![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | → | Archive 33 |
The most recent data listed on the current Wikipedia article is 55,000 members in 2001.
Here is a credible, more up to date source
"One major survey of American religion shows Scientology declining in the U.S., however. The estimated number of Americans who identify as Scientologists rose from 45,000 in 1990 to 55,000 in 2001, then plummeted to 25,000 in 2008, according to the American Religion Identification Survey."
Newbie and won't edit the main page before discussion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.20.145.189 ( talk) 21:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
As in
Laozi and
A Course in Miracles, Hubbard seemed to imply it could take just one Fourth Dynamic Auditor person to solve earth's ills, hence, so long as that one is still a member the Scientology membership will suffice? Or perhaps the yin-yang of it all requires that one to be a non-member...hmmm.
71.51.72.233 (
talk)
23:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
The statement "Scientology has an associated mythology that its adherents hold to reflect religious truth." kinda goes along with Scientology being a religion. It could be said of any religion. Scientologists don't refer to their teachings as "Mythology", so why is it there. Only the next sentence uses the word mythology and the word isn't used again until close to the end of the section. It's extra verbiage and I'm taking it out,rephrasing the next sentence and removing similar verbiage that can be done without. Richard-of-Earth ( talk) 01:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
In an interview on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation current affairs radio program The Current with Hana Gartner, former high-ranking Scientology official Mark Rathbun commented that the decision to convict the Church of Scientology of fraud in France would not have a significant impact on the organization. [1] "On the France thing I don't think that's going to have any lasting impact, simply because they got a nine hundred thousand dollar fine I think - which is like chump change to them. They've got literally nearly a billion dollars set aside in a war chest," said Rathbun. [1]
Interesting stuff. Cirt ( talk) 04:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
This is not biased article as I see it as Im betting alot of scientologists are writing in being troublemakers, you guys need to state your political/religious statements when makeing amendments to articles so we know where your comming from lol.
Also the article completely neglects to mentions the controversial effects of the cult/religion/beliefe system, including that members advance in scientology based on how economicaly prosperous they are wich is why spokesmen for the religion are generaly movie stars, all high ranking members are wealthy status members. Greed is also a factor in scientology as the more you buy into scientology products, the better scientolgist you are and more scientology information you have, wich of course just makes those running scientology richer. The fact that it seems to be a payed religion/beilefe system has drawn much critisism as its anti-medicine stances.
The other thing it neglects to mention is L.Ron Hubbards staple of scientology also adopted by Tom Cruise in his famous scolding of Brook Shields that medical problems are psychological in nature and dont need medical treatment. Aparently scientologists all must be immune to aids and swine flu as thats obviously all in our heads, according to cruise and other believers as L. Ron Hubbard must have had found a key by wishing us well and thinking happy that these things can be alieviated, according to L.Ron Hubbard who, of course, has all the good health psychological treatment you need for a price. Scientology is a mixture of psychology, accultishnessism, "advanced learning techniques (all privately given to payed members of course)" and a monetary product selling system. It can almost be compared to a strange non-monothiest offshoot to Freemasonry.
Also is missing is wether or not lack of medical care may have resulted in John Travoltas sons death as no medical treatment is a major staple of scientology. Sadly this cannot be proven as Jets body was mysteriously cremated early before everyone was notified of a blackmail attempt against the Travoltas, no body=no further autopsy. It can be infered that this may be the reason the blackmailer was blackmailing the Travoltas in an attempt to accuse them for not treating thier son due to thier scientology beliefes.If were going to be fair and paint a picture then warts and all of an ideology need to be addressed, including newsworthy misattempts to promote the organization by members of the organization such as Travolta and Cruise. Lets be fair and partial but not blind.
Also missing is an attempt to mention that scientologists have been banned from editing wiki articles after it was found they were doing so to support thier own beliefe system and modifying medical/psychological information, wich can be googled for verification.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightgamer360 ( talk • contribs) 23:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Nightgammer, this page really tries to stress WP:NPOV in its edits, that tends to lead either one side or the other claiming preference. most of your comments are in fact contained in the article, but they don't use the same language as your comments because it would honestly be considered a little hostile and is written in such as way as to directly criticize the church as opposed to inform, and this is not the form to engage in such critisism. Coffeepusher ( talk) 07:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
From the article:
Scientology has been surrounded by controversies since its inception. It has often been described as a cult that financially defrauds and abuses its members, charging exorbitant fees for its spiritual services.[6][15][16]
Isn't that a bit like saying "Barack Obama has often been described as a president"?
I think that the following paragraph fits reality better:
As a cult which financially defrauds and abuses its members, Scientology has been surrounded by controversies since its inception. It has drawn frequent criticism due to the exorbitant fees charged for its spiritual services.[6][15][16]
Comments?
SubtractM ( talk) 23:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
For one thing, Aleister Crowley's religious philosophy is being described as "Satanism". In reality, it was Thelema, the religion he founded. This is just one example of the bias that pervades this article.
I'm not sure how much of this travesty of an article contains deliberate distortion of facts, and how much is just the result of a lack of knowledge on the subject.
Someone needs to go through the entire thing and ensure that every one of these rather suspect claims are cited, and not by the same 3 or 4 authors who waited until Hubbard had died to pump out sensationalized anti-Scientology books, if Wikipedia wants to even have a pretense at neutrality. 69.244.168.60 ( talk) 09:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Not on evidence but reliable sources? Define "evidence"...Of course there is no evidence or reliable source for any of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.192.190.94 ( talk) 05:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
This article is unreliable because of the unreliable sources being used.
