Talk:Scientology/Archive 18

message: Is there something about sunglasses in this "religion". I've noticed that scientologists always seem to be wearing sunglasses in photos regardless of light levels. Is there something "sacred" with the eyes, or something strange like that? I know there are all kinds of things in this "religion" that are strange to most people, so I'm curious as to what it could be...and wouldn't even dare to guess. I did a quick search on google, but no real digging. Any insight is appreciated! Scientology as a whole is a tough thing to wrap your head around. SnaX 01:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been around Scientology most of my life, and I've never heard of any special reason for wearing sunglasses.  Down here in sunny Australia, Scientologists don't seem to wear sunglasses more frequently than other folks.  Maybe it's more that there seems to be a long-standing tradition for the people who like to be photographed - ie celebrities - to wear  shades even in dim light.  Cheers, DavidCooke 02:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I sure hope not! I don't own a single pair, and I'm a Scientologist.  I hate the way they block my vision.Su-Jada 03:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. Thanks boys. I guess it is just the celebrity factor. SnaX 00:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, this may have to do with a scientology rooted organization, I believe the name is Sunny Days marketing or something similar to that.  I have known a few scientologists, some in my family (though I am not one and I am neither for or against the religion), that have conducted business under this.  It is a similar to a franchise system in that they use common marketing material and resources, and are trained more or less uniformly, being allowed to use certain names and trademarks in exchange for using this company/organization as their primary supplier. The mission statement has something to do with enabling both members and non-members to carve out careers in which they are independent and can be their own boss and successful and so on.  I am not well versed on the particular legal details but I can probably rustle up some documentation from them to get a citeable source on some of this if anyone feels it belongs in any of the article material.  --Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 19:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sunglasses?

message: In the introduction it calles the ECHR (European Court of Human Rights) "this highest European Court". This is unnecessary and technically incorrect. The sentence even mentions immeadiately afterward what the jurisdiction of the court is. I would suggest that the words "highest European" simply be removed. This sort of silly, minor piece of poor style is easily avoided and taints the rest of the article, IMO. Thanks.
LM-Mac 11:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment in Intro

message: Any suggestions of what sections need to go? Bravehartbear 04:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia has pointed that this page has exceeded its ideal size and sub-subject need in its own pages

message: It is clear that this is a controversial subject and it is imposible to make it 100% un-bias. So I posted a POV check for neutrality. Bravehartbear 15:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which I removed. Most of the edits to the article lately have been by YOU, so why would you complain about the article's POV now? If there's anything in the article that you think is biased, speak up and say specifically what. wikipediatrix 15:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok boss I'm working on it. Bravehartbear 21:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: bias

message: Scientologists are horrible people look what they are doing to this poor people:
*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRe0jsfZxr4
*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85Wn4MtwsN4\
*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gde2hdzG8h0
*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sNg_v4a4_k
*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXa7Sx3FBR4
*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVfT-jZw33A
*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wPEvESwKs8
*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dl0b_IaYh34
*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-wwVXMPtA0
*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McBMe-Ng1xc
I tell you man is a cult and it needs to be stop!
Bravehartbear 06:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop spamming the talk page, and proving that you haven't a clue about how to evaluate claims and have no desire to meet WP's goals. -- Jibal 08:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Neither Bravehartbear's spamming of this page with youtube videos nor your assertion that the CoS is a cult, have anything to do with the editing of this article. Talk pages are for discussing edits, not idle chit-chat about the subject. wikipediatrix 14:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Bravehartbear, your above comment is not relevant to the article.  Uncivil comments like this are not helpful and only serve to create more conflict in an area already heavy with conflict.  Groups can do both good and bad things, so showing that Scientologists do some good things does nothing to prove that they do not also do some bad things, if that's what you were trying to show.  Darrenhusted, by some definitions of the word all religions are "cults."  Still, the word is prejudicial, and so it is also uncivil.  Everyone, please try to keep your comments civil and on-topic.  Thank you.  HiEv 18:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Facts aren't uncivil, and whether CoS is a cult is an issue of fact.  Claiming that "the word is prejudicial" is itself prejudicial. -- Jibal 08:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Facts may not be uncivil, but the way they're presented can be.  Besides, I wasn't just referring to the "cult" reference at that point, I was also referring to the spamming of YouTube links.  That fits Wikipedia's rough definition of uncivil behavior that is "personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress."  As I said earlier, all religions could be called cults, however the word has unnecessary emotional baggage that only serves to increase conflict here.  Think about any racial slur, it's much the same thing.  If someone is black you say "black," you don't use the N-word unless you want to create conflict and stress.  And pointing out that a word is prejudicial is not itself prejudicial, it's just reminding people of a fact.  -- HiEv 03:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Scientologist

message: Citation number 45 is a dead link and needs to be removed, and the statement in question needs an actual citation.
71.136.22.96
:I have provided a citation that's not dead, and removed the one that was. Interestingly, there was a valid link there until, well, *coughs* COFS... but that's a story for another time. SheffieldSteel 03:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation number 45 

message: The US state department and the UN have condemned Germany, France and others of religiously persecuting Scientology and other religious groups. The introductions states "However, outside observers—including journalists, courts, and national governing bodies of several countries—have alleged that Scientology is an unscrupulous commercial enterprise that harasses its critics and brutally exploits its members." But this criticisms have been condemned as being unfounded bigotry and prejudice by other groups and governing bodies. And these Scientology critics have been found guilty of being bias against other religious groups too. We must differentiate between a real concerns and just plain hate, bias, bigotry and prejudice.
The fact is Scientology has been joined by many religious groups, politicians, governing bodies and the UN to counter the anti-cult movement that I consider a hate group. I'm going to expose this point.
For example in Germany Scientologist:
*have been dismissed from jobs
*have been dismissed from schools
*have been dismissed from political parties
*have been dismissed from social, business and political organizations
*have been denied the right to professional licenses
*have been denied the right to perform their art
*have been denied the right to open/maintain bank accounts and open loans
*have been denied the right to use public facilities and concert halls
*are regularly blacklisted, boycotted, vilified, ostracized and threatened simply due to their association with the religion of Scientology.
Years of monitoring of Scientology by the German government have resulted in nothing.
I intend of creating a whole new section about religious persecution of Scientology and Scientologist. And presenting the support that Scientology has received from other religious groups, governments and the UN to combat this bigotry. Currently I'm working in collecting all the citations. Bravehartbear 14:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You have previously been warned about filling the talk pages with LONG diatribes such as this one that are not specifically about a particular edit to the article. Please do not use talk pages to bloviate in this manner. This is not the place to make a speech or to lecture us. wikipediatrix 14:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No I'm talking about introducing a new section talking about Religious Persecution of Scientology and Scientologist have faced. This is revelant and specific. I'm not lecturing or making a speech. Your inputs on this subject are apreciated. Bravehartbear 18:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So write it. If it's rubbish it will be thrown out, if it's valid it won't. If you can't persuade people by reasoning with them, you certainly won't by shouting at them. --Hartley Patterson 12:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's important to include Scientology's support, lobbying etc. of those organisations that exist to protect people's religous freedom and human rights, and that protest over the persecution of people for their beliefs. SheffieldSteel 13:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Religious Persecution of Scientology and Scientologist

message: I noticed a couple days ago that someone fixed a bad link in a reference, which, when traced back, was introduced by COFS just before the freeze. In it, www.xenu.net is altered to www._vetted_.net  I'll assume good faith and that it wasn't deliberate vandalism, but then that means that some automatic filter altered it during the edit process. This isn't the first time this has happened with editors from that Church of Scientology IP block. I believe it happened to Nuview more than once. So, could editor(s) behind the PAC Base firewall please figure out when the filter kicks in and switch it off or avoid it? That kind of damage to articles is hard to spot, especially when Wiki's diff highlights the whole block as changed. AndroidCat 05:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't believe that the church would be involved in such a childish behavior. That kid COFS must be acting on his own. I don't have a problem with any disiplinary steps to be taken to correct this situacion. Bravehartbear 05:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ScienoSitter still in use?

message: Before I delete something and everybody screams foul I want to point out that link #90,
:"Several states published pamphlets about Scientology (and other religious groups) that detailed the Church's ideology and practices. States defended the practice by noting their responsibility to respond to citizens' requests for information about Scientology as well as other subjects. While many of the pamphlets were factual and relatively unbiased, some warned of alleged dangers posed by Scientology to the political order, to the free market economic system, and to the mental and financial well being of individuals. Beyond the Government's actions, the Catholic Church and, especially, the Evangelical Church have been public opponents of Scientology. Evangelical "Commissioners for Religious and Ideological Issues" have been particularly active in this regard."
links to a state department report critical of Germany for discrimination against Scientology and it doesn't have anything to do with the quote. Maybe the link was vandalised or something. Please fix this. Bravehartbear 05:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Got it. Please disregard, I understand now. :-) Bravehartbear 05:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: link 90

message: The vulcanic alien mass-murder cult is now threatening the BBC:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/05/13/nbbc113.xml
:Wow. Just one sentence in that article on the subject of what Scientology actually is. "Scientologists believe humans are tainted by the remnants of aliens' souls who were dumped on Earth and blown up with nuclear bombs." To be fair, I suppose a one-sentence summary of most religions could be written to make them sound kooky. Anyway, for those that are interested, this subject is covered in the Scientology controversy article. SheffieldSteel 18:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In this link is John Sweeney trying to cause trouble in the premier of wild hogs. This link clearly proves that John Sweeney had his own agenda. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRfMrvpDzj8And that his hot tomato act isn't isolated. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxqR5NPhtLIIn this other video Sweeney keeps chasing after a Scientology official after that official steps away from him because Sweeney he was being offensive.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HGM8DSnYh0&mode=related&search= About the Xenu incident I'm a Scientologist and I have never heard about it. It is alleged that that material is in OT3 but with out complete release of the materials no one can for sure identify what is in there. You can't say that Scientology is about something that the wast mayority of Scientologist don't know about. That would be an alteration of what Scientology is. Anyway what does that has to do with this article? This is not a chat room like I have been told many times. Afinity Warrior 20:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those links are all posted by Scientologists and part of the Sceintologists propagandist and quite frankly libelous DVD. a) All taken out of context b) At the Hogs premiere he was shouting to be heard much like all press do at such events. Chrisp7 11:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're a Scientologist? I couldn't tell by the strikeouts of all(or most) of the bad things in the Scientology in Popular Culture talk page ;) haha Wikidan829 20:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: That was the Daily Telegraph (a UK newspaper), rather than the BBC. SheffieldSteel 20:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I misspoke. Had the BBC on the brain, of course. heh. Hey, does anyone know where I can get one of these DVDs the CoS is giving away to counter the documentary? wikipediatrix 20:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They'll send you one if you give them your details on bbcpanorama-exposed.org/ Trinen 01:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can watch the whole propagandist film on youtube actually - its hilarious and makes countless unsubstantiated accusations but by all means get the DVD! Chrisp7 11:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes. wikipediatrix 12:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree. Delete it. wikipediatrix 18:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just wanted to leave to link to the Scientology responce to this program: http://www.freedommag.org/bbc/video_flash.html
Afinity Warrior 21:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The vulcanic alien mass-murder cult is now threatening the BBC! 

message: ;Source
*
;Religions
#Islam
#Bahaism
#Sikhism
#Jainism
#Hinduism
#Christianity
Smee 03:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ummm... Relevance?  I don't see what this has to do with the article.  -- HiEv 05:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I read somewhere that Scientology claims to be "the world's fastest growing religion."  Just thought that that claim, along with this fact backed up by citation from highly reputable source above, should be added into the article.  Smee 08:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not relevant since it doesn't indicate which religions were considered for inclusion. Find the Scientology figure that matches these if it exists and it would be. Plus, it's a secondary source - see bottom of the article. --Hartley Patterson 13:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Forget about "relevancy". What about accuracy? I think that everyone will agree with - saying that any religion is the fastest growing implies that the rate of conversion from religion A to this "fast growing" religion B, is very high. Look at the factors behind the "fast growing" religions above, all have to do with birth rates. I highly doubt that we'll ever have so many people born into Scientology. I think this whole thing is a misnomer. Wikidan829 17:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Fastest growing" is a deliberately deceptive term, because it doesn't say in what sense growth is being measured. Therefore, it's meaningless. The CoS knows that people will generally assume that membership is what is being referred to by "fastest growing", but such is not the case - their high rate of growth is in the constant inflow of new Missions being opened every week, which does indeed look impressive on paper and on scientologytoday.org, but it loses some of its lustre once you realize that a Mission can be started by one person and it can be run from their living room. wikipediatrix 17:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: My point was that I couldn't find anywhere in the article where it claimed Scientology was the fastest growing religion, so bringing that up was not relevant to the current state of the article.  If that was claimed somewhere in the article then I could totally see the relevance, but as it is now you're making an argument that doesn't need to be made.  If the Church of Scientology frequently claims that, then in the Church of Scientology article (not here) a reference should point to an example of the church making that claim followed by an abbreviated version of what's in the Claims to be the fastest growing religion article.  If you shoot down the claim without citing the group actually making that claim, then it just looks like a straw man argument.  -- HiEv 12:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  And the world's fastest growing religions are... 

message: I was wondering whether this is worthy of a mention in the article - http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/-Scientology/
Obviously it is only a petition but maybe a mention of opposition in the form of petitions could be mentioned? Thoughts? Jamie 08:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While it's interesting that it's on a UK government site, apparently anyone can submit a petition and anyone (with a UK IP address) can sign it. e.g. Dargor, Shadowlord of the Black Mountain. Without secondary sources reporting on it, it still seems to be down in the trivia level of notability. AndroidCat 12:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To sign these petitions requires name, postal address and postcode (a dozen houses in my case). These can be easily checked. But yes, unless newspapers reported it as more than trivia, it's trivia. --Hartley Patterson 14:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Opposition to Scientology

message: Another point to make, is this, scientology has been disputed for years, ever since its creation, but one thing has been overlooked everywhere, the church of Scientology was set up by the founder so that he could (a) win a bet he made with another si-fi writer, and (b) make him money.  Bear this in mind as you read on.User:  Sharpysharpysharpy
:See Scientology_controversy#L._Ron_Hubbard_and_starting_a_religion_for_money. If you mean the version that involves Heinlein, that's unlikely. I have heard of a version via Judith Merril and Fred Pohl of a bet in the New Jersey/NYC area after WWII and before 1949, but it's only been second-hand verbal accounts so far, and no usable references. AndroidCat 04:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: That bar bet story again

message: Why is there no info about the clash that scientology and the US goverment during the 70? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.96.132.194 (talk) 14:12, June 1, 2007 (UTC)
:See Operation Snow White and others. AndroidCat 16:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Spying on US federal agencys

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