Talk:Scientology/Archive 17

Wikipedia has pointed that this page has exceeded its ideal size and sub-subject need in its own pages
Any suggestions of what sections need to go? Bravehartbear 04:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

bias
It is clear that this is a controversial subject and it is imposible to make it 100% un-bias. So I posted a POV check for neutrality. Bravehartbear 15:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Which I removed. Most of the edits to the article lately have been by YOU, so why would you complain about the article's POV now? If there's anything in the article that you think is biased, speak up and say specifically what. wikipediatrix 15:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok boss I'm working on it. Bravehartbear 21:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

What should be in the Intro

 * When you introduce any subject you should clearly state what the subject is and what areas it covers.
 * The origin of the subject.
 * In this case we are talking about Scientology, so the intro should who are the Scientologists and where are they located. Numbers please!
 * What activities are they involved in and what is the effect of these activities? Both positive and negative out looks should be included.

The intro states However, some former members and outside observers—including journalists, lawmakers, and national governing bodies of several countries—have described the Church as an unscrupulous commercial enterprise that harasses critics and defectors and exploits its members ….others view it as a pseudo religion, a cult, or a transnational corporation. This line stresses on the negative POV of Scientology with out addressing the positive. In order to make this page NPOV the positive aspects should be exposed too. Also the line about the Russian court ruling shouldn’t be there. In order to make this page These specific facts should be in the ‘Scientology as a state-recognized religion’ section--Bravehartbear 18:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Braveheartbear, as I said in my edit summary, the current version--the one you keep restoring--mostly reads like Scientology PR literature, not disinterested encyclopedic writing. It is also meandering, including a lot of stuff that belongs later in the article, and rather awkwardly written. I really hadn't planned on jumping in here, but when I saw that, I thought it was important to bring the intro back to something concise and clear, hence my version, which you have now twice reverted.  As to "what should be in the intro?," my answer to that is implied by my edit.


 * Here is my recent edit, and here is the verson Braveheartbear prefers . I invite other editors read both and to express an opinion on which is more concise, neutral or well written.  I also wonder whether you think my edit was deserving of being immediatly reverted in full, as Braveheartbear has now done twice.  BTfromLA 19:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The Braveheartbear intro version is way too long and rambling. Those three huge paragraphs have a lot of fat that should be some place other than the introduction. AndroidCat 19:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * “If there's anything in the article that you think is biased, speak up and say specifically what." This is what I have been told many times. You can't in one swipe change everything. You can't delete correctly cited info just because you think there is a bias. This is a NPOV (Neutral Point of View). Both positive and negative points are addressed the intro addresses both positive and negative points. The intro requires a complete explanation of what is Scientology and who are the Scientologist and what they do. Then you can address the plus and minus keeping a NPOV in accordance with Wikipedia policies. It there is some negative point you want to address, do it. But you have to keep the positive there too. Bravehartbear 19:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The intro should present a concise explanation, not a complete one—that's what the rest of the article is for. AndroidCat 19:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It is still has to be NPOV. So Intro can't explain what is Scientology exactly but it can have a full explanation of the controversy? I should be able to know what is exactly Scientology by reading the intro. That is what encyclopeias are for. Anyway you can't just change everything in one swipe. You can't have to do changes one at the time. I want specifics should be there and what shouln't not generalities.Bravehartbear 20:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Re: One swipe. You've practically doubled the size of the intro over the last two days. AndroidCat 20:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You won but the last line is bias.
 * "However, outside observers—including journalists, courts, and national governing bodies of several countries—have alleged that Scientology is an unscrupulous commercial enterprise that harasses its critics and brutally exploits its members."
 * There are also outside observers—including journalists, courts, and national governing bodies of several countries that have recognized Scientology for its positive efforts.
 * I will ad this info to the page with proper citations to make this page NPOV
 * Also you forgot to ad the deleted info in other parts of the page. I will take care of that. :-) Bravehartbear 20:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It was not vandalism. You had the responsibility to discuss your changes before making then. Now that the discussion is over the changes are appropriate.--Bravehartbear 20:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If you can improve things, go for it. But I'm concerned about your charge of "bias"--the fact that you might find a positive news article or a town that gave Hubbard the key to the city does not deserve equal weight to the overwhelming number of authoritative third-party sources who have concluded that the Scientology organization makes false claims, deludes vulnerable followers, and engages in unethical or criminal conduct. This is is big part of what Scientology is in the perceptions of those outside of the organization, and, like it or not, it needs to be clearly stated in any short summary of the topic that aspires to neutrality. (This is a perpetual sticking point in these articles--Scientologists see "controversy" and "misunderstanding" that is irrelevant to what they understand Scientology really is as practiced. Third party observers, however, tend to see the group's history of misrepresentation, venality and criminality as essential to understanding Scientology.) BTfromLA 21:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That's your POV. My POV is very different. Regardless we should be able to reach a middle ground or a NPOV. I'm not going to argue again. I'm tired of arguing. You are as responsible as me to respect my POV as I respect yours. Bravehartbear 21:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. My third party citations are as valid as your! Bravehartbear 21:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Although I support BTfromLA's version of the intro, I have to say I'm appalled at his statement that "Third party observers, however, tend to see the group's history of misrepresentation, venality and criminality as essential to understanding Scientology" - that's way off base. Despite the best efforts of all the sites dedicated to "exposing Scientology's evils" out there, most people do NOT see Scientology as "venal" and "criminal". "Weird", yes, "Kooky", yes, "Colossal waste of time and money", yes. (Not that it matters anyway, because since when do we gear articles towards the public's perception?) wikipediatrix 21:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello, Wikipediatrix. Sorry to appall; I think that my intention was unclear.  By "third party observers" I meant to refer to the sort of professional investigators we'd been talking about directly above (and who are mentioned in the intro)--investigative journalists, judges, etc.   I certainly did not mean to suggest that the typical "man on the street" harbors such views about scientology, nor that the general public's perception should guide the article.  BTfromLA 00:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The intro should give a brief overview of the topics in the article, and if people want to know more then they can read the rest of the article. A large part of the Scientology article is the Controversy and criticism section, so therefore it is quite reasonable to put a brief summary of that section into the intro.  If, for example, the Controversy and criticism section refers to several criminal acts by the CoS, then it is not out of line to briefly refer to those acts in the intro.  Understandably this may be unpleasant to you if you like the CoS, but the intro should describe the article, and not be written to suit your preferences.  HiEv 21:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Bravehart, good job on adding sourced material, that is a Good Thing. I do think that you made the intro a bit bloated and that BT's version reads better. But your additions are good and I took a stab at a compromise to incorporate them. Please take it as a starting point. Keep up the good work, and you are right about the need to break this article up. Feel free to take the lead. --Justanother 23:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * ps Bravehart, if you do not know the players, you have a good group here to work with. --Justanother 23:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * RE: . Oy!  BTfromLA 04:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Problems with directly using CSI text

 * The 4,378 number is unverifiable. (And has increased by percentage even faster than the "10 million Scientologists" claim.) The number of orgs is approx 147. Missions range from tangible bricks and mortar to post office box to non-existent, and RTC lists some 400 of them. Groups are completely undefined and there's no way to verify them.
 * What did the "Founding Church" found in 1955 exactly? The first Church of Scientology of New Jersey was incorporated in 1953, California, Arizona and others in 1954. AndroidCat 01:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The Founding Church of Scientology is called like that because it was the first church with an academy that was training auditors. The other earlier groups where just groups of Auditors doing their thing.
 * The addresses of the churches is verifiable by using the world locator in the Scientology Web page that is used to find the nearest scientology church of mission around your home. By my experience the world locator is accurate because I personally visited many of those locations in Latino America.
 * But you are right that that number is deceptive in the sense that it includes all types of Scientology organizations including CCHR, Narconon, Able and WISE.
 * Don’t batter I will change it. Bravehartbear 02:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem isn't so much with the numbers as the "who" that is saying it in the article. It needs something like an "According to .." to frame it, even if it is referenced. We can verify that the Church of Scientolgy said it, but not the actual figures. This happens frequently, so I'm discussing it rather than biting. (Here's the RTC's list as of 2004 . My org numbers could be bumped up depending on how day/foundation orgs are counted.) AndroidCat 03:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's fine dude I believe you. But what are you doing checking out info like that? Obsesive anti-Scientology disorder? I'm just joking have a good day. Bravehartbear 04:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Bravehartbear, please do not cloak personal attacks in the guise of jokes. AndroidCat's points were perfectly valid, and checking info is about half of what anyone does around here.  Even making joking insults can create a more stressful and unpleasant atmosphere, so you should refrain from making any more in the future.  Thank you.  HiEv 19:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No biggie. We joke at lot more than that at the ARSCC [wnde] SigInt meetings. AndroidCat 04:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

show effectiveness/hubbard opposition not established
I've yet to see any evedence that hubbard was even aware of the american psychological associations stance.

ONE THING I ALWAYS WONDER ABOUT: PEOPLE SEEM TO IGNORE THAT SCIENTOLOGY HAS ALWAYS BEEN TRYING TO TAKE OVER THE BUSINESS OF PSYCHOTHERAPY, SO OF COURSE IT IS THE MOST VOCAL OPPONANT. IT HAS THE MOST TO LOOSE. . IT CLAIMS TO BE A TOTALLY DIFFERENT AND SUPERIOR SYSTEM AND WAY OF THINKING WITH HUMAN PROBLEMS. THERE IS SOME REASON TO BELEIVE THAT THAT IS TRUE. LOOK INTO REMOTE VIEWING'S ORIGONS. THERE ARE OTHER PIECES OF EVEDENCE, THAT ARE MORE MINOR. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thaddeus Slamp (talk • contribs) 05:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

Slump

Names Slamp. Firefox must be on a bender! , please sign your comments and stop yelling around here, I am becoming deaf.

Roger, Wilco. Every 1ce/a while I have to remind myself how much people hate all caps. Er, and get Firefox with inbuilt typo correction Is there a spelling error? Misou 05:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Slamp, not Slump. -- Antaeus Feldspar 06:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC) You've yet to reply to my content. Thaddeus Slamp 23:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thaddeus Slamp (talk • contribs) 04:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't care. Bravehartbear 04:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify; everything above the unsigned tag I just added (04:28, 7 May 2007 by Thaddeus Slamp) is one post. I guess he pasted in a thread from another location. --Justanother 14:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a copy of the text from the recently archived version of the show effectiveness/hubbard opposition not established topic from this section. I'm guessing he is looking for further discussion on it, though I'm not sure about what part he wants to discuss or how it relates to the Scientology article.  The original text isn't that clear either, since "it" could refer to either Scientology or psychotherapy at various points.  HiEv 18:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Scientologist
Scientologists are horrible people look what they are doing to this poor people:
 * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRe0jsfZxr4
 * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85Wn4MtwsN4\
 * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gde2hdzG8h0
 * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sNg_v4a4_k
 * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXa7Sx3FBR4
 * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVfT-jZw33A
 * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wPEvESwKs8
 * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dl0b_IaYh34
 * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-wwVXMPtA0
 * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McBMe-Ng1xc

I tell you man is a cult and it needs to be stop! Bravehartbear 06:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Either that or he has me Xenu. Bravehartbear, CofS is a cult, and no amount of sending "volunteers" to disaster areas will stop that being true. Everyone in this project is aware of the volunteers, and also why they are used, a bunch of YouTube videos won't change that. Darrenhusted 12:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Neither Bravehartbear's spamming of this page with youtube videos nor your assertion that the CoS is a cult, have anything to do with the editing of this article. Talk pages are for discussing edits, not idle chit-chat about the subject. wikipediatrix 14:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Bravehartbear, your above comment is not relevant to the article. Uncivil comments like this are not helpful and only serve to create more conflict in an area already heavy with conflict.  Groups can do both good and bad things, so showing that Scientologists do some good things does nothing to prove that they do not also do some bad things, if that's what you were trying to show.  Darrenhusted, by some definitions of the word all religions are "cults."  Still, the word is prejudicial, and so it is also uncivil.  Everyone, please try to keep your comments civil and on-topic.  Thank you.  HiEv 18:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

This debated is irrelevent. The purpose of an encyclodedia is not to criticize or promote any organization no matter how good or how bad. The article and the talk page should focus on informing rather than convincing people of any particular viewpoint. There are plenty of places on the internet to bicker over the merits and demerits of scientology (or any other religious view for that matter). Lets not waste space having that debate here. (RookZERO 03:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC))

Citation number 45
Citation number 45 is a dead link and needs to be removed, and the statement in question needs an actual citation.

71.136.22.96


 * I have provided a citation that's not dead, and removed the one that was. Interestingly, there was a valid link there until, well, *coughs* COFS... but that's a story for another time. SheffieldSteel 03:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Religious Persecution of Scientology and Scientologist
The US state department and the UN have condemned Germany, France and others of religiously persecuting Scientology and other religious groups. The introductions states "However, outside observers—including journalists, courts, and national governing bodies of several countries—have alleged that Scientology is an unscrupulous commercial enterprise that harasses its critics and brutally exploits its members." But this criticisms have been condemned as being unfounded bigotry and prejudice by other groups and governing bodies. And these Scientology critics have been found guilty of being bias against other religious groups too. We must differentiate between a real concerns and just plain hate, bias, bigotry and prejudice. The fact is Scientology has been joined by many religious groups, politicians, governing bodies and the UN to counter the anti-cult movement that I consider a hate group. I'm going to expose this point.

For example in Germany Scientologist:
 * have been dismissed from jobs
 * have been dismissed from schools
 * have been dismissed from political parties
 * have been dismissed from social, business and political organizations
 * have been denied the right to professional licenses
 * have been denied the right to perform their art
 * have been denied the right to open/maintain bank accounts and open loans
 * have been denied the right to use public facilities and concert halls
 * are regularly blacklisted, boycotted, vilified, ostracized and threatened simply due to their association with the religion of Scientology.

Years of monitoring of Scientology by the German government have resulted in nothing. I intend of creating a whole new section about religious persecution of Scientology and Scientologist. And presenting the support that Scientology has received from other religious groups, governments and the UN to combat this bigotry. Currently I'm working in collecting all the citations. Bravehartbear 14:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You have previously been warned about filling the talk pages with LONG diatribes such as this one that are not specifically about a particular edit to the article. Please do not use talk pages to bloviate in this manner. This is not the place to make a speech or to lecture us. wikipediatrix 14:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)