Talk:The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power/Archive 1

Archive 1

Off topic paragraph?

Due to the controversial history between the Readers Digest and Scientology, the writer of a 2005 cover story on Tom Cruise had to agree to certain demands, including giving "Scientology issues" equal play in the writer's profile of Cruise, submitting questions for Cruise to Church of Scientology handlers, and sending the writer of the article to a one-day Church "immersion course."

This does not really seem to be about the subject of the article. Would anyone like to make a new article on the topic of "Readers Digest and Scientology"? Steve Dufour 12:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• It is directly relevant to the history between the two, due to the subject of this article. Smee 12:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

It may be. However it is not about the Time magazine story "The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power". Steve Dufour 12:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is. I will add the relevant blockquotes that directly discuss the history. Smee 12:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

Done. Smee 12:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

It's a borderline case to me. There does seem to be some connection. Steve Dufour 17:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion is noted. Thank you for parsing it so politely in this particular instance. Smee 21:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

Articles about articles

Since when do we write Wikipedia articles about TIME magazine articles? Are we going to take every article ever written about Scientology and amplify them into Wikipedia articles now? What's the point? wikipediatrix 23:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• In this particular case the information in question is extremely notable. Smee 04:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

If it's so "extremely", maybe you can explain it to me, then? I don't like the precedent set of devoting Wikipedia articles to mere magazine articles. It seems like an easy way to generate Wikipedia verbiage in favor of - or against - any subject. I tried to find Wikipedia articles about other, more well known, magazine articles - about any subject - and couldn't find one. wikipediatrix 15:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious -- which other magazine articles do you regard as "more well known"? I agree that we should not consider articles on notable subjects to be automatically notable themselves. However, this particular article won several awards and prompted a very public lawsuit for $416 million. Those seem like evidences of independent notability to me. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, one of the most famous newspaper articles of the 20th century was "Dewey Defeats Truman" in the Chicago Daily Tribune, and it doesn't get a Wikipedia article. All that needs to be said about it is stated in other articles. wikipediatrix 18:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I dunno, that strikes me as a famous headline, rather than a famous article, and it seems to me that "all that needs to be said about it" is "it reported a wrong prediction that was later attributed to sampling only among people who had phones, who weren't at that time sufficiently representative of the nation" and "the photo of Truman holding up the paper became famous." Everything that needs to be said about that headline is said in other articles but it can be said in other articles, which I'm not sure is true of this one. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

How about Woodward and Bernstein's historic articles exposing the Nixon administration's wrongdoings? Or you could go to pulitzer.org and search through all the many newspaper and magazine articles that were so big and so great that they won the Pulitzer prize... none of them have Wikipedia articles specifically about them. And it's not likely any of them will. Why should an anti-Scientology article become the first and probably only Wikipedia article about a magazine article? wikipediatrix 21:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• Those actually both sound like good candidates for articles. Why don't you create the article "Dewey Defeats Truman", and/or the other Woodward/Bernstein articles. If they are truly that notable, and it seems that they are, then they are worthy of article creation as well. This article is most certainly notable. Smee 02:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

important to who?

Let the record show that User:Smee bumped the importance of this article up to "high" just minutes after I nominated it for deletion. wikipediatrix 13:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• Let the record show that that was on the other tag, another one had already been at "high", for some time and had remained stable as such. Smee 14:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC).
• Let the record show that Smee has psychic abilities that are very useful for wikipedia. --Tilman 16:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Um, I don't understand, but okay. Does that come with telekinesis? That would be a cool one... Smee 16:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

Propaganda in USA Today

One of the ads in USA Today accused TIME of having made Hitler "man of the year". This is true. However, what scientology didn't mention is that the TIME article (which I read a few years ago) was not only highly critical of Hitler, it also predicted many things to come. It might be interesting to get a copy of the ad. --Tilman 16:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• Would displaying the ad be fair use, or would it expose a potential $416 million suit, that could result in the moving of Wikipedia's headquarters from Florida to Los Angeles??? Smee 16:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

