Talk:Scientology/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 →

Contents

Victims

In the edit summary, I said "Let's not sprinkle the article with victims of Scientology", while removing a mention of Victor Gyory. Turns out that Victor Gyory is a victim of substandard psychiatric treatment, not of Scientology. I still don't want to see the article filled with victims of any side in this article. --cprompt 16:02, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Constitutional protection vs. tax exemption

Scientology is recognized as a constitutionally protected religion in the United States, but not in most European countries.

Constitutional protection applies to the individual rather than the organization and means, among other things, that it is illegal for a US employer to fire someone simply for being a Scientologist. In Europe, by contrast, there have been several high-profile cases in which the courts upheld firings of Scientologists who had been fired after coming out of the closet.

The tax status of the CofS is a separate issue that is already covered at Church of Scientology. Mkweise 22:04, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Certainly, but these don't fall under First Amendment issues. The term "Constitutionally protected religion" sounds designed to make people think that Scientology is a Constitutionally "approved" religion (which is what the organization does indeed want people to think). Anti-discrimination statutes come under another part of the law, if I remember correctly. This is part of one argument that has caused many critics of Scientology to bang their heads against the wall: the refusal of Scientology to admit that there is no such thing as a "government approved" religious organization in the United states. This is why they point to the tax exemption as "proof" of their being such as thing, when actually it isn't. --Modemac 09:50, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
The first amendment guarantees all Americans the right to free exercise of religion, and specifically prohibits the government from approving of any particular religion(s). My point is that Scientologists are covered by this constitutional protection in the US, but enjoy no such protection from persecution in Europe. Mkweise 19:06, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Since "Europe" is not a single country, but a variety of countries with vastly differing legislations, your point is very imprecise and I would be glad if you cared to precise it. For your information, all countries in Europe with few exceptions, including all countries in the European Union, are signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights, which makes freedom of religion a basic right. Government such as the French government are legally prohibited from recognizing or subsidizing religions. David.Monniaux 19:25, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Official discrimination against Scientologists occurred mostly France, according to the U.S. Department of State. Germany was also officially discriminating against the Scientologists, according to the U.S. Department of State. Most of the governments in Europe are tolerant of Scientology and Scientologists.--128.171.51.167 21:15, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It seems to me that one point that differs between the United States' understanding of "freedom of religion" and that of some European countries' is whether or not religious activities are considered above the normal rules of life in society. The European understanding is that the government may not discriminate or prosecute people for religious beliefs, but that religious motives are no excuse for illegal acts. I have the impression that in the United States, religion may be used as a refuge from government interference that would be perfectly legal with respect to other kinds of organizations, for instance for accusations of embezzlement. David.Monniaux 19:34, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
David, History proves that religions tend to have the upper hand over governments. Many laws are based on religious morals.--128.171.51.167 21:15, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Removing the article series box

The article series box (and article series boxes in general) is large, clunky and unsightly. Fortunately, we have a superior substitute: the Category system. Category:Scientology is nicely populated and avoids an ever-expanding article series box. I'd like to remove the article series boxes. I mentioned it on User talk:Modemac and Modemac wouldn't object strenuously to its removal. What does everyone else think? - David Gerard 12:53, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The folks here certainly don't need my permission to do anything; I don't own this article or the article series box in question. --Modemac 17:57, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I merely seek consensus :-) - David Gerard
Right, I've blanked Template:Scientology, so the article series will disappear from all articles using it. If anyone cares I expect there will be a reversion in short order :-) - David Gerard 20:07, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The Purpose of this Article

As rightly pointed out by Sam Spade, I should have brought this up for discussion before removing the large amount of text recently added into this article by 207.175.180.134.

This person has every right to contribute, however, the balance on this page just went out the window. While there are critical views, they are already well represented and 207.175.180.134 needs to be referred to NPOV.

I am for removing 207.175.180.134's additions, the article and the other pages in the series already more than cover the "controversial" and critical side. The recent addition just made the page an "anti-scientology" article.

If this is what is wanted, a possible solution is an "anti-Scientology" series is started and the negative material can be moved there.

I am interested in feedback from the others who contribute to this category, some of you are more experienced that I and I'd appreciate your advice. I just think that the purpose of the page should be to provide a balance of information, not a rant. Let me know. Thanks.- I'M4aNPOV

207.175.180.134's stuff is way over the top and severely needs NPOVing. However, shunting criticism off to a separate article does not make for articles that, individually, satisfy NPOV - that approach is more suited to the Wikinfo "Sympathetic Point Of View" approach, where you have two (or more) parallel articles. When criticism is sufficient to make an article lopsided, the typical method is to put it in a separate article and include a link to it with a one to three paragraph summary. Although in this case, I'd say the controversy surrounding Scientology is most of what makes it notable, and the criticism goes with that, so it's going to stay a major part of this one - David Gerard 17:06, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks David, however, I'm not talking about "shunting it off" I'm talking about some balance and fairness. I looked around and there are a number of other belief systems that have "anti" pages where critics can have a field day and say whatever they like. I firmly believe that the Scientology page --as it should be an overview of the subject, should be balanced. Not that there should be no mention of controversy or the critical side, but that it is sensible -- I don't know if you agree with me on this but, what is there now, as you say is way over top. I just want to know what the correct way is to go about revising the page at this stage -- you seem to have a lot of experience in this area. Please advise what should be deleted, edited or whatever and how you suggest we go about painting a fair and balanced picture so all sides and viewpoints can be represented. Also interested in feedback from any others. Thanks -- I'M4aNPOV11 July 2004

User:Modemac has been doing considerable work to make it reasonable and avoid duplication of late - David Gerard 15:33, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Oh, by the way I'M4aNPOV - I see your last few edits were from 205.227.165.11 - which is in a netblock owned by the Church of Scientology:
Church of Scientology International CHSCIEN-165-13 (NET-205-227-165-0-1)
                                 205.227.165.0 - 205.227.165.255
Please reread Wikipedia:Auto-biography - much as one should not create articles about oneself, one should also take care in editing articles about oneself. Furthermore, if you are editing an article on behalf of the organisation the article is about, it's really not proper to fail to note the fact prominently - please do so in future - David Gerard 17:21, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Thanks David, no problem. However, not really an "auto-biography" situation as a)the article is not about me. It is about a subject that I am involved in, but I am not the author b) my purpose is per my user name "NPOV." Is there some other Wiki page you can refer me to where someone from the subject's organization was required to make some sort of special notation? If not, I prefer not to make an issue of it as there are other forums for debate and I am not looking to create this in Wikipedia - it is not Wikipedia's nor my purpose. I didn't hide my IP address, so anyone can see who I am. I may not agree with yours and Modemac's views on the Scientology religion, but I do respect your editing skills and appreciate any help you can give me to do the same as fellow Wikipedians. Modemac has done a pretty good job handling the problem I brought up earlier, which I appreciate, the only thing I see that is still over the edge here is the unsubstantiated, out-of-context quotes about L. Ron Hubbard that were added to the "Quotes" section. What's your editorial take on this?

User:I'M4aNPOV 16:20, 13 Jul 2004 (PST)

