Talk:Scientology and sex/Archive 1

Original research
It was not established that these are the views and practices on sex of individual Scientologists or just Hubbard's opinions. Steve Dufour 20:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Please use tags so that we know specifically what you feel is OR in the article.  Smee 00:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC).


 * I went ahead and did that. Steve Dufour 00:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Things work out so much better around here when we are all polite.  Smee 00:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

Sentence on Lisa McPherson removed
I took this out because it had nothing to do with the topic of the article. Steve Dufour 20:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, it has everything to do with it. Scientology's views on sex are, logically enough, connected to their position on the human body in general. The Lisa McPherson bit is essential because of her comments about being an Operating Thetan and not needing her body anymore. wikipediatrix 20:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * In that case it is original research. I am not expert, and not a medical professional.  But from reading about Ms McPherson's case it seems like she suffered from an illness or injury to her brain, maybe from the accident or maybe something else.  I never thought that her taking her clothes off had anything to do with sex. Steve Dufour 20:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * To say "In that case it is original research" makes zero sense, because I just explained to you in the plainest English I know how it is not original research. I never said Lisa taking her clothes off in itself had anything directly to do with sex, so stop criticizing something that isn't there. As I also just explained to you already, the Lisa incident has to do with the anti-sex, anti-physical-body sentiment in Scientology doctrine. There's no "original research" to it. wikipediatrix 01:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * When you say it is in a WP article it is original research. If you can cite someone else saying it in a published source it would not be. Steve Dufour 05:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You're still making zero sense. Seriously. I have no idea what you are talking about. Someone else saying what?? wikipediatrix 12:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Your statement that: "the Lisa incident has to do with the anti-sex, anti-physical-body sentiment in Scientology doctrine" is original research. All the time I have been aware of it I thought the problem was the Scientologists' denial of mental illness and hatred of the mental health profession.  It never occured to me at all that people were saying that Scientology doctrine itself had driven Ms McPherson insane. Is that what the critics are asserting? Steve Dufour 07:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

A. An anecdote about someone who's traumatized, reeling and hysterical from a car wreck is presented as Church doctrine?

B. Can we add: 1. The section from the Code of a Supervisor that says don't have emotional relationships with students, 2. The section from the Auditor's Code about not taking liberties, and 3. I forget where it is, but something about all rules about the Second Dynamic being cancelled? 70.116.150.14 02:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and removed the part on Ms McPherson. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with "Scientology and sex" Steve Dufour 17:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd agree that someone who was just in a car wreck is not qualified to explain Scientology views. Especially someone who strips naked and walks down the street. If she has not done this previously or since, then impaired judgment is clearly an issue.
 * It may also violate BLP rules.
 * Most important.. it is OR. As far as I can tell, she made two statements. 1) that she is an Operating Thetan and 2) that she did not need a body to live any more. It is OR for us to connect these two and draw a conclusion, unless she connected them with 'therefore'. Otherwise, she could just as well have meant she did not need a body to live, because she was ready to die.
 * Lsi john 20:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Nude movie stars
On another issue, I never said that they weren't sexy. I just meant that talking about them in the article was original research because it is putting two things together and coming up with a conclusion. Steve Dufour 20:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No it isn't. What is this "conclusion" you speak of? wikipediatrix 12:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

OR tags
I put orginal research tags on two sentences:

"Scientology views and practices regarding sex are based on Church of Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard's written works which make up the Standard Tech or core doctrine of the Church." To me this suggests that the views and practices of individual Scientologists on sex are based on Hubbard's opinions. Has anyone else said this? From the article it looks like his opinions are so confusing and contradictory that nobody could base anything on them.

