Talk:Scientology/Archive 15

message: I have added a "" template to the article Talk:Scientology, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. 134.129.149.203 05:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Trollus interruptus, I guess... BTfromLA 08:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Talk:Scientology]]

message: Neither the humanrights-germany (which by the way is not a WP:RS) nor the other site say anything about the UN. Has anyone got a source for this statement? yandman 16:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, good point. While I doubt that the UN "certifies religions as bona-fide", take a look at this report entitled IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DECLARATION ON THE ELIMINATION OF ALL FORMS OF INTOLERANCE AND OF DISCRIMINATION BASED ON RELIGION OR BELIEF. Germany figures in the report prominently and solely for their discrimination against Scientologists. The implication of the UN's concern is that Scientology is a "religion or belief" of sufficient validity to justify their interest. Not exactly what you ask for but . . . --Justanother 16:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is another of the UN again protecting CoS rights, this time specifically as a "new religion". --Justanother 17:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I won't let me open the first link, I think you have to trawl through their site to get it yourself. I'll try and have a look for it myself. The second one only reports what one of the "state representatives" said, not the official position of the UN. I found one UN PDF that seemed to take no stance on the issue, and this BBC article is very carefully worded to show that the UN has neither endorsed nor rejected scientology. In any case, none of these are resolutions accepted by the UN as a whole. I'll have a look to see what else I can find. yandman 17:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt the UN is in the business of issuing resolutions accepting a particular religion as "bona-fide". It is more to be inferred from how they treat the group. Try this for the first. Re the second; that comment is by a UN committee member, not a French represntative. The point is that you do not protect someone's rights as a new religion if you do not see them as a new religion and the UN has a good history of taking an interest in the rights of the CoS as a religion. --Justanother 17:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is like the "scholars" thing, we're inferring a position that hasn't been taken. Let's just leave the UN out of this - it's clear that Scientology is considered a religeon by some and not others, surely we can find a few sources without having to overly interpert what someone may have implied. This, by the way, is why we Wikipedia prefers secondary, and not primary, sources. VxP 17:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. That bit was not my contrib. Though I think that we can use the primary sources I found to source that the UN has a history of defending the religious rights of Scientologists. --Justanother 17:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Urgent need for source 

message: "Although believers may be free to openly practice Scientology, the organized Church of Scientology has often encountered opposition."
The first part of this sentence makes no sense, or at least how I'm reading it. Mind sharing insight? --Wooty Woot? contribs 04:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Makes no sense to me either. Should be rewritten or removed. Highfructosecornsyrup 04:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah that is mine after I stripped out a bit of uncited based on an objection to it as uncited. It was supposed to say:Although believers are normally free to openly practice Scientology in nations that permit freedom of religion, the organized Church of Scientology has often encountered oppositionand was based on some readings of mine of UN defenses of Scientology's rights but I never got a good cite up as they were all primary sources and kind of open to interpretation so the freedom of religion part did not stand. Do with it what you will. --Justanother 05:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: To me this makes sense in saying that the beliefs of scientology are allowed to be practised, but the practices of the Church have been banned in places. There's nothing to stop anyone practicising the religion outside the Church. The Enlightened 17:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is this supposed to MEAN? 

message: getting pretty long. ---Slightlyright 18:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. yandman 15:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to archive? 

message: Just a heads-up for people wanting to edit this page to show their dislike for Scientology: we don't need to vandalize this page or insert our own POV into the article. The madnesses of Scientology will be made quite clear by an unbiased article.203.131.167.26 10:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I knew someone else that used to say the same thing. I fear that your point may fly over the heads of more extreme editors though. --Justanother 15:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please no personal attacks (or sly hints to personal attacks)- there is no place for them here. Panfakes 11:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV = Bad 

message: Quote: "The word itself is a pairing of the Latin word scientia ("knowledge", "skill"), which comes from the verb scire ("to know"), and the Greek λογος lógos ("reason" or "inward thought" or "logic" or "an account of")."
λογος or as we would write it logos means "Word".
There probably aren't many people who care if people belive what scientology teaches, but most of them would like to keep wikipedia free of missinformation. The "an account of" can be kept as a correct meaning, which makes second of two meanings of the word λογος.
Note: Logice, es, f. - (meaning)logic is a latin derivate which came from the word λογος and λογος in it's meaning is in no way linked to the word logic.
But one could translate it as "statement" and hand in some arguments to back up what message one ment to broadcast with given name of his standings. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.152.247.59 (talk) 00:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small Missinfo 

