Talk:Scientology

Talk:Scientology

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Talk:Scientology, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at [[Talk:Talk:Scientology|its talk page]]. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. 134.129.149.203 05:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Trollus interruptus, I guess... BTfromLA 08:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Few - Some - Many - Most

We should really put this to bed. I pulled the descriptics because I think it is "many" if not "most" (scholars and governments consider Scn a bona-fide religion). And certainly if we are talking scholars, especially NRM scholars. Heck, even Steven Kent acknowledges that Scn is an NRM (or at least that many of his NRM colleagues would judge it one) but then makes the point that it is ALSO something else; IMO, he basically begs the question because he knows that to say that Scientology is NOT a religion is a minority stance. I quote him below, not because I agree with him, but to illustrate my point that even the most critical researcher cannot deny Scn's religious nature if he wants to preserve his credibility:

Rather than struggling over whether or not to label Scientology as a religion, I find it far more helpful to view it as a multifaceted transnational corporation, only one element of which is religious.[1]

Germany is very much in the minority by not acknowledging Scn as a religion. The UN and EU Council both do along with most nations that allow freedom of religion. But rather than argue the point incessently I pulled the modifiers. Now they are coming back in. "Some" is not a compromise (although I appreciate the effort); it is, IMO, flatly misleading. Comments? --Justanother 15:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we just change the paragraph to state that there is disagreement about Scientology being a bona fide religeon and include some sources to both sides of the argument. I think that would be better than invoking some/most/many generic scholars to support our argument. All of those are Wikipedia:Weasel Words anyway. VxP 16:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but simply labelling Kent "the most critical researcher" and pointing to one sentence where his wording does not deny any religious aspect to Scientology does not make the issue settled. One might as well take a random sentence from some other researcher that began "When the sun rose in the sky the next morning" and claim that, because that researcher did not say "When the Earth rotated in relation to the Sun sufficiently that observers in the geographical location in question were able to observe it in the sky, that clearly that researcher "cannot deny" Ptolemy's model of the universe, where Earth stays in the center of the universe and the sun moves in relation to it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Theres a difference between just calling Scientology a religion verbally and recognising them by law as a religion and providing them with all the special laws that most all established religions use, "many if not most" of Europian governments do not legally recognise Scientology as a religion and this trend continues throughout Mid Asia. Also the only Source on the page Ive seen to quote that its generally accepted among scholars to be a religion comes from Scientology themself which I dont think anyone can agree is a decent source, Im trying to find another source saying the opposite in English but Im not a very good searcher. Joneleth 02:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure this has been debated at length before here, it certainly has been many times elsewhere. So here's my opinion (again!).
Scientology (as a set of beliefs) either constitutes a religion or it does not. The Church of Scientology (as an organisation) is either a religion or it is not. These are however separate debates, because 'religion' has two separate meanings. The first paragraph of our article expresses this difference clearly, but the third paragraph contradicts it and the rest falls back into muddled thinking in which 'scientology' is illogically beliefs and an organisation simultaneously.
But please return to your unresolveable discussion. I long ago realised I'm in a minority on this one.
--Hartley Patterson 01:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Good points. It can be fixed. I will propose a new 3rd paragraph when I have a bit of time. --Justanother 17:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Needs some work on the cites but how is it now? --Justanother 18:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Im happy with the new version. Joneleth 05:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a good start! In places 'the Church' is used, and that needs to to made consistent throughout. If the organization is meant 'the Church', if the beliefs 'Scientology'. That isn't possible with quotes of course. --Hartley Patterson 00:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Urgent need for source

Neither the humanrights-germany (which by the way is not a WP:RS) nor the other site say anything about the UN. Has anyone got a source for this statement? yandman 16:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, good point. While I doubt that the UN "certifies religions as bona-fide", take a look at this report entitled IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DECLARATION ON THE ELIMINATION OF ALL FORMS OF INTOLERANCE AND OF DISCRIMINATION BASED ON RELIGION OR BELIEF. Germany figures in the report prominently and solely for their discrimination against Scientologists. The implication of the UN's concern is that Scientology is a "religion or belief" of sufficient validity to justify their interest. Not exactly what you ask for but . . . --Justanother 16:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is another of the UN again protecting CoS rights, this time specifically as a "new religion". --Justanother 17:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I won't let me open the first link, I think you have to trawl through their site to get it yourself. I'll try and have a look for it myself. The second one only reports what one of the "state representatives" said, not the official position of the UN. I found one UN PDF that seemed to take no stance on the issue, and this BBC article is very carefully worded to show that the UN has neither endorsed nor rejected scientology. In any case, none of these are resolutions accepted by the UN as a whole. I'll have a look to see what else I can find. yandman 17:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I doubt the UN is in the business of issuing resolutions accepting a particular religion as "bona-fide". It is more to be inferred from how they treat the group. Try this for the first. Re the second; that comment is by a UN committee member, not a French represntative. The point is that you do not protect someone's rights as a new religion if you do not see them as a new religion and the UN has a good history of taking an interest in the rights of the CoS as a religion. --Justanother 17:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

This is like the "scholars" thing, we're inferring a position that hasn't been taken. Let's just leave the UN out of this - it's clear that Scientology is considered a religeon by some and not others, surely we can find a few sources without having to overly interpert what someone may have implied. This, by the way, is why we Wikipedia prefers secondary, and not primary, sources. VxP 17:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point. That bit was not my contrib. Though I think that we can use the primary sources I found to source that the UN has a history of defending the religious rights of Scientologists. --Justanother 17:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

New Comment

He very clearly is a science fiction writer and very good at that, since this whole Scientology thing looks just like a really bad pulp fiction ready to receive the proper Ed Wood treatment... a fool is born every minute...

Why do you keep deleting "science fiction author" I think its pretty clear he is a science fiction author, please provide reason or I'll revert it. Joneleth 15:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe this has already been discussed. See the talk page archives. yandman 15:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Going through the archives it seems all the discussions ended with calling him a pulp fiction writer instead of a science fiction writer, neither which are used which brings me back to the original question. Joneleth 14:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Neither Dianetics nor Scientology were "developed by a science fiction writer" and I can only see insistence on characterizing Hubbard as such as a continued and inherently POV effort to degrade his work and his contribution. However, that view has been voted down as regards Dianetics as that did seem to spring full-blown from Hubbard's pen (although we have no way of knowing if that were the case) and it was first presented to the sci-fi community in a sci-fi/science mag. OK, then. But Scientology is not the same at all. What we should call him is a researcher and philosopher. Sorry guys but that is the truth. He set up the Dianetics Research Foundation and his continued work with Dianetics led to the principles of Scientology. He continued researching and developing Scientology for the next 30 years. He essentially stopped being an author and became a researcher even if he was not one before Dianetics. --Justanother 15:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Dianetics and Scientology was developed by a science fiction writer, whether or not they are science fiction is a completly other discussion but denying Hubbards past in an attempt to put Scientology in a better light doesnt seem right to me. And if you think he stopped being an author all together when he started making scientology, then both terms should be removed, but when he did start on making scientology he was per definition a science fiction writer.Joneleth 08:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Calling him a science fiction writer is relevant even to his invention of Scientology, because at least critics have linked the two by suggesting that Scientology is an extention of his writing. True or not, the accusation is notable. VxP 14:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hubbard was a science fiction writer. As much as it might make some squirm in their chairs, Scn is a UFO religion - it posits that the earth is a penal colony for super able beings. That the UFO stuff has little or no bearing on general practice is true but irrelevant. The fact is most people think that it is ludicrous that the Earth was colonized by aliens. I happen to think that a planet that has had a thriving biosphere for over a billion years will have had some sort of interaction with any extant spacefaring civilizations in the galaxy. After accepting that idea, overpopulation, prison colonies, evil dictators, brainwashing and killing folks in big ovens are pretty easy for me to swallow (because I understand a little bit of history) but they aren't for most. So the Space Opera aspects are core to an outsiders (mis)understanding of Scn. Admittedly, the fact that hubbard was a science fiction writer will tend to reinforce the kookiness idea but c'est la vie. I would like to see him termed simply a writer - this seems more accurate and neutral, but Science fiction writer is not inaccurate nor is it inherently derogatory.---Slightlyright 17:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I have absolutely no problem with Hubbard being referred to as a science fiction writer. It's nothing to be ashamed of, and I don't think it casts any negative shadow on Scientology. Although he wrote in several genres, it's no secret that science fiction was his primary field in fiction. From writersofthefuture.com  :

"It was Mr. Hubbard's trendsetting work in this field from 1938 to 1950, particularly, that not only helped to expand the scope and imaginative boundaries of science fiction and fantasy but indelibly established him as one of the founders of what continues to be regarded as the genre's Golden Age."

By the way, Slightlyright, I'd like to hear your opinion of the discussion going on at Talk:Space opera in Scientology doctrine. Highfructosecornsyrup 18:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

That quote obviously comes from the PR dept at Galaxy Press/ASI, who are about the only people who would descibe him that way. AndroidCat 12:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I dont agree with just calling him an Author though, I think its whitewashing. If you dont think his previous proffesion has relevance to the article then thats fine with me then lets just delete any title infront of his name, but just calling him an Author is whitewash. Joneleth 20:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I still go with not "calling him" anything and just making the first mention of his name just that; the first mention of his name; before trying to pigeon-hole him. To the degree that I cannot get agreement on that concept then I would term him "the pulp-fiction author L. Ron Hubbard" for Dianetics and "the creator of Dianetics, L. Ron Hubbard" for Scientology because if he was a pulp author when he created Dianetics then he was certainly a Dianeticist when he created Scientology. What about that? --Justanother 01:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Dianetics is a part of Scientology, its not an independent subject. You might as well write "Scientology was created by Scientologist L. Ron Hubbard" Joneleth 17:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Your recent change is fine with me. --Justanother 19:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The article begins saying that Scientology is a body of text... Wouldn't it be more true to qualify it saying that it is either a "self-help body of text" or a "religious body of text"? It otherwise seems too generic. PowerofGod 13:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The entire article is about explaining what kind of text it is, I fail to see the point in making a deterministic adjective to it. Joneleth 15:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Another unresolvable debate, since 'science fiction' evokes different responses from people. Some regard it as a legitimate literary genre, others as pulp fiction trash. I'd venture to suggest that Church members are just as divided: on the one hand the Church has tried to conceal that the first article about Dianetics appeared in an SF magazine, on the other hand it sponsors the 'Writers of the Future' Awards. So, for some people the concept of an SF author founding a religion is laughable because SF is rubbish. For others, it has no such negative connotation. Since we're stuck with these mixed perceptions, 'author' seems NPOV to me. --Hartley Patterson 01:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree --Justanother 02:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The argument is that inclusion debases the proposition that this is a legitimate religion; however, the exclusion of such a fact makes scientology only a religion in a fictional context (an interesting thought considering what is being argued) or is basically implying that scientology cannot be a religion in the face of the truth. This is a big article. People will believe what they will with or without one term. No one is arguing to include anything that is speculation and there are plenty of science fiction writers held in high regard. Keep in mind, people who are anti-sci-fi will laugh at scientology for its substance, which is very sci-fi, not because Hubbard is properly labeled a sci-fi author. Its inclusion isn't hurting anyone's perception. That’s my take anyway. I think I'm going to go argue about whether or not Jesus was a carpenter over in the Christianity article because it debases the idea that he could be the son of God with such an earthy position.

We are not suppose to make articles based on what emotions it evokes in people, true this would be a discussion if it was a word that was far more vague than this, but he was infact a science fiction writer and theres nothing inheritly POV about it. You might as well say calling Scientology a religion is POV because to some people it would be ridiculous for them calling it a religion. Joneleth 18:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

What is this supposed to MEAN?

"Although believers may be free to openly practice Scientology, the organized Church of Scientology has often encountered opposition."

The first part of this sentence makes no sense, or at least how I'm reading it. Mind sharing insight? --Wooty Woot? contribs 04:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Makes no sense to me either. Should be rewritten or removed. Highfructosecornsyrup 04:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah that is mine after I stripped out a bit of uncited based on an objection to it as uncited. It was supposed to say:

Although believers are normally free to openly practice Scientology in nations that permit freedom of religion, the organized Church of Scientology has often encountered opposition

and was based on some readings of mine of UN defenses of Scientology's rights but I never got a good cite up as they were all primary sources and kind of open to interpretation so the freedom of religion part did not stand. Do with it what you will. --Justanother 05:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Makes perfect sense to me, while many dont recognize Scientology as a religion they dont prevent thier users from practising it by outlawing it. Joneleth 07:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

To me this makes sense in saying that the beliefs of scientology are allowed to be practised, but the practices of the Church have been banned in places. There's nothing to stop anyone practicising the religion outside the Church. The Enlightened 17:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It means what you want it to. Opposition occurs in the US as well, from friends and family who attempt to stop new followers from becoming too involved. I think it's fine as-is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.207.151.123 (talk • contribs) 06:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Why are you focusing on controversy at all, when this is supposed to be an unbiased report? Why not just display plain facts and leave everything else out? Say which countries do accept it and which don't, simple as that, and from there just keep running up to date tabs.

Time to archive?

getting pretty long. ---Slightlyright 18:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Is partial archiving possible? Because bottom subjects are still being discussed. Joneleth 20:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. yandman 15:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

POV = Bad

Just a heads-up for people wanting to edit this page to show their dislike for Scientology: we don't need to vandalize this page or insert our own POV into the article. The madnesses of Scientology will be made quite clear by an unbiased article.203.131.167.26 10:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I knew someone else that used to say the same thing. I fear that your point may fly over the heads of more extreme editors though. --Justanother 15:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Small Missinfo

Quote: "The word itself is a pairing of the Latin word scientia ("knowledge", "skill"), which comes from the verb scire ("to know"), and the Greek λογος lógos ("reason" or "inward thought" or "logic" or "an account of")."

λογος or as we would write it logos means "Word".

There probably aren't many people who care if people belive what scientology teaches, but most of them would like to keep wikipedia free of missinformation. The "an account of" can be kept as a correct meaning, which makes second of two meanings of the word λογος.

Note: Logice, es, f. - (meaning)logic is a latin derivate which came from the word λογος and λογος in it's meaning is in no way linked to the word logic. But one could translate it as "statement" and hand in some arguments to back up what message one ment to broadcast with given name of his standings. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.152.247.59 (talk) 00:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

From here

The word Scientology, conceived by L. Ron Hubbard, comes from the Latin scio which means “know” or “distinguish,” and from the Greek word logos which means “reason itself” or “inward thought.” Thus it means the study of wisdom or knowledge. It means knowing how to know. Scientology, however, is defined as the study and handling of the spirit in relationship to itself, universes and other life.

I have heard Hubbard say that logos also means "word" and Scientology could be literally taken as "I know the word". It is important to remember that the meaning of the word in the Greek language does not have to equal its usage in forming English words. Most studies are -ology, ex. biology. --Justanother 03:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Pistashio

Exploring L. Ron Hubbard's anonymously authored blueprint for Scientology: The Brainwashing Manual - External link for Brian Ambry's 'Brainwashing Manual Parallels in Scientology':

http://www.freewebs.com/slyandtalledgy/Brainwashing%20Manual%20Parallels%20in%20Scientology.pdf

Why do you keep spamming this link everywhere? yandman 14:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Controversial

The Enlightened made an edit to add controversial to the opening sentence "Scientology is a controversial body of teachings and related techniques...". Justanother reverted it with the comment Oh please - as in "Judaism 'controversial is the religion of the Jewish people." All belief systems have detractors. The CoS maybe called that.

I think to refer to Scientology as controversial is a neutral POV fair comment - this talk page is branded with a template saying just that. However, I support removing the word from the opening line. It does not add anything to the article as controversy is well covered in its own section. AntiVan 06:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly - I have no problem with discussion of controversy. I do object to "front-loading". I could just as well put "popular" or "fast-growing". So let's just not, OK? --Justanother 13:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I sometimes don't proof my edit summaries as well as I should. That was supposed to say "Oh please - as in "Judaism is the controversial religion of the Jewish people." All belief systems have detractors. The CoS may be called that (controversial)." --Justanother 13:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, I don't feel it is unfair to mention that term early on at all. Seeing that one side (i.e. Scientologists) regard it as a set of teachings as a self-help philosophy and many many others see it as simply a scam/cult/pyramid scheme, I think the phrase "set of controversial teachings" as actually a summation tilting in favour of Scientology. "Controversial" doesn't even meaning something negative - simply that there are contrasting views on the matter. The Enlightened 14:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

"body of teachings and related techniques" is NPOV and what it is best described as if we care to be NPOV. "Controversial body of teachings and related techniques" is your opinion. I don't think the "body of teachings and related techniques" is any more "controversial" than any other belief system including atheism but I don't see "controversial" as the first idea in other articles. Let's at least start the article without getting into any imagined "controversy". --Justanother 15:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no ideology that is not "controversial"; therefore the adjective is tautological at best and demagogic at worst. I consider it a substitute euphemism for "dubious". Fossa_?! 15:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between ideologies that generate a lot of disagreement, and others that have been condemned by liberal democratic governments as "dangerous". Besides, my point is that it is not the religious views that are controversial as such, it is the "techniques" of "self-help" that have been condemned as damaging by scientists outside the group. You are quite welcome to take words as you wish but the truth of the matter is that "controversial" does not mean "dubious" it means "pertaining to controversy". And controversy means "a prolonged public dispute, debate, or contention; disputation concerning a matter of opinion." Perhaps the word would be better placed later in the sentence to make it clear: "Scientology is a body of teachings and related controversial techniques..."? The Enlightened 17:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

First, it is the CoS, not the belief system, that is termed dangerous by Germany for instance and that is because Germany is taking the stand that Hubbard's writings that someday all government might be based on Scientology or on his org board or whatever, Germany is taking that to mean that the CoS has "anti-democratic" goals. That is really a ludicrous stretch but there you have it. Nothing to do with the belief system, per se. Additionally, the "techniques" are only controversial to those that confuse spiritual gain with physical gain. The techniques are all aimed at spiritual gain. That mental and physical gain often follows may be widely believed and mentioned but do not change the fact that Scientology deals in the spirit. The only exception to that might be the Purification rundown which is designed to release fat-soluble impurities in the body that may have effects that impair the spiritual gains. So that would, to me, be the only part where "scientists" may jump in and say "no, it doesn't" or whatever. Doesn't mean that they would be right (others say other things) but just that there is controversy. So no, as a whole, Scientology is not controversial. I will AGF that it is not put there as the allowable way to say "dubious" but that does not change that it is contentious and does not belong there. There is plenty of "controversy" presented already. --Justanother 17:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

First, yes, the bulk of controversy refers to the operations and activites of the Church. However, if you insist I can go and find references to official state reports in Australia that condemns the actual practicies of the auditing as damaging and dangerous. This refers to the "techniques" mentioned in the first sentence. The claim that mental and physical gain follows "spiritual" gain is also spurious and many non-Scientologist professionals would refute it. Improvement of one's IQ is one such claim that mainstream scientists would refute, and have often charged the methods of Scientology as being false science. Indeed the claim that "spiritual" and "physical" beliefs can be separated is a belief in itself and not a separation that all people would accept. As such the claim that the teachings can improve spiritual gain which then causes physical gain is massively controversial to a very large number of health professionals outside Scientology. Yes, there is much controversy covered below in the article, but it also needs to be mentioned for those who just stop by and read the first paragraph. The Enlightened 19:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's be clear that calling things "spurious" is your POV and that of like-thinkers to you. Even medical professionals with attest to the value of spiritual state in physical healing and it is mostly atheists and the most close-minded of believers in Scientism that will deny the obvious; that the spirit of man has a part in his mental and physical health. Good luck with that position cause you are way in the minority on this planet (thank God). So it is not "massively controversial" but is not much controversial at all. And if some report or other said that the practices are dangerous then so what; that is not, by any means, a blanket condemnation; it is one report. And is Scientology now allowed in Australia? So what then of that report? We can all show each other reports. Based on your comments above, I now think that "controversial" is indeed code for "dubious". --Justanother 19:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I accept "spurious" was the wrong word to use. I should have said something like "questionable". Which medical professionals attest to the value of spiritual state in physical healing? What do you mean by "spiritual state"? If by spiritual you mean emotional well-being I would agree with you. If by spiritual you mean the state of the soul then I would not agree that most healthcare professionals target that. I'm not going to get drawn into a separate debate on the merits of atheism here. The conclusions of a government inquiry are, as much as you'd like to dismiss them, important as they follow prolonged investigation. Just because Australia allows something to continue does not mean it does not view the techniques as without claim/dangerous. The Dutch government allows cannabis use but that doesn't mean it believes cannabis isn't harmful. The Enlightened 13:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, so long as you understand that atheists have a different worldview than the majority of humanity that believes in the spirit and in a God or gods or similar animating force. So yes, I think most health professionals would understand that emotional state is related to that animating force. But we are obviously talking personal opinion here. When you discuss man you speak (I assume) from a non-theistic POV while I speak from a different POV. So there will always be a degree of disagreement. IMO, I say the driver of the car is invisible and undetectable with instruments of science (but not by the heart) while I imagine you say the car drives itself. We will have disagreements over motivation and importances. I say that Scientology is not especially controversial to those that do not think that their way is the only way, be they religious or non-religious. Since most of the planet is, IMO, pretty forgiving about how you find your personal salvation or meaning to your life, for that reason there is, in actual fact, very little controversy about the practice of Scientology as opposed to a bit of controversy over over-agressive action against critics or over the actions of some notable Scientologists that those that are given to mocking others find material in for their mockery. --Justanother 17:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, I would like to reiterate that the aspect I would like to refer to as being controversial in the first sentence is the "techniques". The views about Thetans or reincarnation or the age of the universe are clearly not any more controversial than fundamentalist Christianity, Islam or Buddhism. However, techniques such as silent birth, the methods of one-on-one auditing, opposition to breast-feeding, the personality test (although this might be Dianetics?), opposition to several medical drugs etc are refuted by many (most?) health professionals. This is why I think the word "controversial" should be used - some reckon the techniques are helpful, others think they are damaging. "Controversial" says there are two strongly opposing sides on the issue. The Enlightened 00:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to point out here that no consensus has been reached and no-one has responded to this last comment of mine. The Enlightened 16:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

No, you are mistaken. There is plenty of consensus here. You also seem to think that one edits wikipedia from their own personal opinions and assumptions as evidenced by your comments here on Germany and on this issue and by this edit summary

clarified statement, added "usually" - I assume even the religion is prohibited in Iran, Saudi Arabia etc

which, IMO and with all due respect to you as a person, evidences a very basic lack of understanding of how editing here is done. --Justanother 18:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not mistaken, the "consensus" opposing this seems to between you and one other (who is also a scientologist). Sfacets even passed by here and agreed with my revision, but he seems to have passed on. You are deliberately miscontruing the facts. My comments on Germany on the TALK PAGE were my own opinion yes, but I just mentioned to them as I thought it might give you an insight (correct or otherwise) that you had not seen before but I NEVER ATTEMPTED TO PUT THEM IN AN ARTICLE. Yes, I used the word "assume" in a casual edit summary but the fact remains that the practicing of all religions except Islam are banned in Saudi Arabia. I am perfectly aware that wikipedia articles are based on sourced facts, and the only opinions that should be covered are those from notables and which are properly sourced. Opinions like those of health professionals which have criticised Scientology's practices as damaging to human health on issues like "silent birth, the methods of one-on-one auditing, opposition to breast-feeding, the personality test (although this might be Dianetics?), opposition to several medical drugs etc". You STILL have not responded to this point and simply evade it with every comment. I am simply trying to insert the fact that these practices have had widely different opinions on their helpfulness, aside from the entirely one-sided claim in the introduction stating the techniques "have saved [scientologists] from a plethora of problems and enabled them to better realize their highest potential in business and their personal lives." Right now I am trying to discuss the issue and my reasoning in order to try to work to a common understanding, but you seem to be simply ignoring my main points (which I will assume to be a good faith mistake). You have not told me whether you deny that health professionals have criticised scientologist practices, or whether you think that health professionals criticising such practices does not constitute "controversy" or what. If we can not achieve agreement between us here I will simply open this up to wider comment. The Enlightened 21:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

How about instead of using what appears to be your opinion (again) of whether there is consensus. How about you simply read and count the comments right here. I think you will see clear consensus that, while controversy should certainly be mentioned in the article, the term does not go where you want to put it. End of story. Open it up to whomever you like. I welcome that. ps, I am pretty insulted that you seem to think that Scientologists are some sort of second-class citizen here and that another Scientologist's vote somehow counts as less than yours. Would you do the same in other articles as in "seems to between you and one other (who is also gay, female, black, whatever)." Personally, if you think that way then I think that you are a bigot and you have no place editing in the Scientology articles. --Justanother 22:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, it would be far more constructive for you to actually reason out your points that simply state "end of story". You still have not answered my point about the various practices that have been criticised by health professionals. Perhaps putting "controversial" at that particular place in the sentence is not the most suitable option - I have since suggested moving it to another place - but you show no sign of addressing this, let alone accomodating my points. All I am getting is personal criticism after personal criticism. I am aware that this is the official way scientologists deal with criticism (never defend, attack the attacker etc) but it is not appropriate on wikipedia.

And please, unlike being gay, female or black, Scientology is a belief system. I have never once said scientologists are second-class citizens, so please stop putting words in my mouth. My only point about other editors being scientologists is that being a member of a movement is clearly a potential restraint on being impartial about that topic. The same way as a group of Marxists would be about Marxism or a group of Republican members would be about the Republican Party. But again, I know you are trying to distract me from the real issue. Address my points about medical experts criticising Scientology "tech". Please. The Enlightened 00:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Rather than debate you (please reread my remarks, I have already addressed most of your opinions) rather than debate you, I would rather simply point out that the consensus already exists here five to one against your use of the term to front-load the article that that which is not much controversial at all instead be primarily described as "controversial". Again please see the usage of the word controversial in propaganda. This five to one agreement with me is far far different from your statement: "the "consensus" opposing this seems to between you and one other (who is also a scientologist)." Which I still take to mean that "two don't really count as two" but be that as it may. What it really is is five against you and that seems consensus to me. Your total misrepresentation of that in your statement "the "consensus" opposing this seems to between you and one other (who is also a scientologist)" truly casts all your arguments in a suspect light as far as I am concerned. Anyway, I have reiterated my point numerous times. Just look over my existing statements if you have any question as to where I stand. And review the statements of the other four editors that opposed you if you have any questions as to where they stand. --Justanother 03:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

And finally, I submit to you that EVERY SINGLE SUBJECT ON PLANET EARTH is "controversial" by your apparent definition of "controversial", i.e. "I can find some detractors". Christmas is WILDLY "controversial" by that standard with disagreement over its pagan roots, its materialism, etc, etc. MUCH more "controversial" than auditing is but you have to be deep in the Christmas article before you encounter this line: "In the later part of the 20th century, the United States experienced controversy over the nature of Christmas, and its status as a religious or secular holiday." So with that and in the spirit of the season, I wish you the very best of Holidays. Good night. --Justanother 04:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps if I refer you to our own article on controversy then you will see my point. The way in which you are desirous of using the term fits under the "In propaganda" section. None of those issues you mention are controversial and some of them are not even true (there is no "opposition to breast-feeding" - what there is a suggested formula that LRH came with to address an issue with those mothers he was trying to help at the time). Abortion is controversial (at least in the US). Scientology technology is not. End of story. You would fabricate this controversy out of your own opinion just as you created your own opinion of what is behind the Germany issue. You are entitled to your opinion. Sorry, but you do not get to enshrine it here. --Justanother 00:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

How are these issues not controversial if health professionals criticise them? I will look into the breast-feeding issue but the suggested formula from Ron contained honey which is dangerous to young babies and has been criticised as such. Yes abortion is controversial, but that doesn't stop scientology "technology" also being so. It is NOT my opinion, it is the opinion of medical experts who are a lot more qualified than the sci-fi writer that created these techniques. The Enlightened 21:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

And for the record, not that it matters for this discussion, I believe the reason the German authorities regard Scientology as antidemocratic is because letters from Lafayette Hubbard himself have stated that members should use their personal professions to gather information on Church enemies, that in both Canada and the USA Scientologist offices have been found to have contained stolen Government document, that Hubbard's son has claimed that non-Scientologists were charged to look through confidential records held by the Church, and that an FBI member has stated the Church has an intelligence network to rival the FBI itself. I don't think its much of a jump to say that such practices, if believed to be true, undermine the state and the workings of a liberal democracy with the right to privacy. The Enlightened 19:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

And do you have RS for that claim? Because what I find as the "official reason" from here has to do with LRH's published writings and is badly babelled as

Already in its basic work "Dianetik" referred Hubbard to in principle the political tendency of its teachings. Society and state wants to convert the (Scientology Organization) for alleged perfection of the particular and all social ranges into a central steered command system with a scientologisch steered government. After Hubbards conceptions, which until today on the (Scientology Organization) and all Scientologen are obligatory, is the (Scientology Organization) the guidance by influencing control on economics, politics and state to attain. For this authorities and the society are "into a condition complete agreement" with the goals of the (Scientology Organization) to be brought. The project developed by Hubbard "lnternational town center" looks forwards to govern all capitals of the different states existing at present in favor of from Scientology sect to entmachten and the world of a quasi supranational then capital. In one exclusive after scientologischen guidelines functioning world a new technokratisches system ("true democracy") is to replace the democratic value order. Thus embodies the (Scientology Organization) a new type of the extremism off the traditional right left pattern.

--Justanother 19:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to get drawn into a prolonged discussion on this as it is irrelevant to the article. I was merely trying to explain to you why I believe the German government objects to scientology to aid your own understanding. I wasn't saying that such beliefs are true, just why they may believe it is a threat to democracy and where they may have drawn their conclusions from. I believe it ties in with the quote above. IMHO in the view of the German government the Church believes it should replace state government, and that it has operated practices in other countries (USA, Canada) to that effect (by forming intelligence databases on private citizens). Again, I'm not arguing that it is necessarily true, just that I believe that those are the reasons underpinning the German view. If you believe Germany opposes Scientology for other reasons then that is your choice. I won't discuss this further. The Enlightened 13:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you did state that you were giving your beliefs. I just thought that, "to aid your own understanding", you might be interested in what the German government itself says is the reason they object to Scientology; i.e. the published writings of Hubbard, not some imagined "intelligence network to rival the FBI itself". But OK, we don't have to discuss this further. --Justanother 17:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the thought. I have actually seen the stated reason previously, but I reckon my points tie into that. Thanks though. The Enlightened 00:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Controversial? No-one's tried to gas them all, they've not tried to invade the middle east, and no one's used Scientology as an excuse to blow up New York. This merits mention in the article, but putting it in the title is going a bit too far. yandman 19:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, as stated above I am referring not to the religious myth of Scientology but the techniques of auditing etc. The first sentence does not refer to the religious side of the doctrine, and I am not claiming the religious side is especially controversial. What I am arguing is that the self-help methods are controversial, so you're analogies are flawed. The Enlightened 19:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Except that they are not. Very controversial that is and they are definitely not defined by their controversy but you would have us say as much. Sorry, that is your POV talking, IMO. --Justanother 19:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry. If you seriously doubt that there are a heck of a lot of health professionals that have condemned scientology's self-help techniques then I will go and collect references for the next week or so. I find it absurd that you would actually dispute this. I would have assumed that a scientologist you would be aware of the criticism but dismiss it as evil psychiatrists talking. The Enlightened 20:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Can't remember the last headline I saw like this; "Scientologist caught using E-Meter and running engrams". Sorry, not controversial. --Justanother 20:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Now you're just using straw man arguments. Grow up. The Enlightened 14:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Careful with the personal please. One free for each customer. That was yours. --Justanother 14:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't meant as personal, just I feel that straw man arguments are pretty childish. But yeah, it wasn't needed. Apologies. The Enlightened 00:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Since the epithet 'controversial' is used in the fourth sentence of the opening paragraph, it seems redundant to keep it in the first sentence as well. And the controversies that have been raised on this page and the rest of the Scientology series seem to refer less to the teachings and techniques of Scientology than to the organisation and personnel of the Church. DavidCooke 22:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

All religion is controversial by objective standards, I see no point in singling Scientology out Joneleth 04:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

As an atheist, I still believe there is a distiniction between "major" religions and smaller, and newer, groups like Scientology. Major religions have intrinsically developed along with the general culture and the social structure of whole nations for millenia, whereas it is not the same for Scientology for example. On a closer analysis, it is not possible to discern what is the religion/belief system and culture of concerned nations, as far as major religions are concerned. And no, all religions can be controversial, but some are much more controversial than others per common sense. Nobody can seriously claim that Christianity or Islam is as contoversial as Scientology. Those religions have been constantly criticized during centuries on various philosophical grounds, but that doesn't make them controversial on par with Scientology. I also think that religion is the opium of the people, however I would never label Islam or Judaism "contoversial". Controversial doesn't simply mean "it is open to criticism" or "it is a bunch of BS". Scientology is classified as a cult in many countries, and it has been at the center of all sorts of weird controversies (accent on "weird"). Any controversies that major religions have been a part of can be easily contextualized in the greater timeline of human social development (women's rights etc etc) - blackmailing google cannot be OTOH. And no, Scientology as a belief system and the Church of Sc are intrinsically linked, we might as well be talking about the same thing. That is also not the case for other major religions. Any case, no need to go on for so long... Baristarim 02:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Different picture

Instead of that machine as the first picture that people see when they visit the page, could it instead be one of the symbols associated with scientology?--Maier 03 21:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

They are all trademarks. --Justanother 23:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

If you mean the e-meter, there are tighter rules on images on template pages. See the discussion on Template talk:ScientologySeries. AndroidCat 03:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Establishment Clause

Removing the reference to the Establishment Clause, as I'm not aware of any case finding that an acknowledgment by the U.S. government that something is a religion violates the Establishment Clause and other U.S. government practices, such as the faith-based initiative program or having military chaplains for religions but not nonreligious philosophies, do seem to recognize that some things are genuine religions. Elliotreed 04:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Supression and Hate

Since there is so much criticism and negative portrayl, distortion about Scientology on the wikipedia pages, I think it would be good to have a segment about all the hate and suppression and attacks that the religion has gone through and is going through to put into light what it is like for Scientologists. We are supposed to live in a world of religion freedom, but to be a Scientologist is to be persucuted for your beliefs. It is obviously a huge topic and there is nothing on here about what they go through. Funny how there is plenty of information trying to depict Scientology as this wacko money-hoarding cult, (which, is so wrong I can't even begin), but there's nothing on here shown from the Scientologist side. <Johnpedia 13:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)>

All wikipedia articles strive to be neutral, if you have found anything thats not properly sourced or POV then please tell us so it can be corrected. Joneleth 15:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

This section of the Scientology controversy article may help: Scientology controversy#The Church of Scientology's replies to its critics --Modemac 16:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

(moving down as I rewrote it. Modemac makes a valid point too) Johnpedia, that is a great idea. You may be able to find some sourced comments that present that idea in the local papers like sptimes.com. Actually, after thinking about it a bit, I feel that there is no real point in getting into the concept that critics are somehow suppressing Scn or Scios and that was probably not what you meant anyway. Critics are just criticizing and ridiculing Scn and famous Scios. BFD. No, the real persecution is government-sponsored and takes place in non-US countries (Scn is not persecuted at all in the US). Your best source is UN and US State Dept. reports on human rights abuses. I referenced some in the Germany part of the main article. Look at those and see if you can also find some English-language press to go with them. Good Luck!! --Justanother 16:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Searches like this one and this one may help you get started. --Justanother 16:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I think it's a good idea because it'll give perspective abotu what Scientologists have to deal with. We have to deal with A LOT. Other religions are not openly attacked, but for some reason Scientology is attacked with so much hate and prejudice and the people doing that are trying to spread the idea that it's ok to persecute Scientologists for their beliefs. It's so sick and disgusting. The pages on here about Scienttology are filled with hate and negative, passive aggressive, backhanded, unbalanced information. That needs to be removed and an article about Scientologists persecution needs to be written (if no one does, i'll do it later after schoolwork). No more of this junk, now is the time we are going to make everything fair and accurate, no excuses and lies from the people writing these pages, they are NOT balanced and it is NOT ok, regardless of what they tell themselves. <Johnpedia 03:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)>

For the record, just because someone criticises a belief system or an organisation doesn't mean it stems from hate or prejudice. For example if these pages point out that high-up scientologists have stolen government records, thats not hate or prejudice - that is truthful, fair-minded criticism. If you have a problem with a particular statement in this article then you should point it out and we will seek to rectify it in a balanced way. But remember, wikipedia is not a soapbox. 195.137.85.173 19:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm sorry if you are unable to sense the air with which the critics edit the Scientology wikipedia pages, and the direction they try to push everything towards, and the feeling that they try to associate with everything. Even more, the fact that these things are not what Scientology is like, makes it even weirder. You can interpret things in all kinds of different ways,and what they do is choose to inrepret things about Scientology that are good, in ways that make it seem evil, and they have no desire to figure out the truth, they come into attacking Scientology for no other reason then they wish to attack Scientology, and are happy to have anything that gives them fuel to claim it is an evil cult. They didn't approach this with a fair mind, they approached it WANTING to hate Scientology for whatever reason, and it's pathetic that they cannot even see this, so NO MATTER WHAT anybody says or anybody does or anything, they are going to always hate Scientology and exaggerate and pick out things and take things out of context and make up things to support their feeling, and this is the truth, and if they disagree with this it is because they are not very conscious or aware of themselves or things and anything that goes against their hate of Scientology is going to make them angry.Johnpedia 02:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

A suggestion: You might want to review WP:CIVIL now rather than later. AndroidCat 06:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It is wikipedia policy to assume good faith. It is quite the assertion to claim that you personally have special insight into other peoples intentions and innate desires in their edits. It is equally likely that those that criticise Scientology simply have come to their honest assessment that the Church of Scientology and its practices are dangerous and damaging. How do you personally know whether someone came to edit with a fair mind or not? If you wish to provide information regarding positive attributes of Scientology, or provide context where you feel it is presently lacking, please go ahead. Just remember to maintain a balanced tone, and to cite such information with reliable sources. Additionally, if you feel there is negative information which isn't true and isn't sourced properly. Please add some citation needed tags or bring it up on the talk page. 195.137.85.173 16:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I quote you: "The pages on here about Scientology are filled with hate and negative, passive aggressive, backhanded, unbalanced information." Well, if you have concerns about contents, please be specific. Much care is taken to have articles which are well sourced. Broad statements are useless, you need to point specifically at what you perceive as flaws. Then we will know what exactly what you want to address. Raymond Hill 03:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

As I am living in germany (which does not grant Scientologs the rights of a religion), I feel like I have to respond this: We germans do not deny Scientology as a religion becuse we "hate" or "want to surpress" them. We call them a cult (and so do I as Agnosticist), because their methods (not their belief, despite a good laugh itself) are at best ridiculous, if not dangerous. I mean come on, we all in germany are pro freedom of religion and believes, but that doesn´t mean we officially recognize people claiming to be jedis or "trying to recall memorys and deleting errors per audidting", but we do not hate them. Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia and should remain so. This neutrality suffers by implying that people who critizise Scientology or even call them a cult are just doing so because of their hate towards Scientologists. So in my opinion just state the criticisms in the article without an comments about the critic´s "hatred".----Timo Heinrich

Can you tell me why you deleted my post?82.114.68.30 20:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Who? What post? (It'd help if you'd assign yourself a username). BTfromLA 22:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Has this page been vandalised? - Nö&#134;$®åM 01:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I, meatplow, didn't actually vandalise this site. I posted a juvenile, offensive & rude comment here. I'm sorry about doing that & won't do it again.

Why is this article so unbalenced towards the positive

In being nurtral this wiki page would have to be negative about scientoligy. A quick search in google after the first result reveals the truth about what scientoligy is. There seems to be not enough on the page about how immoral scientoligy practices are. Alan2here 18:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It is probably a good sign of this article's neutrality that we get both complaints calling it too favorable and too unfavorable. --FOo 20:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

This would be the problem with neutrality... people with strong baised feelings on the issue will always see it as part of the other side. The position that a neutral article about this topic would have to be negative, is blatantly biased, and not endorsed by the Wikipedia culture in general. Articles about controversial topics like this are presented from a neutral point of view, presenting facts, and presenting unbiased beliefs of the various positions. Unfortunately, the only way you know that an article is balanced, is if both deeply entrenched sides of the controversy complain that the article is biased towards the other side. --Puellanivis 20:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Really one doesn't have to write negatively on the subject of Scientology. One can just write a neutral, well-sourced article and Scientology will damn itself by its own merits. Tenebrous (is still to lazy to sign in) 69.144.86.191 17:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Origin of the word Scientology

The article states that the word was coined by Alan Upward in 1907, which he associated with pseudoscience. I just found an old newspaper article, Newark Advocate, dated October 28, 1885, in which the word "scientologist" appears: "The scientologist of Rutgers college, at New Brunswick, N.J., recognized the shock of the Hell Gate explosion just fifteen minutes before it occurred. This is considered by the wicked as a remarkable instance of the reconciliation of faith and science." (still refer to pseudoscience it would seem) Is it something worth mentioning in the article? Raymond Hill 05:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure! I think a little more context than that would be useful, though; it isn't clear from that tiny fragment what is being meant by the word; or even to whom it refers. --FOo 05:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

That's the problem, that's pretty much all there is. Here is a scan of a the clipped part and here is a scan of the full page. The section appears under a header "Science & Progress." At the very least, it's a hint that the word may have been in use before 1907, but we can't tell more from this. Raymond Hill 17:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

In that case it's trivial, without context, and possibly dubious information and should not be included. The possibility exists that it was simply a typographic error. Tenebrous 19:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we can't really make anything of it, given the lack of any context. It could be that the writer made it up in an attempt at humour. But who knows? -- ChrisO 19:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Look at the accompanying "Facts of Interest" to get an idea of the nature of that piece. My guess is he made it up. --Justanother 23:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Auditing

"Per Church policy (citation needed) auditors are trained not to evaluate for the preclear..."

Here is the reference link, it is called the Auditor's Code.

www.scientology.org/en_US/religion/auditing/pg004a.html

S. M. Sullivan 06:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Some peeps here seems to be shy to quote from Church sites, so I thought I take this on for you. Misou 05:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Silent Birth and Infant care

Please delete mention of honey from the barley formula reference. It was corrected as long as 20 years ago in the Volunteer Minister's Handbook. Karo syrup is to be used, not honey. Yes, Scientologists know honey is not to be given to babies.

69.12.131.206 07:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)S. M. Sullivan

Where is your reference and why don't you delete it yourself? Misou 05:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The reference is the Volunteer Minister's Handbook, and I have learned better than to delete things without discussing them first when dealing with this controversial topic.

S. M. Sullivan 23:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, deletion is often not the correct answer. Especially here, where the new information you are bringing says "This was indeed the case, but changed" rather than "This was never the case." When you say it was corrected in the Volunteer Minister's Handbook as of 20 years ago, do you mean that they said "Don't use honey," or simply that they no longer explicitly list honey as an ingredient that can be substituted for the corn syrup? Also, Hubbard said he remembered the formula from Roman times, which would mean the ingredient of that formula would had to have been honey; is the composition of the original formula addressed in the corrected version? -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I've got the 1979 third print version of the Volunteer Minister's Handbook. The extract is named Healthy Baby and this is where the recipe is given. This extract do not mention honey (nor does the new Volunteer Minister's Handbook) but corn syrup -- Jpierreg 19:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Upward and The New Word

Recently Brujo made an edit which changed "Alan Upward" to "Allen Upward" and the date of Upward's book The New Word from 1907 to 1901. I've investigated a little and the reference does in fact say "Alan" and "1907" but the correct spelling and date may indeed be "Allen" and "1901" (see here, for example.) I've separated out the portions of the sentence so that they can be referenced separately, but can someone think of a way we can definitively establish once and for all the correct spelling and correct date? -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)