Talk:Scientology/Archive 7

message: Looking for participants in the the discussion of List of religions once classed as cults 
cairoi 14:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is anyone interested in the following article nominated for deletion?

message: I am hesitant to add my own essay, as this is a controversial area.  However, using Wikipedia (thanks!) I have put together my thoughts on Scientology.  I argue that it is at its core a religion, and say why, and that it is and will continue to be protected by those interested in 'religious tolerance'.  However, I also offer three areas in which it is not covered by religious tolerance - its business practices, its use of science, and its own intolerance.  In essence I am trying to find new ways of criticising Scientology, while accepting its status as a religion that should be tolerated.
If anyone thinks this can or should go anywhere to do with Scientology or cults, I will leave it up to you, as I don't think I should make such a decision on my own in articles as disputed as this. Alsvid 16:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Alsvid - Wikipedia has a strict rule against original research, so I'm afraid WP isn't the place for your essay. Hope you can find somewhere for it though! Robin Johnson 16:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Hi Alsvid.  Robin is correct.  If you can get a newspaper or a reputable publisher to publisher your essay then it might be appropriate.  Newspapers and large publishing houses generally have a staff of editors, fact-checkers, and lawyers. They also have assets to protect, and not just monetary assets, but also their reputation.  Therefore these sorts of places tend to produce works that are more reliable and trustworthy.  Vivaldi 18:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh.  I forgot to ask.  Have you published your thoughts anywhere on the web?  I would still like a chance to read them.  If you have done good research and cited your sources we might be able to use your citations if they apply to this article.  Take care! Vivaldi 10:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, my thoughts are here: http://togivemeaning.blogspot.com/2006/04/why-chanting-cult-wont-work.html Alsvid 21:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: An essay I wrote

message: Jwissick, you keep posting in the introduction a paragraph about controversy.  No arguement, there is controversy about the CoS, no arguement.  But to understand what controversy exists some validation of controversy has to be cited, do you follow?  Wikipedia:Verifiability spells out how to do that.  The manner you have posted in the introduction is not per Wiki policy.  The content might be valid, but until or unless some source of information is mentioned, who can know what is controversy, what is rumor and what is of your own conclusions?  If you refuse to validate your postings in the article, Wiki Policy spells out what to do.  Your postings are to be removed from the article and posted here for discussion and validation.  Then, if you (and no one else) validates them, they stay out of the article.  Do you see how this can result in an informative, balanced article ?  I hope so. Terryeo 17:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you want sources cited for an intro statement that Scientology is controversial, that would look far more embarassing for Scientology than otherwise, because it will have to have a long string of citations after the offending sentence, delineating Scientology's many controversies. Surely that's not what you're suggesting? The sources for the word "controversial" are given in no small detail throughout the course of the article. wikipediatrix 00:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello again Wikipediatrix.  I'll state my position.  I believe wikipedia to fill a gap.  On one one hand common encyclopedias have information but they lack the humanistic point of view that only personal experience in the area can provide.  On the other hand, Wikipedia can present many points of view. The number of sources of information are vast and becoming vaster because information storage and retrevial are cheaper.  We are all equally able to edit these articles but for this to work, we must all have equal rights.  Your right, Jwissick's right and my right are all equal but this can only work if we follow common policies.  Else the guy with the biggest hard drive would be writing every article. :) Terryeo 17:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  See my response below. wikipediatrix 19:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I what??  I have made few edits to this article.. mostly reverts after vandals... WTH are you talking about?? Jwissick(t)(c) 07:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jwissick, please provide some validation

message: The first line struck me immediately, that "Scientolgy contained 20 million words of "knowledge" "  Whether these words are knowledge, propaganda, or ignorence is exactly the nature of the controversy over this organization.  There is no essential reason to use this word to describe this organization, and the article works quite well with my version that I feel is closer to NPOV. Arodb 06:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What need to enjudge the 20 million words?  Why state they are all knowledge, anti-knowledge, science, pseudo-science or anything?  In 20 million words you gotta allow the guy makes a joke somewhere. heh. Terryeo 00:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Re: The "20 million words" phrase... it's repeated somewhat often. Often enough that I think it's a catchphrase, as I've now seen it here, and in a Miscavige interview , half of his 40 million here , but this site (it's a bridge publications site, BTW)  has Hubbard writing *60* million words (rather than 20, or 40).... uhm, who actually counted the words? And would you really want to do that kind of a thing for a living (imagine the poor guy, sitting there counting......) :-) Ronabop 01:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Counting wouldn't be that difficult if you had electronic copies of all his works, which we can assume CoS has since they supposedly have them all stored on CDs in underground vaults in various locations. Vivaldi 22:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: So why isn't there a neutrality tag on the article, if a neutrality tag was ever to be needed somewhere, i would have thought this article would be an exellent candidate? Bib 16:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The claim of 20million-60million words is a minor and nearly insignificant point.  It doesn't matter one bit if Hubbard wrote 200,000 words or 200 million.  We only need to point out that the CoS claims in various places that the number is 20 millon or 40 million or 60 million, or whatever they claim.  If other people have sources that indicate fewer words are written, they can add them to the article.  I'm not sure that there is any dispute over the claim that the "CoS says that Hubbard wrote 40 million words" and I believe the article takes a neutral view of their claim.  I think the NPOV is most appropriate when an editor finds an article that is in a NPOV state and its not being actively edited and the editor doesn't want to take them time to correct it themselves.  This article has MANY editors that are willing to remove any edits that are not neutral in tone, so instead of using an NPOV tag it seems more appropriate to point out specifically which sentences you believe are not neutral and discuss ways to fix them on the talk page.  Vivaldi 22:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (Oops, i meant the article in general, not especially those numbers, sorry.) Quote: "I think the NPOV is most appropriate when an editor finds an article that is in a NPOV state and its not being actively edited and the editor doesn't want to take them time to correct it themselves.  This article has MANY editors that are willing to remove any edits that are not neutral in tone, so instead of using an NPOV tag it seems more appropriate to point out specifically which sentences you believe are not neutral and discuss ways to fix them on the talk page." Answer: To point out NPOV specifically would've been easy for the Ron Hubbard dude himself probably, but not for me. (Besides, chances are he would probably want to add more NPOV to the article.) Having many editors is positive, but it is a huge article, and it would take weeks to check out every fact with every source. Since there have been news about scientology persons continually trying to shut down, and have succeded occasionally, websites with scientology information, which also makes it even more possible that there are scientology members here at wikipedia trying to make the article positive for them. Am i not making any sense at suggesting a NPOV tag? Bib 00:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's making sense, but to give an analogy, suppose you call the police and say "Please come quickly!  There's an assault taking place at 200 Washington Street!"  Well, if 200 Washington is a one-story house, that may be all you need to tell them.  If 200 Washington Street is a 40-floor office building, you're still right to call the police, but you have to be a lot more specific about where their help is needed. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Bib- I have similar feelings about this as Antaeus.  You assume because Scientology is a controversial subject that the article is biased in some manner, but you can't even specify which side it is biased in favor of, nor can you cite even a specific instance of a biased wording or phrase.  Just because an article is a large controversial subject doesn't mean we can't write each sentence and meet the requirements of WP:NPOV.   For an example of this, check out the abortion article, which contains probably one of the most heatedly contested philosophical battles of modern time, but yet Wikipedia has managed to present both sides of the issue and keep a non-biased tone throughout the article.   Now you might suspect that a hugely controversial subject edited by hundreds of people might also warrant and NPOV tag -- but you'd be wrong.  This particular abortion article is even specifically mentioned in the policy as an example of how to handle a controversial topic.  I think we are doing a pretty good job here cleaning up some loose ends, and rather than coming here and saying its biased and running off, I would appreciate your help in making this article better.  Find a specific example of something that is wrong and rephrase it.  Find a uncited claim and see if you can figure out how to cite it properly.  I'd love to see you help to improve the article.  Vivaldi 03:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: K, no NPOV tag then. Vivaldi, i'm not sure if you're hurting my feelings or not, by telling me what i belive and then contradict it, and i'm not sure you're using irony when you say you love me work, but ok, no NPOV tag. Bib 16:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro made more NPOV

message: Why is Fossa being so insistent that the word "Additionally" be removed from the second paragraph? (Fossa's edit summary: "rv; non-POV language")  It really doesn't seem to make much difference as far as I can tell, from either a pro-Hubbard or anti-Hubbard POV. It is, however, somewhat clunky from a "good writing" sense. wikipediatrix 01:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know, but one edit probably isn't too insistent. I think additionally sounds better and makes more sense logically, so I will change it back. The Ungovernable Force 01:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I was looking at it more and I just changed the order of the sentences and it makes more sense, and in this version, additionally is unneeded. The Ungovernable Force 01:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Additionally" 

message: Could someone please restore the passage removed by 72.240.213.218?    
anonymously added 21:02, 5 April 2006 by 
:The passage and this article is already too long.  This article is about Scientology not Xenu.  That is why there is a link to Xenu in the article so that people that want to find out more about him can click on it. Vivaldi 02:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, the remaining text is positive for scientology, but also it is hiding facts which can explains why others believe scientology is negative. Bib 23:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose there will always be people that feel that the article is biased towards Scientology unless every last detail of every abuse and every secret is brought out in this article.  I don't feel that is the case.  You are right that much of the article is about Scientology and not criticism, but I think there is a good representation of the criticism that is out there.  Certainly if one follows the links about Scientology and uses the navigation template, they will be exposed to more detail about the abuses.  It might amuse you that many people have suggested that just the opposite is true, that the critical viewpoints are over-represented.   Vivaldi (talk) 23:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, yep, agree, there will always be people who feel the article is biased towards or against scientology. Which is why i mentioned earlier a NPOV tag might be an option. (Also if people have more details about every abuse and every secret, it is ok if they have a valid source.) Much of the article is about scientology, you're right. However, removing facts about scientology is not the same as removing criticism? The removed  passage is facts about scientology. However it is facts which might put scientology in a bad light, right? Remaining are facts which might put scientology in a better looking light, the bad light facts should remain too. Bib 23:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, yep, agree, there will always be people who feel the article is biased towards or against scientology. Which is why i mentioned earlier a NPOV tag might be an option. Bib, just because some people think the article is biased doesn't mean that it deserves the tag.  I believe for articles with lots of editors willing to work on the article, that it is silly to have a NPOV tag.  Just explain in clear specific language what parts are biased and then we'll come to a consensus and quickly fix whatever parts we agree are written in non-neutral language.   If the consensus viewpoint thinks the article isn't biased, then it doesn't need a NPOV tag. Vivaldi (talk) 04:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: However, removing facts about scientology is not the same as removing criticism? The removed  passage is facts about scientology. However it is facts which might put scientology in a bad light, right? Remaining are facts which might put scientology in a better looking light, the bad light facts should remain too.  Also, I'm don't think that presenting the FULL Xenu story is appropriate for an article about Scientology.  Scientology is such a broad topic that we must pick and choose what to put in the article.  Too much information is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article.  We have space concerns. Vivaldi (talk) 04:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also if people have more details about every abuse and every secret, it is ok if they have a valid source -- No it isn't "ok".  This article has space limitations.  No editors will accept it if you start detailing the thousands of stories ever written about Scientology that have been documented.   WP:V is only one, albeit important, part of writing a good encyclopedia article. Vivaldi (talk) 04:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, you say i have to remember not to detail thousands of stories about Scientology. Consider it done. Quote I'm don't think that presenting the FULL Xenu story is appropriate for an article about Scientology. -- No, i don't want the full page here either, since it has it's own article.
Quote Scientology is such a broad topic that we must pick and choose what to put in the article. -- Yep. However we must pick both "positive" & "negative" information, not remove the negative & keep  the positive? Quote Too much information is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. We have space concerns. -- Yes, and i  want the space to have "tyrant from space" information. The article says Among these advanced teachings, one episode revealed to those who reach OT level III has been widely remarked upon in the press: the story of Xenu and his Galactic Confederacy. Then right away it says Scientologists argue that published accounts of the Xenu story and other colorful teachings are presented out of context for the purpose of ridiculing their religion. Right in the middle of those two sentences, is where the removed facts belongs. Maybe we can remove forexample critics of Scientology counter 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 and so on, to make space? Bib 17:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bib- there are no easy and simple rules for deciding what content belongs. If there were any such rules, then wikipedia would write itself.  I personally think the article is too long as it is.  You are certainly free to continue added more and more and more stories to it as long as you realize that many editors also feel that keeping this article concise is also an issue.  I would suggest that before you add large sections of new material for the article that you first place a copy of what you intend to add to this talk page and develop a consensus for your edits.  Or at least try to develop a consensus for the idea that you want to add all sorts of information that isn't in the article. Vivaldi (talk) 16:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  OT Levels and and Xenu 

message: Above titles says it all really..   Was L. Ron Hubbard a buggerer of young boys ? (Dirk Diggler Jnr) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.13.116.249 (talk • contribs) .
:Despite that recent South Park episode drawing parallels between Scientology and a pedophile club, the answer is "almost certainly not".  There are allegations that Hubbard was not averse to relations with his prettier female students, but as far as I know, none of him having anything to do sexually with children. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not aware of any documented evidence of relationships with children. There have been some suggestions of relationships with female Sea Org members (such as alleged in the Eltringham declaration) but, to my knowledge, I haven't even read claims of paedophilia or paederasty in the more rabid critical sources, which is usually the acid test. Certainly, none of the authoritative critical sources, such as The Scandal of Scientology, A Piece of Blue Sky, etc. have contained any claims to this effect. So I'd concur with Antaeus above in saying the idea LRH was a paedophile is highly improbable. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Being a scholar and critic of Scientology for over 10 years, I've never seen any evidence of Hubbard having a sexual interest in children.  In fact, I've never even seen it seriously put forth as accusation by any of the critics that I have dealt with over the years. Vivaldi 03:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it was L. Ron Hubbard jr aka Ron DeWolf (son by 1st marriage), who made some claims of improper conduct by LRH towards children of his 3rd marriage. However, I wouldn't waste more than a dime betting between LRH and LRHjr in a truth contest without evidence to back it up. As for South Park, Hubbard is dead and they were talking about some "fruity little club", not Scientology. AndroidCat 19:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually in the SP episode about Scientology they wrote that Hubbard was on a ship for a long time filled with nothing but young boys.  In any case, there is no legal actions that can be taken (in the U.S.) against someone that is defaming someone that is dead.  Once you are dead, anybody can freely say whatever the hell they want about you, whether it is true or not.  Also, even if LRH were still alive, this would be acceptable because SP is using parody to make fun of LRH and it is not representing that cartooon character Cartman is a person that is to be believed.  Heck, these guys also pretend to talk to walking and talking peices of poo.  It's a joke!  And, as a joke, they are protected from libel laws, just as they are protected from the law when they accuse the homosexual Tom Cruise of being "in the closet" repeatedly.  Vivaldi 20:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was Hubbard a pederast? 

message: Look,the entire basis of Scientology is on preserving technology that works. Unfortunately, the best and most successful sources of information which bring the inquirer to a greater understanding of the subject itself are those which quote Scientology texts exactly, aside from the obvious, which would be to read an actual Scientology book. While Wikipedia does do that in some instances, it is continually surrounded by comments, always negative. Where is the other side of the coin, first of all? How can this be a "factual" online encyclopedia, when ideas and opinions are the main body of each article? While it is one thing to state a THEORY, as in a scientific article, it is another to state a critical opinion, which in fact has no basis at all, and are given from people who have no ground to stand on. Such obviously would not have any business in an encyclopedia. (Obviously, to me,anyway)
The last thing I have to say is this: While I understand your thirst to include everything you can about a subject, you should seriously consider SUMMARIZING the articles, instead of having simply very long-winded opinions. I have got to be honest here: you can ask any Scientologist on the street, and I can guarantee 99% of them will never have heard of the term "Xenu", whatever that is. Which also reminds me of the actual last thing I want to say which is that I can not believe an episode from SOUTH PARK, a CARTOON SHOW, is being referenced in an encyclopedia. Really, I am disappointed. I hope you will consider revising the whole outline of the article so as to actually communicate what this subject is all about, and so that the readers can learn something about it they can really use. I don't think you would be happy if an article on "Wikipedia" consisted only of critical comments, like the ones here. In fact, you would think it would be insane to do that. 
And that is how I feel about this set of articles on Scientology.
69.180.41.191 03:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that a large number of Scientologists have not yet paid enough to reach the level where they learn the Xenu story does not change the fact that Xenu is part of Scientology doctrine, as has been confirmed in court by senior Scientology officials testifying on behalf of Scientology. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you focus on a tiny minority, then you have information about a tiny minority.  "a large number of Scientologists" are saying Scientology is for me, in fact that is the only pre-requisite to saying that you are a Scientologist, simply your own declaration.  If 99 % are using information which is publically and widely published, then, obviously, that information would be the information an encyclopedic presentation would mostly present. Terryeo 04:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  Yup, yup, I was sure you would feel a reply was necessary.  Alas! If only editors would understand the context of that thing.  Anyone who can look at what actually happend 75 million years ago, please stand up and tell us all about it !  I for one will let it go, I haven't a clue and it doesn't much matter in my daily life, anyway. heh.  BTW, 69.180.41.191, if you take a look at WP:V you will find the foundation on which Wikipedia is created. Editors place informations smoothly (ha) together to form articles, each information itself is necessarily verified or verifiable. A body of editors together then form a smooth, flowing article (ha) which includes many points of view.Terryeo 01:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do I have to "look at what actually happend 75 million years ago"?  It doesn't seem relevant; what is relevant is that according to senior Scientology officials testifying in court as Scientology's witnesses, Scientology claims it knows what happened 75 million years ago and offers this claimed knowledge as a reward for reaching certain levels within the organization. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Right, sorry I didn't exclude you when I made my statement, please don't take it as a personal statement.  I was attempting to lighten the situation up a little and should have added, "except for Feldspar" because that might have lightened it up even more, heh. Terryeo 05:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  False Opinions 

message: Perhaps someone better versed on the subject could further examine Scientology's parallels to Gnosticism.  I'm admittedly no expert, but its seems Hubbard borrows key concepts from what is known of Gnostic tradition(I know the ties to eastern spirtuality have been well documented here). SteelyDave 03:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've speculated that Gnosticology might be a better name for a few reasons.  Other have suggested gnostic roots.  AndroidCat 05:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Mystae.com has a page concerning links between Scientology and Gnosticism.  --70.28.33.52 19:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The question now becomes "Is the Gnostic connection worth inclusion as an influence on Scientology?"SteelyDave 19:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to Gnostic Thought? 

message: In this article, far too often weasel words are used.  The problem with saying "Scientologists say...." and "Many critics contend...XYZ" is that we don't know which people you are talking about and when and where they talk about them.  Instead of saying "Critics claim that XYZ happened", we need to write, "In the article, Scientology is a Global Scam, Richard Behar of the Newsweek wrote, "XYZ"".  Alternatively, you can also cite another source that meets the policy of WP:V that says "Critics contend XYZ".  But just leaving unsourced comments that certain amounts of unknown critics make claims is not an acceptable practice.  I would encourage people here to help make this article MUCH better by providing actual references for each of the unique claims made.  Once this is done, we can avoid many of the arguments about verifiability and start focusing more on style.  I was recently reverted by  after I inserted a couple of  tags into the article.  I thought I explained my case fairly well in the edit summaries, but I was reverted anyways.  I will try one more time now that I have explained myself here.  Before these tags are removed again, I would appreciate it if you can please actually provide the citations that back up the claims.  I am looking to make this article and Wikipedia MUCH better and providing citations for your claims is essential to that process. Vivaldi 04:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well actually I'm not going to replace the  tags tonight because I'm tired and I want people to have a chance to read my arguments before the quickly revert my work, but you can look in the article and see many places where it says things like "Critics say...", "Scientologists believe...", "Critics contend....", "Critics believe....", "Scientologists counter...".  These claims need to be sourced properly.  Perhaps everyone can pick just one of the "critics say..." or "scientologists say..." and dig up a reference to prove the claim according to the policies at WP:V.  If we do this it will make the article much better and it will demonstrate that the article is written in a neutral point of view. Vivaldi 05:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel words need to go 

message: The most common term used for this practice is "Silent Birth" not "Quiet Birth".  Do a search on Google News for both terms to see what I mean.  I recently fixed this problem and was reverted by  without any explanation other than "bogus".   Vivaldi 04:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See my response to your comments on my talk page. It was a mistake. Sorry about that. :( --FOo 06:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quiet Birth vs. Silent Birth 

message: I removed a link in the Scientology celebrities section that cited THE FABLE as a source for some claims.  The link is at http://www.xs4all.nl/~fishman/fable.htm.  I removed this because THE FABLE says in its own preface, "No claim is made by the anonymous author(s) that any statement in this fable or its accompanying appendices is factual. To help the reader evaluate the relevance of this fable in the proper skeptical state of mind, treat this document as purely fictional and layered full of allegory, metaphor and symbolism, waiting for each reader to decrypt and interpret its meaning each in their own way. Also treat all names and places in this fable as fictional. Any similarity of names or places in this fable to any place or real person living or dead is purely coincidental.".  While it is clear that much of The Fable is in fact true, it doesn't seem appropriate to use it as a reputable and reliable source since it specifically says that it is a work of fiction. Vivaldi 05:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also, much of the same information in it can be obtained from more solid sources anyway, such as Andre Tabayoyon's affidavit. wikipediatrix 18:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Fable shouldn't be cited as a source 

message: I made a number of edits to clean up and clarify the section about Scientology and the tax exempt status of its many tentacles.  This included renaming the section header, rearranging the order of the presentation, and adding new information.  I have also added citations for most any claim that can be disputed and I believe each of the sources meets the requirements of WP:V.  It still probably needs to be checked to make sure it is presented in a neutral tone. Vivaldi 10:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaned up the section about tax issues and religious recognition 

message: Let's go through it sentence by sentence.
:"Scientology is a word used by author L. Ron Hubbard in 1952 at a public lecture in Kansas.Hubbard, L. Ron Scientology: Milestone One a public lecture given at Wichita, Kansas on 3 March, 1952.."
Hmmm, let's see.  "is a word".  Well, that's very informative!  Just think of all the words that we could have followed with "is not a word".  And of course, since our focus is on the word "Scientology", rather than what the word "Scientology" refers to, what readers will want to know right away is when and where and by whom the word was first used.  A public lecture in Kansas?  How shocking!  I would have thought that the word had first been used in Nebraska!
:"He spent most of the lecture defining the term but began with: "Scientology would be a study of knowledge"."
Whew!  I'm glad we're really packing in the really important things to know, like when in the lecture he got around to defining it!
:"It is a new religious movement based on knowledge about spiritual matters and was presented as a philosophy."
Wow!  Again, we're just shearing away the layers of imprecision and leaving a glittering, crystalline gem of truth!  Scientology is surely set apart now from all those new religious movements based on knowledge about plumbing matters.
:"The current Church of Scientology was first established in 1954, "The word Scientology literally means 'the study of truth.' It comes from the Latin word 'scio' meaning 'knowing in the fullest sense of the word' and the Greek word 'logos' meaning 'study of.'"Church of Scientology Introduction to Scientology (website accessed 4/12/06)"
Yes!  We will rebel against this horrible entheta notion of writing grammatical sentences!  We will show that we are twice as good as the rest of the world by trying to cram two unrelated sentences into one!  Why, instead of writing "John said 'Mary is no good'", we will write "John was born in 1973, 'Mary is no good'!"
Translation:  This introduction is no improvement.  The old version will be restored. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terryeo's revised introduction 

message: In the interest in further removal of obfuscation, I'm going to try moving this part of the introductory paragraph to somewhere else further down in the article:
Hubbard defined Scientology as "knowing how to know", [1] although he first introduced it with the words, "Scientology would be a study of knowledge."[2]. The current Church of Scientology writes, "The word Scientology literally means 'the study of truth.' It comes from the Latin word 'scio' meaning 'knowing in the fullest sense of the word' and the Greek word 'logos' meaning 'study of.'"[3]
I can find no other "-ology" article that bothers to spend over half of the introductory paragraph with a long and convoluted analysis of the word's etymology. Articles for other religious beliefs such as Zoroastrianism, Kabbalah, and Islam do not go into the etymology of their names in the intro paragraph. The article for Unarius doesn't even go there until the article's third subsection, deep into the article. wikipediatrix 15:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  etymological overkill 

message: While I laughed for about twenty minutes when I saw that the picture of L. Ron Hubbard had been replaced with an image of Mayor McCheese, of McDonald's marketing fame, the original needed to be restored.  Don't forget, Wikipedia's for everyone, even Mayor McCheese and L. Ron Hubbard, so let's try and keep it neutral...--anonymously added 12:48, 17 April 2006 by 
:Well, if you thought that was funny, you really missed out earlier.  The same user has turned L. Ron Hubbard into a picture of poop and also into a picture of an uncircumcized penis.  He is a virtual laugh riot. Vivaldi (talk) 04:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, it is hard to choose which of the three images best represents him. Fishhead64 06:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing the picture... 

message: The central practice of "auditing" (from the Latin word audire,"to listen" -- but note the similarity to the administrative procedure), which is one-on-one communication with a trained Scientology counselor or "auditor".   This isn't even a sentence.  I reverted to a version where this was a sentence.  The episode can be downloaded; one location where it is available is . South Park studios do not object to downloading -- I feel this is extraneous and unneeded material.  A link is provided at the bottom already.  I also reverted to re-add links that were deleted.  Vivaldi (talk) 02:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation for Pol, why I reverted 

message: I could have came up with a better story than this.
Seriously. If you're going to make another pathetic religion, don't. Make a parody religion. fsm, ftw.
:And the relevance of this to the writing of the article? -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tom Cruise sucks- and so does scientology. 

message: The E-meter is nothing more than a device that measures changes in the resistance of a small current passing through the human body.  It does not measure "galvanic skin response".  The E-meter produces an electrical current on its own that far exceeds whatever galvanic currents could possibly be produced .  A galvanic response is like a battery, when two dissimilar metals are placed in a solution that allows the transfer of electrons from one to the other.  This is not what is occuring with the e-meter.  The e-meter produces a small current which passes through one can that is held by a person and the current goes through the body and then through the other can held by the person.  Using a Wheatstone bridge and various methods of amplification and noise reduction, the e-meter provides an analog reading of the changes in Electrical resistance of the human body.  These changes can be caused simply by adjusting how tight or how loose one holds onto the cans, or other subtle changes in the body.  The US Patent granted to "inventor" L. Ron Hubbard is called "Device for Measuring and Indicating Changes in the Resistance of a Human Body" and it is US Patent 3,290,589 issued Dec. 6th, 1966.  You can also find a copy of the patent at the USPTO.gov website, but you'll need a free multipage TIFF viewer called AlternaTIFF, since the patent is so old, all they have are scanned imagesoof it.  Anyone that suggests that the e-meter measures "galvanic skin response" is incorrect.  I'm thinking that this might be the efforts of Scientologists to make the e-meter sound like it does more than it really does. Vivaldi (talk) 04:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The word "galvanic" originated as a man's name, as many technical words.  Galvanic: pertaining to or producing electric current by chemical action; "a galvanic cell"  and Dictionary.com states the word originated from Luigi Galvani who is known for his pioneering experiments in the electrical stimulation of frog nerves and muscles. His experiments motivated the discovery of a source of a constant current of electricity.
However, "Galvanic Skin Response" is a different kettle of fish, Law enforcement, the FBI, and others have used the resistivity of a person's skin as part of a lie detector's measurement for some years.  The term "galvanic skin response" has a different meaning, though it involves electricity.  Galvanic Skin Response concerns how a human body's skin reacts to small (tiny) amounts of electricity.  By such an application of tiny electrical current, resistance to the flow of electricity can be measured.  A Dictionary states: "A change in the ability of the skin to conduct electricity, caused by an emotional stimulus, such as fright."  and mentions, a "lie detector - a polygraph that records bodily changes sometimes associated with lying" again at freedictionary but that property of the human body is sometimes called "electrical skin response" and defined: "n : a change in the electrical properties of the skin in response to stress or anxiety; can be measured either by recording the electrical resistance of the skin or by recording weak currents generated by the body" synonym study  here.
A "galvanometer" would be any meter capable of measuring such small electrical currents  and  .  The word is not misused to state that an E-meter measures changes in the electrical resistance of a human body's skin.  It does exactly that.  Whether it is called "electrical skin response" or "galvanic skin response" or something different, it is a measurement which an E-meter is designed for, small changes in the resistance of a body's skin and it uses a small battery to accomplish that. Terryeo 18:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Terryeo- Whether or not "galvanic skin response" was named after Kermin the Frog or Mario Galviendretti, means nothing.  The e-meter does not measure the electrical resistivity of the skin.  The e-meter is a crude ohmmeter, that records an analog change in the resistivity of an entire system that goes from can to the can-to-skin-interface, then through-the-body, then out the skin-to-can-interface, then through the other can.  This system is not capable of measuring the "skin response" to electricity, because it is also measuring the entire body response to a whole host of factors including respiration, tension of the hands holding onto the cans, pumping of the heart, and motion of the muscles and the body itself.  It is an not appropriate to label the e-meter as a device that measures "skin resistence" or "skin response" at all.  If you read the LRH patent, you'll notice that he never once mentions these words, "galvanic, galvanometer, or skin".  Vivaldi (talk) 22:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I think that's because he couldn't, because GSR meters were already patented! I think the discrepancy here may be because the original e-meters invented by Volney Mathison were, in fact, galvanic skin response devices. When Hubbard's minions tried to change it just enough so they could steal the idea and patent it, they must have simplified it into a skin ohmmeter. Check the results for this Google search. wikipediatrix 00:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Volney Mathison was also a kook.  I'm not impressed with the practice of chiropracty to begin with, and I'm even less impressed when a chiropracter fancies himself a psycho-inventor that can read thoughts by measuring the electrical resistivity of the human body, and I'm even less impressed with chiropracters that write books similar to "The Secret Power of the Crystal Pendulum".  I haven't seen the details for his device, but if it involved holding onto two tin cans (in seperate hands) and passing a current through the whole body, then it didn't measure "galvanic skin response", it measured the resistence of the whole human body. Vivaldi (talk) 22:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  E-meter is not a "galvanic skin response" measurer 

message: Wikipedia.org is a project wholly financed and sponsored by the Church of scientology. To my detractor -please counter my point instead of merely deleting it. It's easy to be destructive -alot harder to be constructive. -- anonymous message left 11:54, 23 April 2006 by 86.135.219.121 (talk • contribs • 86.135.219.121 count)
:So, why do you want people to counter your point then? Now if you burst out "apples are orange", you should maybe counter your point yourself. Bib 17:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia.org is a project wholly financed and sponsored by the Church of scientology. Wikipedia foundation is sponsored by lots of contributors.  I seriously doubt that any Scientologists have contributed to the fund since Wikipedia reveals so many of their abuses and so many of their sooper sekrit texts.  If you have any evidence to back up your claim, I'd be happy to look at it.  Vivaldi (talk) 14:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: For those of you who don't already know...

message: As a trial, I added the sisterlinks template to the bottom of the page. The quotations and Wikinews are perhaps useful. Thoughts? AndroidCat 17:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sisterlinks trial

message: I reverted these changes because there was no point in removing the words 'teachings' and 'ceremonies', especially as teachings and ceremonies are listed in the article.  I also removed his change of the reference 'Church' to 'group', as the name of the group IS the Church of Scientology.  I'm no fan of Scientology, but his changes seem to be subtly POV against it.  Taliesyn 03:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reversion of changes by 67.49.208.28

message: This section is a combination of speculation and lies (the issue referred to here from Fishman was documented to be completely fabricated). This is just critics trying to put a wedge between Scientology and Christianity.  Not even worth trying to edit this, I see no reason to leave it in.Nuview 02:37, 28 April 2006 (PST)
:Nuview is evidently referring to the deletion he made here: .  Unfortunately, his reasons for doing so are incorrect:  While there are some doubts about the accuracy of the version of OT VIII found in the Fishman Affidavit (a point which the article already rightly notes) it is not the case that it has been "documented to be completely fabricated", nor has any argument at all been offered that the other sources are invalid.  The deletion is being reversed. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We shouldn't be explaining Clear in the OT section. That should have been explained long before in the Scientology#Auditing section, and it is, but not as concisely as your text. The Auditing section has seen a lot of back-and-forth and could stand being boiled down (again) and the technical parts transported to Auditing (Scientology). AndroidCat 14:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: As for the interesting claim that most critics are financed by someone, I did not get that memo! Who does one apply to? Is it the Marcabs, the 4th Invader Force, the Eevil Psychs, Xenu's Disloyal Officers, the 12 Bankers or SMERSH? (If Clambake is financed by outsiders, then obviously it's not a personal web site, is it?) AndroidCat 14:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nuview's deletion from "Scientology and other religions" 

message: I have a problem with this paragraph : However, a notable number of countries around the world have apparently embraced Scientology, including Italy, Spain and Thailand. Also, the number of legal battles in which the Church has engaged seems to have peaked in the early-to-mid-1990s, and has been declining since then. Since that time, many Scientologists have adopted a more relaxed view toward minor criticism. The overall attitude in the Scientology community has partially shifted to spreading Scientology through direct application to communities, rather than combating those who attempt to stop or belittle it.
First of all, what exactly is meant by the word embrace ? Did they hold "Hooray for Scientology" parades ? It would be more appropriate to explain CoS's status in those countries (couldn't find much of anything, if anybody has some ideas where to look) than to use the weasel word apparently.
Second, because I find this first sentence seems POV, I'm suspicious of the second part as well. What is the basis for saying that the number of legal battles, or that scientologists have become more relaxed (POV by the way) ? Finally, regarding those who attempt to stop or belittle it, shouldn't it just say critics ? (forgot to sign) Unmitigated Success 08:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I came to this page with the exactly same problem - particularly "embraced". Please explain, or remove. Camillus (talk) 23:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, 'embraced' means nothing. Also, nothing in the paragraph is sourced and some of it seems quite un-verifiable. How would you verify 'the overall attitude...', for example? The original editor should make the para more specific or have the para removed. Ashmoo 23:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt any country has embraced Scientology in the sense that one embraces principles or a mistress. Tolerated, allowed or accepted might be closer. CoS only recently outlasted the criminal cases in Spain. AndroidCat 14:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Countries "embracing" scientology

message: Problems with this statement: "Scientology is considered a religion in the United States, Thailand, Taiwan, Spain, and Australia, and thus enjoys and regularly cites the constitutional protections afforded in two of these nations to religious practice."  First of all, for the umpteenth time, Scientology is NOT "considered a religion" in the United States -- it uses its tax exemption to declare itself a religion.  The US government does NOT grant "official" status to any religion.  Furthermore, if Scientology regularly cites constitutional protections in "two of these nations," which two are they? --Modemac 08:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Considered a religion" 

message: Problems with this:
 LRH "was also qualified and/or have [sic] practiced in more than twenty other professions such
 as Philosopher, Engineer, Explorer, Navigator, Captain (US Army)."
How was LRH a "qualified" or "practiced" or "professional", Philosopher? Explorer? etc. Camillus (talk) 13:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we should even bother with that sentence and just revert it to what it was before. Not only is it not really relevant to this page (rather to L. Ron's page) but it would be a pain to find the references. Unmitigated Success 13:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: References that Hubbard was qualified as an engineer or Captain (US Army) would be difficult... AndroidCat 13:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since "talented" is a subjective term, it's POV and/or Original Research anyway. I can sort-of play violin, but that doesn't mean I'm talented at it, nor does it mean I'm "qualified" to call myself a professional violinist... wikipediatrix 14:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Multi-talented?

message: This article extensively uses personal websites as references. See WP:RS. I will be removing anything that is referenced to personal websites. --Nikitchenko 01:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You do not WP:OWN this article, so stop talking like you're the new sheriff in town. If you have a problem with the indisputable fact that WP:RS is not policy but merely a guideline, feel free to take it to arbitration or something. wikipediatrix 01:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Worth noting is the talk page of WP:RS where this exact issue raised large concerns with several editors.  A public discussion took place there and the result has been that guideline being extensively re-written with exactly this issue in mind and particularly in mind the Clambake.org / Xenu.net site.  Its a personal website and should not be quoted within an article, though it may be used as an external link, or further reading sort of site. Arbitration of an issue which has been extensively and publically discussed on the guideline's page would be dispersive, unusual and cross effort when the issues extant have been fully discussed in the past week.  But WP:RS would be the first place to discuss the changes which you would wish to implement, Wikipediatrix. Terryeo 09:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I never said I OWNED this article. Personal websites cannot be used as sources on this article.  See WP:RS. Guidelines improve article quality. What is your argument for ignoring guidelines?  How does ignoring the guideline improve the article? Including unreliable statements in this article does not improve it. --Nikitchenko 01:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personal websites cannot be used as sources on this article.  WP:RS is a guideline, not a policy.  So even if this website were the only source for the claims in the article, we, the editors, could still decide through the consensus process to make an exception to WP:RS if it helps us to make a better article.  Guidelines, can have exceptions made to them (and that is policy which you can read at: Policies and Guidelines).  There are many sources for the claims in this article, and sometimes people put in convenience links available on a personal site when there are other published sources for the claims.  Before you try to remove substantial portions of text, you should develop a consensus for your changes on the talk page.  Try asking people for a better citation if you think that one is improper.  In any case, removing large chunks of material that is actively edited by over twenty people is not going to be received well.   I would suspect that other editors that you might involve in mediation or arbitration would also feel that your edits were disruptive and anti-consensus, so if you would like to begin that process, please feel free.  Vivaldi (talk) 05:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From the discussion on the talk page of WP:RS, the consensus seemed to be favourable towards using material on xenu.net archived from other sources at the very least. I don't think an editor simply declaring xenu.net a personal site and removing all references would be well received there. But if Nikitchenko wants to pick up exactly where Terryeo left off, well... AndroidCat 05:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, thankyou for your opinions. Your comments are bording on uncivility. I'm not going to argue about it. --Nikitchenko 18:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL. How is it "bording on uncivility"?  Doesn't not argueing about it, mean you aren't going to discuss your deletions on the talk pages, a practice that Terryeo engaged in and has been admonished for?  Good luck with that. Vivaldi (talk) 21:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  My experience with editors here tells me that being tolerant of uncivil talk is not fruitful.  When I tolerated a great deal of uncivil accusation and uncivil, bordering on personal attack and even personal attack, what did I get for it?  Well, when I replied likewise, then my responses were used in an Rfa which led to an Request for arbitration.  Single statements which I had made in response to several editors, each of whom themselves had likewise made uncivil statements, in their totality, were enough that the arbitration committee views my combinded statements as disruptive.  No, its not necessary to tolerate uncivil comment and doesn't lead to productive editing.  But to address the point, which you, Vivaldi, have extensively addressed at the WP:RS talk page, I've provided the out points of the references and footnotes just following.  There are, within the article, and additionally, several links to personal websites including Xenu.net which are likewise, per WP:RS,  unallowable. Terryeo 09:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I say bordering on uncivility because Android Cat says "But if Nikitchenko wants to pick up exactly where Terryeo left off, well..." It isn't exactly uncivil, but it is bordering on uncivility because to me, the recipient, Android Cat is making some kind of accusation whether he thinks I'm a sock puppet of Terry or what, I don't know. --Nikitchenko 00:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't help it if you see personal attacks, uncivility and added meaning in every remark that disagrees with you. AndroidCat 01:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, reality is different than what Android Cat presents. Take a look at Terry's arbitration. So far there is 60% vs. 40% that xenu IS a personal website. --Nikitchenko 00:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again you seem to be putting words in my mouth. I refered to the discussion on the talk pages, which clearly doesn't back up your stated aim of automatically removing any reference from a "personal site". AndroidCat 01:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I am waiting with bated breath.  Vivaldi (talk) 21:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL, for what? I've made myself pretty clear in discussion here. You and a couple others seem to disagree, but what are you waiting for ME for? By the way, I intend to include any disputes here in the current Scientology mediation cabal case. --Nikitchenko 00:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed