Talk:Scientology controversy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This Scientology-related article is part of a WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scientology.
The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on Scientology-related topics.
See WikiProject Scientology and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.


Okay, this is an attempt to make this section more even-handed and NPOV, by portraying the ongoing battle between Scientology and its critics from both sides of the argument. This is not an easy task, and a lot of input is needed in this area. --Modemac 12:23 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I have again moved the dealing with critics section to the top. That section contains most of the "meat" of this article, as opposed to the wilder, mostly unverified accusations that follow. Prior to my edit, the article started out with what is almost certainly an urban legend—a good article should present facts first and speculation last, not vice versa. Mkweise 21:46, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

"The church of Scientology has been known to conduct covert black bag operations against opponents." - it would be nice to have some kind of citation here, and perhaps change the text to "There is evidence that..."

"In 1978, L. Ron Hubbard was convicted in absentia by French authorities and sentenced to fours years in prison." - for what??? Tax evasion? Spitting on the sidewalk from the Eiffel Tower?

Has the Co$ tried to do anything about this page yet? :)

A couple of anonymous contributors have deleted sections of the articles on Hubbard and Scientology that portray him as less than a perfect superman; though those edits were quickly reverted. Nothing more serious has happened yet. --Modemac 01:41, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I don't think any sane person considers him a "perfect superhuman", but at least we know that you're holding true to your NPOV status which is what Wikipedia stands for. (Sarcasm intended.)
(Sarcasm understood) This is your chance to present those sources of information which support your point of view. Why not present them cleanly, so people can see the arguement. Instead there are very poorly cited references without page numbers and full of induendoes, "Many critics claim" and implications, "the church of scientology makes no statement" ... ha ! The policy letters quoted are long since cancelled or revised and the whole article has little meat, critical reading shows most of it up as hot air. Terryeo 17:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Criticism sections should not be split away from main articles. This is grossly POV and therefore unacceptable. Please merge this section into the main article about either the church or the philosophy.—Eloquence 22:54, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)

I disagree, can you state the explict Wiki Policy which states your gross point of view is to be the one followed by Wiki Policy? Wiki Policy says to quote a source and to cite the source. You don't expect intertwined quotes do you? Terryeo 17:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

How would you propose this section be merged into the others? All three of the articles have become quite large and detailed, and to merge this in with them may push one or both of them over the 32K "recommended" limit.

On a somewhat related note, you may want to look closely at this page:

Scientology at 4reference.net

This web site is already known for blatantly copying Wikipedia articles. Yet, strangely enough, all references to the section on "controversial issues" have been conveniently blanked out over there on that Web site. Hmmm. --Modemac 00:05, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Quotations

An anon inserted a statement that the quotation about men who "attacked us" was taken out of context. I expanded the quotation and added some identifying information about the people Hubbard referred to. Having done that, I left in the anon's explanation, although characterizing it as one POV that was offered rather than flatly stating it as fact. The supposed explanation, which seems meritless to me, nevertheless deserves reporting if it represents the official position of the Church of Scientology or a notable member; not knowing whether the statement met this criterion, I left it in, hoping that more information could be provided later. JamesMLane 11:44, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Starting a religion to make money

The Church of Scientology denies these claims [that Hubbard talked about starting a religion for money], and has in fact sued publishers for making them.

The only such suit I know of is the lawsuit against Stern, which Stern won. Especially in light of the Church's expressed position on lawsuits ("the purpose of the law suit is not to win, but to harass") I think it's somewhat important to note which lawsuits ended with findings for the defendants, as lawsuits conducted for the purpose of the harassment might be expected to frequently do.

Also, there isn't a mention here of what was (at least it was in 1994) the Church's official response to the allegation: they pointed to a George Orwell quote where he said something about how you could make a lot of cash by starting a religion, and claimed that Orwell's quote had been misattributed to LRH. The late Robert Vaughn Young, however, said that he himself discovered the Orwell quote, and had made the suggestion that this could be publicized as the "true" source of the quote. (RVY's first-person account used to be up on the Net, before he passed away, but unfortunately I can't seem to locate it; I remember that it ended with him relating an e-mail he'd gotten from an angry Scientologist who was utterly insistent that Orwell and not Hubbard was 'the one' who had talked about making cash by starting a religion, and his terse reply to the Scientologist along the lines of "even if they both said it -- Orwell said it. Hubbard did it.") - Antaeus Feldspar 22:44, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OK, I've found one of my own previous posts where I quoted RVY's post (which at that time I could still find RVY's original on the net) and here's what he said:

The fact that Orwell said it means nothing . . . I doubt that he and LRH were hardly the only ones who said that a religion is a great way to make a buck. No, my friend, LRH said it too. The difference between LRH and Orwell is that LRH did it.

Unfortunately, Googling on those words doesn't bring up RVY's original anymore. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:18, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Try here: Vaughn's original statement --Modemac 22:36, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

oh, excellent! -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:47, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There have been stories floating around the Science-Fiction/Speculative-Fiction/et al community for years that a fellow writer - the most common versions of the story have either Isaac Asimov or Robert Heinlein - bet or dare or goad Hubbard into doing it. I'm currently attempting to ascertain a Harlan Ellison version that it was writer & publisher Lester del Rey who suggested to Hubbard the financial benefits of starting a religion after overhearing him complain about monetary problems at a writers get-together/party. LamontCranston 15:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] We need to clarify an important point regarding the Church of Scientology's litigation history.

Throughout this article there are numerous accusations against the Church of Scientology implying that the Church has overstepped its moral boundaries by litigating against individuals who were attempting to express their freedom of speech on the internet or elsewhere. These sort of statements are very misleading, if you omit an important fact which is that the Church has only litigated against individuals on the basis of violation of copyright laws and trademarks which like any other corporations it is entitled to do. Additionally litigation has also been directed towards individuals who have actually stolen materials from the Church and who have thereby made themselves liable to legal action.

[*Bullshit. L.Ron copyrighted every fart, then sued everyone who ever farted. —Interpolated comment by Doovinator 08:50, 2 July 2005]

errr... is there a way to apply that to daylight? Terryeo 17:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Could the Church have taken a softer approach? , perhaps. Could the Church have conducted itself in a wiser manner in the prelude to the falling out of grace between the Church and individuals who later left the Church and became the violators of the copyrighted materials?, Of course. Did the Church exercise its legal prerogative? Yes it did. TruthTell

"The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than win. The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway, well knowing that he is not authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly." -— L. Ron Hubbard, The Scientologist, a Manual on the Dissemination of Material, 1955

[edit] Impartiality in this article

We ought to make a distinction between impartial information regarding events whether pro or con and slanted propaganda. I believe the reader would be better served by the former.

Kindly explain how a quote from the judgement of Religious Technology Center v. Arnaldo Lerma, Washington Post, Mark Fisher, and Richard Leiby (November 29, 1995) is slanted propaganda? --141.154.235.84 17:05, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] separation of "Church of" from "Scientology"

Well, it looks like Truthtell has unilaterally decided to change the subject of the article from "Scientology controversy" to "Church of Scientology controversy". The problem is that they are not exactly as separable as that; it is not as simple as simply converting every mention of "Scientology" to "Church of Scientology". For instance, Hubbard's dictum that every single psychiatrist is a sadistic torturer/murderer, if not in this life then in their past life in the Marcab whatever -- is that Scientology, or the Church of Scientology? -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:38, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There is a difference between the Church and the subject itself.The Church is an ecclesiastic organization of imperfect human beings, Scientology is a body of knowledge or truths, as in "the Axioms of Scientology". When you confuse the two you make a mess because the subject of Scientology often is mis-represented by the behavior of individuals.The bulk of the accusations in this article are directed towards the conduct of people who were acting on behalf of the Church, which is why a clarification is in order.. TruthTell
That's a valid and good point. So now could you answer our valid and good point, about why you're saying "these are two separate subjects, and this article is only for discussing controversy related to one of those two"? Yes, a great deal of controversy is based on the actions of individuals who were acting on behalf of the Church of Scientology. But some of the controversy is right in the religion itself, like the dogma that anyone who experiences no gain from Scientology is a "suppressive person" who is to be "disposed of quietly and without sorrow". Are you telling me that L. Ron Hubbard was mis-representing Scientology when he instituted the Fair Game policy? -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:51, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
First of all the dogma you refer to is seriously misquoted , and the Fair Game policy was cancelled in 68 , but that being said, when the actions of any scientologist, no matter who, contradicts the basic truths of the subject of Scientology then bad outcomes result. TruthTell.
Aha, you're confused because you proceeded past a misunderstood. =) Hubbard stated very clearly "This P/L does not cancel any policy on the treatment or handling of an SP." The Fair Game policy was never cancelled, in 1968 or otherwise. All that was cancelled was the practice of declaring people Fair Game. In Hubbard's own words, "FAIR GAME may not appear on any Ethics Order. It causes bad public relations." All that changed was the outward appearance. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:50, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Fair Game was once a policy in the sense that several HCOPLs made statements about it. It was cancelled in the sense, a policy letter was written which cancelled it. And then, further, Policy Letters were revised which contained those words and then the policy letter which cancelled fair game was itself cancelled. There's just no mention of it, though one tiny bit of information was published in one of the revisions which states, "no sceintologist will disobey the laws of the land" (in reference to how to deal with a suppressive person). Actualy Policy Letters actually deny that the actions of Fair Game (in an earlier time) can be done by a Scientologist without the Church of Scientology bringing the person to justice. How clear can "cancellation of fair game" be ? It wasn't and isn't just a disallowment on an ethics order. What really happened (my opinion), Scientology overcame its main enemies, became established and plain quit fair game practices because Scientologists were being jailed for doing them. Terryeo 17:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Antaeus Feldspar states it was not cancelled. But as I have stated in the Fair Game article with extensive quotes of current Hubbard Communication Office Policy Letters it is no longer Church of Scientology Practice and in fact directly states that no action shall be done by any scientologist which is "against the laws of the land." That is policy today and has been policy for some years. Its not that you shouldn't know what was, but you should also recognize the CoS changed its tune after people were imprisoned for fulfilling Church Policy. (My take on the change of Policy, reflected in Policy letters.)Terryeo 06:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll let Mr. Hubbard speak for himself on the matter of the cancellation of Fair Game:

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 21 October 1968

Remimeo

CANCELLATION OF FAIR GAME

The practice of declaring people FAIR GAME will cease. FAIR GAME may not appear on any Ethics Order. It causes bad public relations.

This P/L does not cancel any policy on the treatment or handling of an SP.

L. RON HUBBARD Founder LRH:ei.cden Copyright © 1968 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/sp/pl-1968-10-21-cancel-fair-game.html LamontCranston 00:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Use Of Sources (and other lock of NPOV points)

Since someone is complaining that my POV tag (as well as other people who have tagged this) is "unjustified", here are my reasons:

1. The links on the page are all from the same group of two or three people, and are clearly not unbiased sources. Citing these people is like someone citing The Church of Scientology: if you're going to try to make your page NPOV, neither of these sources are the place to look!

2. Assuming you intend to KEEP these non-NPOV sources, it would only be fair to provide the other side of the argument. Keeping one side supported while ignoring the other isn't a good practice.

Therefore, I think it's EXTREMELY reasonable for me to simply leave a non-POV tag on this article. If I did what I actually think would be fair, I'm sure many people here would be chasing me down with tourches and pitchforks (metaphor - please don't assume something I didn't mean), as you have for past people (myself included) trying to conform to the supposed NPOV rules that you claim to stand for. Now before you get offensive and claim I'm the bad guy and that I'm a low-life, try rising above my level, and instead of doing to me what you think I would do to you, try to consider things from my point of veiw, as (not a Church memeber, but) someone who just thinks Wikipedia should be unbiased. Maybe, hopefully, someone will open their eyes.

I'm not arguing that legal court documents aren't acceptable, but rather suggesting (heaven forbid!) that when you provide one document, you supply another one where the Church won on the matter, or at VERY LEAST provide the reasoning behind the motives of both parties, as opposed to just the verdict. Still, those are not the sources I'm trying to advocate against. Rather, I think it's very unfair to use websites directly aimed against Scientology, especailly ones aimed at ALREADY TROUBLED people, who then commited suicide or such. If you're going to list sources like those, then at least try to conform to SOME amount of NPOV standards by including things such as how many people have been HELPED by Scientology [1] and [2]. I know that those are Scientology-officiated websites, but if you're going to get the anti-Scientology, you HAVE to have the pro-Scientology too if you truely expect to be considered unbiased. What makes the anti- websites ok and the pro- websites not ok? Just because all of the pro- sites are supported by Scientology, while the anti- sites aren't supported by any one orginization shouldn't matter. You can't punish Scientology for being "more together" than those who speak out against them, especailly not given the circumstances in which this lack of NPOV is being shown.

That's all. I hope that this meets your standards and merits a non-NPOV tag now. Further, I think it's stupid to remove a non-NPOV tag from a page without reason. Yes, I understand that you may want the issue resolved as to WHY they think it's biased, but that doesn't mean that they don't think it's biased. Removing someone's tag is even more stupid that them putting it there without posting the reason. I won't say anymore on that, since this isn't the page for it though. [Comment posted 21:53, 18 Apr 2005 by GodHelpWiki ]

The "NPOV" tag is too often abused by people who can't actually refute their opponent's points but nevertheless want to create the appearance that such points have hugely convincing refutations waiting in the wings that just somehow haven't shown up yet. That's not the way Wikipedia works.
There are also those who are just confused and who think that NPOV works like their daily newspaper, which will try to artificially balance the "sides" of a story so that, for instance, the guy with a 6th-grade education who claims he invented a perpetual motion machine in his workshed will get as much if not more airtime than the other "side", i.e., the professor of physics who patiently explains that if there was some way around the laws of thermodynamics, then there probably would have been some sign of it over the past two thousand years that people have been looking for it. NPOV doesn't work like that, either; it does not aim at "false balance". NPOV tries to present each view fairly; that is not the same as "equally". If ten thousand witnesses have testified to Corporation X's misdeeds, NPOV does not require that we print ten thousand of Corporation X's press releases about its virtues.
Finally, I think I could not sum up better why I think your NPOV tag was perhaps not made with the greatest amount of consideration than to juxtapose two sentences from your post:
The links on the page are all from the same group of two or three people...
... at least try to conform to SOME amount of NPOV standards by including things such as how many people have been HELPED by Scientology [http://www.correctauditing.org/] and [http://www.correctauditing.org/].
As my first paragraph indicated, there's a difference between wanting there to be a great case to be made for one side of the issue, and there actually being such a case. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:56, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Please make your case with specific criticisms and proposals for amendments or additions to the article. If you think the changes will be controversial, please post them here for discussion before changing the article. If you actually can correct errors and address important omissions in the article, I'll bet your changes will find support here. But please do try to keep it concise--the thing is too long and rambling as it stands... BTfromLA 05:13, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
To GodHelpWiki:
The links on the page are all from the same group of two or three people...
Could you name these two or three sources? I am not sure what you are referring to, I would like to understand more the issue. Naming the two or three sources will help clarify, as it will enable us to verify that the claims made by these two or three sources are or are not confirmed anywhere else. You must note though, that when specific information comes with evidence, or that the source is credible enough, it is likely to be good enough material to be included in the article. Povmec 15:37, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

GodHelpWiki suggested that the article is POV because it only uses sources from a few people. I cannot tell if the article is NPOV from my limited knowledge but the range of sources seems diverse to me. Here is my analysis of the sources that could have been used in the first half of the article (deduced from the article text):

  • Brinkema, Leonie M. Civil Action No. 95-1107-A: Memorandum Opinion, (Alexandria:US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia—Alexandria Division, November 28, 1995)
  • Hubbard, L. Ron. Attacks on Scientology, "Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter," February 25, 1966
  • All England Law Reports (London: Butterworths,1979), vol. 3 p. 97
  • Transcript of judgement in B & G (Minors) (Custody) Delivered in the High Court(Family Division),

London, 23 July 1984.

--[User:TheoClarke|Theo]] 19 April 2005 07:27 (UTC)

I noticed you didn't include a complete list. I don't think that ANYONE can reasonably consider www.whyaretheydead.com a NPOV source. [Comment by GodHelpWiki ]

I did not complete the list because I had to leave Wikipedia at that point. Are you aware that one of the guiding principles of Wikipedia is that we assume good faith? I rather thought that the partial list still made my point that the article was derived from diverse sources. --Theo (Talk) 19:20, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • GodHelpWiki: The fact that some biased perspectives are represented is not grounds for a POV dispute. You have misapplied the NPOV concept. That link is entirely appropriate in context: it is not presented as an "NPOV source"--it is provided as a link that documents certain accusations against the church. Here's where you might have a case about POV : "The Church of Scientology, in typical fashion, fought tooth and nail the various legal actions brought against them as regards the death. In the end, the prosecuting attorneys in the criminal case were forced to drop their charges, and the case was dismissed." You could make a case that "in typical fashion, fought tooth and nail," for example, assumes a biased tone. If you believe that to be the case, and you can replace it with a more neutral tone, do so. (Maybe something like " The Church of Scientology denied any responsibility for McPhearson's death and they vigorously contested the criminal charges; the prosecuting attorneys in ultimately dropped the criminal case.") Also, please sign you posts on the talk page, it helps communication. BTfromLA 18:36, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The document in question is a court filing archived at whyaretheydead. It doesn't matter if the document is hosted at whyaretheydead.net, scientology.org, or ilovespam.com -- the document in question is what's important. Whether or not the domain itself is biased against Scientology (or in favor of it), the court filing itself is presented as a way of presenting evidence while still maintaining a neutral point of view. --Modemac 00:33, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
To my mind, there isn't really a pov dispute here, though I guess there is a dispute about whether to put the "disputed" tag on the article. I don't want to get involved in a revert war... do others agree that the banner should come off? BTfromLA 01:02, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree. --Theo (Talk) 09:47, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree, the person that put the tag in the first place was questioning the sources, but there doesn't seem to be real issue with these sources finally. Povmec 18:22, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree. This seems to be another case where someone applied the tag because of unhappiness with the results, not out of any substantive problems with the process. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:05, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Glad you all agree that someone disputing an articles POV status means that my feelings about the article are mute. I chose the name GodHelpWiki because of these sorts of problems. By definition a wiki website is one open to the public to change and build upon as the public sees fit. I think it is best described as a form of internet anarchy. I'm not saying that's a bad thing! Governing the internet would be somewhat illogical, considering that there are not true gatekeepers for the media here. However, trying to build a wiki environment while also claiming that you cannot dispute an articles POV because other people disagree is just dumb. It's paradoxical in a sense. What would be required for the POV tag to stay? More justifications? I thought I did enough of those. More voices? Do I really need to call my friends to sign up here to back my words? That seems silly for a type of website who's purpose is to include the voices of everyone reasonable. I don't think I'm asking the unreasonable here. If you'd like I could go in and completely rewrite the page as I would conform to NPOV - but I think a simple POV tag would be a lot easier, and save me some time. (I don't know about you guys, but I have a real job, and Wikipedia isn't it.) This whole POV issue transcends this single article. Still, I think this merits a POV tag.
"I think it is best described as a form of internet anarchy." Well, then, clearly you don't know as much about Wikipedia as you think you do -- you've never read WP:WIN#Wikipedia is not an experiment in anarchy, for one. It seems to be one of many things you still don't understand about Wikipedia, along with "NPOV". Perhaps if you'd listen to us you'd start to understand, but from what you've been saying I don't see any evidence you even bother reading what we're saying. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:49, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
GodHelpWiki: if you disagree with some parts of the article, your best approach is to suggest changes precisely. Tell others what you would like to be replaced, and with what. I see you questioned some parts of the article, but you need to go further and tell and state exactly your suggestions about sentences or paragraphs you would change, and to what. Cheers. Povmec 12:09, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I've included a citation for this quote: "Scientologists sometimes claim that Hubbard canceled the Fair Game policy in 1968. What the "HCO Policy Letter of 21 October 1968" actually says, however, is "The practice of declaring people FAIR GAME will cease. FAIR GAME may not appear on any Ethics Order. It causes bad public relations. This P/L does not cancel any policy on the treatment or handling of an SP."" - specifically the very Hubbard policy letter from 21 October 1968 that states that declaring people "Fair Game" will cease on account of bad publicity but the policy itself continue. LamontCranston 15:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FBI document?

The article includes an interesting letter from Hubbard, apparently claimed by the FBI during the raid. Yet I see no source cited, and neither have I yet found one. Could someone step in and verify this piece with a good citation?

Hubbard letter to Helen O'Brien, 10 April 1953 (exhibit 500-4V in CSC v Armstrong 1984, cited in vol.12, p.1976 and vol.26, p.4619). Povmec 20:56, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Was the "evidence" produced by the defendant Gerry Armstrong who has a criminal history including forgery?--AI 2 July 2005 00:46 (UTC)
Was this "criminal history including forgery" determined by a judge and a court of law and a jury of his peers, or by the Church of Scientology, that ethical, seeking-a-world-without-crime organization which forged bomb threats against Paulette Cooper with the intention "to get P.C. incarcerated in a mental institution or jail"? Ironically, the documents presented at Armstrong's trial may well have been uncovered in the very same raid that uncovered the letter from Dick Weigand matter-of-factly telling Henning Heldt that he "conspired to entrap [Paulette Cooper] into being arrested for a felony which she did not commit. She was arraigned for the crime." -- Antaeus Feldspar 2 July 2005 14:31 (UTC)
Antaeus, your statements are irrelevant to this discussion of the letter mentioned.--AI 2 July 2005 23:27 (UTC)
No, they aren't: if the source that discredits Armstrong is the CoS, in whose interest it is to discredit sources embarring to Hubbard or the church, that seems very relevant. I don't know whether Armstrong has anything to do with the letter in question, but this seems worth mentioning as the CoS seems to have a history of attacking the personal reputation of its critics, rather than addressing the criticisms. (Though, according to a recent piece in Salon, this may be changing, at least so far as Scientology's relationship to members of the press who write about them.) BTfromLA 2 July 2005 23:57 (UTC)
Yes, his statements are irrelevant. I will have no further discussion with you as you don't fully investigate into situations as demonstrated in #squabbling below.--AI 3 July 2005 06:55 (UTC)
AI, your speculations that the Hubbard letter might have been, not among the copious amounts of documentation seized by the FBI straight from Scientology headquarters, but a forgery produced by Gerry Armstrong, are pretty damn irrelevant unless you can actually produce some sort of indication that this did happen -- not just irresponsible dribbling that it might have. Does the allegation that Gerry Armstrong has a "criminal history including forgery" count? Not when the allegation comes from an institution whose criminal history is known to include not only forgeries, but forgeries produced specifically to frame their opponents for "crimes" that never occurred. -- Antaeus Feldspar 3 July 2005 20:15 (UTC)

[edit] squabbling

Several articles linked to this particular piece (the William Sargant thing, for example) have been edited and reedited repeatedly by people who cannot agree on a definition of NPOV. As this epidemic appears to have infected this page as well, I feel it necessary to ask here what can be done - mere squabbling on individual pages is going to solve nothing. -- User:206.114.20.121

Ad hominem from 206.114.20.121.--AI 2 July 2005 00:27 (UTC)
not really. You may find it insulting (especially if you recognize yourself in 20.121's description) but "insulting" is neither necessary nor sufficient for ad hominem argumentation. -- Antaeus Feldspar 2 July 2005 14:17 (UTC)
Irrelevant to the article.--AI 2 July 2005 23:23 (UTC)
Huh? What is irrelevant to which? He was responding to your comment--your reply makes no sense. If you are saying that this digression about NPOV is irrelevant to the Scientology article, I agree. But please write less crypitcally--such uttenrances cause confusion. BTfromLA 2 July 2005 23:50 (UTC)
What is the dispute here? Keep squabbling of if you wish.--AI 3 July 2005 05:40 (UTC)

206.114.20.121 lies to incite hate of Wikipedia contributor. Look at his accusation and take a reality check.[3]

AI, your responses make no sense at all. Is there an issue here that is germane to the Scientology article? If so, please explain. If it's just some carryover from a personal dispute between you and user 206, skip it. BTfromLA 3 July 2005 05:56 (UTC)
What are you talking about? User:206.114.20.121 raised the "issue" not me. What is your point? If you don't know whats going on, skip it.--AI 3 July 2005 06:02 (UTC)

I do not see how 206.114.20.121's "argument" is relevant to this article other than an attempt to discredit me. If my work ("squabbling") on psychiatric related articles is such a concern to contributors of the Scientology controversy, then help NPOV my latest contribution to Wikipedia: George Estabrooks. Please contribute YOUR POV. --AI 00:38, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Category

The recent revert war about including this article in Category:Scientology is a weird one. For one thing, even when the "Scientology" category has been removed, it remains in place in the article, at least on my browser. Anybody else see this? As to the substance of the argument, I can't see any reasonable case for excluding this article from the main "Scientology" category: the whole reason for this article is to reduce the size (and editorial contentiousness) of the main article, right? This article is essentially an extension of the Scientology article, and as such it should be in the main category, and prominently linked to in the Scientology article. --BTfromLA 03:25, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree it should be linked and easily accessible from the other Scientology articles. hmmm, the Template has a section for controversy and that might make a good linking arrangement. Terryeo 04:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] cut from The Legitimacy of Scientology as a Religion

This first sentence would require a citation proving the motivation of the Church of Scientology. I doubt if that is possible in this case: "attempting to receive sympathy from the fact that Jews were persecuted by the Nazis during the Holocaust. [4] "

I actually agree with you concerning the first sentence. We could replace it with a sentence that points at the fact that the Church of Scientology often compare its current problems with the German goverment to the past policies that led to the Holocaust [5]. Whether the Church is trying to use the Holocaust or not to draw sympathy will be left to the reader. Povmec 16:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

This second sentence would require citations showing L. Ron Hubbard's inspiriation came largely from two men. Hubbard has listed those men who inspired him and it is a considerable list. But there is no citation in the article which mentions his inspiration came "largely" from the two in this sentence below: "Critics also allege that L. Ron Hubbard's Dianetics research was largely inspired by the achievements of other mental researchers such as Freud and William Sargant; the Church of Scientology maintains that Hubbard's work was entirely original and derived from no preexisting practice."

Here it is more about the opinions of critics. This is what critics think, and it is part of why Scientology as a religion is controversial. I am not sure a cite is needed here, although it would certainly be if the sentence was found on the Dianetics article. Povmec 16:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
But you just said, "it is about the opinions of critics." And that is exactly the sort of information a reader wants. Which critic stated that Hubbards inspiration was largely from 2 persons? Hubbard states otherwise and can be quoted. If an opinion isn't cited it is origninal research and doesn't belong in an article. Terryeo 04:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I have placed these two sentences (link also) here toward a good article being viewed by the public. This is exactly per Wikipolicy, WP:CITE. Uncited information, particularly biased POV information should not appear in an article unless cited. Proving the motivation of the Church of Scientology is to garner sympathy would be a difficult task. Proving Hubbard's inspiration was due to two men would be a difficult task. Povmec seems convinced the statements are accurate, but provides no citation. Terryeo 16:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cut from 'References'

Pasting here for citing and discussion this one: "Hubbard, L. Ron. Attacks on Scientology, "Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter," February 25, 1966" because there is not HCOPL 25 Feb 66 in the Church of Scientology today. If you present that as a historical document (not a present time document) then feel free. Cite it. But it can't accurately be presented as a document the Church of Scientology uses today.

The list of quotes is very poorly done, too. For example, "Technique 88" is not a book listed at the Library of Congress. What is it's ISBN, what page number is that quote from? According to Wiki Policy the quote should have a page number, the book should then be listed in references with its ISBN, author, who published it and so on. The idea being, a person might want to read more of that kind of thing ! so hey! give our reading public a chance and Cite your source more cleanly, okay?  :) Terryeo 17:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] what is wrong with the references, what needs to be fixed

None of the references comply with WP:CITE. Understand I am not saying the references should not be there, but I am saying that none of them are done per Wiki direction. I've examined the whole list. Here is what is wrong with each quote, how it is not appropriately presented per WP:CITE.

  • Brinkema, Leonie M. Civil Action No. 95-1107-A: Memorandum Opinion, (Alexandria:US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia—Alexandria Division, November 28, 1995)
How about providing a link to this information, or to a summation of this information? How can a reader enlighten himself how this reference relates to the article? It is not even footnoted.

HCO POlicy letter of 25 february 1966, ATTACKS ON SCIENTOLOGY.

I tell you that policy letter is not extant today. It might have been at one time but it not a part of the Church of Scientology's policy today. Therefore it is a historical document (if it ever existed). It has not been a policy letter for at least 5 years. Further, the source is real questionable. It appears on a hostile-to-Scientology site complete with "ALL RIGHTS RESERVED" printed clearly on it. I think it would be smart to remove it.
  • All England Law Reports (London: Butterworths,1979), vol. 3 p. 97
this is a good cite, but it would very helpful to have some online link to it or to a summantion of what it contains. As it stands who can know how it addresses anything in the article?
  • Transcript of judgement in B & G (Minors) (Custody) Delivered in the High Court(Family Division), London, 23 July 1984.
This is another possible bit of useful information. But how can a person learn how that judgement applies to this article? Is there no online source, or summation or newspaper article that tells ?
  • EFF "Legal Cases - Church of Scientology" Archive
this is a good link, but it has a lot of cases there, shouldn't the vast array of information be more clearly specified? State one or two of the links that come up there, somehow connect it with the article. It would take hours to read through all of that.
  • Owen Chris. 'The strange links between the CoS-IRS agreement and the Snow White Program', Scientology vs the IRS, (16 January 1998)
This is a rather confusing site that says early on the confusion was instigated by a person "infiltrating scientology and stealing documents from them." What exactly is the point of that reference?
  • Washington Post, January 8, 1983
This is not a good cite. When citing a newspaper article, the title of the article is needed. You can not expect the person to read the whole of the Washington Post's January 8, 1983 paper. It would be better if the article could be found online, thought not necessary.
  • Catholic Sentinel, March 17, 1978
This is not a good cite. When citing a newspaper article, the title of the article is needed. You can not expect a person to read the whole of the Catholic Sentinel for March 17, 1978. It would be better if the article could be found online, though not necessary.
  • United States District Court, District of Columbia (333 F. Supp. 357)
This is not a good cite. It needs more information.
  • Arizona Republic, September 22, 1988
Oh really. Is "Arizona Republic" a book, newspaper, what? It needs a title, place of publication or something so a person could look it up. Then it needs a page number or article title. WP:CITE spells these matters out.

The last one is done wrong too, but I'll correct that. Terryeo 05:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] quotations

"Somebody some day will say 'this is illegal'. By then be sure the orgs say what is legal or not." — L. Ron Hubbard, HubbardCommunications Office Policy Letter, 4 January 1966

What "This" is being talked about? dinnerplates? Haircuts? Obviously a little more information is needed.

"Don't ever tamely submit to an investigation of us. Make it rough, rough on attackers all the way." — L. Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, 25 February 1966

that policy letter does not exist today in the Church of Scientology. You can not buy a copy of that today because it was cancelled years ago. If it is presented as a historical document then that's different but it isn't being presented as a historical document.

"Having viewed slum clearance projects in most major cities of the world may I state that you have conceived and created in the Johannesburg townships what is probably the most impressive and adequate resettlement activity in existence." — L. Ron Hubbard, Letter to South African Apartheid Government, 1960

The reference states it was a letter, but it doesn't give a date beyond the year and it doesn't give a source of information where a person can read the letter. Can someone supply a verifiable source of that information? Was it addressed to the whole government, to an individual job within the government, what?

"THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN CONTROL PEOPLE IS TO LIE TO THEM. You can write that down in your book in great big letters. The only way you can control anybody is to lie to them." — L. Ron Hubbard, Technique 88

Technique 88 is an early (1952) technique and book. That quote does not appear in the book. The reference to the source of that quote is very bad because it does not tell enough information about the source of information so a person could find it. Cite it or lose it.

"They smell of all the baths they didn't take. The trouble with China is, there are too many chinks here." — L. Ron Hubbard (Diary entry circa 1928)

What diary? Was that his diary? Was that someone quoting Hubbard, in their own Diary? The source of information is not good at all. More information about where that quote came from would be needed for a person to have confidence in that quote. Per WP:CITE it is okay to insert it, but unless it can be substantiated it should be removed.

"If anyone is getting industrious trying to enturbulate [sic] or stop Scientology or its activities, I can make Captain Bligh look like a Sunday-school teacher. There is probably no limit on what I would do to safeguard Man's only road to freedom against persons who… seek to stop Scientology or hurt Scientologists." — L. Ron Hubbard, 15 August 1967

What about 15 August 1967? How can a quote be attributed to a date alone? Was it a spoken or a written statement? Did a newspaper article carry it, if so, what newspaper and what was the title of the article. As it stands it is not a cited information and should be removed.

"People attack Scientology; I never forget it, always even the score. People attack auditors, or staff, or organisations, or me. I never forget until the slate is clear." — L. Ron Hubbard, The Manual of Justice

ah, the fabled "manual of justice." LOL. How about a nice page number, publication date, publisher and ISBN please. Else it isn't a verifiable citation and should be removed.

"So we listen. We add up associations of people with people. When a push against Scientology starts somewhere, we go over the people involved and weed them out. Push vanishes." — L. Ron Hubbard, The Manual of Justice

The "manual of justice." How about a nice page number, publication date, publisher and ISBN please. Else it isn't a verifiable citation and should be removed.

"At this instance there are men hiding in terror on Earth because they found out what they were attacking. There are men dead because they attacked us — for instance Dr. Joe Winter. He simply realized what he did and died. There are men bankrupt because they attacked us - Purcell, Ridgway, Ceppos." — L. Ron Hubbard (Dr. Joe Winter was a board member of the Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation, but he broke with Hubbard over the use of "past lives" to explain engrams. Don Purcell, Derricke Ridgway and Art Ceppos were former supporters of Hubbard who also broke with him. One explanation offered for the context of this quotation is that Hubbard meant that the expansion of Scientology would save lives; Scientologists believe they are responsible for disasters because they did not disseminate their technology well enough.)

Where does this information come from? It begins with a quote but does not cite a source of the quoted information. It goes on with interpretations which are likewise, not sourced. It needs a citation or it is off WikiPolicy, qualifies as original research and should be removed.

"Bluntly, we are out to replace medicine in the next three years." — Hubbard College Reports, 13 March 1952

I researched this one carefull. Where does one find "Hubbard College Reports?" Obviously the citation is very poor, it gives no page number, there is a date but is that the date of statement or the date of publication of the Report? Who published the report, what is the ISBN? There is not enough information there to verifiy whether it exists or doesn't exist.

I make these statements now because I seem to have a reputation for cutting and pasting and I mean to say, I'm not trying to upset the apple cart, but to create better Wiki articles. Terryeo 05:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I have looked carefully. "Hubbard College Reports" might at one time have existed, sometime in Arizona in the early 1950s. But the Church of Scientology today does not publish such a report, nor the policy letter which announced the formation of the "Hubbard College". It is history, it doesn't apply to the Scientology as practiced today. A careful historyical development of today's Scientology might include such information but to present today's controversy by using documentation which (probably) never applied to Scientology but certainly doesn't to day is just silly. It might have applied to Dianetics and Hubbard's early work in establishing Dianetics, about 1950 - 1952. Terryeo 16:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] what is it with people posting quotes like above

Wiki spells out how to make quotes. It is perfectly right to make actual quotes with actual cites, expressing the opinion of the author. Why are so many of these things done so poorly? First someone comes in with a 1/2 way right quote. For example, the first quote from a policy letter. It talks about illegal activites but it doesn't say what Hubbard was talking about. It could have been beans, illegally grown beans. One earlier line and it would be a good quote, it is a good policy letter, there could be some real controversy. Why isn't that done? instead it is done poorly. So I announce I am going to cut and paste here. I cut and paste here. Then a small handful of people look at my action, see that controversy is not well represented and revert it. Am I the only person with enough patience to look through these sorts of details, observe Wiki Policy about how to cite and point out the missing elements? This and other Scientology articles read like a junior high student has heard a rumor and is posting it for attention. Terryeo 08:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

I think the intro needs to be cleaned up to follow the WP:MOS. I tried to wikify the first line so it looked like the template "This article is about....for other uses see...."

What do you think? Snailwalker | talk 21:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Could 87.227.20.229 declare an interest?

Please see Talk:Fair Game (Scientology). AndroidCat 15:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why is the cleanup tag on the article?

Would someone explain why the cleanup tag is on this article? What exactly needs to be cleaned up and what should I as an editor do in order to get it cleaned up? Adding tags like this to articles that have a long history and numerous editors seems like a controversial thing that should be properly discussed on the talk page before they are added. Vivaldi (talk) 02:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review for Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy

A similar, controversial subject is seeking a peer reviewer. If you would be interested, we would appreciate your time at our article! Thanks! Kyaa the Catlord 16:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] intertextualty

I'd just like to make it noted that the YTMND that was put a an exterenl link links to the artical at the end

[edit] Vandalized?

Not sure but I think this article was vandalized. Not sure which parts but it just seems a little out there... unless it really is. -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.23.84.125 (talk • contribs).

Well, without knowing which parts you're referring to, I can't say for sure... but I've looked over the whole article, and I can't see any signs of vandalism. This is a problem with covering Scientology, unfortunately -- so much of what really happened, of what Hubbard really said and did, of what the Church still claims in its doctrines and in its public statements, is so utterly outrageous that one questions whether it could ever be true. Did the Church of Scientology really set out, and execute most of, a written plan to frame an innocent journalist for bomb threats against the Church and against Henry Kissinger, and send in an agent to pose as her friend through the ordeal who reported back gleefully on how close she was to suicide, and "wouldn't that be great for Scientology?" Yes they did. Did they attempt to frame the mayor of Clearwater, Florida for a "hit-and-run" "accident" where the driver of the car and the "victim" were both Scientology agents? Yes they did. Did Hubbard write to the U.S. Navy asking for a confirmation that he'd won 27 medals for his service in wartime when in reality, his extremely inadequate wartime service only resulted in four medals, and he was writing to the agency that knew that better than any other? Yes he did. And that's even before we get into the space opera in the Church's doctrines... -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The legitimacy of Scientology as a religion

Greece has actually shutted down the local branch of Scientology in 1997 which didn't happen in Germany so far, so the word "strongest stance" is not correct. And Scientology isn't under surveillance for "criminal" activities. In Germany we have a seperate organisation called "Verfassungsschutz" (VS, Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution) and their job is to take a look on people who, while not committing crimes (so far as known), are hostile to the Constituition and therefore a possible problem. These are mostly extreme left or right-wing groups and fundamentalistic islamistic organisations. --136.172.253.189 21:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed tag

I took the liberty of removing the tag, seeing as the edit wars on this article seem to have calmed down since Terryeo's ban. Yandman 08:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Cruise

Can we put him in the article? I mean he's giving the scientology a bad name.

[edit] Linkmess

The "External links" section is a mess. Not only are there way too many links, it is completely Original Research to decide what is a "fairly favourable" link or a link with an "opposing view". Let's not arrange the links according to someone's opinion of what they say. I urge User:Jpierreg, who has been on a Scientology linkspree lately, to study WP:EL closely. It clearly states that external links are to be "kept to a minimum", and not expanded practically into becoming articles of their own. wikipediatrix 23:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I have put "Other Views" instead of "fairly favourable" views. Note that links are divided by saying "Opposing Views" on Yahoo and Google and dmoz. Jpierreg 23:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/c/i/Talk%7EScientology_controversy_5ad3.html"