You're posting to a Scientology-related article from a Church of Scientology computer. I would suggest that this makes you far too close to the article to possibly work to NPOV. Is this in any way an official duty, or could it be regarded as close enough to one to pretty much count as one if fully described to another? If so, the proper thing to do would be to leave this and related articles the hell alone - David Gerard 00:07, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
That seems a bit ad hominem. Should my edits to IBM have been disallowed as not NPOV because I work for the company? I know it's tempting to believe that everyone involved in the CoS is a mindless drone with nothing contribute but propaganda, but I don't think that's really true.—Metamatic
Metamatic, I think the question is, were your edits to IBM information that you supplied as a private individual who, as an employee of the company, happened to have the information and perspective of an employee of the company? Or were you editing IBM on behalf of the company? There is a difference, you see. It is no secret that the CoS has many people in its employment whose sole job responsibility is to watch for public discussion of the Church of Scientology and make sure that the discussion "goes right" -- i.e., reflects the Church's own say-so on itself. And I do not think I will be making anyone faint from shock when I state that the people that the Church employs in this capacity are not always open and honest about the fact that they would in fact be violating their job duties if they posted anything about the Church of Scientology except that which the Church is paying them to post.
I think David is actually expressing a lot of respect and trust by asking "Nuview" to desist from editing what are supposed to be NPOV articles if he is in fact doing so as an official duty. (After all, no one is supposed to be writing their own Wikipedia entry -- not the CoS, not IBM, not the American Psychiatric Association -- no one.) I must compliment Nuview as well; in all that I have seen from him, he has definitely had his own POV but has put real effort into helping us keep the NPOV that is a needed prerequisite to us being a trustworthy source of information. If the CoS had more people like Nuview, it would have a better reputation. =) Antaeus Feldspar 23:53, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
On the contrary, I think we should welcome "official" contributions as much here as we would on a page describing a business or other organization. That is, they have their piece to say (and may frequently have access to more accurate historical information than outside observers) ... but their contributions must be scrutinized by others for accuracy and against spin. All the more so in the case of an organization such as Microsoft or the Church of Scientology which has been documented as using "astroturf" methods in the past.
I also think that any claims about "out-of-context quotes" on a matter of religion need to be taken very carefully. This is a matter not unique to Scientology: Catholic and Protestant theologians accuse the other of taking quotes "out of context" as well. It is not for one person to say that a given interpretation of a quote is "out of context". It would be especially bad behavior to remove a quote on those grounds. The proper thing to do would be to link in more context, or to discuss (sometimes elsewhere) the difference of opinion on interpretation.
I must, however, object to this contributor's username -- it is improper for a Wikipedia user to claim in his username to represent NPOV, just as it would be improper to give oneself the username "Neverwrong" or "EveryoneElseButMeIsAJerk". I also suggest that if s/he is planning to "astroturf" Wikipedia, s/he consider the tale of Tory Bezazian. --FOo 01:34, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hey guys, if I wanted to Astroturf I would have come in to Wikipedia anonymously. I haven't exactly been secretive about this. I have no problem changing my name either -- doesn't make any difference to how the Scientology page gets edited, but if it makes you happy - then fine, its done. :) As FOo stated, I have as much right to contribute to Scientology-related categories as anyone. Just as David wouldn't be banned from running an "Anti-Scientology" page just because he's a professional critic. So let's see if we can work together on this. FOo on your point about "out-of-context" quotes, I hear you, however, is it editorially correct that so much space is dedicated to this -- on this page? I thought David and Modemac weren't doing too bad before our friend 207.175.180.134 decided to do a major unedited download on the page, be it true or false, it junks up the page. That's what I meant when I asked about the "editorial" take on this. User:Nuview (formerly I'M4aNPOV) 21:10, 13 Jul 2004 (PST)

"Professional critic"? That's a truly weird assertion. What on earth makes you think I'm a professional critic? That is, in the same sense that you're editing the Scientology articles from a Scientology computer - David Gerard 12:57, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps this was a bad analogy. I'd still like to have someone answer my question in my last entry? "FOo on your point about "out-of-context" quotes, I hear you, however, is it editorially correct that so much space is dedicated to this -- on this page? I thought David and Modemac weren't doing too bad before our friend 207.175.180.134 decided to do a major unedited download on the page, be it true or false, it junks up the page. That's what I meant when I asked about the "editorial" take on this." User:Nuview 14:00, 14 Jul 2004 (PST)

I personally thought they didn't help the article any in that form. However, they could conceivably be contextualised. I would tend to leave them, since they're true and relevant quotes.
I'm still interested in your substantiation for this assertion that I'm a "professional critic" - David Gerard 21:42, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Me too. As for the quotes, I think it would be worthwhile to add a link for each one to the context -- e.g. the HCOPL memos. It's true that it's possible to choose damning quotes from any person who speaks and writes a lot. If these are in fact out-of-context, then linking in the context will prove them absurd. If they are not out-of-context, then linking in the context will prove their relevance.
For that matter, many of these quotes might be more informative as lead-in material on sections in other pages -- we do have a page on Scientology vs. the Internet for instance, which might be a good place to put the Hubbard quotes that promote violence against critics. --FOo 23:50, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I'm not involved in the discussion, just scanning this talk page, but I read Nuview's comments as meaning if David were a professional critic, hypothetically. Just another interpretation. --Glengarry 01:56, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Incidentally does anyone else think that the section on the Church of Scientology contain slightly loaded language:

projects to implement workable and effective educational methods in schools (Applied Scholastics), a campaign to return moral values to living (The Way to Happiness), an organization to educate and assist businesses to succeed (World Institute of Scientology Enterprises, or WISE), and a crusade directed to world leaders as well as the general public to implement the 1948 United Nations document, "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights."

I'm no moralist, nor have I any opinion on the US educational system, but tis wording rather implies that it is unworkable and ineffective and that moral values are absent from our way of living. Neither of those are NPOV. IMHO Brentford 03:05, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

NPOV for "vs. Internet"

Even though I personally agree with the point-of-view that Scientology has been attacking freedom of speech on the Internet, I think the small blurt on "Scientology vs. The Internet" really needs re-working to remove that point-of-view and make it NPOV. I believe I have a way to phrase the dispute so that it covers both sides without endorsing one or the other, but I'm going to need some time to work on it. I'll post it when it's ready if no one else has tackled it in the meantime. -- Antaeus Feldspar

Sounds like a plan. Let us know. Also, I removed the "Other" section that had two duplicative links in it. We already have positive and negative representation so don't really see the purpose for "Other" links. User:Nuview

Mirrors

Can someone please clarify for me, or direct me to the appropriate guideline regarding linking to mirrors. This would seem to me to be superfluous and tend to junk up the page? If it is an acceptable practice then I can't argue and could do the same, however, it doesn't seem sensible. Please let me know one way or the other. Thanks. --Nuview 09:30, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't think there's a guideline established, but I think it's because in general the answer is obvious. It takes a very small amount of space, both storage-wise and page-wise, to include the link to a mirror; it's far less disruption than is caused by obvious troll edits, and those get saved for posterity. I can't see why including a link to a mirror would be objectionable, when that is useful. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:01, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Categorization

I think a case can be made for categorization of Scientology as something more specific than a New religious movement. The history of the organization is quite well known, it only became a religion when its pseudo-medical claims were subjected to scrutiny by the US government. Its use of high pressure sales techniques, indemnities, non-disclosure agreements and the like, and its extraordinary use of the courts to attack its perceived enemies, set it apart from other modern religions. So while I wouldn't want to deny that it is a religion and should be categorized as such, perhaps it should also be categorized according to its commercial and legal profile. It's a highly litigious entity, it's an unscrupulous money-making entity, and in the past it certainly has been a criminal entity at the highest levels. --Minority Report 16:09, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What category would you suggest? -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:12, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Hard to find one that would be NPOV. How about Ponzi schemes? Corporations, certainly. Famous (or infamous) litigants? We get consistent stories from former church members that they've been pressured to apply for loans to pay for church services, and that church employees have been taught high pressure sales techniques, so there's no question that this is a commercial entity in which the making of money takes precedence over ethical behavior. There must be a NPOV way of doing this, such that reality is reflected, rather than traduced, which in my opinion would be the case if we stop at "New religious movements."

NPOV notice

Anonymous user 62.248.140.107 has added a NPOV notice. Usually when I see such a notice I go to the talk page to see what justification the person inserting the notice has to give, or else if there's an existing serious dispute going on in the talk page. I see neither. I'll remove the NPOV notice tomorrow if it hasn't already been removed in the meantime and there is no objection to my removing it. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway#Page_Footer|Talk]]]] 12:03, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Neutrality

First, I am and have been a Scientology public for 15 years. A "public" is one who takes courses and receives auditing but does not work for Scientology.

I have a comment on the WP page on Scientology. The views expressed herein are mine and do not reflect the official view of the church or any of its organisations. I have put the NPOV notice on the page, following the documentation on that tag.

To me the page on Scientology does seem to exhibit certain level of neutrality and I would like to acknowledge WP for that!

There are still statements and hints on the page that need some more work to make them neutral. Here's some sampling and my view on why they are not neutral.

  • "The Church of Scientology is also a commercial organization". If it were a commercial organisation then the IRS would not have declared it and all its affiliates tax exempt. See IR-1997-050--The Church of Scientology for lack of a better reference. In short, Scientology is officially recognised as non-profit and I doubt WP is a forum to question official recognition.
    • That said, I believe that WP should acknowledge that the Church of Scientology hassled both the IRS and individuals working for the IRS with (at least) a whole lot of lawsuits, and that many people believe that the CoS effectively bullied the IRS into giving them tax-exempt status, rather than receiving it on their own merits.

By the US IRS yes, but not everywhere outside the US.

In the US as well, Sciencentology's accreditation was also a contentious issue among lawmakers. For a long time the organisation was refused accreditation, succeeding only after heavy lobbying and questionable pressure tactics, including blackmailing of legislators. --Philopedia 5 July 2005 18:17 (UTC)

  • "zealously using high pressure sales techniques to extract money from its members". Yes, some services are expensive. No question about that. But consider the following details:
    • The tax-excempt status granted by the IRS: vast amounts of financial records have been peered through by the IRS, including those of recording the most expensive services people had paid for and received. Consider this for a moment: if any of those payments had profited the church, would the IRS have found the church non-profit, "operated exclusively for religious and charitable purposes" (quote from the above statement)?

The issue here is high pressure sales techniques, not high prices.

More explicitly, the Sciencetologists sales approach is to seek out insecure individuals, especially those lacking self assurance and critical skills, convince them they are somehow 'defective', insinuate that Sciencetology has the unique solution to their problems, then pressuring them to participate in an expensive series of 'courses'. --Philopedia 5 July 2005 18:17 (UTC)

    • The level of skills required to deliver higher level services: the higher level it is, the longer it takes to fully train the technical person to deliver it, be it the auditor or the course superviser, and the army of administrators backing the technical person, who have to be trained along different lines to ensure as smooth delivery as possible. I have a B.Sc and M.Sc in computer science but I have never seen anything that comes close to the rigorous technical training that Scientology auditors undergo. It takes years to master the technical skills and the knowledge to be certified as a higher level Scientology auditor. What you pay for when you enroll to a service is the years of training and the time spent on you buy highly trained professionals.
I'd like to counter that in fact, it is very unusual for a non-profit to charge exhorbitant fees for services to its members. Protestant churches that recommend tithing 10% of income are often seen as demanding very high amounts of money by other organizations. The comparison is almost non-existant. Examples would be welcome.
    • Paying for the services is not the only way to get them and is the most expensive way of the many. You can go to training instead and work together with another trainee to deliver the services to each other for free. You can join staff, do some whatever administrative work you feel comfortable with and receive 12.5 hours a week free training/auditing. You can join the religious order of Scientology and get free boarding and free training/auditing. What is expensive is to buy the services of highly trained personnel. This phenomenon is not particular to Scientology.
  • "Some European countries officially view Scientology as a cult and have denied it the status of a religion." The word "cult" itself should be questionable on a page that promotes NPOV. To be fair, it should also be noted that more and more of the European countries are recognising Scientology as a religion, including Italy and Germany, the very countries that "critics" use to put weight behind anti-scientology claims. See the examples.
  • "The nature of Scientology is hotly debated in all of these countries, regardless of the official position." Hotly debated by whom? This is a generalisation that does not stand NPOV scrutiny.

I would also like to bring to attention the following studies on the religious doctrines of Scientology conducted by prominent experts of religion from various faiths. Quite various, indeed:

- Xernon, 05.12.2004

First of all, the endless arguments over the definition of a cult is being discussed over at the Wikipedia article on cults. It is a fact that Scientology is frequently accused of being a cult, from many different sources, including media outlets and religious spokespersons. Do a Google search for the terms "scientology" plus "cult" and you will receive literally thousands of results. As you say, Wikipedia is not a forum for deciding whether or not Scientology is a cult. But it is frequently accused of being one, and this fact is noted here.

The issue of Scientology being tax-exempt is already addressed in the Church of Scientology article, under Church or business?.

The studies cited above are usually dismissed by critics as being biased, in that they were commissioned by Scientology to deliver exactly the results that Scientology wants people to see. But I'll include them in the article nontheless, for the purpose of maintaining a Neutral point of view.

And finally, remember that you can edit this article, and any other article, and make the changes you feel are necessary to maintain NPOV. However, Wikipedia users frown the practice of simply wiping out large parts of an article that one person does not agree with. It's better to work together and come to an agreeable solution for this and other issues. --Modemac 17:40, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Modemac. For what it's worth, I agree on all accounts with you, including the debates about the word "cult", the fact that this word is often used to denote Scientology or the controversy surrounding the presence of Scientology in countries. The way you put these was neutral and I think I will, after some scrutiny, rephrase the text on the Scientology page to better match the neutral style used by yourself in your response.

I had no desire to influence the contents of the page by the inclusion of more pro-Scientology content and so I leave it up to you to see whether linking to the studies I mentioned improve the neutrality of the page or not. For one I'll be happier because some of them are from people who do not seem to submit to financial manipulation - like the last one by a prominent Shinto cleric - but what I personally like should not matter.

Thanks again for the fair treatment. I have had my share of hatred and your efforts to maintain neutrality is a refreshing experience.

-- Xernon, 05.12.2004

Nosense?

perhaps tjis is material for BJODN

L. Ron Hubbard as a Homosexual Activist

During the 1950's and 1960's, after founding the helpful and holy religion of Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard cruised around the world on his Sea Org ship as a homosexual activist. The Sea Org was composed of former members of the United States Navy who were "outed" during and after World War 2 for simply being gay, an injustice that continues to this day. L. Ron Hubbard, or "Ronny the Rod" as he was called by his male lovers, brought these gay men onto his Sea Org ship and with the help of Dianetics, his therapeutic book of miracle working, and numerous phallic shaped E-meters, he released their body thetans and brought them into a higher state of being.

During this time, Ronny is also known to have starred in several pornographic films, including Daddy, Don't Touch Me There!, Body Thetans Bare #35, Xenu, I'll Be With You, and a more seriously-themed film called How To Scam a Bunch of Idiots Out of Money By Starting Your Own Religion. After Hubbard's hot adventures aboard the Sea Org, he decided to take a step back from the stressful and busy life as a gay male activist, especially with the Federal Government pressing down on him for various illegal activities.

Sometime during his carousing during the 1970s, Hubbard contracted the sexually transmitted virus HIV. He died of AIDS in 1983, as a broken, lonely man.

The same nonsense was on L. Ron Hubbard. I've BJAODNed it from there. --FOo 23:26, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Definitely nonsense. LRH was notoriously homophobic. Not funny enough for BJAODN, IMHO, but suit yourself. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:58, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

whoa

this has got to be hard to moderate, in the five minutes I was reading this the article was replaced by spam :( definitely needs to go back to previous ver.

It's already back. This is actually not the hardest article to moderate by a long shot -- if you want a laugh, watch Sollog and see how often that flips back and forth between the real-world version and the "Wikipedia and Slashdot are HATE GROUPS and the FBI has already been CONTACTED about putting ALTMAN and WALES in JAIL and a LEGAL BODY has ORDERED Wikipedia to remove EVERYTHING SOLLOG DOES NOT LIKE" version. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:37, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Recent vandalism

User Talk:67.171.251.183 has continued to vandalize this page, which will be protected for 24 hours, allowing the user to explain his edits here. Continued vandalism will result in the user being blocked. My apologies to the other editors of this page, who I think will agree with this decision. See: Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress#67.171.251.183 -Visorstuff 23:06, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, I agree with it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:35, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The (near) 24-hour protection has now ended. Additional vandalism will result in the IP address being blocked for a period of time. -Visorstuff 21:00, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

restoration of quote from High Court of Australia ruling

I agree with Fvw on this. It's not just any old opinion, it's the reasoning behind the ruling. If the ruling is relevant, so is the reasoning. To report just part of the ruling and omit other parts is what would be non-NPOV.

BTW, I notice that the 1993 IRS tax exemption is actually mentioned in the section twice; that should probably be consolidated. -- Antaeus Feldspar

History of Scientology

The Harlan Ellison interview account is not described in the 'Scientology Controversy' section and belongs in the history section of the main Scientology page, otherwise the account of Scientology's history is woefully inadequate.

While there are numerous plausible accounts of people saying that they heard Hubbard say on a particular occasion that starting a religion was the way to make money, or that he would start a religion to make money, Harlan Ellison's is not one of those plausible accounts. It is definitely not NPOV to add it to the article in the fashion you have done, describing it as if there was not, in fact, serious dispute over whether it had occurred. It is particularly telling that you do not even describe it correctly: you claim that Harlan describes how "he, Robert Heinlein and L. Ron Hubbard met at a science fiction convention" -- but Ellison's account does not mention Heinlein. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:58, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Removing any discussion of the myriad quotes regarding Hubbard's financial motive in founding the religion from the section on the history of the religion is extremely misleading, and leaves a gaping hole in the Wikipedia account that is otherwise widely known in other online resources. e.g. http://www.bible.ca/scientology-1million-start-a-religion.htm One suspects the enthusiasm for such censorship comes from a True Believer cult member more concerned with performing PR for the COS than with contributing to Wikipedia's historical completeness. --Pietzsche

... Gahahahahahahah! Oh, Pietzsche, man, you don't know it, but you just made my night. Seriously. Zappaz is going to think I paid you or something. Hilarious. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:31, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Without mention of the well-documented history of Hubbard discussion of founding a religion as a means to make money, the present section on the origin of Scientology gives a grossly distorted picture of its origins, and is a disservice to those seeking information on Scientolgy's origins. Granted, this information is readily available elsewhere on Wikipedia and the web in general, but to have it specifically excluded from the article whose specific focus is Scientology, is a quite peculiar exclusion.

For an accurate article, I think it is essential and appropriate to cite the following well-documented record of Hubbard's motivations in founding this religion:

"Numerous accounts ref describe L. Ron Hubbard discussing with fellow science fiction authors the founding of a religion as a means to make money around 1948 to 1949 . Hubbard is quoted as saying: "The way to make a million dollars is to start a religion." "

--Pietzsche

"To have it specifically excluded from the article whose specific focus is Scientology" completely ignores the fact that we have an entire category of articles whose specific focus is Scientology. It is covered in detail at Scientology controversy, as I have repeatedly tried to make clear, and anyone who reads this article will find out about it in the Controversy and criticism section, as well as finding out where they can read more.
Should it be covered in some fashion in the Origins of Scientology section? I would argue yes but the problem is, in what fashion should it be covered? You say that it is "well-documented" but the problem is that, unlike many criticisms of Scientology, this one is not supported by written evidence. We have the testimonies of several highly-regarded figures such as Sturgeon and Moscowitz and Eschbach, versus Hubbard who not only provably lied on many occasions but who lauded the tactical uses of lying to control people. Is that enough to convince you and me? Sure -- I don't doubt that Hubbard said it. But it is not enough to eliminate dispute. If you insist on your side of the dispute being covered in another venue, other than the article where it is currently (and arguably most appropriately) discussed and examined in detail, the other side will insist on it too. It is simply not an option to say "We will address this and only this side of the dispute in this section." -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:45, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)


This particular 'dispute' is analogous to disputing evolution as only a 'theory', I wonder if the Wikipedia page on evolution maintains the absurd level of NPOV you are arguing for in this Scientology article. Are CoS PR agents with a vested interest in proselytizing to be accorded free reign in defining what is and is not 'controversial'?

"To summarize: we have eight witnesses: Neison Himmel, Sam Merwin, Sam Moskowitz, Theodore Sturgeon, Lloyd Arthur Eshbach, and the three unnamed witnesses of Robert Vaughn Young. There is some confusion and doubt about one of the five (Sam Moskowitz). Two are reported via Russel Miller: one is reported via Mike Jittlov: one reported in his autobiography; and one reported in an affidavit. The reports describe different events, meaning that Hubbard said it at least five times, in five different venues - definitely not just once. And the Church's official disclaimer is now reportedly a flat lie. Conclusion: He definitely said it (and more than once)." [1]

Relegating this information to only the controversy page and not referring to it in the central section on the history of Scientology is quite misleading imho.

--Pietzsche

I believe you spelled it out yourself when you said: "this information is readily available elsewhere on Wikipedia." --Modemac 15:30, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well, you're repeating your amazingly incorrect assumption that I am a "CoS PR agent" again, so let me spell it out for you: I am not a CoS member, nor have I ever been one, nor will I ever be one, nor am I a CoS employee in any capacity, nor have I ever been one, nor will I ever be one. You might have realized this much sooner if you had not jumped to the highly suspect conclusion "He's not letting me make an edit I think is appropriate and important -- he must be working for the cult!" So I might as well turn it back on you: are ravening crusaders, so paranoid that they can't comprehend that anyone except "cult PR agents" could disagree with them, to be accorded free reign in defining what is and is not established fact?
You still do not understand important and basic principles of Wikipedia like civility, as evidenced by your edit summaries, and to be frank, your research skills are clearly lacking, since if you'd done even a half-way decent job of investigating me you'd have soon found out I hardly favor the cult. In fact, some people consider me notorious for it. So, the more you press on with this absolutely unfounded allegation that you are now treating as a fact -- the idea that I am a cult PR agent, a conclusion that you jumped to purely because you didn't get your own way -- the less likely I or anyone else is to regard your opinion, despite your "imho", as humble. Or for that matter, as reasoned and proportionate.
Your own reference says it: "Conclusion: He definitely said it (and more than once)." Conclusion. Conclusion. It is not the job of Wikipedia to tell the reader "This is the conclusion that any sane person would come to if they looked at the facts!" it is to present the reader with the facts. I have told others who were trying to advance a point-of-view I agreed with, by methods that I could not agree with, that "if you want to win the case, you do so by marshalling your arguments, and presenting them as calmly, logically, and solidly as you can. You don't do it by jumping in the jury box and trying to take the jury's place." What you are trying to do now, by insisting that it's not enough to have the accounts of Hubbard saying he'd start a religion for money discussed, they have to be discussed in the "Origins of Scientology" section, and it's not even enough to have them there, you have to have your "key citation" to an external page which tells people "this is the right side of things, this and no other, it's concluded, it's certain!" -- you're not just trying to jump into the jury box, you're trying to intercept the jury on their way into the courtroom and tell them "you're not needed, go home, the other jury was already here and they already made the judgement and you're just redundant!" -- Antaeus Feldspar 08:46, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Scientology-critical music

During the peak of the Scientology-vs.-the-Internet unpleasantness, a handful of musicians recorded songs critical of Scientology and distributed them through mp3.com and other online media. At least some of these musicians (such as El Queso) were SubGenii and extensively used SubGenius references (such as Slack) in their music. Praise "Bob"!

The Church of Scientology took a few efforts to suppress the music, IIRC threatening mp3.com with a lawsuit that impelled them to delete El Queso All-Stars material from their servers and turn over the identity and home address of one of the band members. Many of these songs are still available online, however, e.g. here and here.

Question: Where should Scientology-critical, SubGenius-inspired music be covered on Wikipedia, if at all? --FOo 00:55, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Speaking as a SubGenius myself, I say this subject is so obscure and trivial as to be worth an external link, possibly. Some musicians did set out to get the organization ticked off at them, yes, but they were rarely more than an amusement. --Modemac 02:46, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

European countries considering Scientology as a cult

The article states in several places that "some" European countries consider Scientology a cult, while the US considers it a constitutionally protected religion. I consider that this sentence has some underlying POV (namely, that US constitutional rights should be superior, or that perhaps European countries don't have constitutional protections for religions). But what I find more annoying is that this broad statement is vague: there's no list of the countries considered, and the legal and practical implication of being considered a "cult". David.Monniaux 20:20, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Legal aspects

I think that there is some confusion regarding the legal aspects of Scientology, and that this confusion largely arises from the confusion of two linked, but different notions:

The distinction is important because legal systems often only deal with the latter. For instance, statute law (and, as far as I know, constitutional principles) prohibits the government of France from granting recognition to any religion (except in Alsace-Moselle etc., but let's not enter historical discussions). However, the government recognizes some associations cultuelles (associations of worship), which are nonprofit associations that organize religious worship. The definition of what constitutes a bona fide association cultuelle does not take religious doctrine into account.

This legal distinction has already caused considerable misunderstandings and propaganda opportunities. For instance, Jehovah's Witnesses claim that they are discriminated against because some of their branches are not considered to be a religion, and demand that they should be considered a religion – whereas this is legally impossible.

This is why it's misleading to claim that "Scientology" is officially considered a "cult" or a religion. In fact, I do not know of any European country with a legal category of "cults". When dealing with legal matters, the topic is whether the Church of Scientology (or rather, its branches) is considered in the same legal category as other organizations supporting religions; and if not, why it is not, and the legal implications of it. Furthermore, it is important to stress that such determination may have nothing to do with the topic of freedom of religion and the constitutional guarantee thereof; for instance, France considers that any association that has for-profit commercial activities cannot be a bona fide association cultuelle, and this has nothing to do with the religious doctrine practiced.

To me, "freedom of religion", at the governmental level, has the primary meaning of absence of governmental bias with respect to religious dogma (theist vs non-theist, polytheist vs monotheist, Christian vs Muslim, etc.). It does not mean that anybody can do anything and claim tax exemption because of "religious" implications (this would be an enormous tax loophole). David.Monniaux 08:53, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

==Proper use of bona fide==

Please be careful in using the phrase bona fide. In colloquial usage it means "real", but in the law it means "good faith". The two are not always the same under the law, as evidenced by the decision of the High Court of Australia, which determined that the State Government of Victoria could not declare Scientology not a religion even if the source of that religion was not bona fide, but a charlatan. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:08, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I actually meant the legal sense of "in good faith". Explanation of this distinction: in France, you can register a nonprofit association as being an organization devoted to the support of religious worship under the 1905 law (association cultuelle). However, tax exemptions implied by this status are only granted to associations having this status in good faith (literally, bona fide); that is, it's refused to associations who claim this status but behave in a way incompatible with this status (for instance, associations that run commercial businesses).
Note that these criteria have absolutely nothing to do with the origins of the religion, its doctrine, etc.; this is sometimes difficult to understand for foreigners, who think that the French government classifies beliefs into "true religions" and non-religions, whereas the criteria are of a very formal and legalistic nature.
For a fictional example: if I founded a group worshipping the Sacred Asparagus (and I had followers, but let us assume I could get these), I could probably claim the status of a bona fide religion-supporting organization, even though I'm a charlatan and my religion has no history. In comparison, if I was a priest of a well-known branch of Christianism, but I ran some side business such as a hostel within the same legal entity, then my association would no longer be a bona fide religion-supporting organization. David.Monniaux 00:32, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Okay -- I defer to your expertise on the matter. =) I just wanted to alert people to be careful, since it has a legal meaning that doesn't always coincide with the informal usage. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:24, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

Somewhere along the line the purpose of this page got lost between the bickering and some unqualified "editors" feeling some malevolent obligation to keep controversy alive.

I do not include Modemac or Antaeus Feldspar in this categorization (and there may be others that I omit, if so I apologize), I respect their editorial experience and though they are not pro-Scientology, they do take their editorial positions serious and try and maintain some equilibrium, which isn't easy and is appreciated.

Back to the page at hand. I hadn't looked at it for a while and decided to just look at it as though I know nothing about the subject. Wow - I was shocked by the degree of bias included in most of the sections. There are a couple that seem just straight and unopiniated, but a lot that definitely aren't. Do this yourself and tell me honestly if you are left swayed in any one direction - I think you'll find you are. Editorially, and Wikipedially, that's got to be wrong.

The other option is to keep "controversy" under "controversy" and any opposing views could be kept neutral. The subject list, check it out, the negative and the positive, do you see any kind of balance? I personally put the balance in to the external links or they would be mainly negative too. There is still some work to do here.

I could attempt to "balance" some of these sections, but is that what you would suggest, or is it better for someone else "neutral" to tackle this?

Feedback please. Nuview 17:20, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, with due respect, Nuview, I think you may be coming at this with a wrong assumption -- your third paragraph suggests it. "Do this yourself and tell me honestly if you are left swayed in any one direction - I think you'll find you are. Editorially, and Wikipedially, that's got to be wrong." You don't say why this would be wrong. The goal is to assemble the information and let the reader draw their own conclusion, and you seem to be saying that if the reader draws a conclusion, something must be wrong with the article, and that's not really what NPOV is about. The goal is to make sure the case for each side is presented fairly -- not to make sure the jury winds up deadlocked. =) -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:45, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
True enough, of course the reader is free to draw his/her own conclusion, you covered that point, yes, the fairness factor is relevant to the discussion and a NPOV. However, I don't look on Wiki readers as a jury -- there is no trial here. We are just talking about everyday people looking for information on a subject. So with unbiased fairness in mind, what's your take on the "assembly of the information" on this page -- do you see it purely NPOV or should there be some revision to make it so? Nuview 16:47, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
As you've made the statement "I was shocked by the degree of bias included in most of the sections," then I'd suggest you point out what you feel is biased. From there we can work towards fixing it. --Modemac 00:47, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Hi people. I think this is the best article on scn that I've read. You (the writers) should all be proud. Eventhough you talk about biases, it is not easy to find any article anywhere that is not heavily pro or heavily against scn.
You should however mention that state of "clear". --Fred chessplayer 21:04, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I see that anonymous 152.163.100.200 decided that this article's NPOV was to be discussed, but yet nothing is being discussed here. So I removed the warning until the author agrees to add it again with a further description of why the NPOV should be revisited. Regards. Povmec 06:56, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why does a cult not get called a cult?

For example, look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven%27s_Gate_%28cult%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AUM_Shinrikyo

I can see we don't want to be NPOV. But quite frankly, the only difference in practices between scientology and most cults, is that scientology has a relatively large amount of people in it. I think we should add that it is a cult, if other articles can havbe the label, this one deserves it too. -GregNorc (talk)

In the case of Heaven's Gate, the difference is that the mass suicide at the behest of Marshall Applewhite eliminated directly most of the people who would have disputed that it was a cult, and probably changed the minds of most outside observers who would have said "Heaven's Gate is a new religious movement, not a cult! Cults are crazy people who do stuff like mass suicides; there's no reason to insult a completely legitimate NRM like Heaven's Gate by calling them by the pejorative label of 'cult'!"
In the case of Aum Shinrikyo, perhaps you need to look more carefully. The article acknowledges that the Aleph (formerly Aum Shinrikyo) group is considered by some parties to be a cult. The article itself does not take the position that Aleph is a cult; the article does not take the position that Aleph is not a cult. It's a bit hard to argue that this article should follow the example of the Aum Shinrikyo article, by doing something that the Aum Shinrikyo article does not do. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:38, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)


I would like to point out that Scientology is, by definition, a cult (particularly in the sense of the term as used by social scientists, i.e. a de novo religious movement, not rooted in culture and tradition) and not a religion. It possesses the following features which are associated with cults: the greater majority of its beliefs and teachings are esoteric and not exoteric, and are only discovered by members upon having spend many thousands of hours and many hundreds of thousands of dollars on auditing and Scientology courses; members are discouraged from social interaction with non-Scientologists; persons who leave the Church of Scientology are "disconnected" (that is, Scientologists are not to have contact with them). I would argue that since Scientology meets the definition of "cult" as the word is commonly used, calling it such is not a departure from NPOV. And cults are not "crazy people who do stuff like mass suicides"; it's an accepted term for a religious group whose belief and practise are external to accepted orthodoxy. Spider Jerusalem 03:36, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Both this article and Church of Scientology have discussions of Scientology as a cult. -Willmcw 02:55, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't necessarily disagree with you, Spider (great name BTW), it's just that using concepts like "accepted orthodoxy" make for a slippery slope when deciding who's a cultist and who isn't. Where do you draw the line? I could make a fairly strong argument that Christianity is, by definition, a cult. The Wikipedia should be as objective as possible. The article already includes references to the widely-held belief that Scientology is a cult, and that's enough I think. Fernando Rizo 02:57, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


  • Fair enough, and your point re "accepted orthodoxy" is acknowledged, especially in light of the religious pluralism of most modern societies. Off point for this section, but included here anyway: I'd like to suggest linking external sources for each topic under the "controversies" section, which might also serve to reduce to some extent the rather unwieldy number of external sources in the link section (as it is, these simply stand on their own as assertions of critics, without reference or context). Spider Jerusalem 04:48, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Regarding tone of the COS's promotion of sources passage

User:12.210.209.83, I understand your goal of using more neutral language COS's promotion of sources, but I'm not convinced your change wasn't a little too sympathetic. Would anyone else like to comment on the recent change[2] before I revert?--FeloniousMonk 00:21, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Purported cult

This material is from the article List of purported cults, which we are paring down to a pure list. Editors here can best evaluate its statements and decide how to integrate it into this article. Thanks, -Willmcw 20:50, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Scientology
The Church of Scientology, founded by L. Ron Hubbard, uses a form of psychotherapy called Dianetics that some people claim is designed to hypnotize members into a more weak-minded and paranoid state. The church attacks legitimate psychotherapy and psychiatry. A sub-organization of the church -- known as the Sea Organization -- has paramilitary trappings, but is not armed. Critics also say the church seems to function as a for-profit organization, as it requires fixed-price donations for many of its services, which are required to advance in orders. An extensive discussion of the cult allegations against Scientology are included in the article on the church.
On its Web site, Scientology says it is not a cult but "a religion in the fullest sense of the word." It also says:
Scientology is unique in that it does not require or tell anyone to "believe" anything. Rather, Scientology believes every individual should think for himself. In Scientology, what is true for the individual is only what he has observed personally and knows is true for him. Scientology is not authoritarian, but offers a technology one can use and then decide whether it works for him.
Media References:
References:

reversion to intro

144.136.170.67 added the following sentence to the intro, where "it" is Scientology, the "a system of beliefs and teachings":

It's primary activity is the training of counsellors and the provision of counselling services.

Obviously a system of beliefs and teachings cannot have a primary activity -- it's a belief system, not a conscious actor. This claim appears to belong in some other article, about an organization that practices Scientology. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:58, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's a Ruby

It looks like all the articles linked at It's A Ruby Tips For Success are simply reprinted from [3]. There doesn't seem to be any reason to link to the reprint rather than the original. (Interestingly, a Google search turned up someone using this copyright material apparently illegally: http://mgv.mim.edu.my/Newspaper/0402/0402021.Htm uses large sections from Tips For Success articles as assembled at http://www.rehabilitatenz.co.nz/pages2/tips-for-success18.html without giving the requisite notice. Wonder if the Church is going to vigorously defend their copyrights against Trevor Gordon's unauthorized usage...) -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:12, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Guardian's Office

Guardian's Office redirects to this page, yet there is no mention of "Guardian's Office", could someone more knowledgeable on the subject than I amend this, thanks Bluemoose 16:53, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Since it's an agency within the Church of Scientology (or at least it was until it was replaced by the OSA), I've changed the redirect to point to that article. Admittedly, not the perfect solution, but better. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:51, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

U.S. tax status

The official IRS tax category ,501(c)(3), is designated "public charity", and includes a variety of benevolent organizations, including churches, service groups, and private clubs. [4] I've edited the relevant section and re-arranged some other sentences for better flow. Cheers, -Willmcw 10:29, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

I have added two entries to the this discussion page, Authenticity and Censorship. AI 10:48 18 Apr 2004 (HST)

Modemac removed my entry of a controversial pro-Scientology link, yet Modemac did not also remove controversial anti-Scientology links. This is hypocritical. His argument was that the site is already listed in Scientology controversy. If Modemac's opinion is a rule, then all controversial data containted in Scientology should be removed and placed into Scientology controversy.--128.171.51.167 21:31, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

PRO/CON vs. NPOV

Also, the preference at Wikipedia is to spread the criticism throughout an article, rather than lumping it all at the end. Some articles, like this one, have special criticism section because of the amount of material. Nonetheless, since the CoS is a controversial organization, it is appropriate to briefly mention criticism in the opening paragraphs. The articles on NPOV (especially the religion section) and Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles are good references we should all study. Cheers, -Willmcw 08:53, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
Incorrect.
First of all, preferences are personal.
Secondly, you did not present compliments along with the criticism in the opening paragraphs, therefore you did not maintain NPOV. All you did was restore a line of "weaselspeak". I should not have to point this out to you, as you were the one who mentioned Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles which talks about "weaselspeak". Perhaps, you should read it.
--J.Tell 23:50, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Rather than remove, or ghettoize, critical material we should balance it with relevant complimentary material. The general Wikipedia way is to counter information with more information, not with deletion. -Willmcw 04:07, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Censorship

Aside from errors, vandalism and other valid reason for removing information or reverting to previous versions, please do not remove additions by others without providing an explanation and/or argument. AI 10:46 18 Apr 2004 (HST)

Consensus

"If there had been a consensus to ghettoize all talk of controversy at Scientology controversy ... but there WASN'T.)" - Antaeus Feldspar. Antaeus, what "consensus" are you talking about? Please see my comment regarding Modemac under /* U.S. tax status */

We have 2 choices:

1. Allow information on the Scientology article even though that info is already on the Scientology controversy article. CONCENSUS: "Antaeus"
2. Keep controversial information out of the Scientology page. CONCENSUS: "Modemac", J.Tell

Until there is more concensus, Antaeus, you are the minority and your actions reflect fascism. --J.Tell 01:49, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Under that hilariously bizarre interpretation of consensus, I could do anything I want to any article I want. Why? Because under your interpretation, as soon as I make the decision to act, I am a unanimous consensus of one. Of course, it goes without saying that your interpretation is completely wrong and has nothing to do with Wikipedia consensus. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:57, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


User:J.Tell seems to be new here, and perhaps has not yet learned our policy entitled No personal attacks, or what exactly is meant by "consensus". (A hint: When ya do something unilaterally and a bunch of people say it was a bad idea, that means consensus doesn't support that action.) --FOo 03:56, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

FOo, that is Nonsense!!!

"Consensus should not trump NPOV. A group of editors advocating a viewpoint do not, in theory, overcome the policy expressed in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not concerning advocacy and propaganda." - Wikipedia:Consensus Proposed wording

Claiming Scientology is not a religion in the Scientology article reflects a fascist philosophy on the part of the contributor(s).--J.Tell 07:57, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is important to keep in mind that Wikipedia's purpose is too spread knowledge. This is best done by first being impartial to the facts, not fabricating them, not exagerating them, not censoring them either. Scientology as a religion is a controversy out there, since decades, if anything because of Hubbard's own litterature. We don't want to apply censorship to that traceable information, Wikipedia's goal of spreading human knowledge would not benefit from it. The article shows that some consider it a religion, while others discuss it. There is nothing fascist in these differing opinions, let's keep the discussion clean. Povmec 15:29, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Wow. If there was a more impressive way for J.Tell to demonstrate that he doesn't understand the policies he claims back him than his mis-citing of Wikipedia:Patent nonsense, I really can't think of it. J.Tell is correct that consensus does not trump NPOV but you can't apply that comparison usefully if you have a badly mistaken idea of what NPOV is, which J.Tell clearly has. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:51, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Back to Authenticity of Information

Povmec, I only agree with you partially: Playing with words ("litterature") is a form of propaganda which Wikipedia is not and: (imho) borderline nonsense. Try not to be hypocritical. Also, just because information is "traceable" does not mean it is credible. Forgeries abound. Wikipedia's purpose is too spread knowledge not tall tales.
--J.Tell 19:28, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It's not appropriate to say that critics who question Scientology as religion are fascist. I understand that they have nothing against Scientology being practiced. The questioning comes more from Hubbard's own writing, and from accounts of former scientologists. Forgeries may abound, but it would not be reasonable to just dismiss everything that shed a different light onto Scientology on the ground that it is all forgeries. I spent myself numerous hours spending time on particular aspect of the article to see how verifiable was the information. Also, I don't perceive myself as hypocritical, I really try to ensure that an article is as close to impartial when I read it. My opinion is that the main contributors to this article (which I am not) have done a good job, and they have modified it numerous times to accomodate all sides. I think they are certainly still willing to improve the article as long as it doesn't become a work of censorship. Tagging contributors as fascist or hypocritical won't help improve this article. Povmec 21:10, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yes, you are right and thank you for addressing my in a civil manner.

I didn't mean that the contributors were facsist; I was only using the term to make a point about consensus to someone who goes by "Antaeus."

Imho, the problem of forgeries has turned out to be much worse than I estimated several years ago and in order to remain partial, I believe it is necessary to verify authenticity before using information. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a tabloid.

I also believe NPOV contributors have done a good job. Although it is apparent to me that there are some propagandists using this article to forward their agenda. For example "official position" was used instead of "official statement" or some other unambiguous wording. To me, "official position" is an attempt to ridicule official recognition because "official position" makes "the missionary position" come to mind. It is a type of psychological warfare and it is being used too often. There are still numerous instances where wording is used this way in the Scientology article and I think all instances should be cleaned up using terms that more concise.
--J.Tell 23:00, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
o_O Let me get this straight. Because you think of sex whenever you see the words "official position", you believe that someone else deliberately used that wording in order to make people think of sex and to thus shade their perception of the article? Pardon me, but that's one of the most farfetched things I've ever read. Your logic suggests, with just the same amount of credibility, that everyone who uses the phrase "our official position" is engaged in a deliberate campaign of psychological warfare aimed at damaging... themselves. You wouldn't think there'd be so many people doing it, if that was the case.
Trying to find subliminal messages about sex in "official position" and subliminal messages about trash in a simple misspelling of "literature" reminds me of a joke that Mensans used to tell on themselves: "Mensans are great at reading between the lines. Now if we could just get them to read the lines." -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:12, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"Official position" is poor wording regardless of sex. :D--J.Tell 02:38, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Scientology as a religion

The United States Constitution protects Freedom of religion and it is not up to the government to decide an organization is NOT a religion. If the people choose to make it their religion, then it is their religion and they get to enjoy the right.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

Disputing Scientologists' claim to freedom of religion puts this article in dispute and the "argument" should be moved to Scientology controversy

--J.Tell 07:57, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vandal "Jimbo Wales"

For the newcomers to this article, especially our new Scientologist contributors: the person vandalising this article under such names as "Jimbo D. Wales" and "Jimmy Wales" is, in fact, a famous kook who can best be seen in the article under Sollog. He has nothing against Scientology or this article; rather, he's a troublemaker who is trying to disrupt Wikipedia in general because he doesn't like what the article says about him. Don't worry about him, he's just a nuisance. --Modemac 12:08, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Recent edits

Rather than try to track where the edits came from, I'd just like to comment on some of the recent changes to the article, specifically the ones that can be seen in this diff:

  • Removal of "See also: Scientology controversy" from the "Scientology as a religion section -- I could go either way. While there is discussion of Scientology as a religion there, it does seem rather odd to have a reference directly to that article at the top, especially when it's one of two articles that does so. Perhaps the more appropriate thing to do is put the link at the bottom of the section instead, and rephrase it as "For a discussion of controversies over Scientology's status as a religion, see Scientology controversy" -- that way people know why they're getting pointed to that article.
  • Moving any mention of the CoS being controversial out of the introductory paragraphs and down to the "Controversy and criticism" section -- no. First of all, the idea that, if we have specific articles or specific sections of articles for addressing controversy, we robotically excise it from everywhere else, is a incredibly wrong-headed idea, and I have my doubts that it is taken seriously even by those who are citing it as their justification for burying uncomfortable information. If allegations of misdoing are significant enough to merit a front-page story in a major newsmagazine like Time, they're significant enough to merit mention right up front. The reader can make up their own minds whether they believe the allegations or not, but they should know there's something to make up their minds about.
  • Rearranging the entries in the "See also" list from alphabetical order to a 'pro-Scientology, then Scientology-critical' order -- Come on. Do I really even need to say it? This one is just cheesy. If you can't handle alphabetical order then you really need to re-evaluate whether your sense of perspective is intact.
  • Putting the article into Category:Disputed -- bad idea, since the category doesn't exist.
  • Putting the article into Category:Dubious -- bad idea, for different reasons. First, Category:Dubious is for articles with Wikipedia:disputed statements (somewhat confusingly), and for all the recent sound and fury, no actual statements have been disputed. Secondly, I'm not sure putting the template on does much good -- there's only one other page listed in that category, and I suspect the tag got put on that other one by accident. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:53, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Scientology as a religion: list of articles

The long list of articles in the ==Scientology as a religion== section interupts the flow of the text. Can these be moved to a ==References== section at the end of the article and be described broadly in the main text? --Theo (Talk) 15:54, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The introduction is not NPOV

The introduction is not neutral, it is negative. Antaeus, didn't you read my comment about this? If there are criticisms, then there should be 'compliments'. Best to not have either in the introduction, or just one-liners for each. I am removing the critical comments. Someone else can figure out a neutral wording if those comments are going to be in the introduction.--J.Tell 02:42, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We have a policy called NPOV. It differs substantially from the nonsensical conception of "balance" or "equal time" which seems to be taught in journalism schools these days. NPOV does not mean that for every sensible claim we must track down some strange perosn who disagrees and quote them. It does not mean, for instance, that our article Nanjing massacre must give "equal time" to the claims of right-wing Japanese that the massacre never happened.
Neutrality means that different points of view get represented. It never means that we whitewash over the facts because someone does not like them, or feels that they are uncomplimentary. It certainly does not justify deleting other people's factual contributions because you object to them. You are recommended not to do so, in fact, by our NPOV policy specifically.
Please re-read our NPOV policy. You might consider applying Hubbard's Study Tech to it -- don't go past an m/u this time. --FOo 03:11, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree with you, User:Fubar Obfusco, that every negative comment does not have to be balanced by a positive one in order to achieve a properly balanced article. But the introduction is missing a summary of what the Church of Scientology is about. It'd be great to have the second paragraph be two or three sentences about the core beliefs of the CoS, essentially how they see themselves. And then the summary of criticism could follow that. Does that seem fair? -Willmcw 07:47, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
I would like to see a second paragraph that begins "Scientology teaches that …" or "Scientologists believe that …". I know too little about the subject to do this myself. --Theo (Talk) 20:56, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Intro paragraphs (note about psychiatry)

I added a few things, one of them is a link a Scientology webpage that explains what they think of Psychiatry.--J.Tell 07:46, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Controversy and criticism section

In the Controversy_and_criticism section, I changes a few things. This section was and still is (IMHO) highly POV. I sorted the list of controversial samples with the most significant(imho) on top.--J.Tell 07:47, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

IRS

The article mentions operation Snow White but does not give any information whatsoever about what Scientologists have exposed about the IRS. For example some criminals that were sitting in high places within the Los Angeles IRS office. See the articles and lawsuits of 1991 for reference. If no one does so, I will edit this section after I do some research.--J.Tell 07:46, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Why "allegedly"?

In the sentence beginning:

In January 1995 Scientology lawyer Helena Kobrin allegedly "attempted to silence the discussions taking place on the alt.religion.scientology newsgroup" by issuing a control message intended to remove the newsgroup from all Usenet servers

why can we not be sure that she did this? Who made the statement that is in quotes? Where does it come from? The edit history suggests that J. Tell put the phrase in quotes. Is this because s/he recognises the phrase? --Theo (Talk) 11:34, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

It is an erroneous use of quotation marks, since nobody is being quoted. The marked words are certainly not the words of Helena Kobrin, and are not cited as belonging to anyone else. The quotation marks should go.
As for "allegedly", it seems necessary because of the attribution of motive -- attempted to silence the discussions. In order to attribute motive, we need to go to the words of the person whose motive we're purporting to describe. It is a fact, not just an allegation, that Kobrin did transmit (or, at least, signed) the rmgroup message. [5] It is likewise a fact that this message was interpreted by the Usenet community as a violation of the rules for rmgroup messages; an offense against netiquette. It is also a fact that the rmgroup message contained the following statement of purpose:
The reasons for requesting its removal are: (1) It was started with a forged message; (2) not discussed on alt.config; (3) it has the name "scientology" in its title which is a trademark and is misleading, as a.r.s. is mainly used for flamers to attack the Scientology religion; (4) it has been and continues to be heavily abused with copyright and trade secret violations and serves no purpose other than condoning these illegal practices.
That said, it seems to me we could give a more accurate statement of what happened, bearing in mind that this is a brief summary and the rest of the story is carried on the specific Scientology vs. the Internet article. I've made an attempt at it. --FOo 14:33, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
It is a fact that Helen Kobrin attempted to rmgroup a.r.s. However "to silence the discussions" is just a perception of her motive by critics. How do we know that the Church of Scientology didn't intend to re-establish the group properly as a moderated group? Therefore, "to silence the discussions" is just an opinion.--J.Tell 04:03, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Well, no, it's a conclusion from the facts. (An opinion would be a value judgment, such as that Kobrin's actions were virtuous or evil; or a speculation not based on fact, such as that Kobrin committed the offense because she wished to please David Miscavige.)
However, Wikipedia does not exist to tell people what conclusions to draw -- but rather to place the facts out there. People can draw their own conclusions once they confront the facts. Trying to offer them conclusions is insulting to our readers, who do not need to be told what to think. The facts stand for themselves, and what conclusions a person who engages their reasoning capacity might draw are his or her own business. Unless we have a source stating what Kobrin's intentions were in detail, we are better off sticking to the facts:
  1. She did send the rmgroup message;
  2. The message included a request to Usenet administrators to stop carrying the group in part because it was used to attack CoS;
  3. Usenet administrators took the message as a violation of policy and an offense against free speech, and overrode the default behavior of their servers to ensure that the group was not deleted;
  4. The result of the effort was not that discussions were suppressed, but rather that greater public attention was drawn to alt.religion.scientology. The very perception of censorship was enough to galvanize a substantial and effective resistance.
It is particularly difficult to judge a person's intentions, after all, when their actions manage to accomplish the opposite of what the alleged intentions are. If Kobrin intended to suppress a.r.s, then Kobrin failed completely. We might as well say that she intended to popularize it! (That is to say, we have no business presenting either conclusion.) --FOo 04:53, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
You just defending the use of conclusions and then stated that Wikipedia does not exist to tell people what conclusions to draw. Is there anyone else here who can be more objective than FOo?--J.Tell 02:58, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Discuss changes

"Please read this talk page discussion before making substantial changes." - Controversial stub

Do not revert the changes I have made without discussing them here. If I see you rv any of my work without an explanation I will simply rv your rv and if you continue I will file a complaint.--J.Tell 07:49, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Some users are making changes to the article, contrary to what is being discussed here. I have made a few points here in discussion the other day which were not addressed and then my references were removed from the article. The user said that they seemed to be randomly chosen. Read this discussion page!--J.Tell 04:27, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Do not revert the changes I have made... First off, you're not in charge of this article, so it's presumptuous of you to be issuing orders of any kind. Second, none of your most recent edits were even discussed, much less agreed upon, so blustering about reading the discussion page first is utter nonsense. Third, Talk pages are for discussing changes to articles, not merely deletions: did you discuss your additions? And finally, who, exactly are you going to "file a complaint" with? That sounds suspiciously close to being a legal threat, an act which if you were to explicitly try would likely get you blocked from Wikipedia.
In summary, don't pretend to authority you don't have. --Calton | Talk 05:00, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps you do not understand the meaning of Policy. Registered Wikipedia users can demand that others follow Wikipedia's policy, if you fail to comply then you may be reported. What use is policy if it is not followed and others cannot file complaints to admins. If you think I am issuing orders and making legal threats, then that is your problem. End of discussion and back to the issues:
"Please read this talk page discussion before making substantial changes." - Controversial stub
I have been doing my best to discuss changes, but other have been reverting my changes even though I am discussing them, and they are the ones who did not discuss their decisions to revert my changes. Also, they make changes without discussing them and then no one reverts their changes. I am going to put the dispute tag on the Scientology page until someone with a NPOV addresses this dispute and if anyone takes off the tag then you can expect me to revert your changes.--J.Tell 02:11, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
You're really not in a position to accuse others of not understanding Wikipedia policy, J.Tell. Which doesn't mean you haven't been doing it -- literally within a day of your first edits on Wikipedia, if I'm not mistaken -- it just means that when you do do it, you come across as someone who doesn't comprehend how the policies actually function or why they're in place, and doesn't care as long as you can use them as a bludgeon to say "Do it my way OR ELSE." In some cases you've demonstrated that you have not even read the policies that you're citing, let alone understanding their finer points. You've gone past your misunderstoods, and the biggest thing you've misunderstood is that the names of Wikipedia policies aren't magic words that you can use to manipulate others. They are formalizations of a relationship of mutual respect, and you cannot be very clearly treating others with a profound lack of respect and simultaneously be demanding that you receive all the benefits of respect which are called for by those policies, whose names you know but whose substance is foreign to you. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:46, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
J.Tell, if you're referring to my recent changes, I've placed a brief explanation of each one in the edit summary. I'm trying to keep the writing NPOV and to make the article more concise and readable. If I've made particular changes that you think are unreasonable or inadaquately explained, please clarify. BTfromLA 04:57, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

NPOV notice, revisited

The NPOV notice on the article seems to be because one single person objects to it, which is not enough to justify it -- especially since the changes he objects to are indeed being discussed here. Unless there are further objections, the NPOV notice will be removed. --Modemac 09:13, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

List of critics

In the third paragraph, the list of groups that have criticized Scientology feels like too much detail for an introduction. I believe that the article should include such a list to demonstrate the credibility of the opponents but putting it in the introduction seems belligerent and favouring a hostile POV. Are there any objections to moving it to the ==Controversy and criticism== section? --Theo (Talk) 18:37, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

BTfromLA's changes more than address this concern. I now think that the adjective "controversial" in the first sentence of the second paragraph is redundant and still faintly hostile. The next paragraph covers the controversy associated with the Church. I would like to delete that one word. --Theo (Talk) 10:39, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I would have to oppose that deletion, although I am open to other phrasings which would fit the same purpose. Maybe I'm over-influenced by the courses I took in journalism, but those courses highly stressed the importance of ordering your lead so that, if a reader stopped at any given point, he'd still come away having read the most important information. I'm okay with "second paragraph contains the pro-CoS view, third paragraph contains the anti-CoS view" but I'm not comfortable with waiting until the third paragraph to observe that there is an anti-CoS view. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:28, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
I concur with Antaeus Feldspar. I actually added that "controversial" when editing out the more extensive list of critics--the degree of controversy here is sufficient that it seems appropriate to flag the fact right near the top. BTfromLA 15:23, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
OK ... I understand the point. Is it the case that CoS is one of the most controversial religious institutions? And, more significantly, is the controversy more sigificant than the beliefs? This is not rhetorical (although my prejudice is that the beliefs are more important to this article than the controversy). --Theo (Talk) 22:51, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
I wouldn't phrase it like that, but my answer to that question is substantially yes, the controversy is more significant, because the fact of the controversy is verifiable. There is no doubt whatsoever that the beliefs are significant to the article, but if it comes to a question of comparing the two, I think it's more important to communicate to people "Don't take either side's claims uncritically" than to communicate "These are all the things claimed by this side." -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:26, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
And why is it NPOV to emphasize such caveats here when we consider it unnecessary for Christian churches or Islam? Try substituting some other religion and its headquarters (say Catholicism and the Vatican) into the appropriate places in the article. Would that be NPOV? This reads more belligerently than I intend; imagine me smiling as I type. --Theo (Talk) 23:54, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
While there are plenty of controversies surrounding the Vatican or branches of Islam, the fact that Christianity and Islam are religions is not in dispute. Scientology is not merely an especially controversial religion, the fact that it deserves standing as a religion at all remains unsettled. One might argue that the only difference between Scientology and Catholicism (or Mormonism, to pick a nearer equivalent) is venerability. But whatever the cause, Scientology's self-descriptions are not widely accepted as "neutral," and many of them have been flatly contradicted by credible sources (Time magazine, various judges, etc.). To present Scientology without bracketing it as controversial would amount to adopting a pro-Scientology POV. A closer analogy would be the Unification Church, which is also labeled as controversial in the opening section. I guess there's a question whether it might be appropriate to describe Scientology exclusively as an abstract set of beliefs, independent of any organization. I'd say no to that--there just isn't enough history of Scientology having a life of its own, separate from Hubbard, the Church, and it's various affiliates. BTfromLA 01:04, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
Well, we don't do it for Islam because there isn't a single monolithic institution which controls the religion; caveats about how different groups and institutions that follow or claim to follow the religion have interpreted that religion differently would be appropriate for such an article. The closest situation really is that of Roman Catholicism and the Vatican, but two things make the situation different:
  • The amount of control involved. If you are a Catholic but disagree with some position of the Vatican, you might be referred to negatively, as a "cafeteria Catholic" who picks and chooses their doctrine, but few will assert that you are no longer a Catholic. By contrast, if you practice outside the Church of Scientology, the Church will declare you a rogue "squirrel" (and probably dead agent you) and declare that what you are practicing is not Scientology. Therefore, to talk about Scientology requires talk about the CoS to an extent that is not true of Roman Catholicism.
  • The disparity between the pro and con views. Yes, the Roman Catholic Church is controversial, because of various matters like the supposed support of various Popes for Nazi Germany and the sex abuse scandal. But they've been controversy about the organization -- actual controversy around the religion tends to be marginal. In contrast, Scientology has led court judges to publicly query, with reference to transcripts of board meetings, whether Scientology is a religion, or just a business enterprise. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:26, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
Thank you both of you for such full lucid explanations. I am completely convinced of the merits of that early use of "controversial". --Theo (Talk) 11:19, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Sceince

Somebody should mention how Sceitology is often mixed up with Christian Sceine.

It seems that, since Scientology is the more commonly-known of the two, it is only necessary to mention this in the Christian Science article, which it is. People don't usually confuse Scientology with Christian Science, but they do confuse Christian Science with Scientology.

Hubbard's Naval Rank

The US Army, Marine Corps and Air Force have first and second lieutenants. The Navy has ensigns, lieutenants junior grade, and lieutenants - equivalent to the other services' second lieutenant, first lieutenant and captain, respectively. The British navy has the rank of sub-lieutenant which corresponds to the US ensign, and may have led to the confusion. I changed Hubbard's rank from second lieutenant to ensign. Someome may want to check that he wasn't a lieutenant, junior grade though. --Jpbrenna 07:43, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

E-meter - when and where

  • Hubbard said, in a lecture given on the 19th of July 1962 entitled "The E-meter":
"So Suzie and I went down to the library, and we started hauling books out and looking for words. And we finally found "scio" and we find "ology". And there was the founding of that word. Now, that word had been used to some degree before. There had been some thought of this. Actually the earliest studies on these didn't have any name to them until a little bit along the line and then I called it anything you could think of. But we found that this word Scientology, you see—and it could have been any other word that had also been used — was the best-fitted word for exactly what we wanted."

What's our source for this and did it happen in 1952 or 1962? (An unregistered editor just changed the date but I can't check it to see which is correct). Thanks, -Willmcw 09:32, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

I changed it. I have a copy of the tape.

Ralph Hilton

So, to be clear, the date of the lecture on your tape is 1962. Is that right? Thanks, -Willmcw July 2, 2005 04:15 (UTC)
The date of the lecture is 1962, yes, but it's referring to events which (purportedly) happened in 1952. -- ChrisO 2 July 2005 08:10 (UTC)