Talk:Scientology/Archive 5

message: Statements such as "Critics say that Scientology treats celebreties much, much better than other practitioners"  should be cited, examples of such treatment spelled out in a newspaper artile or some personal attestation or book or weblink.  This is per wiki policy, see Wikipedia:Citing_sources.  Uncited articles of the nature of rumor don't belong in Wikipedia under normal circumstances, but if there are some they should be cited and substantiated in some way. Terryeo 05:03, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad you said, to create a balanced article in a controversial area, Wiki suggest to present each side's statements, the editor to consider each quoted, cited statement as a "fact" to contribute to the overall balance of the article. Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability.2C_not_truth and Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight then tells how a huge quantitiy of quoteable stuff can overwhelm a smaller, less organized POV and how to deal with that.Terryeo 18:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: wiki policy re: uncited statments

message: The article uses the term "preclear" but doesn't define it.
:You should sign your posts.  I should sign mine :)  The article should define preclear.  A preclear describes a person who is not yet Clear and was first used in Dianetics.  Scientology's definition of Clear is exact but it uses several scientology words which have to be understood before the word "Clear" can be understood.  And it follows, before the word "preclear" can be understood.  But in general, a preclear is a person who would need more education or auditing before they became able to recall all of their experience fully.  A clear has full recall while a preclear does not.  The idea here being that moments of pain and unconciousness are not so readily recalled and that by auditing a person becomes able to view such moments fully. Terryeo 11:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is partially correct. What you describe is more "pre-Clear" rather than "preclear." Historically (i.e. Dianetics-era), preclear meant what you just described. As Scientology expanded, however, and OT became the ultimate goal of auditing, the word changed its meaning to refer to anyone receiving auditing. For example, in an auditing session an OT VII would still be called a preclear even though the state of Clear had already been attained. R. Durham Evans 16:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Responding to my own comment, I notice the Scientology website gives a definition for "preclear" such as you described (my Tech dictionary gives a similar definition). I find that rather interesting since the usage I gave for the word does indeed occur. For example looking at the definition for "case supervisor," the word preclear is used exclusively--there is no distinction with regards to case level here (pre- or post-Clear). So while the official definition for the word is lacking, in my opinion, in actual usage "preclear" refers to anyone receiving auditing at any case level. R. Durham Evans 16:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As medicine has language that is usually baffles non-doctors, Scientology has language, though maybe only 300 words or something.  Myself, I believe it is beyond the scope of this article to define specialized words and any who write should keep in mind, the idea is to tell people what it is.  This can be done by not useing "pre-clear" and a fistful of other words, but instead spelling out things.  After all, a pre-clear is a person first, 24/7.  That designation only applies to a small piece of their life in a specialized setting.  It isn't too hard to keep it out of a general sort of article like this unless you are trying to confuse people.Terryeo 07:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: What is a preclear?

message: Some areas scream to be taken out.  "The Structure of the Mind" is a Dianetics subject.  It can only apply to the degree the relationship of Dianetics within Scientology is talked about.  May we delete it entirely except for a link to Wiki's good Dianetics article ? Terryeo 00:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: This article is too long

message: Who put that there?  I think it would be better closer to text about the E-meter.--HistoricalPisces 17:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Free stress test picture 

message: I'm glad you're helping remove a lot of extraneous words, but I disagree that some of them aren't helpful. In particular, while people already familiar to the article may not have any trouble understanding what each sentence means beforehand, those completely new may stumble momentarily if we don't include "that"s in the sentences you removed them from, to make it clear when a new clause is beginning. For example, compare the following:
*Scientologists claim that government files, such as those from the FBI, are loaded with forgeries and other false documents detrimental to Scientology, but have never substantiated this.
*Scientologists claim government files, such as those from the FBI, are loaded with forgeries and other false documents detrimental to Scientology, but have never substantiated this.
On a first reading of the second line, wouldn't you most likely interpret the sentence as saying "Scientologists take government files, such as those from the FBI," and only begin to figure out what it really means when you get to the "are" and realize that the sentence is either poorly-worded or you've mistaken its meaning? Then you have to go back and reread this. All of that breaks the flow of the reading, and while it won't happen to everyone first looking at these passages, I think it will happen to enough that it's worth it to include one single word to solve all that trouble: no one reading "Scientologists claim that" will misunderstand the meaning. -Silence 00:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using "that" when it makes the sentence clearer 

message: I thought someone said that scientologists believed that humans descended from aliens. But that's not stated in the article. I would like some confirmation on this. Scorpionman 23:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe you're thinking of Raelians, although the story of Xenu and Space opera in Scientology doctrine are also worth looking at. -- ChrisO 23:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Scientology doesn't claim any sort of descent, but rather puts forth that we are all eternal beings.  Hence, no descent possible.  That idea might spawn from the Xenu website, but where ever it comes from its untrue because scientology's beliefs include no descendings but that individuals are eternal. Terryeo 21:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  aliens? 

message: The bulk of this article is based on original research of which there is no consensus agreement in the mainstream.  Regardless of its truth, it is therefore unsuitable for Wikipedia per the guidelines you are all undoubtedly aware of.
Please rewrite this article so that it conforms to Wikipedia standards, and cite reputable publications as sources (not websites).
:The above unsigned comment was left by 69.12.16.66, whose only other action on Wikipedia thus far has been to add a "vote" to a long-closed AfD on another Scientology-related subject. That "vote" was signed with a falsified date and a forged username that constitutes a personal attack. .
:It is worth noting, too, that the allegation above is simply false. This article is in substantive accord with neutral outside research on the subject of Scientology -- such as the preponderance of the articles and works that it cites directly. --FOo 13:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh. Subtle. The guy's right that some parts of the page need improvement, though. "Scientology and other religions" and "Scientology critics" in particular require some significant redesigning, added citations, and reorganization, with fewer orphan paragraphs and jarringly abrupt changes in topic. -Silence 14:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look hard enough, you can find some way in which any statement -- no matter how wrong -- is "right".  If you look hard enough you can find some grain of truth in "George W. Bush is pregnant".  The original allegation is based on a misdefinition of "original research" and as Fubar Obscuro points out, it's by someone whose grasp of "Wikipedia standards" clearly didn't include No personal attacks.  Trying to sieve the dross of what is plainly just a "I don't want it that way" whine for a few glittering bits of legitimate critique is frankly something we should not spend our time on. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:47, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wow, I'm not sure how you got even that much out of the anon's accusation. :) --FOo 16:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Research 

message: Was wandering through, not a regular here, but I reverted some random vandalism.  Cheers, all Antichris 23:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What I'm wondering is which "side" is the one proving they're the most petty and, philosophically, evil? Is it the people trying to censor Scientology, or is it Scientologists trying to censor the unflattering parts of the article? Sometimes, as several times today, Scientology-bashing text is inserted. But at other times...way more frequently than normal...the whole page is deleted. That could be either side...whomever it is, they're slime. Kaz 21:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Could be that they're a bit sore at the moment, as the latest episode of South Park has been an extended dig at the CoS - Stan is revealed to be the reincarnation of L. Ron Hubbard and the Xenu story is shown in considerable detail, accompanied by the subtitle "This is what Scientologists really believe". (See .) It looks like South Park's creators have been reading Wikipedia... -- ChrisO 23:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

text: lol, I am a scientologist.  I hope to see the article to appear as accurate.  Controversy is controversy and it too should be accurate.  Opinion is opinion and everyone has one of those.  The statements like "scientology is vehemently opposed to scientology" really really amuse me. Terryeo 18:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

text: (Removed personal attack by User:Ikfaldu. ) -Parallel or Together? 14:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: Would anyone here care to comment on the edit war in Sterling Management Systems? Should the follow comment stay or go?
Critics contend that Sterling Management Systems is a front organization for the Church of Scientology. Should the following link stay or go? Sterling Management Systems & Scientology -  A critical examination of Sterling Management Systems. Thanks for your input. Edwardian 19:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Instead of citing an opinion of critics I gave some facts - membership in WISE, court cases. --Irmgard 23:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

text: WISE is a volentary group which an individual may follow the practices of or join.  Its purpose is to spread the organizational technology which Mr. Hubbard created to run the Church of Scientology.  That it is workable organizational technology is evident by the growth of the Church of Scientology, but that it can be readily applied to Ford Motor Company isn't so evident.  WISE fills that gap and has a membership which might be mostly composed of Scientologists. Terryeo 02:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC: Sterling Management Systems 

message: The recent references to the South Park episode that references Scientology include a link to a download page with a torrent for the episode in question and others.  Surely this is a breach of copyright and not what we want here at all
:On the contrary, see this FAQ entry at South Park Studios:
::August  , 2003
::Q. - I was surprised that in the last FAQ you recommended downloading episodes on KaZaa and other file sharers. What are Matt and Trey's official stances on South Park episode piracy?
::A. - Matt and Trey do not mind when fans download their episodes off the Internet; they feel that it’s good when people watch the show no matter how they do it.
:So I think it's perfectly fine to link to episode mirrors at southparkx.net. Since it's with the creators' permission, this is not "piracy" at all. --FOo 21:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. This link could be clearly cited by a court as an example of Wikipedia causing Comedy Central to lose money on South Park (by providing a free alternative to buying the DVDs or watching the TV episodes). We would need specific permission from the copyright holders of that episode before we could link to it. Plus linking to a torrent without providing the necessary immediate information on how to use torrents will baffle most Wikipedia readers and editors. Just leave these links on the Talk pages, as long as they aren't specifically confirmed. -Silence 20:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is perfectly acceptable to link to copies of the South Park episodes.  Comedy Central owns SouthParkStudios.com (see the bottom of the page) and SouthParkStudios.com says "Matt and Trey do not mind when fans download their episodes off the Internet; they feel that it’s good when people watch the show no matter how they do it."   Now Comedy Central is the one hosting this text -- so its patently ridiculous to claim that aren't the one's holding the viewpoint that the episodes should be redistributed.Vivaldi 20:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

text: SouthParkStudios.com is OWNED by Comedy Central.  So Comedy Central itself is directly saying on web pages that they own that it is okay to download and trade copies of South Park.  Vivaldi 20:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Do you know which rights Matt and Trey sold? They are two guys very much aware of the growing movement for creators to retain some rights to their work in the realms of cartoons, comics, and animation. If they say they have no problem why do you assume they don't know what they are talking about? Given that the whole of this article is given over to taking dubious claims – or outright lies – at face value it seems inconsistant to start questioning what appear to be reliable sources on the matter of their own work. 213.78.235.176 01:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  South Park online mirroring 

message: I have no problem with the "religion as making money" comment being on the article, I just question the loaded bias of placing it in the very first paragraph. As it is now, the intro paragraph is completely biased against Scientology in every single sentence: It calls Scientology a "new religious movement" rather than a religion, it gleefully notes that its creator was a science-fiction author, it wields the "pseudoscience" epithet, and tries to further deconstruct any of the Church's credibility from the getgo by invoking the "making money" quote. Now, don't get me wrong - I'm no fan of Scientology and I understand that these elements I've pointed out are essentially TRUE - but loading the first paragraph up with all this negative stuff makes for obvious negative spin. It would be far more reasonable to open the article by briefly summing it up and referring to it as "controversial", then go on to explain what it allegedly sets out to do, and THEN go on to detail all its many shortcomings and misdeeds. wikipediatrix 19:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is unclear whether it is a religion, the German government for one does not think so. It definitely is, however, a religious movement of some sort, at least in its outer teachings. The inner teachings are not religious at all, being obsessed with aliens instead. And I take exception to your suggestion that being a science-fiction author is in itself a negative comment. 213.78.235.176 19:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is legally recognized as a religion in the country of its origin, and most other countries as well.  And I didn't say science fiction was inherently negative: I'm saying that detractors of the CoS LOVE to point out that he was a "mere" science-fiction writer before starting the Church, as if that somehow disqualifies him. Why not refer to him as a "former Naval Officer", since this is factual as well? And hey, since when are aliens and religion mutually exclusive? wikipediatrix 20:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree with you. I think we need to go back to the first sentence (as it was in the past): "Scientology is a system of beliefs, teachings and rituals, originally established as an alternative psychotherapy in 1952 by science-fiction author L. Ron Hubbard, then recharacterized by him in 1953 as an "applied religious philosophy" for many reasons. First, "most non-scientologist" doesn't make sense, I doubt that most non-scientologists really care about scientology. It should have been "most critics" anyway. Second, the pseudo-scientific claims of scientology are not criticized "only" because Hubbard stated he would start a religion for the money, but for a lot of other reasons, which are covered in the rest of the article. Povmec 21:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I reverted to the original intro. I changed the date of establishment of scientology to 1952. It seems the case that Hubbard had the idea of scientology in 1952: , . Povmec 21:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

text: In Wichita, Casas, on March 3, 1952 Mr. Hubbard gave a taped, audio lecture (which can be purchased from any Church of Scientology).  The lecture may be found in the list of lectures in the hardbound book, "what is Scientology" which might be a public libraries.  The title of the taped lecture was:  "Scientology: Milestone One."  He defines the word, tells what he means to accomplish with it and tells how and why it is different from Dianetics which he had been doing untill that time.  Then in 1954 the first Church of Scientology was established.  These are the earliest establishable data I can find. Terryeo 00:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Scientology was never presented as a therapy, Mr. Hubbard made that abundantly clear from his first use of the word in 1952.  Dianetics was presented as a sort of therapy, but Scientology was not.  The 'new' word was used by Mr. Hubbard because the subect matter had changed.  I'm willing to spell out the difference and even quote portions of the lecture wherein he gives his reasoning for a new subjecta and thus, a new word.Terryeo 00:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The first Church of Scientology was actually founded in Camden, New Jersey, in December 1953; the signatories on the incorporation document were Hubbard, his son L. Ron, Jr. and his daughter-in-law Henrietta. The so-called "Founding Church" of Scientology, in Washington, D.C., was actually established three months later in February 1954. The Camden foundation seems to be ignored by the Church of Scientology for PR reasons - the claim is that the Church of Scientology was founded by individual Scientologists in response to popular demand. If Hubbard himself founded it, this claim clearly couldn't stand up. -- ChrisO 09:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

text: The Church of Scientology which exists today was established in 1954, the policies under which it has operated are of the 1954 church.  Here's the link .   The earlier one in December 1953, while it was 3 months sooner, is not the Church of Scientology that is today known as "the Church of Scientology.  A thorough history might include that information, but a general overview probably would not. Terryeo 19:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I have viewed that page.  It presents information as you have stated.  However, I have also viewed my own copy of 'Fundamentals of Thought' and found it differs entirely with that webpage's information.  I have some earlier printings of some books but certainly don't have all the versions printed.  That source of information might have been true at one time, maybe.  But that source is obviously antagonistic and shouldn't be trusted wholesale.
Re: when the COS was founded. I think you're probably right about the tax angle.  Don't we want to present the COS as it stands today (established 1954) as an introduction, but keep back put the early non-successful COS, changes of location and so on in a sort historical sort of setting? Terryeo 13:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The ways of Spin 

message: Why is Scientomogy notable enough to warrant an article separate from this?  Operation Clambake has its own article, but has been around for 10 years -- many other, older and more extensive Scientology-related sites (Lermanet, FACTNet and so on) do not have distinct entries.  
:Scientomogy presumably deserved an entry because it got reported in the media and got millions of site visits.  Far more than many of the other more established sites.  Whether or not it continues to get large amounts of hits is a good question.  Personally, I don't think Scientomogy is useful to be mentioned in an encyclopedia article at all.  It's not that kind of site.  It's a fun playful site that should be distributed and promoted in some other forum.  Vivaldi 13:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. That is probably true.  The recent battle between Paul Horner's scientomogy.com and Glen Stollery's scientomogy.info played a part in the creation of the article.  I think a point was being made that Paul's version was not the popular one.  But regardless, I don't see the value of either site to the encyclopedia. Vivaldi 13:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I suggest something even more.  Instead of merging, just delete it completely from the database.  Let's keep 3 or 4 of the long-standing sites that provide factual information, those that are bound to be here for a long time.  Then lets remove the extraneous ones.  Too many links is very distracting.  And this is nothing against Glen's site, because I like it, I just don't think it is appropriate for a mention here on Wikipedia Vivaldi 13:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with that. I didn't see Scientomogy important enough to have its own paragraph within the Scientology article: the web site is mainly a parody of Tom Cruise and his faith. I also had a problem seeing the Scientomogy article as part of the Scientology category. In my opinion, removing the "parody links" in the Scientology article is also a good idea. The links are there to complement the information appearing in the article... there are a few others I would removed. I tried to cleanup the links a few weeks ago, but that didn't last long  (see my post above  Talk:Scientology#External_Links). Even there, I restrained myself from removing more, I figured four pro/four critical sites was enough: with all respects to their due owner, I would remove http://www.keytolife.org, http://theta.com, http://fortharrison75th.info, http://www.scientology-kills.org and http://www.amazing.com/scientology/cos-fronts.html (it has been suggested to have an article about all the Scientology fronts though, I think that is a good idea.) Povmec 15:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Seems like a good idea to me, though judging from the Scientomogy article creator's hostile reaction to even a merge suggestion I doubt this idea will be met with much graciousness. 71.131.196.204 08:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can we lose the hyperbole? The very link you provided shows that I did NOT have a "hostile reaction" to the idea of merging. However, I do oppose merging, as do several others. wikipediatrix 16:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Scientology article is already too long.  It has a great deal of pro and a great deal of con.  Shouldn't a web-rich, current parody event be expressed as a single link within the Scientology article?Terryeo 17:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The parody site itself is not what makes it notable. The ongoing lawsuit with Scientology and resultant media attention, is. Had there been no lawsuit, I would never have given a simple parody site its own article. Scientology has made Scientomogy notable by finding it worthy of litigation. wikipediatrix 17:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is no lawsuit against Scientomogy.info.  Scientomogy received a notice from Scientology's lawyers, but so have at least 50-100 other sites over the years.  I see nothing that impressive about the Scientomogy page that makes it notable enough to include in an encyclopedia article about Scientology.  If you want to create a list of sites that have been actually shut down or had their content altered because of Church of Scientology court action, it would be a very long list.  Scientomogy hasn't been sued, it hasn't been shut down, its fame is fading, and frankly its not that relevant to this article. Vivaldi 03:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I suppose the lawsuit is implied rather than manifest yet, because Moxon & Kobrin's cease and desist letter expresses their intention to sue if Stollery's website is not removed and turned over to them, and Stollery response was essentially "No. See you in court". wikipediatrix 12:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Church of Scientology has threatened many web sites and people with lawsuits, but they very rarely go through with them.  They just try to bully and intimidate people.  They understand that parody is a protected form of free speech and they won't attempt to sue someone for engaging in what is clearly parody. (They would be subject to penalties themselves if they brought a lawsuit that had no merits).  If I was a betting man, I'd say that Co$ will ignore the whole thing rather than risk creating more turmoil for itself and more visitors to Scientomogy.info.  So, maybe in the rare chance that Co$ actually sues Glen, then maybe it would be noteworthy again, until then I don't think it is. Vivaldi 06:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: What hyperbole? Hostile means antagonistic. Speaking of hyperbole, who are the several others who are for keeping a Scientomogy article? 71.131.196.204 05:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Hostile" carries a different spin than "antagonistic". And I didn't say there were others for keeping, I said there were others who oppose merging - I agree that the Scientology article shouldn't be weighted down with this. wikipediatrix 12:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to oppose merging at this point as well. The arguments for outright deletion have convinced me that that's probably a better solution. 71.131.196.204 08:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I am certainly not going to stand in the way of progress and want the best critical sites listed on the Scientology page, but surely having a stand alone Scientomogy page because of the world-wide recongnition it's received is a different argument again? Not making the top 5 most "informative" critical websites may justify not having it as a critical site on the Scientology page (parody perhaps), but this would actually add to the argument to keep in as an individual page wouldn't it? Just on the extensive media coverage, threats, website traffic, making the Alexa top ten fastest growing websites in the world two weeks running, the google test, and "coining" a new term in it's own right? For that reason, why merge at all, or delete at all and leave staus quo? Glen Stollery 14:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientomogy article 

message: there are clearly passges taken straight out of some scientology porpaganda
I even seen a paragraph repeated about past lives etc.
:Why not fix the passages in question or be more specific? Vivaldi 02:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is way out of wack POV wise 

message: I've reworded the intro. Five points:
1) I've restored the disambiguation with Christian Science. It's clearly justified here. I've seen this confusion for years; it's common, it's well-known and it happens often enough for professional sociologists to have to clarify it (see e.g. http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/chrissci.html ). The people who've been deleting it from this article don't seem to get this point, or perhaps don't want to get it. Bear in mind that the disambiguation isn't a POV thing - it's simply, and literally, a way of reducing ambiguity. It's not a comment on the nature or merits of either Scientology or Christian Science.
:I don't believe that enough confusion exists between the Christian Science movement and Scientology to warrant a disambiguity mention.  I find it highly unlikely that someone that is ignorant, naive, or stupid enough to type in "Scientology" when searching for information about the other organization will be smart enough to come to their senses when they see this message.  There is nothing in common between the two groups besides 5 letters, so why does this warrant a mention?  In the link you provided its also important to note that it says Christian Science is also confused with Quimbism, and Mind Science.  Perhaps we should do a disambiguity for these two movements as well since presumably people stupid enough to confuse Christian Science with Scientology are also too stupid to figure out the difference between Mind Science, Quimbism, and Scientology too?  Vivaldi 06:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had several discussions about Scientology that involve somebody asking me, "is that the same as Christian Science?"  Likewise, I've had several discussions about Christian Science that involve the question, "is that the same as Scientology?" So yeah, I think the disambiguation is necessary. Jeff Silvers 06:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the directional words about editing Chris :)  This topic is "Scientology" but it is presented as a Church of Scientology article.  Even unabridged dictionays, give a first use of a word.  By quoting a dozen words from Mr. Hubbard's first use of the word it spells out cleanly what he meant when using that symbol.  He did not mean it as any sort of alternative therapy.  An introduction of the word should therefore include what the author meant when he said it.  I do realize it is an intellectual jump from "the study of knowledge" to "an applied religious philosophy" but the common element is that things about man's spiritual nature can be known, thus we have the Church of Scientology who's teachings are knowledge about man's spirit.  Neither Hubbard nor the Cos has ever presented Scientology as a therapy, that is just plain false information which is not documentable.  While I do document my version of Hubbard's first use of the word I don't document a link to "Scientology: Milestone One." Terryeo 01:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Thank you, the psychotherapy point would bring a reaction from any knowledgeable Scientologist.  But my main point about the introduction was this:  A subject should be introduced as it was intended by it author.  Mr. Hubbard died, 1986.  He isn't around to ask but his writings are.  An introduction should reflect what his intention was (this being true of any introduced subject).  The controversy of the subject should then follow, after the reader has some clue what the subject is.  Mr. Hubbard did not create a psychotherapy and did not create a therapy.  Even the IRS was unable to glean what Mr. Hubbard meant and engaged in huge court battles before a judge could understand how Scientology is a religion.  The introduction should at least make an attempt to convey this point of view.  Further, I believe an external link to the source of this information ] is necessary because there is a vast amount of misinformation.  Apparently the idea that a person can know even the tiniest bit about their existence is a difficult thing for people to grasp.Terryeo 22:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

text: It seemed necessary to link externally because the establishment date of today's Church of Scientology was required and disambiguated from the meaning of the word "scientology." Terryeo 01:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Just to add to the case that we need disambiguation, I will add that in the The Brainwashing Manual (pdf), allegedly from Hubbard, Christian Science is mentioned many times along with Dianetics. Povmec 00:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you really think a reader of the article even remotely might confuse Scientology with Christian Science, perhaps it would be prudent to also add disambiguation links for Church of Christ, Scientist, Church of Divine Science, Scientomogy, Sciology, Ontology, and maybe Science too, as long as we're already underestimating the reader's intelligence. (And in that same spirit, please note that I'm being sarcastic here.) wikipediatrix 03:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Incidently, Christian Science is the same as Church of Christ, Scientist. I suggest you google "christian science", "scientology" and "confuse". It is clear that both are often confused, enough to warrant a warning at the top. Povmec 04:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm well aware they're the same, heh heh. Just taking overdisambiguation to its logical extreme. wikipediatrix 13:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether or not it warrants an inclusion at the top is what we are debating.  It isn't a given.  I suggest that anyone so stupid or naive to confuse the two will not even be helped by a disambiguity notice. Vivaldi 06:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  That intro 

message: Have put this in article.
:Please sign your work.  If this is in the article it should be documented because there is a good deal of uncertainty of what constitutes a follower, what constitutes a memeber, etc.  Is a follower a person who reads a Scientology sign? an article? who takes a course?  3 courses?  who get audited? who pays for a membership?  What is the source of your 8 million information, at least put a link here. Terryeo 21:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  8 million followers world-wide 

message: ... both Scientologists and anti-Scientologists, apparently. Not to denigrate some valid criticism out there, but it's often rather a good sign when both sides of the controversy object to the article equally. :) We'd be in real trouble if only one side was offended! -Silence 04:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: This article is incredibly biased, POV, and skewed in favor of...

message: Can anyone source the following claims?
"The Church has claimed that auditing can raise IQ, improve memory, alleviate dyslexia and attention deficit problems, and lead to relaxation; however, no scientific studies have verified these claims. Licensed psychotherapists have alleged that the Church's auditing sessions amount to mental health treatment without a license, but the Church vehemently disputes these allegations, claiming that it is merely conducting spiritual healing."
:I'll tell you why it is not widely documented, that's a start.  Psychiatry would document the beans out of it. . . if it wasn't so.  In the only published study I can find, IQ increased 10 (average for 88 people).  Find that in the front section of Science of Survival by L. Ron Hubbard, , there were at least 20 printings which begin about 1952.  However, since about 1991 that book has a different ISBN and does not include the study. It was a closely supervised procedure, the testing was done by psych people of that time and the auditing done according to church practices.  The CoS published it, the psych community saw it worked and quit running studies. Thus, you got CoS claims that no shrink will touch with studies, because they're going to show the CoS knows what it's saying. Terryeo 01:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Terryeo, your reasoning here is severly flawed.  There were, early on, a couple of studies of Dianetic techniques which showed no evidence that Dianetics works as claimed.  Scientists rarely if ever devote their research to disproving apparently meritless claims; they are much more likely to focus on understanding what can be known, and to explore hypotheses that may lead to a greater understanding of the natural world or solve the particular problem at hand. However, Hubbard and the Church of Scientology have tremedous incentive to demonstrate that their services are of value, and if they want to be taken seriously as a "modern science" stemming from years of research, it is incumbent upon them to provide empirically testable evidence.  I haven't seen the study about IQ that you describe, but the combination of the facts that it was (I assume) only published by Scientology (as opposed to a peer-reiewed journal, the site of actual scientific studies), and that the CoS has for some reason seen fit to delete it from future editions renders this study a very dubious source.  (Not to mention the separate question of whether IQ test scores reveal anything meaningful about human capacity.) Truth is, if Dianetics worked as advertised--improved memory, health, etc.--it'd be pretty simple to demonstrate, and to compare with competing therapies. There are no shortage of disinterested third parties who would publicize such a demonstration (this was especially true when Dianetics was a new craze in the early 1950s).  The conclusion is inescapable: the reason there is no scientific documentation of Hubbard's claims is that they are not scientifically valid claims. BTfromLA 02:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate that you or anyone may draw any conclusion whatsoever. And while your conclusion seems to you completely reasoned and my reasoning completely flawed (to you), I wish to present another point of view that brings about exactly the same results (very little test data).  Dianetics in the early years had only 1 major theoretical difference from Psychology . . that in working with the mind there need be no reference to what is going on in the physical body.  (have a look at psychology's engram definition and compare to dianetic's engram definition).  So then, Dianetics was a therapy and to a degree was a compitition for psychology and psychiatry which opposed it.  I think, to a degree Hubbard thought of himself as in compitition with those -ologies in 1950 and 1951.  Hubbard agreed to a study by degreed psychometric people of that time, 88 persons were given tests before and after 40 hours of auditing.  The test results showed increases across the board, not without some small exception, but undeniable betterment of IQ and social, personality factors.  The results are in the early edition of Science of Survival.  But it is a trap to post "my word against your word" when you have all the marbles there are.  Scientology quit proving themselves as a sceientific apparition because it works as a religious organization.  It just doesn't care to prove itself because it is expanding, it is busy, it is producing its product.  An organization able to buy the properties it has purchased isn't losing, its winning and part of that winning is to NOT compete by putting "my word against your word" in the public eye. This line of reasoning produces the same results (very little test data.) Terryeo 04:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is an ARS article that supposedly contains the SoS text. (Not useful as a reference, of course.) --AndroidCat 20:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

text: The book What is Scientology, hardbound edition pages 170-171 specify some of that claim.  IQ and aptitudes are spelled out.  Betterment of the results of the Oxford Capacity Analysis are mentioned too.  To my knowledge no external group has done a close numerically based, verifiable study.  Such a study could be done but as far as I know, hasn't.  And the COS spends its efforts toward doing it instead of publically documenting results. Terryeo 18:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: The improving memory, Dianetics does that, its what dianetics is all about.  It does it by self-validation of positive recalls.  Any person may purchase or find: 'Self-Analysis' by L. Ron Hubbard and use it.  The other method is a little more serious and shouldn't be undertaken quite as lightly.  It is to reduce the pain and difficulty in recalls which contain pain and such difficulty.  Both methods improve recall.  But I don't know of an independent study you can read about them. Terryeo 18:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Here is one place to look for a starter: Fraudulent Claims. Povmec 06:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That link to carolineletkeman org quotes documents which are not Church of Scientology documents.  That's more a personal attack on Mr. Hubbard (deceased 1986) than an evaluation of the Church of Scientology.  As one example, she quotes an "HCO PL" which was a kind of document written by a man whom has since been expelled from the COS and that document type has not been valid since about 1984.Terryeo 15:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I'll tell you what, Scientology's claims are vastly understanted. For example, Scientology doesn't claim to saves lives, but I have myself saved a life with a Scientology Assist.  And that is a real simple, real basic technique, real basic.Terryeo 15:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Terryo - I think you are forgetting "Get it? Scientology, a miracle which saves lives, is being compared to horse-racing." if memory serves... But you are right.  My questions posed above remain unanswered. Ayespy 17:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: That's a heck of a good idea AndroidCat ! Terryeo 01:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Church claims? 

message: I couldn't care less about Scientology, but for the sake of our beloved Wikipedia, there seems to have occured some minor, unnoticed vandalism in the section "Beliefs and practices" of this arcticle. It reads:
::According to the church, its ultimate goal is to get tom cruse to presedentcy. get the soul back to its native state of total freedom, thus gaining control over matter, energy, space, time, thoughts, form, and life. This state is called Operating Thetan, or OT for short.
200.180.189.200 17:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section "Beliefs and practices" 

message: I quote from the current article: [...]Hubbard's 1958 book Have You Lived Before This Life documents past lives described by individual Scientologists during auditing sessions. These included memories of being "deceived into a love affair with a robot decked out as a beautiful blond-haired girl", being run over by a Martian bishop driving a steamroller which transformed him into an intergalactic walrus that perished after falling out of a flying saucer, after which he was "a very happy being who strayed to the planet Nostra 23,064,000,000 years ago".
This sentence just doesn't look right: where does "he" / "him" come from? Also, this line of text is arguably making fun of Scientologists. Ma.rkus.nl 18:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the links are a little bit weird. I don't know if we should put wikilinks in quoted material. The Robot fetishism one is especially outré. But the quote itself isn't inaccurate, is it? --FOo 23:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the first "him" is meant to refer to an individual Scientologist... -- ChrisO 23:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Have You Lived Before This Life examples 

message: This article at AlterNet mentions a Wikipedia article about Scientology, but doesn't say if it is this one or another. Either way, we probably should have Template:Onlinesource2005 added somewhere now. -- LGagnon 13:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Mention in the press

message: For the Nth time, Terryeo removed large quantities of relevant info from the article (what his edit summary calls having "edited out a few of the confusing statements") that don't fit his pro-Scientology views. I reverted his changes and hope Terryeo will discuss such things on the Discussion page before making such radical and sweeping NNPOV changes to the article. Furthermore, at least one of his changes resulted in a fragmented sentence that made no sense. View his changes here: . wikipediatrix 14:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, let's do discuss changes.  The article is too long.  I see I did not put a period where it was required, I'm sorry about that.  Mainly the article is inaccuarate and this is why I want the article changed a little here and there.  Often says in its introduction that Scientology was presented as an alternative therapy to psychotherapy which is just plain wrong information.  One of my deletions was to remove the argument that because Mr. Hubbard wrote a science fiction novel which said and implied some things about psychiatry and psychology that Scientology follows that example.  Such an arguement is not about Scientology, it is a sort of slander statement.  I had deleted that.  I believe it should remain deleted because it is not a controversy but a slander.  I also belive it is utterly wrong to use the word "Psychobursts" because that is a conclusion by whomever posted it without the slightest bit of substantiation.  Likewise it is wrong to say that Scientology is "vehemently" opposed to Psychiatry because that is a sort of emotional state of mind that implies the vehement party is not using good sense at all, again it is a conclusion by whomever posted that.  Scientology uses a good deal of rational thinking when it opposing psychiatry.  This article is about Scientology but it states that Dianetics was introduced as a psychotherapy.  That too is not quite true but should be in the Dianetics article where differences could be enlightening to readers.  Psychiatry uses an approach toward the human body.  Dianetics used an approach which neither denied or affirmed the state of the human body.  Scientology likewise uses an approach which does not address the human body.  This article should make this disambiguation clear.  My position is that controvery is just fine but that whether pro or con, statements should be accurate and have some substantiation.  I believe this is wikipedial policy. Terryeo 00:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Vehement: "1. Characterized by forcefulness of expression or intensity of emotion or conviction; fervid: a vehement denial. See synonyms at intense. 2. Marked by or full of vigor or energy; strong: a vehement storm." I, a Scientologist, am personally vehement in my disapproval of psychiatry and its methods. I don't believe vehemence remotely implies a lack of good sense, but merely strength of conviction, and fervence of expression. While it's true that, as a subject or body of knowledge, Scientology is incapable of attitudes or actions, it is also true that various members and representatives of the Church, including Ron himself, have been strident and uncompromising in their expression of opprobrium toward psychiatry - I feel appropriately so. A practice which harms in the name of help should be so condemned, and in no uncertain terms. It is further true, however, that across the entire church membership, individuals who feel this strongly on the subject are probably in the minority. So I don't know that it's an attitude that can be attributed to the subject as a whole. So, one should not discuss "Scientology's" attitude toward psychiatry, because "Scientology," the subject, has no attitudes. One should, instead, with attribution, state that these and these representatives or spokespeople, or these writers of policy, have been condemnatory toward psychiatry. Ayespy 07:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I like it Ayespry and respect your opinion and appriciate that you say it is yours, unlike whomever used the word in the article.  Strident and uncompromising I completely agree with and I believe that is a much better description of the attitude the Church of Scientology manifests in preventing Psychiatry's intrusion into society.  It rouses me vehemently when I read a psychiatrist has recommended problem children be caged for the night.  But an intensity of emotion will not cause changes in the laws which will remove psychiatry from the position that allowed that to happen. Not so long ago Psychiatrists could force school children to take psych drugs.  While I vehemently oppose that (what proof is there such drugs cause chemical balance in the brain?), it took strident and uncompromising action to cause courts to revoke such law. Terryeo 11:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  What laws and court cases are you referring to specifically Terryeo?  Or is this just verbal masturbation? Vivaldi 11:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop censoring the article, please. 

message: There's a problem with this text: "Critics dismiss many of the studies cited previously as biased," Was some text snipped at one point, because there are NO previously cited studies on the page. As well, I think there could be a short bit mentioning Scientology's infiltration of government organizations in Ontario in 1983, and the Hill v Church of Scientology libel case. I'll attempt to be very brief—detailing Scientology's legal battles could take several pages. AndroidCat 02:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, AndroidCat, if you are going to mention Scientology legal matters, you should be complete, or at least balanced (cite and describe at least as many victories for the Church as you do setbacks - since the actual ratio is something like eight or nine victories per "defeat") or leave it with a general statement that Scientology, in its efforts to combat  both private and government-sponsored limitations and attacks in a number of countries has employed tactics deemed both legal and illegal, and that the end result of these various legal battles has been that it was vindicated in some jurisdictions, bruised in others, and continues to operate in all such contested jurisdictions.  The idea isn't to be like a blog or discussion forum, wherein everyone tosses in whatever tidbits they're aware of, but that the areas covered be handled in a manner which results in a sense of the overall picture being communicated. Ayespy 06:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I question your ratio, at least in Canada. Keep in mind that this would in the Scientology critics section, with no more than the space allocated than for US and Australian critics' reasons. There are already Wiki pages for the key cases R. v. Church of Scientology of Toronto and Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto, so it could be brief. Meanwhile the second paragraph of that section still has no previously cited many pro-Scientology studies and a broken link. It should be cleaned up or removed. AndroidCat 06:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, the article isn't "Scientolgoy Canada" but "Scientology."  Mentions of legal matters would be most appropriate under "legal" rather than "critics."  There are mentions of the Canada legal matters on a Scientology legal page already. Ayespy 16:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, text was snipped.  That paragraph originally followed a paragraph detailing Scientology's claims that studies by scholars of religion either a) found similarities between Scientology and, uh, shall we say, religions whose status as religions are not frequently doubted? or b) more directly asserted Scientology to be a "real religion".  Of course, for NPOV, that was followed by a paragraph acknowledging that many studies had come to opposite conclusions.  Of course, the question is, when did that paragraph get removed? -- Antaeus Feldspar 06:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientology critics 

message: I have heard that people who have used LSD are not able to join the COS.
Is this true?
If so, why?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.74.143 (talk • contribs) 
:I reverted this comment as it doesn't add anything to the discussion of the article. I restored it, but am sending it to the reference desk to be answered as this isn't the venue. -Parallel or Together? 10:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's not true.  Certain staff positions are unavailable to them because of the lasting and upredictable effects of possible LSD flashbacks.  That is all.Ayespy 16:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  LSD 

message: The number of Scientology related articles is growing larger.  I just found one which is probably mistitled,  Introspection Rundown but here are many others: Church of Scientology, Scientology and the Legal System, Scientology beliefs and practices, Scientology controversy, Space opera in Scientology doctrine, Scientology and psychiatry, List of Scientologists, Bridge Publications (Scientology), L. Ron Hubbard, David Miscavige, Religious Technology Center, Golden Era Productions, Gold Base, Applied Scholastics, Study Tech, Narconon, Citizens Commission on Human Rights, Sea Org, Rehabilitation Project Force, Fort Harrison Hotel, then Cult (religion), List of purported cults, List of new religious movements,  Oxford Capacity Analysis, Psychosomatic illness, E-meter, Engram, Dianetics, Volunteer Ministers, World Institute of Scientology Enterprises. Wiki spells out a method to handle a situation with many clearly related links and uses history as an example (1910 - 1920, then 1920 - 1930, etc).  It reads out as a long table on the right side of the presented page.  Maybe such a table of linked information would be helpful. Terryeo 07:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, Terryeo, check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Scientology You missed a bunch of links, I think, see . ;-) We've got a central project for keeping all of this on-track, feel free to join up! If I understand the general *meaning* of what you're saying above, it sounds like you're looking for a template? Ronabop 05:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: number of Scientology related articles

message: Regarding this sentence:
The Tool song Ænima includes the lyrics "F--- L. Ron Hubbard, and f--- all his clones.
Since when did Wikipedia start censoring swear words? Someone afraid children might see a naughty word or something? -.-
--Ihmhi 22:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you're right that we don't censor cusswords on Wikipedia. Nonetheless, it isn't a very relevant fact about Scientology. Is there any particular reason that Tool decided to cuss out Ron? If they're just poking fun at Scientologists, that's rather puerile and not relevant here; if there's actually a specific story behind the remark, we should cover it specifically. --FOo 00:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: again, thanks for the heads up, Wiki policy about swear words. Glad to see such a non-sequiter out of there. Terryeo 01:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "F---"?