message: Exploring L. Ron Hubbard's anonymously authored blueprint for Scientology: The Brainwashing Manual - External link for Brian Ambry's 'Brainwashing Manual Parallels in Scientology':
http://www.freewebs.com/slyandtalledgy/Brainwashing%20Manual%20Parallels%20in%20Scientology.pdf   
::Why do you keep spamming this link everywhere? yandman 14:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pistashio 

message: Instead of that machine as the first picture that people see when they visit the page, could it instead be one of the symbols associated with scientology?--Maier 03 21:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are all trademarks. --Justanother 23:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you mean the e-meter, there are tighter rules on images on template pages. See the discussion on Template talk:ScientologySeries. AndroidCat 03:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I can agree that some of the images are trademarks, but perhaps it'd be of service if user Justanother would check up on copyright and trademark law. As long as the company doesn't restrict the use of a trademarked image it can stay on the page until Xenu comes back. Plus, if a likeness or image or such is trademarked in one country, doesn't really mean much in another country. Just think of this as a heads-up, ok? --Tirolion 10:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Different picture

message: Removing the reference to the Establishment Clause, as I'm not aware of any case finding that an acknowledgment by the U.S. government that something is a religion violates the Establishment Clause and other U.S. government practices, such as the faith-based initiative program or having military chaplains for religions but not nonreligious philosophies, do seem to recognize that some things are genuine religions. Elliotreed 04:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Establishment Clause 

message: Since there is so much criticism and negative portrayl, distortion about Scientology on the wikipedia
pages, I think it would be good to have a segment about all the hate and suppression and attacks that the religion has gone through and is going through to put into light what it is like for Scientologists. We are supposed to live in a world of religion freedom, but to be a Scientologist is to be persucuted for your beliefs. It is obviously a huge topic and there is nothing on here about what they go through. Funny how there is plenty of information trying to depict Scientology as this wacko money-hoarding cult, (which, is so wrong I can't even begin), but there's nothing on here shown from the Scientologist side.
<Johnpedia 13:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All wikipedia articles strive to be neutral, if you have found anything thats not properly sourced or POV then please tell us so it can be corrected. Joneleth 15:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: This section of the Scientology controversy article may help: Scientology controversy#The Church of Scientology's replies to its critics  --Modemac 16:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: (moving down as I rewrote it. Modemac makes a valid point too) Johnpedia, that is a great idea. You may be able to find some sourced comments that present that idea in the local papers like sptimes.com. Actually, after thinking about it a bit, I feel that there is no real point in getting into the concept that critics are somehow suppressing Scn or Scios and that was probably not what you meant anyway. Critics are just criticizing and ridiculing Scn and famous Scios. BFD. No, the real persecution is government-sponsored and takes place in non-US countries (Scn is not persecuted at all in the US). Your best source is UN and US State Dept. reports on human rights abuses. I referenced some in the Germany part of the main article. Look at those and see if you can also find some English-language press to go with them. Good Luck!! --Justanother 16:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Searches like this one and this one may help you get started. --Justanother 16:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: For the record, just because someone criticises a belief system or an organisation doesn't mean it stems from hate or prejudice. For example if these pages point out that high-up scientologists have stolen government records, thats not hate or prejudice - that is truthful, fair-minded criticism. If you have a problem with a particular statement in this article then you should point it out and we will seek to rectify it in a balanced way. But remember, wikipedia is not a soapbox. 195.137.85.173 19:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry, but it is impossible to be completely neutral regarding something so completely ridiculous as scientology.   When the facts are overwhelmingly in support of a certain value judgment (eg. Hitler was not a nice guy, or Scientology is stupid), it is fair to make said value judgment, even in an objective medium such as wikipedia.   Scientology believes in Xenu and the Space Opera, this is fact.   Scientology also aggresively attacks its critics through lawsuits, this too is fact (see Southpark).   These, among other things, contribute to a, completely deserved, negative portrayal of your "religion".   It is possible to objectively analyze something, and return with a negative judgement; such is the case with Scientology.   You face discrimination because you are insanely stupid, and your organization is obviously a scam.   Don't complain that you get made fun of when you believe such crap.   And I will not apologize for offending you because you have a "different belief system"; scientologists are stupid, bottom line.198.53.186.240 21:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: A suggestion: You might want to review WP:CIVIL now rather than later. AndroidCat 06:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It is wikipedia policy to assume good faith. It is quite the assertion to claim that you personally have special insight into other peoples intentions and innate desires in their edits. It is equally likely that those that criticise Scientology simply have come to their honest assessment that the Church of Scientology and its practices are dangerous and damaging. How do you personally know whether someone came to edit with a fair mind or not? If you wish to provide information regarding positive attributes of Scientology, or provide context where you feel it is presently lacking, please go ahead. Just remember to maintain a balanced tone, and to cite such information with reliable sources. Additionally, if you feel there is negative information which isn't true and isn't sourced properly. Please add some citation needed tags or bring it up on the talk page. 195.137.85.173 16:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I quote you: "The pages on here about Scientology are filled with hate and negative, passive aggressive, backhanded, unbalanced information." Well, if you have concerns about contents, please be specific. Much care is taken to have articles which are well sourced. Broad statements are useless, you need to point specifically at what you perceive as flaws. Then we will know what exactly what you want to address. Raymond Hill 03:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Who?  What post?  (It'd help if you'd assign yourself a username). BTfromLA 22:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supression and Hate 