"Despite the anti-sexual attitudes inherent in Scientology doctrine, many Scientologist actors have appeared nude or nearly nude in films, such as Mimi Rogers, John Travolta, Nicole Kidman, and others." This has been improved a bit. However, it still seems to be original research. Has any published source said this is a problem? Or even interesting? Are you trying to say they are bad Scientologists? If so it would be a living persons violation. Thanks. Steve Dufour 05:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You're misreading the article. The article does not say it's a problem nor interesting, so why would we need a source that says such a thing?? wikipediatrix 12:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If there is no relationship between the nude actors and the subject of the article then the paragraph should be removed. If a relationship is asserted, as I assumed it was - and I think most readers would, then it is original research. That's how it seems to me anyway. Steve Dufour 13:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I would submit that you need a citation from a secondary source, which confirms anti-sexual attitudes are inherent in Scientology doctrine. Then you would need a secondary source which shows those actors are practicing Scientologists. Then you would need a source which shows that those actors were practicing Scientologists WHEN they appeared nude or nearly nude in the films. Then you would need a secondary source which claims that appearing nude (or semi nude) in films violates (not just any, but THE) anti-sexual attitude that is inherent in Scientology doctrine. And and others is weasel wording. Sorry, but without sourcing, this is OR in so many ways. Lsi john 20:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Uncited material on living persons removed
I made some changes in the article by taking out some sentences that refered to living person's views and practices. There is nothing that says that Hubbard's opinions are what is being followed by living Scientologists. If there is then add the information to the article. Thanks.Steve Dufour 13:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * We aren't talking about Hubbard's opinions, we're talking about official Church doctrine, and the article is flawlessly sourced in that respect. But if adding the word "official" to the intro, as I see you've done, makes you feel better, then so be it. wikipediatrix 14:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Steve Dufour 07:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

POV tag
This is one confused article. There are no "Official Scientology views regarding sex". There are only Ron's words on the subject and they form no part of anything required or much of anything practiced in Scientology. This article is basically a POV fork and presents this stuff from a quite unrealistic POV. --Justanother 12:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The word "official" was inserted by Steve Dufour at his great insistence. As for the article being "confused", it's hard to suss out where the confusion lies since everything here is straight from the Hubbard's mouth, in official Church policy and texts. It's not like the article is quoting Hubbard's personal views on sex taken from a Playboy interview or something - the book "Creation of Human Ability" is part of Standard Tech and the "Pain and Sex" edict is from an official HCOB, not idle personal musings. Lastly, the article is hardly a POV fork, because it promotes no POV. It simply presents the subject by relating what the sources say. If you have different/better sources, feel free to add them. It's no more a POV fork than Homosexuality and Scientology, Taoist sexual practices, Sexual orientation and Wicca, The Bible and homosexuality, Religion and sexuality, Homosexuality in the Roman Catholic priesthood, Sex segregation in Islam, Sex in science fiction, etc. wikipediatrix 13:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sex in science fiction? Next you will be telling me that there is a Sex and Trekkies article! You seem to be trying to present the idea that there is some bright line between "policy" and "musings" when I think that you know full well that that is not the case. "Scripture", meaning simply the published and recorded words of Hubbard, contains plenty of Hubbard's musings along with plenty of hard "technology" and everything in-between. To take obscure materials and promote them to some sort of statement about the Scientology religion is just ignorant. Not ignorant in the "bad way" but simply ignorant of what Scientology is and how it is practiced. It is POV; the POV of the uninformed critic, no matter how well-read that uninformed critic may be. It is "look, he said this" and "look, he said that" with little or no regard to what it means to Scientology or Scientologists and is similar, if not so obvious, to what you are doing elsewhere as in Space opera in Scientology scripture. But I still wikilove you! --Justanother 14:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You're veering off into a tangential argument which is certainly interesting in its own right, but approaches OR on your part to want to apply it to the article. The totality of Hubbard's writings and lectures are considered "Standard Tech" of Church scripture. The article does not state, nor does it imply, that all Scientologists get in bed and say "honey, want to exchange admiration particles tonight?" .... you and Steve Dufour have both confused reporting of a religion's statements on sex with real-world practice. (It's like my Uncle Ned who insists that he believes every word in the Bible is true, yet he doesn't practice the Old Testament dictum that menstruating women aren't allowed in the house.) I have no problem with adding a section (if it's properly sourced) that shows that the average Scientologist chooses to ignore the Pain and Sex HCOB. wikipediatrix 14:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Staying in the OR-ish realm, Hubbard's words on the topic could be equated to those of many Eastern religions that make a clear distinction between the things of the flesh and the things of the spirit. In many or most religions, one gives up the things of the flesh to advance spiritually, see asceticism. I guess it might be considered an advantage of Scientology that spiritual advancement comes without such sacrifice. A Scientologist can enjoy sex, ot a good steak, or even a good fight, I guess (maybe we enjoy that last a bit much - actually we enjoy them all). The important point being are you "lowering yourself" or are you not. Are you going "downtone" or "downscale" to where sex lives or are you simply enjoying a sensation. As far as the article, I see it as a POV fork because these writings are non-notable and not deserving of their own article. --Justanother 14:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * BTW Justanother, you might check this out: . Steve Dufour 16:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Steve, that is interesting. If I were not an engineer, I might become a professional theologian; it is a topic I find endlessly interesting. I will not AfD as I am trying to ramp down here for a bit and having trouble doing that as it is. --Justanother 16:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Go ahead and nominate it for deletion then. I think it is less interesting than "Sex in science fiction", which probably wouldn't hurt anyone's feelings since it's mostly about people who are not born yet. Steve Dufour 15:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to remove some POV stuff:  1. The "see others" to articles about 2 Scientologists who were found guilty of sex crimes. Out of 50,000 American Scientologists 2 are not remarkable. 2. External links to anti-Scientology sites when no pro sites are linked. Steve Dufour 15:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

LRH jr. and reliability
Since he did end up retracting most of his statements, and some of his stories sound like he had his father's gift of imagination, we really should quit citing him. Anynobody 08:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Unless I'm mistaken, Junior retracted the info in his book with Bent Corydon, not this Penthouse interview which the article is citing. (Junior clearly only made a public about-face because someone must have been leaning on him. He can't realistically say that Corydon misrepresented his anti-Scientology statements in the book, when he's making the exact same kind of statements on his own in the Penthouse interview.) wikipediatrix 14:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It was my understanding that he retracted most of what he said, not just in the book but almost everything. He may not have taken back the Penthouse interview, and if so you're welcome to put it back in however he sounds like a bitter son rather than a reliable source. (Note: I'm not saying he had no reason to be bitter, LRH was not a very good father. His attitude may impact accuracy is all I'm saying.) Anynobody 20:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the retraction is that this may be part of a settlement with CoS. I.e. he did not retract because he lied but because that was the condition on which he could get money. --Leocomix 09:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

OR
This article has long bothered me. I would have hoped that WP standards had been enforced and it would be long gone. The entire thing is original research based on Hubbard's writings. There is no evidence or even a claim from a secondary source that his crazy ideas are the basis of anyone else's views or behavior. I have been invited to return to Project Scientology. If I decide to accept I will nominate this article for deletion. Thanks. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Your edit summary says "LRH jr. and reliability". I don't see LRH jr aka Ron DeWolf referenced anywhere in the article. AndroidCat (talk) 04:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry. That's the section above. I usually click on the "edit" link of the last section to start a new one. I hope that doesn't cause a problem. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal with Homosexuality and Scientology

 * Oppose Merge. - These are completely different topics and will most likely incorporate a whole set of different types of sources. I do not think they should be merged.  Cirt (talk) 19:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Reuters reports on Scientology, sex, and the "second dynamic"
Scientologists say they recognize marriage as a part of the second of the eight dynamics of existence. The second dynamic includes all creative activity, including sex, procreating and the raising of children. Cirt (talk) 17:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Primary source content
Cirt, you had argued at the AfD for pruning back the primary-source content. At the moment, there are still a number of paragraphs sourced only to Hubbard. Shouldn't we take those out now? Jayen 466 14:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No. I think they are valid and are good complements at this point to the secondary sources. Prune/copyedit/trim, perhaps in places. Remove whole entire paragraphs? Disagree. Cirt (talk) 14:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you like to do the trimming then that you deem appropriate? Otherwise I am not sure what to make of your comment in the AfD. Jayen 466 14:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, to reiterate: Prune/trim? Yes. I never suggested removing whole entire paragraphs in that comment. Cirt (talk) 14:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I will list some problems that I see: The second lede para is based exclusively on a primary source, which is not referred to again in the main article. Assertions like the decree being "controversial", a "key teaching" etc. are unsourced. The lede does not summarise the article. Jayen 466 14:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The lermanet page "Scientology's Questionable Policies on Rape and Public Relations" (currently ref 8) is a WP:SPS page from an avowed anti-Scientology site. I don't think use of this page as a source is appropriate. Jayen 466 14:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The Gene Zimmer "Alteration of Scientology Materials Report" (ref 4) does not have publication data. Is that an RS? Jayen 466 14:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The entire section "Tone Scale and "Know to Sex" scale" is sourced to primary sources. If we can't find secondary sources discussing this, I am in favour of dropping it. Jayen 466 14:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Most of the first para in the Promiscuity section is primary-sourced. The second para is primary-sourced, as well, but luckily this can be fixed. Siker quotes the same policy letter on page 91:  Jayen 466 14:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The parts of "Abuse your Illusions" that we cite (by Russell Krick, published by The Disinformation Company, ) are from a fictionalised account. While it claims to be based on the actual "case history of a friend", I think we would be better off seeking corroboration in a more reliable source. (Note that the second source given, "One Hand Jerking", is another book featuring the exact same fictional account.) Jayen 466 15:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Similar to the fictionalized account of the Jason Scott case by Anson Shupe ? Cirt (talk) 15:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Some or all of these questions are quoted in the Anderson report. While that too is a primary source, its preceived factual reliability would be an improvement. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 21:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

This source does not actually say in so many words that "Scientology Sex Scandal" was "one of the more popular articles in Australian publishing in 2007", as our article states; the source merely describes it as one of a "slew of blaring headlines" in one of the "celebrity gossip weeklies". I doubt we'll ever be in agreement on the status of women's mags of this type as reliable encyclopedic sources. :-) Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 15:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The title of that article is "Selling off the rack". Also from the article: "A survey of the best-selling magazines of 2007 ..." Cirt (talk) 15:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * We could say, The article, which discussed the relationship of Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes, featured one of the more notable headlines in celebrity gossip weeklies in 2007, being entitled "Scientology Sex Scandal". Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 16:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅. Cirt (talk) 16:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Re the use of primary sources: I am fully in agreement with you, and have said so in the past, that Scientology, as well as related Beliefs and Practices articles, should not quote from Scientology websites or books (unless these are sections that reliable secondary sources have seen fit to quote verbatim). To that extent, I am fully behind what Spidern has done in these articles. But the same thing then also applies to articles like this present one. If we're telling Scientologists they can't pick and quote "the good bits", but have to restrict themselves to what secondary sources have covered, then we can't pick and quote "the bad bits", but should likewise stick to what reliable secondary sources have discussed. I think this is a way forward that would benefit article quality in the long run. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 16:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * For the most part generally speaking, I agree. However for specific subsections in this article would like to wait to hear what others think. Cirt (talk) 16:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - Paragraphs and sections based solely on primary sources are original research and should be removed. A responsible secondary source would do the work to fit the primary material into context and relative importance. A good example is the Pain and Sex bulletin, which in my experience as a Scientologist, is little more than a curiosity. Without a secondary source to put that in perspective we have little more here than the common Scientology critic ploy of picking alarming material from Hubbard out-of-context and holding it up to ridicule. Let's pare this down to those areas covered in secondary sources and perhaps a bit of primary material that corresponds. --Justallofthem (talk) 18:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And if we are to be doing OR here then let's not forget a VERY important policy, Second Dynamic Rules, which states that a person's sexual activity is NOT a concern for the Church. That needs to be in the lead. --Justallofthem (talk) 19:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure there is good coverage of Pain and Sex in secondary sources, will do some research into that. Cirt (talk) 19:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Now is as good a time as any to add such content yourself (provided it is well-sourced). I would also invite you to find some secondary sources for Scientology beliefs and practices, which is in a similar state. ←  Spidern  →  19:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it would be a good idea to add the 2nd Dynamic Rules to the lede. They seem to be the basis of the practical laissez-faire approach espoused by the church today, so they're of fundamental practical importance to individual Scientologists. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 21:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of content in subsection: Scientology sex classes and counseling
What a piece of dreck the below bit is:"In 2007, New Idea reported that Scientology has 'sex lessons' which can be given to couples looking to educate themselves to have 'better sex'. This guide studies their sex life and suggests ways for the couple to improve upon their activities. The article, titled: 'Scientology Sex Scandal', which discussed the relationship of Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes, was one of the more notable headlines in Australian celebrity gossip weeklies in 2007."Let's count the POV-driven errors: Personally I think any editor that would engage in the above is a ripe target for a topic ban as they obviously cannot control their POV and I am interested in input as to whether we should propose such a ban on the WP:AE page. --Justallofthem (talk) 18:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) The source article is MAGWATCH, which appears to be a column about gossip mags. This article is entitled "A ring of truth, but only about the lies (emphasis added)" which should give any editor pause before quoting from it.
 * 2) Here is what it says:"New Idea announces Tom and Katie's 'scientology sex scandal'. For some bizarre reason, the couple are reportedly taking 'sex lessons' so they can learn to have 'better sex'. 'Tom and Katie will have to share every detail of their sex life with an adviser, 'an intimate relationship guide', who will analyse their lovemaking and suggest improvements.'"So this is clearly about Tom and Kate, not about Scientology in general. Yet the editor here engaged in WP:OR generalization to invent that "Scientology has "sex lessons" which can be given to couples".
 * 3) Now seeing as we now do that the bit is about Tom and Kate, a responsible editor might want to consider WP:BLP and think carefully about the quality of the sourcing.
 * 4) Finally, a responsible editor might want to see if there is any other reliable source that mentions Scientologists taking "sex lessons". There is not and there are no such in Scientology. So an editor here just used terrible sourcing and outright original opinion to create a fiction about Scientology.
 * Oh, and calling it "one of the more notable headlines" is a definite reach. The article simply calls it one of "a slew of blaring headlines" about Katie that indicate that she is popular fodder for the gossip mags.
 * This is information backed up to multiple sources not just one, and your attempt at biased POV spin and attack on an individual editor instead of discussing the content itself and coming to a consensus on the talk page - or even before engaging in any sort of dispute resolution on the talk page such as content RFC on the content you disagree with, or even WP:RSN on a specific source you disagree with, is nonconstructive and indicative of a disruptive problem. Cirt (talk) 18:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally I think the happy inclusion of such material is the real problem here as it demonstrates extremely poor judgment. Much poorer judgment than anything that I have seen from Shutterbug. Yet you and others had no problem attacking her and proposing topic ban. --Justallofthem (talk) 18:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Justallofthem. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 18:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I did not initially propose the topic ban, though I support it. The topic ban is due to disruptive editing plus WP:COI from the organization Church of Scientology and its computers in Los Angeles. Again, this is a separate matter and for further community input on content issues - WP:RFC-content is the way to go. For further community input on sourcing issues - WP:RSN is the way to go. Cirt (talk) 18:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

(left) I made five (5) very salient points pointing up gross errors on that bit including WP:OR and WP:BLP violations, two of our most-important policies. You did not bother to address any of them but instead happily reinserted the offending material. There is something very wrong there. And I can point at plenty of previous cases where you acted in the same irresponsible manner. --Justallofthem (talk) 18:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Here is the history of the paragraph: Cirt inserted it, then Cirt and I discussed it above. I had failed to notice, until Justallofthem pointed it out, that the source made a statement on Cruise and Holmes, rather than a general statement about Scientology. Apart from that, I have expressed elsewhere my concern over our quoting celebrity weeklies as encyclopedic sources. This section was very poorly sourced. I expressed similar concerns over other sources used in this article above. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 19:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

If we were to hold a content RFC on this issue I would of course defer to community consensus on the matter. Until such time, I see that there are questions about this material and will continue to invite others to discuss, I posted a note to WP:SCN so hopefully we will bring in some other previously uninvolved editors on this article. Again, this is something that was not simply discussed in one source, but multiple others as well. Cirt (talk) 19:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

"In Scientology the focus is on sex. Sex, sex, sex."
This quote is poignant and especially in this particular article goes to the heart of the subject of the article itself. Not to mention that it is a quote from L. Ron Hubbard's son, who was directly involved in initial stages of Dianetics/Scientology. It should be retained in the quote box in that subsection. Cirt (talk) 20:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You are ignoring the fact that Nibs retracted much if not all of what he said about his father. That statement is ridiculous and not backed up by reliable sources. In Scientology, the focus is most definitely not on sex sex sex. There are lots of things you can say about Scientology - that is not one of them. See, that is my concern, your lack of judgment as to the veracity of questionable sources making statements not backed up in reliable materials. --Justallofthem (talk) 20:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Source to back up your claim that "Nibs retracted much if not all of what he said about his father" ? Cirt (talk) 20:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Simple, just look at this Google search. And our own article on Ronald DeWolf. Of course critics have their "Um, uh" but the fact stands that the retractions were made. --Justallofthem (talk) 21:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

In A Piece of Blue Sky former Scientologist Jon Atack writes:

Nibs [L. Ron Hubbard Jr.] accepted a financial settlement from the Scientologists after his father's death in 1986, agreeing not to make further comment.

In the updated revision of L. Ron Hubbard: Messiah or Madman?, Bent Corydon comments:

In the case of L. Ron Hubbard Jr.'s 1986 "legal settlement" with Scientology, he had accumulated sizable hospital bills due to recent emergency surgery. This left him weakened and heavily in debt. Concerned about the welfare of his family he finally agreed to a "settlement". This included his signing various prepared documents. I don't believe for a moment that Ron Jr. ever considered these prepared statements to be accurate representations of his thoughts and beliefs. The man was under duress. Not exactly a firm "retraction". Sounds more like a "settlement". Also it seems to refer to the book, but not to this sourced interview. Cirt (talk) 21:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * DeWolfe has issued multiple retractions. He specifically retracted what he said in the Playboy interview. Those quotes are conjecture and I believe they apply to another instance of his retracting something he said. Not only is he not very credible given his waffling but he has specifically retracted much of what critics would like to quote him on. Just because Morton is a "celebrity muckracker" as one source you provided calls him does not mean that Wikipedia need be. or does it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justallofthem (talk • contribs)
 * Again, you fail to provide any sources to back up your claims. Cirt (talk) 22:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Please note that by stating that he has retracted his statements, you only contradict your argument by saying that he is not credible. ←  Spidern  →  00:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hardly. If someone says "A"; "no, not A, B" then "A-prime"; "No, not A-prime, B-prime", etc., etc. then that person, almost by definition, lacks credibility. The statements are not credible, the retractions are not credible, nothing the man says is credible. He is, by his own admission, not a credible source and his "revelations" have no place here in this article. In his own article perhaps, but nowhere else. --Justallofthem (talk) 01:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You are correct. To be quite clear, I wasn't defending the use of the statement in the article. Just pointing out the fact that if indeed a man is incredible, then his retractions are equally incredible (and thus, can't be used as an valid arguing point). The person arguing would be better served arguing for the lack of credibility of the subject. ←  Spidern  →  01:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Then we are in agreement. However, barring reliable sources that speak to the man's overall credibility, we, as Wikipedia editors, are on safer ground if we simply consider the statements as retracted. For those statements not specifically retracted then we, as editors, have a responsibility to at least see if his statements are backed up by other, perhaps more reliable sources. We would certainly not give the man's statements the prominence of a quote box. We should hesitate to include them at all. --Justallofthem (talk) 02:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I will however say as Jayen466 has said many times that we must not draw conclusions about a source's reliability based solely on our own research, but there must be an academic mention indicating if that were the case. Once again, we must return to the principle of verifiability and use that as a criteria rather than drawing premature conclusions ourselves about a person's credibility. So in other words, if we can find valid academic mention of the subject, then we shall use it regardless of any subjective assertions that the source is not credible. ←  Spidern  →  02:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Bearing in mind that we are having trouble finding reliable secondary sources at all that topicalise "Scientology and Sex", I found the prominent display of this box, claiming that "In Scientology the focus is on sex. Sex, sex, sex.",
 * 1) unrepresentative of prominent viewpoints on what Scientology focuses on, as published in the most reliable sources
 * 2) poorly sourced (the statement was originally published in a porn magazine; it was later retracted; the source cited in our article remains unpublished in several countries as it risks falling foul of local libel laws)
 * 3) likely to be perceived as being in poor taste by the average Wikipedia reader. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 01:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Source
What a hoot - Morton did not even have his sources right. That comment was not from a Playboy interview, it was from the Penthouse interview that DeWolfe specifically retracted. Here is a bit more:"Penthouse: Did the Labor Party official get any of his young men via Scientology? Hubbard: Yes. The British were ripe for Scientology. The British school system fosters lesbianism and homosexuality, because from the time you're born until you're in your twenties, all you see is the same sex. The schools are so segretated. And you'll notice in Scientology the focus on sex. Sex, sex, sex. The first thing we wanted to know about someone we were auditing was his sexual deviations. You know, in actual fact, very few people exclusively practice missionary-style sex. So all you've got to do is find a person's kinks, whatever they might be. Their dreams and their fantasies. And if you find that central core, their sexual drives and desires and fantasies, then you can fit a ring through their noses and take them anywnere. You promise to fufill their fantasies or you threaten to expose them --very simple."A load of trash never substantiated and since retracted, covered adequately in our own article on Ronald DeWolf. --Justallofthem (talk) 04:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You have given a supposed quote, but still not a source nor a way to verify any of these claims you have made. Cirt (talk) 04:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The link to the Penthouse article is in the DeWolfe article. --Justallofthem (talk) 04:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Removed as a link to a dubious site, and an attack/fishing site to boot. Cirt (talk) 04:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's in several places on the net, here e.g., or on Hein's site. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 05:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

(left) You removed the link to the affidavit, not the Penthouse article. Anyway, I agree that using an alleged true copy of a court document on a POV site is dubious. I believe there are other instances of that that we can work on in the future. Here it is again but on a similar POV site, just not a listed "attack" site. This affidavit is referred to rather specifically in Corydon's book so we know it exists. What would y'all think would be the proper way to be able to have it as a reference? --Justallofthem (talk) 05:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Still have yet to be provided a way to verify that document on an actual non-dubious/POV/attack site. Cirt (talk) 05:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You ignored the entirety of my previous comment? --Justallofthem (talk) 05:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You have given no reliable way to verify any of your claims. Cirt (talk) 05:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a short summary from a scholar here; the scholar says he has a copy of the affidavit. Btw, do you think editors should assume that sites attacking Scientology are generally reliable, while sites sympathetic to Scientology are generally dubious? Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 05:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No I do not think that. But these particular sites being linked to are dubious, and written by certain individuals from within the Church of Scientology tasked for certain specific purposes. Not reliable sites, not even safe sites. Cirt (talk) 05:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you agree then that ref 8 linking to a self-published attack site should be dropped from this article? Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 05:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No. Ref 8 is not an "attack site", though it is self-published. Could be a matter for discussion at WP:RSN, however. Cirt (talk) 05:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Btw, having just checked the scholar's description of the affidavit against the purported copy of it, I cannot off-hand see any discrepancy. Some phrases, too, I recognize from having seen them quoted in RS before. I guess the scholar could confirm that it's an accurate version; failing such confirmation, we could cite his paper. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 06:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * With a subtitle of "Exposing the con", I doubt any other interpretation would be reasonable. I don't think we need RS/N here; WP:SPS is clear enough. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 06:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It would certainly be best to find a better secondary source. Cirt (talk) 06:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't find anything in google books, news or scholar that mentions "admiration particles". Nothing in questia either. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 06:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Lermanet vs. Scientologymyths - Different exactly how?
The DeWolf affidavit was previously linked here to a site that has been reported as an "attack site" as in malware of some sort. I do not believe the malware report was on the specific file(s) in question but rather on the site overall, freewebtown.com (incidentally, I just checked and it seems fine now). Cirt removed the link, here, citing "rm sources which link to attack site, dubious site anyways". I agree with that on both counts. For the sake of our discussion here I performed a Google search and found the document on the scientologymyths.info site. Cirt said of that site "But these particular sites being linked to are dubious, and written by certain individuals from within the Church of Scientology tasked for certain specific purposes. Not reliable sites, not even safe sites." When Jayen brought up the analogous Lerma site, Cirt's comment was "Ref 8 is not an "attack site", though it is self-published. Could be a matter for discussion at WP:RSN, however." I want to compare these site and Cirt's analysis of each. To me they are exactly analogous and I find Cirt's reluctance to deal with them equivalently disturbing and again indicative of an overpowering POV issue. Again making claims not backed up by any sources. All of this discussion is getting way afield of this particular article's topic, namely Scientology and sex. WP:NOT. Let's get back to discussion of the matter at hand please, this article. Thanks. Cirt (talk) 16:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Cirt alludes that the Scientologymyths site is "not even safe". This is flatly untrue. The freewebtown site was listed as unsafe yesterday but seems OK now. Scientologymyths is not an unsafe site.
 * 2) Cite says that Scientologymyths is "written by certain individuals from within the Church of Scientology tasked for certain specific purposes". What proof does he have of that claim that he presents so boldly as an accomplished fact?
 * 3) And finally my main concern. Cirt see ScientologyMyths archives of primary material deserving of summary removal as "dubious" yet thinks the same sort of material on Lerma "Could be a matter for discussion at WP:RSN" but meanwhile I guess it remains in the article. This is disturbing to me. Arnaldo Lerma is a known enemy of Scientology. My challenge to Cirt, or anyone for that matter, is to show why the Lerma site should be treated any differently than the ScientologyMyths site. --Justallofthem (talk) 15:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Help me out here, please. How am I "making claims not backed up by any sources"? Further, this is very on-topic. We are discussing the suitability of sources and other pertinent issues. --Justallofthem (talk) 16:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The lermanet site is run by one individual, whereas the scientologymyths site is run by the same organization that runs the religiousfreedomwatch attack site. Cirt (talk) 18:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you the one that just spoke of "making claims not backed up by any sources"? Laff. Seriously, how do you "know" that? --Justallofthem (talk) 18:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It is easy enough to figure out. And this discussion doesn't have anything to do with "Scientology and sex". Cheers, Cirt (talk) 18:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You talk in circles and spout vague, unsupported generalities while accusing others of "making claims not backed up by any sources". Noted. The purpose of this discussion is twofold; 1) to delineate the difference, if any, between the two sources, and 2) to see if you have the capability to deal in this subject in an even-handed manner. If you cannot hold a coherent conversation on the first then I have serious doubts about the second. Cheers to you, too. --Justallofthem (talk) 18:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Tone Scale and "Know to Sex" scale
The section is entirely based on primary sources. Could editors make an effort to find secondary sources? Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 18:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This source could be used a bit in that subsection. Cirt (talk) 00:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This source could be used a bit in that subsection. Cirt (talk) 00:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Warning
Note: scientologymyths.info is run by the same organization that runs www.freewebtown.com/luana/rondewolf-july87.pdf (affiliation: Church of Scientology) and both links should not be used/trusted for any sort of reliable info. Cirt (talk) 16:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Might it not be helpful to get wider community input on this, as well as the use of self-published essays on critics' sites, at RS/N? Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 18:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No wider input is needed, these are not even "sources" to discuss, simply external links that should not be used anywhere on this project. Cirt (talk) 20:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Warning - Cirt is making unsubstantiated claims about the Scientologymyths.info site. Unsubstantiated claims "should not be used/trusted for any sort of reliable info". Cirt has made a number of unsubstantiated claims about this site so as to undermine its credibility and has spammed his "warning" across multiple talk pages. As far as I am aware, Cirt has never done anything like this with a site critical of Scientology; this is clearly POV-motivated. I ask Cirt to back his claims up or remove the "warning". He has stated the following about the Scientologymyths site: Cirt has ignored my previous requests to source those sort of statements and instead has spammed this unsubstantiated "warning" on (at least) the below talk pages: Scientologymyths does not present itself as an official voice of the Church, please see here:"'I am a Scientologist, working, and I use my spare time to run this blog and the website scientologymyths.info. I live in Los Angeles, California/USA.'"Cirt, why are you trying to tar her more that you would tar Clambake, Lerma, or any of the analogous critic sites. Are you going to post "WARNING" for those sites, too? If not then your "warning" is uncalled-for and should be removed. --Justallofthem (talk) 21:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) written by certain individuals from within the Church of Scientology tasked for certain specific purposes (diff)
 * 2) scientologymyths site is run by the same organization that runs the religiousfreedomwatch attack site. (diff)
 * 3) scientologymyths.info is run by the same organization (diff) Organization?
 * Talk:Free Zone (Scientology)
 * Talk:Scientology and sex
 * Talk:L. Ron Hubbard
 * This is not a matter of comparing one set of sites with another, simply alerting editors to propaganda/spam, or as it is more commonly known, "Sporgery". Cirt (talk) 21:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Both of these sites are affiliated with the same organization, Church of Scientology, and neither should be used anywhere on Wikipedia. Thanks. Cirt (talk) 21:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment
 * You continue to make an unsupported allegation. The owner of the site represents herself as a Scientologist, not the Church of Scientology. You present no proof to suppose otherwise. PS please upcoming WP:AE post related to your recent editing. --Justallofthem (talk) 21:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

In any event, if www.scientologymyths.info were an official website of the Church of Scientology, it could be used in limited circumstances as a self-published source. But if it is a personal website of an individual in an amateur capacity and not regarded as either an official or reliable source, it should not be used as a source. Cirt (talk) 00:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * www.scientologymyths.info
 * Also, I suggest we use Talk:L. Ron Hubbard as one unified location to discuss this to avoid cross posting. Cirt (talk) 00:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Nicole Kidman
Nicole Kidman is a living person and we are question her sexual activities based on a Andrew Morton that can't be published in some places because libel laws. This is ridiculous, Wikipedia is not a place to pass gossip. The Andrew Morton has been questioned so many times that is clear that it is and realiable source and the other sources in the paragraph even question the book. I'm removing this paragraph because it is undue, not notable and highly libelous. Bravehartbear (talk) 00:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 15:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC)