Talk:Scientology: Difference between revisions

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Scientology, or anything not directly related to improving the Wikipedia article. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Scientology, or anything not directly related to improving the Wikipedia article at the Reference desk.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Scientology article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33Auto-archiving period: 30 days

	This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

	Scientology is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 19, 2004 Refreshing brilliant prose Not kept

This article and its editors are subject to Wikipedia general sanctions.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Here scientology is referred to as a "cult", but surely it is more of a world-affirming religion? World affirming religions are tolerant of peoples religious beliefs - even it's own members (for example some scientologists are catholic) and don't force its members to cut themselves off from their friends, family and society (as a cult would) but rather try and make the world a better place through scientology?

err- there is plenty of proof of scientology destroying families and cutting off relationships. it is a cult. its is misguided and rediculous attempt to make money. off of aliens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ANONANONANONANON (talk • contribs) 08:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC) Any criticism is welcome or if anyone has anything more to add, please do. I just think that that should be clarified in the article itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptinHairybely (talk • contribs) 00:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A number of major news organizations, academics, and novelists have reported that Scientology is a cult. It's not up to Wikipedians to decide whether or not they are—that would be original research. Instead, we try to make the article match the information given by the reliable sources out there. This is a controversial article with editors of many opinions, so we follow the rules strictly. Foobaz·o< 02:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And a number of major news organizations, academics, and novelists have reported that Scientology is NOT a cult. Opinions, opinions and opinions. Sadly both sides need to be documented regarless of how ignorant they are. Bravehartbear (talk) 08:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Bravehartbear has a point. It's probably presumptuous at this point to use the loaded word "cult" except to state that "some" have called Scientology a cult. Scientology certainly has cult-like or conspiratorial elements (charismatic leader, repression of alternate points of view through misuse of copyright law and ingrained doublethink), but also has elements of a "life-affirming religion". Certainly the Church is neither complete evil nor purely saintly. We should keep in mind the need to merely point out both points of view and leave personal investment out of this.71.35.252.65 (talk) 00:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If those are the only requirements, then no religion can be or not be a cult, because there are always going to be people who say that it is, and people who say that it isn't. Amphibienne (talk) 08:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reading all this I nave an impression, that Wikipedia, and especially this particular entry, is being edited by folks without proper education. Know definitions of the words, know history and history of religions. Most importantly chec the facts regarding Scientology. With that knowledge it is clear what is a cult (like Scientology) and what is not. In many cases it is not that important. In case of this organization it is crucial to inform people, not misinform. This cult is dangerous, money grabbing and brainwashing scam. Simple as that. Folks - read up a bit about this organization, then edit this entry here. I think it should be clearly stated that Scientology is a cult, just like Earth is round, evolution is a scientific fact etc. Or do we have to do with some SeaOrg manipulation here, or better yet silly political correctness in the same league as recent bashing of "three little pigs" form being "offensive to Muslims" in the UK. Do some fact checking, and lets not be silly to the point of absurdity. Scientology = cult, and so it should be made clear in this article. For those arguing against stating, that it is a cult - consider this: if Scientology is not a cult, then what is? You can't get more "cultish" than this. It is is not a cult, then this word should be erased form all dictionaries and languages. Lets not be silly here. Lets not be manipulated by the functioning Sea Org members romping about the Internet. --Pitdog (talk) 16:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting point of discussion. CaptinHairybely, one of the things that makes Wikipedia work is that it uses reliable sources (I highly recommend you read that policy in its entirety, by the way). One example of a reliable source would be a news magazine with a strong history and reputation for basic fact-checking, such as Time or Newsweek, or the peer-reviewed books and articles of academic scholars. The interesting thing is that the materials produced by the subject of an article on Wikipedia are not generally accepted as reliable sources:

Questionable sources
Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves ... Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources.

— Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable_sources (emphasis added

Generally speaking, the only things we can use Church of Scientology-produced material to support are statements like "The Church describes Scientology as..." and "According to the Church..." We can't use any material they provide to support a statement of fact, because it is automatically biased, and by definition not peer-reviewed.

To a large extent, the same applies to certain critical websites. It's all about peer-review and fact-checking, and many critics do not have established track records for either.

One difference -- and I'm afraid this puts the Church at a bit of a disadvantage here -- is that several of the critics do have established track records and scholarly credentials. But in the Church's favor, as Bravehartbear pointed out, there have also been a few peer-reviewed "news organizations, academics, and novelists" that support the Church's stance that Scientology is a religion. There are sections of the article that reflect that.

Basically, if a major media outlet or academic publication fact-checks statements from the Church or a critic and finds the statements verifiable, then we can use them, but otherwise they're assumed to be biased. --GoodDamon 21:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a cult, unfounded beliefs, totally new ideas, and very controlling and extorting of its members. Reapermage 00:36, 10th December 2007 GMT —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reapermage1990 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a cult but it's recongized as a religion by many governments including that of the United States so it should be referred to as such. Maybe refer to it as a cult if/when it loses it's status as a government recongized religion. Also, is Scientology considered a religion by the UN or do they have no stance on that? FalseMyrmidon (talk) 00:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If as you stated above it is a cult, why we need government's approval of that fact? If a certain dish is called pizza, does it have to be officially recognized by a given government in order for us to speak of it as pizza?Or it just is a pizza. Since when any government should have the influence on simple facts and definitions in an encyclopedia on the net... --Pitdog (talk) 17:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first definition of cult in Dictionary.com is "a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies." So it's a cult... and so is Christianity, so is Islam, so is Buddhism etc etc etc. Bazonka (talk) 12:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

that is a true deffinition, however that isn't the one we are talking about. That isn't even the definition that is commonly accepted when people say the word "cult". this discussion is better explained by the sociological definition of a Cult which states (I am paraphrasing, however I can get the source if neccisary) an orgonization that is charictorised by four things 1. strong central leadership, 2. hidden agenda/knowlage (they don't let you know everyhting about the orgonization untill you have become invested in the group), 3. Promice of special powers only avalible through the groups central leadership (Sobriaty through the central leaders teachings, promice of salvation through loyalty of the leader) 4. coersive or brainwashing tecqnecs.

when I hear the word cult that is what I think of...not the Boy Scouts religious services. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coffeepusher (talk • contribs) 17:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone gets a chance to check this source, there is an interesting article on Scientology in it related to your "cult status" question, from above:

• Cletsch, William A. (1989), "Scientology", World Book Encyclopedia, vol. 17 (S-Sn), Scott Fetzer Company, p. 207, ISBN 0-7166-1289-5, Library of Congress Card Catalog Number 88-50304

Cheers, Cirt (talk) 05:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It does not in any way improve this article to argue over whether Scientology "is" or "is not" a cult. There is not one true definition of "cult"; the word is largely used as a slur. We are much better off describing what Scientologists believe, what Scientologists do, and the history of the Scientology organization -- and leave it up to readers whether these things show it to be a cult, a praiseworthy religion, an organized crime syndicate, a happy summer camp, or a high-heeled shoe. --FOo (talk) 17:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree wholeheartedly. Foobaz·o< 17:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I vote for high-heeled shoe. --JustaHulk (talk) 15:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would term it an "Officaly Recognised Religion" and then, possibly state where it is official, or make it a link to a point on the page where they do state it. I believe it is a cult, but that is an opinion. It is definately a religion, so we should state it as that, as it is a fact. Cults are still religions. 82.74.121.248 (talk) 00:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming your current list of countries is accurate, then you should not call it an officially recognised religion at this point. It would be preferable to have a section entitled "Recognised Religion" and simply state those countries that do. This is fair to both sides of the argument. This is pretty much what you have now, although the current edit is somewhat less succinct. --Angryjames (talk) 19:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With regards the term "Cult". The same argument should be used. If various countries and or significant groups refer to the organisation as a "Cult", then that should be listed in a section head something like "Is it a Cult?" or "Cult Status". To argue about the meaning of the word is pointless, and especially to argue that most religions fall into that definition. We know they do. We are here to report the facts as significant trusted sources would. Significant sources/countries might use the term "Cult" to describe Scientology, but not use it to describe say Christianity, even though we know the latter started as a cult --Angryjames (talk) 19:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The comment that describes Scientology as such should be backed up with a citation. If it cannot be backed up with a citation, the comment should be removedJohn196920022001 (talk) 01:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why. That sentence is easily backed up by cites already present in that paragraph. You can't expect every single sentence to require individual citations. --GoodDamon 17:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, but that is a sentence that does need citing. If I wanted to slander the topic that's a sentence I might write when it might not be true, it's high risk for bias if it remains uncited. SGGH ^speak! 19:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that TIME's Remember Venus? used to be cited at that spot. It's probably wandered over to another part of the intro. AndroidCat (talk) 07:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Cruiseread the article everything is controversial it is wack! The whole article and history is about that any religion in a World that thinks the religion is a cult it will be controversial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.66.116.58 (talk) 16:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this article too long? GusChiggins21 (talk) 09:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that this is being fix now. Bravehartbear (talk) 11:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even with ADD (grin), I found the article well-written, fascinating, and of appropriate length.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 02:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We should really pare down the external links to those that are notable. Of course, the Clambake site is notable. Other than that, maybe Rick Ross? LMT is notable but I don't think I saw it in there. I think that is about it. The rest are non-notable, or copyvio sites (as is Ross), or YouTube. So I am thinking maybe three Church sites, three critical sites and are there any notable links in the others? Thoughts? --JustaHulk (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It irks me to remove links to the church's own websites which show just how hypocritical and deceptive they really are, but you are correct about the external link policies, to whit: Wikipedia articles should include links to Web pages outside Wikipedia if they are relevant. Such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks); or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to their reliability (such as reviews and interviews). The external links in the article probably could be trimmed down a bit. TechBear (talk) 16:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you providing the reference and I appreciate your honesty in reverting yourself. Let me say that, as a Scientologist, I find the RFW site and most of the other chilling effects tactics reprehensible. I am not so disinclined toward legal action and threat of legal action but toward these extra-legal activities such as RFW and counter-picketing. One thing we, as Wikipedia editors, have to be careful of is a kind of sneaky original research. I know that was not your intent but I refer to trying to make a point not made in RS by means of external links or other "sneaky" methods. External links must serve the same purpose as the article, and they should be equally reliable and NPOV. Of course, the website of the topic of the article would be exempt from that requirement but Wikipedia is not the place to push non-RS opinions and non-notable off-site links. Since criticism of Scientology is a notable topic then a couple of notable critical sites have a place here. A few more notable sites could also be linked from the Scientology controversy article. What we have now goes well beyond any reasonable interpretation of the intent and policy related to external links. They exist in the article to serve purposes that are not Wikipedia's. --JustaHulk (talk) 17:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check the history: I was not the one who inserted the link in the first place, I simply reverted your undo (and then reverted my undo of your undo.) The website in question certainly looks and feels like one maintained by the CoS, which is why I put it back in. Referencing websites operated by the topic of an article is NPOV, no matter what the content of the website might be. That does not necessarily mean the site meets the criteria for a referenced external link, however, which is why I took it back out. TechBear (talk) 17:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know that you did not insert the link. And, as I mention above, I agree that websites by the subject of the article are fit links and need not meet WP:NPOV or WP:V standards. My objection is that there is no proof anywhere that I know of that this site has any official connection to the Church other than perhaps that a Scientologist runs it. Until such proof is provided, it cannot be put here to represent "the hypocrisy of Scientology" or whatever is looking to be pushed. --JustaHulk (talk) 18:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is imperative that we include religiousfreedomwatch.org in this section. Joel Phillips who is a Scientologist is the registered owner for the "Church". This site is probably the most important site that the "Church" owns. It lists every big time critic of Scientology. The site lists all of the facts that the "Church" believes is true about these people. It lists any crime that they believe the critic of their "Church" has ever committed. It even has a reward of $5000 against the person who made threats against it. The Scientology website includes articles that show the other side to something they believe is critical to Scientology. They list hate groups as anyone or any group critical of ONLY Scientology. They list religious experts as people that are Scientologists. This site is huge. It's updated all the time and shows up everywhere on all major search engines for every possible search you can imagine. Scientologists should be proud of this website. This website sums up everything that Scientology and the "Church" are all about. This website is Scientology, therefore it should be listed in the Scientology web links section. All in favor say "yes". All opposed, say "no. Thank you! K69 (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC) I vote "yes" K69 (talk) 17:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. The site is a non-RS hate site that has no self-proclaimed or otherwise-sourced official connection to "Scientology" or the Church of Scientology. It is most assuredly not "everything that Scientology and the "Church" are all about" (that claim is unknowledgable, insulting, or both). That the site may or may not be run by a Scientologist is irrelevant. It is not a "Scientology site". --JustaHulk (talk) 18:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Sourcing is not established, official status is not established. As such, it is simply a record of one person's opinions, and clearly does not qualify. John Carter (talk) 19:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. For the reasons listed above. It doesn't pass muster for WP:EL. --GoodDamon 19:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No Although I actually believe the church does run it, it still dosn't give any information about Scientology itself, any actuall information about scientology on this site is mixed up with alot of gobily gook and difficult to glean. Coffeepusher (talk) 20:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Raymond Hill (talk) 20:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Not even if CoS slipped up and admitted that they run it. AndroidCat (talk) 21:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No Personal websites are not allowed in Wikipedia. That same rules goes for xenu.net, operation clambake and Rick Ross. Now this bring into question: David Touretzky because he uses the university network to spread his junk it doesn't mean the his university aproves of what he does... Well anyway nice link but it doesn't seem it is connected to the church. The style is too agresive, it almost mimics the critics. So No, can't use it. Bravehartbear (talk) 12:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sites you mention are not personal websites. Their purpose is not to tell you about the people running them and their personal interests. It is to provide a public service. Foobaz·o< 14:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I am sure that Religious Freedom Watch feels that they are providing a public service also. So which hateful and deceptive "public service" sites do we allow and which do we not allow? Trick question, of course, as none of them are acceptable. --JustaHulk (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopedia only reliable new sources that double check their sources are allowed. Personal web sites that are registered to an individual do not qualify as an encyclopedia reference. Is all in the Wikipedia policies. This was priory discussed long ago by user Misou. And it was determined that personal websites that are registered to a single owner are not allowed in Wikipedia. The discussion you guys just had about notable web sites is irrelevant. A web site doesn't get in Wikipedia because it is notable. It gets in Wikipedia because it is accurate and NPOV. Bravehartbear (talk) 21:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JustaHulk: I agree, RFW is not a personal web page. However, this alone is not enough to qualify a link for inclusion. There are many other criteria which a site must also satisfy. RFW does not meet all of them, but as far as I know, there are no criteria that Clambake fails to meet. If you disagree, please point out exactly what makes Clambake unsuitable.

Bravehartbear: Just because a site is run by a single person does not make it a personal website. Clambake is not a personal website, and is allowed in Wikipedia. I didn't agree with Misou then, and I don't agree with him now.

Foobaz·o< 01:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is allowed in Wikipedia are covered in WP:EL. This is what it says: Links normally to be avoided "Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject—and not prohibited by restrictions on linking—one should avoid:"

2. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research".

12. Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority.

Also is usefull to read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view Bravehartbear (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "except those written by a recognized authority" is the sticking point, I believe. Some of those links Justanother removed today certainly don't belong to recognized authorities, but a couple do. --GoodDamon 22:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As always, the definition of personal web page on that problematic page seems to get skipped over. AndroidCat (talk) 22:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can specificy which should be returned and why, that would probably help a lot. John Carter (talk) 22:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned that Touretzky's site in particular passes muster as one operated by a "recognized authority," as the site and its operator are largely regarded as expert by reliable news sources. Sorry, I thought I'd mentioned that earlier, but I'm pretty busy today. --GoodDamon 23:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damon, can you find any RS that refers to Touretzky's site in a manner that would warrant inclusion as an external link in this article? Otherwise, his site can go in his article. Can you even find RS that refers to Touretzky as an "expert", a term pretty loosely thrown around by the press. I usually see him referred to as a "critic". Neither Touretzky nor his websites are anywhere near NPOV or reliable. They are one-sided and consist mainly of his one-sided and extreme opinions. Inclusion of them does not serve the purposes of Wikipedia but only the purposes of POV-pushers. --JustaHulk (talk) 14:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, something like this from the SF Chronicle [1]:

"The teacher has teamed with David Touretzky, a computer science research professor at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh and a free-speech advocate who runs an anti-Narconon Web site that includes some controversial material."

hardly paints Touretzky as an "expert" - the paper went to five of what they really consider experts.

"Those ideas are rejected by the five medical experts contacted by The Chronicle, who say there is no evidence to support them."

--JustaHulk (talk) 14:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But his websites do give information about the church that would be to extensive to put into the article itself, spacificly the otIII and the NOT's. The fact that the church suied him to take them down, and the government found them credible enough to keep them up (not beeing lible or slander in the ruling).

He is also seen as an expert by the critics of scientology, beeing quoted many times on operation clam bake among other sources. He is also notable enough to recieve a posting on religious freedom watch. Coffeepusher (talk) 17:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify -- "personal Web page" does not mean a Web page maintained by an individual expert or researcher on a subject. It means a Web page that is autobiographical, in the nature of a personal blog or journal. --FOo (talk) 23:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thus meaning that not every "personal Web page" reflects this definition. --Olberon (talk) 12:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surely point "2. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material..." means no links to any sites that contain belief based information over factual content, e.g. any religious doctrine?!? Did I miss something? :) --Angryjames (talk) 19:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not see what any mention of Aliens in the article.Isnt that A beleif of Scientology?It would also explain why people think its a cult. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.1.245.18 (talk) 00:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's so cult-like about believing in aliens? Many rational, scientific people believe there is other intelligent life in the universe. Foobaz·o< 00:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Space opera in Scientology scripture. --FOo (talk) 04:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And those same rational, scientific people believe the chances that anything could travel to earth are almost none. Contrary to science-fiction (which ultimately is all that scientology is) faster than light speed travel is impossible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.42.210 (talk) 14:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Am I right in thinking that the toning down of the "alien" content is in direct relation to the Scientologists' own position? Should we not have something in the page that explains a shift in expressed views. Forgive me if I'm wrong about this, having grown up with CoS news, I felt the whole "alien" thing was openly expressed and then suddenly or perhaps gradually it disappeared. Is that true? --Angryjames (talk) 20:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Every and each link that some wants taken away should be discussed PRIOR to deletion. NOT the other way around. It took a while for these links to have ended up there. Therefore this should not be resorted to by some person just like that. In addition in the previous discussions various have uttered protests to various links included in this attempted mass deletion. --Olberon (talk) 12:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than some generic "they are there so they are OK" argument and a mass reversion (i.e. edit-war), you are encouraged to nominate links that you think are appropriate for reinclusion (or removal). There is already a discussion above on the Touretzky link, feel free to add your opinion there. What you are proposing is NOT how Wikipedia works. See WP:BOLD. I was not reckless and I pared the links down based on their notability and relevance to the article. --JustaHulk (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For your information YOU instigated an edit war by doing as you did! You ONLY may remove the links that have actually been discussed. You instead INCLUDED a whole bunch of other ones. Your reference referral obviously does not apply here. I oppose your actions and if needed I will report the matter on the board for adminstrators. This is supposed to be a discussion page, not a mass deletion festival. The fact you have to deal with is that in the previous discussions objections have been uttered about that you had included links that were not felt falling in the claimed category. You propose links to be deleted and not mass delete and then propose a discussion which are to be returned. That is absurd. Will I also remind you that these Scientology pages are in fact protected with a lock. --Olberon (talk) 15:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand what I did. You say "You instead INCLUDED a whole bunch of other ones." but that is not true - I added no links. The links I removed were inappropriate under WP:EL. You are, of course, welcome to report my actions and I encourage you to do so. Looking at your edit history, I see that this is not the first time you have taken a similar stance on inclusion of links. Previously, it was the Michel Snoeck page that you felt should not have been deleted. Is there one of the links that I deleted that you particularly feel belongs in the article? Again, Wikipedia is not intended to be edited in this pussy-footed manner you describe. Those links did not belong in the article and I removed them. That is what any editor can and should do. If I made a mistake in any particular case then I am more than willing to discuss it here. --JustaHulk (talk) 15:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with JustaHulk. The guideline regarding external links does present some fairly clear rules regarding inclusion. If anyone does feel that certain links mean that standard, however, they are welcome to indicate which links they are referring to and why. John Carter (talk) 16:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am missing support for JustaHulks argumentation. The series of links that were removed were inappropriate per his personal interpretation. Furthermore notability are not the only criteria that should be considered. Talkpages are there for reason to discuss matters. Objections have been uttered in the previous discussions, for this simple reason I reverted this mass delete effort. --Olberon (talk) 16:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Olberon, you edit-warred with me over this and I have reported that on WP:AE. You went 2RR and I will not go more than one revert on a probation page so your version currently stands. I urge you to self-revert and back away from your edit-warring. --JustaHulk (talk) 16:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not edit-war anything. I simply object to your mass deletion solely based on supposed notability/non-notability per your personal opinion. My main motivation is the simple fact that the earlier discussions showed protest. Therefore I ask for a simple argumentation for each link. At this time you are threatening and attempting to intimidate me over this. --Olberon (talk) 16:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I very strongly disagree with the above. Particularly in a controversial page such as this one, it might even be possible that adding links, particularly if they are questionable, might be considered inappropriate content. Therefore, unless I am to remove the links on the basis of their inclusion is questioned and no clear reasons for their individual, specific inclusion given, I am requesting the clear justification of every recently included external link. Should I not receive such, then I may myself decide that their significance has not yet been demonstrated and remove those which have not been given credible reason for inclusion myself. John Carter (talk) 17:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just passing by, I noticed the above controversy about the list of external links. For what it's worth, I'd like to propose that the criterion for judgment here should not be focused primarily on talk page protocol, but on how the list of links serves readers of the article. In my view, it is worth considering that this article is relatively long and contains more than 200 notes, many of which include external links. There are also many internal links embedded in the body of the article that lead to related articles which, in turn, offer still more external links. I think it's fair to ask whether an "external links" section is needed at all in this case. Given the sprawl of the article, I'd say yes to that; a very concise list would be useful to someone who wants to go exploring the subject without reading the whole entry. I think Justahulk was right to cut the sprawling link list down. I'd suggest the list be trimmed down to the following, or something close: Official Scientology links: The CoS main page, "What is Scientology" FAQ, and the Scientology Handbook. Critical resources: Operation Clambake, Xenu TV. Independent Scientologists: Int'l Freezone Association. --BTfromLA (talk) 22:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That proposal certainly has logical merit.

Incidentally, my last edit was truncated and would, if not for space limitations, have read: "When first proposed, if challenged, inclusion of an external link requires justification; if unchallenged then its long term and enduring presence indicates consensus so that subsequent removal (except for BLP violations, etc,) should be discussed and consensus reached before removal." Alice^✉ 22:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Alice, you merely continued an edit-war not supported by the established editors here on either "side" of the issue. What BT proposed is little different from what I did. Your idea that we have a bunch of discussion before making an edit violates the basic principles of this project, i.e. WP:BOLD, and is self-defeating as little editing would get done if we each wait for "committee approval". There is no committee, there is simply, in this case, rough agreement that something needed to be done. I did something and actions like yours in "protecting" earlier versions are not helpful and border on WP:OWN. --JustaHulk (talk) 22:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I would appreciate it if another editor would restore my edit as I did one revert already and will not do another. Thanks. --JustaHulk (talk) 23:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Well, almost... I incorporated my minor changes to your earlier pruning. Tweak if needed. BTfromLA (talk) 03:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, BT, but I have a couple objections to the XenuTV site. One is I question its notability and the other and more decisive point is that it is a clearly a collection of copyright violation and that is something that we should not be promoting. From WP:EL#Restrictions on linking:

For policy or technical reasons, editors are restricted from linking to the following, without exception:

1. Sites that violate the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. . . Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. . . Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors.

That is pretty clear and XenuTV clearly is an inappropriate link. --JustaHulk (talk) 03:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a large amount of original XenuTV material on the site as well. AndroidCat (talk) 03:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My logic in short-listing XenuTV is that I think the site is of great interest to someone wanting to get the video-audio side of journalism, ex-member testimony, etc., about Scientology and related issues. (Whereas Operation Clambake serves the same purpose for text-based materials.) Copyvio may be present, though I'm not sure it's such a slam dunk as you assert. As AndroidCat points out, for much of the material there--perhaps the bulk of it, though I haven't tried to measure--copyright is not at issue. I assume you are pointing to things things like the Ted Koppel interview with David Miscavige, which is both transcribed on the site and made visible inline through links to YouTube. I don't know where "fair use" begins and ends in such a situation. If folks who are better aquainted with the nuances of the wikipedia policy than I judge it to be out of bounds, then so be it. Personally, I don't think that a non-profit internet archive of otherwise difficult-to-see ephemeral materials that have little or no future commercial value but do have ongoing scholarly value violates the spirit of that policy. BTfromLA (talk) 05:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if you feel that way, Justahulk. You're right in pointing out Wikipedia:Five pillars, but I usually interpret the fifth pillar in the light of WP:BRD and WP:Be Bold#… but don't be reckless once I see that revert warring has commenced. Alice^✉ 23:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect to Alice, a sow's ear does not become a silk purse if you hold on to it long enough. There could be many reasons that the EL list has not been pruned recently that have nothing to do with consensus; such as inertia, entropy, exhaustion, or choosing to deal with higher priority issues first. All parties are asked to behave themselves, as placing the article on 1 revert per person per week limit would affect all sections of the article, while hoping that "the other guys" get tagged for edit warring while you escape notice is not likely to turn out the way you want. Thatcher 02:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like the smaller list of pages, however I would include the Touretzky pages under critical...and I agree that Xenu TV probably dosn't have encyclopedic value to it. my reasons are that they do provide information about the higher stages of Scientology.

and my 2 cents about this whole fiasco...I don't agree with mass deletes, especialy when you know it is going to cause trouble. When that delete was done the discription had the phrase "DO NOT EDIT WAR" in it, which is pritty much challanging anyone to disagree with you. Whenever I delete links that don't hold up to standard, the only notations I leave are "spam", "personal web page", "self published author"...and everyone knows what I am talking about. I believe that some of the links pruned where legitamate deletes...and I think that some of them probably should have been discussed. WP:BOLD but WP:BATTLE. on other pages, when I run into that problem I usually post 24 hrs ahead of time somthing to the effect of "I will be deleting the following...tomorow, any discussion beforehand?" and that usually avoids edit wars, and shows the other editors that I don't WP:OWN the page and I respect their opinion. Coffeepusher (talk) 04:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MMMMM hmmmmmm. Excuse me gentlemans and ladies. We are missing the point.

Extremist sources

"Organizations and individuals that are widely acknowledged as extremist, whether of a political, religious or anti-religious, racist, or other nature, should be used only as sources about themselves and their activities in articles about themselves, and even then with caution." Reference: Wikipedia:Reliable sources

It is clear to be that Xenu TV and others are anti-Scientology links and being as such should not take part of the article. There is plenty of reliables sources like newspapers and magazines and there is no need to use such links. In my opinion this are nothing else than spam and propaganda sites. Bravehartbear (talk) 11:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-religious links are fine, it's only extremist anti-religious links that don't meet WP:RS. And even if they don't pass WP:RS, they can still be used as external links. WP:EL says we can link to "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." Foobaz·o< 15:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Foobaz is correct. Braveheartbear is the one who is missing the point. The discussion is about external links, not sources for the article. The criteria for reliable sources has nothing to do with the issue at hand. BTfromLA (talk) 17:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, these people like xenu.tv are 100% anti-Scientology. I doesn't get more extreminst than 100%. How much more anti-Scientology you gotta be before you are considered an extreminst. Because if it was a 100% anti-Christian organisation and those videos were anti-Christian videos it would be considered an extremist link. What is the difference? 100% is 100%. Bravehartbear (talk) 09:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I consider those links very unapropiate and offensive for a encyclopedia.Bravehartbear (talk) 09:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bravehartbear, the discussion is about external links, not about reliable sources for the article or balanced presentation. Do you not understand the difference? If the external links were to lead to information that is clearly false or fake, that would be an issue, but that does not seem to be at issue here, either. BTfromLA (talk) 17:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the link to xenu.tv should be removed because it's copyrighted and it's rich media. Foobaz·o< 17:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soooo...if its like say 60% anti scientology 30% nutral and 10% "I liked battlefield earth" its ok?

I don't think it is an extremist scite (they arn't calling for people to kill scientologists, or burning tom cruse movies...they don't hire actors to scream "what are your crimes" into the camera, those are real scientologists) but I don't think it belongs as a link. my main reason is that all the information I can find on xenu tv, I can also find on clambake and I like reading better than watching videos. Coffeepusher (talk) 18:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, Church of Scientology sites are 100% pro-Scientology. It doesn't get more extremist than 100%. How much more pro-Scientology you gotta be before you are considered an extremist? (The leader of Scientology has given speeches with graphics showing psychiatrists being machine-gunned or blown-up. On that subject, a well-known Scientologist has also said "go to guns" and "no mercy". I'm not sure what they are calling for people to do, but it seems rather extremist.) I'm not being completely serious, just pointing out the fallacy of the argument to remove critical sites. AndroidCat (talk) 16:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if it should be mentioned in the article. --MahaPanta (talk) 23:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Major news sources are talking about it. Scientology made You Tube remove it. The New York Post still has a copy (for now) http://www.nypost.com/seven/01162008/news/nationalnews/star_raving_mad__68340.htm . It is VERY funny. Creepy even. Angry Christian (talk) 23:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there is some major reaction because of the video, then yes it should probably be mentioned...however the content is not notable at all. it is your standard "buy in or get out" speech, I have heard the same rant at every school pep rally,every 12 step program, Fraturnety life, Political rallies, every church since the creation of God (and probably since the creation of fire) In fact Ralph Waldo Emmerson gave a better version. the only notable thing in the entire program is that Tom Cruse has given scientology technology to 1.037 billion people (or the ENTIRE population of Europe, Russia, and America)(note that the world population is 6.644 billion by the world population clock...so 1 out of every 7 people are scientologists...not shure if I buy that one). Coffeepusher (talk) 00:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the Video display http://gawker.com/5002269/the-cruise-indoctrination-video-scientology-tried-to-suppress —Preceding unsigned comment added by XenuCareBear (talk • contribs) 15:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coffeepusher, you're missing one bit about Tom Cruise's talk. It's not just "buy in or get out", it's about erradicating all those opposed to the church (the part about SPs being something to read in history books) with no mercy. That's what makes Scientology not just laughing stock for many, but a true danger to humanity. It's not a light thing to be ignored or underestimated. 200.80.164.35 (talk) 00:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your consern...however as for content we can use on wikipedia I stand by my statement. As tempting as it is to respond, I would only be digressing this talk page into a chat about the interpritation of the video... WP:TALK and all.Coffeepusher (talk) 07:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Cruise video and the storm that followed is a significant moment in recent CoS history. What argument is there for excluding a reference to it? Here in the UK, CoS was a point of news after the Panorama programme (mentioned on this page) and even more so after the Cruise video release. What was the US reaction? It would appear to be of significant interest. Also Cruise's comment appear to be a return to some of those LRH "fair game" ways. Any comments? --Angryjames (talk) 20:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Although Scientologists are usually free to practice their beliefs, the organized church has often encountered opposition due to their strong-arm tactics directed against critics and members wishing to leave the organization." (emphasis mine) is hardly neutral POV... Livitup (talk) 04:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a true but unsourced statement. It should be removed unless a reliable source is found for it. According to Tom Cruise one day CoS critics ("SPs") will exist only in history books ;-) Angry Christian (talk) 15:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before removing it, keep in mind that much harsher descriptions could easily be used and sourced. At length. AndroidCat (talk) 15:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then why not source it, at length as you say? Making unsourced statements about SoC using "strong arm tactics" really puts Wikipedia in a bad light. Again, I know this is true but the point is it's not sourced. Angry Christian (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I heard an interview with the comedian Del Close who apparently shared a room with Hubbard at University. Apparently Hubbard said several times during this period that one day he would become rich by inventing a religion. Unfortunately I can't remember the source for this but I feel it is worth highlighting if anybody can find the reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.244.73 (talk) 23:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't remember where either -- my father's been reminding me of that quote for years. I'll ask him where he remembers seeing it. I know that he read it somewhere, because he is a huge sci-fi booknerd and doesn't watch television. :) Though everyone would rage against it, I feel in my heart of hearts that such a quote fully needs to be in this article if it can be proven that LRH really did say it. Chacharu (talk) 19:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. 210 in the notes section directs to a not found error page.

DebbieChinique (talk) 16:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology#Origin_and_Definition: What kind of usefull information does the sentence " Suzie and I went down to the library, and we started hauling books out and looking for words. And we finally found 'scio' and we find 'ology.' And there was the founding of that word. Now, that word had been used to some degree before. There had been some thought of this. . . . But we found that this word 'scientology,' you see—and it could have been any other word. . . ." give to the wikipedia user. I think it is a quite ridiculous sentence. Did they drink a coffee after or even a beer. Will this sentence say to us that the wörd has been found in a library. Which word shall "Scio" be. And who the hell is Suzie ? --Arcy (talk) 22:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weird... Your initial removal of that statement looks like this in the history. Note that it looks like you replaced a bunch of image lines, citations, etc. with redundant category entries. That's why I reverted it. But the more I look at it, the more it looks like a Wikipedia error, not a mistake on your part, so I apologize for reverting it. --GoodDamon 23:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. i've some weired wp errors too (watchlist seems to be broken). --Arcy (talk) 23:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone should support anon! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.183.62.178 (talk) 03:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this worth mentioning?

[2]

--Some random jack off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.85.232.249 (talk) 06:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. --GoodDamon 06:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You sure? Ason Abdullah (talk) 08:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Positive. Some random hacker group announcing on its own page that it's going to mess with the Church of Scientology is:

1. Not notable
2. Not verifiable
3. Not reliable

Wait until it gets published in a reliable news source. Then it might be included. --GoodDamon 17:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[3] --84.245.22.189 (talk) 23:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the article, it looks like a reference to it might be a good addition to Scientology and the internet. --GoodDamon 01:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I honestly hope that the media (if it decides to cover this) takes a neutral position and refrains from calling the *chans internet terrorists. I mean honestly, Scientology had it coming. It is sad for all those that have enlisted in the religion, and supported its "teachings." They truly were taken advantage of when they were at their lows, depressed and hopeless. Their money was taken away, their lives ruined. This just can't go unnoticed.

For once, the hackers of the *chans are doing something that is moral at its core.

That might be your goal, but that is not the goal of Wikipedia. Wikipedia's goal is to create unbiased, informative encyclopedia entries, and your stated goal is incompatible with that. Wikipedia is not a platform for promoting your beliefs and point of view any more than it is a platform for Scientologists to do the same. Please keep that in mind. --GoodDamon 17:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. To sign your posts, which is considered polite, please include this at the end of your comments: ~~~~

Thanks. --GoodDamon 17:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I said the internet is united, I meant the major communities. I would never alter the wikipedia article, but this is a talk page. I believe this is worth mentioning, some people will disagree. I can't change that. The talk page is meant to profess your beliefs, and show your platform. And a note to the users that believe this not reliable: The *chans have already stolen documents that are restricted to Scientologists. You can search and find it, but I will not post it on wikipedia, for it is illegal content. Deleted the "internet is united" quote. Also, I was under the belief that this was discussion, not a suggestion for editing. You may disregard my argument, for until it is openly admitted by the Church itself, it ought not to be included in this article.

There is this mainstream media link: http://www.budapesttimes.hu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4412&Itemid=1/ --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 07:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TALK discribes what a talk page is for...and what you discribed was a chat room or discussion board.

Oh, and No it shouldn't be included, although I really want to try out that teabag thing (just to see if it works), but unfortunatly I am over the age of 20 and have grown out of that stage of life.Coffeepusher (talk) 07:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion it should be noted in the article. I mean this certainly is a notable event, look at how many views there are of the youtube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCbKv9yiLiQ of Anonymous stating it's intentions. That in addition to the fact that the 'scientology' website has been shut down for the past view days makes this a very notable event in my opinion. Supra guy (talk) 21:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is notable enough to be mentioned, but not in this article. It more properly belongs in Scientology and the Internet or perhaps Scientology controversy. --GoodDamon 21:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that seems suitable. Supra guy (talk) 02:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More media links: http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=uVaQG67eqwA --DestroyYouAlot (talk) 01:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • • KNBC has featured a news video of The Anonymous DOS attack.
    • Skylive has featured a news video of The Anonymous DOS attack.

To say they are kiddy scripters is idiotic with the consistent +5 day removal of service of Scientology.org and many other scientology websites. http://video.knbc.com/player/?id=209215

I disagree with the reversion of the addition about Project Chanology. The referenced source was a mainstream media source (APC Magazine, which has been published since May 1980). This effort has also been reported in Wired.com, CNBC and other TV news outlets. It's certainly a notable part of the history of Scientology to date. Further, reporting that it has happened is a neutral addition to the article. Danwarne (talk) 05:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I think there is enough coverage to include a piece on "Project Chanology" in the article. The group and their attacks have been covered on several mainstream news channels, and the group have done notable damage to scientology websites, as well as theft of scientology internal documents. Daler (talk) 16:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except that they have not. Stolen internal docs. Not a one. Done much damage? Meh. Scientology.org seems to be loading just fine. --JustaHulk (talk) 16:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a Copy from my post below, however it states my opinion here as well:

"Right now it is a current event, hence the media coverage...but even that is sparce when it comes to actuall news agencies. a google news search failed to produce any nation wide "paper" papers...The New york times, Washington post, associated press, La times, USA today (gag! I hate that rag) etc. all failed to pick this one up it seems. now this isn't nesisarily a reliable test, but it does put it into perspective a bit."

Project Chanology is under the mistaken impression that they are the first Hacker group to attack the Scientology web site...they arn't. There are 3 others who have "declared war" on scientology that I can find. Note that none of these are on this page, because it really isn't notable for this page. Now if there is a wikipedia page for Anon (I havn't checked) then this would definatly belong there because it is a significant event for Anon, but as for Scientology...Lets be honast, how many groups are pissed off as scientology. Anon is just another one of thousands. Coffeepusher (talk) 18:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked, and low and behold there is a wikipedia article for Project Chanology. it even links to the page "scientology and the Internet".Coffeepusher (talk) 18:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just had my edit with an NBC source reverted as an "anonymous" advertisement lol. This is a major ongoing event, it has been covered by every major media outlet. I can't access any scientologist websites at the moment, much less the main page. They are all taken down. This definitely deserves mention in the article, anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't understand how wikipedia works. If its major enough for Wired, NBC, Skynews, AOL, and Fox and directly effects the subject of the article on a widespread level, it definitely deserves mention in the article. Learn to Wikipedia. Learn to reason objectively. --Pyrogenix (talk) 18:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, try http://www.scientology.org/index.html - works just fine for me. Gotta run, I've got lolicon to post. (Not) --JustaHulk (talk) 19:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It, along with most Scientology sites, are currently down and the mainstream media coverage is extensive. --172.202.230.119 (talk) 03:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The status of the Scientology site due to personal observations is inadmisable to Wikipedia, and really depend on when you try and access it (the attacks last on average of 30 min. then Quit), so I think that up to the min. coverage on the status of the scientology page is useless for the talk page.Coffeepusher (talk) 18:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ps. That wasn't a WP:BITE at you hulk, I just didn't want this to snowball into...well what it was bound to become.Coffeepusher (talk) 18:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whom ever wrote this article must have been a scientologist. The reason they don't like psychiatry is because if a member was ever to be evaluated they will be diagnosed clinical nut jobs. This is putting it nicely. Scientology promotes itself not philosophy, religion or anything about spirituality. This is a commercial enterprise. Some people give it an example of the Amway of religions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.4.186 (talk) 06:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a platform for cult propaganda. Jayz0r (talk) 14:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then why is this article locked and filled with nothing but pro-Scientology cult propaganda?

It states their beliefs, nothing more. Jayz0r (talk) 21:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe their beliefs ARE cult propaganda, in which case there is nothing wrong with the article (or everything wrong with it.) Fultron89 (talk) 03:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Five pillars is a useful article to read. AndroidCat (talk) 21:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page is currently locked, but the case referenced at the bottom should be properly cited under either Blue Book or ALWD standards. In detail, under the "Scientific criticism of Scientology beliefs" section, the correct citation should read similar to this:

U.S. v. Hubbard Electrometer, 333 F.Supp. 357, 365 (D.C.D.C. 1971).

I have taken liberties with the abbreviation of the title for the sake of clarity. If unlocked, please drop me a line and I will update.

As to the text, it should properly omit the "(333 F. Supp. 357) section, which will be in the footnote. I would also add another quote from the case which further supports the section: "The E-meter is essentially a simple galvanometer using two tin cans as electrodes. It is crude, battery-powered, and designed to measure electrical skin resistance. It is completely harmless and ineffective in itself." Id. at 359.

Gorjus (talk) 23:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh... someone please remove the ballsack pic... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.180.91.136 (talk) 22:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't figure out where it was loading from. It's not in the article itself, so someone must have put it in one of the templates the article uses. I'm still trying to track down where. --GoodDamon 22:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry... I know it's vandalism and all... but I lol'd.76.116.26.154 (talk) 22:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It kinda fits--217.113.225.116 (talk) 23:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I LOL'D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.67.31.74 (talk) 23:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, after looking around it looks like a ton of other pages got the same or similar vandalism, so it was definitely a non-targeted attack against a widely-used template somewhere. Still haven't found where. --GoodDamon 23:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I loled. Anon rule.

User:Hierophantasmagoria has been seeking to add a section on a reported DoS attack on the official Scientology website [4]. Unfortunately we can't use that material - it's not reliably sourced and it puts undue weight on a fairly trivial incident in Scientology's history. On the reliable sourcing point, the three sources offered are:

1. a self-published source in the form of a "press release" issued by an entity calling itself "anonymous" and distributed through a publish-your-own-press-release service; this is completely unusable as a source (see WP:V#Self-published sources (online and paper)).
2. a Wikinews story - WP:V#Self-published sources (online and paper) prohibits the use of open wikis, including Wikinews, as sources.
3. a YouTube link to an unauthorised copy of a Fox News broadcast; apart from YouTube being a largely unreliable source, the link is a copyright violation and under our copyright policy we can't link to it, as it presents potential liability issues for the Wikimedia Foundation.

As for undue weight, ask yourself - how significant is it that a bunch of hackers has launched a rather ineffective DoS attack on the Scientology website? It's simply not encyclopedic information and we're not in the business of promoting the self-publicity of wannabe L33T H4CK3RZ. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Recentism and WP:NOT#INFO - Wikipedia isn't a news service! -- ChrisO (talk) 18:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

its not a DDoS attack from a load of hackers, its a DDoS attack from a load of internet users who want to take down their sites and send a message to the scientoogy ppl —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.111.172 (talk) 02:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it isn't notable. They engaged in the equivilant of internet graffiti which disrupted buisness for scientology...for less than a day. posting ballsacks and gay porn is hardly an effective way to bring a religion down, and the only message it shows them is that Anon has a collection of gay porn to share. it didn't even blip into their profits. The only message it sent to scientology is "youve been pwned!!"...and then the site came back on line and buisness as usuall...Coffeepusher (talk) 19:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noticeable? THEY HAVE REMOVED THE SCIENTOLOGY WEBSITE ALONG WITH NEAR ALL OTHER RELATED WEBPAGES FOR +5 DAYS. It has also gained news coverage from KNBC http://video.knbc.com/player/?id=209215

It is noticable.70.70.219.192talk

The word was notable, not Noticeable...I can see how someone can get them intermingled. Right now it is a current event, hence the media coverage...but even that is sparce when it comes to actuall news agencies. a google news search failed to produce any nation wide "paper" papers...The New york times, Washington post, associated press, La times, USA today (gag! I hate that rag) etc. all failed to pick this one up it seems. now this isn't nesisarily a reliable test, but it does put it into perspective a bit.Coffeepusher (talk) 06:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a page for Project Chanology. personaly I believe that this information belongs there.Coffeepusher (talk) 18:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

.[[User:|User:]] ([[User talk:|talk]]) 01:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

++: IMHO, ter K 06:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsilb (talk • contribs)

I'd just like to clarify. When I performed the revert a few minutes ago I intended to restore the whole page (reverting blanking of page). Apparently another reversion was done in the interim and my edit went over that. So whatever the dispute is about the see also section, external links etc is, I'm not part of that. Perhaps those who have concerns about that section may post their concerns here. JamesStewart7 (talk) 07:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this had been covered ad infinitum earlier, but oh well... Prior to writing Dianetics and other Scientology texts, Hubbard was primarily known as a writer of fantasy, horror, and science-fiction (collectively known as speculative fiction these days). JustaHulk states in his edit to the intro: "that whole bit sounds forced and is unnecessary, usually "sci-fi" is added for POV purposes. "Author" is fine and leaner reads better." Now personally, I think removing it is pushing a POV that the information isn't notable or pertinent, and that including it is somehow an attack on Hubbard. I think a simple definition of what kind of author he was ("speculative fiction" is just two words) is neither "forced" nor POV-pushing. There's no shame in writing speculative fiction, and hiding what he wrote -- especially when it's already widely known -- seems both POV-pushing and obfuscatory. Furthermore, "speculative fiction" encompasses a lot more than "sci-fi," and more accurately reflects what he wrote. So... Should we describe -- again, in nonjudgmental terms -- what kind of author Hubbard was in the intro, folks? --GoodDamon 16:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hubbard also wrote a lot of western, detective, adventure, etc, for the Pulp magazine market and pulp writer seemed to be the most accurate description. Something has to be there or endless passers-by will insert something. AndroidCat (talk) 17:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And it will usually be "science fiction," which is just too imprecise. I would go with "speculative fiction" because it covers the largest amount of his body of work, but if someone comes up with something better, I'm game. --GoodDamon 17:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe combine the two above, with something like "Hubbard wrote extensively for the pulp magazine market, most notably in the speculative fiction area?" John Carter (talk) 17:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it's too long, it'll encourage "one more thing..." edits. AndroidCat (talk) 17:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We already get too many of those. "Speculative fiction" is broad enough, well-documented, and thankfully just two words. I think it should go back in. All in favor? --GoodDamon 17:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No objections here. John Carter (talk) 17:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I'm putting it back then. --GoodDamon 17:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(left) I can go with whatever the consensus is. Obviously, sci-fi is almost always added as a POV-push. Hubbard was always an author. By the time he formed Scn, he was not a fiction author at all but had been running Dianetics for a few years. So, by rights, Scn was not started by a fiction author because that is not what he was or had been for some time when he started it. I had removed the "author" bit entirely a while back and it stood until another red account inserted sci-fi and GoodDamon well-meaningly tried to make something better of that. Sorry, but one thing I've learned here is that you do not always have to try to improve a questionable bit; sometimes the best thing to do is remove it. If we must pigeon-hole Hubbard right off the bat in the article then I prefer "pulp-fiction" writer as it is more accessible than "speculative fiction" and I do not like the frequent tendency here in Wikipedia to use less accessible, if perhaps incrementally more precise, terminology in lead paragraphs. --JustaHulk (talk) 18:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All understandable concerns, but I think you're fighting a hurricane here. He's noted overwhelmingly in the press as a science fiction author prior to Scientology, so every drive-by editor in the world's going to insert that bit. Preemptively having something more accurate there already is the best solution I can think of. --GoodDamon 04:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also will go with the consensus. Just to put in a tidbit of information, in the interview with the BBC that L.R.H. did in the 60's (I believe the time frame is right) when asked about his fortune he stated "I was a highly successful science Fiction writer prior to Dianetics" so if the consensus leans toward Science fiction, it is probably appropriate considering it was his own identification. Coffeepusher (talk) 06:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Speculative fiction" is not a term Hubbard would have recognized. "Science Ficton," "Science Fiction and Fantasy" or "Pulp Science Fiction" are correct in this case. "Pulp Fiction" focuses on the publishing venue rather than the story genre, so it's true, but less specific. Everything I've read leads me to believe that by reputation and Hubbard's own characterization, "Science Fiction" is the best candidate here. Definitely not "Speculative fiction," though, which I think was introduced in the late 1960s as an attempt to cast SF as a more respectable literary genre (similar to the introduction of the term "graphic novel" as applied to what were universally known as "comic books." ) BTfromLA (talk) 16:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little perplexed by the first reference after the comment (next to last paragraph in the section): "While a number of governments now view the Church as a religious organization entitled to protections and tax relief, others view it as a pseudoreligion or a cult.[152][153]". The first reference is to the following article: http://www.humanrights-germany.org/issues/eng/relapa96/bonafide.htm - My concern is that the article referenced is published by the Church of Scientology and seems to overstate their success in obtaining legal status. If you look at the Wiki article on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_as_a_state-recognized_religion the story definitely isn't as cut and dry as indicated in the reference. Not sure what to recommend here, just didn't think the reference was reliable or neutral... IrishTraveller (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not. I'm not sure how it got there, but it ought to be removed or replaced. --GoodDamon 23:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence referenced gives two contrasting viewpoints. The first reference is to Church of Scientology webpages supporting the first viewpoint, the second reference is to a webpage supporting the view that Scientology as a set of beliefs is a religion and is not relevant. So yes, there is a problem here, NPOV requires that both viewpoints be sourced or neither. I vote for neither, since the viewpoints are wide reaching and covered in more detail with references elsewhere.

I would also like to express concern that in the following paragraph Steven Kent is referenced to two articles, one a critical response to an article of his and the other criticising him personally. This is mischievous, not NPOV, and I will replace them with a link to his Wikipedia page unless objections are made. --Hartley Patterson (talk) 15:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted last edit by Attica42 (talk · contribs), per the last edit summary comment by John Carter (talk · contribs). I agree that "Sect" could deserve mention in the WP:LEAD, but this should be discussed on the talk page. Per WP:LEAD, the intro should be an adequate summary of the article. Cirt (talk) 02:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The addition of "Controversial" by Attica42 (talk · contribs) seems fine for now, pending discussion. Cirt (talk) 03:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I would question the inclusion of the word at all. As per the lead of the sect article, a sect is a group which has broken off from another, often larger, group. I am aware of no such larger group scientology is a separated faction of, and thus do not think that it necessarily qualifies as a sect, as per the current definition we have of that term. If the editor seeking to add that word is aware of another sense in which it is used, we would need to indicate what meaning is being used. John Carter (talk) 14:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sect or secte as used in French and German(?) means "cult". That is why you might see someone want to enter it; many of our critics and semi-critics here are European. It has no relevance to the body of the article but may properly show up in discussion of treatment of the Church in various European countries. Again, a distinction should be made always between "Scientology" as a belief system and the Church - most countries that object to the Church do not have any problem with the belief system (how could they?) --JustaHulk (talk) 14:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My impression is that UK journalists sometimes use 'sect' as a euphemism for 'cult' with regard to Scientology, believing that readers will know what they mean. It may well be that this will cause 'sect' to aquire the 'cult' meaning permanently. The Dictionary definition doesn't help us here, the language is changing. Given the ambiguity, avoid the word I think. --Hartley Patterson (talk) 15:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is over 100K. Since the "Controversy and criticism" section has a "main" article, it seems appropriate to simply move its subsections to that page.--Blinadrange (talk) 15:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC) That was about 30K worth of material moved to the subordinate "main" page. The article is still somewhat large at 73K, but it's a start.--Blinadrange (talk) 16:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is tempting to move more of the beliefs and practices to their "main" sub-page. Well...I hope somebody will add a reaction to this idea. Also, I think that the lead should not need references: it should summarize the rest of the article. I moved the 16 refs in the lead into the main body of the text. What else should we do to get this to GA?--Blinadrange (talk) 16:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're definitely on the right track. I just reviewed your edits, and they've made the page much cleaner and easier to read. I think the next step should be some citation cleanup. Right now, the citations aren't all formatted the same way. I propose that each citation be reworked to fit the {{cite web/newspaper/whatever}} template formats, so that for each citation we can see clearly:

1. Where it originated (online, a magazine, a TV show, etc.)
2. Who produced it
3. Online versions (if any)

I'll see if I can find what I'd call a "model citation," and then we can start formatting the rest the same way. --GoodDamon 17:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And come to think of it, this would be a good project for the entire Wikiproject... --GoodDamon 17:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I removed a bit as I noticed that someone had inserted the obscure (to Scientologists - and everyone else) "Zone Plan" under the training section, no doubt confusing the Zones with the Academy Levels. --JustaHulk (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might not be a bad idea to request peer review from outsiders for the purpose of determining what is clear to those who don't know the subject and what needs clarifying. Also, the standard citation format would definitely be a good idea. But outsider peer review would definitely help. John Carter (talk) 18:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, scientology is famous for its controversy, not its beliefs and practices or anything else. Therefore, removing criticism from the main article is wrong. Lantios (talk) 03:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One could argue that Scientology beliefs and practices themselves are more controversial than criticism of Scientology. So why present it in the opposite way, with all criticism confined to the controversy section? Jwray (talk) 09:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there no mention of the war between the Internet and Scientology? It seems a pretty interesting topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.79.26.253 (talk) 10:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That and several reliable media sources have mentioned it:

NBC11

KNBC

SKY News (I know it's a youtube link, I can't find the actual SKY News page)

Other news outlets such as National Post and CNet also carry articles regarding whats happening.Bmorc (talk) 21:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me see if I can explain it... This is the sort of thing that does merit a mention on news sites such as those, as well as the WikiNews website. But this is the encyclopedic article about Scientology, and as long as the "Anonymous" attack on the Scientology website doesn't result in some kind of notable change to Scientology itself, putting the attack in the article makes no sense. It would make much more sense to reference this attack in Scientology and the Internet, which documents the specific relationship between the CoS and various other groups on the Internet. --GoodDamon 21:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous AKA Legion declared war on CoS. IMO this can be argued as the first official, public, large-scale war to be declared on the Internet; possibly the first of many. They just don't seem like they're going to give up. I say this issue should be revisited in a month or so with a more up-to-date status.Slackmaster K 06:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Slackmaster what you mean by "official"? Do you think "Anonymous" is official? LOLs --Critical Commentary (talk) 11:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now you've said it, it sounds perfectly logical. Thanks for the explanationBmorc (talk) 22:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's an article on this if you are interested; Project Chanology.--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 23:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the "Anon" video and noticed they used the biblical phrase "We are Legion," so I mentioned it in the My name is Legion article. Maybe some of these editors might want to check it out and beef up that reference. Here are some more references: [5] [6] [7]--Shakeyhandzzz (talk) 05:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and I am confused by what you mean "large-scale". in analising the attacks it was reported that when looking at the scale of the attacks "Arbor Networks has recorded data on attacks to other sites in the last year which were 200 times this amount", and called this a "garden variaty attack" of which the church of scientology itself has had over 200 in the last year. The only thing that is different is the propaganda that is beeing disiminated upon youtube, but the attacks themselves are buisness as usual as far as the interet is conserned.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For further discussion, see ongoing AfD, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Project Chanology. This is NOT a solicitation of any kind, just that this discussion of whether or not to have an AfD is pointless, when there is one ongoing. Cirt (talk) 06:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The line "Journalists, courts and the governing bodies of several countries have stated that the Church of Scientology is a cult and an unscrupulous commercial enterprise that harasses its critics and abuses the trust of its members" is biased, since it implies that this view is eliteist or not shared by "the common man". It should be modified to read something like "One common view, held by both people and governments (references), holds that ... ". Court views should be stated next. Journalists aren't important enough to include - it makes it sound like this is a weird view only they have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.84.189 (talk) 15:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The common man isn't as easy to find citable references for. Such a criticism of Scientology without a solid reference would be fought tooth and nail by Wikipedia scientologists. Foobaz·o< 16:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the "common man" generally isn't familiar with the accusations against the church, so that change wouldn't even be accurate. --GoodDamon 16:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few days ago, Blinadrange (now banned), trimmed a large amount of material off of the article without prior discussion, mainly from the Controversies section, to be moved to various main articles. I believe that some of these moves were reverted at the destination, and therefore completely lost in transit. As well, by moving controversy out to other articles, and not moving other sections such as Beliefs, Practices, Organizations to their respective main articles, I feel that this seriously unbalances the article. AndroidCat (talk) 17:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you propose as a solution? We could restore the missing content, or finish what Blinadrange started (only balancing it by doing the same with other non-controversy content). Heck, we could revert the page to what it was just before s/he started. --GoodDamon 17:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, here are the differences between the current revision (187949133) and the revision just before Blinadrange started editing (186539726). --GoodDamon 17:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think, for now, the controversy content (Auditing confidentiality onwards) needs to be put back and reviewed to see what was moved, what was lost, and what can be moved/trimmed as part of a general balanced trim of the article. AndroidCat (talk) 17:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC) Done. AndroidCat (talk) 18:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In reviewing Blinadrange's edits, I'm not at all sure why that user was banned... All the edits appear to be in good faith, and the only problem with them I spotted was the POV issue you mentioned, which could easily have been balanced by doing the same kinds of cleanup in other areas of the article. I went through that user's other edits at different pages, and couldn't find any examples of wrongdoing. It looks like banning the user might have been a mistake, and this page was caught in the middle. --GoodDamon 18:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. I didn't think a user would collect an indefinite ban just for drastically bold but otherwise solid edits. Certainly Blinadrange knew his/her way around Wiki, especially the Scientology articles. A return of a previously banned user? AndroidCat (talk) 18:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just queried the blocking admin, here. --JustaHulk (talk) 18:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See my talk page for the reply. --JustaHulk (talk) 18:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jwray in revision of 22:20, 28 January 2008 added "and a business" to the first sentence. Could that be removed? I feel it is POV and a bit redundant. Any organization could be "accused" of being a business if they have income and expenses. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 09:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's probably appropriate, as the church contains several for-profit corporate entities, something that can't be said of just "any organization." So saying that it is, among other things, a business is not a matter of subjective opinion. It's a statement of objective fact. And I don't see it as any more redundant in the article than saying it's a "body of beliefs and practices" and then going into those beliefs and practices in more detail. --GoodDamon 17:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree, while the church of Scientology is a religion, Scientology is an umbrella under which publishing companies and other buisnesses are directed. So I think it really is just an accurate statement. Coffeepusher (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Scientology" is a belief system, the Church of Scientology a non-profit organization - or a network of non-profit organizations. That "Scientology is ... a business initially created by American speculative fiction author L. Ron Hubbard." is factually wrong and disgusting POV pushing. That there are publishing houses publishing Scientology literature (since the 1970s!) does not change that. Those have not been created by Hubbard and had not been created as a business either. Shutterbug (talk) 21:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shutterbug, it's not POV pushing. There are for-profit components of the church. This article is an overview of Scientology as an umbrella term, and contains information on organizations as well as the belief system you describe. Calling those organizations that are a business a business isn't POV pushing at all. It's a neutral statement of fact. The article Scientology beliefs and practices is devoted wholly to those beliefs and practices, but this article is the main overview of Scientology the beliefs, Scientology the church, and yes, Scientology the business. If there were no entities incorporated for profit, then "business" wouldn't factually apply, but there are, so it does. And seriously, it's not a big POV push to make statements of fact. --GoodDamon 21:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Scientology" as a single term cannot be used for a network of very diverse organizations. If you are convinced about the business allegation being a fact I am sure you have a reference. So what are the for-profit components of Scientology created by Hubbard? Shutterbug (talk) 22:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about Author Services Inc. or the Fort Harrison Hotel? There is a large list of scientology organizations, both for- and non-profit, at Category:Scientology organizations. Foobaz·o< 22:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bridge Publications is a non-profit per the Guidestar.Org site. More digging around would probably show your cited organizations are non-profits or trusts. Can you identify who exactly is receiving profits from Scientology umbrella organizations? Can you show that somebody privately owns Scientology? If the answer is no, then "a business" is mis-leading. Rather then saying it POV pushing I would say it is a matter of semantics. But then matters of semantics are often monitored by POV. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 23:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but Bridge Publications isn't Author Services Inc., which is incorporated as a for-profit. --GoodDamon 16:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that is a trust and as I understand they only deal with non-Scientology works. Besides, it is misleading to lump all the Scientology organizations together and claim there is some businesses among them. Does it mention in the description of Wikipedians that it is composed of straights and gays? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I follow your analogy. In any event, the problem with working this stuff out is that there are so many sub-groups and business names owned under the Church of Scientology umbrella, which makes it hard to determine what is and is not part of Scientology. For instance, ASI publishes Hubbard's fiction works under the Galaxy Press imprint -- for profit -- which certainly makes it a business. But it is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Church of Spiritual Technology, making it part of a church. It's an unusual arrangement that I can't think of another example of outside of Scientology. --GoodDamon 19:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my analogy, I suppose I should of said "men and gays" as a business is an organization. The point being if you said this to someone who was homophobic they would be incline to think all Wikipedians were gay. (More comments below.) Richard-of-Earth (talk) 23:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned in the article, Scientology has officially been declared a business organization in Germany. --Einmaliger (talk) 09:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK folks, it's obvious there are some heated feelings about this, so let's all calm down and take care of it in as neutral a way as possible. I think first off, we should take a look through the various Scientology groups and figure out which ones are for profit and which ones are not. From that point, we can figure out if the business aspects of Scientology ought to be incorporated -- in a non-judgmental, neutral manner -- into the intro. I don't think restoring the text Shutterbug removed is the answer there, not because of any POV issues, but because the sentence was rather clumsy as it was. And if the for-profit Scientology organizations are too insignificant to partially classify Scientology as a business, then no harm done and we'll all have learned more about Scientology organizations. --GoodDamon 17:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if some are for profit, but are trusts or wholly owned by non-profits, then no one individual is receiving the profit. "For profit" is a tax category, it doesn't encompass the spirit of the thing. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one individual has to receive profits for an organization to be a for-profit. And for-profits are businesses. --GoodDamon 19:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The term for profit is meant to be lucrative for the owner. No one gets a profits from Scientology organizations they do get a salary but that is not considered coporate profit. Yes, someone has to recieve a profit to be considered "for profit".Bravehartbear (talk) 19:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For Profit (of a business or institution) initiated or operated for the purpose of making a profit. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/for%20profit

My point was that "someone" doesn't have to be a human person. Profits can be dealt with in any number of ways. The fact is, some arms of the church, such as ASI, are incorporated as for-profits. Please bear in mind I don't say this as a judgment call. I make no claims that there is any problem with there being components of Scientology geared towards business. But to just flat-out deny that organizations incorporated as for-profits are indeed for-profits is just silly. --GoodDamon 20:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are many organizations that use Scientology technology like dental offices, ect. But these are not the Church of Scientology. We need to diferentitiate these organisations from the church and the beliefs. Mixing all these is simply confusing and will provide false information. For example Author Services sells fiction books so it is a non religious organization, if it own by the church it doesn't matter. The Christian church also has many corporate investments in many for profit organizations. That doesn't mean that the Christian church is for profit. Bravehartbear (talk) 20:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between a normal for-profit business and the Church of Scientology is, the church goes to great lengths to hide its for-profit ventures, to keep its status as a religion with the government. Scientology courses are famously expensive. That money doesn't go to shareholders or an owner, it just gets redistributed higher up the hierarchy, like in a pyramid scheme. For example, field staff members get 10% commissions on all courses they sell. That sounds more like business than a religion to me. Foobaz·o< 22:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's what I call confusing the issue... Let me cover a few things here:

• Dental offices aren't generally owned by the church to which the dentist belongs. Bringing them up is a red herring, because we're talking about subordinate organizations that are owned by the parent church.
• The fact that ASI sells fiction books is a moot point. It's a business that is owned by the parent church.
• Assuming you meant the Catholic church, I don't know of any subsidiary organizations inside it that are separately incorporated as for-profit businesses. You're confusing investments with ownership. I personally have a small investment in a software company, but that doesn't make it a wholly owned subsidiary of GoodDamon Inc. Of course, if you find a similar instance of the Catholic church owning a for-profit subsidiary, then I will happily hop over to the talk page for that article and point it out.

I want to stress something; I don't think that the church being partly a business is anything negative, and describing it as such is not an attack on it. I'm a little confused about why this is even an issue. This isn't a scandal, and it isn't a controversy. It's tax paperwork and filing statements with the federal government. --GoodDamon 22:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: This was in response to Bravehartbear, not Foobaz. :) --GoodDamon 22:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the Tax attorney when you need him? Bravehartbear (talk) 23:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose this is a charged issue. When GoodDamon said to calm down I thought "we're just talking here". I suppose the reason it is objectionable is when you say it's a business you’re saying it’s about the money. I know from personal experience that when the international and local staff hear the Church's income went up, it gets applause, but when you tell of someone getting helped, it gets a standing ovation, kudos to COB (David Miscavage) for running the Church the way it's suppose to be and three cheers to Ron for making it all possible. So, when we see someone shy away from us because they're afraid we're after their money, it's builds up emotional charge. The fact I'm still talking about this after the change has been removed shows I got emotional charge about it. I tell you it is not about the money, money is a means to an end, people matter to the Church, the staff and anyone dedicated to the movement. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 23:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mind, but I'm going to insert my responses between your points. It's just plain easier... Anyway, all of that sounds good, but it can't go into the article, because it's original research -- that is, none of what you described is information cited in a reputable source, and it all comes from your personal experience. This being the intarwebs, I could easily just spout off about anything at all, whether true or not, and claim it's from personal experience. If I make an original claim that at Scientology orgs everyone gets a pet monkey, it has just as much validity as your claims -- none at all, without reputable sources to back it up. --GoodDamon 00:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GoodDamon, Thank you for your response, it was informative. I didn't intend any of that paragraph as content for the article or even an argument for the matter at hand. I just wanted to make clear my POV to bring about a little more understanding and to give me an opportunity to vent. I hope you'll all forgive my passion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard-of-Earth (talk • contribs) 07:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I challenged you to show who's making the money and some of you say it isn't important in defining a business. Fine. A business is an organization, saying he established organizations and businesses is redundant. It says later in the article it is viewed as a business. It needn't be in there in the beginning. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 23:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A business is an organization, but not all organizations are businesses in the legal sense. Parts of the church of Scientology are. I don't understand why that shouldn't be in the introduction somewhere, since the article is an overview of multiple aspects of Scientology. --GoodDamon 00:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard from earth, you better get a stronger neck and stop being so sensitive if you are going to be here. GoodDamon, most churches also run businesses like daycares, schools and hospitals and as long the money goes to the church these are not for profit. To include this in the intro is just inrevelant and POV pushing because you are really implying that the church is for profit. The End. Any more arguments should be solved in arbitration. Bravehartbear (talk) 03:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's absolutely true, and beside the point. Yes, churches run a lot of individual non-profit businesses. One of my local hospitals is one, actually. The operative words here, again, are "for profit." There are incorporated for-profit businesses wholly owned by the church of Scientology or one of its subsidiaries, which as far as I know is a unique arrangement. I'm not familiar with any other large-scale religious organization structured that way. That's notable, and not POV pushing. Now, I'm happy to take this to arbitration if you really feel it should be there, but I'm sad that you regard this as controversial at all, because I just don't think it is. --GoodDamon 05:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deciding what is and is not unusual in Church corporate structure is done by experts in that field. Do you have a citation stating that this structure is unusual? It is not enough that you think it is unusual or some government expresses some politically motivated opinion. Well I thought I'd look. I Googled "Church Corporate Structure" and the first thing that came up was a Foursquare Church page that mentions an on-line store selling books, cloths and accessories, clearly for profit. They also run camps (no doubt for some profit). They even have a central office and district offices. This smacks of a hierarchical organization. The Wikipedia page for the Foursquare Church mentions a previous president who lost $2 million in church funds. It looks to me like they could have a lot of profit hidden in all that structure. Looking further I remember that he Unification Church had a large and confusing cooperate structure. Here's an article about it. Google - catholic "for profit" - and you can find several for-profit Catholic schools. I don't think the Church of Scientology cooperate structure is unusual, I think your just not use to it. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 09:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"He also established Religious Technology Center which is headed by David Miscavige [1][2] to see to the orthodox application of Scientology technology even after he passed away. [3]"

Where is the evidence that Hubbard personaly established RTC. I know that LRH established the policies to establish RTC like everything else in Scientology but I don't know believe he personaly did it.Bravehartbear (talk) 12:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editors may be interested to know that this article was one of Wikipedia's most read articles in January, with over 1.32 million views in the course of the month - 410,000 of them in one three-day period. See http://stats.grok.se/en/200801/Scientology for details (with thanks to User:Henrik). -- ChrisO (talk) 23:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WOW! We'll have to send Anonymous a thank you card. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 09:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With this edit, Bravehartbear added this sentence to the introduction: "Although the Church of Scientology is the biggest of these networks, organizations such as Narconon, Criminon and Applied Scholastics promote other aspects of Scientology." This is a strange sentence, since those are all subsidiary organizations owned by the Church of Scientology. Thoughts? --GoodDamon 05:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but that is not correct. The church doesn't own ABLE, all Scientology organizations are in fact individual corporations that license the right to use the trade marks of Scientology from RTC. This was done to protect Scientology from any external attack. If you sue the COS of New York that will not affect any other organizations. ABLE is inded at the same level as the Church of Scientology and does not take orders from the Church of Scientology. If you wanna learn about the Scientology organizational structure look here: http://stop-wise.biz/Command_Channels_of_Scientology.html Bravehartbear (talk) 13:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology certainly seems to think that it controls those organizations. http://stop-wise.biz/WISE_IntScnNews.html As well, under the IRS closing agreement they are all grouped as Scientology-related entities. The license payments are as high as 10% of the organization's gross income (before costs, salaries, etc), with additional transfers on filed Form 990s. In practice, the isolation of Scientology corporations hasn't stood up well in court. (Lawrence Wollersheim and Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto, for example.) AndroidCat (talk) 16:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I notice the intro is attempting to regrow itself into the whole article again. I have a problem with refs for what the organizations say about themselves being used as RS refs for what the organizations actually are. And the ad-cruft essays buried in the refs don't help. AndroidCat (talk) 06:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a few problems with the intro. This sentence "The U.S. State Department has commented in its annual International Religious Freedom Reports on countries that discriminate against Scientologists and their religious freedom" I have no idea why it's in the intro. I also have a problem with this sentence "Although they do receive much support from Scientologists and from churches of Scientology, they are secular programs and are not part of the church, per se". The articles are linked and it seems a bit weasily.Ticklemygrits (talk) 15:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged several subsections of this article with {{Primary sources}}. Multiple sections of this article fail the very letter of the primary sources tag - specifically, these subsections cite no other sources other than the Church of Scientology website and affiliated self-referential publications. Per the text in the primary sources tag:

This article or section needs sources or references that appear in reliable, third-party publications. Primary sources and sources affiliated with the subject of this article generally are not sufficient for a Wikipedia article. Please include more appropriate citations from reliable sources, or discuss the issue on the talk page.

Please find some secondary sources, and try to phase out this over-dependence on the Church of Scientology websites and affiliated publications for this article - we do not want the Wikipedia article on "Scientology" to be mainly a duplicate of the Church of Scientology websites, in many sections. Cirt (talk) 12:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note

Please note, I have only tagged those subsections where all of the sources cited in those subsections are to Church of Scientology websites and affiliated publications, primary sources and self-referential sources - i.e. sections which contain zero citations to secondary sources not affiliated with the Church of Scientology. Cirt (talk) 12:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cirt, what you ask is easier said than done. The third party sources that have studied the Scientology beliefs and practices are almost non-exitence. If you want to talk about the U.S. Contitution and you cite the contitution it self what better source can you have. If you talk about a book and cite the book it self what better source can you have. Bravehartbear (talk) 13:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it would be incredibly POV to think that it is appropriate to build entire subsections of an article only using a primary self-referential source. Yes, in an article about the United States Constitution you could cite the primary source document. But you could never get away with creating an entire article, or even whole subsections of an article - only citing the Constitution. Cirt (talk) 13:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the article United States Constitution is a Featured Article on Wikipedia. In that article, yes, the primary source document is cited, once. All other cites are to secondary sources that satisfy WP:RS/WP:V. Cirt (talk) 13:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point but Third party citation are only required for "direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged." This is not the case here. No one is challenging these concepts. Anyone can read these from the scientology books. The websites are only used for ease of use. But I can quote directly from the books if it makes you happy. But if you can find any realiable third party source go for it. Good luck finding them. Bravehartbear (talk) 14:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We should not rely solely on these primary, self-referential sources, for reasons I already stated above. If we do, those sections of the article read like pure advertising, and are unencyclopedic. Cirt (talk) 14:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Unless we want to make the entire article about criticism of Scientology it is entirely appropriate that sections of the article be based on primary materials. So if we actually want to write about what Scientology teaches and what Scientologists believe then we will need to use a lot of primary material. To do otherwise is a disservice to the reader and to the project. --JustaHulk (talk) 14:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Unless we want to make the entire article read like blatant advertising for Scientology it is entirely appropriate to severely limit the use of primary source self-referential links to Scientology websites and Scientology affiliated organizations and sources. To do otherwise is a disservice to the reader and to NPOV. With an overdependence on such primary source, self-referential sources there would be no point to this article and the entire page could just be a soft-redirect to www.scientology.org - because that is what the article would be like with so many links to those websites. Cirt (talk) 14:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Use of primary, self-published, sources is entirely appropriate in an article to discuss what the subject of the article says about itself, what it believes, or what it teaches. This is by no means a violation of NPOV and could even be considered the embodiment of NPOV. This looks like an attempt to gut the article of anything not critical of Scientology. --JustaHulk (talk) 14:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps as a supplement to secondary sources, yes. But not to their exclusion. Here we have whole entire subsections crafted out of over reliance on primary, self-referential sources. Cirt (talk) 14:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm beginning to think we should revert to an earlier consensus version of the article, perhaps from early January. Right now, I see a lot of things in the article everyone is going to disagree with. For instance, the intro contains nine primary-source references before getting to the first reliable source. That is unacceptable. The grammar has gotten clumsier, and it just doesn't inspire confidence right now. Instead of trying to fix a broken article, can we all agree on an earlier revision and work from that? And can whoever added the primary-source references please promise not to do that again? ;) --GoodDamon 18:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now the first eleven references are to primary-source material. --GoodDamon 01:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cirt I apologise. You are right is just that the third party sources are just not there. This is a new subject and the studies have not been done. This is why there is a controversy. This place has been a battle field of self published sources. Almost everything here is self published. This place used to be a mirrow image of xenu.net and it was hard to change that. But you will find that the third party sources contradit each other, so it is imposible to make conclusions. The reader will have to come up with his own conclusion. We really don't have conclusions here, just facts, allegations and opinions. And we try to balance things up. But I agree with you, but that would cut these pages into a few paragraphs. And I think that would be fine. But the editors here will really be against that. Thank you for trying to bring some sanity here. Bravehartbear (talk) 15:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found a source that appears to be very NPOV, and comes from an established religious studies Proffessor. I used it for the 8 million membership number, and I am shure we can work alot more information into the article...but I just don't have time today. here is the link Frank K. Flinn Adjunct Professor of Religious Studies at Washington University interviewCoffeepusher (talk) 19:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ticklemygrits. I would like to ask why you reverted my edit instead of addressing my concern. You removed text, but did not remove a long list of references that were there to support that text. As a result, the list of citations moved up and attached to the previous sentence. I would appreciate greater care and discretion in the future, as it is not the responsibility of other editors to clean up after you. Thanks, Silly rabbit (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted because the lead is supposed to describe Scientology. atm it seems to be he said she said rubbish. All the lead should do is describe the religion and its founding. Whether or not the US state department is in disagreEment with germany or Belgium is completely irrelevent. It should be a description of the organisation and nothing more.Ticklemygrits (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)edit[reply]

Yes, but you left a bunch of spurious crap in when you removed the sentence. Please be more careful in the future. Silly rabbit (talk) 22:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If by "crap" you mean the refs, I left them there so that you could argue the merits of my revert. I would love you to describe Scientology in a better manner, but in the existing Lead it was complete rubbish.Ticklemygrits (talk) 23:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed I mean the long list of references that no longer had anything to do with the text after you deleted the sentence that they were attached to. Please revisit the first sentence of this section with that in mind. Remember that you reverted my edit, with the summary that I should take it to the talk page. I offered an explanation, and you gave an irrelevant excuse for reverting. Silly rabbit (talk) 23:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're not explaining why they are in the lead. Why was it in the lead? I have no problem with properly sourced information in the rest of the article, but the lead should just describe Scientology. It shouldn't be used to address critics. I don't think anything the US thingmyjigger on religous freedom represents a worldwide view, nor do I think it's relevent to defining what scientology is. And I don't appreciate extranious references being inserted because I actually read them, and it's very taxing on my eyesTicklemygrits (talk) 00:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are we talking about the same thing here? I reverted you because the edit was sloppy, not because I thought something should or should not have been in the lead. In fact, if you had bothered to read my edit summary, I said please redo the last edit. Silly rabbit (talk) 00:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok tell me what is wrong with the revert. What is your problem with the lead as it standsTicklemygrits (talk) 00:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is your version of the final sentence of the lead:

Scientology officials argue that most negative press has been motivated by interest groups and that most of the controversy is past history. ^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]}

Please explain how the reference to the state department support the statement "Scientology officials argue that most negative press has been motivated by interest groups and that most of the controversy is past history." That was my problem with the lead: the references given had nothing to do with the statement made. If you were more careful you would have deleted these references as well. I reverted so that you could reasses the edit, as well as the other reference removed. But, rather than do the responsible thing and address my concern, you instead opted to engage in a tendentious argument here. Silly rabbit (talk) 00:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm engaging in tendentious arguements on the talk page? I didn't remove the sentence you're refering to, and you still haven't addressed my concerns as to what the US state department haws to do with the definition of Scientology. It shouldn't be in the lead. If you've got a problem with that, tell my why what the US state department thinks belongs in the lead.Ticklemygrits (talk) 01:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are engaging in tendentious arguments on the talk page. You created a version of the article (here is the diff) in which a statement was sourced as belonging to the state department. There was nothing in any of the state department sources to support this statement. Do you at least acknowledge that you left completely irrelevant references in the article? Do you have the faintest idea what any of this discussion is about? Are you deliberately being WP:DENSE? Silly rabbit (talk) 02:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ticklemygrits removed a sentence that he/she thought should not be there diff. However, User:Ticklemygrits forgot to delete the references to the state department which were attached to that statement. (Here is that diff again.) I reverted (diff), asking nicely and unambiguously:

please redo last edit, being more careful with references

Then User:Ticklemygrits immediately reverted, telling me to explain on the talk page, which I did. Then I corrected the problem caused by User:Ticklemygrits's edit, namely that he/she had placed bogus references on a statement in the text. Silly rabbit (talk) 02:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know I totally agree with Ticklemygrits in this statement:

I reverted because the lead is supposed to describe Scientology. atm it seems to be he said she said rubbish. All the lead should do is describe the religion and its founding. Whether or not the US state department is in disagreEment with germany or Belgium is completely irrelevent. It should be a description of the organisation and nothing more.

But the same criteria should be used for Scientology controversy paragraph in the lead and should be removed just like the State dep sentence. Same rules. This paragraph is higly bias and puts undue weight on the church because it is not balanced.Bravehartbear (talk) 05:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please give references http://www.bible.ca/scientology-is-a-religion-black.htm Bravehartbear (talk) 00:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you're talking to me Braveheart. He acknowleges that he he is follower of Scientology in one of his studies. As such he isn't a RS, and strangely enough I may well have been a student of his. Please look at his studies because I really can't be arsed right now. I will be looking late, so please don't add material unsupported by refs.Ticklemygrits (talk) 01:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well you have the burden of proof on this one, I will wait. Bravehartbear (talk) 04:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Things change, times change.

On Sunday, December 25, 1994, The Washington post publishes the article: In Scientology Fiction - The Church's War Against Its Critics and Truth. A favorite between Scientology critics.

Now the Washington post published: XENU-PHOBIA Weird Sure. A Cult, No. The same magazine now says that Scientology is not a cult.

The New Yorker now writes about Scientology Celebrity Center like it was a Gala Dinner. Château Scientology

This other journalist writes about the fun time she had in church of Scientology. An afternoon with the Scientologists

This other one writes about her experiences with auditing. | The Invasion Begins, Scientology's Plan To Conquer Cleveland

The reality is that the Scientology controversy is dying out. People are more concern with Will Smith being a Scientologist and Tom Cruise videos than anything else. No one considers Scientology a dangerous cult no more. They may find it weird but that's all. The court cases against Scientology in the U.S. have almost disappeared.

There is just a handful of desperate Scientology critics left that the worst thing they can do is to bog down the website and post stupid messages.

In writing this because the last paragraph in the lead is just bias. Is based in old obsolete information that is no longer current. Is simply an offensive insult with no real data. I want a vote to have that paragraph removed.

I vote YES Bravehartbear (talk) 14:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I vote NO as, checking the links, you've not disproved a single thing.

I vote that your links are broken—only the New Yorker one works for me. Foobaz·o< 16:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Foobaz (talk · contribs). These above presented links also do not present an appropriate worldview. Cirt (talk) 17:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I vote NO. Bravehartbear is proposing that Scientology is no longer controversial in part based on a newspaper article that begins "Scientology, the controversial religion..." Preposterous. --BTfromLA (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Please see WP:NOT#FORUM, as well as the related header at the top of this talk page. Cirt (talk) 17:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response

It is not misuse to discuss how RS treats the exact subject of this article and how that directly impacts the manner in which this project treats the exact subject of this article. BTW, here are the Washington Post links (from just Googling the titles) 1, 2. --JustaHulk (talk) 17:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the other two links; 3 4. --JustaHulk (talk) 17:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I vote NO. None of those links indicate any "dying out" of Scientology's controversies.

• First link: The opening sentence for Mark Oppenheimer's opinion piece begins with "Scientology, the controversial religion..."
• Second link: Do you really want to cite an investigative report that refers to Scientology as the religion that "incorporates aspects of Eastern philosophy, management theory, and science fiction"?
• Third link: Whoa, nelly... Did you read it? "It sounded like a pretty sweet deal. Who doesn’t like free things from an organization that’s well known for being controversial? We approached the ornate wooden doors and entered without knowing it would be another three hours until we would manage to escape." It goes downhill from there. The "fun" they had appears to be in making fun of Scientology. The tone is very mocking.
• Fourth link: Again, I have to wonder if you read it. After getting past the picture of the alien -- presumably a dig at Xenu -- I read through it and I have to wonder how you could possibly have gotten the idea that it regards Scientology as non-controversial. It discusses Scientology's opposition to psychiatry in some detail, and not in a flattering light.

If anything, the tone used to describe Scientology in the news since the Tom Cruise video is getting worse, not better. They all mention Xenu, they all describe its controversial nature, and I couldn't find any text indicating the court cases have "almost disappeared." I would be hesitant to include any of these links because they're all opinion pieces, and they're all largely mocking in tone. Even the first one, in which Mr. Oppenheimer says Scientology isn't a cult, goes into some detail about the perceived weirdness of it, and describes it as controversial. If we include them, the tone of this article will get more negative, not less, while we'll be using opinion pieces written by non-experts as reliable sources -- and I don't see any reason to do that. --GoodDamon 19:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. - This is a very good analysis by GoodDamon (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 19:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I vote NO. Cherry-picking a few articles out of a very large number[8] isn't significant. AndroidCat (talk) 05:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that the article does not say anything about the rumours of Scientology brainwashing its members. Is there any truth to that or is it just a conspiracy theory? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.45.183 (talk) 17:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It's very true, but Scientologists and non-Scientologists struggle over this article to determine what should and should not be permitted in it. For the most accurate information about Scientology, please see Xenu.net.--71.202.121.130 (talk) 21:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah right -- L-Ron wrote SCIENCE FICTION. Why not say so?--71.202.121.130 (talk) 21:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

20% of Hubbards work was Sci Fi the rest was westerns and regular action adventure. He even wrote a romance once. Also he did a few screnn plays like the original Treasure Island and Dive Bomber. Bravehartbear (talk) 22:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Hubbard wrote science fiction, fantasy, and the whole gamut of what we call speculative fiction now. Calling him a science fiction author, while technically accurate, hardly covers his pulp career. --GoodDamon 00:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick side note, just because I got confused in the discussion. He wrote the screenplay to The secret of Treasure Island which is based on a compleatly different book than Treasure Island.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[CNN: Scientology: A Way to Happiness?] Maybe we should talk about this in the page.Bravehartbear (talk) 23:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I missed it, the video doesn't mention any statistics on the number of people practicing both belief systems and how those numbers have changed. Are there any such statistics out there? It's not a bad idea to include them if they're available. --GoodDamon 00:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note

Removed external link to copyrighted material. Cirt (talk) 16:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is looking a lot better today than it was the last time I looked. Congraduations to all the editors who have contributed to improve this article. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the intro, the text "Today there are more than 4,378 Scientology churches, missions and groups worldwide on 155 countries." is clearly the St. Peterburg Times quoting PR material from the Church of Scientology, which never provides any sources or documentation for its claimed numbers. I don't think that should remain as it is in the intro. AndroidCat (talk) 16:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The whole intro is full of primary-source material like that. It looks shoddy and, frankly, lessens the article. I wanted to replace it completely with an earlier consensus version, but didn't get any responses to that -- and I think that would be too big of a change to be bold and just do. --GoodDamon 16:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it, the two candidates for rollback would be Pre-Blinadrange comb-out and Post-Blinadrange. The post comb-out looks the best, but I don't know some editors can resist the temptation to make sure that the first dozen or so refs of the article are from one POV non-RS source. AndroidCat (talk) 17:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those are exactly the same ones I would pick. But first, we should put such a reversion to a consensus vote, then select the version. The question is, should we revert to a previous version of the article that was largely accepted by all the editors here to undo fairly systemic problems with over-reliance on non-RS material and lost content? Edit: I should clarify that I don't think all the edits since those revisions have been bad, and that after such a revert I think we should comb through the prior version for material and references to bring forward. --GoodDamon 19:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I vote yes no (see below). --GoodDamon 18:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I vote yes - if that means removing information from primary, self-referential sources. Cirt (talk) 18:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• comment I am assuming we are just talking about changing the intro, not the whole article. If intro I vote Yes, if whole article I vote NoCoffeepusher (talk) 16:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• reply - When I made that initial proposal, it was for the whole article. But since then, the article itself has been cleaned up and updated very well, and it's only the intro now that I find pretty egregious. So as an addendum, I'll say yes, it's only the intro I'm currently concerned about. --GoodDamon 17:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I vote no. I like the new intro and I believe it has more potential in it. Foobaz·o< 18:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think the consensus so far is that we need to remove info from, as Cirt put it, "primary, self-referential sources". I no longer think reverting part of the article is the answer to that. So let's get editing, folks... --GoodDamon 19:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. I vote no. There should be more references but the text reads ok per policy on lead. Shutterbug (talk) 02:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, so do I. I don't think the text is perfect, but editing it instead of reverting to an earlier version is the answer. --GoodDamon 04:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but I hope that editors will restrict themselves to refs needed while briefly introducing subjects that will be covered in detail later in the article. There are always too many attempts to get in the last word or rebuttal in the introduction—where they don't belong. AndroidCat (talk) 04:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the Frank K. Flinn interview, he clearly states that the source of his number was the Church of Scientology. "Scientologists count about 8 million people worldwide, but that includes people to took just an introductory course without necessarily continuing." AndroidCat (talk) 19:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The source itself, Frank Flinn is a third party, and it also clarified how they came to that number "those who just took an introductory cource". Which is actually believable. I will buy the fact that 8 million people worldwide have been introduced to scientology and many didn't continue...I don't buy the 1.03 billion number that they say on the Tom Cruse video. Personaly I think that even if the initial source is the church itself, the fact that the interviewee (horible grammer) is outside the church and a religious studies professor makes it admissable in the article. additionaly this number was beside the churches claim of 3.5 million in the united states...so I am wondering why the worldwide number is inadmisable?Coffeepusher (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As near as I can figure on the 1 billion, that must be the number that has ever heard Cruise say anything about Scientology, i.e. the viewership of every program he has ever been on where he mentioned Scientology. --JustaHulk (talk) 01:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's gotta be it. You'd have to be living in a mud hut 10 miles from the nearest source of electricity to have not heard Tom Cruise mention Scientology. In any event, I find 8 million pretty believable as the number of people who've been introduced to it, and it comes from a reliable source, but the article should probably include his caveat that it isn't the number of practicing Scientologists. --GoodDamon 16:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its in there, there is also another source later on that challenges this number as "the number of practicing".Coffeepusher (talk) 16:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that reference placement has gotten a little confused again. So do people prefer to see referenced before or after punctuation? We should probably standardize that. --GoodDamon 20:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MOS is directly after punctuation. Cirt (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like it after punctuation. Foobaz·o< 20:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it would usually be placed after punctuation if a whole section is cited but before if only the sentence is cited ?! -- Stan _talk 19:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone (probably in reference to the Googlebombing campaign) has created a page that redirects Dangerous Cult to this article. While it's probably true, it's certainly not neutral. Would someone who knows how to remove a redirect please consider fixing it? Vonspringer (talk) 05:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

fixed, asking for speady deletion nowCoffeepusher (talk) 06:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, it was evidently the second creation of that redirect. I will check from time to time to make shure it hasn't resurficed.Coffeepusher (talk) 06:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Gerstein, Josh (February 8, 2008). "Judges Press IRS on Church Tax Break". The New York Sun. The New York Sun, One SL, LLC. Retrieved 2008-02-08. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

This source should be incorporated into the article. Cirt (talk) 14:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• New York Sun Editorial (February 8, 2008). "A School Case To Watch". The New York Sun. The New York Sun, One SL, LLC. Retrieved 2008-02-08. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Editorial piece on the same issue. Cirt (talk) 14:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]