Talk:Silent birth

Here is a good article from WebMD about Silent Birth
Gina Shaw (reviewed by Ann Edmundson, MD) Doctors Sound Off About TomKat 'Silent Birth' Plan Thursday, April 13, 2006, FoxNews (originally published by WebMD) Perhaps someone can incorporate this into the article? I am too tired to do it justice. Vivaldi (talk) 08:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

"Medical Experts recommend against..."
Er, I'm no great fan of Scientology, but I kinda have to point out that the link to this statement is just to About.com on "Silent Birth", and merely repeats "Medical experts recommend against..." Surely a better link is required? Camillus (talk) 22:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Vivaldi (talk) 00:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

L. Ron Hubbard Do Not Prescribe
L. Ron Hubbard never claimed to be a medical doctor and the term "prescribe" is therefore misleading or confusing. L. Ron Hubbard was instead an Auditor: someone who observe and listen.


 * I used prescribed because his recommendations were directly opposed to both common sense and current medical practice. LRH must think he has the knowledge necessary to advise women how to handle their birthing and care of babies, and he advises them to ignore the traditional advice of doctors.  It seems like a prescription to me, but I would accept the term "recommended" if you want. Vivaldi (talk) 00:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Good! Thank you for your understanding. Jpierreg (talk) 20:10, 03 May 2006 (GMT).

-

Furthermore, L. Ron Hubbard wrote: "What is true is what is true for you", "What is true is what you have experience yourself." "Nothing is true in Dianetics and Scientology unless you have observed it and it is true according to your own observation and that is all." This is repeated over and over during Sunday Services. -- Jpierreg (talk) 20:10, 03 May 2006 (GMT).


 * The "true for you" stuff is more nonsense. People that don't adhere to the followings of LRH are often investigated, expelled from the Church, disconnected from their families, and abused in other ways.  So it is true that one may believe whatever they want, its not true that they may believe whatever they want and remain a Scientologist.  The Church of Scientology has very harsh penalties set aside for those who publicly disagree with the teachings of LRH.  Vivaldi (talk) 00:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The "true for you" stuff is the literal word on the page and to be found all through Hubbard's writings and lectures. It is always true that person believes whatever they wish to, whether a written word supports it or not.  One's personal beliefs are just that.  "True for you" is simple recognition of a situation that is always true, in all conditions.  Then you make another statement, Vivaldi and talk about how some people have left the Church and publically attacked the Church.  Now that is a different kettle of fish because the Church does react to being attacked. Terryeo 15:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The "literal word on the page" still means nothing. Scientologists state "what is true for you" as if people have some sort of free will to believe in whatever they want and still be a Scientologist.  However, this is not true. Vivaldi (talk) 03:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Then you make another statement, Vivaldi and talk about how some people have left the Church and publically attacked the Church. Now that is a different kettle of fish because the Church does react to being attacked.  You misduplicated me.   I said people were EXPELLED FROM THE CHURCH and SEC CHECKED while they were still members because of their beliefs.   Current church members are abused and cheated and scammed because of their beliefs that disagree with the Church teachings or Hubbard's teachings.  The more you disagree, the more you are subjected to expensive sec-checking and more auditing.  "What is true for you" is often not ever accepted by the church and the person who holds the "wrong" beliefs is kicked out of the church.  So the whole "what is true for you" junk is all meaningless.  The church just kicks out anyone that doesn't espouse the right truth.  Now I'm not saying they shouldn't be able to do so, but I'm not going to let you pretend that the CoS is tolerant of what their members thought, because I've seen many people kicked out of CoS because they thought the wrong things were true for them.  David Miscavige himself subjects his underlings to petty abuse down at Gold Base.  Now why would he slap people to the ground if what is true for them is what is true?  Vivaldi (talk) 03:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I personally left my Church of Scientology for 3 years and practiced Buddhism instead. I know others who have left their Scientology Church the same way. I have no problem what so ever doing so and there has never the least problem for all of them either!


 * What personal experience of Scientology do you have ?


 * Jpierreg (talk) 20:10, 03 May 2006 (GMT)


 * My personal experience of Scientology is far beyond what your feeble little mind could ever possibly imagine. I've forgotten more about your criminal cult than you will ever learn.  Vivaldi (talk) 03:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, yes, the good old "only personal experience matters" argument so beloved of Scientologists. Funny how they never seem to acknowledge the heaviest drug users as clearly the natural experts on the benefits of drug use.... -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Feldspar, he didn't state, "only personal experience matters" but stated his personal experience when Vivaldi stated that "many former members" experienced a certain situation. It was because Vivaldi made a broad general statement of an attacking, misleading nature with no specifics in it, that a personal opinion could be helpful toward more specific information.  Vivaldi doesn't support his statement at all you see, but only makes a broad, genearal statement.  Jpierreg is inviting Vivaldi to put some specifics into the equation (probably because he understands the situation differently than Vivaldi states it is). Terryeo 15:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * There are plenty of detailed examples of people being abused by the Church of Scientology. You are aware of many of these examples.  They have been written about in such places as Readers Digest, Time Magazine, Rolling Stone, The Washington Post, and numerous books have been written documenting the abusive nature of the Church of Scientology.  We can start documenting the abuses here on the talk page to Silent Birth if you want, but I think you are quite aware of the famous examples.  Vivaldi (talk) 03:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Vivaldi has made a misleading statement by juxtaposing "what is true for you" right up against, "attacked by the Church" and made it sound like by merely not "believing", or, "formerly beliving and changing one's beliefs" causes a person to become magically attacked by the Church. That's plain nonesense.  Funny how personal experience points toward good sense, isn't it? Isn't it obvious?  The Church attacks people who attack them.  But what an individual believes, whether a present Church member or a former Church member, well, that is "what is true for you" and of no concern to the Church. Terryeo 15:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * LOL. You are a piece of work Terryeo.  The problem is that the Church of Scientology believes that anyone that disagrees with the truth provided by Hubbard is attacking them.  If anyone starts insisting to their auditor or to other church officials that they believe that Hubbard was lying, then they will not be allowed to continue in Scientology.   "Whats true for you is what is true" -- but only if it agrees with what Hubbard and the Church of Scientology have already stated.  If you publicly disagree with the CoS or explain to others  in the church why you believe that Hubbard was a liar, then you will be booted out.  So the whole "What's true for you thing" is silly.   It only works because you kick out everyone that disagrees with the acceptable truths. Vivaldi (talk) 03:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * What arrogance from someone who has never had any personal experience in Scientology! I have personal experience of the exact opposite! Jpierreg (talk) 17:20, 02 June 2006 (GMT).


 * Well, Jpierreg, if "personal experience in Scientology" is the be-all and end-all (it isn't, but let's pretend for the sake of argument) then why are you still refusing to consider what is being said by those who had plenty of personal experience in Scientology and came to the same conclusions that are being stated here? I mean, look at the experience of Gerry Armstrong -- when he found direct and irrefutable evidence that Hubbard wasn't the things he had claimed to be (not a war hero, not a nuclear physicist) -- he still wanted to stay with Scientology and with the Church.  He just wanted them to stop telling the lies, so that people wouldn't dismiss Scientology as another one of Hubbard's lies.  What did the Church do?  Declare him Suppressive, for coming to the conclusion that Hubbard lied from Hubbard's own handwritten documents.  Now, I can figure you'll probably say "ohh, Gerry Armstrong, I know everything I need to know about Gerry Armstrong because the CoS told me that he's a liar and insane and suppressive and was all of those things in his last trillion lives as well."  So let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that Gerry Armstrong isn't a reliable source, and let's overlook the fact that the judge who examined all the evidence Armstrong submitted and heard everything the Church could say about Armstrong being insane, evil, lying, etc. still decided it was Armstrong and not the Church who was credible.  What about the others?  What about Robert Vaughn Young?  What about Jesse Prince?  What about Tory Christman?  Cyril Vosper?  Arnie Lerma?  John McMaster?  Bent Corydon?  Here you are saying that it's only those who have "personal experience" who could possibly know whether there's anything wrong with the Church.  But then you're turning around and ignoring all of those who do have that personal experience and are saying "Yes, I know from my personal experience that there's something wrong." -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * There have been, and there are, numerous SPs in ALL fields and activities and at any ranks in Society. I'm sure you could yourself agree with that statement. Those you have cited above are no match against the millions of others like me who KNOW from personal experience that Scientology has the answers to the problems of man. Jpierreg (talk) 02:05, 04 June 2006 (GMT)


 * Do you really think that your personal experience is vast and extensive enough to back up a pronouncement like "Scientology has the answers to the problems of man"? If not, you are relying on information you are getting from others.  You tell me "I know all I need to know; the Church of Scientology tells me that everything is fine with the Church of Scientology, and it tells me that each and every person who says anything different is a Suppressive Person and therefore what they say must be a lie."  Well, hopefully you can see the circular logic there:  you have no reason to dismiss the personal experience of all the many people -- many of whom knew Hubbard personally, you realize -- who say that there's something wrong with Scientology or with the CoS, except that the CoS has labelled them "suppressive persons".  You can't reach the conclusion "the CoS's version is the truth and anyone saying different is a suppressive liar" except by assuming "the CoS's version is the truth and anyone saying different is a suppressive liar" as a premise. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that the CoS will tolerate any belief whatsoever as long as that person is giving them enough money or bringing in enough new recruits to cover any (if any) losses they will incur from said beliefs. Every rational person knows that LRH included the "what is true is true for you" slogan because he knew he was writing gibberish, and only a small percentage of his doctrine would appeal to a given recruit. Therefore, the slogan absolves the new Scientologist from any doubt about the cult when they inevitably hear something ridiculous.

No Specific Policy on "Quite or Silent Birth"
There is no specific policy written by L. Ron Hubbard indicating how a Scientology child birth is to be conducted. The recommendations in the this article are derived from the application of Dianetics and Scientology principles to child birth which are mostly contained in the book Dianetics. -- Jpierreg(talk) 20:10, 03 May 2006 (GMT).


 * medicalnewstoday.com is a vanity PR site. Anybody can publish information by sending press releases there.  The correct source to site is the CoS FAQ page which is already cited numerous times.  It has exactly the same information (EXACT WORDS) and it comes from the original source of the information.  Vivaldi (talk) 01:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC).


 * LRH certainly recommended that mothers remain silent during birth, whether this was specifically released as a "policy" seems irrelevant. Vivaldi (talk) 01:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no policy that lay out as birth should be taking place. This is a very important fact and this is why the Church has resorted to such reference given -Medical new Today- in order to prove their point. -- Jpierreg 6:30, 03 May 2006 (GMT).


 * Medical News Today is a PR website. They have absolutely no standing of authority on any subject matter.  All they do is reprint press releases.  There is nothing that guarantees that the press release that you have listed was provided to MNT by the Church of Scientology.  Perhaps it was added by you, Terryeo, or me.   The Church of Scientology has specifically used the term "Silent Birth" to talk about the procedure that was recommended by Hubbard.  "Silent Birth" is what the press uses to talk about the procedure.   Whether there is a "policy" explaining how the birth must take place is irrelevant.  This article makes no claim that church policy dictates the birthing procedure.  Vivaldi (talk) 02:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The Term "Quiet Birth" is More Appropriate That The Term "Silent Birth"
The birthplace should be as quiet as it is reasonably possible. The emphasise is on the -words- -- Jpierreg 23:00, 02 May 2006 (GMT).


 * Do an internet search on the terms "quiet birth" and "Scientology" then compare your results to a search of "silent birth" and "Scientology." Even the Church of Scientologies own webpages refer to the procedure as "silent birth". Vivaldi (talk) 01:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The own web page you are referring to quotes as follows:


 * QUOTE---
 * What is a quiet or silent birth?


 * Having a quiet, gentle birth is all about providing the best possible environment for the birthing mother and her new baby.


 * It is labor and delivery done in a calm and loving environment and with no-spoken words by everyone attending as much as possible. Chatty doctors and nurses, shouts to “PUSH, PUSH” and loud or laughing remarks to “encourage” are the types of things that are meant to be avoided.


 * As L. Ron Hubbard, Founder of Dianetics and Scientology, wrote, “Everyone must learn to say nothing within the expectant mother’s hearing during labor and delivery.” And, “A woman who wants her child to have the best possible chance will find a doctor who will agree to keep quiet especially during the delivery, and who will insist upon silence being maintained in the hospital delivery room as far as it is humanly possible.”
 * UNQUOTE


 * The term “quiet Birth” should therefore be added.


 * The term "quiet birth" is 1/1000th as popular as "silent birth". The press always calls it silent birth and the CoS also calls it silent birth.  Go ahead and point out that a small minority of people also call it "quiet birth" if you want, but don't try to change the reality that most people that speak english call it "silent birth". Vivaldi (talk) 08:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand that you are seeing a lot of conflicting and sensational materials on the Internet. The Internet has been the preferred and primary tool of attacks on Scientologists.


 * You don't understand anything about me. I've forgotten more about Scientology than you will ever know about it in your entire life, even if you piss away your entire life savings trying to cross the pier to nowhere. Vivaldi (talk) 08:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * However an encyclopaedia such as Wikipedia ought to be senior to all those reporters and webmasters that only seek to sensationalise and report conflicts. Instead Wikipedia should help clarifying what really is.


 * what really is is not something that is evaluated very well by Scientologists. Most Scientologists have no grasp of how to evaluate "real" data.  Most Scientologists reject the very notion of science and controlled experiementation, instead preferring to use the concept of "whats true for you is true" no matter what the evidence and science show.  Scientologists believe that anecdotal evidence is a valid way to demonstrate safety and efficacy.  So having these folks explain to others "what really is" is patently absurd. Vivaldi (talk) 08:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I had read your own introduction on your own page (Vivaldi) and believed it was your goal too! But is it really ?-- Jpierreg (talk) 20:10, 03 May 2006 (GMT).


 * All my edits are my attempt to improve the encyclopedia. My views on the best way of doing this have changed over time as my experience and knowledge of wikipedia grows.  Vivaldi (talk) 08:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

medicalnewstoday.com is a PR web site. It is not reputable or reliable
Medicalnewstoday.com is a press release web site. Anybody can send them a press release and have it published. They do not do fact checking or exert editorial control like WebMD or other respected web sites. They are not reputable or reliable in the field of medicine. Vivaldi (talk) 01:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The information that Jpierreg is trying to source to medicalnewstoday.com is a press release that comes from the Scientology.com site that has already been cited and sourced in this article. There is no reason to have a link to medicalnewstoday.com in the article. You can clearly see that the author of the article is the Church of Scientology itself. Look at the bottom of the page. Then notice the words in the article are an exact duplication of the words on the Scientology.org page. Jpierreg is trying to give the impression that this information's appearance on medicalnewstoday.com makes the information holds weight with the medical community, when clearly the opposite is correct. Vivaldi (talk) 01:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC) -
 * The article clearly states it is from the Church of Scientology at the bottom and it contains a minimum of height quotes (as per below) from L. Ron Hubbard that are NOT to be found in on www.Scientology.org web site or on the one in referring to.

“Everyone must learn to say nothing within the expectant mother's hearing during labor and delivery.”

“A woman who wants her child to have the best possible chance will find a doctor who will agree to keep quiet especially during the delivery, and who will insist upon silence being maintained in the hospital delivery room as far as it is humanly possible.”

“We warn husbands to be quiet and not disruptive, to rub the back between contractions.”

“We warn husbands to be quiet and not disruptive, to rub the back between contractions.”

"Today's children will become tomorrow's civilization. Try to be the child's friend. It is certainly true that a child needs friends. Try to find out what a child's problem really is and without crushing their own solutions, try to help solve them. A child factually does not do well without love. Most children have an abundance of it to return."

"The spoiled child is the child whose decisions have been interrupted continuously and who is robbed of his independence."

"Affection could no more spoil a child than the sun could be put out by a bucket of gasoline."

“A good, stable adult with love and tolerance in his heart is about the best therapy a child can have.” -


 * medicalnewstoday.com is a PR web site. It is not reputable or reliable.  Anybody can submit whatever they want to that site and they will print it.  There is no way of telling whether or not the statements on that page were added by the Church of Scientology, or by Jpierreg himself.  That is why we don't use sites like medicalnewstoday.com as reference material for an encyclopedia.  If these quotes are true, accurate, and notable, then there will be a reliable reference for them somewhere.  If you want to include them, then find a source that meets requirements of WP:V. Vivaldi (talk) 07:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * In contrast Vivaldi refuted this reference and has added today the following. Is the following black PR instead ? Jpierreg 6:30, 03 May 2006 (GMT).

QUOTE Scientologists' claims regarding the care of babies and infants are disputed by many doctors and other professionals. Patricia Devine, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist who directs the Labor and Delivery Unit at Columbia University Medical Center, said, "There's absolutely no scientific evidence that taking [noise] away at the time of delivery will have any effect on outcome for the baby or mother." When asked if there was any medical evidence that indicated that silent birth was beneficial, Damian Alagia, MD, associate clinical professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at George Washington University Medical Center, replied, "It may be in the Scientology literature, but it's not in the scientific literature.  In my understanding, L. Ron Hubbard never spent any time in medical school, studying pediatrics or studying neonatal development. To think that a baby born in silence is going to do any better than a baby born, say, listening to Hank Williams is just foolhardy." Other medical experts recommend against silent births as they are believed to hinder the bonding that normally occurs between mother and child in the first week of an infant's life. UNQUOTE ---


 * WebMD and doctors are reputable sources for medical opinions. I didn't add the last quote by the Stritofs, but if you make a good argument for deleting it, I might be inclined to agree with you.  I'd suggest you try to build a consensus for its removal first. Vivaldi (talk) 07:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Since No Specific Policy, There is No Birth Procedure Telling How a Scientology Child Birth Should Ideally be Conducted
The term "procedure" is misleading if it is not followed by a disclaimer "there is no policy indicating how a Scientology child birth should ideally be conducted. The recommendations in this article are derived from the application of Dianetics and Scientology principles to child birth which are mostly contained in the book Dianetics" or something of the sort. Please also see the last sentences of this web page for a second witness with his own web site -- Jpierreg (talk) 20:10, 03 May 2006 (GMT)


 * Just because there isn't a specific policy doesn't mean that there aren't other procedures and recommendations that are made by Hubbard and the CoS. All of the CoS and Hubbard teachings are not laid out in HCOPLs.  Vivaldi (talk) 07:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Vivaldi, This Is Silly. Hubbard makes a recommendation that excessive noise during birth be kept to a minimum.  Is that a difficult idea to grasp?  Whow !  not that difficult, right?  Actually far less extreme that some of the other modern birth technqiues such as having the child being born into warm water, of about the same tempreture as the fetus was experiencing in the mother's womb.  The title of the article should be "quiet birth" or something similar, "silent birth" is a misnomer, misleading, and probably thought up by someone who saw an opportunity to make huge of something Hubbard stated briefly. Terryeo 15:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The Church of Scientology has called it "Silent Birth" as well Terryeo. So not only is "Silent Birth" the common name given in the press for the procedure, it is also the name that the CoS has used to talk about it.  Of course, "silent" can never be completely and totally silent, silent is a relative term, much like quiet.  As long as there is matter to vibrate, there is always going to be sounds and absence of silence.  The vibrational energies of this world don't go away just because you bring in a few signs into your house.  I think everyone is clear on the point that "absolute and total silence" is not what is demanded during a silent birth.  Hopefully this article can be used to further explain just exactly what Hubbard meant when he told mothers to keep their pieholes shut during birth.  And perhaps Hubbard's ever intelligent reasons for his madness can also be explained in more detail.  Actually far less extreme that some of the other modern birth technqiues such as having the child being born into warm water, of about the same tempreture as the fetus was experiencing in the mother's womb.  Whether there exist even dumber ideas than Hubbard's is no reason to skip including this information in an encyclopedia.  If you have information about Silent Birth that is reputable, reliable, and verifiable, then go ahead and add it to the article.  Vivaldi (talk) 02:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Vivaldi,

I have verifiable, reputable, reliable info about silent birth at this link:

http://www.scientology.org/html/en_US/news-media/index.html

Please use it to correct your article, which makes various false claims with no citations, for instance, about anesthetic use and whether the mother is allowed to make any noise at all...

69.12.131.206 07:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)S. M. Sullivan


 * This is hardly a "reputable, reliable" source, since this is only the PR version, it doesn't have the actual scientology policies. Anyway, why don't you make suggestions what to correct, or point out what allegation is not supported by the source, or unsupported by any source? --Tilman 09:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Additionally, you wrote in the article: However, the Spierings are not Scientologists, despite their claims, and Scientologists do not actually have a rule that forbids blood tests for newborns.. What evidence do you have that they are not scientologists? Is there an official press release about this? (This is an interesting statement by you, since I have never heard of a "7 day of silence" rule in scientology, only a one day rule - so maybe the Spierings might indeed be bluffing, and using the naive courts). --Tilman 12:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Tilman,

I'm basing my dismissal of the Spierings as pseudo-Scientologists based on the info provided at this link:

http://news.aol.com/photos/_p/louise-spiering-ray-spiering/2007012715290999

The Spierings attend a fundamentalist Christian church. The other Nebraskan challenge to the state mandatory newborn blood test law also came from a fundamentalist couple named Josue and Mary Anaya. Perhaps some pastor out there is getting his flock riled up about blood tests. My supposition: The Spierings may not have wanted to bring disrepute on their church by associating it in the public press with refusal of blood tests, so they pretended to be Scientologists. Unfortunately for their story no rule forbidding newborn blood tests exists in CoS. Don't you think you would have read something about it before if CoS had such a rule? Discuss it with some ex-Scientologists who have kids, if you doubt me.

The Wikipedia silent birth article also states that during silent birth "no pain or anguish is verbally expressed by the mother while experiencing labor pains or the birth itself..." That's a riot. No one is looking very hard for the LRH book, bulletin or policy letter that says this, are they? That would be a lengthy search, since it doesn't exist. Most of the press stories about silent birth were clearly yanked out of some tabloid editor's fundament, er, imagination. There is no need to propagate their drivel here.

Cheers,

69.12.131.206 08:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)S. M. Sullivan


 * The link doesn't work for me. Maybe it only works for AOL users.
 * Please read WP:NOR. Wikipedia doesn't do own research, or bring own opinions. At this point, the public sources indicate that these folks are scientologists. Scientology has not denied it. It could have filed an amicus brief - it didn't. And your argument that there is no policy about blood tests - first, you don't know all policies ever written, do you? (Its always hard to prove a negative). Second, there is a scientology policy about "leaving the baby alone for a day or so", so this could include blood tests.
 * You might still be right that these aren't scientologists at all, since the "leave baby alone" policy does not mention 7 days.
 * Now about the text "no pain or anguish is verbally expressed by the mother while experiencing labor pains or the birth itself..." - the best would be that you bring up the actual policy (from the 2D book, from the Child Dianetics book, and from the Dianetics book) to make your argument, not some filtered spin from the scientology media site. While the wikipedia text is not verbatim, it correctly explains that it is about TALK.
 * So please, hang out here (better: register), and help us improve the article. --Tilman 10:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Tilman,

The silent birth article makes extraordinary claims; it is up to the writer of the article to support these claims when challenged. Per Jimmy Wales it is better to have no information than false or misleading information. If you wrote the article, please support the claim that Scientologist mothers undergoing silent birth aren't supposed to express pain or anguish verbally while experiencing labor pains or the birth itself. Use LRH or CoS sources, not dubious stuff like the Spierings' tale... you won't be able to do it without making some VERY far-fetched interpretations of CoS policy.

69.12.131.206 22:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)S. M. Sullivan
 * I did not write the article. I just saw someone (you) doing vandalism, then checked all the other articles you touched, and this was one of them, I reverted, and put it into my watchlist to make sure you don't vandalize again. Properly sourced improvements are of course ok.
 * The Spiering stuff is sourced properly. There were many media articles about it, calling them scientologists. It doesn't matter that some anonymous person doesn't believe it.
 * The article could be improved by quoting from the actual scientology policies, that is what I'm saying. However, the Spierings allegation would still remain, since it is properly sourced. Feel free to contact your local OSA spokesperson to make them issue a public statement on the scientology website that the Spierings aren't scientologists at all, then it could be quoted here. But at this time, OSA has been silent about it. Maybe scientology is quite happy about the Spierings aims. --Tilman 07:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I see you have deleted properly sourced material elsewhere (John Travolta and Kelly Preston). Don't do this. You can't delete material just because you don't like it. Continue like this, and you might get blocked. --Tilman 07:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Tilman, Mark Ebner of Hollywood Interrupted (a gossip blog) was the source of the deleted material about the Travoltas. Please read WP:BLP & WP:RS, you are incorrect in characterizing me as vandalous. You can't include ill-sourced derogatory material in the bio of a living person just because you feel the public should know how terrible their religion is.  The admins from the bio help desk have been backing me up on the majority of my deletions. Thanks for your patience. S. M. Sullivan 23:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Mark Ebner is not a gossip blogger, he is an award-winning journalist. --Tilman 23:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Paragraph on anesthesia
I removed this paragraph since I didn't find a reference to 'no pain medication' being part of the silent birth process, and the paragraph inaccurately claims that childbirth without anesthesia is dangerous (ref: Childbirth). K e rowyn Leave a note 04:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

You do not even remember your birth later on, so whether there's noise or not is irrelevant
Firstly, the theory of "silent birth" is completely unnatural, as it goes against hundreds of thousands of years of human instinct.

Secondly, if noise during childbirth was harmful to the child in any way, it would have been documented well before L. Ron Hubbard came along.

Thirdly, no one remembers their birth. It's impossible at any stage of your life to remember your birth, so whether there was noise during it or not is completely irrelevant.

I suggest we look for articles and columns that already substantiate this. Ericster08 (talk) 15:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Engram (Dianetics)
Don't know why there's a conspicuous lack of connection between the "Silent birth" and "Engram" articles, when the topics are quite closely and intimately related...  I just now added mutual "See also"s as an interim measure... AnonMoos (talk) 18:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Hubbard's beliefs
I think it's a little contentious to say 'Hubbard believed...' about any aspect of Scientology. It's well known that he didn't believe any of of it, it was an exercise in inventing a religion to prove he could for a wager. 146.90.215.148 (talk) 07:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Reworded.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀  05:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC)