Talk:Scientology controversies/Archive 1

message: Scientologists are gay.  All of them pretend to be helping this article, but they subtly use their clout to degrade the quality of it.  Some of them even fight with each other to show others that they are 'on the right side'.  In Soviet Russia, Scientology is a religion.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.193.112 (talk) 03:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Officially Sanctioned Gender Orientation 

message: An anon inserted a statement that the quotation about men who "attacked us" was taken out of context.  I expanded the quotation and added some identifying information about the people Hubbard referred to.  Having done that, I left in the anon's explanation, although characterizing it as one POV that was offered rather than flatly stating it as fact.  The supposed explanation, which seems meritless to me, nevertheless deserves reporting if it represents the official position of the Church of Scientology or a notable member; not knowing whether the statement met this criterion, I left it in, hoping that more information could be provided later. JamesMLane 11:44, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotations 

message: The Church of Scientology denies these claims [that Hubbard talked about starting a religion for money], and has in fact sued publishers for making them.
The only such suit I know of is the lawsuit against Stern, which Stern won.  Especially in light of the Church's expressed position on lawsuits ("the purpose of the law suit is not to win, but to harass") I think it's somewhat important to note which lawsuits ended with findings for the defendants, as lawsuits conducted for the purpose of the harassment might be expected to frequently do.
Also, there isn't a mention here of what was (at least it was in 1994) the Church's official response to the allegation:  they pointed to a George Orwell quote where he said something about how you could make a lot of cash by starting a religion, and claimed that Orwell's quote had been misattributed to LRH.  The late Robert Vaughn Young, however, said that he himself discovered the Orwell quote, and had made the suggestion that this could be publicized as the "true" source of the quote.  (RVY's first-person account used to be up on the Net, before he passed away, but unfortunately I can't seem to locate it; I remember that it ended with him relating an e-mail he'd gotten from an angry Scientologist who was utterly insistent that Orwell and not Hubbard was 'the one' who had talked about making cash by starting a religion, and his terse reply to the Scientologist along the lines of "even if they both said it -- Orwell said it.  Hubbard did it.") - Antaeus Feldspar 22:44, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that Orwell said it means nothing . . . I doubt that he and LRH were hardly the only ones who said that a religion is a great way to make a buck. No, my friend, LRH said it too. The difference between LRH and Orwell is that LRH did it.
Unfortunately, Googling on those words doesn't bring up RVY's original anymore. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:18, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: oh, excellent! -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:47, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Starting a religion to make money 

message: We ought to make a distinction between impartial information regarding events whether pro or con and slanted propaganda. I believe the reader would be better served by the former.
:Kindly explain how a quote from the judgement of Religious Technology Center v. Arnaldo Lerma, Washington Post, Mark Fisher, and Richard Leiby (November 29, 1995) is slanted propaganda? --141.154.235.84 17:05, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impartiality in this article 

message: Several articles linked to this particular piece (the William Sargant thing, for example) have been edited and reedited repeatedly by people who cannot agree on a definition of NPOV.  As this epidemic appears to have infected this page as well, I feel it necessary to ask here what can be done - mere squabbling on individual pages is going to solve nothing. -- User:206.114.20.121
:Ad hominem from 206.114.20.121.--AI 2 July 2005 00:27 (UTC)
::not really.  You may find it insulting (especially if you recognize yourself in 20.121's description) but "insulting" is neither necessary nor sufficient for ad hominem argumentation. -- Antaeus Feldspar 2 July 2005 14:17 (UTC)
:::Irrelevant to the article.--AI 2 July 2005 23:23 (UTC)
::::Huh?  What is irrelevant to which?  He was responding to your comment--your reply makes no sense.  If you are saying that this digression about NPOV is irrelevant to the Scientology article, I agree. But please write less crypitcally--such uttenrances cause confusion. BTfromLA 2 July 2005 23:50 (UTC)
:::::What is the dispute here?  Keep squabbling of if you wish.--AI 3 July 2005 05:40 (UTC)
206.114.20.121 lies to incite hate of Wikipedia contributor. Look at his accusation and take a reality check.
: AI, your responses make no sense at all.  Is there an issue here that is germane to the Scientology article?  If so, please explain.  If it's just some carryover from a personal dispute between you and user 206, skip it.  BTfromLA 3 July 2005 05:56 (UTC)
::What are you talking about?  User:206.114.20.121 raised the "issue" not me. What is your point? If you don't know whats going on, skip it.--AI 3 July 2005 06:02 (UTC)
I do not see how 206.114.20.121's "argument" is relevant to this article other than an attempt to discredit me.  If my work ("squabbling") on psychiatric related articles is such a concern to contributors of the Scientology controversy, then help NPOV my latest contribution to Wikipedia: George Estabrooks. Please contribute YOUR POV. --AI 00:38, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: sounds like someone needs a lesson in "assume good faith".--132.61.176.6 18:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  squabbling 

message: The recent revert war about including this article in Category:Scientology is a weird one. For one thing, even when the "Scientology" category has been removed, it remains in place in the article, at least on my browser.  Anybody else see this?  As to the substance of the argument, I can't see any reasonable case for excluding this article from the main "Scientology" category: the whole reason for this article is to reduce the size (and editorial contentiousness) of the main article, right?  This article is essentially an extension of the Scientology article, and as such it should be in the main category, and prominently linked to in the Scientology article.  --BTfromLA 03:25, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it should be linked and easily accessible from the other Scientology articles.  hmmm, the Template has a section for controversy and that might make a good linking arrangement. Terryeo 04:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category 

message: This first sentence would require a citation proving the motivation of the Church of Scientology.  I doubt if that is possible in this case:  "attempting to receive sympathy from the fact that Jews were persecuted by the Nazis during the Holocaust.  "
:I actually agree with you concerning the first sentence. We could replace it with a sentence that points at the fact that the Church of Scientology often compare its current problems with the German goverment to the past policies that led to the Holocaust . Whether the Church is trying to use the Holocaust or not to draw sympathy will be left to the reader. Povmec 16:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here it is more about the opinions of critics. This is what critics think, and it is part of why Scientology as a religion is controversial. I am not sure a cite is needed here, although it would certainly be if the sentence was found on the Dianetics article. Povmec 16:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But you just said, "it is about the opinions of critics." And that is exactly the sort of information a reader wants. Which critic stated that Hubbards inspiration was largely from 2 persons?  Hubbard states otherwise and can be quoted.  If an opinion isn't cited it is origninal research and doesn't belong in an article. Terryeo 04:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  cut from The Legitimacy of Scientology as a Religion 

message: Pasting here for citing and discussion this one:  "Hubbard, L. Ron. Attacks on Scientology, "Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter," February 25, 1966" because there is not HCOPL 25 Feb 66 in the Church of Scientology today.  If you present that as a historical document (not a present time document) then feel free.  Cite it.  But it can't accurately be presented as a document the Church of Scientology uses today.
The list of quotes is very poorly done, too.  For example, "Technique 88" is not a book listed at the Library of Congress.  What is it's ISBN, what page number is that quote from?  According to Wiki Policy the quote should have a page number, the book should then be listed in references with its ISBN, author, who published it and so on.  The idea being, a person might want to read more of that kind of thing !  so hey! give our reading public a chance and Cite your source more cleanly, okay?  :) Terryeo 17:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cut from 'References' 

