Talk:Scientology/Archive 8

message: Once again, the intro is almost completely devoted to not one, not two, not three, but FOUR different explanations of how Hubbard defined the word in 1952, 1965, 1960, and 1969 (and in that order!). That's just nuts. It belongs with the rest of the etymological analysis in the "Origins" section. I can find no other "-ology" article that bothers to spend over half of the introductory paragraph with a long and convoluted analysis of the word's etymology. Articles for other religious beliefs such as Zoroastrianism, Kabbalah, and Islam do not go into the etymology of their names in the intro paragraph. The article for Unarius doesn't even go there until the article's third subsection, deep into the article. wikipediatrix 15:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Scientology is a philosophy which spells out actions or practices.  The philosophy would be the first term, practices second and then by the time it gets to be the philosophy of a church, then beliefs come into the equation. Hubbard first uttered the word publically in Scientology: Milestone One, a 1952 lecture in Kansas. Terryeo 22:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  etymological overkill, pt.2 

message: I think the cost of services table is innappropriate here.  I think we should just place a link to this information in the external links section at the bottom.  It appears to be the original work of either Andreas or some other editor.  Surely there are many verifiable sources that peg the cost of crossing the Bridge above $300,000.  Let's find one and put that quote in the article and get rid of this huge table, which is not verifiable and excessively large.  It also appears to contain numerous assumptions for which there is no source.  Vivaldi (talk) 16:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've always thought it seemed a bit unencyclopediac too, but didn't want to get into another fight to remove it. It would be good to find an external source that contains the list and mention it with a link, maybe adding 'prices range from $x,xxx for basic services up to $xxx,xxx for the final OT VII'. Ashmoo 23:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it makes sense to have a separate section for Scientology as a Business.  I don't think that the "business" aspects, although often focused on in the press, should be such a large part of this page.  Copied over the info, if everyone agrees it should be split off, please remove dupe info from this page. Seriosity 22:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  A hundred different people would give you a hundred different estimations, the variation is very wide and has so many factors involved that a reasonable estimation, even by someone who had done it all, would be difficult.  Possibly the best source would be a man who's profession was selling services for a higher Organization, but he would probably give you an average high and a low, the low being, factually, zero dollars. Terryeo 22:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cost of services 

message: I just wanted to make a quick note to say, that this is one of the most hotly debated articles i've ever seen at Wiki and also that i didn't know what scientology actually was until 5 months ago. I didn't actually know any specifics till I read this article and the whole thing smacked of being very pro-scientology. I'm totally unbiased to it, i've only a few bits to go on from what i've heard. But its clearly predominantly written by scientologists and it seems to me that there whole thing needs a thorough going through and re-writting. The intro is still highly POV - comments like "scientology has been percieved as..." and so on all seem to come from a pro-scientology POV. Whilst the article is full of good facts and snippets of info i felt the whole thing is connected by opionative statements. This is far from NPOV.
:Actually, I think it's one of the most NPOV articles on the wiki, but you may be misinterpriting our policy. This article consists of two things: firstly, the claims scientology make about themselves, all of which are labeled as their own claims (except where it is obviously a fact, such as tax exempt status and whatnot). Secondly is criticism of scientology, all of which is written with the support of outside references (and the inverse is also true; we don't make claims against them here that we can't back up). NPOV doesn't mean writing from an outside perspective; it means showing both sides of the issue without presenting either as 'correct', which is done here. --InShaneee 16:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  While you may think in that manner, others of us know the article is very very poor in a number of ways.  One is citations.  Scientology information which is published by the Church is widely available.  Other information, not published by the church does not balance the information which the Church publishes.  The repute of the informational sources is not in balance.  Another thing is that the subject is not well presented, even in the first paragraph.  Scientology is obviously a philosophy, not "beliefs", it spells out practices but is not itself "practices".  Its nearest parallel would be Buddhism which too is an applied religious philosophy, or a study of those things of the spirit which man might find helpful.  There is no denying that a small group of editors, some of whom have been expelled and declared by the Church, edit these articles.  There is no denying some of the editors contribute to and communicate on alt.scientology.net, a newsgroup dedicated to harming Scientology. Were a dedicated group of Muslims creating Christian articles, intending to destroy Christianity, it would be a similar "Neutral Point of View", just for balance you understand?  Not to present Christianity in any manner but "neutral" and "balanced.  Its a similar situation in these articles. Even Wikipediatrix has offered to "get some additional editors" from alt.net.scientology when things were not going well for the editors here.  The articles are  far from Neutral. Terryeo 09:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smacks of POV 

message: The introduction states that Scientology is: 
*"a system of beliefs"
*"practices" 
*"and was created as a self-help philosophy"
But when Hubbard introduced the word in Kansas in the lecture Scientology: Milestone One he described his idea: "Scientology would be a study of knowledge."  The dictionary defines "-ology" dictionary.reference.com/search?q=-ology as "A branch of learning" and gives examples: "2. Science; theory; study: dermatology; sexology" and -ology is also used in "biology" and other sciences.  Hubbard intended his idea to communicate that a subject was under scrutiny, and he described it as a philosophy more than once.  The last word of the present introduction is "philosphy" and that is right, that is what Hubbard intended to communicate.  Scientology is a philosophy, that is, it is a body of knowledge which is based on an idea, it codifies knowledge in a manner not hithertofore done.  As such it is a philosophy.  It has never been presented to the public as a system of beliefs.  The Church of Scientology, it might present beliefs.  But the subject of Scientology presents codified knowledge, or what is considered within its bounds to be codified knowledge.  It is a philosophy in the manner that "science" and Buddhism" are philosophies.Terryeo 16:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The introduction 

message: I've added information about a land swap that took place between Church of Spiritual Technology and federal government just a little over a year before the tax exemption, with an appropriate link to Trementina Base where there are more details of the apparent quid pro quo with cites. Huntley Troth 20:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good piece of information, if it is true Huntley, but your suggestion that Wikipedia editors do Original Research and trek out there, and your suggestion about how to do that and be legal and stay out of trouble and be safe, that isn't a good piece of information.  That sort of information could not be put into Wikipedia, anyway.  The only way to get the results of that into Wikipedia would be to have it published, say in the New York Times, and then have that article included in Wikipedia.  Your suggesting it as something Wikipedia editors should do clearly says that you haven't read WP:V or at least you have not understood WP:V. Terryeo 22:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Trementina base land swap prior to tax exemption

message: Time now has an online archive, and their collection of stories on Scientology is one of the ones that they are allowing free access to.  Obviously links directly to Time would be preferable for online courtesy copies of references to Time stories. AndroidCat 14:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After trying it a bit more, their main site seems to be unreliable as to if it shows the full story or just the first paragraph, possibly for bandwidth. Their proxy site  seems to be consistent. At least one story that was in the International but not the American edition of Time seems to be missing from the collection. I wouldn't suggest doing a bulk change of all links just yet. AndroidCat 15:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Viewing the TIME site, for now they seem to present the first paragraph and selected other informations, things to lead people into buying subscription.  Then, if a person buys a subscription they have full access to whole articles. Terryeo 03:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Time archive of Scientology stories

message: Hello all.  I've been investigating some of the articles of Scientology. Just a question for anyone who may know: How widespread is this particular dogma in other religions? I'm just wondering how unique it may or may not be. Regards HeadleyDown 04:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unique Dogma?

message: regarding Scientology - it is not NPOV to characterize L. Ron Hubbard as a Pulp Fiction Author. In fact even to characterize him as an "author" characterizes him in such a way the it is not NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.99.252.203 (talk • contribs) 
:I'm afraid you misunderstand NPOV, if you think that it allows you to remove completely true facts because you don't like the way the information reflects upon the subject.  You claim that even referring to him as an "author" violates NPOV -- how exactly do you figure that is?  Because, even though he is provably an author, even though he is provably a pulp fiction author, Scientologists would rather think of him as a philosopher?  According him that status would violate NPOV. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The vast majority of his works have been pulp fiction novels, and that's also what he's best known for. --InShaneee 22:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, a lot of people have that impression.  However, the amount of shelf space of his fiction might be 10 feet.  The amount of shelf space of his writing in Dianetics and Scientology is more like 25 feet of shelf space.  A substantial way of comparing the difference might be to go to www.loc.gov Library of Congress and search for "L. Ron Hubbard".  Another method invovles a photograph the Church has at a website I forget right now, they show maybe 8 feet by 6 feet full of books, every book different, every book or audio lecture from Hubbard. Terryeo 23:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Upon the inception of Scientology LRH was undoubtly a pulp fiction author, that's what the article says; that scientology was created by a pulp fiction author. And that couldn't be more accurate. - Glen TC (Stollery) 08:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The inception of Scientology happened in 1952.  At the inception of Dianetics, 1950, Hubbard was best known for his fiction.  But by 1952 he had began to be known for Dianetics and by 1954, when today's church was founded www.whatisscientology.org he was know for his writings in Dianetics and Scientology.  None of his fiction stories reached the best selling status that his Dianetics: the Modern Science of Mental Health did.  Therefore, as an introduction to Dianetics, that's a terrific line, but for the introduction to this article, Scientology, there is at least some room for other points of view, I would say. Terryeo 09:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved from my user talk page... 

message: Here is one of them: Through the Scientology process of "auditing", one can free oneself of "engrams" and "implants" to reach the state of "Clear"....  This statement is perhaps 2/3 into the article.  At no point does any of the technology about "clear" say anything about "implants".  That is a false piece of information.  "Clear" is a state of existence achieved by Dianetics, it does so by a person reviewing difficulties a person has had which a person examines during auditing.  "Implant" is a specialized Scientology word, it has specific meaning.  That meaning is not introduced into the article, and I don't suggest it should be.  The article is already too long.  If the word "implants" were removed from the sentence, the sentence would become accurate. Terryeo 06:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The part you are referring to is «Through the Scientology process of "auditing", one can free oneself of "engrams" and "implants" to reach the state of "Clear", and after that, the state of "Operating Thetan".» I don't agree to remove the word implant as you suggest (it's part of Scientology, isn't?), but I think we could make it more clear, since I can imagine that someone new to Scientology could come to think that implants have a purpose in reaching the state of Clear, which is not the case as far as I know. We could rephrase it: «Through the Scientology process of "auditing", one can free oneself of "engrams" to reach the state of "Clear", and afterward free oneself of "implants" to reach the state of "Operating Thetan".» Anyone agree that the sentence could be misleading to someone new to Scientology? Raymond Hill 15:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is probably beyond the scope of this article to define every technical term which Scientology has created.  An "implant" is a specific kind of engram, it is the result of a specific kind of unconciousness brought about in rather specific ways.  Why introduce yet one more complex word which is only a subset of the already introduced word, "engram"?  "Engram" is the general term for any moment of unconciousness and injury.  If we get into too many technical details we will be creating a "how-to" manual. Terryeo 02:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless there's some way to write 'how to engram', I don't think that's a valid complaint. --InShaneee 03:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are many ways to engram. Play on the freeway, stand under a falling brick, hit your thumb with a hammer, walk under a ladder while someone drops a paint can.  There are many technical sorts of words to Scientology but to understand "implant" would require first to understand "engram", our readers will better understand if we introduce one word at a time. Terryeo 18:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, so let's reorder how the article reads. --InShaneee 23:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Great. Do you have a source for your information? Ashmoo 23:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Of course, even if (for the sake of argument) California guy was actually correct about Tabayoyon's affidavit being "discredited thoroughly", that doesn't explain why California guy removed the corroborating testimony of a second source whose reliability he made not one mention of. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: In invalidating the Psychological Practices Act, the Court invalidated the inquiry which led to it.  Well, you'll have to find a reliable source for that claim.  You can't just leap to the conclusion that the repeal of certain legislation invalidated every aspect of the inquiry which preceded it, and based on that original research http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientology&diff=56928467&oldid=56873126 yank out the whole paragraph containing the material you claim is "invalidated" -- as well as other material, whose validity you have not attempted to address. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: "... I would slip into Hubbard's "Dissemination drill" by saying I was a Scientologist, and dealing with any negative response by attacking the person's source of information. If someone said, "Didn't the Australians ban Scientology?" I would say, "Where did you hear that?" They would almost inevitably say, "In the newspapers." This could often be dismissed with "Well, you can't believe anything you read in the papers," diverting attention from the complaint ... This trained tactic underlies Scientology's self-defense: ... attack the source not the information." -- Jon Atack, A Piece of Blue Sky -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Those informations directly address the issue, but there are other informations which show how Australian Law has been improved as a result of the Church.  An example of that is in the CCHR article, CCHR#Chelmsford_Hospital_and_.22sleep_therapy.22  Terryeo 02:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Terryeo, "information" is the plural of "piece of information".  There is no such thing as "informations". -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I understand the term, "information" is a collective noun and is normally its own plural. However, the term is sometimes used with an "s" 66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:VMIdIBInc30J:www.sendmail.org/~ca/email/misc.html+informations&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2&lr=lang_en when talking about more than one group of information, each group itself being composed of more than one piece of information.  In the example above there is a group of information which is of a derogatory nature and there is a group of information which is of a positive nature.  Therefore I use the word "informations". Terryeo 19:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Information" is used more often. In fact, this is the first time I've ever seen anyone use "informations" unless their English was not fluent and their grasp of English plurals somewhat imperfect. Apparently, "informations" is not incorrect in that usage, but it reads REALLY weird, and again, I've never seen it used that way. Reminds me of this essay I once read where this guy (whose native tongue was German) kept saying "argumentation" instead of "argument". After looking it up, I found out that not only was "argumentation" a real word, but he was also using it correctly. It's just that most native speakers of English wouldn't use that, they'd use "argument" (no doubt in part because it's shorter and slightly less snooty-sounding). :) You learn something new every day, I suppose! Runa27 00:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  There are many false statements in the article 

message: "These included memories of being "deceived into a love affair with a robot decked out as a beautiful red-haired girl", being run over by a Martian bishop driving a steamroller, being transformed into an intergalactic walrus that perished after falling out of a flying saucer, and being "a very happy being who strayed to the planet Nostra 23,064,000,000 years ago.""
No wonder L. Ron Hubbard has a cult following. This could have been ripped straight out of Douglas Adams' The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Does anyone know if Adams was inspired by Dianetics? How about Robert A. Heinlein? What about Orson Scott Card? Card did vise versa and created science fiction out of religous themes instead of a religion out of science fiction. As a side note, does anyone have or have read the original Dianetics from Astounding Science Fiction? Anyway, I like how Hubbard uses the phrase "decked out" in that quote. He was way ahead of his time. "www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=decked+out Decked out" started getting popular in the '80s at the earliest.
:The original Dianetics article was republished with minor changes as Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science and there's a link to  an online copy. As for authors, I doubt anyone you mentioned would need to borrow from Hubbard. Heinlein was already published long before Scientology, Orson Scott Card has far too much energy for someone who doesn't drink coffee and wouldn't need to borrow, and Adams was spoofing many of the long-standing sci-fi cliches. A lot of the bad sci-fi of the 50s and before is a lot like that stuff. (Note that the walrus-type stuff is supposed to be recalled memories, and not writings by Hubbard. GIGO?) As for decked out, it's quite possible the term was in use long before someone noticed that it was popular in the 80s. AndroidCat 18:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a nautical term in origin anyway, meaning "presented on the deck", I'm pretty sure. :) --FOo 20:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Van Vogt writes in a similar way.  I believe he was another proponent along with Fritz Perls amongst others. Early "postmodern" art and thinking. Regards HeadleyDown 04:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Precursor to Douglas Adams?

message: This Scientology article contains a conglomeration of opinion, accusations, falsehoods and unsourced statements, some of which didn’t even make it in to the controversy section but still go ahead to imply that there is a controversy.  “Controversy” is being misused to justify slipping in critical remarks for reasons I can only think are to discredit.  To solve this, there is an article called “Scientology Controversy,” I am suggesting that all the quote unquote controversial points get moved over there for the time being (and I see that it was requested by some else that that article needed work too) and we get the Scientology article on topic.  Just to head off any possible attempt to tell me that controversy is what Scientology is about – it is not – it is a many faceted subject in itself that is not being correctly represented with the “controversial” slant that has been pushed as the POV.  I am asking for a consensus on this plan.-- Nuview 21:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds a bit like a POV fork, and as such it is a bad idea. While I think the article does focus a bit too much on the controversial aspects, controversy is probably the most notable thing about Scientology. Do you have any specific complaints about the article. (And what does 'parody' refer to in the section title?) Ashmoo 05:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would argue that the most notable thing about Scientology is its success, because were it not successful, it would not have bandwidth, Time Magazine article, Rolling Stones article, etc. etc. dedicated to its "controversy".  It owns property, it sends Ministers to international disasters, it has been the driving force for changes in some laws of Australia, USA and other countries.  With those things comes controversy. Terryeo 19:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The same specious arguments can be made about the Ku Klux Klan and many other controversial organizations.  Just because an organization is successful at scamming thousands of people through fraud -- does not mean that it is should be considered "successful" in general.  When Scientology is mentioned in the press, it is most often mentioned in a manner that demonstrates that it is a controversial group.  Very few articles published by independent sources rave about the "success" of Scientology at doing anything.  Vivaldi (talk) 06:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Many independent reviews or accounts of Scientology speak about it from their (the expert's) (not Scientologist's) point of view, and then they mention controviersies.  I believe its quite normal, and it is appropriate for this article according to Wikipedia guidelines.  HeadleyDown 11:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Parody doesn't belong