Talk:Scientology beliefs and practices/Archive 1

Number of scientology articles on wikipedia?
Surely this doesn't warrant its own article. Condense it a little and insert the remaining material into the main Scientology article. If I was to open a hard-copy encyclopedia I wouldn't expect to find the main Scientology article in a different section to "beliefs and practices". These Scientology articles are getting out of control.--Grinning Idiot 14:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

In regards to a now-removed description of the handles of an E-meter as resembling an "asparagus can"
what does an "asparagus can" can look like? - 195.92.101.11

its read and green and spreads all over? - Terryeo 09:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

SOME ? Churches of Scientology are busy places?
Churches of Scientology are open to the public from about 10 Am in the morning until about 10 PM at night. This is, count them, 12 hours a day and they run week ends too. During that time classes are taught. Auditing is delivered. Two shifts of personal (called staff) run two independent organizations in the same building to make this schedule work. That is Busy. It is not "rare churches here and there" and it is not "Some Churches" but it is "Churches of Scientology are busy places." If you choose to learn this by your own experience, feel free at any time to enter any Church of Scientology and ask for a tour. If you refuse to accept this obvious, simple straightforeward statement I would be glad to quote you policy that specifies hours a Church is to be open to the public. What's the problem with "Churches of Scientology are busy places?" Terryeo 03:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Are all churches equally busy for 12 hours a day? Has a study been performed on the subject, that we could cite? Have some churches been very busy and other churches, less busy? Are all busy churches equally busy? Do some churches have busy periods that others do not have? Ronabop 11:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Ronabop, nice to be talking with you. I mean to convey what a person might expect in a CoS because it is quite different from walking into a Christian, Catholic or any other Church I have walked into.  They are busy places.  Classes are going 12 hours a day, this is standard administration policy.  Auditing is going on.  7 days a week its a busy place.  I mean to convey that by saying, "Churches of Scientology are busy places" but I'm not like cast in stone about the syntax of how that idea is presented. Terryeo 14:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem is that saying "Churches of Scientology are busy places" is not a fact with cites to support it. As it stands it is opinion.  You could perhaps describe the hours, but that would not be in the beliefs and pactices section anyway.  Also, the hours a place is open or the fact that classes are offered does not mean there are actually people there.  If a mjor mainstream media refered to Church of Scientology buildings as busy places it could be quoted, but it seems to me that simply stating that they are busy is unsupportable. Cerevox (talk) 06:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This is one of the worst articles in wikipedia
This article is garbage. It doesnt mention anything about the numerous lawsuits threats and intimidation that the 'church' has perpetrated on people. This article is truly a pathetic example of a case in which the principles of wikipedia have utterly failed, in that a dedicated well-off upper middle class cult with a lot of people with a lot of free time can systematically conspire to commit censorship by the sheer volume and tenacity of their attempts to edit the page over and over and over and explode bombs into the ocean of truth as though to vaporize it forever.


 * What is wrong with you people? Don't you see that a section, "Scientology Lawsuits" could be placed in this article? Put your research where your carping attitude presentes itself!  Cite and quote, cite and quote.  Put your POV in the article. I believe you will find the rains of justice fall equally on all of us.  If you believe so too, put your POV in the article. Terryeo 14:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

i can only hope that some day the rains of justice will fall again and those injured by the cult will see the day when the principles of wikipedia can once again return to the field and win again.
 * I agree that Scientology is garbage, but we have to be fair to all parties. The lawsuits you mentioned would be/probably already are on the Church of Scientology page, as they have no place on this one.
 * I agree. The lawsuits should be on the COS page, and as long as this is NPOV, i'm fine with it. mrholybrain 23:53, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * This article is about "beliefs and practices" but an article might be created about "Scientology Lawsuits." This article here is not 100 percent accurate about Scientology's beliefs, belief.net is more accurate and stated more succinctly (this is my opinion as a scientologist) but the article has a good flows to it that is readable.  As a point of information, in a field of millions of people very very few people have proven they were harmed by Scientology and those were mostly in the earliest years of Scientology when it was developing. 65.147.75.58 08:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a scandal sheet. Wikipedia articles are not to be sensational. Attempts to make them more rather than less so goes directly in the face of what wikipedia is supposed to be. Smarter brains than mine will hopefully site and link the policy refs that say in other words exactly what I'm saying here.Thaddeus Slamp 02:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that Scientologists "religiously" hunt down and remove bad PR stuff anywhere it can be found and in any way they can. Wikipedia is an especially easy place for them to forward such activity and control. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

This isn't the place to argue over what Scientology has or has not done. If something has a cite and it is appropriate then put it in. However it seems to me that unless the lawsuit has to do with what Scientologists believe then it belongs at a different article. Cerevox (talk) 06:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Page Reorganization
I have gone and reorganized the page more logically, so that items involving politics and belief, are all sub group together. I have added a section on Scientology Holidays, and done other shuffling around. I think that you will agree that the re-organization works well, although, you might want to add in more of your own favorite bits.

All the stuff involving the Tech I have reorganized, and collected together under the topic of the Modern System of Auditing. There are certain missing bits of data that I have included, because without them, it is like understanding the USA without discussing certain major historical events.

The "past lives" section severely needs to be rewritten to include both points of view. Right now it states the Scientologist view of things as if it were fact, that "in auditing, a Scientologist is helping a person recover, bit by bit, their own immortality." Needlessly to say, it should also discuss the other possibility: that in auditing, a Scientologist is giving undue credence to imaginary fantasies that never happened in this life or any other. - 4.156.84.53


 * Is this page for "discussing all the possibilities about what people believe is wrong with Scientology" or stating what the beliefs are? Whether they are right or wrong comes under the "controversy" section -- This can of course include the positive and the negative side. I don't believe it's Wiki's purpose to call people's belief's "fantasies."  If something violates the rules, then it can be fixed.  While entitled to his opinion, I doubt anyone finds the above comment productive. - 205.227.165.11


 * I note that the address 205.227.165.11 is in a block of addresses allocated to the Church of Scientology. When editing on behalf of the organisation the article is about, it's really not considered good practice not to say so. Thanks - David Gerard 17:56, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * As the author of the above-criticized comment, let me pose this question to you: If a drug dealer described his activities as "selling people substances that improve their quality of life", would you let it pass unchecked?  Or would you note that it is the drug dealer's belief that the substances he is selling improves his customer's quality of life?  This article is about Scientology beliefs and practices.  It should describe the fact that a Scientology auditor believes he is helping the auditee "recover ... their immortality".  It should not, however, state this as if it were fact, which is what this article did prior to editing.


 * As to whether this article is the place to address questions about whether those beliefs and practices are questioned, and upon what grounds, I say why not? Those questions are part of the information about those beliefs; they are context for those beliefs.  If this article is about the beliefs and practices of Scientology, it should not just be about whether Scientologists believe them, but whether non-Scientologists would find reason to believe them. -- 


 * Of course, then the entries of all the other religions should be about and include what critics say about them. And really is better suited to a discussion of reincarnation and if reincarnation is valid. -- 


 * It's funny you mention that, over at Roman Catholic Church we get recurring complaints about why theirs is the only religious article in all of Wikipedia that discusses criticism of the religion. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:00, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

E-Meters
First, who I am: I'm the guy that deleted a sentence on the E-Meter, had it reverted, reverted it back, and then saw it converted to a different form, all within the 7/15-7/16 period. Hiya. =) The reason I mention this is because I hadn't created a login at that time, so otherwise you'd never know it was me.

The reason I made the edit was that I had re-read the article several times, and something kept nagging at me each time, and finally I saw that that sentence was just stuck at the end, bald, as if someone had wanted to make sure that fact got in there and didn't really care whether it fit with the paragraph or the article. After a lot of thought, I had to conclude that it had little to do with the article topic, and that is why I finally removed that sentence (even though personally I would like that fact, and others that point to Scientology's profit-hungry nature, to be known to more people.)

I appreciate that JamesMLane stopped the edit war and put in the context to explain why that factoid was there. But after a similar period of waiting and re-viewing and reconsidering the article, I have to say it still feels like the same thing: like a fact that someone wanted in there, regardless of whether or not it was relevant.

Do we have any reliable estimates of just what the parts and labor cost of an E-Meter is? I think we can all agree it's nowhere close to $4000, but if we had some reliable estimate, the same fact could be phrased to highlight its relevance to the context (for instance "Critics argue that it is the $3500 profit margin on every E-Meter, rather than any value it may have as a counseling tool, that causes the church to deem it an absolutely necessary purchase.") That goes more directly, I think, to the article topic.

In a similar vein, the sentences I moved about "modern meters" and their "1024 levels of sensitivity" seem to be much the same thing, albeit from the other side: someone wanted the information in there despite it being only tangentially relevant to the article topic. I did not feel comfortable editing them out immediately, however, so I only moved them to a more appropriate paragraph. I'd like it if we could either make those more directly relevant or, if not, eliminate them. (The "1024 levels of sensitivity" only seem relevant in that Hubbard never tested a control group -- so whether 1, 100, or 1000 levels of sensitivity separate a reading of mental tension from a reading of unenturbulated froopiness is, once again, purely a religious dogma draped in the apparel of science.) -- Antaeus Feldspar


 * Ummm, no, we are not in agreement that it costs nowhere close to $4,000. Here's an interesting bit on the cost of the E-Meter that seems to verify that cost estimate: http://www.clambake.org/archive/books/isd/isd-5d.htm --Modemac 21:21, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I think you may have misread, Modemac. I was asking about estimates of the parts and labor cost of the E-Meter, not the cost at which the finished product is sold.  The page you linked to appears to have information only on that second figure, the cost which a Scientologist has to pay in order to get an E-Meter.  The difference between the two figures is the profit margin that Scientology makes on each E-Meter.


 * As I said before, I am unconvinced just how relevant the price of an E-Meter is to an article on Scientology beliefs and practices. But if we are going to include it, on the grounds that critics believe the profit margin to be the real reason the CoS pushes E-Meters, then it makes sense to talk about the profit margin itself rather than leaving the reader to guess how much it really costs to make each E-Meter.  -- Antaeus Feldspar


 * I know electronics, its my profession. The E-meter has a readout for the user which has nothing whatsoever to do with digital levels used within its electronics.  Whether is has 100 or 100,000 "levels" is hardly useful information when a "level" isn't defined in the first place.  Its input is analogue in the same manner a thermoeter's input is anologue.  Its only readout is analogue in the same way a standard, old fashined thermometer is analogue, that is, continuously varible rather than digital which means "discrete steps."  Anything about a quantity of levels therefore, is only about the internal workings of the device and hardly relevent unless you want to get into schemantics, specific integrated circuits used, etc.  There is a profit of some kind, obviously.  On the other hand its a pretty nice meter, lol.  I own two. Terryeo 04:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This article seems to be the best place for presenting facts relevant to Scientology beliefs, as well as the beliefs themselves. That includes statements made in support (1,024 levels) and in opposition (profit motive).  I agree that more detail about the profit, if available, should be included, but it might not be so clear-cut to calculate an exact profit figure (include shipping costs? prorated cost of legal fees to attorneys to protect the patent? etc.).  In the absence of more detailed information, what we have now is what's most helpful for the reader.  JamesMLane 06:57, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * You can get E-Meters (or E-Meter&trade;-like devices) in the Free Zone, hand-made quality equipment. Serge Gerbode's 'TIR' sells meters for US$795. I believe Ralph Hilton produced them as well, for something like US$200. The most expensive part is the meter - a proper E-Meter uses a severely underdamped meter movement. The CoS orders theirs specially. Secrets of the E-Meter, which is referenced in the article, details this stuff. dMoz directory of Free Zone e-meters - David Gerard 13:30, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Scientology terms commonly used in non-Scn texts?
User:67.180.61.179 made an edit to the article that I found a little surprising, saying that:


 *  [Scientology-specific] terms are commonly used in texts meant for people completely unfamiliar with Scientology, who would have no way of knowing what they mean.

