (talk) 16:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I have in the past argued in favour of presenting the beliefs and practices before we present the history, as we do for most religions. Other editors argued that because Scientology was a very young and controversial religion, its history was still recent memory and should be presented first, as it is in Mormonism for example. I am willing to reopen that discussion. As for the IRS decision, I agree that all the controversy surrounding it, like the NY Times article, should be in the "Dispute of religion status" or "Controversy" section. In the "History" section, we should just give the straightforward official story. If you would like to have a go at that, or suggest a change here, please go ahead. JN466 20:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I've gone ahead and made the change concerning the IRS story myself. Please review. JN466 20:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

What I mean about ordering paragraphs is that, for example, in the Space Opera section, we state scholar and critics views in the second paragraph, and then in the third we present what the documents actually state. I believe we should do it the other way around, because a reader could be predisposed to controversy or some other 3rd POV before reading what is actually stated in Scientology doctrine. Or it could be removed from this article and placed on the Scientology beliefs and practices article, since this and the Body and spirit subsection are the only which present a third party POV within the Beliefs and practices section RUL3R (talk) 22:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Fine, I can see what you are saying about the order of the paragraphs, and if you would like to reorder them, have a go. I do think though there should be a (reasonably sensitive) reference to the Xenu story in this article; I think banishing it all to the Beliefs and practices article is not an option. JN466 23:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

And I am not speaking of removing Xenu references. What I say is that no other section covers what scholars and/or critics think about Scientology practices. Only the Space Opera and the Body and Spirit section make any reference to 3rd party views, and even at that, the latter only makes a quick, one-sentence statement. In Space Opera we devote a full paragraph to this. Either we cover 3rd party views on all sections or we cover it for none, because that makes a very unstable, unpredictable, messy prose. All criticism would belong in a resumed, bold controversy section, because in the articles current state, we controversize every step the CoS has ever made. I will now proceed to make the change I suggested on the scholar views on Xenu. RUL3R (talk) 09:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

In general, we prefer third-party views on everything, if we can find them. The question there is finding a third party which devotes much coverage to the subject. If the third parties simply repeat what the Church itself says, possibly because of lack of controversy or questioning of the idea, then there really isn't that much that we can cite to those third paries. This would be particularly problematic regarding the times Scientology's beliefs don't differ that much from anyone else's. If the third parties cover the subject, but don't have much to say about it themselves, then it's harder to find anything to add specifically from them. John Carter (talk) 14:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't clear what you meant. I think the reordering is an improvement. JN466 15:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Article's wikiproject rating/assessment

C class? really?? I'd say at least a B, despite all the controversy and instability. -- œ^™ 08:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

About the history and controversy sections.

This section is very long and covers a lot of controversies. Has references that the controversies section lacks, and covers events on state recognition that are not covered on the specifically devoted section. I propose we use the history section to only cover the event per se and move any references and allegations of controversy to the corresponding section, to have a better structured article, and so that readers don't have to jump from one location of the article to another one. RUL3R (talk) 23:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense. --JN466 21:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Scientology is....

Scientology is a body of beliefs and related practices created by L. Ron Hubbard in 1952 as a successor to his earlier self-help system, Dianetics.

Hubbard created Scientology from 1952 until his death is 1986. He did not create a body of beliefs and practices in the year 1952. He started in 1952, finished in 1986 but worked steady through. His first public mention of that word was on March 3, 1952 in Wichita, Kansas. (Scientology: Milestone One)

Could we have;

Scientology is a body of beliefs and related practices created by L. Ron Hubbard, starting in 1952, as a successor to his earlier self-help system, Dianetics. Jim Bough (talk) 04:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, and  Done. I've added the years of his birth and death in brackets as well. Cheers, JN466 04:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

re scientology being recognised as tax exempt religion in countries outside the US

Twice in the article it is stated that other countries recognise scientology as being recognised as a tax-exempt religion. Can anyone name some of these countries please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Celticspring (talk • contribs) 18:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Some of the countries are listed in the Scientology#Scientology as a state-recognized religion section. Examples include Australia [6], New Zealand [7], Spain [8], Sweden [9], and Portugal [10]; more countries and sources can be found in Scientology as a state-recognized religion. Most of these recognitions have come quite recently (i.e. during the last ten years). JN466 19:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

They aren't a tax-exempt religion there. Just a religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.5.153.67 (talk) 06:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Purpose of Scientology

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.

Per this link, would a primary source suffice to fill the purpose parameter of the Infobox? RUL3R (talk) 17:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

WHAT?

wait, so the church of scientology has been banned from editing this article? why? is not a form of discrimination? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qazxswedccdewsxzaq (talk • contribs) 15:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

No, discrimination would be if Scientologists were banned from editing the article because they’re Scientologists, or if the decision to do so was heavily influenced by some dislike for the Church Of Scientology.

Here, the Church Of Scientology and some of its members were banned for their behaviour. See [11] and [12]. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 21:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I find that to be great news. I first heard about this on the Colbert Report, which, I believe, is one of the best places to get news from. I really get annoyed by antics done by people like that who go on wikipedia and shove down everyone's throat about how they think Scientology is so awesome. I'm gald that depraved behaviour has been dealt with. Backtable^{Speak to Me}about what I have done 03:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Sad that it's not the case for the German Wikipedia article.85.5.153.67 (talk) 15:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: "Cult"

See WP:TERRORIST. I have to admit, out in the real world, I prefer to call Scientology a cult myself, but that sort of wording doesn’t belong on Wikipedia. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 00:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

We (as in wikipedians) should definitely not label any sort of group as being a cult. However, many reliable sources do describe Scientology as a cult (and it is worded to reflect this) and as such should be mentioned.--Woland (talk) 01:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it deserves a mention. Of course, making clear that it is a third party view, not any editors POV. RUL3R (talk) 04:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It's in the article already, both the lead and the main body. JN466 17:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The use of non-reliable sources

Hi. I'm wondering how a statement like "It has been widely criticized as a cult that financially defrauds and abuses its members, charging exorbitant fees for its spiritual services." gets into a wikipedia article. It appears to be based on opinion sections from newspaper accounts and not WP:RS. Can I delete this? It also appears to begin with weasel words.RSuser (talk) 13:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree on the weasel words. Not sure about the RS issue. Boston Herald and MSNBC are RS as far as I know. Scotsman, maybe not. Not sure how much the fact that some of the articles quoted are columns detracts from their reliablity. They were approved for publishing in the RSs after all. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 20:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The first reference is an obvious opinion piece, not a news article. The second reference is to something called "Apolegetics Index", which has re-sourced and contextualized a Boston Herald extended piece. I don't see where that piece explicitly states the exact hypothesis "financially defrauds and abuses its members, charging exorbitant fees for its spiritual services" though it may support it. If it is there I should not have to go through 100 pages to find it. The third reference is incidental and also has the "critics say" weasel words. If you take out the weasel words you get a sweeping statement of the broadly critical kind. My own leaning would be to soften the statement focusing on the fact there are controversies, but leaving out the judgemental skew in describing them - "widely criticized for its financial affairs and dealings with some members". Then sharpen the hypothesis in the 'Controversies' section, perhaps leaving the reader to form their own conclusions based on some actual information - specific documented major incidents for example. In fact, that is probably there already. What do you think of this? RSuser (talk) 14:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I have added another scholarly source, Beit-Hallahmi, and have changed the wording to "often been criticised". Beit-Hallahmi details many such criticisms by judges and journalists, and I think even the most charitable observer could not deny that many such criticisms have been made.

On a more formalistic note, new discussions should always go to the bottom of the page. I missed this discussion ealier, because I always look for new contributions at the bottom. If it's alright with you, I'll move this discussion down to its proper place in a day or two. Cheers, JN466 15:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry. Will look for it there. I agree that the fact of criticism should be mentioned, but the sentence seems biased as written. It sounds like someone has an agenda from the choice of language - "cult", "defrauds members", "exorbitant fees". 67.43.136.134 (talk) 02:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, what to do? People have raised these criticisms, and their language has not been moderate – see [13], for example. What would you suggest? JN466 02:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps if "criticized" is changed for "regarded" or "described", so that it is clear that it is not the authors opinion but a paraphrase of another writer? RUL3R (talk) 03:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done [14] JN466 04:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Better, still not happy. :) I'm a casual, resistant reader on this subject. If you're trying to tell people about the controversy, then a sentence like the following would be better - "Its activities have been surrounded by protests, article exposes and legal cases especially regarding its financial affairs and member relations." I can pretty well accept that based on the cites provided. I've softened the secondary clause to make it less arguable and sharpened the primary one. RSuser (talk) 18:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I am wary of watering it down too much – the second sentence, which refers to suing the critics, still needs to make sense in relation to the first, i.e. the reader must understand the severity of the dispute. But could you post a draft here of the entire paragraph as you would imagine it? JN466 17:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure ... give me a little time, and I will at least make an attempt. I'll actually read all the sources through first.RSuser (talk) 04:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: "the entire second half of 1950"

I removed this peacock wording from the article. Since the reference for this statement is paper rather than digital, I can't check it at the moment, so I can't determine whether the best action is to remove the statement altogether, or use more neutral wording. So in the meantime I've just gone with more neutral wording. If anybody else has easy access to the work in question, don't by shy. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 01:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I've reworded it again to make it a bit nicer. The source wording is as follows:

Dianetics, the Modern Science of Mental Health [...] publication on 9 May 1950 [...] The next month it hit the New York Times bestseller list and there remained for the rest of the year."

JN466 11:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Mark Rathbun and Mike Rinder in special report on Scientology and David Miscavige

First article in series

• Childs, Joe (June 21, 2009). "Scientology: The Truth Rundown, Part 1 of 3 in a special report on the Church of Scientology". St. Petersburg Times. Retrieved 2009-06-21. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Overall report page for multiple articles

• Childs, Joe (June 21, 2009). "Scientology: The Truth Rundown - High-ranking defectors provide an unprecedented inside look at the Church of Scientology and its mercurial leader, David Miscavige". St. Petersburg Times. Retrieved 2009-06-21. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Sources to be included in this article. Cirt (talk) 06:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Added to controversies section, based on material in Miscavige article. [15] JN466 17:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

 Not done, there is a wealth of additional information in these series of articles. Cirt (talk) 00:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Beyerstein refs

I see past mention of Barry Beyerstein's criticisms in the talk archive, but for some reason they do not seem to be mentioned in the article at the moment:

From Beyerstein, B. L. (1990) "Brainscams: Neuromythologies of the New Age." International Journal of Mental Health. Special issue on quackery 19(3):27-36.

“The areas of science that enjoy the greatest prestige at any moment are the most tempting targets for appropriation by pseudoscientists. Capitalizing on dramatic progress in the neurosciences, the merchants of personal success were quick to commandeer neurological jargon to provide a patina of authority. Scientology's "engrams" and its notorious "e-meter" were pioneers in this trend.” (quoted earlier in Talk)

From {{cite journal|last=Beyerstein|first=Barry L.|title=Fringe Psychotherapies: The Public At Risk|journal=[[Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine]] |publisher=Commission for Scientific Medicine and Mental Health|volume=5|issue=2|issn=1095-0656|url=http://www.selfhelpfraud.com/uploads/3__Fringe_Psychotherapy.pdf|accessdate=2009-06-27}}:

"(O)n balance, psychotherapies founded on ill-conceived assumptions may still prove beneficial if they furnish needed reassurance in an atmosphere where clients can mull over solutions to their dissatisfactions about life. That said, the dangers posed by fringe therapists arise principally in three ways. One is the potential for manipulation and fraud. Cult-like pseudo-therapies can prey on the dependency needs of vulnerable people while extracting unconscionable amounts of money. The nonsensical prattle of Scientology is but one example. (...) All told, these victims could have been helped much more ethically, effectively and cheaply by scientifically-trained counselors who would target specific, tractable problems in their lives."

Note that both of these papers have been cited in academic sources. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

WHat happened to info about them being sued by the country of france and maybe forces to leave the country? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.191.25.169 (talk) 19:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Current news are not needed in the article unless the outcome has completely been realized. Because this is issue in development, is not ready to be used in the article.Bravehartbear (talk) 04:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The use of self-published sources

I just want to point out that self published sources can be used!!! WP:SPS states:

Using self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

the material used is relevant to the notability of the subject of the article;

1. it is not unduly self-serving;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
4. there is no reason to doubt its authenticity;
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources;
6. the source in question has been mentioned specifically in relation to the article's subject by an independent, reliable source.

WABOB! Self-published sources are not reliable nor trustworthy nor in a way peer-reviewed. Everyone can publish his own thesis in a book, and there is no reason for taking that crap into wikipedia. --Yikrazuul (talk) 11:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Are we now saying that wiki is peer reviewed? It can't be used for anything academic. Am I missing something here? dmm2259

some common sense people. Firstly self published here means stuff that's been published by the topic of the article, not the random ramblings of some nut from the internet. Clearly some stuff people write about themselves is reasonable, I imagine the official website of the UN would for example be a reasonable source from which to cite UN membership, the name of the Secretary General, official languages etc. 84.172.205.129 (talk) 08:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

What is your purpose here? Are you trying to compare Scientology with the UN (or an official website with a self-published book)? if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. (WP:SPS) If you are not providing any usefull argument or specific issue I will delete this section according to WP:TPG. We are trying to write an encyclopedia, hence this discussion site is not a platform for personal opinions! Cheers, --Yikrazuul (talk) 10:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware I had a purpose (the above is me not signed in by the way). My point as it relates to this article is that in some instances it is reasonable to reference the subject of the article. For instance I really can't think of any reason why not to reference the Church of scientology on say 'Beliefs of the Church of Scientology' If they aren't a reliable source on their own beliefs then who is? That's seperate from establishing notability or quoting the church of scientology on say their history, where they may not be entirely reliable (or they may be, I'm not getting into an argument about that). Billsmith453 (talk) 19:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem with Scientology being a reference for itself is #4 from above "there is no reason to doubt its authenticity". Scientology has been saying since 1950 that it is the fastest growing religion on Earth every year for the last 59 years while at the same time every study and survey of religion in the US has indicated that the total number of scientologists a few years ago was less than 50,000 and last years study the number was so statistically insignificant that it couldn't even be calculated accurately. There are hundreds if not thousands of other documented lies (and criminal actions) that CoS has committed, so there is always reason to doubt the authenticity of claims that put Scientology in a positive light when the only source for those claims is the church itself. The CoS can be used to document who their leaders are, presuming there is no contradictory evidence from outside sources. Vivaldi (talk) 10:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Religion in the USA?

I don't think so. It's only defined as a "religious community" by the IRS as the constitution of the United States doesn't allow the congress to define religions. Everything else is just opinion of governmental representatives or groups.85.5.153.67 (talk) 15:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It is listed by the IRS as a non-profit group that is religious or charitable in nature. Marty Rathbun, a former executive at the Church, went to the IRS and persuaded them to give them this status in return for getting some 1,000 separate lawsuits against the IRS dropped. I don't think that the IRS has ever been in a position to determine for the country what is or is not an acceptable "religion". All they do is determine whether the group appears to be more related to making money for investors or if it is in engaged in education (spiritual or otherwise), healing, helping, contributing to society, etc... There are plenty of religions presumably that would never meet the requirements of the IRS (because they don't have enough members or because they strongly advocate positions that are in opposition to the United States interests). There are also a number of organizations that I believe are primarily designed to provide vast amounts of wealth to just a few individuals at the top (and their friends and families) that the IRS designates as non-profits...some of these are even popular Christian "churches". Vivaldi (talk) 10:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

History section

Re [16], I having nothing against anyone creating a more comprehensive stand-alone article on the history of Scientology, but I think that the level of detail we have here is appropriately right. I wouldn't be in favour of losing the history section in this article. The CoS subsection is still really only a long list of controversies; but then again, there were a lot of those. JN466 17:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

There may be actually no need to split into a separate article as we have for countries or other organizations (like the History of the Roman Catholic Church article, for comparison purposes only). Scientology has less than 60 years in existence, it is a very short history in comparison to other beliefs. We could have a really short "History of Scientology" article, or a very long History section. Could be done, but I believe "consensus" above was that it is not really necessary, and that, while details may be polished, the current state of the section complies with most policies. RUL3R (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I propose this revised Dianetics History:

Scientology was developed by L Ron Hubbard as a successor to his earlier self-help system, Dianetics. Dianetics uses a counseling technique known as auditing, to enable conscious recall of traumatic events in an individual's past. It was originally intended to be a new form of psychotherapy and was not expected to become the foundation for a new religion.

Hubbard, first published his ideas on the human mind in 1948 in a self-published book entitled The Original Thesis that only saw private circulation. The first mainstream publication was on the May 1950 issue of Astounding Science Fiction magazine, with support from John W. Campbell Jr. Dr. Joseph A. Winter, another key supporter of Dianetics, submitted papers outlining Hubbard's research to the Journal of the American Medical Association and the American Journal of Psychiatry in 1949, but these were rejected.

In May 1950 the book Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health was published. The book spent the entire second half of 1950 on the New York Times bestseller list. Dianetics was embraced by people who used instructions from the book and applied the method to each other, becoming practitioners themselves. Afterwards, Hubbard established the Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation in Elizabeth, New Jersey, where the first auditors were trained.

Morris Fishbein, then editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association, dismissed Hubbard's book; in January 1951 the New Jersey Board of Medical Examiners instituted proceedings against the Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation for teaching medicine without a license, which eventually led to that organization's bankruptcy.

Some practitioners of Dianetics reported experiences which they believed to have occurred in past lives, or previous incarnations. In early 1951, reincarnation became a subject of debate within Dianetics gruops. Campbell and Winter, still seeking support for Dianetics from the medical community, championed a resolution to ban the topic. But Hubbard decided to take the reports of past life events seriously and postulated the existence of the thetan, a concept similar to the soul. This was an important factor in the transition from secular Dianetics to the religion of Scientology.

Also in 1951, Hubbard introduced the "electropsychometer" (E-meter for short) as an auditing aid. The device is held by Scientologists to be a useful tool in detecting changes in an auditee's state of mind.

This preserves all references and content, and avoids weasel words. It is nothing but a more neutral, compact version of the current text. RUL3R (talk) 20:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Much of that seems useful. I've revised the text in line with many (though not all) of your suggestions above. Please review. JN466 20:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't quite agree with "a debunker of quack medicine". This statement indirectly compares Dianetics with "quack medicine", and therefore is not NPOV. Also, I italized Scientology jargon to comply with WP:TTD, since nobody ever responded my comment above regarding this. RUL3R (talk) 20:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Morris Fishbein was known as a debunker (see his article); that is why his opinion was noteworthy. Fishbein is no longer well known today, so I think it makes sense pointing out what he was famous for (Melton, the cited source, specifically mentions it). He seems to have been a bit like a 1950s' Robert Todd Carroll or James Randi. I had rephrased it a little bit to make it more clear that we were describing him rather than Dianetics.

It's always good to try and make the wording more neutral, but we should also beware of reading either criticism of Scientology or "peacockery" (see below) into commonplace expressions.

I remember a passage, in another article, that referred to different membership estimates; Scientology's own, and those of official observers. The text pointed out that the two estimates differed "considerably". One reader commented that the word "considerably" cast undue doubt on the accuracy of the official observers' figures, as though we were implying they were lying. Another editor would have said that the same word "considerably" implied rather that the Scientologists were lying. I took the word out, simply because it seemed apt to be filled with any pre-existing emotional stance. But I was still struck by how the same word could be read one way or the other, depending on the reader's state of mind.

As for technical terms used in Scientology, I would suggest placing them in quotation marks the first time they occur, and afterwards treating them as ordinary words. JN466 12:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

First of all, we are not to say everthing or references say, just what is relevant to the article. And second, we already made clear what he worked on ((...)the editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association(...)). Current rewording seems fine, can't come up with any better. Also WP:TTD suggests italizing the first ocurrence, then treating like any other word. RUL3R (talk) 18:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

And how about:

• [...] well-known at the time for noting medical practices considered unscientific [...]

? RUL3R (talk) 18:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

It would be a would idea to have an article exclusively on the history of Scientology beginning with this portion up to the point "membership statistics". Then one would build from there on a separate page but this history section should not be taken out of the Scientology page. It should stay there for the simple reason that a reader would acquire a historical perspective of the subject.JDPhD (talk) 20:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

In the sentence, "In January 1951, the New Jersey Board of Medical Examiners instituted proceedings against the Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation for teaching medicine without a license, which eventually led to that organization's bankruptcy," I have changed "organization" to "foundation." Two distinct organizations are named in the sentence prior to the use of the word, and while it would not be common, a reader unfamiliar with the material could be forgiven for being uncertain to which organization the word refers. Honus W Scruggs (talk) 08:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Free Stress Test?

The picture on the auditing section should be changed to show the 'free stress test' tactic that is employed to have people unsuspectingly take a religious test, maybe also the way in which they are so persistent until the point you have to say you want to strangle them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.219.19 (talk) 02:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

SCIENOTLOGY, secondary sources

I would like to (again) present some good scholarly sources on Scientology with the suggestion of adding them to the rest of the secondary sources in the Wiki-article on the subject: 1) Scientology, Social Science and the Definition of Religion, by James A. Beckford. Ph.D, Prof Sociology 2) Scientology, Comparison with Religions of the East and West, by Per-Arne Berglie, Prof History and Religion 3) Is Scientology a Religion?, by Allan W Black, Associate Prof of Sociology 4) Scientology, a New Religion, by M Darrol Bryant Ph.D, Prof Religion and Culture 5) Scientology, by Régis Dericquebourg, Prof of Sociology and Religion 6) Scientology and Contemporary Definitions of Religion in the Social Sciences, by Frank K Flinn Ph.D, Associate Prof of Sociology 7) Scientology and Contemporary Definitions of Religion in the Social Sciences, by Alejandro Frigerio, Ph.D, Associate Prof of Sociology 8) Scientology a True Religion, by Urbano Alonso Galan, Doctor of Phylosophy and Licenciate in Theology, Gregorian University and Saint Bonaventure Pontifical Faculty Rome 9) Scientology, its True Nature, by Harri Heino, Prof of Theology 10) Is Scientology a Religion?, by Dean M Kelley, Counsellor on Religious Liberty 11) The Reliability of Apostate Testimony about New Religious Movements, by Lonnie D Kliever, Dr.Phil, Prof of Religious Studies 12) Religious Philosophy, Religion and Church, by G C Oosthuizen, Th.D, Prof (retired) Dept of Science and Religion 13) The Religious Nature of Scientology, by Geoffrey Parrinder, Ph.D, Prof Emeritus 14) The Church of Scientology, by J Pentikainen, Ph.D 15) Scientology, its Historical and Morphological Frame, by Dario Sabbattuci, Prof of History and Religion 16) The Relationship between Scientology and other Religions, by Fumio Sawada, Eighth Holder of the Secrets of Yu-itsu Shinto 17) Scientology and Religion, by Christiaan Vonck, Ph.D, Rector Faculty for Comparative Study of Religions 18) Apostates and New Religious Movements and Social Change and New Religious Movements, by Bryan Ronald Wilson, Ph.D 19) Scientology, An Analysis and Comparison of its Religious Systems and Doctrines, by Bryan R. Wilson, Ph.D. Awaiting reply, Taodeptus (talk) 16:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Taopeptus

Would you be able to give the publication information so we can see if they qualify as reliable sources, because what we have now is just a bunch of individual qualifications of individuals who don't count as notable, so if they are self published they won't hold up.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so far...and I have only been through the first 12, but I am going to stop because the result is the same. Those that arn't published by the Church of Scientology have been self published on line, and at least 3 of the individuals cradentuals are in question as well (one doesn't have any record of existing outside of this publication, and 2 others I can find PhD's who's names match, but one is a linguist and another's vita doesn't match the cradentuals presented in the publication). So again, do any of these publications count as a reliable source?Coffeepusher (talk) 23:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

1. While the author is indeed notable, this publication does not show up anywhere in his Vita which covers publications, books, internet publications and lectures…which makes this self published at best, and a fabrication at worst. http://www.sociology.emory.edu/cv/cv_flechner.pdf

2. The only links to this article (including scholarly searches) came from the church. This is published through “freedom publications” and the search results on the website for all the freedom publications I could find did not turn up a 9 page article on scientology, no ISBN or other qualifying information could be found.

3. The only Allen Black PhD. I could find came from Harding University…While I am pretty sure what the Church of Christ has to say about anyone who aren’t Fundamentalist Christians, I checked out his vita with the same results as #1. http://www.hugsr.edu/community/CVs/Allen_Black.pdf Other than him, there is no Allen Black PhD. At the University of New England.

4. Can’t find any publication information, all websites that host doc are connected to the church. Appendix 5 of “scientology critique” on Scribd, uploaded by the church (you will begin to see a pattern…

5. Appendix 4. All publications…yada yada…

6. While less affluent than others, still no mention of this publication on his personal website. http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~fkflinn/

7. Appendix 6. And this man has only done one thing as shown here http://www.zoominfo.com/people/PersonDetailLimited.aspx?PersonID=4256627&lastName=Frigerio&searchSource=page&firstName=Alejandro&id=4256627&page=1 Have I mentioned that it is interesting that all these foreign nationals have been doing English publications while the rest of the stuff coming out of their universities appears to be in the native language.

8. Appendix 7…you know what. I think I am going to stop until someone comes up with any information validating these publications.Coffeepusher (talk) 01:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

UFO Religion?

Why is this article in the category "UFO Religions" if none belief ,practice or basic mentions any "UFO God" or deity. Scientologists don't believe in extraterrestial beings as holy ones or something similar. It must be removed from this category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.245.241.187 (talk) 20:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The belief that we are reincarnated spirits of aliens is a significant component of Scientology. I don't think a "UFO God" is required for it to qualify. --GoodDamon 21:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

First misunderstanding. People are not "reincarnated alien spirits," but rather "self-determined spirits taking a body" weather it's alien or not. Any way, aliens are a topic considered in Scientology, so I see no problem with categorizing as a "UFO Religion" RUL3R^{*flaming | *vandalism} 05:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The difference is largely one of semantics. The Princeton definition of reincarnation is "embodiment in a new form." A spirit "taking a body" definitely qualifies. --GoodDamon 18:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Spirits, Scientology suggests we are spirits animating human bodies. But, doesn't say anyone should believe. Rather, its teachings speak of the situation and leave beliefs to practitioners. It doesn't say, "you must believe that we are spirits". Second, "reincarnated", within Scientology texts, is specifically denied. Because "reincarnated" suggests the possibility of "coming back" as an animal or plant. So "reincarnated alien spirits" is denied within Scientology texts. Third, "alien spirits"; Stolen documents mention this idea but are poorly sourced, besides being stolen. While the Church's websites don't mention the idea at all. Thus, Clambake.org can say "UFO religion", but without substantial source, Wikipedia can not. John Fitzgerald Smith (talk) 11:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

First, it doesn't matter whether Scientology requires belief in aliens of its practitioners. The text of the religion includes detailed information about alien spaceships and star systems. I make no judgments about that text other than that it exists, but it doesn't make sense to disregard that text merely because believing in it is optional. Besides, an argument could be made that the belief ceases to be optional when you reach the higher OT levels, since the self-auditing that occurs at those levels mostly involves directly addressing body thetans; it wouldn't make sense to address body thetans you don't actually believe exist. Secondly, please don't use the "stolen documents" argument here. The documents detailing the Xenu myth were formally authenticated -- by lawyers for the Church of Scientology -- in court cases. They aren't in question. Finally, the documents have since been republished and re-authenticated by various news organizations and scholars, and those are valid sources for Wikipedia to use. An argument could be made that they are taken out of context and misinterpreted, but the text itself is authentic, and there's no point arguing otherwise. This is Wikipedia, and if you want to edit here, it's not your job to defend your religion's secret doctrine -- nor is it anyone's job to attack it. It's just our job to reproduce it in as neutral a manner as possible. --GoodDamon 18:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• Here a source: Introduction to world religions‎ by Christopher Hugh Partridge (2005), Page 444: "Although sometimes classified as a UFO religion, the Church of Scientology is unusual in having no obvious spiritual ancestry. Science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard ..." It's clearly less obviously a UFO religion than the Raelians, but the classification has at times been made. I don't mind whether we have the cat or not, to be honest, because many authors don't use it for Scientology, but it is sourceable. JN466 12:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The question here would be "What is a UFO Religion?" Is it a religion that worships aliens? Or a religion that just considers aliens exist, without worship? By the first, Scientology would not be. By the latter, it is. It is sourced and deserves mention, though. RUL3R^{*flaming | *vandalism} 16:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The answer would be pretty much the same as it is with most religions. A UFO religion, like a new religious movement, is defined for our purposes as being something which has been called in a reliable source a UFO religion. The question of the definition of the term is a reasonable one, and is pretty much addressed by the page UFO religion. I personally agree that not all of these groupings/categorizations are ones that make sense to me personally, but it ain't my call, it's the call of the sources, and we pretty much gotta go by what they say. (throws up hands) John Carter (talk) 18:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Edits to influences

I added material to show that Hubbard was influenced by Satinisim. Below is the material I added to this section. If I did it wrong, would someone be so kinds as to fix it or put it into the correct form? People need to know about the Satanic origins of Scientology.

In 1945, Hubbard studied in Los Angeles under Aleister Crowley, the Satanist who called himself the “Anti-Christ, the Beast of Revelations, and 666” Hubbard adapted Crowley’s “Magical Memory” theory into his Scientology “time track”. “The similarity between the Magical Memory and Time Track, then, is that they both can recall every past incident in a person's life, they both can recall incidents from past lives, and they both must be developed by certain techniques in order to make use of them”[1] Reprinted with permission from The Hubbard is Bare by Jeff Jacobsen. Copyright © 1992 by Jeff Jacobsen, P.O. Box 3541, Scottsdale, AZ 85271. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rob043055 (talk • contribs) 02:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The source is self-published, and the more reputable literature has a different take on it. See e.g. references to Crowley in this book: [17] (pp. 20-21, 31, 259). Hubbard did not study with Crowley; they never met. --JN466 13:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I've added a para on Crowley; I think the Crowley-Hubbard connection is notable enough to deserve mention. JN466 13:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

add a random fact to where appropriate!

From German Wikipedia: Heute verfügt Scientology über ein Büro für Hubbard in jeder seiner Kirchen und Organisationen, welches dauerhaft leersteht.

In every scientologist church there is even today a room for Ron L. Hubbard that constantly stands empty. Source: J. Gordon Melton: The Church of Scientology, Signature Books, Salt Lake City 2000, S. 23.

Heil comrade Hubbard!

--Sigmundur (talk) 14:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe WP:TRIVIA could apply to that... --RUL3R^{*flaming | *vandalism} 19:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

How does this help to improve the English article? You seem to speak German, so if you think it's inappropriate to have that sentence in the German article (in a paragraph about LRH's role in Scientology), I think it would be better to discuss it on the German talk page.--Six words (talk) 20:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It would still be smart to keep all pages uniform, as it could help someone who speaks English and was looking for little tid-bits like that. However, that might be better on the Church of Scientology page instead if there's a section on the construction of the churches. No Stahr (talk) 16:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Strength in their numbers: More Church of Scientology defectors step forward with accounts of abuse

• Childs, Joe (August 2, 2009). "Strength in their numbers: More Church of Scientology defectors step forward with accounts of abuse". St. Petersburg Times. www.tampabay.com. Retrieved 2009-08-02. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Additional source for use in article. Corroborated with additional accounts from other individuals at [18], as well as multiple other WP:RS secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 06:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Movement of tax exempt one paragraph down

The reason I was changing the placement of the tax exempt status was that personally I believe that its current placement reads like a train wreck. We read in this intro paragraph first about thetans, next about how the auditing process, then about the donations for auditing materials, now we insert an enthymeme regarding a connection between donations and tax exempt status, and then mention tax exempt status.

now I am not saying that this paragraph doesn't have its merits, but I thought that placing the tax exempt status after the paragraph that goes over the different orgonizational statuses of Scientology provided a better read and didn't rely upon an enthymeme to provide a contextual connection.Coffeepusher (talk) 04:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. I just see the second para of the lede as a discussion of the general topic area of "religion" -- i.e. Scientology's religious or quasi-religious beliefs, and the extent to which it's recognized as a religion. The third para is "organization", the fourth "controversy". As a sequence of topics, it kind of works. JN466 22:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

so what do you think would work better? personally I would feel a little more comfortable if there was a slight lead in during its current placement, or a intro sentence at the lead of that paragraph that would tie it all together. not completely sure what that would look like, but it would provide a better flow.Coffeepusher (talk) 22:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Recent rewording.

Per Jayen466's latest edit, I believe the wording might be slightly unprofessional. I would suggest:

By contrast, countries such as Germany, France and the UK, have not granted legal recognition to Scientology as a religious organization.

Because "enjoy" kind of makes me think of the giant "S" logo jumping and having a party with the Sea Org's crown and the Dianetics pyramid. --> RUL3R^{*flaming | *vandalism} 19:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Rul3R, thanks for bringing it up. My problem is that it's really hard to say something generic that isn't both true and false. In the UK for example, the CoS is VAT exempt and classed as a non-profit organization, but it is not recognized as a charity. On the other hand, Scientology is an officially recognized religion in the Royal Navy. In Germany, Scientology is not tax-exempt, but the German Supreme Court has said that individual Scientologists practising Scientology are protected by Article 4 of the German constitution, which governs the freedom of religion. Some German courts have also ruled that Scientology is a faith community, though the German government takes the view that it isn't. So the only true thing I could think of saying was that Scientology does not enjoy the same sort of status in these countries. But I am open to suggestions. JN466 21:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I've taken out "enjoy" and replaced it with "have". JN466 21:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The sentence remains misleading. It implies that a decision has been made, whereas in the UK for example the Government has said neither yea nor nay because it has no powers to grant such recognition. Hartley Patterson (talk) 16:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The sentence is clear in the sense that they are not recognized as such. The statement does not appeal as to which local authority has the legal power to grant recognition. It is not misleading. - RUL3R^*trolling_*vandalism 20:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

y

Blue Links

The number of blue links should be drastically reduced. They make the article complete unreadable.--dunnhaupt (talk) 12:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Where exactly? Because I find most of the article to have a reasonable amount of links. --> RUL3R^{*flaming | *vandalism} 14:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

donations?

{{editsemiprotected}} In the second paragraph the articles describes that members get study materials and auditing courses in return for specified donations. In the fourth paragraph is stated that the organization charges fees for those materials. According to the definition of donations this term should not be used in this context: Donations are gifts given without return consideration. As the giver donates expecting the material and courses this is no more a donation. Maybe one could include this sentence: The members gain access to study materials and auditing courses in return for specified fees. --88.67.233.130 (talk) 11:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Object The fourth paragraph uses the "fee" wording as part of a representation of what critics say. The "donation" wording is not inappropriate in a context where the Church has charitable or religious status, and donations given to it are tax-exempt. JN466 11:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree. The Church of Scientology can get donations. But that's not the point. By definition no organization can get donations in return for something else. For example wikimedia asks for donations. But it doesn't say: You only get access to wikipedia if you donate a specified amount of money. That's not how donations work. Therefore it's inappropriate to use the term donation in this context. --88.67.233.130 (talk) 13:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Not done: Welcome and thanks for contributing. Your request seem more focused on whether that choice of terms is valid, rather than on whether it fairly represents the sourced text. The sentence in question has a reference, so the question is simply whether that reference called them donations or not. Celestra (talk) 14:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

That is interesting. Do I understand you in the right way that something that is obviously wrong can be written in this article as long as it is possible to have an reference? It is quite obvious that this sentence contradicts the definition of donations. --88.67.233.130 (talk) 15:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

well you can't quote a source but before hand "fix" it according to your interpretations of what is correct. Its not obviously wrong that they ask for donations, there may be a more accurate word (fee) that would encompass the entire process but the church has chosen to describe the initial money exchange process as "donations" which isn't incorrect.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed that's a problem. But there is a simple solution: Instead of quoting Melton, one could quote the church itself (i.e. http://faq.scientology.org/finance.htm) and use quotation marks to show that this is not the normal definition of "donation". --88.67.239.119 (talk) 17:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

aaahhhh....yah there is a consensus around here not to quote primary sources because that has caused problems in the past (check the archives). I think it is more accurate to state that the church asks for "specified donations" because that is in fact what the church asks for and what the secondary and primary sources state. And I think that the word "specified" clarifies the meaning to the point that quotation marks are unnecessary. Coffeepusher (talk) 17:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The text should say: ... get study materials by a payment that they call "specific donation" (quote). Period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.16.132.233 (talk) 10:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

St. Petersburg Times reporter Tom Tobin to appear Thursday in Scientology investigation by ABC's Nightline

• St. Petersburg Times reporter Tom Tobin to appear Thursday in Scientology investigation by ABC's Nightline. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 06:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Religion

Someone should remove "no" which stands alone under the "as religion" heading. It looks like vandalism or a mis-edit. (I'm not a Scientologist btw). 204.16.25.238 (talk) 16:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

having trouble finding the "as religion" heading or the "no" you are referring to.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

ABC News Nightline

• Bashir, Martin (October 23, 2009). "Former Scientologists Level Accusations: Ex-Members Say Leader David Miscavige Hit Subordinates; Church Denies Accusations". Nightline. ABC News. Retrieved 2009-10-25. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Source for material for addition to the article. Cirt (talk) 20:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Negative tone

This article conveys a somewhat negative tone towards the religion. While I don't disagree with this in general, I think it's inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. 220.245.127.197 (talk) 23:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Still, most content in the article complies with WP:V and WP:RS. Sure, there is an overwhemingly negative tone in it, but it is a reflection of available sources. -- RUL3R^{*flaming | *vandalism} 23:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

That's because biased editors and admins have decided anti-scientology references are always reliable... Like OCB, it is unreliable, yet it's deemed unquestionably reliable by anti-scientology Beaurocrats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.202.18.51 (talk) 14:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The article on death conveys a somewhat bleak tone towards death. While I don't disagree with this in general, I think it's inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.74.114.94 (talk) 21:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

"While I don't disagree with this in general, I think it's inappropriate for an encyclopaedia"... sure whatever you say. What else do you have to say? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.202.18.51 (talk) 15:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

it would have a positive tone if Scientology had a positive impact on people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.40.39.10 (talk) 20:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

In processing, often group engrams and their phrases may rise from their at rest sub-death tones up to death, to somewhat higher antagonistic and skeptical tones -- within a culture which has exterminated over 200 tribes of American aborigines and currently runs third world wars for big pharma (Afghanistan) and big oil (Afghanistan and Iraq) one could expect such jibes as the general "intelligence" would dictate, along with the blandishments of interesting psychoses acceptable to big military, big medicine, big pharma, big psychiatry and small, negatively toned closed minds. 71.51.75.154 (talk) 16:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course, user 71, it is all due to the Psychologist empire. Psychologists financially defraud and abuses their patients, charging exorbitant fees for their 'medical' services, suing all critics and aggressively pursuing enemies of their 'profession'. It's very good that Scientology doesn't do the exact same thing. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 04:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

please read WP:TALK and stick to conversations dealing with edits within the article.Coffeepusher (talk) 06:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, 99, accuracy doth count, as the Psychiatric "empire" you attempt to indicate is well documented amongst the other technical hero-realms of Nazism, Irish Republicanism, trance-isms, Cathy O'Brien and Communism -- you could do well to study up on Denial as well, as the "Darvo" of your rant has led you somewhat inaccurately off topic -- thanks Coffeepusher, I'll have another cup of kindness. One can expect irrational outbursts from the engrammed ignorant, particularly on hot topics they may be paid to diss on 71.51.72.233 (talk) 17:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Paul Haggis

I think this neds to be incorporated somehow into the article. He makes some scathing remarks, but more importantly accuses the cherch of denying the existence of the disconnect policy which he claims is untrue. http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/holy-post/archive/2009/10/27/canadian-filmmaker-haggis-renounces-scientology.aspx sherpajohn (talk) 14:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

This is just one guy's opinion, in a blog, and one with a stated agenda. Hardly a reliable source. Rodhullandemu 23:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

While it is a blog, it is a blog of the National Post. While I am not sure of the editorial oversight, I am sure there is some. I would say that it carries as much weight as an editorial in the same newspaper - which has a daily circulation of 200,000. It is one of the top national newspapers in Canada, for the record. What is this "stated agenda" the Holy Post has? DigitalC (talk) 23:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I misread it in my haste to do some improving of this encyclopedia- it seems they treat all religions with equality; commendable, in my view. Rodhullandemu 23:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Church of Scientology convicted of organised fraud in France - 27 Oct 2009

According to the Times newspaper of 27 October 2009, "The Church of Scientology was convicted of organised fraud in France today in a ground-breaking judgment which denounced the cult for swindling vulnerable members out of thousands of euros." http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6892075.ece 94.76.252.9 (talk) 14:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Also see Scientology in France. As regards the reason why Scientology was not banned, the Times article is at variance with other sources (e.g. BBC) which say there was a change in law/a legal loophole which removed the legal basis for a ban. --JN466 21:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Compatibility with other religions

I've removed the "Compatibility with other religions" section. Most of the references don't support the text and with the removed unsupported information it doesn't make sense. The referenced material I found in Google books and checked them. Aside from the LA Times article, they seem derivative and vague as to what is known about Scientology and what is supposition. This would indicate the are anti-cult books and are not NPOV.

Specifically: (I've signed each point so they can be discussed separately) Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• Scientology states that it is compatible with all major world religions. (Ref: Wheeler, Tompaul (2006). "Things they never taught me". Review and Herald Pub. Assoc. pp. 51. ISBN 0-8280-1978-9.)

I was not able to find this reference, but why use it, this information is on the Church of Scientology's website. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• However, due to major differences in the beliefs and practices between Scientology and especially the largest monotheistic religions, a simultaneous membership in Scientology is not always seen as compatible. (Ref: G. P. Geoghegan "Protestantism: the dark night of Christianity", p. 290, Lulu.com, 2007 ISBN 978-1430318125 )

Google books seem to say that this book only makes a passing reference to Scientology, but it has only a limited preview. However the statement is broad and doesn't say who finds it incompatible. Without the following statements (below) there is no support for this. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• Lulu.com is a vanity publishing outfit. See WP:SPS. Not a good source to use at all. --JN466 14:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• Scientology only allows a passive formal membership in a second religion. (Ref: John A. Saliba "Signs of the Times", pp. 29–32, 31, Mediaspaul, 1996 ISBN 978-2894203262, Ref: Bryan Wilson "New Religious Movements", p. 18, 2001 ISBN 978-0415200509 )

I looked, I don't see a statement like this. The author of "Sign of the times" says Scientology's definition of god is vague and unspecified and then goes on to to quote some other author claiming Scientology's concept of god is radically different from that of traditional Christian religions. This citation is contradicting itself. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Saliba is a relevant source, and the pages in question can be viewed in google books: [19]. However, I can't find anything about "formal passive membership" in Saliba either. --JN466 14:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• Members are not allowed to engage in other religious activities or ceremonies. (Ref: Steve Bruce: "Cathedrals to cults: the evolving forms of the religious life". In: Paul Heelas (Hrsg.): "Religion, Modernity, and Postmodernity", Blackwell Publishing 1998, pp. 19–35, 23 ISBN 978-0631198482 )

I looked at the article, it just doesn't say that. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Correct. What it does say is here: [20] JN466 14:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• L. Ron Hubbard stated that in reality, "there is no Heaven and there was no christ." (Ref: Sappell, Joel; Welkos, Robert W. (1990-06-24). "Defining the Theology". Los Angeles Times. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-scientologysidea062490,0,7631220,full.story. Retrieved 2009-01-04.)

This is a quote of the article, not L. Ron Hubbard. I don't think Hubbard ever said that. The actual quotes of L. Ron Hubbard in the article imply that the story of Christ is an "implant" (leftover brainwashing from a past life), but I've seen a quote from Hubbard elsewhere that he thought there may have been a Jesus that the story was based on. Also just because someone is brainwashed to believe something, doesn't mean it isn't true. It may be a fair interpretation that Hubbard didn't believe Jesus wasn't anything more then a man, but that would be an interpretation, not a direct quote of L. Ron Hubbard. I've also seen a quote by Hubbard to the effect that he looked for Heaven and couldn't find it. Finding that quote would be a better reference. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• I never checked through the references for that para, but will confess that it always struck me as a little bit WP:SYNny. The topic of compatibility with other religions is relevant, and I've seen it discussed elsewhere. I'll look for some scholarly sources. Cheers, --JN466 13:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• There have definitely been statements on the subject by spokespeople for other religions. I'd say they were a more reliable source for compatibility with their own belief systems than Scientology would be. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• The article Scientology and other religions seems to have better references with actual reactions from Churches and individuals. Although it has that ridiculous "Jesus was a pederast" reference. It reduces the reliability of the whole article. I guessing attempts to remove it results in it turning up elsewhere. Thanks for the Wikipedia policy references, I'm not a Wikipedian and not familiar with exact references. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Membership versus adherents

The role of a section on 'membership' is confusing if the article is to remain focused on the belief system (Scientology) rather than an organization (Church of Scientology etc.). Are there citable figures for the number of adherents of Scientology beliefs as distinct from members of the Church of Scientology? Even if no distinct figures could be found I would use 'adherents' or 'believers' rather than 'members' (or 'membership') in a statement of the number of people subscribing to a belief system.70.109.216.103 (talk) 03:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps the subheading should be changed to 'Demographics'.
  The ARIS data deals with 'adherents', though ARIS doesn't use that term. The CoS includes adherents in its worldwide membership 'millions' figure, whilst denying that those not in 'good standing' with it (ie heretics) are scientologists. Census data is likely to relate more to adherents. That's all there is that is citable really - Scientology is simply too small to register on other religious surveys. I have lots of data from separate sources but Wikipedia can't cite me directly - original research on a personal and POV website! --Hartley Patterson (talk) 01:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

One feels one may somewhat miss the point of the word, "scientology," which depicts, "knowing of knowing," and rests beyond, hopefully above, the concept of "belief:" that which avers a deep faith and liking/affinity for some object or system. Organizational "membership," is not, therefore necessary to the general practice of "scientology," which seemingly may occur whenever a person actually may know or realize/recognize that that person, or any other person, truly knows something about knowing itself. For example, a person who can recall many phone numbers correctly knows that as such one's memory is accurate; a person who can recall the names of numerous philosophers wives, from Pythagoras to Hubbard, knows that triviality of recall is also amusingly fine, if not generally particularly helpful. "Belief" in "scientology" is not necessary for its practice, although an Eightfold Path first status may well be liberally interpreted as, "Right Belief," and following on, the "Right Thought/Intention" to carry on with such a path. The softer, more recent translation of status first, namely, "Right View," could certainly help demythologize the processes of organizational scientology -- since the maniacal enemies of organizational scientology attempt to propagandize the systems as "erroneous beliefs" when in fact they are individual, knowledge based progressions and not particularly matters of faith, hope or blind charity. This is not to deny that after twenty centuries of Christianity such faiths, hopes and charities may in fact well up within a grateful adherent, just as well as stir up certain rages and blood lusts within the long time experienced persecutors of their more innocent religious human companions. You need look no further than the stories of Christian martyrs and Holocaust victims to view the results of extreme forms of disbeliefs, deceits and desecrations of humanity, the which Scientology proclaims to be here to rescue one from. It is indeed unfortunate that sometimes when a fireman reaches into a blaze to grab a smouldering infant, that in the obfuscating smokes and flames he might incidentally give the child or other rescued a black eye by mistake: at least the rescued may live to complain and as humans we may have to recall that no organization is perfect, even if/as it is working on perfection and perfecting itself and us. Just think, "Catholic," means "Universal," and how erroneous is that, even within the somewhat controversial and amusing context of "Papal Infallibility." In short, we need "right view" of ourselves before we go about making "catholic" pronunciamentos about "scientology"71.51.75.154 (talk) 01:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

This article is about the specific religious group started by L. Ron Hubbard. It is not about Buddhism, Christianity, Thelema, or any any other group or philosophical movement, even if those had some kind of indirect influence on Hubbard or his followers. --FOo (talk) 08:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

One helps oneself with understandings of backgrounds within the fields of religions; e.g. it can prove helpful to understand something of Judaic history in order to understand Christianity -- it can give perspectives and often discloses meanings hidden by ignorance of the engrammed, unconscious, biased or bigoted. Adherents to Scientology organizations on many counts were either rejected by or rejecting of previous practices, including all prior earth religions, organized or not. 71.51.72.233 (talk) 17:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

(@FOo) Actually this is an article about the beliefs of the group started by Hubbard, on the group itself go to 'Church of Scientology'. That's why I suggested the nearly-identical 'Membership Statistics' paragraphs in the two articles (that on the beliefs, and that on the organization) be differentiated, or cross-referenced, or something. 70.109.216.103 (talk) 18:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)