Talk:Scientology in Australia/Archive 1

Naming convention quibble
By Wiki naming convention, this article should be "Scientology in Australia". AndroidCat 17:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree - How do we change it? I'm not convinced that it's a necessary article anyway so I'm not going to spend any effort improving it; but if it remains, it should cover the whole subject rather than just repeat the current media gossip plus information from other Wikipedia pages such as the Anderson Report. There's a long story here, half a century of who/what/when/where; unfortunately, published secondary sources are scarce so most of it is outside the scope of Wikipedia. DavidCooke 03:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Scientology has a long history in Australia, some of it quite controversial, and it is not reflected in the other Scientology pages of Wikipedia, so I believe it is quite justified. Trijah 01:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Scientology has a "long history" in most countries. Are we going to devote an entire article to Scientology gossip in each of the world's countries? Or just the ones where sufficient negative stories can be found? wikipediatrix 04:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, as far as I'm aware, its standard to discuss a topic in a specific sense when a topic gets too big for one page. Clearly the whole world's scientology activies are too much to put on one page, so its logical to break them up. The other pages tend to reflect US activities. Besides, it is standard practice for specific religions to be discussed in a country sense - see Roman Catholic Church in Australia, History of Jews in AustraliaetcTrijah 15:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually this article should be named "Murdered Scientologists in Australia". It does not even say where the Church of Scientology is seated in Australia. Clearly POV pushing, ugly. Misou 03:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Bisous, Misou. wikipediatrix 04:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * :-) Misou 04:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

By all means if you think there is something that is POV, please be my guest, re write it.There is definitely good things that Scientology do, like their anti drug program, may be someone will add some information about that. However, as stated before, there are also a lot more negative that Scientology does that is NOT mentioned in the article. Trijah 15:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a news source, nor is it a universal "permanent record" at St.Peter's gate where all people and organizations have their good and bad deeds detailed and judged forevermore. The recent incident is not only extremely tangential to Scientology, it has no business being the largest section in an article that's supposed to be about "Scientology in Australia". That's what's known as "undue weight". How far do you think I'd get if I started an article called "Christianity in Australia" and proceeded to fill it with lurid details of every crime allegedly committed by a Christian there? wikipediatrix 16:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there certainly may be undue weight to that part of the article may be it should reduced in size??? Trijah 17:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

not even a pretense of fairness
Let's look at the structure of this article. It currently consists of a short intro followed by sections on "Banning", "Controversy" and "Litigation". The casual reader is left to assume that these matters are all there is to the subject of "Scientology in Australia" because the editor who created this mess couldn't be bothered to include anything else but these few random unchallenged POV bits of negativity. wikipediatrix 16:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Very good. Please feel free to put in some of the other activities that the CoS in Australia has done.211.28.236.164 17:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * My point is that the creator of the article should have done so in the first place rather create this mess and then simply expect that others will fix it and make the fair, impartial and encyclopedic work that he should have already done himself. I'm not sure this article should even exist, since Scientology is in almost every country on Earth - what's so special about Scientology in Australia that it needs an article of its own? wikipediatrix 17:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I created the article, I put in it what I was interested in, and what I knew about. Other people can add to it....isn't that what Wikipedia is about? As stated before, clearly the whole world's scientology activies are too much to put on one page, so its logical to break them up. The other pages tend to reflect US activities. Besides, it is standard practice for specific religions to be discussed in a country sense - see Roman Catholic Church in Australia, History of Jews in Australia etc. Trijah 17:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * But there's nothing here! The Anderson Report already has its own article. The murder case doesn't belong here except maybe one sentence, if that. And some guy mentioned Xenu on TV. Big deal. It's not worth creating an article over. wikipediatrix 17:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

