Jump to content

Talk:Scientology: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Animum (talk | contribs)
30,489 edits
m Reverted edits by 74.193.254.39 (talk) to last version by AndroidCat
JustaHulk (talk | contribs)
728 edits
→External links: new section
Line 240: Line 240:


::It seems that this is being fix now. [[User:Bravehartbear|Bravehartbear]] ([[User talk:Bravehartbear|talk]]) 11:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
::It seems that this is being fix now. [[User:Bravehartbear|Bravehartbear]] ([[User talk:Bravehartbear|talk]]) 11:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

== External links ==

We should really par down the external links to those that are notable. Of course, the Clambake site is notable. Other than that, maybe Rick Ross? LMT is notable but I don't think I saw it in there. I think that is about it. The rest are non-notable, or copyvio sites (as is Ross), or YouTube. So I am thinking maybe three Church sites, three critical sites and are there any notable links in the others? Thoughts? --[[User:JustaHulk|JustaHulk]] ([[User talk:JustaHulk|talk]]) 16:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:05, 9 January 2008

Former featured article candidateScientology is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 19, 2004Refreshing brilliant proseNot kept

Exposing Stan En agenda

Stan En created new sections titled Scientology Ethics and Justice by using bias sources that place an un-due burden on this article. These bias sources are Steven Kent a notorious anti-scientologist and the book piece of the blue Sky that is an anti-scientology book. His understanding on this subject is simply laughable and ignorant; he totally misunderstands fundamental and principles. An example of this is the absurd statement that Scientologist are expected to keep statistics on their lives, statistics are only intended to be used to measure productivity. A Scientologist can use these to measure his productivity or the productivity of his company. I will try to fix this total screw up. Bravehartbear (talk) 11:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done with ethics I will work with Justice when I get a chance. This bear needs to go to sleep. night, night. Bravehartbear (talk) 13:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because everyone knows that all academics who aren't favourable towards Scientology are notorious anti-scientologists, almost all books on Scientology are anti-Scientology books, and all critical web sites are hate sites... Pointing out that sources might have a bias is one thing, but this continual OR chant is tiresome. AndroidCat (talk) 15:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most of it can be found in Scientologys ethic book wich I tried to summarize. Is that book biased? I didn't know. -- Stan talk 15:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most of these expanded sections already have a main article. Why are they being stuffed into this one? AndroidCat (talk) 15:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I only wanted to summarize ethic and justice but Braveheartbear flooded the article with dissemination materials and deleteted parts of my version. My proposed version(deleted Atack but kept Stephen Kent):

Ethics in Scientology

Main article: Ethics (Scientology)

Ethics is defined by the Church of Scientology as the actions an individual takes on himself to ensure his continued survival across the dynamics.[1]. In order to make these ethical decisions that affect others around them, Scientologists are expected to use statistical measurement to assess the "measurement of survival potential". [2] According to The Scientology Handbook, the Scientology method of statistics can, and should, be applied to individuals, groups, organizations, and any production activities inside and outside Scientology.

Professor Stephen A. Kent quotes Hubbard as pronouncing that "the purpose of ethics is to remove counter intentions from the environment. And having accomplished that the purpose becomes to remove other intentionedness from the environment". What this translates to, says Kent, is "a peculiar brand of morality that uniquely benefitted [the Church of Scientology] ... In plain English, the purpose of Scientology ethics is to eliminate opponents, then eliminate people's interests in things other than Scientology." [3]

Scientology Justice
Main article: Scientology Justice

If statistics are not brought up to a sufficient level of production and the person is not able to improve its production level sufficiently, it can be declared a PTS (Potential Trouble Source), a Suppressive Person, or even ultimately disconnected from the church. A person with high and rising production statistics is considered to be ethical by the church and usually unmolested from internal punishment. [4] -- Stan talk 16:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Braveheartbear, you included a lot of dissemination materials in the "Beliefs and Practice section" not only now but also in the past. A lot of criticism was deleted or removed to shorten the length of the article in past(Scientology and other religions) but you keep inflating "beliefs and practice" with your "propaganda" instead of writing a concise summary of each topic(where not just "What is Scientology?" material is explained). This time I reverted you because you also deleted significant sourced materials to spread your own agenda.(disseminate) -- Stan talk 16:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you call dissemination materials is nothing else than basic concepts of Scientology.

  • What is the dynamic princyple of existance?
  • What is right and wrong?
  • What are the dynamics of life?
  • What are morals?

What you call "writing a concise summary" is simply altering and mudding the concepts in a way that they are un-comprehensible. I didn't delete any well sourced materials, I deleted some info that was just plain false information and you bull interpretations. You don’t have any rights to delete basic Scientology concepts these are not propaganda just the truth of what Scientologist believe in strait out of Scientology books. But you don’t want to these to be known. Your purpose is to ridicule Scientology, make it look like a weird believe system. You got something else coming. Bravehartbear (talk) 19:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everthing is already explained in Scientology (Ethics). We should try to summarize it here. What do you think was plain wrong ? I read the ethic book and don't think that I did ridicule anything. It doesn't sound very shiny but is exactly what happens in Scientology and how it is described in Hubbards writings, thats (NPOV). ...and not just my interpretation, Stephen Kent is also cited. Before it comes to OR ourself we should look to interpretations from scholars. -- Stan talk 19:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Breaveheartbear, the article is too long, thats my mainconcern. Do you think you can summarize "Dynamics","Right or wrong", morals a bit ? -- Stan talk 19:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lets see what the senior editors say.Bravehartbear (talk) 19:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

False information in the page

"If statistics are not brought up to a sufficient level of production and the person is not able to improve its production level sufficiently, it can be declared a PTS (Potential Trouble Source), a Suppressive Person, or even ultimately disconnected from the church.

This info is simply false there is nothing in the ethics book that states this. A person can only be declared afther commiting a Supresive act or a high crime and afther a commite of evidence. Older versions of the ethics are no longer used if this info was ever there. The only Ethics books currently used is 2007.Bravehartbear (talk) 19:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

read the book again. Continually low stats and not handling lower conditions(uprising production) is a "suppressive act" in Scientology! However, I am not very happy with this sentence because it may sound a bit harsh. You can try to rewrite that. -- Stan talk 19:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tsk, Stan, step back, Mr. Arrogant. Your free interpretation of Hubbard texts is just not visible in real life. I guess that is what upsets Bravehartbear so much. Which I can understand. It is you who should read the book to start with, or start to accept help from those who actually know what they are talking about. Shutterbug (talk) 06:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I did it. I read every high crime/suppressive acts from the ethics book in the 1998 edition and the 2007 edition and guess what? There is no mentioning of what you are talking about. High crime/suppressive acts are located in page 294 of the 1998 edition and in page 308 of the 2007 edition. So can you tell me in what page is the high crime/suppressive act that you are taking about? If not I will have to remove the false information.Bravehartbear (talk) 11:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I get you all the quotations needed for that. -- Stan talk 16:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm arrogant now ? Maybe, I became a bit harsh and upset here but I didn't start ...

  • Did you read anything else than ex-Scientologist statements?" Misou
  • Stan you are full of it, ... Braveheart
  • Exposing Stan En agenda Bravehartbear
  • Your purpose is to ridicule Scientology Bravehartbear

