Talk:Scientology

To view discussion of the Scientology article:

Topic threads beginning Dec. 2001 through Feb. 2004, please see Talk:Scientology/Archive 1.

Topic threads beginning Feb. 2004 through June 18, 2005, please see Talk:Scientology/Archive 2.

Topic threads beginning June 19, 2005 through July 31 2005, please see Talk:Scientology/Archive 3.

Topic threads beginning August 1, 2005 through September 30, 2005, please see Talk:Scientology/Archive 4.

What is a preclear?

The article uses the term "preclear" but doesn't define it.

You should sign your posts. I should sign mine :) The article should define preclear. A preclear describes a person who is not yet Clear and was first used in Dianetics. Scientology's definition of Clear is exact but it uses several scientology words which have to be understood before the word "Clear" can be understood. And it follows, before the word "preclear" can be understood. But in general, a preclear is a person who would need more education or auditing before they became able to recall all of their experience fully. A clear has full recall while a preclear does not. The idea here being that moments of pain and unconciousness are not so readily recalled and that by auditing a person becomes able to view such moments fully. Terryeo 11:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

This is partially correct. What you describe is more "pre-Clear" rather than "preclear." Historically (i.e. Dianetics-era), preclear meant what you just described. As Scientology expanded, however, and OT became the ultimate goal of auditing, the word changed its meaning to refer to anyone receiving auditing. For example, in an auditing session an OT VII would still be called a preclear even though the state of Clear had already been attained. R. Durham Evans 16:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Responding to my own comment, I notice the Scientology website gives a definition for "preclear" such as you described (my Tech dictionary gives a similar definition). I find that rather interesting since the usage I gave for the word does indeed occur. For example looking at the definition for "case supervisor," the word preclear is used exclusively--there is no distinction with regards to case level here (pre- or post-Clear). So while the official definition for the word is lacking, in my opinion, in actual usage "preclear" refers to anyone receiving auditing at any case level. R. Durham Evans 16:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

This article is too long

Some areas scream to be taken out. "The Structure of the Mind" is a Dianetics subject. It can only apply to the degree the relationship of Dianetics within Scientology is talked about. May we delete it entirely except for a link to Wiki's good Dianetics article ? Terryeo 00:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

8 million followers world-wide

Have put this in article.

Please sign your work. If this is in the article it should be documented because there is a good deal of uncertainty of what constitutes a follower, what constitutes a memeber, etc. Is a follower a person who reads a Scientology sign? an article? who takes a course? 3 courses? who get audited? who pays for a membership? What is the source of your 8 million information, at least put a link here. Terryeo 21:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Origins of the Official Scientology Cross Symbol

I was just curious why exactly the official church symbol is an extension of the Christian Cross. What affiliation does Scientology have with Christianity? In other segments of the article, we see this:

In some of the teachings Hubbard had intended only for this select group, he claimed that Jesus had never existed, but was implanted in humanity's collective memory by Xenu 75 million years ago, and that Christianity was an "entheta [evil] operation" mounted by beings called Targs (Hubbard, "Electropsychometric Scouting: Battle of the Universes", April 1952).

Whoever posted that one should sign it. I have myself read scientology articles which said without doubt that Jesus did exist and that Jesus did create some mircles or do some miracles. But none of these sorts of informations are central to Scientology's beliefs anyway but are selected individual datums that hostile people pick at without documentation.

Well, it is well documented that the "upper level" doctrines of the Church of Scientology hold that all non-Scientology religions are actually "implants" created by an alien race to mislead and confuse humans, including God and the Devil being lies. It is well documented in the Operating Thetan III document, the same document which gives us the story of Xenu, and published in the Fishman Affidavit (The Fishman Affidavit). Thus it's pretty clear that their use of a cross is not meant to show that they are Christian. It is widely used on their public web pages and promotional pictures, but rarely (if ever) used on internal documents. It seems to be pretty clearly using a cross because that's the sign most people expect a church to use, and is a "friendlier" symbol for people to see a church use than any of the other symbols of Scientology. --Wingsandsword 22:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Those inconsitancies aside, the official symbol is still confusing. I am curious how the symbology of the extended cross was picked and how it was picked. How does it reflect the teachings of the Churth of Scientology? I would appreciate a greater elaboration on these items. Gavin 05:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

What is Scientology, hardbound edition, page 909 states about the cross: The Scientology sunburst cross, the basic design of which was found by L. Ron Hubbard in an anciet Spanish mission in Arizona, is the official insignia for Scientology Ministers. Each of the eight points of the cross represents one of the dynamics. Terryeo 20:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Here is an interesting reading about the subject: Scientology and the Occult. Povmec 05:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

It is called the "Scientology Cross." It has 8 points. Here is a scientology link that explains a little about it. {http://www.scientology.org/html/opencms/cos/scientology/en_US/news-media/faq/pg017.html]

Terryeo 21:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I suppose.. I must admit that I am unconvinced so far that Scientology is anything but an entire sham. After reading many articles on how pricesly Scientology came about, I was looking for someone to prove to me otherwise. I mean no disrespect, this is just one human being's observation which people are free to accept or denie at your pleasure. However it appears quite obviously to me that they simply took an existing symbology so engrained in our American and global culture and slightly modified it. It's like marketing branding.

A sham would be something without substance, maybe something that takes your money and gives you nothing in return. Mr. Hubbard established Scientology based on the idea that man could know things. The things that Mr. Hubbard begin to write about were things of the spirit. Man can know things about his spiritual existence. Things which can not be weighed and measured by normal means with physical universe tools. I think this is the problem, that people are so certain there is NOTHING they can know about their own spiritual existence that they refuse to know anything. Scientology spells out, bit by bit, those things about an individual's spirituality which can be known. Its basic tenent is: If it is true for you then it is true, period. So you don't get the adamantcy of Christians, trying to prove something to you. Scientology is a body of information which is useless to you until understood. No one can force you to understand, only you can cause yourself to understand. You read a bit of information, you try it out and use it or reject it. But that's what everyone does, anyway. Terryeo 12:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

And this does not quite have me convinced either, it seems a weak attempt to defend the symbol. The page states, "As a matter of interest, the cross as a symbol predates Christianity." Sure, of course crosses predate Christianity. But -that- specific cross in the symbol is -Christian Cross-, it is a true cross with 4 extra lines. Or why else would they pick a symbol that would be so easily confused visually with a Christian cross? What does the longer, bottom-side of the cross represent. Do the shorter 4 lines represent a lesser importance to the religion of Scientology? It would seem to me that if they had created a symbol to truly reflect all facets of their own original, new faith, it would look nothing like the Christian cross. Again, this is just one human being's ramblings and no real offense is intended.

Gavin 17:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

The informations available to me are that Mr. Hubbard once dug up such a cross which was probably lost by a spanish explorer, that was somewhere in the western USA. And that the 4 major extensions which obviously make a cross represent man's four most known urges toward survival (self, one's family, one's groups and mankind), the remaining four (nearer in to the center) the less immediate urges toward survival (as life, as the physical universe, as a spirit, as god). Scientology does have its symbols but symbols themselves only have the power an indivudal grants them, thus not a huge amount of attention is placed on symbols in the scientology religion. Any more question gavin? Terryeo 00:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I note that Hubbard offered absolutely no proof of his claim, nor did he ever say where he found it. On the other hand, it is very similar to the Rosicrucian cross [1] and the "Golden Dawn" cross adopted by Aleister Crowley [2]. We know that Hubbard had connections with both Rosicrucianism and Crowley, so he would certainly have been aware of the symbology that they used, including the "crossed-out cross". -- ChrisO 00:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes... there are many graphic variations of the logo. In some of them, it looks like an ordinary Christian cross with the four center points being twinkles of light eminating from its center. But in other renditions, they don't seem to be twinkles of light at all, and looks for all the world like a cross that has had a big X graffiti'd over it. wikipediatrix 22:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Free stress test picture

Who put that there? I think it would be better closer to text about the E-meter.--HistoricalPisces 17:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I didn't put the picture there, but the E-meter is used for auditing, and the "free stress test" is the introductory audit for a potential recruit (several stalls for these tests can be found every day in around Times Square, New York, and in Times Square subway station, incidentally) . I think the picture is okay where it is (next to auditing), but probably should reference auditing in its caption. I'll add a few words to taht effect Bwithh 18:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!--HistoricalPisces 18:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Using "that" when it makes the sentence clearer

I'm glad you're helping remove a lot of extraneous words, but I disagree that some of them aren't helpful. In particular, while people already familiar to the article may not have any trouble understanding what each sentence means beforehand, those completely new may stumble momentarily if we don't include "that"s in the sentences you removed them from, to make it clear when a new clause is beginning. For example, compare the following:

• Scientologists claim that government files, such as those from the FBI, are loaded with forgeries and other false documents detrimental to Scientology, but have never substantiated this.
• Scientologists claim government files, such as those from the FBI, are loaded with forgeries and other false documents detrimental to Scientology, but have never substantiated this.

On a first reading of the second line, wouldn't you most likely interpret the sentence as saying "Scientologists take government files, such as those from the FBI," and only begin to figure out what it really means when you get to the "are" and realize that the sentence is either poorly-worded or you've mistaken its meaning? Then you have to go back and reread this. All of that breaks the flow of the reading, and while it won't happen to everyone first looking at these passages, I think it will happen to enough that it's worth it to include one single word to solve all that trouble: no one reading "Scientologists claim that" will misunderstand the meaning. -Silence 00:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

aliens?

I thought someone said that scientologists believed that humans descended from aliens. But that's not stated in the article. I would like some confirmation on this. Scorpionman 23:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I believe you're thinking of Raelians, although the story of Xenu and Space opera in Scientology doctrine are also worth looking at. -- ChrisO 23:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Scientology doesn't claim any sort of descent, but rather puts forth that we are all eternal beings. Hence, no descent possible. That idea might spawn from the Xenu website, but where ever it comes from its untrue because scientology's beliefs include no descendings but that individuals are eternal. Terryeo 21:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Original Research

The bulk of this article is based on original research of which there is no consensus agreement in the mainstream. Regardless of its truth, it is therefore unsuitable for Wikipedia per the guidelines you are all undoubtedly aware of.

Please rewrite this article so that it conforms to Wikipedia standards, and cite reputable publications as sources (not websites).

The above unsigned comment was left by 69.12.16.66, whose only other action on Wikipedia thus far has been to add a "vote" to a long-closed AfD on another Scientology-related subject. That "vote" was signed with a falsified date and a forged username that constitutes a personal attack. [3].

It is worth noting, too, that the allegation above is simply false. This article is in substantive accord with neutral outside research on the subject of Scientology -- such as the preponderance of the articles and works that it cites directly. --FOo 13:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Heh. Subtle. The guy's right that some parts of the page need improvement, though. "Scientology and other religions" and "Scientology critics" in particular require some significant redesigning, added citations, and reorganization, with fewer orphan paragraphs and jarringly abrupt changes in topic. -Silence 14:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

If you look hard enough, you can find some way in which any statement -- no matter how wrong -- is "right". If you look hard enough you can find some grain of truth in "George W. Bush is pregnant". The original allegation is based on a misdefinition of "original research" and as Fubar Obscuro points out, it's by someone whose grasp of "Wikipedia standards" clearly didn't include No personal attacks. Trying to sieve the dross of what is plainly just a "I don't want it that way" whine for a few glittering bits of legitimate critique is frankly something we should not spend our time on. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:47, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Wow, I'm not sure how you got even that much out of the anon's accusation. :) --FOo 16:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

Was wandering through, not a regular here, but I reverted some random vandalism. Cheers, all Antichris 23:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

What I'm wondering is which "side" is the one proving they're the most petty and, philosophically, evil? Is it the people trying to censor Scientology, or is it Scientologists trying to censor the unflattering parts of the article? Sometimes, as several times today, Scientology-bashing text is inserted. But at other times...way more frequently than normal...the whole page is deleted. That could be either side...whomever it is, they're slime. Kaz 21:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Could be that they're a bit sore at the moment, as the latest episode of South Park has been an extended dig at the CoS - Stan is revealed to be the reincarnation of L. Ron Hubbard and the Xenu story is shown in considerable detail, accompanied by the subtitle "This is what Scientologists really believe". (See [4].) It looks like South Park's creators have been reading Wikipedia... -- ChrisO 23:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

lol, I am a scientologist. I hope to see the article to appear as accurate. Controversy is controversy and it too should be accurate. Opinion is opinion and everyone has one of those. The statements like "scientology is vehemently opposed to scientology" really really amuse me. Terryeo 18:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

RFC: Sterling Management Systems

Would anyone here care to comment on the edit war in Sterling Management Systems? Should the follow comment stay or go? Critics contend that Sterling Management Systems is a front organization for the Church of Scientology. Should the following link stay or go? Sterling Management Systems & Scientology - A critical examination of Sterling Management Systems. Thanks for your input. Edwardian 19:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Instead of citing an opinion of critics I gave some facts - membership in WISE, court cases. --Irmgard 23:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

WISE is a volentary group which an individual may follow the practices of or join. Its purpose is to spread the organizational technology which Mr. Hubbard created to run the Church of Scientology. That it is workable organizational technology is evident by the growth of the Church of Scientology, but that it can be readily applied to Ford Motor Company isn't so evident. WISE fills that gap and has a membership which might be mostly composed of Scientologists. Terryeo 02:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

External Links

Povmec, I reverted some of my link list, but I do like how you broke the list down into three, rather than two, categories. I met you halfway and only reinstated half of my original link list. It's true that with some digging, one could find these links, but the same could be said about anything. I think it's important to show that both sides have a considerable amount of info generated on many multiple websites. I also think a separate article could be done that lists the hundreds of domain names used by the CoS. There are also about a hundred separate websites for each of the Celebrity Centers and offices in each city, and I think this information should be presented here somehow, even without listing them all ad nauseum. Thoughts? Opinions? wikipediatrix 18:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

There has been instances in the past where too many links crept into this article: External_links_needs_a_severe_cull and External_links. Here is my point of view on your latest changes. Narconon should have been left in the See Also section, rather than being replaced by a link to narconon.org in the official scientology sites. There are still way too many repetitive links whether being pro or critical: we should stick to just a few ones, at most three for each, most others can be found in other wikipedia articles (in the spirit of the previous necessary culling that occurred in the past as referenced above). I wish others will give their opinions about this issue. Povmec 20:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Povmec. We should keep the list of links small on the page to avoid overwhelming people. Pick the top 3 or 4 most popular links and leave it at that. As an alternative to listing all these links here we can add a link to a list of links such as http://www.altreligionscientology.org/ This seems like a good compromise.

Legal status

There should be a table in the article which lists the legal status of hubbardism:

There is no "hubbardism." Don't become overwhelmed by the man's output (estimated at 25,000,000 words) nor by the quanity of organizations which have grown from his establishment.

In some countires it is considered a religion. In others it is tolerated as a non-religion. In yet other, it is outlawed and it is a crime against the security of state to be a scientologist (e.g. France). Such a table would inform scientology-addicted readers if it is safe to travel to a certain country.

Otherwise, what decides if the article calls scientology a religion? If the SCOTUS declared sci. is not a religion, whould we change it? Or a UN declaration stating that scientology is not a religion, that would surely force us to change the article. 195.70.48.242 10:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Legal authorities don't decide whether something "is a religion" or not. They may decide whether an organization is tax-exempt; or whether religious-freedom laws override other laws. (For instance, Catholic practice involves the consumption of wine in the Eucharist, even by churchgoers who are younger than the legal drinking age in various places.)

I'm not aware of anywhere it would be illegal to "be a Scientologist" in the sense of belief or personal practice. In France, if I recall correctly, the legal concerns were not of that nature, but rather having to do with whether the organization was defrauding people. In Germany, there were specific concerns that CoS members were infiltrating government, as they had previously done in the U.S. in Operation Snow White. --FOo 21:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

South Park online mirroring

The recent references to the South Park episode that references Scientology include a link to a download page with a torrent for the episode in question and others. Surely this is a breach of copyright and not what we want here at all

On the contrary, see this FAQ entry at South Park Studios:

August , 2003

Q. - I was surprised that in the last FAQ you recommended downloading episodes on KaZaa and other file sharers. What are Matt and Trey's official stances on South Park episode piracy?

A. - Matt and Trey do not mind when fans download their episodes off the Internet; they feel that it’s good when people watch the show no matter how they do it.

So I think it's perfectly fine to link to episode mirrors at southparkx.net. Since it's with the creators' permission, this is not "piracy" at all. --FOo 21:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I'm not convinced that it's up to Matt and Trey to decide how their show is distributed once sold to a network. It's Comedy Central who have paid for rights to air this show and who also pay the costs of airing it, and they in turn can expect that it is viewed by those watching Comedy Central. I'm not a copyright activist at all, I'd just hate to see wikipedia in trouble for something so easily remedied.

I agree. This link could be clearly cited by a court as an example of Wikipedia causing Comedy Central to lose money on South Park (by providing a free alternative to buying the DVDs or watching the TV episodes). We would need specific permission from the copyright holders of that episode before we could link to it. Plus linking to a torrent without providing the necessary immediate information on how to use torrents will baffle most Wikipedia readers and editors. Just leave these links on the Talk pages, as long as they aren't specifically confirmed. -Silence 20:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

It is perfectly acceptable to link to copies of the South Park episodes. Comedy Central owns SouthParkStudios.com (see the bottom of the page) and SouthParkStudios.com says "Matt and Trey do not mind when fans download their episodes off the Internet; they feel that it’s good when people watch the show no matter how they do it." Now Comedy Central is the one hosting this text -- so its patently ridiculous to claim that aren't the one's holding the viewpoint that the episodes should be redistributed.Vivaldi 20:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

We can link to a Web site which distributes the South Park episode and provides information about BitTorrent if necessary. We should not link directly to a torrent file, since as you point out, most people don't know what to do with one.

If challenged on the copyright, we point to the permission from the creators. If we receive evidence that they don't have the right to grant that permission, then we take the link down. But we have no reason to believe that they're lying to us. (And if they were, that would protect us, since we're acting in good faith. Moreover, if they were lying, then they'd be in big freakin' trouble with whoever does hold the rights.)

Evidence in favor of online distribution being permitted includes the fact that the South Park Studios FAQ says so specifically; and that spcomplete.com, southparkx.net, and other mirror sites are operating openly and not being shut down. In other words, distribution is both specifically authorized in writing, and is also evidently tolerated. What more evidence do we need? --FOo 22:19, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

But the creators have *sold* the rights to the show. They will have done this in exchange for royalties and such but now they have as much permission to distribute episodes for free as we do and I don't think that's much permission at all. -- added by anonymous user.

SouthParkStudios.com is OWNED by Comedy Central. So Comedy Central itself is directly saying on web pages that they own that it is okay to download and trade copies of South Park. Vivaldi 20:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Do you know which rights Matt and Trey sold? They are two guys very much aware of the growing movement for creators to retain some rights to their work in the realms of cartoons, comics, and animation. If they say they have no problem why do you assume they don't know what they are talking about? Given that the whole of this article is given over to taking dubious claims – or outright lies – at face value it seems inconsistant to start questioning what appear to be reliable sources on the matter of their own work. 213.78.235.176 01:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Can't see baby for seven days

With the Cruise and Katie thing... what is this can't see the baby for seven days thing? Is this part of Scientology or just vandalism? - Tεxτurε 00:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I posted a question about Scientology childbirth on the project page. If there are special procedures it would be interesting to document them in some article. Perhaps a general article on non-psychiatric medical theories and practices?

I can't find your referenced project page so I'll state what I know here. Scientology (as I understand it) recommends drugs and noise be kept to a minimum during childbirth to minimize stresses for the child. That would be called minimizing engramic stimulation in Scientology jargon. The idea being, within reason, to not have excessive noise, drugs or pain present at birth if those things can be reasonably avoided. Terryeo 21:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Invented religion?

Scientology is an invented religon

Aren't all religions invented? If so, do we need to state that scientology is? --Croperz 01:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

It's invented in the sense that until his later years Hubbard never denied that the whole Xenu thing was simply a story he made up, and fairly quickly too by the look of it. There was no idea that it was a revealed truth or that it grew out of other ideas, although it must have some influences. "Real" religons rarely have such clear-cut origins. Mormonism might be another example, although even there the founder claimed divine intervention. It's hard to know what to classify Scientology as, given the gulf between the followers, the founder, and the outside world, each with its own take on where it came from and why. There's certainly little doubt that Hubbard did it as a career move rather than out of any deeper motivation. Anyway, the revert police have taken that out already. 213.78.235.176 01:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Hubbard never denied that he enjoyed molesting dead baby goats either, but "never denying" something is not a good basis for assuming that a proposition is true. Hubbard died before he could be publicly challenged about Xenu. Vivaldi 20:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

For most people that are not scientologist, that would be true I guess. But see this: "Charlatanism is a necessary price of religious freedom, and if a self-proclaimed teacher persuades others to believe in a religion which he propounds, lack of sincerity or integrity on his part is not incompatible with the religious character of the beliefs, practices and observances accepted by his followers." - High Court of Australia [5]. They have a point. Whether we find their beliefs silly is not what matters. What matters is that scientologists are convinced that their beliefs are "Truth", the same way catholics are convinced their beliefs are "Truth", however silly they may sound to outsiders. Therefore, pointing that scientology is an "invented religion" is... pointless. Povmec 04:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

As I said in the piece which was reverted, the value of the teachings is unconnected with the history of how or why the religion was founded. There is thus no reason to avoid that history, and simply repeating the self-styled Church's line on it is just as pointless in a factual article. Hubbard had for years talked about inventing a religion as a better way to make money than writing. For years afterwards he did not deny that was what he had done. So what? That fact should be reportable without making any difference to the question of whether the result "works" or not for those that follow it. In the article this issue is mentioned, but it is the "official" version which appears in the intro. There is no good reason – and few bad ones even – to accept that version of the origins (that Scientology was "intended as an alternative to psychotherapy" from the outset); it's flat out wrong. Scientology was not thus intended, although Dianetics might have been.

Does talking about the way in which Paul changed Christianity to suit his world-view undermine the validity of that religion for its followers? And even if it does, should a "neutral" encyclopaedia care? 213.78.235.176 10:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I see no reason why the origins should not be mentioned.--Nomen Nescio 11:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

The ways of Spin

I have no problem with the "religion as making money" comment being on the article, I just question the loaded bias of placing it in the very first paragraph. As it is now, the intro paragraph is completely biased against Scientology in every single sentence: It calls Scientology a "new religious movement" rather than a religion, it gleefully notes that its creator was a science-fiction author, it wields the "pseudoscience" epithet, and tries to further deconstruct any of the Church's credibility from the getgo by invoking the "making money" quote. Now, don't get me wrong - I'm no fan of Scientology and I understand that these elements I've pointed out are essentially TRUE - but loading the first paragraph up with all this negative stuff makes for obvious negative spin. It would be far more reasonable to open the article by briefly summing it up and referring to it as "controversial", then go on to explain what it allegedly sets out to do, and THEN go on to detail all its many shortcomings and misdeeds. wikipediatrix 19:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

It is unclear whether it is a religion, the German government for one does not think so. It definitely is, however, a religious movement of some sort, at least in its outer teachings. The inner teachings are not religious at all, being obsessed with aliens instead. And I take exception to your suggestion that being a science-fiction author is in itself a negative comment. 213.78.235.176 19:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

It is legally recognized as a religion in the country of its origin, and most other countries as well. And I didn't say science fiction was inherently negative: I'm saying that detractors of the CoS LOVE to point out that he was a "mere" science-fiction writer before starting the Church, as if that somehow disqualifies him. Why not refer to him as a "former Naval Officer", since this is factual as well? And hey, since when are aliens and religion mutually exclusive? wikipediatrix 20:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you. I think we need to go back to the first sentence (as it was in the past): "Scientology is a system of beliefs, teachings and rituals, originally established as an alternative psychotherapy in 1952 by science-fiction author L. Ron Hubbard, then recharacterized by him in 1953 as an "applied religious philosophy" for many reasons. First, "most non-scientologist" doesn't make sense, I doubt that most non-scientologists really care about scientology. It should have been "most critics" anyway. Second, the pseudo-scientific claims of scientology are not criticized "only" because Hubbard stated he would start a religion for the money, but for a lot of other reasons, which are covered in the rest of the article. Povmec 21:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Scientology's beginning date. Let's get it accurate. The word was first used by Mr. Hubbard on March 3, 1952 at Wichita, Kansas in a lecture titled, "Scientology: Milestone One." This is an audio tape and can be purchased. The first Church of Scientology was established in 1954, this too is linkable, accurate information. Let's make accurate, documentable statements or controversy descends into confusion. Terryeo 19:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I reverted to the original intro. I changed the date of establishment of scientology to 1952. It seems the case that Hubbard had the idea of scientology in 1952: [6], [7]. Povmec 21:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

In Wichita, Casas, on March 3, 1952 Mr. Hubbard gave a taped, audio lecture (which can be purchased from any Church of Scientology). The lecture may be found in the list of lectures in the hardbound book, "what is Scientology" which might be a public libraries. The title of the taped lecture was: "Scientology: Milestone One." He defines the word, tells what he means to accomplish with it and tells how and why it is different from Dianetics which he had been doing untill that time. Then in 1954 the first Church of Scientology was established. These are the earliest establishable data I can find. Terryeo 00:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Scientology was never presented as a therapy, Mr. Hubbard made that abundantly clear from his first use of the word in 1952. Dianetics was presented as a sort of therapy, but Scientology was not. The 'new' word was used by Mr. Hubbard because the subect matter had changed. I'm willing to spell out the difference and even quote portions of the lecture wherein he gives his reasoning for a new subjecta and thus, a new word.Terryeo 00:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The first Church of Scientology was actually founded in Camden, New Jersey, in December 1953; the signatories on the incorporation document were Hubbard, his son L. Ron, Jr. and his daughter-in-law Henrietta. The so-called "Founding Church" of Scientology, in Washington, D.C., was actually established three months later in February 1954. The Camden foundation seems to be ignored by the Church of Scientology for PR reasons - the claim is that the Church of Scientology was founded by individual Scientologists in response to popular demand. If Hubbard himself founded it, this claim clearly couldn't stand up. -- ChrisO 09:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The Church of Scientology which exists today was established in 1954, the policies under which it has operated are of the 1954 church. Here's the link [8]. The earlier one in December 1953, while it was 3 months sooner, is not the Church of Scientology that is today known as "the Church of Scientology. A thorough history might include that information, but a general overview probably would not. Terryeo 19:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, a bit of history here: there were originally two Churches of Scientology. The very first Church of Scientology is the one I mentioned above, founded in Camden, NJ in December 1953. The "Founding" Church of Scientology was actually incorporated as a separate body, the Church of Scientology of California (CSC), in February 1954. The fact that the Camden, NJ body was the first CoS has been acknowledged officially by CoS spokespeople: "In fact, the first Church of Scientology was incorporated in Camden in 1953, though it didn't thrive, according to local Scientology spokesman Bruce Thompson." [9]

You're right in saying that the present-day CoS is "descended" from CSC. However, it's entirely accurate to say (as I've put it in the current revision) that "Hubbard recharacterized [Scientology] a year later as an "applied religious philosophy" under the management of the Church of Scientology." Take a look at the letter Hubbard wrote on April 10, 1953 to Helen O'Brian (one of his associates at the time) on "the religion angle" [10]. NJ seems to have offered (tax?) advantages to organisations incorporating on a religious basis, which presumably explains why the CoS was incorporated there later in 1953. -- ChrisO 01:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I have viewed that page. It presents information as you have stated. However, I have also viewed my own copy of 'Fundamentals of Thought' and found it differs entirely with that webpage's information. I have some earlier printings of some books but certainly don't have all the versions printed. That source of information might have been true at one time, maybe. But that source is obviously antagonistic and shouldn't be trusted wholesale.

Re: when the COS was founded. I think you're probably right about the tax angle. Don't we want to present the COS as it stands today (established 1954) as an introduction, but keep back put the early non-successful COS, changes of location and so on in a sort historical sort of setting? Terryeo 13:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Introduction

This comment was placed on my talk page, since it is more appropriate to discuss it here I relaocate it. Feel free to continue at this talk page.--Nomen Nescio 21:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Nescio, I had made the changes to the intro of the Scientology article and I explained my reasons on Talk:Scientology. You reverted these changes without giving consideration to what I brought in the discussion, and at the same time requiring that anyone that want to change to explain why on the talk page. I did explain my reasons (with some references), you didn't. Can we come to an agreement on this?

I disagree with the sentence "Most non-Scientologists, however, view his ideas about psychotherapy as pseudoscientific and point to Hubbard's own words describing "religion" as a simple means of making money". "Most non-Scientologists" would be the 6.5+ billions people that are not scientologist, and I'm pretty sure a sizeable chunk of them have no idea about scientology, or don't have a specific opinion, or they didn't look at it enough to make the claim that it is pseudoscientific.

Also, I don't think the sentence "point to Hubbard's own words describing "religion" as a simple means of making money" should be in the intro. By its placement in the intro, it looks as if it's the main argument of critics, while this is only one fact that confirm the more important reasons of why critics consider Scientology dangerous. Povmec 17:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Ooops, since I was busy reverting numerous instances of vandalism I apparently reverted your edit too. Sorry for that, next time I will look at more edits before reverting.

As to the "Most non-Scientologists," I only wrote "Non-scientologists" and another editor added Most. Maybe you could agree on "Critics," or else just "Non-scientologists"?

The reference to religion as moneymaker seems relevant in the intro, as it might be the principal reason for founding Scientology. Besides it is only a small sentence so why not let it be?

My problem is with the psychotherapy. Scientology was not meant as psychotherapy, Diametics was. If anything wouldn't removal of this from the intro be more apt?--Nomen Nescio 18:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The intro has been "restyled" into

Scientology is a new religious movement presented in 1952 by author L. Ron Hubbard at a recorded lecture titled: Scientology: Milestone One. His words included, "Scientology would be the study of knowledge rather than the small segment of therapy which has been Dianetics." The Church of Scientology was founded by Mr. Hubbard in 1954 and uses the methods of Dianetics to produce spiritual relief with its practitioners. Scientology has also been presented as an applied religious philosophy. Many non-Scientologists, however, view his ideas about psychotherapy as pseudoscientific and point to Hubbard's own words describing "religion" as a simple means of making money.

To me it looks as good as it might get. Could we agree on this? Let's leave it for the moment and first discuss before changing it again. --Nomen Nescio 22:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for saying Nomen. Let's do slow down about changing the article. I would like to see that "artist's rendition" of the Xenu spaceplane out of there. The event puportedly happened 70,000,000,000 years ago so what use is some artist's rendition? Terryeo 08:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Paul Horner spamming his own web pages

Paul Horner is spamming links to his own web pages. Two of his IPs are now listed in Vandalism In Progress. He is now resorted to using a Juno account to spam links to his web pages. -- 69.254.232.67, 23:55, 10 December 2005

intro paragraph again

I altered the intro paragraph thusly:

Scientology is a religion created by L. Ron Hubbard, who coined the term in 1952 (although obscure prior uses of the term existed), intending its meaning as "knowing how to know". This early incarnation of Scientology was a successor to his earlier concept of Dianetics. The following year, Hubbard expanded the concept into his own religion, the Church of Scientology, described by Hubbard as an "applied religious philosophy".

.....and it was quickly reverted by "Ombudsman" who called it obfuscation. He didn't deign to tell us what part he found to be obfuscating. I'm reinstating my edit in hopes someone will actually use the discussion page for its intended purpose, rather than hovering over a page and making it continue to say what YOU want it to say, without discussion. wikipediatrix 03:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

The earlier intro read: Scientology is a new religious movement established in 1952 by author L. Ron Hubbard as a successor to the earlier psychotherapeutic practice of Dianetics, also devised by Hubbard. The Church of Scientology was founded by Hubbard the following year to advance what Hubbard described as Scientology's "applied religious philosophy". Deletions included the new religions link and the reference to its psychotherapeutic roots. In their place? A typical scientology distraction by dictionary definition, "knowing how to know," and less than informative filler words like 'coined', 'incarnation' and 'concept'. Ombudsman 04:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Giving their definition of their own word is "A typical Scientology distraction"?? Whoa, Jack! I think your non-neutral POV is showing!! wikipediatrix 06:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Ombudsman here. Saying Hubbard coined the term and then saying he didn't coin the term all in the first sentence is silly. Who cares if he coined the term or not, especially in the first sentence? Did he start the religion or not? What is the "concept of Dianetics"? Is it different from Dianetics? And what is the purpose of "this early incarnation"? If the first paragraph needs altering from the prior version, we need a better rewrite than this. What exactly does Wikipediatrix object to in the original version of the intro? Vivaldi 06:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

"Coined" does not necessarily mean "originated". Hubbard claims to have coined the term independently from the earlier usages. The purpose of ""this early incarnation", obviously, is to refer to the first incarnation of Scientology (seriously, what part did you not understand?) which was not quite the same as the version arrived at when he made it into a religion the next year. Which I stated in the intro already. And I'm baffled by your statement "Who cares if he coined the term or not, especially in the first sentence"... The first sentence is the logical place to define what the subject of the article is, and how it came into being. "Is it different from Dianetics?" Yes. Scientology is Scientology and Dianetics is Dianetics. And my intro said so. I didn't see a need to define Dianetics in the article since the article isn't about Dianetics, and they can always click the link to the Dianetics article. wikipediatrix 06:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Per Wiki policy, I reverted back to the version by Ombudsman until the discussion is completed. His version is what existed before the start of this edit war. And just 3 days ago we agreed to stop editing the intro paragraph. Wikipediatrix, if you think it should be altered from the existing state please explain why you feel it necessary. Vivaldi 06:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

How is this an "edit war"? I reverted once, and only because Ombudsman didn't discuss his reasons for calling my edit "obfuscatory". One could just as easily say that MY version is what existed before HE began his "edit war". And who is this "we" that agreed to stop editing the intro paragraph?? wikipediatrix 06:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, "obfuscating" is a superb description of the above suggestion by Wikipediatrix. That paragraph is hella-confusing. Also, a word's etymology and origin belongs in "history" or "etymology" sections, not in the intro paragraphs, unless it specifically relates to the topic of the entire article (i.e. if the word is noteworthy for its origins, rather than for the movement it applies to; the opposite is the case here). -Silence 06:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Silence that the etymology doesn't belong in the first paragraph, let alone the first sentence. Vivaldi 13:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Have restored to version it was when I requested a discussion. Furthermore, I already explained why I think the moneymaking scheme should be mentioned. This misteriously has disappeared yet again. Let's first try to reason before making alterations.--Nomen Nescio 10:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I edited the intro purely because I felt that the new changes would make a clearly more effective version than the one that was on the main page earlier, and it hadn't been suggested yet, and was based on a version that has much more history of agreement than the one Vivaldi reverted to (i.e. the one that existed before this dispute even began); note that the "moneymaking scheme" wasn't in the intro to begin with when I began editing. Here's the version of the first paragraph I have (since there haven't been any objections to the other paragraphs yet):

Scientology is a new religious movement established in 1952 by science-fiction author L. Ron Hubbard. Originally promoted as an alternative to psychotherapy, much like Hubbard's earlier system of Dianetics, it was recharacterized by him the following year as an "applied religious philosophy" under the organization of the Church of Scientology.

