Talk:Scientology/Archive 26

Even more Scientology History
I just read "Bare-faced Mesiah" and no where does it say that: "Because of a sale of assets resulting from the bankruptcy of the research organization, Hubbard no longer owned the rights to the name "Dianetics"."

Hubbard never lost the rights to Dianetics because the book states:

Page 200 "Both Purcell and Hubbard claimed ownership and during the bitter feud..."

Page 202 "Hubbard would introduce Scientology as a logical extension of Dianetics, but it was a development of undeniable expedience, since it ensured he would be able to stay in business even if the courts eventually awarded control of Dianetics and its valuable copyrights to 'that little flatulence', the hated Don Purcell."

Page 218 "For Hubbard, the best news of 1954 came towards the end of the year when he heard from Wichita that Don Purcell was giving up the fight for control of Dianetics."

This proves that there was a never a sale of assets and Hubbard never lost the rights to Dianetics. So please someone delete the sentence in question. Bravehartbear (talk) 12:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Page 218 "For Hubbard, the best news of 1954 came towards the end of the year when he heard from Wichita that Don Purcell was giving up the fight for control of Dianetics.  Purcell had tired of the seemingly endless litigation and the constant attacks from Scientologists.  He had also became interested in an offshoot of Dianetics called Synergetics and when he decided to devote his future resources to Synergetics he handed the Wichita Foundation's copyrights and mailing lists back to Hubbard, thankful to disentangle himself from the man he had once considered a saviour."

The wording needs to be changed, but that the rights were in dispute when Scientology was founded seems clear. AndroidCat (talk) 15:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing issues
This addition seems to have sourcing issues. The links to whyaretheydead and lermanet should go, and in the last sentence, the words "However, in at least two cases, the German courts have ruled against anyone attributing the quote to Hubbard" don't seem to have an equivalent in the source. Could you have another look, JDPhD? Cheers, Jayen 466 03:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Free Zone sources
Scientology is pretty active in Israel, but unlike in the USA, very few non-Scientologists here know anything about it, and i am probably an exception - back in 2000 i read all i could find about it on the web. Since 2005 i am slowly trying to improve the article on Sceintology in he.wikipedia, and i'm quite proud of it, but i'm trying to make it even better now.

Now here's the question. How reliable are Free Zone sources when describing the history of CofS? For example, i read the book "Scientology - More Than a Cult?" published under the name "L. Kin", and it appeared pretty eloquent to me: the author seems to be loyal to the teachings of Hubbard and to the even weirder teachings of Bill Robertson, which is a minus, but the parts that describe the history of CofS appear quite realistic and reliable. Unless i am missing something, they are quite close to books such as "Piece of Blue Sky" or "Messiah or Madman". So i cited this book as one of the sources in the Hebrew article.

As time passes, though, i am getting less and less comfortable about it. Every now and then i check en.wikipedia and find that it is not mentioned anywhere, not even in the articles about the Free Zone. So - did the editors of English Scientology articles just missed this book in their research or is it really a very bad idea to cite it?

Thanks in advance. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 17:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There seems to be nothing on the book in Google Scholar: It has minimal coverage in Google Books:, Zellner being the only scholar who mentions it. The publisher "Ed. ScienTerra" seems to be a fringe publisher. All that speaks against the book, I am afraid. We listed some useful scholarly sources above, at . Many of these are visible online, wholly or in part, at google books or in amazon.com. Good luck.  Jayen 466 00:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 05:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

E-meters
The first mention of E-meters in the History section comes out of the blue. The reader won't know what these are. I think we should explain a little about auditing and the introduction of the E-Meter in the paragraphs prior to that. Jayen 466 12:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Reorganization
I would like us to implement GoodDamon's Talk:Scientology/Archive_25 that we discussed a few weeks ago. We seemed to have pretty good agreement then that this was a good idea. Is it okay if we go ahead with this now? Jayen 466 19:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If you have the time go ahead, I'm too busy.Bravehartbear (talk) 10:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have the following comments to make on the proposed order:
 * History should come before beliefs and practices to give proper background.
 * In the organization section, the subsection should not be renamed to "Hierarchy" because to attempt to explain the interconnected nature of the organizations would go beyond the scope of this article. I think the current "Distinct legal entities" is sufficient because that is precisely what they are; no implied larger structure.
 * "Splinter groups" does not need its own subsection in organizations. There's simply not enough sourced material on this. Brief mention in a sentence or two of the "organizations" section is sufficient.
 * I could agree to seeing "dispute of 'religion' status" coming after "beliefs and practices", after the reader has had a chance to see precisely what is being disputed over.
 * "Scientology as a business" is related to the "dispute of 'religion' status". Why move it out of there?
 * In fewer words: why change what it looks like now? I do not believe that the page needs an overhaul. If there are any specific concerns about the existing structure, can we address those? I agree that we need to present the article in more of a summary-style, but reordering will not necessarily accomplish that. ←  Spidern  →  15:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I just think we should follow the pattern that we have for other religion articles, like Islam, Zoroastrianism, Christianity, Jainism, Hinduism, Mormonism, Buddhism, all of which, without exception, desribe "beliefs and practices" before "history". Note that Scientology being a religion is the mainstream position; it is the official position, among English-speaking countries, in the US, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa, and it is the dominant view among scholars of religion the world over. Jayen 466 21:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The UK and Canada beg to differ. As well, there is the problem that the IRS specifically fixed various secular Scientology organizations such a Narconon as "Scientology-related entities" under the blanket agreement, making their distinctness questionable. Other religions such as Islam, Zoroastrianism, Christianity, Jainism, Hinduism, Mormonism, Buddhism don't have a central controlling authority with a lock on the trademarks and copyrights. AndroidCat (talk) 08:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No? Pope Jayen 466 12:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No. See also Protestantism, Eastern Orthodox Church or the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria. AndroidCat (talk) 14:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Specious argument. If you want to debate on that level, let's remember Ron's Org and the Free Zone, who are Scientologists that have disassociated themselves from the Church, just like these churches broke away from Rome.  Jayen 466 19:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not consistent, and that is a feature. Precedents set may provide guidelines for future conduct but should not be used as definitive justification for any change. Scientology is a very recent addition to the world's collection of religions, and sourcing its beginnings and subsequent history is more easily verifiable as a result. Since its history of becoming a religion is important in understating the movement itself, there is no reason why we should reorder it. ←  Spidern  →  16:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, Jayen, not a specious argument at all. I find your argument quite vacuous however. (Since you chose to ignore that I mentioned the lock on trademark and copyright?) AndroidCat (talk) 06:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The Tarvu/ scientology connection
Closing this as off-topic. This page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for making fun of Scientology. -- Good Damon 18:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I could not find an article or mention.

So here it is to fill you all in.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ABS0dA8KqI Scientology is responsible for the above linked video, they used it as a promotional thing to get people to buy the golden age of tech products and services.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-t7MV-Z6Pc The above video is a spoof of the other video. it even has it's own website tarvu.com The similaritys are starking.. like in one scene the black guy says "yeah sure theres the whole octopuss thing but thats only like 1 % of a % of a % of tarvuism. This is a joke about how when asked about the xenu story scientologists say its only like a small small part of the religion. Ill leave it to you sll to enjoy and see if it is relevent here. Aaron Bongart (talk) 15:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh did I forget to mention they have thier own wikipedia, Tarvupedia! Aaron Bongart (talk) 15:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

SOUTHPARK are the believes acurately portrayed in the Southpark episode about scientology? If so shouldn't one write down the story about the souls of the extraterrestrials trapped on earth and how they attached themselves onto humans? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.191.244.73 (talk) 00:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Deleted section
I deleted the following section:

-

Treatment of critics
On 12 May 2007 Journalist John Sweeney of BBC Panorama made highly critical comments regarding Scientology and its teachings, and further reported that since beginning an extensive investigation he had been harassed, surveilled, and investigated by strangers. Sweeney wrote, "I have been shouted at, spied on, had my hotel invaded at midnight, denounced as a "bigot" by star Scientologists and chased round the streets of Los Angeles by sinister strangers. Back in Britain strangers have called on my neighbors, my mother-in-law's house and someone spied on my wedding and fled the moment he was challenged." In another passage, "He [Scientology representative Tommy Davis] harangued me for talking to […] heretics. I told him that Scientology had been spying on the BBC and that was creepy." And in another passage, "In LA, the moment our hire car left the airport we realized we were being followed by two cars. In our hotel a weird stranger spent every breakfast listening to us."

A spokeswoman for the Church of Scientology stated that they had documented 154 violations of the BBC's guidelines by Sweeney and his team. The Church also said that the BBC had organized a demonstration outside a Church building in London in order to film it, following which e-mailed anonymous death threats had been made against the Church. The BBC described these allegations as "clearly laughable and utter nonsense" whilst representatives of the picket group stated that the BBC had simply turned up to a scheduled picket date that was part of an ongoing protest since 1996. Sandy Smith, the BBC program's producer, commented that the Church of Scientology has "no way of dealing with any kind of criticism at all."

---

It is about one specific incident and as such doesn't belong in the main article. A general section on treatment of critics might be worthwhile, provided it is well-sourced. Jayen 466 01:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, since it is covered in Scientology_controversies and indeed its own article. No fair, as I'm quoted in it albeit unnamed :-) I think this a better written piece than the others, and could be integrated into either. It was an important incident in that it considerably increased public awareness of Scientology in the UK, especially after the strong reaction of the CoS to it. Hartley Patterson (talk) 18:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Full protect symbol
This page is not fully protected anymore; why does it still bear the full-protect symbol? Daniel Christensen (talk) 18:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Scientology Growth
Scientology has been growing in size throughout it's history, mostly because everybody who has tried it has said, "it works." it isn't a cult as most people suggest it is a fast growing religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spaniard78 (talk • contribs) 05:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you have a specific comment on content? This isn't a forum for discussion of the article's topic. -- Good Damon 05:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * EVERYONE? Even those who have left the organisation and for some mysterious reason criticise it, and in some cases allegedly come under attack by the organisation?92.23.25.50 (talk) 09:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)Lance Tyrell

In the section:

Actor Tom Cruise, a well-known Scientologist, has publicity criticized the psychiatric field.[228] In response to Cruise's statements, an editor from the Journal of Clinical Investigation stated that Cruise is "dangerous and irresponsible."[229]

"publicity" should be "publicly"

✅ typo fixed, protection symbol changed. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 12:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Sea Org
There is so far no proper reference to the Sea Org in the article. That is something we need to address. Derek Davis New Religious Movements and Religious Liberty in America, Baylor University Press, 2004 ISBN 978-0918954923 has material on that, also on internal the purges that took place twenty years ago. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 17:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Influences
There should be noted that S.I. Criticized the use of General Semantics in Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard's book in this article http://www.generalsemantics.org/etc/articles/8-4-sih.pdf. I propose a continuation of the text "Hubbard acknowledged the influence of Alfred Korzybski's General Semantics." with "... although...". Otherwise it can easily be interpreted as if General Semanticists has something to do with Scientology. (Scientology May have implemented some small parts of General Semantics, that doesn't mean General Semantics approve of it being abused in such a way) Thank you. DukeTwicep 14:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC+1)
 * Thanks, that is a great read. How could you not love a piece that manages to use "adumbrate" albeit not clearly. Yes, Hayakawa read Dianetics, analyzed it from his specific point-of-view (he did not have to try it because he already "knew" that results would not "prove" anything), and found it wanting. Found it worthless and ludicrous, in fact. I am sure a statement to that effect will fit in the article though perhaps the Dianetics article would be best for that level of detail. --Justallofthem (talk) 18:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes indeed, but still it is the matter of Scientology black washing General semantics in that sentence. Perhaps redirecting the reader to 'Dianetics' and then in 'Dianetics' state that even though Scientology claims General semantics as one of its influences, General semanticists find it embarrassing and degrading? (Not in those words, but to make clear that General Semanticists will have nothing to do with it) Just so you understand my point-of-view. "Hubbard acknowledged the influence of Alfred Korzybski's General Semantics." That sentence is saying to me, "Adolf Hitler acknowledged the influence of Nietzsche..." (Nazism was influenced by Nietzsche, how much damage have that done to people's views on Nietzsche's work?) --DukeTwicep (talk) 20:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, I believe I understood the article well enough. --Justallofthem (talk) 20:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I see what you did there. Laff. --Justallofthem (talk) 20:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, I did not know there was such a law. My apologies, I would've used another analogy if I knew it was so common (still I didn't intend it to be such an analogy, I was merely pointing out the importance of how we relate subjects to each other). I wonder, is there a law created for human use of language every week? Joking apart. You will let me or someone change the Influences section then? --DukeTwicep (talk) 14:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It's an interesting piece; it might make a useful external link in our article on the book. I'll remove the reference to Korzybski altogether until we find a reference in a secondary source putting it in context; at present, it is cited to a primary source. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 14:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Scientology article -- controversies section
I recommend adding a link to the definition of "controversy" and/or "controversial" in this section.Webster08 (talk) 08:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)webster08 ✅ Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 13:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Should this Time Magazine quote be included in the lead?
This is the quote in question, previously located on the last paragraph in the lead. Please see prior discussion above.


 * I think it should definitely be included. Time Magazine is an extremely reliable source. The quote may be upsetting to some Scientologists, however, that should have no bearing on whether or not the quote belongs in the lead. Time magazine carries a lot of weight, and the quote describes the man that Scientology is based around.WackoJacko (talk) 17:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This comment does not seem to address the question. The quote we are talking about is
 * This does not "describe the man that Scientology is based around."
 * Now, what we already have in the lead reads,
 * So, if we added the Time magazine quote to the lead as well, we would have this:


 * With these words, the lead would then end. While this has quite a nice flow to it, it strikes me as undue for several reasons.
 * The article that the quote is from is from 1991, meaning it is nearly 20 years old. In a more recent (1997) article, entitled Does Germany Have Something Against These Guys?, the same magazine, Time, described Scientology as "a legally recognized church". In this article, Time magazine noted that "in Germany, Scientology is deemed not a religion but a suspect movement whose activities verge on the dangerous edges of extremism". Time prominently cited several voices from the U.S. State Dept. that were highly critical of Germany's stance, and Time did nothing to endorse the German view – which was essentially the same view that Time expressed in its own article six years earlier. I am not aware of anything like that harsh criticism of Scientology having appeared in Time since then.
 * The inclusion in the lead of a quote from an 18-year-old article in a magazine that since then seems to have moderated its view strikes me as undue, especially as the same significant viewpoint has already been clearly and amply described in the lead. On the other hand, the article is important enough to cover in the main body of the article, especially since a major lawsuit resulted from it (which the Church lost). It would be appropriate to quote from it there. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 21:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Moderated? Or the chilling effect of Scientology's unsuccessful $416 million libel suit which Time, none the less, spent over $7 million defending itself from? There are quite a number of cites for Scientology's "notoriously litigious" activities. AndroidCat (talk) 08:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but when the Germany issue came up, I don't recall many US media taking Germany's side at all. They were all, look what those guys are doing, they're picking on Cruise, they won't let Chick Corea play just because he's a Scientologist, and they are blocking the new Windows version just because some code was written by a company headed by a Scientologist. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 11:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Second, precisely because there are a great number of voices critical of their litigious activities, I wouldn't single out Time. It's not as though others hadn't said it. If you can think of a good way of rephrasing "critics" so it becomes clearer that "critics" haven't been some isolated minority, I would be open to that. Perhaps "very widely criticised" or some such wording would do. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 11:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've edited the lead to indicate that criticism is wide-spread. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 12:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm coming here in response to the RfC. My reaction is that the quote probably does not belong in the lead (which I think is already too long and could be shortened, although I suppose a case can be made that the quote provides a sort of "balance" to a long introduction that does not really raise criticisms until the end). But I think that a possible compromise might be to move the quote into the body of the article, in the controversies section. There, as part of a section on criticisms, rather than as part of the introduction to the article as a whole, the concerns about date and about opinion vs. fact become less of a liability, and the quote does vividly communicate some of the criticisms. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Coming from RFC. quote comment Yes the quote should be included in the article, but not in the lead.  The reason for my opinion is that it expresses a POV, and for that reason should be in a section that states both pro and con information.  It should be included because it does come from a reliable resource that can be verified.  general comment The lead is longer than it should be.  The lead should briefly cover a description of what Scientology is, when it was conceived and by who, and perhaps brief sentence on how it was popularized.  All IMHO of course.  Ched (talk) 08:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

✅ Time quote included in main body, not included in lead. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 01:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * So this wasn't any real kind of RfC, was it? AndroidCat (talk) 04:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * From the RFC. I think the quote should stay out of the lead, but I think the current version is sloppy. Combine the last two paragraphs of the lead about controversy and don't add 6 refs to a single point. You could just add one ref that points to the WP article on criticism. Since Scientology is widely known for its financial interests and bullying, I'm sure a concise quote from a source better than Time is available. Right?  Cuñado  ☼ -  Talk  22:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This is not criticism, but sensationalism that lacks objectivity. It is meant to sell magazines, not provide a reference for an encyclopedia. All sensationalism is unhelpful here; it is POV and influences the article's tone and thus attempts to tell readers what to think about a topic. Just report facts, straight facts without sensationalism, and let readers made their own deductions. -- Storm  Rider  01:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think several points are relevant here:
 * I agree that the lead is a little too long, but it's due more to the writing style than to excess information. It needs to be condensed and more concise language used.  That's a basic editing issue, in my opinion.
 * I agree that the quote is probably more appropriate in the main body than in the lead, but I say that more because of its wording than because of its controversial nature. I think it's too specific for a general overview, which is what the lead is supposed to be.
 * I find it interesting that Time has, at least to some extent, changed its tune over the course of the past couple of decades. I haven't been involved in the editing of this article and don't have time to look it over carefully, but just as a suggestion, would it be useful to include both quotes and discuss the (apparently) changing attitudes in the media?  Speaking for myself, this information definitely enriches my understanding of Scientology and its impact on (at least US) culture.  Might it do the same for others?  Just a thought... --  edi  (talk)  11:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid saying in the article that TIME has changed its tune would be OR. But the Chicago Sun-Times statement for example ("'TomKat' casts spotlight back on Scientology – Criticism fades, but some still see it as a money-making cult) is the sort of source that we could quote if we wanted to make that point.  Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 20:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

CESNUR
We've been to RS/N before over CESNUR and Melton. Melton's books are required reading in university courses, and he's the author of the Encyclopedia Britannica article on Scientology. I don't care if his hobby is vampires, bestiality movies or stamp collecting. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 11:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't recall those hasty trips to RS/N ever settling anything one way or the other. (In fact, it seemed to be a tactic to derail any discussion and lose it in the noise of RS/N.) More to the point than Buffy, the site is a mix of papers (some marked "preliminary version, do not cite"), legal documents (which we've chopped from other sites) and personal opinions and hobbies of Massimo Introvigne (not Melton). I don't see that any given page on cesnur.org is more or less RS than a given page on xenu.net, and would have to evaluated individually. AndroidCat (talk) 15:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I am afraid this is wishful thinking. Andreas Heldal-Lund, who operates xenu.net, does not have any qualifications or academic standing whatsoever. His site is essentially a large blog, one of several of this type whose reliability is given a fairly dim assessment by scholars. The conference papers listed at the EL http://www.cesnur.org/testi/se_scientology.htm on the other hand are papers written by reputable, published scholars. CESNUR was established by religious scholars from leading universities. The two don't compare.
 * As for chopping legal documents, we have agreed that we will not use such documents as sources for article content unless they are referenced by a reliable published secondary source. As far as I am concerned, that applies to legal documents on the CESNUR site just as much as it does to those hosted on xenu.net: we won't use them unless referenced in published literature. And if there are newspaper articles on cesnur.org that seem to have an unclear copyright status, then we won't use them as convenience links either, just as we won't use similar pages on xenu.net or rickross.com. But neither of these facts impinges upon the suitability of http://www.cesnur.org/testi/se_scientology.htm as an external link. It is a recommended scholarly research resource. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 19:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What are Massimo Introvigne's qualifications or academic standing? AndroidCat (talk) 00:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Given in the links above. More could be added. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 01:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

6) Primary Groups Lobbying in Europe on Behalf of Controversial 'Religions'

While the Scientology lobby has had a surprising impact inside the United States government, intense lobbying on the part of various interested parties also occurs on international levels. A document, for example, that a Greek court made public showed very clearly that Scientology in Greece set out to "[e]stablish comm[unication] lines in the area of Human Rights groups" (Office of Special Affairs, 1995: 7), and it is certain that the organization has attempted to forge similar links with human rights organizations throughout Europe. (For example, from Poland in September 1994, German Scientologists sent a four-page "Executive Summary" about their group's supposed plight in Germany to delegates participating in the CSCE summit in Budapest [Scientology Kirche Deutschland eV, 1994].)

The highest profile lobbying and information group for controversial religions is CESNUR (the Center for Studies on New Religions), which is based in Torino, Italy (with contacts throughout Europe and North America) under the directorship of patent/trademark lawyer and independent scholar, Massimo Introvigne. A persistent critic of any national attempts to identify or curtail so-called 'cults,' Introvigne has spoken out against what he considers to be intolerance toward "minority religions," especially in Belgium, France, and Germany. On July 30, 1998, for example, he spoke about (alleged) intolerance and related issues before the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (i.e., the Helsinki Commission) in Washington, D.C., and concluded by warning against public sponsorship of private anti-cult organizations (which he dislikes partly because, he says, they ignore scholarly findings [Introvigne, 1998]). He expanded on these themes in his 1999 presentation to the OSCE, which met in Vienna (Introvigne, 1999b). (In turn, Karen Lord of the Helsinki Commission, and Jeremy Gunn--who has been on the staff of the United States Institute of Peace, the United States Department of State's Commission of International Religious Freedom, and the U.S. Mission to the OSCE--spoke at CESNUR's June 1999 conference in Pennsylvania [CESNUR, 2000b]. Both Lord and Gunn also were scheduled again to speak at the 2000 conference in Latvia [CESNUR, 2000c]). Many observers of Europe's "religious tolerance" wars, however, share the observation made about Introvigne and his associates in Holland--that they are "very partial toward the public defense of those sects (for which they are often members) which have been discredited" (Louter, 1997: 5).

For example, Introvigne publically endorsed a fiction book written by the controversial (now deceased-by suicide) guru, Dr. Frederick Lenz (Zen Master Rama)-known for his materialism, financial exploitation of members, and the likely sexual coercion of many of his female devotees (Konigsberg, 1998). "Those who disagree with the alternative spirituality world view (once called New Age) in general will probably also disagree with this book," Introvigne concluded in his endorsement of Lenz's Surfing the Himalayas. "They may, however, recognize it as the real thing, the work of a key figure in the alternative spirituality tradition" (Introvigne, 1998?). Likewise, his testimony on behalf of Scientologists on trial in Lyon, France (in a case that led to manslaughter and fraud convictions involving six of them) did little to erase his "sect-friendly" image (A.R. [F], 1997; Cossu, 1998; Morgan, 1998). Moreover, controversies around some of his scholarship (especially about both "Internet terrorism" and the American Psychological Association's discussion on "brainwashing" and coercive persuasion), plus additional questions about his membership in the ultra-conservative Catholic organization, Alleanza Cattolica, have brought Introvigne into battle with critics (see Sarper and Martinez [eds.], 1999).

Many German and French officials working on issues related to religious 'sects' and human rights do not see CESNUR and Introvigne as neutral parties in the ongoing debates (a judgement that certainly flows both ways). Consequently, other people and organizations have damaged their reputations (rightly or wrongly) among these officials by associating too closely with CENSUR. Certainly this is the case with the United Kingdom's "new religious" information organization, INFORM, which is organizing a conference with CESNUR in 2001 (CESNUR, 2000d). (Many scholars, however, see both CESNUR and INFORM in a favourable light, and they share its criticism of the "sect-monitors" in France, Germany, and Belgium.) (Kent:2001) Spandexterous (talk) 01:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * And one might add that the US State Dept. and a whole lot of other people also share its "criticism of the "sect-monitors" in France, Germany, and Belgium.". And even so, let me add, the German Parliamentary Commission on Cults in the 1990s called Introvigne in as a consultant. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 01:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Here are some university syllabuses that have works authored by Introvigne as required reading: . These are real universities, out there in the real world, not in cyberland. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 01:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * My problem with an External link to the CESNUR website's Scientology page is quite simple - CESNUR is not a neutral party in this debate. The page consists overwhelmingly of links to items favorable to the CoS. If the CoS wins a court case it gets a link, if it loses one it doesn't. Stephen Kent (quoted above) and Massimo Introvigne have been feuding for a long while, and amongst the links are some decidedly unscholarly attacks on Kent. As one amongst a number of external links and annotated as being a Scientology apologist website fine, on its own and without such attribution, no. Hartley Patterson (talk) 04:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we are entering shaky ground if we as Wikipedia editors apply labels such as "not neutral" to scholarly sources. But I see that Kent has a site too, and he is certainly a noted commentator. I'l add his site for balance. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 17:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The CESNUR webpage is not a scholarly source in itself, it's a listing of Scientology related items on the CESNUR website. Some of these are academic papers, others not. And if it quacks like a duck, it's a duck - it isn't neutral. The items are all relevant to CESNUR's agenda, which is one of defending NRMs against the anti-cult movement. Similarly for Kent, he's a scholar (love your 'commentator'!) highly critical of the CoS.
 * I guess it depends on what 'External links' is intended to be. On a normal Wikipedia page it would be the most useful websites about the subject, here there is no agreement on what the subject is let alone what websites are appropriate. I don't know of any 'neutral' websites about Scientology aside from this one more's the pity, certainly a Google search finds none. Hartley Patterson (talk) 18:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The important point about WP:NPOV is that it does not mean that we should only present sources that we feel are "neutral". NPOV means presenting viewpoints in accordance with their prevalence among the most reliable sources. So while there will be no person who deems both Kent AND Introvigne neutral on this matter, it is NPOV to represent both their viewpoints in our article, or, in this case, the external links section. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 20:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Introduction
I take some issue with the line from the article's introduction: "Although Scientology is recognized as a bona fide religion in the United States and other countries, it has been widely criticized as a cult that financially defrauds and abuses its members." I think it should instead read "Although the Church of Scientology is recognized..." rather than just Scientology. There are sects of Scientology that do not charge its members when seeking teachings. These Scientologists cannot be considered to be financially defrauding their members. - 67.166.134.243 (talk) 19:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There would be issues with your take as well. The Church of Scientology is not a religion. It is an organization that overseas the practices of the religion, which is Scientology. I believe the point you wish to convey is adequately explained with the mention of the Free Zone.Ukvilly (talk) 22:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Religion dispute
We touch upon Scientology's status as a religion (or otherwise) in several places, first in the History section, then under "Dispute of religion status", then again under "Recognition in other countries". I would suggest that material should be consolidated -- most countries that have recognised Scientology as a religion are already mentioned in the History section, so they don't need to be listed at length again further below. The dispute that remains, especially around Germany, could form a part of the Controversy section, and the "Scientology as a commercial venture" section could also go under Controversies along with that. At any rate, at present the information is distributed in too many places. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 00:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Jayen466, it appears to me that you are singling out Germany as a country that does not recognize scientology as a religion. The PRC not only does not recognize scientology as a religion, but has banned its existence within its borders. There are actually a number of western european countries that view scientology as a business. I disagree with you that the corporate status of scientology is distributed in too many places.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 08:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No, you're quite right. France, Belgium and Greece and other countries take quite a similar stance. But Germany's has been commented upon most, both by scholars and in the English-speaking press. What I mean by too many places is simply that the logical structure of our article kind of sucks. If you read through it from beginning to end, it is not well structured IMO and in parts repetitive. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 20:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Controversy controversy controversy
Part of the intro currently says: (emphasis mine)


 * One controversial aspect of Scientology is its belief that souls ("thetans") reincarnate and have lived on other planets before living on Earth. Former members say that details of this supposed remote extraterrestrial past are not revealed until thousands of dollars have been paid to the Church of Scientology.

It seems to me that there is nothing "controversial" about the belief in reincarnation itself. Reincarnation or metempsychosis is a well-understood notion that is found in a number of other religions. What is controversial is not the belief, but the secrecy -- that Scientology does not present its core beliefs openly, in the manner of most religions, but rather holds them secret in the manner of mystery religions and other esoteric groups.

I'm not sure how we can say this more straightforwardly. Possibly something like:


 * Many Scientology beliefs and practices are not openly discussed in Hubbard's or the church's openly published works; they are conveyed to members in personal courses. These courses cost hundreds or thousands of dollars -- a point which figures frequently in criticisms of Scientology.

--FOo (talk) 09:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The belief in past lives is not held secret; in the early fifties, there was controversy within the Scientology movement about including teachings about past lives. What is controversial about Scientology's reincarnation beliefs is that some of these former lives took place on other planets. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 12:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, I see what you're saying. But what's the "controversy" today? Whether Scientology has those beliefs? Whether people actually had past lives on other planets?


 * Sure, if we're talking about Scientology's compatibility with Christianity or some other religion, we could say that they have a "controversy" (in the sense of "disagreement") over whether reincarnation happens. And if we're talking about which aspects of Scientology get coverage in the press, the whole space-opera thing is surely right up there.


 * But it seems that this part of the intro is still confusing a few different notions: that Scientology has (possibly unusual) beliefs, and that there is some kind of "controversy" dealing with these beliefs. And it isn't clear to me what that controversy is, unless it is either (1) a public perception that these beliefs are weird or outrageous, which is hardly news for any minority religion, or (2) the secrecy thing, which is indeed unusual. --FOo (talk) 21:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with a lot of what Fubar says. Scientologists aren't the only ones who believe in multiple incarnations on multiple "planets", as most kinds of Hinduism I know of say the same thing. The things that stike me personally as "controversial" about Scientology are the at time dubious behavior the group has sometimes displayed and its implicit claims that its beliefs are in some way "scientific" when little if any of the academic literature with which I am acquainted gives their ideas much if any credence. The claims for a scientific nature are implicit in Scientology's choice of "techie" terminology for some of its beliefs and structures, but I haven't yet found a source which explicitly talks about Scientology's phrasing choices and how they might implicitly give the belief system more credence. John Carter (talk) 22:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the problem is that there was an explicit reference to Xenu (considered weird by many, and often used to tease Scientologists) here originally, which I toned down; perhaps too much so. The problem is that anti-Scientologist websites give the Xenu story an outstanding significance which is not matched by the significance it receives in academic literature. There, it's just seen as mythology, esoteric cosmogony or metaphor. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 23:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Without conceding the claim that Xenu / Incident II is merely important to "anti-Scientologist websites" (which is wrong; see, e.g. the cover of Dianetics) I still think it's useful to identify the "controversy" regarding Scientology beliefs, if there is one that's worth being discussed in the intro.


 * John Carter suggests that the foremost point of "controversy" dealing with Scientology's beliefs has to do with Scientology's repeated and explicit claim that those beliefs are scientific. This may have been the case early on, but it seems to me that more recently the controversy has focused on their secret nature, the progressive revelation of these beliefs. --FOo (talk) 06:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Re the science aspect, there are numerous sources describing Scientology as a belief system based on "scientism". Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 23:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Re the importance of Xenu, I said that it is far less important in academic treatments than on anti-Scientologist websites. Anti-Scientologists are engaged in proving that "Scientology is bunk", the way brights are out to prove that Christianity is bunk because virgin births don't happen and no one can part the Red Sea. Scholars are happy to describe without engaging in polemics about the worthlessness of another's faith. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 11:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That could just be because that's what the word originally meant when Allen Upward coined it: "science elevated to unquestioning doctrine," which is pretty much what modern writers mean by "scientism". It's not known whether Hubbard read Upward, though, or (as he claimed) independently coined the word for "knowing how to know". --FOo (talk) 06:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Scientistic elements are scientific jargon, "Tech", rational (rather than emotional) ethics, the use of an e-meter as a central religious artifact, etc. Some examples:   Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 10:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I've spoken before about the overuse of the terms "controversy" and "controversial" in these articles. Frankly I find little in the belief system itself that is more "controversial" than religion in general or any aspect of other religions. I think we all know that people disagree on this stuff but that is usually taken as a given; no point in labeling it "controversy" nor is that the norm elsewhere. A controversy is a dispute, argument, discussion or debate featuring strong disagreements and opposing, contrary, or sharply contrasting opinions about an idea, subject, group or person. The issue of the beliefs of Scientology is rarely framed that way. People usually say things like "people are free to believe any (kooky) thing they care to" and problems with governments, etc. are rarely based on beliefs. The actual controversies related to Scientology almost exclusively have to do with the actions of the Church of Scientology. These actions may or may not be based on underlying beliefs, Church policies, or the unrelated misdeeds and misunderstandings of Church members. Ex. Lisa McPherson was a controversy caused, IMO, by the misdeeds of a few that were based on their misunderstandings and misapplications of Scientology policy and fueled by their (Scientology) beliefs in the "evils" of psychiatry, etc. With a healthy dose of good old garden-variety "human failings" thrown in - likely the biggest culprit. Discussion of Lisa would be rightly framed as a controversy; discussion of Scientology beliefs, usually not. --Justallofthem (talk) 16:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I would note that unless there are some good references that it is the case, using either 'controversial' or 'oft-discussed' is essentially an example of Weasel Words. -SupernautRemix (talk) 16:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to remove the "oft-discussed" also. --Justallofthem (talk) 16:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * In the interests of openness, I'm inclined to leave it for a little while to see if anyone is able and willing to find a reference for the issue being particularly regularly debated. If nothing is forthcoming in 24 hours, I'll pull it.-SupernautRemix (talk) 16:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Questinable source
I noticed this link and then I discovered that this is personal website for a computer scientist  very impresive but this is not computer science. I don't see this guy fit to write about religion in any way whatsoever. Lets get rid of this reference. :-) Bravehartbear (talk) 09:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 11:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Given that that article is largely an aggregation of references to other works, it would be more worthwhile to replace citations to it with citations to the underlying quoted works. --FOo (talk) 19:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Prior usage
I removed the bit about prior coinings of the term Scientology or Scientologie. That is entirely WP:OR based on primary materials without so much as a secondary source mention. I guess it is kinda interesting but also kinda off-topic and the OR nature is obvious. --Justallofthem (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 17:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Atack p128 is a secondary source mentioning the Nordenholz and Upward coinings. See also at . You made a major edit replacing sourced material with unsourced material. A simple flag would have sufficed. MartinPoulter (talk) 17:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I restored the bit that is sourced as you mention. I will look at the Atack book now. --Justallofthem (talk) 17:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Those sources were not mentioned. The Atack piece is suspect as that is an "attack" piece (yuk yuk) and follows the minority view of some critics that Hubbard "stole" the term. Mention of previous coinings by critics is done in a POV fashion to take a jab at Hubbard. What does the "The Encyclopedia of Christianity" say about those terms as related to Scientology? IMO, it is extremely unlikely that Hubbard knew of obscure previous coinings of the term. His coining of "Dianetics" establishes that he is perfectly capable of coining his own terms. We should treat POV pieces like Atack with the highest degree of care and not as reliable sources. Critics like to use Wikipedia to promote minority and non-notable views that only show up in extemely one-sided and unscholarly material. --Justallofthem (talk) 17:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no Wikipedia policy in place prohibiting the use of POV sources, per se. Our only concern is that the content we present must be presented in a neutral way. ←  Spidern  →  17:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The Atack bit is a good example of a critical and unscholarly book "getting it wrong". Atack says:"The word 'scientology' was not original to Hubbard, having been coined by philologist Alan Upward in 1907. Upward used it to characterize and ridicule pseudoscientific theories."To the somewhat discerning reader, Atack may be pointing out the irony that Hubbard chose a term for his "pseudoscientific theories" that was previously used to ridicule such. But that is not how Upward used the term based on my quick read of our article here and the source book. Upward used the term to relate to something that I might call scientism, the elevating of Science to Dogma. I wrote on that subject and the "Scientological" (in Upward's usage) predilections of many editors here on my old Justanother user page. My point here is that critics often color material to suit their agenda and that is why such critical books must be treated very carefully indeed. --Justallofthem (talk) 18:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Once again, regardless of how "wrong" Atack's opinion may be classified as by some, we will not run in to trouble here if we portray (verifiable) fact as fact, and opinion as opinion. ←  Spidern  →  18:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually we are "wrong" and we are doing the reader a disservice if we include the unscholarly musings of a critic of Scientology on a subject on which he is likely not an expert. We would only do that if we had a vested interest in furthering any critical musing that we can possible forward. It all has to do with one's purpose here. Is one here to write the best encyclopedic article one can or is one here to toss as many harpoons as one can get away with? Here is one way to tell. Has one ever seen a sourced criticism that one did not want to include? That would be the lowest bar possible. Hopefully, the standard is higher than that. --Justallofthem (talk) 18:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that we have included these musings in the past? If so, where? Policies exist to prevent that sort of editorial problem from happening. I.e. the tone of the article addresses the issue by stating that "Attack opines" or "Bromley concludes". Other than that, if it's sourced well enough to begin with there is no issue. ←  Spidern  →  19:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * For reference, Upward's definition of Scientology is here. It sounds to me like what Upward is calling "Scientology" is the ability to give verbal descriptions of outward behaviour, without really being able to explain or understand it. I have to agree with Justallofthem. Atack seems to be misrepresenting Upward to suit his own aim. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 02:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Upward came up with "Scientology" as a parallel to "theology" and seems to be saying that his Scientology is at a remove from true knowledge of science in the same manner that perhaps theology is at a remove from the true experience of religion. In any event, Upward was certainly not talking about "pseudoscientific theories" but of one's relation to science. Upward's book is very off-putting at quick study but it seems something that if one invested the time to understand it there may be something of value there. Perhaps I will print it out and read it over the weekend. And for Spidern, when I was referring to a critic's musings, I was referring to Atack's misrepresentation of Upward. --Justallofthem (talk) 14:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, Upward's difference between "scientology" in his sense and "science" sounded a bit like the difference between phenomenon and noumenon. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 15:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The way that can be spoken of is not the way :) As far as Upward, I am intrigued and will speak no more of him until I endeavor to understand what he was trying to say as a "thing in itself". --Justallofthem (talk) 17:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Scientology in Italy
In italy Scientology isn't a religion recognized by the State becouse for it, it need an agreement. The italian judge (Corte di Cassazione) said that without agreement, every time Scn is in trial, is the Judge who have to say if Scn is a religion or not. In one trial (about narconon) the judge sayd "incidentally" that scientolgoy can be considered a religion but the italian law is not a "common law" system sorry for my english.. I hope it's enough clear --Ignlig (talk) 15:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Ciao, Not a problem, your English is clearly better than my Italian. :-) I hadn't actually seen your post here, so I posted to your Italian user talk page as well. The thing is, we have several reliable sources that assert quite confidently that Scientology has been recognised as a religion in Italy: see e.g., and . Could you clarify? Could you point us to sources stating the opposite?  Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 17:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

In Italy if you say that the Suprem Court recognize Scn as religion doesn't mean that it is a religion recognize by the State. In other way you can't say that it is a "recognized religion"

In italy we have to distinguish:
 * who is recognized as religion by the State. It can happen only with an agreement between the State and the association (religion).
 * who is qualificated as "Ente di culto" (more or less: association to pray). It need an act from Minister. Scientology doesn't have it and scn didn't ask for it
 * who is qualificated as "confessione religiosa di fatto" (more or less: religion as "fact"). It's important when you are in a trial and the judge has to decide which law has to use... In the Narconon sentence the Judge said: "even if we consider Scientology as a religion, narconon has to pay the tax".

Even if we read teh sentence in the way to say that the Suprem court said that Scn is a religion, in italy the sentences are not binding and another previous sentence said that the "status" of Scn has to be definited trial per trial. Every judge will decided time to time. All the source are in it.wiki here --Ignlig (talk) 18:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * in other words: you can't say that Italy (State of Italy) recognized scn as a relgion, you can only say that the Suprem court said that Scientology can be considered a religion --Ignlig (talk) 18:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. I think this has to do with the difference between incorporation as a religious organisation under Italian law ("ente di culto") vs. recognition of a faith as a religion. As far as the faith is concerned, Scientology is recognized as a religion, and auditing fees e.g. are tax-exempt; but the Church of Scientology as a body corporate does not have the same legal standing, or legal form, as the Catholic Church. Is that it? Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 19:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This document, while primarily on Islam in Italy, explains the different types of organisational forms under which religious communities operate in Italy, and also mentions the status of Scientology. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 20:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks to you for your actention. .. Who recognized this faith as religione is a Judge. Another Judge in another trial can say something differente even if thay usually follow the sentences of Suprem Court. Cattolich Church, Jew, Pentecostalism, Lutheranism and others are recognized by the State (yes, it's legal form) by an agreement. For them you can say that thay are recognized. And no judge can say different
 * About the link.. I'll read it, and i'll write about it About the document, it's a very good explication (Categorization of Religions), only one thing, the mining of "Non-profit associations and common law associations" it's nothing particulary, I mean me and you can create an associazione (association) and have that status.. --Ignlig (talk) 22:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Minor spelling error
Ceremonies In Scientology, cereonies such as weddings, child naming, and funerals are observed.[73] In addition, Friday services are held to commemorate the completion of a person's religious services during the prior week.[73] Ordained Scientology ministers may perform such rites.[73] Just for the sake of discussion, I realize that anonymous is continually struggling against them but it's a bit inconvenient to have to request a spelling correction as opposed to just performing it myself. 72.234.227.31 (talk) 08:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Jomasecu talk <sub style="margin-left: -4.3ex">contribs 09:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

editprotected

Secondary source
The point is well taken. One secondary source is "What is Scientology?". For that particular "citation needed": What is Scientology?, pp.68-70, Bridge Publications Inc., 1998 ISBN 1573181226 (JDPhD (talk) 16:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC))
 * That is a primary source in that it is a Church of Scientology publication (Bridge being the in-house publishing firm). --Justallofthem (talk) 17:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Probable secondary source
O.K. As the "citation needed", here is another more probable secondary source from the Computer Science Dept.& Center for the Neural Basis of Cognition at Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA. written by David S. Touretzky stating specifically: "Scientology teaches that human beings are composed of three parts: the thetan (or spirit), the mind and the body." The address: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/pubs/sfn98/ (JDPhD (talk) 20:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC))
 * Oh, I do not think we need to go there - a paper allegedly presented somewhere by a noted critic of Scientology and self-hosted? No, thanks. The basic concepts of Scientology are presented in a number of published texts on NRMs. Here is one Google search. --Justallofthem (talk) 20:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This looks fine. --Justallofthem (talk) 20:32, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

How about this one: on p. 60, it reads "...the Spirit of the person in Scientology, the real person, is the thetan, which inhabits a body. The body is controlled, up to a point, by the mind."

Mary Farrell Bednarowski, New Religions and the Theological Imagination in America, p. 60, Indiana University Press, 1995 ISBN 978-0253209528 (JDPhD (talk) 01:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC))

Grammar Issues
Under History, third sentence from the bottom:

"An organization called the Cult Awareness Network who once provided assistance former cult victims received more complaints concerning Scientology than any other group."

Tense conflict. Should be changed to "...receives more complaints..." or a date or time reference should be given at the end of the statement (i.e., "in 2008"). LittleNuccio (talk) 22:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The reference doesn't clarify when, and simply states the CAN received more Scientology complaints "in many months". It's also a primary source and can't be used to substantiate this claim. A consensus rewording should perhaps be discussed on this page. Euryalus (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Under "Influences," the term "dianetics" is a proper noun and should therefore be capitalized. LittleNuccio (talk) 22:53, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Euryalus (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Referencing "Scientology as a commercial venture," "...it was announced at the Book Expo America a dianetics Racing Team..." should be changed to "it was announced at the Book Expo America that a Dianerics Racing Team...displays a large Dianetics logo" to conform to demonstrative pronoun and capitalization standards. LittleNuccio (talk) 22:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Euryalus (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

In Beliefs and practices, "...were first formulated in Dianetics--Hubbard's earlier writings which precede Scientology" should be changed to "were first formulated in Dianetics, Hubbard's earlier writings which precede Scientology", or the antecedent should be removed entirely (as it is referenced by the link), to conform with Em dash standards. LittleNuccio (talk) 23:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Euryalus (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

(Homophone) spelling error - 2nd paragraph under History- "led" to the organization's bankruptcy, not "lead" 96.231.102.180 (talk) 00:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Euryalus (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Introduction
The "citation needed" that appears just before the table of contents may be:

John A. Saliba, Signs of the Times, p. 30, Médiaspaul, 1996 ISBN 978-2894203262. It reads "...Scientology does not demand blind faith but endeavours to help the individual discover past experiences and shed the trauma and guilt (sin) which encumber".

(JDPhD (talk) 16:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC))

I only just noticed this section exists. I made a new heading down below but will repeat myself here (should the new heading be deleted?): I take some issue with the line from the article's introduction: "Although Scientology is recognized as a bona fide religion in the United States and other countries, it has been widely criticized as a cult that financially defrauds and abuses its members." I think it should instead read "Although the Church of Scientology is recognized..." rather than just Scientology. There are sects of Scientology that do not charge its members when seeking teachings. These Scientologists cannot be considered to be financially defrauding their members. - 67.166.134.243 (talk) 19:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.134.243 (talk)
 * They can't really be called "Scientology", though. Scientology exclusively refers to the official organisation - it's trademarked and everything. I think the breakaway sects are very careful not to refer to themselves as such. - makomk (talk) 11:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Typo in reference
"Thomas G. Whittle and Linda Amato. The continuing search for answers: Behind the Terror - A proble into masterminds of death and violence" please "proble -> probe" per the link given. LilHelpa (talk) 15:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Euryalus (talk) 22:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Spelling of City
Please could the german city in this paragraph be corrected to Stuttgart? 87.86.180.66 (talk) 14:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- Rodhull andemu  17:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to laff
I just read the section entitled "Church of Scientology" thinking I might find some description of the Church - how if was organized, how it grew, how many churches there were and how many members; you know, regular stuff. Like in an encyclopedia. What I found instead was "Critics timeline of notable controversies involving the Church of Scientology. In other words, the entire section was turned into a criticism; the entire section looks like it was written solely by a critic with no awareness of anything related to Scientology except what he has read on critical websites. Oy. (and please spare me the  .) --Justallofthem (talk) 17:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Justallofthem, as much as I'm willing to listen and attempt to address your concerns of this page, I simply cannot glean any usable suggestions from your comment here. All I can really pick out from what you are saying is that there is too much criticism. I'm willing to help, but WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments are not going to solve anything. If we are to neutrally cover the subject, then let's hear some suggestions on events which you think should also be included which aren't. Otherwise, we're not going to get anything done. ←  Spidern  →  17:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If one makes the section look like my "elephant" article below then one's motives are suspect as one is obviously only searching out and/or including sources that are critical of the Church. There is plenty of material in the press and even in the critical books of the simple, boring, encyclopedic, history and nature of the Church of Scientology. My suggestion, find it and use it. One's commitment to finding and presenting fair and favorable material about the Church should be proportionate, IMO, to the amount of editing one want to do in the article. If one wants to revamp the article then one should do a proper job and not turn it into a caricature.. --Justallofthem (talk) 18:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As an aside to this issue, perhaps some of the material that you refer to could be summarised and the fuller text be moved into the Church_of_Scientology or Scientology_controversy entries (if it isn't there already)? I'd have thought that these would be more appropriate for detailed citations on the Church's controversial actions than this one.-SupernautRemix (talk) 18:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You cannot criticize someone based on what they don't do. And if you expect them to improve their behavior, it would be most appropriate if you could cite examples of what can be done. ←  Spidern  →  18:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You can most assuredly criticize someone based on what they don't do. If you have new tires put on your car and the mechanic fails to tighten the lugnuts, you might have grounds for criticism. Especially if the wheel or two falls off at speed and there is a great gnashing of teeth. If someone takes it upon themselves to revamp and rewrite an (encyclopedia) article then certainly they should make an extra effort to do it right. Anyway, "how it was organized, how it grew, how many churches there were and how many members". Et cetera. Less criticism, more encyclopedia. --Justallofthem (talk) 18:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * An editor's driving force is their own business; you'll find that chastising people for not doing what you want done will not get very far. Instead, it is far more productive to make specific suggestions on what can be done to improve the situation. Your analogy is not quite relevant because the professional realm is very different than a large collaborative project where volunteers can contribute at their own leisure. And there's also a difference between criticism (opinion) and verifiably-sourced information. If you can find an opinion being expressed herein, point it out and we'll reformulate it to read as X's opinion. Now to address your suggestions in order:
 * "how it was organized" - Do you mean the organizations that were created to promote Scientology? We talk about that some in the organization section, although I suppose we could find dates of creation and include them here.
 * "how it grew and how many churches there were" - Got any good sources for this?
 * "how many members" - I'd really like to find additional reliable information on this, but the number isn't widely known. The best I could find was on adherents.org, which indicates roughly 55k Scientologists in the States as of 2001. Some of this is described here. Do you have any sources that talk about the growth of Scientology in a historical context?
 * ← Spidern  →  19:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Melton (2000) has a useful summary. If you email me, I can send you some materials. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 01:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Since when is there such thing as a "pre-specified donation" in return for material goods? That's PURCHASING. Tsetses (talk) 02:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Elephant
Elephants are large land mammals of the order Proboscidea and the family Elephantidae.

In 2004, a 39-year-old park attendant was mauled by an elephant at Six Flags Marine World in California.

In 2006, an elephant terrorized Mary Sinigi's Narok, Kenya village, chased her husband down a dirt path and ripped the roof off her home while she and her five children cowered inside.

In 2007, a male elephant mauled one of his mates to death at an Israeli zoo in front of crowds visiting during the Jewish Passover holiday..

In 2008, a wild elephant mauled a Tennessee man while he was visiting China.

I think I had better go over to elephant and fix that article right now! Way too much encyclopedic information over there and hardly any "controversy". --Justallofthem (talk) 17:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * How is the elephant article coming along? If you need extra sources to balance the article's POV, this may be of help. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 15:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I lol'd. Thanks. --Justallofthem (talk) 17:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Removal of A Piece of Blue Sky by Jon Atack
In previous discussion of this issue, no good reason was given for removal of this key resource (described in an academic source as "the most thorough general history of Hubbard and Scientology" and "the starting point for all further researches"):

The purported reason was that it is a primary source, and the reason in turn for that is that Atack himself was involved in the events that the book is about, but this is only true of part of the book (chapters 1 to 4 out of a total of 37). In the bulk of the book, Atack is writing from hundreds of credited primary and secondary sources and interviews, not from the first person. Another offered reason is that the book is "critical". That's clear POV-pushing. I think removal of these references to what is umabiguously a secondary source is a serious mistake to say the least. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, Frenschkowski also says that it is "very bitter", and that "Atack - who was a Scientologist from 1974-1983 - is also violently opposed to Scientology, but tries to stick to facts". Let's have the whole para:


 * Given the acknowledged extreme POV nature of this work, I think the decision to stick to secondary literature is sound. What is important and generally accepted fact in Atack will have been picked up elsewhere. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 16:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm still not seeing a good reason in terms of WP policy for this book not being a RS for its factual content. Trying to deny that it's secondary literature (note that you're just denying this without argument) just continues the distorted representation of the book. MartinPoulter (talk) 18:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Editors here agreed it's a primary source, as defined in WP:PSTS, and agreed we should do without primary sources (from either side of the debate), to have a basis for collegial cooperation.
 * Put another way, if something is only found in Atack or any other primary source, and not a single one of the dozens of scholarly works discussing Scientology, and not a single one of the thousands of news articles reporting on Scientology mentions it, then it's undue weight on a primary source to include it here. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 18:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to wonder whether you or those unnamed "editors here" have actually read the book. It is in no way a primary source. As Martin has said, the vast majority of the book is written from secondary and tertiary sources - books, reports, documents and other items, about which it makes "make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims" (as WP:PSTS puts it). It's a source-based history of Dianetics, Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard, not a personal memoir, and although it's coloured by the author's views, it's very much fact-based and source-based. (In fact it uses largely the same corpus of sources as Russell Miller's Bare-Faced Messiah, which was widely praised.) It's not an autobiography in any meaningful sense, and for the vast majority of the subjects that Atack discusses, he had no personal involvement. The book is widely cited in at least several dozen other works. There is no good reason to exclude it. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

This published book's full text is available online, as is the Wikipedia policy definition of primary and secondary sources. It does not require much time to verify that the book is not a primary source; it is precisely an "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative" work. --FOo (talk) 10:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, it is an insider's account, or exposé. Miller is not. If both present the same material, let's go to Miller rather than Atack. Miller (also online) is widely considered the best and most important critical book; it is mentioned as such by Melton in his 2000 book, as well as the Encyclopedia Britannica article on Scientology. Even so, we should bear in mind that Miller is extremely polemical and in part refuted. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 11:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That article does not seem to agree with you. Frenschkowski describes A Piece of Blue Sky as "quite valuable" and "the most thorough general history of Hubbard and Scientology", albeit "quite bitter" ... and generally favors Atack over Miller for reliability. --FOo (talk) 19:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * True, though having said that I'm not sure why Frenschkowski thinks that Miller has been "in part refuted" with specific reference to Hubbard's war record. If anything, Miller's account is less damning than it could have been, given what's come out since he wrote his book (e.g. Hubbard's purported notice of separation being a crude forgery ). I'll have to ask Frenschkowski for a clarication on that issue. On a separate matter, I don't think it's any kind of mark against Atack that he's an "insider". If anything, that's a mark in favour, considering that he has a far deeper understanding of the underlying ideology than most other writers who weren't members of the CoS. Note that Blue Sky is largely written as a general history of the CoS, not as a "what I saw in CoS" narrative. As I've pointed out, it's been widely cited and referenced by other authors, so there is no good reason for us not to do the same. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

We have the full quote by Frenschkowski on Atack above. As I mentioned in the earlier discussion, Eugene V. Gallagher, who is a very reputable scholar indeed, describes Atack's book as an "autobiography and bitter indictment from a former member". (And I am aware that much of its content is not written from the "I did this and saw this" perspective.) The thing is, if Atack has been widely cited, as editors are asserting, then there is no problem. We can and should cite the works citing him. As for what Frenschkowski says about Miller, it's If you are in touch with Frenschkowski, by all means ask him for further details, and whether they are published anywhere by now. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 23:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem with Atack, and other writings by former members, is that it is a bit like using a husband's affidavit made in a divorce case as a source on the character of the wife. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 23:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, that's a completely false analogy. A husband's affidavit is based on the personal experiences of the husband. It's a primary source, by definition. Atack's book, by contrast, is a secondary and in some respects tertiary source - an "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative" history of the Church of Scientology, based on a very large collection of source materials. I really don't know why you keep arguing or implying that it's a primary source when it plainly isn't. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There's a good faith explanation of what's happened here. A couple of editors have noted that Atack is a former Scientologist and made the plausible but wrong inference that his book is a first-person account (and thus primary by WP policy). Some books about Scn such as Vosper's The Mind Benders could probably be excluded under that policy, but a separate book is under question here. An inspection of A Piece of Blue Sky - which other editors have done and can do - reveals it to be researched from sources and unambiguously a secondary source by WP policy: not only that, but a particularly recommended one. So with that policy argument gone, we have Atack's moral reaction to the subject he is writing about, which Jayen calls "extreme NPOV". No WP policy has been cited for why this invalidates the source, and of course the same argument could be used to reject any source on any strongly controversial topic. We'd have to check the sources for Female Genital Mutliation to establish that the authors do not have strong feelings on the practice (NB the analogy is not between Scn and FGM, but between the sources on each). MartinPoulter (talk) 09:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed completely.


 * Wikipedia's NPOV policy does not, and cannot, mean that secondary sources must be value-free or viewpoint-neutral. NPOV means that the article is a neutral compilation of facts taken from sources ... not that each individual source must itself be neutral or written by a person with no particular opinion on the subject.


 * Indeed, rather frequently, the facts are not "neutral", if "neutral" means "value-free". We would expect that a good article about Albert Schweitzer makes him come across as a nicer guy than Adolf Hitler ... not because the article is written from a non-neutral stance, but because Schweitzer actually was a nicer guy. NPOV allows us to neutrally represent a set of non-neutral facts. --FOo (talk) 16:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * And in fact this specific point is addressed explicitly in WP:NPOV: "As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy on the grounds that it is "POV"." The requirement for neutrality falls on us, not our sources. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

What is at stake here
As I said before, it is Gallagher who characterises the book as an "autobiography and bitter indictment from a former member". Insider accounts are primary sources by definition. I think if you look at autobiographies, you will find that any one of them will contain material that the author did not observe with his own eyes, but researched. This does not change that the motivation for writing is autobiographical, and that is so in the case of Atack. He wrote because he was a Scientologist, and left the movement in disgust. Other Scientologists are in the movement, and think it is the best thing since sliced bread. According to our gentlemen's agreement here, if Nancy Cartwright gushes about her making clear being the best thing in her life, that is out here as much as Atack. Likewise, Jentzsch's reports about having achieved exteriorisation in a car park are out as sources, and so are Scientology websites (which, like Atack, are copiously cited by scholars).

Please understand that we tried to get away from all primary sources, both those by Scientologists and those by ex-Scientologists. In doing so, we went beyond the policy requirements for excluding primary Scientology sources, such as Scientology websites. As you know, there is no policy reason to exclude primary Scientology sources from this article, as long as these are only used to make descriptive claims, do not involve claims about third parties etc. We could return to basing the entire Beliefes and practices section on Scientology's primary sources.

So please consider the pros and cons – if Atack is in, then so is scientology.org. Again, let me emphasise that this was a voluntary restriction editors from both sides of the debate here agreed to, in order to make it easier to find common ground and get away from both the use of promotional Scientology material as sources, and the use of the most biased countermovement sources. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 19:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm wikibonked at the moment, but I'll try to tackle this one. There are so many complicated issues here, it's hard to know where to begin. For instance, if we allow primary sources for Scientology beliefs and practices, how do we deal with the problem of the church leaving portions of those beliefs out of their materials, and even denying their existence? The secondary sources we have make mention of the hidden OT materials, while the Church avoids doing so. Therefore, on at least the topic of beliefs and practices, autobiographical materials from former members are generally more reliable as primary sources than the church itself. But I don't see much to gain by going through the trouble of deciphering what is and what is not a reliable primary source, when we have copious secondary sources available to us. It may be better to continue avoiding primary sources entirely. -- Good Damon 19:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Repeating "it's a primary source!" does not magically turn a secondary source into a primary source. The book is not an autobiography. It contains a autobiographical section, yes, but that is not what is being cited here. Honestly, Jayen, have you actually read the book? -- ChrisO (talk) 20:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Now that is a different issue. I'll be honest, I haven't read the book, and was going by how Jayen described it. If it's not an autobiography, then I don't see any problem with it. -- Good Damon 22:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know why Jayen is describing it the way he is. I have a hard copy of it in front of me. It has 4 autobiographical chapters out of 46, consisting of 33 pages in a book of 428 pages. The non-autobiographical chapters are heavily referenced, with up to 26 references per chapter and many hundreds throughout the book. The references are almost entirely to primary and secondary sources, such as books, published lecture transcripts, published memoranda and newspaper reports. Atack did not take part in almost all the events that he describes in those 42 chapters; he seems to have been quite a low-level Scientologist well away from the centre of the organisation. The book is indisputably a secondary source, "rely[ing] for [its] facts and opinions on primary sources, often to make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims" (per WP:PSTS). It is quite simply false to describe it as a primary source. "Nancy Cartwright gushes about her making clear" is a totally different matter - it's an uncorroborated personal viewpoint with no attempt at using secondary or tertiary sources and no references. Comparing the two is like comparing chalk and cheese. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Jayen, any reply to this? I've been operating on the assumption that Atack's book was autobiographical in nature. If ChrisO's description of it is correct -- and I have no reason to doubt him -- then cutting references to the book from the article is unsupportable with current policy. -- Good Damon 00:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * As for "Have I read the book": I have never read through it from cover to cover. In arguing for its exclusion as a primary source, I went primarily by a description of it, in a reliable source, as an "autobiography and bitter indictment from a former member". I hope that explains why "Jayen is describing it the way he is"; I gave the link several times before.
 * Having said that, I have had the pdf of Atack's book (available free online) on my hard disk for a good few months, have read sections of it and have dipped into parts of it to verify sourcing etc. What I saw did not strike me as inconsistent with Gallagher's description as an "autobiography and bitter indictment from a former member". Having leafed through the whole thing now, I do understand some of ChrisO's indignation at seeing the book described as an autobiography. While autobiographical elements come up in later chapters as well, ChrisO's description above of the book's contents as a whole is correct.
 * That does not necessarily mean the book isn't a primary source. WP:PSTS says, "The key point about a primary source is that it offers an insider's view to an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on." The key qualification that Atack had for getting the book published was that he was an insider. He didn't to my knowledge have any journalistic or scholarly qualifications, nor any prior track record as a writer.
 * Carol Publishing Group, the publisher, seem to be most notable for having published a quiz book on Seinfeld that was found to infringe a copyright (see Castle Rock Entertainment, Inc. v. Carol Publishing Group). Judging by their other publications, they appear to publish celebrity stuff, joke books, similar insider accounts (Stalin's interpreter on Stalin, or "Alzheimer's, a Love Story: One Year in My Husband's Journey"), an out-of-copyight Encyclopedia of Occultism from 1920, etc. At any rate, both Frenschkowski and Gallagher seem to consider it worth pointing out that the book is "bitter", i.e. informed by the author's personal feelings, rather than a neutral study. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 15:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Does anyone know if the Church published a rebuttal of this book and whether it is online? Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 16:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Gentlemen/Ladies - I may be missing some of the subtleties here, but reading the comments above I would have thought that this is a comparatively simple issue. If content written in Atack's book is properly referenced then it is a reliable source. If content is personal account then it isn't. There is no reason why this seemingly noteworthy book should be discounted in entirety if it contains valid material, nor that it should be accepted in its entirety if some of the material is unreliable. This is NOT a binary issue; we would expect editors to have differentiated which parts of the book are viable for inclusion and these contributions should only be removed if they are demonstrably false or unreliable. I would also note that whatever the motivations for the author for writing it, the publisher for publishing it or indeed the overall tone are essentially irrelevant - few people would write on something they have no interest in. If the source material is reliably referenced it is valid. End of argument.-SupernautRemix (talk) 16:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm as confused as anyone as to why Jayen is still pushing this issue, now bringing in a third and fourth lines of argument that have still less to do with WP policy. SupernautRemix above is entirely correct. The references to the book have been removed without good reason, or if you prefer, a reason that has turned out to be misconceived. MartinPoulter (talk) 17:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you point me to any content that was cited to Atack that has actually been removed from this article? And is there a problem if the same information is cited to a more reputable journalistic or scholarly source, published by a reputable publishing house? And note that we are at the moment excluding world-renowned religious scholars like Bryan R. Wilson, whose writings appear on the Scientology website and in publications by Scientology-owned publishing houses, as sources, based on the argument that the publisher is not good enough. Wilson is a lot more reputable than Atack ... This article has had long problems that are currently subject to an arbcom. Avoiding polarised sources, and sticking to reputable media and scholarly sources, seemed like a good idea at the time. Let's face it, there is enough scholarly and journalistic criticism to draw on. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 18:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised that you feel that you can be so definitive about a book you haven't even read in full, and that you're relying on a nine-word summary in a bibliography that you doubtless found on Google Books. Your arguments against using Blue Sky are not supported by policy, and your claims about the book are faulty. Let me knock down another one: you make claims about the publisher. New York magazine wrote dismissively of them in a January 1992 article, to which their editorial director and publicity director replied (in the March 27, 1992 issue): "Carol has been responsible for numerous works of history, sociology, biography, science, and current events as well as some books of literature and as well as some books of literature and poetry. To mention just a few: Crusaders: Voices From the Abortion Front, by Marian Faux; The Rushdie Affair, by Daniel Pipes; Arafat, by Janet and John Wallach; Blood & Banquets: A Berlin Diary, by Bella Fromm; A History of Knowledge, by Charles Van Doren; Five Minutes to Midnight, by US senator Tom Harkin; A Nest of Simple Folk, by Sean O'Faolain; Why Black People Tend to Shout, by Ralph Wiley; The James Jones Reader; A Whole Different Ballgame, Marvin Miller (selected by the New York Times as one of the notable sports books for 1991); Evenings With Horowitz, by David Dubal; and Good Morning Revolution: Uncollected Writings of Langston Hughes. Anne Tyler, Louise Erdrich, and Tobias Wolff have served as judges for the American Fiction series of the Best Unpublished Short Stories, published under the Birch Lane imprint. Moreover, our back-list of more than 1200 books includes works from Simone de Beauvoir, Soren Kierkegaard, Jean-Paul Sartre, and Albert Einstein. Carol also has one of the most extensive lists of books of African-American interest in the industry." So there is no doubt that they are a serious publisher with a record of publishing serious books.
 * As for Atack's supposed "insider" status, if you had read his book you would know that he had no involvement at all in the vast majority of the events that he describes. The book covers the complete history of Dianetics, Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard from Hubbard's birth in 1911 through to around the late 1980s. Atack himself appears to have been a very peripheral figure, involved at a junior level in a couple of the CoS's UK branches, far removed from Hubbard and the CoS leadership. Atack's book is a conventional history, rather well-written, which (other than the short autobiographical section) is sourced to his vast archive. Russell Miller describes it in his introduction to the book: "In the loft of his house in East Grinstead, he had collected literally thousands of documents, letters, pamphlets, books and pictures, all of it indexed and cross-referenced on computer." It requires no special knowledge to write a source-based history if you have good sources and you know your way around them. I could probably have written Blue Sky if I had that archive. The book is not a "friendly" source towards Scientology - which seems to be the underlying issue here - but it is indisputably a reliable secondary source from a mainstream publisher and in terms of Wikipedia policy, its exclusion is unsupportable. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * ChrisO, you are repeating yourself, and you are partly missing the point. The decision not to use the book was one based on editor consensus, rather than on sourcing policy, as was the agreement not to use Scientology's own publications, whose use policy would permit here as well. Secondly, if New York magazine wrote dismissively of Atack's publisher in 1992, which was news to me, then that makes my point rather than yours. Third, if a claim in Atack is well-referenced, we can cite the source he cites. If all his book says is "Interview with former employee" – and there are a lot of references like that, to protect those giving information – then that is really just hearsay, and I'd like to see that hearsay repeated in a more reputable source before deciding that it is significant enough to be included here. We have dozens of scholarly works (and high-end press articles) on Scientology available, written by people who are well aware of Atack's book. The decision how much weight to give to it should be theirs, not ours. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 23:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem with your approach is not just that it's based on faulty assumptions about particular works, but that it violates a fundamental principle of NPOV. Let me quote again: "The neutral point of view is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints. As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy on the grounds that it is "POV". Article content should clearly describe, represent, and characterize disputes within topics, but without endorsement of any particular point of view... Neutrality requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view) — what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article." If we have reliably published secondary sources, from any source - CoS, Carol Publishing Group or whatever - than they are equally valid as a possible source for us. We do not eliminate sources because we consider them to be "POV" - that is a fundamental violation of NPOV. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * NPOV means representing significant viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in the most reliable sources. Atack is not among those, however much you may promote the book. The publisher is at best so-so, Atack's qualifications other than those of being an insider are non-existent. We have not even done a proper job here of reflecting all the scholarly literature available. The works of authors like Kent, Wilson and Melton are used in university syllabi; Atack's are not, for very obvious reasons. It is not a violation of NPOV to want to base an article on the most reliable secondary sources, which in the case of critical viewpoints are scholars such as Kent, Zellner, Beit-Hallahmi etc. The best and most legitimate use of Atack's primary material is where a scholar sympathetic to him, like Kent, has cited him. Lastly, given that you have openly acknowledged here that you are involved in what scholars term online propaganda efforts against Scientology, you have to be prepared to have people take your championing of NPOV with a grain of salt. Show me edits here in Wikipedia where you have cited scholars or other sources that are sympathetic to Scientology in its battles against its critics, and I will believe that your interest in NPOV is genuine. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 11:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Jayen - I appreciate that this is an issue you feel strongly about and respect your passion, knowledge of subject and editing efforts on the article. However, as I am sure you are aware there is no reason why statements can't have multiple sources; there is no reason for why these apparently 'scholarly' references cannot be added alongside references to Atack rather than replacing them. I would also, with respect, suggest that yourself and one other person espousing one view vs. one editor espousing another is not the most robust example of an editorial consensus and certainly not the last word in whether to use this particular source; this particular thread goes into substantially more detail over the quality of the source and makes some very strong points for inclusion. While I appreciate that your points may have merit, they do not provide an overwhelming argument for removal in the face of the support shown for inclusion. I am not someone who enjoys throwing around links to wikipedia policy; I find it churlish and often done in an attempt to legitimise biased decisions. However, I would always recommend to ALL editors involved in a lively debate a quick refresher look at Assume_good_faith, particularly when arguments start bordering on ad hominem attacks on the motives of fellow editors. SupernautRemix (talk) 11:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Just as an aside, GoodDamon, the Church has publicly commented on each of the OT levels according to this (bottom of p. 264, top of p. 265); it's not as though they claimed the stuff didn't exist. But I have no problem with using other sources on it as well. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 16:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

There is plenty of reliable sources and secondary sources, I don't see any point on wasting time arguing about a primary source. This is counter productive.Bravehartbear (talk) 15:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

POV section about Germany
To maintain neutrality, it has to list the freedom and justice in Germany, which include any believer, particulary even the organisation. Only the tax-exemption and the recognition of the ORGANISATION as a religious organisation is FINALLY unresolved, because Scientology did not call the courts. Normally only list facts not viewpoints or valuations. If its important, please add the answers and the facts. Details see tags.

The hole paragraph about Pastor F. W. Haack seems irrelevant. Please proof relevance. Wispanow (talk) 07:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Bias
I have read the article and find it extremly and ecssicelybias. I ask someone to find a third party editor, to review this article completly.60.234.151.56 (talk) 02:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Your comment is useless to anyone else without pointing out specifically which parts that you consider to be biased.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 00:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Furthermore, whomever is yapping at us from IP 60.234.151.56 needs to work on his or her grammar, so that we can actually figure out what the hell he/she is saying without spending several minutes trying to decipher his/her garbled and mangled language.  --Luigifan (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Removing verifiable content
The content removed in this diff can easily be verified: ← Spidern  →  18:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The line that was removed is not inappropriate to the article in that it is sourced and relevant. However, and IMO, it fails to reach the bar for inclusion in the main article as to its importance. It should go in one of the more detailed junior articles. --Justallofthem (talk) 18:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * When I checked google news I found only this: That didn't seem quite enough to justify inclusion here. We are not here to do wikileaks' PR work for them.  Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 18:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree. It can go in the Wikileaks article. If at all. --Justallofthem (talk) 18:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted the deletion. As Spidern discusses above, these facts are easily verifiable and well-sourced. It is not acceptable conduct on Wikipedia to delete things just because you don't like them, and to falsely call a set of verifiable facts an "advert". --FOo (talk) 05:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I would also agree that the deletion could hardly have been based on "no consensus" as it is referenced outside Wikipedia and therefore consensus is irrelevant. And if it is in the wrong place in the article you should be polite and move it, not REmove it. Debresser (talk) 12:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Come on guys, we are trying to arrive at an encyclopedia article on Scientology here. Do you think the Encyclopedia Britannica would mention the Operating Thetan document on Wikileaks, because the Register had an article on it? Stick it in Scientology vs. the Internet if you like. There are lots of other areas in this article that could do with improving.

On the other hand, you are right about the Apologetics Index page, and I apologise for the revert. While most of the material hosted on the Apologetics Index is hosted without publishers' permission and thus violates copyrights, this particular page you are linking to explicitly states that it is hosted with permission of the publisher, so it's good. Sorry. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 13:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * FYI, I have inserted the Wikileaks story in Scientology vs. the Internet: . The most I would support in this article is a brief mention of a dispute between Wikileaks and CoS in the (already bloated) Internet controversy section. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 13:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Um, about this whole debate...
What exactly is this "Wikileaks" you speak of? --Luigifan (talk) 20:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

New Zealand
The article claims that 'Scientology is considered a legitimate religion in such countries as ... New Zealand.' Are you sure? I was under the impression that Scientology was recognised, in as much as tax exempt status, as being a religous charity. This is not the same as being a religion. For comparsion The Salvation Army is clearly a religous charity but no one would claim it as being a relgion. Does anyone disagree that the article wording should be modified to reflect this status in NZ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.22.238 (talk) 08:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * For reference, the actual wording we have in the New Zealand Herald is "Announcing its decision on December 24, the IRD said the church was a charitable organisation dedicated to the advancement of religion and its income would be tax exempt". So both aspects, tax exemption and religious nature, are mentioned. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 11:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi - but that is my point. The IRD is charged with matters related to tax and not deciding what organisations are or are not religions. That the IRD recognises a charity only can be found referenced in many places, including
 * "Inland Revenue Department (IRD) declared it a charity"
 * "2002: Scientology recognised as a religious charity in NZ, with the IRD granting it tax-exempt status."
 * "The Church of Scientology® will not pay any more income tax after the Inland Revenue Department (IRD) declared it a charity.."
 * And the official listing of
 * Would you agree that in abscence of any reference to support the official recognition of Scientology as a religion in NZ the article needs to be slightly re-worded? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.22.238 (talk) 18:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Any comments before the article is modified?
 * I don't quite see the problem. We have a mainstream source saying that according to the IRD, the Church of Scientology is "a charitable organisation dedicated to the advancement of religion". Which religion would you say they meant, if not Scientology? The official listing you linked to includes the words "(Provides religious services / activities)". I suppose we could say "has gained religious recognition" rather than "is considered a legitimate religion". Would something along those lines address your concern? Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 01:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi,
 * The point is the given citation, and all other references, do not support the current description in the article of Scientology in NZ.
 * The status of Scientology in NZ is a religious charity at is not ".. a legitimate religion in such countries as ... New Zealand."
 * Consider that in NZ The Girls Brigade has the same offical status as Scientology. I am sure you would not claim that The Girls Brigade is a religion:-)
 * I can see no reason to describe Scientology NZ as anything other than a 'Religious charity.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.22.238 (talk) 07:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi - so any comments before changing?
 * I'll modify the article to reflect the status in New Zealand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pigplucker (talk • contribs) 08:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, the thing is that the Girls' Brigade is a Christian organisation. Christianity clearly is a recognised religion, and this affiliation is the reason why the GB has the status it has. On the other hand, I am not aware that the Church of Scientology of New Zealand promotes any religion other than Scientology. If offering Scientology auditing etc. makes an organisation an "organisation offering religious services", that implies a recognition that Scientology services are religious services. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 14:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

"See Also" section POV?
Can anyone explain why the link to Jesus in Scientology should not be included in the "see also" section of this article? I have added it and it was removed... will add it again as i do not see how this addition does anything but improve this encyclopedic page. Sarah Katherine 21:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we have something like 400 Scientology-related articles, all of them are of potential interest. The present list of 5 strikes me as a fairly oddball collection. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 22:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Removed the See also section. (Feel free to add it back if you like) - It is quite a large article with lots of wikilinked terms throughout, and then there's also the navigational aid at the bottom anywayz. Cirt (talk) 05:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It's more in keeping with the Wikipedia format to have a few more Wiki pages that are related so people can easily read more in the "See also" section. This includes pages that also have a lot of Wikilinks and even "portals".  Thanks! Sarah Katherine 18:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, no worries. Cirt (talk) 23:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Historical context?
How are any of the facts presented here disputed by current secondary sources? Is there doubt that Hubbard wrote most of Scientology's teachings? Has it been disputed that the writings are contradictory? Does a source explicitly state that involvement no longer involves an unquestioning faith in Hubbard? ← Spidern  →  15:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * First, we have already described Hubbard as the originator of Dianetics and Scientology. Second, the developments from a science or therapy to a religion, the incorporation of beliefs in past lives etc. are already described in the History section. Third, Hubbard is dead. The beliefs, practices and doctrines are now usually described as stable. The third source expressly described a period of time (in the past tense, not in the present tense in which it was put here) in which Hubbard was alive and would, according to the source, change doctrine. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 16:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well put Sir'! Ka Jong  ( Ka' Talk ) 20:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "The beliefs, practices and doctrines are now usually described as stable." Really? Only by superficial observers. The Golden Age of Knowledge revisions/corrections which fixed all the lurking typos and layout problems going back over 50 years was just in 2007. Everyone was urged to buy the new copies and toss away the old ones, right? BTW, that third source doesn't use the word stable, and I don't see where it supports that claim at all. AndroidCat (talk) 06:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I see the argument in Jayen466's reply, but even taken at face value, it seems to be an argument not for removing the disputed text (apart from the first sentence), but for moving the text to the historical section, or just for changing the tense of a verb. For the removal of two academic sources from the article, as Jayen466 has done, it's only reasonable to require a strong argument based on sources. The Lindholm ref explicitly uses Scientology as an example of groups that "have a strong tendency to develop highly committed charismatized inner cores of intensely loyal devotees gathered around a leader taken to be a demigod." This is important context for any presentation of beliefs and doctrine in Scientology. Jayen hasn't provided a source saying things are different today: also, the argument that beliefs are not as important as subordination to Hubbard is based not just on whether the doctrines are stable but whether they are contradictory. Is there a source saying that Scientology doctrines stopped being contradictory? MartinPoulter (talk) 00:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have read a good number of sources on Scientology published over the last 15 years or so. They show very good agreement on what the beliefs and practices of Scientology are, and none of them express any confusion or hesitation about the matter. They also make clear that there is no concentration on any living figure; for example, they mention that Miscavige, while respected, does not have the kind of status or significance that Hubbard had while alive, and still has now, as the founder of the movement. If you find a neat way of working your sources into the history section, by all means go ahead. Certainly, that people were intensely devoted to Hubbard is worth mentioning. I'd suggest that of the sources you cited, Wallis is the most useful here. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 05:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Whether the sources on Scientology are confused (I never claimed they were) is a different issue from what's being discussed here. The "no concentration on any living figure" point is similarly uncontested and irrelevant. You haven't given an explanation of why you removed two academic sources from the article, and it doesn't clarify things that you personally endorse one of them. You invite me to make further edits, but I'm not convinced that you will not similarly remove them unilaterally and with opaque justification. MartinPoulter (talk) 21:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Try me. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 21:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

An internal justice system
I removed what appeared to be an opinion, while asking for in-text attribution: It was placed back on the article, without any attribution:. This is not common knowledge and is a comparison made by a single scholar. We should either attribute the comparison to Melton, or remove it altogether. ← Spidern  →  23:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Science fiction writer
I have removed science fiction writer from the lead sentence, following the example of both Columbia Encyclopedia and Encyclopædia Britannica. The history section now contains a reference to Hubbard having a been "an American author writing in several pulp fiction genres, especially science fiction" (he wrote fantasy and Westerns as well). This is again as per CE and EB, who offer this information later on. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 08:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

A letter to Orwell
"although according to Linda Edwards author of A Brief Guide to Beliefs, it is a well known fact that Hubbard did write a letter to Orwell saying "...the easiest way to make a lot of money, is to start a new religion."" O RLY? That's the first that I've ever heard of Hubbard writing to Orwell, let alone that this is a well known fact. Another fluff book with poor research? AndroidCat (talk) 06:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Definitely a fringe viewpoint. That claim is mentioned in no other book about Hubbard or Scientology that I've ever read. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * According to Melton and other sources we are already quoting, Orwell wrote something similar to that in a letter to someone (not Hubbard). I've never heard of Hubbard having written something like that to Orwell either. I've taken it out. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 17:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Technology Application Orgs
Spidern, would you mind restoring the Tech Application Org section? I was planning to expand it; much more is available in the sources. As for the categorisation, both Melton and Bromley/Cowan use the exact same tripartite categorisation (practice/training, tech application, social reform), and we have already said at the beginning of the org section that there are three kinds of Scientology orgs. So please let's stick with the threefold categorisation present in the sources; more material will be added to the Tech Application Orgs to justify a separate section for them. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 17:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure I like the categorization, feels a bit redundant to me. I am fine with sourcing academic viewpoints, but mirroring the structure of publications is not always the best way to go. There is a lot we can do to improve our presentation of the material. ←  Spidern  →  15:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Article "clear" and homo novis
If anyone can explain me what is the reason "homo novis" is not mentioned under article Clear_(Scientology) ? I think it's really important to explain to people what state clear meaning is for them - how they see other around them who is not jet "cleared". According to L. Ron Hubbard from Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary ( Scientology_terminology ) people who are not "clear" are no more useful as ants, field mice or zombie vs. "clear" people who are only hope for this sector of galaxy. Also would be appropriate to add the mission for "clearing up the planet" - what that means - it has nothing to do whit environment. As we know,before final stage of "clear" aprox 20% of population are in prison camps as long they become clear and aprox 2.5% of world population( suppressive persons ) should be disposed and gay's among others.  - I do not think it's a minor information, it's final stage of entire religion ideology - clear up the planet. Waffa 22:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice piece of original research all combined with an unreliable source and/or a primary source. Sorry you need to come up with an actual reliable source to put in due weight on those materials. Bravehartbear (talk) 01:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you kidding? If Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary  by L. Ron Hubbard is "unreliable source" then what is reliable? True - this page is not good source but no legit site is allowed to host CoS material. Do i have to upload this book online as torrent in PDF format for everyone to read?  So you would say that Homo Scientologicus & Homo Novis is fantasy by internet conspirators and Hubbard have newer mentioned them?

82.131.17.139 (talk) 20:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary and all Scientology materials are primary sources and/or self published sources. Currently we are only using reliable secundary sources, in other words a Schoolar or journalist needs to write about this. Then we cite the secundary source. The secundary source establishes due weight. We can't publish your interpretation of these materials, that's would be original research. Bravehartbear (talk) 00:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Should be added to Category:Western civilisation
No, because Scientology has been spreading in the orient too. There are Scientology missions in India, Taiwan and Korea. One of the biggests Scientology churches is located in Tokyo Japan, so no. Bravehartbear (talk) 00:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous section
I think the present coverage of "Anonymous" activities in the "Scientology and the Internet" section is unduly detailed for this overview article, giving dates of individual demonstrations a year ago and so forth. Could we please shrink this section? Also note the current RS/N thread related to the Wikinews box in this section. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 17:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely it is overly long but I won't be the one to shorten it. Maybe Spidern will help us out here, he did very well at shortening the sections more related to Scientology proper. --Justallofthem (talk) 03:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not appreciate tongue-in-cheek remarks about my edits which imply a POV inclination. When I stepped in, many of the "Scientology proper" sections suffered from sourcing issues and problems with editorial tone. The two paragraphs (out of 6 in the section) which talk about "Anonymous" are 375 words in length, which is roughly 4.8% of the total words in the article (7838 words). I am more than willing to make specific improvements when text conflicts with our quality standards, but will not shorten for the sake of shortening. ←  Spidern  →  14:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I apologize for tongue-in-cheekiness. --Justallofthem (talk) 16:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you agree that the listing of individual demonstration dates that took place a year ago in various cities, each attended by a few dozen people, is excessive detail? I would also suggest we have just one picture of Anonymous protesters (I'd prefer the one on the right). Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 14:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Not tongue in cheek
As Spidern has objected to my light mention of his reducing this article, let me present a more serious look, especially as I believe that Spidern's edits are an unattributed contributing cause of the current arbitration. (Spidern shows 262 recent edits in Scientology )

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientology&diff=248737791&oldid=248720071

Removed ~2500 characters altering the tone in many instances so as to exclude Scientology's spiritual underpinnings and techniques. Claims to have a problem with primary sourcing but relocated (instead of removed) a very strong statement about psychiatry that was similarly sourced.

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientology&diff=249149147&oldid=248749646

Removed ~4000 characters including many key Scientology concepts including what Scientology considers its "ultimate goal" and the definition of the "thetan", arguably the most important definition in Scientology, while again exhibiting selective use of primary sources.

3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientology&diff=250183196&oldid=249831701

Remove almost 5000 characters including totally removing key Scientology concepts such as ARC, tone scale, etc (which can be easily sourced in secondary materials, see ARC and tone scale), presumably because they are sourced from primary material but continues selectively allowing such with http://freedom.lronhubbard.org/page078.htm which he relocated again.

4. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientology&diff=250183196&oldid=249800383

Removed >4000 characters repeating removal of key concepts that I guess were reinserted.

5. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientology&diff=253833720&oldid=252158618

Removed almost 30,000! characters further reducing the tone of the article from being about "Scientology" to being about "criticism of Scientology".

I respect Spidern but Spidern is a critic of Scientology and his edits mainly served to make this article even less about Scientology (as opposed to criticism of Scientology) that it already was. I don't claim to object to every one of his edits, just to the direction he seemed to be taking the article. I also object when Scientologists that try to make relatively minor efforts to reverse that course are given grief all out of proportion to any errors they may make in those efforts. We need to stop harassing the Scientologists here and try to get this article back in balance. It is after all, an article on Scientology. As a Scientologist that got worn out very quickly here once said: "The incorrect and counterproductive consideration that seems to pervade the community is this: Scientology is not a subject - it is instead controversy about a pseudo subject." --Justallofthem (talk) 19:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * it appears you only mentioned Spidern in referance to Anonymous to bait for a soapbox to engage in attacks...poor form...Coffeepusher (talk) 18:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * By 30,000!, did you mean the mathematical 30,000!, as in 1x2x3x4x5...x29,999x30,000? If so, then your point about the article having too much material was well founded, as that number is considerably larger than the sum of all the neutrons, protons and neutrons expected to exist in the universe. According to my calculator, (the calculation took about four seconds), the rounded number is 2.759537246219384599421664255e+121287. Asperger, he&#39;ll know. (talk) 20:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I am going to have to say that to claim this article is overly critical of scientology would be a joke as it's become increasingly positive over the past 2 years. 20:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zanotam (talk • contribs)
 * I am going to have to concur. this is the first time in a long time this article has been readable and not an obvious hate filled attack piece. It's nice to see. maybe I will start contributing again. Slightlyright (talk) 03:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)