Talk:Scientology/Archive 15

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 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 →

Contents

Talk:Scientology

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Talk:Scientology, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. 134.129.149.203 05:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Trollus interruptus, I guess... BTfromLA 08:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Few - Some - Many - Most

We should really put this to bed. I pulled the descriptics because I think it is "many" if not "most" (scholars and governments consider Scn a bona-fide religion). And certainly if we are talking scholars, especially NRM scholars. Heck, even Steven Kent acknowledges that Scn is an NRM (or at least that many of his NRM colleagues would judge it one) but then makes the point that it is ALSO something else; IMO, he basically begs the question because he knows that to say that Scientology is NOT a religion is a minority stance. I quote him below, not because I agree with him, but to illustrate my point that even the most critical researcher cannot deny Scn's religious nature if he wants to preserve his credibility:

Rather than struggling over whether or not to label Scientology as a religion, I find it far more helpful to view it as a multifaceted transnational corporation, only one element of which is religious.[1]

Germany is very much in the minority by not acknowledging Scn as a religion. The UN and EU Council both do along with most nations that allow freedom of religion. But rather than argue the point incessently I pulled the modifiers. Now they are coming back in. "Some" is not a compromise (although I appreciate the effort); it is, IMO, flatly misleading. Comments? --Justanother 15:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we just change the paragraph to state that there is disagreement about Scientology being a bona fide religeon and include some sources to both sides of the argument. I think that would be better than invoking some/most/many generic scholars to support our argument. All of those are Wikipedia:Weasel Words anyway. VxP 16:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but simply labelling Kent "the most critical researcher" and pointing to one sentence where his wording does not deny any religious aspect to Scientology does not make the issue settled. One might as well take a random sentence from some other researcher that began "When the sun rose in the sky the next morning" and claim that, because that researcher did not say "When the Earth rotated in relation to the Sun sufficiently that observers in the geographical location in question were able to observe it in the sky, that clearly that researcher "cannot deny" Ptolemy's model of the universe, where Earth stays in the center of the universe and the sun moves in relation to it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Theres a difference between just calling Scientology a religion verbally and recognising them by law as a religion and providing them with all the special laws that most all established religions use, "many if not most" of Europian governments do not legally recognise Scientology as a religion and this trend continues throughout Mid Asia. Also the only Source on the page Ive seen to quote that its generally accepted among scholars to be a religion comes from Scientology themself which I dont think anyone can agree is a decent source, Im trying to find another source saying the opposite in English but Im not a very good searcher. Joneleth 02:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure this has been debated at length before here, it certainly has been many times elsewhere. So here's my opinion (again!).
Scientology (as a set of beliefs) either constitutes a religion or it does not. The Church of Scientology (as an organisation) is either a religion or it is not. These are however separate debates, because 'religion' has two separate meanings. The first paragraph of our article expresses this difference clearly, but the third paragraph contradicts it and the rest falls back into muddled thinking in which 'scientology' is illogically beliefs and an organisation simultaneously.
But please return to your unresolveable discussion. I long ago realised I'm in a minority on this one.
--Hartley Patterson 01:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Good points. It can be fixed. I will propose a new 3rd paragraph when I have a bit of time. --Justanother 17:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Needs some work on the cites but how is it now? --Justanother 18:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Im happy with the new version. Joneleth 05:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a good start! In places 'the Church' is used, and that needs to to made consistent throughout. If the organization is meant 'the Church', if the beliefs 'Scientology'. That isn't possible with quotes of course. --Hartley Patterson 00:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I shouldn't be considered a religon, it's a cult in my book. Any group that charges money to join isn't out to save souls or whatnot. Do you see Baptists charing money to become Christians? I know this isn't very neutral but I think it's nothing more but a scam created by L. Ron Hubbard. He did say that the most profitable thing to do was to start your own religon. 22:40 February 20, 2007 - Fentoro

What needs to be addressed, I think, by all those who deem scientology to be a religion, is "what is a religion?". Perhaps a quick detour via the Invisible Pink Unicorn page might give some clues. Those who think scientology is a religion, should have absolutely no problem with calling Wal-Mart a church. By the by, perhaps those who wax lyrically about the religious virtues of scientology ought to check the laws of different countries before they start calling scientology a globally accepted, "bona-fide" religion. Don't get me wrong, dear scientologists and non-ditto, I have nothing against *scientology*. If an activity makes people content and happy, that's completely fine by me. Some people become happy if the can smear feces in the face of their lover(s). That's fine by me, too. As long as it doesn't hurt anyone else, neither physically or mentally. Do I think scientology is wacky? Sure I do. Finally we have produced a cult that makes christianity -- what with virgin births and raising of the dead and demons and that -- seem like a coherent, dead-pan ideology. Still, if people want to believe in space aliens and bombed volcanoes and such, go ahead. I have no problem with that. But I digress, scientology is not a religion, but a cult. Not even a religious cult at that. --Tirolion 09:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


It is profoundly not our job to decide if Scientology "is" a religion. The definition of "religion" isn't just something that religionists disagree on; academics who study religion also can't agree on what makes a religion. And, of course, legal systems, judges, and so on also don't agree on what practices constitute religion and what practices constitute (say) business, or medical fraud, or some other not-religion thing.

This is, however, Wikipedia. We are not here to prove that Scientology is wacky, or that Christianity is wacky, or any other such thing. We are, however, here to discuss and present verifiable facts and allow readers to draw their own conclusion.

Some people say that Scientology is a business, not a religion. It isn't our place to say whether they're right or wrong. However, if the person saying so is a judge writing a decision in court, then their saying-so is notable and we need to put it in the article. By putting it in the article we aren't saying that the judge's belief is right; we're saying that a court decision is important.

Some people say that auditing is proven to cure mental illness, or that Clears don't get colds, or that OTs have perfect memory. It isn't our place to say whether they're right or wrong. However, if those "some people" are L. Ron Hubbard, then it is very pertinent to the subject of Scientology, what claims he made about it. Moreover, if there are verifiable scientific studies on the matter, we can cite those studies and talk about what they said. We're not assuming they're right; we're saying that a scientific study is worth talking about.

Some people say that OT III is goofy and proves that Scientology is a bunch of nonsense or a scam. Again, it isn't our place to say they're right or wrong. However, if we have verifiable documents that say what OT III is about (and we do) then we can describe what those documents say. If there are material claims in OT III about things such as volcanoes in Hawaii that contradict geological science, and someone has done the scholarship to show the contradiction (and someone has) then we can cite what they have to say on it.

In each case, it isn't Wikipedia's place to say which opinion is right. It is Wikipedia's place to provide the information -- including information about scholarly work, legal opinions, and underlying documents and subject matter -- so that readers can learn for themselves.

We aren't here to tell people that Scientology is or is not a religion. We are here to inform them of the information and views that they need to know to have a broad general understanding of the subject. That is what an encyclopedia does. --FOo 10:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I quite agree. There are, however, some things that are perhaps pertinent to the discussion. For instance, aspirin cures headaches, still I don't see medicine heralded as a religion. People who exercise regularly get fewer colds (on average) than "clears" do (on average), still I don't see sports heralded as a religion. Et cetera. Et cetera. Moreover, to simply claim superhuman abilities (that are never, ever verified, by the way) without any sort of proof to back up those claims doesn't turn science fiction into a religion. Girl dame, even the Force and Dark Side mumbo jumbo from the Star Wars movies is a better written religious tract. Scientology is, indeed, nothing but a pyramid scam business. On the other hand, I have to disagree a bit when you wrote (and I quote) "we are not here to prove that scientology is wacky". We don't need to "prove" anything, scientology takes care of that all by itself. Other than these minor points, I quite agree with you, FOo. It isn't really our job to decide whether a in-and-out-of-court-rooms, greedy, non-verifiable, life threatening and ultimately dangerous cult is a religion or not. I am merely pointing out a few facts and voicing my opinion. Thank you. --Tirolion 14:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I could not help but notice that many confusing statements get make of Scientology (at least to me). so I asking a long time Scientologist that used to work in it's management, he got confused too by some of these statements. Such is it's accuracy. I don't know what OT III contains but I do know that the bible has some outrages things too. I will give this church on thing, it is different, yet not all that different. -SM

Urgent need for source

Neither the humanrights-germany (which by the way is not a WP:RS) nor the other site say anything about the UN. Has anyone got a source for this statement? yandman 16:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, good point. While I doubt that the UN "certifies religions as bona-fide", take a look at this report entitled IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DECLARATION ON THE ELIMINATION OF ALL FORMS OF INTOLERANCE AND OF DISCRIMINATION BASED ON RELIGION OR BELIEF. Germany figures in the report prominently and solely for their discrimination against Scientologists. The implication of the UN's concern is that Scientology is a "religion or belief" of sufficient validity to justify their interest. Not exactly what you ask for but . . . --Justanother 16:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Here is another of the UN again protecting CoS rights, this time specifically as a "new religion". --Justanother 17:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I won't let me open the first link, I think you have to trawl through their site to get it yourself. I'll try and have a look for it myself. The second one only reports what one of the "state representatives" said, not the official position of the UN. I found one UN PDF that seemed to take no stance on the issue, and this BBC article is very carefully worded to show that the UN has neither endorsed nor rejected scientology. In any case, none of these are resolutions accepted by the UN as a whole. I'll have a look to see what else I can find. yandman 17:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I doubt the UN is in the business of issuing resolutions accepting a particular religion as "bona-fide". It is more to be inferred from how they treat the group. Try this for the first. Re the second; that comment is by a UN committee member, not a French represntative. The point is that you do not protect someone's rights as a new religion if you do not see them as a new religion and the UN has a good history of taking an interest in the rights of the CoS as a religion. --Justanother 17:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
This is like the "scholars" thing, we're inferring a position that hasn't been taken. Let's just leave the UN out of this - it's clear that Scientology is considered a religeon by some and not others, surely we can find a few sources without having to overly interpert what someone may have implied. This, by the way, is why we Wikipedia prefers secondary, and not primary, sources. VxP 17:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Good point. That bit was not my contrib. Though I think that we can use the primary sources I found to source that the UN has a history of defending the religious rights of Scientologists. --Justanother 17:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't ge how anyone can consider it a religon along the lines of Buddhism or ect. it seems a lot like a cult to me. Maybe if they didn't charge to join I'd be less of a skeptic.

New Comment

He very clearly is a science fiction writer and very good at that, since this whole Scientology thing looks just like a really bad pulp fiction ready to receive the proper Ed Wood treatment... a fool is born every minute...

Why do you keep deleting "science fiction author" I think its pretty clear he is a science fiction author, please provide reason or I'll revert it. Joneleth 15:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe this has already been discussed. See the talk page archives. yandman 15:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Going through the archives it seems all the discussions ended with calling him a pulp fiction writer instead of a science fiction writer, neither which are used which brings me back to the original question. Joneleth 14:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Neither Dianetics nor Scientology were "developed by a science fiction writer" and I can only see insistence on characterizing Hubbard as such as a continued and inherently POV effort to degrade his work and his contribution. However, that view has been voted down as regards Dianetics as that did seem to spring full-blown from Hubbard's pen (although we have no way of knowing if that were the case) and it was first presented to the sci-fi community in a sci-fi/science mag. OK, then. But Scientology is not the same at all. What we should call him is a researcher and philosopher. Sorry guys but that is the truth. He set up the Dianetics Research Foundation and his continued work with Dianetics led to the principles of Scientology. He continued researching and developing Scientology for the next 30 years. He essentially stopped being an author and became a researcher even if he was not one before Dianetics. --Justanother 15:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Dianetics and Scientology was developed by a science fiction writer, whether or not they are science fiction is a completly other discussion but denying Hubbards past in an attempt to put Scientology in a better light doesnt seem right to me. And if you think he stopped being an author all together when he started making scientology, then both terms should be removed, but when he did start on making scientology he was per definition a science fiction writer.Joneleth 08:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Calling him a science fiction writer is relevant even to his invention of Scientology, because at least critics have linked the two by suggesting that Scientology is an extention of his writing. True or not, the accusation is notable. VxP 14:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hubbard was a science fiction writer. As much as it might make some squirm in their chairs, Scn is a UFO religion - it posits that the earth is a penal colony for super able beings. That the UFO stuff has little or no bearing on general practice is true but irrelevant. The fact is most people think that it is ludicrous that the Earth was colonized by aliens. I happen to think that a planet that has had a thriving biosphere for over a billion years will have had some sort of interaction with any extant spacefaring civilizations in the galaxy. After accepting that idea, overpopulation, prison colonies, evil dictators, brainwashing and killing folks in big ovens are pretty easy for me to swallow (because I understand a little bit of history) but they aren't for most. So the Space Opera aspects are core to an outsiders (mis)understanding of Scn. Admittedly, the fact that hubbard was a science fiction writer will tend to reinforce the kookiness idea but c'est la vie. I would like to see him termed simply a writer - this seems more accurate and neutral, but Science fiction writer is not inaccurate nor is it inherently derogatory.---Slightlyright 17:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


I have absolutely no problem with Hubbard being referred to as a science fiction writer. It's nothing to be ashamed of, and I don't think it casts any negative shadow on Scientology. Although he wrote in several genres, it's no secret that science fiction was his primary field in fiction. From writersofthefuture.com  :

"It was Mr. Hubbard's trendsetting work in this field from 1938 to 1950, particularly, that not only helped to expand the scope and imaginative boundaries of science fiction and fantasy but indelibly established him as one of the founders of what continues to be regarded as the genre's Golden Age."

By the way, Slightlyright, I'd like to hear your opinion of the discussion going on at Talk:Space opera in Scientology doctrine. Highfructosecornsyrup 18:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
That quote obviously comes from the PR dept at Galaxy Press/ASI, who are about the only people who would descibe him that way. AndroidCat 12:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I dont agree with just calling him an Author though, I think its whitewashing. If you dont think his previous proffesion has relevance to the article then thats fine with me then lets just delete any title infront of his name, but just calling him an Author is whitewash. Joneleth 20:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I still go with not "calling him" anything and just making the first mention of his name just that; the first mention of his name; before trying to pigeon-hole him. To the degree that I cannot get agreement on that concept then I would term him "the pulp-fiction author L. Ron Hubbard" for Dianetics and "the creator of Dianetics, L. Ron Hubbard" for Scientology because if he was a pulp author when he created Dianetics then he was certainly a Dianeticist when he created Scientology. What about that? --Justanother 01:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Dianetics is a part of Scientology, its not an independent subject. You might as well write "Scientology was created by Scientologist L. Ron Hubbard" Joneleth 17:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Your recent change is fine with me. --Justanother 19:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The article begins saying that Scientology is a body of text... Wouldn't it be more true to qualify it saying that it is either a "self-help body of text" or a "religious body of text"? It otherwise seems too generic. PowerofGod 13:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The entire article is about explaining what kind of text it is, I fail to see the point in making a deterministic adjective to it. Joneleth 15:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Another unresolvable debate, since 'science fiction' evokes different responses from people. Some regard it as a legitimate literary genre, others as pulp fiction trash. I'd venture to suggest that Church members are just as divided: on the one hand the Church has tried to conceal that the first article about Dianetics appeared in an SF magazine, on the other hand it sponsors the 'Writers of the Future' Awards. So, for some people the concept of an SF author founding a religion is laughable because SF is rubbish. For others, it has no such negative connotation. Since we're stuck with these mixed perceptions, 'author' seems NPOV to me. --Hartley Patterson 01:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree --Justanother 02:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The argument is that inclusion debases the proposition that this is a legitimate religion; however, the exclusion of such a fact makes scientology only a religion in a fictional context (an interesting thought considering what is being argued) or is basically implying that scientology cannot be a religion in the face of the truth. This is a big article. People will believe what they will with or without one term. No one is arguing to include anything that is speculation and there are plenty of science fiction writers held in high regard. Keep in mind, people who are anti-sci-fi will laugh at scientology for its substance, which is very sci-fi, not because Hubbard is properly labeled a sci-fi author. Its inclusion isn't hurting anyone's perception. That’s my take anyway. I think I'm going to go argue about whether or not Jesus was a carpenter over in the Christianity article because it debases the idea that he could be the son of God with such an earthy position.

We are not suppose to make articles based on what emotions it evokes in people, true this would be a discussion if it was a word that was far more vague than this, but he was infact a science fiction writer and theres nothing inheritly POV about it. You might as well say calling Scientology a religion is POV because to some people it would be ridiculous for them calling it a religion. Joneleth 18:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm opening a can of worms here. "It began in 1952 as a self-help philosophy" could be wrong.

I remember reading an artical in the 1960's by a well known science fiction writer (who's name I can't now remember lol) who was present when it was started. According to him it was the result of a group of writers discussing religion. Hubbard told them he could probably invent a new religion himself and people would be gullible enough to follow it. If I remember correctly a bet was made as to whether he could and it took off from there. Hubbard began to make money from it so kept it going. People with better research skills than me may be able to track that artical down. Just to assuage believers maybe this was God's way of introducing it. Wayne 05:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It was an artical by Joe Haldeman that described the bet. How could I forget the author of one of my favourite books "The Forever War"? Wayne 09:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


What is this supposed to MEAN?

"Although believers may be free to openly practice Scientology, the organized Church of Scientology has often encountered opposition."

The first part of this sentence makes no sense, or at least how I'm reading it. Mind sharing insight? --Wooty Woot? contribs 04:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Makes no sense to me either. Should be rewritten or removed. Highfructosecornsyrup 04:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah that is mine after I stripped out a bit of uncited based on an objection to it as uncited. It was supposed to say:

Although believers are normally free to openly practice Scientology in nations that permit freedom of religion, the organized Church of Scientology has often encountered opposition

and was based on some readings of mine of UN defenses of Scientology's rights but I never got a good cite up as they were all primary sources and kind of open to interpretation so the freedom of religion part did not stand. Do with it what you will. --Justanother 05:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Makes perfect sense to me, while many dont recognize Scientology as a religion they dont prevent thier users from practising it by outlawing it. Joneleth 07:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

To me this makes sense in saying that the beliefs of scientology are allowed to be practised, but the practices of the Church have been banned in places. There's nothing to stop anyone practicising the religion outside the Church. The Enlightened 17:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It means what you want it to. Opposition occurs in the US as well, from friends and family who attempt to stop new followers from becoming too involved. I think it's fine as-is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.207.151.123 (talk • contribs) 06:02, 23 December 2006

I think that this article should contain a list of which countries accept it and which do not, and from there just keep running up to date tabs.

Time to archive?

getting pretty long. ---Slightlyright 18:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Is partial archiving possible? Because bottom subjects are still being discussed. Joneleth 20:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. yandman 15:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

POV = Bad

Just a heads-up for people wanting to edit this page to show their dislike for Scientology: we don't need to vandalize this page or insert our own POV into the article. The madnesses of Scientology will be made quite clear by an unbiased article.203.131.167.26 10:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I knew someone else that used to say the same thing. I fear that your point may fly over the heads of more extreme editors though. --Justanother 15:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Please no personal attacks (or sly hints to personal attacks)- there is no place for them here. Panfakes 11:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Small Missinfo

Quote: "The word itself is a pairing of the Latin word scientia ("knowledge", "skill"), which comes from the verb scire ("to know"), and the Greek λογος lógos ("reason" or "inward thought" or "logic" or "an account of")."


λογος or as we would write it logos means "Word".

There probably aren't many people who care if people belive what scientology teaches, but most of them would like to keep wikipedia free of missinformation. The "an account of" can be kept as a correct meaning, which makes second of two meanings of the word λογος.

Note: Logice, es, f. - (meaning)logic is a latin derivate which came from the word λογος and λογος in it's meaning is in no way linked to the word logic. But one could translate it as "statement" and hand in some arguments to back up what message one ment to broadcast with given name of his standings. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.152.247.59 (talk) 00:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

From here

The word Scientology, conceived by L. Ron Hubbard, comes from the Latin scio which means “know” or “distinguish,” and from the Greek word logos which means “reason itself” or “inward thought.” Thus it means the study of wisdom or knowledge. It means knowing how to know. Scientology, however, is defined as the study and handling of the spirit in relationship to itself, universes and other life.

I have heard Hubbard say that logos also means "word" and Scientology could be literally taken as "I know the word". It is important to remember that the meaning of the word in the Greek language does not have to equal its usage in forming English words. Most studies are -ology, ex. biology. --Justanother 03:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Pistashio

Exploring L. Ron Hubbard's anonymously authored blueprint for Scientology: The Brainwashing Manual - External link for Brian Ambry's 'Brainwashing Manual Parallels in Scientology':

http://www.freewebs.com/slyandtalledgy/Brainwashing%20Manual%20Parallels%20in%20Scientology.pdf

Why do you keep spamming this link everywhere? yandman 14:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Controversial

The Enlightened made an edit to add controversial to the opening sentence "Scientology is a controversial body of teachings and related techniques...". Justanother reverted it with the comment Oh please - as in "Judaism 'controversial is the religion of the Jewish people." All belief systems have detractors. The CoS maybe called that.

I think to refer to Scientology as controversial is a neutral POV fair comment - this talk page is branded with a template saying just that. However, I support removing the word from the opening line. It does not add anything to the article as controversy is well covered in its own section. AntiVan 06:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly - I have no problem with discussion of controversy. I do object to "front-loading". I could just as well put "popular" or "fast-growing". So let's just not, OK? --Justanother 13:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and I sometimes don't proof my edit summaries as well as I should. That was supposed to say "Oh please - as in "Judaism is the controversial religion of the Jewish people." All belief systems have detractors. The CoS may be called that (controversial)." --Justanother 13:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I disagree, I don't feel it is unfair to mention that term early on at all. Seeing that one side (i.e. Scientologists) regard it as a set of teachings as a self-help philosophy and many many others see it as simply a scam/cult/pyramid scheme, I think the phrase "set of controversial teachings" as actually a summation tilting in favour of Scientology. "Controversial" doesn't even meaning something negative - simply that there are contrasting views on the matter. The Enlightened 14:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
"body of teachings and related techniques" is NPOV and what it is best described as if we care to be NPOV. "Controversial body of teachings and related techniques" is your opinion. I don't think the "body of teachings and related techniques" is any more "controversial" than any other belief system including atheism but I don't see "controversial" as the first idea in other articles. Let's at least start the article without getting into any imagined "controversy". --Justanother 15:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no ideology that is not "controversial"; therefore the adjective is tautological at best and demagogic at worst. I consider it a substitute euphemism for "dubious". Fossa?! 15:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between ideologies that generate a lot of disagreement, and others that have been condemned by liberal democratic governments as "dangerous". Besides, my point is that it is not the religious views that are controversial as such, it is the "techniques" of "self-help" that have been condemned as damaging by scientists outside the group. You are quite welcome to take words as you wish but the truth of the matter is that "controversial" does not mean "dubious" it means "pertaining to controversy". And controversy means "a prolonged public dispute, debate, or contention; disputation concerning a matter of opinion." Perhaps the word would be better placed later in the sentence to make it clear: "Scientology is a body of teachings and related controversial techniques..."? The Enlightened 17:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
First, it is the CoS, not the belief system, that is termed dangerous by Germany for instance and that is because Germany is taking the stand that Hubbard's writings that someday all government might be based on Scientology or on his org board or whatever, Germany is taking that to mean that the CoS has "anti-democratic" goals. That is really a ludicrous stretch but there you have it. Nothing to do with the belief system, per se. Additionally, the "techniques" are only controversial to those that confuse spiritual gain with physical gain. The techniques are all aimed at spiritual gain. That mental and physical gain often follows may be widely believed and mentioned but do not change the fact that Scientology deals in the spirit. The only exception to that might be the Purification rundown which is designed to release fat-soluble impurities in the body that may have effects that impair the spiritual gains. So that would, to me, be the only part where "scientists" may jump in and say "no, it doesn't" or whatever. Doesn't mean that they would be right (others say other things) but just that there is controversy. So no, as a whole, Scientology is not controversial. I will AGF that it is not put there as the allowable way to say "dubious" but that does not change that it is contentious and does not belong there. There is plenty of "controversy" presented already. --Justanother 17:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
First, yes, the bulk of controversy refers to the operations and activites of the Church. However, if you insist I can go and find references to official state reports in Australia that condemns the actual practicies of the auditing as damaging and dangerous. This refers to the "techniques" mentioned in the first sentence. The claim that mental and physical gain follows "spiritual" gain is also spurious and many non-Scientologist professionals would refute it. Improvement of one's IQ is one such claim that mainstream scientists would refute, and have often charged the methods of Scientology as being false science. Indeed the claim that "spiritual" and "physical" beliefs can be separated is a belief in itself and not a separation that all people would accept. As such the claim that the teachings can improve spiritual gain which then causes physical gain is massively controversial to a very large number of health professionals outside Scientology. Yes, there is much controversy covered below in the article, but it also needs to be mentioned for those who just stop by and read the first paragraph. The Enlightened 19:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Let's be clear that calling things "spurious" is your POV and that of like-thinkers to you. Even medical professionals with attest to the value of spiritual state in physical healing and it is mostly atheists and the most close-minded of believers in Scientism that will deny the obvious; that the spirit of man has a part in his mental and physical health. Good luck with that position cause you are way in the minority on this planet (thank God). So it is not "massively controversial" but is not much controversial at all. And if some report or other said that the practices are dangerous then so what; that is not, by any means, a blanket condemnation; it is one report. And is Scientology now allowed in Australia? So what then of that report? We can all show each other reports. Based on your comments above, I now think that "controversial" is indeed code for "dubious". --Justanother 19:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I accept "spurious" was the wrong word to use. I should have said something like "questionable". Which medical professionals attest to the value of spiritual state in physical healing? What do you mean by "spiritual state"? If by spiritual you mean emotional well-being I would agree with you. If by spiritual you mean the state of the soul then I would not agree that most healthcare professionals target that. I'm not going to get drawn into a separate debate on the merits of atheism here. The conclusions of a government inquiry are, as much as you'd like to dismiss them, important as they follow prolonged investigation. Just because Australia allows something to continue does not mean it does not view the techniques as without claim/dangerous. The Dutch government allows cannabis use but that doesn't mean it believes cannabis isn't harmful. The Enlightened 13:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, so long as you understand that atheists have a different worldview than the majority of humanity that believes in the spirit and in a God or gods or similar animating force. So yes, I think most health professionals would understand that emotional state is related to that animating force. But we are obviously talking personal opinion here. When you discuss man you speak (I assume) from a non-theistic POV while I speak from a different POV. So there will always be a degree of disagreement. IMO, I say the driver of the car is invisible and undetectable with instruments of science (but not by the heart) while I imagine you say the car drives itself. We will have disagreements over motivation and importances. I say that Scientology is not especially controversial to those that do not think that their way is the only way, be they religious or non-religious. Since most of the planet is, IMO, pretty forgiving about how you find your personal salvation or meaning to your life, for that reason there is, in actual fact, very little controversy about the practice of Scientology as opposed to a bit of controversy over over-agressive action against critics or over the actions of some notable Scientologists that those that are given to mocking others find material in for their mockery. --Justanother 17:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Again, I would like to reiterate that the aspect I would like to refer to as being controversial in the first sentence is the "techniques". The views about Thetans or reincarnation or the age of the universe are clearly not any more controversial than fundamentalist Christianity, Islam or Buddhism. However, techniques such as silent birth, the methods of one-on-one auditing, opposition to breast-feeding, the personality test (although this might be Dianetics?), opposition to several medical drugs etc are refuted by many (most?) health professionals. This is why I think the word "controversial" should be used - some reckon the techniques are helpful, others think they are damaging. "Controversial" says there are two strongly opposing sides on the issue. The Enlightened 00:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to point out here that no consensus has been reached and no-one has responded to this last comment of mine. The Enlightened 16:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
No, you are mistaken. There is plenty of consensus here. You also seem to think that one edits wikipedia from their own personal opinions and assumptions as evidenced by your comments here on Germany and on this issue and by this edit summary

clarified statement, added "usually" - I assume even the religion is prohibited in Iran, Saudi Arabia etc

which, IMO and with all due respect to you as a person, evidences a very basic lack of understanding of how editing here is done. --Justanother 18:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I am not mistaken, the "consensus" opposing this seems to between you and one other (who is also a scientologist). Sfacets even passed by here and agreed with my revision, but he seems to have passed on. You are deliberately miscontruing the facts. My comments on Germany on the TALK PAGE were my own opinion yes, but I just mentioned to them as I thought it might give you an insight (correct or otherwise) that you had not seen before but I NEVER ATTEMPTED TO PUT THEM IN AN ARTICLE. Yes, I used the word "assume" in a casual edit summary but the fact remains that the practicing of all religions except Islam are banned in Saudi Arabia. I am perfectly aware that wikipedia articles are based on sourced facts, and the only opinions that should be covered are those from notables and which are properly sourced. Opinions like those of health professionals which have criticised Scientology's practices as damaging to human health on issues like "silent birth, the methods of one-on-one auditing, opposition to breast-feeding, the personality test (although this might be Dianetics?), opposition to several medical drugs etc". You STILL have not responded to this point and simply evade it with every comment. I am simply trying to insert the fact that these practices have had widely different opinions on their helpfulness, aside from the entirely one-sided claim in the introduction stating the techniques "have saved [scientologists] from a plethora of problems and enabled them to better realize their highest potential in business and their personal lives." Right now I am trying to discuss the issue and my reasoning in order to try to work to a common understanding, but you seem to be simply ignoring my main points (which I will assume to be a good faith mistake). You have not told me whether you deny that health professionals have criticised scientologist practices, or whether you think that health professionals criticising such practices does not constitute "controversy" or what. If we can not achieve agreement between us here I will simply open this up to wider comment. The Enlightened 21:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
How about instead of using what appears to be your opinion (again) of whether there is consensus. How about you simply read and count the comments right here. I think you will see clear consensus that, while controversy should certainly be mentioned in the article, the term does not go where you want to put it. End of story. Open it up to whomever you like. I welcome that. ps, I am pretty insulted that you seem to think that Scientologists are some sort of second-class citizen here and that another Scientologist's vote somehow counts as less than yours. Would you do the same in other articles as in "seems to between you and one other (who is also gay, female, black, whatever)." Personally, if you think that way then I think that you are a bigot and you have no place editing in the Scientology articles. --Justanother 22:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, it would be far more constructive for you to actually reason out your points that simply state "end of story". You still have not answered my point about the various practices that have been criticised by health professionals. Perhaps putting "controversial" at that particular place in the sentence is not the most suitable option - I have since suggested moving it to another place - but you show no sign of addressing this, let alone accomodating my points. All I am getting is personal criticism after personal criticism. I am aware that this is the official way scientologists deal with criticism (never defend, attack the attacker etc) but it is not appropriate on wikipedia.
And please, unlike being gay, female or black, Scientology is a belief system. I have never once said scientologists are second-class citizens, so please stop putting words in my mouth. My only point about other editors being scientologists is that being a member of a movement is clearly a potential restraint on being impartial about that topic. The same way as a group of Marxists would be about Marxism or a group of Republican members would be about the Republican Party. But again, I know you are trying to distract me from the real issue. Address my points about medical experts criticising Scientology "tech". Please. The Enlightened 00:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Rather than debate you (please reread my remarks, I have already addressed most of your opinions) rather than debate you, I would rather simply point out that the consensus already exists here five to one against your use of the term to front-load the article that that which is not much controversial at all instead be primarily described as "controversial". Again please see the usage of the word controversial in propaganda. This five to one agreement with me is far far different from your statement: "the "consensus" opposing this seems to between you and one other (who is also a scientologist)." Which I still take to mean that "two don't really count as two" but be that as it may. What it really is is five against you and that seems consensus to me. Your total misrepresentation of that in your statement "the "consensus" opposing this seems to between you and one other (who is also a scientologist)" truly casts all your arguments in a suspect light as far as I am concerned. Anyway, I have reiterated my point numerous times. Just look over my existing statements if you have any question as to where I stand. And review the statements of the other four editors that opposed you if you have any questions as to where they stand. --Justanother 03:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
And finally, I submit to you that EVERY SINGLE SUBJECT ON PLANET EARTH is "controversial" by your apparent definition of "controversial", i.e. "I can find some detractors". Christmas is WILDLY "controversial" by that standard with disagreement over its pagan roots, its materialism, etc, etc. MUCH more "controversial" than auditing is but you have to be deep in the Christmas article before you encounter this line: "In the later part of the 20th century, the United States experienced controversy over the nature of Christmas, and its status as a religious or secular holiday." So with that and in the spirit of the season, I wish you the very best of Holidays. Good night. --Justanother 04:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps if I refer you to our own article on controversy then you will see my point. The way in which you are desirous of using the term fits under the "In propaganda" section. None of those issues you mention are controversial and some of them are not even true (there is no "opposition to breast-feeding" - what there is a suggested formula that LRH came with to address an issue with those mothers he was trying to help at the time). Abortion is controversial (at least in the US). Scientology technology is not. End of story. You would fabricate this controversy out of your own opinion just as you created your own opinion of what is behind the Germany issue. You are entitled to your opinion. Sorry, but you do not get to enshrine it here. --Justanother 00:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

How are these issues not controversial if health professionals criticise them? I will look into the breast-feeding issue but the suggested formula from Ron contained honey which is dangerous to young babies and has been criticised as such. Yes abortion is controversial, but that doesn't stop scientology "technology" also being so. It is NOT my opinion, it is the opinion of medical experts who are a lot more qualified than the sci-fi writer that created these techniques. The Enlightened 21:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
And for the record, not that it matters for this discussion, I believe the reason the German authorities regard Scientology as antidemocratic is because letters from Lafayette Hubbard himself have stated that members should use their personal professions to gather information on Church enemies, that in both Canada and the USA Scientologist offices have been found to have contained stolen Government document, that Hubbard's son has claimed that non-Scientologists were charged to look through confidential records held by the Church, and that an FBI member has stated the Church has an intelligence network to rival the FBI itself. I don't think its much of a jump to say that such practices, if believed to be true, undermine the state and the workings of a liberal democracy with the right to privacy. The Enlightened 19:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
And do you have RS for that claim? Because what I find as the "official reason" from here has to do with LRH's published writings and is badly babelled as

Already in its basic work "Dianetik" referred Hubbard to in principle the political tendency of its teachings. Society and state wants to convert the (Scientology Organization) for alleged perfection of the particular and all social ranges into a central steered command system with a scientologisch steered government. After Hubbards conceptions, which until today on the (Scientology Organization) and all Scientologen are obligatory, is the (Scientology Organization) the guidance by influencing control on economics, politics and state to attain. For this authorities and the society are "into a condition complete agreement" with the goals of the (Scientology Organization) to be brought. The project developed by Hubbard "lnternational town center" looks forwards to govern all capitals of the different states existing at present in favor of from Scientology sect to entmachten and the world of a quasi supranational then capital. In one exclusive after scientologischen guidelines functioning world a new technokratisches system ("true democracy") is to replace the democratic value order. Thus embodies the (Scientology Organization) a new type of the extremism off the traditional right left pattern.

--Justanother 19:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't want to get drawn into a prolonged discussion on this as it is irrelevant to the article. I was merely trying to explain to you why I believe the German government objects to scientology to aid your own understanding. I wasn't saying that such beliefs are true, just why they may believe it is a threat to democracy and where they may have drawn their conclusions from. I believe it ties in with the quote above. IMHO in the view of the German government the Church believes it should replace state government, and that it has operated practices in other countries (USA, Canada) to that effect (by forming intelligence databases on private citizens). Again, I'm not arguing that it is necessarily true, just that I believe that those are the reasons underpinning the German view. If you believe Germany opposes Scientology for other reasons then that is your choice. I won't discuss this further. The Enlightened 13:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you did state that you were giving your beliefs. I just thought that, "to aid your own understanding", you might be interested in what the German government itself says is the reason they object to Scientology; i.e. the published writings of Hubbard, not some imagined "intelligence network to rival the FBI itself". But OK, we don't have to discuss this further. --Justanother 17:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate the thought. I have actually seen the stated reason previously, but I reckon my points tie into that. Thanks though. The Enlightened 00:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Controversial? No-one's tried to gas them all, they've not tried to invade the middle east, and no one's used Scientology as an excuse to blow up New York. This merits mention in the article, but putting it in the title is going a bit too far. yandman 19:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, as stated above I am referring not to the religious myth of Scientology but the techniques of auditing etc. The first sentence does not refer to the religious side of the doctrine, and I am not claiming the religious side is especially controversial. What I am arguing is that the self-help methods are controversial, so you're analogies are flawed. The Enlightened 19:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Except that they are not. Very controversial that is and they are definitely not defined by their controversy but you would have us say as much. Sorry, that is your POV talking, IMO. --Justanother 19:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
No, I'm sorry. If you seriously doubt that there are a heck of a lot of health professionals that have condemned scientology's self-help techniques then I will go and collect references for the next week or so. I find it absurd that you would actually dispute this. I would have assumed that a scientologist you would be aware of the criticism but dismiss it as evil psychiatrists talking. The Enlightened 20:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Can't remember the last headline I saw like this; "Scientologist caught using E-Meter and running engrams". Sorry, not controversial. --Justanother 20:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Now you're just using straw man arguments. Grow up. The Enlightened 14:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Careful with the personal please. One free for each customer. That was yours. --Justanother 14:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
It wasn't meant as personal, just I feel that straw man arguments are pretty childish. But yeah, it wasn't needed. Apologies. The Enlightened 00:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Since the epithet 'controversial' is used in the fourth sentence of the opening paragraph, it seems redundant to keep it in the first sentence as well. And the controversies that have been raised on this page and the rest of the Scientology series seem to refer less to the teachings and techniques of Scientology than to the organisation and personnel of the Church. DavidCooke 22:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

All religion is controversial by objective standards, I see no point in singling Scientology out Joneleth 04:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

As an atheist, I still believe there is a distiniction between "major" religions and smaller, and newer, groups like Scientology. Major religions have intrinsically developed along with the general culture and the social structure of whole nations for millenia, whereas it is not the same for Scientology for example. On a closer analysis, it is not possible to discern what is the religion/belief system and culture of concerned nations, as far as major religions are concerned. And no, all religions can be controversial, but some are much more controversial than others per common sense. Nobody can seriously claim that Christianity or Islam is as contoversial as Scientology. Those religions have been constantly criticized during centuries on various philosophical grounds, but that doesn't make them controversial on par with Scientology. I also think that religion is the opium of the people, however I would never label Islam or Judaism "contoversial". Controversial doesn't simply mean "it is open to criticism" or "it is a bunch of BS". Scientology is classified as a cult in many countries, and it has been at the center of all sorts of weird controversies (accent on "weird"). Any controversies that major religions have been a part of can be easily contextualized in the greater timeline of human social development (women's rights etc etc) - blackmailing google cannot be OTOH. And no, Scientology as a belief system and the Church of Sc are intrinsically linked, we might as well be talking about the same thing. That is also not the case for other major religions. Any case, no need to go on for so long... Baristarim 02:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not entirely true that the major religions are not as controversial as Scientology. It just depends where you live. In the middle east they've moved beyond controversey and they are killing eachother over their beliefs; in some areas it's completely polarized. Let's not forget their history either, or what those "major" religions have been allowed to do. What they've done in the ancient past far outweighs the effects that this relatively tiny religion "Scientology" has done or even has the capacity to do in the present. No need to go off topic about other religions, and the distant past; my point is that (IMO) if you focus on controversey you get a news paper article (he said she said gossip etc.), and if you leave as much emotion and opinion out and concentrate on facts then you get more of a scholarly article. I agree with much of how this article is laid out, however I would have to say that the use of the word "controversial" in the first paragraph is more of a jab than useful information. The "controversy" should be saved for the "controversy" section, which the writers of this article have obviously made a field day of creating.

Let's not make a double standard for Scientology. The wikipedia page article on Islam has a controversy section yes, but the rest is history.

As a suggestion, why not include the amount of writing (not sure) and lectures (app. 3000) that Hubbard delivered on scientology. That's important information and should be included somewhere in here.

 callmemrpurpose 02:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Different picture

Instead of that machine as the first picture that people see when they visit the page, could it instead be one of the symbols associated with scientology?--Maier 03 21:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

They are all trademarks. --Justanother 23:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
If you mean the e-meter, there are tighter rules on images on template pages. See the discussion on Template talk:ScientologySeries. AndroidCat 03:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
I can agree that some of the images are trademarks, but perhaps it'd be of service if user Justanother would check up on copyright and trademark law. As long as the company doesn't restrict the use of a trademarked image it can stay on the page until Xenu comes back. Plus, if a likeness or image or such is trademarked in one country, doesn't really mean much in another country. Just think of this as a heads-up, ok? --Tirolion 10:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Establishment Clause

Removing the reference to the Establishment Clause, as I'm not aware of any case finding that an acknowledgment by the U.S. government that something is a religion violates the Establishment Clause and other U.S. government practices, such as the faith-based initiative program or having military chaplains for religions but not nonreligious philosophies, do seem to recognize that some things are genuine religions. Elliotreed 04:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Supression and Hate

Since there is so much criticism and negative portrayl, distortion about Scientology on the wikipedia pages, I think it would be good to have a segment about all the hate and suppression and attacks that the religion has gone through and is going through to put into light what it is like for Scientologists. We are supposed to live in a world of religion freedom, but to be a Scientologist is to be persucuted for your beliefs. It is obviously a huge topic and there is nothing on here about what they go through. Funny how there is plenty of information trying to depict Scientology as this wacko money-hoarding cult, (which, is so wrong I can't even begin), but there's nothing on here shown from the Scientologist side. <Johnpedia 13:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)>

All wikipedia articles strive to be neutral, if you have found anything thats not properly sourced or POV then please tell us so it can be corrected. Joneleth 15:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
This section of the Scientology controversy article may help: Scientology controversy#The Church of Scientology's replies to its critics --Modemac 16:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
(moving down as I rewrote it. Modemac makes a valid point too) Johnpedia, that is a great idea. You may be able to find some sourced comments that present that idea in the local papers like sptimes.com. Actually, after thinking about it a bit, I feel that there is no real point in getting into the concept that critics are somehow suppressing Scn or Scios and that was probably not what you meant anyway. Critics are just criticizing and ridiculing Scn and famous Scios. BFD. No, the real persecution is government-sponsored and takes place in non-US countries (Scn is not persecuted at all in the US). Your best source is UN and US State Dept. reports on human rights abuses. I referenced some in the Germany part of the main article. Look at those and see if you can also find some English-language press to go with them. Good Luck!! --Justanother 16:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Searches like this one and this one may help you get started. --Justanother 16:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I think it's a good idea because it'll give perspective abotu what Scientologists have to deal with. We have to deal with A LOT. Other religions are not openly attacked, but for some reason Scientology is attacked with so much hate and prejudice and the people doing that are trying to spread the idea that it's ok to persecute Scientologists for their beliefs. It's so sick and disgusting. The pages on here about Scienttology are filled with hate and negative, passive aggressive, backhanded, unbalanced information. That needs to be removed and an article about Scientologists persecution needs to be written (if no one does, i'll do it later after schoolwork). No more of this junk, now is the time we are going to make everything fair and accurate, no excuses and lies from the people writing these pages, they are NOT balanced and it is NOT ok, regardless of what they tell themselves. <Johnpedia 03:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)>

For the record, just because someone criticises a belief system or an organisation doesn't mean it stems from hate or prejudice. For example if these pages point out that high-up scientologists have stolen government records, thats not hate or prejudice - that is truthful, fair-minded criticism. If you have a problem with a particular statement in this article then you should point it out and we will seek to rectify it in a balanced way. But remember, wikipedia is not a soapbox. 195.137.85.173 19:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm sorry if you are unable to sense the air with which the critics edit the Scientology wikipedia pages, and the direction they try to push everything towards, and the feeling that they try to associate with everything. Even more, the fact that these things are not what Scientology is like, makes it even weirder. You can interpret things in all kinds of different ways,and what they do is choose to inrepret things about Scientology that are good, in ways that make it seem evil, and they have no desire to figure out the truth, they come into attacking Scientology for no other reason then they wish to attack Scientology, and are happy to have anything that gives them fuel to claim it is an evil cult. They didn't approach this with a fair mind, they approached it WANTING to hate Scientology for whatever reason, and it's pathetic that they cannot even see this, so NO MATTER WHAT anybody says or anybody does or anything, they are going to always hate Scientology and exaggerate and pick out things and take things out of context and make up things to support their feeling, and this is the truth, and if they disagree with this it is because they are not very conscious or aware of themselves or things and anything that goes against their hate of Scientology is going to make them angry.Johnpedia 02:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it is impossible to be completely neutral regarding something so completely ridiculous as scientology. When the facts are overwhelmingly in support of a certain value judgment (eg. Hitler was not a nice guy, or Scientology is stupid), it is fair to make said value judgment, even in an objective medium such as wikipedia. Scientology believes in Xenu and the Space Opera, this is fact. Scientology also aggresively attacks its critics through lawsuits, this too is fact (see Southpark). These, among other things, contribute to a, completely deserved, negative portrayal of your "religion". It is possible to objectively analyze something, and return with a negative judgement; such is the case with Scientology. You face discrimination because you are insanely stupid, and your organization is obviously a scam. Don't complain that you get made fun of when you believe such crap. And I will not apologize for offending you because you have a "different belief system"; scientologists are stupid, bottom line.198.53.186.240 21:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
A suggestion: You might want to review WP:CIVIL now rather than later. AndroidCat 06:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
It is wikipedia policy to assume good faith. It is quite the assertion to claim that you personally have special insight into other peoples intentions and innate desires in their edits. It is equally likely that those that criticise Scientology simply have come to their honest assessment that the Church of Scientology and its practices are dangerous and damaging. How do you personally know whether someone came to edit with a fair mind or not? If you wish to provide information regarding positive attributes of Scientology, or provide context where you feel it is presently lacking, please go ahead. Just remember to maintain a balanced tone, and to cite such information with reliable sources. Additionally, if you feel there is negative information which isn't true and isn't sourced properly. Please add some citation needed tags or bring it up on the talk page. 195.137.85.173 16:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I quote you: "The pages on here about Scientology are filled with hate and negative, passive aggressive, backhanded, unbalanced information." Well, if you have concerns about contents, please be specific. Much care is taken to have articles which are well sourced. Broad statements are useless, you need to point specifically at what you perceive as flaws. Then we will know what exactly what you want to address. Raymond Hill 03:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

As I am living in germany (which does not grant Scientologs the rights of a religion), I feel like I have to respond this: We germans do not deny Scientology as a religion becuse we "hate" or "want to surpress" them. We call them a cult (and so do I as Agnosticist), because their methods (not their belief, despite a good laugh itself) are at best ridiculous, if not dangerous. I mean come on, we all in germany are pro freedom of religion and believes, but that doesn´t mean we officially recognize people claiming to be jedis or "trying to recall memorys and deleting errors per audidting", but we do not hate them. Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia and should remain so. This neutrality suffers by implying that people who critizise Scientology or even call them a cult are just doing so because of their hate towards Scientologists. So in my opinion just state the criticisms in the article without an comments about the critic´s "hatred".----Timo Heinrich

Can you tell me why you deleted my post?82.114.68.30 20:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Who? What post? (It'd help if you'd assign yourself a username). BTfromLA 22:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Please quit arguing, it accomplishes nothing. As for this article being "biased" or "negative", it seems much rather that it's the reaction of people to the beliefs that may be biased or negative, not the article itself. The section about controversy and criticism exists for a reason, if you feel information is in the wrong section then either move it or make a note of it on the discussion page. Zchris87v 06:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Has this page been vandalised? - Nö†$®åM 01:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I, meatplow, didn't actually vandalise this site. I posted a juvenile, offensive & rude comment here. I'm sorry about doing that & won't do it again.

Why is this article so unbalenced towards the positive

In being nurtral this wiki page would have to be negative about scientoligy. A quick search in google after the first result reveals the truth about what scientoligy is. There seems to be not enough on the page about how immoral scientoligy practices are. Alan2here 18:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It is probably a good sign of this article's neutrality that we get both complaints calling it too favorable and too unfavorable. --FOo 20:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
This would be the problem with neutrality... people with strong baised feelings on the issue will always see it as part of the other side. The position that a neutral article about this topic would have to be negative, is blatantly biased, and not endorsed by the Wikipedia culture in general. Articles about controversial topics like this are presented from a neutral point of view, presenting facts, and presenting unbiased beliefs of the various positions. Unfortunately, the only way you know that an article is balanced, is if both deeply entrenched sides of the controversy complain that the article is biased towards the other side. --Puellanivis 20:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Really one doesn't have to write negatively on the subject of Scientology. One can just write a neutral, well-sourced article and Scientology will damn itself by its own merits. Tenebrous (is still to lazy to sign in) 69.144.86.191 17:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding me? The controversey section of this page is 7 sections long, and probably the biggest part of the article. If that doesn't throw enough nevativity for haters then I don't know what would, unless you simply went against all decency and turned this into just another hate site. As far as the practices being immoral? I have to say, that is just your POV. The truth about Scientology? Those are just hate sites brother. Totally slanted. And, the point here is to create something somewhat fair, right?

Origin of the word Scientology

The article states that the word was coined by Alan Upward in 1907, which he associated with pseudoscience. I just found an old newspaper article, Newark Advocate, dated October 28, 1885, in which the word "scientologist" appears: "The scientologist of Rutgers college, at New Brunswick, N.J., recognized the shock of the Hell Gate explosion just fifteen minutes before it occurred. This is considered by the wicked as a remarkable instance of the reconciliation of faith and science." (still refer to pseudoscience it would seem) Is it something worth mentioning in the article? Raymond Hill 05:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure! I think a little more context than that would be useful, though; it isn't clear from that tiny fragment what is being meant by the word; or even to whom it refers. --FOo 05:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
That's the problem, that's pretty much all there is. Here is a scan of a the clipped part and here is a scan of the full page. The section appears under a header "Science & Progress." At the very least, it's a hint that the word may have been in use before 1907, but we can't tell more from this. Raymond Hill 17:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
In that case it's trivial, without context, and possibly dubious information and should not be included. The possibility exists that it was simply a typographic error. Tenebrous 19:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree that we can't really make anything of it, given the lack of any context. It could be that the writer made it up in an attempt at humour. But who knows? -- ChrisO 19:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Look at the accompanying "Facts of Interest" to get an idea of the nature of that piece. My guess is he made it up. --Justanother 23:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Auditing

"Per Church policy (citation needed) auditors are trained not to evaluate for the preclear..."

Here is the reference link, it is called the Auditor's Code.

http://www.scientology.org/en_US/religion/auditing/pg004a.html

S. M. Sullivan 06:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Some peeps here seems to be shy to quote from Church sites, so I thought I take this on for you. Misou 05:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Silent Birth and Infant care

Please delete mention of honey from the barley formula reference. It was corrected as long as 20 years ago in the Volunteer Minister's Handbook. Karo syrup is to be used, not honey. Yes, Scientologists know honey is not to be given to babies.

69.12.131.206 07:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)S. M. Sullivan

Where is your reference and why don't you delete it yourself? Misou 05:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The reference is the Volunteer Minister's Handbook, and I have learned better than to delete things without discussing them first when dealing with this controversial topic.

S. M. Sullivan 23:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, deletion is often not the correct answer. Especially here, where the new information you are bringing says "This was indeed the case, but changed" rather than "This was never the case." When you say it was corrected in the Volunteer Minister's Handbook as of 20 years ago, do you mean that they said "Don't use honey," or simply that they no longer explicitly list honey as an ingredient that can be substituted for the corn syrup? Also, Hubbard said he remembered the formula from Roman times, which would mean the ingredient of that formula would had to have been honey; is the composition of the original formula addressed in the corrected version? -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I've got the 1979 third print version of the Volunteer Minister's Handbook. The extract is named Healthy Baby and this is where the recipe is given. This extract do not mention honey (nor does the new Volunteer Minister's Handbook) but corn syrup -- Jpierreg 19:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
As I recall it, Hubbard wrote a rather acerb note in the barley formula correction stating do not use honey. He amplified by writing that you do not put fuel oil in baby formula either. (joke on his part) S. M. Sullivan 02:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I took out the references to honey in the barley baby formula, since we've established that it is not now an ingredient, and has not been an ingredient in the formula for more than twenty years, if ever.S. M. Sullivan 06:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I've restored it, since as already discussed, the new information you are bringing does not say "this was never the case" but "this was not the case after a certain point." (A claim that I have reason to believe is incorrect, by the way, though I am waiting for the research materials I ordered to come in so that I can confirm it.) -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW, does anyone have access to Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine? -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Antaeus, if you can't find a WP:V source on the honey in the baby formula reference, it needs to come out. There is no point leaving outdated incorrect info in the article. Even if the baby formula did have honey as an ingredient previous to 1979, there is no point to adding this into the article, since it could only have historical relevance, and not much of that. S. M. Sullivan 05:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

That's rather a confusing statement to make. If you look at the section in question and look at the references, I think you'll see that the information does in fact come directly from a WP:V source and does in fact show to be mistaken the claim that honey "has not been an ingredient in the formula for more than twenty years, if ever". Also, would you mind supplying page number and publication details for that edition of the Volunteer Minister's Handbook so that we can make it an actual reference? Also, if you can find that "you do not put fuel oil in baby formula either" quote, that would be good to add to the section. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Upward and The New Word

Recently Brujo made an edit which changed "Alan Upward" to "Allen Upward" and the date of Upward's book The New Word from 1907 to 1901. I've investigated a little and the reference does in fact say "Alan" and "1907" but the correct spelling and date may indeed be "Allen" and "1901" (see here, for example.) I've separated out the portions of the sentence so that they can be referenced separately, but can someone think of a way we can definitively establish once and for all the correct spelling and correct date? -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest that as long as either spelling or date is in some manner published, it may be cited, as long as the reference is given. I wouldn't sweat over that one. Choose the one you think is more likely to be correct. And if it isn't? Well, you've done the research as best you can.--Gazzster 22:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The Library of Congress catalogues gives the following data:
Personal Name: Upward, Allen, 1863-1926.
Main Title: The new word
Published/Created: London, A. C. Fifield, 1908.
The British Library and Bodleian Library catalogues concur. I would suggest going with these data, given that they're from unimpeachable sources. -- ChrisO 23:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Scientology and Psychiatry "assumption"

The following quote in the Scientology and Psychiatry section of the page claims the "assumption" that because the APA advised it's members against using Dianetics (presumably around 1950), that Hubbard came to beleive that Psychiatrist were wanting to create a "world government" run by Psychiatrist on the behalf of Soviet Russia??? The referenced material for this section says nothing at all about "soviet russia" nor does it say Psychiatrist want a "world government" nor does it even imply that any of Hubbard's discussion is related at all to the APA "recommending against using Diatnetics" in the early 50s (and this refence is a recording from 1967?).

Please someone (who is non-biased either way), look over the referenced facts of this section, and delete all the speculation through in here as if it's Objective.

and Furthermore. The reference says these "less than 12 people", he does not even say "are Psychiartists". He says they "use 'mental health'", but are in fact Bankers. Which is one of the more common "conspiracty theories" including Rockefellers, etc. easily found on Wikipedia or Google that many Non-Scientologists believe such Bankers may "Use" Pharaceutical companies to help "dumb down" the population with drugs. It seems to me THAT is what Hubbard is saying here, which is pretty clear if you just read the quote somebody put in this section from this Ron's Journal 67 reference.

Please, somebody who is totally Non-Biased look over this section and take into consideration what I've written. Sorry I made this so long though.

"After the publication of Dianetics, the American Psychological Association advised its members against using Hubbard's psychotherapy techniques with their patients until their effectiveness could be proven. Because of this critique, Hubbard came to believe psychiatrists were behind a worldwide conspiracy to attack Scientology and create a "world government" run by psychiatrists on behalf of Soviet Russia:"

This does seem to be true. Reading the reference, the only mention of Russia is Hubbard's description of psychiatry as
a perverted Russo-German doctrine, which he contrasted with Scientology as "the only Anglo-Saxon science of the mind"
Perhaps that quote would illustrate Hubbard's position better than the current text? SheffieldSteel 20:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think that statement would be fine. But I'm also talking about how the section says that Hubbard "believed" anything about Psychiatry "because of (their) critique" of Scientology is a totally fabricated concept, designed to make him look like a paranoid kinda guy that makes up crazy conspiracy theories about people that don't like Scientology. That's pure speculation that is heavily biased.

That reference says what it says, and he states he sources of information on the "less than 12" people, as from PIs he hired. I've heard at least a dozen other researchers (from conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones and David Icke to other modern philosphers like John Baines to various professors and authors) mention findings of about a dozen private bankers that control nations through debt.

I'm not saying this theory of Privat Bankers is true. I'm just saying it exists, and has been documented by literally dozens, if not hundereds, of sources that have NOTHING to do with Scientology. So, the concept of Hubbard mentioning "less than 12" private bankers who control Mental Health organizations is something he says on "Ron's Journal 67", according to him, based on the findings of separate private investigators he hired. It's ignorant bigotry, to take this statement (which is obviously not a common belief) and make it look like it comes form a paranoid or neurotic fabrication not based in fact. I would correct this myself, but this page seems to only allow "administrators" to edit it. Right?

If anything, I find it a point of great interest that Hubbard came to this conclusion (according to him through PIs hired to find who was behind certain anti-scientology news articles) of "10-12 private bankers theory" which is generally though to include the Rockefellers and Rothschilds, in 1967, when as far as I know, this now very widespread "conspiracy theory", didn't really get very widespread until the 1980s and 90s, and much moreso with the ubiquity of the internet and increased popularity of Coast to Coast AM and other similar alternative radio shows. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Babblelog5 (talk • contribs).

Psychiatry was responsible for...the September 11 attacks?

I read the connected reference, and this is a biased "interpretation" at best of what it says. Especially, since 9-11 is a very sensitive issue with people, it even more biased in my opinion to alter what is said in attached Freedom Magazine reference.

The magazine simply discusses that one of Bin Laden's "Top Advisors" was a Psychiatrist, who some people "theorize" might have been the mastermind behind September 11th.

Since, Seppember 11th is very sesnitive issue with people, such an over-simplified statement will undoubtedly cause many casual readers to conclude that Scientologists must just think any evil in the world comes from Psychiatry.

A more appropriate statement might be: "Scientologists have pointed out that one of Bin Laden's top advisors is a Psychiatrist who some people think may have been the 'mastermind' behind the September 11th attacks, and who they think may have been involved in brainwashing and drugging of members of Al Queda."

A point made about September 11th concerning what Scientologists think, or what CCHR states, should be stated with a level of specifics that will not lead a reader to speculative conclusions, due to over-simplification and generalization, which seems to be based from a biased POV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Babblelog5 (talk • contribs).

One problem with that is that the "Top Advisor" they name wasn't a psychiatrist. AndroidCat 22:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Without getting into any claims of anything. Ayman Al-Zawahiri "studied behavior, psychology and pharmacology at Cairo University, graduating in 1974 with gayyid giddan, and earning a Masters degree in surgery in 1978." I looked into what he actually practiced a while back and he did not really practice much (being pretty much a full-time revolutionary cum terrorist) but I think it was obstetrics. But he could probably be called a "pysch" as that was a large part of his training. --Justanother 23:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC).
Well duh. I imagine that behavior, psychology and pharmacology are part of the standard curriculum for anyone planning to be a doctor. As for "psych", it's a useless broad term that the Church of Scientology is fond of. The only sites on the Internet that claim or attempt to imply that he was a psychiatrist are Scientology-connected. AndroidCat 23:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I just the think this section should be more specifically described, as the "The Church claims that psychiatry was responsible for...the September 11 attacks", is too broadly stated, and not something I've ever heard any Scientologist say (unlike 'Psychiatry is responsible for the declining US Education system' which Tom Cruise, and many prominent Scientologists have said). As I stated above, this is a subject that should be described/quoted accurately from it's sources, as the broad spectrum phrasing of it now, creates an obvious bias for most people.

Jason Lee

Seeing that "My Name Is Earl" is one of the most popular and successful new network comedies in the past 2 years, and Jason Lee being the star of the show as Earl...shouldn't he be named in the "celcbrity" section?

Not to mention Jaime Presley, Ethan Suplee, and the recurring guest actor Giovanni Ribisi are all longtime Scientologists too. This many Scientologists in a famous current tv show, seems a phenomenon worth mention.

But at this point, I think Jason Lee is defenitly famous enough to be in between Isaac Hayes and Beck, right? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Babblelog5 (talk • contribs).

Kudos

About two years ago when I was researching Scientology for a class I was teaching I was pleasantly surprised to find that the Wikipedia article was, I think, the best internet article I found on the topic (and I read alot of them along with primary source material etc.). It looks even better now that you have expanded it into a series. Thanks for your hard work on this article!Will3935 09:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Advice Against Breastfeeding

In what publication did Hubbard advise against breastfeeding? All I can recall is an advice in Volunteer Ministers' handbook that modern mothers who smoke may have milk that is musty, hence, use barley formula. This hardly constitutes a ban on breastfeedingS. M. Sullivan 05:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Ahem

"Scientology is a body of teachings and related techniques", AKA, A CULT! But i guess we cant say that in an encyclopedia until after the cult has died.

Or a religion, perhaps? We're just adhering to WP:NPOV. "Cult" is the epitome of a POV view. --Hojimachongtalk 19:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Scientology has already been officially classified as a bona fide religion long ago. Potatomaster27 23:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

"Scientology has already been officially classified as a bona fide religion" is no closer to an NPOV description of the situation than "Scientology is a cult". -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
More accurately, there is no authority anywhere which has the power to "officially classify" anything as a "bona fide religion". The legitimacy of any religious group is always contested: Many fundamentalist Protestants regard the Roman Catholic Church as an idolatrous cult; Muslims consider Christianity's Trinity to be proof of corruption; even in the U.S. where religious freedom is the law, judges discriminate violently against Wiccans and Subgenii; and so on. --FOo 06:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
How can it count as a religion if it charges money for membership? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.211.254.142 (talk) 03:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC).
I have been told that some synagogues charge a set fee for membership. The Mormons require a set percentage of a person's income to be a full member. Steve Dufour 14:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Right Steve. And, BTW, I am an active Scientologist in good-standing with the Church and have not given the Church one thin dime in 2-3 years and not any real money, say over $100 donations for some project or other, in probably 8 years. And I still can go in there and work with a staff member to apply Scientology to an area of my life that I am trying to improve. No charge. Wait, I did pay $350 to attend a full two-day seminar a while back but, if any of you kow anything about seminars, $350 for two days in a nice hotel with lunch, dinner, and snacks provided is dirt cheap. --Justanother 14:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I've sometimes made the point that, although critics often bring up the money thing, a person following Judaism or Christianity is expected, although not required in most cases, to donate 10% of his or her income. Over the lifetime of a person with a successful career this would amount to far more than the cost of going though the Scientology program. I've also criticized Tom Cruise because he seems to be giving his church much less than 10% of his income. Steve Dufour 14:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Tool and Scientology

In May of 1993, Tool was scheduled to play the Garden Pavilion in Hollywood. The band learned at the last minute that the Garden Pavilion belonged to L. Ron Hubbard’s Church of Scientology which "betrays the band’s ethics about how a person should not follow a belief system that constricts their development as a human being."[10] In a recent interview with Blender, Maynard recalled that he "spent most of the show baa-ing like a sheep at the audience."[14]

“ Before our set this guy tries to intimidate me by showing me a gun in his jacket. I explained to him that if he pissed me off I’d start a riot.[14]


Additionaly, Tool is also critical of scientology in the song AEnema. I think this should be mentioned in the criticisms section

I don't think that a critical song is important enough to mention in the main article on a subject. Steve Dufour 17:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Intergalactic walrus

Journalists and critics of Scientology note that Xenu is part of a much wider Scientology belief in past lives on other planets, some of which has been public knowledge for decades. For instance, Hubbard's 1958 book Have You Lived Before This Life documents past lives described by individual Scientologists during auditing sessions. These included memories of being "deceived into a love affair with a robot decked out as a beautiful red-haired girl", being run over by a Martian bishop driving a steamroller, being transformed into an intergalactic walrus that perished after falling out of a flying saucer,

Is this a joke added by a vandal? With Scientology it's hard to tell. --Ptcamn 19:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Nope, it's for real. Check out Have You Lived Before This Life - it's (unintentionally, of course) really a very funny book. -- ChrisO 20:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

www.whyaretheydead.net

I've reverted (twice) the addition of this link since it is little more than original research and weakly argued conspiracy theories, in violation of both the policy on reliable sources and external links. Consensus should be reached before its inclusion. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 02:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The site does appear to provide verifiable sources (satisfying Links normally to be avoided #2) and I'm not sure that directly extending WP:OR to the contents of an EL is valid. AndroidCat 06:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Personal Website, by one "Mike Gormez". See WP:SPS. Ronabop 08:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
A Personal web page, you mean? A strict and wide application of the freshly amalgamated WP:ATT policy via the redirected link from the WP:EL guideline should be interesting. (Especially when the WP:ATT nutshell states "All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source." [emp shifted]) I doubt that many of the external links on this article would survive, including many direct CoS sites (under WP:SPS). AndroidCat 17:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Nope, I meant a SPS WP:SPS, a site with little or no editorial oversight over its content, with one (or a few) "publishers" controlling the content, which is how I interpret the spirit of questioning SPS. With self-published sources, no one stands between the author and publication; the material may not be subject to any form of fact-checking, legal scrutiny, or peer review. WP:SPS - To wit, Mike Gormez doesn't seem like he has a legal team, a fact checking team, or peers who would (*cough* *giggle*) 'audit' (ok, mea culpa) his work, his choice of sources, etc. WRT to direct CoS sites, There are two exceptions: 1. Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves WP:SPS pretty much covers whether or not CoS sites are allowed (and trust me, they do have a legal team). Mr. Gormez's site would be allowed in articles about 'himself', CoS's sites would be allowed in articles about 'themselves'. One way of framing the debate is whether or not we should allow a stormfront.org link with multiple RS links out to articles on Jews... I would say no, because even if the stormfront site *links to* pages that are reliable sources, the publisher of the linking site itself is exercising editorial control over what is being linked to. Ronabop 04:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid that CoS also falls down on fact-checking and peer review. And surely using Stormfront as your example is a weak argument. AndroidCat 13:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Criticism moved down the page

I moved these two paragraphs down the page and out of the intro section:

A stated goal of Scientology is to rehabilitate the thetan (roughly equivalent to the soul) to regain its native state of "total freedom." Church spokespeople and practitioners say that Hubbard's teachings (called "Technology" or "Tech" in Scientology terminology) have saved them from many problems and enabled them to better realize their highest potential in business and in their personal lives.[1][2] However, outside observers—including journalists, lawmakers, and national governing bodies of several countries—have alleged that the Church is an unscrupulous commercial enterprise that harasses its critics and brutally exploits its members.[3][4]
Although Scientologists are usually free to practice their beliefs, the organized church has often encountered opposition. While a number of governments now view the Church as a religious organization entitled to the protections and tax relief that such status brings, others view it as a pseudoreligion, a cult, or a transnational corporation.[5][6][7][8]

This is in line with how other groups are treated on WP. Steve Dufour 13:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

A reader who was new to the subject might be forgiven for thinking - after reading the current intro - that Scientology had no critics, was not controversial, and was generally accepted as a religion... except for a couple of clues in the intro paragraph. That can't be right. SheffieldSteel 16:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

On reflection I felt it was best to revert the edit referred to above. The paragraphs in question are appropriate for an introduction, touching as they do on beliefs, practises, and controversies surrounding Scientology that are covered in more depth later in the article. Moving them approximately 150 lines down into the body of the article should really only be done after achieving consensus among editors - particularly for such a contentious subject. SheffieldSteel 16:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Please check out the articles on Islam and the Roman Catholic Church. They have far more critics than does Scientology and yet the opinions of critics are not put in the introductory section. Steve Dufour 18:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I think that the quantity of criticism - or critics, for that matter - is less important than the quality (by which I mean nature) of the criticism. I am also far from convinced that Scientology should be compared like-for-like with Islam or Catholicism. SheffieldSteel 18:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
A better use of quantitative techniques would be to compare the proportion of criticism/controversy with the article as a whole. Islam has a relatively tiny section on criticism, and so it isn't mentioned in the intro. Catholicism doesn't really have a criticism section per se, although the are references to controversies such as sexual abuse scandals. Again, these are not large in relation to the article as a whole - indeed, it is easy to argue that they are not highly significant in relation to the religion as a whole. The Scientology article, on the other hand, does contain rather a lot of controversy, scandal, felony, and so on. I think it's important that the intro should be representative of the article content. SheffieldSteel 18:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I still think it is unfair. Many more and much worse crimes have been committed in the names of Islam and Christianity than in the name of Scientology. (To be fair, Scientology's postive contributions to human civilization are also much less.) I generally think that an article should be about the subject of the article; not about what other people, journalists, other religions, governments, or whatever think about the subject. Steve Dufour 20:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Like it or not, "what other people, journalists, other religions, governments, or whatever think about the subject" is about the subject, especially if those other people, journalists, other religions, governments, or whatever are right. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
How about Adolf Hitler's article? He has a four or five paragraph opening section which tells us who he was and the things he did. There is nothing there about anyone's opinion of him. Please give us all the information about the bad things Scientology has done. However, it does not seem to be normal WP practice to put opinions of third parties in the opening section. Steve Dufour 04:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
The article on Adolf Hitler mentions his responsibility for the genocide of 11 million people. I'm curious; do you think it needs to be spelled out after that that opinion of Hitler is almost universally low? Yes, it would be possible to move all the information of things that Scientology is known to have done that cause that low opinion into the intro section -- Operation Snow White, Operation Freakout, falsely claiming auditing folders are confidential when they aren't -- but the whole point of having an intro section that's separate from the article is that the intro presents the overview and the article covers the details. Your edit, I'm afraid, just wasn't compatible with WP:NPOV because it retained in that intro section Scientology's POV on itself but omitted the fact that almost every aspect of that POV is disputed. As SheffieldSteel points out, a reader who read the intro section thinking it would be a concise but complete overview -- which is what it should be -- might incorrectly get the impression that Scientology had no critics, was not controversial, and had never had a question raised as to whether it was a religion. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

In general people will be more interested in reading an article if you don't tell them what to think. Steve Dufour 04:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

By the same logic, we should be removing from the intro section any reference to Scientology being a self-help philosophy, to it describing itself as a new religion, to it 'offering an "exact methodology" to help humans achieve awareness of their spiritual existence across many lifetimes and, simultaneously, to become more effective in the physical world.' Those are all just as equally telling the reader what to think and therefore according to your own arguments should also be removed from the intro section. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree. The intro should be about what it is and why it is interesting and/or important. The opinions of both members and critics should come later. Steve Dufour 07:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

WP's treatment of Nazism compared to its treatment of Scientology

Here is the article on Nazism if you would like to compare it with this article. Steve Dufour 16:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Addressed. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Here is the article on Atheism. It does contain some criticism, but much less than the Scientology article. Steve Dufour 13:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Scientology is naturally criticised more than Atheism because Scientology is unsound and completely ridiculous, like Nazism. --Snuffaluffaguss 19:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Described itself?

The article says that Scientology "later described itself as a new religion." How can a body of teachings describe itself? Doesn't someone else have to do that? Steve Dufour 18:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Original research

This seems like orginal research to me so I cut it from the article:

While reliable information about Scientology membership is notoriously elusive, there is little reason to doubt that most practicing Scientologists have not attained a sufficiently high level on "The Bridge" to have learned the details about Xenu and Body Thetans[citation needed]. Therefore, while knowledge of Xenu and Body Thetans is said to be crucial to the highest level church teachings, it cannot be regarded as a core belief of rank-and-file Scientologists[citation needed].

Sentences removed from intro section

I removed these sentences from the intro section:

Church spokespeople and practitioners say that Hubbard's teachings (called "Technology" or "Tech" in Scientology terminology) have saved them from many problems and enabled them to better realize their highest potential in business and in their personal lives.[9][10] However, outside observers—including journalists, lawmakers, and national governing bodies of several countries—have alleged that the Church is an unscrupulous commercial enterprise that harasses its critics and brutally exploits its members.[3][11]
Although Scientologists are usually free to practice their beliefs, the organized church has often encountered opposition. While a number of governments now view the Church as a religious organization entitled to the protections and tax relief that such status brings, others view it as a pseudoreligion, a cult, or a transnational corporation.[12][13][7][14]

They are not about Scientology itself, rather they are about "Church spokespeople and practitioners", "outside observers—including journalists, lawmakers, and national governing bodies of several countries", "the Church", " Scientologists", "the organized church", "a number of governments", and "others". As such they don't really belong in the opening section which should be about, it seems to me anyway, the subject of the article. I will repaste the removed sentences elsewhere in the article so no information is lost. Steve Dufour 15:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this the same change you made 2007-03-09? AndroidCat 15:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Took off one less sentence this time. Also I tried to explain my reasons better. Steve Dufour 15:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
This is a terrible edit--please restore those sentences immediately. The intro needs to provide an overview of the key elements in the article to follow. The public reception of Scientology is, of course, an important part of the topic--"Scientology itself" doesn't exist in a vacuum. BTfromLA 16:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. In almost all WP articles the intro does just that. It introduces the subject of the article. I have not checked out the article on Japan but I am sure that the intro to that article does not talk about how people in other countries feel about Japan. This is just an example. Steve Dufour 17:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Excellent point, Steve. And to see the unfair treatment even more clearly look at North Korea. Obviously controversial, obviously controversy is a big part of what it is, obviously critical outsiders have a lot to say about it. But golly, look that intro! Someone once said succintly that the problem here is that Wikipedia is not attempting to cover a "subject", Scientology; they are covering "controversy about a pseudo-subject". So every article should be named "Controversy over . . ." or at least in some peoples eyes. --Justanother 21:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Very good point. Scientology is way over-covered here, for both the number of people involved in it and for its importance in the larger world. That's my opinion, although both members and hard-core critics might disagree. Steve Dufour 15:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Steve, if this was the article specifically about Scientology-the-belief-system, then arguments that the opinions of practitioners and outside observers alike are not key to the subject and do not merit mention in the lead might hold some water. However, this is not the article specifically about Scientology-the-belief-system -- that article is Scientology beliefs and practices. This article is about the entire phenomenon of Scientology and I doubt that any rational analysis could claim that the information you removed from the lead is not about the subject. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Should we include a list of all of Tom Cruise's movies? They are part of the entire phenomenon of Scientology. :-) Steve Dufour 13:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

"Organization" vs. "Corporation"

Both words are accurate, assuming that all Scientology organizations are really incorporated. However some people might not know that schools, churches, and other non-profit organizations can be corporations. They might think that the word "corporation" implies an organization whose purpose is business related. Steve Dufour 16:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the IRS used the expression "Scientology-related entity" to cover both categories in its 1993 tax exemption agreement with CSI. -- ChrisO
"Entity" sounds too much like something they would say on Star Trek. :-) Steve Dufour 13:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Declaration of war?

Could this be expressed in better words? "In 1966, Hubbard declared war on psychiatry..." I don't think he declared a literal war. Steve Dufour 16:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes he did. One of the documents that came out of the Snow White trial was a minute of 2 Dec 1969 (not 1966!) to Mary Sue Hubbard, "Intelligence Actions — Covert Intelligence — Data Collection". The last page of the document is headlined "The War". In it, he says:
Our war has been forced to become "To take over absolutely the field of mental healing on this planet in all forms."
That was not the original purpose. The original purpose was to clear Earth. The battles suffered developed the data that we had an enemy who would have to be gotten out of the way and this meant that we were at war …
By showing him to be brutal, venal and plotting we get him discarded.
Our direct assault will come when they start to arrest his principals and troops for crimes (already begun).
Our total victory will come when we run his organisations, perform his functions and obtain his financing and appropriations.
So there's absolutely no doubt that he did declare a literal war. It's also worth noting that he required Guardian's Office staff to learn Sun Tzu's The Art of War by heart. -- ChrisO 09:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
By a "literal war" I meant one where there are armies killing each other. :-) Steve Dufour 13:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Why did you mean that, since there's no sign that it's what Hubbard meant? -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I was suggesting that a better expression could be found than "declared war on psychiatry". Steve Dufour 14:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The Church of Scientology is most definitely at war with psychiatry and opposition to psychiatry forms part of the Creed of the Church of Scientology. I will quote it soon for you. Here:

We of the Church believe:

. . .

That the study of the mind and the healing of mentally caused ills should not be alienated from religion or condoned in non-religious fields;

--Justanother 14:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

But gosh darn!!! It is not literally a "war"! Steve Dufour 14:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

True. Figuratively, it is, though. --Justanother 14:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't see what the problem is here. If Hubbard telling Scientologists that they're at war with psychiatry isn't a declaration of war, what is? -- ChrisO 22:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
According to Merriam-Webster: "a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism; a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end". Your own definition is too narrow it would seem. Raymond Hill 22:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Then leave it that way. It still sounds a little informal to me. Steve Dufour 02:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this Scientology?

Is this Scientology or just Hubbard's personal opinions? Thanks. Steve Dufour 04:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Hubbard's advice that breastfeeding should be avoided[citation needed] is in contravention of common medical advice, which stresses its importance for the health of both the mother and the child.[15] Hubbard's "Barley Formula" is potentially unsafe for infants; apart from safety issues, the formula would lack vital nutrients, IgA antibodies, and other components of human breast milk. 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. Patricia Devine, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist who directs the Labor and Delivery Unit at Columbia University Medical Center, said "There's absolutely no scientific evidence that taking [noise] away at the time of delivery will have any effect on outcome for the baby or mother."[16]
If my understanding of Scientology is correct, Hubbard was the "Messiah" (like Jesus, or Muhammad). Therefore, what he said was analogous with Scientology scripture. Can someone verify this?--Hojimachongtalk 02:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
If that's true that information should probably be added to the article. Steve Dufour 02:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Scientology#Silent birth and infant care, 2nd paragraph. --Hojimachongtalk 02:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
What I meant was the status of everything Hubbard said or wrote being Scientology scripture. If that is true it seems to me that it should be mentioned in the article. Steve Dufour 04:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Quote from the Religious Technology Center: "The Scientology religion is based exclusively upon L. Ron Hubbard's research, writings and recorded lectures — all of which constitute the Scriptures of the religion. These encompass more than 500,000 pages of writings, nearly 3,000 recorded lectures and more than 100 films." Hope this answer your question. Raymond Hill 18:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I think that this quote should be included in the article. Steve Dufour 20:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Two Points:

One: Is this <insert statement here> really Christianity or just Christ's 'personal opinions' (you'll have to get back to me on that issue when we only have one Christian church, with one interpretation, of course...)?

Two: Asking such a question about may be missing one of Scientology's *core* principles, which (in non-CoS-jargon terms) is that reality itself is a totally individualized experience. What is "wrong" for one may not be "wrong" for another, what is "true" for one person may not be "true" for another. Ontology, even the whole of "reality" is mostly relativistic in CoS. This is one thing critics often fail to grasp when flailing against the CoS, that concepts such as 'Truth' and 'Modern Science' and 'Evidential Proof' are totally relative to the CoS. It's all about the *individual*, and *their* perceptions. "'Tell me what you know about Xenu...' -Tom Cruise" is a good example. He doesn't deny Hubbard's reality perspective, or his own, he inquires about the reality perspective offered by others. Ronabop 05:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. For instance, Scientologist advocates in the public sphere do not proclaim that psychiatry is bad for them, but rather that it is bad for anyone. For instance, Tom Cruise didn't tell Brooke Shields that using antidepressants would be bad for Cruise; he said it was bad for Shields, too; this viewpoint is reinforced by official Scientology publications on the subject of drugs and psychiatry. So there do seem to be some claims that Scientologists make universally rather than in the relativistic sense you're suggesting. --FOo 08:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


In scientology arguments, following consensus reality is frowned upon. Thus, taking consensus drugs, to enable conforming to consensus reality, is bad. Whether avoiding consensus drugs, to enable non-conforming to consensus reality, as a consensus, is bad, well, that's why I find the whole field interesting. Sort of like everybody in a group wearing purple track suits and white shoes to avoid falling into consensus fashion trends. Ronabop 07:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


Thank you both. This is the kind of information that (to my view of reality anyway) should be included in the article. Steve Dufour 13:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Steve, some of that looks like OR. Not that I particularly disagree and my child was breast-fed and maybe some commercial formula. Just it looks like OR. Also if there is no current admonition in Scn against breast-feeding then the correct OR juxtaposition would be Hubbard vs. what was presented at the time. I covered this topic as my first foray here and if you look at the beginning of my edit history it might help. --Justanother 18:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
A more appropriate bit of OR-ish juxtaposition [2] --Justanother 18:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
As an aside, it is interesting that my experience here has turned me from an ex-Scientologist into to a Scientologist (I was never so much a Scientologist as I am right now). I realized more and more how much we had and how clueless most criticism is. So thanks, guys! --Justanother 18:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I took off the information on child care. Please put it back with the much more important information that everything Hubbard said or wrote is Scientology. This would establish that his advice on child care is Scientology. Thanks. Steve Dufour 13:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do not make edits with misleading edit summaries. From your edit summary and from this supposed explanation of your edit, one would think that you had removed Hubbard's advice on child care, instead of leaving Hubbard's advice on child care intact and removing only other POVs that disagree with Hubbard's advice on child care which appears in official Scientology publications such as the Volunteer Minister's Handbook and The Scientology Handbook, which any editor could have verified for themselves by simply checking the references. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I intended to remove everything about it. If it is Scientology put it back. Steve Dufour 14:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
All you need to do is say something like: "A part of Scientology is Hubbard's advice on child care." If that is true. Thanks. Steve Dufour 14:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
If Scientology follow Hubbard's writings (Dianetics etc.) then those beliefs are part of Scientology. Sfacets 14:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Sourced controversy about the barley formula or any of Hubbard's ideas is totally appropriate. What is not appropriate is inventing one's own controversy via OR juxtaposition as in "Hubbard says this but look at this" when the second "look at this" is not about Hubbard's idea specifically and by name (i.e. it does not say "Hubbard", 'Scientology', or "barley formula", etc). That is the OR that is inappropraite. We are not here to warn mothers against using the barley formula if that specific warning is not found in RS. That would be an OR use of this project in addition to violating WP:NOT an instruction manual, etc. --Justanother 14:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Is the barley formula thing an important part of Scientology? (I do not know.) If it is then we should be told so. If not it should not be mentioned in this article. It could be in Hubbard's article. It could also have its own article, something like L. Ron Hubbard's views on child care. Steve Dufour 14:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Steve, I will have to address the more subjective questions later. I cannot really devote much time now. Thanks for your interest in these articles. --Justanother 14:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Is the barley formula thing an important part of Scientology? Short answer? No. --Justanother 15:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Just. I took off both sections about Hubbard's views on child care. I don't question that they are well referenced. It is just that they do not seem to be about the subject of this article. Steve Dufour 15:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Information on Scn birthing and infant care became timely with the TomKat baby. How much is a judgement call. --Justanother 15:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Scientology vs. the Internet

This whole section seems to be about the actions of the CoS and/or some members of it. Of course the information should be covered on WP but I wonder if it belongs in this article. Scientology is only mentioned at all in the section as another name for the CoS. Steve Dufour 17:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Steve, you seem not to realize that as opposed to Church of Scientology, which is the article for the Church of Scientology, and as opposed to Scientology beliefs and practices, which is the article for the beliefs and practices of Scientology, this is the article for Scientology. As in, the whole thing. A lot of your recent edits seem to be founded on the incorrect proposition that anything about the Church of Scientology is "not about the subject of the article". -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
In that case I don't think the whole "Scientology vs. the Internet" thing is important enough for this main article. I don't think you would find a section on the attempts of some Christians to censor movies and books in the main article on Christianity. Steve Dufour 13:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
It was prominent about 10 years ago and had some appropriate and some misguided aspects to it. --Justanother 14:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Indeed? So why are they still flooding ARS with hundreds of articles every week? [3] AndroidCat 14:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Are they? I left ARS in maybe 1994, so I thankfully missed all the "fun". OK, I would still say that the actual Scn vs. the net as a notable event was about 10 years ago. But wanna see something interesting? Mention of "Freezoners" on a scientology.org site (in the meta tag, I guess). Interesting, no? --Justanother 14:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Heh. Google sometimes shows text not from the site but from links that refer to that URL [4]. AndroidCat 15:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I did a search on scientology.org and also checked the meta tag for the page and nothing so I figured it was something like that. --Justanother 15:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

"See also" section

See also

Why are these articles the ones we are told to see? Why not others? Just asking. Thanks. Steve Dufour 13:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

If no reason then I will remove again. Thanks. Steve Dufour 15:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Steve, if you have a constructive suggestion about the links, please make it on the talk page. "If no reason then I will remove" is not constructive. Please stop making major cuts without justification or concensus. I know about the charge to "Be Bold" at Wikipedia. But in the case of a contentious article that has been negotiated at length by many editors over many months, big unilateral changes of the sort you are attempting can easily become a counter-productive disruption of the editing process, leaving both the article itself and the editorial environment the worse for it. BTfromLA 16:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I would like to be included in the process. To me, none of these articles seem to be very important so that we should be told to see them. The first two are also the first two in the info box, and seem to be fairly uninteresting, to me anyway, if they are just lists of books and films. The others are about fairly minor topics and/or are already mentioned and linked in the article itself. Steve Dufour 20:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Well. there's a question of having the "see also" section at all, and a different question about which ones to keep or add. I do think the presence of that template with gobs of links to related articles does weaken the need for a "see also" section in this case. Opinions? BTfromLA 20:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I put a notablity tag on Homosexuality and Scientology. It seemed to be almost all original research. Steve Dufour 15:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, especially since a friend of mine is a gay Scientologist and actively receiving services and in good standing. Scientology has problems with promiscuity, not with the sex of your partner. --Justanother 15:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Is there an article on "Homosexuality and Pokemon"? Steve Dufour 16:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Article on opposition to Scientology?

I expected to find one but might have missed it. Check out this article: Anti-Masonry. Is there something like this about Scientology? Thanks. Steve Dufour 23:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

We actually did have an article on criticism of Scientology; it was moved, I think; that title now goes to Scientology controversy.
However, there are some pretty big differences between the subjects of these articles. Anti-Masonry was, among other things, a major movement in American politics at one time. Masonry also has a much longer history than Scientology.
There are other noteworthy points of difference, though, especially regarding the substance of the opposition; the CoS has a substantiated history of criminal activity, whereas anti-Masonry is largely based on conspiracism.
--FOo 04:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
In the opinons of the anti-Masons Masonry is much worse than Scientology. :-) Steve Dufour 15:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, completely agreed. That's why it's so essential that we can go to reliable sources such as court decisions. The Church of Scientology has been found liable for various abuses, and Scientology leaders and agents found guilty of various crimes, on a number of occasions, including ...
This list doesn't include out-of-court settlements, the terms of many of which are secret. --FOo 03:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
The Catholic Chuch has commited far worse crimes. (To be fair it has also done much more good.) Yet I think there is a WP article on anti-Catholicism. Steve Dufour 05:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
And we have a number of articles pertaining, for instance, to the Catholic Church's pederasty scandals, including the court cases about them. But your original example was Masonry; care to say more about that? --FOo 06:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
If you like check out this article: William Morgan (anti-Mason) Steve Dufour 13:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
It's certainly an interesting story! Unfortunately (for justice, as well as for Wikipedia) it did not lead to a court case or other reasonably reliable determination of the facts regarding Morgan's disappearance. All we have are allegations. Fortunately, we have more reliable sources verifying the allegations against Scientology, such as the court cases above, as well as various pieces of research that corroborate one another. --FOo 18:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd also be willing to guess that anti-Scientologists outnumber Scientologists. They deserve their own article. Steve Dufour 05:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you give an example of anyone who identifies themselves as an anti-Scientologist, in the sense that the Anti-Masonic Party identified itself as anti-Masonic?
For neutrality reasons, you should also be aware that in Hubbard's writing, "anti-Scientologist" is used as another term for "antisocial personality" or "Suppressive Person". See HCOPL 27 Sept. 1966 "The Antisocial Personality, The Anti-Scientologist". --FOo 06:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
A number of people identify themselves as "critics of Scientology." If you like the article could be called that. Or "opposition to Scientology." Steve Dufour 13:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
We do have a Category:Critics of Scientology, which might be a start. It would be interesting to collect together cited sources on various reasons that people get involved in public criticism of Scientology, for instance:
  • ex-members with specific complaints or allegations of wrongdoing (e.g. Tory Christman, Larry Wollersheim, Stacy Brooks, Jesse Prince, Cyril Vosper, Arnie Lerma)
  • researchers or journalists whose investigations led them to negative conclusions about Scientology (e.g. Paulette Cooper, Karin Spaink, Mark Ebner)
  • psychologists studying cults (e.g. John Gordon Clark, Louis Jolyon West)
  • political figures targeted by Scientology (e.g. Gabe Cazares)
  • free-speech advocates who got involved because of Scientology's suppression of criticism (e.g. David Touretzky)
  • Internet users who got pulled in specifically by way of "Operation Foot Bullet" in the early '90s (e.g. Zenon Panoussis, Keith Henson, Grady Ward, Ron Newman)
  • media celebrities reacting to Scientology's presence in Hollywood (e.g. the South Park guys)
("Operation Foot Bullet" refers to CoS's attempts to shut down criticism online, which are generally considered to have massively backfired, leading (for instance) to the widespread popularization of the Xenu meme. Somewhere or other I read an analysis of this phenomenon based on Hubbard's theory of communication, holding that CoS "pulled in" new opponents by misunderstanding the nature of online criticism.)
Unfortunately, any such categorization is probably original research, and as such inadmissible in a Wikipedia article. --FOo 18:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
You have a good point. The topic needs to be discussed elsewhere before a WP article can be written. (Side note: The list of Scientology's crimes does not really explain why they are so hated. There are lots of people who lie, take advantage of other people, file lawsuits, try to intimidate critics, even burgle offices. This is just an observation and not really the kind of thing that is supposed to be said on a WP article discussion page.) Steve Dufour 18:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)