Talk:Scientology/Archive 13

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 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 →

Contents

Sorry for inadvertantly cutting a needed ref

I think I'm guilty of deleting that first ref to Atack's book... sorry. I wonder whether the folks who write wikipedia code could come up with an automated way to keep that from happening, by either sending out an alert when a ref that has dependent refs is about to be cut, or, even better, by migrating the full ref to the next place it appears in the article. Seeing as how Wikipedia seems to be going reference-happy, I'm sure this sort of problem will come up often. BTfromLA 17:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, it'd be great if they'd do that... but I'm still waiting for them to implement sub-references, so that if you have a fact sourced to page 50 of a book, and another sourced to page 75 of the same book, you could write it as "blah blah blah <ref name="Book" subref="p. 50">''Book Title'', Author, Et Cetera.</ref> and bluh bluh bluh<ref name="Book" subref="p. 75" />" and the two refs would be rendered as "Book Title, Author, Et Cetera. p. 50" and "Book Title, Author, Et Cetera. p. 75", respectively. Right now I try to put the page numbers in comments after the reference so that when that capability is implemented, a little simple editing will insert all the page number specifiers. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Style rewrite

I'm nor sure if the general lack of quality in the writing on this article is because of or in spite of the amount of contributors. The introduction is far, far too long, there's duplication all over the place and even simple things like wikilinks don't follow the MOS. I'm planning on gradually attacking this. Chris Cunningham 12:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

75 footnotes is a sure clue, huh? A certain lack of continuity, a certain choppiness of style might be expected from 75 footnotes and 5 references, you think? I'm hesitant to make suggestions and I suspect the choppiness has a lot to do with the back-and-forth of strongly held POV. Almost every phrase that is introduced seems to prompt an opposite view editor to introduce a counter-phrase, which then requires a counter-footnote. A potential solution to this back-and-forth editing which I tried to accomplish (but mostly failed at) was to get a 2 paragraph introduction from Scientology sources. But using a single point of view to introduce what is being spoken of wasn't agreed on enough. Possibly the format, "Scientology POV, then some counter-Scientology POV" might make the article work. An editor concenus, though loose sort of format, might create a smoother flow for the reading public. Terryeo 16:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
The content is irrelevant, although I do take in far more about an article by editing it than by just reading it. While I'm nowhere near impartial on the subject, my main aim is to make it at least school-essay-level English throughout; my contribution to the journalistic value is probably going to be nothing more than weasel word removal.
As for presenting the article from multiple sympathetic points of view, that's a policy violation. If I see any he-said-she-said I'm going to severely trim it. Chris Cunningham 17:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
User:Terryeo is banned from editing any scientology-related articles per recommendations of the ArbCom. I believe he gets the sympathetic POV notion from his recent introduction to Wikinfo, a wikipedia offshoot. --Fahrenheit451 18:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Chris, I wish you had waited a little longer to make such big changes. The introduction has already been the subject of a lot of work. This isn't to suggest that it's perfect or inviolable, but rather that there may be more going on than you think. A good example of this is the way you removed the link to Scientology beliefs and practices from the first sentence of the introduction. Well, it was there for a good reason: "Scientology" can refer to the belief system, or it can refer to the Church of Scientology. The introduction therefore introduces the belief system briefly, and gives a pointer to the article which is devoted to the belief system, then introduces the Church of Scientology briefly, and gives a pointer to the article which is devoted to the Church of Scientology. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
The fork that was made, Scientology and Church of Scientology was made to particularly address that issue. So the two could be presented independently, not recombined into one lump of mud, yet again. Terryeo 00:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
a) it's not a fork; b) the spinout that was made was not between Scientology and Church of Scientology but between Scientology beliefs and practices and Church of Scientology. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't object to the link, but it should be labelled more directly than it is. I was planning on reincorporating it. Chris Cunningham 07:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Somebody restored the paragraph in the intro about the "cult status" of Scientology. I suggest that be removed to the controversy section, shortening the intro. BTfromLA 00:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. That was material that shouldn't have been added directly to the introduction to begin with. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Beliefs and practices

I reworded the intro to put the link in more appropriately, but it's given as a mainlink in the very first section. I'm planning on removing one of the two. Chris Cunningham 08:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that's the best idea. We're dealing with two conflicting principles here: one is the general principle that when Article A links to Article B, it should only wikilink the first occurrence and not every occurrence. the other is that the article "Scientology" is what is sometimes called a "signpost" article, whose primary function is actually to point to subsidiary articles which examine a subtopic in detail. In this case, Scientology is actually a signpost article to two other signpost articles, Scientology beliefs and practices and Church of Scientology. Given the importance of this article successfully pointing a reader who is really looking for an article specifically about a sub-topic to that subtopic, I really can't see how it serves that purpose to be rigid about the "wikilink only once" rule. I actually don't know of any other purpose to the wikilink-only-once rule other than "if the target article gets moved or split up, it means you'll have only one wikilink to update and not a whole slew of them". While that's a good goal, I think it's secondary here to making sure people know that the main article for discussing the belief system specifically, or the organization specifically, is somewhere else. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll spell this out by comparing Scientology and Christianity Scientology: The individual is a thetan. Uses a body. Came into existence long ago, is eternal. Christianity: The individual is a soul. Presently is a body but is really eternal. After body's death certain things may happen. Scientology: Think what you wish, believe what you wish. Call yourself a Scientologist if you wish to. Christianity: You must believe you are an eternal soul to be a Christian. Church of Scientology: We of the Church believe we are eternal beings who inhabit and use a human body.Terryeo 03:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Scientology is not and has never been a "belief system". It is a philosophy, a field of knowledge. Which is not to say that anyone knows or believes it, but is to say that it is not about belief or non-belief. It is about knowledge which a person can understand and then, if they choose, they can know. Hubbard's statements (which make it up) are presented as statements. It does not subject a person to belief nor to respect but makes statements. It is about knowledge, its title says so. Which is not so say that any person who reads it, knows it. Any statement can be misunderstood, denied, ignored, etc. Nonetheless, it is not a belief system and it has never been presented as a belief system except by Wikipedia editors and by people doing their own original research. Terryeo 19:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, as we have previously noted, Terryeo, you are in conflict with the Church of Scientology itself on this bizarre little hobby horse about "Scientology does not have beliefs." Is the tone scale part of Scientology? Is the presumed existence of the thetan part of Scientology? You seem to be under the impression that a sufficient amount of psychotic denial can actually elevate these from "beliefs" to "knowledge"; it cannot. Please stop trying to waylay the conversation by taking it down these fruitless and already-trodden side paths. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
The Church presents beliefs. The philosophy does not. The written word does not present belief, it is statements on the page and you reject them or accept them, you find them useful or you don't. As you would study calculus and come to use it (or not), so too with Tone Scale and the idea, Thetan. BUT, if you would present the philosophy as a belief, then I would challenge you to find any statement in Hubbard's written philosophy which says something like, "Believe me when I tell you, thetans exist." I am falling back onto the threshold of inclusion in verifiability (WP:V) because there seems to be no other way to communicate with you in this area. You, and other Wikipedia editors have gone far, far out in left field with the idea of beliefs and Scientology. You all present any word found in Scientology text as a "belief" and that's just not at all how Hubbard wrote, not at all. In fact, I think he would laugh his ass off to entertain the thought of people having to believe what he wrote, or put it down and not read it at all. Terryeo 15:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
You have in fact hit the nail on the head. Either this is a master article which links to further elaboration elsewhere or it's a conclusive article in its own right. It's currently trying to be both.
If it's going to be a master article, it only needs the mainlink. Putting links in the introduction to an article is stylistically poor, and usually occurs because editors are impetuous and always try to detail things as much as possible as soon as possible rather than allowing an article to take its course.
So basically, as it stands the intro is still far too long. The best thing to do in the short term is to pick the low-hanging fruit such as duplicate information. The beliefs link is repeated in a more useful section immediately below the intro, so it should be removed from the first paragraph.
As an aside, the main reasons for the link-only-once rule are that a) it turns articles into link swamps gradually and b) it discourages people from writing complete, coherent articles by implicitly condoning duplication within discrete sections. Chris Cunningham 15:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I've never read anything suggesting that "putting links in the introduction to an article is stylistically poor" -- can you point to the style guideline that says that? I find it really puzzling because in general, it seems like you're saying that the introduction should not communicate to the reader what the rest of the article will be about, whereas I thought it was commonly accepted that this is what the introduction is for.
The guideline is Wikipedia:Lead_section. Linking in the lead section has been discussed variously. Presently, linking in the section is okay but should not be the main thrust of the lead.Terryeo 03:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Immediately after the fold comes a section with the same title as the link. On my monitor, the TOC actually allows me to see two links pointing to different articles with the same name at once. This is confusing, and this makes for a stylistically poor article. Chris Cunningham 18:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I must confess I don't even see what you're talking about. "different articles with the same name"? -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Different links with the same name. One is a TOC anchor link, which points further down the article. One goes to another article entirely. Chris Cunningham 08:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
See, again, I wish you'd taken more time to discuss this, because the introduction which you've been so critical of was in fact the result of major efforts to repair the introduction, and it would be nice if you'd consider what has already been done instead of focusing purely on what you can change about it. You might look at Talk:Scientology/Archive 7#Cleaning up the introduction to see the principles on which the previous clean-up effort was made. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't see anything in that discussion which advocates placing external links to articles with the same name as sections in the current article in the intro. I'm disinclined to discuss this for an extended period of time when discussion apparently hasn't managed to raise the intro to the level of an average good article in eleven pages of archives. Do you have any specific objections to removing the intro link? I can't think of any plausible reason to link the same article twice within one page. Chris Cunningham 18:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Because by so doing, we will serve two kinds of readers:
  1. Those who, while seeking or seeking to add information about Scientology beliefs or practices, don't realize that there is an article devoted to Scientology beliefs and practices specifically. For these readers, the two separate uses of "Scientology" are distinguished immediately within the first two paragraphs, and the main articles for each of those uses is linked to, to establish that while both these uses will be summarized here, this is not the main article for either of those uses.
This is covered in the first paragraph of the article proper. I don't think the article should specifically cater for people with attention spans shorter than five seconds. Chris Cunningham 08:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  1. The browsing reader who has a curiosity about the subject but is not searching for anything in particular. Such a reader is less likely to click on links than to continue reading straight through, at least until they see a point about which they have a question that isn't answered in this article. Are they likely to realize that what they are reading is actually a summary, and that there is an entire article covering the subject in more detail? If the answer is "they would have had to spot a wikilink in the text to do so," the answer is "no". If the answer is "a clearly marked {{main}} announces the existence of such an article," the answer is "yes".
Again, I don't think the article should specifically cater for people with attention spans shorter than five seconds. Chris Cunningham 08:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
As a side note, I really do thank you for insulting all the editors who came before and sneering at all their hard work. It's very rewarding to work on one of the most difficult articles possible, the key article for a very controversial subject, and to be told that of course nothing you could say could really be worth listening to, since you didn't achieve the results that Johnny-come-lately knows he can achieve without breaking a sweat. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't pull my punches. That the article is on one of the most difficult subjects to discuss objectively on the entire Internet does not excuse it from being written in the style expected of a formal scientific text for adults. I would dearly like Wikipedia to be the definitive go-to text for information on Scientology, but if it's going to be a useful resource then the articles in question need to be written in a manner which makes them easy to read without being cluttered or patronising. I appreciate the efforts of those who have edited this article previously. This doesn't mean I can't be harshly critical of the stylistic failures which occur naturally in compound works. Chris Cunningham 08:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I can't think this article wants to be written like a science article, but more along the lines of Buddhism or Taoism. Terryeo 03:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
How about Christianity, with its detailing of variant forms of practice? The Free Zone and other variations on Scientology doctrine seem like they might be more relevant than the administration and crimes of the Church of Scientology. --FOo 03:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
My statement addressed how to present the Wikipedia reader with useable information; style. Additional suggestions welcome. Your second statement does not address how to present information to the reader. Terryeo 04:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Re-reading Foo's statement, it makes sense differently and I see Foo is addressing the issues raised. Terryeo 21:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of Footnotes

The purpose of putting a footnote into an article is to provide substance to a statement. For example, should an article state something like, "Cakes are sweet"[1], then the footnote would be expected to point to a source of information which talked about the sweetness of cakes, or how honey is sometimes used in place of sugar to create a sweet cake, etc. In this article, in the third paragraph, we have the statement, Church spokespeople attest that Hubbard's teachings (called "Technology" or "Tech" in Scientology terminology) have saved them from a plethora of problems and complaints.[2][3] and the two footnotes [2] and [3], do not support the statement. Instead, the two footnotes directly contradict the statment. In the case of the cake, the footnotes would be pointing to an article about how sour cakes are. I would say that this link (which has personal attests by a variety of people) would fulfill that statement and should replace those two footnotes. Terryeo 09:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The link you suggest is not a reliable secondary source. We would have to reword the statement to make it primary sourcable (sp?) to use your suggestion. --Davidstrauss 15:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
The link I suggested is to the organization which promotes and publishes the information which this article is about. That makes it a primary source of information. Which makes it useable information in this article. Terryeo 23:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
You are in fact absolutely right. The linked refs had nothing to do with the statement given and in fact one was just a duplicate of the other. I've used your ref, which is primary and fits the statement give. Thanks. Chris Cunningham 09:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree that a footnote should support the statement it follows. I'm staying out of editing this article because I'm pretty new to it and it has a RICH history of debate/compromise, but I did want to weigh in. Vpoko 18:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


Heavy lifting

I've started really shifting things around to reduce duplication. There are bits of business and religion scattered all over the place, they need to be consolidated. Once that's done it'll be much easier to assess the relative length of sections.

I'm thinking of cutting out many of the sub-headings in the beliefs section. if there's a whole article for it, beliefs don't really need more than a mention each. Chris Cunningham 10:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm at a crossroads now. There's an awful lot of information in four intertwingled controversies: status as a religion, compatibility with other religions, cult status and non-profit status. Much of this is now sitting in one lump. It needs to be reduced to a sensible size, and if possible separated out cleanly as four different points (again). Apologies for the current mess, but you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs. Chris Cunningham 11:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Whoa!!! You mean, this isn't an easy article to do?? Whoever would have thought?? -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I dare say I've accomplished more in the last ten hours than most contributors recently, so are you planning on helping or just being conservative and obstinate? Chris Cunningham 21:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Since you took it upon yourself to give the article a massive overhaul, I think most regular watchers of this article (including myself) are sitting back and letting you do your thing, waiting to see the result. I also think that Anteaus has already done much helping, and may believe that you are fixing things that were not broken, just because you can. The old version wasn't perfect, to be sure, but it was arrived at by a consensus of not one, not a couple, not a few, but many editors. Myself, I'll give you benefit of the doubt for now and wait until you've finished before I critique your work. wikipediatrix 16:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Many editors - 1. heh Terryeo 21:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Terryeo, would you be good enough to translate your cryptic comment into English? BTfromLA 21:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, wait: I think I get it: many editors minus one, right? I didn't read the hypen as a "minus" sign. BTfromLA 21:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm waiting, for the moment (unlike Terryeo). AndroidCat 21:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your personal attention. Happy Ho Ho's. Terryeo 21:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


Scientology weddings?

The article says: "The Catholic Church has refused to recognise Scientology weddings as valid." What does that mean? I have never heard of the Catholic Church refusing to recognise weddings done under other authorities than itself. Quite the opposite. Does this mean that if a person married in a Scientology wedding were to leave his/her partner he/she would count as a single person in the eyes of the Catholic Church and could be remarried? Steve Dufour 04:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right. It needs a citation. --Davidstrauss 17:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
The Roman Catholic rules for weddings and divorce annullment are complex, especially when other religions are involved. It definitely needs a cite, preferably from someone authoritative rather than a blurb in a gossip paper. AndroidCat 18:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Weddings in most countries are a legal contract. Often the ceremony is done by religious sanction, even by religions themselves. A marriage in one country is, usually, recognized as being valid in another country. For the most antagonistic person it might be possible that a marriage in Sweden by a Scientology minister is not recognized in Iran (nothing but Islam), or something like that. But that wouldn't be common. Terryeo 21:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I will take the sentence out until some more information is provided. Steve Dufour 04:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

gnosticism

By all means, cite the newspaper. But follow WP:V to do it. That is a single newspaper article making that statement. Balanced against that are 40 million words over a period of 50 years which say otherwise. By all means, cite the newspaper. But it should not be the introductory sentence. The cite would be better used in the Church of Scientology philosophy because it mentions several practitioners of the Church. Scientology isn't beliefs, guys. It has never been beliefs. You simply can not find in the text which comprises it, anything about beliefs. Terryeo 19:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Well then, since a religion is, by definition, a set of beliefs, you have, intentionally or not, made the case that Scientology is not a religion, nor can it be a "religious philosophy". And since the Church of Scientology adds nothing to the Standard Tech to differentiate it, it cannot be a religion either. Q.E.D...... wikipediatrix 19:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
This article's title is "Scientology", as compared to another article's title, the "Church of Scientology". One subject matter is a body of written, spoken and flimed works, the other article is about the organization which delivers, disseminates, oversees that body of information. This article, therefore, should be about the subject matter. Perhaps it should be titled, Scientology (philosophy), but whatever its title, of what use is it, if it is going to parallel, step for step, point for point, the Church of Scientology article? When presenting religion, present beliefs. When presenting philosophy, present information. Buddhism too could be treated in this same manner because it too presents itself as a philosophy and as a religion. When Hubbard first introduced the term to the public he stated, a study of knowledge and defined that it would intrude into religion by the subjects which it studies. The subject matter includes the spiritual nature of man, but it does not talk about beleifs it talks about knowledge. It says you can know something about emotion and it calls that the Tone scale. It says you can know something about study and it calls that Study tech. It says you can know something about the people who refuse to understand that man tries to help his follow man, and that is called Suppressive person technology. Terryeo 20:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Terryeo, religions offer a set of claims about humankind's relationship to the cosmos. These claims are accepted by those that follow the religion. They are beliefs. However, the sacred texts of few if any religions actually say "here come the beliefs." That doesn't matter. Please understand this--it is a problem that comes up over and over again in your comments here: Hubbard doesn't get to characterize his own work on Wikipedia. Just as a novelist who has control over every word she writes doesn't have any control over the way her work is categorized, assessed and placed in history by historians, neither does Hubbard get to control what others will say about his writing. The fact that he never wrote about Scientology being gnostic doesn't mean that it has nothing to do with gnosticism. Your arguments about "present information" reveal a serious misunderstanding of what an encyclopedia does. BTfromLA 21:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
You have evaluated and stated in regards to my personal understanding. This is not the platform to make such a statement. Should you wish to take up such a personal issue, an article's discussion page is not the place to do it. Do you understand, User:BTfromLA? Terryeo 11:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
If somebody presents an argument based on false premises, it is appropriate to say as much. When a particular editor repeats the same error persistently, it is also appropriate to point that out. The talk page, in other words, is exactly the place to hash out our "personal understanding" of how an encyclopedia article should be written. Terryeo, you are sidestepping what I've written by trying to characterize it as personal. It isn't personal--it's about the point of view from which this article, and all Wikipedia articles, are to be written. Why not respond to my analogy about the novelist? BTfromLA 16:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I did not respond to your analogy about the novelist because your statement included your personal evaluation and criticsm, Your arguments about "present information" reveal a serious misunderstanding. It is that which I responded to because unless we are able to communicate to each other, we can not communicate about the novelist. Your stated evaluation would not allow you to communicate with me (since I misunderstand, and seriously) and as the criticized party who, according to your statement doesn't understand anyway, I am not going to attempt to hammer my communication through your understanding when you are certain that I have no understanding to speak from. I assume good faith, I assume the next person understands as well as I do. Terryeo 20:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, your comments seem to be based on a misunderstanding. Did I not make myself clear? Good faith does not mean that everybody interprets things competently, or even that all competent interpretations agree. BTfromLA 22:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I say an encyclopedia presents information to the reader. You evaluated my statement and told me that I had a serious misunderstanding. Then you expect me to talk about some other issue. Since I begin the communication cycle, and since it is my originiation that an encyclopedia present a reader with information as its primary action, I don't feel any discussion could possibly be fruitful if you consider my origination is mis-reasoned (though you say, misunderstood). How can we proceed ?Terryeo 23:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Terryeo, the issue I asked you to address is the exact one I raised as the site of your "misunderstanding." And please don't try to suggest that I'm saying that an encyclopedia shouldn't present information: I'm saying that you are promoting an inaccurate view of the way information is presented in an encyclopedia, that is, the point of view from which it is presented. If you won't respond to the substance of my comments, than I don't see the point of proceeding. BTfromLA 03:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The issue I think you are raising is something like, "Hubbard has no say in how his work is evaluated?" So, when Hubbard says, "there are three barriers to study" and Touretzky evaluates and restates, "there are three principles to study", then of course Hubbard's words are to be ignored so that Touretzky can present his evaluation and build his opinion which he presents as being valid, thus denying that Hubbard's study tech could be of any use to anyone because Hubbard didn't mean to say, "three barriers" but meant to say "three principles" (according to Touretzky)? Yeah, if that is what you are saying that I am doing, then you are right about that. It irritates me that the actual information is never presented in favor of evaluations which mis-present the actual information. Irriates me because it denies giving the reading public the opportunity to evaluate the information for themselves. I would have the actual information presented before the (what I think of as) beanbrained evaluations, thus giving the reading public an opportunity to evaluate for themselves. That was the beauty of the first real encyclopedia. Terryeo 04:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


I think labelling Scientology gnostic in the first sentence carries a fairly aggressive POV and should be dialed back. The first scholar cited in the article, David G. Bromley of Virginia Commonwealth University, says Scientology "is a 'quasi-religious therapy' that resembles Freudian 'depth psychology' while also drawing upon Buddhism, Hinduism, and the ancient, heretical offshoot of Christianity known as gnosticism." That seems much more accurate than simply stating it to be gnostic--I'm no expert on this, but don't gnostic systems always have a deity or demiurge at their center? In any case, I think the gnostic label up front is too strong, though I think that it is approprite for the "origins" section of the article to describe Scientology's similarities to gnosticism (as well as Buddhism and Freudianism, maybe the Crowley OTO stuff, General Semantics, and other sources or systems with significant parallels to Hubbard's ideas). BTfromLA 20:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

As I said before the fact the Scientology has been compared to Gnosticism is interesting, but putting it as the third word in the article seems a little over the top. Steve Dufour 04:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

If the cites I've added don't support labeling Scientology as gnostic, I don't know what would. As for the prominence in the article, I think applying such an apt adjective early on should help the reader contextualize Scientology better. And before you get riled up, Terryeo, calling Scientology "gnostic" is hardly defamation. --Davidstrauss 05:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

This quote from the book I've cited should settle it: "Scientology, however, embraces gnosticism. Its doctrines are gnostic, and it uses gnostic writings to support its own ideas. For example, "Advance!" issue 93 has an article entitled "The Surprising Christian Tradition of Reincarnation", which relies heavily on gnostic writings such as the Pistis Sophia (the best known of the surviving gnostic writings) to support its viewpoint. Scientology is clearly gnostic, by its own admission and by the similarities to its own and gnostic teachings. Once again, ideas Hubbard declares to be new and discovered by him, are shown to be derived from old and widespread teachings in existence long before he came along." --Davidstrauss 05:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Would you please put an ending quote mark after your first: "Scientology, (because it is unclear whether you are saying the whole phrase comes from Advance! issue 93 or what). I can not know if you are quoting from Church writings to support your statements or are quoting a quote which states (from Advance!) that the Church says the Church is gnostic. Terryeo 23:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The best way to ensure that your contribution isn't edited out as POV is not to relentlessly spam it with reference after reference. I've removed the recent spamming; the first ref has been moved into its own independent ref where it can be judged in its entirety. Chris Cunningham 08:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
You removed valid references from the article. That is against policy. --Davidstrauss 03:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Please don't pull cites willy-nilly. The whole reason why so much citation is necessary is because some editors have been pushing very hard to have cites for every proposition. It seems a little overblown, true, but these articles have attracted some, ah, rather interesting and detail-oriented editors. heh. Extanto 18:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, as is often the case, Davidstrauss, this page degredates into discussion about the validity of a piece of information. The threshold for inclusion is 'verifiability' says WP:V. There is a source (one newspaper article) which has stated its opinion. Good. Now let us compare that one source against other published words and present to our reading public what is most commonly published, ok? But thank you for enlightening us all about the reasoning you use, letting us all know how the newspaper article's presentation so exactly aligns with your own, personal thinking. Terryeo 11:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
If you had read the references before Cunningham removed them, you would see that many sources back up the statement I added. --Davidstrauss 03:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The article Gnosticism in modern times does not mention Scientology or Hubbard. Steve Dufour 13:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Well duh, it is false information anyway. A single newspaper ran a single article which said that. Including it in an appropriate manner is the issue here. Using A Sun article that says aliens are coming to earth as a headline doesn't make sense and using one newspaper article's opinion for the introduction doesn't make sense. Terryeo 15:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Lack of inclusion in a list somewhere is not a good source for removing that classification. In fact, it's not a source for anything but classifying the things it actually lists. --Davidstrauss 03:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Recent destructive edits

Could the person spouting off about policy violations kindly explain why he believes that taking a strongly critical stance in the article (and getting into revert wars in the process) is a good idea? Most people editing this article have reasonably strong views on the subject matter. Most people, however, are managing to edit it without introducing a strongly critical POV.

If the time cube article can get by without taking every opportunity to strongly dispute the subject matter, so can this one. Chris Cunningham 08:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a nuanced difference between the time cube article and Scientology articles. Like it or not, a very strong case can be made for Scientology being a cult, with all of the baggage and overtones that this term implies.
That means we as editors have to take special care to make sure the the material is presented concisely as possible. Your view that the cited sources that put Scientology in an unfavorable light (they have done a lot of questionable things) are a "critical POV" is troubling, as is your rationale for trying to minimize these sources through their placement in the article. heh. Extanto 18:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if I'm "the" person "spouting off" about policy violations, but perhaps the reason a strongly critical stance deserves to be prominently featured in the article is that it is a prominent and widely held POV on the subject? Ya think? The fact is that your edits which attempt to present the Scientology POV as relevant to every sub-topic and all contrary POVs as relevant only to a separate marginalized "controversies" sub-topic do constitute serious policy violations. IF this was a different article, with a much smaller scope, THEN your proposed design might in that case be reasonable -- for instance, an article on the "touch assist" could, after a short introduction, give details on the theory of the touch assist, how Scientology believes the touch assist works, and then gives details of who disputes that and why. But that would be for an article that is structurally very different. This article covers easily eleven to twelve, if not more, sub-topics each of which is easily as complex as the topic of the touch assist. And what you are saying is that a fair presentation of all POVs on all of those sub-topics is all of Scientology's POVs on all of those sub-topics -- and then, last and impliedly least, any differing POVs. The notion that this is a fair presentation is bizarre and nonsensical. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
If our WP:V and concensus arrived at WP:RS are merely followed and fulfilled, a huge amount of editor disagreement will simply disappear. The essence of WP:NPOV is that published information be put together, creating readable articles. As a primary source the Church's publications apply. There are a number of newspaper articles and even a few books on the subject. If the trash talk from newsgroups and personal websites were removed the articles would become less argued about. Until WP:RS is modified by the anti-Scientology editors, or, alternatively, until the articles comply with WP:RS, there is certainly going to be disagreement about including trash talk from newsgroups and personal opinion from personal websites. Terryeo 05:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The current editing conflict

"Hubbard had no qualifications to give pediatric advice and his claims regarding the care of babies and infants are disputed by the majority of doctors and health care professionals." vs. "Hubbard's claims regarding the care of babies and infants are disputed by a number of doctors and health care professionals."

Regarding the issue of "majority" vs. "number" - what is the other option? That Hubart's recommendations are NOT disputed by a majority of professionals? And if Hubbart was not a professional himself, and yet wanted to overhaul the infant care, it should be mentioned in the article.
Yes, mention it all you like in appropriate sections. Justanother 22 August 2006

"Corn syrup is made from maize grain, which was unknown to Europeans before colonization of the New World." - added: "Honey, however, has been known to Western cultures for many thousands of years and the word "honey" appears 61 times in the King James Version of the Bible."

For fairness, it might be appropriate to mention that honey was known by Europeans for ages (even though it is obvious). How many times is honey mentioned in the Bible is completely irrelevant.
Mike Rosoft 10:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The whole purpose of mentioning corn syrup was to hold the topic up to scorn. It is irrelevant as the formula lists honey as a sweetener also. The whole thing was correctly edited out. Justanother 22 August 2006
The information that had been provided, up until now, regarding the Barley Formula, gave the misleading impression that Hubbard had claimed corn syrup to be an original element of the Barley Formula, and honey an ingredient that could be substituted for the corn syrup. If you think it's "irrelevant" for someone to claim that they remembered a formula from a past life containing ingredients that would not have been known at that time and place, I'm afraid you don't understand a thing about NPOV. The point is not to hold it to "scorn" but examine it from points of view other than just the pro-Scientology viewpoint. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think you need to go into details about the history of honey at all - just leave off after Hubbard's claim that he "picked it up in Roman days". If you're going to point out that corn syrup wasn't known to the Romans, you might as well point out that time travel is impossible. Let the facts speak for themselves. Robin Johnson (talk) 10:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Just for the record, Ron was not talking about time travel, he was talking about past-life recall. Justanother 22 August 2006
Or, indeed, one might as well not point any of it out, because the section is about what Hubbard taught and not about what is and is not good for infants. I'm planning on removing anything which even smells like a rebuttal from the beliefs section. lord knows what will happen when people start pulling NASA refs out as rebuttals for the Xenu bit. Chris Cunningham 11:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
You really don't understand what you're doing, do you, Chris? No wonder you thought this was going to be so easy: you didn't think that WP:NPOV would apply. "I'm planning on removing anything which even smells like a rebuttal from the beliefs section." Well, plan on having those NPOV violations repaired. Or better yet, don't violate NPOV by trying to make this "Scientology, from Scientology's point of view only" in the first place. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
(Man, that's a lot of colons) OK, the critic or debunker POV is not neutral. The Scientology side of the issue should be presented sympathetically. THAT is what WP:NPOV dictates. I expand on that below in "# 11 Allegations of pro-Scientology bias".--Justanother 16:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
"The Scientology side of the issue should be presented sympathetically. THAT is what WP:NPOV dictates." Why are you trying to quote WP:NPOV when you have clearly not read it? "As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. It is a point of view that is neutral - that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject." (emphasis added) Yes, yes -- I can read your mind, you know? I already know exactly what your fingers are flying to your keyboard to type. "That means that everything from the debunker POV is a violation of NPOV! You read it there, 'nothing in opposition to its subject'!" Wrong again. It does not say "nothing sympathetic" or "nothing in opposition". It states (again, if you would actually go read WP:NPOV, I wouldn't be having to explain this now) that sympathetic and opposition POVs should be presented, but that Wikipedia should not be asserting any of those POVs as the "correct" one or better than others. What you are proposing, that the "Scientology side of the issue" should be presented more "sympathetically" than the "not neutral" "critic or debunker POV" -- that is complete violation of WP:NPOV. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

It is getting a bit personal but. The presentation of point of view is being addressed. There is no arguement about their being at least 2 widely differing points of view. That there are two, that they are widely separated, actually simplifies the difficulty. Since one point of view is widely published by a reliable (though special interest) source and since the alternate point of view is narrowly published, (half a dozen books and a few dozen newspaper articles) the solution would seem obvious. Still, there is no reason to become uncivil about other points of view because we are, after all, mostly talking about the quality of the information and in rare instances, about the information itself. We're not talking about who has long hair, who takes drugs or such emotional drivel. Terryeo 19:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Gettin' a bit personal here, aren't we! The neutral POV is that of a neutral observer, as in "Hmm, what do we have here? Scientologists believe this and these other fellows believe that". You are reading into my words something I certainly did not put there. I never said that the critic POV should be characterized in the article as "wrong" or should be presented unsympathetically or that Scn POV should have favored status overall. You can have your "Controversy" section and sympathetically present all the in-policy stuff you like. I ask only that you grant me the same right in the B&P section. And thanks for reading my mind, saved me a lot of trouble trying to find it! Now if you would only do so well with my words--Justanother 02:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
For stylistic reasons alone, it's better to keep all POVs on each issue next to each other. It prevents readers from having to jump up and down the page to compare what they've just read. I'm not sure why you feel the need to start moving all of this stuff around - wikipedia is mostly about letting cites speak for themselves. Let's just keep this information in the format that was worked out before you decided to make some mass alterations. Extanto 18:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
While I doubt that it serves any great "stylistic" end to insert debunking-type comments in the Beliefs and Practices section, what is more germane is that it violates the spirit of WP:NPOV.
"Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization — for instance, refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section." Speaks for itself.
Regarding a "critic POV", I believe that people that have steeped themselves in internet lore and have never gotten to know Scientology and Scientologists first-hand and in-depth have no hope of developing a neutral POV. That said, I think that they are entitled to their POV and that this article is the place to describe it. But that doesn't make it any part of the "Beliefs and Practices of Scientology".--Justanother 19:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Of course, what you're ignoring is that many of the fiercest critics of Scientology are those who did "[get] to know Scientology and Scientologists first-hand and in-depth" over years and even decades. And what you're saying -- that the "critic POV" isn't "any part of the 'Beliefs and Practices of Scientology'" -- is equivalent to saying that the "Beliefs and Practices of Scientology" section is inherently POV. Well, guess what? When an article is inherently POV, it gets deleted. There are two options -- we can delete the "beliefs and practices" section, according to your own assertion that it is inherently and inalterably biased towards the Scientology POV, and make this article less well organized. Or, the more reasonable solution -- we can have a "beliefs and practices" section that reflects both POVs. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Not ignoring them at all. I just feel that critics that know Scn are the minority of critics and a sizable percentage of them are sympathetic to many aspects of Scn while decrying policies and management. I actually think many of them could write a decent B&P section and I have already stated as much on this page. What I perceive as "critic POV" is a POV born solely of second-hand knowledge gleaned from the internet and the media and almost acheiving the status of an internet meme.
I find your arguement that the B&P section cannot be NPOV without inline criticism specious. All that is required is that a neutral observer stand back and report what Scientologists believe as in "Scientologists believe . . ." and then report what they practice as in "Scientologists do this . . ." What are you afraid of? Do you think wikipedians are incapable of creating that neutral report? Are you afraid that the reader won't make it to the controversy section? But the controversy is introduced prominantly in the introduction and there is that table of contents right there preceding the B&P section. I am sure many will skip right to the juicy bits without reading the B&P at all.--Justanother 05:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
So, for an article like Scientology versus the Internet which is mainly about controversy, we can take all the church viewpoint stuff and shove it into a "What they say" section? Hmmm. AndroidCat 05:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Hey. I'm not familiar with the article; I am familiar enough with the actuality, I guess. But since you say the article is about the controversy, I would say this. Imagine a depiction of a boxing match. How much sense would it make if first we described the champ's movements and blows throughout the entire match then did the same for the challenger. That would be pretty wierd. But this article is not like that at all. This is about a thing called Scientology that is controversial but not itself a controversy. It exists apart from its controversy. It is a religion and a belief system. So tell about the religion, tell about the structure, and tell about the controversy. The fact is that that format would make for a very readable article. --Justanother 06:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Descriptive tone in the non-controversy section

I've removed all the botulism stuff just now because I couldn't find a good place to put it. It belongs somewhere in the controversies section.

It's better if the article outside of controversies sticks to reporting what Scientology claims and does rather than trying to disprove it all. Not only does it read better, it allows the controversies section to expand on whatever it likes. Chris Cunningham 11:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm restoring what you removed because you've clearly demonstrated that you have no idea what you're doing and don't intend to abide by the non-negotiable of WP:NPOV. To have a subtopic "Silent birth and infant care", to put all information from the pro-Scientology point of view regarding silent birth and infant care under that header, but artificially remove any information from any other POV on that sub-topic to a "controversies" section? That would be hilarious if you weren't actually serious about it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
It isn't "pro-Scientology", it is "Scientologists believe that..." If you think that any mention of the belief system which doesn't present criticism is "pro-scientology" then you're no better than people who think the BBC is "irredeemably biased" for failing to criticise Middle Eastern leaders while reporting on them. As for the personal attacks, the charge that I'm incompetent is as hollow as the one that I'm tacitly rooting for Scientology. Please grow up. Chris Cunningham 08:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I will attempt to explain it again, since you don't seem to get it, and want to just toss off clever bon mots like "Please grow up". There is no way that we can pretend that the presentation of a subject meets the non-negotiable requirement of NPOV if it presents the POVs of some parties on that subject, but neglects or even worse, bans other significant POVs on the subject.
Now if we are describing something with objective existence (say, the Super Power Building, just to give a random example), it is possible to discuss it in two ways that would satisfy NPOV: by describing all POVs on the subject equally, or by describing only the objective facts and none of the POVs on the subject. Over the course of an article, the best approach would probably be a combination of the two: first describe the objective facts with none of the POVs, and then follow it with a description of all POVs. This would be, ideally, after an introduction that briefly introduces the subject and identifies major points that should be known about it, including major points of controversy.
However, in this case, the subject is a belief system. That means there is no way to present only the subject and none of the various POVs on the subject; the subject is one of the POVs! To present Hubbard's POV that the Barley Formula is perfectly healthy for infants and better even than their own mother's milk, and to surpress the POV of modern pediatric medicine that, so far from being better, the Formula could be fatal -- there is simply no way that can be NPOV, and I'm afraid I have trouble believing that anyone who gave it two seconds' honest thought could even believe it could be NPOV. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Scientology = knowledge, the word itself means, knowing how to know. That a person can know emotion (Tone scale) may be beyond some people conception. That a person can know they are an eternal being (Thetan) is likewise, beyond people's belief. However, it is presented as knowledge and is not presented as belief. The Church of Scientology presents belief, the philosophy, Scientology presents potential knowledge. Terryeo 19:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
It does not matter one whit that the beliefs of Scientology are presented as "knowledge" and not as what they really are, beliefs. If I wanted to I could start my own "religion" selling an "applied religious philosophy" and I could tell all my followers that playing "Flight of the Bumblebee" on the kazoo every morning would bring about a utopian civilization on Earth, and I could tell them that this was unquestionable fact and therefore they didn't just believe that this was so, they knew it to be so. But where is my authority to make that declaration? What gives me the right? I can say all I like about "Feldsparism is the science of the knowledge of the rightness of the science of how to know how to know and thus every part of Feldsparism is knowledge!" But it would be circular logic, of course, if one of my converts tried to argue that "Feldsparism is knowledge! How do I know it's knowledge? Because Feldsparism says so! How do I know that Feldsparism is correct in saying so? Because Feldsparism is knowledge!" -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
The information is not being presented as normative. While I haven't had the pleasure of checking the Christianity article, I dare say that the line immediately following the one about Christians believing in the Resurrection is not one which says "the overwhelming majority of scientists do not think dead men can float out of the roofs of caves..."? It is imperative that in the Beliefs section Hubbard's actual beliefs are given, not in a sympathetic manner but in a neutral description of his words. It is imperative that it is noted that the barley water formula is junk science and potentially dangerous. It is not necessary for these two parts to be juxtaposed. The current beliefs section does not espouse a POV and nor does the rebuttal. Chris Cunningham 07:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
You know, I rather love the way you confidently declare the results you would get if you checked something you yourself admit you didn't actually check. As it happens, there is no specific disputation in the Christianity article about the plausibility of the Resurrection; this might just possibly be because there isn't actually any real-world controversy over the Resurrection. Not that everyone believes in the Resurrection, of course -- they don't. But most people don't have a reason to care. By contrast, take a look at Roman Catholic Church#Catholic teachings on human sexuality -- while that section is shamefully lacking in details, it puts both the Catholic teaching on human sexuality, the POV that is the sub-topic, together with the contrasting critical POVs on the subject, as it should be. As I have stated before, you cannot present one POV and suppress contrasting POVs and call that NPOV; if the sub-topic is a POV, that simply makes it necessary to present the contrasting POVs under the same sub-topic header, rather than making it permissible to disregard NPOV and treat "The Barley Formula is an excellent way to make babies healthy!" as relevant to the sub-topic "Silent birth and infant care" and "The Barley Formula can be fatal" as relevant to ... the sub-topic "Controversies", found way at the back of the article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

There is probably no reliable, published source of information which states, "Scientologists believe that .... (the moon is made of green cheese)" and WP:NPOV requires that articles be created from published information. WP:V spells out what published information and WP:RS spells out what sources of information may be considered for inclusion and what sources should be excluded. When a major newspaper publishes, Scientologists believe the moon is made of green cheese, then that can be included. Until then, any such statement is original research, a conclusion drawn from the Church of Scientology's stated beliefs which also spells out that a person is a Scientologist who declares himself to be a Scientologist. And there is no other qualification. No belief required, no knowledge required, no membership required, no holy sacrement nor declaration required, no act of god. Simply a person stating, "I am a Scientologist". So there is no way that a blanket statement of Scientologist's beliefs can enter an article unless previously published by a reliable source. Terryeo 19:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey Terryeo. I think it is very easy indeed to document what Scientologist believe and practice by published materials. Just use the Scn homepage and WIS and all the org publications like Advance or Source. Also every HCOB, HCOPL, book, etc. Those are all valid published materials and should be regarded as authorities on what Scientologists believe and practice.--Justanother 23:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

My recent edits

I made some edits to the Silent Birth section because it was slanted against Scientology and Hubbard in an inappropiate manner.

ex. Mentioning that corn syrup was not available to Romans without mentioning that honey was.

ex. Using the loaded term concoction in relation to the Barley Formula.

ex. Making the unsubstantiated claim that Hubbard had no qualifications to give advice on children. I have children and that gives even me some qualification. Hubbard was self-educated in the field of nutrition and many of his writings show that.

ex. Stating that most medical experts discount anything without substantiating that claim is just silly.

I could go on.

I am an ex-Scientologist and though I am no great supporter of the CoS, I recognize a slant when I see one. I offered balance in the article.

What I discovered in the process was a number of admins and editors that I imagine are Scientology critics and let their personal feelings color their responsibilities as wikipedia editors. I saw a failure to read and evaluate before reverting and little attempt to make contributory changes or corrections to my edit. I saw my valid edits treated as vandalism.

The sub-article was clearly heavily critic POV influenced and I brought a balance to it.

This is the Belief and Practices Section. I wonder how many "contributors" have any 1st hand knowledge of actual beliefs and practices of Scientology? And how many are inappropriately using the section to mock, ridicule, and try to disprove it? There are other areas where you can do that.

I see that Thumperward revised my edits in an appropriate manner to restore neutral POV to the sub-article. Thank you.

I do not do much editing in wikipedia and do not know if I will do more. If I do it will be in the direction taken by Thumperward of removing inappropriate material while contributing the balanced viewpoint of someone that understands Scientologists and their motivations. Justanother 21 August 2006]

I suggest you read WP:3RR, as well as check how much back-and-forth was done on that section previously. AndroidCat 11:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I did no reverts and in fact I don't even know how to do a revert. My valid edits were treated as vandalism by critical editors/admins violating the principle of Harmonious Editing, and IMHO, the spirit of wikipedia: that a person with a bit more knowledge can bring a bit more to the article. This is the Belief and Practices part of the article for Xenu's sake! Justanother 22 August 2006
I only took a brief look at the reverts happening yesterday, but I suspect some of your changes might be considered to violate WP:NPOV#Undue_weight and WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience. A page that gives equal weight to both scientific and pseudoscientific viewpoints is probably a violation of NPOV... it should be 'slanted' towards the scientific view. Mark Grant 12:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but the point is that the article is not claiming that any of Hubbard's claims match reality. The article is merely saying that this is what Scientology teaches. Were it to actually state that humans are experiencing past lives or that feeding babies honey is a good idea then you'd have a point, but it isn't; it's just pointing out that this is what Hubbard taught. It makes for a poor article to constantly make inline rebuttals while reporting things like this. And there's a rather prominent controversies section for people to point out scientific distrust for Scientology. Chris Cunningham 12:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Well said. My error was in trying to balance the overtly critical inclusions when I should have simply edited them out. Though I imagine that the same cadre that reverted my balancing would have done the same to that editing. Justanother 13:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Further, my read of WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience is that the article should not be "slanted" at all. "[T]he task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view" (please read on in the quoted ref also). I feel that the beliefs and practices part of this article should pretty much belong to people that can comment on it with authority and 1st hand knowledge (backed up by appropriate references, of course). I think that many critics that have extensive experience in the Church can accomplish that as can those Scientologists that can manage a somewhat objective POV, not to mention non-critical ex-Scientologists. In other words, fairly and fully present the beliefs and practices as believed and practiced, not some criticism of them. Label it the "minority view" and then the critics can knock themselves out as the "majority view" (backed up by appropriate references, of course).--Justanother 20:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position

I continue to learn more about editing in wikipedia. I can see that we have to be cautious about "Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position" in this article. This is a violation of one of the main principles of wikipedia - No Original Research.

Case in point: the recently deleted concept that the "Barley Formula" is potentially unsafe is a clear violation of that standard. The writer took the published "Barley Formula contains sweeteners" plus "sweeteners can cause infant botulism" and synthesized "The Barley Formula is potentially dangerous". This statement constitutes original research and is not admissable unless first validated in a peer-reviewed publication.--Justanother 16:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Requested semi-protection

Due to lots of anonymous vandalism in the last 48 hours (including some from dynamic IP's), I've requested semi-protection for the article. Vpoko 20:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The page has been semiprotected, hopefully that should reduce the reverts. Vpoko 02:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)