Talk:Scientology/Archive 11

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 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 →

Contents

Should "church" be capitalized?

The word "church", refering to the Church of Scientology, is sometimes written with a capital C and sometimes with a small C in the article. I don't know which one is correct but it looks a little odd to have it both ways.

Generally, if it's short for Church of Scientology, then it's capitalized. AndroidCat 16:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Fine with me. However it still makes me think of the Catholic Church when I see the word Church.
As I understand the use of a capital, it is much like the use of a last name. In an article about Jim Smith, his full name is used first and after that, "Smith". So to in an article about "The First Babtist Church of Harmmondale", after the first full title then simply, "Church" with a capial "C". However "during church activities Smith and Jones talked" need not be capitalized but "the Church, on sunday ..." should be capitalized. When the word is used to specify a particular and singular church, then capitalize. Terryeo 19:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
It should always be capitalized, as a shortening of "The Church of Scientology", rather than as Wikipedia advocating the disputed position that the organization is a church. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
It shouldn't always be capitalized. "Outside the church, on Sunday" would refer to a physical place rather than the Church [of Scientology]. I'm sure there's an archived copy of the last discussion about this. AndroidCat 21:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I assumed that the proviso "when it refers to the Church of Scientology" would go without saying in my statement about "always" capitalizing it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
The question and thread is about the appropriate manner of capitalizing a letter. Actually, I'm not sure where the rules of capitalization appear on the internet, that would be a good addition. Then such extreme POV's as "if about my subject, its got to be capitalized". We could just refer to appropriate useage, but that's what the question was about to begin with ! Terryeo 16:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

See the Chicago Manual of Style (7.57). When speaking of the Department of History at the University of Chiacgo one would use capital letters. When speaking of the history department at that university one would use lowercase letters. In certain cases for the purposes of internal publications or press releases it is acceptable to use capitals in both cases. However, as an encyclopedic entry, the proper use would be to capitalize the Church of Scientology and to leave lowercase the church. On the other hand, if the church were to be replaced with Scientology, which in certain cases might lessen confusion between the organization and its buildings, it would of course be capitalized. --Bantab 00:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Unnecessary Quotes

Although its fairly minor, I question the need for the following quotes:

"In May 2001, the Russian Orthodox Church criticized Scientologists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Unificationists and Mormons as being dangerous "totalitarian sects".[37]" Not that bad, but it's just saying that the Russian Orthodox Church criticizes scientology and it makes the other religions listed seem as similar to scientology.

"The Lutheran Church[38] in Germany has at times criticized Scientology's activities and doctrines, along with those of several other religions. According to the U.S. State Department's 2004 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, "The Lutheran Church also characterizes the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons), the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Church of Christ, Christian Scientists, the New Apostolic Church, and the Johannish Church as 'sects,' but in less negative terms than it does Scientology."" The first sentence is the only necessary part of this paragraph, the rest is just junk. I would change it myself but on a controversial topic like this I'd like to get someone's opinion first.

--Boccobrock 06:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Mmmm, I have to disagree with you on this one. On a controversial subject, the best that a Wikipedia article can do is explain what people believe on a subject, and why reasonable people might believe it. Some people may believe that when the Russian Orthodox Church and the Lutheran Church in Germany criticize Scientology, it's an overreaction. If you don't know anything about Scientology, but you look at the other groups that are criticized by the same source and say "well, hey, I think all those groups are okay" then you may agree with those who think the listed sources are off-target with the criticism. Or, on the other hand, you might say "well, I do know about those other groups and I think they are groups to be wary of, so that makes it more meaningful to me that these churches place Scientology in the same classification." It's a matter of context. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Hmmmm, I don't think so. On this subject, Dianetics and Scientology, beliefs are an incredibly small piece, incredibly small. As a philosophy, there are no Scientology beliefs in the sense that a church has beliefs. The presentation of the knowledge which comprises Scientology, as published by its primary source and as opionions and observations from secondary sources and the occassional Doctor of Divinity is about has good as we can go, I believe. For 2 reasons. 1) Beliefs are a trivial potion of Scientology and 2) Unlike some religions, organizations take great pains to make sure they don't study Scientology. Particularly Psychology which doesn't spend a farthing with such studies. Terryeo 16:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Terryeo, why are you trying to change the subject? What you are saying has absolutely nothing to do with what you replied to. (also very little to do with the real world, where psychology is not an organization.) -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I replied because the preceeding was headed present what people believe and why they believe it. Scientology (the philosophy) does not present beliefs, unless you call the idea, "man is basically good and trying to survive" a belief. The philosphy presents information. The reader reades it and is invited to use it or discard it. The reader is not invited, by the Scientology philosophy, to belive it nor to disbelieve other information. Certain information is stated. What the reader does with the information is up to the reader. In no case does the philosophy Scientology, suggest that a reader should believe a datum. Terryeo 18:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Why do we not give all religious the same treatment

This is obviously a recognized religious, I mean the IRS even calls it a religious, then there should not be any reason to post criticism all over the articles. I don't see the same criticism on other religious articles. And there should not be on any of them. I understand that some people may disagree with the views of one religion or another but it goes not give any one a right to post your opinions or criticism on the articles. Besides I thought only neutral points of view were allowed on this website any ways? I think its time this whole system of articles on this subject gets a fine tooth comb over and boot out all the opinions, critics, and leave the facts. I am sure we all agree that we want this website to display the correct information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Truthisgreater (talk • contribs) .

Ah, Truthisgreater. I guess you didn't see the note that I left on your user talk page along with your welcome message. I would really recommend that you go back and read it, as it's really quite important to understand WP:NPOV and you can really get into trouble if you ignore it. I must say that if you don't see criticism on other religious articles, you really haven't looked all that hard. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
The answer is, these articles have been mainly produced by Feldspar and others who have communicated for years on alt.net.scientology, the anti-Scientology newsgroup. There are enough of such editors and they are like enough of mind and communicate on that newsgroup often enough so that even the widely recognized anti-Scientology personal website, Clambake.org, recommends Wikipedia on his front page. The editors produce what they consider to be a "neutral" point of view which is so obviously an anti-Scientology point of view that they are unable to recognize the bias they push into the articles. There's your answer in a nutshell. That they refuse to confront issues and attack anyone who knows the least bit about Scientology spells out their point of view more fully. BTW, Truthisgreater, welcome. Terryeo 04:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Terryeo, keep your personal attacks to yourself or you will be blocked again. Truthisgreater, see Criticism of Christianity and its multitude of sub-articles. --InShaneee 17:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
The answer is, these articles have been mainly produced by Feldspar and others who have communicated for years on alt.net.scientology, the anti-Scientology newsgroup.
  1. There is no such newsgroup as 'alt.net.scientology'. It is one's personal preference whether one takes this as an indicator about Terryeo's general ability to get his facts straight and stick to them.
  2. I have never posted on alt.religion.scientology, the group Terryeo appears to be trying to refer to.
The rest of Terryeo's post is, as InShaneee points out, simply personal attack. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
As an editor who has posted on alt.religion.scientology for years, I am insulted by the accusation that there is some conspiracy that Terryeo is grouping me into. Per WP:PAIN, I ask you to stop your personal attacks. AndroidCat 17:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

There are long and short answers. The short answer is that Scientology isn't a religion even thought its recognized as such under US law. The long answer is that even it were a religion not all religions are equal. Some, like Christianity and Islam have had massive cultural and spiritual impact over large swaths of the globe and had served as the basis of civilizations. Others, like Judaism and Zoroastrianism, despite their small number of adherents, have an ancient and complex history as well as an enormous, even decisive influence on larger and more widespread religion. Scientology qualifies for none of these. It has had no recognizable cultural/civilizational influence upon the world and is barely fifty years old.--ben-ze'ev 20:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, we do treat all zealots equally. Look at the articles on Christian whacknuts like Kent Hovind. No religion is immune from informed criticism; the information is, of ocurse, more damning in some cases than in others. Just zis Guy you know? 17:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
It's important to remember that Scientology is not recognised as a religion in many countries, including the UK. Nuge talk 19:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
In many countries, by tradition or constitution, there is no such thing as offical recognition as a religion. In the US, the IRS gave Scientology religious non-profit tax status in the unique 1993 agreement, overruling the supreme court. In the UK (England and Wales), Scientology was denied religious charity tax-free status in 1999, but operates there as an Australian tax-free charity. In Scotland, they can't use the word church, which I believe is reserved for Christian organizations. In Canada, they were also denied charity tax-free status in 1999. I don't know about France or Germany. It's a mixed bag. AndroidCat 21:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC) P.S. I find the "Scientology is/is not a religion" argument to be a big time-waster that bogs down in the definition of religion. AndroidCat 21:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
A country makes its own laws. Our planet has about 220 countries. That is about 220 different laws. The concept, "free to worship as one likes" might have been unstated but existing even in Roman times. I don't know the first country to actually state the concept and make laws about the concept, but countries still differ quite a bit in the area. Perhaps the U.N.'s "rights" applies, but even those are actually subject to individual country's laws, within the country. Terryeo 18:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

convenience to copyvio

Wikipedia:External links#Occasionally acceptable links states:

External sites can possibly violate copyright. Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page in question is not violating someone else's copyright. If it is, please do not link to the page. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry). Also, linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on us (see Wikipedia:Copyrights and in particular Contributors' rights and obligations).

I just http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientology&diff=61152680&oldid=61114751 removed a link to a probably copyright violation. A web site that has an *entire* copy of an article, is going way beyond fair use. Even though we don't host it here, it is the wrong thing to do. Also, its patently absurd to have a convience link, when there's a link to the story at the official source, at washingtonpost.com. Even if an article isn't available for free, a "convience" link is not ok, if you make it convenient to steal something. --Rob 06:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Added: a prior discussion of the issue of linking to copyvios was hashed out at Talk:Preying from the Pulpit, where (after much bitter debate) the links have remained removed. If there's any reason to think xenu.net is permitted to copy the article, then by all means re-add the link. --Rob 08:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Second paragraph of article

In the second paragraph of this article it talks about how Church spokespeople claim that Hubbards teachings have saved them from addiction, arthritis, depression, learning disabilities, mental illness, cancer and homosexuality. I feel that homosexuality should be taken out of that statement. There us currently no medical proof that homosexuality is a disease or a disorder, so if it isn't a disease or a disorder how can someone be "cured". ~Tony (14:05, June 29, 2006 by 12.2.142.7 (talk · contribs))

Regardless, this is the statement that was made at the time, when homosexuality was viewed in that manner by the psychiatric and medical community. The purpose of encyclopedia articles is to establish facts, not truth. - CobaltBlueTony 19:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Is Scientology a form of gnosticism?

In the section on Scientology and other religions it says:

Many members of the Roman Catholic Church reject Scientology, because of the CoS's views on Jesus, and believe Scientology to be a form of gnosticism.

This seems to be leaving the other shoe ready to drop. Are those many Catholics right? Is it really a form of gnosticism? I'd like to learn more about this myself.Steve Dufour 07:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Anteaus. That was an interesting article, in fact one of the few that I have seen in the mainstream press that tries to dig deeper when it comes to the subject of Scientology..

Reference challenge eReader.com

www.ereader.com/author/detail/1552 L. Ron Hubbard at eReader.com This "reference" from an e-bookstore is just quoting Bridge/ASI/Galaxy Press PR materials which contain a number of dubious claims. (I don't think anyone has ever been able to track down a statement directly from the rather nebulous "American Book Readers Association" about that poll, and the "publication of over 250 works of fiction" isn't supported by the Hubbard bibliography written by William J. Widder of Bridge Publications.) This is second or third hand at best and there's no indication that ereader does any fact-checking of PR material from publishers.

I can find much better references that Hubbard was a sci-fi writer, but the issue has always been: should he be listed for what he is known for, or for what he published most of (by number, not by volume)? Personally, I'd go with the former, but pulp writer (which includes his SF publications) was the compromise. AndroidCat 16:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe it would depend on whether we wished to present a historical development of the philosphy, Scientology. Or, if we wished to present Scientology as it appears today. If we were to present the historical development, then, in 1950 when Hubbard published Dianetics: the Modern Science of Mental Health, he would be introduced as a well known science fiction writer. He was, at that time, a member of the New York Explorer's Club, and so was known for his wide travels, and was a known Navy Officer. But, by 1952 when he begin to lecture about Scientology, he was probably best know for his Dianetics publication. After all, it went to the top of the charts and became a best seller, while his science fiction writing was know (at that time) by the relatively few science fiction buffs. Science Fiction was a narrow field in those days. While his Dianetics book was a best seller. Therefore, if we do a historical approach, Hubbard, the creator of Dianetics. Terryeo 18:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Judaism and Past Lives

A minor point, but the article claims that belief in past lives is incompatible with Judaism, Christianity and Islam. I don't know about the latter, but Judaism does believe in the transmigration of souls. Its a major part of the Kabbalah.--ben-ze'ev 13:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Freemasonry

i've heard of connections between scientology & freemasonry.. can someone elaborate? o.. and add speculation on 'Trementina base' while you're at it.. i'm really curious what anyone would say those 1.8million steel plates are —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.80.8.2 (talk • contribs)

i've heard of connections between scientology and mock apple pie. will some anon editor please spell those connections out, too? and how about the aluminim siding on some of those newly renovated buildings? If you want to discuss an issue, Mr. anon, create a Wikipedia Identity and spell out what you are talking about, okay? Terryeo 22:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Please abide by WP:BITE, Terryeo. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. You're pushing your disruption probation pretty hard. --InShaneee 01:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi, 158.80.8.2 . Are you talking about doctrinal connections between Scientology and Freemasonry, or organizational connections? Organization connections is an easier question to answer: There really aren't any. The closest you'll come is that, for a time, Hubbard lived in a boarding house run by Jack Parsons. Parsons was the head of the California branch of the Ordo Templi Orientis, and depending on who you talk to, the OTO is or isn't an offshoot of Freemasonry (the OTO apparently believes it is a lot closer to Freemasonry than Freemasonry believes it is.) Hubbard and Parsons became friends; Hubbard also became really good friends with Parsons' girlfriend Sara "Betty" Northrup, who became Hubbard's girlfriend and then his second wife. The three of them did some rituals together, but contrary to what some accounts would have you believe, Hubbard was never a member of the OTO.
As far as doctrinal connections -- well, obviously, Hubbard had the opportunity to learn the doctrines of the OTO, and he wasn't averse to presenting ideas that he'd gotten from other sources as his own revelations or discoveries. You might try the Bent Corydon/Ronald DeWolf book L. Ron Hubbard: Messiah or Madman? as it does delve into a comparison between the works of others that Hubbard was known to have studied and the doctrines Hubbard subsequently propounded and claimed to be the sole "Source" of. However, while Corydon talks about the relation between Aleister Crowley's doctrines and Hubbard's, I don't remember anything being said about Freemasonry, so the connection is rather tenuous. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Wow, something we all seem to agree on. No, there's no historical connection between Scientology and Masonry, and there doesn't seem to be any particular doctrinal connection. There's a transparently thin similarity in that both (as with the OTO, too) have doctrinal elements which are meant to be discussed only with higher-level members. However, from what has been disclosed publicly (lots) about both systems, there isn't a hell of a lot of similarity in what those doctrines are. Masonry's Biblical allegories have not very much to do with OTO's Egyptian and sexual trappings or Scientology's space opera. Nor are the ethical systems taught by the three groups terribly similar from what I can tell. --FOo 02:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Sadly(?), I'm going to have to agree, and disagree. While their doctrinal models (i.e., their allegorical mythos) diverge, several end points in Scientology and Masonry are very similar.
1. The seeker (practitioner) as the ultimate fount of knowledge.
2. The elevation of a human to higher planes through education and to some extent, ritual.
3. The purging of "sin" through peer or self (not hierarchical) confession/admission.
4. The controlling of teachings through levels of gnosis.
5. The design of a group with heavily spriritual practices under the moniker of being "non-religious".
6. The collection of personal "secrets", shared with people on the same path, but not divulged to those outside the group.
While Scientology does have its interesting facets, it's fairly simililar to *quite a few* religious and social movements, and freemasonry is no exception. (Which does not a connection make, or break.) Religions are weird and fun.
Heck, some christians believe that some super-powered space alien made our planet, and even made the first humans out of clay... and a rib. Just 6000 years ago. I'm not sure what ancient aramaic is for 'space opera', but if that term existed 2000 years ago, it would be accepted as totally normal, and not in the slightest bit bizarrely freakish, today (hey, we even have wikipedia articles on christians *eating their own god*!). ;-)
If I were to characterize Scientology by its influences, it's a huge grab-bag....
Like *most* religious or quasi-religious groups.
OTOH, Hubbard would have been rapidly kicked out of OTO, HOGD, IOT, Freemasonry, and any number of orgs because of they *way* he taught the path. Hubbard did not teach to the self being powerful, and the org helping, he taught to the org being powerful, and the self helping. Ronabop 08:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
The thing about the commonalities you have described -- most of them (though not all) could be said of any initiatory group, not merely Masonry and Scientology. Several are true to some extent of Gardnerian Wicca; I wouldn't be too surprised if most obtained in AMORC or any other initiatory system you'd care to name.
It's true enough that the space-opera trappings of Scientology are no weirder than the trappings of most other religious groups. But that wasn't my point in mentioning them; it was, rather, that they are different from other groups. --FOo 07:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Retro-application of the expanded WP:EL style guide

The WP:EL style guide has been significantly changed over the last few months, and I think it would be a good idea to discuss it before doing any major scrapes of links from Scientology-related articles to conform to the current version of the style guide. AndroidCat 15:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Protection

This article is getting vandalized very often. Perhaps scientology should be nominated for protection against anon users? --Bmk 05:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I've semi-protected it now. -- ChrisO 07:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

documenting the critics of the Church of Scientology in the introduction to Scientology

Antaeus Feldspar (Talk | contribs | block) (The cited reference IS the verifiable source. JWSchmidt seems to think we should be substituting our own judgement about whether that source's summation is *true* for whether it is *verifiable*.)

It is the job of Wikipedia editors to provide citations to sources that allow Wikipedia readers to verify statements that are made by Wikipedia. At best the Goodin article allows the reader to see Goodin's opinion. The Goodin article does not allow the Wikipedia reader to verify this statement: "The controversial organization has attracted much criticism and distrust throughout the world because of its closed nature and strong-arm tactics in handling critics." What Goodin said was that, "Critics have charged that the Church of Scientology employs strong-arm tactics to silence those who publicly disagree with its policies." The Goodin article could probably be cited as a source in Scientology controversy where there would be room to provide a full discussion of how the Church of Scientology's "strong-arm" compares to that of other religious groups. The introductory section of the Wikipedia article about Scientology should not be a platform for the critics of Scientology. Scientology is not criticism of Scientology and the main Wikipedia article about Scientology should first explain the beliefs and practices Scientology. The introduction to this article might reasonably state that there are critics of the Church of Scientology and direct Wikipedia readers to the article Church of Scientology.

Most of Wikipedia's current introduction to the topic of Scientology (text above the table of contents in the Scientology article) is given over to a description of the point of view of critics of the Church of Scientology. Rather than present a description of what Scientology is, Wikipedia editors have substituted their own judgment that the point of view of the critics of the Church of Scientology is more important than telling the reader what Scientology is. In my view, this is a violation of Wikipedia policy. "Readers are left to form their own opinions" How can a reader form their own opinion about Scientology when Wikipedia editors are more concerned about giving voice to the position of critics of the Church of Scientology than they are to explaining what Scientology is? In making the editorial decision to turn Wikipedia's introduction to Scientology into a platform for the critics of the Church of Scientology, some Wikipedia editors have taken on the task of covering their editorial actions with the claim that since the supporters of Scientology are a small group, Wikipedia has no obligation to write a neutral encyclopedia article that explains what Scientology is. This editorial choice does not serve the reader who comes to Wikipedia to learn what Scientology is, and that has to be the first priority for Wikipedia. The critics of Scientology who hover over this article should stand back from this article and allow people who know what Scientology is to provide a description of it, a neutral description that is not choked by the personal biases of critics of the Church of Scientology. --JWSchmidt 16:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to reply to your concerns, JW, but ... well, there's just not much there of a factual nature to respond to. Most of it is just your ad hominem allegations, with little apparent connection to reality. For instance, where is this "claim" which you are attributing to other, that "since the supporters of Scientology are a small group, Wikipedia has no obligation to write a neutral encyclopedia article that explains what Scientology is"? I mean, that's a pretty amazing statement to make. It would, indeed, be very bad if someone were to suggest that we should behave in such a fashion -- which means that it would be very bad behavior on your part if that "claim" turned out in fact to not be the view of "some Wikipedia editors", but turned out to be a misrepresentation of someone's statement, or just your own personal guesswork as to why people haven't always edited the way you want them to. So, please, JW, please do tell us where we will find that claim being made? I'm sure the sooner that you can prove that your allegations here were not just an ugly and uncivil straw man, the sooner we can get ahead with some serious editing. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Antaeus - Why don't you try some magnanomity and have a look at how what this person is saying could have some validity. I have no idea who JW is but he is certainly not some slouch of an editor, yet that is how you are treating him. He has every right to voice his views in the discussion, so knock off denouncing anyone and everyone that doesn't have your view - the finger is pointing backwards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by California guy (talk • contribs)
Actually, California guy, if you check WP:CIVIL, you'll see that he actually doesn't have "every right to voice his views", not if his "views" are going to be focused on the contributors (and especially unsupported allegations of bad faith against them) instead of on the content. "what this person is saying could have some validity"? Why, yes, it could. If, for instance, he is actually able to point to any place where any editor involved with this article has claimed "since the supporters of Scientology are a small group, Wikipedia has no obligation to write a neutral encyclopedia article that explains what Scientology is", then his statement would have validity. If he cannot, then what he has done is obstruct the process of writing this article by making false and uncivil allegations. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • reply to Antaeus Feldspar- The main point I tried to make (above) is that the introduction to Scientology does not seem to meet the requirements of a neutral presentation of the topic. I complained that there is a bias in the presentation resulting from editors who are critical of Scientology trying to turn the introduction to Scientology into a statement of the position of critics of the Church of Scientology. I made some suggestions for how to improve the introduction. I suggest that the introduction be a short summary of the beliefs and practices so that the reader can decide if they want to continue reading the article (continue to the next section. I suggested that most of the material critical of the Church of Scientology that is in the introduction be moved out of the introduction. Since no other editor cares to defend the existing introduction, I will make these changes. --JWSchmidt 15:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Not without consensus to do so, which there isn't any. If an actor is famous for being in a movie, you'd mention that movie in the opening paragraph. Scientology is most well known for the controversy they've stirred up, hence why that is noted there. --InShaneee 16:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's really too bad that you chose an approach to your "main point" that involved accusing other editors of bad faith. I mean, if I were to write "The article currently seems to accept the Scientology POV too uncritically", then people could believe without difficulty that my "main point" is the article content. If, on the other hand, I write "The article currently seems to accept the Scientology POV too uncritically. Wikipedia editors have substituted their own judgment that the point of view of the Church of Scientology is more important than telling the reader where that viewpoint might be challenged. In my view, this is a violation of Wikipedia policy. "Readers are left to form their own opinions" How can a reader form their own opinion about Scientology when Wikipedia editors are more concerned about giving voice to the position of the Church of Scientology than they are to exploring anything outside press releases? In making the editorial decision to turn Wikipedia's introduction to Scientology into a platform for the Church of Scientology, some Wikipedia editors have taken on the task of covering their editorial actions with the claim that since the critics of Scientology are a small group, Wikipedia has no obligation to write a neutral encyclopedia article that explains what Scientology is from any other perspective except that of believers" -- how, exactly, should I expect readers to believe that my "main point" is about the article content, and not about the "Wikipedia editors" whom I am referring to constantly and in whose mouth I am placing quite amazing statements? If I then shake my head sadly at those who respond to my quite serious allegations against others and say "you're not addressing my main point" -- well, perhaps next time I shouldn't make serious and unsupported accusations of policy violation at the same time as I make my "main point", hmmmm?

Now if you think the introduction could use some repair, that's a point which could certainly be discussed. Repair of the introduction is something that does tend to need addressing on a regular basis. In fact, I'm pretty sure that a good way to start that repair is to look at the procedure we employed the last time we made a concerted effort at such a cleanup. I'm very sure that a bad way to start is to say 'the introduction needs some repair. Here's who I blame for the fact that it needs repair. Here's what they are trying to do, instead of following Wikipedia policy. Here's what I will tell you is their claim about how this article should be edited (even though I am not prepared to tell you when and where any of them actually claimed this).' But, please tell us -- if you think allegations of blame are the best way to go about the process of cooperative editing, please explain how you came to that conclusion. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree: suggesting not to mention controversial elements in the introduction is disingenuous, or at best shows that you're completely clueless. However specific changes can always be discussed. Unmitigated Success 17:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Until Scientology is introduced for what it is, there is going to be difficulty introducing it. It is a philosophy. It is a body of information. The Church of Scientology disseminates it. If the Church did not, if the Church did not exist at all, Scientology would still be a philosophy. Another philosophy is Buddhism. Both are philosophys about spiritual matters, philosophies which have application in daily life. It is just plain wrong to introduce that Scientology has any belief to it, it does not. If an editor is so certain that Scientology has a belief to it, then that editor might quote that passage. It isn't, it doesn't. However, the Church of Scientology does present certain beliefs. Terryeo 16:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)