Talk:Scientology/Archive 16

message: This is what I feel to be a very accurate and well-written history of Scientology and it should be added to the main article:
Image:Thehistoryofscientology.gif
I'm sure the Scientologists will try and remove this information and continue to suppress free speech and criticism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Snuffaluffaguss (talk • contribs) 19:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Piffle. I'll remove it since it'll be gone in less than a week with current copyright info and there's no reason to have an extra 885k overhead when loading the Talk page. AndroidCat 21:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You could try putting  link to it at the bottom of the page. Steve Dufour 10:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History Of Scientology 

message: :Critics say the attention and care given to celebrity practitioners is vastly different from that of noncelebrity practitioners. Andre Tabayoyon, a former Scientologist and Sea Org staffer, testified in a 1994 affidavit  that money from not-for-profit Scientology organizations and labor from those organizations (including the Rehabilitation Project Force) had gone to provide special facilities for Scientology celebrities, which were not available to other Scientologists:
:
:Tabayoyon's account of the planting of the meadow was supported by another former Scientologist, Maureen Bolstad, who said that a couple of dozen Scientologists including herself were put to work on a rainy night through dawn on the project. "We were told that we needed to plant a field and that it was to help Tom impress Nicole ... but for some mysterious reason it wasn't considered acceptable by Mr. Miscavige. So the project was rejected and they redid it."<
:Diana Canova, who experienced Scientology both before and during her period of TV stardom, expressed it in a September 1993 interview:  "When I started, I wasn't in television yet. I was a nobody - I'd done some TV, but I was not one of the elite, not by a long shot - until I did Soap. Then it became…I mean, you really are treated like royalty."http://rickross.org/reference/scientology/Scien12.html
I would expect that this information is already given in some of the other articles that are linked from this section.  It seems to me that this should be a short section saying that some celebrities are involved and then a short critical comment from someone on the other side. Steve Dufour 05:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and made these changes. Steve Dufour 17:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  While I, and I am sure many others, appreciate your many, many edits, you need to realize that discussion and concensus are key, and making unilateral edits to controversial articles is unwise. The celebrity information is not trivia, and reflects differing standards, given it is NOT mentioned in its entirety in other articles, I've restored it. Given the section it was in, and its relevance, removal would not be justified even if it WERE reproduced wholly in a linked article. This is a good article, and removal of relevant information serves, especially in this case, to make it less encyclopedic, not more. 12 hours may be a nice round time frame, but waiting a little longer next time would be advised, especially for large removals. Slow down the editing and give all people a chance to weigh in. Your changes of minor word inflections to "it is said" in many cases also constitutes creating a straw man of belief argument. Raeft 20:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will wait awhile and see what other people have to say. If people think Tom and Katie romping in the wildflowers is important enough to be in the main article on Scientology I will not remove it again. (It's a very small point, but in my opinion the word "per" is not a good word to use in ordinary prose; just in legal documents and things like that.) Steve Dufour 02:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not "celebrity trivia". The interesting part of this cited & verified anecdote is the treatment of the Scientology staffers, specifically that the organization has them pull long hours in order to impress celebrity members. This isn't "People Magazine" stuff. --FOo 08:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the information on Tom and Katie should be in the article on Scientology and celebrities.  However I don't really think it is important enough to take up so much space in the main article.  That is just my opinion however. Wishing you well. Steve Dufour 14:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Celebrity trivia

message: Critics say that celebrity practitioners receive more attention and care than noncelebrity practitioners and that less is required of them.
Here I tried to express the points that critics make about Scientology celebrities. Do you think this is fair?  Is there anything important that I have left out?  Thanks. Steve Dufour 02:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no problem with this... --Delf 19:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that celebrities get preference treatment at any church and any organization. To talk about this is just a waste of time. Bravehartbear 23:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't imagine what you would base that assertion on, considering how many religions emphasize that every form of earthly wealth and glory (including one's "celebrity") is irrelevant to God. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: You right into Scientology is unique because it has policies directed into how to deal with celebrities. Even it has entire organizations dedicated to cater celebrities (celebrities center) but still the main Scientology page is so FAT that it takes away from the main purpose of the page that is to say what is Scientology. Why don't you put this info in a different page like: Scientology Celebrities. The current Scientology page is so FAT that is difficult to read. An encyclopedia should be precise and to the point. This page is just a big blog. It is dificult to read and to understand. Bravehartbear 02:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this fair?

message: The paragraph beginning, "Based on an interpretation of Buddhist writings which described, among other things, a man from the west with hair like flames around his head..." is erroneous. It misleads you to believe that the Buddhist writings mentioned actually exist. If you go to the Wikipedia article on "Maitreya", it shows that the writings are claimed to exist by the editors in the preface of his book containing his poem in which he claims to be the Maitreya, but are unnamed. This is an unreliable claim  by its self-sourcing nature. Furthermore, the fact that there is a reference at the end of this paragraph misleads you to believe there is evidence that there is an existing Buddhist text describing the Maitreya with those physical characteristics. I believe the paragraph should be changed to emphasise that it is L Ron Hubbard who is making this claim about the description of the Maitreya in the Buddhist literature and that is has not been substantiated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.165.205.30 (talk) 08:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this important enough to be mentioned in the main article on Scientology? Steve Dufour 20:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What would you suggest as a more appropriate article in which to mention it? -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Scientology beliefs and practices and L. Ron Hubbard Steve Dufour 15:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading Paragraph 

message: I've yet to see any evedence that hubbard was even aware of the american psychological associations stance.
ONE THING I ALWAYS WONDER ABOUT: PEOPLE SEEM TO IGNORE THAT SCIENTOLOGY HAS ALWAYS BEEN TRYING TO TAKE OVER THE BUSINESS OF PSYCHOTHERAPY, SO OF COURSE IT IS THE MOST VOCAL OPPONANT.  IT HAS THE MOST TO LOOSE. .  IT CLAIMS TO BE A TOTALLY DIFFERENT AND SUPERIOR SYSTEM AND WAY OF THINKING WITH  HUMAN PROBLEMS.  THERE IS SOME REASON TO BELEIVE THAT THAT IS TRUE.  LOOK INTO REMOTE VIEWING'S ORIGONS.  THERE ARE OTHER PIECES OF EVEDENCE, THAT ARE MORE MINOR. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thaddeus Slamp (talk • contribs) 05:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Slamp, not Slump. -- Antaeus Feldspar 06:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  show effectiveness/hubbard opposition not established 

message: As nearly as I can tell, the CoS adopts an extremely 'scorched-earth' policy re: those who host information on Xenu/the 'copyrighted' OT levels, or has material even vaguely critical of Scientology on their Web site.
Why, then, has the Wikimedia Foundation not been served with innumerable lawsuits reguarding Wikipedia's comprehensive material on Scientology, as we seem to fit both those criteria? -Toptomcat 22:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My personal guesses are as follow:
*The Church does not know about Wikipedia.
*The information removed would just be brought back in by someone anyway.
*The Church's image would be reduced a bit if they'd attack an encyclopedia.
*They do not care about Wikipedia.
*They leave it in as most info aren't very biased against the Church like a certain book.
--Delf 19:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The CoS in my experience presently only takes legal action against obvious copyright violations plus any quotes from the secret scriptures. Wikipedia has neither. --Hartley Patterson 17:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia IS a target. They have their own WikiProject so they can get instant consensus on removing /rewording anything a little too ... unflattering. ~ZytheTalk to me! 14:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? And where would I find that? COFS 16:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That might be a reference to WP:SCN, perhaps? Ronabop 00:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hoping we do not exceed the rights of discussion here, but I do hope they won't trace our IPs, thus our location if we ever add anything... unflattering. --Delf 12:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Patterson is right. Bravehartbear 22:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure that they know about Wikipedia by now.  Also, as much as attacking an encyclopedia will make them look bad, I think there is little they can do to make themselves look worse than they do already.  The most likely reason is that maybe jsut maybe a few of them realize that they cannont change how people think just by sueing them.  But then again, these people all think dianetics work, so you'd better call a lawyer of move to malaysia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.4.130.208 (talk) 06:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is Wikipedia not a target?

message: The Church of Scientology IS the source of information about the Church of Scientology.  It is OBVIOUSLY self-published.  And, because Mr. Hubbard entrusted the Church with his writings, the Church is the SOLE source of Mr. Hubbard's publications.  WAKE UP.  The Scientology dispute to self-published sources should become aware.
The article is hopelessly out of date.  The Church of Scientology has won recognition AS A RELIGION in the European Union Court System. Earthtimes news.  It is exactly has Mr. Hubbard said.  About 20 percent of the population is PTS and will fight tooth and nail to prevent any mention of help.  Meanwhile, the Church marches on.  Where?  In areas that make a difference, no matter how far back in the dust Wikipedia stands. 208.106.20.67 18:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, please log in to comment! Check out the article: The ECHR decision is in there since hours (and valid throughout the EC, not EU, as I just learned myself). COFS 18:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well 208.106.20.67, just because information from the Church of Scientology is self-published, that doesn't mean that it should all be removed as non-RS. The rules (last time I looked) say that you can use such sources, but carefully. Fortunatly there's no need to remove all the Church site External Links even if they aren't RS. The EL is a guideline and invokes the RS guideline/policy via an extremely weak clause. However, if there is a wish by some editors to strictly apply RS to ELs, then most of the CoS ELs would have to removed. Hope that helps. AndroidCat 20:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do we need the Earthtimes news for if there is a whole judgment to link? Fairly useless discussion or not? Misou 04:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Truth be told, there is greater use of anti-scientology links in this page than Scientology links. The removal of Earthtimes news could backfire with the removal of many anti-scientology links. Just think about that. Bravehartbear 22:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I look forward to the day when the CoS loses it's tax exempt status.  Remember kids, scientology is not a religion.  Scientology is a diasese. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.4.130.208 (talk) 07:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wake up

message: Abuse reported to:
Road Runner HoldCo LLC, RRMA, 13241 Woodland Park Road, Herndon, VA 20171
COFS 20:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What you just posted here seems like deliberate harassment.  While I too dislike vandalism, it's a common fact that people vandalize articles all the time.  Reporting Wikipedia abuse to an ISP is a waste of their time and of yours.  Unless, of course, you wish to ressurect thoughts of the Fair Game policy ... Maxvip 22:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I actually only did this to see who would attack me for it. Thank you. COFS 02:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  Oh, is THAT why you did it?  How remarkably clever of you.  (Mawkish1983 14:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandal 24.168.118.136 

message: COFS et al appear to be deleting or modifying material that is critical of scientology even where it was sourced.  (RookZERO 00:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. I am trying to ensure that important material (and neutrality) is retained but it's an uphill struggle. SheffieldSteel 00:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice, that you two are one soul here. But the quality of your edits has only messed up the article. Do some homework or find some sources instead of putting up or supporting stuff without citation or reference. This is biased and edit warring. You don't like COFS? Ok, so what. Does not give you the right to vandalize pages or put up cynic nonsense. Misou 01:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please either substantiate or retract this remark: "This is biased and edit warring." Thank you. SheffieldSteel 01:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Diction, diction, familiar, hmmm... Here RookZERO messes up the article, reverting 10-12 edits by different editors at once. That was not you. But YOU "applauded" him for this here. Your message: "Great action, beat the Scienos", or something close to that. That is bias and your support of vandalism by RookZERO is support of vandalism. I also have not seen you jumping on another vandalism happening later here. You actually supported it again. The damage had to be repaired by several editors, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. Probably I  overlooked half of them. And on top you almost started an edit war, by repeating cross-deletion. Misou 02:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's all very well, but it's all based upon your definition of vandalism, which is apparently "a reversion that I disagree with". SheffieldSteel 02:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, and the if you compare the various versions inbetween, you will see that they change relatively little, so its not as though I am changing some massive amount of content.  My changes have been to return unjustifiably deleted information.  (RookZERO 02:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  Oh, and incidently, the material COFS keeps deleting is cited from the Los Angeles Times, which is hardly "cynic nonsense" sources.  (RookZERO 01:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Since the objection is now one of context, would it be acceptable to include the disputed material in the Controversy section? SheffieldSteel 02:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, let's say the context is "affidavits of former Scientologists" or "disputed experiences of former staffers". Right now you are trying to connect two topics like "Organizational structure of Scientology" (introducing "Celebrity Centers") with "Mud throwing in legal cases" (where the rules are different than in publications - telling a disputed story not even happening at a such a Center and mixing up times and being illogic like hell (notice the "we", "they", "I" mess up in the L.A. Times article)). Misou 02:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  Huh?  How is the material not relavent to the article?  The Times articles deal DIRECTLY with scientology - no weather forcast in a mustard article here.  (RookZERO 02:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All "Scientology" as you "understand it" (for your little own purposes there) is more than some city library I worked in. You might want to read the top of this discussion. It's there already. Misou 02:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's there already... and the consensus (exception: Seteve Dufour) was that the material should be included. SheffieldSteel 02:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heeeeeello! F****in' nice of you to forget me. And there was COFS as well. And BTW, what is "a consensus" per Wikipolicy? Misou 02:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I thought you were talking about the Celebrity Trivia section above, which deals with exactly this material. SheffieldSteel 02:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm still having trouble figuring out what your objection is Misou. Regardless of whether or not you believe what the LA Times wrote is irrelevant. If you find a sourced counterargument, then by all means post it as a rebuttal. The LA Times material deals directly with the Celebrity Centers, and I have difficulty seeing how it could be seen as not related. (RookZERO 02:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about putting the L.A. Times source in? The other part is covered already above anyway. These quotes are just inappropriate in context and in size, considering that this is an article about Scientology as a whole and considering that this data has been quoted elsewhere in Wikipedia (3 or 4 different places, I think). CSI LA 02:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Reference 58. I just saw that 59 and 60 are double again. Will fix that. Misou 03:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: deletions

message: Ah, I had been waiting for you, somehow. Did you notice that you just produced double-content? That what you put it IS ALREADY BEEN REFERENCED one line before that? You are not as green but still you did not SEE that all that data is already in there? Misou 02:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fubar Obfusco 

message: There's a gramatical error in the page, and I suggest it be correected because its damn confusing. It says (about auditing) "The auditing process is intended to help the practitioner (referred to as a preclear or PC)". The general meaning of a practictioner is the person pracitcing, not the patient/recipient. I thought a preclear was the auditor from my reading of the sentence which didn't make any sense. Perhaps the original author was trying to avoid using the term patient, as its not a medical patient, but surely there's a more appropriate term that makes sense.   
Reillyd 06:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This sort of change needs to be discussed and agreed upon beforehand, because this kind of wording chang can be contentious.  Since the page has been protected, it wouldn't be appropriate to edit it in this way until the protection is lifted.  CMummert · talk 12:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This should be simple. Here is the church description: "A person receiving auditing is called a preclear – from pre-Clear, a person not yet Clear. A preclear is a person who, through auditing, is finding out more about himself and life.".. So let's change "practitioner" into "person" and everyone should be happy. Misou 02:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Auditing confusion 

message: Line 4 of "Scientology and celebrities", there should be a space between "as" and "celebrity centres". Please correct it. Blackkrash 14:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Space missing out between words 

message: This page, and pages that link from this page, seem extremely biased. I'd like to see more citations and references, examples, and evidence, rather than empty claims and paltry arguments that support them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.105.238.38 (talk) 00:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's usually best to give specific examples, rather than just generalities. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, what I have seen is a lot of use of derogatory adjectives that gives the page a very bias feel. For example the constant use of the word 'controversial' really doesn't ad to the data of the page. I think that the use of this derogatory adjectives should be avoided as much as possible. Bravehartbear 22:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether you think that the word 'controversial' is derogatory or not, Scientology is controversial.  The definition of the word means that it is closely related to controversy, which is entirely true of Scientology.  I contend that the word does add to the information on the page, since it puts Scientology in the view of society at large.  Most people view it as controversial, and the only people I have met who do not are Scientologists.  Any article about a religion should be edited by members as well as those who have differences of opinion.  If you wish to create a page that only has pro-Scientology arguments, feel free to do so - on your own webpage.  -Joe —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.226.34.1 (talk) 07:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  bias regarding scientology 

message: Hello all. 
Authoritative Guide to Self-Help Resources in Mental Health, Revised Edition (Clinician's Toolbox, The) by John C. Norcross, John W. Santrock, Linda F. Campbell, and Thomas P. Smith (Hardcover - Jun 6, 2003)
This book rates Hubbard's Dianetics, Clear body clear mind, and Scientology books as "Strongly not recommended" (Page 348). Not sure whether it is appropriate here or on the scientology article or both. It basically says that if a guide condemns normal medicine it should be avoided. New age books such as these and NLP tend to do so so they should be avoided according to source.  Seflhelpsanity 07:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Self Help Guide

message: User:COFS obtaining people's IP addresses, reporting to their ISP for abuse (I'm pretty sure ISP's care less about Wikipedia vandalism) and posting that information here seems like harassment, no? Any opinions? Panfakes 16:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is actually a WP:NPA violation in the guise of some anonymous "voice of reason". I applause your claim for Neutral Point of View but at the same time you are violating it. Your "reason" not to have an own account is a joke and gives your statement a propaganda slant. Might be that you don't know but you are probably more traceable when posting with an IP than with a user name as in that case everybody can see it. CSI LA 19:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly how do you figure that, CSI LA?  How can anything that Lyndon wrote here be considered more of a personal attack than your own words at Talk:L. Ron Hubbard?  "Why would you want to lay words in my mouth which I did not say? Curious. Maybe so you can complain along about hot air. Or to cover up that you have no full concept on the development of Scientology, its literature and founder. You seem to be part of the "alternative" Scientology scene which uses altered materials. I am just guessing, because what you state does not make sense. What is still unexplained is why you want to smear L. Ron Hubbard with altered quotes."  I fail to see how your direct accusation that I "want to smear L. Ron Hubbard with altered quotes" (the quotes, of course, came directly from Scientology publications and were not altered in the least, which was something you were already informed of) is any less of a personal attack than anything that Lyndon has said here. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI, CSI LA is a COFS sock puppet.  There was a checkuser request on COFS and CSI LA and it was confirmed that they are the same user.  HiEv 01:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: COFS harassing users?

message: This statement in article:
Many of the areas in which his criticism is directed have since been discredited in mainstream psychiatry - electro-shock therapy, for example, is now only used under anesthesia and muscle relaxants, and lobotomy is a defunct procedure. 
is innacurate, as can be seen in the electro-shock therapy section in the Anti-psychiatry article (which is not a scientology article).  Also, lobotomy (now called psychosurgery) is still practiced today. It’s not defunct. —Cesar Tort 18:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. CSI LA 02:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If no objections I'll drastically reduce the Psychiatry section today. —Cesar Tort 18:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Psychiatry section 

message: At first it was Isaac Hayes, then there was a smaller controversy involving Nancy Cartwright... My question is, if Jewish people are allowed to make fun of their own faith all the time, what makes Scientology different? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jnelson09 (talk • contribs) 02:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a question for a forum discussing Scientology, not a Wiki Talk page discussing an article about Scientology --Hartley Patterson 22:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do they allow parodies? 

message: Greetings, I'm new and still learning the ropes. I have seen that you had some troubles dealing with some Scientologist that are offended by some of the materials here. For example COFS was just banned for being a vandal. I totally agree with his punishment. And I want to assure that I'm not like that, I look forward to work with all of you to post well sourced materials. I'm not really interested into getting into discussions about Scientology beliefs, I just interested in working with well sourced historical facts. You can see my edits in the Lisa McPherson page and others. I think that having a Scientologist point of view included will ad to the veracity of Wikipedia. Bravehartbear 22:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lots of words, to say what? That you are a Scientologist and please don't beat me? I don't get it. Misou 16:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the warm welcome! Please look at my posting about: Members wishing to leave Scientology, your inputs are apreciated. Bravehartbear 23:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Scientologist point of view on Wikipedia

message: Can we unprotect this article now? I'd like to wikify the phrase "Bridge to Total Freedom" in the article to link to its article. wikipediatrix 20:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed it to semiprotected, so any established username can edit the article. For the record, the "right way" to request unprotection is to ask at WP:RFPP. CMummert · talk 18:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Bridge to Total Freedom 

message: I have seen a lot of discussion about which links are unbiased and which aren't. For example the link about "What Religious Scholars Have to Say about the Scientology Religion" was debated (see External links above) and I think deleted because it pointed to a Scientology website. This link was pertinent because it was written by religious scholars and not Scientologist. 
Truth be told, there is greater use of anti-scientology links in this page than Scientology links. Is this Fair? What are the criteria to determine if a link is biased or not? 
If Scientology links are not to be used then anti-Scientology links shouldn't be use neither. Bravehartbear 23:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By and large, links to sources which are critical of Scientology are used to provide material on what critics say; as such, they are perfectly reliable. There is no problem with saying "critics say Scientology smells like weasels" as long as we can provide a link to a notable source that says so. Of course, stating any allegation or criticism as plain fact ("Scientology smells like weasels") is out of the question.  SheffieldSteel 03:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So we agree that both sides need to be exposed equally. So both types of links will be used equally. This is the only fair way to do it. Bravehartbear 23:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Criteria for use of unbiased links

message: Hello. I'm researching the sociology of religion and I noticed this article is very well sourced. I've picked up some useful sources already. I do have some interesting sources on Scientology also. It seems to be grouped by some a self development movement along with other similar groups. What standard of source is required for the information to be added here? Realbie 02:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know there is no definitely answer for that. We keep bumping head in that subject. Basically if you think it goes there just put it there and explain why. Everyone has a different opinion so try to reach the middle ground. Bravehartbear 02:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK I'll work out the brief version. Its very neutral research and agrees and extends some of the information thats already there so it probably will not cause any real problems. Please review it when I add it on. Realbie 02:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh don't wory I assure you it will be review by everybody. Bravehartbear 03:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sociological grouping