Talk:Scientology/Archive 22

message: (I've made the same comment about the intro of the Scientology as a state-recognized religion article, but since the remaining stub here is currently the same as the intro, I might as well make it here too.)
All the references in the stub, except two CESNUR ones, are directly sourced to Church of Scientology web sites. One of the CESNUR ones is text of a letter from a South African official to P Sondergaard of the Church of Scientology, so Scientology is part of that chain. The other CESNUR one has serious problems because of the large differences between their English version and the Le Monde text in French. The fact that many of these claimed recognitions seem to be close to Hubbard's March 13 birthday (a CoS favourite for slipping empty "L. Ron Hubbard Day" proclamation requests past city mayor staffs) only deepens my unease at how reliable and verifiable the sources are. AndroidCat 12:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Single-sourced refs in Scientology as a state-recognized religion 

message: A recent edit -- sorry, I'm not a Wiki pro and don't know how to do diffs yet -- reminded me that Wikipedia is an international resource. RookZERO moved a comma into quote marks, per American English. Under most circumstances, commas and sentence-ending punctuation should be placed inside quotes. Example: "Religion is an interesting subject," said the Wikipedia editor. But in British Enlish, the reverse is true. So... Which are we adhering to in this article? --GoodDamon 05:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Wikipedia's Manual of Style, "punctuation marks are placed inside the quote marks only if the sense of the punctuation is part of the quotation." Foobaz·o< 12:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting! I wasn't aware of Wikipedia's manual of style. I'll have to read it before commenting any further on punctuation. Thanks! --GoodDamon 16:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standardizing punctuation? 

message: A lot of references don't actually say what the sentence before it is saying, e.g. the very first reference doesn't say anything like: Scientology is a body of teachings and related techniques created by American science fiction author L. Ron Hubbard in 1952 as an outgrowth of his earlier self-help system, Dianetics. Hubbard later characterized Scientology as an "applied religious philosophy" and the basis for a new religion. in fact, it's just a picture time-line with captions. Please no pro- or anti-Scientology people edit this, wait for a neutral person to make those edits, thanks. Jeffrey.Kleykamp 20:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference is obviously for the previous sentence in the introduction. I don't think an edit-war will break out if I shift the ref. Mind you, there are an awful lot of "Scientology says" ipsie dixie references in the article. AndroidCat 21:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Still, you seem to be involved in a lot of Scientology related things so I suggest you don't do anything, especially with other references that have less obvious references. Jeffrey.Kleykamp 21:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you can suggest... AndroidCat 21:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Bizarre. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 04:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is "bizarre"? Jeffrey.Kleykamp 13:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I don't really know what you mean by "involved in a lot of Scientology related things". But from the outside, it looks as if you're saying that people with a history of editing Scientology articles should not continue to do so, and I can't understand why anyone would say that... so my conclusion is that something weird is going on. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 14:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Messed up references 

message: I belive this section should be renamed as many of the organizations are simply frontgroups for Scientology and not just related organizations.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 158.234.250.71 (talk • contribs) 11:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If a reliable source describes a related organisation as a frontgroup, then that may be notable enough to include. But in general I think the term "frontgroup" is probably a word to avoid, in that it is rather non-neutral, having connotations of deception. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 21:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.xenu.net/ is a reliable source, being the only consistently available source for verified information on Scientology's actions. The site has specific sections dealing with the various front-groups for Scientology. They are accurately described as "fronts" in that they are ostensibly independent organizations devoted to various causes, but are actually scientology recruitment centers which are directly linked to CoS.  This is no less a "front" than a garbage-hauling operation used to launder money for the mafia. 66.167.51.8 05:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  http://www.xenu-directory.net/documents/scnsecularentities-royalties.html is a very well documented list of the many of these front-groups. RvLeshrac 08:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

text: ????? What the heck????? Xenu.net is an anti-scientology website an it has its own agenda. That is far from NPOV. This is an encyclopedia, we are not to judge but to report. You can't call this group is a front group but you can say that some critics say it is a front group. Bravehartbear 20:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Scientology Related Organizations 

message: There has been an edit war over the publishing date of "Have You Lived Before This Life". General consensus seems to be for 1960, but i found an edition that Amazon claims was published in 1958. Does anyone still have reason to believe the first edition was published in 1960? Foobaz·o< 01:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I have many reasons to believe it's 1960. The CoS says it's 1960, in its Technical volumes, in the copyright date, Hubbatrd says implicitly it's 1960 in the bulletins and articles he wrote in 1960 to announce the release of the book. The confusion comes from the history. In Oct-Nov 58 was the London 5th Advanced Clinical Course. During this scientologists came up with a lot of past lives memories, including space opera. End of Nov 58, Hubbard called for staff to put together these experiences for a future book. The book was completed in 1960. --Leocomix 09:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  HYLBTL publishing date 

message: I noticed two major objections to the controversy part in the lead. 
Su_Jada beliefs:
The church, on the other hand, holds that many of these issues were laid to rest by the recognition in 1993 by the IRS of the mother church as being "operated exclusively for religious and charitable purposes" after their review of "voluminous information provided by the Church regarding its financial and other operations." 
Misou wanted to insert that many governments and scholars consider Scientology as a religion.
my thoughts: 
Su_Jada's source(IRS) makes no statements that "this issues were laid to rest". After 1993 the controversy between critics,journalists, courts, some governments and Scientology is still the same and the recognition by the IRS is only for the US anyway. Su_Jadas prediction is quite unreasonable WP:OR. However, the recognition in the US as a religion is probably a very important and noteable issue even if it doesn't contradicts the controversy in general and a "religous charater" does not contradict the allegation that Scientology is a cult(There is an overlap). I would suggest following sentence in the intro instead of Su_Jadas aproach:
"However, some governments and scholars consider Scientology as a religion today."
It might be not the majority of scholars and governments wich do that but there are clearly some.
It would avoid that the lead does inflate to an inappropriate degree. -- Stan  talk 01:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  balancing the controversy 

message: A little reminder about what vandalism is: "is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." (per WP:VANDAL). Removing text to slant an article, changing content to cheat normal readers, are vandalism. Get a graffiti spray can and spray your daddy's bike. That's vandalism and his reaction might teach you the point more efficiently than a lot of Wikipedia talk page yap. Misou 02:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism edits 

message: How do you - fighting for an anonymous subdomained freebie website with invented, pardon, anonymized interviews - that this site has two Waldo B's? One Bettendorf (2004), another one Bettenforf (16 Aug 2007), with two different stories and dates? Seems the same person to me and I only read like 10 minutes. Misou 02:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed '100' to '200' as a factual update, the link to the Title of the webpages - 'Through the Door'. 'Anti-scientology' is tautological, every link in the Critical section is 'anti'. Anonymous I'll give you, it is a feature that contributers are not required to identify themselves. I'll put that back. --Hartley Patterson 03:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's funny you should speak of clarifying what vandalism is while endlessly minimizing the CoS's rightful criticisms.  You clearly have little interest in objectivity.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.83.12.78 (talk) 19:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hartley, listen up 

message: But this doesn't seem all too NPOV:
"In some instances, former members have claimed the Church used information obtained in auditing sessions against them.[131][132][133] While such a claim would be actionable as extortion, blackmail or harassment within most legal jurisdictions"
The first sentence is fine. It is fact. The first part of the second sentence above seems to belittle Church critics, seems unnecessary and has no proof of the claim. Sorry, I'm not a Scientology-article-editing regular around here but that caught my eye.. Panfakes 16:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, that kind of stuff isn't NPOV. Maybe you should make those edits, because it's new blood that this article needs. Jeffrey.Kleykamp 17:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great idea. Let's act. Misou 17:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I realize this page has been edited to death 

message: Misou, you rudely called me to this talk page. I assume you wish to discuss a recent edit of mine. I looked over the diff carefully, and i believe RookZERO's edit improved the page considerably. You reverted it as vandalism, which it was not. If you're going to revert people, please at least use the edit summary truthfully. Now, here i am, is there anything you'd like to say to me? Foobaz·o< 02:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am happy you decided for a more mannered tone, great. Yes, chime in above. I'd like to hear from you why it is ok to use personal, clearly biased pages as ELs. Let's start at the top of the list. Misou 02:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summoning 

message: I can go do something more useful now, like go to sleep. Misou 03:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The night is young. You can always run over to Church of Scientology and provoke another freeze there again as well. AndroidCat 04:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm currently in a different time zone. And I'm not taking the blame for "provoking a freeze". That was RookZERO who started it. I was willing to discuss on the talk page all along. But yes, I asked for it, because I like my time well used (like for sleeping). Bye for now. Misou 04:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Misou, you're awfully quick to start the finger-pointing. Foobaz·o< 04:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I call this contributions page and page history reading. Ciao. Misou 05:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  hooray, the page is locked 

message: I believe the following links should be removed from the external links section, as they do not relate directly to the subject of the article, Scientology, and there are other wikipedia articles in which they are listed appropriately:
* The Way To Happiness: no need to list this here, this external link is appropriately listed in Wikipedia article The_Way_to_Happiness;
* CCHR: same reason;
* Criminon: same rason;
* Narconon: same reason (or else might as well list the other views on Narconon);
* Foundation for a Drug-Free world: same reason;
* Youth for Human Rights International: same reason.
Raymond Hill 14:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As there are Wikipedia articles about each group already, perhaps the links should be adjusted to point to the main articles instead of the external websites? It's just a thought. --GoodDamon 19:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Good Damon.  We can replace several external links with internal links to the relevant wikipedia article.(RookZERO 00:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

text: If this would be about making you happy, we might or might not have an encyclopedia at some point. I prefer to stick to some more stable rules, like WP:EL. Sounds old-fashioned and unpopular, I know. We either get rid of this whole link collection and leave the main site on the subject (Scientology, not "anti-Scientology") in the article. Or you will have to live with what is there. Raymond might just be pissed about my recent talk that he is an off-wiki anti-Scientology propagandist running his own website (illegally promoted on Wikipedia all over the place) and brings up the above in response to that. A bit lame, if true. Right, Raymond? Misou 05:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I mean, just check this one out for real: "* Narconon: same reason (or else might as well list the other views on Narconon);". Comparing an international drug rehab program with some dinky personal and outdated website set up by Dave "NoClue" Touretzky, who does not even dare to put his name on the site? Also that they are some kind of buddies doesn't make it more ok. Back to square one then. Misou 05:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your interpretation of WP:EL is unorthodox to say the least.(RookZERO 05:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed, isn't that amazing?! You would think that someone reads all this policy and important stuff there on WP:PG. Misou 05:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Again, just a reminder to stick to the points I brought, not speculate about what might or might not affect my mood, etc. As said, the links I enumerated above are not directly related to the subject of the article. Narconon.org does not contain further information on Scientology specifically. Of course, it has been argued that Narconon is Scientology (in many newspaper articles), but that case is best left to the Narconon article on Wikipedia, in which case it is appropriate to link Narconon.org, as well as other reference works with differing views, like Narconon-Exposed.org. Raymond Hill 06:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to be removed 

message: This article is way too long, to keep neutrality let's create a list of things that should be deleted or moved to a different article and develop consensus on deleting/moving those items. Jeffrey.Kleykamp 21:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of the major sections, i think Membership is the one that needs to be trimmed the most. Foobaz·o< 00:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the criticism section should be summarized and membership shouldn't have as many sections with one or two sentences below, instead it should mention those things in a summary. Jeffrey.Kleykamp 01:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: "Scientology and other religions" is quite redundant and too long. It should only show the official view by Scientology(that it is compatible with the major religions), the general opinion by other religions(that it is not) and maybe the point that Scientology does not allow parishoners to practice other religions(praying, meditation is not allowed). It could be reduced to one paragraph in my opinion.-- Stan  talk 01:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is long and rambling, but it has some interesting information. How about moving that section to a new article and summarizing in this article? Foobaz·o< 02:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  jap, that would be fine with me and the content could be moved into a new article and summarizing it here is exactly what I want. I think we agree on it. -- Stan  talk 02:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a results section to help us keep track of the decisions below. Please add anything I missed. Jeffrey.Kleykamp 03:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too long 

message: *Review verifiability of all "references" Misou 04:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia's policy of verifiability concerns the verifiability of information in the article, not the information in our references. We don't fact-check the information in the sources; instead, we use sources we trust. Scientology as a state-recognized religion already has its own article. The section in the article is small because it's a summary of the larger article. It's valuable and should stay. You seem to have a unique view of what constitues a hobby or personal site, one that i disagree with. Foobaz·o< 06:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Misou - All I want to do is shorten the article, all other work is a distraction and can lead to edit wars. Just add stuff that will shorten the article, and keep neutrality about it (and don't make too many suggestions because they clutter the list), thanks, Jeffrey.Kleykamp 12:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh - excuse me? Misou can make all the suggestions he/she wants, and your post to Misou's talk page in which you stated "maybe it's time you stop editing those articles and move on to other subjects or to stop editing Wikipedia altogether" is a new low in obnoxiousness. Wikipedia does not revolve around Jeffrey Kleykamp's ideas of "clutter" and Jeffrey Kleykamp's ideas of who edits too much and who he wishes would just go away, so take yourself down a few notches, listen to other editors whether you like it or not, and drop the supercilious attitude while there's still a few editors even willing to communicate with you. wikipediatrix 13:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that Misou can make all the edits he wants, after all, I did say "there are no limits to the amount of edits you're allowed to make" before the direct quote you made, I just pointed out that all his edits are Scientology related, and maybe I wasn't clear: I want Misou to temporarily stop editing Scientology articles for his own good (i.e. not looking like he/she has a conflict of interest which could get him banned from editing Scientology articles), and I do listen to other editors and made the decision to post that on his talk page because I looked at this, and looking at that is standard practise for me. Let me say one more time that this has nothing to do with Misou's contributions above, Jeffrey.Kleykamp 13:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  other changes 

message: The subject of Scientology has been dealt with extensively on Wikipedia, down to every micro-nuance, across literally hundreds of articles. Therefore, I see this main Scientology article as more of a simple jumping-off point to all the other articles: give just the most basic smattering of info and point the reader to each of the main articles for each subject. Scientology is an extremely complicated multi-tentacled matter (and deliberately so) and there's absolutely no way to do it justice in the space requirements of a Wikipedia article - so don't try. Let the ancillary pages do the talking. Don't feel like you have to fit everything in this one article, or you'll go mad trying. wikipediatrix 14:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, the problem, however, is that no one agrees on which parts to delete, pro-Scientology want to delete Criticism, anti-Scientology want to save it, etc. Jeffrey.Kleykamp 14:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know of any section of this article whose contents aren't already mirrored on another Wikipedia article, so it's not like any info's being deleted, it's just being flowcharted outward. The "Beliefs and practices" section is totally redundant with the Scientology beliefs and practices article, so gut it and cut it, reduce the topic to a simple couple of paragraphs, and send the reader on to Scientology beliefs and practices if they want to read more, that's why the article exists. Ditto the controversies, they're all covered on Scientology controversy, Scientology vs. the Internet, Scientology as a Business, Scientology kills baby ducklings, etc., ad nauseum, so shunt the reader there. No one can cry censorship because the information hasn't really gone anywhere, it's all still here on Wikipedia. wikipediatrix 14:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  my two pfennigs 

message: The intro says Scientology "as an outgrowth of his earlier self-help system, Dianetics". This statement makes you think that Scientology is a form of Dianetics and that is not true. I would like to see a clarification that Dianetics is a substudy of Scientology. The reference is the book: Scientology: The fundaments of thought / 2007 edition / page 5 Bravehartbear 11:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dianetics is a forerunner and substudy of Scientology 

message: Of 5 references (113-118) in the current revision (this one) that I checked, 3 didn't work (114, 116, and 118), that's 60%! Something needs to be done to fix that problem (maybe this: Wikipedia:Citing sources#What to do when a reference link "goes dead"), because technically 
everything without a reference can be deleted at once, see Wikipedia:Citing sources#Unsourced material. Jeffrey.Kleykamp 04:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead references 

message: RookZERO, how exactly is the phrase "In fabricating Scientology" vandalism? The definition of fabricate: "To make, build or construct by assembling parts or manufacturing. 2. To make from raw material." The phrase was added for accuracy's sake.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.230.204 (talk) 23:25, August 26, 2007 (UTC) 
:My two cents: if you have to resort to citing a dictionary definition, you probably already know what's wrong with using the word.  "Fabrication" (as, like I said, you probably know very well) has a strong implication of falseness or fakeness--"he fabricated stories to hide his misdeed" is a textbook example of the word.  Regardless of my or your opinions on the truth of scientology, calling it a "fabrication" is essentially vandalism. Deptstoremook 14:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fabrication 

message: I deleted all external links () that don't follow the guidelines and now I see that RookZERO added them back, that's not right. And I don't want to accuse anyone but RookZERO this is the second time I saw you reverting legitimate contributions, the last time you just copied and pasted an older version instead of improving on the improvement like a you're supposed to with a Wiki. Jeffrey.Kleykamp 20:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Raymond Hill also has reverted you, stating "please, keep it this way, this has been discussed already many times in the past". I find his attitude puzzling. Just because prior editors discussed it doesn't mean they made an immutable decision handed down forevermore to all future editors. wikipediatrix 20:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you mean this then you're wrong, he undid the revert of my deletion, that's why I think he meant that it's been discussed that the external links should be pruned. PS: sorry to single you out RookZERO, I didn't realize that others also reverted. Jeffrey.Kleykamp 21:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, of course. Raymond's recent knee-jerk reverting of most edits to these articles gets rather confusing sometimes. Certainly confused me here. Especially with all this non-stop edit-warring going on. Anyhoo, I'm definitely in favor of drastically reducing all external links on all articles to the barest of bare minimums. wikipediatrix 21:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Knee-jerk reverting"? Can you be specific? Did I revert something without explaining why? Raymond Hill 21:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

text: By the way, just to clarify my "discussed in the past": a bloated external links section is a recurrent issue, unfortunately, and appreciate you went ahead and cleaned it up. So for the benefit of people who think more is better, here are past discussions on the issue: External_links_needs_a_severe_cull, External_links (although some links suggested in these past discussions might be obsolete as of now). Personally, I think three links pro, three con, would be just enough. Raymond Hill 21:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why three of each? Most Wikipedia articles don't insist that negative links be supplied in equal quantity, not even on highly debated subjects like Mormonism, even though there's loads of anti-Mormon sites out there. wikipediatrix 21:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Scientology is undeniably controversial, so expect external links to web sites with opposing views. The Mormons weren't involved in the "the single largest infiltration of the United States government in history", among so many other controversial events. Raymond Hill 05:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

text: You've been warned: stop following me around and posting irrelevant and insulting drivel such as this after every post I make on every page. Your entire contributions page consists of nothing but this offensive and stalkerly behavior. wikipediatrix 21:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I cut all links that didn't follow WP:EL, I didn't try to make it fifty fifty or anything like that, so that's why my version is a good one to keep, especially considering that we all agree that external links should be pruned. Jeffrey.Kleykamp 21:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please make sure that you list which part of WP:EL you feel that the links don't meet. There are frequent personal interpretations that don't exist in the actual guideline. AndroidCat 03:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: Scientology claims that it is fully compatible with all existing major world religions and that it does not conflict with other religions or other religious practices. See that major differences in the beliefs and practices between Scientology and especially the major monotheistic religions in their view a simultaneous membership with Scientology is excluded. Critics also highlight the fact that Scientology only allows a formal membership in a second religion. Parishoners are not allowed to engage in other religious activities such as praying or meditation.
HCO PL 15 December 1965R Issue 1 Revised 25.7.87 
more primary source collections: for this issue:
http://www.sweenytod.com/cos/
http://www.skeptictank.org/compat.htm
a reliable secondary source might be still needed
source witch contradict the claim of compatibility:
Steve Bruce: Cathedrals to cults: the evolving forms of the religious life. In: Paul Heelas (Hrsg.): Religion, Modernity, and Postmodernity, Blackwell, Oxford 1998, S. 19-35, 23.
-- Stan  talk 22:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing about no praying in HCO PL 15 December 1965R Issue 1 Revised 25.7.87. Is true that Scientology is not to be mix with other types of Spiritual therapies like meditation but still you can believe in anything you want. Parishioners are  allowed to engage in other religious activities like Sunday services,praying and religious education. I'm a Scientologist and I can and do engage in Christians religious activities including praying. Bravehartbear 02:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What makes prayer and meditation different? I see them both as spiritual therapies. Foobaz·o< 03:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that your interpretation of the policy is correct.Bravehartbear 00:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't either. And he's making an even bigger mess with it over at Scientology and other religions‎. wikipediatrix 01:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didn't back up my edit with one single HCO Bulletin. -- Stan  talk 19:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Be more carefull when you revert. Most of his changes were wording and grammar corrections.-- Stan  talk 19:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Stan-san, are there changes with are not "wording" correction? Misou 23:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientology and other religions (summery per result section) 

message: why are non of the books related to this organization public domain? 
it's kinda weird if you call yourself a church Markthemac 01:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the very first copyrights laws (and violations of) involve versions of the Bible (with punishments of up to being burnt at the stake). Even after a few hundred years, some versions aren't always as copyfree as most people think. King James Version of the Bible#Copyright status I think the accusation of Scientology "having copyrights" misses the mark. (I could say an awful lot about how they use those copyrights, but this isn't my soapbox.) AndroidCat 03:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  why no public domain 

message: Misou provided a reference in which it is stated that Taiwan recognized Scientology as a legitimate religion: this link. The first problem with this reference, which is a GIF, is that the exact date is not provided. I found that the exact date is provided by a parent page which links to this GIF, so it is better to provide a link to the parent page (which is in German), it offers more context, and might allow the reference to be verified by other editors. I'm not saying the reference is valid or not, I am just trying to improve its WP:V status. (I will note here that menschenrechtsbuero.de seems to be a site owned by a scientologist or Scientology organization.) Raymond Hill 22:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The photo of the taiwanese president giving an award to the president of the Church in Taiwan is not really connected to the recognition. The german page talks about a representative of the Ministry of Interior stating on 12 March 2003 that the Church of Scientology has been included in the list of recognized religious communities. "Ministry of Interior" is not part of the CNA Taiwan message (.gif). Anyone here with access to their archive? Misou 23:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Add: Here is the official list of recognized religious organizations in Taiwan, published by the govt there. Scientology is one of 26 religions there. Misou 23:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The gov of Taiwan site is perfect, thanks! AndroidCat 23:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Semper Fidelis... Misou 23:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Add2: Raymond, brush up your german... menschenrechtsbuero.de is a website of the Church of Scientology Germany. Misou 23:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Registered to the president of CoS Germany. AndroidCat 23:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The problem with the gif is contains the text "Taiwan Central News Agency". The Central News Agency (Republic of China) doesn't call themselves that. (The Taiwan/China muddle.) So whatever that gif is, it's not a scan of an actual article. CoS may have assembled it using the actual text from an article, CNA's logo and added "Taiwan Central News Agency", but the whole thing is just too dubious to accept as a reference. The WWRN link seems to be a Church of Scientology PR statement published "as is". Once again, a non reference of "Scientology sez so". This section has a serious problem with that. AndroidCat 23:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess it's a translation from taiwanese (or chinese, any difference?) to english. Read a bit like it. Misou 23:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Add3: refs ad nauseum... US Govt report about Scientology being recognized as a religions in Taiwan in 2003. Note to Kitty: It took me five google minutes to find several official references to support the ref you deleted. Are you slower when looking for docs supporting Scientology statements? I remember your data base researches (on LRH) when you were much faster. Does it make a difference for you, pro or anti research? Misou 23:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the last month and a couple weeks, I'm the only person that added any refs to that tagged section. Where was your five minutes then? AndroidCat 23:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Entangled in some verbose BS COI discussion... and some vacation, heh. Misou 23:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Here is what I read at the Taiwan government reference: "[...] in 2005 there were 26 religions recognized by the government". Church of Scientology is part of the list. Raymond Hill 02:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: you are right! I was refering to the "table content" with 23 listed religions and my Browser didn't find the word "Scientology" in the text. Don't know why, but even the text message you refer to was not shown )): . I found the number "26" instantly but not the term "Scientology" even if both are indeed included in the text. I should trust less my browser but more my eyes. I won't challenge this reference anymore since it seems to be reliable and makes a definite claim.-- Stan  talk 03:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is mixed with Chinese text, so it might be a character set problem. (WinXP, Firefox 2 here.) AndroidCat 04:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know why this happened. I experienced that my Browser(Firefox) does a good job and I usually had faith in it. But in this case it messed up. It is not even a character set problem because I can actually see everything. My problem was "Strg + f" wich didn't reveal the word "Scientology" even it existed muliple times in the text. Sorry for starting this needless thread! -- Stan  talk 05:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

text: In the 'Yearbook', it gives for the CoS 7 churches (they are Missions) and 20,000 members, but no date. It can't be up to date, there are 15 Missions now. I'd say 2003 if both figures were collected the same year. I can't find any evidence of a survey or census question about religious adherence in Taiwan! --Hartley Patterson 03:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The figures are provided by the religious groups themselves, see  ("Statistics collected by the MOI from religious groups"), and  ("they maintain registration statistics voluntarily reported by religious organizations"). Raymond Hill 16:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Taiwan news 

message: I added a sentence about what areas cover the Scientology phylosophy. Is important to give an idea of the subject we are taking about. Bravehartbear 01:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Don't they deserve to have their opinion exposed too?" no, it is about Scientology and not critics. It doesn't matter as long we don't cite discredided sources and we didn't but I'm not sure how much controversy is needed in the intro. Ideally I think 1 section was appropriate since it is one of the most controversial "religion" with probably the worst reputation compared to other religions. -- Stan  talk 02:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

text: you also deleted other informations in this section.
  -- Stan  talk 02:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

text: This appears to be an attempt to remove the pre-Hubbard use of the word "Scientology" from this article. Please restore it. --FOo 07:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is still there you just need to follow the link. The subject is not that important to require detailed explanation in the Scientology Main. Interesting trivia though. Bravehartbear 08:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

text: How about one more sentence wich acknowledges that the word is not exclusively use by Hubbard? For example: Although today associated almost exclusively with Hubbard's work, the word "scientology" predates Hubbard's creation by several decades and was used bevore with varying meaning. Would still keep it short but gives a more concise summary. -- Stan  talk 09:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its done. A statement clarifying that the word is not originaly Hubbard's is there.Bravehartbear 04:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Of course, Scientology Definition is not a well-formed Wikipedia article (bad title, incomplete content). It really isn't an attempt to create an article; it's an attempt to move facts that contradict the preferred "truths" of CoS off of this article. It needs to be reverted and re-merged, not linked to. --FOo 03:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "So Suzie and I went to the library looking for a word" Come on! Who cares if Ron and Suzie went to the library. The section was too long. If you want to say that Ron didn't invented that word and it has other definitions, I already did that. Bravehartbear 12:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientology lead explanation 

message: To every story there are two sides. The lead had one sentence that was one sided. "Journalist, judges and goverment bodies has have said negative things of scientology". What about the ones that have awarded and said positive things? Don't they deserve to have their opinion exposed too? The lead has to be neutral. Stating the fact that Scientology is controversial is all what is needed in the lead or you have to expose both sides not only one.Bravehartbear 01:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Don't they deserve to have their opinion exposed too?" no, it is about Scientology and not critics. It doesn't matter as long we don't cite discredided sources and we didn't but I'm not sure how much controversy is needed in the intro. Ideally I think 1 section was appropriate since it is one of the most controversial "religion" with probably the worst reputation compared to other religions. -- Stan  talk 02:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Scientology Controversy

message: The church of Scientology is a sub-sudject of Scientology but to say that Scientology also refers to the church. Those are two diferent things.Bravehartbear 01:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: you also deleted other informations in this section.
  -- Stan  talk 02:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Scientology and the Church are not the same thing

message: article is too long and I agree with it -- Stan  talk 02:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This appears to be an attempt to remove the pre-Hubbard use of the word "Scientology" from this article. Please restore it. --FOo 07:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is still there you just need to follow the link. The subject is not that important to require detailed explanation in the Scientology Main. Interesting trivia though. Bravehartbear 08:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

text: How about one more sentence wich acknowledges that the word is not exclusively use by Hubbard? For example: Although today associated almost exclusively with Hubbard's work, the word "scientology" predates Hubbard's creation by several decades and was used bevore with varying meaning. Would still keep it short but gives a more concise summary. -- Stan  talk 09:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its done. A statement clarifying that the word is not originaly Hubbard's is there.Bravehartbear 04:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Of course, Scientology Definition is not a well-formed Wikipedia article (bad title, incomplete content). It really isn't an attempt to create an article; it's an attempt to move facts that contradict the preferred "truths" of CoS off of this article. It needs to be reverted and re-merged, not linked to. --FOo 03:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "So Suzie and I went to the library looking for a word" Come on! Who cares if Ron and Suzie went to the library. The section was too long. If you want to say that Ron didn't invented that word and it has other definitions, I already did that. Bravehartbear 12:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: summarization of the definition + new article [[Scientology Definition]] 

message: I know that this article is currently locked, but where would it be best to include an edit about this news item?  Blueaster 19:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is semi-protected, but you should be able to edit the article and put that info in. Of course in this particular article, it's going to be scrutinized and noPOVed until you're cross-eyed, but give it a shot. BURNyA 21:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The best place to write about the Belgium news is at Scientology as a state-recognized religion#Belgium or Scientology in Belgium, but you won't be the first person to do so. Foobaz·o< 22:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Church of scientology facing criminal charges in Belgium 

message: Bravehartbear created a new subsection on the main page called "Influences," and moved some of the details from Origins section to it. He also re-ordered the definition section, and added a new reference to Joseph Cressman Thompson (an article that needs a serious references cleanup, by the way). I think we should discuss these changes, since this article is on probation. I'm hesitant to leave the changes in place because they're fairly big, and were done without discussion. But in their defense, the changes don't seem particularly POV-pushing to me, nor do they delete any referenced data, at least that I've been able to tell so far. How do you all feel about them? --GoodDamon 16:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the changes and don't think they required prior discussion, as they don't bias the article. Foobaz·o< 19:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as my edits are done in accordance Wikipedia policies there shouldn’t be no warring.Bravehartbear 06:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and having taken a closer look at the changes, they actually seem pretty minor, not as big as I first thought. Never mind, folks, nothing to see here, move along... :) --GoodDamon 22:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New section - "Influences" 

message: Would anyone object if I placed a scroll box on this page? As they is a long list of references and I think it would tidy up the page. mattypc 17:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't see how this cleans up the article. The reference section is at the bottom. How about closing the contents box by default? That thing is much more in the way. Shutterbug 00:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: can rename the full article to "GRAWP NOT UNDERSTAND SCIENTOLOGY. IS TOM CRUISE A MORMON?"? Without alarm bells going off? Misou 03:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PS: Ok, this guy was pretty active. BTW, I read up on this article probation thing. Now, where are these guys? Haven't seen anybody showing up but the anti-Admins. What's happening? Misou 03:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He's been blocked. The open nature of Wikipedia has allowed it to flourish, but unfortunately also enables jerks like this guy. Foobaz·o< 02:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  HOW can it BE that some idiot 

message: I was astounded that nowhere in the Scientology pages, much less Wikipedia as a whole, was there reference to or definition of the Fishman Affidavit.
The website documenting the Affidavit, having successfully defended it's content as legitimate and free of trademark/copyright infringements THREE times (up to a Supreme Court) seems to stand as possibly one of the most authoritative citations and legitimate references imaginable.
Not being a seasoned Wikipedia contributor (but a well-versed reader) this topic would be a bear to cut my teeth on, so I figured I should ask why there is no mention of, or reference to it.  It's inclusion, atleast as an article in and of itself, seems rather important in dealing with the subject of Scientology.
After an hour of sifting through discussion pages and archives, I cannot make heads or tails of whether or not reasons for it's exclusion have been given or if folks are simply unaware of it.
Any input would be appreciated.
:It's there. Go to the Fishman Affidavit article. I'm not sure how you missed it. --GoodDamon 01:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the Fishman Affidavit 

message: Template: has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 14:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of [[:Template:{{ucfirst:ScientologySeries}}]] 

message: I am new to editing pages but I just wanted someone more experienced to fix a false cited source. The Rolling Stone article which is used comes from issue number 995--March 9, 2006 pp. 55-66 NOT number 994 Feb 23, 2007 p 4. Thanks a bunch. Allygirl4g zus 19:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  False Citation 

message: Interesting info but shouldn't this be in believes and practices maybe under auditing. I don't challenge the info I just say is too detailed for this page that is only a intro to Scientology. Bravehartbear 07:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? How involvement in the Church is subdivided is essential intro-to-Scientology material from a layman's point of view. And it has nothing to do with auditing! wikipediatrix 14:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipediatrix, do you really think this is informative for a layman? I doubt that this stuff like "Scientology Four deals with OT levels and Saint Hill Special Briefing Course (SHSBC) materials" can be understood by anyone except Scientologists and people wich investigate or study Scientology intensively but this article is written for an average citizen and should avoid "Scientology Jargon". This "level 0 to 5" stuff(not you) remembers me on your joke on your userpage(You guys have wifes?). (: I think it should be at least less technical rewritten.-- Stan  talk 20:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think references to OT and SHSBC are no less dense than the rest of the barrage of Hubbardisms the novice reader is getting bombarded with in this article, and necessarily so. But these levels are extremely important in a number of ways: from a critical perspective, it shows precisely the mechanism by which the CoS manages to drastically inflate its claimed membership count, by including "Scientology One" people even though they may never have visited an org and never been audited (Which is also why this doesn't belong under the Auditing subsection). On the other side of the coin, pro-Scn editors should be happy to see this fundamental info here because it answers a lot of seeming contradictions pointed out by critics. wikipediatrix 21:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I doubt the claim of significance of this stuff within Scientology. I have to admit that I don't remember that I read it ever and I read a lot of this stuff. I don't doubt or challenge your NPOV and will just ignore the statements(good for contra and pro). However, I couldn't find that much unexplained "Hubbardisms" concentrated anywhere in this article. It makes no sence to insert something what no reader can understand. We don't edit this article for us but the convienience of average readers?! If it is really so important to the ideology I would suggest that someone rewrites it in order that average readers can at least benefit from it.  -- Stan  talk 21:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Bravehartbear, This article is a summary and not an intro of the subject. We don't need "gradients" here.-- Stan  talk 20:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine. I just put it under the heading of Auditing because these are auditing level. Bravehartbear 04:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, the Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary. Wolfgang -- 89.15.153.76 14:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  level 0 to 5 

message: In paragraph three under the heading of Influences it is stated that Hubbard considered Crowley to be a good friend.  This is true, but it was not a mutual feeling. The paragraph should include mention that Hubbard was never a member of the OTO, and that Crowley considered him a "lout" and a con-man.  Crowley wrote, "Apparently Parsons or Hubbard or somebody is producing a Moonchild. I get fairly frantic when I contemplate the idiocy of these louts." on 19 April 1946. See The Magical Revival by Kenneth Grant p.168 S. Weiser; [1st American ed.] edition (1973) out of print Full Text  See also, Early History of the OTO and The Babalon Working (I'm new here, so please advise me if I'm not following protocol)Vitriolum 16:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding new information is just fine, and in fact you did very well by discussing it here first. --GoodDamon 19:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the info and the edit! Vitriolum 14:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification regarding connection with Ordo Templi Orientis 

message: Some how, I am a bit confused about the lemma itself. At the intro it is said:  Scientology is a the body of beliefs and related practices. I think, this means, that there is a body of beliefs and sequently to that, practices. So there is a difference, the written data itself as organized strukture called body, and the use of it. A proper article would show the data itself, refering to the definiton of the Scientology Church  as „the study of truth“, with a criticism part. Another article would display what men is doing with it, the results and meanings from the critics. There also is a Scientology Church with their staff, publics and the critics. A Scientology Church is an established place, where Scientology can be studied. Scientology itself can not have Scientology officials – stated at the intro -, but the Scientology Church can have officials! Some how, all that has been thrown into one pot and messed up. For me, as a reader, I would like to distinguish between the pure topic and what people are doing with it. The only expert regarding the knowledge and the practices is the one applying it, all others are critics no experts.  Wolfgang -- 89.15.153.76 15:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Scientology is tightly controlled by the Church of Scientology. They enforce copyright on its materials and occasionally change these materials. Because they, in effect, own Scientology, it makes no sense to argue that they are such separate concepts. Also, the person applying these practices is knee-deep in Scientology, and may not be able to see the forest for the trees. An outside viewpoint can be much more objective. Foobaz·o< 15:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mmh, have you ever tried the Dianetics book. It worked, I have had results. What is now more objective, reading and trying it, or just having an opinion about it? "Scientology is tightly controlled by the Church", I went on their website, it seems to be easy to order some books. You know, I actually use Wikipedia for neutral information, but when I read this article, somehow, it doesn't match, including these statements. In fact, I don't want to buy all the books about Scientology knowledge, but it would be nice to have a neutral Wikipedia article, not what is wrong about it, and not what people are doing with it. Same thing with the bible, there is the book and there is Catholicism, Mormon and all others, but, only one source. So, what about a neutral article? Wolfgang -- 89.15.153.76 22:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I read the book some years ago as well, and experienced some benefits. The problem is, by definition, personal experience is not necessarily remotely objective. I'm not sure if you remember the number of people in the 70's who were willing to swear that laetrile was a cancer cure, but I do. Subsequent reports have said that the substance is inherently poisonous, and that what seems to have happened in most of the alleged "cures" was spontaneous remission. That's why personal testimony isn't what this, or any other wikipedia page, is about, but rather the verifiable information gathered from reliable sources. Unfortunately, we can't take any one person's testimony as objective, because, honestly, we can't even be sure that the person is telling the truth. For instance, I will tell you right now my real name is not, in fact, John Carter 22:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Exactly, you describe a difference in knowledge itself and in practising it. The different experiences in practice would be a separate article, also a link to Scientology Church, splintergroups and a hint that individuals beside of those are practitioners. The main article the introduction of the knowledge, what implies an author, red the primary sources. Wolfgang -- 89.15.153.76 09:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

text: "Scientology knowledge" is an oxymoron.--Svetovid 19:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your opinion. Wolfgang -- 89.15.153.76 11:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed on all points. Churches per se and their practices are uniformly seen as being at least somewhat distinct things, and there's no reason to think that it should be any different for this church. John Carter 15:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seen by those familiar with the subject. Unfortunately we have a constant influx of newcomers who haven't been distinguishing between Scientology beliefs and organisations and get annoyed when they are told they should. --Hartley Patterson 23:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

text:  mmh, are these inevitable together? Does it mean, if you read a Scientology book, you are a Scientologist? Wolfgang -- 89.15.153.76 09:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Constitution of the USA founded Congress and spells out a role for Congress, but the Constitution is not Congress.  So too, Hubbard's spoken and written word founded an organisation, but Hubbard's philosophy (scientology) is not the organisation his philosophy founded (the Church of Scientology). John Fitzgerald Smith 03:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree with John Fitz it should be diferent pages but it looks like some people benefit from keeping it tangle up. With no distinguishment betwen the phylosophy and the organization. But hey you can go to the beliefs and practices page if you just want to study that. The fact is that scientology have been super bloated in wikipedia and there are so many pages that is sea to navigate. This page is the intro to Scientology in general, org + philosophy + controversy, it cover everything a little, for more specifics go to the sub-pages. Bravehartbear 07:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do you guys think, that it might be possible to have one pure introduction of Scientology philosophy. It would match the neutral point of view, taking off advantage from the people what want to have this subject tangled up. It also would help the reader. Thanks for the tip, going to the beliefs and practices page. Wolfgang -- 89.15.153.76 09:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you do separate the articles, it's important to note in the introduction that Scientology materials are tightly controlled by the Church of Scientology, and that the overwhelming majority of Scientology is practiced within the Church. Foobaz·o< 23:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mmh, you are right in the majority of the points. But still, there are splintergroups, and you easyly can order the books online, or go to a Scientology bookstore. What do you mean with tightly controlled by the church? Keep one point in mind, Dianetics started in 1950. Christianity started and now, we have so many splintergroups. But, they all refer to the bible, what means, we have one pure source. Scientology itself should kept clean in regards of the Church and all the splintergroups what will follow! Wolfgang -- 89.15.153.76 11:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

text:  See my comment directly above yours: Mmh, you are right in... . "Modern society calls", modern society is informed by media with opinions and lies. "Scientology" presented by the media is just another modern lie. Modern society tells that the body burns nutrition. If you go to the Wikipedia articles you will read, that there isn't a thing that the body "burns". In some cases, it might be inpossible to keep things separate. But in keeping it separate, one can recognize, that there are differences and simularities. A Wikipedia what stands for the worlds knowlegde, we should spend sufficient attention, in keeping the source pure and comprehensiv. Wolfgang -- 89.15.153.76 11:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

text: That trick never works. Didn't Scientology beliefs and practices get started for the same reason? AndroidCat 02:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's a little odd, to start a new article, instead of getting the beginning clear. Go from one screwed article, to tangle up the next one. Further example: "Today the total body of beliefs and practices of Dianetics and Scientology are the sole intellectual property of the Church of Spiritual Technology". This doesn't work. As correctly stated in CST, this organisation is owning all the copyrights, what means the physical part in this universe like written paper, books and recorded reels. But you as a person can also have this body of practices and beliefes, without owning one single book! Wolfgang -- 89.15.153.76 14:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

text:  Well, perhaps we should just change the headline: Scientology interpreted by modern society. The interesting thing about a headline is, that the reader is given a certain viewpoint how to classify and arrange data in his mind. One thing should be clear, Scientology itself as a body of structured knowledge, what means the knowledge itself. In a 100 or 1000 years, you will find all things what man has been doing with it, but this is not changing the source, so this should kept pure. Wolfgang -- 89.15.153.76 11:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is Scientology? 

message: These are not small churches! You could say, that those are normally smaller than churches, regarding staff and delivering services. A mission is a mission and has not the status and rights as a church. See mamagement dictionary. Well, I know, Wikipedia is not source. You guys are doing an excellent job, but keep the wordclearer in mind, don't kill him with the work he will have afterwards. Wolfgang -- 89.15.153.76 14:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If they are churches, and they are smaller than average churches, doesn't that make them small churches? "Smaller churches" isn't grammatical, unless they're being compared to something. Foobaz·o< 23:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  A mission is not a church! Yes, the grammaticle term is correct, a mission in comparison with a church reagarding volume of staff and delivering services. Wolfgang --89.15.153.76 10:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok in altering the headline - see below: My dears... . Thinking and having opinions about a subject is POV, it is not what it is. That's mens curse, thinking what it might be, in contrary with the actual experience what it really is. There is lecture from LRH about this matter: Look, don't listen. Wolfgang -- 89.15.153.76 10:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

text: A mission might be a small church, or it might be someone a real estate agent who does a little auditing on the side out of his office. Does CoS list the minimum requirements for a mission? AndroidCat 02:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Where did you get this information from? There is a sequence, going up to the volume and rights of a church. There are fieldauditors, Scientology or Dianetics groups, Missions and Churches. Wolfgang -- 89.15.153.76 10:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Observation. The mission of East Toronto has only had a real bricks'n'mortar existence for a couple years after being listed for well over a decade. AndroidCat 21:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your documentation is not given enough evidence and a clear distinction. Observing an object is not knowing the laws behind. Just go to the Scientology Management Dictionary and read the definition yourself. Wolfgang -- 89.15.148.79 10:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Gotta agree with Wolfi. The diff between a Church and a Mission is what part of the The Bridge they can deliver (and so is the training of the staff there etc). Has not much to do with size. Moskow Mission is 150 staff or more by now. And I remember a Church in Germany with about 50 staff. "Field groups" are just that, 1,2,3 people together, no formal organization. Misou 19:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks Misou! Would you change this in the article? See also my first lines in this headline. Wolfgang -- 89.15.148.189 16:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I concur with Misou. The difference between Churches and Missions is one of function not size, though it is the case that in order to function effectively Churches need a higher minimum number of staff than Missions. --Hartley Patterson (talk) 01:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Falsehoods in Scientology Missions 

message: I've picked up a media article
which quotes a CoS spokesperson as saying "there are 10 million Scientologists worldwide including 3.5 million in the United States". Unfortunately the original article (Kansas City Star/March 17, 2007) is in the newspaper's subscription only archive section so the above reference is the only useable one. I intend to put it in as a counter to the NY Uni survey number of 55,000, but before doing so I thought it wise to explain why I'm referencing a critical website for it. If anyone knows a more direct reference to '3.5 million' that would be good. --Hartley Patterson (talk) 01:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CoS membership in USA 

message: I keep seeing reference to Hubbard's infant formula being modified to use honey instead of corn syrup. Is this a common modern practice of Scientologists? If so, the section on infant care might be improved by mentioning that (with refs, of course). If I'm way off, then... well, never mind. :) --GoodDamon 16:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infant formula question 

message: Ethics is defined by the Church of Scientology as the actions an individual takes on himself to ensure his continued survival across the dynamics.http://www.scientologyethics.org/scientology-ethics.htm. In order to make these ethical decisions that affect others around them, Scientologists are expected to use statistical measurement to assess the "measurement of survival potential". http://www.scientologyethics.org/page06.htm  According to The Scientology Handbook, the Scientology method of statistics can, and should, be applied to individuals, groups, organizations, and any production activities inside and outside Scientology. 
 
Professor Stephen A. Kent quotes Hubbard as pronouncing that "the purpose of ethics is to remove counter intentions from the environment. And having accomplished that the purpose becomes to remove other intentionedness from the environment".
What this translates to, says Kent, is "a peculiar brand of morality that uniquely benefitted [the Church of Scientology] ... In plain English, the purpose of Scientology ethics is to eliminate opponents, then eliminate people's interests in things other than Scientology." 
=====Scientology Justice=====
If statistics are not brought up to a sufficient level of production and the person is not able to improve its production level sufficiently, it can be declared a PTS (Potential Trouble Source), a Suppressive Person, or even ultimately disconnected from the church. A person with high and rising production statistics is considered to be ethical by the church and usually unmolested from internal punishment. *Hubbard, L. (1998). An introduction to Scientology ETHICS. Bridge Publications; Updated edition  -- Stan  talk 16:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Everthing is already explained in Scientology (Ethics). We should try to summarize it here. What do you think was plain wrong ? I read the ethic book and don't think that I did ridicule anything. It doesn't sound very shiny but is exactly what happens in Scientology and how it is described in Hubbards writings, thats (NPOV). ...and not just my interpretation, Stephen Kent is also cited. Before it comes to OR ourself we should look to interpretations from scholars. -- Stan  talk 19:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Breaveheartbear, the article is too long, thats my mainconcern. Do you think you can summarize "Dynamics","Right or wrong", morals a bit ?  -- Stan  talk 19:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lets see what the senior editors say.Bravehartbear (talk) 19:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ethics in Scientology

message: If statistics are not brought up to a sufficient level of production and the person is not able to improve its production level sufficiently, it can be declared a PTS (Potential Trouble Source), a Suppressive Person, or even ultimately disconnected from the church. A person with high and rising production statistics is considered to be ethical by the church and usually unmolested from internal punishment. *Hubbard, L. (1998). An introduction to Scientology ETHICS. Bridge Publications; Updated edition  -- Stan  talk 16:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Everthing is already explained in Scientology (Ethics). We should try to summarize it here. What do you think was plain wrong ? I read the ethic book and don't think that I did ridicule anything. It doesn't sound very shiny but is exactly what happens in Scientology and how it is described in Hubbards writings, thats (NPOV). ...and not just my interpretation, Stephen Kent is also cited. Before it comes to OR ourself we should look to interpretations from scholars. -- Stan  talk 19:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Breaveheartbear, the article is too long, thats my mainconcern. Do you think you can summarize "Dynamics","Right or wrong", morals a bit ?  -- Stan  talk 19:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lets see what the senior editors say.Bravehartbear (talk) 19:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Scientology Justice

message: The 'Scientific criticism of Scientology section contains no scientific criticisms of Scientology, but rather a court ruling and a comment by a scientist. I'm not arguing that the material should be removed, but rather moved to more appropriate sections. Ashmoo (talk) 11:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific criticism section 

message: In the Origins section, this article lists "John W. Parsons" as one of Hubbard's influences. As any occultist can tell you, JACK Parsons is the usual form of this fellow's name. His wikipedia article is under Jack Parsons. Can someone correct this and make it a link? This bit of history is important for understanding the Crowlyian influence in Scientology. Zosimos12 (talk) 20:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  error 

message: "...the total body of beliefs and practices of Dianetics and Scientology are the sole intellectual property of....". This makes no sense. Neither beliefs not practices (eg auditing) can be copyrighted! I assume what the editor wanted to say was that the copyright on Hubbard's writings belongs to CST. So why not do so?
We've also lost the distinction between beliefs and organisation, again. This must be stated clearly and explicitly in the introduction (it's been moved down the page), as an article about any subject should start by defining it particularly in this case where a common misconception exists that the two are synonymous. It should then cascade down so that when the CoS is meant Church of Scientology is said, consistently.
--Hartley Patterson (talk) 20:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The first problem is easily rectified. The second may take some work. I'm kinda bonked at the moment, so someone else wanna take a stab at this? --GoodDamon 21:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Scientology (as used so by the IRS) doesn't help matters with its purposely confusing cloud of incorporations and magical religious/secular line that keeps shifting as needed. As well, Scientology (the belief) is so tightly-linked to Scientology (the organization), that completely separating the two seems like an attempt to make the facts fit the classification system rather than the other way around. AndroidCat (talk) 23:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The lines may be blurry, but there is definitely a difference between the Church as an organization (yes, and all its sub-organizations), and the beliefs and practices of adherents to the belief system. I think that's what Hartley was getting at. --GoodDamon 23:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When you use "the Church" to refer to Scientology (the organization), are you including the ABLE sub-groups? This seems to be a problem point. AndroidCat (talk) 23:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if that's relevant to this discussion. I'm talking about the system of beliefs and practices that Scientologists use, whether or not they belong to or are employed by any Church or Church-related organization, versus the organization itself. Yes, I'm sure the ABLE sub-groups and such are basically part of the Church, but that's neither here nor there. The truth is, there are plenty of Scientologists who aren't part of ABLE or any other Church front organization, and their beliefs and practices shouldn't be confused with the Church's admittedly boggling organizational structure. --GoodDamon 00:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems like it's the core of the discussion—to make this article something which it has never been: purely about beliefs and practices across the Church of Scientology and the Freezone. Isn't that what Scientology beliefs and practices is for? AndroidCat (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh, I think I see what you're saying now. If I'm reading you right, you're concerned that this article will exclude information about the Church's organizational structure in favor of purely describing beliefs, yes? I don't think that's what Hartley Patterson was getting at. I read her comment as concern that the intro has become a confusing jumble, which it has. The intro should be clear that this article is an overview of both the beliefs of Scientologists and the organizational structure that disseminates Hubbard's materials. --GoodDamon 00:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, basically. I don't think the trademarked word Scientology can be shoehorned to fit only the belief system and not the organization. For the introduction, shifting out most of those long strings of cites would be a good step. The introduction isn't the place to hold argument-by-reference and are most of these even cited down in the sections where they should belong? AndroidCat (talk) 05:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an important distinction. Much of the controversy of Scientology relates to the organization rather than the basic beliefs, which really aren't that much more dangerous than the Christian Scientists or Jehovah's Witnesses (keeping in mind my ignorant perspective of all three religions/belief systems).71.35.252.65 (talk) 01:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction going fuzzy 

message: That was really nice for navigating the page, why was it removed?  All the articles it linked to seem to still be there, that navigation section is just gone now.
FalseMyrmidon (talk) 13:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened to the table of contents thing on the right side? 

message: We should really pare down the external links to those that are notable. Of course, the Clambake site is notable. Other than that, maybe Rick Ross? LMT is notable but I don't think I saw it in there. I think that is about it. The rest are non-notable, or copyvio sites (as is Ross), or YouTube. So I am thinking maybe three Church sites, three critical sites and are there any notable links in the others? Thoughts? --JustaHulk (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It irks me to remove links to the church's own websites which show just how hypocritical and deceptive they really are, but you are correct about the external link policies, to whit: Wikipedia articles should include links to Web pages outside Wikipedia if they are relevant. Such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks); or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to their reliability (such as reviews and interviews). The external links in the article probably could be trimmed down a bit. TechBear (talk) 16:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate you providing the reference and I appreciate your honesty in reverting yourself. Let me say that, as a Scientologist, I find the RFW site and most of the other chilling effects tactics reprehensible. I am not so disinclined toward legal action and threat of legal action but toward these extra-legal activities such as RFW and counter-picketing. One thing we, as Wikipedia editors, have to be careful of is a kind of sneaky original research. I know that was not your intent but I refer to trying to make a point not made in RS by means of external links or other "sneaky" methods. External links must serve the same purpose as the article, and they should be equally reliable and NPOV. Of course, the website of the topic of the article would be exempt from that requirement but Wikipedia is not the place to push non-RS opinions and non-notable off-site links. Since criticism of Scientology is a notable topic then a couple of notable critical sites have a place here. A few more notable sites could also be linked from the Scientology controversy article. What we have now goes well beyond any reasonable interpretation of the intent and policy related to external links. They exist in the article to serve purposes that are not Wikipedia's. --JustaHulk (talk) 17:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Check the history: I was not the one who inserted the link in the first place, I simply reverted your undo (and then reverted my undo of your undo.) The website in question certainly looks and feels like one maintained by the CoS, which is why I put it back in. Referencing websites operated by the topic of an article is NPOV, no matter what the content of the website might be. That does not necessarily mean the site meets the criteria for a referenced external link, however, which is why I took it back out. TechBear (talk) 17:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that you did not insert the link. And, as I mention above, I agree that websites by the subject of the article are fit links and need not meet WP:NPOV or WP:V standards. My objection is that there is no proof anywhere that I know of that this site has any official connection to the Church other than perhaps that a Scientologist runs it. Until such proof is provided, it cannot be put here to represent "the hypocrisy of Scientology" or whatever is looking to be pushed. --JustaHulk (talk) 18:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: Every and each link that some wants taken away should be discussed PRIOR to deletion. NOT the other way around. It took a while for these links to have ended up there. Therefore this should not be resorted to by some person just like that. In addition in the previous discussions various have uttered protests to various links included in this attempted mass deletion. --Olberon (talk) 12:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather than some generic "they are there so they are OK" argument and a mass reversion (i.e. edit-war), you are encouraged to nominate links that you think are appropriate for reinclusion (or removal). There is already a discussion above on the Touretzky link, feel free to add your opinion there. What you are proposing is NOT how Wikipedia works. See WP:BOLD. I was not reckless and I pared the links down based on their notability and relevance to the article. --JustaHulk (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I think you misunderstand what I did. You say "You instead INCLUDED a whole bunch of other ones." but that is not true - I added no links. The links I removed were inappropriate under WP:EL. You are, of course, welcome to report my actions and I encourage you to do so. Looking at your edit history, I see that this is not the first time you have taken a similar stance on inclusion of links. Previously, it was the Michel Snoeck page that you felt should not have been deleted. Is there one of the links that I deleted that you particularly feel belongs in the article? Again, Wikipedia is not intended to be edited in this pussy-footed manner you describe. Those links did not belong in the article and I removed them. That is what any editor can and should do. If I made a mistake in any particular case then I am more than willing to discuss it here. --JustaHulk (talk) 15:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree with JustaHulk. The guideline regarding external links does present some fairly clear rules regarding inclusion. If anyone does feel that certain links mean that standard, however, they are welcome to indicate which links they are referring to and why. John Carter (talk) 16:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Olberon, you edit-warred with me over this and I have reported that on WP:AE. You went 2RR and I will not go more than one revert on a probation page so your version currently stands. I urge you to self-revert and back away from your edit-warring. --JustaHulk (talk) 16:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I very strongly disagree with the above. Particularly in a controversial page such as this one, it might even be possible that adding links, particularly if they are questionable, might be considered inappropriate content. Therefore, unless I am to remove the links on the basis of their inclusion is questioned and no clear reasons for their individual, specific inclusion given, I am requesting the clear justification of every recently included external link. Should I not receive such, then I may myself decide that their significance has not yet been demonstrated and remove those which have not been given credible reason for inclusion myself. John Carter (talk) 17:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mass deletions of links 

message: "Although Scientologists are usually free to practice their beliefs, the organized church has often encountered opposition due to their strong-arm tactics directed against critics and members wishing to leave the organization."  (emphasis mine) is hardly neutral POV... Livitup (talk) 04:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a true but unsourced statement.  It should be removed unless a reliable source is found for it.  According to Tom Cruise one day CoS critics ("SPs") will exist only in history books ;-) Angry Christian (talk) 15:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Before removing it, keep in mind that much harsher descriptions could easily be used and sourced. At length. AndroidCat (talk) 15:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why not source it, at length as you say?  Making unsourced statements about SoC using "strong arm tactics" really puts Wikipedia in a bad light. Again, I know this is true but the point is it's not sourced. Angry Christian (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 17:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy and Criticism... 

message: The comment that describes Scientology as such should be backed up with a  citation. If it cannot be backed up with a citation, the comment should be removedJohn196920022001 (talk) 01:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why. That sentence is easily backed up by cites already present in that paragraph. You can't expect every single sentence to require individual citations. --GoodDamon 17:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but that is a sentence that does need citing. If I wanted to slander the topic that's a sentence I might write when it might not be true, it's high risk for bias if it remains uncited. SGGH speak! 19:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that TIME's Remember Venus? used to be cited at that spot. It's probably wandered over to another part of the intro. AndroidCat (talk) 07:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientology being controversial since its inception 

message: #210 in the notes section directs to a not found error page.
DebbieChinique (talk) 16:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken link. 

message: Scientology#Origin_and_Definition: What kind of usefull information does the sentence " Suzie and I went down to the library, and we started hauling books out and looking for words. And we finally found 'scio' and we find 'ology.' And there was the founding of that word. Now, that word had been used to some degree before. There had been some thought of this. . . . But we found that this word 'scientology,' you see—and it could have been any other word. . . ." give to the wikipedia user. I think it is a quite ridiculous sentence. Did they drink a coffee after or even a beer. Will this sentence say to us that the wörd has been found in a library. Which word shall "Scio" be. And who the hell is Suzie ? --Arcy (talk) 22:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Weird... Your initial removal of that statement looks like this in the history. Note that it looks like you replaced a bunch of image lines, citations, etc. with redundant category entries. That's why I reverted it. But the more I look at it, the more it looks like a Wikipedia error, not a mistake on your part, so I apologize for reverting it. --GoodDamon 23:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. i've some weired wp errors too (watchlist seems to be broken). --Arcy (talk) 23:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suzie an "him" in a library 

message: I heard an interview with the comedian Del Close who apparently shared a room with Hubbard at University. Apparently Hubbard said several times during this period that one day he would become rich by inventing a religion. Unfortunately I can't remember the source for this but I feel it is worth highlighting if anybody can find the reference.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.244.73 (talk) 23:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't remember where either -- my father's been reminding me of that quote for years. I'll ask him where he remembers seeing it. I know that he read it somewhere, because he is a huge sci-fi booknerd and doesn't watch television. :)  Though everyone would rage against it, I feel in my heart of hearts that such a quote fully needs to be in this article if it can be proven that LRH really did say it. Chacharu (talk) 19:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Admition of lies 

message: The page is currently locked, but the case referenced at the bottom should be properly cited under either Blue Book or ALWD standards.  In detail, under the "Scientific criticism of Scientology beliefs" section, the correct citation should read similar to this:
U.S. v. Hubbard Electrometer, 333 F.Supp. 357, 365 (D.C.D.C. 1971). 
I have taken liberties with the abbreviation of the title for the sake of clarity.  If unlocked, please drop me a line and I will update.  
As to the text, it should properly omit the "(333 F. Supp. 357) section, which will be in the footnote.  I would also add another quote from the case which further supports the section:  "The E-meter is essentially a simple galvanometer using two tin cans as electrodes. It is crude, battery-powered, and designed to measure electrical skin resistance. It is completely harmless and ineffective in itself." Id. at 359.  
Gorjus (talk) 23:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal Citation 

message: Sigh... someone please remove the ballsack pic...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.180.91.136 (talk) 22:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't figure out where it was loading from. It's not in the article itself, so someone must have put it in one of the templates the article uses. I'm still trying to track down where. --GoodDamon 22:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry... I know it's vandalism and all... but I lol'd.76.116.26.154 (talk) 22:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It kinda fits--217.113.225.116 (talk) 23:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: I'd just like to clarify. When I performed the revert a few minutes ago I intended to restore the whole page (reverting blanking of page). Apparently another reversion was done in the interim and my edit went over that. So whatever the dispute is about the see also section, external links etc is, I'm not part of that. Perhaps those who have concerns about that section may post their concerns here. JamesStewart7 (talk) 07:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent reverts 

message: I reverted last edit by , per the last edit summary comment by .  I agree that "Sect" could deserve mention in the WP:LEAD, but this should be discussed on the talk page.  Per WP:LEAD, the intro should be an adequate summary of the article.  Cirt (talk) 02:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, I would question the inclusion of the word at all. As per the lead of the sect article, a sect is a group which has broken off from another, often larger, group. I am aware of no such larger group scientology is a separated faction of, and thus do not think that it necessarily qualifies as a sect, as per the current definition we have of that term. If the editor seeking to add that word is aware of another sense in which it is used, we would need to indicate what meaning is being used. John Carter (talk) 14:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sect or secte as used in French and German(?) means "cult". That is why you might see someone want to enter it; many of our critics and semi-critics here are European. It has no relevance to the body of the article but may properly show up in discussion of treatment of the Church in various European countries. Again, a distinction should be made always between "Scientology" as a belief system and the Church - most countries that object to the Church do not have any problem with the belief system (how could they?) --JustaHulk (talk) 14:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: My impression is that UK journalists sometimes use 'sect' as a euphemism for 'cult' with regard to Scientology, believing that readers will know what they mean. It may well be that this will cause 'sect' to aquire the 'cult' meaning permanently. The Dictionary definition doesn't help us here, the language is changing. Given the ambiguity, avoid the word I think. --Hartley Patterson (talk) 15:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[Sect]]" in the [[WP:LEAD]] 

message: User:Hierophantasmagoria has been seeking to add a section on a reported DoS attack on the official Scientology website . Unfortunately we can't use that material - it's not reliably sourced and it puts undue weight on a fairly trivial incident in Scientology's history. On the reliable sourcing point, the three sources offered are: 
# a self-published source in the form of a "press release" issued by an entity calling itself "anonymous" and distributed through a publish-your-own-press-release service; this is completely unusable as a source (see WP:V#Self-published sources (online and paper)).
# a Wikinews story - WP:V#Self-published sources (online and paper) prohibits the use of open wikis, including Wikinews, as sources.
# a YouTube link to an unauthorised copy of a Fox News broadcast; apart from YouTube being a largely unreliable source, the link is a copyright violation and under our copyright policy we can't link to it, as it presents potential liability issues for the Wikimedia Foundation.
As for undue weight, ask yourself - how significant is it that a bunch of hackers has launched a rather ineffective DoS attack on the Scientology website? It's simply not encyclopedic information and we're not in the business of promoting the self-publicity of wannabe L33T H4CK3RZ. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See also Wikipedia:Recentism and WP:NOT#INFO - Wikipedia isn't a news service! -- ChrisO (talk) 18:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The word was notable, not Noticeable...I can see how someone can get them intermingled.  Right now it is a current event, hence the media coverage...but even that is sparce when it comes to actuall news agencies.  a google news search failed to produce any nation wide "paper" papers...The New york times, Washington post, associated press, La times, USA today (gag! I hate that rag) etc. all failed to pick this one up it seems.  now this isn't nesisarily a reliable test, but it does put it into perspective a bit.Coffeepusher (talk) 06:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientology DoS attack 

message: .User: (talk) 01:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ++: IMHO, ter K 06:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: