Talk:Scientology and the legal system

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Scientology and the legal system article.
Article policies
The Arbitration Committee has placed all Scientology-related articles on probation (see relevant arbitration case). Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages.
Scientology Portal
This article is supported by WikiProject Scientology, a collaborative effort to help develop and improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scientology.
The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on Scientology-related topics.
See WikiProject Scientology and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments
⚖
Law Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
??? This article has not yet received a quality rating on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance assessment on the assessment scale.
Sign all your posts on Wikipedia talk pages by typing ~~~~ to be accountable and to help others understand the conversation.

Contents

[edit] NPOV Dispute

I quite like Wikipedia and have found it almost always well researched and objective. I know next to nothing about Scientology (the reason I happened upon this article), but it is almost impossible to take this article seriously. It seems that its overriding goal is to prove that "Scientology is evil" and then everything, even that which might appear positive on an objective approach, is used to "prove" this theme. The truth probably lies somewhere in between. In particular, one can find such emotive and tendentious comments as "When the war between Scientology and the Internet began in 1995...", and in reference to a court case that Scientology apparently won 'due to a lack of credible evidence', it states "Instead of paying the damages, the Church waged a vicious defense". I also noted that the main body article directs users to a site which states as it goal "Protecting freedom of mind by exposing cults and mind control... because only you have the right to control your mind". Wikipedia should pull this article or have someone else write it that doesn't obviously have an axe to grind. - 217.150.124.162

I'm not sure if "balanced" sources for Scientology exist--Every source I've seen has been negative, unless the source was Scientology sponsored. Most of the negative stories appear credible, and don't contradict known facts. --Pqdave 18:49, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Here is a balanced source, if you think the military is balanced. heh. [1] but Povmec says it doesn't come up for him. Terryeo 19:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

From where I'm sitting, the trouble is that an organization that's being unfairly maligned would look about the same as a genuinely eeevil one. (In my arrogant opinion, given what I've seen of Scientology - threatening Something Awful over a very obvious parody, protected by copyright law; Claiming to be the world's fastest-growing religion and crying conspiracy; Actually being outlawed in several western countries - well, do I really have to finish this sentence now?) -- Kizor 00:31, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Can you specify what you mean by "several western countries?" And "outlawed?" Scientology won the landmark decision by which freedom of information is guarenteed on the internet while still preserving author's copyrights. It won it in the Supreme Court of the USA because people had attacked it. Without the attack Scientology couldn't have defended and wouldn't have finally arrived at the Supreme Court. Someone else, some other group would have had to spend those millions to define the laws of information we all use on our internet, laws which protect authors but allow freedom of speech. Terryeo 09:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Even if every source on Scientology is negative except "Scientology-sponsored" ones (rather doubtful, I would think), that does not justify presenting only the views of its critics. If this polemical piece is representative of the sources Pqdave describes, I would question their credibility as well - "known facts" are easily manipulated by emotive and selective presentation. Balance can be achieved even on a controversial topic by making a fair attempt to present the other side's account as well, for which even a "Scientology sponsored" source will do just fine. Anything less diminishes the integrity of Wikipedia's content and is an insult to readers' intelligence, who can make up their own minds.

This article interested me as a lawyer (one that has nothing to do with Scientology) and I must say that if this particular group has a history of being on both sides of court disputes, that is hardly remarkable. Like it or not, being taken to court or being forced to go to court to protect one's rights is an unavoidable fact of everyday life for large organisations in today's litigious world, and none are exempt, whether they be commercial, non-profit, religious or charitable. If Scientology is actually outlawed in several Western countries as Kizor claims, that would be good information to include in the article. Unfortunately s/he did not finish the sentence so this claim cannot be verified. (217.150.124.162 above)

The thing to do is not to pull the article, but keep the facts and points of view and moderate the bias - David Gerard 01:24, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If many sources say something is bad, you can either assume it is bad, or that there is an undeserved conspiracy against it. When the sources are unconnected, nearly unanimous, both public and private, have no apparent reason for bias and have been otherwise trustworthy it becomes more and more difficult to support the undeserved conspiracy theory. --Pqdave 19:42, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Just because I just read this article I'm going to state my opinion. I believe many people slightly misunderstand Scientology information when they read it, draw enormously fearful or inflamed sorts of conclusions and from that, then take a position of controversy. Scientology information requires a very good understanding, I think people misunderstand what they read. Terryeo 09:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with Pqdave. A large number of negative sources does not mean they must either be true or the result of a conspiracy. It may equally be an indicator of repetition of inaccurate information, wide-spread ignorance or prevailing non-conspiratorial prejudices. It certainly wouldn't be the first time in history. From what I have seen so far, I would take issue with Pqdave's comment that the sources are - (a) unconnected (the Wikipedia article is itself a reproduction of material from another web site, and the links cross refer to each other); (b) unanimous (the main Scientology article appears to contain a number of non-negative links); and (c) have no apparent reason for bias. The last comment that the sources are "unbiased" is amazing, judging from the only two external links given at the bottom of the Wikipedia article. The first site is entitled "Operation Clambake: The Fight against the Church of Scientology on the Net". The author of the second states: "I make no claims regarding the neutrality of the statements and opinions presented here. As with all Web sites, this is a reflection of my personal opinions only. I believe that Scientology is such a volatile, controversial, and polarizing subject that it is impossible to remain unbiased after you have experienced its actions first-hand". However all of this is to lose sight of the original issue I raised, which has nothing to do with whether Scientology is "good" or "bad". Wikipedia is an online reference source, not an advocate for the views of Scientology's critics, regardless of their numbers or the perceived merits of their views. As such articles placed on the site should avoid tendentious language and strive to be as objective as possible. Objectivity can be easily achieved even on a controversial topic by making a fair effort to present the views of both the critics AND supporters of Scientology. For this purpose it matters little whether the source information for the supporters' views are "Scientology sponsored" organisations or Scientology itself, in fact I would think the latter would be preferable. (217.150.124.162 above)

I think you are assigning negativity where there is none. Although some ostensibly negative statements are in the article, they are completely unbiased if one were to remove the phrases like "critics allege...", or "...are accused of...". These suggest it is bad for an organization to use the courts aggressively.
But look at it from the Church's point of view. The world is dominated by biological robots controlled by the remnants of 10^30 year old space aliens sitting in DC-10s at the bottom of a volcano. The alien remnants control the courts, the media, politics, other religions, etc. Only Scientology can deliver the promise of everlasting whathaveyou to the few believers, and only if they use every means at their disposal to protect themselves from Xenu's hoards. While we plebes might be shocked at their behavior, Scientologists will take heart to read about their team sticking it to the man.
Think of an article about a riot. A Korean shopkeeper will read it and shudder. A disenfranchised youth will read it and think "you're goddamned right!" Tafinucane 7 July 2005 06:46 (UTC)
That is not the position of Scientology. That is not a viewpoint of Scientology. You are misinformed to state that the COS thinks of any living person as a robot. Further, if the COS were taking such a position it would not have presented such good cases as it does in courts of law. It is pretty successful in court and it is successful in bettering people's lives and people who work in the COS do not consider human beings to be anything other than they are. Your point of view is derogatory to mankind and foreign the COS's purpose. Terryeo 09:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Sometimes what is true seems biased because the truth is one-sided. To paraphrase meet the press, if president bush tommorow said the world was flat, would wikipedia add the line "this is disputed" to the Spherical Earth article? That is the problem: sources that are widely considered unbiased do not have kind words for the group or it's legal practices. Time Magazine called scientology a global scam and a cult of greed - on its cover. The Supreme Court of Australia said "Scientology is evil; It's techniques are evil; its practice is a serious threat to the community, medically, morally, and socially." The London high court called it "sinister and dangerous". A district judge in LA called it "a vast enterprise to extract the maximum amount of money". So if a scientology article seems unbiased, one could argue that it is actually therefore leaning toward the scientology P.O.V. Some food for thought. On that note, however, I do agree with the original disputer that words like "waged" and "vicious" have no place in an encyclopedia. --CastAStone 17:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I added the NPOV tag, as that is obviously the case. --CastAStone 17:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

"Polemic" piece, I had to look that one up, comes from the idea of war and warlike. Such an article isn't NPOV by definition because Wikipedia articles work toward readable, balanced information presenting both sides of a controversial situation. Scientology is an excellent example of modern controversy and the legal struggle is as wonderful guideline of how the Church of Scientology gets along in societies, yet maintains it point of view. Some of the article is written with venom, with intent to harm instead of with intent to present information a person can read and then make thier own judgement with. Rather than allow that a reader might make their own judgements, some of the article makes their judgements for them. I agree, at least some of it is indeed "polemic." A partial solution would be to just clean up the language without changing the actual information presented, and without changing the verifications. That will lead to an article that might be POV, but isn't outright offensive. The really strong, offensive language will not help use make Wikipedia work in the long run. I agree. Terryeo 00:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Its quite interesting, when a bit of information that is positive is placed in the article, people take it out and claim "Not NPOV." But when a criticsm is placed in the article, people claim they are fulfilling NPOV. The copyright laws which protect authors on the internet today are in place because of the cases which the Church of Scientology have brought before various courts. Yet, to place even that landmark decision in the article is "Not NPOV?" I'll spell it out more fully. An author's work can not be reproduced on the internet without that author's permission. Additionally, links to his work also fall under the same protection. If such is found, an author or his agent can inform the offending website and have the work and its hyperlinks removed. The Church of Scientology was the organization which caused this present day law into force. To state such a datum is Not NPOV is just plain wrong. The article reeks of anti-scientology. I of course understand I am pro-scientology. You people are silly to insist that only those statements which put scientology in a bad light are NPOV. Terryeo 14:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who appears on this talk page doing anything other than portraying scientology as an evil cult is a scientologist. Scientologists tactics of disinformation are embarrassingly transparent. Probably best to ignore anyone asking for a 'balanced' POV on this article. Scientology is a dangerous evil cult and this encyclopedia entry should clearly communicate that. Wikipedia is about accuracy, not being manipulated into diluting the truth by scientology drones posing as neutrals. Trey Parka 00:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.213.255.18 (talk)

[edit] On the proposed merge...

I find the proposal frankly rather silly. No good reason has been proposed why two such large articles, each with its own independent focus, should be merged.

Scientology is a body of knowledge. You can argue its validity, but it stands as a body of knowledge. It is kind of large. The Church of Scientology is an organization. It uses that body of knowledge. The Church of Scientology has grown and is doing a number of things in areas of human rights, street drugs, criminals and other areas. The COS has amassed a lot of court cases. All of the articles on Wiki here about Scientology, Dianetics, E-meters and so on are kind of too long, but so far each article has a soild reason to stand alone. Well done, Wiki and Wiki people, I say ! Terryeo 09:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I've asked User:Quarl, who put it there, to give some reason they should be - David Gerard 14:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, why is it silly? "Scientology v. the Internet" is about the church of Scientology using the legal system to attack critics of Scientology who happen to use the Internet. "Scientology and the legal system" is about the church of Scientology using the legal system to attack critics of Scientology in general. Seems to me like the first is a subset of the latter.
As it stands there is a lot of overlap and the articles don't "know" about each other -- no links, not even a "see also". OK, they are both big articles, so don't make one huge article, but at least refactor them. How about adding a section to "and the legal system" about critics on the Internet, and "Scientology v. the internet" be the "main article" for that section. --Quarl 23:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
That would be a very good thing. SvI is not quite entirely covered by SatLS - things like the sporgery attack are not within the legal system, for example. But it does need a good mention - David Gerard 12:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Refactoring them and having them point to each other appropriately, that I can support. But as David points out, the sporgery attack was not within the legal system; neither was Kobrin's attempt to rmgroup a.r.s., or Scientology's introduction of the "Scieno Sitter". Despite the two topics sharing a large degree of overlap, neither is a subset of the other. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


I must say that it would be rediculous to merge these two articles. The church of scientology has a long history of suing those outside of the internet community, and has a long history of allegedly storming internet offices and stealing/destroying hard drives etc. that contain websites opposing their organization. See 1991 Time magazine article [2]. Is it true? it dosn't matter - it is two separate topics either way. (p.s. someone should use that article to expand the page.) --CastAStone 08:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone else find amusement in the tone of the many posts in this article? Did you know the Landmark Case by which copyrights are protected on the internet today is the result of the Church of Scientology protecting its copyrights? As a result of that USA Supreme Court case, an author who finds large sections of his work posted on the internet, can require by legal notification to the internet provider which hosts that information, that it be removed. Not only that, but links to it also can be removed by similar method. It was the Church of Scientology that caused that landmark decision. There have been other human rights decisions too. 3 times the CoS has been before the USA Supreme Court. But of course none of the people who post into this article can conceive of anything outside their forceful point of view. Does it not amuse anyone besides me? :) Have a NICE day ! Terryeo 08:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I removed the tag - consensus was reached.--CastAStone 00:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I apologize for not responding earlier. Tacit consent :) —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 10:22Z

[edit] This paragraph's validity is in doubt

This paragraph early in the article: Scientology's opponents have accused the Church of using litigation tactics such as investigating their criminal records (or lack thereof), subjecting them to surveillance and invasive inquiries. For an example, see:(Source: Attacks on Scientology by L. Ron Hubbard, "HCO Policy Letter of 15 February 1966".

Cites HCO Policy Letter of 15 Feb 66 as a verified source of information. The link then points to an internet site which quotes most of that HCOPL. Does it not occur to anyone that the Church of Scientology would not allow its copyrighted works to be wholly quoted? That HCO Policy Letter (commonly called HCOPL) is not published nor used today by the Church of Scientology. It is one of those bygone policies that might have been used at one time by the Church of Scientology but has seen been cancelled or replaced. The site the link points to, clambake.org, is supported by dollars which hope to accomplish only one thing. There is only one subject, only one target that clambake org efforts against. To take clambake org's posted words as being true is to deny a Neutral Point of View. I have that Policy Letter before me now. It states (these are the words of L. Ron Hubbard) "I have isolated the most successful response to meeting any and all attacks on Scientology, its organizations and Scientologists, and as of this date this becomes policy. ADVOCATE TOTAL FREEDOM. That is the policy-advocate total freedom." I have read through the copy of HCOPL 15 Feb 66 titled Attacks on Scientology and quoted a small bit of it just above. And I have compared it to the linked information at Clambake org. Clambake does not have the current policy of the Church of Scientology posted there. My guess is, what they have posted there is not copyrighted (big piece of text there). The ISBN of the book I am reading from is ISBN 8773367575, it is one volume of the multi-volume set of the HCOPLs. Therefore in the article I placed {{Fact}}. Terryeo 10:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding the external links

I removed from the external links this piece of information: from An Introduction to Scientology which was stated after the first link pointing to modemac.com. It is an incomplete citation because it does not give which source of information is the introduction comes from. As it was the introduction might be as stated at modemac.com or might be from a book who's ISBN is uncited or might be from a pamphlet or newspaper article. As it was, it was at best an incomplete citation and needs better verification per Wikipedia:Verifiability before it goes back into the article. Terryeo 10:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Providing a neutral POV (NPOV) for Scientology information

The US Navy has produced a site for personnal. It is often hard to find a neutral POV about Scientology. *The Navy evaluation of Scientology. It might help resolve some confusions. Terryeo 14:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The material on that site is, as it says, a reproduction of the text at http://www.religioustolerance.org/scientol.htm - it was not written by anyone in the US Navy and is necessarily the views of the US Navy. - Scientologist Terryeo no doubt knows this (as he can obviously read) yet is still trying to POV-push it as "The Navy's evaluation". --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 12:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Uuhhh, good. Okay, you posted twice, I've acknowledged twice, are we at a parity yet? BTW, why don't you find a neutral party's posting about Scientology? That one doesn't seem to me to be far from neutral and, after all, the US Navy does recommend it for those persons of the US Navy who want to know about Scientology. but hey, post up some of what you want, okay? And next time, don't hold back on making bold text HEH Terryeo 16:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


What is it with you Povmec? I post perfectly good information and you come along and delete it with no reason. Why did you delete the military link from external links? Terryeo 14:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, I explained in the edit summary why I removed the link: "rm non working external link, I tried to fix it but I can't figure where it was supposed to link." I even spent some time trying to figure where it was supposed to link without success (I searched the Navy site with the word "Scientology" and nothing came out. It still doesn't work, I will assume it's a problem on my side for now, while others try it. Povmec 14:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, maybe I misposted it or something. does the link work for you when you click the link just above, I posted it in my paragraph before this one. Terryeo 19:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
While that information is on a US Navy site (and works for me), it is only a local copy of the external Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance page. There is a disclaimer above that page: "NOTE: The appearance of external hyperlinks does not constitute endorsement by the United States Department of Defense, the United States Department of the Navy, and the Naval Sea Logistics Center of the linked web sites, or the information, products or services contained therein. For other than authorized activities such as military exchanges and Morale, Welfare and Recreation (MWR) sites, the United States Department of Defense, the Department of the Navy, and the Naval Sea Logistics Center does not exercise any editorial control over the information you may find at these locations. Such links are provided consistent with the stated purpose of this DoD web site." Saying that this is the Navy's statement is incorrect. AndroidCat 20:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
The Site's heading says, "This is an Official U.S. Navy Website: at [3] and gives the link "Scientology" which clicks up to: [4]. The difference being, if you use the second link you don't see the "Official U.S. Navy Website" because the page is displayed all by itself. So okay then, I'll put the first link into the article. Anyone have another Neutral Party kind of link? Seems like Militarys might be a reasonable and conservative source of dispassionate, third part opinions. Terryeo 12:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The material on that site is, as it says, a reproduction of the text at http://www.religioustolerance.org/scientol.htm - it was not written by anyone in the US Navy and is necessarily the views of the US Navy. - Scientologist Terryeo no doubt knows this (as he can obviously read) yet is still trying to POV-push it as "The Navy's evaluation". --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 12:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

uuhhhh, good. So why don't you go ahead and find some neutral party's information on Scientology then? That's the best I can come up with. Terryeo 16:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Let me get this straight. Selina Kyle and Wikipediatrix are deleteing information based on the single datum that I am a scientologist? Is that the idea? or are you operating on some undisclosed Wikipedia Policy which you refuse to state? I put a perfectly good link in the external links section which mentions some court cases, which is at least kind of neutral and you both delete it. I don't understand what WikiPolicy you are using as your basis for deletion. Would you enlighten me please? Terryeo 16:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why do people keep editing with no discussion

The introduction states: Often the lawsuits are for reasons that the Church maintains are in its own defense, such as:

now that's a good example because the copyright laws of the internet today are the result of a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the USA, an author's copyrights are protected and hyperlinks to his work, as well. But the line goes on to state that much of the Scientology material is withheld from the public. Well, that isn't true. What would constitue "much?" 50 percent would constitute "much" and maybe even 10 percent would constitue "much." but if you get down to 1 per cent constituting "much" well, I have to disagree. In searching the internet and adding up what various Controversy Figures have publshed about the quantity of confidential materials, my best estimate is 650 pages. Does this constitute "much?" To put that into perspective, the total published information which the public uses, which you or I can purchase might be 100s of 1000s of pages. Hubbards output has been variously estimated but always 20 million or more words. Comparatively 650 pages is not a lot. I would like the copyright disputes line to talk about copyright disputes without bringing in the second, controversial line which deserves its own treatment, confidential materials. Can we please present the reader with one datum at a time, let him digest it, and move on to another? Terryeo 19:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't say "withheld from the public." I read the following: "much of Scientology's religious documents are copyrighted and withheld from members who have not paid for higher levels of courses and auditing." This seems pretty accurate as far as I know. I'm not sure how you came up with a 1% figure, it looks arbitrary. As far as I know, all of Hubbard's writings have a price tag on them, and are available only through courses. Povmec 20:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Its not accurate because public can purchase all of the materials that members can purchase. I would call that "publically available material" and there is a lot of it. Members get a discount, that's the benefit of being a member. The materials are equally available to everyone, member or not. Then there is a small amount of material that a person gains use to when they do a confidential level. I therefore say, "much" is not accurate because the amount of material is small. The totality of all of the confidential matieral is small compared to the total amount of material. My best guess is there might be as much as 650 pages of confidential material. And someone might know better than I, I have never seen any of it. Information about Hubbard's idea of the age of the physical universe was published in the 1950s, his ideas about space opera, most of that was published early. It makes a huge stack, 15 or 50 feet high, its a lot. But the confidential materials which are withheld from everyone who is not doing a particular confidential level is not "much" but is a relatively small amount of material. Can we go with "Some material is withheld...." because it is accurate and because it doesn't presume to judge how much material? Terryeo 16:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Since my edits have now been rolled back three times without explanation, I think a few comments are in order. First of all I should identify myself as the person who made the first comments over a year ago that led to the ‘NPOV’ discussion. I am neither an opponent of nor an apologist for Scientology, and I found the article in the context of research on litigation surrounding NRMs. I was surprised by its polemical nature, which to my mind was far below the standard that I had been accustomed to on Wikipedia. I would like to think that my comments sparked a constructive debate on the quality of the article, and it seems to me that the subsequent edits have improved both the tone and content.

Nevertheless, to my mind the article leaves much to be desired both stylistically and substantially. I note that much of the original material was reproduced word-for-word from web sites that go beyond mere criticism and clearly have an axe to grind against Scientology, e.g. containing language that most fair-minded people would characterise as invective and ridicule. For example, one of the more active editors, who on this occasion rolled back all my edits without any attempt at justification (Modemac) states on his web site “I've had more personal experience with Scientology than I can stomach”, refers to “the twisted, maniacally hate-ridden ranting of Scientology”, “the vindictive, hateful nature of Scientology” and describes how he “took part in activism to expose the truth about Scientology to the world”. I don’t know Modemac personally, and a quick perusal of his site suggests we may have a number of views in common, but might I humbly suggest that on this particular subject his own self-declared approach reveals a lack of objectivity.

On the specific edits:

1. The comment that Scientology uses the legal system “to attack perceived enemies” suggests it is aggressive and paranoid. This is opinion, and I understand the goal of the WikiProject is to achieve a text that is “dry and encyclopaedic”, not opinionated.
2. ‘Perceived copyright disputes’. The word ‘disputes’ alone is neutral, whereas the added word ‘perceived’ suggests the challenges lack merit (not neutral). In fact, the word ‘perceived’ only creates semantic nonsense, as if Scientology is only under the illusion that it is participating in court disputes.
3. “Unlike most religions, much of Scientology’s religious documents are copyrighted…”. This statement is manifestly false. As noted in my comments below, under international law (and the national law of most countries) copyright automatically attaches to any original work, religious or otherwise. If the author has in mind ancient history books like the Bible, Koran or the Bhagavad Gita, the comment is merely misleading because the modern concept of copyright law did not appear until the 18th century.
4. “Unlike most religions, much of Scientology’s religious documents are… withheld from members who have not paid for higher levels of courses and auditing.” Regardless of whether this statement is true, the concept of progressive enlightenment is common to many mainstream and non-mainstream religions (Catholicism, Hinduism, Freemasonry, etc.) and therefore the comment is at best misleading.
5. The article described a ‘pending case’ by the Church of Scientology against France, but this is unsupported by any evidence. The BBC link given says nothing about any case brought by Scientology against France.
6. The Church does, however, have several cases pending before the European Court of Human Rights claiming religious discrimination by Russia. My edit provided a link to the relevant European Court decision containing both the arguments of the Russian government and those of Scientology.
7. The article falsely states that in Germany, Belgium and France the Church is “officially recognised” as a cult. There is no such thing as “official recognition” as a cult in these countries. In particular, the French Parliamentary report expressly confirms this. However, in the 1990s the parliaments of these countries did in fact adopt reports highly critical of Scientology (and many other religions as well). I provided direct links to government sources critical of Scientology. I also provided a link to US Commission on International Religious Freedom for the alternative view.
8. Finally, I provided a link to an official Scientology source providing its own justification for its use of the legal system and introduced it as such.

I might note that I was able to locate all of these original sources in less than about 45 minutes of browsing. Both critical and apologist sources were used. Surely this brings the article closer to the “dry and encyclopaedic” objectivity sought by Wikipedia’s editors.Really Spooky 04:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

What I say on my own Web site is my own business. You've taken the time to use select quotes from my own site in order to paint me as a biased individual (a common Scientology tactic). Since you seem to feel that what I post on my own Web site somehow means I cannot adhere to NPOV on Wikipedia, I'll simply point people to the pages where I make those quotes. “I've had more personal experience with Scientology than I can stomach” can be found here; “the vindictive, hateful nature of Scientology” can be found at the same page, where I comment on Scientology's very own hate group, the Religious Freedom Watch; and I also make a statement that my own Web site is biased and proud to be biased. I stand by all of these statements proudly, because they are on my own Web site. On Wikipedia I respect NPOV, and I work to maintain NPOV, and I have no need to say more in my defense as I prefer to let my actions speak for themselves. --Modemac 09:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Modemac, I think your reaction may be a little too defensive. I simply drew attention to your own admitted bias, something you say you are proud of. However, I accept Wikipediatrix’ advice and comments below about the editing history of the page, which may explain why you chose to delete my edits without considering them, since it appears I was taken for someone else. I do hope you will consider them now, because you will find they contain very useful original reference material for the article, including European government sources that are quite critical of Scientology. Just to set the record straight, I never suggested, and do not suggest now, that you have no right to express your own views on your own web site, although you obviously do seek to make them other people’s business by openly publicising them in this way. Moreover, I acknowledge and support your ability to make contributions to Wikipedia, including on the subject of Scientology. Nevertheless, I hope you will forgive me if I remain sceptical about your ability to exercise restraint and maintain NPOV on this particular topic, particularly after seeing your project Operation Wideawake [5]. If this is serious, you appear to view yourself as a partisan participant in an “information war” against Scientology, and urge others with evangelical zeal to engage in ‘online battles’ in every available forum, even going so far as to characterise your war as a matter of life and death. I found both that the original version of this article, which I understand was authored by you, reflected the content and tone of your web site, which you admit is biased. Really Spooky 19:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply, and I hope you understand that I will be equally skeptical of you because of your actions after less than 24 hours on Wikipedia -- specifically your accusations based upon the text I wrote three years ago for this article and the opinions that I express on my Web site, which I am very proud of. You appear to be attempting to handle the entheta on Wikipedia by confronting the SPs here. If this is untrue, then please accept my apologies. --Modemac 21:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, I have been a passive reader of Wikipedia for a number of years. I don't know anyone personally who is a Scientologist, and do not admit any expertise on Scientology itself - from my limited knowledge it looks something like a cross between Star Trek and Amway (hope I'm not offending anyone, but that is my admittedly limited layman's perception). I first happened upon this article in late 2004 researching litigation surrounding new religious movements. Then I authored some of the early comments on this page from a computer with the IP 217.150.124.162 (see above) in response to what struck me as a highly polemical piece full of emotive language and few referenced facts, something I was not accustomed to seeing on Wikipedia. Then life went on and I didn't look at the page for about a year. Just the other day I came upon this page again and saw a WikiProject had been started to improve the quality of articles on this topic with the aim "to write neutral and well-referenced articles on Scientology-related topics". Since I am familiar with the much of the controversy and litigation surrounding NRMs in Europe since the mid-90s, I think I have something to contribute here, which was the catalyst of my decision become a registered user. Really Spooky 14:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] That introduction

The introduction makes 4 points but it makes them in a convoluted, back and forth style. It says Scientology's lawsuits are: "much of this is to attack perceived enemys" "Often lawsuits are in its own defence for: Copyright disputes." "Alleged libel and slander" "Claims of religious discrimination"

This sequence convolutes, first attacking, then defending, back and forth. Lawsuits tend to be complex enough. Couldn't we do something like: "The Church of Scientology has used the legal systems in various countries toward several goals.

  • Protecting its copyrights
  • Attempting to achieve tax except status as a religious organization
  • Attacking those who attack it through slander, libel, or other methods
  • Defending its actions from lawsuits against it by aggressively using legal systems" Terryeo 09:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Quotation use

uh, i really like wikipedia, i find the information useful. this is the first time in my life i've heard of this issue.

uh, i hope scientology doesn't sue wikipedia. whatever happen to the freedom of press?

I believe we can quote informations but not quote trademarked, confidential informations. In the same way we can quote short passages from any author if we attribute it to the author. Terryeo 09:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Neither trademark or confidential makes a difference to quoting (unless the poster has signed a confidentiality contract). The only applicable laws would be copyright, Fair Use quotation. (Your laws may vary.) AndroidCat 00:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Uhm, See WP:FU, and other relevant procedural and legal texts about copyright, trademarks, trade secrets, and intellectual property. Basically, if *any* document, *anywhere*, says "the black dog runs at night", and we can *source* the document (for purposes of WP:V), and use it in an academic, explanatory, or parody, way, without representing WP as the source of the text, there is no law, or procedure, whatsoever, which prevents us from doing such, provided that the servers continue to be housed in the US. However, there has been a great deal of confusion which has resulted from litigation about what does, and does not, constitute fair use. Most people lack a simple explanation.
So: breaking it down:
  1. We *can* use trademarks of Scientology, provided that we are representing the text or trademark as a critique or explanation of scientology, and not presenting WP as the primary authoritative source of information, and there cannot be reasonable confusion between the sources. Noting the initial source of such trademarks often helps as a defensive measure, but is *not* actually legally required.
  2. We *can* use just about any phrase, short section of text, or minor section of scientology texts, provided that it does not violate copyright, or trade secrets. Most successful litigation claims made by the CoS against individuals have *not* been about using short sections of texts, but rather lengthy ones. Thus, publishing a full OT VII document can be bad, but quoting from OTVII sections is ok. They can sue, and will lose (as has happened most of the time), or win, depending on whether the content quoted gives away a business secret.
  3. Confidentiality contracts are something of an amusing red herring. They're *really* difficult to enforce, and are rarely ever considered legally binding, *unless* the confidentiality breach affects a trade secret. In such a case, the *breacher* can be held liable for financial losses, but those who disseminate the information later cannot (as they lack mens rea).
  4. As far as a "short trade secret", or "compact intellectual property" things get slightly more complicated. If the phrase "the black dog runs at night" is used as a explanatory metaphor for something like "dark forces happen at nightfall", there is much less of a question of violation. However, if "the black dog runs at night" is a substitution cipher (replace all t letters with h, replace all h letters with e, replace all e letters with a space, and so on), then the cipher itself can be considered valuable property.
  5. And my final IP point: people have gotten totally, bizarrely, confused about mens rea and linking. It is currently, completely and totally, legal to link to *every single copyrighted text ever published* by the CoS, because the mere act of linking is not the problem in and of itself. The problem occurs when one links to a text with the *intent* (see mens rea) to dilute a trademark, the *intent* (natch) to violate a copyright, the *intent* to divulge trade secrets, and so on.
Coming at it from a perspective of working with a great many secret and/or sacred texts which have their own hotbed issues, linking to full, original, sources is a problem in this particular field. If we can find 2-3 sources which indicate that LRH says "the black dog runs at night", we can state that "Source A, B and C, said that the LRH claimed that "black dogs run at night". We cannot claim (per WP rules) that Scientology believes that "the black dog runs at night", nor can we even link to the full context of a document which has the phrase in context (massive copyvio)....
Since I'm getting really tired of watching my recent changes list filled with such debates, I'd really like it if we could hash out some standards, in line with WP rules, about how to handle such things. Ronabop 13:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
About Linking: I think the issue on linking is a non-issue. First of all, if the links go to a Scientology sponsored website, then scientology is to blame for not securing their servers. It is very easy to password protect documents on the internet. Instead of suing, all Scientology has to do is configure their servers so that the links don't work anymore. Secondly, if the links go to a website not sponsored or authorized by scientology, then the owner(s) of the website and/or the person(s) who posted the information may be liable for copyright infringement if they do not have authorization to publish Scientology's works. If that is the case, then Scientology has legal remedies to rectify the situation. In which case, the links would stop working once Scientology gets the infringing material removed. Besides, it is more effective to remove the website that contains the infringing material than to get hundreds of links to that webpage removed. If you remove the website, the links to that website will all stop working anyway. --WisTex 07:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi Ronabop, I'll try to spell out how what "confidential document" means within the Church of Scientology. ChrisO has quoted from such a confidential document. He says he has it and can read it. The Church keeps such documents under lock and key. It would not be possible for an editor or a reader to view such a document by normal means. To have a copy means that it was somehow stolen from the Church. As a museum might hold dear their "Mona Lisa," so too the Church holds dear their confidential document. As the military might hold dear their "SECRET" documents, so too does the Church of Scientology hold dear their "confidential documents. At no time does anyone ever own such a document. Within the church, when using such a document, you are given a copy to view but the copy belongs to the Church. To own such a document is not possible, it would have to be stolen. For ChrisO to do as he has doen is a confession that he was part of a crime, a crime of stealing from the Church. The point I am making is per WP:V, a source of information should be "unimpeachable" and and the burden of establishing the unimpeachablility of a source is on the editor. With Scientology there is lots of material and lots of information. Let's not involve Wikipedia in crime, let us leave that to newspapers. Let us use unimpeachable sources of information Terryeo 13:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Okay. First of all confidential document is irrelevant to the discusssion (and I often work with documents *much* more heavily guarded than documents of this type at times), but since you want to focus on it, I'll give you some examples:
  1. A person has a home Xerox machine. After they die, copies are found. Is there a dual shread and burn policy?
  2. A person who typesets a book forgets a floppy disk on a desk. Is there a no-backup policy?
  3. A person who transcribes a tape has a small child insert peanut butter into the tape. The tape is discarded, which makes it public.
Information leaks in many ways, all the time.
As far as keeping documents under under lock and key... this is, well, funny. The IRS kept their documents on CoS under lock and key, right? Lock and key sounds good to people.... who aren't locksmiths or key-holders. or people who scavenge hardware dumps, or drag information out of public dumpsters.
The Mona Lisa anaolgy falls flat. This presumes that the acidic papers used for LRH typing in the 70's are still in perfect condition... and that the paper itself is the source. As you noted 'people are given a copy", not the originals. They do not read the mona lisa, they view a *copy*, or a *copy of a copy*, or a *copy of a copy of a copy* etc.
WRT "SECRET" military documents, I can only assume that you don't know anything about levels of classification, or think that LRH documents should be as "SECRET" as a ship manifest. In which case, they're pretty public.
You did mention ownership of a document, and you're getting close to the issue. But you own words are dead wrong. You state At no time does anyone ever own such a document, but you fail to understand that the document content, but not the information itself, is always owned, but *selected portions* of the document are not owned, depending on the content. You repeat this mistake with the statement Within the church, when using such a document, you are given a copy to view but the copy belongs to the Church. The church may own the paper and toner, but they do *not* own* every text and phrase used in a given document. They may own the paper, and the words as a whole, but they have no ownership, whatsoever, on the use of the word "the" on page 26. None.
For ChrisO to do as he has doen[sic] is a confession that he was part of a crime,
Fair use hasn't been a "global" crime since the 16th century.
a crime of stealing from the Church. The point I am making is per WP:V
Okay, *this* is a better point to discuss.
a source of information should be "unimpeachable"
Please don't go there. I beg of you. You will be brutalized.
and and [sic] the burden of establishing the unimpeachablility of a source is on the editor. With Scientology there is lots of material and lots of information. Let's not involve Wikipedia in crime, let us leave that to newspapers. Let us use unimpeachable sources of information
Uh, so, there we have it. Anybody got an unimpeachable source of information on Scientology? Nobody without liars, dirt, pill-popping, whatever? Ronabop 15:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I too have worked with government classified documents. I appreciate your reply and analysis, Ronabop. A newspaper or the xenu or clambake sites might make it their business to challenge the secrecy of the information within a confidential, secret or other classified document. I don't believe it is the role of Wikipedia to do so. I acknowledge there is some grey area, area where present time articles might edge into what newspapers carry, where a person or a company or a government or business might have "secrets," protected or not, that wikipedia might, possibly edge into and quote as sources of information in articles. But I don't believe it was ever the intent of the founder of Wikipedia to make an issue in this area. "Unimpeachable sources," "the burden of proof is on editor" make it clear (to me at least) the intent of Wikipedia. Scientology has a vast amount of information, really vast. Think "4 year college degree" and you're getting close. Then there are court cases and sites like the U.S. Navy Site which presents what it considers to be, a neutral point of view for Navy Personnel. [6] click "About various faiths" click "Scientology." and lots of other information. By the way, Scientology has only one level of confidentiality and they call it "confidential" but really, no one owns the document but the Church. For myself, its an ethical issue. I wouldn't attempt to destroy something which someone was attempting to do good with. You might not agree with me that Scientology is attempting to do good, but it is my opinion that it is. This Wikipedia, my opinion is that it is an effort to do good. It is an effort (by many people) to broadly disseminate useful information, toward a betterment of mankind. Hateful and spiteful attitudes like "nah, nah, you can't read this and I can are going to pop up in any large group, but I feel hopeful that the group will press ahead with its goal. The particular document the ChrisO cites would require perhaps 3 years of prerequisite study before having enough education to donate and do the Class VIII course. And that is assuming the Church allowed the person.Terryeo 12:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Really Spooky

Really Spooky, there are a lot of good points to your proposed edit, and I wouldn't mind seeing them taken one by one and discussed here. Rather than true neutrality, however, your edit contained what I saw as a mish-mash of changes that were pushing both sides' POV at times. A lot of the new information you bring is good, such as the info about Russia, but your changes to a lot of existing information is questionable, like removing the qualifying word "perceived" from the first paragraph. Since this page and other CoS-related pages have been literally under attack and vandalized by Scientologists as of late, such drastic sweeping edits are likely to be treated with extra scrutiny. Rather than immediately coming in swinging and starting arguments and making accusations about everyone else who is reverting your edit, let's take it apart point by point here calmly and without chips on our shoulders. I'm actually willing to support at least half of your changes. wikipediatrix 13:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

OK wikipediatrix thanks for the explanation. I am not new to reading Wikipedia but am a genuinely new contributor (and would like to think I am learning fast); apparently I was taken for something called a ‘sockpuppet’ or a ‘meatpuppet’ – I can assure you I am neither but don’t know how to prove it! I don’t have any connection to the user named Terryeo (at least not that I am aware of :) ) and would have thought the substance of my edits demonstrated otherwise. Oh well, judging from others’ posts it seems they are now being read and we are starting to engage on the merits. Really Spooky 19:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Attack perceived enemies"

"The comment that Scientology uses the legal system 'to attack perceived enemies' suggests it is aggressive and paranoid. This is opinion, and I understand the goal of the WikiProject is to achieve a text that is 'dry and encyclopaedic', not opinionated." (copied from User:Really Spooky's list of objections above)

This illustrates an important and often-confused point about NPOV. Many times people will suggest that something must be NPOV about a particular article, because reading what is written there (it is argued) would be too likely to cause a reader to form a particular opinion. However, the goal of NPOV was never to keep readers from forming opinions; that is false balance, not NPOV. If it is accurate that Scientology uses the legal system to attack perceived enemies, which is in fact what L. Ron Hubbard instructed Scientologists to do, the fact that readers might develop a negative opinion of Scientology from that isn't relevant to whether it should be presented. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

With all respect, that is really a straw man argument. I did not suggest that the reader should be kept from forming an opinion - whether it be negative or positive one - but rather that the language in the article itself was opinionated. However, I would say that if a negative opinion is more likely to be formed because of the emotive language of the author rather than the facts presented, then yes, that does demonstrates lack of NPOV. When Scientology brings a court claim, is it ‘attacking’ or ‘defending itself’? Might Scientology actually have real enemies[7], and not just ‘perceived’ ones? What Hubbard did or did not instruct Scientologists to do 50 years ago is no justification for abandoning the desired ‘cold, analytical’ tone for a partisan one. Hubbard’s quote, which is in the article (although without any reference link, I am assuming it is accurate), speaks for itself. That is why I would recommend removing this bit. It is of course a relatively minor point compared to more substantive stuff later, but to my mind illustrative of the overall problem. Really Spooky 02:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] 'Perceived copyright disputes'

"'Perceived copyright disputes'. The word 'disputes' alone is neutral, whereas the added word 'perceived' suggests the challenges lack merit (not neutral). In fact, the word 'perceived' only creates semantic nonsense, as if Scientology is only under the illusion that it is participating in court disputes." (copied from User:Really Spooky's list of objections above)

You say that the word "perceived" suggests the challenges lack merit, but the inverse is also true: omitting the word suggests that all parties believe that the disputes are in fact disputes over copyright, rather than examples of Hubbard's famous "The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than win. The law can be used very easily to harass" dictum. It would be more accurate to call them "claimed copyright disputes", since "perceived copyright disputes" in fact makes a questionable assumption that the Church actually perceives itself as having a legitimate copyright interest in every case where it claims in court to believe it does. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Even a frivolous or malicious copyright claim is still a dispute about rights. So I would not agree that the inverse is true. The phrase 'copyright dispute' merely notes the existence of a dispute without making any assessment of the relative merits of each party's position. However, even if one accepts that Scientology has used litigation to harass, I understand it is equally true that it has won many of its copyright claims, so even by this standard the word 'perceived' goes too far - clearly some of Scientology's court claims have NOT been frivolous (whether it is 'moral' for Scientology to defend its copyrights is quite another matter, but at least on ocassion it has indisputably acted within its strict legal rights). I do think the word 'claimed' is an improvement; but to my mind the real problem is its link to the word 'dispute'. If others also find 'copyright disputes' unsatisfactory, might I suggest instead 'Alleged copyright infringements'. Really Spooky 19:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Hell I've seen em go on a rampage sending out cease and desist orders to websites who have users who had parodied/lampooned Scientology (RPG related jokes about their Level system) and its members (Such as Tom Cruise during his now infamous Couch jumping incident, Today Show Tirade and his rather stupid comments about Eating the placenta of his, at the time unborn child. The YTMND - Scientology conflict of 2006, and the resulting flood of such YTMNDs had things from sound bites of Hubbard making racist comments (such as calling African-Americans "Mudpeople") to clips of radio interviews with former members of the group who revealed that it existed only to drain their bank accounts and leave them stalled behind.
If I recalled the right to Satire and Parody is declared in Copyright Law and NO money was to be made from those things, it was primarily made for entertainment purposes and to get a few laughs (And if parodying and satirizing is a crime then SNL should have been taken off the air decades ago!)

[edit] Perceived vs. Alleged

Really Spooky, I have no problem with the alteration of the language you did to the intro. I had originally chosen the word "perceived" because to my spin-sensitive ears, it sounded less of a negative-spin word than "alleged", but hey, it's not that big a deal. As for the "Unlike other religions" bit, what I'm really trying to say is that Scientology's religious documents are actively copyright-protected, which is unlike most other religions. There are copyright notices on various editions and printings of the Bible, but no one's going to actually sue Jerry Falwell for copyright infringement if he reads from the NSV Bible on television. wikipediatrix 16:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

‘Perceived’ is subjective; it suggests the issue exists only in the mind of the one making the claim, ‘alleged’ is objective, it describes a claim that has been made but not yet been proven to be true or false. I still think this is less satisfactory, since Scientology has actually won copyright infringement cases (and perhaps lost some as well, although I haven’t found any examples of this yet), which is why I originally suggested ‘copyright disputes’, since this merely notes that there have been disputes without making any suggestion as to the merits of either party’s case. But I agree with you this is a minor point. Really Spooky 10:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Government attitudes toward Scientology

I would like to invite comment on my proposed changes to paragraph 3 before I post them again. The reasons:

1. The article falsely states that in Germany, Belgium and France the Church is “officially recognised” as a cult. There is no such thing as “official recognition” as a cult in these countries, which is expressly confirmed by the French [8] and German [9] parliamentary reports. 2. However, in the mid-1990s following the Waco incident these countries did conduct enquiries into ‘cults’ and adopted reports highly critical of “sects”. I have provided direct links to German and French government sources reflecting the critical on Scientology. 3. I also provided a link to US Commission on International Religious Freedom for an alternative view. 4. Finally, I provided a link to an official Scientology source where it gives its own justification for its use of the legal system, and have introduced it as such.

I set out the proposed new version below:

“The basis for many of these lawsuits, scientologists claim, is that Scientology wants to be recognized as a religion[10], which has met widespread resistance. In many countries it is not recognised as a religion but rather labelled as a cult. For example, in Germany [11] and Belgium the organisation has been called a "totalitarian cult" and a "commercial enterprise" by government bodies, and in France a 1995 parliamentary report classified it (along with 172 other relgious groups) as a "dangerous cult" [12] (the French original is here [13]). In respect of France, the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom has expressed concerns that such government intitiatives and activities have "fuelled an atmosphere of intolerance toward members of minority religious groups"[14].
“Elsewhere, for example in the United Kingdom and Canada, it is not regarded as a bona fide religion. In New Zealand it took 48 years as well as lawsuits to achieve recognition. [15]. Often such legal battles are not won wholly in one court case, and Scientology claims that its use of this approach has achieved progress in obtaining greater recognition as a religion in many of these countries[16]." Really Spooky 19:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Truth-checking time!

Can anyone provide a reliable and verifiable source for any of these assertions made in the article?

1. That Scientology has a “pending case against France” - Author – User:CastAStone. The BBC link provided does not say this.
3. “Critics estimate that the Church spends an average of about $30 million per year on various legal actions, and is the exclusive client of several law firms” - Author – User:CastAStone.
4. “In the United Kingdom and Canada, [Scientology] is not regarded as a bona fide religion” - Author – User:Mistress Selina Kyle.
5. The Hubbard ‘’“purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than win”’’ quote - Author - User:Modemac. I note the article claims this can be found in a court judgment and a Hubbard publication. However, so far I have found no other source than anti-Scientology sites quoting each other; surely someone can provide a link to an original source to verify the truth and context of this quote? Even if it is accurate, alone it does not support the article’s claim; it could just as easily be interpreted as a description of others’ tactics. Really Spooky 02:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
The reference to quote on "the purpose of the suit is to harass" is provided right with the quote itself: it's from "The Scientologist, a Manual on the Dissemination of Material," a Hubbard letter written in 1955. Of course Scientology would not provide the actual document to the public, and it has had to be quoted in court cases in order to be legally available to the public. This is one of many embarassing statements that Hubbard wrote and Scientology would like to cover up if it can. The estimate of $30 million per year on legal actions comes from the Time magazine article of 1991. -- Modemac 12:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

If you are relying upon the Hubbard letter itself, and it is not available to the public, then you have just confirmed what I suspected, that it is not a verifiable source. Have you seen the letter personally? Can you provide a link to the statement of an identifiable person who has?

If the quote can be found in a court judgment, that may be a good source, but I have yet to see any link to the judgment, or, if it has not been placed on the Internet, at least a citation that would allow someone to locate the judgment in a law library. A reference to the original judgment is essential to verify the quote, because judgments generally contain summaries of the parties’ respective submissions and this does not necessarily mean the judge had access to this letter itself or intended to verify its existence or content.

It does strike me as very unusual that a Google search reveals that every reference to this quote is either a reproduction of this same article or some derivative thereof, and whilst I do not want to rush to claim this is a Big Lie, some reputable source is needed to check both its accuracy (e.g. that it has not been corrupted) and its context (as I noted above, without more the quote does not establish this as the position of Scientology, it could just as easily be a description of the tactics of others).

Has Scientology itself taken any position on the quote? That might be a quick route to at once provide evidence of its existence and some context. Really Spooky 13:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

If you can somehow pry the original letter out of Scientology's much-guarded archives, you're a better person than I am. However, I for one am willing to accept the statement of a US circuit court judge, who quoted the statement directly in her ruling, as a verifiable source. Scientology did not question this statement, and they accepted the ruling of the judge in favor of the Washington Post in this case. I for one will accept this as a verified statement, and I daresay any reasonable contributor to Wikipedia (not only people involved in the discussion and controversy over Scientology) will accept it as well. I realize that witness statements and affidavits filed in court cases may not be NPOV, but an important point of the legal system is that judges are supposed to be neutral. Therefore, a court judgement -- which is where this came from -- is NPOV. --Modemac 14:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Modemac, thanks. I do think this is exactly the type of verifiable source that the article requires. And whilst the context of the quote is still not disclosed, to my mind the judge’s comments on the facts of the case itself are much more damning: “the motivation of plaintiff in filing this lawsuit against the Post is reprehensible… Although the RTC brought the complaint under traditional secular concepts of copyright and trade secret law, it has become clear that a much broader motivation prevailed--the stifling of criticism and dissent of the religious practices of Scientology and the destruction of its opponents”. It would be interesting to find out whether the RTC appealed against the judgment. Really Spooky 15:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Scientology was sued by France in 1999, 2000, and 2002, and though one would have assumed it would have finished between late 2003-early 2005, I can find no evidence that the 2002 case ended yet. I'll accept that as an error on my part if the case has indeed been resolved, but as I found evidence that they were sued and no evidence it went away, the case is, in my book, pending. Delete it if you'd like, I won't fight you. The 30 million figure is indeed from the 1991 Time article, much much higher (probably at least $75 million annually) since then with higher profile battles to fight, particularly suing Time Magazine, at least a half-dozen world governments, and plenty of web service providers and sites, but as $30 million is the last figure legitimately availibe, we'll hold to it. Finally, the burden to prove scientology is a bona-fide religion in Canada and the UK is on MSK why? You're seriously gonna piss her off if she sees this. the most recent canadian census - note the lack of scientology as a religion. Someone else can go look for the UK - i have to get back to work. P.S. Like it or not, that judges quote is typical of the opinion of many international judges in scientology related cases, as the article itself establishes. Rightly or wrongly, that is how many objective neutral observers view the group, mainly due to its legal actions. --CastAStone|(talk) 15:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
1. Starting with the PS - Just for clarity when I said the judge’s comment was damning, I meant of Scientology, i.e. it is a good example to support the article’s comment about barratry.
2. If the 30 mln is from Time, a link would be good to verify this.
3. No I don’t think MSK should be required to prove Scientology is recognised as a bona fide religion in Canada and the UK, quite the contrary: either someone should provide a reliable source for the positive assertion that it is NOT recognised as a religion, or remove the assertion altogether as unverifiable. I do think the UK bit is probably true, but a source is needed to verify this assertion.
4. No offence, but the Canadian census data doesn’t prove anything. A census is a self-identification process, and in fact Scientology was included in the census variable for religion (see no. 85 here: [17]). Since the census result only shows ‘selected religions’, my guess is that probably only a small number responded ‘Scientology’. Really Spooky 16:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Really Spooky, while it's true that a lot of the Scientology articles could use some beefing-up in the cited sources, I'm not sure why you're making such a fuss about this when then there's, IMHO, bigger fish to fry right now with these articles being inundated with self-admitted "hatted" Scientologists trying to whitewash all criticism and crying "POV" when they see anything they don't like. The time and effort you spent in criticizing the criticisms of Scientology could have been better spent in trying to find citations for the statements yourself. The fact that you didn't, and chose to focus your efforts on trying to tear down the uncited statements here instead, makes it seem like you're actively trying to prevent these statements from being in the article, rather than simply get to the truth. Grilling Modemac with ridiculous questions like "Have you seen the letter personally?" only further this confusing stance that seems to be degenerating into a devil's-advocate game. wikipediatrix 20:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

wikipediatrix, I did make considerable effort to find the citation myself before enquiring, see my comment above “It does strike me as very unusual that a Google search reveals that every reference to this quote is either a reproduction of this same article or some derivative thereof”. I also checked the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia web site using the case title – nothing there either – which is why I requested at least a citation. If my real motive was simply to prevent the statement from getting in the article, I would have removed it altogether without bothering to challenging it, and would have been completely justified in doing so under Wikipolicy, thus saving myself much time and effort. In fact I pointedly left it in the article and invited the author to provide a supporting reference:

“The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references. If an article topic has no reputable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic. Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but do not remove large tracts of Wikipedia without first giving people a chance to provide references to support their inclusion.”[18]

I thanked Modemac for supplying the reference, but since you’ve brought it up, s/he would have saved me all that time and effort if s/he had posted it when the article was written in the first place. I also note that my enquiries on the unreferenced edits have revealed inaccurate and/or unsupported information. If you find my stance confusing, or think I am just wasting people’s time by playing the devil’s advocate, it may be because I am neither pro- nor anti- Scientology but purely pro-Wikipedia, and therefore a stickler for articles that are accurate, objectively presented and well-referenced. I understand there is an information ‘war’ going on in other Scientology pages, but (1) I’m frankly less interested in and less qualified to comment on the doctrinal stuff and (2) those of you frying the big fish out there appear to be dealing with the Scientologists just fine without me. If it’s any consolation, I would have taken Terryeo to task for his unreferenced, and – to the best of my knowledge – false post that Scientology is a recognised religion in Germany, but Modemac deleted it before I had a chance. Without giving Terryeo the same chance to back up his edit, I might add. (Peace, Modemac, I’m just making a point here) Having said that, if you wish to suggest any other propagandistic articles out there, I am happy to have a hand at them, just remember I am no-one’s foot soldier, just doin' my share tryin' to make Wikipedia better.

PS – I do intend to continue working on this page. I can’t believe I keep having to explain myself on this stuff. Really Spooky 22:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


Time mag article as is already posted in the main article AND elsewhere on this talk page - minimal effort would be nice--CastAStone|(talk) 20:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah I know. You said above "the 30 million figure is indeed from the 1991 Time article". So where is it?? Really Spooky 21:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Right in this paragraph in the article: "The church's most fearsome advocates are its lawyers. Hubbard warned his followers in writing to "beware of attorneys who tell you not to sue . . . the purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than to win." Result: Scientology has brought hundreds of suits against its perceived enemies and today pays an estimated $20 million annually to more than 100 lawyers." And surprise, it actually says $20 million instead of $30 million. --Modemac 22:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Modemac, I appreciate that you are a good source of anything anti-scientology, since you run your own Wiki about that subject, but your 1955 citation of a Hubbard document (and a judge quoting it) might not be the total story today. The Guardian's Office (which operated under that internal memo, apparently) was disbanded because the caused the Church so much trouble. "Fair Game" was dropped as a policy, and today's policies have nothing like 1955. There's nothing wrong with presenting those dead, failed policies as a sort of historical development, but the "vengeful wrath" sort of approach used years ago didn't prove productive. Today the old G.O. is gone and another organization with different responsibilities performs the old G.O.'s functions. Essentially the Church combined what would be called "Public Relations" with "Legal" and produced the "Office of Special Affairs". Terryeo 14:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Whew that is a lot. But how about some of the cases the church has won, like legal recognition in Australia, Italy, and other countries. Or the landmark decision which the internet operates under regarding copyright protection which was established by the Church of Scientology before the Supreme Court and often quoted? Terryeo 01:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Terryeo, to whose Supreme Court do you refer? As for that and other cases, if you have verifiable sources (e.g. court judgments or independent reports), I don't see why they shouldn't be included on this page, that would be very relevant to the article. Until then, however, there is already a link in the article to a Scientology web-page listing places where the Church claims to have obtained legal recognition as a religion. Really Spooky 13:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I have misstated the situation, sorry. I was talking about this case; [19] which eventually was stated almost word for word into the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, (Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act)passed by Congress. Terryeo 15:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

<undent>Here's the "offical list of victories" [20] but as to linking to court documents, that's more difficult. I've actually tried to find a useable repository of them and can't. It beats me how lawyers can read that stuff hour after hour, heh ! There is the need for a PDF format and the "victory" isn't spelled out in common English high on the court document page. The documents are deep in archives, it is not so simple. Terryeo 14:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'Tactics'

To whom it may concern: The alleged copyright infringements of others are not 'Scientology tactics'. The alleged libel and slander of other are not 'Scientology tactics' either. Quite the opposite: they are the thing that is being complained about, whether justifiably or otherwise. Claims of religious discrimination might be described as a tactic, but you cannot use that word to describe everthing in the list because (if you will forgive a latinism) they are not all ejusdem generis.
It amazes me that some editors on this page are so paranoid about any edit that might that even remotely be viewed as positive or even neutral that they feel obliged to immediately revert it, even where it is only to rectify a simple logical inconsistency. Really Spooky 11:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing your opinion. Leave the name-calling out next time and someone might even listen to it. wikipediatrix 13:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Well spoken, Mr. Spooky. It would also be helpful if allegedly erudite wikipedian editors quit accusing some of us of Scientology "tatics" in other areas too, such as "Dev-T", "stating untruths", "dispersing the effort", etc. etc. And the phrase, "tool of ..." isn't particularly warming either. Terryeo 13:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tone

My TWIMC: Read my edits for my POV. I *do* have a concern that editors in this field who have had past indiscretions, and/or are new editors, have not been treated fairly under WP:CIVIL and WP:BITE. The amount of uncivil revert actions in the range of CoS articles bothers me. Yes, we have had Scientologists who wished to present their faith only in the best light. Yes, we also have had people who consider any effort to portray Scientology as anything other than in the worst of contexts as POV shading. In our jobs as wikipedia authors/editors, however, neither of those tasks is appropriate. It's not our job to say if Scientology is good, or bad. If that's your personal agenda, you're in the wrong wiki. Our job is to present the *arguments* about the subject, not render the decisions. If an editor feels strongly that they must violate basic policy about WP:NOT, and decide, or express, an opinion, wikipedia is not the place to do it. So, next time an editor wants to revert... add more instead? Ronabop
In the direction of "adding more instead", here is a link at ask experts, about Scientology. It addresses the Church's attitude and actions, especially in recent times toward the end of the answer Laurie Hamilton has responded with. Terryeo 05:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Newsgroups as References

Personal websites, Blogs and newsgroups are simply not useable as references for information. WP:RS (reliable sources) spells out more explicitly the policy by which we operate, WP:V. The article presently references a google.groups. The information within a google group, within a newsgroup is not useable in a Wikipedia article because there is no way to know who the person is that posts the information. Therefore it is not a reliable source of information, but instead is an opinion placed by an unknown source. The reasoning which precludes use of google groups, newsgroups, blogs and personal websites is available at WP:RS and on its talk page. Terryeo 06:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS is in conflict with WP:V here, and since WP:RS is not a policy, it does not preclude anything. According to WP:V, it is sometimes acceptable to use unreliable sources, if the statements are not presented as fact. Besides that, this reasoning is bizarre - are you suggesting that online sources need to be PGP signed? What makes a USENET post by a certain person less reliable than a website with the same text? They are both easily spoofed. --Philosophus T 12:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
If you have found an exception where WP:RS conflicts with WP:V then you should probably attempt an modification of the guildeline at its talk page. There is a healthy discussion going on over some of the personal websites which seem to often creep into these Scientology articles. Generally, widely published is preferred over narrowly published, etc. Usenet posts are discussed there at the WP:RS talk page and its discussions apply to all the articles on Wikipedia. Broad, general concensus rather than "spoofing" are the direction of effort. Terryeo 00:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Resources, fair and balanced

This link provides some information about Scientology and its legal status in various countries. It isn't written by Scientology or Scientologists. [21] Because it has current information, for example, the present status of Scientology within Germany, I post it for informational purposes. Terryeo 09:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Heh. It's an entirely one-sided page, and I'm not impressed by B.A. Robinson's two references: Scientology's CAN and Bernie's site. They left out a number of well documented events that would show that it hasn't been an unbroken string of victories, such as the rejection of charity status in the UK (England and Wales) in 1999.[22] In fact, since the CAN and Bernie sites have fossilizing for years, how is religioustolerance.org updating their page if those are their only two references? AndroidCat 12:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Heh, you know, I am really glad you raised the issue, "it is one-sided" because, as I stated, it is not created by anyone associated with Scientology, sympathetic to Scientology, employeed by Scientology or in any other way aligned with Scientology. I invite you to look around on that site too, because it is a site discussed widely, at this point considered to be a good quality personal website in some wikipedian discussions. It doesn't actually discuss "victries" and it doesn't actually discuss "losses". It hardly discusses emotional issues at all, but presents the present time status in various countries. If you want "victories" well, here but if you want "losses" you'll have to muckrake those out yourself. heh ! Terryeo 13:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
That turns out not to be the case Terryeo. The article INTERNET/COPYRIGHT CONFLICTS OF THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY is authored by Al Buttnor, Director of Special Affairs of the Toronto Org, OSA. (In fact, he appears to be author or co-author of most of the articles.) The reference given is to a religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu page, but that only contains a statement directly from Jeffrey K. Hadden of Church of Scientology International. So, with confirmation that religioustolerance.org publishes material directly from the Church of Scientology (without mentioning it), deceitful references, and no evidence of fact-checking, could you list those wikipedian discussions so that they might be enlightened? AndroidCat 15:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
In fact, comparing their current pages with Wayback Machine archives from 2004-10-12 09:28:16, I doubt that it can be honestly argued that they are still neutral in any way. AndroidCat 16:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] citations relevance here?

"The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom has expressed concerns that such government initiatives and activities, especially such as occurred in France, have "fuelled an atmosphere of intolerance toward members of minority religious groups",", i downloaded the pdf from the citation and i did'nt see scientology referenced once in it, so i fail to see how it applies here. i think the addition of this cite is just some sort of ploy to lend credibility to the assertion that scientology is a religion, and therefore it should be removed.70.100.138.217 01:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

70.100.138.217, you are correct to note that the 2004 report does not specifically mention Scientology. However, the context shows it is referring to the 1995 French Parliamentary report, which does list Scientology as a "dangerous cult". Therefore the quote is relevant to the article as it places the French Parliamentary report (mentioned in the paragraph immediately preceding it) in context; it shows that there is ongoing controversy and debate about the effects of such government actions.
As to whether the 2004 report should be removed because it is a "ploy to lend credibility to the assertion that scientology is a religion", it is clear from other USCIRF reports on Russia that it treats Scientology as a religion even if it was not expressly mentioned in this particular document. IMHO it is up to the individual reader to decide whether the USCIRF's position lends credibility to Scientology's claims; it is not our job as Wikipedia editors to remove relevant factual information for fear that readers might reach the "wrong" conclusion. Really Spooky 09:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citations toward a more NPOV

Further information in regards to Reference [3]: Opinion of the New Zealand Inland Revenue Department on the Charitable Status of Scientology (Dec. 24, 2002) [23] Terryeo 04:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Reference [6] which references a "Google Groups" is simply not an acceptable reference at all and should be removed per WP:V which states: Wikipedia articles should use reliable published sources and which is further specified by WP:RS which states: Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as primary or secondary sources. This is in part because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them, and in part because there is no editorial oversight or third-party fact-checking. Terryeo 04:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Reference [8] states the "German government has labelled the Church if Scientology a "totalitarian cult". That was true some years ago, but is not true today. The following links are news stories which spell out that the Church is granted Tax Exempt Status in Germany because of its humanitarian nature: Copyright and Other Royalties Paid by German Scientology to Church of Scientology International are Tax-Exempt: Decision of the German Federal Tax Office, January 2003, in German, with English translation [24] "Scientology freed from paying tax on returns" (Germany) [25] Terryeo 04:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Reference [17] cites a personal opinion on a personal website. [26] is not acceptable in any Wikipedia article as WP:V spells out. Personal opinion which is not published by a reliable source is cheap to publish on a personal website today. Anyone can simply post any opinion whatsoever. This does not make such an opinion reliable. WP:V requires that a reliable source has published such an opinion before such an opinion may be included in a Wikipedia article. The reason for this is simple, for maybe $10.00 a month, a person can create a website and publish any rant they choose to. This does not make their opinion worthwhile. Should that opinion get published by the New York Times, in a nationally distributed book or even in the least rag newspaper then that opinion could be cited in a Wikipedia article. Terryeo 04:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Let me see if I understand this: you were blocked from editing Scientology related articles over six months ago because of your mistaken belief that so-called "personal web sites" should never, ever be referenced on Wikipedia...and you're still whining about it now? Why not just come out and say what you really want, which is "there should be no criticism of Scientology at all on Wikipedia, and only links to the official Scientology site should be allowed"? --Modemac 15:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Apparently CasaleMedia linkfarm sites with unreviewed "news" posted by the Internet public affairs director, Church of Scientology International, Los Angeles are okay too. AndroidCat 00:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tilman Hausherr's deletion of documentations

Tilman just deleted a link to a court judgment which was positive for the Church of Scientology and put a link back in to a private anti-Scientology website whose purpose is to blacklist and smear individual Scientology members so as to get them ostracized in public life. Now, dear Wikipedians, do you consider this correct behavior? COFS 16:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Does this mean that the name lists in scientology publications and websites are designed to smear scientologists and have them ostracized in public life? --Tilman 16:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Bigotted blabber. You know exactly what I am talking about. COFS 18:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
About the judgement - I'll check whether it is broken and see what I can do. --Tilman 16:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I have corrected the broken link by using the document within the frame and shortening its URL, in the hope that the "key" is fixed and not temporary. Please come back and check in an hour, in a day and in a week wether it still works. --Tilman 17:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Meaning of the European Court of Human Rights decision

Re this revert "against" me: [27] My understanding of the decision is that the court held that the refusal of registration was against human rights because the explanation ("missing documents") without being told what documents is illegal and NOT that the court held that scientology must now be registered as a religion in Russia.

Does anyone see this differently, and why? --Tilman 19:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The European Court of Human Rights found that the refusal to re-register the Church was an interference with its rights to freedom of religion and association. The court's analysis about the illegality of the reason is only relevant to its conclusion that the interference was unjustified.
If the only issue at stake had been whether the Russian authorities had given proper reasons for the refusal, the European Court would have had no jurisdiction to consider the case; it is not a Russian appeal court. For example, if Coca-Cola had been refused registration as a religious organisation in Russia for the same unlawful reasons, the European Court would have dismissed the complaint as inadmissible. To put it plainly, the Court could not have found a violation of Articles 9 (freedom of religion) and 11 (freedom of association) unless it was certain that the Church of Scientology had properly invoked those rights.
Whilst the European Court's decisions are always declaratory in nature, the Court made clear that Russia must remedy the Church's rights in a manner consistent with its findings that a religious community enjoys the right to recognition as a religious organisation, and that right applies to the Church of Scientology (see paragraphs 72, 83-85, 106 of the judgment). -- Really Spooky 20:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
No, the court did not say that "only" the refusal to re-register was an interference. The interference was that the refusal was not grounded in the russian law and the freedom of religion, but was arbitrary. (Thus, IMO, Russia must either come up with a lawful reason for the refusal, or register the organisation) Your last text with "72, 83-85, 106" even confirms this. To prove your argument, you must come up with an excerpt claiming that scientology should have been registered. 106 tells: Court has established the Government's obligation to take appropriate measures to remedy the applicant's individual situation and Whether such measures would involve granting re-registration to the applicant, removing the requirement to obtain re-registration from the Religions Act, re-opening of the domestic proceedings or a combination of these and other measures, is a decision that falls to the respondent State. The Court, however, emphasises that any measures adopted must be compatible with the conclusions set out in the Court's judgment. --Tilman 15:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Aha. Well, how come the Russians registered the organization in the first place? Misou 15:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Because of "anything goes" laws at that time, which resulted in many dubious organisations registering as religions. That is why the re-registration was created. --Tilman 17:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Tilman, either you honestly don’t understand how the European Convention works and the Court’s approach to such cases or you are deliberately trying to mislead others on this page. In particular, you are confusing the Convention law concepts of 'interference' and 'justification'. I assume good faith and therefore will try to explain it to you in greater detail.
  • Articles 9 (freedom of religion) and 11 (freedom of association) are what are called ‘qualified’ rights. Each of those articles (you can read them at paragraph 64 of the decision) is made up of two paragraphs: the first paragraph sets out the extent of the right in question and the second paragraph sets out the circumstances in which restrictions on exercise of the right are justified.
  • The Court’s approach in such cases is to determine (a) whether there has been an interference with a Convention right; and (b) if so, whether that interference was ‘justified’ in the Convention sense, such that “interference + no justification = violation”.
  • The Court found an interference with the Church’s rights under Article 11 in light of Article 9 in that it was entitled to recognition as a religious organisation (paragraphs 81-85). This was an absolutely necessary step for the Court to consider the case at all. As stated in my earlier example, if the applicant had not been entitled to recognition as a religious organisation, e.g. if it had been the Coca-Cola company, the Court would have concluded there was no interference at all and the application would have been dismissed at this stage without further analysis.
  • Then, and only then, does the Court go on to analyse the government's reasons for refusal and whether there had been any proper justification for the interference with the applicant's right (see paragraph 85). ‘Justification’ in this context means more than just a lawful reason, which is only a starting point. Even if a lawful reason is given for the interference it will not be sufficient justification unless it pursues one of the ‘legitimate aims’ listed in the second paragraph (interests of public safety etc.) and the measure taken is one that is “necessary in a democratic society” (essentially meaning that the measure should not be excessive or disproportionate).
  • As matters happened in this case, Russia's defence failed at the first stage, because it had not given any lawful reasons. That is why the interference with the Church of Scientology’s right to recognition as a religious organisation was not justified and the Court held that there was a violation of the Convention. Even if it had given lawful reasons, however, it would still have had to prove that those reasons pursued legitimate aims and were necessary in a democratic society, i.e. they would have had to been sufficiently serious to justify the interference with the Church's right to existence as a religious organisation.
  • Your assert “To prove your argument, you must come up with an excerpt claiming that scientology should have been registered”. That is simply not true, the European Court's task is not to decide what 'should have been done' but rather to determine whether a violation of the applicant's rights has occured. Nevertheless, the very passage you quoted clearly shows the significance of such a finding: “By finding a violation of Article 11 read in the light of Article 9 in the present case, the Court has established the Government's obligation to take appropriate measures to remedy the applicant's individual situation”. The fact that the Court declined to identify a specific measure is a purely procedural issue because “the Court is not empowered under the Convention to grant exemptions or declarations of the kind sought by the applicant, for its judgments are essentially declaratory in nature”. Thus the Court pointed to different examples of how the Russian government could remedy the situation, whilst making it clear that “any measures adopted must be compatible with the conclusions set out in the Court's judgment”.
  • Contrary to what you appear to suggest, your highlighted option “re-opening of the domestic proceedings” does not mean that the Russian government can avoid its obligation to remedy the applicant’s rights by simply coming up with a completely new reason for refusal that was never raised before. This is because (1) the proceedings in question were judicial review proceedings, i.e. they are only concerned with the justice department's original reasons for refusal; and (2) such an outcome would not be compatible with the Court’s conclusion that “the interference with the applicant's right to freedom of religion and association was not justified” (‘justified’ being used here in the Convention sense) (paragraph 98). -- Really Spooky 00:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
You wrote a lot, but nowhere did you show that scientology has a "right" to recognition as a religious organization in Russia. It is your interpretation. What I quoted (106) specifically contradicts this, and supports my version. Even your last text ("justified") supports my version. The refusal was not justified, thats it. Your coca-cola theory is not relevant. My version doesn't turn it POV, since the next segment does tell that the refusal has no lawful basis. Which is indeed the point.
The Russians may indeed come up with new reasons, since they never did a real registration proceedings, and now they'll have to. Unless, of course, they simply back off and register the organisation.
The removal that you commented in the edit summary is simply because it was double, and doesn't fit in that segment. That segment is for a general intro. See also my comment in the text.
Btw, technically, and interpretation is OR anyway. So if we can't agree, the interpretation words should deleted completely and only the court language kept. --Tilman 05:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Tilman, I see from your Wikipedia user page that you have a strong anti-Scientology POV. I suspect this is why you are resistant to accepting the significance of the judgment.
Your assertion that the Court’s only “point” is that the refusal was unlawful is based on a lack of understanding of how the European Court works. Its task is to adjudicate on violations of human rights, not Russian law (although a discussion of the latter may form part of its analysis). If the Court had not recognised the Church’s right to recognition as a religious organisation, Articles 9 and 11 would not have applied and the Court would have found no violation. It is difficult to put it much simpler than that.
If you are genuinely having difficulty understanding this fundamental concept, I would be happy to provide you with some illustrative case-law (I won’t bore others with it here), or you could ask any human rights lawyer familiar with the subject. Better yet, you could read the paragraphs of the judgment that I cited above (paragraphs 81-85). I quote the key passages here:
Where the organisation of the religious community is at issue, a refusal to recognise it also constitutes interference with the applicants’ right to freedom of religion under Article 9 of the Convention… The Court has already found in a similar case that this situation [refusal of re-registration] disclosed an interference with the religious organisation’s right to freedom of association and also with its right to freedom of religion in so far as the Religions Act restricted the ability of a religious association without legal-entity status to exercise the full range of religious activities... These findings are applicable in the present case as well. Accordingly, the Court considers that there has been interference with the applicant’s rights under Article 11 of the Convention read in the light of Article 9 of the Convention.
If you insist on reproducing this in the article instead of my simple, concise and wholly accurate statement that the Court recognised the Church’s right to recognition as a religious organisation, be my guest. In my view, however, that would be excessive.
You are also wrong to state that the Russian government “may indeed come up with new reasons, since they never did a real registration proceedings”, for the reasons I mentioned above and which you chose to ignore in your response. Besides, what in your view are “real registration proceedings”? The Russian government refused registration using differing reasons 11 times over seven years, they were all considered by the Russian courts in adversarial proceedings, and the European Court found that none of the reasons advanced were “weighty” or “compelling”. I understand, of course, that you may feel that if you had been the Russian Minister of Justice you could have come up with better reasons, but then that would just be your own speculation, wouldn’t it?
Finally, you state that the removal of the comment on the judgment at the top “was simply because it was double, and doesn't fit in that segment”. I invite you to honestly consider your own motives. If that is true, then why didn’t you remove any of the numerous other multiple references to judgments unfavorable to Scientology, such as the Time magazine case, which is mentioned at least three times in the article, including in the heading? You are also wrong to suggest that the reference to the European Court case “doesn’t fit into that segment”. The European Court case is a clear example of a religious discrimination case. All the other listed types of cases are supported by specific examples, but you did not remove any of them. I can only conclude that your selective editing choices are influenced by a desire to minimise the positive Scientology information in the article whilst maximising the negative Scientology information, which in fact reflects your POV. -- Really Spooky 07:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
The reason that I found that the case was double was because I clicked on the link to the judgement, and it was broken, despite that I had corrected the link - weird. I then found that the ref had the same name than the one I had corrected (to a link that still works), but elsewhere. I then decided to delete not only the ref, but one of the mentions as well. Btw you restored the broken link.
I have deleted the TIME case as well.
About the russian decision - I'll accept it for the moment, because of paragraph 81. --Tilman 15:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Well isn't that special: I was reverted by MISOU and COFS, but only partially: the dup TIME case that I deleted stays deleted, but the dup ECHR case (with the broken link) is back. But I'll wait before doing it again; although I don't risk 3RR yet on the dup situation, people might miscount it because of other reverts I did. --Tilman 19:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of court decisions

I read through the list of "important" court decisions. This is ugly. Why? Because the "importance" is so obviously tainted by anti-Scientology POVs that I could puke. Anyone here has some other judgments? Misou 16:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

As you may know, the purpose of a lawsuit per scientology policy isn't to win. So many cases are cases lost by scientology.
Please don't share your stomach problems on wikipedia, unless it is a medical article discussion. --Tilman 15:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
If this is all you have to contribute to my request you might as well shut up. Misou 17:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
you might as well shut up is also not very helpful in a debate. --Tilman 17:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Look at it: I asked a question, you responded bullsh*t, I told you to contribute something better and you backlash. The long-term "critic" on Scientology issues has no answer to a question on court cases? I don't believe it, it is improbable. More likely is that you are withholding things which might be positive for Scientology. Misou 18:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I responded with a quote from an official scientology policy. Is this a problem for you? --Tilman 19:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of names removed

I removed the list of names of lawyers. This seems to be to be out of place in an encyclopedia article. Thanks. Steve Dufour 12:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Relevant information to the topic of the article is obviously encyclopedic. wikipediatrix 12:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Why is a list of lawyers relevant? I think an article on the topic of "The CoS files lots of lawsuits" is fine. I don't see what the purpose of a list of lawyers is however. It looks kind of odd anyway. (And if you do decide to include it why not have a list of the lawyers who worked on the other side of these cases as well?) Steve Dufour 19:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Steve makes a very important point. The only purpose of the list appears to be a desire to stigmatise, by mere association, lawyers that have acted for Scientology. This is not only intellectually dishonest, but also contrary to WP:LIVING. In fact, I note that many of the listings are not referenced. More importantly, however, it is clear that a number of the lawyers in the list have no connection with Scientology whatsoever other than that they happened to represent them in a particular court case.
I would agree that the reference in the main body of the article to the fine imposed on Helena Korbin is relevant IF it is established that she was a known Scientologist at the time (maybe someone else knows more about this). Otherwise, the fact that she was fined for a frivolous lawsuit only means that she is unethical lawyer that should have refused to act on her client's instructions. The list, however, should be removed. -- Really Spooky 20:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you would think that having been an attorney representing Scientology would automatically "stigmatize" someone, but the fact remains that they did represent them, and that's that. I can't believe anyone would question why a list of Scientology's lawyers would be relevant to an article that is specifically about Scientology's use of lawyers. wikipediatrix 20:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

To me the list just seems kid of weird. I have never seen anything like it in any other articles. On the other hand, being on the list would probably be more likely to help them in their careers than hurt them, so it might not be a living persons violation. Steve Dufour 20:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

wikipediatrix, I don’t think the fact that a lawyer has represented Scientology automatically stigmatises him or her. What I think is that the indiscriminate lumping together of a diverse group of people in a single list on a page that says unnamed Scientology lawyers have “intimidated” people through litigation, filed “frivolous lawsuits” etc. seeks to stigmatise them by mere association, because any lawyer truly involved in such matters would be guilty of professional misconduct and perhaps worse.
This article is about litigation involving Scientology, not ‘Scientology’s use of lawyers’, but in the end that distinction is irrelevant. The point is that the article is about Scientology’s conduct, and not that of the lawyers themselves. Lawyers are professional representatives ethically bound to act in the interests of those instructing them (within the law, of course). Without more, the identity of a lawyer who has respresented a Scientology organisation is no more relevant to the article than, say, the judge that heard the case, the clerks that filed the court documents, or the Church’s stationery supplier.
If you genuinely don’t understand the difference, I will illustrate a case in point. One of the lawyers on the list is an English barrister, a respected Queen’s Counsel, there is no indication whatsoever that he is a Scientologist and it appears he only acted in one case involving an individual Scientologist. Under rules of his profession, a barrister cannot be instructed directly by a lay client, but is instead retained by a intermediate lawyer (i.e. a solicitor). Moreover a barrister may not refuse to accept a solicitor's instructions unless to do so would otherwise be unethical or for example cause a scheduling conflict. How is his identity relevant to the article (or to 'Scientology's use of lawyers' for that matter)?? -- Really Spooky 22:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
PS on the references: Your assertion is simply wrong. At least two of the names are not identified in any cited source. Many references are to a so-called “Shyster” list (I suppose you think there is no stigmatisation there either) that contains little or no evidence that the lawyers in question are related to Scientology at all, other than unsupported assertions. One name has been removed from the list, other links don’t work, and several only happened to work in law firms that represented Scientology at one time or another, without any indication of their personal involvement in any Scientology case. Don’t even get me started on the reliability of some of the sources. Even if this list was relevant, it is very, very sloppy. -- Really Spooky 22:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Which two names are you speaking of? I can't read your mind. wikipediatrix 03:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
You don't need to read my mind, because you of course already saw them in my comment at 2:41 on the BLP Noticeboard. Which, by the way, you responded to at 3:11, i.e. before your 'mindreading' comment above. -- Really Spooky 05:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the list of attorneys. This list is a clear attempt to attack lawyers who have purportedly worked for the COS, and the sources from which it draws are neither reliable nor neutral. This section clearly violates WP:BLP and WP:NOR. Do not re-place this material until a consensus of well-established editors has agreed that the material does not violate these policies. FNMF 02:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you an admin? Expressing your opinion is one thing, but you're barking orders like you own the place. wikipediatrix 03:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not intending to bark orders. But the material has already been removed once today for BLP concerns, and should not have been replaced without fully addressing these concerns. It is a requirement that WP:BLP be enforced strictly. Either the lawyers are not being accused of anything, in which case there is nothing notable or encyclopaedic about the fact that they worked for the COS, or else there is an implicit attack contained in the decision to include the list, in which case it violates WP:BLP and WP:NOR. Given the context of the entry in general, I am inclined to conclude the latter, but in either case the list does not warrant inclusion. If you disagree with this, I suggest opening a Request for Comment to discuss whether inclusion of this material can be justified. If that RfC results in a consensus of established Wikipedians deciding that the material can be included, at that point the material could be re-placed. Until then, the rule is: if in doubt, leave it out. Clearly there is doubt at present. FNMF 03:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Your assertion that the lawyers MUST be accused of something in order to become notable enough to list on an article that is about Scientology's use of lawyers is just.... bizarre. wikipediatrix 03:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
The identity of somebody's lawyers is not encyclopaedic information. Hence editor Steve Dufour's removal of the information in the first place. FNMF 03:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
You keep saying that over and over and over but repeating your opinion like a mantra is not helpful at all. Please point to a relevant text in Wikipolicy that says such a list within an article whose subject is specifically related to the list is "not encyclopedic information". wikipediatrix 03:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Without wishing to repeat myself over and over and over, I can only reiterate my suggestion: open an RfC to garner opinion about this matter. FNMF 03:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Added WEASEL template

Exactly what does 'throughout the world' mean, and where is the citation that backs up this claim? Lsi john 19:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC) This entire article is full of weasel wording and unsubstantiated claims. Lsi john 19:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

  • I came to this page and added {{reflist}} after checking it out through the category from the article Eugene Martin Ingram. I am curious, how did you come to find this page? Smee 19:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC).
    • Well, several months ago, I signed onto wikipedia. Through a series of edits and links, eventually I arrived here. I believe talk pages are for article discussion. Is there a problem with the edits I made? Lsi john 19:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I am curious as to precisely how you came to edit this particular page, a mere 2 minutes after I did? Smee 19:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC).
        • I believe I clicked edit. I'm curious how you knew I would edit the page a mere 2 minutes before I edited it. Lsi john 19:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
          • Are you monitoring my contribs? Are you following me? Or rather, did you come to find this particular article in some other fashion? Smee 19:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC).
            • Ah.. so now it comes out! Enough rope and they hang themselves. You should probably report it to AN/I. I believe in the past when you have stalked my edits, and posted on everyone's talkpage, right after I did, and make changes to every article within minutes of me, you claimed 'watchlist'. So I believe I will claim that also. And, in my case, its even true! Amazing. Get on with your happy self. Lets stick to writing fictional articles without reading sources and stop accusing me of following you around, ok? thanks! Lsi john 19:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Ah, so you had this article, Scientology and the legal system on your watchlist? And just came to edit it for the very first time in over a month, 2 minutes after me? Okay. I get it. I will not report you anywhere, but instead move away from this article, as well. Bye. Smee 19:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC).
    • My dearest Smee, check the article edit history. I've edited here before. Sorry to disappoint your conspiracy stalking theory. Lsi john 19:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Added CITECHECK template

Several ref'd statements do not track with the material being cited. e.g.: the first paragraph 'frivolous' does not seem to appear in the interview text. Lsi john 19:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

John, since it's two months later and no one has responded to your concern, we can only assume no one cares. So, that being the case, I would recommend you remove any of the improperly sources bits you refer to. wikipediatrix 18:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Removed frivolous. Removed tag since it was the only case listed here. AndroidCat (talk) 17:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] off-subject?

This article is about the use of the legal system by CoS; not about legal recognition of Scn by courts which should be under Scn main article. I mntion this in reference to the recent edit war. --Leocomix 10:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no, it's about "Scientology and the legal system", which could open-endedly include any conceivable connection between the two - not just "use of the legal system by CoS". On the other hand, changing the article's title and scope to the more specific topic you mention wouldn't be a bad idea. wikipediatrix 18:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Or there's spun-off and abandoned Scientology as a state-recognized religion... AndroidCat 19:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC) Whoops, there actually was recent edit there. AndroidCat 19:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Not the impression I get from reading the article. These are two distinct subjects. I guess the use of the legal system by CoS to destroy "enemies" per Hubbard policy is what makes it notable. If we include legal recognition as a church here, we overlap with the main article, with Scientology controversy. Possibly a merge of this Scientology controversy is in order. --Leocomix 22:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
The article needs a total overhaul anyway. Most of the complaints about Scientology's legal tactics stem from a basic naivete about how copyright/trademark law works, and how business and corporations conduct themselves in such matters. The CoS acts more like a business than some other religions do, but so what? (That's actually one of the things I admire about the CoS!) This article makes a lot of smoke out of a very small fire. In order to separate the chaff from the chaff, I propose we rename this article Scientology litigation. wikipediatrix 22:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Labeling it as naivety is with the benefit of hindsight. In the beginning, it was unclear how copyright, trademark, trade secrets, and nuances like fair use were going to apply on the Internet as well as who was legally responsible for what. Cases like CoS v. Netcom helped establish that and were referenced for the drafting of the US DMCA. The article doesn't mention cases like Readers Digest and a number of other publishers, Erlich or Christofferson-Titchbourne (with CoS down $39 million at the half-time before coming back for an unknown settlement). AndroidCat 00:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Still, right or wrong, Scientology isn't doing anything (lawsuit-wise) that any other large corporations aren't doing. As horrible as the Lerma raid was, it's actually on par with current cut-throat horror stories of the RIAA and record labels raiding people's homes and sending them to jail over sharing MP3s. And Fox TV has been every bit as aggressive as the CoS in cease-and-desisting sites to death for even the most miniscule infraction of its intellectual property. The CoS is really just another megacorporation hawking a product. Of all the things they deserve criticism for, being ruthless about their copyrights isn't it. I'd do the same thing if I was in their shoes. wikipediatrix 00:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What about Crown vs Church of Scientology, 1996?

I believe that merits a mention under "Canada": http://www.lermanet2.com/reference//scientologyincanada.htm laddiebuck 00:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

You mean R. v. Church of Scientology of Toronto? AndroidCat 04:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I apologise for the naming difficulty there. Do you know when it's "Crown vs" or "The Queen/R vs"? I grew up with "Crown vs" but I never paid particular attention to the finer points of legal terminology. laddiebuck 02:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This Wikipedia article was cited by Sky News, January 16, 2008, re: Tom Cruise Scientology video leaked to Internet

Close, but it's definitely Scientology and the Internet. Note Zenon Panoussis. AndroidCat (talk) 14:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah. Still, exciting, nonetheless.. Cirt (talk) 16:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Editing, Insertion, & Redirection?

I wonder if this should actually be cleaned up and inline more with the Scientology main article. A redirect might also be in order, esp. considering old links elsewhere. I, however, have no stake in this article, nor have contributed, so my opinion probably doesn't mean much, but it does warrant reason enough to suggest or inquire.Vampromero (talk) 12:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you'd have expand on "inline more with the Scientology main article". All articles could use cleanup, but what specifically do you mean? AndroidCat (talk) 14:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)