message: None of the references comply with WP:CITE.  Understand I am not saying the references should not be there, but I am saying that none of them are done per Wiki direction.  I've examined the whole list. Here is what is wrong with each quote, how it is not appropriately presented per WP:CITE.
* Brinkema, Leonie M. Civil Action No. 95-1107-A: Memorandum Opinion, (Alexandria:US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia—Alexandria Division, November 28, 1995) 
:How about providing a link to this information, or to a summation of this information?  How can a reader enlighten himself how this reference relates to the article?  It is not even footnoted.
* Hubbard, L. Ron. Attacks on Scientology, "Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter," February 25, 1966 [10] [10] points to: http://www.suppressiveperson.org/hate/pubs/pl-1966-02-25-attacks-on-scn.html which has a photograph of what appears to be an HCOPL;
HCO POlicy letter of 25 february 1966, ATTACKS ON SCIENTOLOGY.
:I tell you that policy letter is not extant today.  It might have been at one time but it not a part of the Church of Scientology's policy today.  Therefore it is a historical document (if it ever existed).  It has not been a policy letter for at least 5 years. Further, the source is real questionable.  It appears on a hostile-to-Scientology site complete with "ALL RIGHTS RESERVED" printed clearly on it.  I think it would be smart to remove it.
* All England Law Reports (London: Butterworths,1979), vol. 3 p. 97 
:this is a good cite, but it would very helpful to have some online link to it or to a summantion of what it contains. As it stands who can know how it addresses anything in the article?
* Transcript of judgement in B & G (Minors) (Custody) Delivered in the High Court(Family Division), London, 23 July 1984.
:This is another possible bit of useful information.  But how can a person learn how that judgement applies to this article?  Is there no online source, or summation or newspaper article that tells ?
* EFF "Legal Cases - Church of Scientology" Archive
:this is a good link, but it has a lot of cases there, shouldn't the vast array of information be more clearly specified?  State one or two of the links that come up there, somehow connect it with the article.  It would take hours to read through all of that.
* Owen Chris. 'The strange links between the CoS-IRS agreement and the Snow White Program', Scientology vs the IRS, (16 January 1998) 
:This is a rather confusing site that says early on the confusion was instigated by a person "infiltrating scientology and stealing documents from them."  What exactly is the point of that reference?
* Washington Post, January 8, 1983
:This is not a good cite.  When citing a newspaper article, the title of the article is needed.  You can not expect the person to read the whole of the Washington Post's January 8, 1983 paper.  It would be better if the article could be found online, thought not necessary.
* Catholic Sentinel, March 17, 1978
:This is not a good cite.  When citing a newspaper article, the title of the article is needed.  You can not expect a person to read the whole of the Catholic Sentinel for March 17, 1978.  It would be better if the article could be found online, though not necessary.
* United States District Court, District of Columbia (333 F. Supp. 357)
:This is not a good cite.  It needs more information.
* Arizona Republic, September 22, 1988
:Oh really.  Is "Arizona Republic" a book, newspaper, what? It needs a title, place of publication or something so a person could look it up.  Then it needs a page number or article title.  WP:CITE spells these matters out.
The last one is done wrong too, but I'll correct that. Terryeo 05:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  what is wrong with the references, what needs to be fixed 

message: Wiki spells out how to make quotes.  It is perfectly right to make actual quotes with actual cites, expressing the opinion of the author.  Why are so many of these things done so poorly?  First someone comes in with a 1/2 way right quote.  For example, the first quote from a policy letter.  It talks about illegal activites but it doesn't say what Hubbard was talking about.  It could have been beans, illegally grown beans.  One earlier line and it would be a good quote, it is a good policy letter, there could be some real controversy.  Why isn't that done?  instead it is done poorly.  So I announce I am going to cut and paste here.  I cut and paste here.  Then a small handful of people look at my action, see that controversy is not well represented and revert it.  Am I the only person with enough patience to look through these sorts of details, observe Wiki Policy about how to cite and point out the missing elements? This and other Scientology articles read like a junior high student has heard a rumor and is posting it for attention.  Terryeo 08:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  what is it with people posting quotes like above 

message: I think the intro needs to be cleaned up to follow the WP:MOS. I tried to wikify the first line so it looked like the template "This article is about....for other uses see...."
What do you think? Snailwalker | talk 21:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: Please see Talk:Fair Game (Scientology). AndroidCat 15:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could 87.227.20.229 declare an interest? 

message: Would someone explain why the cleanup tag is on this article?  What exactly needs to be cleaned up and what should I as an editor do in order to get it cleaned up?   Adding tags like this to articles that have a long history and numerous editors seems like a controversial thing that should be properly discussed on the talk page before they are added.  Vivaldi (talk) 02:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is the cleanup tag on the article? 

message: A similar, controversial subject is seeking a peer reviewer. If you would be interested, we would appreciate your time at our article! Thanks! Kyaa the Catlord 16:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review for [[Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy]] 

message: Not sure but I think this article was vandalized. Not sure which parts but it just seems a little out there... unless it really is. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.23.84.125 (talk • contribs) 
:Well, without knowing which parts you're referring to, I can't say for sure...  but I've looked over the whole article, and I can't see any signs of vandalism.  This is a problem with covering Scientology, unfortunately -- so much of what really happened, of what Hubbard really said and did, of what the Church still claims in its doctrines and in its public statements, is so utterly outrageous that one questions whether it could ever be true.  Did the Church of Scientology really set out, and execute most of, a written plan to frame an innocent journalist for bomb threats against the Church and against Henry Kissinger, and send in an agent to pose as her friend through the ordeal who reported back gleefully on how close she was to suicide, and "wouldn't that be great for Scientology?"  Yes they did.  Did they attempt to frame the mayor of Clearwater, Florida for a "hit-and-run" "accident" where the driver of the car and the "victim" were both Scientology agents?  Yes they did.  Did Hubbard write to the U.S. Navy asking for a confirmation that he'd won 27 medals for his service in wartime when in reality, his extremely inadequate wartime service only resulted in four medals, and he was writing to the agency that knew that better than any other?  Yes he did.  And that's even before we get into the space opera in the Church's doctrines... -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalized? 

message: Greece has actually shutted down the local branch of Scientology in 1997 which didn't happen in Germany so far, so the word "strongest stance" is not correct. And Scientology isn't under surveillance for "criminal" activities. In Germany we have a seperate organisation called "Verfassungsschutz" (VS, Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution) and their job is to take a look on people who, while not committing crimes (so far as known), are hostile to the Constituition and therefore a possible problem. These are mostly extreme left or right-wing groups and fundamentalistic islamistic organisations. --136.172.253.189 21:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The legitimacy of Scientology as a religion 

message: I took the liberty of removing the tag, seeing as the edit wars on this article seem to have calmed down since Terryeo's ban. Yandman 08:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed tag 

message: Can we put him in the article? I mean he's giving the scientology a bad name.
I think the reverse is more accurate; that Scientology is giving Tom Cruise a bad name.  Look at how his reputation has suffered right when he started making public pronouncemets about Scientology.
But no, I don't really think Tom Cruise has anything to do with the "Scientology controversy" as is the subject of this article.  Any comments about Tom Cruise's beleif in Scientology would be more appropriate on the article about Tom Cruise than here.  From what I've seen what's there is already sufficient.
This may not be very NPOV but honestly Scientology does a good enough job giving a bad name to itself! John 19:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tom Cruise 

message: The "External links" section is a mess. Not only are there way too many links, it is completely Original Research to decide what is a "fairly favourable" link or a link with an "opposing view". Let's not arrange the links according to someone's opinion of what they say. I urge User:Jpierreg, who has been on a Scientology linkspree lately, to study WP:EL closely. It clearly states that external links are to be "kept to a minimum", and not expanded practically into becoming articles of their own. wikipediatrix 23:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have put "Other Views" instead of "fairly favourable" views. Note that links are divided by saying "Opposing Views" on Yahoo and Google and dmoz. Jpierreg 23:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linkmess 

message: I have removed the four links that were added by Paul Horner to his own web site:
"[...] What is Scientology A humor site showing what really is Scientology"
Pointless, that brings nothing to the article. No need for a particular "humour" site.
"[...] Scientology's Deaths - The Ellie Perkins story on CBS 48 Hours"
Jeremy Perkins web site, is better covered in appropriate articles (as Scientology and psychiatry), and in which case it is better to link to a good reference for the Jeremy Perkins case, and that would be Dr. Touretzky's site, as it contains first hand information.
"[...] South Park Scientology Episode nominated for an Emmy"
The Trapped_in_the_Closet_%28South_Park%29 is best covered in its own wiki article. And it just happened that external links to streams of the episode have been removed because of copyvio.
"[...] The Bridge Movie - A 2006 documentary on Scientology removed due to legal threats from the Scientologists. Remarkable the first ever critical movie released about The Church of Scientology"
The_Bridge_%28film%29 has its own article, no need to bypass it. And links to streams of the movie were removed for copyvio reasons it seems. I don't know what is the current status on the issue though, as I thought the movie was released to the net with no restriction to its distribution.
Raymond Hill 01:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to scientomogy.com added by the owner of the web site 

message: Links failing WP:RS and WP:EL were reinserted to this page.  These links do not meet the rules on neutrality and are personal/self-published sites.  I removed whyaretheydead.net, scientology-lies.com, and scientology freezone per their not meeting the guidelines for inclusion and this was reverted immediately.  Thoughts?  ju66l3r 23:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links failing [[WP:EL]]/[[WP:RS]] 

message: HAS goes to a disambiguation page.  Of the entries listed, I can make no obvious connection. --Lincoln F. Stern 20:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "HAS" under section "L. Ron Hubbard and starting a religion for money" 

message: Since the CoS has tried to eliminate the Free Zone, especially by copyright and trademark violation, it looks like the CoS is treating it as "competition" to be eliminated rather than a rogue belief to be dispelled by discussion. Anynobody 22:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Free Zone 

message: We are looking to merge Patter drill here. Please discuss the merge and what bits of Patter drill belong here. --Justanother 02:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: The Church of Scientology denies that Hubbard ever made any such statement, and has sued at least one publisher, the German magazine Stern, for publishing claims that he did (Stern won the lawsuit).
Anyone got a reference for that? Need it for the danish wikipedia. Thanks in advance. Mr Mo 22:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source for scientology has sued the magazine stern? 

message: There is a story in the Sydney Morning Herald today about an ongoing court case in Belgium at http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/scientologists-charged-with-extortion/2007/09/05/1188783277713.html. The entry in the 'Criminal behavior and allegations' section on the Belgium court case should probably be updated with some of the information in the SMH article. I've added the reference for now. Alans1977 06:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Belgium charges Scientologists with extortion 

message: This first section is sadly lacking in citation,and it skews the subject.  The CSI/Freezone controversy is very minor compared to other points of controversy.  Nevertheless, there are sources to reference and against which a sensible lead can be constructed, even if we do keep the emphasis on CSI/Freezone.  This paragraph needs to be trimmed down and if we are going to keep it as the CSI/Freezone issue it needs to simply state what Scientologists believe and what those in the Freezone believe and eliminate the elaboration which is conjecture.Su-Jada 23:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emphasis and Source for Lead Section 

message: :In many countries (including Belgium, Russia, Canada, Greece, France, Germany, the United Kingdom and Spain), the activities of the Church of Scientology are not prohibited or limited in any way. However, the extended trials of the Church of Scientology to receive the status of a Non-profit organization are rejected in several countries including Germany.
"not prohibited or limited in any way" is too open-ended. "Non-profit organization" should changed to something like "tax-free" or charity. (Operating in the UK as a tax-free Australian incorporation is interesting, and some might call that a limit.) As well, there  might be problems with some of the listed countries:
*Russia: the St. Petersburg org was shut down in July 2007 for violating its charter.
*Greece: The Scientology organization was shut down (for the second time) in 1997. Need a ref for the current status.
*France. Need a ref for the current status. (As well as all the muddled trials of CoS officals, weren't some orgs closed?) AndroidCat (talk) 23:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The new text added by TheinfinitelyProlonged has serious flaws including POV, original research and gets several things completely wrong such as confusing the EU with the Council of Europe. It also continues the "not prohibited or limited in any way" mantra without any real references backing this up at all. I hope TheinfinitelyProlonged will discuss this here, because it needs serious fixing. AndroidCat (talk) 07:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry there was an editing conflict. What references do you accept, there are no evidence when there is no reason. Few, minor, isolated incidents collected over decades in which Scientology were granted or refused any wish mainly for tax-exempt status could be seen as a proof for the very high level of human rights in germany. But: Germany is investigating against Scientology for violating the human rights of his members according to the Grundgesetz. See below. TheinfinitelyProlonged (talk) 07:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem paragraph 

message: The aggressive insults of Scientology claiming that especially Germany violates human rights  have nearly no justification. Not only that the german constitution, the Grundgesetz, forbids any activities like that:
*[Article 4]:
*(1) Freedom of faith and of conscience, and freedom of creed religious or ideological, are inviolable.
*(2) The undisturbed practice of religion is guaranteed.
Additional:
*(3) No one may be prejudiced or favored because of his sex, his parentage, his race, his language, his homeland and origin, his faith or his religious or political opinions.
*(2) The persons entitled to bring up a child have the right to decide whether they shall receive religious instruction.
*(3) Enjoyment of civil and civic rights eligibility for public office, and rights acquired in the public service are independent of religious denomination. No one may suffer disadvantage by reason of his adherence or non-adherence to a denomination or ideology.
*(2) Former German citizens who between January 30, 1933 and May 8 1945, were deprived of their citizenship for political, racial or religious reasons, and their descendants, shall be re- granted German citizenship on application. They are considered as not having been deprived of their German citizenship if they have established their domicile in Germany after May 8, 1945 and have not expressed a contrary intention.
Articles included from the former Weimar Constitution:
*Civil and political rights and duties are neither dependent upon nor restricted by the practice of religious freedom.
*The enjoyment of civil and political rights, as well as admission to official posts, is independent of religious creed.
*No one is bound to disclose his religious convictions. The authorities have the right to make enquiries as to membership of a religious body only when rights and duties depend upon it, or when the collection of statistics ordered by law requires it.
*No one may be compelled to take part in any ecclesiastical act or ceremony, or the use of any religious form of oath.
*There is no state church.
*Freedom of association is guaranteed to religious bodies. There are no restrictions as to the union of religious bodies within the territory of the Federation.
*Each religious body regulates and administers its affairs independently within the limits of general laws. It appoints its officials without the cooperation of the Land, or of the civil community.
*Religious bodies acquire legal rights in accordance with the general regulations of the civil code.
*Religious bodies remain corporations with public rights in so far as they have been so up to the present.
*Equal rights shall be granted to other religious bodies upon application, if their constitution and the number of their members offer a guarantee of permanency.
*When several such religious bodies holding public rights combine to form one union this union becomes a corporation of a similar class.
*Religious bodies forming corporations with public rights are entitled to levy taxes on the basis of the civil tax rolls, in accordance with the provisions of Land law.
*Associations adopting as their work the common encouragement of a world-philosophy shall be placed upon an equal footing with religious bodies.
*So far as the execution of these provisions may require further regulation, this is the duty of the Land legislature.
*Land connections with religious bodies, depending upon law, agreement or special legal titles, are dissolved by Land legislation. The principle for such action shall be laid down by the Federal Government.
*Ownership and other rights of religious bodies and unions to their institutions, foundations, and other properties devoted to purposes of public worship, education or charity, are guaranteed.
*Sundays and holidays recognized by the Land shall remain under legal protection as days of rest from work and for the promotion of spiritual purposes.
*Religious bodies shall have the right of entry for religious purposes into the army, hospitals, prisons, or other public institutions, so far as is necessary for the arrangement of public worship or the exercise of pastoral offices, but every form of compulsion must be avoided.
Germany ratified [Treaties] and respects international courts which guaranties an extremly high level of freedom. Few, isolated and minor cases only show that even germans aren´t angels. Powerful organizations like Scientology should have no difficulties to get any human or religious right and freedom which they are entitled to according to a extremly high level of international standards. 
My personal opinion is that Scientology tries to blackmail the german government to get the tax-exempt status (as a reference for insults see first link). Scientology Crime Syndicate -- Is This A Religion? By Stephen A. Kent  TheinfinitelyProlonged (talk) 07:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In reply to your link: Russia isn´t a member of the European Union. The court made a decision and Russia first replied positive, but it can´t be forced. Your link don´t give any further information about the reasons to close the center, and the situation of Scientology in Russia. Russia is NOT democratic. TheinfinitelyProlonged (talk) 08:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientology in Europe and especially in Germany 

message: Scientology's takeover of the Cult Awareness Network is listed under "criminal accustaions," despite not having and accusations of criminal behavior.  I don't want to delete it wholesale, because it's useful and relevant, but I'm not sure where to move it.  Suggestions? Reyemile (talk) 17:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, the only thing I can think of that it would fit under is "Suspicious/Incriminating Behaviour" or "Silencing of Critics". It is after all, a takeover of what would most likely be a very strong opponent of Scientology. Perhaps the first section? We'd need citations to prove at least that CAN was against Scientology, a bonus would be a Scientologist memorandum to take CAN out. Yours truly, Lethe (talk) 04:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cult Awareness Network 

message: This page is in dire need of protection. I just deleted the "Scientology's Replies" section (which if anyone feels like adding it back AFTER major cleanup, so be it) because the entire thing was nothing but ultra-biased commentary from a Scientologist(s). There's more throughout the page that needs work but I'm time restrained at the moment. Nemeses9 (talk) 02:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, the relevant edit can be found here. Player 03 (talk) 00:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I'm not entirely convinced that it violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy, though I suppose it could use cleanup. Player 03 (talk) 00:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

text: After reading the removed chunk, it was definitely not written by a Scientologist or a pro-Scientology individual. All the same, I do agree it'd need some work before reappearing in some form. 67.188.106.35 (talk) 02:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection? 

message: I think the first sentence in this article is biased. It's defending Scientology by presenting an argument of Scientologists, and a description of an action taken by Scientologists to defend their beliefs/religion. The first paragraph doesn't seem very well written. I don't have a lot of suggestions, but maybe it should begin with a sentence somewhere along the lines of "there are many controversies associated with Scientology"? VolatileChemical (talk) 11:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have tried to clear up the introduction and I have tried to morph the Scientologists' defense into a more general description of the nature of the controversies. However, I don't know if it worked or not. Just to clarify I'm not a Scientologist, I do think it is a religion but I think it is a bad one, somewhere in between a cult and a very bizarre church, but I am not a passionate opponent of Scientology (as someone might question why I'm not signing this post it is because I do not want to be part of the Wikipedia community and I hope you will judge my changes and comments by their merits instead of who you might speculate I am).
I also moved the related material to the see also section as it makes more sense to me to place it there. I believe that's a neater division of the page but I understand if the consensus disagrees with me. However, I think some of the controversies that are on other pages, such as Scientology and psychiatry, instead of being in related material should have a small section with a main article link. I also feel since much of the controversy has to do with Hubbard and his family it would be convenient to have a section concentrating all the Hubbard controversy.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.227.246 (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV in introduction 

message: I started an article, see the external link for info. David Graham (former scientologist). Equazcion •✗/C • 06:01, 13 Apr 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Notability?  Covered in multiple other WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources?  Cirt (talk) 08:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Notability doesn't require multiple sources. The source is objective, reliable, and covers the topic exclusively. If you want to apply the common sense factor, the topic is of-interest, the article being mentioned in many different places (as a google search will show), despite the article barely being 24 hours old. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:34, 13 Apr 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another high-ranking former member goes public 

message: Why has this article been nominated for deletion? I believe that based on the first amendment that this article should be protected, and monitored to make sure that no one attempts to tamper with it, and eliminate a valuable source of scientology controversies. Besides, who would want to delete an article unless it would be a danger to someone, or an organization?
Just saying... 
Cm2dude (talk) 17:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion? 

message: I think this is a well written wiki article on a difficult and controversial subject. Its very hard to maintain a neutral bias, but I think this article is about as neutral as you can get - it presents the facts and issues surrounding a case, without carrying any extra emotional bias to or for against Scientology. Also considering how often pages on Scientology liked to get reverted or altered with more pro-scientology information, id like to thank everyone for maintaining this page.
:After having spent the better part of two hours reading the page and following the references, I'm very very much inclined to agree, and am removing the POV tag from the top (just as soon as I recall how to do that...It's been a while). The article is well written, and is just about as neutral as you can possibly get with any article. The assertions made on the page are supported with plenty of documentation from good sources. Jonathon Barton (talk) 19:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition, every assertion I read was backed up by additional reading offsite. I removed the disputed tag, as well. Jonathon Barton (talk) 19:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Well written page 

message: I don't see what's wrong with what was removed in this revision. Was there no references sourced? References should be briefly looked for before removing unsourced material, or flagged with 'needs citation' or whatever's appropriate there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientology_controversies&diff=202665335&oldid=202654547
74.67.17.22 (talk) 08:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questioning a revision 

message: , my reading shows a large amout of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.  I also think that this article is a great resource, but currntly has no real focus (it covers all topics of contriversy, without any rhyme or reason for what is included).  having both critisisms and lists of legal conflicts listed by topic and instance, rather than listing "critisisms" while subsourcing points in time when it was problamatic...or listing insidents of conflict and suplementing them with critisisms that came out of those conflicts.  I am also reading the responce section...and seeing less and less value for that section every time I read it.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not too keen on the idea of ordering the article chronologically. Many of the controversies surrounding Scientology (taxes, litigation, treatment of critics etc) are issues that have been raised repeatedly, from the 1950s onwards. It would be more sensible to structure the article by general subject heading, for instance "Taxation status", "Relationship with governments", "Dealings with critics", "Treatment of members" and so on. The rest of your proposals sound sensible. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I would like to establish the president of naming a contriversy only when paired with a notable incident(s).  my reason is because otherwise it would leave this article open to puting any chritisism they want down and just citing a critic (which is what has happened in many places).  so we could talk about the "alternitave to psychiatry" (can't remember the term) and introduce it with Lisa Mcpherson, or the Fair game principal with "operation snow white" etc.  but we couldn't bring up the "Brainwashing tactics" without some notable example of it coming to press...just a thoughtCoffeepusher (talk) 23:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am fine/in agreement with comment above by , sounds like a good thematic approach.  Cirt (talk) 23:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree with 's thematic approach. I did see that there is a nice collection of litigation history at Scientology and the legal system. Perhaps it should either be merged with this article or the legal issues in this article transferred to Scientology and the legal system. Taiwan prepares (talk) 11:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improvements to article 

message: Wow, that article is not full of POVs it IS a WP:POV violation. Let's start with the intro. No references. Shutterbug (talk) 23:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV article 

message: *
:Relevant source of info for this article. Cirt (talk) 16:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hubbard Center closed up in Samara 

message: I've made some changes, but it still needs more work. Editors should be reminded to make sure not to state allegations as undisputed fact, since the Church obviously disputes any claims of abuse and so forth. These articles really, really need to stop being a battleground between anti-Scientologists and Church people. Wikipedia's mission is to provide neutral, unbiased info, not outright bashing nor uncritical promotion. Laval (talk) 13:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I think that this is alot less Bashing then it could be considering the landfill of evidence and documentation expanding in the face of scientology and it's "abuses". We could easily get away with saying "atrocitys" but we go with the more nutral "abuses". This is weather we like it or not a fight, a fight between people who wish to share information (un-biased or not) with the world and on the other end people who wish to surpress this information because down to thier core it's what they belive is right. Call it what you will but this is regaurdless of how you paint it a fight between scientologists and non-scientologists. We can justify calling it this because it is well known and true that their goal is to surpress ANY critical information about the church. This is evident in numerous policy letters and makes a clear line in the sand as to the intent of all scientologists when placed as a variable in this kind of situation. The motives and intent of everybodyelse however are more varied and diverse. It is those I think we need to focus on. Yes I agree this article needs to be more nuetral but while keeping the general tone that this information is what it is, information and that in this information is the inately expressive in its descriptions of the argueably terrible acts of abuse. Aaron Bongart (talk) 01:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Making more NPOV 

message: Good progress on proper sourcing finally happens now at Scientology. This needs to be done here. "Controversy" is tough for starters but it can be done. Misou (talk) 02:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: With the complex out now and obviously no thanks to attempts by the "church" to surpress it then I think an entire section deserves existence here on the topic of the book and it's contents.Aaron Bongart (talk) 01:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Progress 

message: This article has several issues with neutrality. It repeatedly violates WP:NPOV
1. It focuses solely on the attacks Scientology has made during this controversy, instead of the actual controversy they sparked. This misses the point, and certainly violates WP:POV, as well as destroy the neutrality of the article. What it needs to do is instead of focusing on the attacks, which is more fit for another article, it should focus on the public reaction, whether it be positive or negative, and keep it first coherent with the article title, and second neutral.
2. It uses weasel words at several points. IE, when addressing a alleged attack, it refers to members of the Church of Scientology as cult members. Cult is a purely negative term, referring only to a religion considered invalid, inferior, and exploitative. It should be changed to a more neutral term. I do believe this should be fixed, and until then, somebody should place a 'weasel words' notice at the top.
I would fix these changes, but my computer is having issues, so I cannot edit the page. Don't ask why, I have no idea. Avianmosquito (talk) 11:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the "cult member" reference, however the use in other places seems justified by the cites. (Using alleged attack is also a weasel, with the amount of incriminating documents recovered and stipulated by the defense.)  AndroidCat (talk) 22:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: *I can't find a single reference, in all of Wikipedia, to the open letter that Dustin Hoffman, Goldie Hawn, Oliver Stone and other Hollywood stars addressed to the German government in the nineties, accusing the German government of discriminating against Scientologists in a manner comparable to the persecution of Jews in Nazi Germany. This was a very notable, and widely reported controversy: . A copy of the letter is here.
*Germany's stance against Scientology has been the subject of considerable debate in the United States, both in the media and in government hearings, as has the stance of several other European countries. These too are Scientology controversies that I, as a reader, would expect to see covered here. See for example 
*Lastly, there has also been criticism of and debate about Scientology critics. For some scholarly sources, see  (pp. 261-268), . In my view, this too should be reflected in an NPOV article covering "Scientology controversies".
I suggest that we do some source research and include these controversies at our earliest convenience. Jayen466 11:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality: Some notable controversies that are not covered 

message: The section contains a large chunk of information which is only sourced to a couple primary sources. We needs some secondary sources for verification. ←Spidern→ 19:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That on the other hand is perfectly true. Jayen466 19:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Church of Scientology's replies to its critics" 

message: I'm concerned about use of legal documents as discussed here >>> []
I'm specifically concerned with this citation,[] it's use seems to me like original research. 
It would like to discuss this. Bravehartbear (talk) 04:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal documents a primary source 

message: Ok, I know this made quite the news, but while reading the article, it just looks a bit out of place, or just worded bad.  Maybe I'm just seeing this from a wikipedian standpoint, but it just doesn't read right. Maybe "News outlets reported on May 27th...  blah blah blah..." or something along those lines.  Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 18:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Ban on scientology 

message: It seems to me that this article in its current form is a big POV Fork WP:CFORK. I would recomend it for deletion but the article has potential. Bravehartbear (talk) 03:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only NPOV issues but also weasel words. But, still this seems the best choice. RUL3R (talk) 15:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There was already a WP:SNOWBALL on this, but it was SNOWBALL "Keep". Cirt (talk) 00:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is also, flatly, utterly impossible to avoid a "Fork" in a Scientology article. Scientologists will claim that *any* source which does not abjectily depict the CoS in a positive light is not NPOV. Outside of CoS members, there are approaching no sources which depict the CoS in a positive light. While it may approach a "no true irishman," it is fair to say that no source which depicts the CoS in a positive light is not run by Scientologists (as the counterargument given by Scientologists to negative sources is that 'no true Scientologist would say anything bad about Scientology,' this is hardly unfair, especially since they are utterly unwilling to accept any negative source not written by a Scientologist). Given that the Scientology article is biased toward Scientology in a way that would never be allowed for, say, Holocaust Denial or Flat Earth, a Fork such as this is an absolute necessity. 96.25.188.62 (talk) 10:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And that is a result that there are few, if any, secondary WP:RS that cover any CoS sponsored social program. I could only find 2 reliable sources for Volunteer Ministers (American Chronicle, Reuters) could probably be used somewhere... --RUL3R*flaming | *vandalism 19:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV Fork 

message: I have noticed that User:Wispanow and User:Pgreenfinch have deleted information relevant to the status of Scientology in Germany (by this I mean, this users are removing the whole section labeling it as "pro-cult propaganda" and "POV pushing".) As far as I can see, the section is well sourced and relevant to the topic of the article. I would like to invite both users to provide their rationales for the removal. Thank you. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 09:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think WP is a place to insult democratic countries and to represent as martyr an organization that has just been condemned for fraud in France. --Pgreenfinch (talk) 16:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NPOV is no grounds to delete information. If neutrality is disputed it requires copy-editing and sourcing, not deletion. About 10% of WP content could be deleted by that reasoning. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 02:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The only remedy to a libel is to delete it. Check what WP is and is not. --Pgreenfinch (talk) 07:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:AGF and WP:NPOV should be ignored just because you believe the intention of the section is to "attack" the German government? The truth is that the practice of Scientology in Germany is restricted, at best. There are a lot of reliable sources to that, and statements from the government of the US on the matter. It is notable. It is well sourced. It is relevant to the topic. And it is a relevant point of view of the German government toward Scientology. There is no reason not to note it here. Again, if you feel the prose is an attack on the German government, you are welcome to copy-edit and source the article. Also, the conviction was in France. What has Germany to do with that? > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 08:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The conflict between the CofSc and the German Government is well-documented and relevant to the notability of the subject. I cannot see the disputed section as violating neutrality, though changes to the wording and tone could be considered. Perhaps that should be discussed here, rather than deleting and reinserting the whole section? Rumiton (talk) 09:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Information about Scientology in Germany 

message: Dispute over subsection Alleged oppression of Scientologists in Germany. 13:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: Please do not have threaded discussions in your own subsection. Only do that in the subsection above this RFC on the talk page, or below in the General discussion section. Cirt (talk) 13:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

text: See the disruption of the page itself, and the discussion above the RFC. Cirt (talk) 14:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The Profesor has a point above regarding the weakness of the section title. Perhaps something like "Effort to ban Scientology in Germany" or something along those lines, which would also be more informative than "Sceintology in Germany", might be acceptable. John Carter (talk) 20:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I just thought the same, and this is my attempt at remedying it:  --JN466 20:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: Alleged oppression of Scientologists in Germany 

message: ====Comments by Cirt====
The title of the subsection is itself inappropriate, as it violates WP:WTA. Perhaps simply titled it Scientology in Germany. And it could be weighted better to present more of a worldview instead of a heavily weighted United States view - with more inclusion of information from the positions of governments in France, Germany, Belgium, etc. Cirt (talk) 13:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Previously involved editors

message: The title of the subsection is itself inappropriate, as it violates WP:WTA. Perhaps simply titled it Scientology in Germany. And it could be weighted better to present more of a worldview instead of a heavily weighted United States view - with more inclusion of information from the positions of governments in France, Germany, Belgium, etc. Cirt (talk) 13:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments by Cirt

message: I've renamed the section "Scientology in Germany" for now. Basically, there has been a dispute between the United States and various European countries, above all Germany, over what the US perceive as discrimination against individual Scientologists. This has been a notable controversy; it led to a widely reported (see sources above) diplomatic row between German and the US. 
One way we could go would be to make this section about this specific US–Germany row, and title it accordingly. 
Another possibility would be to widen the scope and include similar disagreements between the US and other countries such as France and Belgium as well (cf. Kent's paper, "The French and German versus American Debate over 'New Religions', Scientology, and Human Rights"), as well as the views of the French, Belgian etc. governments that the US are meddling in European States' internal affairs. 
My feeling however is that to date the US-Germany dispute, while indeed only one of several such disputes, has received by far the most press coverage, in both German-language and English-language sources. 
Incidentally, this includes many British sources, whose reporting does not strike me as different from US reporting:
*
*"UN asks Germany to explain Scientology stand", BBC
*"German ministers try to ban Scientology", The Guardian
*"Cruise is 'Goebbels of Scientology', says German church", The Independent
*Moore, Tristana (2008-01-13). "Scientologists in German push", BBC
Generally, both the US and the British press take a dim view of Scientology in their domestic reporting; however, quite a few mainstream commentators (and that includes German scholars) feel that Germany's response to Scientology has been slightly over the top. 
*Richard Cohen for example, writing in the Washington Post, said in 1996: "Scientology might be one weird religion, but the German reaction to it is weirder still – not to mention disturbing." . 
*Alan Cowell, writing in the New York Times, said in 1997 that the German response to Scientology – motivated by officials' fear that Scientology "was a totalitarian movement growing, like the Nazi party, from inconsequential beginnings" – was itself redolent of "the Nazi era's authoritarianism." 
These are both highly respected, Pulitzer Prize-nominated journalists; Richard Cohen is American, and Alan Cowell is a Brit based in Paris. No doubt Germany is particularly vulnerable to being seen in a critical light over this, because of its Nazi history, but comments like that are notable. I don't mind adding French views on the controversy. Sources? --JN466 14:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments by Jayen466

message: For those who might not have read my userpage, I consider myself a Scientologist. Just letting you know, as I don't want anybody to believe I am trying to push a pro-Scientology agenda, since I am not involved with the Sea Org, the RTC, nor the IAS. Now, returning to the topic. I find no major issues with the section, not any that would justify removal of the section anyway. Per above thread, it is heavily referenced, all fit WP:RS, no WP:OR, the tone may not be entirely neutral, but all statements are attributed. The fact that the Church of Scientology was convicted of fraud in a French court (a decision that, as far as I can tell, is passing through appeal, so it is not definitive yet) has nothing to do with the status of the organization in Germany. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 13:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments by RUL3R

message: Thanks. Exactly what I was starting to write here, as I think it is of very bad taste that some accuse me not to play the game just because I cannot admit that in a WP article a section about another country is based on mostly American sources, which are a bit hard to trust as related to an organization based in the US. As for me, the real controversy is how the US could meddle in what democratic countries do to protect themselves against delictuous intrusions.--Pgreenfinch (talk) 13:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments by Pgreenfinch

message: ====Comments by John Carter====
It's hard to tell specifically what is being requested here, so I will respond to the comments that seem to me to be relevant to the RfC. I prefer the title "Scientology in Germany" or similar over "alleged controversies" or anything similar which utilizes words we try to avoid. Regarding whether some of the publications are "US-based", specifically Time and the New York Times, yes, they are. But Time has if I remember correctly several international editions, which indicates that even if it is based in the US it's influence extends well beyond that area. The New York Times, for what it's worth, is to the best of my knowledge one of the most respected newspapers on the planet, and thus also qualifies at least to my eyes as being more than just a US source. On that basis, I have to say that I can see no real reason to criticize either for alleged nationalism. John Carter (talk) 14:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Previously uninvolved editors

message: It's hard to tell specifically what is being requested here, so I will respond to the comments that seem to me to be relevant to the RfC. I prefer the title "Scientology in Germany" or similar over "alleged controversies" or anything similar which utilizes words we try to avoid. Regarding whether some of the publications are "US-based", specifically Time and the New York Times, yes, they are. But Time has if I remember correctly several international editions, which indicates that even if it is based in the US it's influence extends well beyond that area. The New York Times, for what it's worth, is to the best of my knowledge one of the most respected newspapers on the planet, and thus also qualifies at least to my eyes as being more than just a US source. On that basis, I have to say that I can see no real reason to criticize either for alleged nationalism. John Carter (talk) 14:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments by John Carter

message: Currently (this version) with the title "Scientology in Germany" seems balanced.  I feel someone neutral on the subject would read it and get that there was a deep controversy.  It is clear there is name calling, grand standing and uncompromising attitudes on both sides.  
The new title is good because "Alleged" is a weasel word and "oppression" in the title is NPOV.  In fact some of the other section titles in the article could be less POV.
I see from the edit history that it is felt that Germany is being singled out as oppressive.  Scientology is controversial in all of Europe, but the controversy in Germany is particular strong and long standing warranting it's own section as supported by the Time Magazine article mentioned by Jayen466 above. (Bonfante, Jordan; van Voorst, Bruce (1997-02-10). "Does Germany Have Something Against These Guys?", Time)
If this were a paper encyclopedia, a lot of the material about Scientology in Wikipedia would not be included, because it is controversial.  A paper encyclopedia would be more conservative about what might be found offensive.  Wikipedia is clearly not conservative in that way.
Richard-of-Earth (talk) 05:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments by Richard-of-Earth

message: Neither title is ideal. "Scientology in Germany" is a weak entry next to blunt titles like "Abuse of donations", "Brainwashing", and "Mistreatment of members"--a change which renders the article less NPOV in my opinion. Watering down the tone when it's pointed at Germany or other opponents, but giving a pass to the same kinds of emotion tinged titles when the target is Scientology isn't NPOV.  "Alleged" smacks of an editorial qualifier. Change to noun form, "allegations", would be a little better.  "Mistreatment of scientologists in Germany" would be every bit as NPOV as the "Mistreatment of members" and other such titles already used throughout. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments by Professor marginalia

message: Fox,  World Survey of Religion and the State, Cambridge University Press, 2008, says Germany is tougher than other countries on this. I can look up exactly what it says if others can't easily do so. Peter jackson (talk) 11:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by Peter Jackson

message: The way in which this discussion is structured isn't particularly conducive to an efficient resolution of this issue. A quick look at the discussion page and the archive doesn't suggest that this issue has been discussed in any detail before. Couldn't this issue have been raised for discussion more conventionally rather than going straight to a more formal RfC structure? Adambro (talk) 14:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See the disruption of the page itself, and the discussion above the RFC. Cirt (talk) 14:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The Profesor has a point above regarding the weakness of the section title. Perhaps something like "Effort to ban Scientology in Germany" or something along those lines, which would also be more informative than "Sceintology in Germany", might be acceptable. John Carter (talk) 20:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I just thought the same, and this is my attempt at remedying it:  --JN466 20:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: General discussion

message: I would just like to give a shout out to the Wikipedia editors of this page.  It cannot be easy sifting through so much junk, constantly demanding linking to resources and whatever else it takes to keep this page as clean as it is.  As a general reader, I am very impressed with the rational, measured way this page is presented and its consistent readability.  Thank You.    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.234.192.170 (talk) 02:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shout out 

message: There is a deletion discussion going on at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Criticism_of_Judaism_(2nd_nomination), and any input would be appreciated. AzureFury  (talk | contribs) 02:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Criticism of Judaism]] 

message: The lede image is appropriate and should remain. It is noteworthy, notable, and historically significant. It is also pretty neat that it was taken onsite directly by a Wikimedia Commons photographer and Wikinews journalist. -- Cirt (talk) 20:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure. It doesn't really directly relate to the article subject and the article makes no mention of Anonymous. Adambro (talk) 20:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Despite I may fall in WP:COI; I think it is OK for the image to be removed. It only illustrates a group of people against another group of people. I does nothing to document a Scientology controversy. It would serve better on a hypothetical "Public image of Scientology" article, the article for Anonymous (group), and Project Chanology. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 20:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The article makes no mention of Anonymous or their protest activities, which can probably be taken to be essentially tangential to the topic of Scientology controversies. The image may belong in other articles, or perhaps if this article is expanded to include anti-Scientology protests/street theater.ClovisPt (talk) 21:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

text: WP:BRD? I don't think we need a discussion before anyone changes anything. Adambro (talk) 22:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It certainly would have been nice to have a post to the talk page about it. The edit summary failed to note that the user just went and removed the text, citation, and image, all in one edit, and failed to retain the text and citation. -- Cirt (talk) 22:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The text in question was simply the image caption. If someone says they've removed an image, I would think it would be implied that the caption would also be removed so I'm not quite sure what the issue is here. Adambro (talk) 22:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Like I said, it would have been a nice courtesy and polite to attempt to discuss removal of the text and citation. -- Cirt (talk) 22:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Support the image. It's more on topic. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 00:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Support the image. I agree with , this image is more relevant directly to the general scope of the topic at hand. -- Cirt (talk) 02:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

text: , looks great! -- Cirt (talk) 20:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lede image 

message: The ever-litigious scientologists are at it again: "Councillor faces inquiry over tweet calling Church of Scientology 'stupid'". If this blows up into something moderately big (and already there's quite a lot of it on the internets), it might be handy to know whether the (newly?) LibDem John Dixon is related to the (previously?) Plaid Cymru John Dixon (Welsh politician). -- Hoary (talk) 01:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tweet tweet: stupidity and John Dixon 

message: Should somebody mention the proven fact that the Church sends PIs to track people who have been disconnected?--Canadian Reject (talk) 10:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Private Investigators 

message: The Real Science behind Scientology; It's not what you think by Michael Shermer SciAm October 20, 2011 
97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  potential resource [[Scientific American]] 

message: In the Allegations of criminality section I wikilinked the word grooming, in reference to gifts to London police officers with the article Adult grooming.  I am 99% sure that's what was meant, but I want to draw some attention to it in case I've misunderstood it.
Rhsimard (talk) 22:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Grooming" wikilink 

message: The sentence introducing the recent Guardian article "Scientologist rallies followers against leader in leaked email" is
:Debbie Cook says emphasis on fundraising under David Miscavige is betrayal of founder L Ron Hubbard's beliefs
It appears that Cook is the person mentioned here. Quote from the article:
:In what appears to be a direct attempt to undermine Miscavige's leadership, Cook [...] urged people receiving the email to reject orders not directly backed up by Hubbard's teachings, and to encourage other members to do the same. / One recipient passed the email to New York's Village Voice, which posted it in a blog. While the email was later removed at the request of Cook – who has verified its authenticity – it has been republished elsewhere.
The last two words of that, "republished elsewhere", are linked to a blog posting, "Reformation – Division Within Corporate Scientology". (This is also here at WebCite.)
The Guardian article perhaps emphasizes the substance of the criticism less than the fact that it was internal. Something about this smells encyclopedic to me, but somebody more experienced than I am at editing these articles would have a better idea of what to do with it. -- Hoary (talk) 02:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internal controversy 

message: In section "Allegations of criminality; criminal convictions of members", these two items:
* The Church of Scientology long considered the Cult Awareness Network (CAN) as one of its most important enemies, and many Scientology publications during the 1980s and 1990s cast CAN (and its spokesperson at the time, Cynthia Kisser) in an unfriendly light, accusing the cult-watchdog organization of various criminal activities. After CAN was forced into bankruptcy and taken over by Scientologists in the late 1990s, Scientology proudly proclaimed this as one of its greatest victories.[citation needed]
* In the United Kingdom the church has been accused of "grooming" City of London Police officers with gifts worth thousands of pounds.[37]
^ neither of these are allegations of criminality, or criminal convictions. 
The first one seems to me like it might be more suited for the "Fair Game" section or article ('casting in an unfriendly light' is not a criminal activity), while a second one is a good example of Scientology schmoozing public officials, but that's not illegal. 
If the tickets which Scientology donated to City of London officers had been direct bribes in return for specific favours (and I don't know of any sources that would support the contention that they were) then it would be illegal for police officers to accept them, but that's a bit different. If it was just lobbying then that's legal.
So might I suggest that both of these cases be moved to different parts of the article.
--Mknjbhvgcf (talk) 17:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The legality of those acts are fairly dubious IMO. 203.97.127.101 (talk) 12:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-criminal things in section "Allegations of criminality; criminal convictions of members" 

message: A revert has been made by Techbear that may reduce an illusion of controversy, but one that Techbear prefers to refer to as "conversation", a notion that I strongly disagree with. You can check the "View history" option yourself that should have added:
"Conclusion toward the Xenu charges is that no Scientology member is obliged to believe in the Xenu (-nonsense)." (Because of this splendid member-autonomy principle being part of Scientology corpus.)
It's my opinion that people have a right to factual information when it's available and this is such a case. I see no use for people to believe in these fabrications/illusions when one can reach a much more relieving point of personal standing in terms of information obtained in the true sense. Cheers! 95.34.149.202 (talk) 12:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The purpose of a talk page is to discuss the article and how to improve it; they are not forums for discussing the topic. I deleted your addition because it had nothing whatsoever to do with this article. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 13:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

text: I appreciate your passion, but understand that many of us have dozens or hundreds of articles on our watchlists, so when you post to a talk page, please make the connection to the article obvious from the beginning.  Something like "Here's what should be changed about the article; now here are sources to back up my request".  Andrew327 16:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert by Techbear 

message: I cleaned up the highly POV intro paragraph, but don't have time to check the rest of the article, which could definitely use a routine check every few months for blatant pro or anti POV creeping in. Laval (talk) 14:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not of strong opinion either way over a rename, but I don't think it's really necessary to widen the article title like that just to match the category title. People will still search for this title or Criticism of Scientology, etc. As far as accuracy goes, this title is already accurate, adding "related" into the name changes nothing. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 14:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I am provisionally removing the flag from the main page. The title is representative of the content of the page. Viridium (talk) 02:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: POV issues

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Scientology controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070510195456/http://www.stmi.bayern.de:80/service/publikationen/detail/16672/ to http://www.stmi.bayern.de/service/publikationen/detail/16672/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Substituted at 15:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: I removed the paragraph referring to the "Nova Religio" article Sensational Scientology! The Church of Scientology and Australian Tabloid Television. It is essentially a Scientology apologist article. It uncritically repeats the Church's position that Fair Game has been officially cancelled, merely saying that "ex-members" claim that it continues in practice; it takes issue with journalists discussing Scientology beliefs and practices with ex-members on the grounds that "due to Scientologist belief, members were not at liberty to discuss higher-level teachings"; and it describes the Rehabilitation Project Force as a voluntary stint. --Slashme (talk) 12:01, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Nova Religio" article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Scientology controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/07/01/sci_psy/index_np.html?pn=1
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040802235201/http://www.eff.org:80/legal/cases/Scientology_cases/ to http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/Scientology_cases/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:03, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In Belgium, after a judicial investigation since 1997, a trial against the organization is due to begin in 2008.
Can somebody update this? <B>☺</B> Dick Kimball (talk) 15:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Severely dated entry 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Scientology controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070601161307/http://www.nypress.com/20/22/news%26columns/feature.cfm to http://www.nypress.com/20/22/news%26columns/feature.cfm
*Added  tag to http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/1996/1996canlii1650/1996canlii1650.html
*Added  tag to http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/154clr120.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090626222533/http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/1999/07/22/scientology/print.html to http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/1999/07/22/scientology/print.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100506140937/http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article2371180.ece to http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article2371180.ece
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/Scientology_cases/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Scientology controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5yLc3T9Xn?url=http://www.sptimes.com/News/32999/Worldandnation/Abroad__Critics_publi.html to http://www.sptimes.com/News/32999/Worldandnation/Abroad__Critics_publi.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160124225356/http://www.antisectes.net/sp-times-scientology-special-report-pulitzer-price.pdf to http://www.antisectes.net/sp-times-scientology-special-report-pulitzer-price.pdf
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5yLc3T9Xn?url=http://www.sptimes.com/News/32999/Worldandnation/Abroad__Critics_publi.html to http://www.sptimes.com/News/32999/Worldandnation/Abroad__Critics_publi.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050324093216/http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_1996_July_16/ai_18489022 to http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_1996_July_16/ai_18489022
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071226104617/http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5h-V0Ui506lPl-r8ImubpdUjFbuYA to http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5h-V0Ui506lPl-r8ImubpdUjFbuYA
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5o4YGXMBa?url=http://www.umhb.edu/files/academics/crl/publications/articles/the_church_of_scientologypursuit_of_legal_recognition.pdf to http://www.umhb.edu/files/academics/crl/publications/articles/the_church_of_scientologypursuit_of_legal_recognition.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160124225356/http://www.antisectes.net/sp-times-scientology-special-report-pulitzer-price.pdf to http://www.antisectes.net/sp-times-scientology-special-report-pulitzer-price.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:02, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Scientology controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110604102718/http://www.sptimes.com/2006/06/24/Tampabay/The_unperson.shtml to http://www.sptimes.com/2006/06/24/Tampabay/The_unperson.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:32, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello!  I would like to edit this page because I would love to add some information that isn't in the article. 69.129.118.103 (talk) 20:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 20:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2017 

message: Hi  There was a long discussion that resulted in the Daily Mail being considered an unreliable source. I'm not against reporting on this incident, but the two options I can see for sourcing are the Daily Mail and a strongly POV book, so I'd like to see some better sources first. --Slashme (talk) 07:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the heads-up, I was unaware of that discussion. I will keep it in mind for some of the other articles I keep an eye on. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 07:18, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daily Mail 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Scientology controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sptimes.com/News/32999/Worldandnation/Abroad__Critics_publi.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060613231010/http://www.anti-scientologie.ch/lesoir-magazine.htm to http://www.anti-scientologie.ch/lesoir-magazine.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.umhb.edu/files/academics/crl/publications/articles/the_church_of_scientologypursuit_of_legal_recognition.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:22, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It is widely known amongst Scientology staff and public, especially those that are technically trained, that the process R2-45 referred to was blowing your brains out with a .45 calibre pistol. This is a semi-automatic handgun and was the standard military sidearm in U.S. armed forces from World War I up to the 1980's when it was replaced with the Beretta 9mm P-92 pistol. Hubbard, as a former serving naval officer would have been quite familiar with this weapon, hence the name of the process.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chcgo undaground (talk • contribs) 01:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  R2-45 

message: Any news? The Wikipedia article has to been updated! =]Lawtheagoraphobic (talk) 01:57, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  News 

message: This article doesn't mention Anonymous or the Miscavige family's books, two of the biggest recent controversies. In fact, this article seems to have not been significantly updated for about a decade- all events referenced are from before 2010 (unless i'm missing something).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.40.18.48 (talk) 13:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updates needed