Talk:Scientology/Archive 14

message: As it presently stand, the References section presents that "Stephen A. Kent (1996)" is attributed with 88 cites.  The reason it appears so is because of markup.  The first four references which end with Kent's are not cited to by Wiki markup, (name of reference.  It should be re-arranged, the title of References should change to Article References, the four first appearing references which include Kent's should be moved to a separate section, Additional References while the markup which flushes out the articles cited name which is  should be inserted just under Article References.  There would be other methods of handling the situation, this is my suggestion. Terryeo 23:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this policy? The current layout (general references used in creating the article first, cites following in the same section) is frequently used elsewhere. I don't think adding even more headers is going to make the article any clearer. Chris Cunningham 08:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think you're both right.  As I read the relevant section of WP:CITE, it looks like it's normal for pages to have both "general references" and footnotes where appropriate, but that they normally get their own section headings.  I've gone ahead and made that change.  TheronJ 13:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you, its appearence is less confusing as you have done it. Terryeo 17:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Haven't you guys noticed that the whole basis of Scientology seems suspicioulsy like the Sci-Fi book
"From Beyond Infinity" by Thomas Mawson. It was published in 1947 and was quite popular at the time. Could it be that L. Ron Hubbard simply adapted to someone elses ideas for his religion. Triumph's Hour 04:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a difficult line of reasoning to follow.  Scientology was introduced in 1952 at a lecture following 2 years of Dianetics sessions and results. It was introduced for the reason that people were recalling memories which were obviously not of the current lifetime.  If the basis of Scientology is a Science Fiction book, the thousands of pre-this-lifetime memories, recalled by many people over a period of years would make its basis a widespread popularity. Does Mawson's book talk about memories and recalls of memories ? Terryeo 17:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Incorrect. It was introduced in 1952 after Dianetics was exposed as quackery. — NRen2k5 14:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I haven't heard of this book, and quick searches of Google and an internet bookserch engine find no mention of it, so I am skeptical that the named book actually exists.  There is, however, plenty of influence of ideas from the science fiction of the 40s in Scientology--it would be a good research project for somebody to start to point out his sources in that realm; has someone done that already?  BTfromLA 17:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not found at the Library of Congress  either.--Justanother 23:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you sure? I picked it up at a garage sale in my neighborhood. Triumph's Hour 00:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe that was Mawson's garage. BTfromLA 00:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That one put a smile on my face. — NRen2k5 14:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allegation of plagarism 

message: Reference [35],   http://groups.google.com/group/alt.answers/msg/f3716ab6b331c0d1 links to , an archived newsgroup.  Newsgroups are poor quality sources of information because information on them is unattributable.  WP:RS states, with its own emphisis, Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources..  The newsgroup postings are being  used to reference Differing accounts of L. Ron Hubbard's life, in particular accounts of Hubbard discussing his intent to start a religion for profit.   The google group should simply be removed as a reference because newsgroups are unreliable as sources of information and fall below the standard of information which our Wikipedia can present.  Such a reference might be acceptable at Wikinfo  but not here. Terryeo 17:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed--not a reliable source (and press accounts of that make-money-by-starting-a-religion are plentiful, so a more suitable reference source shouldn't be hard to come by, if it is even needed).  I cut the google group ref. BTfromLA 18:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Coolness.  Now how often do I have to beat you to arrive at the next level of complience? Heh ! (personal websites!) Heh. TY. Terryeo 23:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  As a point of information (I'm kind of keeping track of editors who are willing to degrade Wikipedia by citing archived Google Groups, newsgroups, etc.) it was User:Raymond Hill who cited the Google Group posting which BTfromLA has removed at editing difference It quoted Donald C. Lindsay posting what Lindsay called "a rumor". Terryeo 01:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In fairness to Raymond Hill, Terryeo, the whole point of that citation was that it analysed and attempted to separate fact from fiction in a variety of stories about Hubbard that have long circulated as rumors.   So, of course, the author described some "rumors" in the course of his article.    BTfromLA 01:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good, let us consider Raymond Hill's edit in good faith, let editors take the small hint about newsgroups citations and let us press onwards toward a good quality, Wikipedic article ! Terryeo 02:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that unfortunately you're all wrong. They are clearly presented as "accounts" and not as matters of fact. So - regardless of their source - as long as they don't degrade the article (e.g. by the collection being obviously biased to lead the reader to a certain belief) they should stay. — NRen2k5 14:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Damn, I hate it when we are ALL wrong (laff). Point is, NRen, that a newsgroup can not be a credible source of anything except for discussion of the nature of the newsgroup (and then only if sourced elsewhere) and perhaps such obvious trivialities such as how many posts there are on a specific subject (and then you still are not going to use the newsgroup for source). Why? Because it is the least reliable of all unreliable sources, even for an "account". Newsgroups have zero credibility of themselves. There is no way of knowing who is claiming to be "a former Sea Org Member" or "David Miscavige's personal barber" or whatever. No newsgroup info, thank you. Let's not get into tracking them back using their PGP key or verifying their identity off the newsgroup, that goes way beyond what we do here; I am talking about simply using a newsgroup post as source. Newsgroups can, however, steer you to a reliable source or give you clues to find one. --Justanother 14:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: That particular archived newsgroup posting by Chris Owen was introduced into this article by administrator User:ChrisO at this editing difference.  Terryeo 02:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Google Groups as sources of information 

message: Presently, Scientology#Notes numbered [55], [61] and [70] point to non-english webpages, ,  and , respectively.  In some articles it might be a real contribution to cite non-english sources but surely Scientology has been widely published about and is itself widely published in English.  Wouldn't our readers be better served if they did not have to sort through information they can not read ? Terryeo 01:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I would say the English language Wikipedia should only use English language sources. VxP 05:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: WP:RS#Sources_in_languages_other_than_English AndroidCat 05:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-English secondary sources 

message: In the lead it says "some scholars accept Scientology as a bona fide religion" with two refs. The first paper explicitly makes no judgment about whether it is a good or bad, true or false religion, the other says "Although some social scientists insist that Scientology is a religion, the more appropriate position to take is that the organization is a multi-faceted transnational corporation that has religion as only one of its many components", and names one such in the few pages I read. I would be inclined to change this to "some scholars accept Scientology as technically a religion" or "some social scientists accept Scientology as a religion". Rich Farmbrough 17:24 30  August 2006 (GMT).
:Hi. I am kinda new but have already seen discussion of the "some/many" question with "many" seeming to be the consensus.  My read of the second reference's section "2) Is Scientology a Religion?" seems to support using the term "many" and this from someone that seems critical of Scn.  I quote below:
::"Many of my social scientific colleagues had examined some Scientology documents and possibly participated in some Scientology events, and they had deduced that the organization is religious in nature."
::"Nevertheless, the historical reasons behind Scientology's religious claims, as well as the organization's selectivity in making the claims, do not diminish the probability that many Scientologists view their commitment as a religious one."
::"Similarly, from a social scientific perspective, a belief system is religious if it contains supposedly supernatural elements, regardless of the accuracy of those elements."
:I think it is clear that "many" is the more accurate term. --Justanother 17:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we have both a pro-Scn and an anti-Scn source that would say many, if not most social scientists and religious experts would call Scn, at the very least in the philosophical part, a religion.  I will put it back to many and adjust the refs to support that pending further discussion. --Justanother 21:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not just use the neutral "a number of scholars"? AndroidCat 01:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That could work.  Another method, we might each list the scholars (recognized scholars who have published their personal opinion in the area) from 'our side' ? Terryeo 07:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The two refs quoted at the start of this section are talking about different animals. One suggests that the beliefs of Scientology constitute a religion, the other that the Church is not a religion. These are not contradictory - both could be true. All that is required is to be consistent and say 'Scientology' for the beliefs and 'Church of Scientology' for the organisation. Yes, I am aware that there are propagandists on both sides who don't want to do this. --Hartley Patterson 15:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Scholars

message: I'm not sure where it would fit in this article, or I'd add it myself, but some mention/linking of Writers of the Future is probably warranted.  While the judges and winners are not scientologists, they do milk it for all the publicity they can get.  The judges all stay at the celeb centre, and then there are the ceremonies, etc. etc.   I think it should at least be mentioned somewhere for completeness. Chaleur 23:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you think they would exclude Freezoners?   Terryeo 16:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Odd question, Terryeo, but I stated "scientologists" which includes cofs members and "freezoners". So, it would include the latter as well.--Fahrenheit451 13:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Writers of the Future 

message: In Germany, scientology is not only not held as a state-recognised religion , moerover even under surveillance from the Verfassungsschutz (domestic intelligence service).
Quote (as by September 4th, 2006): "The "Scientology Organisation" (SO) is still being monitored by the offices for the protection of the constitution. Concrete evidence of activities directed against the free democratic basic order continues to be available. This is why the legal requirement for the organisation to be monitored by the offices for the protection of the constitution is met. Therefore, the relevant decision made in 1997 by the Permanent Conference of the State Ministers of the Interior and the State Senates remains valid."
Source: Homepage of the Verfassungsschutz/ english version
In Germany, most of the years of harrassement by government has quieted down. The Federal Supreme Administrative Court in Leipzig has ruled that the Hamburg state government violated the constitutional right to freedom of religion of a Scientologist.   
In a judgment issued from the bench, the Court held that the government had no legal basis for disseminating a “17:17 12/21/2005filter” that required companies to demand that anyone employed by or conducting business with them disavow the works of L. Ron Hubbard, founder of the Scientology religion.  There have been other court cases too, which, after years of harrassement, have forced government not to discriminate against a person's religion because the German Constitution declares freedom of religion. Terryeo 18:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have slightly rewritten history there, Terryeo. The German government never did discriminate against religion. It "discriminated" against an organisation: The Church of Scientology, which they considered a threat, in much the same way that your government "discriminates" against Al-Qaeda (no, don't get angry, I'm not comparing your organisation to Al-Qaeda...). The debate was on whether to consider Scientology a religion, in which case it was constitutionally protected under Germany's extremely strong laws guaranteeing freedom of religion (and we all know why that is), or not, in which case it could be considered a criminal organisation, as it's founder was tried and convicted in neighbouring France, both Germany and France being part of interpol. Yandman 13:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am flattered to think that I can rewrite history. <sigh>  Thank you very much.  Oh, by the way, perhaps you are aware of the difficulties freedom of religion has in France?  Perhaps you are aware of religious discrimination as it manifests elsewhere in the world?  Turkey?  Iran? I can't agree that by posting what I know to be true (Scientology has won in Germany though challenges in German courts, based on German constitution), that I have rewritten history. Flattering of you to state it like that. :) Terryeo 16:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Toe the line. — NRen2k5 15:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  The German government may have intended to discriminate against the Church, but the actual law discriminated against followers of the teachings of L Ron Hubbard. This included members of Ron's Org as well as the Church. It was a law against religious belief, not an organisation, and the courts as Terryeo points out didn't like it. --Hartley Patterson 19:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The German Constitution guarentees freedom of religion.  Therefore, any person may adhere to any religious belief in Germany.  As in the USA, the government tightly scrutinized the organization and individuals for a number of years and came up with nothing. Terryeo 19:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are talking out of your ass. The German gov't came up with plenty, and rightfully should outlaw the Scientology organization. Unfortunately it seems that the writ of the law imposes too much against the practise of Scientology to be constitutional.— NRen2k5 15:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: But you are going so far as to twist this into Germany "[coming] up with nothing". That is irrelevant to the topic of discussion as well as being an outright lie. As I said further above, toe the line.— NRen2k5 15:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I am beginning to get the impression that you yourself are a Scientologist, which means you are not in any position to make changes to the article. "NPOV" and "conflict of interest" come to my mind. — NRen2k5 15:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Umm, NRen2k5, you are free to observe my user page if you wish to.  However, whether you do or don't, it would behoove your relationship with other editors to understand the foundation on which we all edit.  You have stated the idea that an editor who holds a point of view is disqualified from editing Wikipedia and that is not the case.  You seem to present that, for example, no Catholic should edit the Catholic articles, no Muslim the Muslim articles no Eskimo the Eskimo article, no apple farmer the Apple article.  Which is why I invite you to read the policies which we edit under which include WP:CIVIL and WP:PAIN.  "You are talking out your ass" is an uncivil statement.  And, since my statement is more a quotation to a reliable, published source than an original research, it wouldn't apply anyway. Terryeo 00:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding "# 4.2 Scientology as a state-recognised religion"  

message: I'm surprised that the rumour Scientology has roots in a bet between Hubbard and Heinlein isn't mentioned in the Origins section, even if it's only to discredit it.
:See Scientology_controversy#L._Ron_Hubbard_and_starting_a_religion_for_money AndroidCat 03:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bet Origin 

message: This article states:
"The First Amendment to the United States Constitution forbids the government from officially recognising religious groups as this would be "an establishment of religion."[citation needed]"
This is a misinterpretation of the Constitution...the United States government recognizes religions in order to grant them tax-exempt status, hear cases concerning them in courts, and the like.  The First Amendment does not in any way prevent the U.S. from "recognizing" a religion, and recognition does not in any way constitute "establishment."  This sentence should be struck from the article as patently false (and any school kid in a civics class could tell you that).  Please don't make me break out a huge amount of case law to prove it--just look up cases with the keywords "Peyote" and "Navajo" and see but one example for yourself...
Different governments recognize religions differently. In the USA it was this, while in France it was this.  Italy yet different and in Germany some churches enjoy certain monetary advantages (state supported churches) while others (including Scientology) do not.  But freedom of religion is guarenteed by the German constitution.  The USA government, by its tax exemption, recognizes the Church of Scientology believes it is working toward a betterment of society, that is, is not working toward accumulating wealth, but with a charity of intent.  BTW, new editors can click the "History" tab at the top of a page to see recent edits. Terryeo 03:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interpreting the Constitution 

message: When you compare the Xenu story with the story of the Hyperborean of the Thule Society and the later Viril Society you will see that must have been a sort of Connection. As I heard the founder of Scientology was a personal friend of Alister Crowley. The connection between Crowley and the Thule society was thru some of the early spiritual teachers of Hitler's Munich years, witch where connected to Crowley’s ( Silver Star society , note the initials) and the OTO. Crowley and others may have used the Scientology founder, without his deeper knowledge to refound the Thule Society witch was nothing ells then the ideological core and basis for the SS ( see note before). The inner story of the NS-Leaders believe and the story of the inner believe of Scientology are just variations of the same story and that that is only by chance, together with the direct connection over Crowley, that cant be. 
OK I shortend it to the most importend part.
: Possibly your inputs would be more helpful at the Xenu article.  This article covers the philosophy, its development, activites and a fair bit of ground, whereas your information might be of more interest to the people editing that article. Terryeo 15:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid this page isn't a newsgroup for discussing Scientology. It's a place for editors to discuss changes to the Scientology article. If you want to publish your musings online, you could try MySpace. Thanks. Yandman 15:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Just to clarify, some of the information presented here is incorrect.  Hubbard, the founder of Scientology, was not a personal friend of Aleister Crowley, though he was known to imply otherwise, calling Crowley "my very good friend" during one of the "Philadelphia Doctorate Course" lectures.  He was a personal friend of Jack Parsons, who was one of Crowley's followers -- at least they were friends until he cheated Parsons in a business deal and went off with Parsons' girlfriend (who later became Hubbard's second wife, though he wasn't divorced from his first.)  Crowley knew of Hubbard through Parsons' descriptions, and seems to have perceived Hubbard more accurately than Parsons did, as he wrote of the situation to a deputy "Suspect Ron playing confidence trick, Jack evidently weak fool obvious victim prowling swindlers." -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It it rather an interesting point how some critical to Scientology persons present their idea of Hubbard's work, while Hubbard's words (years later) seem to be present a different point of view.  I recently ran into Hubbard speaking of Winter's book which is cited here and there in the articles (Winter was a medical doctor who got involved in Dianetics).  Terryeo 01:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  XENU Story and its Background 

message: What on Earth are people thinking, to believe in such a prepostorous religion/philosophy/scam to earn money for a random guy.  I mean what type of retarded religion involves ALIENS invading with people- why did they have people in the first place- and they came in aircraft "which can carry billions of people".  Also, if "Xenu" blew up all the people with hydrogen bombs, what did the soles join on to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Damareinu (talk • contribs) 
:I think Yandman said it well above.  You are entitled to your opinion; wikipedia is NOT the place to tell us about it.--Justanother 12:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since this is the article on Scientology, not L Ron Hubbard, what scientologists 'think' he meant is probably more relevant than what he actually meant. But either way anti-Sci POV is just as out of place in the article as pro-Sci POV. Ashmoo 23:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can't agree, except in those instances where Scientologists have publically stated (published sources only), what they "think" Hubbard said.  Actually I can recall any active Scientologist doing that.  But of course there is one or two "former" Scientologist or Dianeticists (who disconnected in various ways) who are completely happy to publish what they "think" Hubbard meant.  In any event, as long as its published, (reliable sources please) why not ? Terryeo 18:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Not true. The only thing that matters is that it is On Topic, verifiable, notable and sourced. Ashmoo 02:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also not true. It's important that it is neutrally presented as well. For example, if I present four collected personal opinions which are against Scientology and two personal opinions which are for Scientology – when many more exist – then I am not making a neutral presentation. — NRen2k5 15:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  People actually believe this?

message: We must add some critizing, some more things happened and there are even references in the web. We must add evil things, cause there are so much positive things, i think. User:82.50.115.12 12:56, 9 October 2006 
Wikipedia is real clear on that.  First everything has to be "published by a reliable source" or it can't be included WP:V.  This is to keep out original research, ideas posted on bulletin boards, blogs, newsgroups, rumors, and such.  Without that, Wikipedia would soon be glutted with all kinds of advertisements and stuff which was not at all encyclopedic.  Its got to be good, reliable, published information.  Well, the Scientology data is something like 40 million words.  But you are hard pressed to find good, reliable publication against it.  And critical stuff is mostly not about aspects of Scientology but more like, "critical to the reputation of Scientology".  I've yet to find a critical, well reasoned, article about Scientology Technology.  Terryeo 09:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You mean "well reasoned" by your own standard and your own opinion, of course. There are dozens of critical, well reasoned, articles about Scientology Technology out there and you've certainly seen them, because you used to routinely delete them as references from articles back before you got banned from editing Scientology articles. wikipediatrix 13:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Getting back to discussion appropriate to talk pages, I mean "well reasoned" as a concensus of editors considers "well reasoned" to mean.  The standards of WP:V and WP:RS are the standards by which I mean "well reasoned". Terryeo 18:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're talking a lot but you aren't saying anything. WP:V and WP:RS have nothing whatsoever to do with sources being "well reasoned". wikipediatrix 18:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Well Reasoned" was your brief manner of addressing what I said. Now you suggest that it doesn't apply?  I do suggest that WP:V and WP:RS apply, in the manner I stated. Terryeo 18:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A little NPOV 

message: The below was added to the controversy section. I wonder if we need to include the foibles of every OT in their personal and business life. SpeedyClick is gone but apparently this pair has a history of engaging in not-illegal spamming.
* OT VIII Scientologists involved in WISE Organization SpeedyClick are significant contributors to world spam volume, according to Spamhaus.
What do we think?--Justanother 03:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no point putting this in. It's just not important enough compared to the rest. It would be like going to Pele's page and putting "in the summer of 1951, he scored a goal in the opening match of his school's 5-a-side tournament". yandman 07:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It lacks a connection between a company's spamming and the founders' membership in Scientology. Neither are notable by themselves, so why does putting them together make them notable for including here and other places? There have been a number of Scientologist spammers over the years, but I don't know if even the Spam Queen (ret) herself is worth mentioning, except on her own page. AndroidCat 11:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Funny, the current CONSERVATIVE government fully protects Scientology. Am I missing something, or is it possible that there's a lot that you are missing? — NRen2k5 15:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, we should tolerate only your beliefs. I see that now.--Justanother 19:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In any case, Wikipedia is not the right place for airing these kind of views. It's not a forum or soapbox, or a site for demolishing Scientology - it's an encyclopedia. Walton monarchist89 13:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  SpeedyClick 

message: I wonder if there is a mechanism to summarize and store in an easily accessed fashion those points that have been discussed and where some agreement has been reached to have something presented in a certain way. Isn't there a tendency by new editors to make pretty much the same changes and change something that have already been hashed out? I am wondering if this will work.
Talk:Scientology/Settled Points|Settled Points: Please see if your proposed edit is on this list before making a change. Otherwise discuss first.
What do you'all think? --Justanother 15:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately), it is the way of Wikipedia that all things in the article are eternally for up for revision, and that nothing is ever truly "settled". In a way, it's good because it means articles can't become locked into stasis just because a group of editors decided on something long ago. On the other hand, it does mean that there's a whole lot of backtracking, repetition, and recapitulation goin' on. wikipediatrix 15:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would make it very clear that any "settled point" can be reopened at any time, all the editor would need do is open a topic on the talk page first. If there is not interest in discussing it he can do what he pleases and take it from there. I don't have as much experience here as you do. Aren't there some issues that just go on and on and on? --Justanother 15:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Wikipediatrix:  "settled points" won't work in the context of Wikipedia.  However, maybe there could be something along the lines of "a note for newcomers" or "Scientology articles FAQ" that reviews some of the predictable questions and long hashed-out debates.  That might short-circuit some of the repetive exchanges--at least it'd give editor's something to point to, rather than having to re-explain things at length.  The danger, of course, is that the FAQ file itself becomes a site of contention. For better or worse, Wikipedia is set up to remain, like a zombie or an accursed ghost, eternally unsettled.  BTfromLA 16:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Of course this sort of situation is not confined to our Scientology Series articles.  The same points are discussed again and again at NPOV, V, and RS.  "Same points" are probably raised in other religions and philisophies.  But, as an article matures, it tends to become better and better referenced (hopefully).  Reminding newcomers about the guidelines we work by (don't removed referenced statements) (supply references for new information), etc should handle situations.  The single element that comes to mind is the category issue, "Pseudoscience", which has popped in and out as a catagorization.  There might be a small handful of points to include in the top of this page's template that would streamline editor discussion. Terryeo 20:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Terry, it looks like it won't fly. No biggie, so long as editors understand what a limited definition modern science is and how religion and the spiritual cannot and should not be classified either scientific or pseudoscientific until the definition of science includes much more than the merely mesurable. --Justanother 20:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The 'Disputed' template at the top of this page gives due warning. New editors who make undiscussed and controversial edits aren't likely to take heed of any extra advice beforehand. --Hartley Patterson 18:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Too true. OK, forget it then. Thanks--Justanother 20:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: How about using a non printing comment embedded in the article? something like <!- NOTE to Editors: this topic has been [link to discussion | debated] and is considered a [link to settled issue page |settled issue] -> just an idea. Slightlyright 07:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Settled points 

message: Is it just me, or is the word 'Scientology' itself a tautology, as well as a Latin-Greek mix? Scientia(Latin) logos(Greek), 'the knowledge of knowledge'. Or have I got the words wrong (I'm not a classical scholar)? Walton monarchist89 10:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a section on the origin of the name in the article. I don't think it's a strict tautology, as the logos ending translates as "the study of/ the discipline of", which is not quite the same thing as science, which refers to any system of knowledge attained by verifiable means. For example, astrology is "the study of the stars". It's definitely a mix, though...yandman 11:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the article, the CoS itself translates the word as 'the study of truth'. I suppose the Greek logos could be translated as 'truth'; it's certainly carried a wide variety of meanings (in the Bible it's translated as Word, as in Word of God). Walton monarchist89 10:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Scien- is the same root word as "Science" and means "knowledge", "truth" or, conceiveably, "wisdom".  -ology is the study of that, for example "Biology, the study of life". Terryeo 01:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Linguistics