Talk:Scientology beliefs and practices

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Scientology beliefs and practices 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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents

[edit] Sounds Just Like Their Website

How can you call that fair and balanced?

"Serously, scientology is a joke... a waste of money and a fraud." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.108.85.244 (talk) 02:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lack Of 3rd Party References

The complete lack of 3rd party references to any data on this article warrants deletion. I've talked to other churches and organizations that were deleted because of their lack of 3rd party references. There should be no discrimination. Yes, they are an organization of note. However, anything without a 3rd party notation should be removed.

[edit] Number of scientology articles on wikipedia?

Surely this doesn't warrant its own article. Condense it a little and insert the remaining material into the main Scientology article. If I was to open a hard-copy encyclopedia I wouldn't expect to find the main Scientology article in a different section to "beliefs and practices". These Scientology articles are getting out of control.--Grinning Idiot 14:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In regards to a now-removed description of the handles of an E-meter as resembling an "asparagus can"

what does an "asparagus can" can look like? - 195.92.101.11

its read and green and spreads all over? - Terryeo 09:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SOME ? Churches of Scientology are busy places?

Churches of Scientology are open to the public from about 10 Am in the morning until about 10 PM at night. This is, count them, 12 hours a day and they run week ends too. During that time classes are taught. Auditing is delivered. Two shifts of personal (called staff) run two independent organizations in the same building to make this schedule work. That is Busy. It is not "rare churches here and there" and it is not "Some Churches" but it is "Churches of Scientology are busy places." If you choose to learn this by your own experience, feel free at any time to enter any Church of Scientology and ask for a tour. If you refuse to accept this obvious, simple straightforeward statement I would be glad to quote you policy that specifies hours a Church is to be open to the public. What's the problem with "Churches of Scientology are busy places?" Terryeo 03:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Are all churches equally busy for 12 hours a day? Has a study been performed on the subject, that we could cite? Have some churches been very busy and other churches, less busy? Are all busy churches equally busy? Do some churches have busy periods that others do not have? Ronabop 11:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Ronabop, nice to be talking with you. I mean to convey what a person might expect in a CoS because it is quite different from walking into a Christian, Catholic or any other Church I have walked into. They are busy places. Classes are going 12 hours a day, this is standard administration policy. Auditing is going on. 7 days a week its a busy place. I mean to convey that by saying, "Churches of Scientology are busy places" but I'm not like cast in stone about the syntax of how that idea is presented. Terryeo 14:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that saying "Churches of Scientology are busy places" is not a fact with cites to support it. As it stands it is opinion. You could perhaps describe the hours, but that would not be in the beliefs and pactices section anyway. Also, the hours a place is open or the fact that classes are offered does not mean there are actually people there. If a mjor mainstream media refered to Church of Scientology buildings as busy places it could be quoted, but it seems to me that simply stating that they are busy is unsupportable. Cerevox (talk) 06:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This is one of the worst articles in wikipedia

This article is garbage. It doesnt mention anything about the numerous lawsuits threats and intimidation that the 'church' has perpetrated on people. This article is truly a pathetic example of a case in which the principles of wikipedia have utterly failed, in that a dedicated well-off upper middle class cult with a lot of people with a lot of free time can systematically conspire to commit censorship by the sheer volume and tenacity of their attempts to edit the page over and over and over and explode bombs into the ocean of truth as though to vaporize it forever.

What is wrong with you people? Don't you see that a section, "Scientology Lawsuits" could be placed in this article? Put your research where your carping attitude presentes itself! Cite and quote, cite and quote. Put your POV in the article. I believe you will find the rains of justice fall equally on all of us. If you believe so too, put your POV in the article. Terryeo 14:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

i can only hope that some day the rains of justice will fall again and those injured by the cult will see the day when the principles of wikipedia can once again return to the field and win again.

I agree that Scientology is garbage, but we have to be fair to all parties. The lawsuits you mentioned would be/probably already are on the Church of Scientology page, as they have no place on this one.
I agree. The lawsuits should be on the COS page, and as long as this is NPOV, i'm fine with it. mrholybrain 23:53, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
This article is about "beliefs and practices" but an article might be created about "Scientology Lawsuits." This article here is not 100 percent accurate about Scientology's beliefs, belief.net is more accurate and stated more succinctly (this is my opinion as a scientologist) but the article has a good flows to it that is readable. As a point of information, in a field of millions of people very very few people have proven they were harmed by Scientology and those were mostly in the earliest years of Scientology when it was developing. 65.147.75.58 08:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a scandal sheet. Wikipedia articles are not to be sensational. Attempts to make them more rather than less so goes directly in the face of what wikipedia is supposed to be. Smarter brains than mine will hopefully site and link the policy refs that say in other words exactly what I'm saying here.Thaddeus Slamp 02:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that Scientologists "religiously" hunt down and remove bad PR stuff anywhere it can be found and in any way they can. Wikipedia is an especially easy place for them to forward such activity and control. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.103.170.172 (talk) 07:34, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the place to argue over what Scientology has or has not done. If something has a cite and it is appropriate then put it in. However it seems to me that unless the lawsuit has to do with what Scientologists believe then it belongs at a different article. Cerevox (talk) 06:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Page Reorganization

I have gone and reorganized the page more logically, so that items involving politics and belief, are all sub group together. I have added a section on Scientology Holidays, and done other shuffling around. I think that you will agree that the re-organization works well, although, you might want to add in more of your own favorite bits.

All the stuff involving the Tech I have reorganized, and collected together under the topic of the Modern System of Auditing. There are certain missing bits of data that I have included, because without them, it is like understanding the USA without discussing certain major historical events.

The "past lives" section severely needs to be rewritten to include both points of view. Right now it states the Scientologist view of things as if it were fact, that "in auditing, a Scientologist is helping a person recover, bit by bit, their own immortality." Needlessly to say, it should also discuss the other possibility: that in auditing, a Scientologist is giving undue credence to imaginary fantasies that never happened in this life or any other. - 4.156.84.53

Is this page for "discussing all the possibilities about what people believe is wrong with Scientology" or stating what the beliefs are? Whether they are right or wrong comes under the "controversy" section -- This can of course include the positive and the negative side. I don't believe it's Wiki's purpose to call people's belief's "fantasies." If something violates the rules, then it can be fixed. While entitled to his opinion, I doubt anyone finds the above comment productive. - 205.227.165.11
I note that the address 205.227.165.11 is in a block of addresses allocated to the Church of Scientology. When editing on behalf of the organisation the article is about, it's really not considered good practice not to say so. Thanks - David Gerard 17:56, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
As the author of the above-criticized comment, let me pose this question to you: If a drug dealer described his activities as "selling people substances that improve their quality of life", would you let it pass unchecked? Or would you note that it is the drug dealer's belief that the substances he is selling improves his customer's quality of life? This article is about Scientology beliefs and practices. It should describe the fact that a Scientology auditor believes he is helping the auditee "recover ... their immortality". It should not, however, state this as if it were fact, which is what this article did prior to editing.
As to whether this article is the place to address questions about whether those beliefs and practices are questioned, and upon what grounds, I say why not? Those questions are part of the information about those beliefs; they are context for those beliefs. If this article is about the beliefs and practices of Scientology, it should not just be about whether Scientologists believe them, but whether non-Scientologists would find reason to believe them. -- 209.6.226.193 (talk · contribs)
Of course, then the entries of all the other religions should be about and include what critics say about them. And really is better suited to a discussion of reincarnation and if reincarnation is valid. -- 141.154.87.232 (talk · contribs)
It's funny you mention that, over at Roman Catholic Church we get recurring complaints about why theirs is the only religious article in all of Wikipedia that discusses criticism of the religion. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:00, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Truth itself must be approached on a gradient"

I see hints of this in the section on secret writings, but IMHO I don't think it's spelled out enough: Scientology's beliefs on learning include the concept of a "gradient": breaking down a complicated idea into smaller pieces so that someone who could not grasp the whole idea at once can learn it piece by piece. This is not unique to Scientology; what is the assertion that any piece out of order can actually be mentally (and thus by Scientology's beliefs physically) harmful to the would-be learner.

Under this doctrine, Scientologists must therefore surpress information that is "too advanced" for the information-seeker -- for their own good, of course! This explains notable contradictions in what Scientology professes as its beliefs and practices, such as professing to the public that Scientology is compatible with all other religions when OT III teaches that God and the Devil are merely implants. The Scientologist would say that approaching information on a gradient keeps people from being confused, but the critic would say that it keeps people from being able to evaluate what Scientology is telling them in any context except the one Scientology has planned for them.

[edit] E-Meters

First, who I am: I'm the guy that deleted a sentence on the E-Meter, had it reverted, reverted it back, and then saw it converted to a different form, all within the 7/15-7/16 period. Hiya. =) The reason I mention this is because I hadn't created a login at that time, so otherwise you'd never know it was me.

The reason I made the edit was that I had re-read the article several times, and something kept nagging at me each time, and finally I saw that that sentence was just stuck at the end, bald, as if someone had wanted to make sure that fact got in there and didn't really care whether it fit with the paragraph or the article. After a lot of thought, I had to conclude that it had little to do with the article topic, and that is why I finally removed that sentence (even though personally I would like that fact, and others that point to Scientology's profit-hungry nature, to be known to more people.)

I appreciate that JamesMLane stopped the edit war and put in the context to explain why that factoid was there. But after a similar period of waiting and re-viewing and reconsidering the article, I have to say it still feels like the same thing: like a fact that someone wanted in there, regardless of whether or not it was relevant.

Do we have any reliable estimates of just what the parts and labor cost of an E-Meter is? I think we can all agree it's nowhere close to $4000, but if we had some reliable estimate, the same fact could be phrased to highlight its relevance to the context (for instance "Critics argue that it is the $3500 profit margin on every E-Meter, rather than any value it may have as a counseling tool, that causes the church to deem it an absolutely necessary purchase.") That goes more directly, I think, to the article topic.

In a similar vein, the sentences I moved about "modern meters" and their "1024 levels of sensitivity" seem to be much the same thing, albeit from the other side: someone wanted the information in there despite it being only tangentially relevant to the article topic. I did not feel comfortable editing them out immediately, however, so I only moved them to a more appropriate paragraph. I'd like it if we could either make those more directly relevant or, if not, eliminate them. (The "1024 levels of sensitivity" only seem relevant in that Hubbard never tested a control group -- so whether 1, 100, or 1000 levels of sensitivity separate a reading of mental tension from a reading of unenturbulated froopiness is, once again, purely a religious dogma draped in the apparel of science.) -- Antaeus Feldspar

Ummm, no, we are not in agreement that it costs nowhere close to $4,000. Here's an interesting bit on the cost of the E-Meter that seems to verify that cost estimate: http://www.clambake.org/archive/books/isd/isd-5d.htm --Modemac 21:21, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I think you may have misread, Modemac. I was asking about estimates of the parts and labor cost of the E-Meter, not the cost at which the finished product is sold. The page you linked to appears to have information only on that second figure, the cost which a Scientologist has to pay in order to get an E-Meter. The difference between the two figures is the profit margin that Scientology makes on each E-Meter.
As I said before, I am unconvinced just how relevant the price of an E-Meter is to an article on Scientology beliefs and practices. But if we are going to include it, on the grounds that critics believe the profit margin to be the real reason the CoS pushes E-Meters, then it makes sense to talk about the profit margin itself rather than leaving the reader to guess how much it really costs to make each E-Meter. -- Antaeus Feldspar
I know electronics, its my profession. The E-meter has a readout for the user which has nothing whatsoever to do with digital levels used within its electronics. Whether is has 100 or 100,000 "levels" is hardly useful information when a "level" isn't defined in the first place. Its input is analogue in the same manner a thermoeter's input is anologue. Its only readout is analogue in the same way a standard, old fashined thermometer is analogue, that is, continuously varible rather than digital which means "discrete steps." Anything about a quantity of levels therefore, is only about the internal workings of the device and hardly relevent unless you want to get into schemantics, specific integrated circuits used, etc. There is a profit of some kind, obviously. On the other hand its a pretty nice meter, lol. I own two. Terryeo 04:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
This article seems to be the best place for presenting facts relevant to Scientology beliefs, as well as the beliefs themselves. That includes statements made in support (1,024 levels) and in opposition (profit motive). I agree that more detail about the profit, if available, should be included, but it might not be so clear-cut to calculate an exact profit figure (include shipping costs? prorated cost of legal fees to attorneys to protect the patent? etc.). In the absence of more detailed information, what we have now is what's most helpful for the reader. JamesMLane 06:57, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
You can get E-Meters (or E-Meter™-like devices) in the Free Zone, hand-made quality equipment. Serge Gerbode's 'TIR' sells meters for US$795. I believe Ralph Hilton produced them as well, for something like US$200. The most expensive part is the meter - a proper E-Meter uses a severely underdamped meter movement. The CoS orders theirs specially. Secrets of the E-Meter, which is referenced in the article, details this stuff. dMoz directory of Free Zone e-meters - David Gerard 13:30, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Scientology terms commonly used in non-Scn texts?

User:67.180.61.179 made an edit to the article that I found a little surprising, saying that:

[Scientology-specific] terms are commonly used in texts meant for people completely unfamiliar with Scientology, who would have no way of knowing what they mean.

The reason I find this surprising is that it doesn't match my experience. In my experience (and I don't claim for one minute that mine is the widest experience on this matter) Scientology texts intended for non-Scientologists generally do use Scientology terms, but actually draw attention to the fact that they are doing so, and use the opportunity to explain LRH's belief that one cannot proceed past a word one does not understand. Thus, it wouldn't be true that the readers of the text "would have no way of knowing what [the terms] mean."

Can you cite examples of Scientology texts intended for non-Scientologist audiences, that use Scientology terms and don't explain them? -- Antaeus Feldspar 08:18, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. I've not heard of this one either, and I think this contributor will have to offer some proof of this before it can be accepted as truthful. --Modemac 11:10, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Introspection Rundown and Lisa McPherson articles created

Introspection Rundown and Lisa McPherson now exist. Both are rewrites of Jeff Jacobsen articles. Useful here? - David Gerard 13:30, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Removed text

I removed the following passages of text from the article to the talk page today:

=== a comment ===

One notes the similarity of the idea of a "memory bank" to the way 1960's computers are structured. Dianetics, in its original form, would seem to be yet another attempt to understand the brain in terms of the technology of the day - just as in Newtonian times, people tried to interpret the brain as a "lens" which somehow "focused" knowlege.

It is becoming more and more clear that the brain does not work anything like this, that memory does not lie in a "reactive mind", but is everywhere and nowhere in the brain. Religious dogma usually has trouble keeping up with science. See chaos theory, emergent systems.

and:

How many Caribbean pirates were there (in total), anyway?

While I think some good points are hiding in there, they're not very focused and they're not in encyclopedic form. Perhaps someone can rework them to be a bit more acute? -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:14, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Classification of links

I don't think the two links you added can be classified as "neutral", Nuview. They're clearly taking information coming from the Church at face value, like "Based on the belief that you cannot free yourself spiritually without working to free others, Scientology has founded and supports many organizations for social betterment, particularly in the areas of drug abuse, crime, psychiatric abuse, government abuse of law, human rights, religious freedom, education, and morality." In fact, both of them are repeating basically identical information; I can only find one sentence that is different from one to the other. You can't call them "neutral" just because they aren't acknowledging that there is any controversy. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:36, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] edits by 4.247.200.61

4.247.200.61 made the following changes, among others:

removed from a description of the manifestations of entheta that Hubbard proposed:

Entities (mental circuitry or phenomena that appear as any of a variety of disembodied spirits that are trying to get one's attention)

If anyone can confirm that Hubbard did indeed propose entities, they should go back in. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:05, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Purification Rundown

Hubbard promoted the Purification Rundown as a treatment and cure for a great number of physical ailments ranging from drug addiction to radiation contamination (though many of these claims have been questioned by doctors, scientists, and members of the medical profession).

Environmental toxins, including radiation, and drugs. That simple.

Can anyone document any doctors, scientists, or members of the medical profession who have offered evidence to support the claims made for the Purif? There aren't any mentioned in the Purification Rundown article (which, incidentally, is where most of this information should be going...) -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:16, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

The purif materials contain @ least 1 medical evaluation. Check Narcanon, and Clear Body, Clear Mind as well. There might be some there.

[edit] Verbal Tech

There's some out of place verbiage in the "Verbal Tech" section. The third paragraph has a fairly overt slam on Wikipedia ("online encyclopedias, which often have a variety of errors, distortions, omissions, and sometimes are even plainly or comically wrong to anyone with actual expertise in the subject") and the fourth paragraph seems like an attempt to tack on more material (with a slightly pro-Scientology slant) to the article without properly incorporating it into the existing material. Thoughts? -- 67.50.35.176 on Aug 3 2005

[edit] Organization once more

I organized the material according to

  • Beliefs
  • Practices
  • Other aspects
  • Relation to other religions

There has nothing been deleted except two redundant section titles.

Also I added several hidden titles which also need to be taken up in this article, e.g. creed, study tech, relation to eastern religions.

--Irmgard 19:53, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edits by Marbahlarbs

Removed comment about critics views of Scientologists leisure time.

[edit] Edits by 141.154.87.251

User 141.154.87.251 has almost completely rewritten large sections of this article. It seems much more POV to me now... (Entheta 18:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC))

[edit] This whole thing need to be split out into individual beliefs, and practices

It's a huge article. What would good sub-article splits be? Ronabop 11:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] the "Squirrels" info which appears to be original research

I have removed for discussion the portion of that heading which I believe to be original research. It is was not cited in the article and I believe it is unciteable, except perhaps by a lot of arguement in a court of law. If you can find a verification for this:

After L. Ron Hubbard's death, the term "squirrel" has been used pejoratively to dehumanize anyone who uses the subject of Scientology without authorization from the Religious Technology Center. It should be known that alteration of original Scientology has been authorized by certain officials in the Scientology hierarchy, as in the instance of "Patter drills" stated in a previous section. This may be the reason that the word has been redefined.

Then we can appropriate add it to the text and place it in the article once again per Wikipedia:No original research. More specifically, what source of information states the RTC has pejoratively dehumanized anyone? And secondly, the last statement is a conclusion with no possible verification because you and I both know the RTC doesn't make that sort of statement. Which would mean you must find some outside-the-RTC source which draws that conclusion. Then you could post that cited source of information along with that information. Cite and post, Cite and post, rather than "hint and post, hint and post". Terryeo 16:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Here is one source, that I believe is already linked to in the article (under Dynamics): [1]. I am sure we can find many more sources (Entheta 19:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC))

The point being taken is: the word "squirrel" somehow dehumanizes certain persons? How so? If so, when, what does the person feel when addressed as "Hey you! Squirrel!" and stuff. As stated it is just rumor or misunderstanding or something. What inherently dehumanizes a person, a word like squirrel? You gotta be kidding, right? Terryeo 00:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

What's a rumour? The use of the term "squirrel"? Hardly. [2] [3] [4] (Entheta)
It doesn't sound to me like this is a dispute over whether the word "squirrel" is used. Seems like the dispute is over whether it is intended to "dehumanize". While it's true that calling a person a rat, a pig, a dog, a snake, or various other animals is often considered "dehumanizing" (for which see, e.g. antisemitic propaganda) I'm not sure that CoS's use of "squirrel" is in the same category. I'm not sure what the origin of the CoS usage is though -- in mainstream American English, "to squirrel" means to store something away safely, in the manner of a squirrel burying nuts. --FOo 02:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed

"However, many point out that the Church has itself introduced changes to Hubbard's Scientology, such as the "patter drills" introduced in 1995, and cite this as an indication that the Church is more worried about losing its position as the only source of 'true' Scientology than in keeping Scientology true to Hubbard."

Terryeo (talk · contribs) expressed a belief that one of the two above statements was untrue -- either that the Church introduced changes to Hubbard's Scientology, or that critics of the Church point to their changes to Hubbard's Scientology as a clue to their real interests. However, he failed to identify which of these statements he thought untrue, and he failed to follow the correct procedure outlined at Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute, instead ripping both statements out of the article entirely. I am therefore fixing his error by following the recommended WP:AD procedure. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

((User|Antaeus Feldspar)) created information without verification. His statement: "Many point out that the Church has ..." was and is unverified, Following appropriate Wiki Policy I cut the portion (which I know to be untrue and in my own estimation, unverifiable) from the article and placed it here in the discussion page. Antaeus Feldspar did then willingly refuse to cite the information or even to discuss the information's verifiability but instead reposted it into the article. Whereupon I once again cut it from the article and since he refused discussion here, posted a full explanation on his User talk page which he apparently pays a little attention to. The Lines in dispute are poorly written even if verifiable because the introduce without definition the brand new (to the article) term "patter drill" which he doesn't define, doesn't verify and, again, my opinion, is a statement included from ignorance and verges on slander. While Antaeus Feldspar now, at this time, seems to be following apprpriate Wiki Policy, it was only after a good deal of effort that he even deigned to notice his posts are subject to exactly the same scrutiny as everyone else's are. The Wikipedia:No original research applies to him as much as it does to anyone else. He too must follow Wikipedia:Verifiability as everyone else must. A NPOV can not be obtained when persons say from personal experience without any verifying information: "Many point out that ...." It is not valid information without a verifiying source of such information. "Patter Drills," if introduced, must be defined to have any meaning to the article, else it creates a confusion for the reader. Antaeus might know what patter drills are, or he might have heard it from a friend. Or he might just be introducing his opinion as original research. Whatever the actual situation is, no part of his disputed lines of text expose the source of that slanderous attitude and they should have stated out right the source of that information. That he insists on dispute, rather than the more obvious and ethical citing a source as per Wikipedia:NPOV says a great deal about his treatment of his fellow editors. Terryeo 04:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Rereading yet once again I see how some misunderstanding might be possible. The statement which begins with "However, many point out.." is not a cited statement. Which many? What source of published information makes that a fact? The same "many" apparently do the additional action of concluding: "the Church is more worried . . " and that second statement about the previously mentioned "many" isn't cited. I did therefore, deliberetly cut those 2 sentences from the article and pasted them here for discussion. When discussion was ignored, I posted a full and I thought clear explanation on Antaeus Feldspar's talk page. The Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute does not actually point to my reason for removing those lines. What does apply here and the reason I did remove those lines is because they are not published information. When an article says, "many people believe .." that is perfectly good information if and only if it is published information with the source of that information cited and verifiable. Now, what portion of this is unclear to interested parties? Terryeo 05:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Further Disputed

A second, separate dispute and this involves Antaeus Feldspar's mentioned Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute as it applies to the Article's "Patter Drill" area. The specific statement I dispute the accuracy of is:

Patter drills Patter drills were added to most Scientology training courses beginning in mid-1995. The technique of these drills is, while seated facing a wall, read a section of course material and then look up at the wall and speak that section to the wall. Such drills have no validation outside the Church of Scientology, and in fact, any such drills were advised against by L. Ron Hubbard in his policy letter dated 16 April 1965 issue II "Drills, Allowed".

and my reason for disputing the accuracy of the article's statement is because that policy letter spells out cleanly and without doubt it is to apply to "Practical Drills" and it spells out specifically what Practical Drills will be allowed. Whomever created this article's portion about Patter Drills is inaccurate in the sense, they have misunderstood that Hubbard Communication Policy Letter's application. It applies to Practical Drills while Patter Drills are Theory Drills. The person who misunderstands that both "practical" and "patter" begin with the letter "p" but do not mean the same thing has been inaccuarte in understanding that Patter Drills are Practical Drills. They are not. They are Theory Drills and that policy letter does not apply to Patter Drills. Thus, the article is inaccurate. It needs to be rewritten and the Citation, HCOPL 16 April 1965 Issue II must be removed. My source of information is the quote I made from that policy letter "Practical Drills" and my understanding of CoS's disambiguation of "theory" and "practical." Further, I have myself done these drills, variously, and know them to not be Practical Drills, but to be Theory Drills, about the theory of certain informations. An example in point is the ways in which a word can be misunderstood, that is one of the Patter Drills, all of which are Theory Drills. Terryeo 06:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I have therefore removed the totally false section of that article. That portion of that article which might be valid I have placed here. if someone can cite a published source which states this:

These new patter drills remain controversial and a number of church members have been punished with Scientology Justice and declared suppressive persons for reporting this irregularity to the Religious Technology Center.

Then it can happily go back into the article. Untill it is cited it is the sort of statement which Wikipedia:Citing_sources#When_to_cite_sources spells out clearly, and how to deal with such statements when they appear in an article. Specifically it states: "Avoid the use of weasel words such as 'Some people say ...' (in this case - a number of memebers have been punished-) What number have been punished for reporting? What did they report? How did the RTC punish them? What controversy is there about those Theory Drills? Terryeo 09:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] From Standard Tech (article) Disputed lines posted here

The section of the article entitled Standard Tech has this information:

-A number of stories can be gleaned by reading in between the lines of Hubbard's writings which reveal a common human inability in some students to grasp and apply materials-
But no part of the article tells who who is gleaning or what they hope to accompolish with their gleaning nor what inability (of students) is being addressed in the aforementioned action of gleaning. Should it be possible to find this gleaning activity published in some source (however remote) then this sentence about some unknown and unknowalble third person or group (whom no one has heard of yet) could make the above sentence admissible in a Wiki Article. As it stands it is not admissable in a Wiki Article because it is the sort of weasel worded statement which Wikipedia:Citing sources particularly guards against, this policy is spelled out at: Wikipedia:Citing_sources#When_to_cite_sources and I am, by posting it here, complying with that Wiki Policy.

Further, I removed from the article under that heading and place here for verification pending its return into the article:

The Tech is believed, by adherents to Scientology, to have a "100% success rate, when applied correctly" and it is often stated within Scientology that the Tech always works. If a Scientologist encounters problems, failures, or other obstacles when attempting to apply the Tech, then these problems are always the fault of the student or practitioner; the Tech is always correct. When one completes a major portion of the Bridge addressing a major specific area of life, the stated end must be genuine results "beyond their wildest dreams", according to Hubbard. Anything less, doctrine holds, must indicate an error in procedure, expertise, or understanding in addressing that area with the person.
The reason I remove that portion is this. The article is about Scientology Beliefs and Practices but it misstates Scientology Beliefs while including all the buzz words of the belief. It does not communicate what Scientologists do but uses the buzz words like "standard tech" and "applied correctly" and "always works." But the problem is, the person who created that paragraph has included the buzz words without including the meaning and intent. Correct Tech, Correctly applied produces results. But 100% correct tech applied in the wrong place won't work at all (you can't fry an egg with a hammer nor mend a broken heart with a haircut). And the last bit, "beyond their wildest dreams" is not and never has been a guarentee. In any major bridge action a result is expected. A major bridge action is not finished untill that result is achieved. "Beyond their wildest dreams" is an evaluation which a person might or might not use as a way of expressing their result. Instead of addressing "The person develops confidence in their communication" It is expressing "The person now communicates beyond their wildest dreams" That is simply not the situation. However, if someone finds a published source which states that information in that paragraph above then it should be in the article, else not.

Finally I removed this from that section.

Alteration of the tech is referred to as squirreling. And those who do it are contemptuously referred to as squirrels. Interestingly, accusations of squirreling go back and forth between those both inside and outside of orthodox Scientology groups.
I removed it because does not appear to be part of any published item. It is uncited. It sounds like someone's opinion, but whose opinion is it? To go back and forth would need at least two persons, who are the two people, what form does this squirreling accusation and counter-accusation take? Cite it or lose it ! Terryeo 16:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Series Template

Removing this Series Template from across the Scientology related pages. This is not correct usage of Series Templates per the guidelines. They were set up to show the history of countries and were different articles form a sequential series. This is not the case with the Scientology pages, which are random pages on different topics – not a sequence of any kind. Wiki’s definition of a series is: “In a general sense, a series is a related set of things that occur one after the other (in a succession) or are otherwise connected one after the other (in a sequence).” Nuview, 15:20, 10 January 2006 (PST)

[edit] Bad dog!

Terryeo, you cannot, cannot, cannot criticize previous edits of this article in the course of the article itself, nor can you use the text of the article to call to task other editors who you disagree with. Since you are SO fond of citing Wikipedia rules, I KNOW you know better than to do this, so this qualifies as near-vandalism. Hopefully your temper will cool down and you will not repeat such an error in judgment. It's a shame, because SOME of the information you added was genuinely useful, but you need to provide sources. And I know you know that, too.wikipediatrix 02:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

As usual Wikipediatrix, your way of attempting to handle people is shame, blame, guilt and regret. Take a clue, Wikipedia has rules.Terryeo 04:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
And as usual, your way of answering a concern is with a non-sequitur. Why are you reminding ME that "Wikipedia has rules" as a defense for your own edit that completely flouted those rules by criticizing other Wikipedia editors and their edits in the context of the article itself?? wikipediatrix 05:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo habitually makes other editors wrong if he disagrees with them. He violates a wikipedia policy, then accuses you of what he did. He seems to have all the attributes of an Suppressive person.--Fahrenheit451 03:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Please stop your personal attacks, Fahrenheit451. This is the 4th instance in which I have requested that you stop your personal attacks. In the previous 3 I have included the appropriate policy. After 2, the appropriate policy is WP:PAIN. Terryeo 22:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Dude. You're responding to a post from three months ago. Please don't reopen old wounds here. --FOo 14:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Please don't post personal attacks against other Wikipedia contributors. Even if you think a person is being obnoxious, it's not OK to call them "suppressive person" or other accusatory names here. This isn't a gang-bang sec check. --FOo 03:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moved Auditing out to separate article

We had hit 54K of article, and since auditing is a pretty big subject, I moved the text over. I'll need help with wikifying, references, etc. Ronabop 06:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article is overwhelmingly not NPOV

For example: Scientology church leaders receive comparatively modest salaries and nothing to approach evangelicals like Billy Graham, Benny Hinn or Joyce Meyers. The majority of donations received go to promotional and expansion activities, as well as routine operational expenses. Church Leader David Miscavage has been said to have a yearly salary of aproximately $50,000 (US dollars).

This is a defensively-written attempted refutation of an argument that is not actually present. Billy Graham has nothing whatsoever to do with this article. Someone needs to clean this article up, it reads like an advertisement for Scientology.

And who is the moron who put (disputed - see talk page) in the body of the article? Colonel Mustard 17:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

And if someone said, "Church Leader David Miscavage receives a yearly salary of aprosimately $50,000" who said it, where did they say it, where was what they said published? Without attribution such a quotation defies WP:V which states, "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability". Terryeo 22:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The reference cited is to the site of a known critic, someone posting unverified information and allegations. The references used are newsgroups, and quotes from a divergent group. Not a credible source of information. As covered before, the “controversy” here is manufactured.

Critics call this belief a pseudoscience, stating the theory seems to be tailored so it is not falsifiable by any observations of the real world.

Also removing the sentence above, it is an opinion and it doesn’t even apply to religious beliefs. Ever try to hold up Christian theology to the doctrine of falsifiability? It serves no purpose to go there – especially since the critical view is well represented already. California guy 14:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Ever try to hold up Christian theology to the doctrine of falsifiability? Ever hear of intelligent design? Yes, Christian theology, when it makes claims about the things of this world, does get held up to the standard of falsifiability.[5] -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
What? Intelligent design is not falsifiabile... --70.17.209.58 21:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


Just my little bit. Scientology staff members are paid weekly a percentage of church income. Non-staff members pretty much only outflow money, but have a much easier time getting auditing, since staff members are considered pragmatically to not have cases, they get what get can. They get no set amount of money, but receive their portion of earnings on a weekly basis. Field staff members get a percentage of what they themselves are able to earn, basically. There may be exceptions about which I am ignorant, in fact thats my bet. Thaddeus Slamp 02:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] contact assists

Could we get some info about "contact assists" here from someone that knows about them please?

[edit] Security Check Children

Security Check Children is marked for deletion. Because it will probably deleted, here's the text - maybe you'd want to include it here.


In Scientology, the Security Check Children is a security checking auditing procedure designed to be applied to children aged 6 to 12. L. Ron Hubbard, founder of Scientology, issued the security check as HCO Bulletin of 21 September 1961, also known as HCO WW Security Form 8.

The child is put on the E-meter, holding a can (the electrode of the E-meter) in each hand. If a question gives a read on the E-meter, the child is questioned further as to the reason for the read.

The procedure runs through 99 questions. It starts:

The following is a processing check for use on children.
Be sure the child can understand the question. Rephrase it so he or she can understand it. The first question is the most potent.
1. WHAT HAS SOMEBODY TOLD YOU NOT TO TELL?
2. HAVE YOU EVER DECIDED YOU DIDN'T LIKE SOME MEMBER OF YOUR FAMILY?
3. HAVE YOU EVER TAKEN SOMETHING BELONGING TO SOMEBODY ELSE AND NEVER GIVEN IT BACK?
4. HAVE YOU EVER PRETENDED TO BE SICK (ILL)?
5. HAVE YOU EVER MADE YOURSELF SICK (ILL) OR HURT YOURSELF TO MAKE SOMEBODY SORRY?

The procedure is usually applied to children of members of the Sea Org, the paramilitary organisation (run along Navy lines) that runs Scientology.

HCOB 21 September 1961 is currently published in the Red Volumes, vol IV, p378.

References

[[Category:Scientology beliefs and practices]]

[edit] Loose vandalism charges

# (cur) (last) 04:07, August 5, 2006 Svartalf (Talk | contribs) (rv vandalism to last version by User:Antaeus Feldspar)
# (cur) (last) 20:30, August 4, 2006 BTfromLA (Talk | contribs) m (→Standard Tech - replace italics with quotation marks)
# (cur) (last) 19:01, August 4, 2006 BTfromLA (Talk | contribs) (→Standard Tech - re-edit to make more concise)

According to WP:Vandalism, "Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content, made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia." BTfromLA's edits weren't anything like that, to me, and were clearly labeled. (I would have called it trimming the fat, which it really needs.) Could the word vandalism be reserved for actual deliberate vandalism like block deletions, "YO D0UG RULZ!", or hamburger spokesman replacement edits? If someone disagrees with a change, they should say so. AndroidCat 16:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Which is exactly why I reversed these changes. They did no good to the article, while impugning on the integrity of previous text. If there had been good stuff in it, I might have taken the pains of a more serious editing and rephrasinfg. Since a) previous text was perfectly good, b) new text added nothing of worth and actually diminished the article, and c) I had nothing special to add... just do the math. Vandalism may not have been editor's intent, but bad editing a highly sensitive article is as bad. --Svartalf 17:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Svartalf's reversion of my modest attempt to improve a poorly written section of the article was utterly baseless, and his labeling my work vandalism is genuinely outrageous. While Svartalf's act may rise to the level of vandalism--it is, at least, a gross violation of the spirit of Wikipedia--mine certainly did not. This kind of misbehaving editor is a real blight on Wikipedia, driving competent and well-intentioned editors away. Here, for those who are interested, is the edit in question (please bear in mind that this is intended as a brief overview of the topic; it is linked to another Wikipedia article dedicated to "standard tech."):
  • earlier version:
An integral part of the Bridge is what is known as Standard Tech. Hubbard's effort was to ensure total comprehension of his work, and to see that his writings and instructions were fully, correctly, and competently applied. As a result of this effort, Hubbard developed what became known as the system of Standard Tech. Standard Tech is the system developed and codified by Hubbard in the 1960s at his home at Saint Hill in England. These writings, which are looked upon as scripture in Scientology, are officially known as "Training and Auditing Technology," although among Scientologists, Hubbard's technical writings are referred to as Standard Tech or simply The Tech. They include not only auditing procedures, but also include materials governing training, and the administration of a fully operational Scientology facilty.
Standard Tech, according to Scientology, must always be delivered to Scientologists in its pure form. As the developer of the Tech, Hubbard himself is referred to as Source, and his writings are considered the only true source of the Tech.
However, since Hubbard's death and his replacement by successor David Miscavige, there have been many subtle and not-so-subtle alterations and omissions from Hubbard's texts and even recordings. These altered texts in Scientology doctrine have caused controversy both inside and outside the Church, especially among Free Zone practitioners. [4]
  • my revision, labeled by me "re-edit to make more concise," summarily reverted on grounds of "vandalism" by Svartalf:
Among Scientologists, Hubbard's technical writings are referred to as "Standard Tech" or simply "The Tech." These writings (and taped lectures) include not only auditing procedures, but also materials governing training and the administration of a fully operational Scientology facility. As the developer of the Tech, Hubbard himself is referred to as "Source," and his utterances are considered the sole and definitive source of the Tech.
"Standard Tech" describes the methods by which Hubbard's instructions are fully, correctly, and competently applied, which is to say that they are transmitted without any deviation from Hubbard's original intentions.
Since Hubbard's death, the Church of Scientology has issued versions of some of Hubbard's texts and recordings containing alterations or omissions with respect to their original versions. These altered texts in Scientology doctrine have been a subject of controversy, especially among Free Zone practitioners, who allege that the current Church management is deviating from Standard Tech. [4]
Thank you for noticing this, AndroidCat. I invite other editors to respond. BTfromLA 19:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC):(And Another thanks to AndroidCat--those quotation boxes are a nice feature. BTfromLA 19:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC))
First and most importantly, AndroidCat is entirely correct that BTfromLA's edits were not vandalism. "Vandalism" has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia and it is not "bad editing" unless it is undeniable that the editing was deliberately bad. Even if we were to stipulate that BTfromLA's edits had the effect of making the article worse, it would still not be vandalism unless the evidence showed beyond doubt that the intent was to make the article worse. Vandalism is a very specific charge and as a result it should not be tossed around carelessly.
Secondly, I think BT's edits were an improvement on what came before. Since the section in question has its own main article, Standard Tech, the section Scientology beliefs and practices#Standard Tech should be just an NPOV summary of that article. Editing that summary down to be more concise, and rearranging it for clarity is improving it, and as far as I can see, that's exactly what BT's edits did. It would be a different story if the information removed had been important, but among the information removed I see one point, at most, that it would be arguable that it really needed to be kept. Svart, I think you should apologize to BT. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

So it seems I'm the only one with my opinion? Let it stay that way then. --Svartalf 20:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

If you feel that important information has been removed, perhaps it could be re-added further down in the article? As time goes on, article introductions tend to suffer from "one more thing!" expansion, frequently followed by a plague of over-cite. (If the introduction needs a great many cites, there's something wrong with the article .. or it's about Scientology. :^) The introduction shouldn't try to do the job of the rest of the article. AndroidCat 20:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and a summary in a signpost article shouldn't try to do the job of a article dedicated to that specific sub-topic.) -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Past Lives" section--superfluous?

Please take a look at the "past lives" subsection of this article. It's a mess, and I'm hard pressed to find anything important in there that isn't covered elsewhere in the article. I'm tempted to remove the whole section, then if it seems that more details about the "whole track" are needd, we can start from scratch. Opinions? BTfromLA 02:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Daily Practices"--is any of this worth preserving?

Here's a rambling section that may include a few nuggets worth re-incorporating, but it seemed so weak that I took the liberty of excising the whole thing:

[edit] Daily Practices

Churches of Scientology are busy places. Courses are taught days, evenings and weekends. Auditing goes on during many of a church's public hours. This is a contrast to the Sunday Church Service found in many Christian Churches. Scientology is an applied spiritual philosophy based on Mr. Hubbard's writings (perhaps as many as 25 million words); thus, education is a key element of what goes on in Scientology Churches. Parishoners can attend Sunday Service, though this has no special merit in Scientology scriptures. They often study auditing part time or full time in the evenings, weekends, or during the day. Introductory courses usually run from a day or evening to a few weeks. Part-time students of professional level courses maintain a schedule of 12.5 hours per week, while full time students might be in class as much as 10 hours a day, 7 days a week. They will often take part in a variety of groups and church activities, including artist associations, charity events and anti-drug crusades, among others.

Scientologists do not have any dietary restrictions, aside from good sense and cultural preferences. They are not opposed to modern medicine (excluding psychiatry), can receive blood transfusions, and receive routine medical care. A person is encouraged to maintain health using good sense. Parishioners must seek medical treatment for medical conditions before being accepted for spiritual counseling.

They are outspoken against the use of street drugs. There is no specific prohibition against social use of alcohol, as Hubbard himself mentions use as a young man. However, alcohol abuse is a concern. There are no particular prohibitions against hair coloring, music styles or body piercings. Maintaining good appearance is considered an exercise in good manners. In the Sea Org, perfume and even perfumed soaps or washing powders are frowned upon, especially in areas dealing with service to the public.

There are no specific daily rituals or prayers.

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientology Public Relations

I'd appreciate it if Scientologist wikipedians would explain to TheFarix and Orsini that the page "Scientology Public Relations" is an obvious attack on Scientology by the vandal Lord Xenu.

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientology Public Relations for the discussion. These users have both falsely accused me of making personal attacks when I pointed out that this user is a vandal. Thanks, Republitarian 18:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Republitarian, "vandalism" on Wikipedia means edits which make their bad-faith nature inarguable. "L. RON HUBBARD WAS A GAYBOY" is vandalism. An article about some aspect of Scientology -- even if incoherent, even if unflattering to Scientology -- is not vandalism.
In short, TheFarix and Orsini were correct; you are incorrect and you are compounding your own error by trying to summon "Scientologist wikipedians" only to the AfD discussion to push your erroneous agenda. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Remove non-RS material

I am removing the below again. I know that there is sourcing that criticizes Scn use of jargon and I do not dispute that there is well-sourced criticism on that. The below inclusion however, and the intimation that Hubbard knowingly is committing "Propaganda by Redefinition of Words", is a non-RS concept and one that critics advance with no backing other than their own opinions on non-RS sites. The below infomation might have a place in an article on Hubbard's writing on propaganda but it has no place in a section on Scn jargon. Not to mention that, IMO, it goes well beyond "fair use" but that is not the point.

Hubbard's commentary on "Propaganda by Redefinition of Words" has been taken by critics to explain his use of language as follows:

A long term propaganda technique used by socialists (Communists and Nazis alike) is of interest to PR practitioners. I know of no place it is mentioned in PR literature. But the data had verbal circulation in intelligence circles and is in constant current use.
The trick is - Words are redefined to mean something else to the advantage of the propagandist.
Many examples of this exist. They are not natural changes in language. They are propaganda changes, carefully planned and campaigned in order to obtain a public opinion advantage for the group doing the propaganda.
Given enough repetition of the redefinition public opinion can be altered by altering the meaning of a word. The technique is good or bad depending on the ultimate objective of the propagandists. (...)
We find Professor Wundt 1879, being urged by Bismark at the period of German's greatest militarism, trying to get a philosophy that will get his soldiers to kill men. And we find Hegel, the great German Philosopher, the idol of supersocialists, stressing that WAR is VITAL to the mental health of people.
Out of this we can redefine modern psychology as a German military system used to condition men for war, and subsidized in American and other universities at the time the government was having trouble with the draft. A reasonable discourse on why they had to push psychology would of course be a way of redefining an already redefined word, psychology (...)
Thus it is necessary to redefine medicine, psychiatry and psychology downward and define Dianetics and Scientology upwards. -- L. Ron Hubbard, Propaganda by Redefinition of Words (Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, October 5, 1971)

Supporters of Hubbard claim [citation needed] that these writings of Hubbard should be interpreted as a statement of his loathing of and criticism of the technique for selfish, manipulative ends. Critics point out, however, that Hubbard openly states it to be "necessary" to employ the same "propaganda technique" he has just decried in the hands of others, stating that it is the "ultimate objective" that determines whether the technique is good or bad -- affirming a belief that the ends justify the means.

--Justanother 15:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you have a misunderstood word on "redefine" in the last paragraph there. Please read it again: "Thus it is necessary to redefine medicine, psychiatry and psychology downward and define Dianetics and Scientology upwards." Hubbard is stating an explicit goal of redefining words in order to gain advantage for DIanetics and Scientology. That is precisely what this quote is being cited for. --FOo 05:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Now you know that you are violating the Auditor's Code by evaluating for me and trying to tell me what word I have misunderstood. I am going to have to send you straight to Qual for cramming on that (smile). Seriously, you are correct in that the last bit is of interest but not under the section that simply relates that Scn has jargon. Every technical field has jargon. Look at all the jargon in the computer field. Don't you think that a field that purports to specialize in the human spirit might be entitled to some jargon? No, that line; "Thus it is necessary to redefine medicine, psychiatry and psychology downward and define Dianetics and Scientology upwards"; belongs in the section on opposition to psychiatry as it describes a tactic to be used there. --Justanother 14:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scientology and the Supreme Being

There are two opposing viewpoints in this, and some cleaning up (and fact-checking) needs to be done. There's the official Scientology line (unsourced, but presumably it's official) that Scientologists are able to worship God as he/she wishes. The other one is saying that the Scientologists don't let initiates worship God of any form. Can we get some sourcing of this? Because if it can be substantiated, it can stay.

Current paragraph: "Scientology acknowledges the existence of a Supreme Being and believes perception and worship of God is a personal matter. The Church of Scientology is non-denominational. Scientologists worship God as they choose to.

Scientologists who are undergoing auditing during the pre-clear and OT levels are forbidden from practicing any other religion. Also, the upper OT levels teach that belief in god is a result of implants received during the Xenu incident.

Thats not really whats being said. In general Hubbard was trying to fix what he felt to be booby-traps in religion. This goes all the way back to 52, @ least. Hubbard felt that beleif in a supreme being was implanted (not that there wasn't a supreme being, but that certain habbits of thought about it were implanted), and that auditing clears away ones tendency to fall into these booby-traps.

Any Scientologist who professes a belief in god(s) and practices rites of a faith other than Scientology would likely be declared a suppressive person."

No. Much more seriouse offenses would have to be committed for that. In fact, I don't know of any other cosequences than that 1 would not be allowed to get further courses or processing for a bit, if they are thought to have engaged in practices that might alter case-gain measurement, either by helping case gain, or harming it (the latter is considered much worse an action, of course). Thaddeus Slamp 02:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

As of now, it's non-NPOV, but also deleting any legitimate criticism of Scientology is equally non-NPOV

Lifthrasir1 04:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi. It is really quite simple. Scientology looks at life and the "game" of life as a series of concentric spheres of increasing knowledge and responsibility. These are "the dynamics". The most base survival of your body is the 1st dynamic, family the 2nd, group, human race, life forms, physical universe are 3 - 6, then the spirit is the 7th, and god or the infinite is the 8th dynamic. Scientology addresses the spirit as an individual and improves the spiritual being's ability to perceive and be responsible for his dynamics. This would, of course, include increased perception of the nature of the 8th dynamic or god but such perception is individual and not, in any way, addressed by Scn. Scientologists that are actively receiving auditing must get permission to engage in any activity that would affect their physical, mental, or spiritual health as such activity may interfere with their auditing. For example, fasting would adversely affect the auditing; meditation may also. This rule is just that they must get permission, not that they are prevented; most treatments and religious practices are not a problem and, in any event, it is just if you are actively receiving auditing. --Justanother 15:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MEST is actually EST!!

Since E = MC2, this means that Energy is Matter and therefore the "ME" in "MEST" is redundant and therefore MEST should actually be called "EST". Doh! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.187.32.71 (talk) 19:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

Well, Hubbard also teaches that matter is formed from energy. Why is Hubbard teaching physics? Well actually he is teaching Scientology as in the basic make-up of this universe and how a spiritual being relates to it and is trapped by it. So as to explain the basic workings of the E-Meter to non-technical people. So right you are! --Justanother 20:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Matter was more of a formality, of sorts. Hubbard has lectures in which he refers to it as space time and energy.Thaddeus Slamp 01:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] correction about bridge section

besides variouse rundowns, introductory processes and assists may be run @ any time, tho cos scientologists should not use them if they intend to take courses or receive more formal auditing or courses soon, since, theoretically, this interferes w/measuring case gain. Basically ipa's include any of the thousands of processes hubbard invented, as long as not later cancelled like "terrible trio"(I'm almost positive that process was discontinued) for instance, and processes that are part of the bridge. In fact a cos may practice outside practices, such as yoga, as long as he takes a break from the bridge for a while. I beleive he/she must talk to the d of p before doing other practices or non-bridge actionsthings Hope to provide links. Thaddeus Slamp 01:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Thaddeus Slamp 01:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It would be easier to understand your concerns if you used grammatical sentences. --FOo 05:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] tone scale

The tone scale has 2 divisions. Minus emotion is said to begin below antagonism (2.0). This is from when the tone scale bottomed out @ 0.0, and is still important in auditing, as 1 should not end a session untill @ least + emotion has been achieved. Body death is said to be a tone, so below body death (0.0=body death) is the other main division. One might also add emotions above 4.0 (enthusiasm), as these are above body life (this evaluation is my wording). Scientologists "beleive" that a person can still be alive, tho their tone is below body death. I put quotes around beleive, becouse part of the "conspiracy against scientology" is to fail to emphasise how important hubbard considered it to be that (in his own words) "whats true for you is true for you" (YMMV, as we say on the net). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thaddeus Slamp (talk • contribs) 01:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Ethics?!

C'mon people! This section of the article is just wrtetched! I can't even begin to explain why! It's that BAD!! What research, citation frigging needed for crying out loud! There, that's a start —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thaddeus Slamp (talk • contribs) 03:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC). The following is aproximately how I would approach the ethics section of this article (this is quick and dirty): Hubbard had about 3 to 4 takes on ethics: 1)The greatest good for the greatest # of dynamics (This is perhaps the most important scientology ethics concept. It is part of the "formula" for the condition of doubt which is germain to 4 below, is 1 reasaon I think so.) . 2) A thetan has it's own native state (scientology) ethics. Hubbard never went to far into this. I would guess, becouse such is SO personal. 3) Either the advanced dianetics axioms, or the scientology axioms (I forgits which), defined ethics as: "the exact estimation of effort"(I am 99.9% sure that that is an exact quote). Hubbard adressed this even lesss, and I think this may be related enough to 2 above, that it does merit not seperate mention). 4)Contrasted with justice, which is other-determined, ethics is self-determined action, to get ones discipline in (scientology). This last is the subject of about 10 blue volumes. The "Ethics vols", most of which are "blue on white" (blue print on white paper), and might have better been named the ethics and justice vols, as they contain both. The most important, of these that also fit into the subset of ethics data that seems possibly helpful to beginners, are collected in the book An Introduction to Scientology Ethics. There is a course @ the bottom of the bridge called the ethics course.Thaddeus Slamp 16:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC) P.S.: OOPS. 2 other things that might bear mentioning: 1) The only purpose of ethics and policy, is to get tech in. 2)Ethics contrasted w/morality. Ethics is the study of right and wrong, while morals are right and wrong "round these here parts".Thaddeus Slamp

[edit] auditor training

This section starts off arbitrarilly, and is clearly there so that the author may exercise a sensationalistic rant. Why should the first sentence of a section on auditor training say that an auditor is expected to be expert in the use of his e-meter.

You know much auditing w/ no emeter @ all has been conducted during the GRAND majority of scientology history. There is a course called the introductory processes and assists that has many non-metered auditing routines for use. One still learns non-metered auditing in the introductory dianetics course as well. Also, book one (auditing the way taught in Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health) auditing is done w/no meters.

[edit] scientology openness

One section of the article says that church officials acknowledge that some doctrine is secret.

Whats being demoted is that most scientology is open. Scientology is not a secret society. Need I say more?Thaddeus Slamp 03:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

You are right. The vast majority of Scientology and everything that Scientologists use in their day-to-day lives is open and available to all. There are even plenty of clues to what is on the confidential levels sprinkled throughout LRH's tapes, books, and bulletins (or even addressed in detail), you just have to know what you are looking for. The main point of the confidentiality is that it is unhelpful to fixate on that material before you are ready to address it. --Justanother 16:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeagh; self-auditing. This sort of demand is @ least similar, if not identical, to demands made in many disciplined activities. "Cross that bridge when I come to it", you know.Thaddeus Slamp 16:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

You've got it. --Justanother 16:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ceremonies

Some mention might be made of rites and ceremonies. There was a book published in about 54 called Rites and Ceremonies of the Founding Church (I think that was it's title) and I beleive Hubbard wrote it.Thaddeus Slamp 03:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alteration to Scientology

Scientologist believes that Scientology should be studied by studying the original texts and that any second hand explanations of Scientology are an alteration of Scientology. As a Scientologist I'm tempted with editing this page but that would be equal for me to alter the tech. So I would limit my self to provide links. I would also like to ad a comment in the intro stating that "Scientologist believes that Scientology should be studied from the original texts and that any second hand explanations of Scientology are an alteration of Scientology. The church of Scientology doesn't approve of any of the explanation in this page." I would really appreciate if you guys respect this. Afinity Warrior 03:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

An encyclopedia is a repository of "second hand explanations" -- that's what we do here. This is just as true about Scientology as it is about physics or crushing by elephant or My Mother the Car.
We cannot avoid offering "second hand explanations", nor can we apologize for doing so. We can, however, try to have the most accurate second-hand explanations possible. If there are specific things you think are inaccurate or deficient, please describe them. --FOo 18:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I see, it really doesn't make me feel better but I will see how can I contribute. Afinity Warrior 05:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beliefs about Xenu or Xemu

How can this be a complete article of Scientology Beliefs without even mentioning Xenu (Xemu). Let's get it together guys!

Is there under the secret levels.Bravehartbear 06:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. "Secret Levels" doesn't imply anything about a belief system. IMO Xenu is a critical part of their belief structure and should at least be linked to by name from the main page.Slackmaster K 06:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] D, A and I

I realize that the "Differentiation, Association and Identification" chapter takes up an enormous chunk of Scientology 8-8008, but is it really major enough to go here? Especially stretched out in the unnecessarily-taking-up-space manner of giving each of the three its own separate subheader. Also, Bravehartbear, I see you've got the 2007 edition - can you add the specific page number to your citation? I can't seem to find the "dog bite me" bit in my 1990 edition. wikipediatrix 22:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure! Is now in Charter 12, page 81. What wrong about writing about Scientology? This is what this page is about; teaching about Scientology believes and practices. And is not that big. Subheaders are just for easy access. Maybe we can make a page for beliefs and another one for practices if it gets too big. The doggy part was just an example that I created not a citation. I see how it can be confused with a citation. I will change it to avoid confusion. Bravehartbear 10:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
You created your own examples? That would be original research, not to mention it's also what LRH frowned upon as "verbal tech". Heh. wikipediatrix 13:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
All Scientology in Wikipedia is "Verbal tech", there is no way to go around it, unless we posted the original work and that can't be done because copy rights.Bravehartbear 20:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Believes and Practices divided????

I would like to divide this page in two for sizing. One page for believes and another page for practices. Bravehartbear 07:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Individual spiritual being?

"An individual spiritual being in Scientology is called a Thetan." This statement opens new questions: What exactly is the individual spiritual being / thetan? Do I have this, or is it the person itself? What is the „I“ of man? Definition 5, Dianetics & Scientology Technical Dictionary: „The personality and beingness which actually is the individual and is aware of being aware and is ordinarily and normally the „person“ and who the individual thinks he his.“ I put this defintion into the articel, chapter „spirit“. Any disagreements? Wolfgang 89.15.156.168 (talk) 11:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)