Talk:Scientology/Archive 21

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 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 →

Contents

Complete rewrite of the Scientology WP:LEAD

There was extensive discusion on the WP:LEAD and I thought we had an agreement and sudently out of nowhere the WP:LEAD is complete changed with no discusion. This a faul! The changes don't follow the above previous discusion. Bravehartbear 03:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

BTfromLA is an editor that used to edit quite extensively here. It would not be appropriate for him to come back out of the blue and change things back to perhaps how they were months ago when he last edited here if such a change disregards intervening discussion. The lead should reflect current discussions. If BT wants to make a drastic change he should please come here and discuss it. --Justanother 03:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
which changes are bias exactly ?
there was an agreement to change the proportions of the lead and before there were already discussions as well
I think BTfromLA improved the lead -- Stan talk 03:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, Stan. It is my perpetually naive hope that people will look at changes to these articles and ask the question "does that improve the article?" Alas, in many cases folks are so caught up in other stuff--partisanship, ego, etc.--that questions of whether the writing is understandable, concise, accurate or fair get pushed off the stage. I hope my changes were an improvement, I think they were, and I would be receptive to suggestions as to how to improve the lead further or criticisms of where I got something wrong. If my edit was inappropriatly rash, as Justanother suggests, that wasn't my intention, and I apologize for any insult given to the active editors. In skimming the recent talk page discussions about the intro, I don't see where there was any real breakthrough or strong concensus. But, I admit, I just skimmed. I looked at the article and saw that the intro had become, in my view, imbalanced to the point of inaccuracy (as I recall, controversy about the COS was limited to decades past, for one thing) and some of the writing was less than clear and concise. If my edit violated some multi-editor agreement, please point that out. But honestly, I think the article will be better served if the discussion focuses on the content of the changes I suggested. As I write this, the intro has already again been garbled--" Created in 1952 as an outgrowth of his earlier self-help system, Dianetics" is quickly followed by "It is a development of his earlier self-help system, Dianetics." The business about "thetan" being so named to avoid confusion with soul or spirit is both unecessarily long and begs the question it raises--how is it different? Unless you answer that in the intro (which I don't think is appropriate), that qualifier shouldn't be there. Does anyone think these recent changes make for a better intro? Justanother, while I don't mean to wreak havoc, I don't think it is reasonable to demand that every change be justified in talk page discussion--if that is the standard, then the only folks who can participate in actively contested articles like this one are those who are motivated to edit on a daily basis. Leaves me out, for one. BTfromLA 04:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The use of generalities is a common practice used to attack groups with out disclosing the source of the attacker.

Journalists, courts, and governing bodies of several countries have alleged that Scientology is an unscrupulous commercial enterprise that harasses its critics and victimizes its members.

What Journalist exactly? What courts exactly? What governing bodies exactly? The fact is that there have been also positive reviews of Scientology by Journalists, courts, and governing bodies.

I believe that specific examples of all of those things are provided in the body of the article, are they not? Shall we examine specific cases in detail in the intro? I'd say no--the intro should outline the main points that are developed in the main body of the article. Perhaps adding one specific quote would be a good idea. BTfromLA 04:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

For example this article is a recent positive journalistic review of Scientology: The other side of Scientology

So the sentence totally one sided and doesn’t consider positive review that Scientology has received.

The point is that Scientology has been at the center of controversy and criticism. The fact that something positive has been printed about it doesn't change that. BTfromLA 04:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The use of technical terms that people can’t understand is wrong because this weirds out people because they see the subject as un-understandable. If you use a technical term like Thetan have the decency to explained it.

See my comment above. BTfromLA 04:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The prior intro was created to give people a better understanding of what is Scientology. It was not PR it was a clear a consise explanation.

Also that Washington post review was done in 1993. Things have changed, opinions have changed. To keep with the times only recent reviews should be used (like during the last 5 years). I have noticed that to attack Scientology people keep bringing thing that passed long time ago. Bravehartbear 04:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any "only recent reviews should be used" policy at Wikipedia. Come on, Bravehartbear... THIS WEEK there were headlines about a controversy over Scientology in Germany. A month or so ago a BBC documentary on Scientology was at the center of a bunch of press reports. To be blunt, the idea that controversy about Scientology is relegated to the distant past is preposterous. BTfromLA 04:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
1 theta is explained by him "holds that the individual is a spiritual being" for fürther explanations people can follow the link
2 i did not realize the change of controversy part first. i can understand that you feel its bias but it represents the mainstream in the media. Of course not every newspaper made such allegations but he did not write that.(i will change it a little)
3 and we will have to use generalities in the lead. Specific informations are in the main body. You probably don't want that we start with specifical accusations in the intro.(Operation Snow white,Sweeneys panorama) -- Stan talk 04:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
"The church rejects this allegations and insist that the accusations are based on discredited evidences." I would agree to ad this sentence. But Not WP:OR statements like it was inside before. -- Stan talk 05:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Scientology holds that the individual is a spiritual being, called a thetan
there could be some explanations added otherwise the sentense is quite senseless.
my suggestion: .... ,which can be roughly compared with the concept of soul in other religions.
I only deleted the explanation "(this name was given avoid confusion with concepts of the soul or spirit in other religions)" because it does aktually give no explanation. You are welcome to change and insert it. -- Stan talk 05:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Stan. Bravehartbear 17:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I oppose the use of technical terms in the introductions with no explanation of the term because it creates confusion. The introductions should be done in plain English that anyone can understand. I don't oppose the use of technical terms in the article as long as the term in explained. Wikipedia is about education and we should educate with terms anyone can understand. I'm going to simply remove the term. An alternative would be to explain the term. Bravehartbear 17:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem with this--we don't need to mention "thetan" in the intro. How about something like the following (assuming I'm understanding Hubbard's statements correctly): " Scientology holds that the individual is an immortal spiritual being, and that Scientology's counseling method (known as "auditing") provides an exact method to achieve awareness of one's spiritual existence across many lifetimes. Scientology also claims to be applicable in all facets of life in the physical world; Hubbard's legacy includes programs for organizational management[, study skills, and drug-rehabilitation." BTfromLA 18:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually it is "Scientology's counseling method (known as "auditing") provides an exact method to reduce and eliminate spiritual barriers and to regain native spiritual abilities lost over this lifetime and prior lives." Can be better worded but you see the difference? We are looking for abilities, not the simple awareness; the awareness usually comes quite early on as a result of the recovery of abilities and processes designed to recover them. In my experience, Creation of Human Ability is a very important work; History of Man is not. --Justanother 18:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, how's this: "Scientology holds that the individual is an immortal spiritual being, and that Scientology's counseling method (known as "auditing") enables devotees to regain native spiritual abilities lost over the course of many lifetimes. Scientology is also applied to problems in the physical world; Hubbard's legacy includes programs for organizational management, study skills, and drug-rehabilitation." BTfromLA 18:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

How to not oversimplify?? An individual is not a thetan; he is a a thetan plus body plus reactive mind plus . . .

"Scientology holds that an individual is basically an immortal spiritual being that has a body and may be the adverse effect of his own mental energies. Scientology methodologies enable devotees to reduce or eliminate these adverse effects and regain native spiritual abilities lost over the course of many lifetimes. Scientology is also applied to problems in the physical world; Hubbard's legacy includes programs for organizational management, study skills, and drug-rehabilitation." --Justanother 19:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

A spiritual being that has a physical body is easy to accommodate, but that an individual "may be the adverse effect of his own mental energies..." I don't think that makes sense without a long explanation. Do you think the central idea is misrepresented if we leave the mental energies part out of the intro? BTfromLA 19:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
But it is key. To the state of clear you are dealing with mental energy. Even on OT levels you deal with mental energy. "and is the adverse effect of his own mind." We are talking a basic Trilogy in Scientology; body, mind, thetan. Key stuff. --Justanother 19:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Good--I like to clarify my understanding of this. Please help me to understand if and where this goes awry: "Scientology holds that each individual is composed of three parts: an immortal spiritual being, a physical body, and a mind which may unconsciously induce adverse effects. Scientology's counseling method (known as "auditing") is said to enable devotees to regain native spiritual abilities lost over the course of many lifetimes. Scientology is also applied to problems in the physical world; Hubbard's legacy includes programs for organizational management, study skills, and drug-rehabilitation." BTfromLA 19:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Awryish # 1 is your repeatedly making it all about "many lifetimes". That is only a part, most has to do with one's present condition and has nothing to do with past lives. Awryish # 2 is that the thetan is the senior player and the mind and body are subordinate. Scientology, by definition, addresses the thetan. Dianetics did address the mind but even that is a bit of a "not really"; more it addressed how the mind affects the spirit. Awryish # 3 is calling it all "counseling" or "auditing".
"Scientology holds that an individual is basically an immortal spiritual being that has a body and a mind and is adversely affected by past forgotten decisions and by stored mental energies. Scientology methodologies enable devotees to reduce or eliminate these adverse effects and regain native spiritual abilities lost over the course of many lifetimes. Scientology is also applied to problems in the physical world; Hubbard's legacy includes programs for organizational management, study skills, and drug-rehabilitation." --Justanother 19:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies. #1: Perhaps I was overzealous in my pursuit of a concise phrase. I figured "many lifetimes" included the present one, but I can see where that could mislead. I do think that Scientology's belief in reincarnation is worth making clear--it certainly helps people to situate it as a religion. #2: Got it. #3: Isn't auditing the core practice of Scientology? And isn't "counseling method" a reasonable way to characterize auditing to a non-initiate? "Scientology methodologies" tells the reader nothing. BTfromLA 20:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, I think Scientology/Dianetics/Hubbard is 40 million words? So we may have to expend a couple ourselves. The problem is that what you would call "auditing" (question and answer) would be a subset of the more general "processing" which means the application of a Scientology process or methodology to self or another. And "processing" is only 1/2 of the "path" or Bridge in Scn (sometimes we say 1/3) and it is the lesser 1/2. The senior 1/2 is training to learn the factors of life and livingness and then the application of what you have learned (so you could call those the other 2/3). So what do us "devotees" do?? When we are not standing and clapping and going "hip hip hurray", I mean. Those three (or sit at home and edit Wikipedia). But what does set Scn apart is the processing. So we can use "Scientology methodologies, termed "processing", enable participants . . ." (don't know about devotees, that level is not required). --Justanother 20:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
My concern is that whatever makes it into the intro should be illuminating to the uniformed reader, not mystifying. Maybe the solution, as with "thetan," is to omit the Scientology terminology in the intro. One more try, still not as transparent as I'd like, and perhaps not up to your standards either. But here goes, please let me know what you think : "Scientology holds that an individual is basically an immortal spiritual being that has a body and a mind. Each individual is adversely affected by forgotten decisions or traumas in their past, and by stored mental energies. Scientology training and counseling aims to reduce or eliminate these adverse effects and to allow devotees to regain native spiritual abilities lost over the course of many lifetimes. Scientology is also applied to problems in the physical world; Hubbard's legacy includes programs for organizational management, study skills, and drug-rehabilitation." BTfromLA 06:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Wow, that is very good, BT. --Justanother 11:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I dropped in into the article. BTfromLA 15:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was very good too.Countesskrak 05:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The Scientology network in the lead

I don't understand why this introductory sentence is objectionable: "Scientology also refers to the Church of Scientology, the largest organization promoting the practice of Scientology, which is itself part of a network of affiliated organizations that claim ownership of and sole authority to disseminate Dianetics and Scientology." That sentence, or one like it, keeps getting reduced such that it doesn't mention the affiliated organizations or their proprietary relationaship to Scientology. It seems to me that "Scientology" is often used to refer to this network, and that the legal ownership of the teachings is an unusual and often-discussed aspect of Scientology. In other words, it seems to me that this is just the sort of stuff that belongs in the intro. What am I missing? BTfromLA 19:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

IDK, maybe one of the other guys has an objection? Not to say that I think the wording is so great but I have little trouble with the concept. Well, one objection. The CoS is the Mother, the Mother Church. Not "part of a network". So the hierarchy is wrong. --Justanother 19:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
"Scientology also refers to the Church of Scientology, by far the largest organization promoting the practice of Scientology, which itself operates under the auspices of the Religious Technology Center, the organization that holds the trademarks and copyrights of Dianetics and Scientology and monitors their use by the Church and its social service affiliates like WISE or ABLE." --Justanother 19:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Mother Church is just a term. But its part of a network like Narconon,Criminon,SMI, etc which are all affiliated with each other and are all lead directly or indirectly by RTC. The term "network" describes it very well and is neutral. And this part is quite notable and not to extensive as well. "that claim ownership of and sole authority to disseminate Dianetics and Scientology</>" Just how BTfromLA already explained. -- Stan talk 20:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
ABLE is hardly on a par with CoS and Narconon is a sub-set of ABLE. And even our article on RTC says that RTC was created by CoS. No, CoS is not "part of a network". It IS the network. --Justanother 20:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Narconon is a sub-set of ABLE and ABLE is a sub-set of .... RTC. It may be called as a Franchise as well but network is more neutral. With the term CoS you might be right. It is rather the description for the network. I meant the "Church of Scientology International" which is "the mother" of the other churches and "micro-managing" them but by itself is a part of the network because RTC holds the trademarks and copyrights and micromanages the "Church of Scientology International". -- Stan talk 20:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I think my earlier sentence makes all those points (except the "micromanage" which is not germane to what we are discussing). --Justanother 20:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't notice your first paragraph. You already stated what I wanted to point out.-- Stan talk 21:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
The copyrights of Dianetics and Scientology are currently owned by the Church of Spiritual Technology (frequently doing business as the L. Ron Hubbard Library). The RTC enforces those copyrights under licence. Some other copyrights and trademarks connect with Author Services Inc., which is a for-profit company wholly-owned by CST. Some kind of block diagram of the structure would be nice if we could ever get consensus on every connection and control arrow (ha).AndroidCat 15:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
RTC clearly claims ownership of the trademarks and service marks here. As far as intellectual property, Author Services manages the copyrighted material (see) but does not claim ownership. --Justanother 18:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that "Scientology" is solely used to refer to the belief system and "teachings" of the Church of Scientology and related organizations. "Scientology" indeed cannot be used to refer to any body unrelated to the Church of Scientology. 66.167.51.31 08:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Line removed from lead ("The church rejects...)

I've cut the following from the end of the lead: "The church rejects this allegations and insists that the accusations are based on discredited evidences." Grammer issues aside, this line does the article no good. We simply can't have every assertion met with a counter-claim, certainly not in a brief intro. Do you think a line beginning "Critics reject..." after every church assertion that has been contradicted by critics would improve the intro? If your concern is that the critical charges gain too much emphasis by being placed at the end of the intro, we could consider moving them further up the page. BTfromLA 06:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought it might be notable that Scientology does not admit guilt, always rejects allegations and usually does not justify itself but emphasises alleged discredited evidences. However, if this is seen as common practice by defendants it might be not part of the intro. -- Stan talk 11:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be mentioned in the intro, that the church rejects quite many common practices, that remain unchecked by many governments (esp. psychiatric practices). So I added that... --Homer Landskirty 10:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the ideology of most religions oppose psychiatry. I'm not sure if this is really notable in the intro. CCHR is just a small fraction of CoS. -- Stan talk 11:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to point out, that the conflict is not just about what the CoS does, but also about what the democracies/psychiatrists do... --Homer Landskirty 15:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Homer BT, I do not disagree so much with your removal as with the current presentation of "here is what this fringe so-called "Church" says it is and here is what reputable groups say it is." We had better presentations of this point in the past so we may want to look to an earlier revision for guidance. It should more be that there are varying opinions among 3rd parties, not the (non-existent) uniformity of 3rd-party opinion that you present. As an aside, governments support torture, courts "support" everything and many have ruled for Scientology, and the segment of press that most often criticises Scientology thinks that Paris Hilton is the most interesting thing in all existence and the aspect of existence most worthy of attention. --Justanother 12:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the intro was better in the past; this is definitely a case of too many cooks. As I recall, there was a "however" connecting CoS self-characterizations to the reports that challenge them in earlier versions. I do think that the fact that many reputable sources have and continue to find the CoS duplicitous and Scientology's claims dubious needs to be clearly stated in the intro--from my perspective, that is conspicuously the case, and to soft-pedal it is a disservice to readers looking for a disinterested report on Scientology. I realize that this is a perpetual sticking point, but however misbegotten you may personally find the parade of critics, the fact that representatives of respectible news organizations have again and again found Scientology questionable is itself a major characteristic of Scientology, if you'll grant that Scientology's public reception is part of the subject. BTfromLA 16:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
the segment of press that most often criticises Scientology thinks that Paris Hilton is the most interesting thing in all existence and the aspect of existence most worthy of attention. This segment of press usually doesn't investigate Scientology and should not be considered as reliable. But New York Times, Washington Post or BBC can be hardly compared with them. The heaviest allegations came from such reliable press-networks. -- Stan talk 12:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
You might be surprised as to how often the "reliable source" for a particular bit is the gossip columist of an otherwise reputable paper, said gossip columist simply parroting internet criticism. But that is really neither here not there as regards my point about the section. --Justanother 13:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I avoid the press and TV news... They show sometimes 2 big pages with a single big picture of a new born bear: de:Knut (Eisbär) ([1])... I dont understand ur first sentence completely, I think... I didnt remove anything (since I removed that Barley paragraph)... but the guy from LA removed the CoS point of view regarding critics... I wanted to point out, that both sides (CoS and TheOthers) criticize each other for the things they do... Maybe somebody could help me to make it more clear? I am not a native speaker and my brain is a "little bit" damaged since the last psychiatric "nerve healing therapy"... :-) --Homer Landskirty 15:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, Homer, I got mixed up there and I do not even have any "psychiatric 'nerve healing therapy'" for an excuse (smile). --Justanother 15:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
OK... Now my sentence is complete gone... I still think, that we should outline CoS's complaints about democracy/psychiatry in the intro (since those complaints r the very motivation for L.R.Hubbard's research about Dianetics/Scientology)... --Homer Landskirty 16:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

There really isn't room in a brief intro for a treatment of complex issues like Scientology and the legal system or Scientology and psychiatry. It will be very difficult to sum them up in a few sentances without losing context and detail necessary to give a neutral and informative treatment of the issues. A brief statement on Scientology and psychiatry being at odds should be sufficient for the intro. (RookZERO 21:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC))

Rook, you need to stop reverting. You don't like my edit in the last line but you go in an revert edits I made in three areas. REVERT IS NOT AN EDITING TOOL. If you think it is then you have fallen for a lie. Revert is for vandalism. Using revert as you do is insulting and infuriating to a good-faith editor and calls your good faith into serious question. Discussion and thoughful change are how we edit best. If you do not like the last line then make a change that you think I would agree to. That is how I work. I make a change that I think is better, is more NPOV, and that I think the "other side" can live with. That is the only way to edit and it can be done in the article via successive edits or it can be done here and then dropped in. But the only way that real, stable, improvement can be made to the article is if REVERT is not the tool used but evolutionary editing is. --Justanother 03:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
My 2¢: I agree with Justanother that wholesale reverting of good-faith edits is rarely appropriate and usually rude. I did not mean my earlier edit summary to be taken as an endorsement of the multi-line revert that RookZero made (I hadn't even noticed the other reversions). I do, however, agree with RookZero's comment that Justanother's revision of the bit about critics of Scientology in the lead was "the understatement of the year." Like it or not, the fact is that a Time magazine cover story called the organization a "mafia-like" "cult" (and that's hardly the only example of such coverage from a source that is widely considered to be reputable). In other words, the breadth and severity of critical allegations and judgements about Scientology are extraordinary. While we do our readers a disservice if we allow the criticisms to blot out a representation of Scientology that practioners would recognize, we likewise disserve the readers if we minimize the place of critical accounts in the public understanding of Scientology. BTfromLA 06:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Understatement, huh? Hmmm, I was going to say that "Scientology has received a few stern looks" but I strengthened it in the spirit of compromise =;-/ Justanother 13:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Your changes are not "evolutionary editing" but an attempt to whitewash away information critical of scientology. The origional version is brief and very lenient to Scientology. At the very least, the absolute least, the article's introduction should retain information that governments, journalists and former members are sharply critical of Scientology. Ideally, it should be expanded somewhat to indicate the criminal activity that brought on these critical views. It should not seek to minimize, tone down, or marginalize those critics, as that is not the role of an encyclopdia. Again, look at Salmon Rushdie. Specifics about critical reactions and government reactions are right in the intro. They aren't minimized or pushed aside. In fact, they make up half the intro of one of the most decorated authors of all time. Reactions to the criticism are not mentioned at all in the intro, even though national governments have passed resolutions supporting him, many NGOs, journalists and writers have issued statements supportive of him, and internationally known Islamic scholars have questioned the legality of the his death fatwa. (RookZERO 16:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC))

3RR

RookZERO has been reported at WP:AN3 for 3RR violation. IMO, he is also also poisoning the atmosphere here with his disruptive editing. I think my comments there spell it out. Other parties are welcome to comment as they see fit. --Justanother 17:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Office of Special Affairs?

Hi all. New to this discussion, and mostly new to editing Wikipedia, so if this question has been asked and answered already, or is somehow improper, please understand I don't intend any disrespect, don't want to step on any toes, and don't want to make anyone angry. I'll happily withdraw the question if it's not appropriate.

I've been watching the back-and-forth between editors on this highly controversial topic, and I've seen several instances where people seem to be editing from an official Church of Scientology point of view, from Church-owned IP addresses. That would seem to be in direct conflict with WP:COI, although as the guideline says, "it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception."

What I'm wondering is if these edits and editors are directed by Scientology's Office of Special Affairs, and if so, whether that's appropriate behavior. Again, I'm not trying to say that it isn't, I just don't know. I would have similar concerns if prominent Scientology critics were editing this page, and for all I know they are. The same goes for the articles for other religions, philosophies, and beliefs. For instance, I would be concerned about the propriety of the Vatican trying to edit the Wikipedia article on Catholicism to put itself in a favorable light.

Is the Office of Special Affairs involved in editing this article? And if so, is that largely considered appropriate? --GoodDamon 23:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi. It is a valid question and one that may soon be addressed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#COFS. I recommend that we all keep an eye on that. I, for one, will not speculate further on where that may go and what might be decided. --Justanother 23:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for answering so quickly. I'll do as you suggest. --GoodDamon 23:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
To answer the other side of your question, well known Scientology critics began these pages but are now in a minority. Most editors have so far as I know no involvement with the CoS outside of Wikipedia, for or against. --Hartley Patterson 03:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

SCN's criticism /esp. regarding psychiatry

I still think, we should mention in the lead (intro), that SCN/CoS isnt so happy with the political/law/health system of most (all) countries, because: This criticism is an important part of SCN (dianetics; in a basic book they complain about psychiatric treatment again and again) and the major motivation for all those self-help programmes. That psychiatry still uses electro shock isnt a prove, that SCN/CoS didnt criticize it (because: it is possible that psychiatry is stronger than SCN)... --Homer Landskirty 06:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Homer, lead mention of opposition to psychiatry would better belong in the Church of Scientology article, not this one. Scientology is not built on opposition to psychiatry; opposition to psychiatry has to do with the fact that it is built on false premises and has a history of extreme brutality and misdeeds, far far outweighing anything the CoS is accused of BTW, which continues to the present day. Also, psychiatry does not, IMO, respond to CCHR objections; CCHR investigates and exposes psychiatric criminality like "deep sleep therapy" in Australia and insurance bounty hunting by psychiatric hospitals in Texas and elsewhere and gets law enforcement and legislators involved. --Justanother 12:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
1. Scientology (the ideology) criticizes psychiatry based on Hubbard's research. 2. CCHR/CoS r just two organizations, that might be near to Hubbard's Scientology. 3. Furthermore Scientology claims, that it wants to (and is able to) substitute psychiatry (psychiatry is involved in criminal justice, education, public health and many other important fields). ==> If me mention criticism against SCN we have to mention SCN's criticism, too. --Homer Landskirty 13:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
"Scientology" holds that the mind and spirit are linked and, I would say, that "mental treatment" that does not acknowledge the spirit is suppressive of the spirit and could be considered evil. That is what "Scientology" has to with it. Any activity based on that feeling would be by the CoS, CCHR, and individual Scientologists. --Justanother 13:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Just reverted your edit. We also would not mention in "Christian article" that they believe their god is the best. ...
By the way, Scienotology also critizises Darwin, Einstein, Food and Drug Administration and democracy. If the "psychiatry criticism" would have an impact to psyciatry/psychology it would be probably notable. But the allegations from groups and Tome Cruise are not shared by reliable newspapers or scientific researchers. And the list of enemies is to long for the lead. -- Stan talk 15:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
The fact that Hubbard, like many thinkers, was critical of a lot of modern institutions does not alter the fact that opposition to psychiatry is a central theme in Scientology; the others are not. Opposition to psychiatry is built into the "Creed of the Church of Scientology". And lots of reputable people criticise psychiatry's crimes and excesses, the difference being perhaps whether they consider such as isolated incidents or as indicative of systemic "evil". In other words, was the Spanish Inquisition a few isolated incidents or was it a systemic evil played out upon a trusting public. So Stan, all due respect, but you seem to have a misunderstanding about the relationship between Scientology and psychiatry and, although I think Homer's prose and placement may need work, I think he has the truer view of that issue. --Justanother 16:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say that there was never abuse of psychiatry. And some issues are discussed indeed controversial even within that branch. But the allegations made by Scientology are usually not taken to serious. However, I agree that this branch is probably the most hated branch by Scientologists. Did you mean with "Homers prose" his last edit: "Scientology claims to be better than any other practice due to inherent failures caused by the mental traumata of their proponents." ? 1) no source 2) Toyota may think as well building the best cars and may make such superlative statements. But it wouldn't be mentioned in any encyclopedia. And for sure not in the lead. If CCHR is that important for you why not adding it to the list ? (ABLE, WISE) I think it doesn't match in the ideology-section of the lead because the "psy-criticism" is a consequence of the ideology. Not the ideology itself.-- Stan talk 16:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there any gradation in Scientology's opposition to psychiatry? As far as I can tell, the Church condemns all aspects of the practice, from therapeutic drugs to counseling. And since Scientology presents itself as a robust replacement for psychiatry, it would appear to be a major facet of the belief system. I'm surprised that a mention of the psychiatric establishment's and Scientology's adversarial relationship with one another isn't already in the intro. Perhaps the last line could be altered thusly:

"Scientology and the organizations that promote it have remained highly controversial since their inception. Journalists, courts, psychiatric groups, and governing bodies of several countries have alleged that Scientology is an unscrupulous commercial enterprise that harasses its critics and victimizes its members." With an applicable citation, of course. --GoodDamon 17:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Since we're talking about an unbiased encyclopedia entry, would it be appropriate to mention that Scientology, on it's side, has alleged that psychiatric groups are unscrupulous commercial enterprises that harrass their critics and victimize their own members and that without govenment funding and unquestioned support form the press, they would have gone broke? How about the fact that for an unscrupulous commercial enterprize with no funding or support from anybody Scientology sure ie popular ie gets a lot of new members has a very high retention rate now and makes a lot of money. <Source What is Scientology Book and recent Event statistics>Countesskrak 05:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Scientology would stand in opposition to any mental therapy that starts with the premise that man is meat, i.e. a collection of physical bits and neural impulses that is not guided by any entity that "science" can not detect by current methods. Just like a school of geology might have problems with a "science" that attempts to deal with the mechanics of this planet based on an underlying premise that the Earth is made of cheese (provolone tectonics). --Justanother 17:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Do you agree with me that "Psy-criticism" isn't a substantial part of the ideology" but a consequence ? Vice versa, it would mean that the "beliefs and practices" of Scientology would be different without psychiatry on earth?!

No, Scientology would be the same if psychiatry had never existed. The opposition is because of both a philosophic conflict(man is an animal vs man is a spirit) and methodology (help=drugs, hypnosis, electric shock for the man is an animal crowd vs help=quiet converstions in a relaxed atmosphere(auditing) for the man is a spirit crowd=Scientology). Countesskrak 05:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

"stand in opposition to any mental therapy that starts with the premise that man is meat" yes, that is a substantial part of the ideology and already explained in the first line of the paragraph. -- Stan talk 21:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
That stance would obviously preclude any psychiatric drugs -- hence Narconon's opinion on legal mind-altering pharmaceuticals, not just illegal substances. If there are circumstances in which Scientology would approve of certain specific psychiatric treatments -- for instance, cases of gross psychosis -- those might serve as a good counterbalance to its largely negative opinion on the subject. --GoodDamon 21:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

There’s much confusion on this subject, believe me. I have never been a scientologist (actually I dislike the CoS) but have collaborated closely with them in many CCHR activities thru the last years.

It may surprise you but there are non-scientologists who oppose both psychotherapy and psychiatry: for example Jeffrey Masson. Scientology’s doctrine about psychiatry is a mixture of secular antipsychiatric ideas and Hubbard’s religious ideas. If you are not familiar with the secular criticism of psychiatry you will get very confused. There’s no question about that. Alas, since Szasz (who has been invited for keynote CCHR addresses), ICSPP and others are reluctant to disambiguate the two camps in their writings, the public got the idea that all CoS’s psychiatry ideas are original of them.

They’re not, as can be seen in this DVD.

If anyone of you wants to know a bit about the secular movement against psychiatry, I would recommend your reading of the articles critical of psychiatry such as MindFreedom, Antipsychiatry, Biopsychiatry controversy or The Gene Illusion.

Tito58 06:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The correct use of wiki-links

A recent edit to the lead changed the linked words "study skills" and "drug-rehabilitation" such that they link to articles defining those terms. Previously, the links had gone to "Study Tech" and "Narconon," the specific scientology-related programs that the paragraph was referring to. I don't know if there's a Wikipedia policy about this, but it seems to me that links that actually provide more information about the subject of the article should be encouraged, and the links that basically serve as dictionary definitions for well-known concepts should be discouraged, as they tend to distract from the article's subject matter rather than enhance it. I see such links all over Wikipedia, and I wonder whether I am alone in my preference for links that actually enhance the article's content. BTfromLA 20:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I changed it. The reason was that the link-discription didn't make clear that it leads specificly to narconon. I would prefer a narconon-link as well but in my opinion it is only possible if the link states it specifically. Otherwise readers wich didn't read the whole paragraph may get confused. Sorry, I have not seen any policy for this issue. But if we would rename it, I see no problem to refer to Narconon. Maybe "Scientology own drug rehab.","Narconon","drug rehab.(Narconon)" -- Stan talk 20:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I do not necessarily agree with BT. I am fairly sure that there is policy related to the issue. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links). Clearly, a person reading an article on Scientology would be most interested in the Scientology-related internal links if that is what the linked term relates to. However, if linking to the general term fits wells in the context and is not done at the expense of the specific term then I see no probem with it. For example, this is a good sentence as regards linkage: The Church of Scientology's Narconon program offers drug-free drug rehabilitation based on Hubbard's methods and teachings. --Justanother 20:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
As regards this specific case in the lead, it is an ambiguous case but I lean toward Stan's version. --Justanother 20:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd say the Style Guide supports my view, but it just isn't specific or emphatic enough for me to present a definitive case. What it says is "Use the links for all words and terms that are relevant to the article. The purpose of internal links is to allow readers to easily and conveniently follow their curiosity or research to other articles." It goes on to warn against "overlinking," which in part consists of linking to "low-value" targets (such as Sunday or 1954). Presumably, this low-value concept extends to all links that are not immediately relevant to the content of the article. To my mind, readers of the Scientology article might be curious to read about Hubbard's Study Tech. But it's hard for me to imagine readers wanting to learn about Scientology being fueled by the question "Just what are Study Skills?' or "What is the History of Study Skills?" Likewise, I think readers can be assumed to have a working knowledge of what a "drug-rehabilitation program" refers to without directing them to the drug-rehab page. As it stands, the links are inconsistent which creates further coonfusion--should we change immortal spiritual being to immortal spiritual being? I fail to see any advantage to the latter, from the point of view of a reader, but apparently mine is an eccentric view in this room. Gastrointestinally yours, BTfromLA 21:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
The way the lead is currently worded I lean toward Stan's take. Were it worded differently with Narconon, Study Tech etc. named then that would be different. --Justanother 22:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd lean toward Stan's take. Overlinking is less of a problem than not linking to relevent information. (RookZERO 16:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC))

I agree with Stan's version too. Countesskrak 05:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Orwell Quote

I'm watching an interview with L Ron Hubbard, Jr. and he claims his father used the quote. He may not have written it, but plagerism has never been a crime within $cientology. I downloaded the interview from xenu.net. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.209.135 (talk • contribs)

There is a section already on the LRH saying that he intended to start a religion for money and the Church attempting to attribute the quote to George Orwell instead. (RookZERO 20:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC))

Scientology as a state-recognized religion

I don't see no purpose of detailing about the individual country by country legistations and court rulings about Scientology in the main Scientology page. This is a the Main page and should be an introduction. Detailed information like this should be in a subpage. All what we need is a paragraph stating in what countries Scientology is recognised and in what countries it isn't and why. There is no use to place historical data on court rulings in this page. This section is big enoght to have its own page. We could just keep the 1st paragraph and move the country by country legisations and court rulings to a new page. Bravehartbear 18:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is the reference on spliting; WP:SS Bravehartbear 00:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to repeat myself here again: Isn't it true, that _no_ government "recognizes" or "not recognizes" an institution/organization to be a "religion", because the word "religion" is not defined (e. g.: car manufacturers "promise" "freedom" and "safety", too). Shouldn't we omit the "religion" question completely? But at least we shouldn't say, that some country/gov/judge says, SCN is (not) a religion, although that country/gov/judge doesn't... --Homer Landskirty 18:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Most governments do define religion, if only for tax reasons. In Germany there is a national religion and all citizens get the religious tithe taken out of their pay like social security tax in the US and the money goes to the religion via the government; unless the person "declares" some other religion. This creates a vested interest for the government in suppressing other religions than the national one. It is appropriate, for an unbiased view, to state that Scientology is accepted a religion in most countries, regardless of how they are corporately organized.Countesskrak 05:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Is true that some countries have chosen to not to define what is a religion but others do have define it. But that's beside the point. What we are talking here about is about a legal status. The legal status of religion carries with it a band wagon of rights and privileges. In Germany for example a state religion can get grants and tax money from the government. (I guess that comes from medieval times when the governments had to pay tribute to Rome.) The fact is that some countries have given this legal status to Scientology and some haven't regardless if it is defined or not; it is still a very important status and a main point of the Scientology controversy. Bravehartbear 20:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh... So it is "politics"... :-)) I dont like that kind of controversy, where nobody seems to know what he/she talks about (here the question would be "what is a religion?" or "what makes Catholicism so special, that F.Rep.GERM collects their taxes?")... --Homer Landskirty 21:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Of course a legal status is politics. The job of politics is to maintain laws! How you feel about these laws doesn't affect the fact that our job as Wikipedians is to document them. If we move the legal status into its own section, we can do this more thorougly, without cluttering the main page. Foobaz·o< 07:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree; we need a concise, informative introduction to Scientology. The information is very valuable, but it's too much clutter for this article. Foobaz·o< 23:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

How about keeping an introduction simple. Start out with what the Church of Scientology says it is, from the published "What is Scientology" Book,and then say what other people (and say who)say it is. Could that work?Countesskrak 05:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Academics and Scientology

In editing the article Rookzero noted: "removed grossly inaccurate statement. Only a small minority of scholarly opinion is pro-scientology, and that portion is often funded by the cult itself."
This is misleading and defaming. Scholarly opinion is divided not about the facts but about its approach to religion. Some scholars confine their research to stated beliefs and practices, others concentrate on the activities of CoS as an organisation.
I'd venture to suggest that the majority of 'religious experts' accept that Scientology is a religion, but do not want to say anything about the CoS not wishing to be attacked by it.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hartley Patterson (talk • contribs) 09:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

A "majority of religious experts" do NOT "accept that Scientology is a religion" any more than they accept that the moon is made of greeen cheese. The only individuals who "accept that Scientology is a religion" are members of the church. It is fair and factual to state that the only scholarly opinions which are "pro-scientology" are those opinions held by the aforementioned members of the church. It is unlikely that one would locate evidence of this, as the CoS has regularly hidden and destroyed evidence of their shadowy practices. While skeptics typically do not accept "conspiracy" as evidence, I believe that we all agree that the CoS has proven more than capable of it time and time again. 66.167.51.31 08:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Hartley, why replacing one unfounded opinion with another? What's the use? There is sh**loads of texts on the corp structure of the CoS. Check your shelf. Misou 17:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


I'm sorry but most schoolars do agree that Scientology is a religion. Most of the greatest religious schoolars have back up Scientology in many court cases. See the list.
Well I getting tired, there are too many to mention. If you want to see a complete list see: http://www.neuereligion.de/ENG/index.html There is no question that Scientology is a religion because it deals with the soul and other things. The question is if the church is a church or a coporation, that's the whole legal issue. Theologicaly speaking Scientology is a religion. Bravehartbear 04:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure that the website where you got the information from is reliable, after all, by the looks of things they are pro-Scientology. What I also would like to say is this could be exactly the same thing that happened with evolution, anti-evolution people had a, I think, 4 year petition to find scientists who are against evolution and they found 400 or something then tried to use that in court, then the pro-evolution came along and did the same thing but for only 4 days and found 600,000, what I mean to say with that is that the bigger the sample, the more people you can find that support you, e.g. the world has 6 billion people, with a percentage becoming scholars, and a percentage of those people being pro-Scientology and then you have a group of people. So, basically if you want to say "most" then find a neutral source that gives you a percentage of pro- and anti-Scientology scholars. PS: if this is a pro-Scientology website (I'm sure we can agree it is) don't you think they would add more scholars as they come forth? What I mean is that they probably added all scholars that ever wrote something pro-Scientology just to give Scientology more credit which means that there are only 27 (OK, there are other reasons why there aren't any more than 27), so to say "most" find that percentage on a neutral web-site (I'm 94.89% sure that one exists). We must all remember to read Argumentum ad populum. Best of luck, Jeffrey.Kleykamp 05:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
In german wikipedia they use this «Karel Dobbelaere (2000): The Rationale of Pillarization: The Case of Minority Movements. In: Journal of Contemporary Religion 15(2): 181-198, S. 187f.» as source for the statement "most other social scientists aggree that scientology is a religion"... Furthermore in my opinion the scientific definition of "religion" is quite easy to meet (e. g. car production companies, who promise "freedom" and "safety", have strong religious elements...). --Homer Landskirty 06:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps the article shouldn't address whether Scientology is a religion, but restrict itself to talking about the legal status of Scientology in different countries, as it already does. Foobaz·o< 13:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Good idea, Jeffrey.Kleykamp 23:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
'cuse me....! Doesn't this discussion belong to Church of Scientology??? Scientology is a think-thing, Church of Scientology a legal-thing, to say that super-simply. Religious recognitions refer to corporations. And in that case a couple of governments have recognized the local Church of Scientology as a religious corporation, set up to forward the religious purposes and goals of the belief system Scientology. But this is stuff for the CoS page, isn't it. Misou 01:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
The Church of Scientology and Scientology are inextricably linked. One cannot exist outside of the other, as the Church of Scientology retains legal rights to the entirety of the organization and all related organiations, including the "history" and "teachings" from zero-hour. This is not a religious belief, it is a cult. "Scientology" and the "Church of Scientology" are not the same as referring to "Christianity" and "The Methodist Church" or "Islam" and "Shia Islam," but rather "Catholicism" and "The Catholic Church." But even the latter is a poor example, as the Catholic Church does not have a monopoly on the doctrines of Catholicism. It is legally impossible for Scientology to splinter off into multiple groups. 66.167.51.8 05:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
You're right, governments don't recognize religions, they recognize churches. But if a state recognizes any Scientologist church, we can say that they recognize Scientology as a religion. Do you have any ideas on how the page should be changed? You tell us our discussion is wrong, but you don't contribute a proposal of your own. Foobaz·o< 05:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I know what to do to make this page better, check all references because a lot of references don't say what they say they say. OK, that was a bit off topic but it's still a good idea, but what we should try to do is to get in new blood because the editors are always the same people, something like RookZERO, Foobaz, Misou, Su-Jada, and me, although you could say that I just revert stuff and don't do much writing. The reason this isn't off-topic is that sometimes some people just copy and paste in stuff from old revisions because that is the copy that they approve of, I say this wouldn't happen if we had other people writing the article. How about all frequent editors of this article stop editing for a week or two? Although, frequent editors might have differences on which version to leave on. Finally, the intro sounds good enough where it just calls Scientology the "basis for a new religion". Jeffrey.Kleykamp 14:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)