Talk:Scientology/Archive 19

"It is named a religion by some and a cult by others."
How much more weasily POV can you get? Well, I leave it to the Christian and anti-cult quacks here, just don't have the nerve to discuss these moronic statements with the missionary men. Fossa ?! 03:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow. Lets see how many people we can piss off and alienate all at the same time. For the sake of NPOV, I'll forget I read this and go back to my mission work. Lsi john 19:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Was that a suggestion for improving the article? If so, please try to remain civil while discussing it. SheffieldSteel 03:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't intend to be "civil" with uncivil POV pushers. See here, why. But, you win for now, I don't discuss banalities. (It took me about 12 months and endless discussions to improve de:Scientology, I'm not gonna volunteer to do the same here. Let it be Wikipedia, not an encyclopedia. Fossa ?!  03:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * PS: Don't kid yourself. This obviously does not apply when you indulge in your prejudices on Scientology. Fossa ?!  03:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, so you accuse another editor of writing something "moronic" (though you may believe you're accusing me when you wrote it), you do accuse me of being uncivil and prejudiced, and you are apparently looking through my contribs for something to use in argument against me. Anything you'd like to add? What's particularly sad about the turn this coversation is taking is that it could easily be much more productive (though perhaps less entertaining to onlookers) since you seem to be genuinely interested in improving the article. So why not discuss that instead of my shortcomings as an editor? (We can get back to that topic later, if you'd like.) You say the sentence above is a problem. I don't disagree. But following it with the sentence "Still others consider cults religions" doesn't solve its problems. Let's not leave the lead of this article saying, "Some people say A, others B, but still others say A is B." because at best it leaves the reader wondering why we bothered to include it, and at worst it looks like an attempt to nullify the criticism. There is certainly an overlap between the words "cult" and "religion". The solution is not to cite a source discussing that overlap, but to increase the distinction between the two, as they have been used in this context. For example, "It is named a bona fide religion by some and a dangerous cult by others." SheffieldSteel 03:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

"It is named a religion by some and a cult by others, but it noted be noted that those 2 does not mutually exclude each other." Grammatical and style errors aside, the problems described above are repeated in this version. Taking this to its logical conclusion, we could state that all those who accuse Scientology of being a cult are actually recognising it as a religion. However, the CoS does not make that mistake, and nor should we. Combining factual statements with a different interpretation of the words than the sources used, as in the sentence above, is arguably synthesis and to be avoided. SheffieldSteel 13:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * With all the above in mind, I've changed the sentence to this form: "It is named a bona fide religion by some and a dangerous cult by others." I believe that form is pretty non-controversial; it matches what sources say further down the page. Also, I notice that, as WP:3RR reckons things, I have now reverted this article three times in one 24-hour period. Therefore, safe in the knowledge that I won't be changing it again, another editor could simply revert back to the awful version that preceded this one; however, that might be viewed as gaming the system. If you have problems with the lead as it stands, this is the place to say so. SheffieldSteel 13:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "It is named a bona fide religion by some and a dangerous cult by others." Couldn't that be said about any religion? They all have their boosters and detractors, it just comes with the territory of having more than one religion on Earth. My point is that is the statement really necessary in the article? It's like saying "Some people consider fire to be dangerous, other people say it is good for cooking food." Trinen 16:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I don't think there are many religions who criticism is so vehement - and notable. The number of people who claim, for example, that Catholicism is a dangerous cult is small enough that under WP:UNDUE we barely need to mention it in passing. Even Islam's detractors don't make that accusation in significant numbers - their criticisms tend to be different. For Scientology, however, I think it's significant enough to be mentioned in the lead of the article. I'm interested to see what others have to say though. SheffieldSteel 17:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure but what about Catholocism when it was just 50 years old? I would imagine most people in the civilized world have considered it a cult. Shakers, Quakers, 7th Day Adventists, Mormons, Jehova's Witnesses, Nation of Islam..most every new religion goes through a period where people call it a cult. Then it gets old enough to just be a religion.Trinen 14:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * 'Bona fide religion' refers to the beliefs. 'Cult' refers to the Church. The previous paragraphs distinguish between the two, the sentence promptly conflates them again, and what it says is already in the Intro later. So can I delete it please? --Hartley Patterson 23:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Fine by me, but other editors might not think so. I don't know who added it in the first place. SheffieldSteel 00:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * rem unsourced. You guys are confused - that line could go with the Church of Scientology not the religious philosophy.--Justanother 01:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

First page people come to about Scientology is this page therefore it should be here and not all differentiates between CoS and Scientology. Joneleth 15:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The Introduction should be as short as possible. It should not be repeating itself. The import of the sentence we are considering is already covered later in the introduction in such places as "others view it as a pseudoreligion, a cult, or a transnational corporation". Or would you prefer to delete the later paragraphs? --Hartley Patterson 16:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Glad, the discussion moved on to, if this applies to the CoS, but not the Free Zonies, or not. The sentence (w/ or w/o "bona fide") is simply here to mark the territory: Scientology is BAD, that's why some consider it a "cult". Never mind that neither "cult" nor "religion" are neatly defined concepts (they come in all sorts of shades). "Cult" sounds BAD, so let's stick it up to those big bad Scientology wolves. The sentence itself is of course, true: Some do call it a religion, and others do call it a cult. However, we are at loss, who exactly calls it a cult (the competitors, i.e., the Christian Churches, for example) and what the hell is a "cult"? Due to these ambiguities, we don't learn anything about Scientology, except that it's somewhat distasteful. Fossa ?!
 * 'bona fide religion', in case you missed it, is CoS code for its claim that if the beliefs constitute a religion then the CoS cannot be a cult. It has a special meaning in the context of scientology - see www.bonafidescientology.org/ Hartley Patterson 16:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I do not believe that the Church of Scientology has anything enclopedic to offer, so I would not put their POVs into the introduction, either. Especially, if you don't attribute them as in "some say, others say". Fossa ?!  17:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not know how it is in other countries, but in Germany Scientology is not so much seen as a Church per se, but more as a company network - of course it depens whom you ask. However, I think this point of view could be included in the main page too. By the way, the question of the DEFINITION isnt so important if we DO mention in good detail facts - Scientology loves to describe and colourize events to their likings. Last but not least, the article gets a bit big, maybe it should be splitted a bit?
 * What would you propose to split off? I think that "Church of Scientology" is actually an unneeded article, it is neither a corporation nor its own entity but rather a network of "Churches of Scientology". As Hartley says, or defined in bonafidescientology.org, "The Church of Scientology is formed into an ecclesiastical structure which unifies and aligns a multitude of diverse religious activities including not only auditing and training, but proselytization, ecclesiastical management, relay of communication, production of dissemination materials and many other functions." COFS 20:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The article's first mis-statement
The article states: Hubbard later characterized Scientology as an "applied religious philosophy" and the basis for a new religion. The actual information is: On 3 March 1952, Mr. Hubbard gave a lecture titled, Scientology: Milestone One. It was his first public use of the word Scientology. He spent an hour defining the word. When Hubbard first introduced the term he defined it to mean, an applied religious philosophy. There was no later. In the same lecture he went on and used the often seen words, study of knowledge. But he didn't stop there, either. He said what he meant by study of knowledge. He clarified. He disambiguated. He separated knowledge -- as is commonly thought of -- from understood, useable knowledge. And this is the datum that individuates Scientology. As he defined it, Scientology is the study of knowledge, to understand knowledge. And his lecture of 3 March 1952 defined, once and for all, all of the dianetics actions before or since. Because understood knowledge is what Dianetics does. A person recalls a past event and understands what they already know more throughly. Thus, understood, useable knowledge. Precisely what Hubbard presented the word Scientology to mean at his first public use of the word on 3 March 1952. 216.102.9.150 23:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Split off Church of Scientology references
This article majorly confuses Scientology and Church of Scientology. Those two are not interchangeable. A belief system and an organization to support it are not the same. I am therefore planning to move the references to the nature and conduct of the Church of Scientology network to the proper articles, i.e. Church of Scientology and others, or at least to the appropriate places in the article itself. COFS 20:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Will you also be planning to remove "Scientology beliefs and practices" since that has a separate article? How about deleting everything under "Controversy and Criticism" and moving it to the separate article of the same name?
 * The purpose of this top-level article is to bring together and provide a summary of the major subjects which fall under the umbrella of Scientology. Removing a summary of criticism and controversy from the lead on the grounds you've quoted is simply not justified.
 * Just because the COI warning posted to your Talk page is now archived doesn't mean you can ignore what it says before making sweeping changes to this article's structure and layout. On the contrary, you should be taking more care than ever to seek consensus before making such edits. SheffieldSteel 21:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:NPA violation not appreciated. If you can't respond to a Scientologist without smirking or nonsense comments go edit somewhere else. Your edit is a) unsourced and b) muddies up the article. Stick to the Wikipedia rules, please. COFS 21:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The text that you removed contains citations. Therefore, you can not reasonably describe it as "unsourced".


 * I am rather concerned about being accused of making a personal attack, assuming that was your intent when quoting WP:NPA. Please could you elaborate on what I said that constitutes an attack in your opinion. Thank you. SheffieldSteel 21:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You are alleging me doing COI edits. A real COI edit would be to totally delete this POS article and restart from scratch. However I intend to stick to the rules and I am doing so. I assume - and I would like to be wrong on that - that your continuous reverts of my edits are based on some prejudice. You don't even seem to read the refs you are reverting. Prove me wrong. COFS 22:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It is wrong to delete cited material on the grounds that it is uncited. It is wrong to delete cited material on the grounds that the citation does not in fact match the material (the correct procedure would be to remove the incorrect citation and either look for a citation yourself or request that another editor do it for you). It is wrong to treat as a personal attack a reminder that a Scientologist engaging in edit warring in the Scientology article may have a  conflict of interest, particularly when all the disputed edits are removals of criticism. SheffieldSteel 23:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Repetition

 * The following sentence appears no fewer than three times throughout the article:
 * "Reports and allegations have been made, by journalists, courts, and governmental bodies of several countries, that the Church of Scientology is an unscrupulous commercial enterprise that harasses its critics and brutally exploits its members."
 * It is well sourced (giving at least four different sources for the allegations), yet maintains the exact same wording in each instance throughout the article. I think the sentence should at least be paraphrased, and in the instances in the "Criticisms" section, have the repetition of the sentence removed, just to reduce clutter and make the article more academic. The Great Attractor 21:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Why don't you read the actual two sources, compare it to the requirements of the WP:RS, reliable source, and see whether this is enough for this severe claims "by journalists, courts, and governmental bodies of several countries". If this one passes as a quality standard on Wikipedia, well, that's going to be a bonfire for POV-pushers. COFS 22:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Before SheffieldSteel got on the role I had actually moved the above quote in the controversy section as it gives some generality nonsense about the Church organization and not Scientology. The "extra" copies are now removed. Back to square zero. COFS 22:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * COFS, I don't think you can reasonably deny that the Church of Scientology has been intesively investigated by these institutions. The government of Germany in particular has been very active in is scrutinization of the church.  As for the media, well, you shouldn't need me to tell you that it gets plenty of coverage.  American media in particular are obsessed with the church due to the membership of celebrities.  You'd have to live under a rock if you were to deny that these allegations have been leveled at the church. The Great Attractor 01:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, I don't understand why you are so adamant about censoring allegations against Scientology. As a member of Project Scientology, you are supposed to support an NPOV article regarding the subject, not advocate the creation of an article consisting only of glowing praise.  Just for perspective, consider that the major Western religions (Christianity and Islam, notably) have been criticized as institutions determined to oppress the rights of women through demonization and the implementation of a patriarchal religious structure.  Christianity and Islam and Judaism, among other faiths, were also once dispairaged as "cults" by the dominant believers of their ages.  Personally, I wouldn't put Scientology on the same boat as these major faiths, but I think your objectivity is seriously called into question by your inability to accept and reasonably refute criticism. The Great Attractor 02:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

How best to summarise criticism/controversy in the lead
Since the article contains quite a lot of coverage of criticism and controversy, it seems appropriate to provide a summary of that in the article lead. How should this best be worded, or should there be no mention of it at all? User:COFS has stated that there should be none, on the grounds that the criticism applies to the Church of Scientology, rather than Scientology itself. What do other editors think? SheffieldSteel 23:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Jeez, when I said that I had an issue with that sentence about controversy being used multiple times, I didn't mean it should be expunged entirely. Shef has a good point; I'm putting the sentence back in the intro, and paraphrasing the repetition in the criticisms section.  I think the sentence as it was worded originally is a more concise version, so it works better in the introduction.  I do not think a distinction should be made between Scientology and the Church of Scientology; this is essentially creating a barrier between the beliefs and the believers.  He who believes the New Testament is a Christian; he who believes in Scientology is a Scientologist.The Great Attractor 01:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Some of the controversy applies largely to the Church, for instance the prosecution and conviction of Church officials for doing various illegal things in the interest of the Church; or the abuse of dissident members, former members, and of critics. These are actions of Church officials and representatives.

However, some of it applies to the doctrines and practice of Dianetics and Scientology. For instance, there's the issue of Scientology's claimed compatibility with Christianity and other religions, whereas higher levels claim that Christianity's notions of God, Jesus, and Heaven are implants created by evil aliens. Likewise there are issues of the therapeutic efficacy of auditing; the medical claims that have sometimes been made about E-meter use; and so on.

And then there are the issues where Church practice seems to be directly informed by particular aspects of doctrine. For instance, some Church abuse of dissident members is informed by the Tone Scale, e.g. placing people in "conditions of blame" or the like. Likewise, the Church has claimed in court that "Fair Game" is a matter of religious doctrine. Also there is the question of whether particular Hubbard pronouncements are "Church" or "Scientology" matters. --FOo 03:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for this open answer. I see where you are coming from and as a practicing Scientologist I want to let you know that you got heavily misinformed about some things, especially the doctrine. You kinda expected that, didn't you?


 * The alien story and opposition to Christian belief is a sad lie, made up by Fishman et al in an affidavit submitted to court after the case was over. The whole intent of this "affidavit" was to spread this lie and create a controversy between Christians and Scientologists, just to make sure that no one would talk to Scientologists anymore. As OT materials are confidential and not normally known to all members this falsehood had some chance to grow until finally dismissed by affidavits of Scientologists (and statements of ex-Scientologists who had read the originals) that this "Jesus/Heaven-Implant-story" is not part of any OT material and not part of Scientology doctrine.


 * I can't say much about criminal members/ex-members except that they existed but also that they left the Church in droves, mainly in the 1980s (some of them are here now attacking Scientology).


 * I am sorry to say but what's missing in Wikipedia and on the internet are people who actually know what is in the Scientology books and materials because they read them and have no reason to falsify them. But honestly, the amount of utter nonsense which passes as "truth" online would not survive a minute in real life and thus I understand why Scientologists are just sick and tired to debate internet-only lunacies, out-of-context quotes, intentional misinterpretations and other slanderous nonsense. I can research, tell or document you the real deal behind most of such stories, if you listen and if you are honestly interested. If not, stop wasting my time, thanks. COFS 04:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I wasn't referring to the Fishman Affidavit's erroneous copy of OT VIII for the incompatibility of Scientology and Christianity. I was referring to Hubbard's "Assists" lecture and the "Philadelphia Doctorate Course", in which Hubbard claims that the image of Christ is derived from the "R6 implant" and that Christianity was established by means of this implant.


 * (The falsified OT VIII is the one that refers to Jesus as a "lover of young men and boys". That's not the material I'm referring to. I'm talking about audio tapes that Hubbard made in his own voice, which are rather more widely used than OT VIII.)


 * Obviously I'm not going to copy the exact material for you here, thanks to the Church's past misuse of copyright and trade secret claims to harass and abuse. But you can look it up for yourself, if you have that material, or you can find the various excerpts that have been used by scholars on the Web and elsewhere. --FOo 08:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't blame me for not being able to quote exact references. Please specify the source of your nonsense - no sense/illogic - allegation. At least a tape number (they are all numbered in a standardized way) or the date of recording? The PDC - a "course" as the name says - has close to 80 individual lectures up to an hour and a lot has been said in there. And a lecture about assists (this type of stuff) is unlikely to talk about the reactive mind (aka R6 bank). I maintain that you bought lies, misinterpretations or inventions which you think are Scientology. And it does not help to build an encyclopedia on such a basis. COFS 15:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course I agree. I restored it, and I was a few minutes later accused of "blind bashing"... Controversy is a definite characteristic of Scientology. So I agree this needs to be part of the introduction. Raymond Hill 05:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Which I maintain because your revert added a second copy of identical text in the article. Check your talk page. COFS 15:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

"Undue credence" to the Xenu story?
Su-Jada thinks that if a summary of the Xenu story appears before the Scientologists' stance on that story, it gives the story "undue credence". I think it's more logical to present the story first, then to present Scientologists' stance on it. I fail to see how it would give the story "undue credence": the story has been proven true at this point, aside Hubbard 's own handwriting, there are many former Scientologists who have reached OT3, and even the Church of Scientology claimed copyright on this story (which is prelude to the many other OT levels following, so it is quite important in that respect.) I know Hubbard warned of harm those who would read the story before they are ready to do so, but Wikipedia is not bound by the specific beliefs of a particular religion. Raymond Hill 05:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Wait wait wait... Did you just say "the story hasbeen proven true?!" Did you really say that...?!

John 06:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * :-) Raymond Hill 06:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * what the heck is a smile supposed to mean...? John 23:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Reverted myself
I tried to correct a change that was made, and I wished to correct many others that were made, but I had to revert myself, as I couldn't restore properly. Problem is, way too many changes were made, and it is very difficult to put back what was proper while keeping the changes that are appropriate. I would suggest that next time, before performing sweeping changes, each point should be agreed upon before on the talk page. Some of the reasons given for not mentioning the controversial nature of scientology in the intro is that this would create 'redundancy' with the main content of the article. However, this redundancy issue was non-existent before the paragraph in the intro was moved to the main body of the article. Raymond Hill 06:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, especially as when beliefs are being explained changing one word can make a major difference theologically. It would helpful if editors made easily viewed changes in one section only then sat back and dealt with possible objections etc to those before continuing. --Hartley Patterson 13:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Degrades Wikipedia to a debate club. What are Wikipedia policies for then? COFS 15:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there NO controversy whatsoever?
Reading the introduction as it now stands, one could easily be led to believe that there's no controversy surrounding Scientology whatsoever. This is a result of edits by Scientologist editors who apparently do not believe that the conflict of interest or  neutral point of view guidelines apply to them, or perhaps simply think that they know best about what should go into this article. I don't know what the motivation is, but the result looks somewhat like a whitewash.

A succession of scientologist editors have repeatedly removed, and reverted efforts by several other editors to insert, a summary of the article's criticism and controversy section into the lead, per WP:LEAD. In [this edit], Editor User:Lsi_john removes the last mention of controversy from the lead on the grounds that it is "unsourced and therefore OR". Is there really no source to be found, anywhere in this article, that says there is any controversy surrounding the CoS? SheffieldSteel 20:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * SheffieldSteel and others who have participated in this discussion, my objection to the way critics of Scientology have treated this and other Scientology articles is that they have repeatedly tried to paint Scientology not as controversial, the definition of which comes from "controversy" which means "dispute, especially a public one, between sides holding opposing view," but rather as "guilty," for example, by saying in the lead that critics call Scientology an "unscrupulous commercial enterprise that harasses its critics and brutally exploits its members." Let's take another example in Wikipedia that I think will make this really clear.  In the West, Salman Rushdie is a very well respected, award-winning author.  But he is certainly a man of controversy, and it is that controversy that propelled him into prominence from what I remember (I may be wrong but personally, I don't think I ever heard of him before he was the subject of a fatwa).  Now in the lead of his article it states, "His fourth novel, The Satanic Verses (1988), provoked violent reactions from radical Muslims. After death threats and a fatwa (religious ruling) issued by Iranian Ayatollah Khomeini calling for his assassination, he spent years underground, appearing in public only sporadically. During the last decade, however, he has resumed a normal literary life."  The impression I get, as a Westerner, is that this is a man of courage who spoke up despite death threats.  It could just as easily have stated "He was found guilty of public blasphemy  that undermines the beliefs and morality of the Muslim world and was sentenced to death." And it would be wrong to do so because it would be POV. In summary, my complaint is that "controversy" as it has been covered in Scientology has been POV, deliberatly slanted to lead readers to believe there is something wrong with Scientology.Su-Jada 06:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Now you're overreacting. The lead does not say 'unconfrontational'. Why are you suggesting that the lead must contain the word in order for a reader to get the opinion? That seems to suggest that you feel the controversy is so weak it won't be obvious on its own merit. Why do you assume the lack of your word implies the presence of its opposite?


 * I removed a very positional statement which was not supported by secondary sources. We do not get to say 'often controversial' and then demonstrate the truth. We only get to cite sources. If you have a source that makes the statement:
 * "Scientology refers to the often controversial....."
 * then by all means include it. Until then, I stand by my edit. Source it or don't include it.
 * Our readers are not stupid, stick with facts. Leave the 'leading words and phrases' at home. Lsi john 20:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * and pssst. I'm not a Scientologist. I have no connection to, nor interest in, Scientology. Stick with relevant, reliable, sourced statements and its quite likely that you'll never hear from me. Lsi john 20:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Here are a few sources found from a quick survey regarding the controversial nature of Scientology:
 * The Globe and Mail (1980): "Secret Ontario documents found in U.S. cult's files" by John Marshall (... files involving the controversial cult have also disappeared ...")
 * Post-Gazette (2005): "Scientology comes to town" (... the controversial religious movement that recently captured international headlines ...)
 * The Guardian (1980): "Papers reveal sect's 'dirty tricks' / Snow White's dirty tricks" (... growing political controversy over a long-standing Government ban on Scientologists ...)
 * The Advisor (Apr. 1981): "Scientology-Narconon Link Protested" (... Church of Scientology, the controversial cultic organization ...)
 * ABC News (1992): "Nightline: A Conversation with David Miscavige" (... leaving behind a church embroiled in controversy ...)
 * The Globe and Mail (Jan. 1980): "The Scientology Papers: Cult harassment, spying in Canada documented" by John Marshall (... operations of the controversial Church of Scientology ...")
 * The Advertiser (Adelaide, Australia): "Inside the cult" by Alison Braund (... had been shrouded in controversy for many years ...)
 * Evening News (2002): "Scientologists back anti-drugs festival" (... Over the last 50 years, Scientology has attracted almost continual controversy ...)
 * U.K. Channel 4: "Secret Lives - L. Ron Hubbard" (... Hubbard created one of the richest and most controversial cults of our time - the Church of Scientology ...)
 * Frederick Post (1981): "Man continues crusade against church" by Tom Tiede (... The church had a controversial history of religious and secular squabbling ...)
 * New York Post (2005): "SCIENTOLOGY 'PRINCESS' IS A SPOOKY SHADOW ON KOOKY KATIE" (... Cindy raised their kids as Scientologists, enrolling them in the controversial religion's many obligatory courses ...)
 * Mail & Guardian(2007): "Ndebele flirts with Scientology" (... with direct links to the controversial Church of Scientology ...)
 * BBC News (2007): "UK officials feared church 'evil'" (... files from the National Archives at Kew show controversy surrounding the church in the UK is nothing new ...)
 * The Observer (2004): "Lure of the celebrity sect" (... the church, which for decades has been at the centre of lawsuits and government investigations, is no stranger to controversy ...)
 * Las Vegas Sun (1976): "Scientology student death probe" (... Art Maren, publicity agent for the church, [...] said the church has been considered "very controversial" in recent years ...)
 * etc... Raymond Hill 22:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed. I still have an issue with saying the Church is controversial. It isn't proper english. Its decisions may be controversial. Its practices may be controversial. Its beliefs may be controversial. But it just isn't proper english to say that the church itself is controversial. In at least one of your citations, they were talking about Scientology, the movement, not Scientology the Church. This paragraph, where I removed 'controversial', is about the Church.
 * Would you agree that accurate wording would be:
 * "The term 'Scientology' is also used to refer to the Church of Scientology, the largest organization promoting the practice of Scientology. The Church of Scientology, often referred to as controversial, is itself part of a network of affiliated organizations that claim ownership of and sole authority to disseminate Dianetics and Scientology."


 * I'm not hung up on the wording 'referred to as'. I'm open to that being 'called' or 'cited as' whatever you prefer. Lsi john 22:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * How is saying the Church is controversial not proper English? Controversial is a adjective.  Adjectives describe nouns.  The Church is a noun.  It seems to follow the rules of English as I know them.Poolboy8 00:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I already explained that. So I'll respond with a question. Where do you see anything that is controversial about the church itself. (not about Scientology (the religion), not its beliefs, not its practices, not its methods) but controversy about Scientology (the church), which I presume is a corporation. What is controversial about the Church? Controversy exists, certainly. But I do not recall seeing any cited controversy about the Church itself. My goal here is accuracy. I have no objection to the word controversy being added, as long as it is added correctly and accurately. Lsi john 12:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I admit I don't know anything about the church of Scientology except what I've read here in the last couple of days. I came to this article after a discussion about Scientology with someone from work.  I was a little daunted by its size so I looked at its history.  I was amazed by the number of recent changes and reverts.  So that lead me to the discussion page.  Again, it's huge (another huge page plus 16 archives!) so I just read the most recent topic at the bottom (this one).  That's where I saw the "not proper English" comment.  I think you explained why you don't like the wording.  On that, I have no opinion.  But it doesn't actually break any rules of English to say that the church is controversial.  If you want to split hairs with the other people who edit this article whether there's a difference between calling the church controversial and calling the church's practices controversial, be my guest.  That is the argument you made above, but you started that argument by saying it is not proper English.  That just isn't correct.  "Thought" is a noun.  "Blue" is an adjective.  If I say, "The thought is blue," that may not make any sense (how can something that you can't see have a color?), but it is still proper English.  I'm using an adjective to describe a noun.  Now do you see why I said that using the word "controversial" to describe the "church" is proper English?  I've no desire to get in the middle of what appears to be something close to an edit war on this topic.  (I'm thinking I'm going to regret even putting in these comments in the discussion.)  I just want a fairly concise neutral point of view article on Scientology.  Unfortunately, I doubt I'm going to find that at Wikipedia, and that's fine.  I'm doubting I'm going to find that anywhere, actually, but I'll read what's available and hopefully will learn more about it.  Though I do believe that the phrase "the church is controversial" does not break any laws of English.Poolboy8 01:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Introduction: 'first page' games
'First page games' on the Internet is when the advocates of one side attempt to drive their opponents off the first page in the hope that casual readers won't see them.

The Introduction is being extended with details about Scientology beliefs that should not be in an introduction. One paragraph will suffice, the rest should go in the Beliefs section which in turn points to the main Beliefs article. In the 'controversy' paragraph for anti-scientology to be 'allegations' and pro-scientology 'revealed' is clearly POV. Whichever editor put this in is being silly, as it was never going to stand. Please read, yet again, the advice to 'discuss substantial changes here before making them'.

So I'm discussing. I propose to cut the two paragraphs beginning 'Scientology claims to offer' back to one restoring the status quo and to delete the next which is tautological - that scientologists say Scientology is good is not informative! The final 'controversy' paragraph should indicate that some activities of the Church are controversial and that the Church rejects all criticism of itself, referring to the 'Controversy' section for details. I don't even think there should be lots of references in the Introduction, since such references are best made in detail later. --Hartley Patterson 14:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing this up as discussion. I don't agree with your assessment of the lead section of this article. Looking through the articles on other religions in Wikipedia, some do cover the basic beliefs of the religion; some don't.  I see no reason not to describe the most basic principles of Scientology right from the top, as that is, really, what defines Scientology.  Since Scientology is an applied religious philosophy I think it is important to mention the basic concepts that provide the foundation for the religion in the lead.  We can then expand on these and present more beliefs in the "beliefs and practices" section.Su-Jada 04:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Hartley Patterson. In addition the introduction should be based on reputable secondary sources. But now the major part is based on 10 primary sources partly quoting success stories from some scientologists without any relevance(looks like a scientology link farm). It is not infomative at all anymore and does not reflect the reputable mainstream on this issue. -- Stan talk 17:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Hartley Patterson and Stan En. The Introduction should give a concise and accurate summary the content of the article - see WP:LEAD for more on this. SheffieldSteel 19:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree with Sheffield and Hartley. Sheffield is known to introduce bias in the article and just recently tried to put some ridicule in. Hartley, I would think you would understand that your criticism against the Church belongs in the article about the Church and not in the one on Scientology. You commented recently that Freezoners say that they are Scientologists. So why do you agree to a muddling of the two topics? On "Stan En", whatever that is, I won't comment since its only contribution consists of targeted vandalism so far. The article needs to be cleaned, corrected and made into one about Scientology, not the Church or any corporation or what-have-you. For the simple reason that it says "Scientology" in the title, not "Best of Controversy against the the Church of Scientology". COFS 23:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Stan is obviously a German (says he) and over there "clocks tick differently" (he might say). no surprise that Germany "sees Scientology differently", they got a history of polarization. COFS is right, this article is almost POVed beyond repair and vandalizing edits are no help. Misou 01:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * what is your statement on this ? Germans should be banned from WP? Or should be ignored? Maybe you stop personal attacks and point out what was wrong about my comment. lol clocks tick differently thats true, it is almost 4 o'clock here. Good Night !-- Stan talk 01:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This is the article readers reach when they type 'Scientology' into a search engine. It should therefore be a short overview of the whole subject with links to more focused articles. It is, of necessity, about both beliefs and organisation because most readers can't distinguish between the two and most of those who could don't want to, on both sides of the debate. That is not going to change overnight.


 * To Su-Jada - I know very well that Scientology is next to impossible to explain in a single book, let alone a couple of paragraphs! That should not be an excuse for not trying.
 * To Everyone: mass editing is pointless, it just annoys people and eventually gets changed back. For edits to stick they have to be consensus or imposed from above. There is no audience to preach to here, just editors. --Hartley Patterson 00:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * reducing Scientology to the ideology ...
 * I think it is not possible to extract the term Scientology from the Church of Scientology.
 * 1. the term Scientology is copyrighted by the Church of Scientology. You will not find freezoners calling themselfs as Scientologists officially. They usually refer to LRH TECH.
 * 2. In the public and in any dictionary or encyclopedia you will find under the the term Scientology the Church of Scientology and not only the ideology itself.
 * 3. The article itself states right now: The term "Scientology" is also used to refer to the Church of Scientology, the largest organization promoting the practice of Scientology, which is itself part of a network of affiliated organizations that claim ownership of and sole authority to disseminate Dianetics and Scientology. ::: I highly agree with that!
 * 4 and the ideology by itself is impossible without the organization as long the organizanion is the main part of the ideology -- Stan talk 00:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Reverts from COFS in "Scientology as a state recogniced religion"
I did make the changes quite thoughtfull and carefull. There was no vandalism.

my changes: 1.changed the year of beginning surveillance from 1970 to 1997 in Germany(read the sources) 2. deleted redundant and double mentioned informations 3. deleted "Scientology is also regarded as a religious charitable organization in Holland, Hungary, Portugal, Switzerland, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mexico, India, Albania, South Africa, Slovenia, Croatia, Japan, Sweden, Austria, New Zealand and France " your own source states the opposite. I can give you various other sources if needed.

Please explain me why you reverted everything and what exactly was was wrong about my changes. -- Stan talk 23:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ouch. Check WP:BIAS, German. Misou 01:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1.just bringing up false informations doesn't make anything unbiased or neutral. edit(Your two sources suport my changes.
 * 2. and show me only one citation which states that the UN hearing brought up criticism and I will accept your changes. It is bios to write about a hearing and leaving out the decisions at the end. -- Stan talk 01:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1998, UN Special Rapporteur slammed Germany for Scientology treatment. Another one here. I remember some reports he published that time, same content. Later today, gotta run. You stay where you are. Misou 01:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * the first source is trash. The second is reputable but without any criticism or consequences for Germany regarding treatment of Scientology. Just give me a citation that fits from the second or another reputable source. Otherwise I will change back your edit.-- Stan talk</tt> 01:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Source to the source here, just a click away: "In another addendum (E/CN.4/1998/6/Add.2), Mr. Amor reports on his visit to Germany. He writes that as regards legislation, the provisions of the German Constitution fully guarantee freedom of religion and belief. Within this overall framework of freedom of religion and freedom of belief, people can and do express themselves. The Jewish community is able to flourish as a religious minority and enjoys very active political, institutional and financial support from the State. The situation of the Muslim minority is markedly less favourable, although on the whole it is not unsatisfactory. Concerning other groups and communities, there is no obstacle to the exercise of their activities, with the exception of the Church of Scientology. What that group faces can be described as a climate of suspicious, or latent intolerance. The Special Rapporteur concludes that the State, beyond day-to-day management, must implement a strategy to prevent intolerance in the field of religion and belief. He recommends a campaign to develop awareness among the media." (here, this guy is the Special Rapporteur for Religious Intolerance. Another one here. The German Government ran like chickens that time, trying to show how "harmless" they are and why their attempted annihilation of Scientologists is ok. They pulled back those "measures", sneakily, over the last years. My whole point, German, is this: If you would be interested in a Wikipedia article it would be easy to find neutral documents. But what you put in is old German propaganda and what you want to delete is sourced information and that is not cool. This world has more countries and viewpoints than just German Government policy. Misou 02:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't want to bring up "old German propaganda" at all and I don't want to bring up german sources as well. I think there are enough reputable english sources. I only changed 1 German source wich came from a Scientology front group to a reputable secondary source, which by the way stated exactly the same.-- Stan <tt>talk</tt> 04:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Aaaah, yes, I understand now. You didn't read WP:BIAS! Well, please do that and add WP:RS so I don't have to fight nausea every time you write "reputable", thanks! And then, let's take apart what the Germans did here in the US, who was paid for spreading false information about Scientology and others and what exactly your agenda, pardon, purpose is, German, when you selectively use those sources. Misou 18:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

in the article: In individual court and administrative cases Scientology was regarded as a religious charitable organization in Holland, Hungary, Portugal, Switzerland, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mexico, India, Albania, South Africa, Slovenia, Croatia, Japan, Sweden, Austria, New Zealand and France . and here what your source actually says: ''In early 2003, a German court granted a tax exemption for 10% license fees that are sent to the United States. This exemption, however, is related to a German-American double taxation agreement, and has nothing to do with exemption as a charitable organization. Germany is at the forefront of countries that remain somewhat hostile to Scientology. Most significantly, in January 2003, the German Federal Finance Office granted the Church of Scientology International, the mother church of the Scientology religion, full tax exemption on monies given in support of the mother church by nine churches of Scientology in Germany--a decision reported in hundreds of newspaper articles across the country. Similar recognitions have been issued in Holland, Hungary, Portugal, Switzerland, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mexico, India, Albania, Hungary, Holland, South Africa, Slovenia, Croatia, and Japan.'' lol and here a citation from the same source: ''Germany and France are at the forefront of countries that remain somewhat hostile to Scientology, especially in the court of public opinion. '' So this edit by misou should be reverted or corected as well-- Stan <tt>talk</tt> 01:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * @misou thanks that you took out at least France. But you missed my point. Your source states that all the listed countries have a simalar position like Germany. quote from your source:"This exemption, however, is related to a German-American double taxation agreement, and has nothing to do with exemption as a charitable organization. .... Similar recognitions have been issued in Holland, Hungary, Portugal, Switzerland ....." Do you get it now? Thats why I want to delete it because your source states exactly the opposite. And here you state the exact opposite as well. However, some of the listed countries like hungary may indeed recognize Scientology as a religion. Bring up reputable sources for this countries and everyone will be happy. But I will take out the false sentence again. -- Stan <tt>talk</tt> 04:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Misou, the cofs does a very good job at creating its own adversaries. Please stop blaming Germans and Germany for the cofs's own lunacy and problems. You come across as a racist and a bigot.--Fahrenheit451 16:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Introduction AGAIN

 * I removed the sections in the introduction regarding controversy that include unnecessary anecdotes about how those who bring allegations agains the church are seeking large settlements, and to discredit members of the CoS. This seemed blatantly POV, and I felt that these concerns would be more appropriately addressed in the "Criticisms" section.  Keep it objective. The Great Attractor 02:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The Great Attractor, your idea of "unnecessary anecdotes," would suggest a possible lack of research or POV on Scientology controversy, which is the very subject you are editing. However, I can see that the way I worded the citations I included my need some clarification, since if you could come away with the conclusion that these were mere anecdotes, it is possible that others, who are uniformed about this might also draw the similar conclusions. You are quite new to Wikipedia, and so perhaps you don't realize this, but you cannot simply edit based on your opinions, which it would appear you have just done. Let me explain, so you understand the background of this subject. Frankly, I don't agree that the two sentences you left at the end of this section on Scientology being controversial should be mentioned in the lead, and would prefer to simply delete it, since there is a "controversy" section below, but, as a compromise, I provided citations to show that litigants and persons with vested interests (paid expert witnesses) generated much of the so-called controversial media by deliberately providing false and misleading statements to journalists and netizens in an attempt to foster a negative climate so as to pressure the church, for the purpose of personal renumeration.  This is salient information, and, ironically, neglecting to include it whilst stating that Scientology is controversial could be argued to be an example of the resultant systemic bias that was so generated. Of course this is only my opinion, and I am not going to state such in the article. However, I would request that you and Stan En refrain from simply deleting this section and its citations again.  Su-Jada 17:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I may be new, but I'm not uneducated. The word "anecdote" does not imply a lack of truth.  Look it up.  I think I am completely correct for removing those anecdotes since they obviously intend to cast doubt on those who criticize Scientology.  That's not NPOV on your part, pal, like it or not. The Great Attractor 01:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The Great Attractor I am certain that you think you are completely correct. I would never accuse you of deliberately doing something you thought was illogical or faulty.  What use would that serve you?  But I don't agree with your point of view, and I'm getting pretty tired of my edits being reverted based on what someone "thinks is correct." I also find your calling me pal offensive, which you no doubt intended.  I have tried to keep the tone of my discussions reasonable and on a high plane, and request that you do the same, which is Wikipedia policy. I also disagree with your interpretation of the events I cited as anecdotes. I would not classify admissions by two former Scientologists that they deliberately perjured themselves to extort money from the Church through the legal system, and spread these false allegations to and through the media to generate the very kind of "controversy" we are now trying to resolve with this discussion as a "short tale narrating an interesting or amusing biographical incident." If we are going to keep the "Church is controversial," and "claims of harassment and harm to critics" caveats, NPOV calls for balancing that with the actions taken by persons who deliberately created such claims in order to profit from them financially.  I am not set on having to have my section there vs. including it below.  But if the prejudicial and un-cited description of Scientology stays in the lead, so does my documentation to show this is only one opinion.Su-Jada 04:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The quality of debate here sucks

 * I am gonna chime in here with a little note to every editor here. Why don't we all read again WP:BIAS and WP:NPOV so we know what we are talking about. "Stan" and "Sheffield", please take note of this: "Disagreements over whether something is approached the Neutral Point Of View (NPOV) way can usually be avoided through the practice of good research.". Wikipedia policy, you sure have heard of that. Read it. Misou 18:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No offense, but could you actually try explaining why their statements are biased instead of throwing the same wikilinks and unsupported assaults on their research ethics around? After taking a long look at this you seem to be engaging in the same practices you are preaching against.  --  Oni Ookami Alfador Talk 19:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You might be right, I am getting too much into the tune set by these guys. Example? Check the history of this article. Just a minute ago RookZERO reverted together with a little WP:NPA violation against me. What did he revert? Something he can't have, something showing that the so called "allegations" in the lead section (which should be in a different article anyway) are made up and paid for. This edit is clearly trying to delete data out of WP which would give more insight about how the Church of Scientology has been made "controversial". I said earlier that I don't want to mix the Church and the belief in this article about the belief but as this means that all slander would need to go you can witness biased operations going on. This all is diverting from actually editing and improving articles. Which is where my beef comes from. Pure repetition of unsourced allegations and its correction can eat your day and smash all the joy one can have when participating in WP. Misou 19:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * how can you talk about WP:NPA by RookZERO when you call any edit from other editors as vandalism ?
 * "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.", WP:VAN. This is an encyclopedia, not a "my opinion is more important than yours". May I call to your attention, German, that you just called bribery a "misdemeanor" and used this as an argument to remove "content ... in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia"? At least I understand WP:VAN this way. Noch so'n Ding, ... und unterschreiben nicht vergessen. Misou 21:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * my comment was about this person and not wikipedia or editors here. -- Stan <tt>talk</tt> 21:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So you took out half a page of text by mistake? Anyway, let's go over this per WP:BRD (no, not BRD, but BRD). Misou 21:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Misou, it looks like you are in violation of 3RR for reverting the "paid as expert witnesses" section into the lead four times within 24 hrs. Why is this so important to you? It seems POV to me, and certainly doesn't belong in the summary. Hemidemisemiquaver 22:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * as a followup, the references for this bit are located at http://www.whyaretheydead.net, which clearly is not a reliable source. just my 2 cents. Hemidemisemiquaver 22:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * What is important for me is that WP:BRD is kept in and I must say that except for me nobody seems to care about that. WP:3RR says, "Since the rule is intended to prevent edit warring, reverts which are clearly not such will not breach the rule." so I am not in the counting category. The "reverters" Sheffield, RookZERO and Stan En are on the appropriate Admin boards since hours to get them to stop edit warring, that is: stop destroying sourced edits without comment or discussion and stop WP:NPA violations. Yep, whytheyaredead.org is not a RS. A quote should be used as ref, with date etc. The whole section is not important. It should go and I said that. But then all of it goes and not a part and some anti-POV is left behind. You see, Sheffield did good changes just now, so I am not complaining. Misou 23:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

kinda new subject
(un-dent) There has been, I think, a fair bit of discussion about whether the CoS can be separated from Scientology. Perhaps academically a case can be made for this - although it has not been demonstrated on this page, with editors weighing in on both sides - but an uninformed reader wishing to learn about Scientology, the CoS, or both, will come to this page. Therefore this main article should contain a summary of what sub-articles describe in more detail about the CoS and Scientology, providing a reader with enough information and links to make an informed decision about where to go next, should they wish to read further. The lead paragraphs should contain a brief, accurate and neutral summary of the material in this article. It should not contain point-counterpoint argument that is better placed elsewhere in this article, or indeed in other more specific articles.

Misou, Why have you brought up this issue of nationality so many times? Please refrain from what looks like a racist attack against Stan En. SheffieldSteel 21:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I did not know that the Germans are a race. Never noticed that and I lived there for a bit. Anyway, and I am happy to repeat that here once more, my critic goes against "Stan"s German-way-of-bashing-Scientologists-slants, not him personally. But good that you hang in here and help to document a few folks chronically lying about themselves and their intentions. Just note
 * this one for that. Cryptically, Misou 21:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I hope Misou is not flaunting bigotry. Let's assume he just needs some enlightenment and overlook it this time.--Fahrenheit451 18:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Controversy in the Lead, Again
The lead currently includes the following statement: "A variety of reports and allegations have been made by journalists, and legal cases have been brought by and against the Church, claiming harassment and harm by and against Church critics." The Church has not brought cases claiming harassment by critics, so that goes. Also, that someone "brings" a case against the Church (and there have been very few of them over the past 10 years or so anyway), means nothing unless they prevail. So this statement infers wrongdoing based on the generality that critics have sued the Church. Also, "journalists" do not make claims unless they are writing editorials, in which case they are expressing opinion. Journalists only report claims (in this case, claims by critics). So really, all we have left is "critics have claimed harassment by the Church." But unless they have proven it, I can't see including it in the lead. Based on this, and because my earlier solution of balancing these claims with citations showing that key claims were fabricated solely to put pressure on the Church of settle for large sums of money, I am removing this section.Su-Jada 04:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The stories by journalists over the entire history of Scientology that don't mention controversy are rather small—not to mention it in the introduction would be a serious POV breach. This seems to be yet another whitewash attempt to clean Controversy into its own little section. AndroidCat 11:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * the changes in the introduction have gone way to far! I would like to put up a "neutrality sign" in the article. its not just about smaller POV issues anymore !
 * 1 intro is sourced by 10 primary sources (link farm)!
 * 2 only some beliefs and practices are explained and not a concise and acurate summary of the article.
 * 3 the beliefs and practices report conveniently only "Scientology dissemination materials" and stuff from "introduction courses" in Scientology. I dont't want to set Xenu in the introduction but am missing all this stuff like "PTS/SP", "ethic System", "Disconnection" etc.That is not just whitewashing, it is "Scientology Promotion". This was archived by some editors due to making numerous smaller edits without consensus on talkpage.It must happen something here, otherwise this article becomes entirely riducolus ! Any other ideas how to accomplish an introduction  which does not violate WP:LEADWP:NPOV etc. ? -- Stan <tt>talk</tt> 12:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Stan En. Our only option is to try to follow the principles and guildelines that you mention, to try to discuss and obtain consensus, and to hope that the admins will step in to stop those who want to disrupt this process. SheffieldSteel 14:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it is more norm in this project to describe what something is before we get into the criticism of it. That said, it is useful to discuss ALL of Scientology; the "regular" tech (auditing), Study Tech, Ethics Tech, Admin Tech, etc. To truly understand Scientology you must understand that it is an effort to understand the entire scope of existence and that covers a lot and Scientology covers a lot. It is all built on the basic Theta-MEST theory. All due respect, but the problem with most Scn articles here is they are heavily influenced by people that have little if any understanding of what Scientology is and often only a basic understanding of what the criticism of Scientology is. Sorry if that sounds harsh but I have 30 years in Scientology and 25 years researching criticism of it and I know whereof I speak. I may take a stab at a lead as time permits. --Justanother 15:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Justanother that we should describe Scientology before documenting any controversy or criticism. In the context of the article lead, my understanding of the guidelines is that it should provide a brief summary of the article's coverage of controversy and criticism after a summary of the rest of the article - which means describing and defining Scientology and the CoS first. But I don't think that the summary of criticism/controversy should be postponed until after the rest of the article.


 * Also I'd like to thank User:Justanother for providing all of us with such a good example of how to avoid heated comments and edit-warring, even in a controversial situation where accusations of bias and conflict of interest are common. SheffieldSteel 17:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with the changes. I see some very intelligent people working here. Only proven facts should be in the intro not allegations. Thanks for your efforts. Afinity Warrior 21:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)