Talk:Scientology/Archive 8

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 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 →

Contents

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

(Put this back in as this discussion is not over - I realize I was late in answering - hope this is the correct procedure -- Nuview)

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.

Nuview 22:10, 21 May 2006 (PST)

I think you may need to word-clear "hearsay", Nuview. "Hearsay" is a different thing from a first-hand account of one's own actions, and the latter is what RVY provided. -- Antaeus Feldspar 13:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Hearsay is one definition of the situation. Another would "primary source material". That quote has been mentioned by more than one person. More than one person has said, "Hubbard said .... penny a word ... rediculous...". Did Hubbard publish those words? No, problably not. So therefore our Wikipedia standards are perfectly good. The person who heard what Hubbard said needs to be cited and then their quote of Hubbard's words spelled out exactly. The problem arises because Hubbard himself (as far as I've been able to find) did not not published that. Instead, some individuals claim they heard Hubbard say that. No problem, our wikipedia standards allow us to include information from primary sources, witnesses who observed the event. We just need to have the individual's name, perhaps his where and when and what he heard Hubbard say. Terryeo 15:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, since we have a secondary source in the form of Reader's Digest (despite, of course, Nuview's entirely incorrect attempt to remove it) all your blather here about how we'd have to get primary sources is incorrect. Have a nice day. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is the most complete discussion I could find about that quote. Granted, it is a Scientologist's posting, but it spells out some common things about the various sources of that quotation, the legal battles which have centered around it, and so on. At experts.about.com/q/Scientology-1751/web-based-supression.htm experts.about.com the question is asked: "L. Ron Hubbard quote: "Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a man ......" and is responded to. There may be additional sources of that quote. If the quote is going to be used, of course it requires attribution, a person saying it, a date it was said, and the situation it was said in. WP:CITE spells out Wikipedia's requirements. Discussion of the quality of attributional source may take place at WP:RS. The foundational policy is WP:V. Terryeo 22:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Cluttering the introduction

Is it a good idea to clutter the introduction with requested references? If the items requested are general and expanded upon later in the page after the introduction and properly referenced, isn't that enough? This seems like micro-management. AndroidCat 01:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

It is, in fact, entirely unnecessary. All that information is covered by general references. One wonders why Nikitchenko (talk · contribs) thought that each sentence of that paragraph needed an individual, specific source, but didn't see any such need for the paragraph immediately following, which contained not a single source for its claims. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Indeed cluttering the introduction makes it a bit of a burden to read. Although Nikitchenko (talk · contribs) is also right since some references may be needed so as to reach an agreement or some common grounds and settle the matter. The intro should be kept accurate but straight to the point. We know how the introduction is important since in Psychology the first impression is everything- Jpierreg 04:40, 02 May 2006 (GMT)
My first impression was this: The church of scientology probably goes to a LOT of effort to keep this article free of negative statements about themselves. I thoguht those references were required to make sure that what was being said was true, and could not be disputed by people trying to spread misinformation. Anonymous, Jul 2006
It is essential to keep references. We are dealing with a highly controversial subject. And, as you note, in the past we've had a problem with some contributors trying to add bias to it or delete uncomfortable facts. However, the present introduction is indeed somewhat cluttered ... not by the references, but by the rather aimless sentence structure. It wanders. --FOo 08:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I wanted to make a new section but i'm not sure how, this kind of fits in here. The second paragraph in the introduction lists a whole bunch of "percieved problems" i don't think arthritus and depression etc are percieved problems... i think they are real problems. I don't think this was supposed to come across this way but it just does to me. It could probably do with some rewording.

Well, most people would agree that arthritis and depression are real problems, not just perceived problems. However, the list also includes homosexuality, which L. Ron Hubbard viewed as a problem, specifically as a problem which auditing cures. Of course, it is not generally agreed today that homosexuality is a "problem" that needs to be "cured", so "perceived" problems is included in the description to acknowledge that Hubbard perceived them to be problems without endorsing that view. We tried some other ways of phrasing the issue, but this is the one that seemed most generally accepted. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure if this is where I should write this but in the intro it says:

"Lawmakers, including national governing bodies of several countries, have characterized the Church as an unscrupulous commercial organization, citing harassment of critics and exploitation of its members." Since France has had them on a list of dangerous cults and other countries do as well this could possibly be changed to a stronger statement. Especially as the only mention of it being considered a cult in the intro seems to be in debated of academics, and that does not give the same strength of a non-dictatorial government classifying it as a cult. (I was not able to find the site I originally found stating the cult status, but there are numerous references to this in articles)

"Outflow false data"

I've moved the following recently added section here temporarily: Another critisim of Scientology is what L. Ron Hubbard called "outflow false data," which is Scientologies policies to lie or mislead. According to document by US F.B.I., there is Scientology training course specifically teaching to lie. www.planetkc.com/sloth/sci/TR-L.html www.solitarytrees.net/racism/lying.htm www.xs4all.nl/~kspaink/fishman/exhibb.html Fishman Hubbard on Lying My reasons are this: First of all, this seems to be simply to be a 'smear' addition, and secondly, I'm not sure what to make of the sources. I think the best thing to do is for discussion here before it's put anywhere in the article. Thoughts? --InShaneee 00:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Im sorry I didnt find more neutral way of putting, here are few more related links from one site to this. Google searches on text from these will show more sites with same references, community please review and decide if this stays and if so where it goes. www.xs4all.nl/~johanw/CoS/black-propaganda.txt, www.xs4all.nl/~johanw/CoS/tr-l.txt, www.xs4all.nl/~johanw/CoS/reporter-trs.txt Iamfree 00:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
At a quick look, it look like we've also got the following sources for Scientologists being trained to "outflow false data effectively" and that being another way of saying "lying":
  • www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/la90/la90-1c.html Los Angeles Times
  • www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/wakefield/us-12.html Understanding Scientology by former Scientologist Margery Wakefield
  • www.clambake.org/archive/books/bfm/courtcan.htm Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division
  • www.skeptictank.org/readdig.htm Reader's Digest
I think that should settle the question of sources. As for it being a "smear" addition... well, I have trouble figuring out how it can be dismissed as a "smear" regardless of whether it is supported by such sources. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Good show! The 'smear' comment was mainly an extention of the 'bad sources' argument, with a nod to the bad choice of words. Now that there's some reliable sources, I think all that's needed is maybe a little NPOV rewrite (just a smidgen) and a good place to put it. --InShaneee 01:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
In a bizarre twist, in the Ontario Snow White case, R. v. Church of Scientology of Toronto, CoS's defence argued that testimony from ex-members shouldn't be accepted: "Ruby said the prosecution witnesses could not be believed, because they had all taken special training in how to lie." Unfortunately, that's only someone on Usenet quoting the actual reference "Ruby outlines case for Scientologists", Globe & Mail, April 22, 1992, p. A13, which I haven't seen. AndroidCat 02:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
As a point of information, it might still be that people are trained in "outflowing false data". Maybe. Apparently you have some unpublished stuff that says it once existed as a training routine. How many were trained that way? If it was 1 % of the Scientologists at the time, you couldn't document it. Nor could you document 10 %. Those were never published to the public. With perhaps 8 million people worldwide, published in many languages with lots of daily activity, how can it seems resonable to you guys to dedicate large portions of the article to a small handful of distateful arguements? A single individual, a single brief period of time, some years ago? Here is The Columbia Encyclopedia's presentation. It simply tells what can be widely observed to be true. www.bartleby.com/65/sc/Scientol.html Clumbia Encyclopedia - Scientology It is factual. It doesn't get into argumentative possibilities, but states the bold facts in an understandable manner. We can go further, we have more space to write. But reading Columbia you at least feel you understand something about the subject. To have balance, one must have the meat of the subject. Terryeo 09:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
The number of simple basic errors in the Columbia Encyclopedia entry lead me to wonder how it passed review. (Regardless of how it reads like distilled CoS PR material.) For starters, what is this "government of England" of which they speak? AndroidCat 20:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I understand that you are making a general statement which disrespects that reference when you assert, "large number of basic errors" and are commenting that you feel it "reads like distilled PR material". Your opportunity to question the meanings of their statements about government, and to communicate with them and their "reviewers" is the same as mine. Generally, it is beyond the scope of a wikipedia editor to do orginal research into large, established organizations.Terryeo 23:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
How seriously should I take an entry with basic errors like the non-existent "government of England"? It doesn't require original research to see that it's an extremely sloppy mistake that should have been caught during review. There are others. AndroidCat 21:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't ask you take a published, cited source in a serious manner. I do ask that you follow WP:V. When a published source is cited, if it fulfills WP:V, then it stays. That source is a widely recognized source, it has published for many years, sold many books, it makes money for its investors, it is a successful operation. Your opinion notwithstanding, it fulfill WP:V. Terryeo 06:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

etymological overkill, pt.2

Once again, the intro is almost completely devoted to not one, not two, not three, but FOUR different explanations of how Hubbard defined the word in 1952, 1965, 1960, and 1969 (and in that order!). That's just nuts. It belongs with the rest of the etymological analysis in the "Origins" section. 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)

I agree, thanks for sorting that out. The intro is now beginning to be almost readable. Ashmoo 23:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Scientology is a philosophy which spells out actions or practices. The philosophy would be the first term, practices second and then by the time it gets to be the philosophy of a church, then beliefs come into the equation. Hubbard first uttered the word publically in Scientology: Milestone One, a 1952 lecture in Kansas. Terryeo 22:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Cost of services

I think the cost of services table is innappropriate here. I think we should just place a link to this information in the external links section at the bottom. It appears to be the original work of either Andreas or some other editor. Surely there are many verifiable sources that peg the cost of crossing the Bridge above $300,000. Let's find one and put that quote in the article and get rid of this huge table, which is not verifiable and excessively large. It also appears to contain numerous assumptions for which there is no source. Vivaldi (talk) 16:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I've always thought it seemed a bit unencyclopediac too, but didn't want to get into another fight to remove it. It would be good to find an external source that contains the list and mention it with a link, maybe adding 'prices range from $x,xxx for basic services up to $xxx,xxx for the final OT VII'. Ashmoo 23:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I think it makes sense to have a separate section for Scientology as a Business. I don't think that the "business" aspects, although often focused on in the press, should be such a large part of this page. Copied over the info, if everyone agrees it should be split off, please remove dupe info from this page. Seriosity 22:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
A hundred different people would give you a hundred different estimations, the variation is very wide and has so many factors involved that a reasonable estimation, even by someone who had done it all, would be difficult. Possibly the best source would be a man who's profession was selling services for a higher Organization, but he would probably give you an average high and a low, the low being, factually, zero dollars. Terryeo 22:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Smacks of POV

I just wanted to make a quick note to say, that this is one of the most hotly debated articles i've ever seen at Wiki and also that i didn't know what scientology actually was until 5 months ago. I didn't actually know any specifics till I read this article and the whole thing smacked of being very pro-scientology. I'm totally unbiased to it, i've only a few bits to go on from what i've heard. But its clearly predominantly written by scientologists and it seems to me that there whole thing needs a thorough going through and re-writting. The intro is still highly POV - comments like "scientology has been percieved as..." and so on all seem to come from a pro-scientology POV. Whilst the article is full of good facts and snippets of info i felt the whole thing is connected by opionative statements. This is far from NPOV.

Actually, I think it's one of the most NPOV articles on the wiki, but you may be misinterpriting our policy. This article consists of two things: firstly, the claims scientology make about themselves, all of which are labeled as their own claims (except where it is obviously a fact, such as tax exempt status and whatnot). Secondly is criticism of scientology, all of which is written with the support of outside references (and the inverse is also true; we don't make claims against them here that we can't back up). NPOV doesn't mean writing from an outside perspective; it means showing both sides of the issue without presenting either as 'correct', which is done here. --InShaneee 16:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
While you may think in that manner, others of us know the article is very very poor in a number of ways. One is citations. Scientology information which is published by the Church is widely available. Other information, not published by the church does not balance the information which the Church publishes. The repute of the informational sources is not in balance. Another thing is that the subject is not well presented, even in the first paragraph. Scientology is obviously a philosophy, not "beliefs", it spells out practices but is not itself "practices". Its nearest parallel would be Buddhism which too is an applied religious philosophy, or a study of those things of the spirit which man might find helpful. There is no denying that a small group of editors, some of whom have been expelled and declared by the Church, edit these articles. There is no denying some of the editors contribute to and communicate on alt.scientology.net, a newsgroup dedicated to harming Scientology. Were a dedicated group of Muslims creating Christian articles, intending to destroy Christianity, it would be a similar "Neutral Point of View", just for balance you understand? Not to present Christianity in any manner but "neutral" and "balanced. Its a similar situation in these articles. Even Wikipediatrix has offered to "get some additional editors" from alt.net.scientology when things were not going well for the editors here. The articles are far from Neutral. Terryeo 09:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The introduction

The introduction states that Scientology is:

  • "a system of beliefs"
  • "practices"
  • "and was created as a self-help philosophy"

But when Hubbard introduced the word in Kansas in the lecture Scientology: Milestone One he described his idea: "Scientology would be a study of knowledge." The dictionary defines "-ology" dictionary.reference.com/search?q=-ology as "A branch of learning" and gives examples: "2. Science; theory; study: dermatology; sexology" and -ology is also used in "biology" and other sciences. Hubbard intended his idea to communicate that a subject was under scrutiny, and he described it as a philosophy more than once. The last word of the present introduction is "philosphy" and that is right, that is what Hubbard intended to communicate. Scientology is a philosophy, that is, it is a body of knowledge which is based on an idea, it codifies knowledge in a manner not hithertofore done. As such it is a philosophy. It has never been presented to the public as a system of beliefs. The Church of Scientology, it might present beliefs. But the subject of Scientology presents codified knowledge, or what is considered within its bounds to be codified knowledge. It is a philosophy in the manner that "science" and Buddhism" are philosophies.Terryeo 16:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Trementina base land swap prior to tax exemption

I've added information about a land swap that took place between Church of Spiritual Technology and federal government just a little over a year before the tax exemption, with an appropriate link to Trementina Base where there are more details of the apparent quid pro quo with cites. Huntley Troth 20:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

That's a good piece of information, if it is true Huntley, but your suggestion that Wikipedia editors do Original Research and trek out there, and your suggestion about how to do that and be legal and stay out of trouble and be safe, that isn't a good piece of information. That sort of information could not be put into Wikipedia, anyway. The only way to get the results of that into Wikipedia would be to have it published, say in the New York Times, and then have that article included in Wikipedia. Your suggesting it as something Wikipedia editors should do clearly says that you haven't read WP:V or at least you have not understood WP:V. Terryeo 22:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The Difference between NPOV and Defamation

I have removed a paragraph. The reference given is a sensational, discrediting piece of media. It isn’t okay to scatter Wikipedia articles with defamatory, unverified statements trying to make it look like this is what the majority of the public think. Simply not true. While critics would prefer to have you think this (and this paragraph is a classic example) its simply not true, the critics are in the minority – if you want some statistics to back up this statement, let me know. I am removing this section. .Nuview 16:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Didn't CoS already try and fail to prove defamation in the referenced stories from Time and the Washington Post? AndroidCat 21:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Looks like it. No matter how you try to spin it, Time and the Washington Post are simply considered good sources. --InShaneee 21:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Nuview, can you clarify what you mean by "unverified statements"? As AndroidCat and InShaneee have already pointed out, the statements in question cite stories in Time and in the Washington Post. That is their verification. What you seem to be arguing -- correct me if I'm wrong in this -- is that even though these statements are backed by fully acceptable secondary sources, that you believe the secondary sources themselves to be incorrect and are arguing that they are therefore unusable. Is this your position on the matter? -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Its so obvious to even the most casual reader that Wikipedia editors are working toward presenting Scientology in the worst possible manner. 80 % of every article is accusatory in tone and littered with vauge, past references to the Guardian Office (disbanned), to long dead policies (created by someone long since expelled), to various other odd, rare, unusual events of the past which 99.99 percent of the people whose lives have been bettered by Scientology have never heard of. Every bit of dirt that can be dug up, however long dead, is included while any good news is uniformly supressed. It is so obvious to even the most casual reader. Even the wikipedia standard, "broadly published gets the most space in an article" is ignored in favor of long dead issues. Terryeo 04:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Certainly, I am questioning the validity of using inflammatory media/magazine stories as reliable secondary sources. What gets quoted or used from them then becomes “fact” in the eyes of the reader. This is not NPOV, it is pushing a definite POV and that’s where it goes off the rails. It is a POV that has an agenda to discredit. There are some parts of the article that are okay but there are sections that don’t even attempt any neutrality, which I maintain should be the standard, not what is being defined as NPOV. This is my position on it. Nuview 21:52, 21 May 2006 (PST)
So your position is that stories from major newsmagazines should be disallowed as secondary sources, because (in your judgement) they are "inflammatory" and "pushing a definite POV"? Please, I'm trying to understand your position, and maybe I'd understand it better if you answered a question: Who, besides yourself, are you proposing should have the authority to declare major national newsmagazines and other verifiable sources too "inflammatory" to use? -- Antaeus Feldspar 13:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
A citation was asked for and not provided. “An Australian Report” and “respected professionals” are not a reliable sources. I see this hypnosis point is already under discussion. Streamlight 11:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I'd hardly consider Time magazine obscure in any sense of the word. --InShaneee 14:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Right, the Time article is an interesting exception, it is a publication of good repute and it published an article which makes a counter-statement. To a lesser extent, various newspapers have likewise presented controversial actions and elements. Those are real enough, no arguement. But the "Guardian's Orders" (Guardian's Office long since disbanned) and the Policy letters from the formative years of the Church are often presented as if they were the present policy of the Church. Fair_Game_(Scientology) has no less than 5 examples of long ago discarded, no longer in force policies which are presented as if they are some part of present Church policy. Perhaps 80 % of that article is composed of long dead policy and actions resulting from long dead policy. "Guardian Office Orders" are cited and quoted throughout the Scientology articles. That office was disbanned some years ago precisely because its actions brought troubles to the Church. There are other examples too. It is completely appropriate, as you've pointed out, InShaneee, to quote and cite published information. Possibly the difficulty editors are confronting has to do with "what is most broadly published, what is narrowly published". Terryeo 03:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

We have this problem on software-related articles (e.g. Internet Explorer, Mozilla Firefox) too. Advocates of a piece of software want to present only facts about the latest version, and to delete information about bugs that have been fixed in the past ... even if those bugs are of substantial historical importance and caused notorious damage. Neutral editors, on the other hand, want to preserve historical facts.

Wikipedia articles are not only about the shiny current face of a project -- be that project a Web browser or a religious organization. It is also about history, even the parts of that history that adherents would prefer not to talk about. For instance, an article on a software product such as Internet Explorer or Sendmail, which has had a history of harmful and expensive security problems, would be remiss if it failed to describe that history.

To sum up: Stating that committing various crimes against critics and ex-members is (apparently) no longer the policy of the Church of Scientology is well enough. However, in order to be historically truthful, we have to state clearly that it was the policy. On Wikipedia, the word "history" does not mean "long dead" things that should not be discussed. It means telling the truth about the past. --FOo 04:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law, a parallel would be having an article on Germany without mentioning that awkward business before 1945. The removal of that detail would make the article extremely unbalanced. The denial of historical fact is a considerably more POV action than acknowledging it (see David Irving for a case in point). -- ChrisO 07:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
That analogy is needlessly inflammatory, as you must have known or you wouldn't have cited Godwin's Law. It's a fact that Church of Scientology policy encouraged its staff to commit crimes, but analogy to Nazism is hardly justifiable here. Please retract it. --FOo 09:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I suggest you reread what I wrote. I'm not remotely suggesting an analogy between Scientology and Nazism. What I am suggesting is that attempts to airbrush the Guardian's Office scandal from Scientology's history is an example of historical revisionism which, as an historian, is something I've seen many times before on many other topics - the Holocaust, the Armenian genocide, the Srebrenica massacre and so on. It's a common pattern of behaviour used by supporters of many different ideologies. Engaging in it doesn't mean that you're a Nazi or a Turk or a Serb or whatever, but it does mean that you're illegitimately distorting history for political (or in this case religious) ends.
You might find it useful to take a look at Historical revisionism (negationism) and especially the section under Techniques used by politically motivated revisionists - I'm sure you'll recognise many of the approaches used by apologists for the Guardian's Office (and indeed the present Church management). David Irving got into trouble precisely because he cherry-picked, misinterpreted and suppressed inconvenient facts to support his political views; we shouldn't make the same mistake. -- ChrisO 19:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps this article could have a section titled "history of controversy" or something like that. Or "growing pains" or something. There were difficulties. Any fast growing organization seems to manifest some sort of difficulty. Then, when an orgaization gets really large, other sorts of difficulties manifest, (Catholic Priests) as an example or the well known Enron scandle. Terryeo 00:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

There has been a lot of discussion, however, this is not the point. Neither is my challenging Time magazine’s authenticity or its reporter’s motives. Nor are statements such as this a case of “historic value” as one editor tries to say. This has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Read this from the viewpoint of someone who knows nothing about the subject – no second guessing as to what impression they are going to be left with. I am not interested in the finer points of editing, I am interested in what unverified falsehoods people are being led to believe. For an editing point, read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPOV_tutorial, the sections on Accusations and Insinuations. Nuview 18:45, 27 June 2006 (PST)

Well, it's strange that you say the point isn't your challenging Time magazine’s authenticity or its reporter’s motives, since that's what you've spent so much time on. Be that as it may, when you say you are "interested in what unverified falsehoods people are being led to believe" and you've already made it clear you're talking about well-sourced information which you happen to choose not to believe, there's really not much to discuss. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
For instance, in your latest escapade,http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientology&diff=prev&oldid=60944186 you removed information from Time, from CNET, from the Washington Post, from a professor at the University of Calgary, and from the Marburg Journal of Religion. What, exactly, do you think is your excuse for removing that information? Are you seriously trying to assert that you believe yourself entitled to say "I know better than all those sources, so they won't get a chance to speak"? After you've already done this eight or nine times and after it's been explained to you time after time why you are not allowed to appoint yourself the arbiter of truth and removed sourced information because you don't like it? This may be your last warning, Nuview. Stop damaging articles. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Time archive of Scientology stories

Time now has an online archive, and their collection of stories on Scientology is one of the ones that they are allowing free access to. [1] Obviously links directly to Time would be preferable for online courtesy copies of references to Time stories. AndroidCat 14:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

After trying it a bit more, their main site seems to be unreliable as to if it shows the full story or just the first paragraph, possibly for bandwidth. Their proxy site [2] seems to be consistent. At least one story that was in the International but not the American edition of Time seems to be missing from the collection. I wouldn't suggest doing a bulk change of all links just yet. AndroidCat 15:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Viewing the TIME site, for now they seem to present the first paragraph and selected other informations, things to lead people into buying subscription. Then, if a person buys a subscription they have full access to whole articles. Terryeo 03:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

A couple questions:

I've been searching for awhile, but there are still several questions I have relating to this religion. If anyone could answer these, I'd really appreciate it:

When and where did the religion begin? I can't find any specifics on it...

Does scientology have any kind of 'holy book'? If so, where could I find a brief explanation ofit?

Anywhere I could find a list of the important or major beliefs of this religion? Things like, their theory of evolution, and what-not.

The word "Scientology" was first introduced to the public by L. Ron Hubbard in an audio lecture in Kansas, in 1952. He spent most of the lecture explaining the idea and why Dianetics, which he had been exploring and disseminating up to that time, why Dianetics was not workable in this new area. His first words on the subect were, "Scientology would be a study of knowledge", the Scien- means know, the same root word as science and the -ology means "study of". The lecture's title was Scientology: Milestone One. The following links might be helpful, Scientology as presented on Wikipedia is not 100% factual and you can't depend on it to be. Too many editors work too hard hard to present controversy. whatisscientology.org what is Scientology and www.scientology.org Scientology's main site. Terryeo 02:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Hubbard ought to word-clear "would". Inanimate objects, ideas, and concepts cannot "would" anything without another condition in the sentence. The way Hubbard's using it, it implies that Scientology itself has goals and aspirations, which it cannot. --Davidstrauss 15:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
In 1952 Hubbard had broken with the Hubbard Dianetic Foundation in Wichita, and the legal control of the Dianetics material, including royalties, were up in the air. That might explain why he felt that Dianetics wasn't workable at that time. AndroidCat 03:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Nope, that isn't what he says at all in the lecture. That difficulty was because a man he had depended on for monatary support had betrayed him. The reason be begin Scientology was entirely different and the timing is a coincidence and not a motivation. Dianetics found that people were remembering things previous to the current lifetime. And the more Dianetics were run, the more poeple remembered. And if you ran those past memories in exactly the manner Dianetics had been running memories, the guy suddenly felt great and did better. Memory beyond the current lifetime was the motivation for Scientology. Terryeo 04:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Of course he didn't claim that in the lecture. It's an ulterior motive. --Davidstrauss 15:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
You're making a whole lot of claims, yet providing evidence to support none of them. --InShaneee 04:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
My statements include a source, Scientology: Milestone One. I have summerized certain portions of that lecture in my statement. To my knowledge, that lecture is not available online. Perhaps it would not be beyond Wikipedia's guidelines if I quoted various bits from that lecture here on this page, would that be all right? Terryeo 04:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.

Of course you're welcome to quote it here, but we're welcome to ignore it as anything but a primary source. --Davidstrauss 15:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
There's a great article on Scientology at Wikipedia. It will answer your questions. PrometheusX303 01:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
The "great article" mispresents certain elements of Scientology. You can't count on Wikipedia being 100% factual, 100% of the time. As one example, the first 2 sentences of Scientology, last I looked, presented that Scientology has "beliefs" whereas, in fact, Scientology is a body of knowledge, a philosophy. The Church of Scientology might, argueably, present certain beliefs, but the subject it self is knowledge and doesn't present beliefs. Terryeo 02:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
As you can see by this small excerpt, Terryeo's reasons for complaining about the accuracy of the Scientology articles are generally nonsense. He claims here that Scientology does not have "beliefs", a claim contradicted by www.scientology.org , which describes the core beliefs of Scientology and acknowledges that they are beliefs by inviting the reader to "Learn more about the beliefs of Scientology". Even if his own church was not contradicting him about his own religion on this point, it would still be an invalid point; what he is claiming is that since he has chosen to believe that all the beliefs of Scientology are true, they are no longer "beliefs", but "knowledge". This is as ludicrous as it would be if, in a court case, an overzealous prosecutor continuously referred to the charges against the defendant as "the verdict". It is not for the prosecutor to decide that the verdict is exactly the same thing as his charges, and it is not for Terryeo to decide that "knowledge" is the exact same thing as the religious beliefs of Scientology. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, Feldspar, an excellent choice of link which illustrates exactly what I have stated. "Scientology" is a body of knowledge, a philosophy while the Church of Scientology www.scientology.org your link presents certain aspects which might be called beliefs. However, those ideas which that link mentions, might be called "beliefs" are presented by the Church. Whereas the body of information, the philosophy which is Scientology is a body of knowledge. Terryeo 07:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Translation: "Despite my argument being completely torpedoed by your evidence, evidence coming from the very source that I have often insisted to you is the source you should be turning to for all your information on the subject, I will repeat my argument in the hopes no one will notice that I am just wasting their time. Happy ho-hos, Terryeo." -- Antaeus Feldspar 13:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Written on the page, present in books is a body of knowledge. That is Scientology. It states information. People might interpret that information and believe it, or not believe it, thence the Church of Scientology professes beliefs.Terryeo 03:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Hey, Terryeo? Just out of curiosity, when OSA hatted you for Operation Dev-T-Wikipedia, did they provide you with a talking points memorandum of false claims to keep insisting on no matter what, or did you generate your own? -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
You have couched a question within an assumption. Your assumption has to do with an organization with the Church, the OSA. You have assumed a relationship between that organization and myself and have asked me a question based on your assumption. I have responded to direct questions in that area a number of times, Feldspar. You could have asked me in a civil manner. I have responded to civil questions of that nature several times, to several editors. I am not a member of the Office of Special Affairs, I have never communicated in any way with them as an organization, nor, to my knowledge, with any member of that organization. Nor do I edit with their knowledge. Likewise with every organization of Scientology. I am an individual who edits as any individual does and am not a member of any organization, nor do I operate with the knowledge nor the permission of any organization. I am a member of the Church of Scientology in the sense that I belong to the International Association of Scientologists, I am a "public" in the Church's view and have taken a few public courses and actions. Please be more civil in the future, Feldspar. You have made an accusation rather than asking a direct question. Terryeo 04:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
In fact Scientology IS knowledge but for a non-Scientology publics this knowledge is presented by the church as beliefs (see Scientology.org). This knowledge then becomes truth to a Scientology public only when he has experience it himself or when this Scientology public has accepted it as truth for him. However if a Scientologist accepts all what LRH says as truth he would greatly lack in -integrity- since they are data that must be experienced to be real to someone. It is hard to believe in Dianetics or Scientology when one has never audited, been audited and/or seen someone audit someone else. Jpierreg 17:40, 16 May 2006 (GMT)
I would invite you to prove your point. The Church professes certain "beliefs". And, to support them quote certain portions of texts. However, it is entirely appropriate for a Church to present its beliefs. Those texts are part of the body of knowledge (or if you prefer to know otherwise, the body of non-knowledge) which comprises Scientology. It stands on its own, with or without the Church presenting it. This article's title purports to be about that philosphy. You are never encouraged by the Church of Scientology to believe anything, indeed, you are encouraged to be skeptical. Yes, the Church presents its beliefs, and yes, members who have studied for a while will generally tell you those are true, valid, actual. But that doesn't mean you will accept those informations as being valid. Terryeo 09:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, as has just been explained, Scientology beliefs are beliefs. They do not become "knowledge" when someone decides to believe them very intensely, or fully. It might be argued that according to Scientology beliefs, someone who chooses to believe something very intently indeed makes it so, but it would, of course, be circular logic to conclude therefore that Scientology beliefs are knowledge because a believer in Scientology has chosen to believe so. These articles are to be written about Scientology beliefs, not according to Scientology beliefs. This is something about which some editors have expressed great confusion.
As for it being hard to believe in Dianetics or Scientology when one has never participated in or observed the act of auditing first-hand, yes, that's true. It is also very hard to believe that a stage magician has pulled a rabbit out of an empty hat, if one is not watching the magician's stage show. However, this in no way logically implies that the person who does watch the stage show and does think the magician pulled a rabbit out of a hat is correct in so thinking. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Scientology presents information. It doesn't say, "hey, this is a belief" and "this is knowledge", it just presents information. It encourages skepticsm, it actively encourages skepticsm. It says, as an example, "people are aware that they are aware", this aspect of individuality we will call "thetan". But its not presented as a belief. It defines certain ideas and builds with them. Terryeo 07:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
It may not be presented as a belief, but that's exactly what it is. Scientology does not just "define" certain ideas and "build" with them, it actively asserts them to be true. "Thetan" is not just defined as "that which is aware of being aware", it is asserted to have specific abilities. These are beliefs. Everything you and Jpierreg have said to the contrary are simply word-games. -- Antaeus Feldspar 13:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Again, "beleifs" exist in the mind of man, while information exists. Beliefs are something people apply or don't apply to information they have.Terryeo 03:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Flunk, M/U, go back and word-clear "beliefs". -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

www.thefreedictionary.com/dict.asp?Word=belief free dictionary states 1) The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another. "A mental act" is done by an individual, it would be an idea held in the mind of man. Hubbard suggested skepticsm, he did not encourage and even discouraged people to take literally and believe literally the words he wrote. 2) Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something. "Mental acceptance" is something that a person does, it is not the word on the page but the action in the mind of man. An individual might or might not accept Scientology, but its author did not encourage that a person should, instead he suggested a person be skeptical. 3)Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons. This is the meaning most readers will use when they read the article. It especially applies to religion, but can apply to any area. It says, "accepted by people" and that means "accepted by individuals, accepted in the mind of man". A belief is an idea which exists in the mind of man.

If you asked a man, "do you believe in science" he would say sure. But if you asked him, "does science propose that I believe in it?" he would say, "of course not !". There is more than a single meaning of the word "belief". Scientology is a group of information, written words. It makes statements. Its author suggested a person be skeptical of its statements. Its author didn't suggest, "believe in this stuff", Hubbard didn't make statements like that. He made statements, he wrote information. Scientology is a collection of those words, and not a "system of beliefs". However, The Church of Scientology selects certain of the statements composing the philosopy, Scientology. The Church then presents that those statements might be considered beliefs. For example, the Church points to Hubbard's statements about the supreme being, for which Hubbard used the term, "the 8th dynamic". Hubbard did not present the 8th dynamic as "you should believe there is an 8th dynamic". Hubbard suggested skepticsm for all of his statements. Some of what he did say appears in the Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary pg. 129. It says, "the eighth dynamic -- is the urge toward existence as infinity. This is also identified as the Supreme Being." Nothing there about "belief", you see? Hubbard speaks of an "urge toward existence" but he didn't say, "you should feel this urge" nor did he say, "you should believe in this urge". He just said, "there is an urge toward existence" and defined a bit about the urge. But the Church of Scientology freely presents a belief in the supreme being. It isn't accurate for this article, Scientology, to present "Scientology is a series of beliefs....". But that statement could appear in the Church of Scientology article. Terryeo 18:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello Jpierreg. I would not want to get into long philosophical debates about the nature of reality or postmodern thought, but in general, reality is not seen as a point of view, and beliefs are not knowledge. Wikipedia uses science as a light to shine on pseudoscience. Scientific method sees objectivity as possible (reality is not just a shared reality), and belief is more a matter of religion. The claims of Scientology proponents don't stand up to scientific scrutiny in both theory and practice. They are holding beliefs, both religious and self-efficacy, but there is no way you could call scientifically it knowledge, or knowing about knowing. I understand that is how Scientology is promoted though, through obscurantisms and confusion between belief and knowledge. Clearly there are enough editors here who know the difference and can help the reader through the minefield. Regards HeadleyDown 03:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I personally think HeadleyDown's explanation above is rather wide of the mark - Wikipedia isn't an exposé, nor does it set out to propound scientific method. It does not attempt to separate the "truthful" subjects from the "fallacious". Indeed, it does not even set out to define beliefs and methodology as being either scientific or pseudoscientific; the spirit of the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy is exactly that we serve to relay the claims of primary sources stating these as claims coming from those specific sources. That is what we do when writing about Scientology, or indeed about any other topic; Antaeus is quite right in the principles of his explanation above, although I think that perhaps the comparison, albeit an implicit one, that Scientology is analogous to a magic show is perhaps rather unnecessarily controversial. Basically the point is we relay what one side says about the subject, and what the other side says as well; it really is that simple. Whether or not the characterisations propounded by the sources in questions are correct or incorrect is in truth immaterial provided we document who has made those characterisations. Although I know that many contributors here will cringe when I say this, LRH said, as famously quoted, "what is true for you is true for you". What is true for you is, however, not what is true from another - the issue of perspective - and so Wikipedia merges those perspectives as exactly that, different perspectives, and labels them as such. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 03:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, Nicholas -- an excellent explation. I am sorry if I offended you with my analogy of a magic show. I have studied in formal logic and I am used to the norms that prevail there; if someone presents you with an argument whose logic is faulty, you show them an argument with identical structure, with premises that everyone would agree are at least as true as those of the original argument, and a conclusion everyone would agree is false. The point isn't to imply similarities between the entities discussed in the original argument and the entities postulated in the counter-argument; the point is to show that the argument which was presented does not represent a way to put together reliable premises to reach a conclusion that is equally reliable. I did not choose a magic show as the vehicle of the metaphor in order to say "Scientology is like a magic show" but rather because everyone recognizes that an argument which ends "therefore, everything which appeared to happen in the magic show really did happen" is an argument that went wrong somewhere. I apologize if it appeared that I was instead trying to make implicit comments with my choice of vehicle. -- Antaeus Feldspar 12:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I totally agree Nicholas. With a subject as controversial as this, we are never going to get agreement on what is 'true' and what isn't. The best we can do is report who says what and who disagrees. ie WP:Verifiability & WP:Notability Ashmoo 03:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt replies. Postmodern or New Age thinking is generally averse to the concept of objectivity. This is very different to that of the scientific method (and of course different from most Western modern thought). This is the difference between Scientology and the majority (science). We certainly don't need Wikipedia to spell out what is true or not. But in subjects of pseudoscience, science takes priority. Clarity is important with such obscure subjects, and it would be wrong for the article to characterize the issue as "the woman was really sawn in half according to a significant portion of the audience". I am suggesting that the scientific method or at least scientific theory is crucial in order to explain the matter from the scientific point of view. Pseudoscience is not on a par with science, and belief does not equal knowledge from this perspective. Regards HeadleyDown 04:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Scientology is simply statements on the page. Read one, try it out, accept it or reject it. Go on to the next. While Christianity might state, "we believe that Christ rose from the dead", as far as I've read there is no statement within Scientology of "it is believed such and so......", instead it is statements on the page. MEST is an example, simply a definition that Hubbard found convenient, but the MEST article is attempting to turn it into some kind of belief. Its that way throughout, statements about thing. If you take pieces of it out of context and combine that with other pieces out of context you are not going to get the information, so you're bound to end up with "I don't believe it!". Terryeo 09:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Terryeo... may I just say... I think you lost that particular argument a few posts ago. I'm going to use something you said right above my post here to illustrate that:
Scientology is simply statements on the page. Read one, try it out, accept it or reject it. Go on to the next. While Christianity might state, "we believe that Christ rose from the dead", as far as I've read there is no statement within Scientology of "it is believed such and so......", instead it is statements on the page.
Ah, but you've just defeated at least part of your own argument, here - both early Christians and even some select modern Christians do in fact not state it as a belief, but rather as a "fact" that Christ rose from the dead (you yourself refer to Scientology as being "statements", yet you say Christians may state, which is rather perplexing). The Bible has "statements on a page" aplenty, most of which seem ridiculous to most modern people if taken literally, but they are, nonetheless and regardless of how outdated they are now, "statements" and they are indeed "on a page". A "statement" is not a "fact", it's only a statement, and you're semantically hurting your own argument by trying to imply otherwise, regardless of whether or not Scientology's claims are true.
Of course Scientology does not say "it is believed...". But, there's the rub: neither does the Christian Bible you've also mentioned. The Bible states that Adam and Eve were the first man and woman, that there was a 40-day rainstorm that flooded the entire world (and that various species were preserved by taking pairs or small groups of them on board a giant boat), that a man named Jesus was born from a virgin woman's womb, and that he later rose from the dead after being crucified by the Romans. As far as early Christians were concerned, this was fact. Heck, as far as a small proportion of modern Christians are concerned, this is "fact". It does not make it any more scientifically viable just by being said to be "fact" by one group, now does it? Still, many people outside the group (in this example, Christians) of course then do not take the exact statements of the Bible as "fact" (though some of the stories in it have evidence to support the idea that they really happened, and were just exaggerated a bit in the Bible itself, examples being Soddom and Gommorah and Jericho, cities that apparently really existed and had been destroyed at one point by earthquakes), but nonetheless there are and have been groups that do.
That, you know, believe that it's fact?
The definition of "belief" does not exclude fact, either. It just means the opposite of disbelief, (which not thinking something is true/a statement of truth).
For instance, there are people who believe, as well as people who disbelieve, in the theory of evolution, but that doesn't mean that the scientific evidence supporting it goes away or is actually altered in any way, it just means they personally do or do not take it as literal fact.
Similarly, is the argument of most Scientologists that the claims of Scientology are "fact". It is the argument of many people outside of the CoS that they might not be. In other words, some believe the claims are statements of truth, and there are some who believe they are not statements of truth, but merely statements of belief, the latter of which in no way technically excludes it from being the former.
So, basically, by trying to argue that the Church of Scientology - which itself refers to itself as having "beliefs" and consistently puts out claims that its followers and practitioners are told should b taken as fact - does not have "beliefs", you're repeatedly arguing in favor of an oxymoron, and basically shooting yourself in the proverbial foot.
At this point, I would like to Assume Good Faith and simply assume that the only problem you actually have with it is the idea that it isn't portrayed as "scientific", because as a Scientologist, that's your exact perception, that they are fact. Problem solved! A person can choose to believe in a particular branch or theory of science (or what they see to be a branch or theory of science) or not, even in something so seemingly glaringly basic as the fact that the earth is roughly round in shape and orbits the Sun, so the argument is moot.
Additionally, what with all the stuff about thetans and other such things, it's pretty clear that Scientology includes claims relating to spirituality, which means it can't really be considered, as a whole, to be anything but a religion - which it also claims to be, seeing as one of its central groups of supporters goes by the name Church of Scientology, and it also has claimed to be a religion to a number of world governments, including that of the United States. If it's purely scientific theories, then why would it go under the guise of "religion". Think about it.
And before you get offended - there are a number of religions today (I'm thinking especially of some Christian sects and Neo-Pagan religions) that do NOT claim that science is bogus and in fact try to include it within their teachings, and therefore, while science does not by definition include religion, i.e. codified spirituality, religion, i.e. codified spirituality, need not by definition exclude hard, time-tested, proven science. Runa27 23:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Quite right on all fronts. Additionally, it really doesn't matter what Scientology calls its dogma. If I were to start a religion tomorrow whos central concept is that the sky is brown and we're all colorblind, that should not be presented as a fact in the article. Regardless of what it is called, if it is does not have widespread acceptance from the mainstream scientific community, it is a belief. --InShaneee 00:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi again. Just a thought: Is the term "Scientology" considered an obscurantism in itself by any particular view? I mean it is something that is designed to look scientific, but has no reliable basis in science. It would be something that claims knowledge, but fails to deliver according to the majority view of objective scientific method. Regards HeadleyDown 05:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Hubbard first used the word publically in Kasas, 1952 and stated, "Scientology would be a study of knowledge". That lecture isn't present at this time at Church of Scientology but sometimes it is. From that first lecture he made it plain that -ology (study of), study of knowledge, would intrude into the realm of religion. Terryeo 03:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


Holy hell, I was just looking for the answers to these questions. Thanks Terryeo
----------- QUOTE ------------------
When and where did the religion begin? I can't find any specifics on it...
---------- UNQUOTE -----------------
Hello, check this following link to see an historic of how Scn. began:
www.scientology.org/p_jpg/wis/wiseng/36/36-50s.htm
-- Jpierreg 01:45, 18 May 2006 (GMT)

This link used to be in the article as a first link: www.bonafidescientology.org("established in 1954" at top of page).Terryeo 09:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Stop linkspamming. This is an ENCYCLOPEDIA. Point him to a page with the info. --InShaneee 01:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
InShanee, doesn't it point out pretty clearly, a person has to come to this page to find the answer to the very very first questions anyone would ask? Rather than find that information in the article and those links in the article? Doesn't that illustrate how these articles should be written and should be referenced and should be presented to the reader. Instead of the manner of presenting "Scientology is beliefs......etc".  ? Doesn't that make sense to you? Terryeo 04:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
So what you're saying is that the entire style we've been writing the encyclopedia in for all these years is wrong? No, that doesn't make the slightest bit of sense to me, but it does sound like you're trying to excuse spamming links to Scientology sites since you can't edit this page to make it read like you want to. --InShaneee 04:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
OMG no Shaneee, I don't think that is true at all. Most of the time, most of Wikipolicy and guideline works. Obviously. Look what procedures and editors and administrators have produced! It is a lot. No, I'm talking minor tweaks, minor corrections, minor instances of enthusiastic editors removing some cited links and putting what they think are better cited links. Probably the religious articles are the tip of the spear sort of thing. 99 percent of the guidelines work 99 percent of the time. No, I'm not at all saying that, not at all. To take as an example and expand it out and examine it that link which speaks of the first date of the modern Church of Scientology. It was in the first paragraph of the article. At the time there was a fair amount of discussion, whether to put that date or the date of the first church (which no longer exists). The 1954 date appears at the top of the linked page and most of the people who are active in the Church felt it was an appropriate presentation. But a majority of editors (ChrisO, Feldspar, Modemac, Wikipediatrix, I don't remember exactly Raymond Hill maybe) majority wanted the first date of the church, 1953 in New Jersey, which no longer exists. Well, WP:V doesn't say which to use, WP:RS would allow either date because both are documentable. I'm not saying things don't work, things do work but there are some minor difficulties in controversial articles. Terryeo 07:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I checked the Church of Scientology article. It used to have the 1954 date, when the present Church of Scientology was founded, as a first reference, but someone has changed that. That information is www.whatisscientology.org|here. That used to be the first link and reference in that article. Now I can't find it in the article at all.Terryeo 03:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Unique Dogma?

Hello all. I've been investigating some of the articles of Scientology. Just a question for anyone who may know: How widespread is this particular dogma in other religions? I'm just wondering how unique it may or may not be. Regards HeadleyDown 04:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Brainscams

Hi again. Here is something that may warrant addition (or at least help clarify certain points here).

In Beyerstein’s paper on Brainscams: Neuromythologies of the New Age. (1990p28) he states that

“The areas of science that enjoy the greatest prestige at any moment are the most tempting targets for appropriation by pseudoscientists. Capitalizing on dramatic progress in the neurosciences, the merchants of personal success were quick to commandeer neurological jargon to provide a patina of authority. Scientology's "engrams" and its notorious "e-meter" were pioneers in this trend.”

Beyerstein, B. L. (1990) Brainscams: Neuromythologies of the New Age. Intl. J. of Mental Health. Special issue on quackery 19(3):27-36.

Moved from my user talk page...

regarding Scientology - it is not NPOV to characterize L. Ron Hubbard as a Pulp Fiction Author. In fact even to characterize him as an "author" characterizes him in such a way the it is not NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.99.252.203 (talk • contribs)

I'm afraid you misunderstand NPOV, if you think that it allows you to remove completely true facts because you don't like the way the information reflects upon the subject. You claim that even referring to him as an "author" violates NPOV -- how exactly do you figure that is? Because, even though he is provably an author, even though he is provably a pulp fiction author, Scientologists would rather think of him as a philosopher? According him that status would violate NPOV. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

That's a fine assertion, but to single out the pulp fiction as the only distinguishing characteristic is to bias by limited characterization. Either make it broad to include many of Hubbard's accomplishments or leave it neutral by just stating that L. Ron Hubbard is the founder and one can detail who he was further in his the LRH Wikipedia entry. Bennjamyn 15:26 2006-05-18 PDT

The vast majority of his works have been pulp fiction novels, and that's also what he's best known for. --InShaneee 22:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, a lot of people have that impression. However, the amount of shelf space of his fiction might be 10 feet. The amount of shelf space of his writing in Dianetics and Scientology is more like 25 feet of shelf space. A substantial way of comparing the difference might be to go to www.loc.gov Library of Congress and search for "L. Ron Hubbard". Another method invovles a photograph the Church has at a website I forget right now, they show maybe 8 feet by 6 feet full of books, every book different, every book or audio lecture from Hubbard. Terryeo 23:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Upon the inception of Scientology LRH was undoubtly a pulp fiction author, that's what the article says; that scientology was created by a pulp fiction author. And that couldn't be more accurate. - Glen TC (Stollery) 08:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
The inception of Scientology happened in 1952. At the inception of Dianetics, 1950, Hubbard was best known for his fiction. But by 1952 he had began to be known for Dianetics and by 1954, when today's church was founded www.whatisscientology.org he was know for his writings in Dianetics and Scientology. None of his fiction stories reached the best selling status that his Dianetics: the Modern Science of Mental Health did. Therefore, as an introduction to Dianetics, that's a terrific line, but for the introduction to this article, Scientology, there is at least some room for other points of view, I would say. Terryeo 09:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The introduction presently states:

  • Scientology is a system of beliefs and practices created by American pulp fiction[1] author L. Ron Hubbard in 1952 as a self-help philosophy. By 1960 Hubbard had redefined it as a "religion by its basic tenets". -- This is inaccurate in several ways. Scientology is a philosophy. When Hubbard first introduced it in 1952 at a lecture in Kansas he stated, "Scientology would be a study of knowledge" and went on to spell out why studying knowledge automatically puts it into the sphere of religion. It was not a 1960 redefinition, it was a 1952 introduction. There are no beliefs within it. It is statements. What an individual does with the information is his alone to decide on, Hubbard suggested skepticism. In 1952, Hubbard was known best for his best seller, Dianetics: the Modern Science of Mental Health and not known best for his pulp fiction. Nor for his screen play writing. Nor for his Explorer Club activity. Nor for his U.S. Navy experience, but for having authored a best seller and introducing Dianetics by book, lecture and demonstration. Scientology was not introduced as a self-help philosophy. Dianetics was, and still is, but Scientology was not and is not, though there are elements of self-help within it. Terryeo 22:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello Terryeo. Dr Hunt (a sociologist) classes Scientology as a personal development organization, focusing on positive thinking and human potential. Hunt, Stephen J. (2003) Alternative Religions. A Sociological Introduction, London: Ashgate p.194 ISBN 0754634094 Regards HeadleyDown 11:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Quiet Birth vs Silent Birth and Barley Formula

Apparently there is more to these issues than a father normally knows about (heh). Of course a lot of excessive noises, such as surgeons or nurses screaming, etc. would be upsetting to the mother, too. And the Barley Formula was apparently meant to be used with pure corn syrup, while today's marketed corn syrup has additives according to this link. experts.about.com/q/Scientology-1751/indexExp_30534.htm experts.about.com where a woman answers other women who ask those sorts of (and other) questions. Terryeo 23:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

That still doesn't address the fact that honey can cause infant botulism (as cited from mulitple sources). Or the fact that breastfeeding has been scientifically proven to be perfectly fine for infants so long as the mother doesn't have certain medical conditions (such as HIV, which I'm told can be transmitted through breast milk); it has plenty of the fats and proteins that a growing infant needs, as well as giving the mother the additional benefit of being able to pass some of her... as I recall, antibodies (but I might be confusing the term with something very close to it), enabling infants to have slightly improved immune systems, even.Runa27 00:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Ohhhh! That makes total sense! "Today's marketed corn syrup" has additives! Wow, that totally explains how L. Ron Hubbard picked up in Roman days a recipe with a main ingredient which wasn't known to the Romans! .... oh, no, wait, it doesn't. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Uhhh, I'm pretty sure that is a sarcastic comment, directed at me rather than a productive statement toward a better article. Terryeo 23:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, it was, pretty obviously, but Feldy there has a point; the claim is that it was a "Roman" recipe, allegedly an ancient one; whereas in reality, corn did not exist in the "old world" until the past few centuries. Ancient Rome was considerably further back in time than that.
Additionally, corn syrup is almost entirely carbohydrates and sugars, which doesn't make it a particularly good addition to a formula for infants (and of course, I've already mentioned above that as stated in the article, it can lead to infant botulism). Of course, homogenized (and therefore presumably cow's) milk isn't all that good an addition, either, since it includes the kind of vitamins and proteins meant for calfs, not humans (though it's better than corn syrup, I'd have to say). Runa27 00:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, at least your baby won't be "as big or fat compared to other babies I've seen that were fed formula." PrometheusX303 04:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Is that an actual quote from a Scientologist and/or Hubbard? If so, please cite your source(s). :) Thank you.
On a side note, the following statements in the current article:
    • Hubbard stated that the delivery room should be as silent as possible during birth. This stems from his belief that birth is a trauma that may induce engrams into the baby.
    • Hubbard asserted that words in particular should be avoided because he stated that any words used during birth might be reassociated by an adult later on in life, with their earlier traumatic birth experience.
    • Hubbard also wrote that the mother should use "as little anaesthetic as possible".
    • "According to Hubbard, babies should not be bathed after birth, but should be wrapped up tightly and left alone for a day or so. "
... are somewhat potentially inflammatory, and as such, should DEFINITELY be cited.Runa27 00:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

There are many false statements in the article

Here is one of them: Through the Scientology process of "auditing", one can free oneself of "engrams" and "implants" to reach the state of "Clear".... This statement is perhaps 2/3 into the article. At no point does any of the technology about "clear" say anything about "implants". That is a false piece of information. "Clear" is a state of existence achieved by Dianetics, it does so by a person reviewing difficulties a person has had which a person examines during auditing. "Implant" is a specialized Scientology word, it has specific meaning. That meaning is not introduced into the article, and I don't suggest it should be. The article is already too long. If the word "implants" were removed from the sentence, the sentence would become accurate. Terryeo 06:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The part you are referring to is «Through the Scientology process of "auditing", one can free oneself of "engrams" and "implants" to reach the state of "Clear", and after that, the state of "Operating Thetan".» I don't agree to remove the word implant as you suggest (it's part of Scientology, isn't?), but I think we could make it more clear, since I can imagine that someone new to Scientology could come to think that implants have a purpose in reaching the state of Clear, which is not the case as far as I know. We could rephrase it: «Through the Scientology process of "auditing", one can free oneself of "engrams" to reach the state of "Clear", and afterward free oneself of "implants" to reach the state of "Operating Thetan".» Anyone agree that the sentence could be misleading to someone new to Scientology? Raymond Hill 15:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
It is probably beyond the scope of this article to define every technical term which Scientology has created. An "implant" is a specific kind of engram, it is the result of a specific kind of unconciousness brought about in rather specific ways. Why introduce yet one more complex word which is only a subset of the already introduced word, "engram"? "Engram" is the general term for any moment of unconciousness and injury. If we get into too many technical details we will be creating a "how-to" manual. Terryeo 02:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Unless there's some way to write 'how to engram', I don't think that's a valid complaint. --InShaneee 03:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
There are many ways to engram. Play on the freeway, stand under a falling brick, hit your thumb with a hammer, walk under a ladder while someone drops a paint can. There are many technical sorts of words to Scientology but to understand "implant" would require first to understand "engram", our readers will better understand if we introduce one word at a time. Terryeo 18:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Alright, so let's reorder how the article reads. --InShaneee 23:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

These allegations in the Scientology and Celebrity section all go back to the 1994 affidavit of Andre Tabayoyon, which has been discredited thoroughly and withdrawn by the attorney firm that filed it having received documentation showing Tabayoyon's lack of credibility. California guy 14:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Great. Do you have a source for your information? Ashmoo 23:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Of course, even if (for the sake of argument) California guy was actually correct about Tabayoyon's affidavit being "discredited thoroughly", that doesn't explain why California guy removed the corroborating testimony of a second source whose reliability he made not one mention of. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It is dishonest to cite the Victorian inquiry while ignoring the outcome. That Inquiry and the Psychological Practices Act it spawned in Victoria became major embarrassments to the government, so much so that former Australian Senator and Deputy Premier of Western Australia Herbert Graham travelled to the United States in 1976 to attend the Church’s International Prayer Day and apologized to all members of the Church. He stated that the ban on Scientology had been the “blackest day in the political history of Western Australia.” Graham also noted that although it was claimed that a number of complaints had been made to the government, when he demanded to know how many complaints were filed, the government refused to respond. As Graham put it, “They would not tell us if it was many or few. Five or twenty or two-hundred or what.”

Scientologists fought the ban for two decades and on June 30, 1982, the Psychological Practices Act was repealed by the Governor of the State of Victoria as it related to the practice of Scientology, thus removing the ban that had been placed on the Scientology religion, ending it forever.

The Church continued to pursue full recognition in Australia, and after 18 years, in October of 1983, the Australian High Court ruled that Scientology is a religion and “[t]he conclusion that [the Church] is a religious institution entitled to the tax exemption is irresistible." In its decision, the High Court also observed that the Psychological Practices Act “discriminated expressly against Scientology”. (Reference: www.cdi.gov.au/report/cdi_chap20.htm) and (www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/154clr120.html)

In invalidating the Psychological Practices Act, the Court invalidated the inquiry which led to it. That is the true record of the Victorian inquiry. So, to include excerpts from a discredited inquiry as “fact” is dishonest and it should be eliminated. California guy 19:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

In invalidating the Psychological Practices Act, the Court invalidated the inquiry which led to it. Well, you'll have to find a reliable source for that claim. You can't just leap to the conclusion that the repeal of certain legislation invalidated every aspect of the inquiry which preceded it, and based on that original research http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientology&diff=56928467&oldid=56873126 yank out the whole paragraph containing the material you claim is "invalidated" -- as well as other material, whose validity you have not attempted to address. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
"... I would slip into Hubbard's "Dissemination drill" by saying I was a Scientologist, and dealing with any negative response by attacking the person's source of information. If someone said, "Didn't the Australians ban Scientology?" I would say, "Where did you hear that?" They would almost inevitably say, "In the newspapers." This could often be dismissed with "Well, you can't believe anything you read in the papers," diverting attention from the complaint ... This trained tactic underlies Scientology's self-defense: ... attack the source not the information." -- Jon Atack, A Piece of Blue Sky -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Those informations directly address the issue, but there are other informations which show how Australian Law has been improved as a result of the Church. An example of that is in the CCHR article, CCHR#Chelmsford_Hospital_and_.22sleep_therapy.22 Terryeo 02:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Terryeo, "information" is the plural of "piece of information". There is no such thing as "informations". -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I understand the term, "information" is a collective noun and is normally its own plural. However, the term is sometimes used with an "s" 66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:VMIdIBInc30J:www.sendmail.org/~ca/email/misc.html+informations&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2&lr=lang_en when talking about more than one group of information, each group itself being composed of more than one piece of information. In the example above there is a group of information which is of a derogatory nature and there is a group of information which is of a positive nature. Therefore I use the word "informations". Terryeo 19:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
"Information" is used more often. In fact, this is the first time I've ever seen anyone use "informations" unless their English was not fluent and their grasp of English plurals somewhat imperfect. Apparently, "informations" is not incorrect in that usage, but it reads REALLY weird, and again, I've never seen it used that way. Reminds me of this essay I once read where this guy (whose native tongue was German) kept saying "argumentation" instead of "argument". After looking it up, I found out that not only was "argumentation" a real word, but he was also using it correctly. It's just that most native speakers of English wouldn't use that, they'd use "argument" (no doubt in part because it's shorter and slightly less snooty-sounding). :) You learn something new every day, I suppose! Runa27 00:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Precursor to Douglas Adams?

"These included memories of being "deceived into a love affair with a robot decked out as a beautiful red-haired girl", being run over by a Martian bishop driving a steamroller, being transformed into an intergalactic walrus that perished after falling out of a flying saucer, and being "a very happy being who strayed to the planet Nostra 23,064,000,000 years ago.""

No wonder L. Ron Hubbard has a cult following. This could have been ripped straight out of Douglas Adams' The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Does anyone know if Adams was inspired by Dianetics? How about Robert A. Heinlein? What about Orson Scott Card? Card did vise versa and created science fiction out of religous themes instead of a religion out of science fiction. As a side note, does anyone have or have read the original Dianetics from Astounding Science Fiction? Anyway, I like how Hubbard uses the phrase "decked out" in that quote. He was way ahead of his time. "www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=decked+out Decked out" started getting popular in the '80s at the earliest.

The original Dianetics article was republished with minor changes as Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science and there's a link to an online copy. As for authors, I doubt anyone you mentioned would need to borrow from Hubbard. Heinlein was already published long before Scientology, Orson Scott Card has far too much energy for someone who doesn't drink coffee and wouldn't need to borrow, and Adams was spoofing many of the long-standing sci-fi cliches. A lot of the bad sci-fi of the 50s and before is a lot like that stuff. (Note that the walrus-type stuff is supposed to be recalled memories, and not writings by Hubbard. GIGO?) As for decked out, it's quite possible the term was in use long before someone noticed that it was popular in the 80s. AndroidCat 18:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
It's a nautical term in origin anyway, meaning "presented on the deck", I'm pretty sure. :) --FOo 20:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Van Vogt writes in a similar way. I believe he was another proponent along with Fritz Perls amongst others. Early "postmodern" art and thinking. Regards HeadleyDown 04:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


Parody doesn't belong

This Scientology article contains a conglomeration of opinion, accusations, falsehoods and unsourced statements, some of which didn’t even make it in to the controversy section but still go ahead to imply that there is a controversy. “Controversy” is being misused to justify slipping in critical remarks for reasons I can only think are to discredit. To solve this, there is an article called “Scientology Controversy,” I am suggesting that all the quote unquote controversial points get moved over there for the time being (and I see that it was requested by some else that that article needed work too) and we get the Scientology article on topic. Just to head off any possible attempt to tell me that controversy is what Scientology is about – it is not – it is a many faceted subject in itself that is not being correctly represented with the “controversial” slant that has been pushed as the POV. I am asking for a consensus on this plan.-- Nuview 21:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds a bit like a POV fork, and as such it is a bad idea. While I think the article does focus a bit too much on the controversial aspects, controversy is probably the most notable thing about Scientology. Do you have any specific complaints about the article. (And what does 'parody' refer to in the section title?) Ashmoo 05:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I would argue that the most notable thing about Scientology is its success, because were it not successful, it would not have bandwidth, Time Magazine article, Rolling Stones article, etc. etc. dedicated to its "controversy". It owns property, it sends Ministers to international disasters, it has been the driving force for changes in some laws of Australia, USA and other countries. With those things comes controversy. Terryeo 19:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

-Al-Qaeda could be considered successful according to your definition. I find this article biased towards a positive portrayal of Scientology.

The same specious arguments can be made about the Ku Klux Klan and many other controversial organizations. Just because an organization is successful at scamming thousands of people through fraud -- does not mean that it is should be considered "successful" in general. When Scientology is mentioned in the press, it is most often mentioned in a manner that demonstrates that it is a controversial group. Very few articles published by independent sources rave about the "success" of Scientology at doing anything. Vivaldi (talk) 06:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, this whole article reeks of fascination and idoltry of this religion as if it was a show of Entertainment Tonight.

Many independent reviews or accounts of Scientology speak about it from their (the expert's) (not Scientologist's) point of view, and then they mention controviersies. I believe its quite normal, and it is appropriate for this article according to Wikipedia guidelines. HeadleyDown 11:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)