Talk:Scientology/Archive 2

message: In the edit summary, I said "Let's not sprinkle the article with victims of Scientology", while removing a mention of Victor Gyory. Turns out that Victor Gyory is a victim of substandard psychiatric treatment, not of Scientology. I still don't want to see the article filled with victims of any side in this article.
--cprompt 16:02, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Victims

message: Scientology is recognized as a constitutionally protected religion in the United States, but not in most European countries.
Constitutional protection applies to the individual rather than the organization and means, among other things, that it is illegal for a US employer to fire someone simply for being a Scientologist. In Europe, by contrast, there have been several high-profile cases in which the courts upheld firings of Scientologists who had been fired after coming out of the closet.
The tax status of the CofS is a separate issue that is already covered at Church of Scientology. Mkweise 22:04, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly, but these don't fall under First Amendment issues.  The term "Constitutionally protected religion" sounds designed to make people think that Scientology is a Constitutionally "approved" religion (which is what the organization does indeed want people to think).  Anti-discrimination statutes come under another part of the law, if I remember correctly.  This is part of one argument that has caused many critics of Scientology to bang their heads against the wall: the refusal of Scientology to admit that there is no such thing as a "government approved" religious organization in the United states.  This is why they point to the tax exemption as "proof" of their being such as thing, when actually it isn't. --Modemac 09:50, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The first amendment guarantees all Americans the right to free exercise of religion, and specifically prohibits the government from approving of any particular religion(s). My point is that Scientologists are covered by this constitutional protection in the US, but enjoy no such protection from persecution in Europe. Mkweise 19:06, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Since "Europe" is not a single country, but a variety of countries with vastly differing legislations, your point is very imprecise and I would be glad if you cared to precise it. For your information, all countries in Europe with few exceptions, including all countries in the European Union, are signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights, which makes freedom of religion a basic right. Government such as the French government are legally prohibited from recognizing or subsidizing religions. David.Monniaux 19:25, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Official discrimination against Scientologists occurred mostly France, according to the U.S. Department of State.  Germany was also officially discriminating against the Scientologists, according to the U.S. Department of State.  Most of the governments in Europe are tolerant of Scientology and Scientologists.--128.171.51.167 21:15, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: It seems to me that one point that differs between the United States' understanding of "freedom of religion" and that of some European countries' is whether or not religious activities are considered above the normal rules of life in society. The European understanding is that the government may not discriminate or prosecute people for religious beliefs, but that religious motives are no excuse for illegal acts. I have the impression that in the United States, religion may be used as a refuge from government interference that would be perfectly legal with respect to other kinds of organizations, for instance for accusations of embezzlement. David.Monniaux 19:34, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: David, History proves that religions tend to have the upper hand over governments.  Many laws are based on religious morals.--128.171.51.167 21:15, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constitutional protection vs. tax exemption 

message: Can someone please clarify for me, or direct me to the appropriate guideline regarding linking to mirrors.   This would seem to me to be superfluous and tend to junk up the page?  If it is an acceptable practice then I can't argue and could do the same, however, it doesn't seem sensible.  Please let me know one way or the other.  Thanks.
--Nuview 09:30, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there's a guideline established, but I think it's because in general the answer is obvious.  It takes a very small amount of space, both storage-wise and page-wise, to include the link to a mirror; it's far less disruption than is caused by obvious troll edits, and those get saved for posterity.  I can't see why including a link to a mirror would be objectionable, when that is useful.  -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:01, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Mirrors

message: Anonymous user 62.248.140.107 has added a NPOV notice. Usually when I see such a notice I go to the talk page to see what justification the person inserting the notice has to give, or else if there's an existing serious dispute going on in the talk page.  I see neither.  I'll remove the NPOV notice tomorrow if it hasn't already been removed in the meantime and there is no objection to my removing it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:03, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV notice 

message: First, I am and have been a Scientology public for 15 years. A "public" is one who takes courses and receives auditing but does not work for Scientology.
I have a comment on the WP page on Scientology. The views expressed herein are mine and do not reflect the official view of the church or any of its organisations. I have put the NPOV notice on the page, following the documentation on that tag.
To me the page on Scientology does seem to exhibit certain level of neutrality and I would like to acknowledge WP for that!
There are still statements and hints on the page that need some more work to make them neutral. Here's some sampling and my view on why they are not neutral.
* "The Church of Scientology is also a commercial organization". If it were a commercial organisation then the IRS would not have declared it and all its affiliates tax exempt. See IR-1997-050--The Church of Scientology for lack of a better reference. In short, Scientology is officially recognised as non-profit and I doubt WP is a forum to question official recognition.
** That said, I believe that WP should acknowledge that the Church of Scientology hassled both the IRS and individuals working for the IRS with (at least) a whole lot of lawsuits, and that many people believe that the CoS effectively bullied the IRS into giving them tax-exempt status, rather than receiving it on their own merits.
By the US IRS yes, but not everywhere outside the US.
In the US as well, Sciencentology's accreditation was also a contentious issue among lawmakers. For a long time the organisation was refused accreditation, succeeding only after heavy lobbying and questionable pressure tactics, including blackmailing of legislators.
--Philopedia 5 July 2005 18:17 (UTC)
* "zealously using high pressure sales techniques to extract money from its members". Yes, some services are expensive. No question about that. But consider the following details:
** The tax-excempt status granted by the IRS: vast amounts of financial records have been peered through by the IRS, including those of recording the most expensive services people had paid for and received. Consider this for a moment: if any of those payments had profited the church, would the IRS have found the church non-profit, "operated exclusively for religious and charitable purposes" (quote from the above statement)?
The issue here is high pressure sales techniques, not high prices.
More explicitly, the Sciencetologists sales approach is to seek out insecure individuals, especially those lacking self assurance and critical skills, convince them they are somehow 'defective', insinuate that Sciencetology has the unique solution to their problems, then pressuring them to participate in an expensive series of 'courses'.
--Philopedia 5 July 2005 18:17 (UTC) 
** The level of skills required to deliver higher level services: the higher level it is, the longer it takes to fully train the technical person to deliver it, be it the auditor or the course superviser, and the army of administrators backing the technical person, who have to be trained along different lines to ensure as smooth delivery as possible. I have a B.Sc and M.Sc in computer science but I have never seen anything that comes close to the rigorous technical training that Scientology auditors undergo. It takes years to master the technical skills and the knowledge to be certified as a higher level Scientology auditor. What you pay for when you enroll to a service is the years of training and the time spent on you buy highly trained professionals.
:I'd like to counter that in fact, it is very unusual for a non-profit to charge exhorbitant fees for services to its members.  Protestant churches that recommend tithing 10% of income are often seen as demanding very high amounts of money by other organizations.  The comparison is almost non-existant.  Examples would be welcome.
** Paying for the services is not the only way to get them and is the most expensive way of the many. You can go to training instead and work together with another trainee to deliver the services to each other for free. You can join staff, do some whatever administrative work you feel comfortable with and receive 12.5 hours a week free training/auditing. You can join the religious order of Scientology and get free boarding and free training/auditing. What is expensive is to buy the services of highly trained personnel. This phenomenon is not particular to Scientology.
* "Some European countries officially view Scientology as a cult and have denied it the status of a religion." The word "cult" itself should be questionable on a page that promotes NPOV. To be fair, it should also be noted that more and more of the European countries are recognising Scientology as a religion, including Italy and Germany, the very countries that "critics" use to put weight behind anti-scientology claims. See the examples.
* "The nature of Scientology is hotly debated in all of these countries, regardless of the official position." Hotly debated by whom? This is a generalisation that does not stand NPOV scrutiny.
I would also like to bring to attention the following studies on the religious doctrines of Scientology conducted by prominent experts of religion from various faiths. Quite various, indeed:
** Scientology - An Analysis and Comparison of its Religious Systems and Doctrines by Bryan R. Wilson, Ph.D., Emeritus Fellow, Oxford University England
** Scientology - The Marks of Religion by Frank K. Flinn, Ph.D., Adjunct Professor in Religious Studies, Washington University, Saint Louis, Missouri, U.S.A.
** Scientology - Its Cosmology, Anthropology, System of Ethics & Methodologies by Régis Dericquebourg, Professor, Sociology of Religion, University of Lille III, Lille, France
** Scientology - An Analysis and Review of a New Religion by M. Darrol Bryant, Ph.D., Professor of Religion and Culture, Renison College, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
** Scientology - And Contemporary Definitions of Religion in the Social Sciences by Alejandro Frigerio, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Sociology, Catholic University of Argentina, Buenos Aires, Argentina
** Scientology - A True Religion by Urbano Alonso Galan, Doctor in Philosophy and Licenciate in Theology, Gregorian University and, Saint Bonaventure Pontifical Faculty, Rome
** Scientology - The Relationship Between Scientology and Other Religions by Fumio Sawada, Eighth Holder of the Secrets of Yu-itsu Shinto
- Xernon, 05.12.2004
First of all, the endless arguments over the definition of a cult is being discussed over at the Wikipedia article on cults.  It is a fact that Scientology is frequently accused of being a cult, from many different sources, including media outlets  and religious spokespersons.  Do a Google search for the terms "scientology" plus "cult" and you will receive literally thousands of results.  As you say, Wikipedia is not a forum for deciding whether or not Scientology is a cult.  But it is frequently accused of being one, and this fact is noted here.
The issue of Scientology being tax-exempt is already addressed in the Church of Scientology article, under Church or business?.
The studies cited above are usually dismissed by critics as being biased, in that they were commissioned by Scientology to deliver exactly the results that Scientology wants people to see.  But I'll include them in the article nontheless, for the purpose of maintaining a Neutral point of view.
And finally, remember that you can edit this article, and any other article, and make the changes you feel are necessary to maintain NPOV.  However, Wikipedia users frown the practice of simply wiping out large parts of an article that one person does not agree with.  It's better to work together and come to an agreeable solution for this and other issues. --Modemac 17:40, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: perhaps tjis is material for BJODN
	 
