Jump to content

Talk:Scientology: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Coffeepusher (talk | contribs)
7,488 edits
Coffeepusher (talk | contribs)
7,488 edits
Line 225: Line 225:


Good man. Hubbard also started is because he was unable to succesfully sell his "Dianetics" book, so he made a religion out of it so people would be COMPELLED to buy it. Read it in a Rolling Stone article. That, plus LRH was involved in some kinky, sexually twisted black magicky stuff. I could probably find the article and offer it as a source of info. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/209.34.212.59|209.34.212.59]] ([[User talk:209.34.212.59|talk]]) 16:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Good man. Hubbard also started is because he was unable to succesfully sell his "Dianetics" book, so he made a religion out of it so people would be COMPELLED to buy it. Read it in a Rolling Stone article. That, plus LRH was involved in some kinky, sexually twisted black magicky stuff. I could probably find the article and offer it as a source of info. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/209.34.212.59|209.34.212.59]] ([[User talk:209.34.212.59|talk]]) 16:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:please respect [[WP:TALK]]. this is not a forum for discussion on your opinion of Scientology.[[User:Coffeepusher|Coffeepusher]] ([[User talk:Coffeepusher|talk]]) 16:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


==OUTER SPACE EDITS==
==OUTER SPACE EDITS==

Revision as of 16:34, 24 February 2010

Former featured article candidateScientology 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
DateProcessResult
January 19, 2004Refreshing brilliant proseNot kept

Template:ArbcomArticle

There are major lies here

I am a Scientologist, and I asked the church about all that crazy Xenu stuff in the article. They said that it's a complete lie! You should remove it immediately!! 68.68.88.36 (talk) 23:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it is well sourced. Wikipedia is based on verifiability, not truth. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 23:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rofl, of course they told you that. Would you really be a member if they had said "Yes, it's all true"? That's why they told you it was a lie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.250.176.131 (talk) 10:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article undermines the entire concept of Wikepedia. It is not meant to relay or share knowledge but to decide on who thinks what. If it would be up to Wikepedia Galilei would be banned from editing any articles related to keywords such as Sun, Moon and Earth. A Scientologist can not edit an article, it is banned. The article lacks actual information about Scientology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Csurmi22 (talk • contribs) 02:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom resolutions did not ban any Scientologist from editing or discussing Scientology-related articles. The ban is for computers operated from within a Church of Scientology network. Individual Scientologists are still allowed to edit. I am a Scientologist and I have edited and discussed changes to articles. Banning someone from editing Wikipedia based just on his religious (or cultish, if you prefer this word) beliefs would essentially be a Wikiholocaust. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 21:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's Galileo, now who needs to get their facts right!!! JM

References to Scientology in Games and other medium

Hey, I just wanted to point out that the game Fallout 2 has explicit references to scientology and to hubbard himself. I am not sure but is it not relevent to have a section of this article dedicated to pop culture references. In the same way that music articles talk about games that make references to the band name or song title.

The following is a list of excerpts linking scientology to fallout 2 hubology.

"Dick Hubbell, the founder of Hubology, bears several resemblances to L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology. In early game files, the Hubologists are called the Elron, a pun on the name of "L. Ron" Hubbard."

"The belief in neurodynes, alignment, and the AHS ranking system mirror Scientology beliefs in thetans, auditing, and the OT system. The "space culture" aspect of Hubology is similar to the advanced Scientology belief in the Xenu incident. The Hubologist holodisc includes a glossary, as does every Scientology book of their esoteric lexicon. "Oppressives" in Hubology are similar to "Suppressives" in Scientology, the "scapegoat" of all woes to those within the cult. The aggressive tactics of Hubologists towards their enemies bear some resemblance to those of the actual Church of Scientology"

Just like DM the leader of COS irl has OT 9 so too does the leader in game list as a lvl 9 while the in game tom cruise equivilent is a lvl 7... So as you can see the connections are obvious and i see no reason why a connection would not be made to fallout 2 on this article.

There is even a mention of xenu, "Xeno program: The subject on which the Shi scientists had hoped to establish a series of meaningful experiments has disappeared, presumed either destroyed or stolen by the Hubologists."

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Hubology http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/AHS-9

So can we please add a section for this as well as for the many other games that have scientology references? Also senator Xenophon... nuff said Aaron Bongart (talk) 22:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather not have a section with computer game references. --JN466 13:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jayen. Also, there is no confirmation that Hubbology was intended as a reference to Scientology, so, it is not verifiable. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 17:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your jokeing right? Did you bother to read any of what I have posted? The references are so strikeingly obviouse that to ignore them would be like ignoreing the connections between bullets and guns. I think its critical to the timelyness of this article that references like this be included. The connections are just to obvious to sweep this under the carpet and pretend like there is no connecyion. Not just games but all types of media that references scientology are worthy of some mention if not thier own section or stub. There was a scientology episode of the simpsons and I dont see mention of it here. Surly that would be relevent givin that south park is mentioned here. It helps establish how the outside world percives scientology while not adding bias.Aaron Bongart (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Like it or not, Wikis are not reliable sources. And even if we take it as a reliable source, the same article on this wiki states that developers denied every connection, and that similarities are merely coincidental. Therefore, noting a connection with this game here would constitute original research, which the wiki you link does. The South Park case is different, as producers intended to mock Scientology, as they have mocked other religions previously. The bullet/gun analogy is also different, as bullets are made to be shot from a gun. But you cant possibly read this:
While the game creators insist that any relation between Hubology and real-world persons and organizations is coincidental, Hubology is an obvious parody of Scientology.
And then come and tell me this is not OR. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 09:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It goes in Scientology in popular culture. I don't find it notable enough to go in this article. Probably the South Park stuff should be moved to the sub-article. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 03:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked and I don't see where South Park is mentioned in this article. It is in the sub-article. What are you talking about? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 03:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that per weight (not notability as that policy has nothing to do with this, and only whether articles should exist) that Scientology in Fallout2 doesn't belong in the main article. However, from my quick browse of the article, there is no summary of Scientology in popular culture in the main article. Shouldn't there be? DigitalC (talk) 04:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. Other articles about religions don't. Christianity, Christian Science, Judaism, New Age, Bahá'í Faith, Hinduism and Islam for instance. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What about tarvuism? There is a very small mention of tarvusim on wikipedia and it is not mentioned in relationship to scientology which it is a spoof of.

http://www.youtube.com/user/fnogman333#p/a/f/0/4ABS0dA8KqI <-- original http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOU-s28Zn4A <--- Spoof

Just for a moment watch both videos and if you can tell me that there is absoluty no possible legitimate way to incorporate pop culture references and mock ups of scientology like this in the article then I will drop it. But Word for word phrase for phrase, there is intentional and satirical parody of a SPECIFIC scientology advertisement in the tarvu video.. As such I think there should be a section of the scientology article to include religions that were made as a spoof like tarvuism and the church of sub genius... Don't just skim actually watch the two and then try and tell me there is no provable connection between the two.Aaron Bongart (talk) 18:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just for a moment, consider the size of the article, it is already over 100k long (around 130k, I believe). If we ad every single pop-culture reference that vaguely resembles Scientology, the article will became EXTREMELY HUGE (I'm talking of over 180k). I would agree to add all those which can be reliably sourced under Scientology in popular culture and take a small excerpt of that into this article. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 20:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure a seperate article, thats fine.. But will you at least admit the strong connection between the two videos I listed?Aaron Bongart (talk) 21:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I concede it is a parody, my only concern is about the notablility of taruvism. If it fits inclusion criteria, go ahead. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 04:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I am a huge wiki noob and I do not know all the rules which is why I suggested this here. So that maybe other people could use my idea and make the choices. I dont do this for credit so you dont have to cite me or anything like that.Aaron Bongart (talk) 19:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well a Google search for "taruvism" returns no reliable sources. Yet, Google searching is no definitive indicator for notability, so if you find any reliable source offline, you can add the content and cite your source. Taruvism doesn't seem notable enough for inclusion. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 19:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does this sound biased?

from the article:

"Unlike other religions, Scientology charges precise amounts for its services which may or may not help others deal with their mental or spiritual problems but it most certainly makes it extremely expensive for people to admit their therapy has been anything but a resounding success.[202]"

38.109.88.194 (talk) 21:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it needs copy-editing. But doesn't sound so biased. Services from the Church of Scientology are considered very expensive for the average person. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 22:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see that, but since Wiki isn't only used by average folk, it could be written more neutrally. How does this sound instead: "Scientology charges precise amounts for its services which may or may not help deal with the payees' mental or spiritual problems. This process may become costly with the repetition of previously rendered/received services. [202]" 38.109.88.194 (talk) 01:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. What do you feel about:
The Church of Scientology charges precise amounts for mental and spiritual processing and counseling. This process may become costly with the repetition of previously rendered/received services. Payments are received by the Church as tax-deductible donations. Results of the processes are not guaranteed.
Any other suggestions? > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 03:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can imbue more information into these sentences and keep a reference while doing it.
Unlike other religions, the Church of Scientology charges precise amounts for mental and spiritual processing and counseling. This process may become costly with the repetition of previously rendered/received services. While payments are received by the Church as tax-deductible donations, the result of these processes are not guaranteed. It has been argued that the cost of these services make it difficult for some to accept that their treatment was unsuccessful.[202]
SubtractM (talk) 05:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that last sentence indirectly states that Scientology is always unsuccessful.
Unlike other religions, the Church of Scientology charges precise amounts for mental and spiritual processing and counseling. This process may become costly with the repetition of previously rendered/received services. While payments are received by the Church as tax-deductible donations, the result of these processes are not guaranteed. It has been argued that the cost of these services make it difficult for some to accept that their processing might not have accomplished the expected result.[202]
Is this better? > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 05:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You may be right, it was unintentional. I approve of that revision. SubtractM (talk) 06:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Thank you > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 06:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I totally agree here. Saying "It can be argued..." means that the information is subjective and not wholly base in fact all the time...I mean, I'm 5'9" and it could be argued that I'm going to be chosen as point guard for the LA Lakers. See? In fact -and most importantly-, upon my review of the source, no such argument (that some have such difficulty accepting treatment failure because of economic factors) is presented. The source only discusses the repeated costs, not the effects on payees and practitioners. This last sentence should be removed entirely from the revision. 38.109.88.194 (talk) 18:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting from page 273 of the Google books preview of the book referred:
...Scientology may or may not help anyone solve psychological problems. But it most certainly makes it extremely expensive for people to admit their therapy has been less than a resounding success...'
I believe the source supports the claim. Any other comments? > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 19:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still disagree, for two minor reasons. 1- The claim in that book is based on a reference within which is listed solely as "Bandura, 1969". The source is not only highly aged (even more than the 24-year-old book), but whose full reference is not included in the author's Google Book preview. 2- Even through a brief scan of the book preview while somewhat educational, seems to be skewed toward proving a specific point and includes a multitude of "might", "may have", "possibly", and "if"s on every page. These two points make the reference questionable. Not invalidated, mind you, but questionable. Is there a way to either find other resources to back up this possibility or to reword the sentence? In reviewing the first post in this thread, not very much has changed in the intent of the sentence, except to add that the costs are tax-deductible. 38.109.88.194 (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS- The book says the cost may make it expensive for people to admit treatment failure, not difficult. 38.109.88.194 (talk) 21:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase "It can be argued..." appears nowhere in my paragraph, nor RUL3R's. And your first criticism doesn't apply to the "It has been argued..." sentence. It is perfectly legitimate to mention arguments made in books written by recognized authors. On your criticism of the book, are you seriously criticizing a book on religion for using a passive voice? I'm sorry but given the subject matter(religious matters are inherently subjective) that is wholly appropriate. I am left wondering what bias you find in this paragraph. It is factual, this matter has been discussed by an Author who frequently publishes about religion. And I feel that it is notable enough to mention.SubtractM (talk) 23:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- ease of reading break - I actually like Rul3r's first suggestion better. It's clear, concise, doesn't imply anything about what may or may not be expensive and what expensive treatments may or may not cause practitioners to admit or deny. We've both made our opinions clear. Your wording is in the current edit and will remain, I'm assuming, until a middle ground or understanding is reached, yes? I don't believe it's quite there yet.

Note: from your current revision: "...processes are not guaranteed. It has been argued that the cost of these services..."

For the record, I am not a Scientologist, nor do I have strong feelings about them or their practices one way or another. I care about keeping Wikipedia neutral and factual and reliably sourced. 38.109.88.194 (talk) 04:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's find that middle ground then. What about rewording the last sentence to: On this matter, Rodney Stark, an American sociologist specialized in religion, noted that Scientology may or may not help anyone solve psychological problems. But it most certainly makes it extremely expensive for people to admit their therapy has been less than a resounding success[202] ? > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 05:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The whole imbued reading hasn't varied very much from my initial concern. Compare:
Perhaps splitting the included information to more appropriate sections of the article would help.
Under 'Scientology as a commercial venture' (where it stands currently): "The Church of Scientology charges precise amounts for mental and spiritual processing and counseling. While payments are received by the Church as tax-deductible donations, successful results are not guaranteed. This system becomes increasingly profitable for the Church with repetition of previously rendered/received services. [202]"
And under the 'Beliefs and practices' or 'Ceremonies' section: "The repeated expense for repeated services to attempt a desired result -while tax-deductible- may make it difficult for some practitioners to recognize and/or admit that their processing may not have accomplished the expected result."
In this way, there is a break between the effect fees have on the Church and the effects the fees may have for the practitioner.
I guess I'm kind of putting a lot of thought into this detail I'm truly surprised by the assumption: Scientological mental/spiritual care is expensive, so a practitioner will falsify their wellness (or possible lack thereof) to save money? So that they can move "up the ladder" and receive even more expensive guidance within the religion? It's just not logical or clear to me. And I'd like to make it clearer not only to me, but also to others who come to this article. 38.109.88.194 (talk) 22:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS- Per the Author article, it seems that the reference in question was co-written with William_Sims_Bainbridge. Shouldn't he also be credited in the ref? 38.109.88.194 (talk) 22:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So? Any thoughts before I include the changes as I described, or perhaps an alternative suggestion? 38.109.88.194 (talk) 23:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
38.109.88.194, You haven't addressed any of my concerns, nor have you demonstrated how this section is bias. You say "so a practitioner will falsify their wellness (or possible lack thereof) to save money?" and I don't think you understand what the original authors are arguing... SubtractM (talk) 04:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then I guess I don't understand what your concerns are, Subtract. But you're right, the authors using a passive voice doesn't make their point less factual. But from this article, I don't understand what the authors of the book were saying. To this reader, based on this Wikipedia entry, it seems illogical. But whether I understand what the author is saying is not important: what important is that Wikipedia is using a reliable source and is doing so in a factual and true manner, included in an appropriate way that most can understand the intended meaning. I'm still interested in finding middle ground. 38.109.88.194 (talk) 20:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this book -with an argument generated/observed in 1985 from a study published in 1966- includes information that is particularly relevant or factual today. The info certainly appears dated, if not historical. I think a comment that Church members may fake spiritual or mental health because treatment is too costly is a biased one, without more references. Are there any other resources besides this one that says practitioners of this religion find it hard to admit treatment failure because it's too expensive to achieve treatment success? 38.109.88.194 (talk) 20:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the paragraph were written to focus on the "Church as a Commercial venture" (which is the subheading where it currently stands), perhaps instead of switching midway to how expensive it may or may not be for the practitioner, it could be re-worded to reflect on how this process makes repeated therapy increasingly profitable for the Church. But if you would like to leave this as is and feel it's not irrelevant or incorrect, then I suggest expanding the paragraph with a direct quote from the same page of the book: "One can usefully think of Scientology as an elaborate and most effective behavior modification program in which potent reinforcement schedules are employed to cause individuals to act like clears and to keep their doubts and problems to themselves." It is from THIS quote that the authors came to the conclusion to which you are referring, and indeed, seems that the costliness involved is not the author's main intent. 38.109.88.194 (talk) 20:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From the current edit: "Unlike other religions, (-not true, Hindus, Zoroastrians, Jainians, and many other Middle Eastern churches (even Judaism sometimes) follow the same process-) the Church of Scientology charges precise amounts for mental and spiritual processing and counseling. This process may become costly (-not to the Church-) with the repetition of previously rendered/received services. While payments are received by the Church as tax-deductible donations (-wholly misplaced in this paragraph-) , the result of these processes are not guaranteed." 38.109.88.194 (talk) 20:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, the Author of the book still remains incorrect.38.109.88.194 (talk) 20:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection, I am almost in favour of losing the para altogether. 38.109... is right; the source does not make its argument in the context of Scientology as a business. The source says that clears generally do not say that they aren't in fact clear yet. They would lose group status by doing so, and it would cost them money to repeat their courses, so they keep any doubts they have to themselves, and hope that the OT levels will clear these remaining issues. That is the author's argument, as best I can make out. Our paragraph creates the impression as though Scientology gets rich off people repeating their courses, exactly the opposite of what the author says: clears tend to dissemble and hide their doubts so they don't have to pay for courses a second time. --JN466 21:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC) If we keep the paragraph, we would have to frame it in terms of there being powerful intra-group disincentives to voicing customer dissatisfaction with services received. --JN466 21:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rul3R agrees, (per this edit), as do I. I will remove it. 38.109.88.194 (talk) 15:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed link flagged as highly dangerous (Due to virus, spyware, spam and phishing scams) as per Web Of Trust Services. Users who access this link may leave their machine vulnerable to malicous software and practices. MindWraith (talk) 23:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is this "Web Of Trust Service"? A quick google returned nothing SubtractM (talk) 23:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Found nothing either. Restored the link per WP:ELOFFICIAL. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 23:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Web Of Trust appears as the first item when searched in google. It is one of the largest internet saftey services available on the internet today. And has dubbed scientology.org as a 'high risk site'. As such the link will be removed to protect unsuspecting users. MindWraith (talk) 00:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, would like to know more about this "Web of Trust". The website has some rich content and may well have been temporarily redirected, but this site seems to be OK and I see no reason not to include it, since none of the tools I have flag it as suspect. Rodhullandemu 00:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't provided any links to corroborate your claims, I notice. Link restored. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First item that appears when searched for in google. Not hard to find. http://www.mywot.com/ The number of rated and reviewd sites exceeds 25 million. MindWraith (talk) 01:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but rated and reviewed by whom? They don't appear to publish their criteria, and being on Tucows isn't necessarily any indication. As P.T. Barnum said "there's one born every minute". Rodhullandemu 01:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found it - see [1]. Apparently Web of Trust allows its users to categorise sites as they see fit. This is all about individuals (ab)using the service to express their dislike of Scientology. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At least they like us, but

How to increase your site's ratings
Trust is your greatest asset. You can improve your reputation, build trust, and add credibility to your site.Read reputation building tips

is a big giveaway. In short, bollocks. Rodhullandemu 01:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is reported as "containing viruses, malware, spyware, or other malicous software" wether people like scientology or not, you cant change those facts. As such, a link like this should not be present on Wikipedia. MindWraith (talk) 03:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And if that site disliked WP, would you still come and visit? Read the comments below. You'll find the typical Scn critic calling Scientology a scam, a cult, and the like. None of my tools list scientology.org as a dangerous site. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 04:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
mywot.com appears to just be a popularity contest. SubtractM (talk) 02:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would also point out that Scientology is a subject that is highly vandalized, and not just on Wikipedia. I don't wish to debate the legitimacy of Web of Trust, but that service may have been vandalized simply because of the topic. McAfee's SiteAdvisor report for scientology.org looks fine. --Tpk5010[Talk] 17:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article about the Web of Trust, interestingly enough. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Having an article about a source does not make it reliable. We have an article on Blogger, yet we don't use them to source articles. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 21:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your arguing against a point I wasn't trying to make. -----J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I am sorry. What point were you trying to make? > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 22:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing obscure or hidden... just exactly what I said. Several people claimed they couldn't find the Web Of Trust website, so I was pointing out that we have an article on the topic. We show up third on the Google search results. -----J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are puppies. This entire argument could be avoided by looking at the WOT article on wiki, scrolling down to Rating Quality and noticing the glaring word "opinions". 99.236.221.124 (talk) 06:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Public response to Scientology advertising

“Typically when a logo or advertiser name appears in an ad there’s a decline in interest and/or believability. However, I have never seen such a precipitous decline in curves as was seen when the Scientology identification was shown on the screen,” noted Glenn Kessler, president and CEO, HCD Research. Interesting stuff. Cirt (talk) 13:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

Please see Talk:Scientology_controversies#RfC:_Alleged_oppression_of_Scientologists_in_Germany. Cirt (talk) 13:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Frank K. Flinn

Why cite an adjunct? Adjunct means "you know enough to teach stupid classes but your research isn't good enough to be a professor". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.2.131.238 (talk) 20:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"An adjunct professor is a part-time professor who is hired on a contractual basis, rather than being given tenure and a permanent position." - Anything beyond that is your opinion. -----J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The interpretation proverred previously is ridiculous. I prefer these profs in many subjects- they generally teach or research cuz they want to, not cuz they're obligated to and have got nothing better to do in the private sector. --Δζ (talk) 20:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very frustrating

Can somebody please clarify what it means that Scientology is "banned" in certain countries? That could mean many different things, but surely it can't mean that "it is illegal to be a Scientologist, practice Scientology, or believe in Scientology." If the "Church of Scientology" as a corporate organization has been banned, that's a far cry from the mere practice of Scientology by individuals, being banned. We need more precise language on this point. Tragic romance (talk) 00:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Australia, Scientology was actually outlawed, and Scientologists registered under the name "Church of the New Faith" as a result. As for Greece, I don't know the developments there over the past 10 or 15 years. Judging by the latest religious freedom report for Greece, the Church does not appear to be "banned" in any meaningful sense of the word: [2]. Compare this earlier source: [3]. We need to do some research: google books, google news. Can you help having a look through these? Something may have changed since 2003. --JN466 02:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"surely it can't mean that "it is illegal to be a Scientologist, practice Scientology, or believe in Scientology." That's exactly what it means. Why is this confusing or frustrating? 99.236.221.124 (talk) 06:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is because Scientology is a joke. Hubbard started the "religion" on a bet that he could not star ta religion based on total BS. Biggest scam sine 2 hour martinizing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.127.158.4 (talk) 06:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good man. Hubbard also started is because he was unable to succesfully sell his "Dianetics" book, so he made a religion out of it so people would be COMPELLED to buy it. Read it in a Rolling Stone article. That, plus LRH was involved in some kinky, sexually twisted black magicky stuff. I could probably find the article and offer it as a source of info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.34.212.59 (talk) 16:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

please respect WP:TALK. this is not a forum for discussion on your opinion of Scientology.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OUTER SPACE EDITS

Thread unrelated to improving the article (WP:NOTFORUM)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The way the article is layed out is very frustrating for anyone attempting to edit this while traveling through the Delta Quadrant. I for one have been attemptig to make edits while in deep space and the website is preventing me. Is there some sort of error with wikipedia or do I need to be closer to Earth for the edit feature to be functional? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.68.100.16 (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this page has a semi-protected status, which means you need to have an account before you can edit this page (this is due to vandalism in the past). all you need to do is set up an account for a few days and then you can edit.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am astonished. This is either an editor with a very crude sense of humor, or a very creative troll. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 05:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please help. I am having a similar problem when I am driving my space car across the rings of Saturn. My intergalactic computer SHOULD work as I have upgraded to advanced A.I., however I am getting interference. Perhaps radiation from the recently destroyed optic sphere has something to do with this? Please advise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.68.100.16 (talk) 17:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is why I am a devout non-believer of Scientology. Fruit.Smoothie (talk) 05:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested edit to the picture of "Anonymous"

Beneath the picture of the Anonymous protestors, I wish that there were an edit to it.

Rather than saying:

"An Internet-based group which refers to itself as 'Anonymous' held protests outside Scientology centers in cities around the world in February 2008 as part of Project Chanology."

I feel it would be more appropriate to say:

"'Anonymous' picketters protested at Scientology centers in cities around the world in February 2008 as part of Project Chanology."

Anonymous is not an Internet-based group so much as it is... well... anonymity. Anonymous is anyone who doesn't reveal their identity, thus, how can they be grouped together if they have no affiliations?

That in mind, I also feel that this would be more appropriate if the first does not suffice for ye editors:

"'Anonymous' 4-chan picketters protested at Scientology centers in cities around the world in February 2008 as part of Project Chanology."

Thank you for understanding.

And for the record, I do not believe in Scientology or L. Ron Hubbard - much less his moral character. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.34.212.59 (talk) 16:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the current edition should stand because the casual reader may not know what "anonymous" is, and it was an internet BASED group that spread to IRL actions which included people not normally associated with the internet. The protests were started on the internet, they used the internet for the primary orgonizing methods, people not associated with 4chan found out by the Youtube video...etc.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Scientology&oldid=346112361"