No probs, I will research more of their current activities and add more. They actually do quite a lot in Australia, and have been here for nearly 50 years, and have courted quite a bit of controversy in their time. Trijah 17:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * So again, you're admitting that controversy is what you're interested in? The article is already nothing but controversy, thanks anyway. wikipediatrix 17:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no most of the references I can see on the media article database seem to point to controversy. Its very hard to find something in this database they do that isn't controversial. You are most welcome to do your own research and put in some positive information. Trijah 18:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with wikipediatrix. This article bears practically no resemblance to the subject of Scientology in Australia. I am adding in some information on what Scientologists in Australia are involved in, and will be making other edits based on the pointswikipediatrix has made above, which which I concur.Su-Jada 18:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Su-Jada, I see you are a Scientologist from your page. Please help us out and add in some of the Scientologists activities, from my research, most of the references out there seem to highlight the more negative aspects, the only positive I could find were references to the deep sleep therapy stuff. I did put in some stuff about handing out leaflets at the BDO from your Scientology web page. Trijah 18:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Censorship
Good to see a number of negative activities that CoS have done have now been removed by a Scientology wikipidien. Go censorship! Trijah 18:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you been editing Wikipedia long? I think you seriously need to study some more about how it works before you continue in this childish fashion. And crying "censorship" isn't going to get you very far here either. wikipediatrix 18:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes I have, probably best you check the history of what was changed before you comment on it. I just entered about four sub headings, all referenced with articles - they were all deleted. Not childish, just unhappy about being censored.Trijah 23:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Just because other editors aren't letting you make the article say whatever you want it to say doesn't mean it's "censorship". And your comment about the editor being a Scientologist violates WP:AGF. wikipediatrix 00:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Mentioning that an editor is a scientologist is not by itself a violation of WP:AGF. You know better than that wikipediatrix. Stop playing games.--Fahrenheit451 00:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It most certainly is a violation, but I no longer care about your opinion enough to bother explaining to you why it is. Goodbye. wikipediatrix 00:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It most certainly is not a violation. If you no longer care about my opinion, does that mean you will no longer violate WP:CIVIL with me?--Fahrenheit451 04:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Tah Fahrenheit 451. Wikipediatrix, I'm just trying to stop silly edit wars, by pointing out that material negative about Scientology on here is being deleted. It is all referenced, I'll put it back in when I get the chance.Trijah 00:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's silly. We can take this to a higher power if you like. I've got time. wikipediatrix 00:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me, but not exactly sure what you are referring to, exactly what are you taking to a higher power?? Trijah 11:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipediatrix does not know. It sounded threatening, though.  Don't you feel utterly intimidated?--Fahrenheit451 04:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Gee, 451, for someone who whines about WP:AGF and WP:NPA at every turn, you sure don't mind violating it yourself. wikipediatrix 13:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Gee, Wikipediatrix, for someone who violates WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, you have a bad habit of accusing the victim to divert attention from yourself. Knock it off.--Fahrenheit451 23:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Controversy
Please do not delete this section. This section is about two incidents where newspaper references indicated Scientologists were connected to events because of the witholding of Psychiatic drugs, or in the Queen st case, a test could have provoked this result. It is fully referenced by a number of articles. If you wish to summarise it or alter it, please feel free to do so, but please don't delete without discussion. Please keep Wikipedia fair and balanced. Trijah 11:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC) I have now shortened this section, and split it into the two incidents, with references. I called the Walicki case "Revesby Murders" but if anyone can think of a more suitable title, please change it. Trijah 10:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Tsunami Relief and Drug Awareness
Be fair DavidCooke, the sources listed for Scientology Tsunami Relief efforts and Drug prevention and harm minimisation lead directly to Scientology run websites. Surely we can have agreement that 1. These do not constitute reliable and independent sources and 2. that any opinion expressed on those pages would have a certain bias. Once you find some independent sources then you may seek to update the page based on those sources. Until then, please remember that OPINION is separated from FACT by what we can PROVE.Razol2 15:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * While they're certainly primary sources and should be treated as such, using Scientology sites as sources in Scientology articles occurs in virtually every article (especially if it's being used to make a point against the Church).... at the very least, we can fix the text to make sure it's clear that these things are simply what the Church says about itself. wikipediatrix 00:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what I was trying to do. When I write that, "The Church considers itself to be active in drug prevention and harm minimisation", that's what I'm trying to do. Somehow, someone (David) thinks that this is being 'weasel-like'.Razol2 01:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Nothing in WP:WEASEL applies to this as far as I know. In order to avoid "Undue Weight", we must present what Scientology has stated about itself. Anyone who think Scientology's own side of the story doesn't deserve coverage in an article about Scientology has some explaining to do. Doing so doesn't mean Wikipedia endorses the statements or presents them as being true, it simply means we're telling the reader what they're saying. wikipediatrix 03:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you're simplifying the matter too much. Yes we can allow "Scientology's own side of the story", but you must tell the reader that what they are reading is the opinion of the Scientologists. Hence you need qualifiers such as "In their opinion..." or "They consider themselves...". It is all well and good for us to allow the opinion of Scientology, but it must be appropriately flagged as THEIR OPINION and not as something that is endorsed by Wikipedia as a whole. I trust I am making myself clear.Razol2 07:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, you basically repeated what I already said in the last sentence of my previous post. Glad we're in agreement. wikipediatrix 01:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've added a couple more references published by non-Church organisations; the great bulk of the online reports about this are on Scientology websites, and it seems reasonable to include one of these. Yes, my use of the adjective 'weasely' was going too far (I'm more the ferret-faced type). It is necessary to make it clear whose opinion is being stated, although using phrases like "consider themselves" might also be too harsh. We don't know what other people consider, we can only report what they have said.DavidCooke 01:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Now if someone will work on drastically shortening the controversy section, This entire article seems created-to-order specifically to showcase the controversy. If I do it myself, I'll reduce it to a single sentence, maybe two. Wikipedia is not CNN, and needn't rush to dutifully report minutiae of every single negative news story in which the word "Scientology" comes into play. wikipediatrix 01:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I've substantially reduced the Walicki case reference and linked the Barthomelew Queen St Massacre case. Trijah 10:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Media reference - John Safran's references to Scientology in his shows depiction of Xenu
I noticed that yet another thing has now been deleted, the reference to John Saffran's depiction of Xenu, and his interview in character as Beck on his two TV shows. I agree they are certainly not encyclopedic information, and personally not really fussed wether they stay in or not, but are they valid inclusion as a popular media reference? Just interested in thoughts? Thanks Trijah 15:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

edit-warring and possible single-purpose account problems
User:Trijah has been continually edit warring over the controversy material he seeks to wedge into this article, seemingly created for the express purpose of showcasing said controversy. A glance at this user's contributions show that he joined Wikipedia only a few days ago, and created this article only 90 mins later. He immediately then set about linking this new article to the "see also" sections of other Scientology articles. Usually when a brand-new pro-Scientology editor exhibits such instantaneous familiarity with Wikipedia from their very first edits, the usual gang goes nuts and gets very suspicious. Curiously, that doesn't seem to happen with anti-Scientology editors, such as in this instance.

Trijah's rationale for edit-warring is that the material he seeks to force in is "sourced", as if that instantly makes everything OK. However, not everything in the article is reflected in his sources. I don't feel like doing his work for him and going through the mess he's creating with a fine tooth comb, so I'm removing the material entirely until someone wants to do it right, and until it's determined that it even has a place here at all - and I don't think it does.

A Wikipedia article is not a "demerit list" of every wrongdoing we can think of that is related, however tenuous, to the subject at hand. It's undue weight and those who defend it are essentially saying they no longer care (if they ever did) about this being a real encyclopedia. wikipediatrix 16:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Wikipediatrix for your long-winded denigration and criticism of User:Trijah's edits on this article. I suggest that you stop playing games and cite wikipedia policy rather than harranguing this editor.--Fahrenheit451 23:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's because of posts like this from you, 451, that I no longer bother communicating with you. wikipediatrix 23:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And it's because of posts like these to other editors that you make trouble for yourself.--Fahrenheit451 00:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And what trouble is that? Are you threatening me? Take your disruptive insults to my talk page where they belong, and where they can be properly ignored. This talk page is for serious discussion of the editing of the article, sorry if you find that "long winded". wikipediatrix 00:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipediatrix, please stop violating WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. For someone who claims to be ignoring me, you are sure disruptively responding.--Fahrenheit451 02:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Can someone else talk now? Someone who has something more substantial to say? wikipediatrix 02:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, actually what I've been trying to do is stop you and Mixou from removing two items that are negative about scientology on this page. And this is not a single issue account, I would be writing about other interesting religions in Australia, and about Ska and Reggae, except that I seem to spend all my time here, putting back things that have been deleted for no good reason.

As for my comments about you and Mixou deleting the Queen st and Alison Baunde sections, see my comments below Trijah 03:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * These comments are neither policy-based nor helpful. And the editor's name is Misou, not "Mixou". wikipediatrix 03:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Continual deletion of Queen st Murder and Alison Braunde subheadings in the Controversy section
wikipediatrix is continuosly deleting these two sections. Please discuss here your reasoning for this rather than taking it upon yourself to delete these, so we may all get some input. Best way to avoid an edit war is through discussion. I have reinstated these sections until the reason why they should be deleted is discussed, as far as I can see they are both relevant and referenced. Trijah 15:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Funny, you ask me to use the discussion page to avoid an edit war, yet you continually restore your own edits as if your every word is gold and cannot be altered. As I already stated in my edit summaries, the only sources given for this material are from a primary source making the allegations (Braund), a POV editorial in an offline article, a PDF file from a POV skeptic group, and the personal page "Why Are They Dead, Scientology?" which is not a permitted source here. Wikipedia policy is very clear on all this and no amount of discussion here is going to countermand that. wikipediatrix 17:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Both Subhadings use mainstream newspapers as their sources. Alison Baunde uses an AAP article (publihsed on, not written by, the "why are they dead, scientology site) and an article in the Adelaide advertiser, and the Queens St Massacre connection refers to Alan Bartholomew giving evidence about Scientology in the case - this is mentioned in the Herald Sun. As it is, I will be adding some more articles from the Age and the SMH. "Mainstream newspapers" are all acceptable sources for Wikipedia, Wikipedia policy is very clear on these sources being acceptable - please check verifiability . Clearly you seem to be wanting to delete these sections for some unknown reason, and ignoring the validity of the sources. Please desist from deleting these without further discussion. Trijah 03:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Take it to RfC if you want, I'm finished trying to communicate with you. I will continue to remove the information as long as it is improperly sourced. wikipediatrix 03:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

For the Queen st Massacre reference, I have included more sources, including the Age, SMH and the Herald Sun. Hope that is suitable.Trijah 03:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Since you seem to be citing a lot of sources that have no online links, I presume that means you have the actual articles there by your side at the computer as you edit, correct? I mean, how else would you be able to extract this information you're using, right? How is it that you just happen to have all the newspaper clippings you need from 1988 right there with you right now? wikipediatrix 04:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Ahhh..well its not too difficult. I have access to AFR.com online, which gives access to FBN material for the last 30 years or so....got a few other things as well. Great for research! Trijah 04:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This being the case, it would be more encyclopedic to give an extensive quote from these articles, rather simply making a statement in Wikipedia's voice that's referenced by a source few users are likely to ever see. Let the sources do the talking, rather than you speaking through Wikipedia. wikipediatrix 13:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I have put one in, and I can put more in if you like....I'll put some in for the Alan Bartholemew evidence in the coroner's court. However, part of the reason i have been not using quotes as that I have had to summarise the original quotes to get the size of the article down, as is the case when writing wikipedia articles, you tend have less space to work with than the original articles do. But I'm sure I can get more in and keep the size down to some degree. Trijah 03:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

huh?
"In 2004 when the Indian Ocean tsunami hit, Scientology Volunteer Ministers from Australia who were present Medan and Banda Aceh, Indonesia". wikipediatrix 01:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Critics pages
I think as the two main critics sites of Scientology in Australia,
 * Australian Critics of Scientology Resource Collection (http://www.suburbia.net/~fun/scn/)  and - Scientology and Christianity Examined (* http://www.sweenytod.com/cos/index.html) should stay. They contain a lot of reference material, and pointed experiences dealing with Scientology. Just as its valid to have Pro Scientology sites on here, it is valid to have anti Scientology sites on here. Cheers Trijah 12:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * So you're basically saying "I like them". That's not good enough. They're amateurish homemade personal pages that don't pass WP:EL. I will continue to remove them. Take it to a higher power at Wikipedia if you think I am in error. wikipediatrix 16:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

These are valid and unique resources within WP:EL. They are unique because they are the only longstanding Australian Scientology Critics, and the two main sources of Australian critical scientology material on the web. David Geralds site has an abundance of media articles on Scientology not rivalled anywhere....really to remove this resources is doesn't make any sense. I will continue to replace them, and feel the article is not balanced without some reference to these sites. Please feel free to Take it to a higher power at Wikipedia if you think I am in error.Trijah 21:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * sweenytod is not unique. The author might be an australien but the content of the web site is not and can be also found on xenu.net wich is already included. suborbia seems to meet all criterias by WP:EL and is unique because it is a comprehensive web directory/collection specificly for SO in Australia. It doesn't matter that this site is hosted by one person because it is a collection of infomation written by authorities. It is also accessable, without advertisment and longstanding. -- Stan talk 23:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Scientology organizations - Pancake Parlour
There are rumours abounding that Pancake Parlour, an Australian owned firm, is owned and operated by the Church of Scientology.

While there is no proof of this fact, the fact that this belief is so widespread means that this discourse should be alluded to in the article.

For this reason, web forums and blogs meet the criteria of a 'reliable source' as they constitute the existence of the discourse itself, but do not bear the burden of proving or disproving the fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.56.65.24 (talk) 21:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No sorry, please look at WP:RS. If this belief is so widespread, then there should be valid sources that mention this. AndroidCat (talk) 01:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the story with Pancake Parlour is that the owners follow the Scientology belief (ie business principles), but it is not owned by Scientology. I do believe it is a fairly widely known fact, certainly people I know that work there all say the managers are COS. However I can find no references to it. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Concluding paragraph in banning section
This currently reads:

The Anderson Report's conclusion that Scientology "is not a religion" was finally overturned in 1983 by a High Court of Australia judgment, which allowed the church to claim tax exempt status in Australia. Scientology now enjoys the full rights of any other religion and is practised freely throughout Australia, and the High Court decision, dismissing the earlier judgements, now serves as the current precedent for defining religious groups.

If the paragraph was given a few alterations, these issues could be cleared up. Simply delete the word 'finally' to deal with the weasel word issue (and similarly for the usage in the previous paragraph), and no information is lost. This article does give some weight to the nature of the case's use as defining precedent in Australia, and seems a fairly reliable source to make such a conclusion. An appropriate reference would be fine. However, leading up to the High Court decision, Scientology was not banned, it was simply not tax-exempt; the paragraph contains disingenuous statements. With this in mind, I would propose that the paragraph read:

The High Court of Australia restored Scientology's tax exempt status in 1983. The High Court's decision, dismissing the earlier judgements, now serves as the current precedent for defining religious groups. Armband (talk) 09:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the referencing being a little out of whack, I'm still new to editing and didn't realise it wouldn't show up on the talk page. Hope that still makes sense.Armband (talk) 09:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Edits done. Revert if you like, but please state why. I also removed the reference to 'major religions', as I could find no reference in the article cited to include any religion other than Scientology. Armband (talk) 01:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Scientology related murder in Sydney
Cleanup of this section in particular is needed for spelling, grammar, capitalisation and style of citing references. Also, the balance of this section seems questionable: a SMH journalist asserted that the victims were Scientologists, but this has been denied by the Church. Is this controversy enough to make the killings "Scientology related", or for this news story to form such a large proportion of the whole article? DavidCooke 03:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, it is standard that the membership is denied, this was also done in the Perkins case initially, and in many other cases. Too bad that the Walikis are in the WISE lists :-) --Tilman 15:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi,Tilman. Frankly, I don't know the answer to that question.  I was making the point that it's tenuous to characterise this murder as Scientology-related; we could just as easily say psychiatry-related, as the murderer was back on psych drugs again at the time of the murder. DavidCooke 03:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

A number of articles states that they were scientologists, and the medical report presented at the case stated that they said they were. As stated, its standard practice for the Church tp deny they were members. However I agree, may be it shouldn't be presnted as such a controversy that it takes up a large part of the article. On the other hand, there have been other killings where Scientology stopped people from taking drugs that aren't mentioned here.... Anyways, an anonomous editor has deleted the reference, and it definitely needs to be in here, so I'm putting it back in. Trijah 00:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC) Please do not delete this section from the page - it is clearly relevant and a number of articles make the connection between Scientology and this case, including this from the AUSTRALIAN - "A Sydney court was told earlier this month that the daughter was refused follow-up hospital treatment after she was diagnosed with a psychotic illness late last year, because of her parents' belief in Scientology." http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22098730-1702,00.htmlTrijah 01:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

When?
From the lead "according to the last census"... when, exactly, was the last consensus? Is that statement up to date, have there been other consensus' since then? JayKeaton (talk) 11:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC) Its referring to census information referred to in the article in the reference. Good point though, I have changed it from the "last census" to the "2007 census". Statistics would be on the Australian Bureau of statistics site, but wikipdia rules prefer us to use a secondary source. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Possible source
Federal senator Nick Xenophon says it's time to re-examine Scientology's claims as a religion and to change the laws to force the group to start paying tax.

"We need to have a close look at those laws because I think there's a lot of community concern that an organisation such as Scientology gets the huge benefits of having the tax exempt status as a religion," Senator Xenophon said. , "Scientology fraud: The church of Scientology is fighting one of the biggest battles in its 50-year history", Brian Seymour, Today Tonight, May 20, 2009.

Cirt (talk) 05:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources for this article
The Google News Archive has an extensive archive of the Australian newspaper The Age. See for example 1960 to 1980. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Those wishing to expand further on this article will do well to read the High Court's judgement according Scientology the status of a religion at:

Church of the New Faith v Commissioner of Pay-Roll Tax (Vic) ("Scientology case") [1983 HCA 40; (1983) 154 CLR 120 (27 October 1983)]

and some interpretive commentary at the website of a Government inquiry into the definition of Charities at

The Advancement of Religion

Pending debate on revocation of tax-exempt status
We can expect this article to get a little busier after Senator Xenophon's recent speech. It's worth noting that the broad definition of religion Scientology sits under is nonetheless tempered by any Common Law restrictions on conduct:

A belief or practice cannot be properly characterised as a religion if: first, it is no more than a parody of a religion or a sham; secondly, it is contrary to laws that do not discriminate against religion generally, against particular religions or against conduct of a kind that is characteristic only of religion; or thirdly, it otherwise envisages or promotes conduct that is inconsistent with the prevailing public policy, such as being subversive of morality -This from Dal Pont's "Charity Law in Australia and New Zealand, Oxford University Press, Melbourne (2000)"

IMHO, arguing against Scientology as a religion will fail. Yes, it meets a certain (peverse) definition. Arguing that something as egregious as Scientology should still be afforded carte-blanche despite serious misconduct (note the recent conviction in France for fraud) will prove to be interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baliset (talk • contribs) 15:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

HI! I have added that Xenephon not only recieved the letters, his staff interviewed the people either in person, or on the phone. Mr Xeno seems to think that COS has gone beyond what a religion should be doing, as established by the case that originally gave it freedom to operate. Indeed, if this inquiry starts, then we should establish its own section, eh? Trijah (talk) 20:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality disptute Tag
Does this need to be here on this article? Crazyness!!! From my recollection, someone put it up ages ago, and never justified or even discussed it. We should talk about it, and if no one has any problems with the article, remove it, eh? Trijah (talk) 21:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅. :) Cirt (talk) 22:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced, moved from article to talk page
Medan, Banda Aceh in Indonesia offered Scientology Assists to over 103,000 flood victims with Scientologists attending from twenty countries from around the world.
 * Volunteer work


 * List of Scientology organisations operating in Australia

Scientology operates a number of organisations under various names in Australia, the different organisations generally focusing on specific areas of operation. Some of these include Narconon, WISE ANZO (World Institute of Scientology Enterprises), Citizens Committee on Human Rights, Hubbard Dianetics Centre, Mission of Inner West, New Era Publications, The Way To Happiness Foundation, The Language Palace and Victims of CultAware.

Unsourced, moved from article to talk page. Cirt (talk) 23:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet
Just dropping a note here, that User:Trijah has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Deathlibrarian. This seems to be his most frequently edited article, so his contributions here should be examined closely. The Wordsmith Communicate 19:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Article by Senator Nick Xenophon
Source, for use in this article. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 02:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Bipartisan support for charities commission

 * Source, for info to be added to this article. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 18:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Source, for info to be added to this article. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 18:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I heard that there is a huge area with a farm or something like that outside Melbourne. Does anyone know something about that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.156.131.151 (talk) 17:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Revesby murder
The section on this contained one part with 4 references. The first two are alive. The third was dead and seemed to be unrecoverable. The fourth appears to have once pointed to this: https://web.archive.org/web/20020830215836/http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/web/free-expression/cos-example.html

I can't see what relevance this last one has and, since it appears to be over-referenced, I've removed the third and fourth references. --Otus scops (talk) 19:49, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Revesby murder
There is a reference to the father refusing medication for Linda on the basis of scientology. However, this is not mentioned in the judgement.

The Sydney Morning Herald reference to her not being treated due to her fathers opinion of psychiatric care is patently false if the court documents are to be trusted - from the judgement "The evidence includes some oblique references to an association of Michael Walicki with the cult of Scientology and its apparent reluctance to recognize any benefit which might flow from the practice of psychiatry. Despite these references it appears that it was Michael Walicki who sought out Dr Lucire who was a qualified and practising psychiatrist."

"There is nothing which demonstrates that any act or omission by Michael Walicki in the pursuit of his asserted beliefs was of any causative consequence to the mental condition of the accused at the time of the acts of killing and wounding."

Infact, the judgement indicates that she had continued treatment from the date of her discharge to the date of her arrest (and the subsequent murders).

I suggest this section be omitted as the reference to Scientology appears to be baseless here. -- Mlloyd87 (talk) 22:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)


 * wikipedia Neutral point of view policy is based on what is reported in secondary sources, not primary source research. So while you are correct that the judge ultimately ruled that they didn't see a connection between "the cult of Scientology" and Linda's mental state, the section is cited by 6 different reliable sources which do see a connection.  What this section is reporting on is all of the available viewpoints within the reliable sources.  Now, if you can come up with a reliable source which reports that there isn't a connection, then we could add that to the article, but, especially in the scientology section of wikipedia, we do everything we can to move away from primary sources.  Hope this helps, Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 23:33, 12 October 2014 (UTC)