message: Has this page been vandalised? - Nö†$®åM 01:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: In being nurtral this wiki page would have to be negative about scientoligy. A quick search in google after the first result reveals the truth about what scientoligy is. There seems to be not enough on the page about how immoral scientoligy practices are. Alan2here 18:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is probably a good sign of this article's neutrality that we get both complaints calling it too favorable and too unfavorable. --FOo 20:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: This would be the problem with neutrality... people with strong baised feelings on the issue will always see it as part of the other side. The position that a neutral article about this topic would have to be negative, is blatantly biased, and not endorsed by the Wikipedia culture in general. Articles about controversial topics like this are presented from a neutral point of view, presenting facts, and presenting unbiased beliefs of the various positions. Unfortunately, the only way you know that an article is balanced, is if both deeply entrenched sides of the controversy complain that the article is biased towards the other side. --Puellanivis 20:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Really one doesn't have to write negatively on the subject of Scientology. One can just write a neutral, well-sourced article and Scientology will damn itself by its own merits. Tenebrous (is still to lazy to sign in) 69.144.86.191 17:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is this article so unbalenced towards the positive 

message: The article states that the word was coined by Alan Upward in 1907, which he associated with pseudoscience. I just found an old newspaper article, Newark Advocate, dated October 28, 1885, in which the word "scientologist" appears: "The scientologist of Rutgers college, at New Brunswick, N.J., recognized the shock of the Hell Gate explosion just fifteen minutes before it occurred. This is considered by the wicked as a remarkable instance of the reconciliation of faith and science." (still refer to pseudoscience it would seem) Is it something worth mentioning in the article? Raymond Hill 05:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure! I think a little more context than that would be useful, though; it isn't clear from that tiny fragment what is being meant by the word; or even to whom it refers. --FOo 05:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the problem, that's pretty much all there is. Here is a scan of a the clipped part and here is a scan of the full page. The section appears under a header "Science & Progress." At the very least, it's a hint that the word may have been in use before 1907, but we can't tell more from this. Raymond Hill 17:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case it's trivial, without context, and possibly dubious information and should not be included. The possibility exists that it was simply a typographic error. Tenebrous 19:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that we can't really make anything of it, given the lack of any context. It could be that the writer made it up in an attempt at humour. But who knows? -- ChrisO 19:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Look at the accompanying "Facts of Interest" to get an idea of the nature of that piece. My guess is he made it up. --Justanother 23:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of the word Scientology 

message: "Per Church policy (citation needed) auditors are trained not to evaluate for the preclear..."
Here is the reference link, it is called the Auditor's Code.
http://www.scientology.org/en_US/religion/auditing/pg004a.html
S. M. Sullivan 06:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Auditing

message: Please delete mention of honey from the barley formula reference. It was corrected as long as 20 years ago in the Volunteer Minister's Handbook. Karo syrup is to be used, not honey. Yes, Scientologists know honey is not to be given to babies.
69.12.131.206 07:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is your reference and why don't you delete it yourself? Misou 05:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I've got the 1979 third print version of the Volunteer Minister's Handbook. The extract is named Healthy Baby and this is where the recipe is given. This extract do not mention honey (nor does the new Volunteer Minister's Handbook) but corn syrup -- Jpierreg 19:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I recall it, Hubbard wrote a rather acerb note in the barley formula correction stating do not use honey. He amplified by writing that you do not put fuel oil in baby formula either. (joke on his part) S. M. Sullivan 02:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I've restored it, since as already discussed, the new information you are bringing does not say "this was never the case" but "this was not the case after a certain point."  (A claim that I have reason to believe is incorrect, by the way, though I am waiting for the research materials I ordered to come in so that I can confirm it.) -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: That's rather a confusing statement to make.  If you look at the section in question and look at the references, I think you'll see that the information does in fact come directly from a WP:V source and does in fact show to be mistaken the claim that honey "has not been an ingredient in the formula for more than twenty years, if ever".  Also, would you mind supplying page number and publication details for that edition of the Volunteer Minister's Handbook so that we can make it an actual reference?  Also, if you can find that "you do not put fuel oil in baby formula either" quote, that would be good to add to the section. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Silent Birth and Infant care

message: The following quote in the Scientology and Psychiatry section of the page claims the "assumption" that because the APA advised it's members against using Dianetics (presumably around 1950), that Hubbard came to beleive that Psychiatrist were wanting to create a "world government" run by Psychiatrist on the behalf of Soviet Russia???
The referenced material for this section says nothing at all about "soviet russia" nor does it say Psychiatrist want a "world government" nor does it even imply that any of Hubbard's discussion is related at all to the APA "recommending against using Diatnetics" in the early 50s (and this refence is a recording from 1967?).
Please someone (who is non-biased either way), look over the referenced facts of this section, and delete all the speculation through in here as if it's Objective.
and Furthermore.  The reference says these "less than 12 people", he does not even say "are Psychiartists".  He says they "use 'mental health'", but are in fact Bankers.  Which is one of the more common "conspiracty theories" including Rockefellers, etc. easily found on Wikipedia or Google that many Non-Scientologists believe such Bankers may "Use" Pharaceutical companies to help "dumb down" the population with drugs.  It seems to me THAT is what Hubbard is saying here, which is pretty clear if you just read the quote somebody put in this section from this Ron's Journal 67 reference.
Please, somebody who is totally Non-Biased look over this section and take into consideration what I've written.  Sorry I made this so long though.
"After the publication of Dianetics, the American Psychological Association advised its members against using Hubbard's psychotherapy techniques with their patients until their effectiveness could be proven. Because of this critique, Hubbard came to believe psychiatrists were behind a worldwide conspiracy to attack Scientology and create a "world government" run by psychiatrists on behalf of Soviet Russia:"
:This does seem to be true. Reading the reference, the only mention of Russia is Hubbard's description of psychiatry as
 a perverted Russo-German doctrine, which he contrasted with Scientology as "the only Anglo-Saxon science of the mind"
: Perhaps that quote would illustrate Hubbard's position better than the current text? SheffieldSteel 20:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientology and Psychiatry "assumption" 

message: I read the connected reference, and this is a biased "interpretation" at best of what it says.  Especially, since 9-11 is a very sensitive issue with people, it even more biased in my opinion to alter what is said in attached Freedom Magazine reference.
The magazine simply discusses that one of Bin Laden's "Top Advisors" was a Psychiatrist, who some people "theorize" might have been the mastermind behind September 11th.  
Since, Seppember 11th is very sesnitive issue with people, such an over-simplified statement will undoubtedly cause many casual readers to conclude that Scientologists must just think any evil in the world comes from Psychiatry.
A more appropriate statement might be: "Scientologists have pointed out that one of Bin Laden's top advisors is a Psychiatrist who some people think may have been the 'mastermind' behind the September 11th attacks, and who they think may have been involved in brainwashing and drugging of members of Al Queda."
A point made about September 11th concerning what Scientologists think, or what CCHR states, should be stated with a level of specifics that will not lead a reader to speculative conclusions, due to over-simplification and generalization, which seems to be based from a biased POV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Babblelog5 (talk • contribs).
:One problem with that is that the "Top Advisor" they name wasn't a psychiatrist. AndroidCat 22:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Without getting into any claims of anything. Ayman Al-Zawahiri "studied behavior, psychology and pharmacology at Cairo University, graduating in 1974 with gayyid giddan, and earning a Masters degree in surgery in 1978." I looked into what he actually practiced a while back and he did not really practice much (being pretty much a full-time revolutionary cum terrorist) but I think it was obstetrics. But he could probably be called a "pysch" as that was a large part of his training. --Justanother 23:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well duh. I imagine that behavior, psychology and pharmacology are part of the standard curriculum for anyone planning to be a doctor. As for "psych", it's a useless broad term that the Church of Scientology is fond of. The only sites on the Internet that claim or attempt to imply that he was a psychiatrist are Scientology-connected. AndroidCat 23:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Psychiatry was responsible for...the September 11 attacks? 

message: About two years ago when I was researching Scientology for a class I was teaching I was pleasantly surprised to find that the Wikipedia article was, I think, the best internet article I found on the topic (and I read alot of them along with primary source material etc.). It looks even better now that you have expanded it into a series. Thanks for your hard work on this article!Will3935 09:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Kudos

message: In what publication did Hubbard advise against breastfeeding? All I can recall is an advice in Volunteer Ministers' handbook that modern mothers who smoke may have milk that is musty, hence, use barley formula.  This hardly constitutes a ban on breastfeedingS. M. Sullivan 05:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Advice Against Breastfeeding

message: "Scientology is a body of teachings and related techniques", AKA, A CULT! But i guess we cant say that in an encyclopedia until after the cult has died.
:Or a religion, perhaps? We're just adhering to WP:NPOV. "Cult" is the epitome of a POV view. --Hojimachongtalk 19:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Scientology has already been officially classified as a bona fide religion" is no closer to an NPOV description of the situation than "Scientology is a cult". -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: More accurately, there is no authority anywhere which has the power to "officially classify" anything as a "bona fide religion". The legitimacy of any religious group is always contested: Many fundamentalist Protestants regard the Roman Catholic Church as an idolatrous cult; Muslims consider Christianity's Trinity to be proof of corruption; even in the U.S. where religious freedom is the law, judges discriminate violently against Wiccans and Subgenii; and so on. --FOo 06:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: How can it count as a religion if it charges money for membership? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.211.254.142 (talk) 03:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been told that some synagogues charge a set fee for membership.  The Mormons require a set percentage of a person's income to be a full member. Steve Dufour 14:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Right Steve. And, BTW, I am an active Scientologist in good-standing with the Church and have not given the Church one thin dime in 2-3 years and not any real money, say over $100 donations for some project or other, in probably 8 years. And I still can go in there and work with a staff member to apply Scientology to an area of my life that I am trying to improve. No charge. Wait, I did pay $350 to attend a full two-day seminar a while back but, if any of you kow anything about seminars, $350 for two days in a nice hotel with lunch, dinner, and snacks provided is dirt cheap. --Justanother 14:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've sometimes made the point that, although critics often bring up the money thing, a person following Judaism or Christianity is expected, although not required in most cases, to donate 10% of his or her income.  Over the lifetime of a person with a successful career this would amount to far more than the cost of going though the Scientology program.  I've also criticized Tom Cruise because he seems to be giving his church much less than 10% of his income.  Steve Dufour 14:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ahem 

message: In May of 1993, Tool was scheduled to play the Garden Pavilion in Hollywood. The band learned at the last minute that the Garden Pavilion belonged to L. Ron Hubbard’s Church of Scientology which "betrays the band’s ethics about how a person should not follow a belief system that constricts their development as a human being."[10] In a recent interview with Blender, Maynard recalled that he "spent most of the show baa-ing like a sheep at the audience."[14]
“ Before our set this guy tries to intimidate me by showing me a gun in his jacket. I explained to him that if he pissed me off I’d start a riot.[14] 
Additionaly, Tool is also critical of scientology in the song AEnema. I think this should be mentioned in the criticisms section
:I don't think that a critical song is important enough to mention in the main article on a subject.  Steve Dufour 17:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tool and Scientology 

message: :Journalists and critics of Scientology note that Xenu is part of a much wider Scientology belief in past lives on other planets, some of which has been public knowledge for decades. For instance, Hubbard's 1958 book Have You Lived Before This Life documents past lives described by individual Scientologists during auditing sessions. These included memories of being "deceived into a love affair with a robot decked out as a beautiful red-haired girl", being run over by a Martian bishop driving a steamroller, being transformed into an intergalactic walrus that perished after falling out of a flying saucer,
Is this a joke added by a vandal? With Scientology it's hard to tell. --Ptcamn 19:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, it's for real. Check out Have You Lived Before This Life - it's (unintentionally, of course) really a very funny book. -- ChrisO 20:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intergalactic walrus 

message: I've reverted (twice) the addition of this link since it is little more than original research and weakly argued conspiracy theories, in violation of both the policy on reliable sources and external links. Consensus should be reached before its inclusion. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 02:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The site does appear to provide verifiable sources (satisfying Links normally to be avoided #2) and I'm not sure that directly extending WP:OR to the contents of an EL is valid. AndroidCat 06:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Personal Website, by one "Mike Gormez". See WP:SPS. Ronabop 08:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A Personal web page, you mean? A strict and wide application of the freshly amalgamated WP:ATT policy via the redirected link from the WP:EL guideline should be interesting. (Especially when the WP:ATT nutshell states "All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source." [emp shifted]) I doubt that many of the external links on this article would survive, including many direct CoS sites (under WP:SPS). AndroidCat 17:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, I meant a SPS WP:SPS, a site with little or no editorial oversight over its content, with one (or a few) "publishers" controlling the content, which is how I interpret the spirit of questioning SPS. With self-published sources, no one stands between the author and publication; the material may not be subject to any form of fact-checking, legal scrutiny, or peer review. WP:SPS - To wit, Mike Gormez doesn't seem like he has a legal team, a fact checking team, or peers who would (*cough* *giggle*) 'audit' (ok, mea culpa) his work, his choice of sources, etc. WRT to direct CoS sites, There are two exceptions: 1. Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves WP:SPS pretty much covers whether or not CoS sites are allowed (and trust me, they do have a legal team). Mr. Gormez's site would be allowed in articles about 'himself', CoS's sites would be allowed in articles about 'themselves'. One way of framing the debate is whether or not we should allow a stormfront.org link with multiple RS links out to articles on Jews... I would say no, because even if the stormfront site *links to* pages that are reliable sources, the publisher of the linking site itself is exercising editorial control over what is being linked to. Ronabop 04:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid that CoS also falls down on fact-checking and peer review. And surely using Stormfront as your example is a weak argument. AndroidCat 13:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  www.whyaretheydead.net 

message: I moved these two paragraphs down the page and out of the intro section:
:A stated goal of Scientology is to rehabilitate the thetan (roughly equivalent to the soul) to regain its native state of "total freedom."  Church spokespeople and practitioners say that Hubbard's teachings (called "Technology" or "Tech" in Scientology terminology) have saved them from many problems and enabled them to better realize their highest potential in business and in their personal lives.http://www.scientology.org/html/en_US/results/index.htmlhttp://on-line.scientology.org/ However, outside observers—including  journalists, lawmakers, and national governing bodies of several countries—have alleged that the Church is an unscrupulous commercial enterprise that harasses its critics and brutally exploits its members..
:Although Scientologists are usually free to practice their beliefs, the organized church has often encountered opposition. While a number of governments now view the Church as a religious organization entitled to the protections and tax relief that such status brings, others view it as a pseudoreligion, a cult, or a transnational corporation.Scientology is a Bona Fide Religion Serving Exclusively Religious and Charitable Purposes  Sociologist Kent, while acknowledging that a number of his colleagues accept Scientology as a religion, argues that "Rather than struggling over whether or not to label Scientology as a religion, I find it far more helpful to view it as a multifaceted transnational corporation, only one element of which is religious."  (Italics in original.) 
This is in line with how other groups are treated on WP. Steve Dufour 13:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A reader who was new to the subject might be forgiven for thinking - after reading the current intro - that Scientology had no critics, was not controversial, and was generally accepted as a religion... except for a couple of clues in the intro paragraph. That can't be right. SheffieldSteel 16:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please check out the articles on Islam and the Roman Catholic Church.  They have far more critics than does Scientology and yet the opinions of critics are not put in the introductory section. Steve Dufour 18:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the quantity of criticism - or critics, for that matter - is less important than the quality (by which I mean nature) of the criticism. I am also far from convinced that Scientology should be compared like-for-like with Islam or Catholicism. SheffieldSteel 18:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: A better use of quantitative techniques would be to compare the proportion of criticism/controversy with the article as a whole. Islam has a relatively tiny section on criticism, and so it isn't mentioned in the intro. Catholicism doesn't really have a criticism section per se, although the are references to controversies such as sexual abuse scandals. Again, these are not large in relation to the article as a whole - indeed, it is easy to argue that they are not highly significant in relation to the religion as a whole. The Scientology article, on the other hand, does contain rather a lot of controversy, scandal, felony, and so on. I think it's important that the intro should be representative of the article content. SheffieldSteel 18:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I still think it is unfair.  Many more and much worse crimes have been committed in the names of Islam and Christianity than in the name of Scientology.  (To be fair, Scientology's postive contributions to human civilization are also much less.)  I generally think that an article should be about the subject of the article; not about what other people, journalists, other religions, governments, or whatever think about the subject. Steve Dufour 20:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like it or not, "what other people, journalists, other religions, governments, or whatever think about the subject" is about the subject, especially if those other people, journalists, other religions, governments, or whatever are right. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about Adolf Hitler's article? He has a four or five paragraph opening section which tells us who he was and the things he did.  There is nothing there about anyone's opinion of him. Please give us all the information about the bad things Scientology has done.  However, it does not seem to be normal WP practice to put opinions of third parties in the opening section. Steve Dufour 04:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article on Adolf Hitler mentions his responsibility for the genocide of 11 million people.  I'm curious; do you think it needs to be spelled out after that that opinion of Hitler is almost universally low?  Yes, it would be possible to move all the information of things that Scientology is known to have done that cause that low opinion into the intro section -- Operation Snow White, Operation Freakout, falsely claiming auditing folders are confidential when they aren't -- but the whole point of having an intro section that's separate from the article is that the intro presents the overview and the article covers the details.  Your edit, I'm afraid, just wasn't compatible with WP:NPOV because it retained in that intro section Scientology's POV on itself but omitted the fact that almost every aspect of that POV is disputed.  As SheffieldSteel points out, a reader who read the intro section thinking it would be a concise but complete overview -- which is what it should be -- might incorrectly get the impression that Scientology had no critics, was not controversial, and had never had a question raised as to whether it was a religion. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: By the same logic, we should be removing from the intro section any reference to Scientology being a self-help philosophy, to it describing itself as a new religion, to it 'offering an "exact methodology" to help humans achieve awareness of their spiritual existence across many lifetimes and, simultaneously, to become more effective in the physical world.'  Those are all just as equally telling the reader what to think and therefore according to your own arguments should also be removed from the intro section. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  The intro should be about what it is and why it is interesting and/or important.  The opinions of both members and critics should come later. Steve Dufour 07:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism moved down the page

message: :Here is the article on Nazism if you would like to compare it with this article.  Steve Dufour 16:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Addressed. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is the article on Atheism. It does contain some criticism, but much less than the Scientology article. Steve Dufour 13:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Scientology is naturally criticised more than Atheism because Scientology is unsound and completely ridiculous, like Nazism. --Snuffaluffaguss 19:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WP's treatment of Nazism compared to its treatment of Scientology

message: The article says that Scientology "later described itself as a new religion."  How can a body of teachings describe itself?  Doesn't someone else have to do that? Steve Dufour 18:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Described itself?

message: I removed these sentences from the intro section:
:Church spokespeople and practitioners say that Hubbard's teachings (called "Technology" or "Tech" in Scientology terminology) have saved them from many problems and enabled them to better realize their highest potential in business and in their personal lives.http://www.scientology.org/html/en_US/results/index.htmlhttp://on-line.scientology.org/ However, outside observers—including  journalists, lawmakers, and national governing bodies of several countries—have alleged that the Church is an unscrupulous commercial enterprise that harasses its critics and brutally exploits its members..
:Although Scientologists are usually free to practice their beliefs, the organized church has often encountered opposition. While a number of governments now view the Church as a religious organization entitled to the protections and tax relief that such status brings, others view it as a pseudoreligion, a cult, or a transnational corporation.Scientology is a Bona Fide Religion Serving Exclusively Religious and Charitable Purposes  Sociologist Kent, while acknowledging that a number of his colleagues accept Scientology as a religion, argues that "Rather than struggling over whether or not to label Scientology as a religion, I find it far more helpful to view it as a multifaceted transnational corporation, only one element of which is religious."  (Italics in original.) 
They are not about Scientology itself, rather they are about "Church spokespeople and practitioners", "outside observers—including  journalists, lawmakers, and national governing bodies of several countries", "the Church", " Scientologists", "the organized church",  "a number of governments", and "others". As such they don't really belong in the opening section which should be about, it seems to me anyway, the subject of the article.  I will repaste the removed sentences elsewhere in the article so no information is lost. Steve Dufour 15:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't this the same change you made 2007-03-09? AndroidCat 15:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Took off one less sentence this time.  Also I tried to explain my reasons better. Steve Dufour 15:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a terrible edit--please restore those sentences immediately.  The intro needs to provide an overview of the key elements in the article to follow.  The public reception of Scientology is, of course, an important part of the topic--"Scientology itself" doesn't exist in a vacuum.  BTfromLA 16:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. In almost all WP articles the intro does just that.  It introduces the subject of the article.  I have not checked out the article on Japan but I am sure that the intro to that article does not talk about how people in other countries feel about Japan.  This is just an example. Steve Dufour 17:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent point, Steve. And to see the unfair treatment even more clearly look at North Korea. Obviously controversial, obviously controversy is a big part of what it is, obviously critical outsiders have a lot to say about it. But golly, look that intro! Someone once said succintly that the problem here is that Wikipedia is not attempting to cover a "subject", Scientology; they are covering "controversy about a pseudo-subject". So every article should be named "Controversy over . . ." or at least in some peoples eyes. --Justanother 21:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very good point.  Scientology is way over-covered here, for both the number of people involved in it and for its importance in the larger world. That's my opinion, although both members and hard-core critics might disagree. Steve Dufour 15:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Steve, if this was the article specifically about Scientology-the-belief-system, then arguments that the opinions of practitioners and outside observers alike are not key to the subject and do not merit mention in the lead might hold some water.  However, this is not the article specifically about Scientology-the-belief-system -- that article is Scientology beliefs and practices.  This article is about the entire phenomenon of Scientology and I doubt that any rational analysis could claim that the information you removed from the lead is not about the subject. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should we include a list of all of Tom Cruise's movies?  They are part of the entire phenomenon of Scientology. :-) Steve Dufour 13:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sentences removed from intro section

message: This whole section seems to be about the actions of the CoS and/or some members of it.  Of course the information should be covered on WP but I wonder if it belongs in this article.  Scientology is only mentioned at all in the section as another name for the CoS. Steve Dufour 17:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Steve, you seem not to realize that as opposed to Church of Scientology, which is the article for the Church of Scientology, and as opposed to Scientology beliefs and practices, which is the article for the beliefs and practices of Scientology, this is the article for Scientology.  As in, the whole thing.  A lot of your recent edits seem to be founded on the incorrect proposition that anything about the Church of Scientology is "not about the subject of the article". -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case I don't think the whole "Scientology vs. the Internet" thing is important enough for this main article.  I don't think you would find a section on the attempts of some Christians to censor movies and books in the main article on Christianity. Steve Dufour 13:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was prominent about 10 years ago and had some appropriate and some misguided aspects to it. --Justanother 14:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed? So why are they still flooding ARS with hundreds of articles every week?  AndroidCat 14:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are they? I left ARS in maybe 1994, so I thankfully missed all the "fun". OK, I would still say that the actual Scn vs. the net as a notable event was about 10 years ago. But wanna see something interesting? Mention of "Freezoners" on a scientology.org site (in the meta tag, I guess). Interesting, no? --Justanother 14:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh. Google sometimes shows text not from the site but from links that refer to that URL . AndroidCat 15:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I did a search on scientology.org and also checked the meta tag for the page and nothing so I figured it was something like that. --Justanother 15:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Scientology vs. the Internet

message: * Scientology bibliography
* Scientology filmography
* Scientology references in popular culture  
* Symbols of Scientology
* Scientology versus the Internet
* Homosexuality and Scientology
* List of groups referred to as cults
* Operation Clambake
Why are these articles the ones we are told to see?  Why not others?  Just asking. Thanks. Steve Dufour 13:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If no reason then I will remove again. Thanks. Steve Dufour 15:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Steve, if you have a constructive suggestion about the links, please make it on the talk page. "If no reason then I will remove" is not constructive.  Please stop making major cuts without justification or concensus.  I know about the charge to "Be Bold" at Wikipedia.  But in the case of a contentious article that has been negotiated at length by many editors over many months, big unilateral changes of the sort you are attempting can easily become a counter-productive disruption of the editing process, leaving both the article itself and the editorial environment the worse for it.  BTfromLA 16:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to be included in the process.  To me, none of these articles seem to be very important so that we should be told to see them. The first two are also the first two in the info box, and seem to be fairly  uninteresting, to me anyway, if they are just lists of books and films.  The others are about fairly minor topics and/or are already mentioned and linked in the article itself. Steve Dufour 20:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well. there's a question of having the "see also" section at all, and a different question about which ones to keep or add.  I do think the presence of that template with gobs of links to related articles does weaken the need for a "see also" section in this case.  Opinions?  BTfromLA 20:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I put a notablity tag on Homosexuality and Scientology. It seemed to be almost all original research. Steve Dufour 15:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, especially since a friend of mine is a gay Scientologist and actively receiving services and in good standing. Scientology has problems with promiscuity, not with the sex of your partner. --Justanother 15:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there an article on "Homosexuality and Pokemon"?  Steve Dufour 16:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: See also