Talk:Scientology/Archive 23

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.

Contents 1 Speculative fiction 2 This article is too big 3 Anyone else interesting in AfDing Project Chanology 4 Change intro 5 Lost in transit 6 Project Chanology 7 Intro 8 A business 9 Readership of this article 10 Intro again 11 Dubious edit by Ticklemygrits 11.1 Redux 12 Inrevelant info in the lead 13 Massive Improvement 14 This is an encyclopedia 15 Tom Cruise Video 16 Primary sources tag 17 More evidence that Scientology is spreading among Christians 18 Numbers of churches, missions and groups 19 Placement of refs 20 "Speculative fiction" 21 Judges Press IRS on Church Tax Break 22 this article is not accurate 23 Page falls off the side. 24 Aliens 25 Dangerous Cult redirect 26 Does anyone know if "Alan W. Black is a scientologist? 27 Membership 28 Merge proposal. 29 Brainwashing 30 How do two Wrongs Make a Right? "Attacking the Attacker" 31 Article still has overreliance/overweighting of primary, self-published/self-referential sources 32 Controversy -> "Hypnosis" and "Scientology as a Cult" 33 Scientology and the internet 34 Kids against Scientology 35 problem with "Div 6" or "for WOGS only" content in Beliefs 36 This article is WAY too big/long 37 Meh. 38 wtf 39 Still sites its own sources 40 Scientology and the internet 41 Scientology, A Profit Orginization. 42 NYU cruises to the moon! 43 Scientology denied church status in germany 44 Mentally-ill child denied psychiatric help, kills Scientologist parents 45 speculative fiction? 46 Get real, people. 47 Reality Check 48 Controversy redirect 49 IRS Infiltration 50 So you want to be a scientologist - Slate Magazine

Speculative fiction

I thought this had been covered ad infinitum earlier, but oh well... Prior to writing Dianetics and other Scientology texts, Hubbard was primarily known as a writer of fantasy, horror, and science-fiction (collectively known as speculative fiction these days). JustaHulk states in his edit to the intro: "that whole bit sounds forced and is unnecessary, usually "sci-fi" is added for POV purposes. "Author" is fine and leaner reads better." Now personally, I think removing it is pushing a POV that the information isn't notable or pertinent, and that including it is somehow an attack on Hubbard. I think a simple definition of what kind of author he was ("speculative fiction" is just two words) is neither "forced" nor POV-pushing. There's no shame in writing speculative fiction, and hiding what he wrote -- especially when it's already widely known -- seems both POV-pushing and obfuscatory. Furthermore, "speculative fiction" encompasses a lot more than "sci-fi," and more accurately reflects what he wrote. So... Should we describe -- again, in nonjudgmental terms -- what kind of author Hubbard was in the intro, folks? --GoodDamon 16:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Hubbard also wrote a lot of western, detective, adventure, etc, for the Pulp magazine market and pulp writer seemed to be the most accurate description. Something has to be there or endless passers-by will insert something. AndroidCat (talk) 17:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

And it will usually be "science fiction," which is just too imprecise. I would go with "speculative fiction" because it covers the largest amount of his body of work, but if someone comes up with something better, I'm game. --GoodDamon 17:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe combine the two above, with something like "Hubbard wrote extensively for the pulp magazine market, most notably in the speculative fiction area?" John Carter (talk) 17:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

If it's too long, it'll encourage "one more thing..." edits. AndroidCat (talk) 17:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

We already get too many of those. "Speculative fiction" is broad enough, well-documented, and thankfully just two words. I think it should go back in. All in favor? --GoodDamon 17:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

No objections here. John Carter (talk) 17:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

All right, I'm putting it back then. --GoodDamon 17:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

(left) I can go with whatever the consensus is. Obviously, sci-fi is almost always added as a POV-push. Hubbard was always an author. By the time he formed Scn, he was not a fiction author at all but had been running Dianetics for a few years. So, by rights, Scn was not started by a fiction author because that is not what he was or had been for some time when he started it. I had removed the "author" bit entirely a while back and it stood until another red account inserted sci-fi and GoodDamon well-meaningly tried to make something better of that. Sorry, but one thing I've learned here is that you do not always have to try to improve a questionable bit; sometimes the best thing to do is remove it. If we must pigeon-hole Hubbard right off the bat in the article then I prefer "pulp-fiction" writer as it is more accessible than "speculative fiction" and I do not like the frequent tendency here in Wikipedia to use less accessible, if perhaps incrementally more precise, terminology in lead paragraphs. --JustaHulk (talk) 18:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

All understandable concerns, but I think you're fighting a hurricane here. He's noted overwhelmingly in the press as a science fiction author prior to Scientology, so every drive-by editor in the world's going to insert that bit. Preemptively having something more accurate there already is the best solution I can think of. --GoodDamon 04:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I also will go with the consensus. Just to put in a tidbit of information, in the interview with the BBC that L.R.H. did in the 60's (I believe the time frame is right) when asked about his fortune he stated "I was a highly successful science Fiction writer prior to Dianetics" so if the consensus leans toward Science fiction, it is probably appropriate considering it was his own identification. Coffeepusher (talk) 06:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

"Speculative fiction" is not a term Hubbard would have recognized. "Science Ficton," "Science Fiction and Fantasy" or "Pulp Science Fiction" are correct in this case. "Pulp Fiction" focuses on the publishing venue rather than the story genre, so it's true, but less specific. Everything I've read leads me to believe that by reputation and Hubbard's own characterization, "Science Fiction" is the best candidate here. Definitely not "Speculative fiction," though, which I think was introduced in the late 1960s as an attempt to cast SF as a more respectable literary genre (similar to the introduction of the term "graphic novel" as applied to what were universally known as "comic books." ) BTfromLA (talk) 16:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This article is too big

It is over 100K. Since the "Controversy and criticism" section has a "main" article, it seems appropriate to simply move its subsections to that page.--Blinadrange (talk) 15:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC) That was about 30K worth of material moved to the subordinate "main" page. The article is still somewhat large at 73K, but it's a start.--Blinadrange (talk) 16:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It is tempting to move more of the beliefs and practices to their "main" sub-page. Well...I hope somebody will add a reaction to this idea. Also, I think that the lead should not need references: it should summarize the rest of the article. I moved the 16 refs in the lead into the main body of the text. What else should we do to get this to GA?--Blinadrange (talk) 16:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You're definitely on the right track. I just reviewed your edits, and they've made the page much cleaner and easier to read. I think the next step should be some citation cleanup. Right now, the citations aren't all formatted the same way. I propose that each citation be reworked to fit the {{cite web/newspaper/whatever}} template formats, so that for each citation we can see clearly:

1. Where it originated (online, a magazine, a TV show, etc.)
2. Who produced it
3. Online versions (if any)

I'll see if I can find what I'd call a "model citation," and then we can start formatting the rest the same way. --GoodDamon 17:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

And come to think of it, this would be a good project for the entire Wikiproject... --GoodDamon 17:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I removed a bit as I noticed that someone had inserted the obscure (to Scientologists - and everyone else) "Zone Plan" under the training section, no doubt confusing the Zones with the Academy Levels. --JustaHulk (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It might not be a bad idea to request peer review from outsiders for the purpose of determining what is clear to those who don't know the subject and what needs clarifying. Also, the standard citation format would definitely be a good idea. But outsider peer review would definitely help. John Carter (talk) 18:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, scientology is famous for its controversy, not its beliefs and practices or anything else. Therefore, removing criticism from the main article is wrong. Lantios (talk) 03:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

One could argue that Scientology beliefs and practices themselves are more controversial than criticism of Scientology. So why present it in the opposite way, with all criticism confined to the controversy section? Jwray (talk) 09:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyone else interesting in AfDing Project Chanology

For further discussion, see ongoing AfD, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Project Chanology. This is NOT a solicitation of any kind, just that this discussion of whether or not to have an AfD is pointless, when there is one ongoing. Cirt (talk) 06:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Change intro

The line "Journalists, courts and the governing bodies of several countries have stated that the Church of Scientology is a cult and an unscrupulous commercial enterprise that harasses its critics and abuses the trust of its members" is biased, since it implies that this view is eliteist or not shared by "the common man". It should be modified to read something like "One common view, held by both people and governments (references), holds that ... ". Court views should be stated next. Journalists aren't important enough to include - it makes it sound like this is a weird view only they have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.84.189 (talk) 15:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The common man isn't as easy to find citable references for. Such a criticism of Scientology without a solid reference would be fought tooth and nail by Wikipedia scientologists. Foobaz·o< 16:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, the "common man" generally isn't familiar with the accusations against the church, so that change wouldn't even be accurate. --GoodDamon 16:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Lost in transit

A few days ago, Blinadrange (now banned), trimmed a large amount of material off of the article without prior discussion, mainly from the Controversies section, to be moved to various main articles. I believe that some of these moves were reverted at the destination, and therefore completely lost in transit. As well, by moving controversy out to other articles, and not moving other sections such as Beliefs, Practices, Organizations to their respective main articles, I feel that this seriously unbalances the article. AndroidCat (talk) 17:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you propose as a solution? We could restore the missing content, or finish what Blinadrange started (only balancing it by doing the same with other non-controversy content). Heck, we could revert the page to what it was just before s/he started. --GoodDamon 17:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record, here are the differences between the current revision (187949133) and the revision just before Blinadrange started editing (186539726). --GoodDamon 17:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I think, for now, the controversy content (Auditing confidentiality onwards) needs to be put back and reviewed to see what was moved, what was lost, and what can be moved/trimmed as part of a general balanced trim of the article. AndroidCat (talk) 17:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC) Done. AndroidCat (talk) 18:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

In reviewing Blinadrange's edits, I'm not at all sure why that user was banned... All the edits appear to be in good faith, and the only problem with them I spotted was the POV issue you mentioned, which could easily have been balanced by doing the same kinds of cleanup in other areas of the article. I went through that user's other edits at different pages, and couldn't find any examples of wrongdoing. It looks like banning the user might have been a mistake, and this page was caught in the middle. --GoodDamon 18:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Same here. I didn't think a user would collect an indefinite ban just for drastically bold but otherwise solid edits. Certainly Blinadrange knew his/her way around Wiki, especially the Scientology articles. A return of a previously banned user? AndroidCat (talk) 18:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I just queried the blocking admin, here. --JustaHulk (talk) 18:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

See my talk page for the reply. --JustaHulk (talk) 18:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Project Chanology

Everyone should support anon! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.183.62.178 (talk) 03:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this worth mentioning?

[1]

--Some random jack off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.85.232.249 (talk) 06:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

No. --GoodDamon 06:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You sure? Ason Abdullah (talk) 08:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Positive. Some random hacker group announcing on its own page that it's going to mess with the Church of Scientology is:

1. Not notable
2. Not verifiable
3. Not reliable

Wait until it gets published in a reliable news source. Then it might be included. --GoodDamon 17:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[2] --84.245.22.189 (talk) 23:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Having read the article, it looks like a reference to it might be a good addition to Scientology and the internet. --GoodDamon 01:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I honestly hope that the media (if it decides to cover this) takes a neutral position and refrains from calling the *chans internet terrorists. I mean honestly, Scientology had it coming. It is sad for all those that have enlisted in the religion, and supported its "teachings." They truly were taken advantage of when they were at their lows, depressed and hopeless. Their money was taken away, their lives ruined. This just can't go unnoticed.

For once, the hackers of the *chans are doing something that is moral at its core.

That might be your goal, but that is not the goal of Wikipedia. Wikipedia's goal is to create unbiased, informative encyclopedia entries, and your stated goal is incompatible with that. Wikipedia is not a platform for promoting your beliefs and point of view any more than it is a platform for Scientologists to do the same. Please keep that in mind. --GoodDamon 17:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S. To sign your posts, which is considered polite, please include this at the end of your comments: ~~~~

Thanks. --GoodDamon 17:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

When I said the internet is united, I meant the major communities. I would never alter the wikipedia article, but this is a talk page. I believe this is worth mentioning, some people will disagree. I can't change that. The talk page is meant to profess your beliefs, and show your platform. And a note to the users that believe this not reliable: The *chans have already stolen documents that are restricted to Scientologists. You can search and find it, but I will not post it on wikipedia, for it is illegal content. Deleted the "internet is united" quote. Also, I was under the belief that this was discussion, not a suggestion for editing. You may disregard my argument, for until it is openly admitted by the Church itself, it ought not to be included in this article.

There is this mainstream media link: http://www.budapesttimes.hu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4412&Itemid=1/ --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 07:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:TALK discribes what a talk page is for...and what you discribed was a chat room or discussion board.

Oh, and No it shouldn't be included, although I really want to try out that teabag thing (just to see if it works), but unfortunatly I am over the age of 20 and have grown out of that stage of life.Coffeepusher (talk) 07:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion it should be noted in the article. I mean this certainly is a notable event, look at how many views there are of the youtube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCbKv9yiLiQ of Anonymous stating it's intentions. That in addition to the fact that the 'scientology' website has been shut down for the past view days makes this a very notable event in my opinion. Supra guy (talk) 21:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it is notable enough to be mentioned, but not in this article. It more properly belongs in Scientology and the Internet or perhaps Scientology controversy. --GoodDamon 21:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes that seems suitable. Supra guy (talk) 02:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

More media links: http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=uVaQG67eqwA --DestroyYouAlot (talk) 01:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• • • KNBC has featured a news video of The Anonymous DOS attack.
    • Skylive has featured a news video of The Anonymous DOS attack.

To say they are kiddy scripters is idiotic with the consistent +5 day removal of service of Scientology.org and many other scientology websites. http://video.knbc.com/player/?id=209215

I disagree with the reversion of the addition about Project Chanology. The referenced source was a mainstream media source (APC Magazine, which has been published since May 1980). This effort has also been reported in Wired.com, CNBC and other TV news outlets. It's certainly a notable part of the history of Scientology to date. Further, reporting that it has happened is a neutral addition to the article. Danwarne (talk) 05:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

At this point, I think there is enough coverage to include a piece on "Project Chanology" in the article. The group and their attacks have been covered on several mainstream news channels, and the group have done notable damage to scientology websites, as well as theft of scientology internal documents. Daler (talk) 16:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Except that they have not. Stolen internal docs. Not a one. Done much damage? Meh. Scientology.org seems to be loading just fine. --JustaHulk (talk) 16:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a Copy from my post below, however it states my opinion here as well:

"Right now it is a current event, hence the media coverage...but even that is sparce when it comes to actuall news agencies. a google news search failed to produce any nation wide "paper" papers...The New york times, Washington post, associated press, La times, USA today (gag! I hate that rag) etc. all failed to pick this one up it seems. now this isn't nesisarily a reliable test, but it does put it into perspective a bit."

Project Chanology is under the mistaken impression that they are the first Hacker group to attack the Scientology web site...they arn't. There are 3 others who have "declared war" on scientology that I can find. Note that none of these are on this page, because it really isn't notable for this page. Now if there is a wikipedia page for Anon (I havn't checked) then this would definatly belong there because it is a significant event for Anon, but as for Scientology...Lets be honast, how many groups are pissed off as scientology. Anon is just another one of thousands. Coffeepusher (talk) 18:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I just checked, and low and behold there is a wikipedia article for Project Chanology. it even links to the page "scientology and the Internet".Coffeepusher (talk) 18:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I just had my edit with an NBC source reverted as an "anonymous" advertisement lol. This is a major ongoing event, it has been covered by every major media outlet. I can't access any scientologist websites at the moment, much less the main page. They are all taken down. This definitely deserves mention in the article, anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't understand how wikipedia works. If its major enough for Wired, NBC, Skynews, AOL, and Fox and directly effects the subject of the article on a widespread level, it definitely deserves mention in the article. Learn to Wikipedia. Learn to reason objectively. --Pyrogenix (talk) 18:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Sigh, try http://www.scientology.org/index.html - works just fine for me. Gotta run, I've got lolicon to post. (Not) --JustaHulk (talk) 19:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It, along with most Scientology sites, are currently down and the mainstream media coverage is extensive. --172.202.230.119 (talk) 03:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The status of the Scientology site due to personal observations is inadmisable to Wikipedia, and really depend on when you try and access it (the attacks last on average of 30 min. then Quit), so I think that up to the min. coverage on the status of the scientology page is useless for the talk page.Coffeepusher (talk) 18:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

ps. That wasn't a WP:BITE at you hulk, I just didn't want this to snowball into...well what it was bound to become.Coffeepusher (talk) 18:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Intro

"He also established Religious Technology Center which is headed by David Miscavige [1][2] to see to the orthodox application of Scientology technology even after he passed away. [3]"

Where is the evidence that Hubbard personaly established RTC. I know that LRH established the policies to establish RTC like everything else in Scientology but I don't know believe he personaly did it.Bravehartbear (talk) 12:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

A business

Jwray in revision of 22:20, 28 January 2008 added "and a business" to the first sentence. Could that be removed? I feel it is POV and a bit redundant. Any organization could be "accused" of being a business if they have income and expenses. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 09:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's probably appropriate, as the church contains several for-profit corporate entities, something that can't be said of just "any organization." So saying that it is, among other things, a business is not a matter of subjective opinion. It's a statement of objective fact. And I don't see it as any more redundant in the article than saying it's a "body of beliefs and practices" and then going into those beliefs and practices in more detail. --GoodDamon 17:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree, while the church of Scientology is a religion, Scientology is an umbrella under which publishing companies and other buisnesses are directed. So I think it really is just an accurate statement. Coffeepusher (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

"Scientology" is a belief system, the Church of Scientology a non-profit organization - or a network of non-profit organizations. That "Scientology is ... a business initially created by American speculative fiction author L. Ron Hubbard." is factually wrong and disgusting POV pushing. That there are publishing houses publishing Scientology literature (since the 1970s!) does not change that. Those have not been created by Hubbard and had not been created as a business either. Shutterbug (talk) 21:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Shutterbug, it's not POV pushing. There are for-profit components of the church. This article is an overview of Scientology as an umbrella term, and contains information on organizations as well as the belief system you describe. Calling those organizations that are a business a business isn't POV pushing at all. It's a neutral statement of fact. The article Scientology beliefs and practices is devoted wholly to those beliefs and practices, but this article is the main overview of Scientology the beliefs, Scientology the church, and yes, Scientology the business. If there were no entities incorporated for profit, then "business" wouldn't factually apply, but there are, so it does. And seriously, it's not a big POV push to make statements of fact. --GoodDamon 21:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

"Scientology" as a single term cannot be used for a network of very diverse organizations. If you are convinced about the business allegation being a fact I am sure you have a reference. So what are the for-profit components of Scientology created by Hubbard? Shutterbug (talk) 22:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

How about Author Services Inc. or the Fort Harrison Hotel? There is a large list of scientology organizations, both for- and non-profit, at Category:Scientology organizations. Foobaz·o< 22:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Bridge Publications is a non-profit per the Guidestar.Org site. More digging around would probably show your cited organizations are non-profits or trusts. Can you identify who exactly is receiving profits from Scientology umbrella organizations? Can you show that somebody privately owns Scientology? If the answer is no, then "a business" is mis-leading. Rather then saying it POV pushing I would say it is a matter of semantics. But then matters of semantics are often monitored by POV. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 23:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but Bridge Publications isn't Author Services Inc., which is incorporated as a for-profit. --GoodDamon 16:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but that is a trust and as I understand they only deal with non-Scientology works. Besides, it is misleading to lump all the Scientology organizations together and claim there is some businesses among them. Does it mention in the description of Wikipedians that it is composed of straights and gays? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow your analogy. In any event, the problem with working this stuff out is that there are so many sub-groups and business names owned under the Church of Scientology umbrella, which makes it hard to determine what is and is not part of Scientology. For instance, ASI publishes Hubbard's fiction works under the Galaxy Press imprint -- for profit -- which certainly makes it a business. But it is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Church of Spiritual Technology, making it part of a church. It's an unusual arrangement that I can't think of another example of outside of Scientology. --GoodDamon 19:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

In my analogy, I suppose I should of said "men and gays" as a business is an organization. The point being if you said this to someone who was homophobic they would be incline to think all Wikipedians were gay. (More comments below.) Richard-of-Earth (talk) 23:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

As mentioned in the article, Scientology has officially been declared a business organization in Germany. --Einmaliger (talk) 09:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

OK folks, it's obvious there are some heated feelings about this, so let's all calm down and take care of it in as neutral a way as possible. I think first off, we should take a look through the various Scientology groups and figure out which ones are for profit and which ones are not. From that point, we can figure out if the business aspects of Scientology ought to be incorporated -- in a non-judgmental, neutral manner -- into the intro. I don't think restoring the text Shutterbug removed is the answer there, not because of any POV issues, but because the sentence was rather clumsy as it was. And if the for-profit Scientology organizations are too insignificant to partially classify Scientology as a business, then no harm done and we'll all have learned more about Scientology organizations. --GoodDamon 17:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Even if some are for profit, but are trusts or wholly owned by non-profits, then no one individual is receiving the profit. "For profit" is a tax category, it doesn't encompass the spirit of the thing. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

No one individual has to receive profits for an organization to be a for-profit. And for-profits are businesses. --GoodDamon 19:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The term for profit is meant to be lucrative for the owner. No one gets a profits from Scientology organizations they do get a salary but that is not considered coporate profit. Yes, someone has to recieve a profit to be considered "for profit".Bravehartbear (talk) 19:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

For Profit (of a business or institution) initiated or operated for the purpose of making a profit. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/for%20profit

My point was that "someone" doesn't have to be a human person. Profits can be dealt with in any number of ways. The fact is, some arms of the church, such as ASI, are incorporated as for-profits. Please bear in mind I don't say this as a judgment call. I make no claims that there is any problem with there being components of Scientology geared towards business. But to just flat-out deny that organizations incorporated as for-profits are indeed for-profits is just silly. --GoodDamon 20:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

There are many organizations that use Scientology technology like dental offices, ect. But these are not the Church of Scientology. We need to diferentitiate these organisations from the church and the beliefs. Mixing all these is simply confusing and will provide false information. For example Author Services sells fiction books so it is a non religious organization, if it own by the church it doesn't matter. The Christian church also has many corporate investments in many for profit organizations. That doesn't mean that the Christian church is for profit. Bravehartbear (talk) 20:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The difference between a normal for-profit business and the Church of Scientology is, the church goes to great lengths to hide its for-profit ventures, to keep its status as a religion with the government. Scientology courses are famously expensive. That money doesn't go to shareholders or an owner, it just gets redistributed higher up the hierarchy, like in a pyramid scheme. For example, field staff members get 10% commissions on all courses they sell. That sounds more like business than a religion to me. Foobaz·o< 22:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Now that's what I call confusing the issue... Let me cover a few things here:

• Dental offices aren't generally owned by the church to which the dentist belongs. Bringing them up is a red herring, because we're talking about subordinate organizations that are owned by the parent church.
• The fact that ASI sells fiction books is a moot point. It's a business that is owned by the parent church.
• Assuming you meant the Catholic church, I don't know of any subsidiary organizations inside it that are separately incorporated as for-profit businesses. You're confusing investments with ownership. I personally have a small investment in a software company, but that doesn't make it a wholly owned subsidiary of GoodDamon Inc. Of course, if you find a similar instance of the Catholic church owning a for-profit subsidiary, then I will happily hop over to the talk page for that article and point it out.

I want to stress something; I don't think that the church being partly a business is anything negative, and describing it as such is not an attack on it. I'm a little confused about why this is even an issue. This isn't a scandal, and it isn't a controversy. It's tax paperwork and filing statements with the federal government. --GoodDamon 22:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit: This was in response to Bravehartbear, not Foobaz. :) --GoodDamon 22:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Where is the Tax attorney when you need him? Bravehartbear (talk) 23:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I suppose this is a charged issue. When GoodDamon said to calm down I thought "we're just talking here". I suppose the reason it is objectionable is when you say it's a business you’re saying it’s about the money. I know from personal experience that when the international and local staff hear the Church's income went up, it gets applause, but when you tell of someone getting helped, it gets a standing ovation, kudos to COB (David Miscavage) for running the Church the way it's suppose to be and three cheers to Ron for making it all possible. So, when we see someone shy away from us because they're afraid we're after their money, it's builds up emotional charge. The fact I'm still talking about this after the change has been removed shows I got emotional charge about it. I tell you it is not about the money, money is a means to an end, people matter to the Church, the staff and anyone dedicated to the movement. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 23:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind, but I'm going to insert my responses between your points. It's just plain easier... Anyway, all of that sounds good, but it can't go into the article, because it's original research -- that is, none of what you described is information cited in a reputable source, and it all comes from your personal experience. This being the intarwebs, I could easily just spout off about anything at all, whether true or not, and claim it's from personal experience. If I make an original claim that at Scientology orgs everyone gets a pet monkey, it has just as much validity as your claims -- none at all, without reputable sources to back it up. --GoodDamon 00:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

GoodDamon, Thank you for your response, it was informative. I didn't intend any of that paragraph as content for the article or even an argument for the matter at hand. I just wanted to make clear my POV to bring about a little more understanding and to give me an opportunity to vent. I hope you'll all forgive my passion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard-of-Earth (talk • contribs) 07:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I challenged you to show who's making the money and some of you say it isn't important in defining a business. Fine. A business is an organization, saying he established organizations and businesses is redundant. It says later in the article it is viewed as a business. It needn't be in there in the beginning. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 23:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

A business is an organization, but not all organizations are businesses in the legal sense. Parts of the church of Scientology are. I don't understand why that shouldn't be in the introduction somewhere, since the article is an overview of multiple aspects of Scientology. --GoodDamon 00:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Richard from earth, you better get a stronger neck and stop being so sensitive if you are going to be here. GoodDamon, most churches also run businesses like daycares, schools and hospitals and as long the money goes to the church these are not for profit. To include this in the intro is just inrevelant and POV pushing because you are really implying that the church is for profit. The End. Any more arguments should be solved in arbitration. Bravehartbear (talk) 03:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

That's absolutely true, and beside the point. Yes, churches run a lot of individual non-profit businesses. One of my local hospitals is one, actually. The operative words here, again, are "for profit." There are incorporated for-profit businesses wholly owned by the church of Scientology or one of its subsidiaries, which as far as I know is a unique arrangement. I'm not familiar with any other large-scale religious organization structured that way. That's notable, and not POV pushing. Now, I'm happy to take this to arbitration if you really feel it should be there, but I'm sad that you regard this as controversial at all, because I just don't think it is. --GoodDamon 05:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Deciding what is and is not unusual in Church corporate structure is done by experts in that field. Do you have a citation stating that this structure is unusual? It is not enough that you think it is unusual or some government expresses some politically motivated opinion. Well I thought I'd look. I Googled "Church Corporate Structure" and the first thing that came up was a Foursquare Church page that mentions an on-line store selling books, cloths and accessories, clearly for profit. They also run camps (no doubt for some profit). They even have a central office and district offices. This smacks of a hierarchical organization. The Wikipedia page for the Foursquare Church mentions a previous president who lost $2 million in church funds. It looks to me like they could have a lot of profit hidden in all that structure. Looking further I remember that he Unification Church had a large and confusing cooperate structure. Here's an article about it. Google - catholic "for profit" - and you can find several for-profit Catholic schools. I don't think the Church of Scientology cooperate structure is unusual, I think your just not use to it. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 09:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Readership of this article

Editors may be interested to know that this article was one of Wikipedia's most read articles in January, with over 1.32 million views in the course of the month - 410,000 of them in one three-day period. See http://stats.grok.se/en/200801/Scientology for details (with thanks to User:Henrik). -- ChrisO (talk) 23:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

WOW! We'll have to send Anonymous a thank you card. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 09:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Intro again

With this edit, Bravehartbear added this sentence to the introduction: "Although the Church of Scientology is the biggest of these networks, organizations such as Narconon, Criminon and Applied Scholastics promote other aspects of Scientology." This is a strange sentence, since those are all subsidiary organizations owned by the Church of Scientology. Thoughts? --GoodDamon 05:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but that is not correct. The church doesn't own ABLE, all Scientology organizations are in fact individual corporations that license the right to use the trade marks of Scientology from RTC. This was done to protect Scientology from any external attack. If you sue the COS of New York that will not affect any other organizations. ABLE is inded at the same level as the Church of Scientology and does not take orders from the Church of Scientology. If you wanna learn about the Scientology organizational structure look here: http://stop-wise.biz/Command_Channels_of_Scientology.html Bravehartbear (talk) 13:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Scientology certainly seems to think that it controls those organizations. http://stop-wise.biz/WISE_IntScnNews.html As well, under the IRS closing agreement they are all grouped as Scientology-related entities. The license payments are as high as 10% of the organization's gross income (before costs, salaries, etc), with additional transfers on filed Form 990s. In practice, the isolation of Scientology corporations hasn't stood up well in court. (Lawrence Wollersheim and Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto, for example.) AndroidCat (talk) 16:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I notice the intro is attempting to regrow itself into the whole article again. I have a problem with refs for what the organizations say about themselves being used as RS refs for what the organizations actually are. And the ad-cruft essays buried in the refs don't help. AndroidCat (talk) 06:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I've got a few problems with the intro. This sentence "The U.S. State Department has commented in its annual International Religious Freedom Reports on countries that discriminate against Scientologists and their religious freedom" I have no idea why it's in the intro. I also have a problem with this sentence "Although they do receive much support from Scientologists and from churches of Scientology, they are secular programs and are not part of the church, per se". The articles are linked and it seems a bit weasily.Ticklemygrits (talk) 15:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Dubious edit by Ticklemygrits

Hi Ticklemygrits. I would like to ask why you reverted my edit instead of addressing my concern. You removed text, but did not remove a long list of references that were there to support that text. As a result, the list of citations moved up and attached to the previous sentence. I would appreciate greater care and discretion in the future, as it is not the responsibility of other editors to clean up after you. Thanks, Silly rabbit (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I reverted because the lead is supposed to describe Scientology. atm it seems to be he said she said rubbish. All the lead should do is describe the religion and its founding. Whether or not the US state department is in disagreEment with germany or Belgium is completely irrelevent. It should be a description of the organisation and nothing more.Ticklemygrits (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)edit

Yes, but you left a bunch of spurious crap in when you removed the sentence. Please be more careful in the future. Silly rabbit (talk) 22:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

If by "crap" you mean the refs, I left them there so that you could argue the merits of my revert. I would love you to describe Scientology in a better manner, but in the existing Lead it was complete rubbish.Ticklemygrits (talk) 23:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, indeed I mean the long list of references that no longer had anything to do with the text after you deleted the sentence that they were attached to. Please revisit the first sentence of this section with that in mind. Remember that you reverted my edit, with the summary that I should take it to the talk page. I offered an explanation, and you gave an irrelevant excuse for reverting. Silly rabbit (talk) 23:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You're not explaining why they are in the lead. Why was it in the lead? I have no problem with properly sourced information in the rest of the article, but the lead should just describe Scientology. It shouldn't be used to address critics. I don't think anything the US thingmyjigger on religous freedom represents a worldwide view, nor do I think it's relevent to defining what scientology is. And I don't appreciate extranious references being inserted because I actually read them, and it's very taxing on my eyesTicklemygrits (talk) 00:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Are we talking about the same thing here? I reverted you because the edit was sloppy, not because I thought something should or should not have been in the lead. In fact, if you had bothered to read my edit summary, I said please redo the last edit. Silly rabbit (talk) 00:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok tell me what is wrong with the revert. What is your problem with the lead as it standsTicklemygrits (talk) 00:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is your version of the final sentence of the lead:

Scientology officials argue that most negative press has been motivated by interest groups and that most of the controversy is past history. ^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]}

Please explain how the reference to the state department support the statement "Scientology officials argue that most negative press has been motivated by interest groups and that most of the controversy is past history." That was my problem with the lead: the references given had nothing to do with the statement made. If you were more careful you would have deleted these references as well. I reverted so that you could reasses the edit, as well as the other reference removed. But, rather than do the responsible thing and address my concern, you instead opted to engage in a tendentious argument here. Silly rabbit (talk) 00:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm engaging in tendentious arguements on the talk page? I didn't remove the sentence you're refering to, and you still haven't addressed my concerns as to what the US state department haws to do with the definition of Scientology. It shouldn't be in the lead. If you've got a problem with that, tell my why what the US state department thinks belongs in the lead.Ticklemygrits (talk) 01:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are engaging in tendentious arguments on the talk page. You created a version of the article (here is the diff) in which a statement was sourced as belonging to the state department. There was nothing in any of the state department sources to support this statement. Do you at least acknowledge that you left completely irrelevant references in the article? Do you have the faintest idea what any of this discussion is about? Are you deliberately being WP:DENSE? Silly rabbit (talk) 02:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Redux

User:Ticklemygrits removed a sentence that he/she thought should not be there diff. However, User:Ticklemygrits forgot to delete the references to the state department which were attached to that statement. (Here is that diff again.) I reverted (diff), asking nicely and unambiguously:

please redo last edit, being more careful with references

Then User:Ticklemygrits immediately reverted, telling me to explain on the talk page, which I did. Then I corrected the problem caused by User:Ticklemygrits's edit, namely that he/she had placed bogus references on a statement in the text. Silly rabbit (talk) 02:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Inrevelant info in the lead

You know I totally agree with Ticklemygrits in this statement:

I reverted because the lead is supposed to describe Scientology. atm it seems to be he said she said rubbish. All the lead should do is describe the religion and its founding. Whether or not the US state department is in disagreEment with germany or Belgium is completely irrelevent. It should be a description of the organisation and nothing more.

But the same criteria should be used for Scientology controversy paragraph in the lead and should be removed just like the State dep sentence. Same rules. This paragraph is higly bias and puts undue weight on the church because it is not balanced.Bravehartbear (talk) 05:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Massive Improvement

This article is looking a lot better today than it was the last time I looked. Congraduations to all the editors who have contributed to improve this article. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia

What is allowed in Wikipedia are covered in WP:EL. This is what it says: Links normally to be avoided "Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject—and not prohibited by restrictions on linking—one should avoid:"

2. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research".

12. Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority.

Also is usefull to read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view Bravehartbear (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The "except those written by a recognized authority" is the sticking point, I believe. Some of those links Justanother removed today certainly don't belong to recognized authorities, but a couple do. --GoodDamon 22:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

As always, the definition of personal web page on that problematic page seems to get skipped over. AndroidCat (talk) 22:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

If you can specificy which should be returned and why, that would probably help a lot. John Carter (talk) 22:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned that Touretzky's site in particular passes muster as one operated by a "recognized authority," as the site and its operator are largely regarded as expert by reliable news sources. Sorry, I thought I'd mentioned that earlier, but I'm pretty busy today. --GoodDamon 23:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Damon, can you find any RS that refers to Touretzky's site in a manner that would warrant inclusion as an external link in this article? Otherwise, his site can go in his article. Can you even find RS that refers to Touretzky as an "expert", a term pretty loosely thrown around by the press. I usually see him referred to as a "critic". Neither Touretzky nor his websites are anywhere near NPOV or reliable. They are one-sided and consist mainly of his one-sided and extreme opinions. Inclusion of them does not serve the purposes of Wikipedia but only the purposes of POV-pushers. --JustaHulk (talk) 14:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

In other words, something like this from the SF Chronicle [3]:

"The teacher has teamed with David Touretzky, a computer science research professor at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh and a free-speech advocate who runs an anti-Narconon Web site that includes some controversial material."

hardly paints Touretzky as an "expert" - the paper went to five of what they really consider experts.

"Those ideas are rejected by the five medical experts contacted by The Chronicle, who say there is no evidence to support them."

--JustaHulk (talk) 14:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

But his websites do give information about the church that would be to extensive to put into the article itself, spacificly the otIII and the NOT's. The fact that the church suied him to take them down, and the government found them credible enough to keep them up (not beeing lible or slander in the ruling).

He is also seen as an expert by the critics of scientology, beeing quoted many times on operation clam bake among other sources. He is also notable enough to recieve a posting on religious freedom watch. Coffeepusher (talk) 17:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify -- "personal Web page" does not mean a Web page maintained by an individual expert or researcher on a subject. It means a Web page that is autobiographical, in the nature of a personal blog or journal. --FOo (talk) 23:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thus meaning that not every "personal Web page" reflects this definition. --Olberon (talk) 12:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Surely point "2. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material..." means no links to any sites that contain belief based information over factual content, e.g. any religious doctrine?!? Did I miss something? :) --Angryjames (talk) 19:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Tom Cruise Video

I was wondering if it should be mentioned in the article. --MahaPanta (talk) 23:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Major news sources are talking about it. Scientology made You Tube remove it. The New York Post still has a copy (for now) http://www.nypost.com/seven/01162008/news/nationalnews/star_raving_mad__68340.htm . It is VERY funny. Creepy even. Angry Christian (talk) 23:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

If there is some major reaction because of the video, then yes it should probably be mentioned...however the content is not notable at all. it is your standard "buy in or get out" speech, I have heard the same rant at every school pep rally,every 12 step program, Fraturnety life, Political rallies, every church since the creation of God (and probably since the creation of fire) In fact Ralph Waldo Emmerson gave a better version. the only notable thing in the entire program is that Tom Cruse has given scientology technology to 1.037 billion people (or the ENTIRE population of Europe, Russia, and America)(note that the world population is 6.644 billion by the world population clock...so 1 out of every 7 people are scientologists...not shure if I buy that one). Coffeepusher (talk) 00:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is the Video display http://gawker.com/5002269/the-cruise-indoctrination-video-scientology-tried-to-suppress —Preceding unsigned comment added by XenuCareBear (talk • contribs) 15:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Coffeepusher, you're missing one bit about Tom Cruise's talk. It's not just "buy in or get out", it's about erradicating all those opposed to the church (the part about SPs being something to read in history books) with no mercy. That's what makes Scientology not just laughing stock for many, but a true danger to humanity. It's not a light thing to be ignored or underestimated. 200.80.164.35 (talk) 00:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand your consern...however as for content we can use on wikipedia I stand by my statement. As tempting as it is to respond, I would only be digressing this talk page into a chat about the interpritation of the video... WP:TALK and all.Coffeepusher (talk) 07:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The Cruise video and the storm that followed is a significant moment in recent CoS history. What argument is there for excluding a reference to it? Here in the UK, CoS was a point of news after the Panorama programme (mentioned on this page) and even more so after the Cruise video release. What was the US reaction? It would appear to be of significant interest. Also Cruise's comment appear to be a return to some of those LRH "fair game" ways. Any comments? --Angryjames (talk) 20:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Primary sources tag

I have tagged several subsections of this article with {{Primary sources}}. Multiple sections of this article fail the very letter of the primary sources tag - specifically, these subsections cite no other sources other than the Church of Scientology website and affiliated self-referential publications. Per the text in the primary sources tag:

This article or section needs sources or references that appear in reliable, third-party publications. Primary sources and sources affiliated with the subject of this article generally are not sufficient for a Wikipedia article. Please include more appropriate citations from reliable sources, or discuss the issue on the talk page.

Please find some secondary sources, and try to phase out this over-dependence on the Church of Scientology websites and affiliated publications for this article - we do not want the Wikipedia article on "Scientology" to be mainly a duplicate of the Church of Scientology websites, in many sections. Cirt (talk) 12:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Please note

Please note, I have only tagged those subsections where all of the sources cited in those subsections are to Church of Scientology websites and affiliated publications, primary sources and self-referential sources - i.e. sections which contain zero citations to secondary sources not affiliated with the Church of Scientology. Cirt (talk) 12:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Cirt, what you ask is easier said than done. The third party sources that have studied the Scientology beliefs and practices are almost non-exitence. If you want to talk about the U.S. Contitution and you cite the contitution it self what better source can you have. If you talk about a book and cite the book it self what better source can you have. Bravehartbear (talk) 13:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it would be incredibly POV to think that it is appropriate to build entire subsections of an article only using a primary self-referential source. Yes, in an article about the United States Constitution you could cite the primary source document. But you could never get away with creating an entire article, or even whole subsections of an article - only citing the Constitution. Cirt (talk) 13:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the article United States Constitution is a Featured Article on Wikipedia. In that article, yes, the primary source document is cited, once. All other cites are to secondary sources that satisfy WP:RS/WP:V. Cirt (talk) 13:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I see your point but Third party citation are only required for "direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged." This is not the case here. No one is challenging these concepts. Anyone can read these from the scientology books. The websites are only used for ease of use. But I can quote directly from the books if it makes you happy. But if you can find any realiable third party source go for it. Good luck finding them. Bravehartbear (talk) 14:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

We should not rely solely on these primary, self-referential sources, for reasons I already stated above. If we do, those sections of the article read like pure advertising, and are unencyclopedic. Cirt (talk) 14:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Unless we want to make the entire article about criticism of Scientology it is entirely appropriate that sections of the article be based on primary materials. So if we actually want to write about what Scientology teaches and what Scientologists believe then we will need to use a lot of primary material. To do otherwise is a disservice to the reader and to the project. --JustaHulk (talk) 14:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Response

Unless we want to make the entire article read like blatant advertising for Scientology it is entirely appropriate to severely limit the use of primary source self-referential links to Scientology websites and Scientology affiliated organizations and sources. To do otherwise is a disservice to the reader and to NPOV. With an overdependence on such primary source, self-referential sources there would be no point to this article and the entire page could just be a soft-redirect to www.scientology.org - because that is what the article would be like with so many links to those websites. Cirt (talk) 14:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Use of primary, self-published, sources is entirely appropriate in an article to discuss what the subject of the article says about itself, what it believes, or what it teaches. This is by no means a violation of NPOV and could even be considered the embodiment of NPOV. This looks like an attempt to gut the article of anything not critical of Scientology. --JustaHulk (talk) 14:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps as a supplement to secondary sources, yes. But not to their exclusion. Here we have whole entire subsections crafted out of over reliance on primary, self-referential sources. Cirt (talk) 14:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think we should revert to an earlier consensus version of the article, perhaps from early January. Right now, I see a lot of things in the article everyone is going to disagree with. For instance, the intro contains nine primary-source references before getting to the first reliable source. That is unacceptable. The grammar has gotten clumsier, and it just doesn't inspire confidence right now. Instead of trying to fix a broken article, can we all agree on an earlier revision and work from that? And can whoever added the primary-source references please promise not to do that again? ;) --GoodDamon 18:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, now the first eleven references are to primary-source material. --GoodDamon 01:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

---

Cirt I apologise. You are right is just that the third party sources are just not there. This is a new subject and the studies have not been done. This is why there is a controversy. This place has been a battle field of self published sources. Almost everything here is self published. This place used to be a mirrow image of xenu.net and it was hard to change that. But you will find that the third party sources contradit each other, so it is imposible to make conclusions. The reader will have to come up with his own conclusion. We really don't have conclusions here, just facts, allegations and opinions. And we try to balance things up. But I agree with you, but that would cut these pages into a few paragraphs. And I think that would be fine. But the editors here will really be against that. Thank you for trying to bring some sanity here. Bravehartbear (talk) 15:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I found a source that appears to be very NPOV, and comes from an established religious studies Proffessor. I used it for the 8 million membership number, and I am shure we can work alot more information into the article...but I just don't have time today. here is the link Frank K. Flinn Adjunct Professor of Religious Studies at Washington University interviewCoffeepusher (talk) 19:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

More evidence that Scientology is spreading among Christians

[CNN: Scientology: A Way to Happiness?] Maybe we should talk about this in the page.Bravehartbear (talk) 23:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Unless I missed it, the video doesn't mention any statistics on the number of people practicing both belief systems and how those numbers have changed. Are there any such statistics out there? It's not a bad idea to include them if they're available. --GoodDamon 00:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Note

Removed external link to copyrighted material. Cirt (talk) 16:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Numbers of churches, missions and groups

In the intro, the text "Today there are more than 4,378 Scientology churches, missions and groups worldwide on 155 countries." is clearly the St. Peterburg Times quoting PR material from the Church of Scientology, which never provides any sources or documentation for its claimed numbers. I don't think that should remain as it is in the intro. AndroidCat (talk) 16:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The whole intro is full of primary-source material like that. It looks shoddy and, frankly, lessens the article. I wanted to replace it completely with an earlier consensus version, but didn't get any responses to that -- and I think that would be too big of a change to be bold and just do. --GoodDamon 16:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

As I see it, the two candidates for rollback would be Pre-Blinadrange comb-out and Post-Blinadrange. The post comb-out looks the best, but I don't know some editors can resist the temptation to make sure that the first dozen or so refs of the article are from one POV non-RS source. AndroidCat (talk) 17:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Those are exactly the same ones I would pick. But first, we should put such a reversion to a consensus vote, then select the version. The question is, should we revert to a previous version of the article that was largely accepted by all the editors here to undo fairly systemic problems with over-reliance on non-RS material and lost content? Edit: I should clarify that I don't think all the edits since those revisions have been bad, and that after such a revert I think we should comb through the prior version for material and references to bring forward. --GoodDamon 19:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• I vote yes no (see below). --GoodDamon 18:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• I vote yes - if that means removing information from primary, self-referential sources. Cirt (talk) 18:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• comment I am assuming we are just talking about changing the intro, not the whole article. If intro I vote Yes, if whole article I vote NoCoffeepusher (talk) 16:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• reply - When I made that initial proposal, it was for the whole article. But since then, the article itself has been cleaned up and updated very well, and it's only the intro now that I find pretty egregious. So as an addendum, I'll say yes, it's only the intro I'm currently concerned about. --GoodDamon 17:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• I vote no. I like the new intro and I believe it has more potential in it. Foobaz·o< 18:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think the consensus so far is that we need to remove info from, as Cirt put it, "primary, self-referential sources". I no longer think reverting part of the article is the answer to that. So let's get editing, folks... --GoodDamon 19:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope. I vote no. There should be more references but the text reads ok per policy on lead. Shutterbug (talk) 02:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

At this point, so do I. I don't think the text is perfect, but editing it instead of reverting to an earlier version is the answer. --GoodDamon 04:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but I hope that editors will restrict themselves to refs needed while briefly introducing subjects that will be covered in detail later in the article. There are always too many attempts to get in the last word or rebuttal in the introduction—where they don't belong. AndroidCat (talk) 04:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Placement of refs

I see that reference placement has gotten a little confused again. So do people prefer to see referenced before or after punctuation? We should probably standardize that. --GoodDamon 20:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

MOS is directly after punctuation. Cirt (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I like it after punctuation. Foobaz·o< 20:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought it would usually be placed after punctuation if a whole section is cited but before if only the sentence is cited ?! -- Stan _talk 19:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

"Speculative fiction"

Yeah right -- L-Ron wrote SCIENCE FICTION. Why not say so?--71.202.121.130 (talk) 21:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

20% of Hubbards work was Sci Fi the rest was westerns and regular action adventure. He even wrote a romance once. Also he did a few screnn plays like the original Treasure Island and Dive Bomber. Bravehartbear (talk) 22:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Hubbard wrote science fiction, fantasy, and the whole gamut of what we call speculative fiction now. Calling him a science fiction author, while technically accurate, hardly covers his pulp career. --GoodDamon 00:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick side note, just because I got confused in the discussion. He wrote the screenplay to The Secret of Treasure Island which is based on the novel Murder at Pirate Castle...it also came out 4 years after the first Treasure Island film.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

also, his ties to "The Dive Bomber (1941)" are iffy at best...he did write a short in a pulp mag in 1937 by that title, but he isn't mentioned at all anywhere that discusses the movie...and as I recall (its been a while) there is little to no resembelence between the pulp and movie.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Judges Press IRS on Church Tax Break

• Gerstein, Josh. "Judges Press IRS on Church Tax Break", The New York Sun, The New York Sun, One SL, LLC., February 8, 2008. Retrieved on 2008-02-08. 

This source should be incorporated into the article. Cirt (talk) 14:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• New York Sun Editorial. "A School Case To Watch", The New York Sun, The New York Sun, One SL, LLC., February 8, 2008. Retrieved on 2008-02-08. 

Editorial piece on the same issue. Cirt (talk) 14:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

this article is not accurate

Whom ever wrote this article must have been a scientologist. The reason they don't like psychiatry is because if a member was ever to be evaluated they will be diagnosed clinical nut jobs. This is putting it nicely. Scientology promotes itself not philosophy, religion or anything about spirituality. This is a commercial enterprise. Some people give it an example of the Amway of religions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.4.186 (talk) 06:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a platform for cult propaganda. Jayz0r (talk) 14:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Then why is this article locked and filled with nothing but pro-Scientology cult propaganda?

It states their beliefs, nothing more. Jayz0r (talk) 21:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Your talking rubbish, unlock it then and let us normal people edit it? Why lock it, what are you trying to hide...the truth? 12:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC) Jezza —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.149.111 (talk)

Well, maybe their beliefs ARE cult propaganda, in which case there is nothing wrong with the article (or everything wrong with it.) Fultron89 (talk) 03:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Five pillars is a useful article to read. AndroidCat (talk) 21:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Page falls off the side.

What I mean by that, is that the horizontal scroll bar appears when you visit the main article. It's from a little [citation needed] thing in one of these paragraphs.

Well, we aren't allowed to edit the page. Are higher-ups allowed to? If there are higher-ups that are allowed to, can this please be fixed? 71.238.211.166 (talk) 05:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Login with a user name, and you too can be a "higher-up". :0) It looks fine on my screen/browser, so some information about your browser/OS, screen size, full screen or window would be useful for trying to duplicate this problem. (And where this citation is needed, since the best fix would probably be to add a ref.) AndroidCat (talk) 05:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Aliens

I did not see what any mention of Aliens in the article.Isnt that A beleif of Scientology?It would also explain why people think its a cult. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.1.245.18 (talk) 00:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

What's so cult-like about believing in aliens? Many rational, scientific people believe there is other intelligent life in the universe. Foobaz·o< 00:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

See Space opera in Scientology scripture. --FOo (talk) 04:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

And those same rational, scientific people believe the chances that anything could travel to earth are almost none. Contrary to science-fiction (which ultimately is all that scientology is) faster than light speed travel is impossible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.42.210 (talk) 14:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Am I right in thinking that the toning down of the "alien" content is in direct relation to the Scientologists' own position? Should we not have something in the page that explains a shift in expressed views. Forgive me if I'm wrong about this, having grown up with CoS news, I felt the whole "alien" thing was openly expressed and then suddenly or perhaps gradually it disappeared. Is that true? --Angryjames (talk) 20:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Angryjames. I have followed this article extensively along with the history of exposure of the belief in Scientology. I'm surprised there is not a complete section that talks about Xenu, volcanos, trapped spirits, nuclear explosion, spacetravel in DC-10 aircraft, etc. This entire backstory used to be in the article and has been slowly whittled down until it's completely disappeared. Did CoS send a copywright infrigement notification? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mneipert (talk • contribs) 03:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Dangerous Cult redirect

Someone (probably in reference to the Googlebombing campaign) has created a page that redirects Dangerous Cult to this article. While it's probably true, it's certainly not neutral. Would someone who knows how to remove a redirect please consider fixing it? Vonspringer (talk) 05:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

fixed, asking for speady deletion nowCoffeepusher (talk) 06:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Deleted, it was evidently the second creation of that redirect. I will check from time to time to make shure it hasn't resurficed.Coffeepusher (talk) 06:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a note to all editors, I wikilinked Dangerous Cult, if it is blue (not red) it means it is active again, and needs to be fixed. thank you Coffeepusher (talk) 20:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone know if "Alan W. Black is a scientologist?

Please give references http://www.bible.ca/scientology-is-a-religion-black.htm Bravehartbear (talk) 00:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I assume you're talking to me Braveheart. He acknowleges that he he is follower of Scientology in one of his studies. As such he isn't a RS, and strangely enough I may well have been a student of his. Please look at his studies because I really can't be arsed right now. I will be looking late, so please don't add material unsupported by refs.Ticklemygrits (talk) 01:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Well you have the burden of proof on this one, I will wait. Bravehartbear (talk) 04:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

So far I have seen no evidence that Alan Black is a Scientologist. In his paper he clearly states: "I am not a Scientologist. In formulating my conclusions, I have made a detailed study of Scientology publications, as well as observing activities at the Church of Scientology in Sydney and interviewing some of the participants. I am also familiar with various sociological studies of Scientology in other parts of the world."Bravehartbear (talk) 00:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Membership

In the Frank K. Flinn interview, he clearly states that the source of his number was the Church of Scientology. "Scientologists count about 8 million people worldwide, but that includes people to took just an introductory course without necessarily continuing." AndroidCat (talk) 19:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The source itself, Frank Flinn is a third party, and it also clarified how they came to that number "those who just took an introductory cource". Which is actually believable. I will buy the fact that 8 million people worldwide have been introduced to scientology and many didn't continue...I don't buy the 1.03 billion number that they say on the Tom Cruse video. Personaly I think that even if the initial source is the church itself, the fact that the interviewee (horible grammer) is outside the church and a religious studies professor makes it admissable in the article. additionaly this number was beside the churches claim of 3.5 million in the united states...so I am wondering why the worldwide number is inadmisable?Coffeepusher (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

As near as I can figure on the 1 billion, that must be the number that has ever heard Cruise say anything about Scientology, i.e. the viewership of every program he has ever been on where he mentioned Scientology. --JustaHulk (talk) 01:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

That's gotta be it. You'd have to be living in a mud hut 10 miles from the nearest source of electricity to have not heard Tom Cruise mention Scientology. In any event, I find 8 million pretty believable as the number of people who've been introduced to it, and it comes from a reliable source, but the article should probably include his caveat that it isn't the number of practicing Scientologists. --GoodDamon 16:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Its in there, there is also another source later on that challenges this number as "the number of practicing".Coffeepusher (talk) 16:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Frank Flynn was presumably quoting the well known Heber Jench interview in which he said the same. Why has this replaced an up to date quote from a CoS spokesperson in a newspaper? I'm mystified. What's wrong with stating the official number? --Hartley Patterson (talk) 01:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal.

Galactic Confederacy seems to be nothing but fancruft, and as it stands now it lacks sources and fails WP:FICT, WP:N and WP:PLOT. Unless these issues can be rectified, it would be a good idea to merge a concise summary of the article into this one. - YYN (talk) 04:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

No wai.Chump Manbear (talk) 23:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

No I am a little unclear as to how it fails the notability in fiction and plot section, since it is not a fictional orgonization (according to CoS) and has the same notability as say the Twelve tribes of Israel does to Jews and Christians...in fact I am unclear as to why it should be murged. That would put even more information under this article (which is massive by Wikipedia standards) Coffeepusher (talk) 03:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

No, for the same reasons as Coffeepusher. The Galactic Confederacy is a significant part of Scientology's OT III and higher mythology, not a work of fiction as the term is used in WP:FICT. In fact, the citing of policies meant to be used for fiction in this merge proposal reads to me as a POV-pushing attack. --GoodDamon 14:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

No. Setting a precedent that any religious subject qualifies as "fiction" by wikipedia guidelines is very much a very bad idea. John Carter (talk) 14:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Please understand that the Wikipedia project has standards for fiction-related content, and this is fiction-related content. Even if it weren't, the article lacks reliable, secondary sources and doesn't demonstrate notability. - YYN (talk) 03:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Whether it is "fiction" by the dictionary definition or not is entirely immaterial. It's not fiction for the purposes of WP:FICT. Let me give you an analogy... In the bible, the story of Lot's wife is scientifically impossible, and thus historically unlikely; human beings can't transform into pillars of salt. Outside of the context of faith, it is probably a piece of fiction per the dictionary definition. But if you went into the article on Lot and tried to apply tags to it meant for fiction, you would be reverted as a vandal. And as for reliable sources and notability, sources can be fixed and I disagree on notability. And by the way, a much better candidate for a merge proposal would be Space opera in Scientology scripture. --GoodDamon 17:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

No. If Galactic Confederacy was merged anywhere, it wouldn't be all the way back to this article. Xenu or Space opera in Scientology scripture would be better. AndroidCat (talk) 03:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

No. Per Coffeepusher (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 05:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Where the article is merged isn't an issue, if you feel it would better the Wikipedia project to merge it into another article you may do that. The only thing that matters currently is that Galactic Confederacy doesn't have enough notability demonstrated to be a stand-alone article. Fictional sub-articles that can be concisely summarized in the main article, it should be so. Articles such as the one noted do not inherit notablity because the wider subject is notable. - YYN (talk) 16:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, your repeated statements regarding this being fictional content, whether you choose to acknowledge that or not, are not supported by the facts. This article in question is about a subject of "religious belief", which does not qualify as "fictional". Please understand that you are approaching this issue from a very clear POV, that this matter of "religious belief" is fictional, and that subjects of religious belief do not qualify as fiction. John Carter (talk) 16:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose merge. The subject appears to be a standard part of Scientology beliefs, and Scientology, while a controversial organization with controversial beliefs and practices, is nonetheless clearly notable as are its core practices. Galactic Confederacy appears to be sufficiently notable and require sufficient detail to explain to stand on its own. The basis for merge seems to be, not that the subject is non-notable or not a belief of Scientology, but that the beliefs of Scientology as a whole (including this one) are fictional The status of Scientology as a religion is certainly controversial. While this controversy should be explained fairly in the relevant articles including criticism, a particular view on it does not seem an appropriate basis for merge decisions under WP:NPOV Readers are capable of deciding for themselves whether the beliefs of Scientology are fictional or not, just as is the case for all POV controversies. Best --Shirahadasha (talk) 17:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Please cease bringing POV into this discussion. From a completely neutral point of view the article in question is almost completely unsourced, and thus by Wikipedia's standards cannot stand as its own article. - YYN (talk) 17:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You were the one who introduced POV by using the word Fancruft. And I do find it quite remarkable that, as per here, your first edit was on the 11th of February, and this discussion is seemingly the only activity you have taken part in. As such, there is reason to believe that you may qualify as a Single-purpose account, given your remarkable level of knowledge of guidelines and policies for a newcomer. I acknowledge that there are two quotations which aren't specifically cited yet, and that is a problem. However, I think it would make more sense to tag those quotations as needing a citiation than to make such claims as you have made above. John Carter (talk) 17:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I've started cleaning it up and have been getting it tagged for additional sources. As the person who started this discussion, I'm interested in what you think about the changes. --GoodDamon 18:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Brainwashing

I noticed that the article does not say anything about the rumours of Scientology brainwashing its members. Is there any truth to that or is it just a conspiracy theory? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.45.183 (talk) 17:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• It's very true, but Scientologists and non-Scientologists struggle over this article to determine what should and should not be permitted in it. For the most accurate information about Scientology, please see Xenu.net.--71.202.121.130 (talk) 21:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Of course, Scientologists (like myself), don't feel brainwashed. However I looked at the article on brainwashing and it would seem the accusation of being a cult and brainwashing members goes hand in hand. While you can find individual scientists who will call any method of changing a person's mind about anything brainwashing, there seems to be no scientific consensus as to what is or isn't brainwashing, mind control, thought reform or "re-education". Ask yourself: if someone accused me of being brainwashed, how could I disprove it. So ultimately there is no RS about who is or isn't brainwashing who. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 00:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

How do two Wrongs Make a Right? "Attacking the Attacker"

I read on Wikipedia that Scientologists believe in "attacking the attacker." But, no where have I seen any explanation of why Scientologists believe that smearing people is good—for any one. Is there any sort of explanation that they have offered that explains how doing evil (e.g., disclosing personal information, pestering people, filing frivolous law suits, intimidation, kidnapping, stalking, etc.) is good? To clarify, how does "attacking the attacker" improve either attacker? Simply disputing a falsehood about Scientology would be a different matter. What I am talking about is making an attack against an individual, rather than an argument or a belief. Ad-hominem arguments seem to be their first line of defense, however irrelevant they may be to any debate. How do they justify that morally?--Guywithdress (talk) 14:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I wonder this myself. Spreading scientology to the entire planet is their goal, and they believe a small number of "suppressive persons" is all that is stopping them. Attacking these individuals therefore serves the greater good. I'd love to hear from a scientologist about this, but the few times i've asked they've refused to answer. Foobaz·o< 15:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Check out Ethics (Scientology).Coffeepusher (talk) 06:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

See Tit for tat. Also some of these "Attacks" are possibly paranoia. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

By the by, better read this answer fast as this conversation has nothing to do with page content and so will be soon removed. Unless "tit for tat" should be Incorporated into the article somehow. Finding a ref might be hard. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Check the dates—the conversation you say "will be soon removed" is already more than a week old. Foobaz·o< 19:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)why don't we just wait for it to archive. I personaly abhore deleting from talk pages except in the case of outright vandalism or stupidity (the bin laden question on this page is a perfict example of that "is osama bin laden a scientologists?"...um...no he is a muslem, duh!) and while it is a stretch to say that this refurs to the article, I do see some value in keeping it, for no other reason than if someone comes up with the same question they can see that Ethics (Scientology) already adresses it.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• I favor keeping it. I didn't say I would delete it, I just figured someone would soon. Particularly after I added to it and thereby brought attention to it. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 09:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Article still has overreliance/overweighting of primary, self-published/self-referential sources

I disagree w/ this edit, which removed tags that were still appropriate. Just look at the References section. There are still way too many cites to primary, self-published/self-referential sources, affiliated with the subject of this article. Cirt (talk) 06:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your disagreement. Although many secondary sources are used for certain apspects, there are still many paragraphs and even whole sections which are sourced inappropriately. See tone scale, triangles etc. As long as "success stories" are used as references the tag should not be removed. -- Stan _talk 17:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Controversy -> "Hypnosis" and "Scientology as a Cult"

It seems odd to me that these two are one section in the article. The section itself doesn't seem to relate the two. Might it be better to split that section? Perhaps the first paragraph (the only part that talks about hypnosis) into a "Hypnosis and Scientology" section and then the rest as "Scientology as a Cult?"--Tyranastrasz (talk) 23:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Scientology and the internet

Sorry for using TW without any comment. I reverted Su Jada because she smoothly excluded other actions against the internet from the first section. It is not just about some legal actions. (sporgery on ARS) -- Stan _talk 23:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not certain where else to but this info, but someone should take a look at Scientology's practices on ebay. Not sure if there's any 'reputable' sources for this info, but slashdot mentions a letter from ebay, and I think ebay is reputable. It's not flattering to ebay. At the very least, this may be something to watch. http://realitybasedcommunity.net/archive/2008/02/scientology_abu_1.php http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/04/27/1712248 74.67.17.22 (talk) 00:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

That is an opinion by a lawyer on his personal blog. I don't even think it's true but that does not matter because blogs are non-RS. Shutterbug (talk) 22:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree about the first link, but surely Slashdot is a reliable source. Right now there's one e-meter on eBay, so perhaps the Church no longer removes them. Foobaz·o< 23:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Found a better source. Personally, I'd prefer an actual legal doc, but this is what I found looking on google for a minute. [4] Daler (talk) 08:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

There are a bunch more secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources that have reported on this controversy. Cirt (talk) 09:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I am fairly unfamiliar with editing wikipedia articles and what the rules are as far as 'valid' sources go. But I did a search on google news and found these 3 articles (ex-cluding slashdots) on the scientology / ebay saga. You can find them here, here and here.

They are from Dailytech.com, radaronline.com and shortnews.com. They all seem like very reputable sources, but again - I can't confirm, as I don't know the rules well enough. Hopefully these can be used; if not hopefully someone can shed some light on why they can't. Thanks. Cdynas (talk) 02:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

They don't look RS to me. The one from Dailytech.com is a blog, so no evidence of fact checking; the one from radaronline.com is a scandal sheet, they print any rumor; the one from shortnews.com is secondhand it gives a source www.realitybasedcommunity.net, a blog. I could write an article and say anything I like and post it on at least 2 of these sources. Look for an official release from ebay or an article that has one. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Kids against Scientology

Good source, should be added to article

• Staff. "Kids against Scientology", Web Scout: Spinning through online entertainment and connected culture, Los Angeles Times, February 29, 2008. Retrieved on 2008-02-29. 

A very interesting development, indeed. Cirt (talk) 21:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope, not a good source. Interesting development, but it's just a blog posting about the existence of the website, not a vetted news article. I'm sure with Jenna Miscavige Hill as a founding member, there will be real news stories about it shortly, but a very brief blurb about it on a blog isn't an appropriate citation for the main Scientology article or the Church of Scientology article. --GoodDamon 00:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Update, now mentioned in WP:V/WP:RS secondary source

• Sarno, David. "Scientology taking hits online: A growing number of critics and disgruntled ex-members are using the Web to attack the church's tightly controlled image.", Los Angeles Times, March 3, 2008. Retrieved on 2008-03-03. 

Cirt (talk) 05:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Another source

• Shah, Neel. "Scientologists Not As Litigious as Previously Thought", Radar Online, Radar Magazine, March 3, 2008. Retrieved on 2008-03-03. 

Cirt (talk) 18:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

problem with "Div 6" or "for WOGS only" content in Beliefs

All refs from 27 to 67 are primary sources mainly available on the internet. It looks a bit like an ammasment of PR quotes which are not informative at all and not concise. Many are misleading or controversial but are not attributed correctly. see Wikipedia:NPOV#Attributing_and_substantiating_biased_statements.

example for missing attribution in this section(its also not really informative):

Therefore, a therapy which asks man to adapt his subjective environment to the obective environment, and not the other way around, is like psychiatry enslaving and is unworkable simply because it is not true.

another example: (substantiation and attribution missing)

It is a personal thing that an ethical person does by his own choice.[63]

The Scientology Ethic book and most scholars don't descibe Ethics as "a personal thing in Scientology" and the second part "ethical person already indicates that this "PR statement" is a kind of workaround. "Ethic Orders" and Conditions are directly assigned by the church to the individual on the "3'rd dynamic" in general and on "lower conditions" on all "dynamics".

... or should Coca Cola on Wikipedia be descriped as surpisingly refreshing and very beneficial because "everytime you have a coke,you help support your community" ?

I would like to clean it up but would like to reach consensus on this matter first. BTW, "Admin Tech" and PTS/SP doctrine is completly missing in the belief section. -- Stan _talk 00:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is WAY too big/long

This article is over 115 kb. It should really be trimmed down/summarized/phrased more succinctly. Too many sections of the article go into specific details on things that should be summarized instead, w/ links to more specific articles on tighter topics. Cirt (talk) 13:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Any specific suggestions? Note that a lot of the length of this article is in the references, which are rather essential given its controversy. --FOo (talk) 18:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, its too long but it will be hard to find conensus on any deletion. However, last time we established consensus to delete or move some content (mainly critical content) and the article was reduced to 89 kb[5]. I would suggest this time to:

• summarize Origin and definition (no consensus last time)
• summarize Scientology#Membership Benitez was an inmate who found a book by Hubbard in the Arizona State Prison library and got himself and other inmates off drugs.[118] is this really needed ? (there was a consensus to summarize the section last time but no one actually did it)
• summarize Chanology (recent event which may not need a half page)
• summarize befief system and make it more concise
• remove The Association for Better Living and Education, licenses the use of Scientology doctrine in affiliated organizations such as Narconon,[6] Criminon[7] and Applied Scholastics.[8] in the lead section. It is already mentioned in the first paragraph.(done) -- Stan _talk 00:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Chanology has too much here and in Scientology and the Internet for a subject with its own main article. It needs to be the tl;dr version with far fewer references needed. AndroidCat (talk) 13:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Meh.

This article seems to be speaking on behalf of what L. Ron Hubbard said post-creation of Scientology, after it had already gained status. I'm pretty sure it was developed as a joke when L. Ron Hubbard was going through a period where he had been on many prescription drugs, and he found there could be some truth to it...

That's pretty contentious - if you can't provide a source it fails WP:V. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)All you need to do, then, is to find a reliable source for that, and the whole article can be rewritten on that basis. Until then, however.... --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

wtf

why is this article protected 212.149.252.23 (talk)¨ —Preceding comment was added at 16:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It should be obvious.. are you a member of the movement by any chance? Mijcsmu (talk) 17:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It is also said that Danny Masterson (HYDE off of that 70's show) is another supporter of scientology —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.5.231.118 (talk) 22:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Still sites its own sources

Can anyone find any third party sources for alot of the stuff here.

Also would it be acceptable to post a 'spark-notes' version of the OT3 documents--Sylvok (talk) 12:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Scientology and the internet

under scientologoy and the internet it says that anonymous' next protest will be on march 15th, this already happend and another protest is scheduled for april 12th. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.162.203 (talk) 18:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC) Anonymous members are members from the 4chan.org message boards. More importantly, they are from the random message board otherwise known as /b/. They are the ones who started the protests. The reason they wear Guy Fawkes masks is because they use the image of the mask on a stick figure and refer to it as EFG or Epic Fail Guy. Why has this information not been added? All of these protests come from members of that forum.

That's not true; many other chans are involved. /b/ is the largest but they didn't organize this. Foobaz·o< 14:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Scientology, A Profit Orginization.

I have as of yet, failed to find ANY proof that Co$ is a non-profit orginization. There is absolutely no evidence to support them as being non-profit. The fact that Co$ has had SEVERAL 'Leaders of Anoynomus' arrested at protests world wide (Mostly the people doing most of the chanting and or leading people in the chants or reading articles against the church published by third parties mostly news articles.) People that drove to the protests, have had notices placed in their post by "Representitives of the Church of Scientology." and it just so happened to be a law firm... a very reputable one at that. I personally have been contacted by "Representitives of the Church of Scientology" However I took no part in the protest, yet my place of work is directly across the street from an office of The Church of Scientology.

The 'Church' of Scientology is hardly a 'Church' at all. Direct or Indirect oppression against those who disagree with the church, or publicly speak out against their practices and beliefs is (Not sure about most countries but i'm sure it is in Aus.) illegal.

HOWEVER, it is not wikipedia's job to refuse an article to a cult, There is insufficent references, and third party information regarding the church of scientology's article. All of it's sources are from either it's own publications, or publications by it's members and affilate orginiazations.

Either Deletion or some other form of action should be taken on this article. The article is full of lies, half truths, self promotion and defamation of the group anonymous. (Last i checked Wiki articles were supposed to be netural.)

AnnaJGrant (talk) 09:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

other than the churches status as a non profit by the united states government you mean...and your rant seems to stem from personal opinions rather than third party sources. if you want to contribute to this article please feel free to list your WP:RS and they can be inserted, but using weighted language or pushing a pov (from either side) isn't what this is for. note that scientology is in fact a religion, and that fact is indifferent to what you believe about its helpfullness to its followers or society (we have a third party source for that statment), the definition of Cult is tricky at best, and there is no legal clasification of a cult in the united states at least (and most people would be reduced to discribing a cult as a "brainwashing orgonization" which would also put AA, NA, some psyciatry, and institutionalized education programs [Read altusare] in the same catagroy). and this isn't the only article about scientology on wikipedia, just the one that deals with its basic beliefs and practices...so you can look up Scientology and the internet, scientology and space opera, scieltology and ethics...and you will find that wikipedia tries to be non-bias...but the issue is HUGE and can hardly be treated in a single article.Coffeepusher (talk) 18:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

NYU cruises to the moon!

• Zenon. "NYU cruises to the moon!", Washington Square News, New York University, April 1, 2008. Retrieved on 2008-04-01. 

This will be the university's first satellite campus on a satellite. It will be completely funded by the Church of Scientology, NYU spokesman John Beckman said in a joint news conference with actor Tom Cruise. The "NYU L. Ron Hubbard Center for the Study of the Universe" will be able to host nearly 200 former SPs each semester, with potential for expansion in the future.

Sounds like an ambitious project. Cirt (talk) 09:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, I get it, it's April Fools. This is kinda close to trolling though, wouldn't you think? --GoodDamon 15:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, if posting a cite on a talk page is, then I don't know what you would call the Today's Featured Article, Did you know, and lots of other stuff goin around today... Cirt (talk) 19:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It's no worse than a lot of other stuff today, including at least one request for Jimboship, and I've seen weirder comments on talk pages. Actually, I've made many weirder comments on talk pages. And it is a valid website. The content probably could be included in a "April Fool's media hoaxes" article of some kind. John Carter (talk) 19:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is an article with listings of stuff like this, at April 1, 2008... Cirt (talk) 19:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I yield... It just seemed more targeted than the rest of the 4/1 shenanigans, but maybe that's just me. :) --GoodDamon 21:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Scientology denied church status in germany

In germany scientology is officially marked as sect and therefore denied church status. This should be mentioned in the controvesity section. And it would be interesting to see where else scientology is denied church status ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arotto (talk • contribs) 13:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Scientology is not classified as a sect in Germany. It is officially a voluntary businness association, with non-profit status being denied so far. It's status as a de jure religious or philisophical community is disputed and no definite jurisdiction has been issued. The CoS has been under surveillance by Gemany's domestic intelligence agency since 1997 because of suspicion of "activities against the free democratic order". -- megA (talk) 15:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Mentally-ill child denied psychiatric help, kills Scientologist parents

"A Sydney woman has been ordered to stand trial after pleading not guilty to the stabbing murders of her father and sister. The 26-year-old will also defend a charge of inflicting grievous bodily harm with intent to murder her mother. The attack allegedly happened at the family's Revesby home in Sydney's south-west in July last year. The Supreme Court was told mental health will be an issue at the trial, which will start in July. It is alleged that the woman was denied psychiatric help because of her parents' belief in Scientology."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/04/04/2208153.htm

Wageslave (talk) 05:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the first such case, and the article you link to is not very informative, presumably to protect the privacy of the people involved. So unfortunately I don't think we can use it in this article. Oh, and by the way, a 26-year-old woman is not a child. --FOo (talk) 07:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

speculative fiction?

this article makes no mention of Hubbard's science fiction writing in the intro, his arguably most famous book 'battlefield earth' was clearly science fiction.i am not saying that he was not also a speculative fiction writer, but if that term is included in the introduction then the term "science fiction writer" should be included also

if i am beating a dead horse i apologies, i went though the archives looking for a debate on this topic but could not find anything, if this has already been resolved then could you please point me to the talk pages in archives? Rubico (talk) 17:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem, it has actually been discussed. you can find it on [fiction] and ["Speculative fiction"] Coffeepusher (talk) 17:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

it does not look like a consensus was reached, and i saw a couple of good arguments for the inclusion of "science fiction author" including Hubbard himself identifying himself as a scifi writer. and being commonly addressed by reputable sources as a scifi writer. i do understand the POV issues, but i dont think facts should be sacrificed at the expense of a perceived bias Rubico (talk) 21:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Im fine either way, from what I saw there where strong feelings toward the Speculitive Fiction beeing included while the Sci-fi people kinda felt like it was not worth the struggle...at least that was how I remember the discussion (I was the one who pointed out the Hubbard interview). I agree that Science Fiction encompases a limited amout of his work, just saying "a Fiction writer" would probably be most accurate but produce a hellstorm of opinions on his non-fiction work, so Speculitive fiction seems to be the best for all conserned...so I guess I do have an opinion afterall.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

But doesn't science fiction constitute the bulk of what he is known for? i think this article should reflect that Rubico (talk) 07:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

ok, its been 3 days and no one elce has commented. If you want to change it, you have no objections from me.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Hold on, hold on... This got hashed out a while ago. I didn't see that someone had brought it up again, but I do object. Hubbard may be primarily known now for his science fiction, but it doesn't accurately portray his fiction career. He published stories in multiple genres, which are covered best by the "speculative fiction" catch-all. If you'd like to replace it with "science fiction", I'd prefer to see several of his other notable genres mentioned, such as fantasy and horror. --GoodDamon 22:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

'comment hay, no problem, As you can see the post is almost a week old with no other comments, thus my statement. again, I am going to see how the conversation goes before I comment.Coffeepusher (talk) 22:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

i understand his diversity in writing, but what he is known for (and what this article emphasizes) is his science fiction writings, he describes himself as a science fiction writer as well as most sources, i think undue weight is given to his other lesser known works by putting it on the same level as his science fiction writer. also im not saying that speculative fiction should be taken out either. but that science fiction should be added along side it Rubico (talk) 08:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

im going to go ahead and change it, have not gotten a response in over a week, revert if you want but please adress in talk Rubico (talk) 16:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I am going to go ahead and revert that, because speculative fiction encompasses science fiction. Speculative fiction includes scifi, fantasy, horror, magical realism, alternate history, and so forth. Saying he wrote speculative fiction and science fiction is redundant. A better edit would be to say he was a science fiction and fantasy author, but that would still be excluding everything else he wrote. --GoodDamon 06:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

"American speculative fiction" should not be included when referencing LRH on the Scientology page. It's fairly obvious that referring to him as such is an effort to discredit the religion, and such descriptions should be confined to a biography page, not a discussion of a religion. I know I'll get flack for this, but, you wouldn't refer to Christianity as a religion based on Jesus, a carpenter, because not only is that not what he was was most known for, but it's only relevant in a biographical sense, not relevant to the religion itself. I don't know if this should be its own heading or not, if so, please advise. Nihiletnihil (talk) 09:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree for several reasons.

• First, Hubbard is primarily known for two things: His fiction writing and Scientology. Both are quite notable and encyclopedic in nature, and not mentioning his writing career prior to founding Scientology would be an unnecessary obfuscation of perfectly useful and non-biased information. Stating that Scientology was founded by a writer is in no way POV-pushing or discrediting. And frankly, I'm not sure why any offense could be taken here. There's nothing shameful or embarrassing about being a popular science fiction and fantasy writer. Heck, it's something a lot of people aspire to.
• Second, I should point out that biographical information about people who have done multiple notable things almost always shows up in the articles about those notable things, for the purpose of providing context. For an example, see the article on Rockefeller University, which describes John D. Rockefeller as both an oil baron and a philanthropist.

I hope this helps. --GoodDamon 19:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Get real, people.

I think the article should say somewhere in the first paragraph that scientology is a scam. Why the hell should it cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to be "treated" by the "church"? A real religion would do that out of sheer goodwill. Anyone with half a brain can figure out that this is nothing but a total scam. Unbrady (talk) 01:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:V. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'v read those, and guess what? Scientology is still a blatant scam. I was at their "head base" in LA a few months ago, and they had security gaurds walking around with 7 INCH BLADES on them. What kind of religion has freakin armed gaurds in their churches? (the Swiss gaurd in Vatican City is just ceremonial). This whole organization screams "Scam! Scam Scam Scam Scam Scam!" Unbrady (talk) 01:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

See the purpose of the talk page at the top of this page:"This is not a forum for general discussion of Scientology, or anything not directly related to improving the Wikipedia article." Keep the comments about improving the article, not personal opinions about the topic. Alanraywiki (talk) 01:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, find proper sources that say beyond all reasonable doubt that CoS is a scam and add them to the article. I would have thought that if they existed, it would have happened by now. Hmmm? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The accurate, neutral and well referenced material already available on it's wikipedia page is more than enough to convince most clear thinking individuals that scientology is a scam. Theres no reason to add anything to blatantly criticize scientology, the facts are critical anough. Scientology survives on ignorance, people only join if they don't know what it's about, and anyone who reads tthis wikipedia page will learn what it's about. As far as scientology is concerned, anything about them that is factual and neutral, may as well be libel and slander. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.217.109.71 (talk) 21:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Well put. It’s only a matter of a count down to the end of the global scam when you can read an un-bias article and still come to the conclusion that it is a scam. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 07:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Though I think all religions are retarded, I think Scientology is the most retarded. Can't we have this article as the exception to the NPOV rule? - 211.30.197.132 (talk) 10:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Reality Check

Things change, times change.

On Sunday, December 25, 1994, The Washington post publishes the article: In Scientology Fiction - The Church's War Against Its Critics and Truth. A favorite between Scientology critics.

Now the Washington post published: XENU-PHOBIA Weird Sure. A Cult, No. The same magazine now says that Scientology is not a cult.

The New Yorker now writes about Scientology Celebrity Center like it was a Gala Dinner. Château Scientology

This other journalist writes about the fun time she had in church of Scientology. An afternoon with the Scientologists

This other one writes about her experiences with auditing. | The Invasion Begins, Scientology's Plan To Conquer Cleveland

The reality is that the Scientology controversy is dying out. People are more concern with Will Smith being a Scientologist and Tom Cruise videos than anything else. No one considers Scientology a dangerous cult no more. They may find it weird but that's all. The court cases against Scientology in the U.S. have almost disappeared.

There is just a handful of desperate Scientology critics left that the worst thing they can do is to bog down the website and post stupid messages.

In writing this because the last paragraph in the lead is just bias. Is based in old obsolete information that is no longer current. Is simply an offensive insult with no real data. I want a vote to have that paragraph removed.

I vote YES Bravehartbear (talk) 14:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Ummm... Have you been paying attention to whats been going on concerning the cult lately? as in 2008? Theres been an explosion of bad press and controversy. Public sentiment against scientology is currently the highest it's ever been! Your post is obviously disinformation that nobody with any interest in this subject will ever believe. And, as a friendly word of advice, ignoring the facts will probally hurt your e-meter readings. You'll never reach OT3 at this rate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.217.109.71 (talk) 21:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I vote NO as, checking the links, you've not disproved a single thing.

---

I vote that your links are broken—only the New Yorker one works for me. Foobaz·o< 16:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Foobaz (talk · contribs). These above presented links also do not present an appropriate worldview. Cirt (talk) 17:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I vote NO. Bravehartbear is proposing that Scientology is no longer controversial in part based on a newspaper article that begins "Scientology, the controversial religion..." Preposterous. --BTfromLA (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment

Please see WP:NOT#FORUM, as well as the related header at the top of this talk page. Cirt (talk) 17:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Response

It is not misuse to discuss how RS treats the exact subject of this article and how that directly impacts the manner in which this project treats the exact subject of this article. BTW, here are the Washington Post links (from just Googling the titles) 1, 2. --JustaHulk (talk) 17:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Here are the other two links; 3 4. --JustaHulk (talk) 17:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I vote NO. None of those links indicate any "dying out" of Scientology's controversies.

• First link: The opening sentence for Mark Oppenheimer's opinion piece begins with "Scientology, the controversial religion..."
• Second link: Do you really want to cite an investigative report that refers to Scientology as the religion that "incorporates aspects of Eastern philosophy, management theory, and science fiction"?
• Third link: Whoa, nelly... Did you read it? "It sounded like a pretty sweet deal. Who doesn’t like free things from an organization that’s well known for being controversial? We approached the ornate wooden doors and entered without knowing it would be another three hours until we would manage to escape." It goes downhill from there. The "fun" they had appears to be in making fun of Scientology. The tone is very mocking.
• Fourth link: Again, I have to wonder if you read it. After getting past the picture of the alien -- presumably a dig at Xenu -- I read through it and I have to wonder how you could possibly have gotten the idea that it regards Scientology as non-controversial. It discusses Scientology's opposition to psychiatry in some detail, and not in a flattering light.

If anything, the tone used to describe Scientology in the news since the Tom Cruise video is getting worse, not better. They all mention Xenu, they all describe its controversial nature, and I couldn't find any text indicating the court cases have "almost disappeared." I would be hesitant to include any of these links because they're all opinion pieces, and they're all largely mocking in tone. Even the first one, in which Mr. Oppenheimer says Scientology isn't a cult, goes into some detail about the perceived weirdness of it, and describes it as controversial. If we include them, the tone of this article will get more negative, not less, while we'll be using opinion pieces written by non-experts as reliable sources -- and I don't see any reason to do that. --GoodDamon 19:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. - This is a very good analysis by GoodDamon (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 19:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I vote NO. Cherry-picking a few articles out of a very large number[6] isn't significant. AndroidCat (talk) 05:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC) I vote NO. 129.174.226.5 (talk) 00:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I too vote NO, and WOW you really neglected to read the information that you linked as evidence, because some of the articles contradict what you are trying to argue.--iF (talk) 04:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I vote NO, Now there is a HUGE controversy with the Church of Scientology thanks to its censorship of YouTube videos. --Chinese3126 (talk) 17:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Controversy redirect

Hi, I've redirected the controversy page, for several reasons:

• We have a summary of Scientology's less-than-savoury practices in this article.
• The controversy article was 60kb, half of the main page.
• The controversies page has been problematic for over a year.
• The page is full of NPOV against the Church, with only one paragraph detailing the CoS' response.
• There's more weaseling in that article than I have ever seen, with statements such as "Critics say" or "oft-cited rumour"

It's articles like that which lower Wikipedia's credibility. We're supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a soapbox for anti-or-pro-anything rants. The page is completely against our policy of neutral point of view. And for the record, I'm against Scientology. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong. Shouldn’t there been some form on of group consensus before you did this?

I disagree with your removal of the controversies page without prior discussion. I think you should withdraw your edit until a general agreement is met. Cdynas (talk) 23:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

So you redirected a page that is a main page for a subset of articles without discussion or any attempt to clean it up. Essentualy you have deleted an article without any prior discussion or authoraty. I will be removing your redirect, and if you wish to have the article deleted, nominate it for such and go through with the prossess.Coffeepusher (talk) 02:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose unilateral redirect without discussion - Scientology controversies is its own valid full article with multiple sources, and has been for quite some time now. If an editor feel that it is not notable enough to have its own separate article on Wikipedia, this should be discussed in an WP:AfD. Cirt (talk) 04:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose - Per Cdynas, Coffeepusher, and Cirt, this kind of major change is what WP:AfD is for. Changes such as this one should never be enacted unilaterally, and I see no reason why the article can't be cleaned up instead of deleted. --GoodDamon 19:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

For the record, Sceptre's redirect has been reverted and the article is now being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientology controversies. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

My own feeling is that the article needs work, but shouldn't be deleted. The controversies surrounding Scientology are many and quite notable. The fact that they largely put the church in a negative light has no bearing on the encyclopedic merit of such information or the article in which it is contained. --GoodDamon 21:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

IRS Infiltration

Although I lack the faculties to develop a well-referenced and definitive article on the subject, I find its abscence worrisome. I have heard on many accounts the Scientologist infiltration of the IRS remains the largest known act of its kind to find success against the US government. This deserves at the very least a footnote.

http://www.xenu-directory.net/news/austindailyherald-19770708.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.252.17 (talk) 23:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The link provided may or may not be considered a questionable source as it obviously has a bias (as a website devoted to Scientology). It does however provide substantial amounts of referencing and is seemingly objective in its approach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.252.17 (talk) 23:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

See also: Operation Snow White AndroidCat (talk) 02:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The two articles should be merged. Or at the very least, a reference should be made on the main page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.252.17 (talk) 08:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

So you want to be a scientologist - Slate Magazine

• Goldstein, Bonnie (April 30, 2008). Hot Document: Primary Sources Exposed and Explained - So you want to be a scientologist.. Slate Magazine. The Washington Post Company. Retrieved on 2008-04-30.

Good source for discussion of primary source documents, "contract". Cirt (talk) 19:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)