Short, simple, effective.

I agree that the short version by Silence is more appropriate for a first paragraph. Vivaldi 13:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Nescio's version has the following problems, for starters:

1. Intro paragraphs must use Wikipedia summary style. They should not have external links (notes are acceptable)
2. Intro paragraphs should not have any quotations, or at most the most minimal ones necessary.
3. Instead of Wikilinking to our Church of Scientology article, for some reason Nescio gives an external link to the CoS website from the first "Chuch of Scientology" mentioning.
4. "Presented" is a weaker word than "established".
5. The very first paragraph of the intro paragraphs about Scientology should not go into so much detail regarding its origin as to mention "Milestone One", much less quote excerpts from that speech (even though admittedly the excerpt is a relatively apt one for the section); such details are merited in the section on Scientology's origins, not in the first few words of the article! Remember that the ideal intro paragraphs should be as short as possible while conveying only the most vital facts.
6. Dianetics is linked to twice. Extremely redundant. Previous versions of this article didn't even link to it once, since this article is about Scientology, not Dianetics; my version compromised by briefly mentioning it, but this version repeatedly names it without actually giving any real information on it readers would find useful. Remember that this is neither the CoS article nor the Dianetics article.
7. "to produce spiritual relief with its practitioners." - Poor grammar, doesn't make much sense.
8. Replacing "the following yet" with "later" seems to be unnecessarily vague, and removes valuable information in exchange for filler, don't you think?
9. The "pseudoscience" claims you added to the end of the first paragraph are 100% redundant, as the third paragraph of the article already mentions such claims.
10. The addition of the phrase "and point to Hubbard's own words describing "religion" as a simple means of making money [11]." to the very first paragraph is blatantly POVed, in that it's not directly related to Scientology to such an extent that it merits inclusion so early, and in that it apparently only addresses what he once claimed his views were regarding religion in general, not Scientology in particular, and in that such details belong in sections like the origin of Scientology, and are far too specific for any neutral encyclopedia to include in the article. Only an article with a specific agenda, as you clearly have, to attempt to discredit Scientology, would include such a tidbit so early; and the problem with such obvious attempts to discredit Scientology, is that they're unnecessary: Scientology discredits itself with astonishing efficiency. So, please stop trying to push your POV with that sentence; it's an interesting fact, but not one of the central, overarching aspects of Scientology. At the very most, you might be able to get it mentioned in the third paragraph of the intro, since that's the one dedicated to criticism of Scientology, but certainly having it in the first paragraph is out of the question (almost as much as the "pseudoscience" repetition is).

So, for those reasons, I feel that my version is more appropriate than yours for the Scientology page while we continue to discuss the particulars. There; you requested that I reason, and I've fulfilled your requirement.

I agree with your points above Silence. The first paragraph needs to be NPOV and this version by Nescio doesn't succeed. Vivaldi 13:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, though I'll wait for a response on the above points, I'll immediately revert this edit, as it couldn't be more clear that the user has little to no experience with Wikipedia, else he'd be aware that a disambiguation message is practically ubiquitous to Wikipedia articles, and having one at the top is in absolutely no way indicative of its being the "first line" (how hilarious). For the other changes, let's talk. -Silence 10:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Christian Science is not ambiguous with Scientology. Why not put up a line that says, "If you are looking for information about Cosmology, then see that article", or "if you are looking for information about Science, see the Science article", or, "if you are looking for information about seismology, check out that article". There is no ambiguity worth mentioning on the first line of this page. Vivaldi 13:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, that version 23 September 2005 was fine. I would like to bring it back closer to that version. Povmec 15:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Er, isn't that exactly what I did with my previous version? I tried to reach a compromise between versions from weeks and months ago, which I thought were quite satisfactory, and the current one (with its new tidbits of information like the Dianetics link). What about the version I proposed is lower in quality than the one from months ago?

Anyway, since there doesn't seem to be any support at all for Nescio's version and it clearly is inconsistent with the rest of the opening and heavily redundant and POVed, I'll revert it to the previous version for now to continue discussing; it's hard to get an idea of the new version when two of the paragraphs are changed forwards and the other is changed backwards.

Also, to those who have said that there's not enough confusion between Christian Science and Scientology to merit a disambiguation notice (though there seem to be a large number of people who disagree with you): if that's true, then obviously there's absolutely no reason to include it as the fourth paragraph in the intro, either! (or anywhere in the article, for that matter.) The only two options available for mentioning Christian Science are either a disambiguation notice like the one I did at the top of the page, or to remove it altogether. -Silence 22:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Please remember that the intro should be a brief overview. Quoting from specific Hubbard lectures is simply too much detail to be appropriate in an intro. If you want to quote Hubbard, do it lower down in the article. Also, Silence is absolutely right about the disambiguation: it goes at the top, or not at all. -- ChrisO 00:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I reverted again, for some strange reason it is impossible to first discuss the matter! Thank you for the above discussion regarding the intro. First of all it is not my intro. I merely wanted to revert to the version I thought was more accurate to have this debate. As to the argumetns given here

ad 1 Of course I have no problem with this and the links can be corrected to refer only to Wikipedia.

ad 2 Removing quotations seems reasonable. So, if there is no objection from others it may be deleted.

ad 3 I did not link to external, as I explained earlier, but once again I accept it is more appropriate to link to the Wikipedia article. Feel free to do so.

ad 4 Style, grammar or that kind of suggestions are welcome. Therefore I agree with this point.

ad 5 I Agree.

ad 6 Probably by mistake, but I don't see any problem with just one link.

ad 7 See ad 4.

ad 8 see ad 4.

ad 9 Disagree, although it is mentioned in the article it is an important and factual critique and therefore should be mentioned in the introduction. As you know, any introduction is ipso facto redundant. It tells the same story for which the details can be found in the article itself.

As I just explained, it already is in the intro! In the third paragraph of the intro, which is devoted to criticism of Scientology! Your mentioning it again just means that it's mentioned twice in the intro, in addition to its later mentionings in the article proper. Clearly both redundant and heavily POVed to repeat the same claim twice within a space of three short paragraphs. Introductions should be redundant to the rest of the article, not internally redundant. -Silence 16:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

You clearly missed that I removed the 2nd reference to it. But I understand you agree it is warranted in the intro. You fail to explain how mentioning facts is POV.--Nomen Nescio 10:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

ad 10 Since Hubbard did mention religion could be used as moneymaking scheme I fail to see why it is POV. Furthermore, it is evident this opens the possibility that Scientology was created just for that purpose. This seems highly relevant and therefore should be included in the introduction. By ignoring this, evidently factual information, I think that would be POV and should be avoided. Clearly it information not in support of Scientiology. But as I understand it, Wikipedia is not meant as PR but to advance facts. Suggesting ignoring less positive information sounds like POV to me.

It's not POV to include it in the article, it's POV to include in the first paragraph of the article, which is meant to define the very concept of Scientology, not to go into a random speculative attempt to discern a possible motive of Hubbard for creating it. To do so is to implicitly suggest that that is the one and only absolutely sure reason for Scientology's origin, since all other details that aren't mentioned in the intro are implicitly assumed to be less important for gaining a basic understanding of Scientology. Therefore, even if true (which it not necessarily is), it needs removal to later in the article, where it already is and where it belongs! -Silence 16:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

For the record, I also disagree to have this sentence in the first paragraph of the intro. Povmec 17:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Since this could be the very reason for establishing Scientology, it surely must be mentioned. You fail to explain why important info, maybe the most important regarding the founding of this religion, should not be mentioned in the intro.--Nomen Nescio 10:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I have this suggestion for the intro

Scientology is a new religious movement established in 1952 by science-fiction author L. Ron Hubbard. In 1954 Mr. Hubbard founded The Church of Scientology and based it on the methods of Dianetics which he claimed was a form of psychotherapy. Scientology was later recharacterized as an "applied religious philosophy." Critics, however, point to Hubbard's own words describing "religion" as a simple means of making money.

Also, I think the following is incorrect:

Scientology's principles have been characterized as pseudoscientific by many mainstream medical and psychotherapeutic practitioners, .....

Which mainstream medical or psychotherapeutic practitioner supports Scientology? Deleting the term many, seems to be more accurate. Making it:

Scientology's principles have been characterized as pseudoscientific by mainstream medical and psychotherapeutic practitioners, .....

Could we discuss this before editing again?--Nomen Nescio 11:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Nescio....... I agree that discussion is better than editwarring. I've already enumerated my problems with the intro paragraph, though, and your new proposed version doesn't address any of my concerns. The "new religious movement" may feel neutral because there are so many who prefer to use the word "cult", but it remains a fact that they are recognized as a religion in the country of their origin, and many others as well. The use of the word "claimed" is classic negative spin - why not say Dianetics was "presented as a form of psychotherapy"? And I remain opposed to loading up the first paragraph with negative comments such as the "making money" bit, which could just as easily find a home elsewhere in the article. Can we at least pretend to be impartial here? wikipediatrix 16:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't have ime to get involved in point-by-point discussion, but I concur with POVmec that the 23 September 2005 version was good, and superior to the subsequent versions that are being tussled about. I vote to revert to that one. BTfromLA 21:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. It's short, sweet, simple, and spin-free. wikipediatrix 22:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

And so is mine. Does anyone have any actual problems whatsoever with the version I proposed? Considering that it's still there on the main page, except for the first paragraph, which Nescio altered to endorse his clearly very unpopular version, I'm going to try to revert it to that version again. I've waited several days and haven't yet heard a single problem with that version, and it meshes better with the next two paragraphs than the out-of-date 23 September 2005 edit does. Please give some actual reasons why the paragraph doesn't work if you find it unacceptable, or simply fix the problems with it manually if they aren't overwhelming; I don't mind disagreement, but blind reversions aren't the answer. -Silence 09:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Clearly discussion is not possible. Contrary to what has been stated my version is less POV than the current which apparently had to be reinstated. Very decent of you all to await the discussion on arguments. Since debate is impossible I will once again ask you what the problem is but will leave it at that.

1 Hubbard's moneymaking scheme is not merely a statement. It is possibly, if not probably, the major reason for founding Scientology. Nobody has denied that, and nobody has explained why such important information should be withheld. Which of course constitiutes POV.

I will play devil's advocate then and deny that Scientology was created with the primary purpose to make money. The Church of Scientology specifically denies that L. Ron Hubbard ever stated that he created Scientology to make money. The CoS says he created the church to improve the world. The one quote about LRH saying that starting a religion was a good way to get rich is a disputed quote, and one that is not accepted by all scholars of LRH or Scientology. Since the question of whether Scientology was created as a moneymaking scheme is contested by the church, it seems like contradicting their official position should be included with critical information in the body of the article -- not the intro. Otherwise to be completely non-POV, we should have to present both positions in the intro if we are going to include one -- and that would only make it bloated. So I say, leave out the "money-making scheme" aspect until later in the article. Vivaldi 12:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Nescio, we don't want the information about religion-for-money to be withheld, we just don't agree that it should appear in the first paragraph (it appears later in the article.) I think Vivaldi explained well the issue. Povmec 18:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Clearly outside the Scientology community it is accepted Hubbard made that statement. Second, Hubbard was a science-fiction writer. Also, we know Scientology charges obscene amounts of money for advancing through their OT levels. These facts warrant the suggestion Scientology is not meant as religion but as a money making machine. With this in mind I fail to understand why such potentially vital information should be withheld from the intro. As I understand it Wikipedia is not meant as an advertisement.--Nomen Nescio 10:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

2 The use of the word "claimed" is classic negative spin - why not say Dianetics was "presented as a form of psychotherapy"? No leading (main stream) psychiatry or psychology organisation thinks it is "a form of psychotherapy." This would make it a "claim." I fail to see how just saying it is, makes it so. I appreciate you feel it is negative, but as with the previous point it is also more factual. As long as it is not accepted as psychotherapy, anyone saying it is only makes a "claim."

I will take the lack of response as a sign of agreement. Too bad this NPOV contribution will not be allowed. --Nomen Nescio 10:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

3 As you are well aware not everybody accepts Scientology as religion. Although the US does, many other countries do not. One might even debate the way in which the US came to accept it as religion. To merely state it is a religion contradicts views around the world and would make this article US orientated.

Countries governments are not the authority on what is a religion. Otherwise we'd say that every religion is disputed, because in Saudi Arabia the only religion is Islam, and all others are non-religions.

Also, Scientology is a religion according the definition of religion given at www.Dictionary.com: "3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader." Also, religious scholars classify Scientology as a religion (cults are religions too!). It has the ingredients of a religion and an intricate mythology and all the other aspects that are found in other religions. (It's also a dangerous cult and a global scam, but that doesn't mean it doesn't fit the definition of religion). Vivaldi 12:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I was responding to the suggestion that since the US accepts it is a religion this must be true. Still you agree, Scientology meets enough criteria to warrant the description cult. Hubbard was a science-fiction writer (apparently this fact also is deemed unimportant information for the intro) and only he and his followers would decscribe himne as a religious leader.--Nomen Nescio 10:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you think this is POV, but it is evident that factual criticism is considered POV which means this article has an agenda: to push Scientology and delete any nuance. But we already knew that. Thank you.--Nomen Nescio 10:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Scientomogy article

Why is Scientomogy notable enough to warrant an article separate from this? Operation Clambake has its own article, but has been around for 10 years -- many other, older and more extensive Scientology-related sites (Lermanet, FACTNet and so on) do not have distinct entries.

Scientomogy presumably deserved an entry because it got reported in the media and got millions of site visits. Far more than many of the other more established sites. Whether or not it continues to get large amounts of hits is a good question. Personally, I don't think Scientomogy is useful to be mentioned in an encyclopedia article at all. It's not that kind of site. It's a fun playful site that should be distributed and promoted in some other forum. Vivaldi 13:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

As this article appears to have manifested after the latest edit-war controversy over links to this site, doesn't it seem that the Scientomogy article has been created mainly due to Wikipedia politics?

Yes. That is probably true. The recent battle between Paul Horner's scientomogy.com and Glen Stollery's scientomogy.info played a part in the creation of the article. I think a point was being made that Paul's version was not the popular one. But regardless, I don't see the value of either site to the encyclopedia. Vivaldi 13:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Povmec[12] wanted an explanation for my suggestion to merge, but I thought it might be self-evident. Can anyone provide an explanation to justify the existence of a separate Scientomogy article? It seems almost frivolous. 71.131.196.204 11:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I suggest something even more. Instead of merging, just delete it completely from the database. Let's keep 3 or 4 of the long-standing sites that provide factual information, those that are bound to be here for a long time. Then lets remove the extraneous ones. Too many links is very distracting. And this is nothing against Glen's site, because I like it, I just don't think it is appropriate for a mention here on Wikipedia Vivaldi 13:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I would agree with that. I didn't see Scientomogy important enough to have its own paragraph within the Scientology article: the web site is mainly a parody of Tom Cruise and his faith. I also had a problem seeing the Scientomogy article as part of the Scientology category. In my opinion, removing the "parody links" in the Scientology article is also a good idea. The links are there to complement the information appearing in the article... there are a few others I would removed. I tried to cleanup the links a few weeks ago, but that didn't last long [13] (see my post above Talk:Scientology#External_Links). Even there, I restrained myself from removing more, I figured four pro/four critical sites was enough: with all respects to their due owner, I would remove http://www.keytolife.org, http://theta.com, http://fortharrison75th.info, http://www.scientology-kills.org and http://www.amazing.com/scientology/cos-fronts.html (it has been suggested to have an article about all the Scientology fronts though, I think that is a good idea.) Povmec 15:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea to me, though judging from the Scientomogy article creator's hostile reaction to even a merge suggestion I doubt this idea will be met with much graciousness. 71.131.196.204 08:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Can we lose the hyperbole? The very link you provided shows that I did NOT have a "hostile reaction" to the idea of merging. However, I do oppose merging, as do several others. wikipediatrix 16:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

The Scientology article is already too long. It has a great deal of pro and a great deal of con. Shouldn't a web-rich, current parody event be expressed as a single link within the Scientology article?Terryeo 17:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

The parody site itself is not what makes it notable. The ongoing lawsuit with Scientology and resultant media attention, is. Had there been no lawsuit, I would never have given a simple parody site its own article. Scientology has made Scientomogy notable by finding it worthy of litigation. wikipediatrix 17:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

There is no lawsuit against Scientomogy.info. Scientomogy received a notice from Scientology's lawyers, but so have at least 50-100 other sites over the years. I see nothing that impressive about the Scientomogy page that makes it notable enough to include in an encyclopedia article about Scientology. If you want to create a list of sites that have been actually shut down or had their content altered because of Church of Scientology court action, it would be a very long list. Scientomogy hasn't been sued, it hasn't been shut down, its fame is fading, and frankly its not that relevant to this article. Vivaldi 03:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I suppose the lawsuit is implied rather than manifest yet, because Moxon & Kobrin's cease and desist letter expresses their intention to sue if Stollery's website is not removed and turned over to them, and Stollery response was essentially "No. See you in court". wikipediatrix 12:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The Church of Scientology has threatened many web sites and people with lawsuits, but they very rarely go through with them. They just try to bully and intimidate people. They understand that parody is a protected form of free speech and they won't attempt to sue someone for engaging in what is clearly parody. (They would be subject to penalties themselves if they brought a lawsuit that had no merits). If I was a betting man, I'd say that Co$ will ignore the whole thing rather than risk creating more turmoil for itself and more visitors to Scientomogy.info. So, maybe in the rare chance that Co$ actually sues Glen, then maybe it would be noteworthy again, until then I don't think it is. Vivaldi 06:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

What hyperbole? Hostile means antagonistic. Speaking of hyperbole, who are the several others who are for keeping a Scientomogy article? 71.131.196.204 05:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

"Hostile" carries a different spin than "antagonistic". And I didn't say there were others for keeping, I said there were others who oppose merging - I agree that the Scientology article shouldn't be weighted down with this. wikipediatrix 12:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I tend to oppose merging at this point as well. The arguments for outright deletion have convinced me that that's probably a better solution. 71.131.196.204 08:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Well I am certainly not going to stand in the way of progress and want the best critical sites listed on the Scientology page, but surely having a stand alone Scientomogy page because of the world-wide recongnition it's received is a different argument again? Not making the top 5 most "informative" critical websites may justify not having it as a critical site on the Scientology page (parody perhaps), but this would actually add to the argument to keep in as an individual page wouldn't it? Just on the extensive media coverage, threats, website traffic, making the Alexa top ten fastest growing websites in the world two weeks running, the google test, and "coining" a new term in it's own right? For that reason, why merge at all, or delete at all and leave staus quo? Glen Stollery 14:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

WTF?

Last night Ombudsman essentially accused me of being a Scientologist simply because I want the article to be fair and free of spin. Now this morning I come here to find paranoid speculations about why the scientomogy article was created. I created it because it's been in the news lately and it certainly seemed relevant. Simple as that. Vivaldi says: "The recent battle between Paul Horner's scientomogy.com and Glen Stollery's scientomogy.info played a part in the creation of the article." That's not only incorrect, it borders on being an absolute lie, because how could Vivaldi claim to have any psychic insight about MY motivations? This bullying mob mentality and utter lack of good faith is very bad for Wikipedia. I am neither pro-Stollery or anti-Stollery, I am neither pro-Scientology nor anti-Scientology. I do think this article as it stands is unnecessarily skewed against Scientology, and I obviously think a Scientomogy article is notable enough to remain here. It's especially frustrating because I've been watching the fuss over at Daniel Brandt in which a large gang of Wikipedians have ganged up and insisted that the articles are relevant and should be kept, despite the fact that, like Scientomogy, are about a guy and his small website that got a few minutes of fame and press. The Scientomogy pages have garnered far more major news coverage than Brandt's, and yet now we have people using the same standards to urge for scientomogy's deletion that were used to urge to keep the Brandt article. wikipediatrix 16:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn't know who created the Scientomogy article. I just know that Paul Horner has been agressively link spamming this article with www.Scientomogy.com and he removed www.Scietomogy.info. I don't believe it was paranoid of me to suggest that somebody decided to set the record straight about Glen's site and Paul's site. I think you are vastly overstating the importance of the Scientomogy.info web page. It was a brief media event that is now over and I don't see why it deserves any serious mention in an encyclopedia, YET. Perhaps at some later date, Scientomogy will become a very important site for Scientology criticism or study or parody, but right now, I don't believe that 1 week of high click rates warrants an encyclopedia mention. Vivaldi 02:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Scientomogy.info currently has a higher Alexa Internet rating (33402) of both scientology.org (37033) or xenu.net (44483) - I'm not sure if this shows anything other than current interest in this subject, which would add to the argument of it having it's own page perhaps? Nor is the battle between Scientology and Scientomogy over... barely beginning. Recent corrospondence with their local office would seem they are about to file lawsuit. As one of the highest profile net vs. Scientology battles to date with 5 terrabytes of data downloaded from Scientomogy, bringing to light Tom's lunatics antics to probably millions with 14 million hits on the site, articles in LA Times, NY Post, National Enquirer, Drudge, E-online, MSNBC, most newspapers since the Associated Press picked up on it, and now the word "scientomogy" produces 22 THOUSAND pages on google! That would seem "worthy" to me! Glen Stollery 14:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Glen, I believe the Alexa ratings take into account that you were receiving like a 50 times increase in visitors for a one or two week period a month ago, right? Can you tell us what the average number of unique visitors to your web page were for the most recent week? Then maybe we can compare your numbers to some of the other sites.

And this is not to say that pure numbers are the only reason to include a link. I think its important also to consider how long a site has been up and how likely it will exist in the future and the nature of the material on the site. While I find your site quite humorous and I appreciate you providing host to large video files, I still think most of these are unrelated to an encyclopedia article about Scientology. It isn't a huge deal, and I am willing to agree to leave it here without starting a catfight about it, but there have been a lot of other critics that have had web sites up for years that don't get a mention in this article or elsewhere in wikipedia and when I compare your site to theirs as far as information about Scientology, yours seems lacking. I think we should keep just 3 or 4 critics sites at the most, and I'm not sure your site should be one of the top 3 or 4. It's just something to think about. Vivaldi 19:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Well I am certainly not going to stand in the way of progress and want the best critical sites listed on the Scientology page, but surely having a stand alone Scientomogy page because of the world-wide recongnition it's received is a different argument again? Not making the top 5 most "informative" critical websites may justify not having it as a critical site on the Scientology page (parody perhaps), but this would actually add to the argument to keep in as an individual page wouldn't it? Just on the extensive media coverage, threats, website traffic, making the Alexa top ten fastest growing websites in the world two weeks running, the google test, and "coining" a new term in it's own right? For that reason, why merge at all? (FYI: The traffic rank is based on three months of aggregated historical traffic data from millions of Alexa Toolbar users and is a combined measure of page views and users (reach). As a first step, Alexa computes the reach and number of page views for all sites on the Web on a daily basis.) Glen Stollery 13:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

This article is way out of wack POV wise

there are clearly passges taken straight out of some scientology porpaganda I even seen a paragraph repeated about past lives etc.

Why not fix the passages in question or be more specific? Vivaldi 02:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Way out of line, I agree. I am once again posting a documented introduction because a subject should first be introduced as its source intended it to exist before controvery about it can be understood. To state Scientology was introduced as an alternative to psychotherapy might even be legally actionable. It is plain wrong.

That intro

I've reworded the intro. Five points:

1) I've restored the disambiguation with Christian Science. It's clearly justified here. I've seen this confusion for years; it's common, it's well-known and it happens often enough for professional sociologists to have to clarify it (see e.g. http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/chrissci.html ). The people who've been deleting it from this article don't seem to get this point, or perhaps don't want to get it. Bear in mind that the disambiguation isn't a POV thing - it's simply, and literally, a way of reducing ambiguity. It's not a comment on the nature or merits of either Scientology or Christian Science.

I don't believe that enough confusion exists between the Christian Science movement and Scientology to warrant a disambiguity mention. I find it highly unlikely that someone that is ignorant, naive, or stupid enough to type in "Scientology" when searching for information about the other organization will be smart enough to come to their senses when they see this message. There is nothing in common between the two groups besides 5 letters, so why does this warrant a mention? In the link you provided its also important to note that it says Christian Science is also confused with Quimbism, and Mind Science. Perhaps we should do a disambiguity for these two movements as well since presumably people stupid enough to confuse Christian Science with Scientology are also too stupid to figure out the difference between Mind Science, Quimbism, and Scientology too? Vivaldi 06:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I've had several discussions about Scientology that involve somebody asking me, "is that the same as Christian Science?" Likewise, I've had several discussions about Christian Science that involve the question, "is that the same as Scientology?" So yeah, I think the disambiguation is necessary. Jeff Silvers 06:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

2) We should not be quoting specific lectures in the intro. An intro is simply a summary of the key points in the article. User:Terryeo's preferred version is simply too detailed for this intro; the Hubbard quote doesn't belong there.

Thanks for the directional words about editing Chris :) This topic is "Scientology" but it is presented as a Church of Scientology article. Even unabridged dictionays, give a first use of a word. By quoting a dozen words from Mr. Hubbard's first use of the word it spells out cleanly what he meant when using that symbol. He did not mean it as any sort of alternative therapy. An introduction of the word should therefore include what the author meant when he said it. I do realize it is an intellectual jump from "the study of knowledge" to "an applied religious philosophy" but the common element is that things about man's spiritual nature can be known, thus we have the Church of Scientology who's teachings are knowledge about man's spirit. Neither Hubbard nor the Cos has ever presented Scientology as a therapy, that is just plain false information which is not documentable. While I do document my version of Hubbard's first use of the word I don't document a link to "Scientology: Milestone One." Terryeo 01:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)Terryeo 01:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC) Terryeo 06:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

3) I've reworded the psychotherapy point, since that seems to have been the main issue of disagreement. BTW, it's not "legally actionable" at all - that's nonsense. I suggest that people read Wikipedia:No legal threats, as it's something that can lead to immediate blocks on editing.

Thank you, the psychotherapy point would bring a reaction from any knowledgeable Scientologist. But my main point about the introduction was this: A subject should be introduced as it was intended by it author. Mr. Hubbard died, 1986. He isn't around to ask but his writings are. An introduction should reflect what his intention was (this being true of any introduced subject). The controversy of the subject should then follow, after the reader has some clue what the subject is. Mr. Hubbard did not create a psychotherapy and did not create a therapy. Even the IRS was unable to glean what Mr. Hubbard meant and engaged in huge court battles before a judge could understand how Scientology is a religion. The introduction should at least make an attempt to convey this point of view. Further, I believe an external link to the source of this information [14]] is necessary because there is a vast amount of misinformation. Apparently the idea that a person can know even the tiniest bit about their existence is a difficult thing for people to grasp.Terryeo 22:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)Terryeo 22:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

4) I've changed "Church spokespeople attest" to "Members claim", as (a) it's not just spokespeople who make those claims and (b) they are only claims, given the lack of independent testing.

5) Terms should be linked to Wikipedia articles, not external sources. Linking "Church of Scientology" to an external website rather than Church of Scientology isn't a wiki-friendly thing to do (see Wikipedia:Build the web). Wherever possible, link to internal Wikipedia articles; external links are best used when referencing sources, rather than as links for specific terms or phrases. -- ChrisO 22:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

It seemed necessary to link externally because the establishment date of today's Church of Scientology was required and disambiguated from the meaning of the word "scientology." Terryeo 01:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Just to add to the case that we need disambiguation, I will add that in the The Brainwashing Manual (pdf), allegedly from Hubbard, Christian Science is mentioned many times along with Dianetics. Povmec 00:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

If you really think a reader of the article even remotely might confuse Scientology with Christian Science, perhaps it would be prudent to also add disambiguation links for Church of Christ, Scientist, Church of Divine Science, Scientomogy, Sciology, Ontology, and maybe Science too, as long as we're already underestimating the reader's intelligence. (And in that same spirit, please note that I'm being sarcastic here.) wikipediatrix 03:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Incidently, Christian Science is the same as Church of Christ, Scientist. I suggest you google "christian science", "scientology" and "confuse". It is clear that both are often confused, enough to warrant a warning at the top. Povmec 04:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm well aware they're the same, heh heh. Just taking overdisambiguation to its logical extreme. wikipediatrix 13:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Whether or not it warrants an inclusion at the top is what we are debating. It isn't a given. I suggest that anyone so stupid or naive to confuse the two will not even be helped by a disambiguity notice. Vivaldi 06:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

"50,0000 members?"

HistoricalPisces added that Scientology has "a global following of over 50,0000 members" to the intro paragraph, which I removed. Not only is "50,0000" not a proper number, but it's unsourced. Way too important an item not to be sourced. wikipediatrix 19:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• I have to go now so leave me a reply and I'll get back to you tomorrow. Anyway, that's what the religion article said, so I put it there.--HistoricalPisces 20:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

here is what seems to be impossible to find, modern, up to date statistics from the Scientology site. [15] the only grumble I have is that when I put such an exterally directed away from link into the Scientology article, ChrisO points out that it is inappropriate to externally link. As for quantities of members of the Church of Scientology, the best I could do was: 105,000 new people started their first service in a Mission of Scientology in 1997: [16] Terryeo 22:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)Terryeo 22:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, if we're going down that slippery slope of membership, we have to consider what that means. There are thousands of people who the CoS counts as members who really aren't, i.e., anyone who ever got on their mailing list. They still tout John Brodie as a member even though he abandoned Scientology long ago. wikipediatrix 22:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Membership with the Church of Scientology has a particular and specific meaning. A person must purchase a membership to be counted as a member. While any person, member or non member, may donate and take a service such as a course in communication or personal efficency. Scientology thus makes statistics of members seperately from persons starting services. (unsigned message left by Terryeo at 18:37, on 14 December 2005 )

Membership in CoS is debated widely, and it does not have a particular specific meaning. Your definition, that "purchasing a membership" qualifies one as a member, is clearly insufficient since many people that have purchased lifetime memberships in the Church of Scientology are no longer members of the church and completely disavow themselves of the whole thing and call their former church a cult. But your "specific meaning" of membership still included these people.

Also, this article is about Scientology, not specifically the CoS, so we need to also count those people that are members of heretic groups, such as Ron's Org and FreeZoners that also consider themselves to be legitimate Scientologists (although unaffiliated with Co$)

Clearly the best method for determining membership is one of self-identification. How many people currently say they are Scientologists (either as members of the Church of Scientology or otherwise)? In the United States as of 2001 there were ~55,000 people that considered themselves to be Scientologists. (see http://www.gc.cuny.edu/faculty/research_briefs/aris/key_findings.htm ) So the CoS claim of 10 million members is clearly wrong and ill advised to report. Vivaldi 07:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Also see this for more food for thought. And this. And this. wikipediatrix 19:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

NPOV?

As a Scientologist of long standing, I am of course deeply offended by the liberal use of terms and stories in the main article which are supposedly drawn from confidential materials. The reason for my objection is not that others might find something to poke fun at regarding Scientology upon reading them, but that they evince by their very presence an antagonism toward the subject matter. They serve to inflame, but not to inform.

In looking at whether I was "justified" in my objection to the presence of these items, I decided to review first, reputable hard-bound encyclopedias and second, Wikipedia itself to see whether other groups are accorded any respect or delicacy with regard to the handling of their claimed secrets or mysteries. For examples, I selected the Freemasons and The LDS church. Both of these have secret rites reserved for the initiate only, and both guard them jealously against exposure or misuse. Nonetheless, I have read detailed descriptions of these rites on the web.

Never, however, have I seen them in print from NPOV sources, nor anywhere for that matter, except in hostile publications both on paper and online.

The enemies of various groups seem to derive equisite pleasure imagining how their targets must squirm with discomfort at the revelation (and ridiculing) of their most closely held secrets.

Wikipedia is supposed to be NPOV, and attempt to use properly-sourced and scholarly references. I submit that the exposition of these materials is neither. It has been introduced here by persons who wish Scientology and Scientologists ill, and by its very nature, being supposedly drawn from "secret" sources which the authors are not supposed to have legitimate access to, cannot be properly sourced.

I know that Anti-'s will consider the excision of such entries to be biased and propagandist, but their argument would have to be that by not offending Scientologists we must be offending the truth. Such needn't be the case. "Some closely held secrets of the Church, when written of piecemeal outside the context of their avowedly religious purpose, have exposed the group and its adherents to intense ridicule" is an NPOV and accurate statement, and provably so. "Such-and-such is one of the patently ridiculous and laughable secret beliefs of the group" is neither NPOV nor provable from responsible and verifiable sources who have no axe to grind.

Ayespy

The purpose of an encyclopedia is to teach; to tell the truth. This does not mean simply to teach the parts of the truth which is pleasant; or to teach the parts of the truth that established organizations are comfortable with having the public know about them. It means to teach the whole truth.

Many organizations wish to conceal facts about themselves which might expose them to ridicule, censure, or other negative outcomes. Politicians often make plans which they do not wish "leaked" to the public, even though the whole job of the politicians is to serve the public. The most infamous case is the presidency of Richard Nixon, but there are many others. Likewise in industry, many companies have been confronted with unpleasant facts that their products are killing or poisoning people -- such as harmful side effects of pharmaceuticals. We cover these incidents not because we wish harm to the organizations involved, but because the truth is important.

The facts about OT III, the Wall of Fire, and so on have been matters of public record for some time now. They have been admitted as evidence in courts of law. The Church of Scientology has managed to contradict itself badly in trying to suppress them in the past: claiming sometimes that these are trade secrets, and sometimes that they are false allegations about Church beliefs. Clearly they cannot be both: in order to claim that the Xenu story is a secret belief of the Church, one must acknowledge that it is a belief. Likewise, to deny that it is a belief and a scripture of the church, one must reject the claim of trade-secret or copyright status.

Today, because the contents of OT III have been for years a matter of public record and vigorous discussion, Wikipedia would be incomplete if if failed to cover them. A secret ceases to be secret once it enters the public record. The Church may continue to insist to its own members that it is a secret and that they may not divulge it; but you cannot unscramble an egg. You cannot round up all the ex-members and South Park watchers and alt.religion.scientology readers and Tom Cruise fans who have learned about Xenu and erase that knowledge from them.

The Church of Scientology protects its copyrights. You say the contents of OT III have been a matter of public record for years but that isn't the whole story. And of a vast amount of information, OT III is itself a rather small amount of information. Its a big deal because COS protects its copyrights. The one document that became part of the public domain exists in the public domain because the court considered it a fairy tale. So the judge refused to consider its copyright to be of any significance. Terryeo

Copyright does not militate against disseminating the facts, either. Copyright law does not permit one to copyright a fact, only a published work. It also does not forbid others from citing a work in reference, or quoting it in review. Wikipedia cites thousands of copyrighted books, magazine and journal articles, and so on. If you believe that we are citing OT III or other Scientology works inaccurately, all you need to do is provide the correct quotes and citations so that we can carry them. Until then, we'll go by the sources that we have.

Let me ask. If you think the Xenu stuff accurate, how do you think that information was arrived at? It happened 75 million years ago, when dinasours walked earth. The judge who put it into the public domain used the words "fairy tale." Out of a stack of books higher than your head Xenu is one page. I mean get a clue, its not very central. Terryeo

Again, I understand that you and other Scientologists may be offended by the fact that Wikipedia covers the Xenu story and other church secrets. There are also people who are offended that Wikipedia covers the falsification of the Gulf of Tonkin incident, the fraud by which the United States was drawn into the Vietnam War. People who devoted a great deal of their lives to defending that war feel hurt by the fact that it is now known to have been predicated on false data. Nonetheless, the truth is a value of an encyclopedia, and being inoffensive is basically not.

By all means this article should get into controversy. But to hammer away at a single point of controversy and make the article unbearably long doesn't make sense either. Terryeo

We do not seek to offend; but if in telling the truth we offend, then, well, that's just part of life. --FOo 05:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

You say: "We do not seek to offend;" Perhaps you don't. Someone does. It was the sole purpose of bringing this material forward, since it does not actually obtain toward an understanding of the subject matter. The very fact that you even believe it informative illustrates both your absence of actual understanding of the subject and the effectiveness of the material itself in creating a false picture.

You say: "It means to teach the whole truth." Hardly. No encyclopedia is capable of that, nor does one try to be. One also needs to take into accout "probative" versus "prejudicial." What gets included in an encyclopedia is material fitting criteria such as - a) what will actually helpful to a majority of its readers to learn, b) what is of major importance to the subject matter, c) what can be concisely expressed so as to be maximally informative in minimal space, d) what is of historical significance and e) that which can be verifiably sourced. Scientology "secrets" sourced to enemies of the subject would not seem to fall into any of these categories. They do contain a "titillation" factor which is entirely outside the perview of encyclopedic content, so they are "interesting" to some - but they are not major to the subject matter (They comprise less than 1/100 of 1% of Scientology writings, and fewer than 1% of Scientologists have them as part of their "Scientology experience); they are historically insignificant to the shape and progress of the movmement and its global activities; they cannot be reliably sourced; they are of no value to an independent student in understanding the nature of the Scientology materials, community, life-direction, etc.; far from being maximally informative, far from illuminating, by being given undue importance all out of proportion to the part they play in the scope of Scientology, they actually misdirect the student's attention away from the body of the subject and create an inaccurate picture of it.

As an example of this last point, I daresay that you and others here who have no personal Scientology experience of their own, actually believe that by reading these "revelations," you can see better into the minds of Scientologists and of the Founder. Nothing could be farther from the truth. How we see things and how he saw things are much better explained in the millions of words of publicly available written and spoken material which we actually untilize in our everyday lives than in something which we may or may not have read one time (and in my case I did OT III 25 years ago) and never looked at or for that matter thought about, again. Concrete examples of things which really matter to Scientologists, are CORE and basic to the subject and its approach to life, and which are not touched upon in the article (if we are going to cover the "whole truth" and exposit things of interest to a non-Scientologist student actually gaining an understanding of the subject): Cycle of Action; Cycle of Communication; Phenomena of the Misunderstood Word; Overt-Motivator Sequence; Third Party Law; The Conditions of Existence; The Laws of Exchange; Touch Assist; Nerve Assist; Contact Assist; ARC Triangle; KRC Triangle; Training Routines; the Volunteer Ministry; the Anatomy of a Problem; Management by Statistics; The Factors; The Logics; The Q's (prelogics); Ridges and Flows; The Dynamics; What is Greatness; Professionalism; etc. These are the meat of Scientology and serve to illuminate how and why we live how we live and do what we do. The other garbage is a pure red herring. (which by the way is more instructive of the motives of those who brought it here and insist it stay than of the nature of Scientology. They don't want you to understand the subject itself - the purpose of an encyclopedia article. They want you to "understand" that it is weird, alarming, and should be avoided. I challenge you to find where this is part of the purpose of an encyclopedia)

Now, if we are to be even-handed and expose "the whole truth" about everything, then I think the word-by-word and action-by-action details of the Mormon and Masonic rites should be both posted and compared in this encyclopedia - since, though no other encyclopedia finds them more probative than prejudicial, we know better. It is important that even if tens of thousands find the material offensive, and even if we know no more about how Mormons and Masons live after we read them than before, they ought to be here because a) they are part of "the whole truth" and b) someone might be interested and c) those few who hate these subjects will be gratified to find them in something calling itself an "encyclopedia."

Oh, geez, I almost forgot - shouldn't we also be quoting secret Mormon scripture about other planets and the exact circumstances the faithful will find themselves in in the after-life, versus thos who are righteous but non-Mormon? Come on. Someone is falling down on the job here. Ayespy 07:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. If these beliefs are indeed relatively minor points and a "red herring", then it's truly a catastrophe that the Church spent a great deal of time and effort seeking to harm and censor those who discuss them. I am glad that this seems to be no longer the standing policy, and that instead we are able to have a civil discussion. It's unfortunate that Zenon Panoussis, David Touretzky, and others who discussed Scientology beliefs and practices frankly instead got harassment and lawsuits. (Touretzky, I see, still has a stalker who periodically tries to interrupt online discussions of his computer science work with accusations about religious bigotry.) In any event, that's progress -- civil discussion is a lot more productive than censorship and lawsuits.

One interpretation would say that the Church has made an issue out of some of the otherwise minor peculiarities of its beliefs, by threatening and hurting people who discuss them. Attacking people to silence them causes people who oppose censorship to pay attention to the issue. An awful lot of people heard about Scientology for the first time as a result of the attempted censorship of alt.religion.scientology, for instance.

Well, put some of that attempt in the article, but indicate somehow that it documentably happened. The COS and its court cases are documented but if you know of instances of Scientology attempting to squash discussion, put them in the article. Terryeo

Nonetheless, that's all a little beside the point. You are of course correct that no encyclopedia can cover all the truth. However, every attempt to lay out specific policies on Wikipedia as to what is "notable" or "encyclopedic" has unfortunately ended in debacle -- there isn't even any consensus on whether individual high schools should be discussed here, to say nothing of widely discussed religious beliefs. As it stands, the very fact that particular Scientological beliefs are well-known today suffices (in my view) to prove that they are notable and should be discussed in Wikipedia. I chose to mention Xenu and OT III above because they are the best-known of the "secrets" that you seem to be talking about; if there are other things that we should be considering of equal or greater fame, please by all means contribute them!

I see that you are concerned that because some of the material under discussion has been posted or disseminated by "enemies of the subject", and that you don't think such sources are suitable for an encyclopedia. I'd like to know which sources you're impeaching here. A lot of that material we have in (what's attested to be) Ron Hubbard's own handwriting -- or voice, in the case of audio recordings. (I have to say, Ron's voice is very compelling and highly recognizable, e.g. in the "What's Wrong with This Universe" lecture discussing the Emanator implant.) If there are particular sources whose authenticity you doubt -- for instance the HCOPLs and other Church documents that Wikipedia cites -- then please do spell out your objections clearly so the rest of us can understand and remedy any concrete problems. We can't fix the article if you only state the problems in vague generalities and accusations.

With regards to your parallel with the Mormons (LDS) -- to my knowledge there are no "secret Mormon scriptures"; the four LDS scriptures (the Bible, the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price) are all easily obtainable. Wikipedia certainly does cover controversies pertaining to Mormonism and the LDS Church. And perhaps if Wikipedia were being written two and a quarter centuries ago when the Masons were fomenting revolutions in America and France, we would be talking about their secrets instead! --FOo 04:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

OK - well, I'm reminded why I originally took my vacation from Wikipedia. Trying to achieve accuracy on any kind of hot-button article is not only like walking in quicksand - it is essentially impossible. Consequently, inordinate time and effort is wasted going nowhere. As a couple of my attempts just to clean up language have been frustrated by major (POV) edits ongoing at the same time, and as the general policy of Wikipedia is that anyone with any degree or expertise or none, and with either misguided loyalty or outright hostility toward a subject can edit articles on it - with the result that reader understanding is defeated - I'm going to have to acknowedge that this is a forum where malice can triumph over truth and withhold further efforts of any scope. I've got a family to support and can't waste the time doing battle with folks whose antagonism toward my religion exceeds my desire to "defeat" them. I'm already spending tax dollars on cleaning up graffitti in my own community. I don't need to spend more resources battling taggers here, who don't even have to leave their chairs to paint new tags over my repairs.

Unless and until responsible consensus content can be achieved and frozen, it's just an ill-mannered shouting match, where only the most unruly and disrespectful can win. Too bad. Such a waste of such a valuable medium. Ayespy 17:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Would it be possible for Wiki to freeze a portion of the article? If an introduction is frozen and uneditable that would still give lots of room for many points of view. Coming on here and finding edits that say "Scientology is crap" as a first line of the intro is just silly. Terryeo 17:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I thought to mention as well that as to your (FOo) impression that the four gospels are the entire "revealed truth" of the LDS faith - that would be in error.

Ayespy

The four books of Scriptures themselves (aka the Quad) are public. The revelations by the prophet (and the pronouncements, a separate class of revealed truth) are public. The temple ceremonies used to be fairly "secret" (though the church encouraged as many people as possible to find out about them by joining themselves.. ;-) ), until being read into the congressional record (how much more public can something be!), but as to whether or not wikipedia would go into fairly concise detail on secret/sacred subject matter that an LDS believer might find offensive, see: Endowment_(Mormonism), Prayer_circle, Washing_and_anointing, Temple_garment, Adamic_language, Sealing_(Mormonism), Baptism_for_the_dead, etc. Oh and you mentioned the afterlife-planet idea, right? That would be Exaltation,King_Follett_Discourse, Celestial_Kingdom, Terrestrial_Kingdom, Telestial_Kingdom, (though the Follett discourse isn't considered canon). Wikipedia most certainly *does* cover all of this.

All that being said, as someone who was raised LDS (and still keeps an eye on some of the articles), maybe the solution, (speaking as a knowledgable practitioner of a controversial belief system), is not to delete the existing "red herrings", but to add articles (or more details for the articles which exist) which present a fair NPOV, such as examination of "Cycle of Action; Cycle of Communication; Phenomena of the Misunderstood Word; Overt-Motivator Sequence; Third Party Law; The Conditions of Existence; The Laws of Exchange; Touch Assist; Nerve Assist; Contact Assist; ARC Triangle; KRC Triangle; Training Routines; the Volunteer Ministry; the Anatomy of a Problem; Management by Statistics; The Factors; The Logics; The Q's (prelogics); Ridges and Flows; The Dynamics; What is Greatness; Professionalism; etc." That way, people seeking to cherry-pick the beliefs have to argue against wikipedia principles if they're going to use WP to bash Scientology. For some good starting points, see: [17] and [18] and [19] Ronabop 05:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

This article is incredibly biased, POV, and skewed in favor of...

... both Scientologists and anti-Scientologists, apparently. Not to denigrate some valid criticism out there, but it's often rather a good sign when both sides of the controversy object to the article equally. :) We'd be in real trouble if only one side was offended! -Silence 04:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Church claims?

Can anyone source the following claims?

"The Church has claimed that auditing can raise IQ, improve memory, alleviate dyslexia and attention deficit problems, and lead to relaxation; however, no scientific studies have verified these claims. Licensed psychotherapists have alleged that the Church's auditing sessions amount to mental health treatment without a license, but the Church vehemently disputes these allegations, claiming that it is merely conducting spiritual healing."

The book What is Scientology, hardbound edition pages 170-171 specify some of that claim. IQ and aptitudes are spelled out. Betterment of the results of the Oxford Capacity Analysis are mentioned too. To my knowledge no external group has done a close numerically based, verifiable study. Such a study could be done but as far as I know, hasn't. And the COS spends its efforts toward doing it instead of publically documenting results. Terryeo 18:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The only ones of these claims I have ever seen in writing in a church publication are raising IQ and improving memory. The others come from...??

The improving memory, Dianetics does that, its what dianetics is all about. It does it by self-validation of positive recalls. Any person may purchase or find: 'Self-Analysis' by L. Ron Hubbard and use it. The other method is a little more serious and shouldn't be undertaken quite as lightly. It is to reduce the pain and difficulty in recalls which contain pain and such difficulty. Both methods improve recall. But I don't know of an independent study you can read about them. Terryeo 18:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

And can someone reference a publication wherein a "licensed psychotherapist" alleges that auditing amounts to "mental health treatment without a license..."? I don't doubt for a moment that such a publication exists. However, before we state as a fact that the accusation has been made, shouldn't we say who made it and when and where? Ayespy 05:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

(my keyboard doesn't have tildes. Surely ther must be a more universally available character we could use) h

Here is one place to look for a starter: Fraudulent Claims. Povmec 06:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

That link to carolineletkeman org quotes documents which are not Church of Scientology documents. That's more a personal attack on Mr. Hubbard (deceased 1986) than an evaluation of the Church of Scientology. As one example, she quotes an "HCO PL" which was a kind of document written by a man whom has since been expelled from the COS and that document type has not been valid since about 1984.Terryeo 15:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll tell you what, Scientology's claims are vastly understanted. For example, Scientology doesn't claim to saves lives, but I have myself saved a life with a Scientology Assist. And that is a real simple, real basic technique, real basic.Terryeo 15:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Terryo - I think you are forgetting "Get it? Scientology, a miracle which saves lives, is being compared to horse-racing." if memory serves... But you are right. My questions posed above remain unanswered. Ayespy 17:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The promises are irrelevant. All public and private promises and claims are nullified by the contract that members must sign which includes a clause that states that staff members and organizations of Scientology make no promises of any benefit or change and that even the writings of LRH are only a record of his research and should not be construed as a statement of claims by the Church or LRH. "Scientology Policy Directive 13 March 1996, Statements by Staff Members, (which is available on request) makes it clear that claims about the religion by staff members are not valid." (from a Celebrity Centre contract). I haven't seen the text of that directive. AndroidCat 16:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Section "Beliefs and practices"

I couldn't care less about Scientology, but for the sake of our beloved Wikipedia, there seems to have occured some minor, unnoticed vandalism in the section "Beliefs and practices" of this arcticle. It reads:

According to the church, its ultimate goal is to get tom cruse to presedentcy. get the soul back to its native state of total freedom, thus gaining control over matter, energy, space, time, thoughts, form, and life. This state is called Operating Thetan, or OT for short.

200.180.189.200 17:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Have You Lived Before This Life examples

I quote from the current article: [...]Hubbard's 1958 book Have You Lived Before This Life documents past lives described by individual Scientologists during auditing sessions. These included memories of being "deceived into a love affair with a robot decked out as a beautiful blond-haired girl", being run over by a Martian bishop driving a steamroller which transformed him into an intergalactic walrus that perished after falling out of a flying saucer, after which he was "a very happy being who strayed to the planet Nostra 23,064,000,000 years ago".

This sentence just doesn't look right: where does "he" / "him" come from? Also, this line of text is arguably making fun of Scientologists. Ma.rkus.nl 18:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, the links are a little bit weird. I don't know if we should put wikilinks in quoted material. The Robot fetishism one is especially outré. But the quote itself isn't inaccurate, is it? --FOo 23:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the first "him" is meant to refer to an individual Scientologist... -- ChrisO 23:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Mention in the press

This article at AlterNet mentions a Wikipedia article about Scientology, but doesn't say if it is this one or another. Either way, we probably should have Template:Onlinesource2005 added somewhere now. -- LGagnon 13:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Stop censoring the article, please.

For the Nth time, Terryeo removed large quantities of relevant info from the article (what his edit summary calls having "edited out a few of the confusing statements") that don't fit his pro-Scientology views. I reverted his changes and hope Terryeo will discuss such things on the Discussion page before making such radical and sweeping NNPOV changes to the article. Furthermore, at least one of his changes resulted in a fragmented sentence that made no sense. View his changes here: [20]. wikipediatrix 14:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Please, let's do discuss changes. The article is too long. I see I did not put a period where it was required, I'm sorry about that. Mainly the article is inaccuarate and this is why I want the article changed a little here and there. Often says in its introduction that Scientology was presented as an alternative therapy to psychotherapy which is just plain wrong information. One of my deletions was to remove the argument that because Mr. Hubbard wrote a science fiction novel which said and implied some things about psychiatry and psychology that Scientology follows that example. Such an arguement is not about Scientology, it is a sort of slander statement. I had deleted that. I believe it should remain deleted because it is not a controversy but a slander. I also belive it is utterly wrong to use the word "Psychobursts" because that is a conclusion by whomever posted it without the slightest bit of substantiation. Likewise it is wrong to say that Scientology is "vehemently" opposed to Psychiatry because that is a sort of emotional state of mind that implies the vehement party is not using good sense at all, again it is a conclusion by whomever posted that. Scientology uses a good deal of rational thinking when it opposing psychiatry. This article is about Scientology but it states that Dianetics was introduced as a psychotherapy. That too is not quite true but should be in the Dianetics article where differences could be enlightening to readers. Psychiatry uses an approach toward the human body. Dianetics used an approach which neither denied or affirmed the state of the human body. Scientology likewise uses an approach which does not address the human body. This article should make this disambiguation clear. My position is that controvery is just fine but that whether pro or con, statements should be accurate and have some substantiation. I believe this is wikipedial policy. Terryeo 00:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Vehement: "1. Characterized by forcefulness of expression or intensity of emotion or conviction; fervid: a vehement denial. See synonyms at intense. 2. Marked by or full of vigor or energy; strong: a vehement storm." I, a Scientologist, am personally vehement in my disapproval of psychiatry and its methods. I don't believe vehemence remotely implies a lack of good sense, but merely strength of conviction, and fervence of expression. While it's true that, as a subject or body of knowledge, Scientology is incapable of attitudes or actions, it is also true that various members and representatives of the Church, including Ron himself, have been strident and uncompromising in their expression of opprobrium toward psychiatry - I feel appropriately so. A practice which harms in the name of help should be so condemned, and in no uncertain terms. It is further true, however, that across the entire church membership, individuals who feel this strongly on the subject are probably in the minority. So I don't know that it's an attitude that can be attributed to the subject as a whole. So, one should not discuss "Scientology's" attitude toward psychiatry, because "Scientology," the subject, has no attitudes. One should, instead, with attribution, state that these and these representatives or spokespeople, or these writers of policy, have been condemnatory toward psychiatry. Ayespy 07:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I like it Ayespry and respect your opinion and appriciate that you say it is yours, unlike whomever used the word in the article. Strident and uncompromising I completely agree with and I believe that is a much better description of the attitude the Church of Scientology manifests in preventing Psychiatry's intrusion into society. It rouses me vehemently when I read a psychiatrist has recommended problem children be caged for the night. But an intensity of emotion will not cause changes in the laws which will remove psychiatry from the position that allowed that to happen. Not so long ago Psychiatrists could force school children to take psych drugs. While I vehemently oppose that (what proof is there such drugs cause chemical balance in the brain?), it took strident and uncompromising action to cause courts to revoke such law. Terryeo 11:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Scientology critics

There's a problem with this text: "Critics dismiss many of the studies cited previously as biased," Was some text snipped at one point, because there are NO previously cited studies on the page. As well, I think there could be a short bit mentioning Scientology's infiltration of government organizations in Ontario in 1983, and the Hill v Church of Scientology libel case. I'll attempt to be very brief—detailing Scientology's legal battles could take several pages. AndroidCat 02:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, AndroidCat, if you are going to mention Scientology legal matters, you should be complete, or at least balanced (cite and describe at least as many victories for the Church as you do setbacks - since the actual ratio is something like eight or nine victories per "defeat") or leave it with a general statement that Scientology, in its efforts to combat both private and government-sponsored limitations and attacks in a number of countries has employed tactics deemed both legal and illegal, and that the end result of these various legal battles has been that it was vindicated in some jurisdictions, bruised in others, and continues to operate in all such contested jurisdictions. The idea isn't to be like a blog or discussion forum, wherein everyone tosses in whatever tidbits they're aware of, but that the areas covered be handled in a manner which results in a sense of the overall picture being communicated. Ayespy 06:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I question your ratio, at least in Canada. Keep in mind that this would in the Scientology critics section, with no more than the space allocated than for US and Australian critics' reasons. There are already Wiki pages for the key cases R. v. Church of Scientology of Toronto and Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto, so it could be brief. Meanwhile the second paragraph of that section still has no previously cited many pro-Scientology studies and a broken link. It should be cleaned up or removed. AndroidCat 06:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)