Talk:Scientology/Archive 20

message: "The Church of Scientology and its activities have been the subject of controversy in the past decades. A variety of reports and allegations have been made by journalists, and legal cases have been brought by and against the Church, claiming harassment and harm by and against Church critics.."
Discuss it here. Since there is no reason to revert this at all, then consensus needs to be reached through discussion only Wikidan829 19:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "To remove such a thing, when it is pertinent, is just trying to represent Scientology in the best possible light, at the cost of losing accuracy."  Thank you... that is exactly the point I have been trying (unsuccessfully) to articulate about some of what is going on here.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 21:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Oni Ookami Alfador for your calm discussion on this matter.  I don't disagree.  My point is that if we are going to state there is controversy, state it, but not is such a way as to assert that it is true, and if there is a counter argument, allow that to be shown as well.  That is all I tried to do, but my contribution continued to be deleted, leaving only the assertion of the controversy, stated in such a way as to give it un-challenged credence.Su-Jada 21:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for joining in. I cannot dig through the history at the moment, could you please paste in here as a reply, what your proposal for change. What do you think it should say? Once we know, we can gather a collective opinion, make the change(or keep it as it is), and even have it here as documented proof that this is what the community agreed on. Thanks! Wikidan829 21:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy 

message: I would like ask everyone to refrain from using the acronym POV as a term indicating biased statements.  Per Help:Describing points of view#Usage note, it is clear that this is not actually a useable definition of the word and that it inhibits fully effective communication between editors.  In cases where neutrality is in question, I would like to remind everyone that words and phrases such as bias, non-neutral, opinion/opinionated, subjective/subjectivity will more clearly get your point across.  --Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 19:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow. Thanks for posting the link to Help:Describing points of view. That page deserves more publicity. SheffieldSteel 19:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "POV" 

message: I found information in this article that is false. The original barley formula was made with honey, I remember this clearly. I think it is in the book “the second dynamic”. Later because a warning about bacteria in honey, honey was changed to corn syrup. This change was not made by LRH. I remember reading the change.
Bravehartbear 01:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Honey is certainly more consistent with the recipe dating from Roman times. SheffieldSteel 01:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a Guardian's Order from the late 1970's that mentioned infant deaths occuring from consumption of raw honey and vegetables, allegedly from botulism.--Fahrenheit451 16:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Guesses x4, sigh. F451, please state date and serial number of that GO. COFS 19:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think F451 is refering to the general caution that was discovered in the mid-1970s re botulism spores and infants. I mean that if there was an order it was a general advice not about Scn babies dying. --Justanother 19:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Silent birth and infant care

message: Is it possible to find third party (non-scientology and non-critic site) confirmation for Scientology's legal status in Tanzania and Zimbabwe?  (RookZERO 23:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tanzania and Zimbabwe

message: Ok guys this is the deal; we will give NPOV citations precedence. But as long as there isn't any conflicting evidence citations by the church of Scientology are fine, specially press releases. I don't want to hear more complains on this issue. If you have conflicting evidence bring it up if not let me be.Bravehartbear 05:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Usage of citations by the church of Scientology

message: Since the University of Miami warns about a threat to the life of innocent children caused by the formerly mentioned recipe, I made that paragraph invisible. We see here already the consequences of this possibly misleading information (a wikipedian who is allegedly a citizen of F.Rep.GERM insinuates that Scientology causes scurvy -- hopefully Tom Cruise's child gets better food). I would like to point out, that there is no source given, that this weeds-slime is really the complete infant-diet, that Hubbard/SCN recommends. I would guess, that SCN recommends some smashed fruits and vegetables (and I dont know what they recommended in the 60ies). --Homer Landskirty 15:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia usually doesn't protect people from dangerous informations! But to give a complete overview the University of Miami -source may be added. There was a source for this wheet slime HCO Bulletin by L. Ron Hubbard, "Barley Formula For Babies," 28 April 1991R Issue I  that stated it came from Hubbard.(before you deleted it). The German who made this insinuation (thausherr de.wikipedia.org) introduced this source there without any comment refering to this article here. I don't see a connect between your statement above and your link. -- Stan  talk 17:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would paint a picture, if I were not too lazy... first path: THausherr->unoundmedicine...->UM->scurvy case due to weeds-slime; second path: en:Scientology->weeds-slime-recipe [->UM->scurvy] --Homer Landskirty 17:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I have a problem with source, I cannot see (maybe there is such a HCO maybe there is not or maybe there is a different content in that HCO; if I recall correctly, HCO r _secret_, so that just certain people but not the public can know them)...  The MDs at UM did not cross-check, too (and how could they)... --Homer Landskirty 17:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: My biggest concern is, that nobody said, that this recipe describes the complete recommendation... So it might be, that Hubbard was aware of the necessity of vitamins in infant food... If that is the case, then we would not only provide dangerous information but also provide a wrong picture of Hubbards work... Since we cannot know, what SCN really recommends, and since I wrote all those words here, further propagation of that half-baked story would be negligent. --Homer Landskirty 17:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: -- hopefully Tom Cruise's child gets better food Was that your or his statement ? -- Stan  talk 17:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That was my personal concern (the article and THausherr sounded like all Scientologists would give their children inappropriate food...)... --Homer Landskirty 17:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That formula is intended for infants that are breast feeding only. Not for children that are eating solids your link is about a 2 year old child is not revelant. There isn't a former study on Hubbard's formula. You are comparing oranges with apples. I really don't care much about that article you might as well delete it complete it. I just wanted to tell you that your link is not revelant. Hey thank you for your concern. Modern formulas are far more nutricios than the cereal formulas back them than didn't had vitamins neither. Bravehartbear 18:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Those parents said different in their testimony in front of the MDs of their infant(see section title) (according to Univ. of Miami). And I am afraid that resources like Wikipedia (in combination with a not so good health care system) might be the cause of such maltreatment. --Homer Landskirty 18:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  I don't agree with every statement THausherr makes but I know what Hubbard's earlier statements where about the barley formula(and no vitamins were recommendet by him). But I don't know what Scientology actually promotes today. And I am too lazy for research on this as well and I will not change your edits back. However, this HCO Bulletins are not a secret and open for most Scientologists. Maybe that is the reason why some critics insinuate Scientology for the harm "The barley formula" may bring. And Scientology never revisioned officialy any HCO Bultin written by Hubbard(only the fair game policy) and still insists that every word from him is true ! -- Stan  talk 18:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I still doubt, that Hubbard did not recommend vitamins for infants (0years - 18years or even 21 years)... I still think, it is more likely, that Hubbard recommended a sufficient diet including vitamins (e.g. for adults he does recommend vitamins). There is no trustworthy source that states, that Hubbard wants infants to eat this "Barley" for 2 years or even 18 years... This "fair game policy" sounds like a joke compared to the usual "game" (drugs, rock&roll, slime in dark caves) (especially funny wording (I would guess it says/said something like "do whatever is necessary to do") makes it a joke). --Homer Landskirty 18:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Listen I have read the barley infant formula policy letter. The barley formula was created as a responce to the cereal formulas back in the 60ties that were mostly carbs with no proteins or vitamins(the ones that were a cereal that you mix with milk or water). Nowadays modern formulas are scientificaly formulated to make a complete diet. So really Hubbard's formula is not aplicable no more. I'm a Scientologist and I never used that formula. So we are talking about a practice that is not used no more. The barley formula was created for mother that couldn't breast feed. I recomend to just delete the whole section. Bravehartbear 18:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But it is used and that issue with the Miami doctor proves it. I wanted to look at the full article but it costs over $50!!! My boy was born in 1999 and we made a few batches of barley formula to supplement the breast milk. We ended up using store-bought formula a bit and then soy milk - LOTS of soy milk (we used to call him soy-boy). But certainly not as a diet mainstay. You cannot feed a two-year-old child only barley formula! That is wacked! We do not even know if the person doing it was a Scientologist or just some wacko that saw the formula. --Justanother 19:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  But then we loose the silent birth link... And why did those parents tell the MDs at UM, that they did like the Scientologists told them? Is it a really evil plot against SCN (I already informed the US State Department and the UM itself about my findings)? Or is my English too bad? Maybe we should püt a warning about counterfeits of certain HCOs at the place of the secönd paragraph? --Homer Landskirty 19:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Nope... And I havnt got any feedback from UM... I would guess, that UM's employees did not assess the SCN-part of the story so much (that would be not their job, I think)... In F.Rep.GERM the government offers regular cross-checking of the efforts the parents took. Do the USA offer such service, too? --Homer Landskirty 19:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I can understand that... Luckily the parents presented the child to those MDs after some time... --Homer Landskirty 19:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just took the first secondary source by google. But it is not a reliable! And yes, it does not seem to make sense that Hubbard recommended such a formula. Especially when today Scientology provides "Purification rundown etc. " where vitamins are the "key". But he did ! And the "barley formula" is a breastfeeding replacement. It has nothing to do with scurvy by kids(2 - 18 years) wich are not candidates for breastfeeding anymore. I don't know why Thausherr actually brought that up in de.wiki.org. I experienced that he usually has reliable sources for his statments. Just ask him on his userpage why he stated that this breastfeeding recomondation has anything to do with the kid suffering skurvy. -- Stan  talk 19:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can give the child the formula, why not? But not as sole sustenance. And the fact that they ended up with a sick child and with a physician makes me think that the parents were not regular Scientologists. That would have been caught and corrected, IMO, before reaching the point of scurvy. --Justanother 19:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I restored it and tried to add the additional data and sources. No one here seems to deny that this "barley formula" is written by Hubbard. -- Stan  talk 23:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Scientology#Silent_birth_and_infant_care]] //scurvy warning 

message: "The US Government makes no claim to Scientology's legitimacy through tax-exempt status as this is also granted to non-religious entities, such as the Red Cross[122] or the Wikimedia Foundation, which runs the online encyclopedia Wikipedia."
OH COME ON! Is Wikipedia now the place for shameless and completely abstract shameless self promotion?! The Red Cross, fine, everybody knows what the Red Cross is... but including the Wikimedia Foundation in that sentence?! *head shake* --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 05:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I chged it a little... But the point here is, that it seems to me like every group can rightfully say, it is a religious group (especially car manufacturers who promise "freedom" and "safety" in their TV commercials...)... So I do not understand all this noise about "it is a religion" ./. "it is not a religion"... --Homer Landskirty 07:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't seem silly to me.  Wikipedia editors are familiar with the wikipedia, so it makes a good example for comparison.  (RookZERO 20:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is moot; that line is OR. You need to find it in RS before putting it here. We do not show how clever we all are and "create arguments" here. --Justanother 20:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This whole conversation has been absurd. Multiple court rulings have up held the religious nature of Scientology in the USA. Scientology is part of the religions freedom reports by US department state and the US department state has been critical of Germany and others for not recognizing Scientology as a religion. This shows a commitment by the USA to defend the religious freedom of Scientology per the constitution of the United States. Bravehartbear 22:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shameless (and ridiculous) self-promotion. 

message: There is a guy just deleting stuff Neilbeach. I don't know how to give warnings. Could some one please take care of this. Bravehartbear 00:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Neilbeach didn't delete stuff ?! He just made some typo. -- Stan  talk 01:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He did 4 edits and in the first two he deleted entire paragraphs, in the second two he did the typos. Bravehartbear 01:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  no, was just typo. -- Stan  talk 01:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right! Bravehartbear 01:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletions