Talk:Scientology/Archive 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 →

Contents

Cult Status Reasoning

Since the Church of Scientology is currently quite controversial, in the eyes of the public, and many people have refered to them as a cult, I have added factual logical reasons of why this is near the top of the article, with references. "Church's scriptures are not broadly released but are only made available to parishioners who have completed prior steps of religious study and counseling." www.scientology.org/copyright/ Sysrpl 12:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Current addition to the page reads - "Reasoning of Scientology alledged cult status can be linked to its recent history in comparision to other religions. The Church appeals to member indoctrination with very little initial knowledge of their inner secrets. Parishioners are then required to advance in a ladder type ranking system through study and paying the Church for coursewares, the incentive of which is the stepped aquisition [11] of the their promised powerful secrets and gaining of supernatural abilities." Some of which reads bizzarely to me. Editing to play with wording -- still unhappy with portions of it. Also edited out or into more polite wording some of the stronger statements -- "indoctrination" ..etc. AndoSEKleton 13:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
That would be better. scientology is a cult at best, at worst it's a blantant scam designed to suck money out of gullible people. 05.188.116.10 14:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate the edit. You certainly provided better wording overall. I do have a few problems though. You removed a couple of choice words/phrases that are both quite pertinent and well documented. It's widely established that the church does indeed promise parishioners "powerful secrets" to be revealed in due time. The reason given for withholding that advanced knowledge is that without a properly trained mind the learner could suffer death. Concealed thoughts so potent as to render people with unprepared minds dead are certainly "powerful secrets". Also, Scientology's descriptions of parishioner's eventual possesion of supernatural abilities in official Church doctrine are factual, as was evidenced by the wikified words supernatural abilities in the original revision. Finally, both of these facts are relevant to the motivations of continuance with the described stepped process. If you wish to remove these facts again, please provide an argument here. Sysrpl 16:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Sysrpl, perhaps you have a link wherewithin the Church states somethine like, Stick with us, we promise you powerful secrets ? Because the reason I ask, y'know, I'm pretty sure its more like an editor rumor, stated many times on many personal websites and nothing the Church itself ever said. Of course, within certain limited contexts "powerful idea" or even "powerful secret" might appear, after all Hubbard did what, 40 million words or something. But as a Church Promise, hey, I don't think so, never seen it, no one has cited the church promised powerful secrets shall be revealed, its a pile of nonesense. Terryeo 10:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
You may want to take your complaints up in the talk section of other wikipedia Scientology articles. One place you might complain is in the "Scientology beliefs and practices" article, where it states the church acknowledges higher level teachings imparted to unprepared readers can cause them harm. You may also complain in the "Supernatural abilities in Scientology doctrine" article, where it describes the subjects of these superhuman powers and abilities recur often in all Scientology and Dianetics materials from the most basic introductory texts to the highest level. It is also a fact that the church claims that sticking with them leads to immortality (i.e. making clear is a goal). Sysrpl 13:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't believe you will ever see the Church make a statement like you stated there, Sysrpl, the church claims that sticking with them leads to immortality. That claim has been made by other religions including Christianity and Islam. Scientology does not make that claim. However, Scientology does claim to have knowledge (Scientology means knowing how to know). The Scientology religion follows just this tradition of man’s search for his spiritual identity. In Scientology, the individual himself is considered to be the spiritual being... The search has been long, but answers now exist in Scientology for anyone who wishes to reach for them www.whatisscientology.org/html/part01/chp02/index.html. The Church proposes that it has knowledge, which when learned, lead a person to become aware of their immortal nature. That is, the Church doesn't promise eteral life, the Church promises that is has information. It further states that the information can be learned and, by being learned, leads to a person becoming aware of their immortal spiritual existence. Terryeo 14:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


Yeah, I suppose I removed the "powerful secrets" business because it was eventually going to be talked about later in the article, but I have no real problem with its inclusion in the introduction when it doesnt interfere with readability and I think your subsequent edit preserved that. Good call, I'm fine with it as it stands. AndoSEKleton 20:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I reworded the topic sentence of the cult status reasoning paragraph to describe in brevity the common facts influencing these claims. If you think the wording is off and want to rephrase that opening sentence, please feel free. Sysrpl 09:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I would have to contest the accuracy of Church's scriptures are not broadly released since the Church's publications (many millions of words) have been broadly published in many languages for many years and are present in public libraries today. Against that vast amount of worage is a small amount of information the Church holds confidential and doesn't publish. So the not broadly released is actually, not released at all but applies to a relatively small amount of information. Terryeo 10:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Terryeo, please read up on my earlier comments. From scientoloy.com/copyright:
"Church's scriptures are not broadly released but are only made available to parishioners who have completed prior steps of religious study and counseling."
The scriptures you might be talking about are described by the Church as "black market trafficking in its protected works" on that same page. To be fair you might also mention the Church's special software designed to protect members from these materials. Other readers should be advised to pay attention to Terryeo profile when considering his statements. Sysrpl 13:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
The relatively small amount of unpublished information which is not broadly released is not released at all. It is The scriptures are private, unpublished writings. It is viewed by some individual parishoners, but is not published. A parallel might be the information the President of the USA is presented after he is sworn into office. From that day forward he knows what is going on with the Military, he knows all about "secret spy satellites" and about how long it would take the USA military to target a geographical location and what the chances to hit an indivual tent in a sea of tents with a missle, etc. It is unpublished information, it isn't even released in the narrow sense of the word and isn't published at all. And of course, it is a relatively small amount of information full of specialized words (MEST, ARC, Tone Scale, etc.) which a person who has not had sufficent education in Scientology is likely to mis-understand. The Issue as the Church presents it is that people are going to misunderstand it, rather than understand it. So, the don't publish it until a person has sufficent background that they can understand it. Interesting link, though. Terryeo 14:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Look, I am trying to be fair here. Please address my points, and also please make a concerted effort to format you comment indentation correctly. Explain to me where all said materials are is made publically available. Why cannot find at my library, downloadable through the Internet, or just walk in off the street and purchase at my local Scientology headquarters all the scriptures, church coursewares, audio tapes, health manuals, the church produces for the variable ranks within Scientology? Why won't the Church allow me, a non scientologist, to view all their OT level scriptures? Give the me particulars of where I can get information the RTC works so hard to protect. www.scientology.org/copyright/release.htm www.loundy.com/CASES/RTC_v_Netcom.html www.xenu.net/archive/CourtFiles/occf116.html www.xenu.net/archive/CourtFiles/occf116.html www.rtc.org/en_US/guarant/pg001.html Sysrpl 15:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Sure, happy to. First I will tell you that I don't work for the Church or any organization of the Church, nor do I even have any permission beyond Wikipedia's general permission to edit. I believe your specific requests are twofold. 1. Give me the particulars of where I can get the information the RTC works so hard to protect and 2. Why won't the Church allow me to view their OT level scriptures? My answer to the first is simple. Neither you, nor any public person, nor any Scientologist can procure those materials, but this is based on my knowledge. Those materials are, in some cases, put into the hands of certain individuals who have been invited to view them and pledged they will maintain their confidentiality. You can't and I can't and they can't procure them. But I'm willing to discuss the issue. My answer to the second portion would be a restatement of what you find at RTC or other weblinks, a restatement of Church policy about why. For myself, it is enough that I've got a huge amount of publication to read first. If I understand that, then there is a possibility I would be invited to view a smaller amount of information which is unpublished and viewable only by invitation and by my own pledge. Meantime, hundreds of hours of lectures and a whole lot of reading. I am aware of course, that the Netcom case settled out of court. Have I responded to what you asked ? Terryeo 16:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I would be happy to go over the paragraph in question again, but before I do so, some questions. 1) Is the word "indoctrinates" something you feel really strongly about including? Because it's something that any edit I made of the material would reword, and I don't want to step on any toes, nor am I all that eager to begin editing content or point of view in earnest. If this is something you feel contributes to the meaning of the paragraph and isnt just a way of saying "Teaches its doctrine" that I see as inflammatory, let me know before I edit it out. 2) Is the intent of "especially as evidenced by the Sea Org." to say that the ranked structure of Scientology is especially evident in, or evidenced By the Sea Org? In other words, is this another example of a rank that is emblematic of the system, or within the Sea Org is rank more closely adhered to and more in evidence? I suppose these aren't mutually exclusive either but I was unsure of what exactly was being said and didn't want to edit the words in one direction or the other. Thanks in advance for the help. AndoSEKleton 14:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

codebot.org

To learn more about Scientology, be sure to visit:

  • www.codebot.org/articles/?doc=9471 (temporarily taken down by CoS legal department)
  • 72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:WFVaKURIof4J:www.codebot.org/articles/%3Fdoc%3D9471 (google copy)
Two things about that: (1) it should go on the Scientology versus the Internet page. The section on this page is an overview of major events and not so much news of the day (that goes for ytmnd too). (2) The "letter" posted on the [codebot.org site] doesn't look like a normal CoS complaint, and it certainly isn't any kind of valid DMCA takedown. As well, the offending post "posted by sysrpl on Saturday June 17, 2006 8:32 PM" and the site is down on Tuesday? That's fast work. I'm a bit dubious about this. AndroidCat 17:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I did not post the above link originally, but cleaned it up a by posting the google cache copy. In the short time the article was published it had the weeks top diggs at the social news website digg.com digg.com/links/Amazingly_Scary_In-depth_Look_at_Scientology_ and propagated to many other news site garnering over 100,000 hits in two days. Late Monday evening my website account at Verio was temporarily suspended in violation of their terms and conditions www.verio.com/support/documents/view_article.cfm?doc_id=4165. I'm in the process of resolving the issue and cannot say more until then. Sysrpl 18:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I removed the paragraph about codebot.org. We certainly need more reliable sources that what is claimed there is actually really going on. Frankly, I have my doubt, as I didn't see the smallest shred of evidence in the text that would justify the Church of Scientology to take action (there is nothing new in the text). After the ytmnd.com thing, for some people it could seem a good idea to enhance their internet traffic to claims that the Church is impeding their free speech. In any case, we need independant sources to confirm, I am not comfortable to leave this there, it would harm wikipedia if it turns out to be a hoax. On the other hand, I can't imagine a fake notice attributed to the Church of Scientology (they would have a case there)... So we really need to have good information on what is going on... Raymond Hill 19:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Raymond, carefully observe my name, and the two comments above yours. Sysrpl 19:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Proof that the site exists is not at all the same thing as proof that the were issued a legal notice. --InShaneee 19:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, since some of you don't understand, I will explain this clearly. Please read the following carefully:

The source you seek is me. I am the owner of the website codebot.org. I did not post either the orginal link above to this talk page or the paragraph in the article, someone else did. The article I wrote title "Scientology is not Science" was submitted to the social news website digg.com digg.com/links/Amazingly_Scary_In-depth_Look_at_Scientology_ and quickly became the highest rated story of the week, promting its rapid propagation over the Internet. By Monday afternoon the article had over 100,000 views. That evening I received notice that Verio was temporarily suspending my account in violation of their terms and conditions. I have been advised that I can say nothing more about this matter until the issue is resolved. Sysrpl 19:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly the problem. You are the content and the source. We require an INDEPENDENT source. Your word is not sufficient, I'm afraid. --InShaneee 19:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
That letter on the site is odd for a few reasons: It's from "Legal Department, Church of Scientology International". Normally copyright and trademark warnings come from a legal firm representing the Religious Technology Center which protects the copyrights for the L. Ron Hubbard Library (CST) and owns the trademarks. As well, it doesn't quote any of the applicable parts of the DMCA law concerning takedowns or have the manditory "on penalty of purgery" bits. Nor does it list the specific offending parts of the page, which it must. It doesn't look like a lawyer drafted it at all. If that is the letter that Verio received, their lawyers should take a look at it. (Wiki isn't alt.free.legal-advice, I'm just explaining why it looked dubious.) AndroidCat 20:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Read again. I am not the person who wrote the wikipedia paragraph, so I am not sourcing myself. Someone else wrote it, and I am confirming it. Sysrpl 20:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
But you are the one who the content concerns, and are thus not independent. --InShaneee 20:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Read again. My comment was about codebot.org/notice.html the site. AndroidCat 20:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
sysrpl, even if you are not the original author of the paragraph, the paragraph doesn't qualify, the original author was wrong to include it in the first place. Raymond Hill 20:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
sysrpl, I suggest you contact www.chillingeffects.org/ chillingeffect.org (particluarly www.chillingeffects.org/input.cgi there), they should be able to assist you somehow, and this way it may start the process of spreading this event to the news or other reliable sources of information, but until then, from the wikipedia perspective, it doesn't qualify because of the lack of independent and reliable sources, that's the problem. It could well be possible that the Church made another clumsy attempt at preventing legitimate information [though readily available] from spreading through your well written article. In the mean time, be patient: as soon as there are reliable sources, it will be included. Raymond Hill 20:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

ytmnd

Actually, after searching for a while, I couldn't find any independent source for the ytmnd cease and desist event (although I'm inclined to believe it really happened). Anybody else questioning the mention of ytmnd in this article because of lack of independant source? Raymond Hill 23:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the lack of independent/reliable coverage, means it should be removed. Also, as said before, even if there was adequate coverage, it aught to go somewhere like Scientology versus the Internet, not here. We shouldn't list every single cease and desist letter sent by the Church on this page. The "Scientology versus the Internet" section of this article aught to give a good overview/summary of how common this type of thing is, but instead it's guilty of both overgeneralization and overspecifics (an odd combination). --Rob 00:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
At this point it sounds like ytmnd has received a letter and a couple of emails. Whoopee, whatta deal. Should a court case be filed it would be newsworthy? I got curious about past things of this nature, where the Church of Scientology did various email requests and in some cases, brought court cases. The general flow of things is that the thing never reaches trial. It is rare for such a thing to come to trail. Settlements are generally made out of court which saves everyone a lot of trouble. Terryeo 02:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
The fact that these threats are being made is notable, yes. --InShaneee 02:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I've read a couple of the threats which you mention InShaneee, such communications are sometimes posted on the internet. They are civil in tone, they tend to be informatory in nature rather than threatening in tone. If you had published a book and someone was preventing the sales of your book by publishing your book on a website without giving you, the author, anything in return, you too might wish that the website owner remove the book from his website. Its not just that the Church makes such requests, a number of court cases have gone as high as the Supreme Court (of the USA), cases brought by commercial organizations completely unconnected with religion. The first letter and email must necessarily be, by law, informative in nature and civil in tone, not threatening. Terryeo 03:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
You completely missed my point, first of all. If you say 'do this or we'll sue you', I consider that a threat. Secondly, if there's a large volume of these 'notices', as we have with the Church, that's certainly notable. --InShaneee 04:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Now that's a really interesting perspective, Terryeo. The Church of Scientology has been known to send these threats over as little as the use of L. Ron Hubbard's face for clearly parodic purposes. Now you're arguing that these threats are perfectly reasonable, because if someone was "preventing the sales of your book" you'd want to stop them. Are you arguing, then, that people actually buy L. Ron Hubbard's books, not because of the contents, but because of L. Ron Hubbard's face on the book jacket? Maybe Hubbard's face is an R6 bank symbol... -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I did not make an arguement. I made a statement. I said that the first notification of infringement of copyright is, by law, both civil (polite) and informative. I also said I had read some of them. www.loundy.com/CASES/RTC_v_Netcom.html this case, as an example, involved the Church sending civil notices to the involved parties which led to court activity, which led to ... etc. etc. Terryeo 05:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about removing this without prior discussion, however, why has this YTMND entry been allowed to remain here? Are we going to include every site that has been sent a cease and desist letter for trademark violations? Someone is using Wikipedia to push his or her agenda. I note the recent vandalism of links in this article (both positive and negative) by someone who replaced them all with YTMND links (thanks to the editor who reverted them). We should have nothing to do with this site – it is being used to destroy the good work of Wikipedia editors. -- Nuview 11:08, 12 July 2006 (PST)

Note that there still isn't consensus to remove that passage. --InShaneee 02:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
InShanee, Sorry, I put my discussion in a different section where it had been gone over, in the Trademark Infringement section higher up in the discussion. I tend to be a bold editor - did I misunderstand what was being discussed? It seemed fairly clear that this section was superfluous. Do you have a particular reason to keep it? Really this article is so junked up already - does that really contribute to the article? As you are an Admin, maybe you have some ideas how we can get this article cut back to a consumable size without having to get a consensus on every little thing. Would appreciate your assistance. Nuview 11:08, 12 July 2006 (PST)

External links (again...)

Remember http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Scientology/Archive_3#External_links_needs_a_severe_cull this discussion? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Scientology/Archive_3#External_links This one? And http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Scientology&oldid=30851022#External_Links this one? Wikipedia is not an agent to promote web sites. Only the external links that provide meaningful information for further readings should be listed. Raymond Hill 16:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I did some cleaning, but I feel more should be done, especially in the "Other sites" section, as many of the links there looks like they could be used as references instead — they are URL to specific articles rather than sites. Adding URL to specific articles seems a subjective exercice, we all have a favorites which we think is a must-see. Raymond Hill 17:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Cult

Since, there is not a consensus that Scientology is a "cult," it's POV to put it definitively in the Category of "Cult" with the Category tag (Category:Cult). To be NPOV, it should be placed in the (Category:Alleged cults). RJII 23:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

It could be argued that by definition, Scientology is most definitely a cult. According to dictionary.com, a cult is "A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader." I think that the vast majority of people would agree that Scientology would fit in this category. Kyle 10:27, 17 July 2006 (EST)

But it isn't Wikipedia's place to call Scientology extremist or false or its leaders authoritarian or charismatic. Wikipedia is about presenting well-cited facts, not opinions and judgments. Allow readers to come to their own conclusions. --FOo 02:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
However, it is its place to say "generally considered" whatever the facts of the matter. unsigned,from fear.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.113.252 (talk • contribs)

Church of Scientology Hierarchy

Could someone create a CoS hierarchical structure and ranking systems article? Perhaps it might include a graph or outline of the all the church's organizations? Also, a list of the preclear states, Sea Org ranks, ect. in the same article would be helpful.

David Miscavige
 + Church of Scientology International 
    + Sea Org
    |  - Rehabilitation Project Force
    + Commodore's Messenger Organization
    |  - Religious Technology Center
    + Association for Better Living and Education
    |  - Applied Scholastics
    |  - Criminon
    |  - ...

Sysrpl 21:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The Bridge to Total Freedom would be the reference for the preclear, clear and OT states of existence. The other things you ask about, I don't know off the top of my head but I can tell you for sure, any article which spells out all of the Church's organization is going to be a damn complicated article. There are going to be lines of communication (or most non-scientology editors would call them "command lines") going every which damn way. For one thing, organizations exist independent of the personal who man them. The personal who man them (Sea Org, as one example) have in addition, an indepenent organization with its own command lines, etc. Whew ! It might be possible to clarify the ranks within the Sea Org though. I'm not certain where those can be found. Terryeo 21:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Scientology is a philosophy

Scientology is an applied religious philosophy.www.whatisscientology.org/html/foreword/index.html 1/2 down the page. The aticle as it stands presents otherwise, is states that "Scientology is a system of practices" and "A system of beliefs". The article so confuses Scientology with the Church of Scientology that no one need write this article at all, this article could simply be deleted and the 40 million words which make up the applied philisophy, Scientology www.whatisscientology.org/index.html 40 millions words, well, the information of those words, as an article of Wikipedia, well, it could just be deleted. The article doesn't introduce Scientology, the article introduces The Church of Scientology in the very first paragraph without a word about those 40 million words. Terryeo 00:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Scientologist now redirects here not List of Scientologists

I felt it's consistant with other cases, and the most useful target for readers. I'm mentioning it here, in case anyone disagrees. --Rob 02:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Scientology-related articles under attack

It appears the morons at ytmnd.com have decided to spam links to their website across a range of Scientology-related articles. I've semi-protected this one and blocked a couple of vandals/spammers; could people please keep an eye on the other articles in the Scientology series? -- ChrisO 23:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Cleaned up a bunch. It's an interesting concept to attack Wiki to get at CoS. I'm sure this is causing great worry at PAC Base and Int. :^) AndroidCat 23:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
BTW, is it normal for Scientology to drop off of my watchlist when it was semi-protected? (I still see Talk:Scientology) AndroidCat 23:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Definitely not. Another new user (probably the same one under a new username just managed to re-spam the article, despite semi-protection. It seems to be bugged - I've tried re-semi-protecting it just in case. -- ChrisO 23:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't feel bad for scientology, in my mind it deserves the share of vandalism it's getting. The fellows over at ytmnd.com just don't realise that wikipedia isn't the place where attacks on scientology are needed. I don't think they're "morons", I do understand them. I'll do my best to keep an eye on the vandalism, though. We don't need this on wikipedia. I'll try to clean up as a much as I can. Xioyux 00:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
It is unfortunate that you would consider a vandalism to Wikipedia to be appropriate because you feel such a vandalism agrees with your personal considerations about a subject. I would hope that such a point of view is rather smaller than most editors have. Wikipedia is a large work. There is no requirement whatsoever that it include any mention at all of Scientology. Terryeo 04:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Xioyux, it isn't Scientology that is being attacked when people vandalize articles here. It's Wikipedia that is being attacked. Vandalizing articles about Scientology is not going to change anyone's mind about Scientology as a subject or as an organization. All it does is give Wikipedia editors (most of us non-Scientologists) a pain trying to clean the place up.
I've reverted both pro-Scientology vandalism (mostly article blanking) and anti-Scientology vandalism (mostly swearing and insults) here. Neither form of vandalism is welcome here. --FOo 07:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Minor typo

Hey, normally I would correct this myself, but it appears that anonymous users can't edit this page. Anyway, in the last line of the "Silent Birth" section, the word "Noise" is clearly meant to be a link, but just shows up with square braces around it. Minor point, but like I say, I can't edit it.

The square brackets are actually not meant to be a link here, but just indicate that the word was added by a wikipedia editor in order to provide context for the quote. The exact quoted statement would have been "no scientific evidence that taking that away at the time", which would have been confusing. Raymond Hill 14:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)