What bothers me is the cherrypicking for quotations from you in the belief section. If a quote sounds nice you push it but if something is inserted not sounding shiny you start to argue and take it personal. My proposed version didn't even include the "pie shop" story anymore". I also already said that the controversial sentence may be rewritten(because it is indeed a rare case and the justice system shouldnt be reduced to production). I also tried not to use only free interpretation and used Stephen Kent and Jon Atack but they are "Scientology haters" now ): . Looks to me that only active Scientogists but neither me nor scholars are allowed to interpret and cite Hubbard ?! I consider that as arrogant too. I also don't want to ridicule anything but tried to give a full overview. I have a proplem if only the basics are shown in full because there is some discrepance and misrepresentation between the "dissemination material" and actual course materials (Ethic course, PTS/SP course etc.). I think only to show the "bright" side does ridicule Scientology too. -- Stan talk 16:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I went so hard on you but what you said was simply not true. Down stats are not a high crime/suppressive acts or a offense in Scientology. I think that you are the victim of false information from an anti-scientology book. I think that someone is misquoted Hubbard from the policy “ethics protection” were Hubbard said that that up-stats people are immune to justice whereas down-stat are not into meaning that being down stats is a reason to face justice. This was so absurd and so ridicule that I had to take offense. I apologize for going ballistic but I didn’t know what were you reason to write this false info. Usually I’m very mellow, I don’t like to fight, I like to educate. Just be aware that there is a lot of false information running around about Scientology and you should read the actual Scientology text before stating “Hubbard said this” because he can be easily being quoted out of content. Of course you can quote Hubbard but when you do don't do it out of content. Being that said I take that you did what you did in goodwill and you didn't know that Hubbard was being taken out of content. But now that you are more educated in this subject matter you can fix it. My purpose is to educate and I don't have any problem with information critical of scientology as long it is true. My problem is with blunt false information. About me quoting hubbard, well he said a lot of good things I just people to know that. I sincerely apologize for accusing you. Bravehartbear (talk) 19:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS I don't have anything against religious schoolars, in fact I like them. There is Melton and many other that have said positive and negative things about Scientology. But Kent is diferent, he doesn't have anything good to say about Scientology, he is involved with the anti-cult movement and in his web site he mostly has anti-scientology information. 131.36.116.37 ([[User

talk:131.36.116.37|talk]]) 21:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

We disagree here I think. In my opinion is Kent reliable and Melton not. However, both should be treated the same because both are recogniced scholars and experts. -- Stan talk 22:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What makes Kent more reliable than Melton? 205.227.165.244 (talk) 00:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Kent doesn't fly to Japan to protect murders with dubious evidences. But did I state Melten is less reliable ? No, I didn't. I wrote both should be treated the same because both are recogniced scholars and experts. the rest was my oppinion, not more. -- Stan talk 01:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"I'm sorry I went so hard on you" no prob, already forgot ;). BTW. My wiki-ethic joke maybe wasn't the best way to relax tensions here either(I'll delete it). You would be surprised, I actually read more primary than secondary sources but I think "third party" sources may prevent us from WP:OR especially if statements or interpretations from primary sources are disputed. However, there should be consensus here that "Scientology justice", "punnishment" or "obligatory compensation" is usually applied on individuals with lower conditions (liability, enemy, treason etc.). My version was never meant to be stable and I would like to see that you improve or complement it. So lets work on it instead of having two versions(yours and my) in the article wich is quite confusing and inflates it unnecessarily. I already deleted some twin-sentences but its still a mess and neither me nor you can improve it furtermore without beeing attacked for removing sourced materials from the other party. But the quality of the article suffers under this condition.(You add positive stuff and I counter with negative; at the end we have a mess). So ... if you think you can describe "Scientology justice"(the disputed sentence) more concise than I did, replace it and if I dispute your version we might work it out on talk page.
BTW.: I never said that "Down stats" are a "high crime" or "supressive act" by itself. I said constant unhandled "Down stats" are "supressive acts". I did it in the light of "Hat of an ethic officer" and some policies regarding not handling lower conditions. There are also policies stating that a PTS declared person has to disconnect from the source of suppression or needs to handle it. If not he/she will be declared a "SP". SP's are usually disconnected from the group. I think it was not wrong what I wrote but admit that it was not really concise and not the best way to summarize "Scientology justice". However, there is always a better way .... :) -- Stan talk 22:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What's the source for "There are also policies stating that a PTS declared person has to disconnect from the source of suppression or needs to handle it. If not he/she will be declared a "SP"."? (second part) Never heard of that. 205.227.165.244 (talk) 23:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Never heard of that." don't believe you that!
  • 13 August 1982, "Suppressive Act – Dealing with a Declared Suppressive Person"
  • HCO PL 10 September 1983, PTSNESS AND DISCONNECTION
  • HCO PL 7 March 1965RA, Issue III, OFFENSES AND PENALTIES
  • HCO Policy letter of 18th October 1967 (not related to your question but usefull for my other claim) :)
quotation "Suppressive Acts": Any PTS who fails to either handle or disconnect from the SP who is making him or her a PTS is, by failing to do so, guilty of a Suppressive Act.
Don't forget to log in next time. You have enough accounts. -- Stan talk 01:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the subject matter.... Stan you said that your paragraph that you created was sourced from the ethics book, when I challenged you and asked to provide a page # you couldn't comply. It seems that the paragraph in question is original research i.e. your own personal opinion o someone else's view. I don't have a problem with you sourcing Kent or any other critical source but if you do it you must state your source. I think that a consensus has already been reached. Saying that I believe that we bloated the page out of proporsion and a good trimming is due. Bravehartbear (talk) 03:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually tried to summarize and only use the ethic book as source because it may give a good overview, even if not all policies regarding this issue are in the book, but it is verifiable wich may not be the case for other HCO PLs. I already said that I can't cite or quote one single statement or page to source the entire paragraph. I tried to summarize many of them. Please don't make me to quote down the entire book with all its chapters. Just some Examples:
  • poor production can become a crime in Scientology(even the first time, not just if continiously done like I actually wrote). Committing a problem; Committing a solution which becomes a problem; Case on post; continuing the error and not remedying the matter right away; Failing to keep a computer clean and in repair (can be found in list of crimes in the ethic book)
  • "Hat of an ethic officer" (tell me if I translated the name of this chapter wrong;I only have the German version of it but the chapter is in the ethic book, at least in the version prior to 2007) people who are "Downstat" or have a low production are almost "fair game" per this policy. And individuals with high statistics are pretty much above the law. The policy clearly states that ethics and punishment is more about productivity than moral issues and that ethics should be applied to increase productivity.(money,"study time",make other people to make more money or whatever the product may be)
  • everyone can fall into "Liability" or below due to poor/low level of production in Scientology. Chapter "Condition of Liability" states (also in the ethic book):Apply for re-entry to the group by asking the permission of each member of it to rejoin and rejoining only by majority permission, and if refused, repeating steps 2-4 until one is allowed to be a group member again. (already quite close to a disconnect ?!) and that is the highest of possible negative conditions ...
  • However, "Penalties for lower Conditions" HCOPL 18 Oct 1967 is not in the ethic book but shows with less OR that punishment for low production exists.
I'll take a break from this article for a few days.(just became too much involved here) Your chance to rewrite and hopefully improve the ethics and justice sections. -- Stan talk 06:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stan you are mixing apples and oranges. Scientology law is Scientology law, an advice for ethics officers are just that, an advive for ethics and background information is background information. The way you are doing it anything can mean anything, there is no differentiation betwen Law, advise and a commentary, everything equals everything. You are making everything too complicated, if it is not listed as high crime list it is not a high crime. I have read those policies too and I understand their meaning. Keeping low stats is a way to supress a organisation, so these people should be investigated, it does not say that down stats is an actionable crime it self. Also I know that people with low stats are trying to stop things, so if they do a knowledge report on a up stat person they should be investigated no the up stat person that is doing his job. Bravehartbear (talk) 23:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your removal of "Scientology justice". I think its essential for the article and should be mentioned. -- Stan talk 12:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cult status?

Here scientology is referred to as a "cult", but surely it is more of a world-affirming religion? World affirming religions are tolerant of peoples religious beliefs - even it's own members (for example some scientologists are catholic) and don't force its members to cut themselves off from their friends, family and society (as a cult would) but rather try and make the world a better place through scientology?

Any criticism is welcome or if anyone has anything more to add, please do. I just think that that should be clarified in the article itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptinHairybely (talk • contribs) 00:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A number of major news organizations, academics, and novelists have reported that Scientology is a cult. It's not up to Wikipedians to decide whether or not they are—that would be original research. Instead, we try to make the article match the information given by the reliable sources out there. This is a controversial article with editors of many opinions, so we follow the rules strictly. Foobaz·o< 02:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And a number of major news organizations, academics, and novelists have reported that Scientology is NOT a cult. Opinions, opinions and opinions. Sadly both sides need to be documented regarless of how ignorant they are. Bravehartbear (talk) 08:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Bravehartbear has a point. It's probably presumptuous at this point to use the loaded word "cult" except to state that "some" have called Scientology a cult. Scientology certainly has cult-like or conspiratorial elements (charismatic leader, repression of alternate points of view through misuse of copyright law and ingrained doublethink), but also has elements of a "life-affirming religion". Certainly the Church is neither complete evil nor purely saintly. We should keep in mind the need to merely point out both points of view and leave personal investment out of this.71.35.252.65 (talk) 00:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting point of discussion. CaptinHairybely, one of the things that makes Wikipedia work is that it uses reliable sources (I highly recommend you read that policy in its entirety, by the way). One example of a reliable source would be a news magazine with a strong history and reputation for basic fact-checking, such as Time or Newsweek, or the peer-reviewed books and articles of academic scholars. The interesting thing is that the materials produced by the subject of an article on Wikipedia are not generally accepted as reliable sources:

Questionable sources
Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves ... Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources.

— Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable_sources (emphasis added

Generally speaking, the only things we can use Church of Scientology-produced material to support are statements like "The Church describes Scientology as..." and "According to the Church..." We can't use any material they provide to support a statement of fact, because it is automatically biased, and by definition not peer-reviewed.

To a large extent, the same applies to certain critical websites. It's all about peer-review and fact-checking, and many critics do not have established track records for either.

One difference -- and I'm afraid this puts the Church at a bit of a disadvantage here -- is that several of the critics do have established track records and scholarly credentials. But in the Church's favor, as Bravehartbear pointed out, there have also been a few peer-reviewed "news organizations, academics, and novelists" that support the Church's stance that Scientology is a religion. There are sections of the article that reflect that.

Basically, if a major media outlet or academic publication fact-checks statements from the Church or a critic and finds the statements verifiable, then we can use them, but otherwise they're assumed to be biased. --GoodDamon 21:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a cult, unfounded beliefs, totally new ideas, and very controlling and extorting of its members. Reapermage 00:36, 10th December 2007 GMT —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reapermage1990 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a cult but it's recongized as a religion by many governments including that of the United States so it should be referred to as such. Maybe refer to it as a cult if/when it loses it's status as a government recongized religion. Also, is Scientology considered a religion by the UN or do they have no stance on that? FalseMyrmidon (talk) 00:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first definition of cult in Dictionary.com is "a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies." So it's a cult... and so is Christianity, so is Islam, so is Buddhism etc etc etc. Bazonka (talk) 12:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

that is a true deffinition, however that isn't the one we are talking about. That isn't even the definition that is commonly accepted when people say the word "cult". this discussion is better explained by the sociological definition of a Cult which states (I am paraphrasing, however I can get the source if neccisary) an orgonization that is charictorised by four things 1. strong central leadership, 2. hidden agenda/knowlage (they don't let you know everyhting about the orgonization untill you have become invested in the group), 3. Promice of special powers only avalible through the groups central leadership (Sobriaty through the central leaders teachings, promice of salvation through loyalty of the leader) 4. coersive or brainwashing tecqnecs.
when I hear the word cult that is what I think of...not the Boy Scouts religious services. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coffeepusher (talk • contribs) 17:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone gets a chance to check this source, there is an interesting article on Scientology in it related to your "cult status" question, from above:

Cheers, Cirt (talk) 05:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]


It does not in any way improve this article to argue over whether Scientology "is" or "is not" a cult. There is not one true definition of "cult"; the word is largely used as a slur. We are much better off describing what Scientologists believe, what Scientologists do, and the history of the Scientology organization -- and leave it up to readers whether these things show it to be a cult, a praiseworthy religion, an organized crime syndicate, a happy summer camp, or a high-heeled shoe. --FOo (talk) 17:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree wholeheartedly. Foobaz·o< 17:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I vote for high-heeled shoe. --JustaHulk (talk) 15:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction going fuzzy

"...the total body of beliefs and practices of Dianetics and Scientology are the sole intellectual property of....". This makes no sense. Neither beliefs not practices (eg auditing) can be copyrighted! I assume what the editor wanted to say was that the copyright on Hubbard's writings belongs to CST. So why not do so?

We've also lost the distinction between beliefs and organisation, again. This must be stated clearly and explicitly in the introduction (it's been moved down the page), as an article about any subject should start by defining it particularly in this case where a common misconception exists that the two are synonymous. It should then cascade down so that when the CoS is meant Church of Scientology is said, consistently. --Hartley Patterson (talk) 20:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The first problem is easily rectified. The second may take some work. I'm kinda bonked at the moment, so someone else wanna take a stab at this? --GoodDamon 21:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Scientology (as used so by the IRS) doesn't help matters with its purposely confusing cloud of incorporations and magical religious/secular line that keeps shifting as needed. As well, Scientology (the belief) is so tightly-linked to Scientology (the organization), that completely separating the two seems like an attempt to make the facts fit the classification system rather than the other way around. AndroidCat (talk) 23:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The lines may be blurry, but there is definitely a difference between the Church as an organization (yes, and all its sub-organizations), and the beliefs and practices of adherents to the belief system. I think that's what Hartley was getting at. --GoodDamon 23:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When you use "the Church" to refer to Scientology (the organization), are you including the ABLE sub-groups? This seems to be a problem point. AndroidCat (talk) 23:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if that's relevant to this discussion. I'm talking about the system of beliefs and practices that Scientologists use, whether or not they belong to or are employed by any Church or Church-related organization, versus the organization itself. Yes, I'm sure the ABLE sub-groups and such are basically part of the Church, but that's neither here nor there. The truth is, there are plenty of Scientologists who aren't part of ABLE or any other Church front organization, and their beliefs and practices shouldn't be confused with the Church's admittedly boggling organizational structure. --GoodDamon 00:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like it's the core of the discussion—to make this article something which it has never been: purely about beliefs and practices across the Church of Scientology and the Freezone. Isn't that what Scientology beliefs and practices is for? AndroidCat (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, I think I see what you're saying now. If I'm reading you right, you're concerned that this article will exclude information about the Church's organizational structure in favor of purely describing beliefs, yes? I don't think that's what Hartley Patterson was getting at. I read her comment as concern that the intro has become a confusing jumble, which it has. The intro should be clear that this article is an overview of both the beliefs of Scientologists and the organizational structure that disseminates Hubbard's materials. --GoodDamon 00:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, basically. I don't think the trademarked word Scientology can be shoehorned to fit only the belief system and not the organization. For the introduction, shifting out most of those long strings of cites would be a good step. The introduction isn't the place to hold argument-by-reference and are most of these even cited down in the sections where they should belong? AndroidCat (talk) 05:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is an important distinction. Much of the controversy of Scientology relates to the organization rather than the basic beliefs, which really aren't that much more dangerous than the Christian Scientists or Jehovah's Witnesses (keeping in mind my ignorant perspective of all three religions/belief systems).71.35.252.65 (talk) 01:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Germany Seeks to Ban Scientology

This source info should be mentioned in the article. Cirt 10:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Agreed that this should be noted. Maybe even an article like Status of Scientology in Germany is warranted, seeing as how there has been a long history of conflict of Scientology in Germany? ~ UBeR (talk) 01:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is nothing new, Germany has been discriminating against minority religious groups for as long as I can remember. As it has been noted by U.S. state department. Wasn't Germany responsible for the holocoust? It seems that they up to it again, balantly violating human rights while using the slogan "For Democracy" when it is the Geman goverment itself that is being anti-democratic. What's next? Tatooing all Scientologists with a serial # and put them in a concentration camp!!!
The reality is that the accusations are empty. Next year they are going to say "there is not enoght evidence" like thay always do. Even if they actually do a move it will end up in court and they will lose like Russia did.
About including this in the article, you can do that but remember all stories have two sides and both sides need to be exposed. Well anyway one way or the other the situation in Germany will be resolved. Or they follow up their words or give up their attacks on Scientology. One way or the other this will get resolved. I think we are watching the climax of this show. Funny :-) Bravehartbear (talk) 08:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your comparison with the Holocaust is distastefull in any way and is disrespectful toward the victoms of Germanies Nazi regime(1933 - 1945). Now, its not about Scientologists and their right to practice their beliefs but about an organisation (CoS) which is considered to be unconstitutional. The judgement from politicians about this organisation can be disputed but don't use the Holocaust for a cheap shot! -- Stan talk 12:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"German ministers say Scientology unconstitutional". Partly agree with Bravehartbear, nothing new. Some politicians always talk about it. I'm sure they will talk about it next year too. Scientology is considered to be unconstitutional basicly since 1997 in Germany and nothing has changed. It might be notable in an article like Scientology in Germany but there is no such article now.-- Stan talk 12:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"But the domestic intelligence agencies have been closely monitoring Scientology's operations for a decade and see little hope of amassing sufficient evidence to justify a ban.""Citing unnamed domestic intelligence agents familiar with the Scientology issue, Der Spiegel magazine reported that German authorities where having little success infiltrating the organization."
Sorry for the drama. If Germany has evidence against Scientology they should press charges. Ohh I forgot they have already did and lost. Freaking laws, if only they could break the constitution, by pass the legal system and just ban Scientology. That's the way, don't let the constitution get in the way of defending the constitution. Bravehartbear (talk) 14:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep your cool. Comparing the banishment of a non-religious organization to the Holocaust was out of line. ~ UBeR (talk) 04:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. I assure you any German learning about the full history of the Holocaust with open eyes can see how it started and see the parallels. It's just not smart to point it out here. There are no parallels if you only look at the end of the Holocaust but there are parallels when you look at the beginning of the persecution of minorities in Germany. Without that the Holocaust would not have been possible. I am looking at this article and it is clear that this is a mixture of pro- and anti-Scientology propaganda (mostly anti I think, at least the Scientology edits are obvious for everyone), playing by the rules of propaganda like nowhere else in Wikipedia. I won't get too much involved here but just wanted to say that "You Nazi" - "How dare you, ugly, ugly" exchanges will not improve the article. Taking out obvious propaganda will. Derflipper (talk) 22:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bravehartbear, we aren't here to discuss the subject, but to discuss how to improve the article, see WP:FORUM. Whether Scientology can be compared to the holocaust or not is irrelevant until you can provide reliable third party sources discussing it. John Hayestalk 15:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology being controversial since its inception

The comment that describes Scientology as such should be backed up with a citation. If it cannot be backed up with a citation, the comment should be removedJohn196920022001 (talk) 01:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why. That sentence is easily backed up by cites already present in that paragraph. You can't expect every single sentence to require individual citations. --GoodDamon 17:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, but that is a sentence that does need citing. If I wanted to slander the topic that's a sentence I might write when it might not be true, it's high risk for bias if it remains uncited. SGGH speak! 19:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that TIME's Remember Venus? used to be cited at that spot. It's probably wandered over to another part of the intro. AndroidCat (talk) 07:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to the table of contents thing on the right side?

That was really nice for navigating the page, why was it removed? All the articles it linked to seem to still be there, that navigation section is just gone now.

FalseMyrmidon (talk) 13:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific criticism section

The 'Scientific criticism of Scientology section contains no scientific criticisms of Scientology, but rather a court ruling and a comment by a scientist. I'm not arguing that the material should be removed, but rather moved to more appropriate sections. Ashmoo (talk) 11:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

error

In the Origins section, this article lists "John W. Parsons" as one of Hubbard's influences. As any occultist can tell you, JACK Parsons is the usual form of this fellow's name. His wikipedia article is under Jack Parsons. Can someone correct this and make it a link? This bit of history is important for understanding the Crowlyian influence in Scientology. Zosimos12 (talk) 20:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too long?

Is this article too long? GusChiggins21 (talk) 09:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that this is being fix now. Bravehartbear (talk) 11:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We should really par down the external links to those that are notable. Of course, the Clambake site is notable. Other than that, maybe Rick Ross? LMT is notable but I don't think I saw it in there. I think that is about it. The rest are non-notable, or copyvio sites (as is Ross), or YouTube. So I am thinking maybe three Church sites, three critical sites and are there any notable links in the others? Thoughts? --JustaHulk (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ http://www.scientologyethics.org/scientology-ethics.htm
  2. ^ http://www.scientologyethics.org/page06.htm
  3. ^ Stephen A. Kent (2003). "Scientology and the European Human Rights Debate: A Reply to Leisa Goodman, J. Gordon Melton, and the European Rehabilitation Project Force Study". Marburg Journal of Religion. 8 (1). Retrieved 2006-05-21. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  4. ^ *Hubbard, L. (1998). An introduction to Scientology ETHICS. Bridge Publications; Updated edition ISBN 1-573-18132-3
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Scientology&oldid=183191849"