I wonder what the above is supposed to mean? Maybe it should be added to the article as an example of Scientologic. 84.69.150.82 ( talk) 18:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Lots of eccentric and peculiar groups are designated religions by everyone. In this respect it is surprising why people should dispute the status of Scientology as a religion. There is absolutely no basis whatsoever in saying that Scientology is a 'commercial' organization. That can be said about ANY religion for that matter. Stonebronzeiron ( talk) 18:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Why has this article been edit-disabled all of a sudden? Simply because someone made a pro-Scientology edit? I suspect that there is a conspiracy with Scientology. And the conspiracy is not being hatched by Scientologists, it is being planned by people who seem to get subconscious satisfaction by vilifying this religion. Dr Shankar Prasad Nandi 10:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drspnandi ( talk • contribs) Well, editing by registered users has been enabled. That is good. Stonebronzeiron ( talk) 10:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
These are just a few sources on a quick search. Please do not make this change again without significant talk page consensus. Cheers, Cirt ( talk) 20:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I am a Scientologist, and I asked the church about all that crazy Xenu stuff in the article. They said that it's a complete lie! You should remove it immediately!! 68.68.88.36 ( talk) 23:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
This article undermines the entire concept of Wikepedia. It is not meant to relay or share knowledge but to decide on who thinks what. If it would be up to Wikepedia Galilei would be banned from editing any articles related to keywords such as Sun, Moon and Earth. A Scientologist can not edit an article, it is banned. The article lacks actual information about Scientology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Csurmi22 ( talk • contribs) 02:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
It's Galileo, now who needs to get their facts right!!! JM
Hey, I just wanted to point out that the game Fallout 2 has explicit references to scientology and to hubbard himself. I am not sure but is it not relevent to have a section of this article dedicated to pop culture references. In the same way that music articles talk about games that make references to the band name or song title.
The following is a list of excerpts linking scientology to fallout 2 hubology.
"Dick Hubbell, the founder of Hubology, bears several resemblances to L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology. In early game files, the Hubologists are called the Elron, a pun on the name of "L. Ron" Hubbard."
"The belief in neurodynes, alignment, and the AHS ranking system mirror Scientology beliefs in thetans, auditing, and the OT system. The "space culture" aspect of Hubology is similar to the advanced Scientology belief in the Xenu incident. The Hubologist holodisc includes a glossary, as does every Scientology book of their esoteric lexicon. "Oppressives" in Hubology are similar to "Suppressives" in Scientology, the "scapegoat" of all woes to those within the cult. The aggressive tactics of Hubologists towards their enemies bear some resemblance to those of the actual Church of Scientology"
Just like DM the leader of COS irl has OT 9 so too does the leader in game list as a lvl 9 while the in game tom cruise equivilent is a lvl 7... So as you can see the connections are obvious and i see no reason why a connection would not be made to fallout 2 on this article.
There is even a mention of xenu, "Xeno program: The subject on which the Shi scientists had hoped to establish a series of meaningful experiments has disappeared, presumed either destroyed or stolen by the Hubologists."
http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Hubology http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/AHS-9
So can we please add a section for this as well as for the many other games that have scientology references? Also senator Xenophon... nuff said Aaron Bongart ( talk) 22:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
http://www.youtube.com/user/fnogman333#p/a/f/0/4ABS0dA8KqI <-- original http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOU-s28Zn4A <--- Spoof
Just for a moment watch both videos and if you can tell me that there is absoluty no possible legitimate way to incorporate pop culture references and mock ups of scientology like this in the article then I will drop it. But Word for word phrase for phrase, there is intentional and satirical parody of a SPECIFIC scientology advertisement in the tarvu video.. As such I think there should be a section of the scientology article to include religions that were made as a spoof like tarvuism and the church of sub genius... Don't just skim actually watch the two and then try and tell me there is no provable connection between the two. Aaron Bongart ( talk) 18:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
from the article:
"Unlike other religions, Scientology charges precise amounts for its services which may or may not help others deal with their mental or spiritual problems but it most certainly makes it extremely expensive for people to admit their therapy has been anything but a resounding success.[202]"
38.109.88.194 ( talk) 21:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- ease of reading break - I actually like Rul3r's first suggestion better. It's clear, concise, doesn't imply anything about what may or may not be expensive and what expensive treatments may or may not cause practitioners to admit or deny. We've both made our opinions clear. Your wording is in the current edit and will remain, I'm assuming, until a middle ground or understanding is reached, yes? I don't believe it's quite there yet.
Note: from your current revision: "...processes are not guaranteed. It has been argued that the cost of these services..."
For the record, I am not a Scientologist, nor do I have strong feelings about them or their practices one way or another. I care about keeping Wikipedia neutral and factual and reliably sourced. 38.109.88.194 ( talk) 04:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
|
|
On reflection, I am almost in favour of losing the para altogether. 38.109... is right; the source does not make its argument in the context of Scientology as a business. The source says that clears generally do not say that they aren't in fact clear yet. They would lose group status by doing so, and it would cost them money to repeat their courses, so they keep any doubts they have to themselves, and hope that the OT levels will clear these remaining issues. That is the author's argument, as best I can make out. Our paragraph creates the impression as though Scientology gets rich off people repeating their courses, exactly the opposite of what the author says: clears tend to dissemble and hide their doubts so they don't have to pay for courses a second time. -- JN 466 21:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC) If we keep the paragraph, we would have to frame it in terms of there being powerful intra-group disincentives to voicing customer dissatisfaction with services received. -- JN 466 21:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
“Typically when a logo or advertiser name appears in an ad there’s a decline in interest and/or believability. However, I have never seen such a precipitous decline in curves as was seen when the Scientology identification was shown on the screen,” noted Glenn Kessler, president and CEO, HCD Research. Interesting stuff. Cirt ( talk) 13:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Scientology_controversies#RfC:_Alleged_oppression_of_Scientologists_in_Germany. Cirt ( talk) 13:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Why cite an adjunct? Adjunct means "you know enough to teach stupid classes but your research isn't good enough to be a professor". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.2.131.238 ( talk) 20:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Removed link flagged as highly dangerous (Due to virus, spyware, spam and phishing scams) as per Web Of Trust Services. Users who access this link may leave their machine vulnerable to malicous software and practices. MindWraith ( talk) 23:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Web Of Trust appears as the first item when searched in google. It is one of the largest internet saftey services available on the internet today. And has dubbed scientology.org as a 'high risk site'. As such the link will be removed to protect unsuspecting users. MindWraith ( talk) 00:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
First item that appears when searched for in google. Not hard to find. http://www.mywot.com/ The number of rated and reviewd sites exceeds 25 million. MindWraith ( talk) 01:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
is a big giveaway. In short, bollocks. Rodhull andemu 01:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)How to increase your site's ratings
Trust is your greatest asset. You can improve your reputation, build trust, and add credibility to your site.Read reputation building tips
It is reported as "containing viruses, malware, spyware, or other malicous software" wether people like scientology or not, you cant change those facts. As such, a link like this should not be present on Wikipedia. MindWraith ( talk) 03:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I would also point out that Scientology is a subject that is highly vandalized, and not just on Wikipedia. I don't wish to debate the legitimacy of Web of Trust, but that service may have been vandalized simply because of the topic. McAfee's SiteAdvisor report for scientology.org looks fine. -- Tpk5010[ Talk 17:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
You guys are puppies. This entire argument could be avoided by looking at the WOT article on wiki, scrolling down to Rating Quality and noticing the glaring word "opinions". 99.236.221.124 ( talk) 06:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Thread unrelated to improving the article ( WP:NOTFORUM) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The way the article is layed out is very frustrating for anyone attempting to edit this while traveling through the Delta Quadrant. I for one have been attemptig to make edits while in deep space and the website is preventing me. Is there some sort of error with wikipedia or do I need to be closer to Earth for the edit feature to be functional? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.68.100.16 ( talk) 20:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
|
Can somebody please clarify what it means that Scientology is "banned" in certain countries? That could mean many different things, but surely it can't mean that "it is illegal to be a Scientologist, practice Scientology, or believe in Scientology." If the "Church of Scientology" as a corporate organization has been banned, that's a far cry from the mere practice of Scientology by individuals, being banned. We need more precise language on this point. Tragic romance ( talk) 00:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
That is because Scientology is a joke. Hubbard started the "religion" on a bet that he could not star ta religion based on total BS. Biggest scam sine 2 hour martinizing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.127.158.4 ( talk) 06:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Good man. Hubbard also started is because he was unable to succesfully sell his "Dianetics" book, so he made a religion out of it so people would be COMPELLED to buy it. Read it in a Rolling Stone article. That, plus LRH was involved in some kinky, sexually twisted black magicky stuff. I could probably find the article and offer it as a source of info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.34.212.59 ( talk) 16:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Beneath the picture of the Anonymous protestors, I wish that there were an edit to it.
Rather than saying:
"An Internet-based group which refers to itself as 'Anonymous' held protests outside Scientology centers in cities around the world in February 2008 as part of Project Chanology."
I feel it would be more appropriate to say:
"'Anonymous' picketters protested at Scientology centers in cities around the world in February 2008 as part of Project Chanology."
Anonymous is not an Internet-based group so much as it is... well... anonymity. Anonymous is anyone who doesn't reveal their identity, thus, how can they be grouped together if they have no affiliations?
That in mind, I also feel that this would be more appropriate if the first does not suffice for ye editors:
"'Anonymous' 4-chan picketters protested at Scientology centers in cities around the world in February 2008 as part of Project Chanology."
Thank you for understanding.
And for the record, I do not believe in Scientology or L. Ron Hubbard - much less his moral character. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.34.212.59 ( talk) 16:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
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) 05:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
ABC TV in Australia broadcast a documentary about Scientology on 8 March 2010. The program can be viewed online from the ABC's webpages about it at http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/default.htm Additional program-related material and links can be accessed there. Just in case anyone wants to make such an accusation, I am in no way associated with the ABC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.230.112.86 ( talk) 11:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
In the first sentence it says "Scientology is a body of beliefs and related practices" well that pretty much means it is a religion. Just because Scientology has only existed sicne the 1950s does not make it less of a religion just a more recent one. Xx1994xx ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC).
Not really. A good definition of religion would be "Belief in a supernatural force or being, and the organized body of lore, myth, worship, texts, and clergy that surround it."
Yes, but, Scientologists DO believe in God. It says so on their websites & books about their religion-- 174.95.66.253 ( talk) 16:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
While scientology has supernatural elements, there's no worship involved, so it fails the technical litmus test. It just ACTS like a religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.16.110.87 ( talk) 20:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Tell that to Buddhists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.30.198.79 ( talk) 14:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
The CoS officially labels Scientology an 'applied religious philosophy', which seems good enough to me. There are unfortunately a number of people who refuse to accept that Scientology is a religion for irrational emotional and propaganda reasons, so saying that that it is will be constantly reverted. Hartley Patterson ( talk) 16:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
It isn't good enough to say that just because the article will be vandalized that it shouldn't be classified as a religion. If we're going to call it a body of beliefs instead of a religion we need a better reason why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.51.239 ( talk) 08:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
{{ editsemiprotected}}
From: The movement quickly spread, both in the United States and other English-speaking countries such as Britain, Ireland, South Africa and Australia.
To: The movement spread quickly through the United States and to other English-speaking countries such as Britain, Ireland, South Africa and Australia.
"Both" implies "two", but we're referring to five countries. Thank you. Zapriori ( talk) 09:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
'both' refers to the United States and other English-speaking countries and is therefore completely valid. both doesn't necessarily mean two distinct things, but can refer to groups of things. also 'quickly spread' sounds better than 'spread quickly' even if the former is a split infintive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.102.240 ( talk) 12:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC) I just wanted to add a celebrity (Giovanni Ribisi) to the celebrity section.
Haleyjordan (
talk)
20:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
If the writings you are reading are not from Scientology.org, then it is possibly altered information.
Why- Go to scientology.org and find out
Confused- Go to scientology.org and see for yourself the truth of what is Scientology —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbsweden9 ( talk • contribs) 07:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
The image in the Auditing subsection claims that it depicts a Scientologist showing someone an E-meter, yet there is a sign on the table in the picture that reads "FREE STRESS TEST." As far as I know, an E-meter is not merely a stress test and I doubt Scientologists would call it that. So, is this vandalism or a valid picture? And even if it is a valid image, it's a confusing one and should possibly be replaced. Fyrael ( talk) 21:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
The infobox mentions " ARC and KRC triangles" and says they're important concepts in Scientology. I think they should be directly linked with the section that explains them: Scientology#ARC_and_KRC_triangles but I can't make the edit because I've never created an account. I think it would be helpful for a curious reader rather than expecting him/her to find where the concepts are explained. 131.118.229.5 ( talk) 21:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
scientology is considered to be a cult. The Cult Awareness Network are trying to make people aware of this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_Awareness_Network
Steakyfask ( talk) 16:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
"In October 2009, a French court found the Church of Scientology guilty of organized fraud. Four officers of the organization were fined and given suspended prison sentences of up to 2 years. The organization was not banned or dissolved from activities in France and has appealed the judgment."
Could be rewritten as "In October 2009, a French court found the Church of Scientology guilty of organized fraud. Four officers of the organization were fined and given suspended prison sentences of up to 2 years. The organization has appealed the judgment. As the result of a law voted less than two months before the trial, the organisation was not banned or dissolved from activities in France."
Actually, the "not banned or dissolved" part is not interesting, since the Scientology could not have been dissolved: a recent law prevents organisations convicted of such frauds from being dissolved as a sentence. Pestorr ( talk) 17:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
talk about sin, against psychology i would understand but psychiatry...sick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.42.105 ( talk) 01:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Does wikipedia like to been named as advertising scientology as a church. A newspaper article recently asked. I wish wikipedia to review this article as may break wikipedia policy. Including policy like
Scientology does have a dubious history, and the fact that it has a history of litigation, and law breaking: Operation Snow White, makes it almost impossible to be neutral and not have a "bad tone". Also, "A definition for church is a place of public worship of a non-Christian religion" by Rul3r, doesn't seem like a neutral, WP regulation definition to me.-- Jacksoncw ( talk) 14:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
These lists were leaked by sources unknown, but appear to constitute membership costs, which increase in-line with status in Scientology. Of course, such an article might be too biasing for WP:Npov policy but should wikipedia tackle the returns? I really need someone more experienced in formatting articles in wikipedia to answer for this sources inclusion (or not) in the Scientology article. Thank you.-- Cymbelmineer ( talk) 23:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
There is ample consensus that Hubbard is to be described as a science fiction writer. See Talk:L._Ron_Hubbard/Archive_9#Neutrality I note that Jayen makes an inference from the fact that Dianetics sold well, not an argument that his preferred wording is more faithful to the sources. This seems to be a clear case of WP:SYNTH. MartinPoulter ( talk) 11:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
This question came up in WP:ARBSCI. At the time, I did a survey of reputable encyclopedias and found that the majority of them (including Britannica) did not describe Hubbard as a science fiction author in the lead sentence of their article on Scientology. This was what I found:
(Where encyclopedias were available on several sites, I only included them once in this listing. For example, the Columbia Encyclopedia is included on all three sites, the Oxford World Encyclopedia on two of them.)
So to summarise, there were Scientology articles from six encyclopedias featured on answers.com, encyclopedia.com and highbeam.com. Of these, five are definitely reputably published (Britannica, Gale, Columbia, Oxford University Press). Every one of these five encyclopedias says that Scientology was founded by L Ron Hubbard, without characterising him as a science-fiction writer in their lead sentence. This is the same approach as that followed by the immensely reputable Encyclopedia Britannica. Only one encyclopedia on the three sites sampled departs from this approach in its article on Scientology, the Encyclopedia of US History, "from an Answers Corp. partner". This was a random sample in the sense that the selection of which works to include was made by the operators of answers.com, encyclopedia.com and highbeam.com
Of course, our article mentions that Hubbard wrote pulp fiction, especially science fiction, and there is no dispute whatsoever about this. But he wrote in other genres as well, such as Westerns, adventure stories, travel writing, and screenplays. At the time the first Church of Scientology was established (1954), I think it is fair to say that he was best known as the author of Dianetics, which had spent the entire second half of 1950 on the New York Times best-seller list. And of course his writings about Scientology far eclipse in volume all the fiction he wrote (IIRC, he was acknowledged by the Guinness Book of World Records as the most prolific published author). Hence I think the most appropriate solution is to stick, in the lead sentence of the article, with saying "writer L. Ron Hubbard" or simply "L. Ron Hubbard", following the example of the above publications, and with saying in the article proper, as is currently done, that Hubbard first became notable as a writer of pulp fiction, especially science fiction. -- JN 466 01:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Jacksoncw: The fact that other sites don't call him a Science-fiction writer is not the point. Simply calling him a writer is not correct as it does indeed give him a sense of authority undeserved. The title "writer" comes with respect that isn't attributed to the term "science-fiction writer". I think that the fact that he was a "SCIENCE-fiction writer" also has extreme relevance since he founded SCIENtology. I agree with Jayen, we either take the "writer/author" part out completely or give him ALL due credit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacksoncw ( talk • contribs) 03:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
In recent years, religious recognition has also been obtained in a number of other European countries, including Sweden,[8][75] Spain,[75][76] Portugal,[77] Slovenia,[75] Croatia[75] and Hungary,[75] as well as Kyrgyzstan[78] and Taiwan.[8]
Taiwan is not a European country. Get it right. Sorry if this is in the wrong place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.134.206.94 ( talk) 05:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Please say whether or not you would support or oppose the above. Thank you very much.-- Cymbelmineer ( talk) 22:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
At the top it says "Its method of spiritual rehabilitation is a type of counseling known as auditing, in which practitioners aim to consciously re-experience painful or traumatic events in their past in order to free themselves of their limiting effects." Auditing is not recognized as an official form of counselling nor has it been proven helpful. Describing auditing as a "form of counseling" seems completely off to me. I would call it an "attempt at counseling" or something along those lines.-- Jacksoncw ( talk) 14:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
School counseling, marriage counseling, psychotherapy, even hypnotism has at least some proof/instances of helping people. To me, "attempt at counseling" implies lack of success, not failure. Trying to remember traumatic events in a past life does not have any proof of helping anyone. You certainly can't use it commercially. At least change "their past" to "their past life" since (If I understand right) that is what it does. If there are any counselors here, I would love you hear your opinion. -- Jacksoncw ( talk) 22:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't really see how that is an evaluation for the reader. Yes traumatic events are the whole point of most counseling....-- Jacksoncw ( talk) 02:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Exactly, tt was dismissed. It is not recognized as counseling. Saying that it is a type of counseling would be an evaluation for the reader would it not? Also, seeing as there is no verifiable proof that Auditing has ever succeeded, it does lack success.-- Jacksoncw ( talk) 22:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I found an article extremely relevant to this topic: http://oxfordstudent.com/2010/11/01/parasitic-circuits-the-secrets-of-scientology-2/ An Oxford student is left in a Scientology room. He finds documents that weren't intended for his eyes, it talks about a person's auditing session which was "confidential". I believe a paraphrase of this article or at least a mention of it is necessary to inform the readers. I would do it myself but I do not know how to make websites citable and know nothing of Wikipedia html-- Jacksoncw ( talk) 19:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Scientology article under Scientology category defeats the purpose of categorization. UFO cult and Western Culture are non-descriptive and too general. Are there not more descriptive categories such as new religious movements or self-help scams, quackery or even pseudoscience that would be more appropriate? Seems WP is lacking in such categories that describe this type of fraud. Eroberer ( talk) 11:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Could we discuss a merge of the article " Symbols of Scientology" onto this page? The whole article might as well be a section here. It's incomplete but could be added to the article as a collapsible table. At that point the old one could be deleted. TheFSAviator • T 21:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}}
If you re ad the article you will see it is far from unprejudiced and would slant the readers attitude toward the subject. When you are dealing with a religion, that is not a good idea.
Reference - consitution of the USA
74.64.25.109 ( talk) 09:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Forgive my lack of Wiki/HTML skill, but I think L. Ron Hubbard should be introduced as a "Science Fiction Author", as described on his page, and not just as an "author". I believe the title of simply "author" confers undeserved authority or prominence. Those who choose not to read beyond it may make the assumption that he authored non-fiction books, or was a prominent figure or expert in real-world matters. This is not the case, and because he wrote exclusively science fiction novels, I believe he should be introduced as such. Since Scientology, as a religion, seems to draw so heavily from fantasy fiction, I believe it would be a fitting, if not required edit.
I agree with this statement.-- 69.245.43.176 ( talk) 21:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
This is your 10th anniversary, Wikipedia. Such abject disregard for your own principles and policies (the originalones) is a shame. Are the people who run Wikipedia Scientologists? Please read The Scandal of Scientology by Paulette Cooper for an opposing view. Your Scientology article reads like a puff piece. There isn't even a category such as the Controversy subheading in the Chiropractic article. The article on Scientology and others like it demand such access to opposing viewpoints, if they are part and parcel of the subject (and you can't argue that in this case it is not).
Why is the word "sect" not used a single time in the whole text? It appears in the titles of several references. Also, some countries have placed Scientology on their list of sects (at least France, see the webpage of French parliament: http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/rap-enq/r2468.asp). I think this should be mentionned somewhere. Pestorr ( talk)
Because a 'sect' is an off-shoot from a main religion, Scientology cannot be a religion, I dare say, due to the fact that it is based upon a Science fiction story that humans are possessed by the ghosts of 75 million year old aliens. As far as I am aware the term 'Scientology' means 'the word of truth' (logos, word and sciere, to know), by extension, that puts it in the realms of a philosophy, yes? Radiojonty ( talk) 20:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
No it does not. Given the plethora of options in the realm of religion, I dare say that the Xenu story only hits at about a 6 on a 10 point scale of abnormal beliefs. I would say that the reason that Sect isn't used is because it has an ambiguous meaning. is there someplace in the article where the word "sect" would provide greater understanding than the way the word is employed now? Coffeepusher ( talk) 21:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
The problem with the word 'sect' is that in most European languages it has the same modern meaning as the word 'cult' in English. English media often use it as a euphemism to avoid saying 'cult', but as often happens to euphemisms 'sect' is now shifting in English to become the same as 'cult', a 'bad' word. This being English Wikipedia, 'sect' should be translated from other languages as 'cult' wherever possible. Hartley Patterson ( talk) 16:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, Hartley Patterson. I confess not being a native speaker, hence my misunderstanding. Cult is indeed more adapted. I guess this subsection can be deleted now.-- Pestorr ( talk) 09:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
It is not even a sect as defined in legal texts and officially acclaimed dictionaries. It is a cult based on a commercial enterprise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.88.125.20 ( talk) 11:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I support the idea of describing the Church of Scientology as a sect. My research on the subject back in university placed it among classical sects - due to abduction and oppression techniques used on its followers and requisition of their property. The matter is subject to debate, but it at least should be mentioned in the first paragraph of this article, that a viable part of scientific community and general population considers CoS to be sect.
P.S. A sect is defined not by the truthfulness of its ideas, but by abuse practices it uses against its standing and potential members. There are multiple evidence of such practices being used by CoS, and that should be noted in the first place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.196.194.154 ( talk) 22:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Jacksoncw: There is, in fact, a lot of evidence of such practices being used by CoS. Although in all cases Scientology makes claims like the act didn't have Ronald Hubbard's "blessing" as Operation Snow White is described. Just one of many examples of these practices is Lisa McPherson.-- Jacksoncw ( talk) 03:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree, there should be much more emphasis on the words cult and sect. I've read the article, it casts a very positive view on scientology in general, calling all accusations 'allegations'. I understand this is a powerful organization in the USA, but in the EU it is seen as a dangerous organization, even in Italy where it is legal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.82.27.1 ( talk) 03:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Why is Scientology not introduced as a religion, and as a 'body of beliefs and related practices', which on most accounts describes a religion anyway? I am not an adherent to Scientology, so do not understand the complexity of the issue, but I propose to refer to it as a religion. DanEdmonds ( talk) 06:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Jacksoncw: I completely agree, until Scientology is at least widely accepted as a religion, this request doesn't even deserve to be here. There are less than 20 countries who accept is as a religion, most of these being 3rd world countries. Describing it as a religion would definitely not fit the bill. November 16, 2010
It is officially NOT recognized as a religion in a majority of the world. And as it stands, majority rules. Canada, Uk, Germany, France,all officially recognize Scientology as NOT being a religion. Those are just a few countries of many that have yet to recognize Scientology as a religion. If a few people see it as a religion, yet the rest of the world does not, does it seem correct to classify it as a religion? To me THAT in itself seems "biased". -- Jacksoncw ( talk) 17:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
The Bald Eagle was not a very good comparison. I understand what you're saying but wouldn't we be making the judgement "for readers" that Scientology IS a religion if we put in in there? Wouldn't it be best to say it is arguably a religion or something like that?-- Jacksoncw ( talk) 20:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Aside from the fact that it is spelled -philosophy- that sounds good to me.-- Jacksoncw ( talk) 15:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
again, no church forces u to give money but Scientology, the catholic church or any other church don't kicks you out if you don't pay (it's 100% exclusive to Scientology, and thus proving it isn't a religion as religion is based around free-will and not greed) Markthemac ( talk) 00:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
In the USA Scientology isn't officially recognized as a religion. They get tax exempt status from the IRS for it but that isn't any kind of officially recognition. If you started up the Church of Dave that worships all things dave you could easily get the same exempt status. It's apart of that whole freedom of religion thing and separation of church and state bit. If the federal or state government questioned anyones beliefs that they claimed were religious beliefs or stopped anyone from making a claims of religious belief then that wouldn't really be a separation of church and state. The religious tax exempt status granted to the church of Scientology is only a recognition that the federal government has no reason not give them religious tax exempt status. There are groups in the United States denied the same tax exempt status. Groups that world wide would be recognized as religions even where Scientology would not be. Scientology using this as proof they are a real religion is Scientology grasping at straws. Someone start the church of anonymous and they'll likely get the same tax exemption. 70.15.191.119 ( talk) 14:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}}
Helo! I would like to request a correction in the page. Under the Scientology cross it is written Religious/Commercial. The reference is a simple opinion from somebody very seriously anti-Scientologist who is presenting straight lies about the status of the Church for example in Germany. I do not know about France, but in Germany the church has always been registered as a non-profit organization. The German courts have recognized Scientology's religious bona fides (original, true religion status) in over 40 cases. (!) On 12 December 2003, the Administrative Court of Appeal of Baden-Würtenberg determined that the Church of Scientology Stuttgart is a religious organization protected under the German Constitution.
In June 2004, the Hamburg State Administrative Court of Appeal determined that actions taken by the Hamburg government to discriminate against Scientologists interfered with their right to religious freedom protected by Article 4 of the German Constitution.
The European Court of Human Rights issued an unanimous landmark decision on 5 April 2007 in favour of the Secientology religion, upholding the religious freedom of Scientologists and their religious associations throughout the 48 nations that have signed and ratified the European Convention for the Protection of Human rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), adopted by the council of Europe in 1950.
In 1993 the American Government ruled that: 1.) Scientology is a bonafide (original, true) religion; 2) The Churches of Scientology and their related charitable and educational institutions are operated exclusively for recognized religious purposes; 3) The Churches of Scientology and their related charitable and educational institutions operate for the benefit of the public interest rather than the interest of private individuals. So anyone calling Scientology a cult or sect is in the best case not well informed and is getting information from the wrong source that is one of the most basic mistakes a Journalist can do. In fact Scientology is officially recognized as a true religion already in Australia, Croatia, Albania, Slovenia, Hungary, Portugal, Indonesia, Kyrgyzstan, South Africa, Sweden, Taiwan, USA, Venezuela, Brazil, New Zealand, Nepal, Tanzania, Kenya, Zimbabwe, Kazakhstan, Ecuador, Costa Rica, India, Philippines, Sri Lanka ... furthermore it is recognized by administrative and judicial decisions in: Italy, Denmark, Austria, united Kingdom, Norway and in Germany.
So what is written under the cross, that Scientology is "commercial", should be really removed. It is really not fail, not clever, not OK and it is just pure defamation and anti-Scientology propaganda, carefully invented by ill-intentioned people.
And I really really do not understand why is it that any anti-Scientologist can edit the Scientology web site, because it is full of anti-Scientology hate propaganda, and Scinetologists can not respond to it. It is like only Musims could edit the pages on Israel and only people from Tel Aviv could edit the Muslim pages. Makes sense? Of course not ... What is going on between Wikipedia and Scinetology?! I am shocked on this!!!
Anyeay, this "commercial" stuff is really not OK. Then I did not even read the article further, because as a Scientologist, I think it is just open provocation, and I do not agree to get provocation against my own will. I have the right to my own peace of mind.
But if any editors who have questions about my religion, can write to me: Istvan@volunteerministers.eu
P.s.: Could you please also include a link to my new web site: http://www.volunteerministers.eu ?
Best Regards, Rev. István Szaniszló Church of Scientology Europe
92.37.9.164 (
talk)
00:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Prevailing scholarly opinion is that Scientology is a religion. Some scholars (like Kent) assert that religion is only one aspect of Scientology, and that there are commercial aspects as well. Some governments recognise Scientology as a religion; other governments, like the German government, state that it is a commercial organisation. Present article status is a reasonable attempt to reflect these different viewpoints in a neutral manner. -- JN 466 04:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I meant to say it is commercial in EU, not the world. Either way I think that is fine, although there are European countries that do classify it as a commercial enterprise.-- Jacksoncw ( talk) 03:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
The section "Recognition as a religion" contains text covering the granting of tax exemption status by the enterprise however this is misleading, they were not recognized as a religion by the IRS, they were granted tax exemption as a charitable organization which is entirely different. The Scientology Corporation's crime bosses and ringleaders like to proclaim that the IRS tax exemption was a legal recognition as a religion, and that falsehood is repeated here.
If nobody else adds a few words underscoring that charity exemption is not recognition as a religion, I will do so. Damotclese ( talk) 15:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
The IRS reports on religious freedom include Scientology,yes. It also includes many other cults and pseudo religions. IRS reporting on religious freedom and recognizing something as a religion is completely different. I can worship a broomstick if I want, but the IRS probably isn't going to give me tax exemption. Religious freedom and religious recognition are not the same thing and this misconception has a lot to do with why people think that the IRS has recognized it as a religion when, apparently, it hasn't. If, as Damotclese stated before, the IRS gave Scientology tax exemption strictly for charitable reasons, there should be no confusion about the matter. Not only should we not make assumptions as JN said, but we should not misinterpret what has been said.-- Jacksoncw ( talk) 15:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
You probably can't edit the article because it is semi-protected. You must be auto-confirmed to edit a semi-protected article. -- Jacksoncw ( talk) 16:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I would propose that J. Gordon Melton, along with his books, is not a reliable source. The fact that he is a researcher of Vampirology is enough in my mind to write him off, but he is also known to have conflicting interests. On his page under section: Criticism, it is stated that: Stephen A. Kent and Theresa Krebs published a critical article When Scholars Know Sin, in which they characterize Gordon Melton, James R. Lewis, and Anson Shupe as cult apologists. Melton was also characterized as an "apologist" in an article in the San Francisco Chronicle, and by a Singaporean lawyer as a "cult apologist who has a long association of defending the practices of destructive cults" in The Straits Times, and in an article: "Apologist versus Alarmist", in Time Magazine. This is all sourced on his page. Please note I am referring to his biographical page and not his talk page. I propose a deletion of all information sourced from him since he clearly has conflicts of interest.-- Jacksoncw ( talk) 14:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I just wanted to chime in and applaud all the work of the editors of this article. It seems to me that all things considered, this is mostly fair. I've heard people complain that highly contentious articles simply can't be done well on Wikipedia, but I think this is a fine example of things done right. I wanted to speak up because I know most of the requests above are people either complaining that the article is Scientology propaganda or far too hard on Scientology. The fact that both types of comments are occurring at the same time just show the fine line that you editors have to walk. Bravo and well done.
To add a little constructive criticism to my comment, I though I'd try to help the process of NPOV along by identifying some lines I though may stay slightly from NPOV. I understand that my opinion is just one of many, and am simply highlighting these lines as potential candidates for change. Overall, I feel that the introduction has a subtle skeptical slant. I understand the need to highlight sourced skepticism, but at times it feels as though the writer herself, assuming one writer, is skeptical. I will try to give concrete examples:
"and the Church of Scientology emphasizes this as proof that it is a bona fide religion.[14]"
I checked the source on this and it is a book so I couldn't determine the nature of the source. But somehow the emphasis on on "bona fide religion" seems odd, and the first point when Scientology's religious status is brought into question. Now I have no problem with the religious status being brought into question, since it obviously is. But the roundabout way it is done here in the writing seems to me a violation of both WP:ALLEGED, implicitly because the article writer assumes doubt in a sort of way, and more importantly WP:CLAIM because, as the link states, "To write that someone claimed or asserted something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence." Perhaps I am inserting too much nuance, but "bona fide" comes off as slightly sarcastic as well.
"Further controversy has focused on Scientology's belief that souls ("thetans") reincarnate and have lived on other planets before living on Earth.[22]"
This line seems written fine, I suppose. Something seems misplaced about it, but I can't articulate it, so it can stand. The real issue is that I followed the link, hoping to find an account of what controversies have have happened in the past, but instead I got an article that was simply describing the belief of "thetans" in a slightly sarcastic manner. Which, I suppose, is a good example of someone stirring up a controversy. But it seems to me that to conclude the above line you have to do a small bit of original research to get from the article to the line. Perhaps this line would be better gone? Perhaps a better source documenting "thetan" controversy would be better. I don't really think it is a good example of controversy to put in the opening. Personally, I'm not really sure if theological differences can be called controversy. To use a possibly loaded example, no one call the status of Jesus as the Messiah a controversy, even though Jews disagree. It would be called dogmatic difference.
