statement by justallofthem on the whole i agree with bigbluefish that the extensive quoting of critical reviews is a bit over the top i would not go so far as to call the article a quote farm of course but the critical reception section comes close i also see the article as serving as a vehicle for panning all things scientology example featuring the ridiculous rumors spread by anti scientologists such as the alleged subliminal messages example the entire controversy scientology sub section that leads off with an or interpretation that there was something controversial about the rights holder author services and continuing with undue emphasis to further invented controversy based on scant and clearly biased sources mainly two anti scientologists bunker and wollersheim in actual fact all we have is a pet project of travolta that was produced by a questionable character not a scientologist and that was a big flop the rest is invented controversy i do not think this project as an encyclopedia needs unduly forward invented controversy let alone invent more