Alexander Cockburn

Alexander Cockburn did some propaganda against TIME and Behar: [1]. If anyone wants to write about it, ask me for the files mentioned on that page. --Tilman 16:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• Wow, a very well-sourced article. I'll have to take time to read it and the Web page. Smee 16:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC).
  • Wow, read that email to Cooper. Simply incredible stuff, especially the referenced Cockburn sworn affidavit about : "we had a sworn affidavit in the case from a colleague at TIME who claims that Reed told him (months before the suit was filed) that the church had offered to pay for any lawsuit he wanted to bring against me and TIME." -- Do you have any documentation for this particular tidbit? Smee 17:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

No, all I have is that posting from Cooper. While I do trust her and Behar 120%, it's probably not a "reliable source", since it was a usenet posting from a mail from Behar.

What I was mostly thinking about were the attacks by Cockburn that were printed, since this is easily proven.

I just realized that my page has one big error: the "Luce cult" is probably not about Henry Luce, but about a mathematician with the same name. --Tilman 17:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

“ Behar is certainly a terrible journalist. Last year he published in Time a violent attack on Scientology, relying heavily on self-promoting and uncorroborated criminal informants and so filled with error and prejudice that it aroused considerable sympathy for the church. ”

[2]

Note that Cockburn called Heber Jentzsch his friend in this later article: [3] --Tilman 11:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• Most intriguing. I will add that with proper formatted citations when I get a chance. Smee 05:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

Cited May 14, 2007 on Anderson Cooper 360

• Anderson Cooper 360 (Aired May 14, 2007 - 22:00 ET) --

COOPER: According to a 1991 "TIME" magazine article, quote -- and I'm quoting from the article, "Eleven top scientologists including Hubbard's wife, were sent to prison in the early 1980s for infiltrating, burglarizing, wiretapping more than 100 private and government agencies in attempts to block their investigations."

A, is that true? And, B -- well, is that true? Because I mean, the critics of your organization say that you guys have a history of this, that whether this John Sweeney was a bad reporter or not, this is part of a pattern, that "TIME" magazine article certainly intimating that.
RINDER: Anderson, the history of the church is a long history of the church. And certainly, there are things that have happened. Those people that were involved in those activities back then, they were thrown out by the church. They were dismissed from the church. That's ancient history.
COOPER: That "TIME" magazine article, in 1991, which was a cover story, the writer of that article says, even in the course of his writing and his assignment, that he was -- he said illegally investigated by affiliates of the Church of Scientology. He was contacted numerous times by attorneys.
And, in fact, "TIME" magazine, Time Warner, the parent company, which also owns CNN, was sued. And the case was finally thrown out at multiple levels. I think it went up until 1997 or 1998.

• Staff (April, 14, 2007). "Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees - Inside Scientology". Anderson Cooper 360. CNN. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

This citation will be added to expand the article. Smee 23:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

AFD result

The result of the AFD was Keep. Smee 05:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

Does the article need this? (Radar on Reader's Digest)

I cut the following, which seems to digress pretty far from the main topic of this article:

Due to the controversial history between the Readers Digest and Scientology, the writer of a 2005 cover story on Tom Cruise agreed to certain demands, including giving Scientology issues equal play in the writer's profile of Cruise, submitting questions for Cruise to Church of Scientology handlers, and sending the writer of the article to a one-day Church immersion course.

--BTfromLA 18:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Does the article need this? (Lottick)

I cut this, too. It clearly relates to Behar's article, but it wasn't incorporated into the Wikipedia article in a sensible way. I actually don't think we need this (maybe there's a separate article here), but I'm including it below in case anybody thinks some detail in it could enhance the piece.

Noah Lottick

On May 11, 1990, Dr. Edward Lottick's son Noah Antrim Lottick committed suicide. Dr. Lottick described this as his motivation for researching cults in his article describing a survey of physicians that he presented to the Pennsylvania State Medical Society.

These events were initially described in the Time Magazine article, and later in Reader's Digest.

Noah Lottick was a Russian studies student, who "jumped from a 10th-floor window of the Milford Plaza Hotel and bounced off the hood of a stretch limousine." When found by police, he was holding $171 in cash. The Lottick family found their son's body, lying in a morgue, a month after his death. Initially, his father had thought that Scientology was similar to Dale Carnegie's techniques. However, after his ordeal, Dr. Lottick now believes that the organization is a "school for psychopaths."

After the article describing these incidents had been published in Time, Dr. and Mrs. Lottick submitted affidavits, when the Church of Scientology sued Richard Behar and Time magazine for $416 million. All counts against Behar and Time were later dismissed in courts of law. In their court statements, the Lotticks "affirmed the accuracy of each statement in the article", and stated that Dr. Lottick "concluded that Scientology therapies were manipulations, and that no Scientology staff members attended the funeral [of their son.]"

--BTfromLA 18:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Material from (6) reputable citations removed from the article???

1. Previous version of the article - (16) citations.
2. Current version of the article - (10) citations.

This material should not have been removed from the article, as it is very relevant, and was backed up by (6) citations. This should have been discussed fully on the talk page, and not just done as a unilateral change. Smee 18:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC).

Do you think the earlier version was better? I moved the bulk of the removed material to the talk page in case anyone had an objection or comment (see above). I'd argue that none of it was needed for a good article (the reason I cut it), but if you want to make the case as to why and how parts of the cut material should be restored, please do. The fact that someting is a "reputable citation" doesn't mean it belongs in the article. My aim is to make the article clear and to the point (as well as factual and neutrally presented). My opinion is that the removed material was digressive and/or not well incorporated into the article, as I said above. BTfromLA 00:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• I do think the old version was bettter, but I will try to incorporate both versions.
• Some of the new material added is Original Research, and opinion statements, which will be edited accordingly as well.
• I would ask that material backed up by reputable citations not be removed without discussion on the talk page. Smee 00:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC).

Smee, it is difficult to respond to your objections if you don't offer any specific examples. What was better about the first version? What original research? What "opinion statements"? While I want to be a cooperative editor, I think your request for talk page discussion before making any change to material that includes a citation is unreasonable, and clearly in violation of the spirit of Wikipedia (e.g., "be bold!"). I made very reasonable edits, stated my reasons on the talk page and placed most of the cut material there for easy inspection and comment by other editors. The only clear objection you've made is that I shouldn't have changed anything that has a citation. The mere existence of a citation does not exempt a sentence from editing. I encourage other editors to respond to my edits and the propriety of my editorial manners when making them. BTfromLA 06:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting what I said. Reread above. I did not say that anything with a citation cannot be changed. Rather that anything with a highly reputable citation should not be outright removed from the article, without discussion. You see, others may have worked hard to find the citations, format them appropriately, and add them to the article. And when one rechecks and article and finds (6) citations removed, along with all the material, this can seem a bit jarring, to say the least. I will integrate both versions together, and add the missing material/citations soon. Smee 06:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC).

I can appreciate that it would seem jarring to have your own work unceremoniously removed. However, I stand by my changes as being in the interest of a better article, and I hope others will offer opinions about my changes to the article. What I suggest is that the Lottick material belongs in the articles about the suicided son and the father (I think we have articles on both). As for the Tom Cruise/Radar stuff... I'm not sure where that can be used, but it doesn't really seem necessary to concisely tell a reader about Behar's article, does it? By the way, I don't think I misinterpreted you, but I may have been unclear in my response. I should have written it this way: The mere existence of a citation does not exempt a sentence from editing without a prior talk-page discussion. BTfromLA 07:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

No, you did misinterpret me. I don't mind if sentences are edited, but the existence of multiple reputable citations should be a hindrance to having whole portions of an article outright removed, as opposed to just edited. As far as the two sections, they are both highly relevant. One describes a significant event that was reported on in the article (Lottick), and the other describes historical after affects directly caused by the article (Radar). I will merge these into your new version of the article when I next get a chance. By the way, Thank you for being so polite during this discussion, it is most appreciated. Smee 11:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC).

Cult labelling

While many citable references have called Scientology a cult (including this one), it is a Wikipedia:Words to avoid (especially see Terms that are technically accurate but carry an implied viewpoint. On Wikipedia, using cult to describe even the most blatantly destructive group whose members are all dead in ritual suicide is only done after much debate. (See: Talk:Heaven's Gate#"cult" still not appropriate) And Scientology is nowhere near that bad. So articles can't directly call Scientology a cult and should quote someone else calling them a cult only when justified.

However, there's no reason not to include the Cult template. It's not there to call Scientology a cult—the TIME article already does that. It's there as a reference to relevant articles. (For example: explanations of current definitions of the word cult.) AndroidCat 16:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying that it's kosher to slap the "cults" template on here just because Richard Behar calls Scientology a cult? That's essentially making Wikipedia take sides with Behar's assertion. Ann Coulter recently called John Edwards a "faggot", but if this were an article specifically about that incident, we would most certainly not be adding a Homosexuality template to it. wikipediatrix 17:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Cult is a descriptive term, not a term of abuse. It has been used by sociologists, psycologists, and religious scholars, as well as the popular media to refer to Scientology. As the title of the article includes the word "cult," and as Scientology is often described as a cult in both academic literature and the popular media, I don't see what justification you have to repeatedly delete content other than your persistent dislike of outside information on Scientology.(RookZERO 03:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC))

Just because Time magazine categorizes the group as a 'cult' doesn't allow us to categorize it as one - if anything, we would have to categorize it as "cult as defined by Time magazine". Sfacets 05:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

If Time refers to Scientology as a cult, I don't see why it shouldn't be grouped with other groups described as cults. Incidentally, Time is hardly the only source that describes Scientology as a cult.(RookZERO 16:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC))

Agreed. Time isn't alone in calling Scientology a cult. --clpo13_(talk) 06:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• I have to say I agree with some of the above and disagree with other bits, but I think that AndroidCat (talk · contribs) has it right. Placing this article into a category inherently does just that, it categorizes it into a topic heading. But adding a navigational template at the very bottom is not characterizing anything, it is simply a tool for other editors, in other words, if your interest has been piqued after reading this article, then here are some others that might interest you. So I'm going with no on Category:Cult related books, and yes on {{cults}}. Cirt 05:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC).

Formatted all cites in article with WP:CIT

I went through the article and made sure that all the (16) cites were formatted using WP:CIT, which they are, now. In the future, please make sure to use these templates, for uniformity and ease of further research. Thanks. Cirt 05:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Peer Review

I have put this article up for a Peer Review, at Wikipedia:Peer review/The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power/archive1. Any suggestions that you might have to help get this article eventually up to WP:FA status would be most appreciated. Thank you. Cirt 16:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC).

Suggestion: comment on cover design?

I think if the Analysis section is going to quote Larson's on the cover design, then the article should mention somewhere that the cover is playing off of the cover of Dianetics -- i.e. that the "shouty" choice of a volcano and giant font isn't random. Most folk familiar with Scientology will know this, but it's not general knowledge and should be mentioned. I have no idea how to edit or I'd take a stab myself. Uncat 02:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• A very good point. However, I don't know if there are any good sources that explain that. If we can't find any sources, we can't make that inference ourselves, however obvious it sounds to you and me. Cirt 02:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC).

Remaining issues

To those who made this into an FA, good job! However, no article is perfect and I see some clear issues from a glance, especially with images.

• The page of File:Time Magazine Scientology cover.jpg has two non-free rationales. Either use the box template or the free text. Consider the page of File:Interactions Spider-Man.jpg, which I edited, as a model rationale.
• The images in "Research for the article" and "Awards" look skewed and bent to various degrees. See if an imaging pro can straighten out the bends or even retake the pics.
• Some images are of plain text. They should be removed or replaced with the actual text. See the accessibility and alt text guidelines for info on this and other such issues.

There may be more bugs, but I haven't checked for them. I hope those help. --an odd name 00:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Will probably get on addressing these, one-at-a-time, at some point in the future after TFA-day. :) -- Cirt (talk) 03:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Behar's countersuit

I couldn't find in the article where it said what happened with Behar's countersuit against Scientology. How was his suit resolved? Cla68 (talk) 04:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I wondered the exact same thing.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 05:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Will do some additional research. -- Cirt (talk) 06:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I checked Infotrac and ProQuest NewsStand and couldn't find anything on the result of his countersuit. Perhaps some of the regulars at WP:LAW with access to LexisNexis or other legal databases might be able to find something. Excellent article, nonetheless. Cla68 (talk) 07:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! -- Cirt (talk) 14:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations

Just want to express my admiration for everyone involved in the making, big or small, of this article. As an encyclopaedic entry, it's excellent. -The Gnome (talk) 09:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Brilliant. --65.207.116.226 (talk) 13:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Had to toss in my thanks as well. I'm a retired admin here, and I know that it's exceedingly difficult to write any controversial article, let alone getting it up to FA status. Well done. 98.232.51.88 (talk) 17:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was difficult. And thank you very much! -- Cirt (talk) 17:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

My congrats also on having this become a Featured Article. Well done (again, and you're probably tired of reading this :).)

However, now that it's "high-profile" you might want to consider semi-protecting it. I'm worried that somebody might not think the article has a neutral POV.

Happy Trails! Dr. Entropy (talk) 19:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again, -- Cirt (talk) 21:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

First two sentences

The article, although published by two courageous magazines, was primarily the work of one courageous man. To credit the article first to Time, and only in the second sentence, to it's author is unencycloppedic and just plain rude. Amandajm (talk) 22:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

No objections to your change. :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 22:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Dollar figures

I see that money is referred to in one place as "USD" and another as "US$." I prefer the dollar sign myself, since it's more universally recognized than USD for "US dollars."--~TPW 14:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, will get to fixing that, some time after TFA-day. -- Cirt (talk) 14:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I can take care of it - I'm just a bit hesitant making even a minor change that should be based on consensus to an FA on the main page that I didn't contribute to before today!--~TPW 14:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks like someone already did it. -- Cirt (talk) 14:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, seeing as how all the events in the article take place in the U.S., the USD or US$ is probably only needed on the first occurrence, with the rest being just plain $. MutantPlatypus (talk) 07:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Cirt (talk) 20:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Behar's full disclosure

Forgive me if I'm misremembering this -- I did read this article when it came out, back when I was in high school, and I seem to recall that it began with Behar offering some disclosure about himself, including something he had been arrested for when he was younger (minor drug possession, maybe?). He did this because he said that if he didn't, Scientology would, after the article came out. I remember finding that an extremely interesting move at the time, as a way to sort of jujitsu-counter Scientology's tactics. Am I misremembering? Would it be worth mentioning in the article? --Jfruh (talk) 17:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

No, you are thinking of a different article, written by Mark Ebner. -- Cirt (talk) 17:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, got it, the article is titled "Do You Want to Buy a Bridge?", written by Mark Ebner. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 20:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

What it stated were

[4] - this change is inappropriate. It needs to be made clear that this is what the Scientology organization claimed were "falsehoods" in the article, NOT actual "falsehoods". They sued all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States, but their claims were not confirmed. -- Cirt (talk) 12:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I assumed the language was redundant. After all, if a public relations campaign focuses on falsehoods (true or not), it is implied that the public relations campaign said they were falsehoods. Adding the extra "what it said were" isn't very neutral. It's almost like "alleged". I'll change "falsehoods" to "issues". MutantPlatypus (talk) 14:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay the "address issues" change makes it a little bit better. :) -- Cirt (talk) 20:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikilinking

Let us please not wikilink every single word in this article. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 12:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

A lot of the words I wikilinked were appropriate. MutantPlatypus (talk) 14:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Specifically, why don't you think Executive Director should be wikilinked? It's pretty relevant to know what an Executive Director is, and its not surrounded by tons of other wikilinks. MutantPlatypus (talk) 15:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

"Executive Director" does not appear in this article. The other words are very very very minor and simply not appropriate for wikilinking. -- Cirt (talk) 19:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see -- "Executive Editor" is a redirect to Editor in chief. I piped that link. :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 20:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

My bad! I did, indeed, mean executive editor. Thank you, sir. Or madam. MutantPlatypus (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

What's a topos?

In one of the quotes, the speaker uses the word "topos". Since (I now realize) it's against the manual of style to add wikilinks inside of quotes, I'm seeking consensus here. What do you think? Topos is a rather abstruse lexeme, I feel it deserves a wikilink. MutantPlatypus (talk) 15:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. It is very easy for others to find this term themselves. Let us avoid wikilinking within quoted text, please. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 19:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Transcripts of "Fact vs. Fiction" and "The Story that Time Couldn't Tell"

I've found some extra stuff on the above publications. Another newspaper reported on The Story here, (it also reports it's a 22-pager) and a transcript here. A transcript of Fact vs. Fiction can be found here. How should we direct readers to them? I'm thinking reference groups with a notes section. For example:

===Notes===

We could also do a normal reference or an entry in the See Also section. I feel like a normal reference wouldn't be quite right, and an entry in the See Also list moves the link too far away from the text. MutantPlatypus (talk) 23:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

We cannot include the above links in the article, as that would violate WP:COPYLINKS. -- Cirt (talk) 23:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I learn a new policy every day. I officially endorse the retraction of my proffer, with an added comment as follows: I thought an organization wanting to defend itself against allegations of profiteering would provide their rebuttal free of charge, host it on their website, and make sure it gets on Google Books. Clearly, I need to think differently when thinking about Scientology. MutantPlatypus (talk) 02:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Heh, yes, you probably do. Unfortunately... :P Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 02:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

They're not copyvios. Feel free to link to them. Raul654 (talk) 05:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Those are not, he removed the links that were. -- Cirt (talk) 05:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The Rundown Truth: Scientology Changes Strategy in War with Media

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

Hugh B. Urban is a professor of religious studies at Ohio State University. This article is a good source of info on multiple topics. -- Cirt (talk) 19:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The kidnapping allegation

I have doubts about the objectivity of this:

"Miscavige noted that Behar had written an article on Scientology and the Internal Revenue Service three years before he began work on the Time piece, and made allegations that Behar had attempted to get two Scientologists kidnapped. When Koppel questioned Miscavige further on this, Miscavige said that individuals had contacted Behar after an earlier article, and Behar had told them to "kidnap Scientologists out". Koppel pressed further, noting that this was a serious charge to make, and asked Miscavige if his allegations were accurate, why he had not pressed charges for attempted kidnapping. Miscavige said Koppel was "missing the issue", and said that his real point was that he thought the article was not an objective piece."

I've just watched the interview on Youtube, and Miscavige said that Behar admitted he attempted kidnapping. I believe this should be reported in the paragraph above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.36.13.154 (talk) 17:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

"Issues" in lede

"After the article's publication, the Church of Scientology mounted a public relations campaign to address issues in the piece"

I believe this should read "to address alleged issues in the piece". (Or "perceived" or a better word if editors can think of one). None of the Church's legal actions were successful, so the implication that there were any issues in the piece to address is POV. The courts - numerous courts - affirmed that there were none. --77.102.114.99 (talk) 08:43, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

What about "mounted a public relations campaign to address aspects of the piece it objected to"? or "claimed were inaccurate" or something? Best to make it explicit that it is the church itself that is doing the alleging or perceiving here. --Jfruh (talk) 12:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment

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

*WP:FA rated article, as of January 23, 2008. Cirt (talk) 04:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 04:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 15:58, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Likely dating error

I changed a date in the litigation section from November 11, 2001 to November 11, 1991. The same date appears in the version that passed the FAR, but this is almost certainly wrong given that it would have indicated a 10-year gap between the injunction and hearing.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 14:22, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070107223456/http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/06/30/scientology/index.html to http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/06/30/scientology/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:19, 24 September 2017 (UTC)