Talk:Scientology/Archive 21

message: I don't understand why this introductory sentence is objectionable: "Scientology also refers to the Church of Scientology, the largest organization promoting the practice of Scientology, which is itself part of a network of affiliated organizations that claim ownership of and sole authority to disseminate Dianetics and Scientology."  That sentence, or one like it, keeps getting reduced such that it doesn't mention the affiliated organizations or their proprietary relationaship to Scientology.  It seems to me that "Scientology" is often used to refer to this network, and that the legal ownership of the teachings is an unusual and often-discussed aspect of Scientology.  In other words, it seems to me that this is just the sort of stuff that belongs in the intro.  What am I missing?  BTfromLA 19:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IDK, maybe one of the other guys has an objection? Not to say that I think the wording is so great but I have little trouble with the concept. Well, one objection. The CoS is the Mother, the Mother Church. Not "part of a network". So the hierarchy is wrong. --Justanother 19:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Scientology also refers to the Church of Scientology, by far the largest organization promoting the practice of Scientology, which itself operates under the auspices of the Religious Technology Center, the organization that holds the trademarks and copyrights of Dianetics and Scientology and monitors their use by the Church and its social service affiliates like WISE or ABLE." --Justanother 19:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mother Church is just a term. But its part of a network like Narconon,Criminon,SMI, etc which are all affiliated with each other and are all lead directly or indirectly by RTC. The term "network" describes it very well and is neutral. And this part is quite notable and not to extensive as well. "that claim ownership of and sole authority to disseminate Dianetics and Scientology</>" Just how BTfromLA already explained. -- Stan  talk 20:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ABLE is hardly on a par with CoS and Narconon is a sub-set of ABLE. And even our article on RTC says that RTC was created by CoS. No, CoS is not "part of a network". It IS the network. --Justanother 20:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Narconon is a sub-set of ABLE and ABLE is a sub-set of .... RTC. It may be called as a Franchise as well but network is more neutral. With the term CoS you might be right. It is rather the description for the network. I meant the "Church of Scientology International" which is "the mother" of the other churches and "micro-managing" them but by itself is a part of the network because RTC holds the trademarks and copyrights and micromanages the "Church of Scientology International". -- Stan  talk 20:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think my earlier sentence makes all those points (except the "micromanage" which is not germane to what we are discussing). --Justanother 20:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, didn't notice your first paragraph. You already stated what I wanted to point out.-- Stan  talk 21:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The copyrights of Dianetics and Scientology are currently owned by the Church of Spiritual Technology (frequently doing business as the L. Ron Hubbard Library). The RTC enforces those copyrights under licence. Some other copyrights and trademarks connect with Author Services Inc., which is a for-profit company wholly-owned by CST. Some kind of block diagram of the structure would be nice if we could ever get consensus on every connection and control arrow (ha).AndroidCat 15:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: RTC clearly claims ownership of the trademarks and service marks here. As far as intellectual property, Author Services manages the copyrighted material (see) but does not claim ownership. --Justanother 18:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Scientology network in the lead 

message: I've cut the following from the end of the lead: "The church rejects this allegations and insists that the accusations are based on discredited evidences."  Grammer issues aside, this line does the article no good.  We simply can't have every assertion met with a counter-claim, certainly not in a brief intro.  Do you think a line beginning "Critics reject..." after every church assertion that has been contradicted by critics would improve the intro?  If your concern is that the critical charges gain too much emphasis by being placed at the end of the intro, we could consider moving them further up the page.  BTfromLA 06:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought it might be notable that Scientology does not admit guilt, always rejects allegations and usually does not justify itself but emphasises alleged discredited evidences. However, if this is seen as common practice by defendants it might be not part of the intro. -- Stan  talk 11:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the ideology of most religions oppose psychiatry. I'm not sure if this is really notable in the intro. CCHR is just a small fraction of CoS. -- Stan  talk 11:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just wanted to point out, that the conflict is not just about what the CoS does, but also about what the democracies/psychiatrists do... --Homer Landskirty 15:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Homer BT, I do not disagree so much with your removal as with the current presentation of "here is what this fringe so-called "Church" says it is and here is what reputable groups say it is." We had better presentations of this point in the past so we may want to look to an earlier revision for guidance. It should more be that there are varying opinions among 3rd parties, not the (non-existent) uniformity of 3rd-party opinion that you present. As an aside, governments support torture, courts "support" everything and many have ruled for Scientology, and the segment of press that most often criticises Scientology thinks that Paris Hilton is the most interesting thing in all existence and the aspect of existence most worthy of attention. --Justanother 12:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the intro was better in the past; this is definitely a case of too many cooks.  As I recall, there was a "however" connecting CoS self-characterizations to the reports that challenge them in earlier versions.  I do think that the fact that many reputable sources have and continue to find the CoS duplicitous and Scientology's claims dubious needs to be clearly stated in the intro--from my perspective, that is conspicuously the case, and to soft-pedal it is a disservice to readers looking for a disinterested report on Scientology.  I realize that this is a perpetual sticking point, but however misbegotten you may personally find the parade of critics, the fact that representatives of respectible news organizations have again and again found Scientology questionable is itself a major characteristic of Scientology, if you'll grant that Scientology's public reception is part of the subject.  BTfromLA 16:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: the segment of press that most often criticises Scientology thinks that Paris Hilton is the most interesting thing in all existence and the aspect of existence most worthy of attention. This segment of press usually doesn't investigate Scientology and should not be considered as reliable. But New York Times, Washington Post or BBC can be hardly compared with them. The heaviest allegations came from such reliable press-networks. -- Stan  talk 12:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You might be surprised as to how often the "reliable source" for a particular bit is the gossip columist of an otherwise reputable paper, said gossip columist simply parroting internet criticism. But that is really neither here not there as regards my point about the section. --Justanother 13:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  I avoid the press and TV news... They show sometimes 2 big pages with a single big picture of a new born bear: :de:Knut (Eisbär) ()... I dont understand ur first sentence completely, I think... I didnt remove anything (since I removed that Barley paragraph)... but the guy from LA removed the CoS point of view regarding critics... I wanted to point out, that both sides (CoS and TheOthers) criticize each other for the things they do... Maybe somebody could help me to make it more clear? I am not a native speaker and my brain is a "little bit" damaged since the last psychiatric "nerve healing therapy"... :-) --Homer Landskirty 15:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, Homer, I got mixed up there and I do not even have any "psychiatric 'nerve healing therapy'" for an excuse (smile). --Justanother 15:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK... Now my sentence is complete gone... I still think, that we should outline CoS's complaints about democracy/psychiatry in the intro (since those complaints r the very motivation for L.R.Hubbard's research about Dianetics/Scientology)... --Homer Landskirty 16:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Rook, you need to stop reverting. You don't like my edit in the last line but you go in an revert edits I made in three areas. REVERT IS NOT AN EDITING TOOL. If you think it is then you have fallen for a lie. Revert is for vandalism. Using revert as you do is insulting and infuriating to a good-faith editor and calls your good faith into serious question. Discussion and thoughful change are how we edit best. If you do not like the last line then make a change that you think I would agree to. That is how I work. I make a change that I think is better, is more NPOV, and that I think the "other side" can live with. That is the only way to edit and it can be done in the article via successive edits or it can be done here and then dropped in. But the only way that real, stable, improvement can be made to the article is if REVERT is not the tool used but evolutionary editing is. --Justanother 03:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My 2¢: I agree with Justanother that wholesale reverting of good-faith edits is rarely appropriate and usually  rude.  I did not mean my earlier edit summary to be taken as an endorsement of the multi-line revert that RookZero made (I hadn't even noticed the other reversions). I do, however, agree with RookZero's comment that Justanother's revision of the bit about critics of Scientology in the lead was "the understatement of the year."  Like it or not, the fact is that a Time magazine cover story called the organization a "mafia-like"  "cult" (and that's hardly the only example of such coverage from a source that is widely considered to be reputable).  In other words, the breadth and severity of critical allegations and judgements about Scientology are extraordinary.  While we do our readers a disservice if we allow the criticisms to blot out a representation of Scientology that practioners would recognize, we likewise disserve the readers if we minimize the place of critical accounts in the public understanding of Scientology.  BTfromLA 06:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Understatement, huh? Hmmm, I was going to say that "Scientology has received a few stern looks" but I strengthened it in the spirit of compromise =;-/ Justanother 13:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Your changes are not "evolutionary editing" but an attempt to whitewash away information critical of scientology.  The origional version is brief and very lenient to Scientology.  At the very least, the absolute least, the article's introduction should retain information that governments, journalists and former members are sharply critical of Scientology.  Ideally, it should be expanded somewhat to indicate the criminal activity that brought on these critical views.  It should not seek to minimize, tone down, or marginalize those critics, as that is not the role of an encyclopdia.  Again, look at Salmon Rushdie.  Specifics about critical reactions and government reactions are right in the intro.  They aren't minimized or pushed aside.  In fact, they make up half the intro of one of the most decorated authors of all time. Reactions to the criticism are not mentioned at all in the intro, even though national governments have passed resolutions supporting him, many NGOs, journalists and writers have issued statements supportive of him, and internationally known Islamic scholars have questioned the legality of the his death fatwa.  (RookZERO 16:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Line removed from lead ("The church rejects...) 

message: RookZERO has been reported at WP:AN3 for 3RR violation. IMO, he is also also poisoning the atmosphere here with his disruptive editing. I think my comments there spell it out. Other parties are welcome to comment as they see fit. --Justanother 17:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  3RR 

message: Hi all. New to this discussion, and mostly new to editing Wikipedia, so if this question has been asked and answered already, or is somehow improper, please understand I don't intend any disrespect, don't want to step on any toes, and don't want to make anyone angry. I'll happily withdraw the question if it's not appropriate.
I've been watching the back-and-forth between editors on this highly controversial topic, and I've seen several instances where people seem to be editing from an official Church of Scientology point of view, from Church-owned IP addresses. That would seem to be in direct conflict with WP:COI, although as the guideline says, "it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception."
What I'm wondering is if these edits and editors are directed by Scientology's Office of Special Affairs, and if so, whether that's appropriate behavior. Again, I'm not trying to say that it isn't, I just don't know. I would have similar concerns if prominent Scientology critics were editing this page, and for all I know they are. The same goes for the articles for other religions, philosophies, and beliefs. For instance, I would be concerned about the propriety of the Vatican trying to edit the Wikipedia article on Catholicism to put itself in a favorable light.
Is the Office of Special Affairs involved in editing this article? And if so, is that largely considered appropriate? --GoodDamon 23:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. It is a valid question and one that may soon be addressed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#COFS. I recommend that we all keep an eye on that. I, for one, will not speculate further on where that may go and what might be decided. --Justanother 23:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for answering so quickly. I'll do as you suggest. --GoodDamon 23:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

text: To answer the other side of your question, well known Scientology critics began these pages but are now in a minority. Most editors have so far as I know no involvement with the CoS outside of Wikipedia, for or against. --Hartley Patterson 03:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Office of Special Affairs? 

message: A recent edit to the lead changed the linked words "study skills" and "drug-rehabilitation" such that they link to articles defining those terms.  Previously, the links had gone to "Study Tech" and "Narconon," the specific scientology-related programs that the paragraph was referring to.  I don't know if there's a Wikipedia policy about this, but it seems to me that links that actually provide more information about the subject of the article should be encouraged, and the links that basically serve as dictionary definitions for well-known concepts should be discouraged, as they tend to distract from the article's subject matter rather than enhance it.  I see such links all over Wikipedia, and I wonder whether I am alone in my preference for links that actually enhance the article's content. BTfromLA 20:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed it. The reason was that the link-discription didn't make clear that it leads specificly to narconon. I would prefer a narconon-link as well but in my opinion it is only possible if the link states it specifically. Otherwise readers wich didn't read the whole paragraph may get confused. Sorry, I have not seen any policy for this issue. But if we would rename it, I see no problem to refer to Narconon. Maybe "Scientology own drug rehab.","Narconon","drug rehab.(Narconon)"  -- Stan  talk 20:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I do not necessarily agree with BT. I am fairly sure that there is policy related to the issue. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links). Clearly, a person reading an article on Scientology would be most interested in the Scientology-related internal links if that is what the linked term relates to. However, if linking to the general term fits wells in the context and is not done at the expense of the specific term then I see no probem with it. For example, this is a good sentence as regards linkage: The Church of Scientology's Narconon program offers drug-free drug rehabilitation based on Hubbard's methods and teachings. --Justanother 20:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As regards this specific case in the lead, it is an ambiguous case but I lean toward Stan's version. --Justanother 20:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd say the Style Guide supports my view, but it just isn't specific or emphatic enough for me to present a definitive case.  What it says is "Use the links for all words and terms that are relevant to the article.  The purpose of internal links is to allow readers to easily and conveniently follow their curiosity or research to other articles."  It goes on to warn against "overlinking," which in part consists of linking to "low-value" targets (such as Sunday or 1954).  Presumably, this low-value concept extends to all links that are not immediately relevant to the content of the article.  To my mind, readers of the Scientology article might be curious to read about Hubbard's Study Tech.  But it's hard for me to imagine readers wanting to learn about Scientology being fueled by the question "Just what are Study Skills?' or "What is the History of Study Skills?"  Likewise, I think readers can be assumed to have a working knowledge of what a "drug-rehabilitation program" refers to without directing them to the drug-rehab page.  As it stands, the links are inconsistent which creates further coonfusion--should we change immortal spiritual being to immortal spiritual being?  I fail to see any advantage to the latter, from the point of view of a reader, but apparently mine is an eccentric view in this room. Gastrointestinally yours,  BTfromLA 21:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The way the lead is currently worded I lean toward Stan's take. Were it worded differently with Narconon, Study Tech etc. named then that would be different. --Justanother 22:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd lean toward Stan's take.  Overlinking is less of a problem than not linking to relevent information.  (RookZERO 16:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The correct use of wiki-links 

message: I'm watching an interview with L Ron Hubbard, Jr. and he claims his father used the quote.  He may not have written it, but plagerism has never been a   crime within $cientology.  I downloaded the interview from xenu.net. —Preceding unsigned comment added by  24.21.209.135 (talk • contribs) 
:There is a section already on the LRH saying that he intended to start a religion for money and the Church attempting to attribute the quote to George Orwell instead.  (RookZERO 20:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Orwell Quote

message: I don't see no purpose of detailing about the individual country by country legistations and court rulings about Scientology in the main Scientology page. This is a the Main page and should be an introduction. Detailed information like this should be in a subpage. All what we need is a paragraph stating in what countries Scientology is recognised and in what countries it isn't and why. There is no use to place historical data on court rulings in this page. This section is big enoght to have its own page. We could just keep the 1st paragraph and move the country by country legisations and court rulings to a new page. Bravehartbear 18:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to repeat myself here again: Isn't it true, that _no_ government "recognizes" or "not recognizes" an institution/organization to be a "religion", because the word "religion" is not defined (e. g.: car manufacturers "promise" "freedom" and "safety", too). Shouldn't we omit the "religion" question completely? But at least we shouldn't say, that some country/gov/judge says, SCN is (not) a religion, although that country/gov/judge doesn't... --Homer Landskirty 18:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is true that some countries have chosen to not to define what is a religion but others do have define it. But that's beside the point. What we are talking here about is about a legal status. The legal status of religion carries with it a band wagon of rights and privileges. In Germany for example a state religion can get grants and tax money from the government. (I guess that comes from medieval times when the governments had to pay tribute to Rome.) The fact is that some countries have given this legal status to Scientology and some haven't regardless if it is defined or not; it is still a very important status and a main point of the Scientology controversy. Bravehartbear 20:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh... So it is "politics"... :-)) I dont like that kind of controversy, where nobody seems to know what he/she talks about (here the question would be "what is a religion?" or "what makes Catholicism so special, that F.Rep.GERM collects their taxes?")... --Homer Landskirty 21:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Of course a legal status is politics. The job of politics is to maintain laws! How you feel about these laws doesn't affect the fact that our job as Wikipedians is to document them. If we move the legal status into its own section, we can do this more thorougly, without cluttering the main page. Foobaz·o< 07:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree; we need a concise, informative introduction to Scientology. The information is very valuable, but it's too much clutter for this article. Foobaz·o< 23:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Scientology as a state-recognized religion