L. Ron Hubbard as a Homosexual Activist
 
During the 1950's and 1960's, after founding the helpful and holy religion of Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard cruised around the world on his Sea Org ship as a homosexual activist. The Sea Org was composed of former members of the United States Navy who were "outed" during and after World War 2 for simply being gay, an injustice that continues to this day. L. Ron Hubbard, or "Ronny the Rod" as he was called by his male lovers, brought these gay men onto his Sea Org ship and with the help of Dianetics, his therapeutic book of miracle working, and numerous phallic shaped E-meters, he released their body thetans and brought them into a higher state of being.
During this time, Ronny is also known to have starred in several pornographic films, including Daddy, Don't Touch Me There!, Body Thetans Bare #35, Xenu, I'll Be With You, and a more seriously-themed film called How To Scam a Bunch of Idiots Out of Money By Starting Your Own Religion. After Hubbard's hot adventures aboard the Sea Org, he decided to take a step back from the stressful and busy life as a gay male activist, especially with the Federal Government pressing down on him for various illegal activities.
Sometime during his carousing during the 1970s, Hubbard contracted the sexually transmitted virus HIV. He died of AIDS in 1983, as a broken, lonely man.
:The same nonsense was on L. Ron Hubbard. I've BJAODNed it from there. --FOo 23:26, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely nonsense.  LRH was notoriously homophobic.  Not funny enough for BJAODN, IMHO, but suit yourself. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:58, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Nosense?

message: this has got to be hard to moderate, in the five minutes I was reading this the article was replaced by spam :( definitely needs to go back to previous ver.
:It's already back.  This is actually not the hardest article to moderate by a long shot -- if you want a laugh, watch Sollog and see how often that flips back and forth between the real-world version and the "Wikipedia and Slashdot are HATE GROUPS and the FBI has already been CONTACTED about putting ALTMAN and WALES in JAIL and a LEGAL BODY has ORDERED Wikipedia to remove EVERYTHING SOLLOG DOES NOT LIKE" version.  -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:37, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  whoa 

message: User Talk:67.171.251.183 has continued to vandalize this page, which will be protected for 24 hours, allowing the user to explain his edits here. Continued vandalism will result in the user being blocked. My apologies to the other editors of this page, who I think will agree with this decision. See: Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress#67.171.251.183 -Visorstuff 23:06, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I agree with it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:35, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent vandalism

message: During the peak of the Scientology-vs.-the-Internet unpleasantness, a handful of musicians recorded songs critical of Scientology and distributed them through mp3.com and other online media. At least some of these musicians (such as El Queso) were SubGenii and extensively used SubGenius references (such as Slack) in their music. Praise "Bob"!
The Church of Scientology took a few efforts to suppress the music, IIRC threatening mp3.com with a lawsuit that impelled them to delete El Queso All-Stars material from their servers and turn over the identity and home address of one of the band members. Many of these songs are still available online, however, e.g. here and here.
Question: Where should Scientology-critical, SubGenius-inspired music be covered on Wikipedia, if at all? --FOo 00:55, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking as a SubGenius myself, I say this subject is so obscure and trivial as to be worth an external link, possibly.  Some musicians did set out to get the organization ticked off at them, yes, but they were rarely more than an amusement. --Modemac 02:46, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientology-critical music 

message: The article states in several places that "some" European countries consider Scientology a cult, while the US considers it a constitutionally protected religion. I consider that this sentence has some underlying POV (namely, that US constitutional rights should be superior, or that perhaps European countries don't have constitutional protections for religions). But what I find more annoying is that this broad statement is vague: there's no list of the countries considered, and the legal and practical implication of being considered a "cult". David.Monniaux 20:20, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  European countries considering Scientology as a cult 

message: I think that there is some confusion regarding the legal aspects of Scientology, and that this confusion largely arises from the confusion of two linked, but different notions:
* that of religion
* that of religion-supporting organization.
The distinction is important because legal systems often only deal with the latter. For instance, statute law (and, as far as I know, constitutional principles) prohibits the government of France from granting recognition to any religion (except in Alsace-Moselle etc.,  but let's not enter historical discussions). However, the government recognizes some associations cultuelles (associations of worship), which are nonprofit associations that organize religious worship. The definition of what constitutes a bona fide association cultuelle does not take religious doctrine into account.
This legal distinction has already caused considerable misunderstandings and propaganda opportunities. For instance, Jehovah's Witnesses claim that they are discriminated against because some of their branches are not considered to be a religion, and demand that they should be considered a religion – whereas this is legally impossible.
This is why it's misleading to claim that "Scientology" is officially considered a "cult" or a religion. In fact, I do not know of any European country with a legal category of "cults". When dealing with legal matters, the topic is whether the Church of Scientology (or rather, its branches) is considered in the same legal category as other organizations supporting religions; and if not, why it is not, and the legal implications of it. Furthermore, it is important to stress that such determination may have nothing to do with the topic of freedom of religion and the constitutional guarantee thereof; for instance, France considers that any association that has for-profit commercial activities cannot be a bona fide association cultuelle, and this has nothing to do with the religious doctrine practiced.
To me, "freedom of religion", at the governmental level, has the primary meaning of absence of governmental bias with respect to religious dogma (theist vs non-theist, polytheist vs monotheist, Christian vs Muslim, etc.). It does not mean that anybody can do anything and claim tax exemption because of "religious" implications (this would be an enormous tax loophole). David.Monniaux 08:53, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal aspects 

message: User:12.210.209.83, I understand your goal of using more neutral language COS's promotion of sources, but I'm not convinced your change wasn't a little too sympathetic. Would anyone else like to comment on the recent change before I revert?--FeloniousMonk 00:21, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding tone of the COS's promotion of sources passage

message: 144.136.170.67 added the following sentence to the intro, where "it" is Scientology, the "a system of beliefs and teachings":
:It's primary activity is the training of counsellors and the provision of counselling services.
Obviously a system of beliefs and teachings cannot have a primary activity -- it's a belief system, not a conscious actor.  This claim appears to belong in some other article, about an organization that practices Scientology.  -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:58, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  reversion to intro 

message: It looks like all the articles linked at It's A Ruby Tips For Success are simply reprinted from .  There doesn't seem to be any reason to link to the reprint rather than the original.  (Interestingly, a Google search turned up someone using this copyright material apparently illegally:  http://mgv.mim.edu.my/Newspaper/0402/0402021.Htm uses large sections from Tips For Success articles as assembled at http://www.rehabilitatenz.co.nz/pages2/tips-for-success18.html without giving the requisite notice.  Wonder if the Church is going to vigorously defend their copyrights against Trevor Gordon's unauthorized usage...) -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:12, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's a Ruby 

message: Guardian's Office redirects to this page, yet there is no mention of "Guardian's Office", could someone more knowledgeable on the subject than I amend this, thanks Bluemoose 16:53, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Since it's an agency within the Church of Scientology (or at least it was until it was replaced by the OSA), I've changed the redirect to point to that article.  Admittedly, not the perfect solution, but better. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:51, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guardian's Office 

message: The official IRS tax category ,501(c)(3), is designated "public charity", and includes a variety of benevolent organizations, including churches, service groups, and private clubs.  I've edited the relevant section and re-arranged some other sentences for better flow. Cheers, -Willmcw 10:29, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
I have added two entries to the this discussion page, Authenticity and Censorship.
AI 10:48 18 Apr 2004 (HST)
Modemac removed my entry of a controversial pro-Scientology link, yet Modemac did not also remove controversial anti-Scientology links.  This is hypocritical.  His argument was that the site is already listed in Scientology controversy.  If Modemac's opinion is a rule, then all controversial data containted in Scientology should be removed and placed into Scientology controversy.--128.171.51.167 21:31, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  U.S. tax status 

message: "If there had been a consensus to ghettoize all talk of controversy at Scientology controversy ... but there WASN'T.)" - Antaeus Feldspar.  Antaeus, what "consensus" are you talking about?  Please see my comment regarding Modemac under /* U.S. tax status */<BR>
We have 2 choices:<BR>
: 1. Allow information on the Scientology article even though that info is already on the Scientology controversy article.  CONCENSUS: "Antaeus"<BR>
: 2. Keep controversial information out of the Scientology page. CONCENSUS: "Modemac", J.Tell<BR>
Until there is more concensus, Antaeus, you are the minority and your actions reflect fascism.
--J.Tell 01:49, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Under that hilariously bizarre interpretation of consensus, I could do anything I want to any article I want.  Why?  Because under your interpretation, as soon as I make the decision to act, I am a unanimous consensus of one.  Of course, it goes without saying that your interpretation is completely wrong and has nothing to do with Wikipedia consensus. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:57, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: User:J.Tell seems to be new here, and perhaps has not yet learned our policy entitled No personal attacks, or what exactly is meant by "consensus". (A hint: When ya do something unilaterally and a bunch of people say it was a bad idea, that means consensus doesn't support that action.) --FOo 03:56, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: "Consensus should not trump NPOV. A group of editors advocating a viewpoint do not, in theory, overcome the policy expressed in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not concerning advocacy and propaganda." - Wikipedia:Consensus Proposed wording
Claiming Scientology is not a religion in the Scientology article reflects a fascist philosophy on the part of the contributor(s).--J.Tell 07:57, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is important to keep in mind that Wikipedia's purpose is too spread knowledge. This is best done by first being impartial to the facts, not fabricating them, not exagerating them, not censoring them either. Scientology as a religion is a controversy out there, since decades, if anything because of Hubbard's own litterature. We don't want to apply censorship to that traceable information, Wikipedia's goal of spreading human knowledge would not benefit from it. The article shows that some consider it a religion, while others discuss it. There is nothing fascist in these differing opinions, let's keep the discussion clean. Povmec 15:29, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Wow.  If there was a more impressive way for J.Tell to demonstrate that he doesn't understand the policies he claims back him than his mis-citing of Wikipedia:Patent nonsense, I really can't think of it.  J.Tell is correct that consensus does not trump NPOV but you can't apply that comparison usefully if you have a badly mistaken idea of what NPOV is, which J.Tell clearly has.  -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:51, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus 

message: The United States Constitution protects Freedom of religion and it is not up to the government to decide an organization is NOT a religion.  If the people choose to make it their religion, then it is their religion and they get to enjoy the right.
: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
Disputing Scientologists' claim to freedom of religion puts this article in dispute and the "argument" should be moved to Scientology controversy
--J.Tell 07:57, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientology as a religion 

message: For the newcomers to this article, especially our new Scientologist contributors: the person vandalising this article under such names as "Jimbo D. Wales" and "Jimmy Wales" is, in fact, a famous kook who can best be seen in the article under Sollog.  He has nothing against Scientology or this article; rather, he's a troublemaker who is trying to disrupt Wikipedia in general because he doesn't like what the article says about him.  Don't worry about him, he's just a nuisance. --Modemac 12:08, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandal "Jimbo Wales" 

message: Rather than try to track where the edits came from, I'd just like to comment on some of the recent changes to the article, specifically the ones that can be seen in this diff:
*Removal of a specific story from http://www.religionnewsblog.com/ about Tom Cruise's promotion of Scientology -- agreed.  It may belong at Tom Cruise, but IMHO it's rather overspecific for here.
*Removal of "See also: Scientology controversy" from the "Scientology as a religion section -- I could go either way.  While there is discussion of Scientology as a religion there, it does seem rather odd to have a reference directly to that article at the top, especially when it's one of two articles that does so.  Perhaps the more appropriate thing to do is put the link at the bottom of the section instead, and rephrase it as "For a discussion of controversies over Scientology's status as a religion, see Scientology controversy" -- that way people know why they're getting pointed to that article.
*Moving any mention of the CoS being controversial out of the introductory paragraphs and down to the "Controversy and criticism" section -- no.  First of all, the idea that, if we have specific articles or specific sections of articles for addressing controversy, we robotically excise it from everywhere else, is a incredibly wrong-headed idea, and I have my doubts that it is taken seriously even by those who are citing it as their justification for burying uncomfortable information.  If allegations of misdoing are significant enough to merit a front-page story in a major newsmagazine like Time, they're significant enough to merit mention right up front.  The reader can make up their own minds whether they believe the allegations or not, but they should know there's something to make up their minds about.
*Rearranging the entries in the "See also" list from alphabetical order to a 'pro-Scientology, then Scientology-critical' order -- Come on.  Do I really even need to say it?  This one is just cheesy.  If you can't handle alphabetical order then you really need to re-evaluate whether your sense of perspective is intact.
*Putting the article into :Category:Disputed -- bad idea, since the category doesn't exist.
*Putting the article into :Category:Dubious -- bad idea, for different reasons.  First, :Category:Dubious is for articles with Wikipedia:disputed statements (somewhat confusingly), and for all the recent sound and fury, no actual statements have been disputed.  Secondly, I'm not sure putting the template on does much good -- there's only one other page listed in that category, and I suspect the tag got put on that other one by accident. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:53, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: The long list of articles in the ==Scientology as a religion== section interupts the flow of the text. Can these be moved to a ==References== section at the end of the article and be described broadly in the main text? --Theo  (Talk) 15:54, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientology as a religion: list of articles 

message: I added a few things, one of them is a link a Scientology webpage that explains what they think of Psychiatry.--J.Tell 07:46, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro paragraphs (note about psychiatry) 

message: In the Controversy_and_criticism section, I changes a few things.  This section was and still is (IMHO) highly POV.  I sorted the list of controversial samples with the most significant(imho) on top.--J.Tell 07:47, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy and criticism section 

message: The article mentions operation Snow White but does not give any information whatsoever about what Scientologists have exposed about the IRS.  For example some criminals that were sitting in high places within the Los Angeles IRS office. See the articles and lawsuits of 1991 for reference.  If no one does so, I will edit this section after I do some research.--J.Tell 07:46, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  IRS 

message: The NPOV notice on the article seems to be because one single person objects to it, which is not enough to justify it -- especially since the changes he objects to are indeed being discussed here.  Unless there are further objections, the NPOV notice will be removed. --Modemac 09:13, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV notice, revisited 

message: The US Army, Marine Corps and Air Force have first and second lieutenants.  The Navy has ensigns, lieutenants junior grade, and lieutenants - equivalent to the other services' second lieutenant, first lieutenant and captain, respectively.  The British navy has the rank of sub-lieutenant which corresponds to the US ensign, and may have led to the confusion.  I changed Hubbard's rank from second lieutenant to ensign.  Someome may want to check that he wasn't a lieutenant, junior grade though.  --Jpbrenna 07:43, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hubbard's Naval Rank