Talk:Scientology/Archive 19

message: The article states: Hubbard later characterized Scientology as an "applied religious philosophy" and the basis for a new religion.  The actual information is: On 3 March 1952, Mr. Hubbard gave a lecture titled, Scientology: Milestone One.  It was his first public use of the word Scientology.  He spent an hour defining the word.  When Hubbard first introduced the term he defined it to mean, an applied religious philosophy.  There was no later.   In the same lecture he went on and used the often seen words, study of knowledge.  But he didn't stop there, either.  He said what he meant by study of knowledge.  He clarified.  He disambiguated.  He separated knowledge -- as is commonly thought of -- from understood, useable knowledge.  And this is the datum that individuates Scientology.  As he defined it, Scientology is the study of knowledge, to understand knowledge.  And his lecture of 3 March 1952 defined, once and for all, all of the dianetics actions before or since.  Because understood knowledge is what Dianetics does.  A person recalls a past event and understands what they already know more throughly.  Thus, understood, useable knowledge.  Precisely what Hubbard presented the word Scientology to mean at his first public use of the word on 3 March 1952. 216.102.9.150 23:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article's '''first''' mis-statement 

message: :The following sentence appears no fewer than three times throughout the article:
::::::"Reports and allegations have been made, by journalists, courts, and governmental bodies of several countries, that the Church of Scientology is an unscrupulous commercial enterprise that harasses its critics and brutally exploits its members."
:It is well sourced (giving at least four different sources for the allegations), yet maintains the exact same wording in each instance throughout the article.  I think the sentence should at least be paraphrased, and in the instances in the "Criticisms" section, have the repetition of the sentence removed, just to reduce clutter and make the article more academic. The Great Attractor 21:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you read the actual two sources, compare it to the requirements of the WP:RS, reliable source, and see whether this is enough for this severe claims "by journalists, courts, and governmental bodies of several countries". If this one passes as a quality standard on Wikipedia, well, that's going to be a bonfire for POV-pushers. COFS 22:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Before SheffieldSteel got on the role I had actually moved the above quote in the controversy section as it gives some generality nonsense about the Church organization and not Scientology. The "extra" copies are now removed. Back to square zero. COFS 22:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: COFS, I don't think you can reasonably deny that the Church of Scientology has been intesively investigated by these institutions.  The government of Germany in particular has been very active in is scrutinization of the church.  As for the media, well, you shouldn't need me to tell you that it gets plenty of coverage.  American media in particular are obsessed with the church due to the membership of celebrities.  You'd have to live under a rock if you were to deny that these allegations have been leveled at the church. The Great Attractor 01:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Furthermore, I don't understand why you are so adamant about censoring allegations against Scientology.  As a member of Project Scientology, you are supposed to support an NPOV article regarding the subject, not advocate the creation of an article consisting only of glowing praise.  Just for perspective, consider that the major Western religions (Christianity and Islam, notably) have been criticized as institutions determined to oppress the rights of women through demonization and the implementation of a patriarchal religious structure.  Christianity and Islam and Judaism, among other faiths, were also once dispairaged as "cults" by the dominant believers of their ages.  Personally, I wouldn't put Scientology on the same boat as these major faiths, but I think your objectivity is seriously called into question by your inability to accept and reasonably refute criticism. The Great Attractor 02:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repetition 

message: Su-Jada thinks that if a summary of the Xenu story appears before the Scientologists' stance on that story, it gives the story "undue credence". I think it's more logical to present the story first, then to present Scientologists' stance on it. I fail to see how it would give the story "undue credence": the story has been proven true at this point, aside Hubbard 's own handwriting, there are many former Scientologists who have reached OT3, and even the Church of Scientology claimed copyright on this story (which is prelude to the many other OT levels following, so it is quite important in that respect.) I know Hubbard warned of harm those who would read the story before they are ready to do so, but Wikipedia is not bound by the specific beliefs of a particular religion. Raymond Hill 05:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wait wait wait... Did you just say "the story hasbeen proven true?!" Did you really say that...?!
John 06:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  :-) Raymond Hill 06:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  what the heck is a smile supposed to mean...?  John 23:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Undue credence" to the Xenu story? 

message: I tried to correct a change that was made, and I wished to correct many others that were made, but I had to revert myself, as I couldn't restore properly. Problem is, way too many changes were made, and it is very difficult to put back what was proper while keeping the changes that are appropriate. I would suggest that next time, before performing sweeping changes, each point should be agreed upon before on the talk page. Some of the reasons given for not mentioning the controversial nature of scientology in the intro is that this would create 'redundancy' with the main content of the article. However, this redundancy issue was non-existent before the paragraph in the intro was moved to the main body of the article. Raymond Hill 06:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, especially as when beliefs are being explained changing one word can make a major difference theologically. It would helpful if editors made easily viewed changes in one section only then sat back and dealt with possible objections etc to those before continuing. --Hartley Patterson 13:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Degrades Wikipedia to a debate club. What are Wikipedia policies for then? COFS 15:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted myself 

message: :I removed the sections in the introduction regarding controversy that include unnecessary anecdotes about how those who bring allegations agains the church are seeking large settlements, and to discredit members of the CoS.  This seemed blatantly POV, and I felt that these concerns would be more appropriately addressed in the "Criticisms" section.  Keep it objective. The Great Attractor 02:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Great Attractor, your idea of "unnecessary anecdotes," would suggest a possible lack of research or POV on Scientology controversy, which is the very subject you are editing. However, I can see that the way I worded the citations I included my need some clarification, since if you could come away with the conclusion that these were mere anecdotes, it is possible that others, who are uniformed about this might also draw the similar conclusions.  You are quite new to Wikipedia, and so perhaps you don't realize this, but you cannot simply edit based on your opinions, which it would appear you have just done. Let me explain, so you understand the background of this subject. Frankly, I don't agree that the two sentences you left at the end of this section on Scientology being controversial should be mentioned in the lead, and would prefer to simply delete it, since there is a "controversy" section below, but, as a compromise, I provided citations to show that litigants and persons with vested interests (paid expert witnesses) generated much of the so-called controversial media by deliberately providing false and misleading statements to journalists and netizens in an attempt to foster a negative climate so as to pressure the church, for the purpose of personal renumeration.  This is salient information, and, ironically, neglecting to include it whilst stating that Scientology is controversial could be argued to be an example of the resultant systemic bias that was so generated. Of course this is only my opinion, and I am not going to state such in the article. However, I would request that you and Stan En refrain from simply deleting this section and its citations again.  Su-Jada 17:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I may be new, but I'm not uneducated.  The word "anecdote" does not imply a lack of truth.  Look it up.  I think I am completely correct for removing those anecdotes since they obviously intend to cast doubt on those who criticize Scientology.  That's not NPOV on your part, pal, like it or not. The Great Attractor 01:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Great Attractor I am certain that you think you are completely correct.  I would never accuse you of deliberately doing something you thought was illogical or faulty.  What use would that serve you?  But I don't agree with your point of view, and I'm getting pretty tired of my edits being reverted based on what someone "thinks is correct." I also find your calling me pal offensive, which you no doubt intended.  I have tried to keep the tone of my discussions reasonable and on a high plane, and request that you do the same, which is Wikipedia policy. I also disagree with your interpretation of the events I cited as anecdotes. I would not classify admissions by two former Scientologists that they deliberately perjured themselves to extort money from the Church through the legal system, and spread these false allegations to and through the media to generate the very kind of "controversy" we are now trying to resolve with this discussion as a "short tale narrating an interesting or amusing biographical incident." If we are going to keep the "Church is controversial," and "claims of harassment and harm to critics" caveats, NPOV calls for balancing that with the actions taken by persons who deliberately created such claims in order to profit from them financially.  I am not set on having to have my section there vs. including it below.  But if the prejudicial and un-cited description of Scientology stays in the lead, so does my documentation to show this is only one opinion.Su-Jada 04:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction AGAIN