The reason I find this surprising is that it doesn't match my experience. In my experience (and I don't claim for one minute that mine is the widest experience on this matter) Scientology texts intended for non-Scientologists generally do use Scientology terms, but actually draw attention to the fact that they are doing so, and use the opportunity to explain LRH's belief that one cannot proceed past a word one does not understand. Thus, it wouldn't be true that the readers of the text "would have no way of knowing what [the terms] mean."

Can you cite examples of Scientology texts intended for non-Scientologist audiences, that use Scientology terms and don't explain them? -- Antaeus Feldspar 08:18, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I've not heard of this one either, and I think this contributor will have  to offer some proof of this before it can be accepted as truthful. --Modemac 11:10, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Introspection Rundown and Lisa McPherson articles created
Introspection Rundown and Lisa McPherson now exist. Both are rewrites of Jeff Jacobsen articles. Useful here? - David Gerard 13:30, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Removed text
I removed the following passages of text from the article to the talk page today:

=== a comment === 

''One notes the similarity of the idea of a "memory bank" to the way 1960's computers are structured. Dianetics, in its original form, would seem to be yet another attempt to understand the brain in terms of the technology of the day - just as in Newtonian times, people tried to interpret the brain as a "lens" which somehow "focused" knowlege. ''

''It is becoming more and more clear that the brain does not work anything like this, that memory does not lie in a "reactive mind", but is everywhere and nowhere in the brain. Religious dogma usually has trouble keeping up with science. See chaos theory, emergent systems.''

and:


 * How many Caribbean pirates were there (in total), anyway?

While I think some good points are hiding in there, they're not very focused and they're not in encyclopedic form. Perhaps someone can rework them to be a bit more acute? -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:14, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Classification of links
I don't think the two links you added can be classified as "neutral", Nuview. They're clearly taking information coming from the Church at face value, like "Based on the belief that you cannot free yourself spiritually without working to free others, Scientology has founded and supports many organizations for social betterment, particularly in the areas of drug abuse, crime, psychiatric abuse, government abuse of law, human rights, religious freedom, education, and morality." In fact, both of them are repeating basically identical information; I can only find one sentence that is different from one to the other. You can't call them "neutral" just because they aren't acknowledging that there is any controversy. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:36, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

edits by 4.247.200.61
4.247.200.61 made the following changes, among others:

removed from a description of the manifestations of entheta that Hubbard proposed:


 * Entities (mental circuitry or phenomena that appear as any of a variety of disembodied spirits that are trying to get one's attention)

If anyone can confirm that Hubbard did indeed propose entities, they should go back in. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:05, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Purification Rundown
"Hubbard promoted the Purification Rundown as a treatment and cure for a great number of physical ailments ranging from drug addiction to radiation contamination (though many of these claims have been questioned by doctors, scientists, and members of the medical profession)."

Environmental toxins, including radiation, and drugs. That simple.

Can anyone document any doctors, scientists, or members of the medical profession who have offered evidence to support the claims made for the Purif? There aren't any mentioned in the Purification Rundown article (which, incidentally, is where most of this information should be going...) -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:16, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

The purif materials contain @ least 1 medical evaluation. Check Narcanon, and Clear Body, Clear Mind as well. There might be some there.

Organization once more
I organized the material according to
 * Beliefs
 * Practices
 * Other aspects
 * Relation to other religions

There has nothing been deleted except two redundant section titles.

Also I added several hidden titles which also need to be taken up in this article, e.g. creed, study tech, relation to eastern religions. --Irmgard 19:53, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Edits by 141.154.87.251
User 141.154.87.251 has almost completely rewritten large sections of this article. It seems much more POV to me now... (Entheta 18:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC))

This whole thing need to be split out into individual beliefs, and practices
It's a huge article. What would good sub-article splits be? Ronabop 11:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

the "Squirrels" info which appears to be original research
I have removed for discussion the portion of that heading which I believe to be original research. It is was not cited in the article and I believe it is unciteable, except perhaps by a lot of arguement in a court of law. If you can find a verification for this:


 * After L. Ron Hubbard's death, the term "squirrel" has been used pejoratively to dehumanize anyone who uses the subject of Scientology without authorization from the Religious Technology Center. It should be known that alteration of original Scientology has been authorized by certain officials in the Scientology hierarchy, as in the instance of "Patter drills" stated in a previous section.  This may be the reason that the word has been redefined.

Then we can appropriate add it to the text and place it in the article once again per No original research. More specifically, what source of information states the RTC has pejoratively dehumanized anyone? And secondly, the last statement is a conclusion with no possible verification because you and I both know the RTC doesn't make that sort of statement. Which would mean you must find some outside-the-RTC source which draws that conclusion. Then you could post that cited source of information along with that information. Cite and post, Cite and post, rather than "hint and post, hint and post". Terryeo 16:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Here is one source, that I believe is already linked to in the article (under Dynamics): . I am sure we can find many more sources (Entheta 19:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC))

The point being taken is: the word "squirrel" somehow dehumanizes certain persons? How so? If so, when, what does the person feel when addressed as "Hey you! Squirrel!" and stuff. As stated it is just rumor or misunderstanding or something. What inherently dehumanizes a person, a word like squirrel? You gotta be kidding, right? Terryeo 00:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * What's a rumour? The use of the term "squirrel"? Hardly.   (Entheta)


 * It doesn't sound to me like this is a dispute over whether the word "squirrel" is used. Seems like the dispute is over whether it is intended to "dehumanize". While it's true that calling a person a rat, a pig, a dog, a snake, or various other animals is often considered "dehumanizing" (for which see, e.g. antisemitic propaganda) I'm not sure that CoS's use of "squirrel" is in the same category. I'm not sure what the origin of the CoS usage is though -- in mainstream American English, "to squirrel" means to store something away safely, in the manner of a squirrel burying nuts. --FOo 02:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Disputed
"However, many point out that the Church has itself introduced changes to Hubbard's Scientology, such as the "patter drills" introduced in 1995, and cite this as an indication that the Church is more worried about losing its position as the only source of 'true' Scientology than in keeping Scientology true to Hubbard."

expressed a belief that one of the two above statements was untrue -- either that the Church introduced changes to Hubbard's Scientology, or that critics of the Church point to their changes to Hubbard's Scientology as a clue to their real interests. However, he failed to identify which of these statements he thought untrue, and he failed to follow the correct procedure outlined at Accuracy dispute, instead ripping both statements out of the article entirely. I am therefore fixing his error by following the recommended WP:AD procedure. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

((User|Antaeus Feldspar)) created information without verification. His statement: "Many point out that the Church has ..." was and is unverified, Following appropriate Wiki Policy I cut the portion (which I know to be untrue and in my own estimation, unverifiable) from the article and placed it here in the discussion page. Antaeus Feldspar did then willingly refuse to cite the information or even to discuss the information's verifiability but instead reposted it into the article. Whereupon I once again cut it from the article and since he refused discussion here, posted a full explanation on his User talk page which he apparently pays a little attention to. The Lines in dispute are poorly written even if verifiable because the introduce without definition the brand new (to the article) term "patter drill" which he doesn't define, doesn't verify and, again, my opinion, is a statement included from ignorance and verges on slander. While Antaeus Feldspar now, at this time, seems to be following apprpriate Wiki Policy, it was only after a good deal of effort that he even deigned to notice his posts are subject to exactly the same scrutiny as everyone else's are. The No original research applies to him as much as it does to anyone else. He too must follow Verifiability as everyone else must. A NPOV can not be obtained when persons say from personal experience without any verifying information: "Many point out that ...." It is not valid information without a verifiying source of such information. "Patter Drills," if introduced, must be defined to have any meaning to the article, else it creates a confusion for the reader. Antaeus might know what patter drills are, or he might have heard it from a friend. Or he might just be introducing his opinion as original research. Whatever the actual situation is, no part of his disputed lines of text expose the source of that slanderous attitude and they should have stated out right the source of that information. That he insists on dispute, rather than the more obvious and ethical citing a source as per NPOV says a great deal about his treatment of his fellow editors. Terryeo 04:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Rereading yet once again I see how some misunderstanding might be possible. The statement which begins with "However, many point out.." is not a cited statement. Which many?  What source of published information makes that a fact?  The same "many" apparently do the additional action of concluding: "the Church is more worried . . " and that second statement about the previously mentioned "many" isn't cited.  I did therefore, deliberetly cut those 2 sentences from the article and pasted them here for discussion.  When discussion was ignored, I posted a full and I thought clear explanation on Antaeus Feldspar's talk page. The Accuracy dispute does not actually point to my reason for removing those lines.  What does apply here and the reason I did remove those lines is because they are not published information.  When an article says, "many people believe .." that is perfectly good information if and only if it is published information with the source of that information cited and verifiable.  Now, what portion of this is unclear to interested parties? Terryeo 05:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Further Disputed
A second, separate dispute and this involves Antaeus Feldspar's mentioned Accuracy dispute as it applies to the Article's "Patter Drill" area. The specific statement I dispute the accuracy of is:

Patter drills Patter drills were added to most Scientology training courses beginning in mid-1995. The technique of these drills is, while seated facing a wall, read a section of course material and then look up at the wall and speak that section to the wall. Such drills have no validation outside the Church of Scientology, and in fact, any such drills were advised against by L. Ron Hubbard in his policy letter dated 16 April 1965 issue II "Drills, Allowed".

and my reason for disputing the accuracy of the article's statement is because that policy letter spells out cleanly and without doubt it is to apply to "Practical Drills" and it spells out specifically what Practical Drills will be allowed. Whomever created this article's portion about Patter Drills is inaccurate in the sense, they have misunderstood that Hubbard Communication Policy Letter's application. It applies to Practical Drills while Patter Drills are Theory Drills. The person who misunderstands that both "practical" and "patter" begin with the letter "p" but do not mean the same thing has been inaccuarte in understanding that Patter Drills are Practical Drills. They are not. They are Theory Drills and that policy letter does not apply to Patter Drills. Thus, the article is inaccurate. It needs to be rewritten and the Citation, HCOPL 16 April 1965 Issue II must be removed. My source of information is the quote I made from that policy letter "Practical Drills" and my understanding of CoS's disambiguation of "theory" and "practical." Further, I have myself done these drills, variously, and know them to not be Practical Drills, but to be Theory Drills, about the theory of certain informations. An example in point is the ways in which a word can be misunderstood, that is one of the Patter Drills, all of which are Theory Drills. Terryeo 06:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I have therefore removed the totally false section of that article. That portion of that article which might be valid I have placed here. if someone can cite a published source which states this:


 * These new patter drills remain controversial and a number of church members have been punished with Scientology Justice and declared suppressive persons for reporting this irregularity to the Religious Technology Center.

Then it can happily go back into the article. Untill it is cited it is the sort of statement which Citing_sources spells out clearly, and how to deal with such statements when they appear in an article. Specifically it states: "Avoid the use of weasel words such as 'Some people say ...' (in this case - a number of memebers have been punished-)  What number have been punished for reporting?  What did they report?  How did the RTC punish them? What controversy is there about those Theory Drills?  Terryeo 09:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

From Standard Tech (article) Disputed lines posted here
The section of the article entitled Standard Tech has this information:


 * -A number of stories can be gleaned by reading in between the lines of Hubbard's writings which reveal a common human inability in some students to grasp and apply materials-


 * But no part of the article tells who who is gleaning or what they hope to accompolish with their gleaning nor what inability (of students) is being addressed in the aforementioned action of gleaning. Should it be possible to find this gleaning activity published in some source (however remote) then this sentence about some unknown and unknowalble third person or group (whom no one has heard of yet) could make the above sentence admissible in a Wiki Article.  As it stands it is not admissable in a Wiki Article because it is the sort of weasel worded statement which Citing sources particularly guards against, this policy is spelled out at: Citing_sources and I am, by posting it here, complying with that Wiki Policy.

Further, I removed from the article under that heading and place here for verification pending its return into the article:


 * The Tech is believed, by adherents to Scientology, to have a "100% success rate, when applied correctly" and it is often stated within Scientology that the Tech always works. If a Scientologist encounters problems, failures, or other obstacles when attempting to apply the Tech, then these problems are always the fault of the student or practitioner; the Tech is always correct. When one completes a major portion of the Bridge addressing a major specific area of life, the stated end must be genuine results "beyond their wildest dreams", according to Hubbard. Anything less, doctrine holds, must indicate an error in procedure, expertise, or understanding in addressing that area with the person.


 * The reason I remove that portion is this. The article is about Scientology Beliefs and Practices but it misstates Scientology Beliefs while including all the buzz words of the belief. It does not communicate what Scientologists do but uses the buzz words like "standard tech" and "applied correctly" and "always works."  But the problem is, the person who created that paragraph has included the buzz words without including the meaning and intent.  Correct Tech, Correctly applied produces results.  But 100% correct tech applied in the wrong place won't work at all (you can't fry an egg with a hammer nor mend a broken heart with a haircut).  And the last bit, "beyond their wildest dreams" is not and never has been a guarentee.  In any major bridge action a result is expected.  A major bridge action is not finished untill that result is achieved.  "Beyond their wildest dreams" is an evaluation which a person might or might not use as a way of expressing their result.  Instead of addressing "The person develops confidence in their communication"  It is expressing "The person now communicates beyond their wildest dreams"   That is simply not the situation.  However, if someone finds a published source which states that information in that paragraph above then it should be in the article, else not.

Finally I removed this from that section.


 * Alteration of the tech is referred to as squirreling. And those who do it are contemptuously referred to as squirrels. Interestingly, accusations of squirreling go back and forth between those both inside and outside of orthodox Scientology groups.


 * I removed it because does not appear to be part of any published item. It is uncited.  It sounds like someone's opinion, but whose opinion is it?  To go back and forth would need at least two persons, who are the two people, what form does this squirreling accusation and counter-accusation take?  Cite it or lose it ! Terryeo 16:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Bad dog!
Terryeo, you cannot, cannot, cannot criticize previous edits of this article in the course of the article itself, nor can you use the text of the article to call to task other editors who you disagree with. Since you are SO fond of citing Wikipedia rules, I KNOW you know better than to do this, so this qualifies as near-vandalism. Hopefully your temper will cool down and you will not repeat such an error in judgment. It's a shame, because SOME of the information you added was genuinely useful, but you need to provide sources. And I know you know that, too.wikipediatrix 02:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * As usual Wikipediatrix, your way of attempting to handle people is shame, blame, guilt and regret. Take a clue, Wikipedia has rules.Terryeo 04:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * And as usual, your way of answering a concern is with a non-sequitur. Why are you reminding ME that "Wikipedia has rules" as a defense for your own edit that completely flouted those rules by criticizing other Wikipedia editors and their edits in the context of the article itself?? wikipediatrix 05:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo habitually makes other editors wrong if he disagrees with them. He violates a wikipedia policy, then accuses you of what he did. He seems to have all the attributes of an Suppressive person.--Fahrenheit451 03:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Please stop your personal attacks, Fahrenheit451. This is the 4th instance in which I have requested that you stop your personal attacks.  In the previous 3 I have included the appropriate policy.  After 2, the appropriate policy is WP:PAIN. Terryeo 22:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Dude. You're responding to a post from three months ago. Please don't reopen old wounds here. --FOo 14:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Please don't post personal attacks against other Wikipedia contributors. Even if you think a person is being obnoxious, it's not OK to call them "suppressive person" or other accusatory names here. This isn't a gang-bang sec check. --FOo 03:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Moved Auditing out to separate article
We had hit 54K of article, and since auditing is a pretty big subject, I moved the text over. I'll need help with wikifying, references, etc. Ronabop 06:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Article is overwhelmingly not NPOV
For example: ''Scientology church leaders receive comparatively modest salaries and nothing to approach evangelicals like Billy Graham, Benny Hinn or Joyce Meyers. The majority of donations received go to promotional and expansion activities, as well as routine operational expenses. Church Leader David Miscavage has been said to have a yearly salary of aproximately $50,000 (US dollars).''

This is a defensively-written attempted refutation of an argument that is not actually present. Billy Graham has nothing whatsoever to do with this article. Someone needs to clean this article up, it reads like an advertisement for Scientology.

And who is the moron who put (disputed - see talk page) in the body of the article? Colonel Mustard 17:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * And if someone said, "Church Leader David Miscavage receives a yearly salary of aprosimately $50,000" who said it, where did they say it, where was what they said published? Without attribution such a quotation defies WP:V which states, "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability". Terryeo 22:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The reference cited is to the site of a known critic, someone posting unverified information and allegations. The references used are newsgroups, and quotes from a divergent group. Not a credible source of information. As covered before, the “controversy” here is manufactured.


 * Critics call this belief a pseudoscience, stating the theory seems to be tailored so it is not falsifiable by any observations of the real world.

Also removing the sentence above, it is an opinion and it doesn’t even apply to religious beliefs. Ever try to hold up Christian theology to the doctrine of falsifiability? It serves no purpose to go there – especially since the critical view is well represented already. California guy 14:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Ever try to hold up Christian theology to the doctrine of falsifiability? Ever hear of intelligent design?  Yes, Christian theology, when it makes claims about the things of this world, does get held up to the standard of falsifiability. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * What? Intelligent design is not falsifiabile... --70.17.209.58 21:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Just my little bit. Scientology staff members are paid weekly a percentage of church income. Non-staff members pretty much only outflow money, but have a much easier time getting auditing, since staff members are considered pragmatically to not have cases, they get what get can. They get no set amount of money, but receive their portion of earnings on a weekly basis. Field staff members get a percentage of what they themselves are able to earn, basically. There may be exceptions about which I am ignorant, in fact thats my bet. Thaddeus Slamp 02:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Loose vandalism charges

 * # (cur) (last) 04:07, August 5, 2006 Svartalf (Talk | contribs) (rv vandalism to last version by User:Antaeus Feldspar)
 * # (cur) (last) 20:30, August 4, 2006 BTfromLA (Talk | contribs) m (→Standard Tech - replace italics with quotation marks)
 * # (cur) (last) 19:01, August 4, 2006 BTfromLA (Talk | contribs) (→Standard Tech - re-edit to make more concise)

According to WP:Vandalism, "Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content, made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia." BTfromLA's edits weren't anything like that, to me, and were clearly labeled. (I would have called it trimming the fat, which it really needs.) Could the word vandalism be reserved for actual deliberate vandalism like block deletions, "YO D0UG RULZ!", or hamburger spokesman replacement edits? If someone disagrees with a change, they should say so. AndroidCat 16:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Which is exactly why I reversed these changes. They did no good to the article, while impugning on the integrity of previous text. If there had been good stuff in it, I might have taken the pains of a more serious editing and rephrasinfg. Since a) previous text was perfectly good, b) new text added nothing of worth and actually diminished the article, and c) I had nothing special to add... just do the math. Vandalism may not have been editor's intent, but bad editing a highly sensitive article is as bad. --Svartalf 17:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Svartalf's reversion of my modest attempt to improve a poorly written section of the article was utterly baseless, and his labeling my work vandalism is genuinely outrageous. While Svartalf's act may rise to the level of vandalism--it is, at least, a gross violation of the spirit of Wikipedia--mine certainly did not. This kind of misbehaving editor is a real blight on Wikipedia, driving competent and well-intentioned editors away. Here, for those who are interested, is the edit in question (please bear in mind that this is intended as a brief overview of the topic; it is linked to another Wikipedia article dedicated to "standard tech."):


 * earlier version:


 * my revision, labeled by me "re-edit to make more concise," summarily reverted on grounds of "vandalism" by Svartalf:


 * Thank you for noticing this, AndroidCat. I invite other editors to respond.  BTfromLA 19:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC):(And Another thanks to AndroidCat--those quotation boxes are a nice feature.  BTfromLA 19:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC))


 * First and most importantly, AndroidCat is entirely correct that BTfromLA's edits were not vandalism. "Vandalism" has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia and it is not "bad editing" unless it is undeniable that the editing was deliberately bad.  Even if we were to stipulate that BTfromLA's edits had the effect of making the article worse, it would still not be vandalism unless the evidence showed beyond doubt that the intent was to make the article worse.  Vandalism is a very specific charge and as a result it should not be tossed around carelessly.


 * Secondly, I think BT's edits were an improvement on what came before. Since the section in question has its own main article, Standard Tech, the section Scientology beliefs and practices should be just an NPOV summary of that article.  Editing that summary down to be more concise, and rearranging it for clarity is improving it, and as far as I can see, that's exactly what BT's edits did.  It would be a different story if the information removed had been important, but among the information removed I see one point, at most, that it would be arguable that it really needed to be kept.  Svart, I think you should apologize to BT. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

So it seems I'm the only one with my opinion? Let it stay that way then. --Svartalf 20:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If you feel that important information has been removed, perhaps it could be re-added further down in the article? As time goes on, article introductions tend to suffer from "one more thing!" expansion, frequently followed by a plague of over-cite. (If the introduction needs a great many cites, there's something wrong with the article .. or it's about Scientology. :^) The introduction shouldn't try to do the job of the rest of the article. AndroidCat 20:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, and a summary in a signpost article shouldn't try to do the job of a article dedicated to that specific sub-topic.) -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

"Past Lives" section--superfluous?
Please take a look at the "past lives" subsection of this article. It's a mess, and I'm hard pressed to find anything important in there that isn't covered elsewhere in the article. I'm tempted to remove the whole section, then if it seems that more details about the "whole track" are needd, we can start from scratch. Opinions? BTfromLA 02:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientology Public Relations
I'd appreciate it if Scientologist wikipedians would explain to TheFarix and Orsini that the page "Scientology Public Relations" is an obvious attack on Scientology by the vandal Lord Xenu.

See Articles for deletion/Scientology Public Relations for the discussion. These users have both falsely accused me of making personal attacks when I pointed out that this user is a vandal. Thanks, Republitarian 18:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Republitarian, "vandalism" on Wikipedia means edits which make their bad-faith nature inarguable. "L. RON HUBBARD WAS A GAYBOY" is vandalism.  An article about some aspect of Scientology -- even if incoherent, even if unflattering to Scientology -- is not vandalism.


 * In short, TheFarix and Orsini were correct; you are incorrect and you are compounding your own error by trying to summon "Scientologist wikipedians" only to the AfD discussion to push your erroneous agenda. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Remove non-RS material
I am removing the below again. I know that there is sourcing that criticizes Scn use of jargon and I do not dispute that there is well-sourced criticism on that. The below inclusion however, and the intimation that Hubbard knowingly is committing "Propaganda by Redefinition of Words", is a non-RS concept and one that critics advance with no backing other than their own opinions on non-RS sites. The below infomation might have a place in an article on Hubbard's writing on propaganda but it has no place in a section on Scn jargon. Not to mention that, IMO, it goes well beyond "fair use" but that is not the point.

Hubbard's commentary on "Propaganda by Redefinition of Words" has been taken by critics to explain his use of language as follows:


 * A long term propaganda technique used by socialists (Communists and Nazis alike) is of interest to PR practitioners. I know of no place it is mentioned in PR literature. But the data had verbal circulation in intelligence circles and is in constant current use. 


 * The trick is - Words are redefined to mean something else to the advantage of the propagandist. 


 * Many examples of this exist. They are not natural changes in language. They are propaganda changes, carefully planned and campaigned in order to obtain a public opinion advantage for the group doing the propaganda.


 * Given enough repetition of the redefinition public opinion can be altered by altering the meaning of a word. The technique is good or bad depending on the ultimate objective of the propagandists. (...)


 * We find Professor Wundt 1879, being urged by Bismark at the period of German's greatest militarism, trying to get a philosophy that will get his soldiers to kill men. And we find Hegel, the great German Philosopher, the idol of supersocialists, stressing that WAR is VITAL to the mental health of people. 


 * Out of this we can redefine modern psychology as a German military system used to condition men for war, and subsidized in American and other universities at the time the government was having trouble with the draft. A reasonable discourse on why they had to push psychology would of course be a way of redefining an already redefined word, psychology (...)


 * Thus it is necessary to redefine medicine, psychiatry and psychology downward and define Dianetics and Scientology upwards. -- L. Ron Hubbard, Propaganda by Redefinition of Words (Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, October 5, 1971)

Supporters of Hubbard claim that these writings of Hubbard should be interpreted as a statement of his loathing of and criticism of the technique for selfish, manipulative ends. Critics point out, however, that Hubbard openly states it to be "necessary" to employ the same "propaganda technique" he has just decried in the hands of others, stating that it is the "ultimate objective" that determines whether the technique is good or bad -- affirming a belief that the ends justify the means.

--Justanother 15:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you have a misunderstood word on "redefine" in the last paragraph there. Please read it again: "Thus it is necessary to redefine medicine, psychiatry and psychology downward and define Dianetics and Scientology upwards." Hubbard is stating an explicit goal of redefining words in order to gain advantage for DIanetics and Scientology. That is precisely what this quote is being cited for. --FOo 05:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Now you know that you are violating the Auditor's Code by evaluating for me and trying to tell me what word I have misunderstood. I am going to have to send you straight to Qual for cramming on that (smile). Seriously, you are correct in that the last bit is of interest but not under the section that simply relates that Scn has jargon. Every technical field has jargon. Look at all the jargon in the computer field. Don't you think that a field that purports to specialize in the human spirit might be entitled to some jargon? No, that line; "Thus it is necessary to redefine medicine, psychiatry and psychology downward and define Dianetics and Scientology upwards"; belongs in the section on opposition to psychiatry as it describes a tactic to be used there. --Justanother 14:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

MEST is actually EST!!
Since E = MC2, this means that Energy is Matter and therefore the "ME" in "MEST" is redundant and therefore MEST should actually be called "EST". Doh! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.187.32.71 (talk) 19:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Well, Hubbard also teaches that matter is formed from energy. Why is Hubbard teaching physics? Well actually he is teaching Scientology as in the basic make-up of this universe and how a spiritual being relates to it and is trapped by it. So as to explain the basic workings of the E-Meter to non-technical people. So right you are! --Justanother 20:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Matter was more of a formality, of sorts. Hubbard has lectures in which he refers to it as space time and energy.Thaddeus Slamp 01:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

correction about bridge section
besides variouse rundowns, introductory processes and assists may be run @ any time, tho cos scientologists should not use them if they intend to take courses or receive more formal auditing or courses soon, since, theoretically, this interferes w/measuring case gain. Basically ipa's include any of the thousands of processes hubbard invented, as long as not later cancelled like "terrible trio"(I'm almost positive that process was discontinued) for instance, and processes that are part of the bridge. In fact a cos may practice outside practices, such as yoga, as long as he takes a break from the bridge for a while. I beleive he/she must talk to the d of p before doing other practices or non-bridge actionsthings Hope to provide links. Thaddeus Slamp 01:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Thaddeus Slamp 01:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It would be easier to understand your concerns if you used grammatical sentences. --FOo 05:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

tone scale
The tone scale has 2 divisions. Minus emotion is said to begin below antagonism (2.0). This is from when the tone scale bottomed out @ 0.0, and is still important in auditing, as 1 should not end a session untill @ least + emotion has been achieved. Body death is said to be a tone, so below body death (0.0=body death) is the other main division. One might also add emotions above 4.0 (enthusiasm), as these are above body life (this evaluation is my wording). Scientologists "beleive" that a person can still be alive, tho their tone is below body death. I put quotes around beleive, becouse part of the "conspiracy against scientology" is to fail to emphasise how important hubbard considered it to be that (in his own words) "whats true for you is true for you" (YMMV, as we say on the net). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thaddeus Slamp (talk • contribs) 01:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

Ethics?!
C'mon people! This section of the article is just wrtetched! I can't even begin to explain why! It's that BAD!! What research, citation frigging needed for crying out loud! There, that's a start —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thaddeus Slamp (talk • contribs) 03:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC). The following is aproximately how I would approach the ethics section of this article (this is quick and dirty): Hubbard had about 3 to 4 takes on ethics: 1)The greatest good for the greatest # of dynamics (This is perhaps the most important scientology ethics concept. It is part of the "formula" for the condition of doubt which is germain to 4 below, is 1 reasaon I think so.) . 2) A thetan has it's own native state (scientology) ethics. Hubbard never went to far into this. I would guess, becouse such is SO personal. 3) Either the advanced dianetics axioms, or the scientology axioms (I forgits which), defined ethics as: "the exact estimation of effort"(I am 99.9% sure that that is an exact quote). Hubbard adressed this even lesss, and I think this may be related enough to 2 above, that it does merit not seperate mention). 4)Contrasted with justice, which is other-determined, ethics is self-determined action, to get ones discipline in (scientology). This last is the subject of about 10 blue volumes.  The "Ethics vols", most of which are "blue on white" (blue print on white paper), and might have better been named the ethics and justice vols, as they contain both.  The most important, of these that also fit into the subset of ethics data that seems possibly helpful to beginners, are collected in the book An Introduction to Scientology Ethics.  There is a course @ the bottom of the bridge called the ethics course.Thaddeus Slamp 16:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC) P.S.:  OOPS.  2 other things that might bear mentioning: 1)  The only purpose of ethics and policy, is to get tech in. 2)Ethics contrasted w/morality. Ethics is the study of right and wrong, while morals are right and wrong "round these here parts".Thaddeus Slamp

scientology openness
One section of the article says that church officials acknowledge that some doctrine is secret.

Whats being demoted is that most scientology is open. Scientology is not a secret society. Need I say more?Thaddeus Slamp 03:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You are right. The vast majority of Scientology and everything that Scientologists use in their day-to-day lives is open and available to all. There are even plenty of clues to what is on the confidential levels sprinkled throughout LRH's tapes, books, and bulletins (or even addressed in detail), you just have to know what you are looking for. The main point of the confidentiality is that it is unhelpful to fixate on that material before you are ready to address it. --Justanother 16:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeagh; self-auditing. This sort of demand is @ least similar, if not identical, to demands made in many disciplined activities. "Cross that bridge when I come to it", you know.Thaddeus Slamp 16:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You've got it. --Justanother 16:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Ceremonies
Some mention might be made of rites and ceremonies. There was a book published in about 54 called Rites and Ceremonies of the Founding Church (I think that was it's title) and I beleive Hubbard wrote it.Thaddeus Slamp 03:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Alteration to Scientology
Scientologist believes that Scientology should be studied by studying the original texts and that any second hand explanations of Scientology are an alteration of Scientology. As a Scientologist I'm tempted with editing this page but that would be equal for me to alter the tech. So I would limit my self to provide links. I would also like to ad a comment in the intro stating that "Scientologist believes that Scientology should be studied from the original texts and that any second hand explanations of Scientology are an alteration of Scientology. The church of Scientology doesn't approve of any of the explanation in this page." I would really appreciate if you guys respect this. Afinity Warrior 03:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * An encyclopedia is a repository of "second hand explanations" -- that's what we do here. This is just as true about Scientology as it is about physics or crushing by elephant or My Mother the Car.


 * We cannot avoid offering "second hand explanations", nor can we apologize for doing so. We can, however, try to have the most accurate second-hand explanations possible. If there are specific things you think are inaccurate or deficient, please describe them. --FOo 18:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I see, it really doesn't make me feel better but I will see how can I contribute. Afinity Warrior 05:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Beliefs about Xenu or Xemu
How can this be a complete article of Scientology Beliefs without even mentioning Xenu (Xemu). Let's get it together guys!
 * Is there under the secret levels.Bravehartbear 06:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. "Secret Levels" doesn't imply anything about a belief system. IMO Xenu is a critical part of their belief structure and should at least be linked to by name from the main page.Slackmaster K 06:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

D, A and I
I realize that the "Differentiation, Association and Identification" chapter takes up an enormous chunk of Scientology 8-8008, but is it really major enough to go here? Especially stretched out in the unnecessarily-taking-up-space manner of giving each of the three its own separate subheader. Also, Bravehartbear, I see you've got the 2007 edition - can you add the specific page number to your citation? I can't seem to find the "dog bite me" bit in my 1990 edition. wikipediatrix 22:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure! Is now in Charter 12, page 81. What wrong about writing about Scientology? This is what this page is about; teaching about Scientology believes and practices. And is not that big. Subheaders are just for easy access. Maybe we can make a page for beliefs and another one for practices if it gets too big. The doggy part was just an example that I created not a citation. I see how it can be confused with a citation. I will change it to avoid confusion. Bravehartbear 10:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You created your own examples? That would be original research, not to mention it's also what LRH frowned upon as "verbal tech". Heh. wikipediatrix 13:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * All Scientology in Wikipedia is "Verbal tech", there is no way to go around it, unless we posted the original work and that can't be done because copy rights.Bravehartbear 20:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Believes and Practices divided????
I would like to divide this page in two for sizing. One page for believes and another page for practices. Bravehartbear 07:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Individual spiritual being?
"An individual spiritual being in Scientology is called a Thetan." This statement opens new questions: What exactly is the individual spiritual being / thetan? Do I have this, or is it the person itself? What is the „I“ of man? Definition 5, Dianetics & Scientology Technical Dictionary: „The personality and beingness which actually is the individual and is aware of being aware and is ordinarily and normally the „person“ and who the individual thinks he his.“ I put this defintion into the articel, chapter „spirit“. Any disagreements? Wolfgang 89.15.156.168 (talk) 11:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Lack Of 3rd Party References
The complete lack of 3rd party references to any data on this article warrants deletion. I've talked to other churches and organizations that were deleted because of their lack of 3rd party references. There should be no discrimination. Yes, they are an organization of note. However, anything without a 3rd party notation should be removed.

"Truth itself must be approached on a gradient"
I see hints of this in the section on secret writings, but IMHO I don't think it's spelled out enough: Scientology's beliefs on learning include the concept of a "gradient":  breaking down a complicated idea into smaller pieces so that someone who could not grasp the whole idea at once can learn it piece by piece. This is not unique to Scientology; what is the assertion that any piece out of order can actually be mentally (and thus by Scientology's beliefs physically) harmful to the would-be learner.

Under this doctrine, Scientologists must therefore surpress information that is "too advanced" for the information-seeker -- for their own good, of course! This explains notable contradictions in what Scientology professes as its beliefs and practices, such as professing to the public that Scientology is compatible with all other religions when OT III teaches that God and the Devil are merely implants. The Scientologist would say that approaching information on a gradient keeps people from being confused, but the critic would say that it keeps people from being able to evaluate what Scientology is telling them in any context except the one Scientology has planned for them.

Verbal Tech
There's some out of place verbiage in the "Verbal Tech" section. The third paragraph has a fairly overt slam on Wikipedia ("online encyclopedias, which often have a variety of errors, distortions, omissions, and sometimes are even plainly or comically wrong to anyone with actual expertise in the subject") and the fourth paragraph seems like an attempt to tack on more material (with a slightly pro-Scientology slant) to the article without properly incorporating it into the existing material. Thoughts? -- 67.50.35.176 on Aug 3 2005

Edits by Marbahlarbs
Removed comment about critics views of Scientologists leisure time.

Series Template
Removing this Series Template from across the Scientology related pages. This is not correct usage of Series Templates per the guidelines. They were set up to show the history of countries and were different articles form a sequential series. This is not the case with the Scientology pages, which are random pages on different topics – not a sequence of any kind. Wiki’s definition of a series is: “In a general sense, a series is a related set of things that occur one after the other (in a succession) or are otherwise connected one after the other (in a sequence).” Nuview, 15:20, 10 January 2006 (PST)

contact assists
Could we get some info about "contact assists" here from someone that knows about them please?

Security Check Children
Security Check Children is marked for deletion. Because it will probably deleted, here's the text - maybe you'd want to include it here.

In Scientology, the Security Check Children is a security checking auditing procedure designed to be applied to children aged 6 to 12. L. Ron Hubbard, founder of Scientology, issued the security check as HCO Bulletin of 21 September 1961, also known as HCO WW Security Form 8.

The child is put on the E-meter, holding a can (the electrode of the E-meter) in each hand. If a question gives a read on the E-meter, the child is questioned further as to the reason for the read.

The procedure runs through 99 questions. It starts:


 * The following is a processing check for use on children.


 * Be sure the child can understand the question. Rephrase it so he or she can understand it. The first question is the most potent.


 * 1. WHAT HAS SOMEBODY TOLD YOU NOT TO TELL?
 * 2. HAVE YOU EVER DECIDED YOU DIDN'T LIKE SOME MEMBER OF YOUR FAMILY?
 * 3. HAVE YOU EVER TAKEN SOMETHING BELONGING TO SOMEBODY ELSE AND NEVER GIVEN IT BACK?
 * 4. HAVE YOU EVER PRETENDED TO BE SICK (ILL)?
 * 5. HAVE YOU EVER MADE YOURSELF SICK (ILL) OR HURT YOURSELF TO MAKE SOMEBODY SORRY?

The procedure is usually applied to children of members of the Sea Org, the paramilitary organisation (run along Navy lines) that runs Scientology.

HCOB 21 September 1961 is currently published in the Red Volumes, vol IV, p378.

References
 * L. Ron Hubbard, HCOB 21 September 1961: Security Check Children
 * Security Check Children (Operation Clambake) &mdash; critical view

"Daily Practices"--is any of this worth preserving?
Here's a rambling section that may include a few nuggets worth re-incorporating, but it seemed so weak that I took the liberty of excising the whole thing:

Daily Practices
Churches of Scientology are busy places. Courses are taught days, evenings and weekends. Auditing goes on during many of a church's public hours. This is a contrast to the Sunday Church Service found in many Christian Churches. Scientology is an applied spiritual philosophy based on Mr. Hubbard's writings (perhaps as many as 25 million words); thus, education is a key element of what goes on in Scientology Churches. Parishoners can attend Sunday Service, though this has no special merit in Scientology scriptures. They often study auditing part time or full time in the evenings, weekends, or during the day. Introductory courses usually run from a day or evening to a few weeks. Part-time students of professional level courses maintain a schedule of 12.5 hours per week, while full time students might be in class as much as 10 hours a day, 7 days a week. They will often take part in a variety of groups and church activities, including artist associations, charity events and anti-drug crusades, among others.

Scientologists do not have any dietary restrictions, aside from good sense and cultural preferences. They are not opposed to modern medicine (excluding psychiatry), can receive blood transfusions, and receive routine medical care. A person is encouraged to maintain health using good sense. Parishioners must seek medical treatment for medical conditions before being accepted for spiritual counseling.

They are outspoken against the use of street drugs. There is no specific prohibition against social use of alcohol, as Hubbard himself mentions use as a young man. However, alcohol abuse is a concern. There are no particular prohibitions against hair coloring, music styles or body piercings. Maintaining good appearance is considered an exercise in good manners. In the Sea Org, perfume and even perfumed soaps or washing powders are frowned upon, especially in areas dealing with service to the public.

There are no specific daily rituals or prayers.

Scientology and the Supreme Being
There are two opposing viewpoints in this, and some cleaning up (and fact-checking) needs to be done. There's the official Scientology line (unsourced, but presumably it's official) that Scientologists are able to worship God as he/she wishes. The other one is saying that the Scientologists don't let initiates worship God of any form. Can we get some sourcing of this? Because if it can be substantiated, it can stay.

Current paragraph: "Scientology acknowledges the existence of a Supreme Being and believes perception and worship of God is a personal matter. The Church of Scientology is non-denominational. Scientologists worship God as they choose to.

Scientologists who are undergoing auditing during the pre-clear and OT levels are forbidden from practicing any other religion. Also, the upper OT levels teach that belief in god is a result of implants received during the Xenu incident.


 * There's the official Scientology line (unsourced, but presumably it's official) that Scientologists are able to worship God as he/she wishes The beliefs of some other religions approach matters of man/soul/prelife/afterlife in ways that are completely contradictory to CIS teachings. This section needs to be cited or deleted. Neverwake (talk) 22:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thats not really whats being said. In general Hubbard was trying to fix what he felt to be booby-traps in religion. This goes all the way back to 52, @ least. Hubbard felt that beleif in a supreme being was implanted (not that there wasn't a supreme being, but that certain habbits of thought about it were implanted), and that auditing clears away ones tendency to fall into these booby-traps. Any Scientologist who professes a belief in god(s) and practices rites of a faith other than Scientology would likely be declared a suppressive person."

No. Much more seriouse offenses would have to be committed for that. In fact, I don't know of any other cosequences than that 1 would not be allowed to get further courses or processing for a bit, if they are thought to have engaged in practices that might alter case-gain measurement, either by helping case gain, or harming it (the latter is considered much worse an action, of course). Thaddeus Slamp 02:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

As of now, it's non-NPOV, but also deleting any legitimate criticism of Scientology is equally non-NPOV

Lifthrasir1 04:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi. It is really quite simple. Scientology looks at life and the "game" of life as a series of concentric spheres of increasing knowledge and responsibility. These are "the dynamics". The most base survival of your body is the 1st dynamic, family the 2nd, group, human race, life forms, physical universe are 3 - 6, then the spirit is the 7th, and god or the infinite is the 8th dynamic. Scientology addresses the spirit as an individual and improves the spiritual being's ability to perceive and be responsible for his dynamics. This would, of course, include increased perception of the nature of the 8th dynamic or god but such perception is individual and not, in any way, addressed by Scn. Scientologists that are actively receiving auditing must get permission to engage in any activity that would affect their physical, mental, or spiritual health as such activity may interfere with their auditing. For example, fasting would adversely affect the auditing; meditation may also. This rule is just that they must get permission, not that they are prevented; most treatments and religious practices are not a problem and, in any event, it is just if you are actively receiving auditing. --Justanother 15:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

auditor training
This section starts off arbitrarilly, and is clearly there so that the author may exercise a sensationalistic rant. Why should the first sentence of a section on auditor training say that an auditor is expected to be expert in the use of his e-meter.

You know much auditing w/ no emeter @ all has been conducted during the GRAND majority of scientology history. There is a course called the introductory processes and assists that has many non-metered auditing routines for use. One still learns non-metered auditing in the introductory dianetics course as well. Also, book one (auditing the way taught in Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health) auditing is done w/no meters.

Sounds Just Like Their Website
How can you call that fair and balanced?

"Serously, scientology is a joke... a waste of money and a fraud." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.108.85.244 (talk) 02:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I do subscribe to this position. It's not fair and balance. It is a scientology promo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.221.84.58 (talk) 20:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the initial introductory paragraphs do not mention anything of scientology's space opera beliefs, which are core to the whole "religion", is a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.104.214 (talk) 21:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree this article is not neutral and does not mention any of the controversy surrounding it or any verifiable claims--Seraphimraziel (talk) 13:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been reading through the scientology articles for the first time in over 6 months, and I have found the complete lack of neutrality to be disturbing. These articles read like something from a pro-scientology website and need to have the mentioned controversies added. Also, does a minor 'religion' defined as a cult in several countries really deserve all of these wikipedia articles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zanotam (talk • contribs) 22:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

This is just absurd. It looks like the text of "What is Scientology" has been pasted verbatim into the article. WillOakland (talk) 10:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with that this article has significant NPOV issues. Cirt (talk) 22:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and added some material(with a reference and links to other articles) regarding the Space Opera and thetans.WacoJacko (talk) 06:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think maybe a section by section re-write may be in order. If it is largely taken from their website, copyright issues may come into play here given their litigious history.  I haven't checked, so I don't know how much is taken from there or not.  But really, a section by section re-write I think is in order.  Maybe even a RfC for the article to get some attention from the religion and philosphy projects. Groupsisxty (talk) 12:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. I have largely reformatted the structure of the page, did a bunch of copy-editing, and removed some questionable content. I tried to be fairly conservative with deletions, because if I deleted all of the original research then there would be very little of an article left. At least it doesn't employ Scientology jargon in-universe style anymore. ←  Spidern  →  05:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Content removed from main page
The following sections have been removed from the main page because they are not adequately described or sourced. If anyone can find any reliable sources to use which establish the notability of these terms, please do so. ← Spidern  →  00:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The Axioms
The Scientology Axioms are a condensation of all Scientology data until 1954.

The Factors
The summation of all the Scientology ideas about the spirit and the physical universe until 23 April 1953.

The Logics
The Logics are the basis of what Scientology describes as "empirical thinking."

The Prelogics
The Prelogics are divided in the Qs. In Scientology belief, the Qs are the highest echelon of knowledge from which all other knowledge is derived. Q simply means the most common datum that sums all other data.

Differentiation, association, and identification
Differentiation, Association and Identification are the three Scientology concepts that explain how man processes data. These concepts form a scale of knowingness from full knowingness to unknowingness.

Differentiation
Differentiation is the action of observing the differences and similarities between items, people and ideas etc.

Association
Association occurs when understanding is accomplished by association with other data. This is Logic and is considered a step down from Differentiation because never two apples are alike. A person that is in good shape knows what is right and knows what is wrong, he does not need to use logic to figure it out. A criminal always uses logic to justify a crime.

Identification
Identification is the mental process of the mad man where all data is the same. "Insanity is the inability to associate or differentiate properly."

Should it not be called a religion?
None of the Wikipedia articles on Scientology call it a religion. I'm curious why not since most governments have concluded that it is, and it is neutral to state that it is a new religious movement like Jehovah's Witnesses and Latter Day Saints. I'm not a Scientologist and I don't want to be attacked, but this is my suggestion. There are other suggestions I could make, but the Scientology articles appear far from neutral and are really messy, so I don't want to get too involved. Laval (talk) 12:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The way it is currently worded is fine. Cirt (talk) 16:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Primary vs Secondary sources
Some recent edits have been reverted with the explanation that Secondary sources are preferred. I don't see how this makes sense. If you want to know what the beliefs of a given group are, look at their primary sources. If the primary sources explain a certain belief, such as the need to celebrate a given holiday, then that ought to be recognised as legitimate. If there is an article that lists Christian beliefs and practices, references to the New Testament would be expected. So, why the bias against Scientology's primary texts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.154.240.162 (talk) 02:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess primary literature can be used for quotes? But if I understand right what the policy on reliable sources says then most references must be "secondary sources" that are said to be "reliable". Proximodiz (talk) 02:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The use of self-published sources
Self published sources can be used!!! WP:QS states:

Using self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

the material used is relevant to the notability of the subject of the article;
 * 1) it is not unduly self-serving;
 * 2) it does not involve claims about third parties;
 * 3) it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
 * 4) there is no reason to doubt its authenticity;
 * 5) the article is not based primarily on such sources;
 * 6) the source in question has been mentioned specifically in relation to the article's subject by an independent, reliable source.

Bravehartbear (talk) 13:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, the inappropriate exclusion of Scientology sources in situations where Wikipedia policy clearly allows them is an ongoing POV issue. These POV issues related to sourcing WILL be straightened out if we, as editors "neutral" or not, that do not seek to bend the rules to suit ourselves, set our minds to it and persist. Otherwise not. --Justallofthem (talk) 15:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

While that is what Wikipedia's policy is, it's hardly enforced in that way. A lot of projects on wikipedia are being downsized because of a minimal amount of third party reliable sources. Lots of the fictional universes, even the big ones, are suffering, why shouldn't this one? Zanotam - Google me (talk) 01:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

 * This article is redundant and should be merged with Scientology.S. M. Sullivan (talk) 06:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose merge, this article is way too large and expansive to merge. Cirt (talk) 05:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism
As much as I disapprove of Scientology in its entirety, I disapprove of vandalism on Wikipedia even more. The "Creed" section of this article has been messed up for some time (as evidenced by previous revisions of the page). I reverted it. I would suggest semi-protecting this page. Chrisbrl88 (talk) 04:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Psychiatrist
This really needs clarification. Hubbard called all psychiatrists anti-social? Called all anti-social people psychiatrists? Had any trauma? Any other references to psychiatrists in his work? --187.78.76.100 (talk) 14:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Scientology's Beliefs In God
This article should include what Scientology's beliefs in God are.--174.95.66.253 (talk) 17:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That is a though one, as Scientology does not have an specific view on God himself. The only references to a deity I have found within Scientology texts is a line on Science of Survival which states something similar to "God most likely created the physical universe", and mentions on the 8th Dynamic, which is only named "Infinity" or "The Supreme Being". And the only doctrine mentioned is that one has to reach fullness on all the other 7 dynamics (oneself, family, social circles, humanity, all living beings, the physical universe and the spirit) to be able to reach God (the 8th dynamic). > RUL3R >trolling >vandalism  06:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, just read through Scientology - Fundamentals of Thought. I don't recall the exact page, but there is a quote that states that "Scientology does not go deep into the 8th dynamic." So, there you go, no official stance; no specific Scientology doctrine on God. Nothing to write about the subject here. > RUL3R >trolling >vandalism  10:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * L. Ron Hubbard said that, "There was no Christ!", and that the Roman Catholic Church simply picked up fragments of the "R6 Implant" from the Xenu cosmogony. -- Cirt (talk) 14:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yahweh is not the only god out there. Even if Hubbard had denied Jesus Christ, that doesn't mean he, and therefore Scientology, denied the existence of a god. A deity is mentioned in Scientology, it just not the same god every other religion out there worships. And I believe this discussion should end here since we are bordering on WP:FORUM. > RUL3R >trolling >vandalism  07:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not "forum" to discuss possible material to include in an article. Especially not so, as multiple WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources have commented on this controversial issue. -- Cirt (talk) 18:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yet, it is all covered on Jesus in Scientology. In any case, Jesus is NOT a Scientology belief, so it has no relationship with this article's topic. > RUL3R >trolling >vandalism  05:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a mention of "humans being gods in human form" in the intro to the Scientology article itself, why is that not mentioned here? I would think that that was its belief in God if nothing else.LutherVinci (talk) 00:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Scientology, and its holy book, dianetics, was an attempt by its author, L. Ron Hubbard, at world domination. Not a bad approach, considering how well it worked for ancient europe for so damn long. He must've been very good at brainwashing his followers for that to happen. Therefore, his life and his following should be taken as a lesson in the dark arts, not as a religion to be taken seriously. Although, it's not like they're much of a threat today. Now they just use brainwashing tactics to trick people into handing them more money. Hmmmm... Sounds like a good idea...  Muhahaha!!!!
 * cough* catholicism *cough* but what is impressing is how the cult survived his death

You have no idea how right you are -> LutherVinci (talk) 00:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Lede
Posted additional information in the lede from Bromley and Cowan's 2008 book on religion.NestleNW911 (talk) 20:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Added more information to the "Auditing" section.NestleNW911 (talk) 17:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Added more information to lede.NestleNW911 (talk) 20:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Added more information about Scientology and other beliefs to the lede.NestleNW911 (talk) 22:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I have removed your latest addition as a cut/paste copyvio (see | this excerpt from the book). Please use your own language when adding content. Thanks, Tgeairn (talk) 00:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, apologies for this. I was under the impression that one could add content directly from sources as long as they are attributed to the source. I have rewritten the content, please review and let me know if it is okay to add.

"According to Jacob Neusner, Scientology does not warrant that their members must exclusively believe in Scientology, distinguishing it from biblical religions. Scientologists may profess belief in other religions such as Protestantism, Catholicism and may participate in their activities and sacred rites."

Thanks.NestleNW911 (talk) 20:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * First, I apologize for the delay in getting back to you.
 * What you propose above looks like a good summary of Neusner. Please go ahead with your changes (cited, of course!). Other editors may want to tweak it later, but I think it looks pretty good. What you added looks even better.
 * One thing to look at here is the length of the lede. It's getting pretty long, and some of the material may be better placed in the body and only summarized in the lede. --Tgeairn (talk) 04:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

E-meter
The mention of the e-meter on this article needed further substantiation in my view, so I've included some excerpts about it from Deseret News.Matipop (talk) 21:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Intro paragraphs
The introduction is far too long and does not appear to be very wikified. It should be broken up into sections, or integrated into existing section. Laval (talk) 15:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

presentation of scientology concepts as facts
Such as

"Processing is the actual practice of "auditing" which directs questions towards areas of travail in a person's life to get rid of unwanted barriers that inhibit, stop or blunt a person's natural abilities as well as gradiently increasing the abilities a person has so that he becomes more able and his survival, happiness and intelligence increase enormously"

Surely we need to qualify this by saying something like "According to Scientology", or "Scientology claims", or something? We should not be using wiki's voice to say that "intelligence increase enormously". Gaijin42 (talk) 18:46, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Recent additions are not a violation of NPOV
Hello, Binksternet. I do not comprehend your explanation for reverting my edit. I have used critical sources but I have not misrepresented them. As I said, I have not altered their perspective at all. I have not violated NPOV. The edits I added are neutral and encyclopedic. How can information about New Year's Day and Scientology terminology be non-NPOV? It is not promotional or adhering to any kind of bias. If anything, they add to the article and give more knowledge to the reader. If neutral information is found in otherwise negative sources, we should be able to refer to it.Matipop (talk) 17:54, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

According to WP:NPOV: "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Remove material only where you have good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage." How does my addition misinform or mislead? They are simply encyclopedic facts about Scientology. The material I added should be retained.Matipop (talk) 18:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I am taking my cue from Neutral point of view where it says that removing referenced text is okay if there is "good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage." Your work misleads the reader by misrepresenting the cited source. The addition of positive or neutral text taken from a largely negative source is a gross misrepresentation. As well, your additions pushed the balance of the article away from a neutral representation of the topic into an unduly positive one; a violation of Neutral point of view.
 * This and also this addition of yours brought the following new references:
 * Stollznow, Karen."Bad Language." Skeptic 18.2 (2013): 6-7. Academic Search Complete. Web. 19 Nov. 2013
 * It is revealing that you have chosen in each case to eliminate a URL or ISBN so that the reader might go see what the original document said. Despite your lack of URLs, you supplied accessdate parameters, showing that you were indeed online looking at this material. Have you seen the guideline WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT? You should include the URLs and the ISBN.
 * Once the reader has climbed over this obstacle, he finds that the following sources:
 * http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/inside-scientology-20110208 (a 2011 reprint of the 2006 article)
 * http://www.skeptic.com/magazine/archives/18.2/ (no free access to the Stollznow column)
 * Melton reference has no ISBN, cannot be confirmed.
 * http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/september4/7.90.html
 * Regarding the Reitman piece in Rolling Stone, you wrote about some words that Scientologists use amongst themselves. You wrote "These terminologies can be found in Scientology dictionaries." However, Reitman makes fun of the supposed authority and accuracy of Scientology dictionaries. She says that one Scientology glossary calls "space opera" true events, and that another Scientology dictionary says that the Marcab Confederacy is really aliens. Reitman presents these examples as very negative, showing that the Scientology dictionaries are worthless. Reitman describes how some Scientologists who leave the organization are confused about whether the lingo is even English, which it is not.
 * I am unable to view the entire Stollzman column from April 2013 in volume 18 number 2 of Skeptic, but it is clear that she characterizes "Touch Assist" negatively as faith healing, not neutrally as you have put forward. Stollzman makes fun of how the "Touch Assist" is supposed to be able to sober a drunk with just the touch of fingers. ("Touch Assist" is typically characterized as pseudoscience, but you did not say anything negative about it.) The same issue of Skeptic contains wholly negative assessments of Scientology including this multiple book review which presents a very poor outlook: "2013 is shaping up to be even worse for the Church. In just the first six weeks of the year three major critical books have been published and an hour-long critical documentary aired on cable television." However, you cherry-picked an out-of-context fact from this very negative source.
 * I looked for a Melton book but could not find one matching the terms you wrote in the citation. You did not supply an ISBN so that makes the job much more difficult. I also searched for the phrase you quoted, "reviewed and celebrated and goals for the future are projected", and came up with nothing at all. Even if you were to supply an accurate citation for this material, it gives undue weight to a trivial practice of Scientologists in which L.A. church members make a recording and send it to other churches.
 * Regarding the Veenker piece in Christianity Today, you wrote that Melton said, "Scientologists want to participate in culture." You failed to write that the presence of Scientologists in the town of Clearwater, Florida, has become its own controversy, and that many Clearwater residents do not want Scientologists to participate in their culture at all. This is the main message of Veenker.
 * Everything you have done in these edits is non-neutral. You worked to shift the balance of the two articles away from a neutral presentation toward a pro-Scientology presentation. You have misrepresented sources; you have failed to show the largely negative facts contained in your sources. Binksternet (talk) 19:19, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I looked for a Melton book but could not find one matching the terms you wrote in the citation. You did not supply an ISBN so that makes the job much more difficult. I also searched for the phrase you quoted, "reviewed and celebrated and goals for the future are projected", and came up with nothing at all. Even if you were to supply an accurate citation for this material, it gives undue weight to a trivial practice of Scientologists in which L.A. church members make a recording and send it to other churches.
 * Regarding the Veenker piece in Christianity Today, you wrote that Melton said, "Scientologists want to participate in culture." You failed to write that the presence of Scientologists in the town of Clearwater, Florida, has become its own controversy, and that many Clearwater residents do not want Scientologists to participate in their culture at all. This is the main message of Veenker.
 * Everything you have done in these edits is non-neutral. You worked to shift the balance of the two articles away from a neutral presentation toward a pro-Scientology presentation. You have misrepresented sources; you have failed to show the largely negative facts contained in your sources. Binksternet (talk) 19:19, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, Binksternet. While I understand your point, I stand by the fact that I made sure to stick to NPOV when I posted these edits. The edits in themselves are neutral and most are references to Scientology beliefs, which neither promotes nor criticizes the religion. They are mere facts. I took the content from the references that are relevant to the section on the Wikipedia article, in order to make it contextually sound. You also put meaning into my non-inclusion of the ISBN and the link. These are not deliberate omissions to confuse; but I will include them in later edits if that makes it easier for everyone concerned. You have interpreted my edits and even my citing of references based on your own opinion. "The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view." I have not endorsed a particular perspective and made sure the tone of my edits was impartial.Matipop (talk) 23:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The edits are not neutral because they take positive or neutral facts out of sources that portray the topic in a very negative light. Of course, this was not the case with the Melton quote which simply pushed the article's main point of balance further in the positive direction, a violation of Neutral point of view. That's my take on it. Let's hear what other editors have to say on the issue. Binksternet (talk) 00:10, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Picture or photo of some sort
Seems like an article of this length would benefit from an illustration or photo to break up the wall of text. Maybe one of these two?

Just an idea. Grayfell (talk) 02:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Scientology Terminology
Common Scientology terms include:
 * theta (Θ) – Atman in contrast to the dynamics. Compare also to the physics terms of a static (point of rest) and Dynamic (element in action or motion or change)
 * SP (Suppressive Person) – A person whose means of advance is through the opposition or suppression of others. The definition is asserted to include anyone who actively opposes Scientology.
 * PTS (Potential Trouble Source) – a person who is under the influence of an SP and so may become a source of trouble to those around them. E.g. "Wanda is PTS to Jim" means that because she is in contact with Jim (a bad influence), Wanda is having trouble in her life that may spill over to threaten others.
 * reality – The common reality around us, also the group agreement of what is true. As seen in the sentence "My sense of reality is that birds fly and fish swim"
 * (reactive) bank – the sum of experiences (such as engrams, etc) whose main common component is pain and unconsciousness that influence a Thetan's thinking and behavior
 * Clear (noun) – (after the clear key on adding machines) a person whose reactive bank does not insert erroneous data into one's analytical thinking. Usually refers a person who is clear with regard to survival for Self.
 * clear (verb) – To clarify one's understanding with regard to a particular concept or term or symbol, leading to conceptual understanding of the same. This permits the person to rephrase the term or concept in words other than the original, without loss of the clarity when communicating with someone not educated in the subject.
 * Fair Game – A status formerly assigned to those whom the Church of Scientology officially declared to be SP. An October 1967 policy stated that anyone who had been declared "fair game" "may be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist and may be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed." This was changed to a milder wording in July 1968. The term "fair game" was abandoned altogether by the Church in October 1968. However, the Church has retained an aggressive policy towards those it perceives as its enemies, and argued – unsuccessfully – as late as 1985 that retributive action against "enemies of Scientology" should be considered a Constitutionally-protected "core practice" of Scientology.
 * psychiatrist – the Scientology definition of a "psychiatrist" was officially declared by Hubbard to be "an anti-social enemy of the people".

References:

The body is connected to the sole.The the action of the living body can change the sole.Darken it to evil or cleans it for good.And the learning of life sole searching etc.Aliens can and will abduct and inject to change behaviour to darken the sole.While demons wait in the darkness.The future direction of the sole is in the hands of the Church.Aliens and Demons.The Churh Roman Catholic know this.There will soon be a war to change this forever.All humans should always check the spirit and through of aliens.self/higher self/inner self.Try it you may be surprised.Many have come to earth as a nuron vapourized cloud and entered the human body.God is the non toxin light from the sun.That gives us life.We live on the passover to darkness.Half dark half light day night etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.74.108.57 (talk) 05:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Scientology beliefs and practices
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Scientology beliefs and practices's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "urban2006": From Xenu:  From L. Ron Hubbard: Urban, Hugh B. "Fair Game: Secrecy, Security, and the Church of Scientology in Cold War America." Journal of the American Academy of Religion 74:2 (2006) From Early life of L. Ron Hubbard: Urban, Hugh B. "Fair Game: Secrecy, Security, and the Church of Scientology in Cold War America." Journal of the American Academy of Religion 74:2 (2006) 356–89 From Operation Snow White: </li> </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Alan Black reference
Hello Grayfell. Regarding my addition of passage from Alan Black's paper. I am dumbfounded as to why you seem to arbitrarily label this is an "unreliable" source. The same paper has actually been cited at #2 on the same Wikipedia page. Who is to decide that this is unreliable? You mentioned also that this is an SPS. How so? How are you able to determine that this paper is "extremely obscure?" According to whose standards? Please enlighten me as I want to understand what can be used as a reliable source. I believe that my edit on the Dynamics is sound and adds much to the section, and I attest that it should remain. The edits on the lead section are also meant to enrich the section from direct quotes from Scientology text, to further contextualize the information here.Livetoedit1123 (talk) 23:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, I have removed it from the rest of the article, as well, thank you. Neuereligion.de is a dead site, but it appears to have been part of the CoS, and the article itself is a research paper with no clear indication of having been published, much less peer-review or similar. The link to Bible.ca was previously removed (back in 2008) by an editor who characterizing it as a "kook site". I agree with that. There is no reliable source for this, and no publication information indicating this is a WP:RS, so this source is not usable. Grayfell (talk) 02:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. I will stay away from similar references in the future.Livetoedit1123 (talk) 16:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Recent edit on Science section
Grayfell, the text I posted is well-referenced and directly supports the first sentence: "The church considers itself scientific..." It does not promote and is quite specific, not vague at all, elucidating the whole idea that the church claims its beliefs as scientific, based on its own literature. It is clarified and contextualized by the rest of the section and IMHO, reads well as an encyclopedic addition. I do not see how it is promotional, and this is an easy label to slap on it, and is quite subjective. Do you have other ideas?Greentrailblazer (talk) 00:16, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Here's the quote for convenience: Scientology fulfills the goal of religion by addressing the spiritual nature of man and his role in eternity. Yet it approaches the traditional questions of religion from a standpoint of reason, an approach that science can hardly argue with.
 * I see multiple issues with this:
 * This specific viewpoint needs independent sources. These are always preferable to church material, even for the church's own views and opinions. This is, in part, because the church has produced a ridiculously large amount of material of varying quality and relevance. The quote you used, taken in full from the source, makes that clear, as it mentions the 40 million+ words Hubbard spoke or wrote about it, which has been expanded on substantially since his death. Deciding which items best support claims about a belief is subjective, so WP:SECONDARY sources are always better.
 * A blurb used as a chapter-heading is not ideal for this. This problem is made worse because the book is otherwise relatively critical of both the church as an organization, and the scientific legitimacy of Scientology and Dianetics. The full quote was provided as introductory context for the lengthy analysis which followed. Using only part of the quote while leaving out the surrounding context and analysis is misrepresenting the source.
 * The quote is indeed flattering and vague. "Scientology fulfills the goals of religion"! Wow. Who says that's the goal of religion? Isn't that pretty controversial? The quote is using the words of an unnamed representative of the church to make bold, controversial claims about not only its own views, but also about the blanket views of "science" which are unsupportable. As many of the sources point out, there are a lot of scientists who argue with Scientology's approach, as well as its stated commitment to reason.
 * Basically this boils down to the quote being more confusing than informative, with the only end result being that it makes Scientology look better. Grayfell (talk) 01:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Scientology by James R. Lewis
I understand the comment on weasel wording, and have modified the text to accommodate the feedback. A modification is enough to rectify the issue and I don't think warrants a reversion. However, I am confused as to the question on whether Lewis' work is the best reference to use for the text. Scientology by James R. Lewis is a central, reliable reference in scholarship about Scientology, and includes scholarship from various noted scholars on the subject. It has been cited time and again in Scientology-related articles. Which other reference cites these specific ideas? If there are others, I would gladly add it as a citation. Thank you.Nonchalant77 (talk) 21:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The content being cited was pages 8 and 9, which can be seen here. This added content was entirely based on a single paragraph. It would be better to summarize the entire section, or at least a full page or two. The article is already long and rambling, so adding selective bits and pieces like this is detrimental to the article.
 * One part of the problem is that the preceding and following paragraphs make clear that the added content was only a small part of the point Lewis was making. The previous paragraphs discuss the now old-fashion mid-century Atomic Age optimism which influenced Scientology's culture and practices, and specific aspects of Spiritualism which are similar to Scientology. This similarity is mainly that both use the popular perception of science while ignoring its underlying philosophy. (Pseudoscience in a nutshell, although he doesn't use the term.) Using this one paragraph without any of that vitally important context is cherry picking. To be blunt, this looks like it was a pretext to insert unattributed comments about what the church believes without any additional context, even though that context was supplied by the source.
 * Also, James R. Lewis (scholar) is widely cited, but he's also quite controversial and mentioning him without, at the very least, a wikilink to the article explaining this undermines the neutrality of these edits. His opinions need to be attributed and contextualized. Grayfell (talk) 22:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I think that wikilinking Spiritualism and James R. Lewis would be a good and quick fix to address the problem. To over-explain on James R. Lewis' controversial status would be digressing. The point here is not the movement of Spiritualism but about Scientology being built upon the perceived legitimacy of science, which I think was already clearly explained in the preceding passages. The significance of Spiritualism to the rest of the ideas stated in the passage is also explained. I think the connection of Scientology's "tech" as being considered by the church as a contribution to existing technologies is the foundational idea as to the church basing its technology on science. The use of the word technology, being used in the spiritual text is connecting science to the spiritual realm. The purpose was merely to add another scholar's input on the subject, to add to the variety of perspectives include in this section. I would love to fully explain the full context of the passage, but this text captures the heart of it, and is not meant as "cherry-picking." It is meant to provide an overview. Neglecting to work with the text and just resorting to reverting it without sufficient cause I think is as detrimental to the article, expansion would not be possible if we didn't consider additions from various works of scholarship. I would like to work with you in being able to represent the section without making it too long, and I think it's possible to do it with an additional sentence or two.Nonchalant77 (talk) 22:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The article is already quite bloated at this point, and is bursting at the seams with unattributed quotes and "obscure scholor says Scientology is special because contextless detail."$[malformed reference to a Google books link]$ type edits. I have my suspicion as to why this has happened, but it doesn't really matter in the end. Just adding more perspectives from random scholars isn't going to work. I know this is blunt, but the burden is on you to make sure your edits are positive. Grayfell (talk) 23:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

You mentioned in your edit summary "Let's finish the discussion you started before restoring," which gave me the impression that you wanted to discuss the text in the effort of restoring it. This makes me think you had no intention of working to restore it to begin with, and you have not really acknowledged any of my arguments as to why the edit is significant. As I've alluded to, James R. Lewis is by no means an "obscure scholar," (he was notable enough to warrant his own Wikipedia article) and the context has already been laid out in the new passage that was added, and in the section in itself. You said the burden is on me - what I can suggest and would add if there is no objection, is just to say: "According to James R. Lewis (scholar), Scientology adopted a rhetoric of basing religion on the perceived legitimacy of science. The church refers to their practices as religious technology, or in Scientology, simply called “tech.” Lewis writes that the church views its psycho-spiritual technology as contributing the missing ingredient in existing technologies, which is “the therapeutic engineering of the human psyche.”

I don't see how this is not neutral, as it presents a scholar's perspective and frames the perspective on spiritual technology as the church's "view" not assuming it automatically true at all. In a Wikipedia article about Scientology's beliefs and practices, I don't see how this well-referenced passage on how the church views its own technologies and the whole idea of its tech based on the perceived legitimacy of science (placed in a section about science) is not relevant.Nonchalant77 (talk) 00:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I maintain that the book is relatively obscure, and as a scholar he is also relatively obscure. Notable doesn't mean "not obscure", but that's not the main problem here. If this is the only source you can find which makes this esoteric point, then we have a problem with WP:DUE weight. The problem is that Lewis is saying this in passing as one observation among hundreds, with no indication that this is of greater significance. This isn't Lewis presenting a central point about Scientology, this is one quote being used to justify the insertion of yet another flattering but ultimately trivial point that makes Scientology look a little better. The article already has way too many of those. That the church sees tech as "contributing the missing ingredient in existing technologies" is an audacious and non-neutral claim which Lewis mentions in passing as part of a larger, far more complicated point. Grayfell (talk) 02:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm with on this one, but I'd be willing to accept the edit if it stopped at "legitimacy of science" - the rest is more contentious, and looks as if we're trying to find a way to give the church's POV in someone else's words. --Slashme (talk) 08:35, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I still do not understand how the book Scientology by James R. Lewis can be considered a "relatively obscure" book, when as apparent in its own Wikipedia page, it has at least been studied by various scholars and considered, albeit having a controversial reception. Contributors to the book include Melton (a well-known scholar who has written plenty on the subject), Lewis, Bainbridge, Cowan and Bromley (who have their own unobscure and published work on Cults and New Religions with a chapter on Scientology). The Oxford University Press says that it "the only comprehensive resource for scholars, students, and others interested in this controversial and little-understood religious movement." Noted scholar Marco Frenschkwoski wrote a 30-page review for the book, saying "simply put it is the most sophisticated academic item published on Scientology so far." It seems there is an arbitrary rendering of what complies with WP:RS here, only considering something reliable when it leans towards a negative representation of Scientology. (BTW, I don't see anything in Wikipedia policy that says that "obscure" (not saying the Lewis is, but just to make a point) scholars cannot be considered reliable. "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses." This book meets that requirement. The book has been used several times for various edits on Scientology-related Wikipedia pages, and all of a sudden, it is "relatively obscure." By the way, Lewis was cited a staggering nine times in the main Scientology Wikipedia page, reference numbers 52, 65, 70, 278, 402, 407, 413, 418, 424 (this instance the book we are discussing here is cited). I can cite many more examples where Lewis' work is considered a basis of the big body of information on Scientology in Wikipedia. In the Church of Scientology page, the book is cited three times, and another work of Lewis's, "New Religion Adherents: An Overview of Anglophone Census and Survey Data" is also cited. With his vast body of work on not only Scientology, but also other religions and cults, the claim that he is a "relatively obscure" scholar has no basis. I'm not the one with the POV problem here.Nonchalant77 (talk) 16:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


 * As I just said, that's not the main problem here. "Noted scholars" Frenschkwoski, Melton, and Lewis all get cited a lot in this walled garden of articles because they are members of the relatively small group of scholars who write about Scientology from the perspective of comparative religion. That means they give more credence to Scientology's claims than pretty much every other academic field, but again, that's not the main problem here. The problem is that this is one minor observation which is being blown-out of proportion by being included. As I said, it wasn't Lewis's main point, it was a passing mention as part of a larger comparison, and the quote at the end added to the bloat but clarified nothing. Grayfell (talk) 21:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Even if, as you say, it's not the main problem, it's worth discussing, because it was mentioned in the edit summary and seemed to be a part of the reason why you reverted the edit in the first place. I just don't want the situation to fall in the slippery slope of being able to arbitrarily label any reference obscure for subjective reasons. Scientology is not a mainstream movement and of course, there would be only relatively a small group of scholars who would write about it, but that doesn't make them any less credible. To write about Scientology comparatively, and not as an attack, is not necessarily non-neutral. As a compromise, and per Slashme's comment and your comment that the quote makes things bloated, I have posted the edit in short form, removing the parts that seem unacceptable to you and him.Nonchalant77 (talk) 22:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Article tone and objectivity
This page reads a bit like an advert for scientology, especially when compared to the main scientology page. Would adding a 'criticisms' section be agreeable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.71.53.226 (talk) 19:03, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2018
I wish to add the content from this section of the Scientology article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology#Scientology_ceremonies to this article

Here is the content:

=== Scientology ceremonies ===

In Scientology, ceremonies for events such as weddings, child naming, and funerals are observed. Friday services are held to commemorate the completion of a person's religious services during the prior week. Ordained Scientology ministers may perform such rites. However, these services and the clergy who perform them play only a minor role in Scientologists' religious lives. Bob Page (talk) 07:37, 9 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The article already contains sections on Holidays, Sunday Services, and Rituals that are better-detailed and more-informative than the brief section from the other article. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:57, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2018
Bold textThis is totally crap. Jdhgrty (talk) 19:48, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: There is no request to change any part of the article in this section. Dolotta (talk) 21:01, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Edits
My last edit on how Scientology defines ethics was labeled as promotional. I'm not sure why, I do not use promotional language here at all, and simply added straightforward information that is neither positive nor negative. I recently added a new section, Aesthetic Mind, because it is a wide doctrine in Scientology that has not been given coverage. I have taken care not to use promotional language. The language here is neutral.Nonchalant77 (talk) 16:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)


 * As a WP:SPA who has made many, many edits to Scientology articles, and very few to any other topic, you've surely notices that many of the Scientology articles are bloated and unpleasant to read. One of the main reasons is that they include tons of isolated paragraphs cited to obscure academic sources which provide repetitive, mundane points taken completely out of any context. These points often, as with your edits, subtly suggest that everything Hubbard did was of deep significance, but utterly fail to explain why that is. As you surely know, he was absurdly prolific, and said a huge amount of stuff about every topic that crossed his path. We are not here to document all of it, instead we're here to summarize the topic. Find a reliable, mainstream source which says that Hubbard's theories of the "aesthetic mind" are of vital significance. Don't just regurgitate more of the same crap that already litters these articles.
 * We are not a platform for promotion, so adding more of this junk is absolutely inappropriate. Wikipedia already has an article on Scientology terminology and Ethics (Scientology). If a "wide" doctrine hasn't received coverage, than the burden is on you to explain why it's encyclopedic significant to this topic. Instead of constantly repeating "according to ___" and then citing some cherry-picked factoid from a painfully obscure religious studies reference, look at the context and see if this point is even WP:DUE in the first place. If so, include some indication of why, and summarize in your own words. Grayfell (talk) 02:37, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * if u mention the Somatic mind, shouldn't the somatic mind also b mentioned, both were mostly only discussed in D:MSMH, /in lectures of that period for the most part, /Hubbard considered neither important in clearing, but mostly gave them mention for the sake of completeness.Slarty1 (talk) 03:06, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

General Semantics
I've removed the term pseudoscience from the mention of general semantics, since the article on general semantics nowhere mentions it being considered a pseudoscience. That's on the professional level. On a more personal level, having looked into the matter, I'd say general semantics blurs the distinction between science /pseudoscience quite fundamentally, since it's mainly an ethical position that general human speech should b informed by the lingual habits scientists have come to find needed to avoid being misunderstood, /techniques supposedly supposedly useful in creating formal scientific lingual/thought patterns in people not professional scientists. Most scientists have never heard of it, but might or might not advocate for it due largely to whether they feel science should b understood by more peeps, or merely think they have a real job/know how to to that job In any case, a good scientist (1 who knows philosophy of science) has no need for it/, upon hearing of the subject might b @ 1st puzzled/ say something like "ah...u mean semantics...why do we need the word 'general' in the title?". Dig?Slarty1 (talk) 03:06, 9 August 2019 (UTC)Slarty1 (talk) 03:20, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Splinter groups: Independents, Miscavige's RTC, and "Squirreling"
This section of the article is bizarrely skewed/arbitrary, in relation to the actual history of Dianetic/Scientology spin-off groups, a subject on which there is some literature/study, tho not that much. I'm trying to figure the goal of this skew, but the best I can come up w/is that its skewed bizarrely. Surely an actual sincere discussion of that on the subject would mention California Association of Dianetic Auditors (C.A.D.A.) b4 mentioning Dianology/also cover it much more extensivel. It's not even clear why Dianology is mentioned. There were about a doeson, I believe, Dianetics spin offs by 1952, the subject was covered in a book highly critical of Hubbard's work, who's name I don't recall. Church used to publish a list of enemy squirrel groups (maybe still do). If 1 really wanted to know this subject, that might not b a bad place to start


 * http://ca-da.org/  Slarty1 (talk) 06:24, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 August 2020
There needs to be a critique section, due to the widespread and clearly attested violations of human rights done on behalf of the “church” of Scientology 104.169.184.152 (talk) 23:25, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Not relevant on a page about their beliefs. Already mentioned on Scientology and Scientology controversies. – Thjarkur (talk) 00:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I would also like a criticism section for Scientology beliefs. I think there are valid criticisms of Scientology's beliefs that are separate from the organization. For example, South Park famously parodies and critiques their religious beliefs, and others have critiqued whether it's possible to believe in scientology in addition to other religions. DazzleNovak (talk) 03:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. As above. Jack Frost (talk) 08:56, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Bias
This article is an ad for Scientology. It has no balance and includes no actual critical responses to the claims of Scientology. 2601:409:200:B640:7109:DE59:CC7D:A1BC (talk) 02:01, 5 March 2023 (UTC)


 * All of the Scientology articles in Wikipedia need updating, but there's only a few people doing it. You're welcome to create a Wikipedia account and join in the editing. Grorp (talk) 06:01, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Typo
There is an error in this page as on the 2nd dynamic it says second for (a) and second for (b) 2A02:C7F:3145:3400:21C0:A6E6:5BA4:8F10 (talk) 20:48, 29 March 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅. Fixed. Grorp (talk) 00:11, 30 March 2023 (UTC)