Talk:Church of Scientology/Archive 1

message: :The above source is dead and the article obviously has been a smear piece against Miroljub Labus (a pro-Western economist and vice-president of Serbia). Someone was using a faked article in an attempt to destroy his credibility. Unless there is a consensus here that Wikipedia is meant to be a political propaganda tool, I would suggest to take the above out. Misou 17:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, or unless we note instances where Wikipedia has been referenced as a press source even when it isn't to Wikipedia's credit.  Are you suggesting that incidents like the above should be swept under the carpet? -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is no news that Wikipedia is being used as a propaganda tool - or at least that attempts to have been repeatedly reported in the media. I would vote to leave it, as an example. CSI LA 00:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Earlier today, I edited it to clearly indicate what happened while removing the OR that was there. I have no problem leaving it in. --Justanother 01:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Yo, will leave it then as is. Misou 04:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad source link 

message: I would like to know what the leadership structure of the CoS is like.  Is it centralized?
-Northridge, 11:16AM Central, 18 August 2006.
:I would also like to know.
-G
Each individual church has it's own leadership. Aside from that, there are several different command chains for specific functions so that the international Church monitors what goes on. All leadership is required to follow policies on how every detail of the organization should be run that were written by Hubbard over 20 years of using trial and error and writing down what worked.Countesskrak 06:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leadership of Church of Scientology 

message: not sure where you're getting your information on Jesus, but he never denied his parents or siblings.  His brother James and the others may have thought it a little weird to have God's son as a brother... but please show me where denies his family?
His brother James went on to be the head of his followers.  Doesn't sound like he had much of a beef with Jesus to me.
Now Jesus did depart from his mother for much of his ministry, which seems natural.  I left my family when I went to work full time too.
71.98.197.42 20:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Matthew 12:46-50. He clearly considered the church his true family, and blew off his genetic family. See also John 2:1-5, and the rather interesting Luke 14:26-27. Not really germane to this article, of course, but you seemed curious.Ronabop 07:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  information on Jesus 

message: I believe that L Ron Hubbard spent his last days on a ranch near San Luis Obispo, California, between Los Angeles and San Francisco, rather than at the ranch near Hemet.
Please change the article, then.  Wikipedia's motto is be bold when updating articles.  :)
NO.  When your belief is published by a refutable source or when you yourself post a refutable source of that information or when anyone else cites a source of information that states what your belief states, then and only then should such an information become part of this article.  It might well be included in several adjacent Wiki articles as well.  L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology, for example.  But untill an information is a published information (and sources with higher reputation for fact count higher) it is a rumor and should not be included in this article. Terryeo 21:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last days of LRH 

message: I've removed that membership statistics chart for two reasons: First, the reference to "Scientology Inc." is not NPOV.  However accurate that may be, it implies a strong bias towards a point of view that is not widely used by the general public at large, not even among Scientology's most dedicated critics.  Second, the fancy numbers in the chart do project a trend of declining membership, but the chart really doesn't mean anything other than to provide a fancy-looking special effect, to emphasize the statement "Scientology's membership is shrinking."  This is already demonstrated in the article text itself.  The numbers are confusing, and rather than simplifying the text, they complicate it. --Modemac 11:49, 13 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Its cool that the article doesn't have membership statistics, or any statistics.  But it is also pretty obvious that an article on The Catholic Church in France is going to link to the Vatican in some way.  Its primary source. The Church of Scientology is a POV, you might say.  Wikipolicy says Cite sources.  Large, well published things have lots of published information.  Lesser popular things, lesser information has been published.  Backroom sweat shops don't publish.Terryeo 16:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  membership statistics removal 

message: You should be very prudent before asserting things such as:
"By contrast, the governments of Germany, France and Belgium officially regard the Church of Scientology as a dangerous cult."
More appropriately, a parliamentary report listed the Church of Scientology as a sect. Parliamentary reports do not define the official position of the French government.
Just so you know, in French, the word "secte" has the same connotative and denotative meanings as the English word "cult"--a group like "Heaven's Gate" or the Jim Jones followers--while "culte" just refers to different denominations in mainstream religion, like Methodist or Anglican (like the English word "sect." It is the cause of much confusion among freshman French language students.130.160.122.200 14:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know about the situation in France, but the statement is true as far as Germany goes. Scientologists are barred from holding public office there, due to the classification as a dangerous cult. Mkweise 01:35, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Only in one province, Bavaria, is there a prohibition against Scientologists holding office. Vivaldi 08:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Interesting. Following an important cold war decision by the Conseil d'État, the political opinions of a candidate may not be the sole motive for barring them from the French Civil Service. I suspect they'd do the same with religion. Do you have a pointer for this situation in Germany, preferably to a legal text? I fear that merely quoting a press article is insufficient, journalist often bullshit a lot when it comes to legal proceedings. David.Monniaux 07:09, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: German authorities deny Scientology the status of church, it is suspected to be a criminal organisation. See the annual reports of the Office for Protection of the Constitution (Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz/BfV): 2004, PDF, German, page 275 - "Scientology-Organisation (SO)" and 2003, PDF, English, page 248 - "The Scientology Organisation (SO)". Find information on German intelligence services here. --Tickle me 15:34, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but isn't that old stuff from a couple of years ago?  Hasn't the Church of Scientology has been recognized by the German government as a bona fide religion today?  It was like that, I know, almost every religion was banned including Scientology.  . Terryeo 21:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  dangerous cult 

message: Someone please mention the heavy invention of new words and terms by the book dianetics and scientology in general. It rivals "bridge" for the number of technical terms.
:You're after Scientology_beliefs_and_practices#Scientology_language_and_terms_.28Scientologese.29 :-) - David Gerard 17:30, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I want to mention again.  In an introductory article for public assimilation, there is little need for a vast amount of Scientology jargon.  The ideas expressed by particular terms, are, after all, only short ways of pointing to an idea that can be spelled out with a few more words. Terryeo 23:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  new words and terms 

message: Wow, there are a lot of scientologist trolls around here making it seem like the article is biased. Having visited a COS in Coral Gables, FL, I must contend that it is NOT a religion. I spent a long time speaking with several people there, and while it has religious overtones, it is structured like a pyramid scheme. Religions are theologically consistent, while scientology plays more as a position paper, glossing over theological inconsistencies (their belief in reincarnation, for example, is at odds with their all-encompassing attitude and several other beliefs they hold). Sects are offshoots of consistent religions. Scientology is neither. Amicuspublilius 01:27, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Allow me to point you toward a Catholic's opinion who holds a Ph.D. in religion, is often called on by governments, etc. to testify about religion. Warning, this is in .PFD format.Dr. Frank K. Flinn's full opinion
Then, if you don't want just one Doctor of Divinity's opinion whether Scientology is a religion or not, you might look at this link which presents several highly qualified such person's opinions about Scientology, usually they mention its profit motives as well: . However, your opinion is of course yours no matter what any high-falutin' doctor says, huh?  :) Terryeo 21:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, its an "applied religious philiosophy" based on the idea that a person can know things.  How simple can secular floor wax be, huh?  lol. Terryeo 23:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  religion? 

message: The last time this happened, about two months ago, a European newspaper just "happened" to use Wikipedia as a source to "prove" some Easter European official was part of Scientology.  I don't want to see Wikipedia used for smear campaigns like this; therefore, if this starts to happen again, I'm going to temporarily protect the page. --Modemac 09:15, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you Modemac, while there are many high profile people that could be validly added, this was really left field.  Thanks for picking up on it. -- Nuview 14:45, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It could be a problem but why try to keep such a list? Why not use the official scientology site which has the agreement of the members it lists.  Travolta and others have posted their opinions and it prevents this kind of trouble altogether, especially as wiki grows larger.  Here's the official COS celebraties and opinions link:   Terryeo 17:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anonymous IP trying to add unknown names to Scientology member list 

message: The following text looks like it's probably Polish or some other slavic language that uses the roman alphabet.  I'm removing it from the page.  If somebody can translate it and it's verifiable, we can put it back on the main page in English translation.
"Gospodin Vuk Marusic iz odeljenja III4 Gimnazije u Zajecaru je jasno pokazao svoje pretenzije i interesovanja za Jehove svedoke, tako da je izazvan mnogim kako on kaze "besmislicama" o sekti resio da kao odgovor uzme jednu osobu kao zrtvu... tako se sektaske trupe u gradu Zajecaru sire enormnom merom..."
--Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:17, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stray text 

message: The article seems to suggest, but I don't think explicitly states that the CoS is not recognized as a religion by any government other than that of the United States.  Is that so?  I am specifically interested in the Canadian interpretation.
:Here is an official Scn Site which tells how many countries, somewhere in there I saw an actual list of countries but I don't recall whether Canada was included in the official list:  Terryeo 21:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure what their legal status, but they have been convicted in at least two cases; one involving the largest ever libel award in Canadian history and in the other they became the only Canadian religious organisation to be convicted for breaching the public trust.  Check out these wiki articles: Scientology and the legal system, R. v. Church of Scientology of Toronto, andHill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto.  --Csnewton 23:08, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: that was amusing, wasn't it? LOL.  they got on the steps of the city hall or something and did a parody thing. lol. Terryeo 23:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Amusing?? Umm, no. The serious convictions for criminal breach of the public trust were the result of operating a spy ring exactly as in Operation Snow White, and the Canadian Supreme Court, in Hill v. Church of Scientology, used phrases like "the very real and persistent malice of Scientology", "recklessly high-handed, supremely arrogant and contumacious", "there was such insidious, pernicious and persistent malice that the award for punitive damages cannot be said to be excessive" to descibe what you call "a parody thing". AndroidCat 15:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmmm, Terryeo, I think you need to find out who's supplying you with bad information.  When Scientology went into court as a result of having staged a press conference on the steps of a Toronto courthouse and disseminated damaging statements that were untrue and without foundation and which damaged the reputation of an individual, they argued that the law of the land was outdated and should be changed to a different standard under which what they did would not be might not have been found illegal.  At no point did they mention or suggest or intimate that their false and unfounded accusations against Casey Hill and the whole press conference at which they disseminated their lies was "a parody thing". -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

text: In Canada, CoS's application for charity status was denied in 1999, and it is not tax-exempt. I don't think that there is any offical "recognition as a religion" that the government of Canada does or even can do under the Charter. (Note that, in theory, the US government is prevented by the 1st Amendment from declaring something a religon or not. Claims that the US government "recognizes" a religion should be carefully examined to see what is really being said.) AndroidCat 15:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

text: In the UK, charity status was also denied in 1999 (England and Wales), but CoS operates in the UK as an Australian-incorporated charity under a reciprocal agreement. AndroidCat 15:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion outside united states? 

message: I understand that the opening paragraphs in the article are very important and should not be changed on a whim, but there was need in this case.  The following is an explanation of the changes and the reasons for the changes:
#1) I adjusted the last sentence of paragraph #1 because it was confusing, starting with "Scientology has expanded worldwide" -- which seems to imply (to me) that the organization has been expanding in each country that it has been introduced, which is certainly not true.  In recent times Scientology has been declining in some countries and almost completely removed from others.
#2) I rewrote paragraph two because it had incorrect statements of fact.  
a) The original church established in Camden, NJ was never incorporated.  
b) The first Scientology organization was the secular Hubbard Assoc. of Scientologists established in 1952.  
c) The first incorporated church was in Calif. in 1954. 
d) The legal battle over the tax-exempt status of the Church of Scientology began in 1967 and ended in 1993.  
e) I removed the word "religious" from the phrase "religious nonprofit organization".  For one thing, the IRS is not in charge of determining if an organization is a religion -- their only responsibility is to determine the tax-exempt status of an organization.  If we are to accept that the 1993 tax agreement is an endorsement of Scientology as a "religious" organization, then we must also accept that the Leukemia Foundation, American Medical Association, and the Red Cross are religious organizations -- a logical absurdity. 
The tax agreement is officially a confidential agreement between the IRS and the Church of Scientology - so it's absurd to conclude that the agreement makes any claims as the "religious" nature of the church, since nobody here has an "official" copy of the text.
The tax agreement that was leaked to the Wall Street Journal and reportedly is a copy of the "secret agreement" does not indicate in any place that the IRS has made any determination of fact that the Church of Scientology is a "religion" -- the only thing it says is that it meets the requirements of a tax-exempt organization, which include charity groups, religious groups, and groups dedicated to research.  The IRS does not ever specify which type of group they determined CoS to be -- only that they now met the requirements of a tax-exempt group.
I forgot to sign this when I wrote it: -- Vivaldi 06:41, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New changes in opening paragraphs explained 

message: I broke the Church vs. Business section in two. Added the World View of Scientology. Hopefully they will present themselves as two seperate issues. Moved the Israeli social movement against Scn to the World View section. Marbahlarbs 10:03, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes by Marbahlarbs 

message: The Volunteer Mission section lists 9/11, the Southeast Asian tsunami and 7/7/05 London bombings.  I'm wondering if they're helping New Orleans in Katrina's aftermath.--HistoricalPisces 17:40, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hurricane Katrina 

message: I cut the following from the bit on Gold Base on the grounds that it seemed unfocused, overlong, and was not integrated into the article.  There may be some info here worth preserving, though I don't think that building-by-building physical description is appropriate to this article.   BTfromLA 17:29, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sucker is 500 acres. Big place. Terryeo 16:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gold base details 

message: It is gratifying to observe this article return to a state of reasonable objectivity. I will admit that I had begun to dispair of Wikipedia's ability to display authorial integrity on many subjects, but thankfully it appears that there is some cause for hope.
Petrus4 03:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objective 

message: I've added proper main article links to several of the sub-groups. I've also moved most external links and some content from the sub-group sections to the main articles. In the end, I'd like the sections for the sub-groups to be mere summaries, based on the main article introductions. I don't think we should have external links in a summary section for a sub-group of Scientology when the sub-group has a main article. --Davidstrauss 18:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any references to xxxx.net on the page. AndroidCat 17:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sub-group cleanup 

message: This article's lead section needs a serious expansion.  As of right now, all it consists of is one sentence that states the church was founded by L. Ron Hubbard in 1953. --tomf688 (talk) 23:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor lead 

message: I'm having a hard time believing that Obleron just happened to add yet another link to the Michel Snoeck site the day after that site was revised by Michel Snoeck to incorporate new information that I provided Obleron last week. Granted that it's an external link and not a reference, but the whole idea of allowing editors to add links to their own personal appendix material for Wiki pages has to be way over some line. Sure, I'd love to make my own commentary links on pages so I can keep my POV and text just the way I like it and outside the meddling of other ruthless editors and Wiki rules, but I can see where that would lead.
I'm not accusing Obleron of bad faith (overenthusiasm for the truth perhaps), and I certainly don't object to the information or its sources (why would I? :), but I'd be happier if it was moved to a new or existing Wiki page. AndroidCat 11:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's Olberon, not Obleron. If an external link or a reference link is proven to be valid it can be used. If it is invalid it should be proven to be so with proper arguments. That is not with some association about who is who, and who is not who. Therefore there is no Obleron conflict and there is no Olberon conflict. --Olberon 07:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But Giant Floating Head, er, Olberon, if that were all that there was to it, why would you object to other personal web sites? Why not just prove them invalid with proper arguments? AndroidCat 02:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you make the accusation, then state and substantiate your case. --Olberon 12:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obleron conflict 

message: It used to say on the various Scientology related pages on Wiki that L. Ron Hubbard was a 'Science Fiction writer'. Documentation however confirms that no more than about 25% of his fiction legacy could be considered Science Fiction. Someone put a statistic together about it using the Bibliography of William Widder  here. One should though consider that for example the decalogy 'Mission Earth' which consists of 10 large volumes are counted as 10 stories, whereas various of his other fiction could be reasonable short stories. There exist however also some controversy about the actual authorship of the 'Mission Earth' series and even 'Battlefield Earth'. Robert Vaughn Young has claimed in affidavits that he was involved rewriting/writing it. It is confirmed that L. Ron Hubbard has not solely written Science fiction stories, there exist Detective, Western, Romance, Fantasy etc., therefore solely addressing him as a Science Fiction writer would be inappropriate. Some argue that he was mostly known for his Science Fiction, and this is why they think that addressing him as a 'Science Fiction' writer would be correct. They are 2 issues here. This SF label is mostly due to 'Battlefield Earth' and the 'Mission Earth' as it seems, both which received a considerable amount of media coverage. Also these were published at the end of his carreer, and at a time that L. Ron Hubbard had gone into total seclusion. Another point is that L. Ron Hubbard often is associated with Scientology as being Science Fiction, which is just an opinion.
It should also be noted that the 'Fiction of L. Ron Hubbard' bibliography compiled by William Widder (published 1994) only covers the fiction legacy of L. Ron Hubbard, when in fact he has also written and published a variety of non-fiction material as early as the '30's, all prior to Scientology. Various has been published in magazines such as 'The Pilot'. So even addressing him as a 'Fiction writer' would be inaccurate.
It was basically I that changed these entries and simply removed the focusing on 'Science Fiction'. The history of the editing on the various Scientology related Wiki articles will reveal that I had to battle for it. For a few weeks now it appeared stable, and then various start to change to 'Science Fiction' again. Why?
From 'church of Scientology' article edit history:
An attempt to add the word 'Science':
:22:12, 1 June 2006 66.65.192.160 
:06:01, 5 June 2006 Olberon m (remove vandalism by user 66.65.192.160) 
Another attempt by Antaeus Feldspar, he does not indicate that he adds the word 'Science':
:15:40, 6 June 2006 Antaeus Feldspar (revised description; "late" is not needed for everyone who is no longer alive) 
:12:13, 8 June 2006 Olberon (Removed Vandalism by user Antaeus Feldspar, added was the word 'science' foregoing 'fiction writer. This claim defies Widder's bibiliography.) 
(I wrote in error user Vivaldi, corrected)
Wikipediatrix reverts with a generality:
:12:16, 8 June 2006 Wikipediatrix (rv Olberon's latest act of needless disruption over minutia.) 
:12:19, 8 June 2006 Olberon (rv One more attempt to Vandalism and I will file a complaint as such, it's up to you. If you have an argument you forward it.) 
Only 5 minutes later we see another revert with no explanation what is being done (adding the word 'Science'):
:12:24, 8 June 2006 195.26.43.146 
I don't think this ever will be 'safe'! Sock puppets if needed will be used to introduce the word 'Science' again after a while. Why? Simply because some want to make the association 'Scientology' and 'Science Fiction'. If one is unable to stop this kind of Vandalism (and this is what it factually is) I don't think that Wikipedia will have a future. At any time someone (either a fool or a scholar) can jump in and edit and attempt to change anything they want. --Olberon 09:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acts of 'Vandalism', user Antaeus Feldspar, Wikipediatrix and sockpuppets (Hubbard as SF(?) writer) 

message: I don't see what the deal is - the test is clearly rigged and has no relation to Oxford. What is the problem citing that here? We cite the same information on the OCA's entry in wikipedia.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by ScienoSitter (talk • contribs) 
Reverted Tilman's edit based on the following discussions: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:COFS&diff=prev&oldid=137602599#June_2007_My_Mistake
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kukini#Third_OpinionSu-Jada 01:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oxford Capacity Analysis? 

message: We are missing a big thing here - the command structure; Watchdog Committee, CMO, Int Mgmt, FOLO, a ton of stuff. I was editing Mary Sue's article and wanted to link to CMO, which I did find after a false start. I will do something here as I can but if someone else wants to start, please do.--Justanother 22:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some kind of org chart with a lot of boxes and arrows would probably be needed. :) AndroidCat 22:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a ton of stuff packed up; it would be great if I had that glossy "Command Channels of Scientology" publication. --Justanother 05:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing the command structure 

message: I can't fit this reference in the article in its current form, but I will drop it here in case it becomes useful: Spiegel Online (Jan 2007): Berlin Concerned about Huge New Scientology Center: "The [Church of Scientology] has an estimated 6,000 members in Germany, but experts believe the church has only 150-200 members in Berlin." Raymond Hill 21:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Why are you leaving out the other data on membership (same article)? The whole paragraph says "The Church of Scientology was founded in 1954 in the US by science fiction author L. Ron Hubbard. It has around 8 million members worldwide, including several celebrities such as actors John Travolta and Tom Cruise. The organization has an estimated 6,000 members in Germany, but experts believe the church has only 150-200 members in Berlin." I put it in then. Misou 23:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw the interest in this article for the 6,000 members figure it mentions, but I was doubtful it could be used because the source for this figure is not attributed. The 150-200 figure for Berlin is attributed to 'experts', but I doubt we want to provide stats up to city level, unless its Clearwater or Los Angeles. Regarding the 8 million figure, most likely this is from the Church of Scientology spokepersons — they have claimed 8 million to 10 million, we don't need this particular Spiegel article for that. As for the 6,000 members figure, you removed the source, German Office for the Protection of the Constitution, which is much better than an unattributed figure. The only parts left to cite were the IAS numbers. Raymond Hill 01:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: "Most likely" (even though I agree) is dangerous think for such articles. Why not state the source and the statement and leave it up to the reader of the article. WP:RS applies ("Using reliable sources assures the reader that what is being presented meets the Wikipedia standards for verifiability, originality, and neutrality. Accurate citation allows the reader to go to those sources and gives appropriate credit to the author of the work."). Misou 05:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 1) Concerning the 8 million members: Nowhere did I suggest to use "most likely" in the article. I suggested to use a cite in which the figure is unambiguously attributed. I found such a source and put it in the article, and because of that, it is pointless in my opinion to provide another cite which does not provide the source of the figure.2) Concerning the 6,000 members in Germany: You again removed a cite which attribute the source for this figure, namely German Office for the Protection of the Constitution. There again, I disagree with replacing this cite with another which is ambiguous, and which does not provide the source for the figure.Your edit is contrary to your own statement that "accurate citation allows the reader to go to those sources", since the Der Spiegel article does not provide the source for the figures. The Deseret News and German Office for the Protection of the Constitution do. Raymond Hill 06:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How would the German government be a reliable source Status_of_religious_freedom_by_country#Germany Human Rights Germany while WP:RS states that extremist views are not RS  -- Jpierreg 06:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue is not WP:RS here, but rather to have the source attributed if possible. And it is possible. Let's see: both Der Spiegel and Verfassungsschutz offers a figure of 6,000 members in Germany. Now, Der Spiegel doesn't mention where the figure comes from. On the other hand, Verfassungsschutz is identified as the source for the 6,000 figure. Now, why would we pick Der Spiegel as a cite over Verfassungsschutz? That is the point I raised, and it happens that Misou also seems to favor "accurate citation", as per her own statement — although his/her edit contradicts this same statement. Raymond Hill 07:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Reading this twice I can only assume that Raymond Hill disagrees with SPIEGEL being a reliable source. Thanks, Tilman, for adding something constructive. Misou 04:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course I didn't say that, I think I explained my point well enough. Raymond Hill 07:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: "Assume" means that you did not say that so I had to assume. But the German Verfassungsschutz is just the more incomplete source, since they only give one guess, while Tilman found three in one source. I hope you are learning something here. Misou 00:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly, I don't understand the point you are trying to make: Tilman put back the same source (2005 instead of 1998) that you just characterized as 'incomplete', and which you removed twice previously, here and here. The source that you characterize as 'incomplete' happens to provide attributed figures, as opposed to Der Speigel in which the figures are not attributed. If I ask you the source of the figures in Der Spiegel, can you answer me? Answer: no. Der Spiegel doesn't provide them. If I ask you the source of the figures in Verfassungsschutz, can you answer me? Answer: yes. That was my point, which I would think you would agree according to your preference for accuracy as you stated sooner in the discussion. I still think Der Spiegel is best left out as a cite here since it does not provide the source for the figures, we already have good cites that provide sources. (by the way: sarcasms are best left out of discussions on wikipedia, they are in no way helping respectful debates.) Raymond Hill 02:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The Verfassungsschutz is a pretty good source. They have a lot of resources for their work, and they risk being sued if they report wrong data. --Tilman 06:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Membership references 

message: I actually counted 15,418 online scientologists back in January 2007... I guess my count can't be used though, as this would go against WP:OR, unless this fits the "only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable" portion of the policy, but I doubt. Raymond Hill 15:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My last count (January) is 16134. I counted with Xenu's Link Sleuth, then removing all scientology links. Although I did not check whether the links to "personal pages" actually worked, since this would put more load on their server. --Tilman 16:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientologists online 

message: A source is missing for this allegation: The Church says that in 1994, a joint council of Shinto Buddhist (Yu-itsu Shinto) sects in Japan not only extended official recognition of Scientology, but also undertook to train a number of their monks in its beliefs and practices as an adjunct to their own meditations and worship.
I suspect that this is somehow related to Fumio Sawada, a guy who became a "japanese" expert for scientology in the 90ies. (All google searches for his name find scientology related pages). --Tilman 06:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shinto 

message: The last phrase sounds like PR to me...
In the years since its foundation, Flag Base has expanded as the church has gradually purchased large amounts of additional property in the downtown and waterfront Clearwater area. Its relationship with the city government has repeatedly moved between friendly and hostile, but the church has worked with the city in attempts to establish better relations.
... so I tagged it. If it's not verifiable, it should go. SheffieldSteel 19:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tag 

message: Unless I overlooked it, the article does not give any estimated number of CoS members.  I think this would be important information. Thanks. Steve Dufour 15:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Church of Scientology#Membership statistics AndroidCat 17:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks AC.  Sorry I missed it.  Could something be said in the opening section?  I think this is important information to give people an idea of how important the CoS really is.  Thanks. Steve Dufour 18:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a sentence based on the data given in that section.  To me it seems like the kind of basic information that should be given. I'm not too happy about the wording of my sentence, that could be improved. Steve Dufour 02:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed that sentence as it's wildly inappropriate to select a figure (at random?  I sure can't see how you picked that one) out of so many differing figures and present it in the lead uncited with the weasel worded "outside estimates".  Of course, I can see how someone who had a particular desire to portray Scientologists as "a small group to begin with" would have an interest in selecting one of the smallest estimates they could find. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True.  I think that the importance of Scientology has been greatly exagerated by both its members and its critics.  However it seems to me that any article about a group of people should give some information about the number of its members.  In the article's section: Church of Scientology#Membership statistics the estimates which were connected with reality, for instance the phone survey, suggest about 50,000 American members. In fact all the "statistics from other sources" seem to be in agreement on a number of around 50,000 in the USA and 2,000 to 6,000 in each of the other major English speaking countries and in Germany.  I don't see where a number higher than 100,000 total could come from. Steve Dufour 20:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with some of your points, and disagree with others.  (I also thank you for finding that citation regarding the US Census Bureau not asking about religion, BTW.)  "... it seems to me that any article about a group of people should give some information about the number of its members."  Yes, it should, and in this case it does -- it gives the information that there are many different accounts given by many different sources about how large the number is.  If we were to put anything specifically in the introduction about the numbers, it would have to be simply the fact that there are no agreed-upon figures. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will go ahead and say that, if you haven't already. Steve Dufour 01:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many members? 

message: To me the word "brutally" more describes something like the Nazis or maybe slavery in United States history.  I don't think that the average CoS member is really treated "brutally" and putting such a strong opinion at the start of the article is a distraction to the readers. Steve Dufour 15:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely.WP:WTA lists similar guidelines. Antonrojo 14:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Brutally" 

message: The article mixes up the European Union and the European Convention on Human Rights. The convention pre-dates the EU and is distinct from it, despite there being a large overlap of members in each. There are certainly not 46 EU states, as the article suggests.
: Yes, this should be CoE States (Council of Europe States). The EU has 25 member states. CSI LA 23:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent European Convention on Human Rights decision 

message: I am going to take this part out 
:In a legal case involving a married couple attempting to obtain the same deduction for charity to a Jewish school, it was stated by Judge Silverman Judge Barry Silverman SKLAR; MARLA SKLAR v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL No. 00-70753 (PDF format) United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Argued and Submitted September 7, 2001, Pasadena, California, Filed January 29, 2002"An IRS closing agreement cannot overrule Congress and the Supreme Court.
If the IRS does, in fact, give preferential treatment to members of the Church of Scientology—allowing them a special right to claim deductions that are contrary to law and rightly disallowed to everybody else—then the proper course of action is a lawsuit to put a stop to that policy."To date, such a suit is not known to have been filed."
unless someone can tell me what this has to do with the Church of Scientology or why this would be in any way relevant. I am sure that the list of "never filed cases" against Scientology is long. CSI LA 23:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Grounds for removal are very weak I will reinstate unless anyone objects. This is information relevant and fully referenced to Scientology so why remove it? Chrisp7 12:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looking again at the user profile he has been blocked for posting pro Scientology bias Chrisp7 12:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sklar case 

message: No such thing as a "Shinto Monk" this unsourced section should be removed--Caligvla 02:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed it to Pending Rewrite refer to discussion for details but it'll be reverted even though its been shown to contain a large number of innaccuracies and such 68.9.223.94 17:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: *Is this going to be re-written? It's been 4 days since that was added, so I'd be proposing it be restored or removed entirely (if that's what consensus is; I know nothing of the subject matter so I can't comment) if nothing is going to be done re: a rewrite. Beeawwb 04:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  They never got a consensus on if the references were bad or made up and if it should be considered valid so I dunno what they should do 68.9.223.94 22:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  East Asia 

message: There seems to have been a mass deletion of the entire "history and contreversy" section as well as the entire listing of locations that was present in this article.  This appears to be vandalism.  (RookZERO 19:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. I think you have done a good job of restoring the removed bits. --Justanother 22:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any idea who did it? Foobaz·o< 19:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MASS DELETION 

message: :Image:Scientologycross.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 21:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale for Image:Scientologycross.jpg 

message: The claim that Hubbard wrote non-fiction has two "citations."  One links to an ebook (with no specified page or passage that is relavent to the claim.... ideally, the page on which the statement is supported (if any) should be the one cited, rather than the whole ebook).  The other links to a newspaper article published by LRH which also makes no referance to him being a nonfiction writer or for that matter having anything to do with the article.  (RookZERO 00:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  unrelated citations 

message: According to Derek H. Davis (Freedom Magazine human rights award winner), scientology has 15 million members. The source is: Religionsfreiheit und Konformismus. Über Minderheiten und die Macht der Mehrheit, Lit. Verlag, Münster, 2004, , page 113. --Tilman 20:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  15 million members 

message: In viewing this document, I noticed that the introduction does not seem objective, as it moves too quickly into controversies.  Moreover, the first subsection is titled "History and Controversies" rather than "History" as one section and "Controversies" as a separate, later section.
Compare that to the articles on the "Unification Church" (known to some as the "Moonies") or the Roman Catholic Church, each of which have their own controversies, and that should obviate the need for a rewrite/restructuring.
As a staff member at a Church of Scientology, I think it is okay for people to express their positive and negative feelings about any subject, including Scientology.
However, I think that the flow of this particular article and its almost immediate reference to controversies is not fair.  It does not blend with what is being said about other churches in other articles, and therefore, it is less valid as an educational tool.
Most certainly, there will be those among you who disagree.  That's fine.  But I will not ignore something that I feel is an injustice, as this feels to me.
To give an analagous example:  Imagine you submitted an essay to a teacher and received a response that said, "This paper was a pathetic waste of words" and in the marginal footnotes on page three there was a comment that said, "Oooh.  I like this sentence."  The positive comment lacks weight when the negative smacks so quickly.  
That isn't to say that the whole of this article is absolutely negative, but consider:  It's not just what you say, but the order in which you say it which would guide someone's thinking.
Let's be fair, please.  How about the key authors collaborating on a rewrite?
:Mr. Staffmember, please sign your contribs. I like your idea somewhat. Too vague though. How about an outline? Misou 04:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction and Contents Rewrite/Reorder Suggested 

message: ..why it is ok to claim that a ref says something which is not in the ref. Misou 04:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please specificy exactly which ref you're referring to. John Carter 17:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RZ, please tell me 

message: How does this symbol relate to the church of scientology? It seems to be the icon they using more and more in promotional material. How does it serve to signify the church? What is its history? It looks exactly like Crowley's cross. Is that a coincidence? When was it first deployed?  Wikipedia has done an impressive job of accounting for changes in  how the promotional identity of this corporation has conducted itself, is there any significance to the blackout regarding why they're going with a cross now?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.171.0 (talk) 22:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you talking about? The 8-pointed Scientology Cross  has been a commonly used Scientology symbol since 1955 or so. What "blackout"? wikipediatrix 23:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iconography (ie scientology cross) 

message: How do people feel about the inclusion of material referencing http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/scientologists-charged-with-extortion/2007/09/05/1188783277713.html in the history and controversy section? Alans1977 06:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be put in there due to the fact that it possibly will be named a "criminal organization" in the nation, and here is another source on the subject. --Kranar drogin 11:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Stuff like this goes on every day in the world of Scientology. If we listed all these types of incidents, they'd overtake the article. The matter is already amply covered in its proper place at Scientology as a state-recognized religion and Scientology in Belgium. wikipediatrix 14:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Belgium charges Scientologists with extortion 

message: "Hubbard has written more non-fiction than fiction". Almost all of that was Dianetics or Scientology materials (or HCOBs?). Wouldn't most of that count as self-published? AndroidCat 03:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure what your question is. Hubbard wrote more non-fiction than fiction. Isn't that simple enough? The "pulp fiction" classification which is continuously (re-)added by editors otherwise known to push anti-Scientology viewpoints has only the purpose to create the impression as if Hubbard's non-fiction is actually also pulp fiction. The intent is clearly to slant the article right from the beginning. Shutterbug 04:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How on earth could Dianetics or Scientology materials be classified as non-fiction? They clearly are not. Just as the Christian bible, while containing some parts that are based on reality, is not non-fiction. Alans1977 19:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

text: As a non-scientologist, i knew L. Ron Hubbard as a pulp fiction author long before i knew of him as a religious leader. There's nothing wrong with that, i love pulp fiction. This career obviously influenced Scientology, as the dogma borrows themes from fiction of the era. There's nothing wrong with that either; it may be more relevant to modern life than careers of ancient prophets. I'm not sure if his previous occupation is relevant to this article, but it's certainly not meant as an insult to Hubbard. Foobaz·o< 20:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pulp fiction 

message: I was just down at the Hollywood and Highland complex (Hollywood Blvd, CA) and got a picture of the scientology center. Would this be helpful to add? It's a decent picture. I did not walk far enough down to get a pic of the L. Ron Hubbard Library though (there were scary bums there and I was by myself). How do I add the picture? I've never done this before Shinku Hisaki 01:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are still in L.A.? Go to Sunset/L. Ron Hubbard Way and shoot there. At least a Church of Scientology there (or four of them on one spot). How upload works? Look on the left column, below the Wikipedia Ball. Lower, lower, see it? "Upload file". There you go. Misou 05:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo? 

message: I'm hoping to head off a revert war here, too. The subject is Lermanet references. As has been previously discussed (I'll find diffs when I can), documents hosted on Lerma's website aren't necessarily ideal references. But are they always unusable? Here's the situation:
* Makoshack removed a reference to Lermanet here, with "link to private site" listed as the reason for the removal.
* Foobaz added it back here, with "private sites not prohibited by WP:EL" as the reason.
* Misou -- who I should note still maintains a personal website at http://misou.awardspace.us that hosts various referenced documents -- responded with another revert here, with "Undid revision 163186719. Stop ignoring the rules, tks. WP:EL does not apply for REFERENCES" as the reason.
Now then... I've read WP:EL, and it doesn't preclude personal sites for external links, as Foobaz says, but WP:RS recommends against them for use with citations, with this exception: 
So this boils down to two questions:
# Is Lerma an "established expert" on this topic?
# Are there other, better sources for the same documents he hosts?
I'm in favor of removing all Lermanet citations if possible, but not before replacing them with better sources for the cited documents. --GoodDamon 23:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lerma is a disgruntled ex-member who is running a private site. The document here is a newspaper article. I could not find it online but I also have never seen a Wikipedia policy requiring references to be online. It might increase the verifiability of the mentioned source but is not a must. On the other hand "courtesy" hosting of material on private sites is not in alignment with WP:RS as you correctly point out. This would open the door to forgery, "accidentally" missing sections, biased translations and the like. As for Misou's site or also the incorporation documents on this website: These are scans and should be uploaded to Wikipedia, if possible per copyright regulations (I think they can be uploaded due to the non-profit nature of the Wikipedia project). Makoshack 01:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Next topic: Lermanet 

message: It was claimed in an edit summary that i was ignoring rules by restoring this link in a reference. Is this true? What rule? Foobaz·o< 00:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have removed it again as well. Follow the discussion above for answer. Makoshack 01:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contentious link 

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

message: The Der Spiegel article doesn't cite its source, but it's obvious that it came from the Church of Scientology and the writer didn't add the usual "claimed" qualifier. I think that unless an article goes into detail about the number and source, these text macros shouldn't be accepted as RS, otherwise Scientology was definitely founded by "Science-Fiction author L. Ron Hubbard." AndroidCat 04:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Der Spiegel source for 8 million claim 

message: The list of very non-major orgs keeps growing in Church of Scientology#Churches, missions and major Scientology centers. Is there a need to list each one? If so, the AFD'd List of Scientology organizations could be recreated. AndroidCat (talk) 03:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've noticed that anything on Wikipedia in a list format grows ad infinitum. Perhaps if the list of orgs was rewritten in prose instead of a list format, it wouldn't keep growing. Foobaz·o< 04:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Growing list of Orgs 

message: *
*
*
----
This source info should be mentioned in the article.  Cirt 10:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Germany Seeks to Ban Scientology 

message: I just undid some vandalism.  Someone added in a sentence of offensive obscenities in the article.  Is this article vandalized often?  When you undo something, does it automatically sent a message to the wikipedia moderators who look over offensive things, and ban the person making them?  Or does it record the IP address and if someone gets their additions undone a few times, then they look into it?  Any ideas? Dream Focus (talk) 14:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: I think a brief section explaining exactly what the beliefs of the Church of Scientology are.  It can reference the main article "Scientology", but I think an article on a church is incomplete without what its beliefs.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.61.70.97 (talk) 07:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  What kind of article wouldn't include that?  I just checked the articles for the Roman Catholic religion and for the religion of Islam and both of those articles clearly define the beliefs of those religions. Dream Focus (talk) 00:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe we already have an article about Scientology beliefs and practices.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by GoodDamon (talk • contribs) 02:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beliefs 

message: Does anyone have a translation of this PDF? It's being claimed as a reference for a court finding (and is the current topic of editing by Shutterbug and Wispanow), but I don't speak German and Google is failing me. --GoodDamon 22:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that www.menschenrechtsbuero.de is a site of the Church of Scientology, the document copyright is Scientology Kirche Deutschland. That's a WP:RS only for what the Church of Scientology says, not for the German courts. Find a neutral secondary source for a reference. AndroidCat (talk) 15:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a church-owned site? I wasn't aware of that (hence the "I don't speak German" comment). Thanks. --GoodDamon 17:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Damon, are you having technical problem with the translation? If so, stick this long URL in Babel Fish. Doing that, it looks like the document itself is a summary prepared by the Church. Council of Europe Human Rights rulings are available in English here and here is a search of the site. --JustaHulk (talk) 16:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, but I tried Babel Fish and it came out really difficult to understand. In any event, we shouldn't be using this site at all, since it's Church-owned. --GoodDamon 18:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Shutterbug should reference the case itself, not a Church summation. --JustaHulk (talk) 18:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  German Federal Labor court judgment 

message: Why does the article not mention that the church is, for all intents and purposes a pyramid scheme type organization? It's not meant to be flammatory. It's a matter of definition. This isn't putting down the faith, it's just an accurate description of the Church itself as a business. I think correct terminology is required to better describe what the Church of Scientology is.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.214.205.150 (talk) 13:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pyramid Scheme 

message: we should place that on here :) it is of important encyclopediac value
130.220.153.173 (talk) 10:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  the hacking incident 

message: So I'm thinking (unless there are major objections) Of adding an actual section to the article that links to the controversy page because it is a little tricky to find right now. Any thoughts?--St.daniel Talk 20:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would agree, but I believe this page is being actively monitored by NPOV pro Scientology editors, if you check the history pages you'll see any information critical or controversial about the organization is either deleted or minimized rather quickly. This is an important cross roads for the Wiki community I think. So I'd encourage an edit specifically making mention of the momentous events of the past week involving the CoS but I doubt it will be allowed to remain. If nothing else it will remain in the edit history so at some future date a truly unbiased editor/s can put it in context.--Ason Abdullah (talk) 23:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you check the history, you'll also find a lot of neutral editors doing their best with a controversial topic. Feel free to add to the article. Be bold. If your addition is objective, neutral-POV content and well-sourced, then the majority of editors will make sure it stays... and for the most part, that includes the ones who are themselves Scientologists. --GoodDamon 00:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sanitization of this article by the forces of the Church of Scientology is unacceptable. If we need to deal with disruptive scientology editors, we have a process for it, and we should get rid of them if they're causing problems and censoring articles. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text:  Someone's clearly scared.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.149.229.78 (talk) 16:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: Generally when placing tags in an article, it's helpful to start a discussion about why the tag was placed. I didn't place any of them, so I can't give advice about them all. However we should work to identify and fix the issues cited in them. Anynobody 02:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tags 

message: I agree that too much use is made of CoS sources, and probably too much authority too. Indeed some Church sources need to be cited but it should be made clear that the Church's information by using descriptions which include qualifiactions like "the Church says" or "Church sources say" Anynobody 02:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|self-published}}/{{tl|primarysources}} 

message: ??? Anynobody 02:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|original research}} 

message: This tag is being addressed, per the above threads. I think it can be removed when several more of the identified sources have been worked in. Anynobody 02:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|refimprove}} 

message: I understand this one, the lead is very small given this article's size. Since the article is going through an update with new information being added, I'd propose sorting this out last. Anynobody 02:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: {{tl|expandlead}}

message: *
This source should be incorporated into the article.  Cirt (talk) 14:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the material is certainly relevant. The question that arises is how much material should be added before the ruling, whatever it is, is handed down. The ruling would definitely be very significant, particularly if it goes against the Scientology tax break. Unfortunately, until then I think there is a question regarding how much weight to give the subject, which I unfortunately can't answer myself. John Carter (talk) 14:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's there now. Someone else posted it, but I simplified the language and removed an excessive blockquote. --GoodDamon 16:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Judges Press IRS on Church Tax Break 

message: There are multiple reliable, verifiable sources which discuss the CoS that are being ignored:
TIME magazine has articles going back to 1952...
*The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power 1991
*Mystery of the Vanished Ruler 1983
*A Sci-Fi Faith  1976
*Victory for the Scientologists 1969
*Meddling with Minds 1968
*Remember Venus? 1952
The Washington Post has several articles too, one defending the CoS as weird but not a cult...
*Weird, Sure. A Cult, No. 2007
*Testing Openness to Scientology 2005
The Los Angeles Times has quite a few articles as well...
*Burglaries and Lies Paved a Path to Prison 1990
*The Man in Control 1990
The fact is that many people think of it as a cult while others don't, and that should be discussed. A more detailed discussion should also should be made of its history, including stuff like Snow White. (Obviously Scientologists don't think of themselves as being in a cult or that the church broke the law but we are supposed to be more concerned about the facts and not preferences.) Anynobody 04:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See comment in the above subsection by . Cirt (talk) 17:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Were any of the above WP:V/WP:RS secondary sources ever previously in the article, and later removed by someone, or have they just never been added to the article before?  Cirt (talk) 17:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ignored sources/issues 

message: Since we have articles dedicated to these "actions", let's try to keep the sections here brief in accordance with summary style rules. Anynobody 04:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Snow White/Freakout

message: Any suggestions on naming a section for deceased members documented in sources, such as Lisa McPherson, Noah Lottick(sp?), Elli Perkins, etc.? I know it may be tempting to call them "victims", it would probably be better to try finding another term. Anynobody 04:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Dead people

message: Several countries in Europe have said the organization is organized crime, Germany is attempting to (or has) banned it, and IIRC some other country (Belgium?) is currently in the process of preparing to prosecute members of the Church for this reason. Seems like it'd be worth mentioning; I didn't notice any mention of it. Not sure if the intro is the best place, but given that it has been described as such by actual governments, I think it is relevant. Titanium Dragon (talk) 04:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted your recent edits. Sorry, but neither did Germany bann Scientology nor attempted to do so(according to your source). It may be worth mentioning that several governing bodies in europe are very critical toward this organisation but it is not appropriate to insert a grossly inaccurate conclusion based on OR.  -- Stan  talk 04:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Seems like it'd be worth mentioning; I didn't notice any mention of it. its mentioned and detailed  in this section. -- Stan  talk 04:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean banned period or banned as a religion? Anynobody 05:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this question for me or Titanium Dragon? What do you mean with "banned as a religion"?  Right now, neither the organisation nor the "religion" is banned in Germany or Belgium. The organisation(CoS) is monitored closely in Germany and some politicians want to ban it due to several reasons(since a decade). "Scientology as a religion" seems to be off topic anyway since only the organisation(CoS) would be affected due to possible sanctions from Belgium or Germany. The Free Zone for example is not even monitored by state authorities. -- Stan  talk 06:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

text: It was for Titanium Dragon, I was wondering if he/she was talking about its status as a religion being banned. Anynobody 01:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Banning from countries 

message: I just wanted to point out for Shutterbug that the Hemet compound does have razor wire, as corroborated by the LA Weekly in this story, among others. Heck, there are plenty of pictures available showing the compound, and the razor wire is clearly there. This took about a minute to find, even including discarding reports from known anti-Scientology websites.
Please be more careful in the future before deleting information that you could easily verify in a couple of clicks. --GoodDamon 02:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits to Gold Base section 

message: Under the Government Opinion - Australia section, this phrase appears:
The unanimous opinion of that Court was that Scientology is a religion.
The cited source is http://www.austlii.edu.au//cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/HCA/1983/40.html?query=Church%20of%20the%20New%20Faith%20v%20Commissioner%20of%20Pay-Roll
This document states (Section 5):
The question whether Scientology is a religion cannot be answered, for there seem to be important, perhaps critically important, tenets of Scientology which the parties left without full examination. The question which can be answered is whether the beliefs, practices and observances which were established by the affidavits and oral evidence as the set of beliefs, practices and observances accepted by Scientologists are properly to be described as a religion.
The "unanimous decision" wording clearly needs to be rephrased to indicate that the decision was based on information withheld by the relevant parties. 59.101.139.51 (talk) 12:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Government Opinion: Australia - wording 

message: ;Good source, should be added to article
*
A very interesting development, indeed.  Cirt (talk) 21:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kids against Scientology 

message: #
#
*Relevant link to Wikileaks
:A place to list more sources re: this new development as they become known.  Cirt (talk) 22:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikileaks Airs Scientology Black Ops 

message: *
This will be the university's first satellite campus on a satellite. It will be completely funded by the Church of Scientology, NYU spokesman John Beckman said in a joint news conference with actor Tom Cruise.
The "NYU L. Ron Hubbard Center for the Study of the Universe" will be able to host nearly 200 former SPs each semester, with potential for expansion in the future.
Sounds like an ambitious project.  Cirt (talk) 09:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it sounds like an April Fools joke to me. (A funny one too because for two seconds I believed the CoS might just try something so stupid, but not for SPs :) Then I remembered, space travel is REALLY expensive, but even more expensive is maintaining people in orbit since they need food/water/new underwear requiring additional pricey launches. No way the CoS is that rich, we're talking like tens of billions of dollars to make something like that work. Anynobody 07:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it was most likely a joke by Washington Square News for April 1, 2008.  Cirt (talk) 08:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

text: One aspect that threw me a bit though was affiliation with NYU, have the two (CoS and NYU) done stuff together before or is this just campus rivalry? Anynobody 01:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NYU cruises to the moon! 

message: The photo of the Scientology Centre on Tottenham Court Road is out of date. The centre has since been refurbished and the front of it looks rather different - red sign rather than blue and a glassier doorway.
:So take a new one :)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.226.170.33 (talk) 12:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tottenham Court Road photo 

message: "Member's health and safety" should be "Members' health and safety"
:I fixed this. Foobaz·o< 13:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar 

message: That they have been/are involved in past/present criminal activities should be noted in the introduction, but more importantly, the criminal activities the organization has been involved in should be their own section. Operation Snow White, Operation Freakout, ect. should all be included. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Criminal Activity Subsection

message: Although I understand that the Church of Scientology is looked down upon by some, the neutrality of this article must be maintained. In most Wikipedia articles, the section titled "Controversy" is generally last. However, here it is first, possibly making a reader think differently. That's just my opinion. 98.207.50.162 (talk) 07:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: While I would tend to agree, part of the notability of the organization is its long history of criminal activities and human rights violations, as well as its nature as a money-making scheme. I am unsure how to reconcile the two; while it is true that controversy sections typically are put at the end of articles, it is also true that the most notable thing ABOUT the organization is the controversy which constantly surrounds it. Titanium Dragon (talk) 19:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality of Article

message: :Potential source to use in this article, the building searched was the Narconon Center of Promoting Healthy Lifestyle, in Dimitrovgrad.  Cirt (talk) 11:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ulyanovsk police search local branch office of Church of Scientology 

message: I don't think he's a great fit under 'see also' - but maybe others do? - I've taken him out for now.... Privatemusings (talk) 00:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I could've sworn there was a section discussing the Church's effort to court actors and such. Since they do, and there wasn't a section before, I started one and reintroduced Mr. Cruise. I've seen quite a bit of discussion about Cruise and Scientology relating to this aspect of their recruiting practices so I'm assuming other editors will be able to fill out the new subsection.  Anynobody 02:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Tom Cruise]] 

message: *
:Good source for discussion of primary source documents, "contract".  Cirt (talk) 19:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  So you want to be a scientologist - [[Slate Magazine]] 

message: Well I'm new to this section, just happened to stumble across it from some other linked page. Anyways, what alarms is that it seems to be a bit biased in that the controversy section has been moved to the very top of the article. I'm far from a  fan of scientology, but under the current ordering - it seems extremely biased to bash or criticize the wiki topic before even explaining it. The current ordering is a brief  3-4 paragraph history, followed by the criticism section, I commend the length of the criticism section - as in other cult-like cases (see sai-baba wiki) the criticism section has been cut up and removed by much of its followers. Anyways, I think someone capable of reordering the article should move the controversy section down a bit, it should be #6 or 7 above Legal Waivers IMO. My rationale behind this is that the wiki topic should be explained before showing the criticism behind it, regardless of whatever the topic is. JayAlto (talk) 09:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with this. It probably doesn't need to move all the way to the bottom, but at least a couple of sections setting out the group and its activities would be a better introduction to the article. --12.47.123.121 (talk) 23:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Scientology pages on Wikipedia are the result of a massive effort to discredit it. Don't bother. 90.128.44.163 (talk) 15:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable Ordering 

message: Having Co$ redirect here (and thus placing it at the very top of the article) is way, way over the top. 90.128.44.163 (talk) 15:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How so? It's a commonly used acronym (on the internet at least) for scientology. Articles such as Square Co. and Bbc.co.uk, the top results when searching for Co$ (or just co), isn't exactly relevant. What do you mean with "thus placing it at the very top of the article"? --Execvator (talk) 01:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Redirected from Co$" is at the top of the article when linked like this: Church of Scientology. My mistake. It's not such a big deal, otherwise. Do you think this is nit-picking? 90.134.51.3 (talk) 19:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Co$ 

message: I want to know more about the inner circle at the top of the CoS. Does the evidence suggest they're firm believers, or is there evidence that they know the whole thing is a scam? People pour money into the CoS. Where does that money go? Who's getting rich? Who's the CEO? Did these people rise up through the ranks (which would be evidence that they're believers) or did they skip the typical initiation phase? 
:For information related to leadership of the organization, you may wish to see articles David Miscavige and Religious Technology Center.  Cirt (talk) 00:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who's at the top? 

message: Why isn't there a Chanology section? It's done massive impact in the past 6 months, and serious business.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.183.106.150 (talk) 20:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is already a Project Chanology article. This article is about the Church of Scientology, not about its critics, however large a group that might be. There's a "See Also" link to Project Chanology, and I could see a mention of it going into the Controversy section, but I don't think it needs its own entire section here. --GoodDamon 19:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The majority of this article is about its critics. 90.135.48.133 (talk) 21:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the majority of this article is about the various church and church-affiliated organizations, with critical content on much of it. It is not "about [the church's] critics." There is a difference. Critical content contrasts what critics say about the church. If the article were about the critics, we'd get to read all about xenu.net and Mark Bunker here. It's not about them. --GoodDamon 21:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I was making the mistake of including the References section. The Controversy and Government opinion of Scientology sections comprise somewhat less than 50% of body the article, which makes information about Scientology's critics in the minority. The rest is, as you said, primarily critical content about Scientology, not information about its critics. 90.135.239.234 (talk) 22:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chanology section 

message: I removed the cult category. Given what it says on the cult category page ("This category includes topics related to cults. It does not include groups themselves"), it was clearly inappropriate. Skoojal (talk) 06:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed cult category 

message: The Der Spiegel article doesn't cite its source, but it's obvious that it came from the Church of Scientology and the writer didn't add the usual "claimed" qualifier. I think that unless an article goes into detail about the number and source for it, these text macros shouldn't be accepted as RS, otherwise Scientology was definitely founded by "Science-Fiction author L. Ron Hubbard."
Previously mentioned: Talk:Church_of_Scientology/Archive_1#Der_Spiegel_source_for_8_million_claim AndroidCat (talk) 12:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Der Spiegel source for 8 million claim 

message: *
Good source of material on financial info about the organization. Cirt (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientology's Money Trail 

message: *
:Relevant source of info for this article. Cirt (talk) 16:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hubbard Center closed up in Samara 

message: FYI there is a thread on the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard, which is currently open here: Wikipedia:AE#Scientology_and_related_articles. Cirt (talk) 13:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitration Enforcement thread 

message: Please see the topic for discussion at Talk:Scientology#Meta-issue: Court documents and reliable sourcing. Thank you. --Justallofthem (talk) 23:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meta-issue: Court documents and reliable sourcing 

message: In this diff, the headquarters was changed from Gold Base ("informal name of the international headquarters") to Church of Scientology International ("mother church").  Has the official headquarters moved recently?  Was Gold Base ever the official headquarters?  How do we decide which is the "headquarters"? John Vandenberg (chat) 01:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Golden Era Productions ("Gold") is the Audio/Video branch of the Church of Scientology. "Headquarters" would be "a place from which a commander performs the functions of command" or "the administrative center of an organization" (Websters). The Church of Scientology International in Los Angeles is the administrative center of the Church of Scientology. Sources: Scientology Today, St. Petersburg Times, Scientology.org . Proximodiz (talk) 19:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  headquarters 

message: This sentence strangely sticks out: "The church has been the subject of much controversy and was convicted in 1979 of illegal activities, including the largest theft of government documents in U.S. history.[7][8]". It is not true (not the Church but several of its members were convicted), not backed up by the references given and even it it were true it seems to me that undue weight is given to a single conviction about 30 years ago, especially in view of many other things the Church of Scientology did between 1954 and 2008 not only in the United States (where the conviction took place) but in more than 100 other countries in the world. Additionally, the same story is mentioned in the article twice, one time indirectly under the heading "Illegal activities" (first item) and then again under "Government opinion of Scientology/United States" (likewise). I propose to remove the sentence for the above reasons. Proximodiz (talk) 04:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. We could also mention Canada where it was convicted, Greece... Things mentioned in the introduction must be covered in detail later on, so of course it's mentioned twice. AndroidCat (talk) 05:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that issues raised in the introduction must be covered later in the article. But the issue here is the opposite. Not all incidents and issues covered in the article have to be covered in the introduction. Especially if that would give them undue weight. Does anyone oppose the removal of the sentence as covered above? Proximodiz (talk) 19:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There seems to be the opposite problem in the article.  The lead is far too short, and should briefly mention some of top areas of controversy.  Currently, the lead is deficient, in only mentioning one.  --Rob (talk) 08:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

text: If one cofounder is convicted of a major felony in service to the church, and the other cofounder is listed as an unindicted conspirator in the same major felony that was carried out in the interests of the church (these people didn't just invade fed. buildings for their own gain, they did it for the church and that's very clear) then the church is clearly notable for having done something so massive and egregious. Also, I would say that the CoS is very notable for being part of the largest incursion into the USFG in history-it should be mentioned several times. The fact that the CoS has done a lot of other things doesn't mean that this incident SHOULDN'T be mentioned, it only means that other things should be mentioned IN ADDITION TO this major event. On another hand, it bears noting that NOT including this event and placing the appropriate (read, a lot) emphasis on the fact that this is an aggressive and law breaking organization slaps of POV in favor of the CoS. Wikipedia is not a free advertising service, if the Catholic church was supporting similar policies of aggression, law breaking, and often times violence wikipedia would place significant emphasis on that, to do otherwise is negligent.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiyae (talk • contribs) 12:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  introduction to the article 

message: Green Squares (talk) 02:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikinews 

message: Neutrality disputed. Please see tags and other articles. Wispanow (talk) 08:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The above comment is not particularly useful. Please provide clearer evidence regarding your own statements. Your own statement above is far from being clear as to what it is that is being disputed. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 17:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Germany 

message: this page is evil and speaks untruths that are vile and aginst god.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.7.243.254 (talk) 20:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want it deleted, you can nominate it, but you'd better have a better reason for doing that other than you don't like it. - Raziel  teatime  22:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  delete Church of Scientology info. 

message: A section on beliefs of the religion should be included, I am without sufficient knowledge to write such a section.
Anti dan (talk) 21:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe you can find the religion's belief system more thoroughly discussed on the Scientology page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.130.223 (talk) 19:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

text: I came to this talkpage to discuss the same issue.  While I realize the belief system is detailed in the Scientology article, I still believe it is appropriate to include a WP:SUMMARY style section in this article.  I should think this should belong between the history and controversy sections. -Verdatum (talk) 14:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beliefs 

message: The controversy section (by nature of it using ) is supposed to be a WP:SUMMARY of Scientology controversies. Now, I'm only just starting to look at the section in detail, but it appears to be overly detailed for a summary style section.  This leads to redundant information which must/should tediously be kept in sync.  I also believe such a large controversy section contained within the main body (as opposed to a spinout), unbalances the article and skews POV.
I realize there is a subtle difference between "Scientology controversies" and "Church of Scientology controversies".  Keeping that in mind, I'd like to reduce the section to better represent summary style. -Verdatum (talk) 15:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It already looks like the controversy section does use summary style. Cirt (talk) 19:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's out of sync with the sub-sections covered by the sub-article, and it goes into specific details and supporting statements, as opposed to an inverse pyramid overview.  Size wise, (by bytecount) it's over 25% as long as the main article, which I consider pretty long for a summary. -Verdatum (talk) 20:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The key would be to expand other parts of the article, not trim the sourced info. Cirt (talk) 20:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I never proposed removing sourced information altogether.  Any information in the controversy section not covered by the sub-article should be merged over.  Once it is, the section can be altered to present an organized overview of that sub-article. -Verdatum (talk) 15:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy section 

message: The article refers to "an anonymous Scientology-founded group called 'Southern Land Development and Leasing Corp'". If the group has a name, how can it be 'anonymous'? 'Anonymous', both in its etymology and popular usage, means 'unnamed'. Alpheus (talk) 07:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anonymous? 

message: Wasn't there something about Nancy Cartwright using the Bart voice on a voicemail about a meeting and she could have been sued?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.118.247.222 (talk) 03:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. See Bart Simpson used to promote Scientology. Cirt (talk) 03:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bart Simpson voice 

message: I raised a similar point on the 'Scientology' article the other day:  Each article (Scientology and 'Church of Scientology') has a section on membership statistics.  Shouldn't both sections make it clear if there is a way to distinguish figures on membership in the  'Church of Scientology' versus adherence to the beliefs identified as 'Scientology'?70.109.216.103 (talk) 17:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Membership statistics 

message: Hail to all XENU disciples!
I am here in the murky world of Scientology because of the Main Page news article (2009-10-28) regarding the huge fine and conviction of fraud made by a French Court.
Perusing the articles, I can only surmise that there seems to be a huge amount of deferential treatment offered to this group and its message. Despite the contrary evidence, i.e. various cited news articles and general controversy that surrounds its operations, these articles generally convey gentle admonishments and at worst, examples where this group have been taken to court.
What clearly comes across is that criticism is subjected to more attacks (claims of veracity/proof/NPOV) than helpful, informative commentary on Scientology.
It's quite clear from the discussion pages that critical evidence is severely censured. Simple statistics show that the most notable number of discussion concern statements that pertain to criticism of this group.
Consider this analogy:
A power saw has a fault. It occasionally cuts the users' fingers off. There are four law suits.
Now is this a "dangerous machine" or just a "machine" with a note about its fault further down the article? 
Scientology articles have a lot of weighted focus on the banal and functional rather than the questionable and dubious. This article, in particular, creates the impression of an organisation (the word used in the intro), which at the very least, is criticism lite because its work is ethical, correctly operated (in a legal sense) and within the expectations and ideals of its users. The very banality drowns out the questions: law suits; accusations regarding dubious business practises; treatment of its members; veracity of its claims. 
These Scientology pages reinforce the fact that true wrong happens because it feels and looks banal, dull, normal, non-threatening. Evil is never the dramatic cinematic version, L.Ron in volcano hide-out planning world domination. It's perpetuated by a clean-cut, friendly face with an understanding ear.
In my example, is it a useful power tool (that occasionally malfunctions) or a "dodgy" cutting machine that is dangerous? In this case, banality is not the answer!! Should that not be the case with the Scientology?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.154.30 (talk) 12:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly are you proposing? Using more inflamatory language? Every religious group will have its critics (and I am a critic of Scientology) but wikipedia is just supposed to present the facts with NPOV. If you think there are relevant pieces of information being left out that are supported by reliable third party sources, please share. Tarox (talk) 20:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

text: While I am inclined to agree, I took note that the Catholic Church's opener doesn't mention at all any of the various controversies that it has been involved in over the centuries. I expected the allegations of child molestation to be mentioned. Also, the opener for Islam doesn't mention terrorist extremists. In a different vein, Judaism's opener doesn't mention the Holocaust, even though that was a hugely import event. Considering consistency, I'm not sure that individual events like this belong in the opener on a page or a religion or religious body- it seems to be primarily an overview of the group, what they believe, recent statistics regarding number of adherents, notable sects, and contributions to society (public service groups, etc.). My gut is to include the criminal history as well, but looking at comparable articles, i don't think it's consistent. I can't speak for the Scientology in France article either way, although a quick look at its lead in suggests it does need some beefing up. Tarox (talk) 19:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Banality  of Evil 

message: I don't think it's fait that "controversy" comes to early in the article. I know many people feel that Scientology is bullsh*t and all that, but that's not objective... --Torsrthidesen (talk) 22:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fairness 

message: Hi. How is there nothing about Xenu in the "beliefs" section?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.22.177.233 (talk) 05:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Cite it and put it in there 99.236.221.124 (talk) 06:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zenu 

message: Seriously, when you have a crazy hacker division of the CoS running around vandilizing websites you should lock it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chairsenses (talk • contribs) 01:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandilism is a NS 

message: *
The New York Times, page A1. The New York Times is a WP:RS source for info. This is a good source for inclusion in this article. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 05:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The New York Times - Breaking With Scientology 

message: *
:Hugh B. Urban is a professor of religious studies at Ohio State University. This article is a good source of info on multiple topics. -- Cirt (talk) 19:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Rundown Truth: Scientology Changes Strategy in War with Media 

message: See postings at news.turner.com and www.newsonnews.net/cnn
In a special series beginning Monday, March 29th, CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360° takes a close and revealing look at the leadership of the worldwide church of Scientology. The week-long series, Scientology: A History of Violence, will examine allegations that Scientology leader David Miscavige has for years beaten, kicked and choked top members of the church. These are allegations the church aggressively denies, saying violence from inside came from those making the claim.
This series on the CNN program Anderson Cooper 360 starting March 29, 2010 will have a good deal of WP:RS source material. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 15:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientology: A History of Violence 

message: :A most interesting piece by notable cult expert, Steven Hassan. -- Cirt (talk) 21:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's Time to End the Church of Scientology's Tax Exempt Status 

message: .  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.218.159.38 (talk) 10:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientology in Greece? 

message: http://documentaryheaven.com looks to be another front: pretends to be an idenpedent site about documentaries, however is full of Scientology movies and adverts for them & their other fronts such as Citizens Commission on Human Rights.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.57.163 (talk) 18:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another front 

message: I would like to see terms like "church" and "ecclesiastical", which have strong historic backgrounds, and whose meanings don't include any affiliation with Scientology (refer to current dictionaries of proper english) removed from the article in a free context. Thus "Church of Scientology" is fine, but "church" in a single way not. If these words cannot be avoided they should be put in double quotation marks to indicate that they are not used here in their predominant sense.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.7.120.188 (talk) 22:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm. I'm a bit confused by your acceptance of "Church of Scientology" but not "church" on its own. On a broader note, whatever we think of Scientology, I don't think we can restrict the use of the terms you're concerned about to the established churches. Saying that newly self-declared religions cannot use such terms would be a POV position. HiLo48 (talk) 22:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  disputable terms used 

message: I am very surprised, considering Anonymous is linked to them significantly. They've also received a lot of free publicity from Anonymous.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.161.218 (talk) 04:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the Talk page is to discuss improvements to the article. What do you think should be included? And what reliable sources could we use? HiLo48 (talk) 04:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is there nothing on Anonymous except for an external link? 

message: If you look at citation 130 "Jesse Prince Affidavit at Operation Clambake", it directs to xenu.net. I petition for removal of this source as it does not adhere to Wikipedia Policy.Scifilover386 (talk) 18:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:BOLD I went ahead and made this change. Scifilover386 (talk) 18:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been established that the documents on xenu.net are reliable. While I can agree with you that an affidavit may not be a good source, the fact that xenu.net is hosting it can not be used as justification for removal. Petter Bøckman (talk) 09:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreliable source - Xenu.net 

message: Please update link for referenced article: Tapper, James (2008-01-07). "Diana author names Tom Cruise as 'World Number Two in Scientology'" with title-specific link given; the link currently used is bringing up an entirely different article.
Referenced at:  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Scientology#cite_ref-16
Link currently used:  
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/showbiz/showbiznews.html?in_article_id=506359&in_page_id=1773&ct=5
New, title-specific link:  
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-506359/Diana-author-names-Tom-Cruise-World-Number-Two-Scientology.html
VonProxy (talk) 17:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Done --Jnorton7558 (talk) 03:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from VonProxy, 8 October 2011 

message: 173.215.189.91 (talk) 04:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not an edit request. Zidanie5 (talk) 04:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from , 31 October 2011 

message: I reject the notation that Scientology is a "church". It is a corporation that uses a pseudo-religious foundation. I understand that people in the USA aren't smart enough to realize that, but you can rest assured that we see Scientology as the corporation that it is. 93.82.80.58 (talk) 00:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Nestle, the existing language is correct and preferable to your suggested changes.  There is a significant amount of dispute about whether the Church of Scientology is fundamentally a religious organization; stating such as a plain fact would be misleading and promote the church's POV (as you know, the church has campaigned extensively to have itself accepted as a bona fide religious organization).  One could easily produce sources that contradict Melton's assumption (e.g., governmental rulings in France and Germany).  -- BTfromLA (talk) 13:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corporation 

message: On the section that says, "Though it has attained some credibility as a religion[by whom?],[31] Scientology has also been described by many[weasel words] as both a cult and a commercial enterprise."
There is a need to add missing resources, achieve NPOV, and reword to avoid weasel wording. This information is incomplete, vague and general, and thus not present the entire, neutral perspective. I propose the following text in its place:
"The Church of Scientology has been recognized as a religious denomination in its home country, the United States,[2][3] and has received full recognition in various other countries such as Italy,[4][5] South Africa,[6] Australia,[7] Sweden,[8] New Zealand,[9][10] Portugal[11]and Spain;[12] it thus enjoys and regularly cites the constitutional protection afforded in these nations to religious practice. Scientology has also been described by its critics as both a cult and a commercial enterprise.[32]"
One can find all this information in the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_status_by_country. One can use the same references used in this Wikipedia page. Some information on recognition here as well: http://www.religioustolerance.org/scientol3.htm
Thank you. Thoughts, comments?NestleNW911 (talk) 22:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that listing the countries is a bit too much filler.  Why not pipe the scientology status by country article into this section?Coffeepusher (talk) 22:11, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with Coffeepusher here. Phrases like "such as" are ones I prefer to avoid, because of the inherent ambiguity. A full list is preferable, and I think a link to the status by country article is probably the best way to ensure that no one questions why individual countries are and are not chosen for inclusion in this article. John Carter (talk) 22:31, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

text: I recently got into a depute with one editor who was wondering why his country of origin was not notable enough to be listed in a section similar to this one.  Pipeing it will avoid such issues.Coffeepusher (talk) 22:40, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: Section name “Members’ Health and Safety” is misleading and false. This is a case of one Scientologist among many, and should not be taken as a determinant of the welfare of the rest of the congregation.  I propose that this section be moved and transfered reference to controversies, or have section removed altogether as it does not belong to the article. Or, mention Lisa McPherson in controversies while hot linking to article. Thoughts?NestleNW911 (talk) 00:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree that it's misleading.  Death might not the usual outcome, but it illustrates risks that go with participation in some key activities of the Church of Scientology -- so I think it's fine as it is.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Surprised to see you here.  I agree with you and the section is important.  Although it should have a better intro similar to what you wrote.  Something like, "Some key activities of the Church of Scientology carry risks for members, especially members with mental illness" or "The  Church of Scientology's rejection of psychiatry means that some key activities carry risks for members".  What do you think?  Andrew (talk) 20:17, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I just made some changes to the paragraph, let me know what you think. Andrew (talk) 18:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Member's Health and Safety 

message: I have reverted the edit by "Unindicted Co-conspirator" that removes the information about Scientology Organizations in Israel. This information is well-sourced and enriches the information in this section and therefore belongs there. The editor did not give sufficient explanation to make  this deletion - it seems to be arbitrary and whimsical. This removal also works against NPOV - the remaining information only represents one side of the story of Scientology in Israel. The reinstated information offers a more wholistic picture.NestleNW911 (talk) 18:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientology in Israel 

message: Added more information to this section.NestleNW911 (talk) 22:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You didn't "add information" -- you copied information from the source.  I have reverted this per WP:COPYVIO.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 00:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

text: The passage is not copied, at least.  But I'm not sure this is an NPOV presentation of these programs.  Our article on Narconon makes for some interesting reading, and I think we'd need a presentation here that is more consistent with what is in that article.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:01, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

text: Please do have a look at Narconon to see how that article portrays the range of sources available on this program.  Again, our article would need to be consistent with the presentation there, and using only Neusner would not accomplish that.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missionary Activities 

message: I have added a clarifying piece of information to the "Controversy" section sourced from Jacob Neusner. I have paraphrased his ideas and quoted him when necessary, while attributing the writing explicitly in the text. Thank you for the early correction.NestleNW911 (talk) 19:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy section 

message: this section quotes other articles that quote a single source for their content in the quoted section. One source could be just an opinion.
suggested revision till additional source added to quoted section of source article
add a [citation needed] tag till an additional source can be found.
68.53.202.0 (talk) 11:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non verified/ No-source for Beleifs section 

message: The addition by Wikilolo is false and not supported by the reference material. The prosecutor did not bring any charges. What is correct is that in December 2012 the Belgian prosecutor repeated the claims of 2007, with no further action following that public statement. I have changed the entry reflecting developments without including false, misleading information.NestleNW911 (talk) 23:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientology in Belgium 

message: I've added a recent piece of news about a Scientology-linked property acquisition in Ojai, CA. Matipop (talk) 23:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Property in Ojai 

message: These changes have already been made to the Nation's official pages where they have been recieved and revised by Nation of Islam interested editors. The Nation is currently an official "Dianetics Organization" based on the old pre-Scientology 1950s model, but officially sanctioned and recognised by the Church Of Scientology. It is only based on the old model so that The Honourable Louis Farrakhan can claim he is not in fact a Scientologist(and therefore did not convert from Islam to another religion) The public announcement of the NOI becoming a Dianetics organization was in 2010. This should be monitored by Scientology interested editors and the proposal should be discussed here. The organization is the first non-Scientology Dianetics Org to be officially recognised by the Church of Scientology, since 1953. Colliric (talk) 03:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Which source are you proposing to use with this information?Coffeepusher (talk) 03:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

text: Ok, i've taken a look at the edit and it looks fine to me.  I would have put the Tampa Bay reference first in line to show that you are in fact using a Reliable source, but otherwise I have no problems with the edit.Coffeepusher (talk) 04:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's just another one of those freaky developments in the history of the Church that proves the saying "the truth is stranger than the fiction" is 100% correct. Also Final Call is that organization's official media page. If you really want to hear some crazy stuff, search "Farrakhan Scientology" on YouTube! Colliric (talk) 04:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that, which makes it a primary source and not a reliable source.  The Scientology section of wikipedia is really not big on primary sources that are not backed up by secondary sources since the church official publication tends to publish a lot of questionable stuff.Coffeepusher (talk) 04:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Lol, I agree. Hence secondary sources were provided. I would think NOI would be more inclined to fudge the numbers then claim they were a Dianetics Org and not actually be one. The "Farrakhan Scientology" Sermons are more damning then the sources listed here, but videos are not that good a reference to use, especially if to youtube(even if Final Call also published them too, which they did). But at least you'll hear it from the horses mouth himself. Farrakhan's Wikipedia page has a link to one in the "Videos by Farrakhan" section. Colliric (talk) 06:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  I propose The Nation Of Islam be added to the Affiliated Organizations section, OR the Controversy section. 

message: Substituted at 20:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment