Talk:Scientology and law

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?

Who wrote this?

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)

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)