Talk:Scientology/Archive 7

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 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 →

Contents

Is anyone interested in the following article nominated for deletion?

Looking for participants in the the discussion of List of religions once classed as cults cairoi 14:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

An essay I wrote

I am hesitant to add my own essay, as this is a controversial area. However, using Wikipedia (thanks!) I have put together my thoughts on Scientology. I argue that it is at its core a religion, and say why, and that it is and will continue to be protected by those interested in 'religious tolerance'. However, I also offer three areas in which it is not covered by religious tolerance - its business practices, its use of science, and its own intolerance. In essence I am trying to find new ways of criticising Scientology, while accepting its status as a religion that should be tolerated. If anyone thinks this can or should go anywhere to do with Scientology or cults, I will leave it up to you, as I don't think I should make such a decision on my own in articles as disputed as this. Alsvid 16:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Alsvid - Wikipedia has a strict rule against original research, so I'm afraid WP isn't the place for your essay. Hope you can find somewhere for it though! Robin Johnson 16:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Alsvid. Robin is correct. If you can get a newspaper or a reputable publisher to publisher your essay then it might be appropriate. Newspapers and large publishing houses generally have a staff of editors, fact-checkers, and lawyers. They also have assets to protect, and not just monetary assets, but also their reputation. Therefore these sorts of places tend to produce works that are more reliable and trustworthy. Vivaldi 18:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh. I forgot to ask. Have you published your thoughts anywhere on the web? I would still like a chance to read them. If you have done good research and cited your sources we might be able to use your citations if they apply to this article. Take care! Vivaldi 10:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Sure, my thoughts are here: http://togivemeaning.blogspot.com/2006/04/why-chanting-cult-wont-work.html Alsvid 21:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Jwissick, please provide some validation

Jwissick, you keep posting in the introduction a paragraph about controversy. No arguement, there is controversy about the CoS, no arguement. But to understand what controversy exists some validation of controversy has to be cited, do you follow? Wikipedia:Verifiability spells out how to do that. The manner you have posted in the introduction is not per Wiki policy. The content might be valid, but until or unless some source of information is mentioned, who can know what is controversy, what is rumor and what is of your own conclusions? If you refuse to validate your postings in the article, Wiki Policy spells out what to do. Your postings are to be removed from the article and posted here for discussion and validation. Then, if you (and no one else) validates them, they stay out of the article. Do you see how this can result in an informative, balanced article ? I hope so. Terryeo 17:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

If you want sources cited for an intro statement that Scientology is controversial, that would look far more embarassing for Scientology than otherwise, because it will have to have a long string of citations after the offending sentence, delineating Scientology's many controversies. Surely that's not what you're suggesting? The sources for the word "controversial" are given in no small detail throughout the course of the article. wikipediatrix 00:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello again Wikipediatrix. I'll state my position. I believe wikipedia to fill a gap. On one one hand common encyclopedias have information but they lack the humanistic point of view that only personal experience in the area can provide. On the other hand, Wikipedia can present many points of view. The number of sources of information are vast and becoming vaster because information storage and retrevial are cheaper. We are all equally able to edit these articles but for this to work, we must all have equal rights. Your right, Jwissick's right and my right are all equal but this can only work if we follow common policies. Else the guy with the biggest hard drive would be writing every article. :) Terryeo 17:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
See my response below. wikipediatrix 19:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)



I what?? I have made few edits to this article.. mostly reverts after vandals... WTH are you talking about?? Jwissick(t)(c) 07:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Intro made more NPOV

The first line struck me immediately, that "Scientolgy contained 20 million words of "knowledge" " Whether these words are knowledge, propaganda, or ignorence is exactly the nature of the controversy over this organization. There is no essential reason to use this word to describe this organization, and the article works quite well with my version that I feel is closer to NPOV. Arodb 06:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

What need to enjudge the 20 million words? Why state they are all knowledge, anti-knowledge, science, pseudo-science or anything? In 20 million words you gotta allow the guy makes a joke somewhere. heh. Terryeo 00:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Re: The "20 million words" phrase... it's repeated somewhat often. Often enough that I think it's a catchphrase, as I've now seen it here, and in a Miscavige interview [1], half of his 40 million here [2], but this site (it's a bridge publications site, BTW) [3] has Hubbard writing *60* million words (rather than 20, or 40).... uhm, who actually counted the words? And would you really want to do that kind of a thing for a living (imagine the poor guy, sitting there counting......) :-) Ronabop 01:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Counting wouldn't be that difficult if you had electronic copies of all his works, which we can assume CoS has since they supposedly have them all stored on CDs in underground vaults in various locations. Vivaldi 22:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
So why isn't there a neutrality tag on the article, if a neutrality tag was ever to be needed somewhere, i would have thought this article would be an exellent candidate? Bib 16:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
The claim of 20million-60million words is a minor and nearly insignificant point. It doesn't matter one bit if Hubbard wrote 200,000 words or 200 million. We only need to point out that the CoS claims in various places that the number is 20 millon or 40 million or 60 million, or whatever they claim. If other people have sources that indicate fewer words are written, they can add them to the article. I'm not sure that there is any dispute over the claim that the "CoS says that Hubbard wrote 40 million words" and I believe the article takes a neutral view of their claim. I think the NPOV is most appropriate when an editor finds an article that is in a NPOV state and its not being actively edited and the editor doesn't want to take them time to correct it themselves. This article has MANY editors that are willing to remove any edits that are not neutral in tone, so instead of using an NPOV tag it seems more appropriate to point out specifically which sentences you believe are not neutral and discuss ways to fix them on the talk page. Vivaldi 22:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
(Oops, i meant the article in general, not especially those numbers, sorry.) Quote: "I think the NPOV is most appropriate when an editor finds an article that is in a NPOV state and its not being actively edited and the editor doesn't want to take them time to correct it themselves. This article has MANY editors that are willing to remove any edits that are not neutral in tone, so instead of using an NPOV tag it seems more appropriate to point out specifically which sentences you believe are not neutral and discuss ways to fix them on the talk page." Answer: To point out NPOV specifically would've been easy for the Ron Hubbard dude himself probably, but not for me. (Besides, chances are he would probably want to add more NPOV to the article.) Having many editors is positive, but it is a huge article, and it would take weeks to check out every fact with every source. Since there have been news about scientology persons continually trying to shut down, and have succeded occasionally, websites with scientology information, which also makes it even more possible that there are scientology members here at wikipedia trying to make the article positive for them. Am i not making any sense at suggesting a NPOV tag? Bib 00:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, it's making sense, but to give an analogy, suppose you call the police and say "Please come quickly! There's an assault taking place at 200 Washington Street!" Well, if 200 Washington is a one-story house, that may be all you need to tell them. If 200 Washington Street is a 40-floor office building, you're still right to call the police, but you have to be a lot more specific about where their help is needed. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Bib- I have similar feelings about this as Antaeus. You assume because Scientology is a controversial subject that the article is biased in some manner, but you can't even specify which side it is biased in favor of, nor can you cite even a specific instance of a biased wording or phrase. Just because an article is a large controversial subject doesn't mean we can't write each sentence and meet the requirements of WP:NPOV. For an example of this, check out the abortion article, which contains probably one of the most heatedly contested philosophical battles of modern time, but yet Wikipedia has managed to present both sides of the issue and keep a non-biased tone throughout the article. Now you might suspect that a hugely controversial subject edited by hundreds of people might also warrant and NPOV tag -- but you'd be wrong. This particular abortion article is even specifically mentioned in the policy as an example of how to handle a controversial topic. I think we are doing a pretty good job here cleaning up some loose ends, and rather than coming here and saying its biased and running off, I would appreciate your help in making this article better. Find a specific example of something that is wrong and rephrase it. Find a uncited claim and see if you can figure out how to cite it properly. I'd love to see you help to improve the article. Vivaldi 03:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
K, no NPOV tag then. Vivaldi, i'm not sure if you're hurting my feelings or not, by telling me what i belive and then contradict it, and i'm not sure you're using irony when you say you love me work, but ok, no NPOV tag. Bib 16:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

"Additionally"

Why is Fossa being so insistent that the word "Additionally" be removed from the second paragraph? (Fossa's edit summary: "rv; non-POV language") It really doesn't seem to make much difference as far as I can tell, from either a pro-Hubbard or anti-Hubbard POV. It is, however, somewhat clunky from a "good writing" sense. wikipediatrix 01:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, but one edit probably isn't too insistent. I think additionally sounds better and makes more sense logically, so I will change it back. The Ungovernable Force 01:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I was looking at it more and I just changed the order of the sentences and it makes more sense, and in this version, additionally is unneeded. The Ungovernable Force 01:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The Global Scam

Whoever it is that is changing the word "scam" to "new religous movement", please stop. There is no doubt that if you look at this cult from an objective point of veiw, it is indeed a scam and nothing else. All "cures" are simply the result of the human mind on some level scientifically unknown. crazyfurf 5, April-3:50 (EST)

Then your task is before you, crazyfurf, you are to understand WP:V which states, "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability." Simply find any quantity of published sources you wish and include the source and what the source says into the article and no one will be able to state nay, unless you begin to own the article with your quantity of such inclusion. Terryeo 01:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
While I agree with you that Scientology is a scam, I also understand that such language is pushing a particular POV. There are at least 50,000 Scientologists in the US alone that would disagree with you that their religion is a scam. Its best to use neutral language. There is a section about controversy that should be used to make note of the fact that many researchers have determined that the religion is a scam. Vivaldi 20:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, whether it was you or not, Vivaldi, someone has found an agreeable term for this cult. I also see your veiwpoint. And as a devout Christian I do see it as important to not offend people, merely to get the word out.
It's not necessary to use loaded language to expose the abuses of this religious cult. Neutral language is best. Intelligent people can figure out for themselves that Scientology is "a cult" and a "bad thing" just by reading the facts presented in clear and NPOV manner. Vivaldi 23:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with crazyfurf's above comment.. but let's not single out Scientology. All religions are scams to the end of having control over people, milking them for cash and having them raise the next generation to live in fear as they did. My logic for validating this is ; If Jesus (who is a personal hero of mine even though I am not religious, a church goer, or affiliated with any religion) was here on Earth today and going about his benevolent & compassionate teachings and actions.. at the end of each day would he live in an extremely humble, modest and inexpensive dwelling?
Or would he live in a multi-million £/$ fortress that is overflowing with opulent, priceless relics, paitings, works of art, statues, etc ? (as the Pope does)
Catholicism is everybit as much a scam as scientology, in fact probably even more wicked.. as the people who ran it back in the day up to the people who run it now are twisting and distorting the words of Jesus to suit their own ends. Where as R.L.Hubbard is slightly less blasphemous by just making up sci-fi shit and claiming it to be a religion.
The Pope is the Catholic Churches version of Tony Soprano, and that sirs/madams is a fact. (Dirk Diggler Jnr) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.13.116.249 (talk • contribs) .
This article is about Scientology. If you want to point out that Rastafariansim, Satanism, Christianity, Hinduism, and whatever else have a long recorded history of abuses, then luckily there are articles where you are free to make those claims provided you can back them up following the policies of WP:V among others. Good luck! Vivaldi 20:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I read this argument over and over again: "If you think that Christianity/Judaism/Islam/Hinduism/$your_favorite_religion has some bad points then raise the issue there." Sorry, that argument is nonsense: First of all, the myriads of zealot Chrisitians on Wikipedia would never allow for such massive "criticism" to be made in the articles on Christianity. And, secondly and more importantly, it is just preposterous to amass all sorts of "criticism" in an article about a phenomenon, while the article should be chiefly about the phenomenon itself (there could be a short note on controversies surrounding Scientology, about 15% of the article, I reckon). Fact is: Even though many allegations posted here might be factually true (not all, but some) they don't belong here. If the same method would be used in the article on Chritianity, that article would be ca. 57987598 pages long to list all the Christian misdeeds. Obviously, such an article would be just as ludicrous as this one is. (I'm not 82.13.* BTW) Fossa 18:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
"Sorry, that argument is nonsense: First of all, the myriads of zealot Chrisitians on Wikipedia would never allow for such massive "criticism" to be made in the articles on Christianity." -- First of all, I would argue that most of the editors of Wikipedia and probably a super-majority are not "zealot Christians". It sounds like your problem has more to do with the Wikipedia guidelines that involve developing Consensus for your controversial edits. I doubt you'll be able to fix the inherent problems that are involved when your own viewpoint is a minority to the viewpoint of the WP:Supermajority. You can either work to change those guidelines and policies, or you can start your own Wiki and run it your own way, perhaps even offering up free hookers and blackjack (TWAJS). Vivaldi 02:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
"And, secondly and more importantly, it is just preposterous to amass all sorts of "criticism" in an article about a phenomenon, while the article should be chiefly about the phenomenon itself (there could be a short note on controversies surrounding Scientology, about 15% of the article, I reckon). Fact is: Even though many allegations posted here might be factually true (not all, but some) they don't belong here." -- Some might argue that the misdeeds, abuse, and evil aspects of Scientology are the most significant aspects of the religion. Certainly, we are free to report that in Flat Earth that the majority view is that most folks don't think the Earth is flat anymore. In fact, you'll notice most of the article consists of evidence that in fact the Earth is of a spherical shape. Now this probably pisses off the members of the Flat Earth Society, but they, like you, have a similar problem. Namely, Wikipedia works by a process called consensus building. You'll also note that in the article about the Holocaust that most of the article is devoted to pointing out how bad the Holocaust was, rather than all the good things it accomplished. Another example: the article KKK appears to be a complete smear job on an organization that supporters might argue is one of the greatist institutions around. There are numerous other similar articles that point out the flaw in your argument. If Scientology stops its repeated and consistent abuses of people, then perhaps the consensus viewpoint here will change, but I'm not holding my breath. Vivaldi 02:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
"If the same method would be used in the article on Chritianity, that article would be ca. 57987598 pages long to list all the Christian misdeeds. Obviously, such an article would be just as ludicrous as this one is." -- The same method is used on the article about Christianity and the article isn't that long. The method is called consensus building. And we haven't listed ALL the misdeeds of Scientology here. I can point out thousands of other misdeeds that have not been reported, but out of space concerns (and in some cases problems with WP:V), these thousands of other abuses are not reported. We've tried to point out a reasonable number of the significant controversies related to Scientology and we are prepared to discuss the issue and help to improve the article. Vivaldi (talk) 16:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

So I'm guessing our anonymous friend is atheist? crazyfurf

You are more anonymous than 82.13.* whose identity can be partially traced (German IP). Fossa 18:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
crazyfurf's identity can also be traced by IP. Just not by you. Vivaldi 02:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

"Get the word out"? some Scientologist could come on here and say they need to get the word out that christianity is a scam. When you go onto a site based on fact like this one your belifes should be kept to yourself. If you want to be isolated from people you might call infidels then an encyclopedia expressing views from a neutral point of view like this one is not the place to come. How do you know there are not past lives and how do you know that jesus existed. I am not critizing faith mearly critizing faith in its blind form. Millions have died throughout history because of the ignorance some on this topic have expressed. So what if somebody's atheist? are they stupid? are you? put something in your hand and get a grip on it. 24.21.191.238 03:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

OT Levels and and Xenu

Could someone please restore the passage removed by 72.240.213.218? [4] anonymously added 21:02, 5 April 2006 by 216.13.72.153 (talk · contribs)

The passage and this article is already too long. This article is about Scientology not Xenu. That is why there is a link to Xenu in the article so that people that want to find out more about him can click on it. Vivaldi 02:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, the remaining text is positive for scientology, but also it is hiding facts which can explains why others believe scientology is negative. Bib 23:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I suppose there will always be people that feel that the article is biased towards Scientology unless every last detail of every abuse and every secret is brought out in this article. I don't feel that is the case. You are right that much of the article is about Scientology and not criticism, but I think there is a good representation of the criticism that is out there. Certainly if one follows the links about Scientology and uses the navigation template, they will be exposed to more detail about the abuses. It might amuse you that many people have suggested that just the opposite is true, that the critical viewpoints are over-represented. Vivaldi (talk) 23:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Yep, yep, agree, there will always be people who feel the article is biased towards or against scientology. Which is why i mentioned earlier a NPOV tag might be an option. (Also if people have more details about every abuse and every secret, it is ok if they have a valid source.) Much of the article is about scientology, you're right. However, removing facts about scientology is not the same as removing criticism? The removed passage is facts about scientology. However it is facts which might put scientology in a bad light, right? Remaining are facts which might put scientology in a better looking light, the bad light facts should remain too. Bib 23:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Yep, yep, agree, there will always be people who feel the article is biased towards or against scientology. Which is why i mentioned earlier a NPOV tag might be an option. Bib, just because some people think the article is biased doesn't mean that it deserves the tag. I believe for articles with lots of editors willing to work on the article, that it is silly to have a NPOV tag. Just explain in clear specific language what parts are biased and then we'll come to a consensus and quickly fix whatever parts we agree are written in non-neutral language. If the consensus viewpoint thinks the article isn't biased, then it doesn't need a NPOV tag. Vivaldi (talk) 04:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
However, removing facts about scientology is not the same as removing criticism? The removed passage is facts about scientology. However it is facts which might put scientology in a bad light, right? Remaining are facts which might put scientology in a better looking light, the bad light facts should remain too. Also, I'm don't think that presenting the FULL Xenu story is appropriate for an article about Scientology. Scientology is such a broad topic that we must pick and choose what to put in the article. Too much information is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. We have space concerns. Vivaldi (talk) 04:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Also if people have more details about every abuse and every secret, it is ok if they have a valid source -- No it isn't "ok". This article has space limitations. No editors will accept it if you start detailing the thousands of stories ever written about Scientology that have been documented. WP:V is only one, albeit important, part of writing a good encyclopedia article. Vivaldi (talk) 04:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Okay, you say i have to remember not to detail thousands of stories about Scientology. Consider it done. Quote I'm don't think that presenting the FULL Xenu story is appropriate for an article about Scientology. -- No, i don't want the full page here either, since it has it's own article.

Quote Scientology is such a broad topic that we must pick and choose what to put in the article. -- Yep. However we must pick both "positive" & "negative" information, not remove the negative & keep the positive? Quote Too much information is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. We have space concerns. -- Yes, and i want the space to have "tyrant from space" information. The article says Among these advanced teachings, one episode revealed to those who reach OT level III has been widely remarked upon in the press: the story of Xenu and his Galactic Confederacy. Then right away it says Scientologists argue that published accounts of the Xenu story and other colorful teachings are presented out of context for the purpose of ridiculing their religion. Right in the middle of those two sentences, is where the removed facts belongs. Maybe we can remove forexample critics of Scientology counter that Xenu is part of a much wider Scientology belief in past lives on other planets, some of which has been public knowledge for decades. For instance, Hubbard's 1958 book Have You Lived Before This Life documents past lives described by individual Scientologists during auditing sessions. These included memories of being "deceived into a love affair with a robot decked out as a beautiful red-haired girl", being run over by a Martian bishop driving a steamroller, being transformed into an intergalactic walrus and so on, to make space? Bib 17:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Bib- there are no easy and simple rules for deciding what content belongs. If there were any such rules, then wikipedia would write itself. I personally think the article is too long as it is. You are certainly free to continue added more and more and more stories to it as long as you realize that many editors also feel that keeping this article concise is also an issue. I would suggest that before you add large sections of new material for the article that you first place a copy of what you intend to add to this talk page and develop a consensus for your edits. Or at least try to develop a consensus for the idea that you want to add all sorts of information that isn't in the article. Vivaldi (talk) 16:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Was Hubbard a pederast?

Above titles says it all really.. Was L. Ron Hubbard a buggerer of young boys ? (Dirk Diggler Jnr) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.13.116.249 (talk • contribs) .

Despite that recent South Park episode drawing parallels between Scientology and a pedophile club, the answer is "almost certainly not". There are allegations that Hubbard was not averse to relations with his prettier female students, but as far as I know, none of him having anything to do sexually with children. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any documented evidence of relationships with children. There have been some suggestions of relationships with female Sea Org members (such as alleged in the Eltringham declaration) but, to my knowledge, I haven't even read claims of paedophilia or paederasty in the more rabid critical sources, which is usually the acid test. Certainly, none of the authoritative critical sources, such as The Scandal of Scientology, A Piece of Blue Sky, etc. have contained any claims to this effect. So I'd concur with Antaeus above in saying the idea LRH was a paedophile is highly improbable. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Being a scholar and critic of Scientology for over 10 years, I've never seen any evidence of Hubbard having a sexual interest in children. In fact, I've never even seen it seriously put forth as accusation by any of the critics that I have dealt with over the years. Vivaldi 03:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, okay thank you very much. Aren't the South Park guys open to legal action from Hubbard's living relatives then? (Dirk Diggler Jnr) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.13.116.249 (talk • contribs) .

I think it was L. Ron Hubbard jr aka Ron DeWolf (son by 1st marriage), who made some claims of improper conduct by LRH towards children of his 3rd marriage. However, I wouldn't waste more than a dime betting between LRH and LRHjr in a truth contest without evidence to back it up. As for South Park, Hubbard is dead and they were talking about some "fruity little club", not Scientology. AndroidCat 19:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually in the SP episode about Scientology they wrote that Hubbard was on a ship for a long time filled with nothing but young boys. In any case, there is no legal actions that can be taken (in the U.S.) against someone that is defaming someone that is dead. Once you are dead, anybody can freely say whatever the hell they want about you, whether it is true or not. Also, even if LRH were still alive, this would be acceptable because SP is using parody to make fun of LRH and it is not representing that cartooon character Cartman is a person that is to be believed. Heck, these guys also pretend to talk to walking and talking peices of poo. It's a joke! And, as a joke, they are protected from libel laws, just as they are protected from the law when they accuse the homosexual Tom Cruise of being "in the closet" repeatedly. Vivaldi 20:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

False Opinions

Look,the entire basis of Scientology is on preserving technology that works. Unfortunately, the best and most successful sources of information which bring the inquirer to a greater understanding of the subject itself are those which quote Scientology texts exactly, aside from the obvious, which would be to read an actual Scientology book. While Wikipedia does do that in some instances, it is continually surrounded by comments, always negative. Where is the other side of the coin, first of all? How can this be a "factual" online encyclopedia, when ideas and opinions are the main body of each article? While it is one thing to state a THEORY, as in a scientific article, it is another to state a critical opinion, which in fact has no basis at all, and are given from people who have no ground to stand on. Such obviously would not have any business in an encyclopedia. (Obviously, to me,anyway)

The last thing I have to say is this: While I understand your thirst to include everything you can about a subject, you should seriously consider SUMMARIZING the articles, instead of having simply very long-winded opinions. I have got to be honest here: you can ask any Scientologist on the street, and I can guarantee 99% of them will never have heard of the term "Xenu", whatever that is. Which also reminds me of the actual last thing I want to say which is that I can not believe an episode from SOUTH PARK, a CARTOON SHOW, is being referenced in an encyclopedia. Really, I am disappointed. I hope you will consider revising the whole outline of the article so as to actually communicate what this subject is all about, and so that the readers can learn something about it they can really use. I don't think you would be happy if an article on "Wikipedia" consisted only of critical comments, like the ones here. In fact, you would think it would be insane to do that. And that is how I feel about this set of articles on Scientology. 69.180.41.191 03:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The fact that a large number of Scientologists have not yet paid enough to reach the level where they learn the Xenu story does not change the fact that Xenu is part of Scientology doctrine, as has been confirmed in court by senior Scientology officials testifying on behalf of Scientology. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
If you focus on a tiny minority, then you have information about a tiny minority. "a large number of Scientologists" are saying Scientology is for me, in fact that is the only pre-requisite to saying that you are a Scientologist, simply your own declaration. If 99 % are using information which is publically and widely published, then, obviously, that information would be the information an encyclopedic presentation would mostly present. Terryeo 04:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Yup, yup, I was sure you would feel a reply was necessary. Alas! If only editors would understand the context of that thing. Anyone who can look at what actually happend 75 million years ago, please stand up and tell us all about it ! I for one will let it go, I haven't a clue and it doesn't much matter in my daily life, anyway. heh. BTW, 69.180.41.191, if you take a look at WP:V you will find the foundation on which Wikipedia is created. Editors place informations smoothly (ha) together to form articles, each information itself is necessarily verified or verifiable. A body of editors together then form a smooth, flowing article (ha) which includes many points of view.Terryeo 01:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Why do I have to "look at what actually happend 75 million years ago"? It doesn't seem relevant; what is relevant is that according to senior Scientology officials testifying in court as Scientology's witnesses, Scientology claims it knows what happened 75 million years ago and offers this claimed knowledge as a reward for reaching certain levels within the organization. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Right, sorry I didn't exclude you when I made my statement, please don't take it as a personal statement. I was attempting to lighten the situation up a little and should have added, "except for Feldspar" because that might have lightened it up even more, heh. Terryeo 05:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Links to Gnostic Thought?

Perhaps someone better versed on the subject could further examine Scientology's parallels to Gnosticism. I'm admittedly no expert, but its seems Hubbard borrows key concepts from what is known of Gnostic tradition(I know the ties to eastern spirtuality have been well documented here). SteelyDave 03:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I've speculated that Gnosticology might be a better name for a few reasons. [5] Other have suggested gnostic roots. [6] AndroidCat 05:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Mystae.com has a page concerning links between Scientology and Gnosticism. [7] --70.28.33.52 19:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
The question now becomes "Is the Gnostic connection worth inclusion as an influence on Scientology?"SteelyDave 19:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

2000s fads

As requested, I am bringing up here on the talk page the question of whether or not Scientology should be in the category of Category:2000s fads. To aid discussion, I'll reprint the edit summaries that constitute the discussion that's already gone:

  • "removed 2000s fads category, as scientology was founded in 1953" -- Hoopydink
  • "RV - regardless of when it was founded, it became a fad of the 2000s" -- User:SteelyDave
  • "calling a person's religion a "fad" is a bit callous and a fad is something that has already faded away, while scientology, at least in pop culture, is still very much visible" -- Hoopydink
  • "RV - Fads need not be a PAST phenomenon. If anyone wants to take up the issue of faddism, please take it to the talk page. I don't want a revert war here." -- User:SteelyDave

My reply to the above points:

  • The fact that Scientology was founded in 1953 doesn't prevent it from being a 2000s fad; many fads are in fact specifically retro fads, where the fad artifact not only originated long, long before the craze but is the subject of a craze because it comes from that past time.
  • I strongly disagree that the information on Wikipedia should be shaped by perceptions of whether or not it is "callous". Factual or dubious -- yes. POV or NPOV -- yes. "Callous" or "not callous" -- no. I can't see that leading down any good road. If that goes through then suddenly every true fact that's inconvenient to someone's agenda is something that's too "callous" to bring up.
  • "A fad is something that has already faded away" "Fads need not be a PAST phenomenon." -- mmmm, I can see both sides of this. On the one hand, part of the definition of a fad is that the surge of popularity fades away -- if it goes up to an elevated level, and stays at an elevated level indefinitely, it isn't a fad. On the other hand, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; since it is generally not in the nature of things which show a fad-like spurt of growth to stay at those elevated levels, it would be rather presumptuous to presume that this is somehow an exception which will not lose its popularity. However....
  • "regardless of when it was founded, it became a fad of the 2000s" -- I just don't see this as true, actually. Did Scientology experience a sudden increase in the amount of exposure it gets in the 2000s? Yes, definitely -- thanks in no small part to vehement Scientology promoters like Tom Cruise. However, an increase in exposure doesn't mean an increase in popularity; most of the reaction I have seen in the press and in the blogosphere is not "Gee, Tom Cruise says he's a Scientologist -- I think I'll try Scientology too!" but rather "Gee, Tom Cruise says he's a Scientologist -- and he also jumps around on Oprah's couch and spins these weird crazy stories about psychiatrists being Nazis and instead of backing up what he says he just tells anyone who doesn't agree with him that they're "glib" and don't know things the way he does. If that's what Scientology does for you, no thanks!" So unless we can actually document that Scientology in the 2000s actually experienced the increase in popularity that's crucial to the definition of a fad, then I don't think the category is appropriate. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi all... As I was the one to revert the category placement in the first place, I figured it was necessary for me to explain further. Scientology is a religion for some and to label it as a fad seems to be a bit inappropriate. Scientology already has an extensive history. Simply because it is now at the center of the pop culture limelight due to certain celebrities acknowledging their religious preferences, it does not mean it should be labeled as a fad. A fad is something that isn't of significant importance that will be a lasting entity. Therefore, to directly label a religion a fad is demeaning to those who practice said religion.
Also, if my choice of diction (see "callous"} threw anybody, I apologize. As it can be a loaded word, I want to mention that it was not meant as an attack on anybody; it was a simple case of logorrhea ;) Hoopydink 16:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I think your argument has a flaw in it. You state "A fad is something that isn't of significant importance that will be a lasting entity." That may be true, but it's only necessary that it be true in respect to the people to whom it is a fad. In other words, something can be of significant importance and a lasting entity to some people and a passing fad to others. At times, entire national cultures have become fads to other nations; for example, the sudden rush of interest in 1960s Britain for Indian culture ... including interest in Hinduism. Can we argue that Indian culture was not of significant importance or a lasting entity to India? Clearly not. Can we honestly say that it was of significant importance and a lasting entity to all the British teens who went out suddenly buying sitar records and trying tandoori chicken? No. To some of them? Perhaps -- but for the others, it enjoyed a brief period of high popularity which then dropped off, making it a fad. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I just happened to be browsing around and saw this discussion. Although I agree that the "callousness" of calling Scientology is a fad is irrelevent, I think that "2000s Fads" is a pretty poor category for Scientology to fall into. Has Scientology suddendly exploded onto the cultural scene since the year 2000, and has it subsequently quickly faded away? Neither of those two suppositions seem remotely valid to me. 159.153.129.39 17:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

You have to admit that there is a faddish element to it. The celebrity treatment has made it a hip thing to join, which is what the Church seemed to be going for by promoting their celebrity members. Scientology has undeniably become a buzzword lately, and something of a phenomenon. Membership has been accelerating. I believe this qualifies as a fad unless these changes are made permanent. PS When I said I didn;t want a revert war I didn't mean feel free to revert what I had just done. Please save the battles for the talk pages. SteelyDave 18:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't believe it is appropriate to label Scientology a "fad". I might be persuaded to change my mind if you can cite a reputable and reliable source that says that Scientology is a 2000s fad. Even this seems silly, since Scientology was also called a "fad" 50 years ago and it seems to have a similar and probably many more adherents now than 50 years ago. It certainly has spread to more countries over this time frame as well. Who is to say that Scientology will not continue to spead and grow and take over the world? Something that is faddish tends to imply that interest has grown and faded over the span of the fad period. Vivaldi 20:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I just think it deseerves some consideration. What other religion is regularly featured on VH1 and Saturday Night Live? SteelyDave 21:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of its appearance on SNL or VH1, but I know that there exist a number of pop-culture references to it lately. South Park and the Colbert Report are two that readily come to mind. This is mainly due to the misguided efforts of actor Tom Cruise who pretended that he knew more about mental health than medical doctors. None of this necessarily indicates that Scientology itself is a fad, but rather, "pop culture" currently has a fad of making fun of Scientology. I think those aspects are fairly well covered in this article already without having to add the fad template here. Vivaldi 22:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
First of all, I'm pretty sure that most of the well-known Scientologist celebrities have been adherents since well before the 2000s. Second of all, I believe they've been promoting their membership through celebrities for almost as long as they've been around. The celebrity arguments don't support Scientology as a "2000s fad"
Do you remember Tom Cruise talking about his religion on television before the year 2000? I don't. The racheting up of Scientology's pop culture status in the last few years has been a trend, the question is does this become a fad or is it just a phenomenon. Unless it continues to grow like this on a long term scale, I see it as a fad. Others disagree. SteelyDave 20:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, SDave, but I think consensus is against you on this. Yes, Tom Cruise is talking up Scientology on TV but that doesn't translate to a fad -- there's no signs that Scientology is becoming more popular because of any of this exposure, and multiple signs of the reverse. It's "fads", not "things that got increased exposure". -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. BTW, Scientology just got a shout out on the Colbert Report last night. At the very least I think it has become a culturally significant pop culture flashword.SteelyDave 00:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Most of us are well aware that Scientology has become more involved with pop culture over the last year.  :) Thanks for mentioning the Colbert Report. I will check it out, since he often posts videos from the show online. Thanks for being a part of Wikipedia are for participating in this discussion. Vivaldi 02:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Weasel words need to go

In this article, far too often weasel words are used. The problem with saying "Scientologists say...." and "Many critics contend...XYZ" is that we don't know which people you are talking about and when and where they talk about them. Instead of saying "Critics claim that XYZ happened", we need to write, "In the article, Scientology is a Global Scam, Richard Behar of the Newsweek wrote, "XYZ"". Alternatively, you can also cite another source that meets the policy of WP:V that says "Critics contend XYZ". But just leaving unsourced comments that certain amounts of unknown critics make claims is not an acceptable practice. I would encourage people here to help make this article MUCH better by providing actual references for each of the unique claims made. Once this is done, we can avoid many of the arguments about verifiability and start focusing more on style. I was recently reverted by Fubar Obfusco (talk • contribs • count) after I inserted a couple of {{Fact}} tags into the article. I thought I explained my case fairly well in the edit summaries, but I was reverted anyways. I will try one more time now that I have explained myself here. Before these tags are removed again, I would appreciate it if you can please actually provide the citations that back up the claims. I am looking to make this article and Wikipedia MUCH better and providing citations for your claims is essential to that process. Vivaldi 04:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Well actually I'm not going to replace the {{Fact}} tags tonight because I'm tired and I want people to have a chance to read my arguments before the quickly revert my work, but you can look in the article and see many places where it says things like "Critics say...", "Scientologists believe...", "Critics contend....", "Critics believe....", "Scientologists counter...". These claims need to be sourced properly. Perhaps everyone can pick just one of the "critics say..." or "scientologists say..." and dig up a reference to prove the claim according to the policies at WP:V. If we do this it will make the article much better and it will demonstrate that the article is written in a neutral point of view. Vivaldi 05:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Quiet Birth vs. Silent Birth

The most common term used for this practice is "Silent Birth" not "Quiet Birth". Do a search on Google News for both terms to see what I mean. I recently fixed this problem and was reverted by Fubar Obfusco (talk • contribs • count) without any explanation other than "bogus". Vivaldi 04:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

See my response to your comments on my talk page. It was a mistake. Sorry about that. :( --FOo 06:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Vivaldi, while "Silent Birth" may be more prevalent in usage than "Quiet Birth," isn't that possibly because Wikipedia and other sources continue to use the incorrect term? Similar reasoning would have led us to still believe the world is flat because at one time that was the "most common" belief? Just some food for thought. In any event, I am looking for the appropriate verifiable references in various Hubbard sources to see what he did in fact say about birht. dcottle561

The Fable shouldn't be cited as a source

I removed a link in the Scientology celebrities section that cited THE FABLE as a source for some claims. The link is at http://www.xs4all.nl/~fishman/fable.htm. I removed this because THE FABLE says in its own preface, "No claim is made by the anonymous author(s) that any statement in this fable or its accompanying appendices is factual. To help the reader evaluate the relevance of this fable in the proper skeptical state of mind, treat this document as purely fictional and layered full of allegory, metaphor and symbolism, waiting for each reader to decrypt and interpret its meaning each in their own way. Also treat all names and places in this fable as fictional. Any similarity of names or places in this fable to any place or real person living or dead is purely coincidental.". While it is clear that much of The Fable is in fact true, it doesn't seem appropriate to use it as a reputable and reliable source since it specifically says that it is a work of fiction. Vivaldi 05:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, much of the same information in it can be obtained from more solid sources anyway, such as Andre Tabayoyon's affidavit. wikipediatrix 18:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Cleaned up the section about tax issues and religious recognition

I made a number of edits to clean up and clarify the section about Scientology and the tax exempt status of its many tentacles. This included renaming the section header, rearranging the order of the presentation, and adding new information. I have also added citations for most any claim that can be disputed and I believe each of the sources meets the requirements of WP:V. It still probably needs to be checked to make sure it is presented in a neutral tone. Vivaldi 10:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


Cult

If noone objects i'll place this article into Category:Cults for it fits all the conditions in the definition of cults. These conditions are quite neutral, they do not impose any negative connotations (POV) on scientology except if you were to regard cults as negative per se but then the problem would lay with the entire category and not with scientology being in it.--62.251.90.73 23:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Really? How much property does a "cult" own before it is no longer a cult, but part of the establishment? 10 million dollars worth? 20 ? And how about publications? How many millions of books in how many dozens of languages must a cult publish before it is no longer a cult, but part of the establishment? Scientology has sold perhaps 50 million books in dozens of languages, including audio tapes and donates to public libraries these days. But you're sure that it fulfills every element of "cult?" Terryeo 05:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
(This may offend you: you've been warned) Every religion is a cult, it's just that some are more popular than others. Scientology, specifically, is a crazy wacky cuckoo cult that only crazy wacky cuckoos join. Like Tom Cruise. Scientology is crazy and stupid.
But that's just my personal opinion. --Animarxivist 20:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Please remember that we're not here to share our personal opinions but to discuss improvements to the article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding culture or society considers to be far outside the mainstream. Even although they sold millions of books, and certainly own a lot of money, they are still not considered mainstream by the surrounding culture/society. And that is the definition stated in the cult article. It says nothing about a max net income or the number of religious books sold... --84.30.97.206 14:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
One neutral rule of thumb that I've heard is that it's religion when you're born into it, it's cult when you join as an adult. Any new group would first be a cult and then settle down and become a relgion. As well, any established group that goes through a rapid expansion phase would edge towards cult status as the number of converted increased. By Scientology's real numbers and the generations of people now raised as Scientologists, they might be approaching religion for a majority of their members under this rule. This rule of thumb seems to fail with the classic cult of Thuggee where members were usually born into it. AndroidCat 20:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
There are multiple definitions of "cult", and for most of the important ones (such as Robert Lifton's) religiosity isn't even a prerequisite, so it's definitely not true that "'cult' is just a derogatory synonym for religion" or that a cult whose members are born into it is a religion -- and definitely not that owning a certain amount of property or selling a certain number of books turns a cult into "part of the establishment". -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo's revised introduction

Let's go through it sentence by sentence.

"Scientology is a word used by author L. Ron Hubbard in 1952 at a public lecture in Kansas.[1]."

Hmmm, let's see. "is a word". Well, that's very informative! Just think of all the words that we could have followed with "is not a word". And of course, since our focus is on the word "Scientology", rather than what the word "Scientology" refers to, what readers will want to know right away is when and where and by whom the word was first used. A public lecture in Kansas? How shocking! I would have thought that the word had first been used in Nebraska!

"He spent most of the lecture defining the term but began with: "Scientology would be a study of knowledge"."

Whew! I'm glad we're really packing in the really important things to know, like when in the lecture he got around to defining it!

"It is a new religious movement based on knowledge about spiritual matters and was presented as a philosophy."

Wow! Again, we're just shearing away the layers of imprecision and leaving a glittering, crystalline gem of truth! Scientology is surely set apart now from all those new religious movements based on knowledge about plumbing matters.

"The current Church of Scientology was first established in 1954, "The word Scientology literally means 'the study of truth.' It comes from the Latin word 'scio' meaning 'knowing in the fullest sense of the word' and the Greek word 'logos' meaning 'study of.'"[2]"

Yes! We will rebel against this horrible entheta notion of writing grammatical sentences! We will show that we are twice as good as the rest of the world by trying to cram two unrelated sentences into one! Why, instead of writing "John said 'Mary is no good'", we will write "John was born in 1973, 'Mary is no good'!"

Translation: This introduction is no improvement. The old version will be restored. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

etymological overkill

In the interest in further removal of obfuscation, I'm going to try moving this part of the introductory paragraph to somewhere else further down in the article:

Hubbard defined Scientology as "knowing how to know", [1] although he first introduced it with the words, "Scientology would be a study of knowledge."[2]. The current Church of Scientology writes, "The word Scientology literally means 'the study of truth.' It comes from the Latin word 'scio' meaning 'knowing in the fullest sense of the word' and the Greek word 'logos' meaning 'study of.'"[3]

I can find no other "-ology" article that bothers to spend over half of the introductory paragraph with a long and convoluted analysis of the word's etymology. Articles for other religious beliefs such as Zoroastrianism, Kabbalah, and Islam do not go into the etymology of their names in the intro paragraph. The article for Unarius doesn't even go there until the article's third subsection, deep into the article. wikipediatrix 15:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion for article improvement

I feel that the current article has an unusually (compared to other Wikipedia articles) large amount of content that is critical of Scientology....so much that it distracts from what the article really needs.....a clear description of what Scientology is. I think criticisms of Scientology should be restricted to one section of the article. That section should be short and link to other Wikipedia articles where the criticisms are already discussed at great length. If this were done, it would allow those who know about Scientology to edit the bulk of the article so as to become a clearer presentation of the topic. In blunt terms: those editors who have adopted the mission of including criticisms in nearly every section of this article distract from what should be the main goal of the article: a clear description of what Scientology is. Scientology is not the criticisms of Scientology. Accounts of all the criticisms can go in articles such as Scientology controversy. --JWSchmidt 04:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Scientology is about Scientology. Abuses of people are part of Scientology, and thus, those abuses of people should be in an article about Scientology. The article about the KKK is about the KKK while still pointing out in the article that the organization has a long history of abuse. We can argue about whether abuses and other such negative aspects of Scientology are the most relevant or most notable parts of Scientology, but I don't think we can just assume that Scientology.org is the group most capable or qualified to explain the long and ardous history of Scientology. In fact, we have proof that much of what they say about themselves is a lie. Now, I also admit that what many critics have said is also untrue, but I think its very important to include both sides of the issue on many of the points that are brought up. A hypothetical example of how it should be handled: Scientology.org says in the video tape ABC123, "Scientology teaches that people should do XYZ, only after doing PDQ", however the award-winning Washington Post reporter Rich Leiby notes in an article DDFDEFF that, "Many high level Scientologists are on video tape doing PDQ before XYZ, in an apparently contradiction to their advertisements". Now this seems perfectly reasonable and fair to me, although we must always keep the tone as neutral as possible. Vivaldi (talk) 05:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Are the abuses by Catholics like Hitler, or the inquisition, or most modern catholic schools, in most of the Catholic articles? Yes, CoS, is new, but we shouldn't give undue weight. While the roman catholic church's actions maybe have only killed thousands this year, they have millions, and millions, of followers. Same goes for CoS, Calvanists, etc. We have to keep it all in many various perspectives, I think. Ronabop 05:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
This article is about Scientology. Not Catholic death squads. --Mboverload 05:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Except that there isn't an active contingent of editors attempting to whitewash articles concerning the Catholic inquisitions. ˉˉanetode╞┬╡ 10:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Are the abuses by Catholics like Hitler, or the inquisition, or most modern catholic schools, in most of the Catholic articles? --Ronabob. Perhaps the perceived "balance" you find articles about the Catholic Church are because that organization is more balanced? The Catholic Church is well known for their missions in education, providing health care to the indigent, ministering to the poor, feeding the poor, housing the homeless, administering foster care to children, and promoting adoption services (among many of such charitable programs). I think the Spanish Inquistion and the ongoing abuses of children by Catholic priests receive reporting here at Wikipedia. It just so happens that the Catholic church is about a lot more than the Inquistion of the molestation of young boys. The Church of Scientology receives criticism because it is worthy of being criticized. They are notable for their abuses. And we can always discuss whether or not "undue weight" is being given to the abuses, but we shouldn't remove the abuses from the main article just so Scientology can put its best face forward. Wikipedia isn't a collection of advertisements. Vivaldi (talk) 04:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
It's also important to note that the Catholic church's misdeeds took place over hundreds of years. The CoS has generated more negative deeds than the Catholic Church, and they've managed to do it all in just the last 50 years. The Inquisition is pretty awful, but it IS ancient history. Operation Snow White and the death of Lisa McPherson are not. wikipediatrix 16:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Restricting criticism of Scientology to one section would turn this article into a Church of Scientology pamphlet. The history of Scientology is invariably tied to the personal history of L. Ron Hubbard, who, like other prominent religious figures, has a fairly long and verifiable history of documented statements, claims, and personal vendettas. His relentless redifining of Scientology as a medical therapy, self-help method, and finally religion necessesitates that Scientology must be considered an entity which encompasses all those facets. It is not merely a new religious movement, it is not merely a diversified company, it is not merely an alleged sham. To focus entirely on one function of this complex subject, thereby presenting only the current public-relations-prescribed face of Scientology, is contrary to the goal of neutral, comprehensive coverage.
That's not to say that there's no room for improvement, or that ephemeral issues like the South Park and Tom Cruise controversies deserve such a prominent mention in the article. Surely the Origins and Beliefs sections could be better integrated and the Church of Scientology introduction could use a rewrite. Yet there is a difference between having a neutral article on a controversial movement that has been censored by governments and discredited by scientists and a benign endorsement written in proprietary jargon by a sympathetic minority. There are many editors here who add verifiable, if critical, information to Scientology precisely in an to attempt to clarify the purposefully vague and elitist claims made by zealous Scientologists. ˉˉanetode╞┬╡ 10:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Vivaldi & Anetode- I am not suggesting that Wikipedia should fail to describe any situation when an "organization has a long history of abuse"....."abuses" are an important part of the description of any ideological or religious movement. For example, it would be interesting to have Wikipedia editors willing to catalog and describe the arrests and crimes of all high-ranking members of every religion and political organization. As a Wikipedia reader, I want to be able to learn about the tenets, history and practices of a religious movement and also hear from the movement's critics. The current article provides this, but I feel that the existing description of the tenets, history and practices is not in good balance with the commentary by critics. As an editor of Wikipedia, I am looking for ways to work towards incremental improvements in this article....I feel that the voice of critics swamps the description of scientology itself. I agree that it would not be constructive to allow this article to be a "Church of Scientology pamphlet" and I do not suggest that only members of some scientology organization be allowed to edit the article. I feel that there are other Wikipedia articles dealing with controversial topics that can be our guide for improving Scientology. For example, I think the Abortion article does a good job of describing abortion; it has a short section called "Abortion debate" that links to other Wikipedia articles such as Religion and abortion and Abortion debate. I think there have been some good editorial decisions made for the Abortion article. For example, the word "murder" is not used in the Abortion article. A neutral description of abortion does not involve the term "murder". Many critics of abortion do use the term "murder" and it makes an early appearance in the Abortion debate article. In contrast, the term "cult" makes an early appearance in Scientology. In my view, this is indicative of an excesive amount of editorial control over the Scientology article being exercised by the critics of Scientology. In my view, as someone who came to Scientology wanting to learn what scientology is, an editorial approach that is too strong on criticism distracts from my first learning about what it is that is being criticised. Categorizing scientology as a cult is controversial and an issue that arises from critics of scientology, not within scientology itself. Just as Wikipedia can describe abortion without using the term "murder", I think it would be possible to provide an article that describes scientology without using the term "cult" or restricting the term "cult" to a small section of the article called Controversy and criticism. That section should link to the many Wikipedia articles that contain criticism of scientology. There could even be an entire Wikipedia article called "Scientology viewed as a cult". Terms like "cult" and "murder" are loaded terms and their use in controversial situations is indicative of the editorial bias in articles. --JWSchmidt 17:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
JWSchmidt -- I don't care if we use the word "cult" to describe Scientology in the article. I think it is perfectable acceptable to say that the Church of Scientology is a religious organization that has a long history of abusing its members and their families, violating the laws, scamming people, encouraging unsafe medical practices, and allowing its members to die unnecessarily -- without using the "loaded term" of cult. I don't object to the religion of Scientology -- I object to the well-documented abuses of the controlling body called the "Church of Scientology". As to providing a "more balanced view" of the beliefs and practices of Scientology, I am all ears. Add whatever you want to the article, just make sure to cite your sources. (Remember that CoS asserts that documents about its beliefs and practices are trade secrets. CoS attempts to charge people thousands of dollars to receive this information, so I'm not sure how you plan to document the practices of Scientology using the Church as your source, but I am willing to give you a shot!)
JWSchmidt, although I applaud your interest in fairness, I think you're confusing the appearance of balance with the reporting of facts. Scientology has been involved in so many controversies and court cases that their record of malfeasance has been well established, and it does the article a kind of injustice to try to seek "equal time". For example, the article for Jonestown pulls no punches about the use of the word "cult", nor does it try to give equal time to the viewpoint that maybe Jonestown was a good thing and maybe the People's Temple had good and noble reasons for their deeds. Without inflaming things by naming names, there are plenty of other organizations, groups and persons who are infamous for well-documented crimes, and we do not attempt to give "equal time" to these entities' side, nor do we present articles in such a way that suggests there's even a chance they had a good reason to commit atrocities. Also, quarantining "cult" talk to a separate article seems to already be making up the reader's mind that the issue is sidelined, when in fact Scientology meets practically every qualification for the standard definition of the word. In fact, it is probably a verifiable statistic that there are more people on Earth who think of it as a cult than there are actively practicing Scientologists. wikipediatrix 18:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Wikipediatrix- Personally, the word "cult" does not bother me: I ignore it when there is no evidence provided to support its use.....as I said, it is clear from its use in this article that it is being used to trigger a negative emotional reaction in readers. In my case, it only triggers a reaction against the editors who are using it without citing sources. It would not surprise me if scientology has been called a cult by some religious scholars. If so, then by all means say so in the article and cite authoratative sources (there are probably scholarly articles published in religion studies journals) to support the claim. Currently, right near the start the article says that the church of scientology is frequently called a cult and no sources are cited. -JWSchmidt 21:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
You're suggesting we cite sources to bolster a word's definition. Wikipedia defines cult this way: "In religion and sociology, a cult is a cohesive group of people (often a relatively small and recently founded religious movement) devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding culture or society considers to be far outside the mainstream."' We could waste a paragraph delving into who has called them a cult and who has not, but we could do the same for "new religious movement" or anything else the article happens to refer to them as. Having said that, the "cult" thing was the least important to me among the issues I was addressing, and am more concerned the other matters I mentioned. wikipediatrix 22:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't care about the term "cult" (even though CoS appears to meet the definition of cult as Wikipedia defines it). As long as the long history of documented abuses are brought out in the article -- that is the important thing. Let others argue over the semantics. I have been reverting anyone that attempts to redefine Scientology from new religious movement to cult) Vivaldi (talk) 04:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not questioning the definition of "cult", but some care needs to be taken with the label "cult" since scientologists explicitly deny that it is an appropriate label for scientology. Wikipedia itself describes how various governments cannot seem to agree on the best label for scientology. I think Wikipedia should provide solid references when a loaded term such as "cult" is used. This would allow me, as a reader, to not have to rely on the judgment of Wikipedia editors about the cult status of scientology. In the absence of finding cited sources concerning the cult status of scientology in the Scientology article, I felt that Wikipedia editors had used a loaded term without first explaining what scientology is and why it meets the definition of a cult. The start of the article says that scientology has pseudoscientific elements and the church has unscrupulous commercial practices, harassment of critics and exploitation of its members (all introduced as unsourced views of critics) and that this leads critics to label the church a cult. If this is a valid argument, then provide a good source that backs up that argument in a logical fashion. At first glance, it is not clear to me that the listed complaints about scientology really allow one to say that "because of these factors" scientology is a cult. Given the lack of cited sources about scientology as a cult I felt that mention of scientology being called a cult could better be placed in the section of the article for views of critics. If there are good references to support calling scientology a cult, then just provide the references. There is an important difference between saying some people call it a cult and being able to cite published sources that have successfully described how scientology meets the criteria of being a cult. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view mentions the term "fundamentalism" as an example and suggests that it "should only be used in one of its technical senses". I suggest that the same reasoning applies to "cult". I've started looking through the references provided at List of groups referred to as cults and they seem either to just assume that scientology is a cult or cite each other as evidence that scientology is a cult. In other words, they seem to be the opinion of critics and make no attempt to explain how scientology meets a particular definition of "cult". They seem to say nothing about the arguments that have been offered by scientologists defending themselves against being labeled as cultists. I took a quick look at google scholar and there does seem to be a scholarly literature about scientology as a cult. It seems like it should be possible to find one or more published articles that make the case for scientology as a cult and do so in a scholarly way that would justify Wikipedia to also use "cult" to describe scientoogy in a "technical sense". I feel that by providing such references we could justify use of the term "cult" in a prominent place in the Scientology article (off of the sidelines, as you suggest). I'm not sure what you mean by "equal time". My view is that the very large (by the standards of other Wikipedia articles such as Abortion) fraction of the Scientology article that is devoted to criticisms distracts from what should be the primary goal of allowing the reader to learning what scientology is in the first place. I have suggested the Abortion article as an example of a good Wikipedia article dealing with a controversial topic, an example where vast amounts of criticism and conflict are mentioned and linked to from a reasonably small section of the article, leaving the bulk of the article to actually discuss abortion itself. Abortion is used as an example at WP:NPOV. I'm not sure of the relevance of the Jonestown article to the task of describing scientology. I think that the following should be applied to Scientology: "If we're going to characterize disputes fairly, we should present competing views with a consistently positive, sympathetic tone. Many articles end up as partisan commentary even while presenting both points of view. Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization — for instance, refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section." --JWSchmidt 04:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I count only four times on the page that Scientology is referred to as a cult. Surely we can run through those quickly?
  • "Because of these factors, the Church has frequently been called a cult."
  • "Some European governments (including notably, Germany, Belgium, France, and Austria) do not consider the Church to be a bona fide religious organization, but instead a commercial enterprise or a cult."
  • "Other countries, mostly in Europe, have regarded Scientology as a potentially dangerous cult,"
  • "Some critics charge Scientology with being a cult of personality,"
None of those look like they'd be hard to reference to a reasonable level. AndroidCat 04:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • One additional point: even if you take the sources cited at List of groups referred to as cults as being adequate to support the editorial commentary, "the Church has frequently been called a cult", it is not yet clear that this point of view from scientology critics should be in the first section of the scientology article. The reader should be given a chance to read about the features of scientology before the critics are allowed to casually make use of this loaded term in the description. In my view, if you want to include labeling scientology a cult as one of the few things said about scientology above the TOC, you need to cite sources that explain why it should be called a cult. Just like "fundamentalism", you need to cite a source that explains why calling scientology a "cult" is technically correct in the way religious scholars use the term, not just as an epithet. I think you also need to say that scientologists explicitly regard the label as not appropriate. Since this is a matter of contention and dispute, it would probably better be handeled in the article about scientology controversies. --JWSchmidt 16:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Should we avoid calling Ted Bundy a serial killer in his article, then, until we "explain" him first? Should we refrain from calling the KKK a white supremacist organization in their intro, until the reader can be given a chance to read about their "features"? And if this is such an issue to you, you'd better high-tail it over to the Al-Qaeda article, where they are called "fundamentalists" in the intro without citing a source that explains why. wikipediatrix 16:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
WP:NPOV tries to provide guidelines for how to dea with situations where there are conflicting points of view. If something is not a matter of contention, you can use non-contended labels to desribe the subject. I'd be surprised to learn that anyone disputes the use of the term "serial killer" in the Ted Bundy article. However, if something is a matter of dispute, rather than just place an emotionally charged label on the subject, you should describe the facts of the case. For example, if there was a situation with controversy (say a dispute over a court decision), you could say "such-and-such court convicted so-and-so of comitting x number of murders over the course of y years." and provide links to references. Since it is a mattery of dispute, you would add something like, "The convictions are currently under appeal." If scientology is a cult, just provide a published reference that explains how it meets the technical definition of "cult" used by religious scholars. Since scientologists explicitly provide arguments for why scientology should not be called a cult, I think Wikipedia would need to say THAT also right after citing the religious scholar who has explained why scientology meets the technical definition of a cult. With any luck, the scholar who has explained why scientology is a cult will have done his job and also published an explanation of why the counter arguments by scientologists do not stand up to critical analysis. I'm not familiar with KKK policy, but I'd be surprised if they (or anyone else) objects to anyone publishing the observation that the KKK advocates white supremacy. With respect to the Al-Qaeda article, I've never looked at, but I can say (sight-unseen) that it would not surprise me if it contains material that is poorly sourced. In my view, as Wikipedia matures, editors need to be looking for bias, statements that most editors believe and do not bother to provide sources for. My expectation is that some religious scholar has previously published a scholarly analysis of how the Church of Scientology meets the technical definition of cult. If so, Wikipedia should be able to cite that source. I remain doubtful that it is best to try to make that point above the TOC in the Scientology article, particularly without also mentioning the fact that scientologists dispute it and because many governments seem to have conflicting views of the status of the Church of Scientology as a religion (as already described within Wikipedia). --JWSchmidt 17:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
JWSchmidt says "many governments seem to have conflicting views of the status of the Church of Scientology as a religion". Is there a single law written by any government that specifically states that Scientology is a bona bide religion? I think most governments just haven't taken the step to declare Scientology as criminal organization yet, but I haven't seen any countries that have jumped out and codified, "Scientology is a bona fide religion". Vivaldi (talk) 03:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Scientology is notable because of its abuses -- it has only attracted 55,000 US adherents -- a number less than the number of U.S. Korean Presbyterians, which have been around for a similar length of time in the U.S. But is there an article about the U.S. Korean Presbyterians? No. There is an article about the Korean Presbyterians, but they have something like ~10 million members in Korea. Why don't you spend some time researching the U.S. Korean Presbyterian movement and start adding some of their beliefs and tenets to Wikipedia? At least at the USKP article you won't be arguing with people that have spent 10-30 years of their life studying this criminal cult. The reason pro-Scientology viewpoints receive so little mention is two-fold: 1) pro-Scientology viewpoints are held by a very tiny minority of people on Earth (and the NPOV policy says we don't need to give undue weight to viewpoints held by a tiny fraction of people) 2) Scientology keeps its scripture, beliefs, and practices tied up in a veil of secrecy. They don't want anybody discussing these things, they want people to first find out about Xenu after they have already spent $300,000 and 10 years of their life following the drunken ravings of psychopathic dopehead named L. Ron Hubbard. I would certainly love for you to document some Scientology sources that discuss body thetans, Xenu, fair game, disconnection, Operation Snow White, supressive person, potential trouble source, and plenty of other things. If you think that a significant point-of-view is missing -- then do something about it. Add the missing pro-Scientology side and cite your sources.Vivaldi (talk) 03:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


I'm not sure of the relevance of the Jonestown article to the task of describing scientology.--JWSchmidt (talk · contribs) But you do see the relevance of comparing Scientology to abortion? If you check out the Wikipedia article at cult, you'll see that both Scientology and the Peoples Temple are commonly referred to as cults. (rarely is "abortion" considered a religion or a cult). Vivaldi (talk) 04:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
So, what do you think about the article at Peoples Temple? Do you think we as editors should spend more time discussing the beliefs and practices of Jim Jones and his followers, to give the article more balance? Why doesn't Wikipedia say that Jim Jones saved his people from a fate worse than death? You know that is the viewpoint of Mr. Jones and his followers, right? Why do you suppose that nearly every single sentence of the article about the Peoples Temple mentions some time of negative aspect of the cult? Do you believe the use of the word "cult" is justified for describing the Peoples Temple? Is it ever justified? Vivaldi (talk) 04:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Vivaldi- Abortion is relevant as an example of a Wikipedia topic that has a huge amount of criticism and controversey attached to the article on Abortion. The Abortion article is used at WP:NPOV as an example of cow to deal with conflicting points of view. There is no connection that I know of between abortion and cults. As far as I can tell, there is essentially no controversey associated with Jonestown; in particular, there is no section of the article such as "Controversy and criticism". I do see one way that the Jonestown article might help us deal with the controversy and disputed interpretations that surround scientology. It seems to provide anohther example where Wikipedia editors have used the loaded term "cult" without providing references to support use of that loaded term. This seems analagous to the Wikipedia editors who feel compelled to label people with terms such as "athiest" without providing references to support their use of the label. These are examples of editorial bias and sloppy encyclopedia editing. --JWSchmidt 16:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
What about the Peoples Temple article that I mentioned, did you take a look at it? Did you notice that the Peoples Temple article seems to indicate that the cult did a lot of bad things and not many good things? Why do you think that is? Also, there is substantial use of the word "cult" in the media in reference to both People's Temple and Scientology. For just one example of hundreds of such references in regards to Scientology see where Time Magazine called Scientology, "The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power". The word "cult" became a "loaded term" because of the abuses of groups like the Peoples Temple and the Church of Scientology. I disagree with your assessment that there is any bias in this article favored towards the critical side. If anything, I think the current article is biased in favor of the Scientology cult. Scientology is notable for their abuses, if they didn't abuse people consistently and violate laws freqently, then they'd get the same sort of mention that we give the United States Korean Presbyterian Church -- which is zero (despite the fact that there exist more US Korean Presybeterians than Scientologists). You might also check out articles about the KKK and the Schutzstaffel, both of which you might also find are biased against the beliefs of the members and former members. You see, encyclopedias don't need to give every viewpoint equal time or equal footing. Only notable and significan viewpoints need to be considered and points-of-view held by only very small minorities of people can be given the small amount of time and space that they deserve. Thus, pro-Scientology viewpoints, and pro-KKK viewpoints, and pro-Nazi SS viewpoints don't get much "airtime". And rightly so. Vivaldi (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I do not question the fact that many people feel the need to label either scientology or the Church of Scientology a "cult". I suspect that the Church of Scientology may meet the technical definition of "cult" and I have suggested that Wikipedia editors find a scholarly reference that explains how the Church of Scientology meets the technical definition of a "cult". The term "cult" became a loaded term because it became widely used as a negative label, often used by people of one religious faith against another smaller religious group. I read the time magazine article and I feel that it is a typical mass media article that uses the term "cult" in a way that is not critiacal or scholarly and is mainly used to attract readers and sell magazines for a profit. Like the other cited articles, the Time article seems to assume that scientology is a cult and so the author does not bother to explain how scientology meets a particular definition of "cult". Wikipedia editorial policy sets a higher standard. As Wikipedia editors we have to do the hard work of finding good sources and citing them in our articles. Rather than freely use emotionally-charged labels for profit, we are required to follow the NPOV policy. I've never called for Wikipedia or Wikipedia editors to ignore any negative information that can be linked to scientology or people associated with scientology. I have questioned how the current Scientology article allows the voice of scientology's critics to intrude excessively on an article that should be telling the reader about the principles, philosophy and other features of scientology. I feel that the Abortion article does a good job of allowing a clear description of abortion without allowing the many critics of abortion to clutter and confuse the Abortion article. Once a reader knows what abortion is, they can then read the many Wikipedia articles that describe in detail all of the complaints and criticisms about abortion. I understand this point: "encyclopedias don't need to give every viewpoint equal time or equal footing. Only notable and significan viewpoints need to be considered and points-of-view held by only very small minorities of people can be given the small amount of time and space that they deserve", however, when the biases of editors intrudes on the ability of Wikipedia to clearly describe a topic, then we have a problem. In particular, if scientology critics (acting as editors) want to use emotional labels like "cult" without citing suitable sorces then Wikipedia has allowed a dispute to take control of the encyclopedia and the encyclopedia reflects the biases of those editors. If wikipedia calls scientology a cult (without citing sources) and does not bother to mention the arguments used by scientologists to dispute the label "cult" being applied to scientology than we are not providing our readers with what they should be getting. Discussion of this issue is reaching the point where more effort has gone into resisting the need to cite sources and state both sides of the dispute (and doing so in a way that is consistent with Wikipedia policy) than has gone into finding good references and providing readers with a clear account of what scientology actually is. I'm calling on the editors of this page to examine their priorities. Do you hover over the Scientology article because you want it to explain to readers what scientology is or because you want to make sure that this article continues to be biased towards the complaints that are voiced by critics of scientology? If it is the later, then I think you are working at odds with WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is not a place for you to express your missionary zeal to protect people from what youe view as a dangerous cult. If scientology is a dangerous cult, you must content yourself with describing the dangers you percieve and citing good sources. You must do so in a way that does not prevent Wikipedia from describing what scientology is (its philosophy, practices, tenets). When critics of scientology act as bullies and take over editing the article, then it drives away editors who could actually explain scientology philosophy and practices to readers. As an outside observer (someone trying to learn about scientology) I want to hear both sides of this dispute. As the article now stands, rather than deal with the question "How can this dispute be fairly characterized?", editors involved in the dispute seem to have taken over the article and are using it as a place to complain about scientology. The place to characterize a dispute is in a section of the article about disputes and criticisms. If the disputed views of critics are to dominate the article (such as being placed above the TOC), then good sources must be cited to justify doing so and Wikipedia must mention the opposing argument. Trying to describe an argument about a topic before describing the topic usually becomes disruptive to an article, so I suggest that the disputes not be tackled above the TOC. Above the TOC it should be enough to provide a neutral account of the existence of disputes and say that the characterization of scientology as a religion or as a cult and the relative benefits and dangers of scientology as a social force are a matter of active dispute; the reader should be directed to the section of the article that deals with the disputes. As described at WP:NPOV, if something is a matter of dispute, "when it is clear to readers that we do not expect them to adopt any particular opinion, this leaves them free to make up their minds for themselves". We can "trust readers' competence to form their own opinions". I am distressed that some editors of Scientology feel that calls for providing a neutral description of what scientology is (philosophy, practices, etc) is somehow biased towards scientology. If you personally are a critic of scientology then I'm asking you to step back from this article. Put some effort into finding authoritative sources to support your position and cite those sources in the articles that criticize scientology. Step back and let in editors who are actually interested in scientology (rather than just being interested in complaining about it) and who know about its philosophy and practices. Frankly, I wonder if some editors of the Scientology article are just too close to the subject and have an exagerated view the dangers that scientology represents. "Wikipedia is not a place to assess the morality of a person, their beliefs or their orientation, neither is it the place to advocate for or against a political or religious point of view." --JWSchmidt 18:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Please quit saying that it isn't sourced that Scientology is a cult. Time Magazine and Reader's Digest published a huge expose that was distributed to tens of millions of subscribers around the world with the title, "SCIENTOLOGY: The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power" This is but one citation of hundreds of such citations. The cult of Scientology tried to sue Time and RD, and they lost the case. The judge ruled that it was perfectly OK for Time and RD to call Scientology a cult. Yes, the term "cult" has come to have a negative connotation to it in later years, but that is in no small part due to the actions of the Church of Scientology, whose own leaders were put in jail while breaking into government offices and stealing things. Vivaldi (talk) 03:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Having exhausted your own argument, you now turn to the time-honored tradition of casting insinuations on your opponents. No one has accused you (yet) of being a Scientology shill or trying to deliberately whitewash the most basic criticism of it on the article, so why accuse the numerous editors who disagree with you of having skewed motives and agendas? In so doing, you have pretty much disqualified yourself from serious discussion. And for your information, your condescending comment about stepping back and letting editors in who know about it is not only uncalled for, it's way off-base. And hey, didn't you start out saying you didn't know much about Scientology? wikipediatrix 19:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
JWSchmidt, you're arguing for a doulbe standard. At first you say that use of the word cult should be substantiated and cited - that's reasonable. Then you go on to say that the sources cited at List of groups referred to as cults are irrelevant - that's ludicrous. When a source like Time Magazine proclaims that Scientology is a "Thriving Cult of Greed and Power" and publishes a huge exposé that discredits Scientology's standing as a bona fide religion, then it's fair to say that the insertion of "cult" can be referenced. In Europe Scientology is often called a cult and prosecuted under "anti-cult" laws. Scientology also satisfies the threshold for "cult" as set forth in sociology, although that term has been superseded by "new religious movement". Stating that "the Church [of Scientology] has frequently been called a cult" is justifiable even if the word has pejorative connotations. Loaded terms should not be subject to automatic censorship, in the realm of religion both "fundamentalism" and "cult" have their appropriate uses.
A large part of Scientology does deal with criticisms and refutations, that doesn't mean the article fails to explain its subject. Abortion deals with a controversial medical procedure that some see as tantamount to murder, the controversy is in whether or not it is a morally justifiable procedure and what physical and ethical consequences it might entail. On the other hand, every aspect of Scientology is controversial and uncertain as the Church of Scientology routinely misrepresents the movement's history, practices, doctrine, membership, and legal standing. Neutrality in addressing Scientology simply cannot be attained by applying the editorial methods that might have worked in the abortion article. ˉˉanetode╞┬╡ 16:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I think my position is more logical than how you have charaterized it. I think there are two ways that we can use terms such as "bitch", "fundamentalism" and "cult". People frequently use terms such as these in attempts to pile negatives on an opponent. Within Wikipedia, when used as contested labels, these terms should be used according to a technically correct definition. The references provided at List of groups referred to as cults are perfectly relevant to the purpose of that page. However, if we wanted to justify the use of "cult" above the TOC in the Scientology article, I think we need a higher standard. We should do more than to only be able to cite sources who have called scientology a cult. We know that many people only use "cult" to condemn a sect without taking care to use "cult" in a technically correct way. It is too easy for authors to use such loaded terms for effect without explaining how they actually apply in a technically correct sense. If all you want to do is say that some people call scientology a cult, then you should be content to do so in the section of the article that deals with criticisms of scientology. Many people have been called "bitch" by their critics, but Wikipedia does not mention the fact above the TOC in their biographical articles. Similarly, "fundamentalism" gets thrown around all the time, and Wikipedia has a high standard for its use. Scientologists have argued that scientology is not a cult. Above the TOC, we need more than just two groups of people who disagree about the cult status of scientology, one group saying it is a cult and the other saying it is not a cult. When a loaded term is used, its use automatically establishes a bias towards one side of the argument. That is called using loaded language and it introduces bias into Wikipedia. If we want to say that the cult status of scientology is one of the most important things about scientolgy (important enough to warrant it being said above the TOC) then what we need a scholarly source that explains WHY scientology meets the technical definition of a cult and why the arguments of scientologists denying that it is a cult do not hold water. And even if you could find such a reference (which I suspect you can), I still question the wisdom of placing the disputed use of the term "cult" above the TOC. The term "cult" is an emotionally-loaded term that should not be thrown into a disputed subject unless there is space to go into the details. To just throw such a disputed term out there before explaining what scientology is and why it fits a particular definition of "cult" is to bias the reader towards one side of the dispute before you have allowed the reader to learn what the specific elements of scientology are. As WP:NPOV suggests, it is better to provide readers with the facts and let them come to their own conclusion. Once a reader knows what the elements and history of scientology is, then they are in a possition to hear about the dispute that is on-going over labeling scientology as a cult. Wikipedia can provide a full account and characterization of the dispute in a section of the article that is for disputes. "Neutrality in addressing Scientology simply cannot be attained by applying the editorial methods that might have worked in the abortion article." <-- I do not agree with this assessment. I suspect that some Wikipedia editors have a personal dislike of scientology that has led them to abandon attempts at constructing a neutral article for Scientology, however, I do not accept this state of affairs. I'm not saying that we can or should make Scientology exactly like the Abortion article. Each topic has unique elements and requires editors to discover paths towards a neutral presentation that suits each particualar topic. I am advocating is the identification and correction of specific problems in the Scientology article. It should be easy to start with the task of making sure that the article is using loaded terms in a technically correct way and providing good references to support disputed points of view. I think it is probably possible to use objective criteria to measure how much of an article is given over to discussion of criticisms and disputes. By comparing to articles such as the Abortion article I think the Scientology article is currently unusual in terms of the large amount of disputed content that is critical to scientology. Beyond specific changes, I think it is reasonable to suggest that the Scientology article could be re-crafted so as to limit the criticisms to a level that is more in line with other articles (such as Abortion) where there is also a big didpute that needs to be described. --JWSchmidt 19:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Again, the use of "cult" as a technical term is outdated, most sociologists now use "new religous movement". Anyway there are no clear-cut technical standards for using "cult" (as opposed to bitch: a female canine), the classification is a result of critical analysis. That Scientologists do not agree with the appraisal is certainly notable, but they are in the minority. Excluding "cult" from the article implies a favoritism on behalf of Wikipedia. If you are concerned about the referencing and verifiability of specific statements, please add {{Citation needed}} where appropriate. ˉˉanetode╞┬╡ 17:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

JWSchmidt's response dwelled mostly on the "cult" issue, even after I made it clear that this was the least of my concerns raised in my original post. I disagree strongly with his claim that the purpose of the article is "allowing the reader to learning what scientology is in the first place". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. The article is supposed to also inform on what Scientology has DONE and what others say about it, not just what it proclaims itself to be. Meditate on this: Scientology is primarly notable for negative reasons. Therefore, it shouldn't be surprising to anyone if most of the article talks about negative things. To use another extreme example, the Ted Bundy article talks mostly about his being a serial killer, and rightly so: that's his main reason for notability on Wikipedia. Not only do I disagree with JWSchmidt that the article is too negative against Scientology, I don't think it's negative enough. Most of the things that Scientology is truly notable for are negative things, and most of them are, in fact, buried 2/3 of the way into the article. Extremely important things like Operation Snow White get only a passing explanation-less mention, while entire subsections are devoted to a tutorial in Hubbardisms like "ARC Triangle", "Auditing" and "Tone Scale" that already have their own articles anyway! Obviously, this article is slanted TOWARDS Scientology, not against it. wikipediatrix 14:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

If I understand you, your interest is only in giving voice to the critics of scientology. As a reader of Wikipedia, I want to know what scientology is before I hear from the critics of scientology. Having read some of both, I am sure that I cannot trust the critics to provide me with a neutral account of the topic. As an editor, I'm suggesting that you make room for editors who want to provide a neutral account of scientology, yes, including what scientologists say it is. "Most of the things that Scientology is truly notable for are negative things" <-- this is your personal view, and it strikes me as being biased. You are free to defend it by citing sources in support of your POV, but your point of view does not give you the right to prevent other editors from describing the views of others. Your belief that only your POV is true does not allow you to use loaded terms without citing good sources to support what you want to say. You are not the soul judge of the "slant" particularly since you proclaim your own biases. --JWSchmidt 21:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Time Magazine and Reader's Digest published a huge expose that was distributed to tens of millions of subscribers around the world with the title, "SCIENTOLOGY: The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power". It's not just our point of view -- its the viewpoint of Time Magazine, The Washington Post, 60 Minutes, The Clearwater Times, Readers Digest, and hundreds of other newspapers, journals, articles, blogs, books, speeches, television shows. It would be biased to present Scientology as anything other than a huge global scam, since that is what the nearly universal point of view is regarding it. Vivaldi (talk) 03:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
The more I read JWSchmidt's supposed cause for concern and his proposed response to it, the less able I am to credit it. JWS complains that "In contrast, the term "cult" makes an early appearance in Scientology." Why, yes, it does -- it makes an early appearance in the completely true statement "Because of these factors, the Church has frequently been called a cult." JWS even affirms that his own research demonstrated this to be true; the Church has frequently been called a cult. Isn't this what we're supposed to do, report the positions that people take on a subject? The introduction certainly reports all the good things that the Church of Scientology says about itself and says about Scientology, and it would seem to me that if we can report how supporters claim that Scientology cured them of cancer, surely we should also report how not everyone has so positive a view of it?
But apparently this isn't what JWSchmidt thinks would be "balance" on the subject. He seems to think that "balance" in the article would mean that all sections except one report the claims made by the Church of Scientology, which he seems to think is synonymous with "a clear description of what Scientology is", while "criticisms of Scientology should be restricted to one section of the article. That section should be short ..." He also comes very close to breaking WP:AGF when he talks about "those editors who have adopted the mission of including criticisms in nearly every section of this article"; does he really think that he is addressing such people? I guess he must; since he openly admits that his own goal would be to see every section of the article (save one short little ghetto) artificially swept free of any opposing opinion to that of the Church of Scientology, I suppose he thinks it only natural that there are others who have "adopted" a "mission" just as one-sided as his, merely on an opposing side. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I have no objection to Wikipedia saying that people have called the Church of Scientology a cult. I'm not sure it belongs in the Scientology article. If it does belong in the Scientolog article, it should be in the section of the article that describes what critics of scientology say, since scientologists do not agree that scientology is a cult. If we had a scholarly reference to cite that explained how scientology meets the technical criteria of a cult, then we could cite that and construct an argument for saying something like, "some religious scholars say that scientology (cite sources) is a cult, but scientologists disagree (cite sources). Judging if this should be said above the TOC in the Scientology article should be decided after we have read the arguments on both sides of this disputed issue. Only having seen what the scientology website says about this, I have to researve my judgement, but based on other evidence (that governments differ in how to label scientology, that there seems to be a distinction between scientology and the Church of Scientology, and the number of hits on google scholar for scientology+cult (743) vs. scientology+religion (1,500)) and the fact that "cult" is a loaded term, I think it will probably be best to not try to use a disputed term like "cult" above the TOC in the Scientology article. If we could document that there is consensus among religious scholars that scientology is a cult, and that scientologists only have a weak argument against scientology being labeled a cult, then I think it would be okay to put that above the TOC. --JWSchmidt 22:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
So according to your standards, the article on homeopathy should not disclose, except in one short isolated section reserved for "what critics of homeopathy say", that anyone regards homeopathy as a pseudoscience -- what homeopathy advocates say should fill the article, because homeopathy advocates say it, but what critics of homeopathy say should be limited to at best one short section. Because homeopathy advocates disagree with what the critics say, you see. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
JWSchmidt -- the "pro-Scientology" viewpoint is a nearly insignificant viewpoint and as such, as part of NPOV policy, we are not required to give it undue weight. Scientologists make up less than one-fifth of one percent of the people in the US. And if you take a survey of non-Scientologists that have formed an opinion on Scientology, you'd discover that most people have a negative opinion of Scientology. The predominate viewpoint is that Scientology is a dangerous cult. The entire reason that most people even heard about Scientology to begin with, was because of the long and repeated number of criminal abuses Scientologists have been involved with, including the wife of the founder, who spent time in jail for her crimes against the U.S. Vivaldi (talk) 03:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
JWSchmidt -- do you think that neonazis should be able to get their sympathetic viewpoint across without any criticism (above the TOC) in the article about Schutzstaffel? According to your viewpoint, Stormfront should be allowed to mention that the Holocaust was a myth, without any criticism of that viewpoint unless its off in some other article or banished to some small ghetto section? I know you said you weren't familiar with Scientology, but I'd suggest you learn more about it, before you claim there is a bias in the article. The more you learn about it, the more you will learn that Scientology is exactly what Time Magazine declared it to be: Scientology: The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power: Ruined lives. Lost fortunes. Federal crimes. Scientology poses as a religion but really is a ruthless global scam -- and aiming for the mainstream Vivaldi (talk) 03:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Changing the picture...

While I laughed for about twenty minutes when I saw that the picture of L. Ron Hubbard had been replaced with an image of Mayor McCheese, of McDonald's marketing fame, the original needed to be restored. Don't forget, Wikipedia's for everyone, even Mayor McCheese and L. Ron Hubbard, so let's try and keep it neutral...--anonymously added 12:48, 17 April 2006 by 160.10.216.120 (talk • contribs • count)

Well, if you thought that was funny, you really missed out earlier. The same user has turned L. Ron Hubbard into a picture of poop and also into a picture of an uncircumcized penis. He is a virtual laugh riot. Vivaldi (talk) 04:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
True, it is hard to choose which of the three images best represents him. Fishhead64 06:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Explanation for Pol, why I reverted

The central practice of "auditing" (from the Latin word audire,"to listen" -- but note the similarity to the administrative procedure), which is one-on-one communication with a trained Scientology counselor or "auditor". This isn't even a sentence. I reverted to a version where this was a sentence. The episode can be downloaded; one location where it is available is [8]. South Park studios do not object to downloading -- I feel this is extraneous and unneeded material. A link is provided at the bottom already. I also reverted to re-add links that were deleted. Vivaldi (talk) 02:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Tom Cruise sucks- and so does scientology.

I could have came up with a better story than this. Seriously. If you're going to make another pathetic religion, don't. Make a parody religion. fsm, ftw.

And the relevance of this to the writing of the article? -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

E-meter is not a "galvanic skin response" measurer

The E-meter is nothing more than a device that measures changes in the resistance of a small current passing through the human body. It does not measure "galvanic skin response". The E-meter produces an electrical current on its own that far exceeds whatever galvanic currents could possibly be produced . A galvanic response is like a battery, when two dissimilar metals are placed in a solution that allows the transfer of electrons from one to the other. This is not what is occuring with the e-meter. The e-meter produces a small current which passes through one can that is held by a person and the current goes through the body and then through the other can held by the person. Using a Wheatstone bridge and various methods of amplification and noise reduction, the e-meter provides an analog reading of the changes in Electrical resistance of the human body. These changes can be caused simply by adjusting how tight or how loose one holds onto the cans, or other subtle changes in the body. The US Patent granted to "inventor" L. Ron Hubbard is called "Device for Measuring and Indicating Changes in the Resistance of a Human Body" and it is US Patent 3,290,589 issued Dec. 6th, 1966. You can also find a copy of the patent at the USPTO.gov website, but you'll need a free multipage TIFF viewer called AlternaTIFF, since the patent is so old, all they have are scanned imagesoof it. Anyone that suggests that the e-meter measures "galvanic skin response" is incorrect. I'm thinking that this might be the efforts of Scientologists to make the e-meter sound like it does more than it really does. Vivaldi (talk) 04:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The word "galvanic" originated as a man's name, as many technical words. Galvanic: pertaining to or producing electric current by chemical action; "a galvanic cell" [9] and Dictionary.com states the word originated from Luigi Galvani who is known for his pioneering experiments in the electrical stimulation of frog nerves and muscles. His experiments motivated the discovery of a source of a constant current of electricity.

However, "Galvanic Skin Response" is a different kettle of fish, Law enforcement, the FBI, and others have used the resistivity of a person's skin as part of a lie detector's measurement for some years. The term "galvanic skin response" has a different meaning, though it involves electricity. Galvanic Skin Response concerns how a human body's skin reacts to small (tiny) amounts of electricity. By such an application of tiny electrical current, resistance to the flow of electricity can be measured. A Dictionary states: "A change in the ability of the skin to conduct electricity, caused by an emotional stimulus, such as fright." [10] and mentions, a "lie detector - a polygraph that records bodily changes sometimes associated with lying" again at freedictionary but that property of the human body is sometimes called "electrical skin response" and defined: "n : a change in the electrical properties of the skin in response to stress or anxiety; can be measured either by recording the electrical resistance of the skin or by recording weak currents generated by the body" synonym study here. A "galvanometer" would be any meter capable of measuring such small electrical currents [11] and [12]. The word is not misused to state that an E-meter measures changes in the electrical resistance of a human body's skin. It does exactly that. Whether it is called "electrical skin response" or "galvanic skin response" or something different, it is a measurement which an E-meter is designed for, small changes in the resistance of a body's skin and it uses a small battery to accomplish that. Terryeo 18:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo- Whether or not "galvanic skin response" was named after Kermin the Frog or Mario Galviendretti, means nothing. The e-meter does not measure the electrical resistivity of the skin. The e-meter is a crude ohmmeter, that records an analog change in the resistivity of an entire system that goes from can to the can-to-skin-interface, then through-the-body, then out the skin-to-can-interface, then through the other can. This system is not capable of measuring the "skin response" to electricity, because it is also measuring the entire body response to a whole host of factors including respiration, tension of the hands holding onto the cans, pumping of the heart, and motion of the muscles and the body itself. It is an not appropriate to label the e-meter as a device that measures "skin resistence" or "skin response" at all. If you read the LRH patent, you'll notice that he never once mentions these words, "galvanic, galvanometer, or skin". Vivaldi (talk) 22:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, I think that's because he couldn't, because GSR meters were already patented! I think the discrepancy here may be because the original e-meters invented by Volney Mathison were, in fact, galvanic skin response devices. When Hubbard's minions tried to change it just enough so they could steal the idea and patent it, they must have simplified it into a skin ohmmeter. Check the results for this Google search. wikipediatrix 00:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Volney Mathison was also a kook. I'm not impressed with the practice of chiropracty to begin with, and I'm even less impressed when a chiropracter fancies himself a psycho-inventor that can read thoughts by measuring the electrical resistivity of the human body, and I'm even less impressed with chiropracters that write books similar to "The Secret Power of the Crystal Pendulum". I haven't seen the details for his device, but if it involved holding onto two tin cans (in seperate hands) and passing a current through the whole body, then it didn't measure "galvanic skin response", it measured the resistence of the whole human body. Vivaldi (talk) 22:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Controversy and criticism

The assertions regarding the governments of states in Germany not recognizing the C of Scn as a religion have no citations. I think we should not have unverified negative comments like this in Wikipedia. I do not have the citation at my fingertips, but I believe that the Federal Government of Germany in 2005 held that Scientology was a religion and that the Office for the Protection of the Constitution had engaged in illegal surveillance and harassment of the Church. I also seem to remember reading in a newspaper that the German Government was ordered to pay the Church's attorney fees and court costs and was enjoined from further harassment.

I would not put those unsupported assertions in the article. Likewise, I don't think unsupported negative assertions should be included either.

dcottle561

Shouldn't this section be folded into Scientology's main "controversy" page? It looks all well sourced, but the organization on this page should be focused on "Scientology", with links to further articles. Seriosity 23:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Scientology is no religion or community sharing a Weltanschauung according to paragraph Art. 4 (constituitonal freedom of religion), 140 GG (status of religion as public corporation), 137 WRV (old law from pre-WWII Germany). This decision was a judgement given by the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Federal Labour Court) 5 AZB 21/94 page 26 from March 22th, 1995. Second, Germany has no "governments" of states in the sense of the US constituition; while we have in fact a federal organization, it is much less independent than in the US (e.g. Police ignores borders, federal law will always override state law and creating state laws is very restricted). A much better word would be "independent administration of a state". Your belief is in any terms dodgy, there is no central instance who decides now for the country "XYZ is a religion". In fact the country is mostly interested if the organisation pays taxes or is non-profit, holds the law, let the members pay or want to educate their children in school. The nearest step to be officially recognized as a religion is the status as public corporation which gives several advantages, but there must be enough members in the long run to get these benefits.
And the answer to your question is *no* in all these terms, Scientology is no religion in Germany. The Verwaltungsgericht Köln 20 K 1882/03 has decided at November 11th, 2004 that the *federal* Office of the Protection of the Constituition is still enabled to watch Scientology. The court cases where Scientology won were against the *local branches* of the OPC, in Berlin and Saarland. In both cases Scientology didn't win because they are viewed as innocent, but the surveillance wasn't appropiate to the danger level Scientology actually presents in these states. And that they pay the fees is nothing special, in Germany the loser must always pay the court costs and the winner nothing (there are "right protection insurances" which pay court costs, but then the insurance company put several limits on you, e.g. they forces you to use their lawyers. So, after that I would be very interested from where do you get your sources because they are ludicrously wrong. --136.172.253.189 01:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe this quote should be added? (If it's a true quote)

L. Ron Hubbard "Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion."

Can you please cite the reference from which this quote is taken from? --Siva1979Talk to me 14:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
It's already in L. Ron Hubbard#Controversial_episodes. There's a tendency to add everything into the main article, which requires frequent and ruthless pruning. AndroidCat 15:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
The actual data about this “quote” is that although it has been falsely claimed that L. Ron Hubbard said that the way to make a million dollars is to start a religion, Mr. Hubbard never made this statement. It was allegedly made at a science fiction convention in 1948 in New Jersey; however, two people (David A. Kyle and Jay Kay Klein) who attended the convention deny Mr. Hubbard ever made that remark. The original source of the claim was Sam Moskowitz, who also attended the meeting. In 1993, Mr. Moskowitz provided the Church with a copy of the minutes of that meeting, which include a summary of Mr. Hubbard’s remarks to the group. No such statement is included in the minutes of the meeting. Mr. Klein pointed out in an August 2000 affidavit that Mr. Moskowitz was apt to make remarks for the purposes of effect and would sometimes state as facts things, which were untrue or inaccurate. A writer who did make a similar statement, however, is George Orwell. Mr. Orwell’s statement has been wrongly attributed to L. Ron Hubbard. In 1982, when presented with the evidence of Mr. Hubbard not having made this statement, a Munich court prohibited a publisher from repeating this false statement. Nuview 23:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
The church's standard statement on that has a number of problems. The main one is the assertion that the 1948 convention was the only place it was claimed Hubbard said something like that. AndroidCat 15:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Nuview, Robert Vaughn Young already really had the last word on the subject. Oh, I'm not talking about his admission that when he was still in the Church, he himself found that Orwell quote and suggested that they could use it to make the official Party line "oh, obviously that's not something that Hubbard said, it's something that so-and-so said, and then it was wrongly attributed to Hubbard (by, oh, about ten to fifteen of his personal acquaintances, for starters.)" No, I mean that RVY really had the last word on this when he pointed out to someone who was quoting back at him the same "it was really Orwell who said it" line that he himself came up with: "No, my friend, LRH said it too. The difference between LRH and Orwell is that LRH did it." -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
That Young said this (if he did) doesn’t mean it was true – so its still hearsay.

For those of you who don't already know...

Wikipedia.org is a project wholly financed and sponsored by the Church of scientology. To my detractor -please counter my point instead of merely deleting it. It's easy to be destructive -alot harder to be constructive. -- anonymous message left 11:54, 23 April 2006 by 86.135.219.121 (talk • contribs • count)

So, why do you want people to counter your point then? Now if you burst out "apples are orange", you should maybe counter your point yourself. Bib 17:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia.org is a project wholly financed and sponsored by the Church of scientology. Wikipedia foundation is sponsored by lots of contributors. I seriously doubt that any Scientologists have contributed to the fund since Wikipedia reveals so many of their abuses and so many of their sooper sekrit texts. If you have any evidence to back up your claim, I'd be happy to look at it. Vivaldi (talk) 14:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Sisterlinks trial

As a trial, I added the sisterlinks template to the bottom of the page. The quotations and Wikinews are perhaps useful. Thoughts? AndroidCat 17:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Reversion of changes by 67.49.208.28

I reverted these changes because there was no point in removing the words 'teachings' and 'ceremonies', especially as teachings and ceremonies are listed in the article. I also removed his change of the reference 'Church' to 'group', as the name of the group IS the Church of Scientology. I'm no fan of Scientology, but his changes seem to be subtly POV against it. Taliesyn 03:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Is all this business about "thetans" and "space operas" and "Xenu" actually the belief of scientologists, or am I just reading this article in the moments after someone spent a hell of a lot of time vandalising the page with the most inconcievably ridiculous nonsense ever written and someone else deleting it, or is this actually what Scientologists believe? I mean, Scientologists en masse. anononymous comment left 10:45, 25 April 2006 by 82.7.74.130 (talk • contribs • count)

Yes, that stuff about "thetans" and "Xenu" is true and not vandalism. However, the vast majority of Scientologists aren't allowed to read the documents about Xenu or learn about this aspect of the organization. It is a closely-guarded secret...or it was, until the Internet spread it to the four corners of the Earth. See the Wikipedia article on Xenu for more information. --Modemac 18:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Scientology has a very formal and rigid structure. The beginning courses cover many useful and helpful things for a reasonable price: study aids, self control, etc. However, the auditors who do the training earn commisions on each lesson a new recruit takes, so they work hard to bring people into Scientology for the more advanced courses (which cost increasingly more.) Another well documented issue is that as the courses progress, known "brainwashing" techniques are implemented to break down the students' objectivity and rational thinking. By the time the very expensive "Xenu" and "thetan" materials are covered, the student has been thoroughly prepared to accept these teachings without questioning their reasonableness. This is why new members to Scientology do not perceive this to be a cult. It is a slow and expensive process. Anonymous comments left 11:22, 26 April 2006 by Zeke pbuh (talk • contribs)

Scientology's view on judaeism

It says in the article that they think christianity is evil and islam was force fed to people, but what does scientology think about judaeism? Anyone know? thanks.

A Problem with Unqualified Statements

Antaeus, its easy for you to put in unverified statements such as “a potentially unsafe concoction,” with no reference. My children thrived on the Barley formula and they are fit and healthy. One doctor saying that it doesn’t make any difference, is no reason to knock natural childbirth. I don’t think this is the right forum – you can argue about it on a childbirth page. What exactly are your qualifications on this subject? Nuview

There are numerous references, probably thousands, for you to find that indicate that feeding honey to infants is dangerous. Here is just one of thousands of such warnings from the Mayo Clinic. I think it is highly relevant when talking about LRH and his advice to how to care for newborns that he recommended a practice that most doctors would consider quite dangerous. Whether or not your children survived the unsafe concoction is pretty irrelevant, that is what is called anecdotal evidence. Lots of people survive eating E. Coli as well, but doctors still advise against eating it. Vivaldi (talk) 07:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Nuview, it does not give us much cause for confidence in your research skills that you a) couldn't do the extremely trivial research necessary to confirm for yourself that the Barley formula is unsafe and b) couldn't correctly identify who added that to the article before you started making accusations and demanding to know the "qualifications" of the person who added it (which would be a reasonable thing if we were depending on that person's qualification for the data they added, but not when you could have verified it yourself in three seconds with Google.) -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Antaeus Feldspar - I am questioning your change to my edit and then your “research” being used as the reason to add in more material that omits the full picture. I can only assume you are continuing to paint a black picture on purpose. In the Wiki article you reference, it says “For this reason, it is advised that neither honey, nor any other sweetener, should be given to children until they are weaned.” And from the research I have done, this is no more dangerous than all the baby formulas on the market that are loaded with sweeteners, plus I really don’t get your point as the other reference you give then says that cases of infant botulism are rare. -- Nuview 18:41 16 May 2006 (PST)
Nuview, I used to have respect for you. I am sorry to say that you have squandered that respect, wasting it by playing these games -- complaining about me inserting statements I didn't insert which are "unverified" and then when the statements have been verified, offering up your own original research as a justification for removing that verification and inserting your own unverified statements. You should be ashamed of yourself, frankly. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

L. Ron Hubbard's Different Works and The Introduction

This site is not only for this United State but also all English speaking countries such as England. Therefore presenting L. Ron Hubbard only as a science siction writer - when speaking about the founding of Scientology- is inappropriate since he was only popular as a Science Fiction writer in the United State and he is now popular otherwise in the world. Furthermore he was qualified and/or have practiced professionally in more than 20 professions. I have added a reference to the title to rectify this following reference to the title cf [13] so as to give a chance to present the other face of his character and recify this entry beginning. -- Jpierreg 12:50, 29 April 2006 (GMT)


I think such specific information about LRH belongs in L. Ron Hubbard, not in Scientology, much less in the introduction. The article is cluttered up as it is. Unmitigated Success 13:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
An introduction that would only refer to fiction works, with regards to the Scientology founder, is unfair not only to the author but to anyone who has sat down and began to read one of L. Ron Hubbard's non-fiction work and read this article. If it has to remain unfair, in this article for some reason I do not know, it needs not pretend to be the absolute reality but should lead to a fairer definition. I have modified the introduction to reflect so -- Jpierreg 19:20, 29 April 2006 (GMT)


Here below are links to L. Ron Hubbard's different works:

L. Ron Hubbard: The Writer [14]

L. Ron Hubbard: The Philosopher [15]

L. Ron Hubbard: The Humanitarian [16]

L. Ron Hubbard: The Artist [17]

L. Ron Hubbard: The Poet/Lyricist [18]

L. Ron Hubbard: Adventurer/Explorer [19]

See also L. Ron Hubbard: The Profile [20] And L. Ron Hubbard site: [21]

Jpierreg 18:50, 16 May 2006 (GMT)

Nuview's deletion from "Scientology and other religions"

This section is a combination of speculation and lies (the issue referred to here from Fishman was documented to be completely fabricated). This is just critics trying to put a wedge between Scientology and Christianity. Not even worth trying to edit this, I see no reason to leave it in.Nuview 02:37, 28 April 2006 (PST)

Nuview is evidently referring to the deletion he made here: [22]. Unfortunately, his reasons for doing so are incorrect: While there are some doubts about the accuracy of the version of OT VIII found in the Fishman Affidavit (a point which the article already rightly notes) it is not the case that it has been "documented to be completely fabricated", nor has any argument at all been offered that the other sources are invalid. The deletion is being reversed. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I have added an explanation of what is a clear to help explain how the story on Xenu can come about. Otherwise it looks just as another invention from the one who finance/sponsor most critics on the Web against Scientology.

I have added the below:

"Clear" would be the name of a specific state achieved through auditing, or a person who has achieved this state. A Clear would be a person who would no longer have his own reactive mind, and would therefore suffer none of the ill effects the reactive mind can cause. The Clear would have no engrams which, when re-stimulated, throw out the correctness of his computations by entering hidden and false data." Anonymous comments left 10:13 GMT, April 28, 2006 by User:57.250.229.136)

We shouldn't be explaining Clear in the OT section. That should have been explained long before in the Scientology#Auditing section, and it is, but not as concisely as your text. The Auditing section has seen a lot of back-and-forth and could stand being boiled down (again) and the technical parts transported to Auditing (Scientology). AndroidCat 14:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
As for the interesting claim that most critics are financed by someone, I did not get that memo! Who does one apply to? Is it the Marcabs, the 4th Invader Force, the Eevil Psychs, Xenu's Disloyal Officers, the 12 Bankers or SMERSH? (If Clambake is financed by outsiders, then obviously it's not a personal web site, is it?) AndroidCat 14:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Countries "embracing" scientology

I have a problem with this paragraph : However, a notable number of countries around the world have apparently embraced Scientology, including Italy, Spain and Thailand. Also, the number of legal battles in which the Church has engaged seems to have peaked in the early-to-mid-1990s, and has been declining since then. Since that time, many Scientologists have adopted a more relaxed view toward minor criticism. The overall attitude in the Scientology community has partially shifted to spreading Scientology through direct application to communities, rather than combating those who attempt to stop or belittle it.
First of all, what exactly is meant by the word embrace ? Did they hold "Hooray for Scientology" parades ? It would be more appropriate to explain CoS's status in those countries (couldn't find much of anything, if anybody has some ideas where to look) than to use the weasel word apparently.
Second, because I find this first sentence seems POV, I'm suspicious of the second part as well. What is the basis for saying that the number of legal battles, or that scientologists have become more relaxed (POV by the way) ?
Finally, regarding those who attempt to stop or belittle it, shouldn't it just say critics ? (forgot to sign) Unmitigated Success 08:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I came to this page with the exactly same problem - particularly "embraced". Please explain, or remove. Camillus (talk) 23:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree, 'embraced' means nothing. Also, nothing in the paragraph is sourced and some of it seems quite un-verifiable. How would you verify 'the overall attitude...', for example? The original editor should make the para more specific or have the para removed. Ashmoo 23:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I doubt any country has embraced Scientology in the sense that one embraces principles or a mistress. Tolerated, allowed or accepted might be closer. CoS only recently outlasted the criminal cases in Spain. AndroidCat 14:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

"Considered a religion"

Problems with this statement: "Scientology is considered a religion in the United States, Thailand, Taiwan, Spain, and Australia, and thus enjoys and regularly cites the constitutional protections afforded in two of these nations to religious practice." First of all, for the umpteenth time, Scientology is NOT "considered a religion" in the United States -- it uses its tax exemption to declare itself a religion. The US government does NOT grant "official" status to any religion. Furthermore, if Scientology regularly cites constitutional protections in "two of these nations," which two are they? --Modemac 08:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Multi-talented?

Problems with this:

LRH "was also qualified and/or have [sic] practiced in more than twenty other professions such
as Philosopher, Engineer, Explorer, Navigator, Captain (US Army)."

How was LRH a "qualified" or "practiced" or "professional", Philosopher? Explorer? etc. Camillus (talk) 13:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


I don't think we should even bother with that sentence and just revert it to what it was before. Not only is it not really relevant to this page (rather to L. Ron's page) but it would be a pain to find the references. Unmitigated Success 13:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
References that Hubbard was qualified as an engineer or Captain (US Army) would be difficult... AndroidCat 13:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Since "talented" is a subjective term, it's POV and/or Original Research anyway. I can sort-of play violin, but that doesn't mean I'm talented at it, nor does it mean I'm "qualified" to call myself a professional violinist... wikipediatrix 14:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Cleaning up the introduction

We really need to repair the introduction; it's gotten into rather a bad way. I'd like to propose that we use a method that I've had a lot of success with, the one-sentence-per-paragraph method, and rebuild a better introduction from there.

The idea of the one-sentence-per-paragraph method is that for each paragraph you want to write, you write a single sentence that represents the core idea. Details and examples can be left for later (or, in our cases, sometimes moved to the appropriate article, when it's too much detail for this article.) The sentence need not appear literally in the final product but it represents what the paragraph is about. Here's my suggestion for a sentence-per-paragraph representation of an introduction for this article:

  • Scientology can refer to either a system of beliefs and practices or to the Church of Scientology which is the largest promoter of these beliefs and practices. Details: who founded Scientology and when; some people describe it as a religion but that isn't agreed upon; some practice the beliefs outside the official Church of Scientology.
  • Both the belief system and the organization have been subject to a great deal of criticism and controversy. Details: summaries of the major criticisms for both the belief system and the organization.
  • Adherents to the belief system and adherents of the organization both claim many great things for them. Details: summaries of the major positive claims for both the belief system and the organization.
  • Estimates on how many people follow the belief system or belong to the Church vary widely. Details: samples of the various figures with their sources.

Some may question the ordering of the second and third paragraphs. I believe that this is the correct order; if someone were to stop reading after the second paragraph, they would at least know that there are two sides to the story: there are those who follow Scientology who obviously think it's worth following, and there are those who think instead that it's dangerous. That's better than if the order of the two paragraphs were reversed, and the same reader stopped reading after the second paragraph and came away with the false impression that neither the belief system nor the organization has ever had any controversy about it. --Antaeus Feldspar 16:56, 27 April 2006

I'm not even sure how the intro gradually crept into this awful state. As much I disliked the old version, this one is even worse. I agree the controversy needs to be visible "above the fold", as they say in the newspaper biz. wikipediatrix 17:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I've being doing some work to neaten the intro and reduce its size. I think part of the problem is that any deletion from the article can be construed as a Scientologist trying to whitewash unpleasant facts. Which often results in quick, ill-considered reversion. Ashmoo 23:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I removed the following section from the intro:
The term Scientology is a trademark of the Religious Technology Center, which licenses its use and use of the copyrighted works of Hubbard to the Church of Scientology.
I reason that the exact internal workings of CoS aren't important enough for the intro. Also, will knowing that the RTC has trademark over the term 'Scientology' mean anything to a reader who knows little about the church? Ashmoo 00:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipediatrix, I noticed that you reversed the order of paragraphs two and three. I gave my reasoning above why I thought the order they were in already was the better order of the two; would you mind sharing why you thought they should be reversed? -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

My main concern was that acknowledgement of criticism appear "above the fold", in other words, without the user having to scroll down. After I removed all the etymological rigamarole and moved it down to the "Origins" subsection, it gave us more room to get both the Church's position and the critical view above the fold. That being the case, I felt charitable and put the Church's view of itself first, before the inevitable "However, critics state...". If, in the future, the intro paragraph becomes long and blowhardy again, though, the critical info would have to rise closer to the top again to insure it isn't filibustered off the screen. wikipediatrix 16:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

potential sockpuppetry

User:Jpierreg has gone back and forth between editing this article under that username, and that of User:Scientologist OTIII. Please pick an identity and stick with it. wikipediatrix 17:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Anyone doing what you claim is not violating anything at all unless they have already been banned from Wikipedia. Wikipediatrix, please be nice and remember WP:CIV and read my comments on your talk page about your personal attacks. --Nikitchenko 02:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

False; while sockpuppets are not inherently abusive or automatically forbidden, it is certainly not the case that they are "not violating anything at all unless they have already been banned from Wikipedia." If someone is using two separate identities to create the appearance of wider support for their own point of view that itself is an abuse of the trust of others. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Niki writes, Anyone doing what you claim is not violating anything at all unless they have already been banned from Wikipedia. However, the official policy of Wikipedia, which you can read at Sock puppetry says, "In addition to double-voting, sock puppets should not be used for purposes of deception, or to create the illusion of broader support for a position." Advising people that they need to follow the policy prohibiting sock puppetry is not a violation of WP:CIV or WP:NPA. Vivaldi (talk) 05:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
My name is not Niki. --Nikitchenko 16:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Okay. Vivaldi (talk) 18:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
You can use sock puppets all you want to as long as he does not do what you are saying. --Nikitchenko 16:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
The official policy of Wikipedia, which you can read at Sock puppetry says, "In addition to double-voting, sock puppets should not be used for purposes of deception, or to create the illusion of broader support for a position."
Exactly, but Wikipediatrix didn't quite made that accusation, but you are implying it and in doing that you are "walking on the edge" as uncivility is. --Nikitchenko 18:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not implying it. I'm stating it. Using multiple identities to create the illusion of broader support is wrong. Jpierreg has used multiple identities for no valid reason, it does give the appearance of broader support for his position, and it is wrong. Jpierreg should stick to using a single account for making his edits and he shouldn't violate the policies of Wikipedia against sockpuppetry. It is a simple request, that should have been answered with a simple, "Okay, I won't use sockpuppets anymore". Why do you have to make such a simple request out to be a big deal? Vivaldi (talk) 21:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The above from User: wikipediatrix is an untrue statement. This can be verified: see the 28 April 2006. User:Jpierreg 12:15 GMT, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipediatrix is being uncivil, again. --Nikitchenko 17:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
It sure doesn't look that way to me... AndroidCat 17:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your opinion Android Cat. I'll be back later. --Nikitchenko 18:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
It is not uncivil to point out when people are violating Wikipedia policies. Vivaldi (talk) 18:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
It is uncivil to point out that people are violating WIkipedia policies when they actually are not factually proven to be doing that. Read up at WP:CIV. Users may be blocked after repeated uncivility. --Nikitchenko 18:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Nikitchenko. You are now being deliberately obtuse. We can run around in circles like this all day. e.g. "How do you know that it wasn't factually proven?" Must Nikitchenko be made aware of all the proof that is available? Is n't Nikitchenko being uncivil by saying calling for bans for my uncivil behavior...etc.... It's all nonsense, Nikitchenko. The sockpuppet was asked not to violate the policies, and he can either deny that he was the sockpuppet and ask for an apology....or he should apologize himself and refrain from violating the policy any further. We were all being civil, and we continue to be so. Vivaldi (talk) 21:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Disputed

This article extensively uses personal websites as references. See WP:RS. I will be removing anything that is referenced to personal websites. --Nikitchenko 01:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

You do not WP:OWN this article, so stop talking like you're the new sheriff in town. If you have a problem with the indisputable fact that WP:RS is not policy but merely a guideline, feel free to take it to arbitration or something. wikipediatrix 01:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Worth noting is the talk page of WP:RS where this exact issue raised large concerns with several editors. A public discussion took place there and the result has been that guideline being extensively re-written with exactly this issue in mind and particularly in mind the Clambake.org / Xenu.net site. Its a personal website and should not be quoted within an article, though it may be used as an external link, or further reading sort of site. Arbitration of an issue which has been extensively and publically discussed on the guideline's page would be dispersive, unusual and cross effort when the issues extant have been fully discussed in the past week. But WP:RS would be the first place to discuss the changes which you would wish to implement, Wikipediatrix. Terryeo 09:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I never said I OWNED this article. Personal websites cannot be used as sources on this article. See WP:RS. Guidelines improve article quality. What is your argument for ignoring guidelines? How does ignoring the guideline improve the article? Including unreliable statements in this article does not improve it. --Nikitchenko 01:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Personal websites cannot be used as sources on this article. WP:RS is a guideline, not a policy. So even if this website were the only source for the claims in the article, we, the editors, could still decide through the consensus process to make an exception to WP:RS if it helps us to make a better article. Guidelines, can have exceptions made to them (and that is policy which you can read at: Policies and Guidelines). There are many sources for the claims in this article, and sometimes people put in convenience links available on a personal site when there are other published sources for the claims. Before you try to remove substantial portions of text, you should develop a consensus for your changes on the talk page. Try asking people for a better citation if you think that one is improper. In any case, removing large chunks of material that is actively edited by over twenty people is not going to be received well. I would suspect that other editors that you might involve in mediation or arbitration would also feel that your edits were disruptive and anti-consensus, so if you would like to begin that process, please feel free. Vivaldi (talk) 05:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
From the discussion on the talk page of WP:RS, the consensus seemed to be favourable towards using material on xenu.net archived from other sources at the very least. I don't think an editor simply declaring xenu.net a personal site and removing all references would be well received there. But if Nikitchenko wants to pick up exactly where Terryeo left off, well... AndroidCat 05:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Again, thankyou for your opinions. Your comments are bording on uncivility. I'm not going to argue about it. --Nikitchenko 18:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
LOL. How is it "bording on uncivility"? Doesn't not argueing about it, mean you aren't going to discuss your deletions on the talk pages, a practice that Terryeo engaged in and has been admonished for? Good luck with that. Vivaldi (talk) 21:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
My experience with editors here tells me that being tolerant of uncivil talk is not fruitful. When I tolerated a great deal of uncivil accusation and uncivil, bordering on personal attack and even personal attack, what did I get for it? Well, when I replied likewise, then my responses were used in an Rfa which led to an Request for arbitration. Single statements which I had made in response to several editors, each of whom themselves had likewise made uncivil statements, in their totality, were enough that the arbitration committee views my combinded statements as disruptive. No, its not necessary to tolerate uncivil comment and doesn't lead to productive editing. But to address the point, which you, Vivaldi, have extensively addressed at the WP:RS talk page, I've provided the out points of the references and footnotes just following. There are, within the article, and additionally, several links to personal websites including Xenu.net which are likewise, per WP:RS, unallowable. Terryeo 09:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I say bordering on uncivility because Android Cat says "But if Nikitchenko wants to pick up exactly where Terryeo left off, well..." It isn't exactly uncivil, but it is bordering on uncivility because to me, the recipient, Android Cat is making some kind of accusation whether he thinks I'm a sock puppet of Terry or what, I don't know. --Nikitchenko 00:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I can't help it if you see personal attacks, uncivility and added meaning in every remark that disagrees with you. AndroidCat 01:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, reality is different than what Android Cat presents. Take a look at Terry's arbitration. So far there is 60% vs. 40% that xenu IS a personal website. --Nikitchenko 00:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Once again you seem to be putting words in my mouth. I refered to the discussion on the talk pages, which clearly doesn't back up your stated aim of automatically removing any reference from a "personal site". AndroidCat 01:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

"Clam-bake" isnt the only persons site im talking of. But, I'll be back later, in a day or so or up to a week, to work on this. Again, I don't have time to be on the internet, but I try to get here as soon as I can. Thanks again. --Nikitchenko 18:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I am waiting with bated breath. Vivaldi (talk) 21:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
LOL, for what? I've made myself pretty clear in discussion here. You and a couple others seem to disagree, but what are you waiting for ME for? By the way, I intend to include any disputes here in the current Scientology mediation cabal case. --Nikitchenko 00:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Footnotes and References

  • The first reference links to clambake in order to present Jon Atack's book. A personal website, such as Clambake, may be put into an exterior links section, but not used as a reference for information within the article. Therefore it can not be used as a reference for material within the article.
The reference is to Atack's original book that you can verify by going to the library, or by buying it online, or by looking at other online copies of it. The link to the material at Xenu.net is provided as a convenience or courtesy to the reader. Xenu.net is not being used as a source, and therefore is not subject to the guidelines of WP:RS. Vivaldi (talk) 10:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
You suggest it is courteous to direct the reader to a personal website which may or may not have the entire book, which book may or may not be spell checked, checked for accuracy, presented whole, presented without opinion inserted either before, within or after? May I point out that a personal website like Clambake does not present that any of its information is whole, that it does not present that any of its information is accurate, that it does not present that any information on the site was created by anyone but the author of the site? He states the every word on the site is his personal opinion? How can a reader, understanding that every word on his personal site is his, how can a reader consider it a courtesy to be directed to words which might or might not be the words Jon Atack wrote? Isn't that more a disservice than a service? Shouldn't Mr. Atack's book be linked to a more substantial site than Clambake? Terryeo 02:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Would you prefer if we used the version on Dr. David Touretzky's pages that are hosted on the Carnegie-Mellon University servers? Again, O.C. is not the source for the claims in the article. The actual source is Atack's book. You have an MU. Vivaldi (talk) 16:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The third reference, Kent, Stephen A.'s "Scientology's Relationship With Eastern Religious Traditions", links to [23] and is a personal website. The article itself says it is "ripped from.." another website, it can not be used as a reference, though it could be used as an exterior link as long as it does not purport to be an actual reference for information within the article.
Again, the link provided is a convenience link. The source for the claims is Stephen Kent and the Journal of Contemporary Religion, Vol. 11, No. 1, 1996, page 21. This is something you can easily verify at your local library or at home if you have access to electronic journals. Vivaldi (talk) 10:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Personal websites guarentee no fact checking, no certainty that the information presented on them is whole and complete. The website makes no such statement, it does not say anything like, "this work is the work of ... and reproduced here whole". It would serve wikipedia better and it would serve advocates better were better sites used for such articles. Terryeo 02:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
External links to personal sites are acceptable if they are not used as sources for the claims in the article. The actual source is verifiable and it is provided. Vivaldi (talk) 16:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The forth reference, Miller, Russel's Bare-faced Messiah is an article on WIkipedia. An article should not use another article as a reference. It should instead be presented as "see also" or "additional articles" if used because an article, is an article, because it presents information of itself, for itself.
The fourth reference is Miller's book, Bare-faced Messiah. The ISBN is provided for you to purchase it if you want. It is also available in many libraries. The existence of the the clickable link does not imply that the wikilinked article is the source, any more than linking to Aug 12 means that the book was sourced from that article. Vivaldi (talk) 10:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
The existence of the clickable link implies that Wikipedia guarentees the whole of Miller's book appears just exactly as he produced it, indexed as he produced it and intended it to appear before the public. That might actually be the situation. However, the personal website does not guarentee, or even make a statement about the completeness of Miller's book. It is a poor quality site to use for any attribution because it is a personal website. Terryeo 02:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia makes no guarentees about anything. External links to personal sites are acceptable if they are not used as sources for the claims in the article. If you find the courtesy link unhelpful to your studies then use the actual source of the claims, which is verifiable and it is provided. Vivaldi (talk) 16:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The fifth reference is Spaink, Karin and is sourced for the article Fishman Affidavit and used as a reference for this article. This is a similarly inappropriate.
It is appropriate, just like #4. The wikilink is not provided as a source or reference. It is just a wikilink. Vivaldi (talk)
Spaink, Karin has one reason for writing, she says. "I write, therefore I am". She runs a personal website. Her writing might include "the mooon is made of green cheese" or simply any personal opinion at all. To consider that the rather confusing (if you don't mind my saying so, it is a tuff one to read and follow through) Fishman Affidavit is produced exactly as orginally produced, placed on her site "because if she doesn't write, she doesn't exist" and is whole and intact, well, that's a real streach of the reader's imagination. A personal website should not be used as a secondary source of information, per WP:RS. Terryeo 02:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
The Fishman Affidavit is available elsewhere. We are using it as a source and not Spaink. Spaink only provides a courtesy link. The actual source is verifiable. Vivaldi (talk) 16:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The footnotes are placed within the article, often direct quotes are made to sites, which links appear in footnotes. Most of these I have listed are personal websites and according to WP:RS may not be used as secondary sources for information in wikipedia articles.
The information is sourced to the original authors and those are verifiable. You are objecting to convenience links, which are perfectably acceptable. We aren't using Xenu.net as a source for Atack's book. We use Atack's book as a source for the claims and we present an external link that most readers would find to be convenient. Vivaldi (talk) 10:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I am stating that a "convenience link" to any personal website is a less desireable link than a link of the same information to a reputable website. The information on a personal website is of less repute than the information on other sorts of websites. This is exactly what WP:RS spells out. "Widely published" is the information first used. If such information only appears on personal websites then it is not, "widely published" because it does not appear in newspapers which could be quoted, nor on websites which deal with such publications, nor has it be scanned and placed on the internet by a public library, etc. etc. Personal websites make poor presentations, the article would be far better presented if no personal website were used at all, except as specified by WP:RS, that is, an exterior link, or "additional links of interest" or similar. Terryeo 02:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I would agree that it is more desireable to have a direct link to the publishers own webpages if those are available. If you happen to find these documents posted on a "better" site than Xenu.net, then I would wholeheartedly approve of using the publishers site. Unfortunately, I think you will discover that these convenience links were provided because the publisher has either stopped publishing the information on the Internet or because the publisher never used the Internet to publish in the first place. In any case, Xenu.net isn't the source of the claims and the actual sources are provided and they are verifiable. Vivaldi (talk) 16:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • However, Footnote #2. is simply mis-stated. The document which appears in Footnotes as the second citation and states, "HCOB 18 APR 67" was never revised as the footnote says it was. It was reissued on 18 PR 67, though first written 21 June 1960. It was never actually revised. Today that document bears its original date of publication, 21 June 1960, same title, with a note that it had once be reissued on 18 Apr 67. The cite should read, "HCOB 21 June 1960, Religious Philosophy and Religious Practice".
Then do it. Unless you know there is controversy about the dates? Vivaldi (talk) 10:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I have spelled out explicitly and in quoted detail, how the reference would appear if correctly done. Thank you for your invitation.Terryeo 02:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Is there a controversy about the dates? Vivaldi (talk) 16:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Footnote #5 which links to [24] is a personal website. A personal website can not be used as a secondary source of information within Wikipedia articles and therefore can not appear as a footnote.WP:RS
The source is the patent itself. You can even go to www.uspto.gov and type in 3,290,589 into the patent search and get it yourself. The convenience link is necessary because uspto.gov requires that users install AlternaTIFF in order to view the images and that process is time consuming and difficult. Convenience links are allowed! Vivaldi (talk) 10:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Then that is the link to use because a personal website makes a very poor link, such personal websites should not be used at all as secondary sources of information within Wikipedia articles. Far, far better to use a .gov website, it provides Wikipedia to be of repute in the eyes of the reader. Terryeo 02:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I think it is more important that the reader be able to view the image quickly without installing difficult and cumbersome software. I'd be happy to include an additional link to the USPTO.gov webpage where the same information can be verified by anyone that manages to get AlternaTIFF installed on their machine. Vivaldi (talk) 16:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Footnote #15 links to Xenu.net which is a personal website and may not be used, per Wikipedia standards, as a secondary source of information within an article.WP:RS
That would be true if you assume that WP:RS is a policy. However, WP:RS is not a policy, it is merely a guideline and it exceptions can be made to guidelines by conscientious editors. Your numbering is off, so I'm not sure what link to Xenu.net you are talking about. If you want to discuss why I think the Jacobsen essay should be an exception I will discuss that seperately with you. Vivaldi (talk) 10:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Aha! now you are suggesting the same thing which Wikipedia suggested on the discussion page of WP:RS, you suggest that when an editor can personally reasearch a website and learn for himself that the article which is on it is whole and complete, that then the editor has the right to defy Wikipedia policy and use that personal website as a source of secondary information in Wikipedia articles. This exact point has been addressed and delt with at the WP:RS talk page, which of course, Vavaldi, you know, because you and Wikipedia have been active there. I'm only stating what has been widely agreed on, I'm not stating anything new and I'm pointing out that the arguement you present has been hammered out at WP:RS. Ok? Terryeo 02:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
You are misstating my viewpoint. I said that WP:RS is a guideline and exceptions can be made to guidelines. What is discussed on the guideline page by SlimVirgin or anybody else does not magically become a policy. These are mere guidelines and the occasional exception can be made by conscientious editors. And this last statement is POLICY. Which you can read about at Wikipedia:Policies and Guidelines.
  • Footnote #25 links to [25], a personal website.WP:RS
Again. Lermanet isn't the source. Its a convenience link to material found elsewhere. Vivaldi (talk) 10:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Personal websites may not be used as secondary sources of information in Wikipedia articles. At WP:RS the suggestion to your statement has been, "well, if it is widely published, then it should be available on some website which is not a personal website. It simply makes Wikipedia of less repute if Wikipedia uses personal websites as source of secondary information. The reasoning is, anyone can create and run an invidual site, there is no guarentee of who they are, or that the information the present is accurate. Terryeo 02:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
You have an MU. Please word clear "source". The source for the article is not Lermanet, the source is somebody else that is verifiable. You can easily check the information yourself. Vivaldi (talk) 16:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Footnote #28 a and b link to [26] which is a personal website and may not be used as a secondary source.WP:RS
Again. DST isn't the source. Its a convenience link to material found in Time magazine which you can verify. Vivaldi (talk) 10:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Same arguement. If TIME magazine's articles is to be used in a Wikipedia article, well and good. But according to WP:RS such a link should be to a website which is not a blog, a newsgroup, nor a personal website for reasons of reputability. Terryeo 02:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
The source is Time. The external link is provided as a convenience, not as a source. You can verify the source. Vivaldi (talk) 16:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Footnote #29 links to [27] which is a personal website and may not be used.WP:RS
Again. DST isn't the source. Its a convenience link to material found in the LA Times which you can verify. Vivaldi (talk) 10:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Again, it resides on a personal website which may, or might not present the material in a manner consistant with its original publication. Linking to personal websites for secondary information lessens Wikipedia's reputability. Widely published information should be widely available. Terryeo 02:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Then go to the library and read the LA Times article. It is verifiable information and its acceptable to provide convenience links. Vivaldi (talk) 16:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Footnote #30 links to [28] a personal website and may not be used as a secondary source within articles.WP:RS
Again. Clambake isn't the source. Its a convenience link to material found in the Coopers book which you can verify. Vivaldi (talk) 10:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Again, Clambake is a personal website, unavailable as a secondary source of information by WP:RS and really, by any clear understanding of WP:V because Wikipedia seeks to be a source of good quality information instead of a source for personal opinions. Terryeo 02:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
It isn't being used as a source. Vivaldi (talk) 16:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Footnote #31 links to [29], a personal website. That whole table is nothing but one man's opinion, a man who hopes to present Scientology in the worst possible manner. To say that his table of costs is average or typical is beyond anyone's good sense.WP:RS
I might agree with you here. I was skeptical of the insertion of this table to begin with, because it appears to be based on a number of assumptions. We can certainly point out other verifiable sources that have mentioned the cost is above $300,000, and I would prefer that we saved the space and did that. So Terryeo. So unless someone else convinces me otherwise, I think I agree with Terryeo that this appears to be self-published work from Andreas and I think it takes up way to much space already. Put a link to the table in the External Links section and free up some room. Vivaldi (talk) 10:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
whow, an agreement, whow ! lol. If you like, I've a link to a person who makes a personal answer (and opinion) about costs, but not as throughly as Clambake does. Terryeo 02:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Footnote #32 links to [30] which is a personal website. Its information and it can not be used as a secondary source of information within an article.WP:RS
Give me a few days to see if I can find a better source for these claims. Tory has been on national TV a few times now talking about the abuses of the criminal cult of Scientology and how she used to help OSA abuse people, so I don't think this will be too difficult to find. Vivaldi (talk) 10:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Coolness, okay. Terryeo 02:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Footnote #33 links to a blog [31] which is completely against wikipedic standards.WP:RS
I removed that entire source. It wasn't necessary as a source for that claim anyway. Vivaldi (talk) 11:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much.Terryeo 02:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Footnote #34 links to [32] which is a personal website of Mike Gormez. He at least gives an email address,(Mike Gormez at mgormez@chello.nl), but personal websites are unacceptable as secondary sources of information on Wikipedia.WP:RSTerryeo 04:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Again, the source is CSI, vs STEVEN FISH AND UWE GEERTZ, Case No. CV 91 6426 HLH (Tx). Gormez is only providing a convenience link to the document, which is appropriate. Vivaldi (talk) 11:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Better to source to a court document on a server which is not a personal website, more reputability for Wikipedia. But I can dig what you're saying, Vivaldi. Terryeo 02:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree it would be better to have a direct link to the publisher, and I would certainly recommend using such a link if you know where it is. Until you can provide the "better link", then we should keep this convenience link here. The information is verifiable and it is properly sourced. Vivaldi (talk) 16:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The reason I state as I do about the footnotes is because WP:RS states: Partisan ... anti-religious sources should be treated with caution. Widely acknowledged extremist ... anti-religious... websites ... should never be used as sources for Wikipedia, except ... in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group, but even then should be used with great caution. WP:RS#Partisan websites and that is immediately followed by a section which talks about the "Convenience Links" which Vivaldi mentions. WP:RS#Great for easy access, which says how to create a reliable "convenience link" which doesn't depend on a partisan anti-religious source (in this case a personal website). Terryeo 10:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

You are misreading that guideline. It is about offline sources that can be added to Wikisource. It is unclear whether these original text from the sources can be added to Wikisource because they may have incompatible licensing agreements. Luckily it isn't necessary for us to do this. Wikipedia allows us to use convenience links to verifiable material that isn't used as a source for information. Vivaldi (talk)
Also, this paragraph seems to make it seem like you would accept the link if Andreas personally typed the information himself into Wikisource? How does that improve the situation? Won't you just keep telling us that a biased person entered the text into Wikisource? Or will you start asserting that it doesn't belong on Wikisource for other reasons? Vivaldi (talk) 16:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)