"For the inner cadre of Scientologists in that period, involvement depended not so much on belief in a particular doctrine but on absolute, unquestioning faith in Hubbard.[55]"
This line struck me as extra harsh while reading through. And I can't decide if it is or isn't. It is hard for me to disentangle my feeling properly. If this article were about Jesus or Mohammad, it wouldn't seem that odd, but attached to a contemporary it seems to subtlety highlight the inherent weirdness of the situation. I tried to look at the source, but again it is a book, with a range of 23 pages for this one sentence and the one before it. Certainly whoever wrote it was summarizing, not quoting, a large section of the book. Seeing that it is merely a summery, perhaps we could tone down the repetitive phrase "absolute, unquestioning faith" to just one of the two adjectives. Unquestioning in particular has negative connotations and is already covered in absolute. I understand that we aren't supposed to sugar-coat a topic to maintain NPOV, but "absolute, unquestioning" seems a little redundant. I think the facts of the issue are conveyed with only the word absolute.
I'd like to clarify that I don't really have any personal associations with the CoS, and my only real experience is this article. By nature I am a little skeptical, which is why I tried to identify occasions that resonated with my natural outlook and highlight them for revision. I feel that I am in too biased a position to identify pro-scientology slant, since I come from the other side. Although to be truthful, I can't really identify that much. You guys and gals have done a good job. 66.129.58.144 ( talk) 11:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
The Independent has published an article about the use of Churchill's image and quotations on Scientology fundraising literature, and the protests of Churchill's descendants.
Should a mention of it be added to this WikiProject? Maybe to Nicholas Soames as well? -- Codex01 ( talk) 10:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether this is important enough or relevant enough to fix or not however there is a caption for a photograph which reads The Scientology cross has eight corners representing the eight dynamics of existence which is not accurate. L. Ron Hubbard took the "crossed out cross" symbol from Aleister Crowley's Ordo Templi Orientis and the Thoth tarot deck designed by Crowley and Lady Frieda Harris. The back of every card in the OTO's Thoth deck contains the identical symbol since the origins are OTO, not Scientology.
The Scientology cross does not represent "eight dynamics." The OTO's crossed out cross existed long before either Crowley or Hubbard came along and long before Hubbard met Jack Parsons who was a friend and contemporary of Aleister Crowley. It is true that Hubbard adopted the OTOs symbol and applied it to his own enterprise however the miss-attribution of the symbol's meaning seems to me to be rather stark, more so when the origins of the symbol are readily researched.
It seems reasonable to suggest that the origins of the symbol be accurately described or at minimum a reference or footnote be provided which accurately describes the origins of the symbol. A quick check of how symbology is describe elsewhere by examining the Swastika page, I see that perhaps a new entry describing the symbol's origins might be appropriate.
What do you think? Damotclese ( talk) 08:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
The New Yorker has just published an article on their website intended for the February 14, 2011 issue. It's long and has some potentially useful information for this and other Scientology articles. — UncleDouggie ( talk) 06:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
i used to live in toronto and would visit the Spaced Out Library of science fiction started by famous author and editor judith merril, which is now part of the toronto public library. she claimed to have a friend who was present on hubbard's yacht when he came up with the idea for scientology. it was begun as a bet off the cuff he said to a friend "i'll bet you a million dollars i can start a religion." i have no references for this outside of my personal experience, plus the fact that judith was a pretty smart and canny gal. 184.74.68.133 ( talk) 19:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)grumpy the alien
Editor Sam Merwin, for example, recalled a meeting: "I always knew he was exceedingly anxious to hit big money—he used to say he thought the best way to do it would be to start a cult." (December 1946) [2] Writer and publisher Lloyd Arthur Eshbach reported Hubbard saying "I'd like to start a religion. That's where the money is." Writer Theodore Sturgeon reported that Hubbard made a similar statement at the Los Angeles Science Fantasy Society. Likewise, writer Sam Moskowitz reported in an affidavit that during an Eastern Science Fiction Association meeting on November 11, 1948, Hubbard had said "You don't get rich writing science fiction. If you want to get rich, you start a religion." [3] Milton A. Rothman also reported to his son Tony Rothman that he heard Hubbard make exactly that claim at a science fiction convention. In 1998, an A&E documentary titled "Inside Scientology" shows Lyle Stuart reporting that Hubbard stated repeatedly that to make money, "you start a religion." [4] I took this from the Scientology Controversies article.-- Jacksoncw ( talk) 04:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
The Xenu story refers multiply to "implants". It is explained elsewhere in Scientology literature that this is a metaphor, not for physical implants, but a mental concept like belief in Christ. It seems to refer to pre-existing beliefs taken by Scientology's as pathological
However after attracting their attention by mocking the Xenu story with a teenager's abandon in the nineties, they stuck me with a real life, physical implant three years ago. It's a chip or something, I've seen its output on an EEG but not an image of it. It produces cartoon faces in my head that act happy or excited when it's not appropriate, depriving me of dignity, privacy, and peace and quiet daily. I know how this sounds
I think it should appear in the article that Scientology's "implants" have become real devices like a pacemaker. Given their interest in other machines designed to work on the mind (E-Meter, etc?) this is not beyond belief, though bizarre.
Thanks. I'd appreciate it, if you think this topic is crazy or inappropriate, if you just ignore it until the 30 day limit for archival rather than (keep!) deleting it
65.92.108.223 ( talk) 10:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
{
The new link to Stephen Kent's article ("Scientology -- Is This a Religion?") is
http://www.uni-marburg.de/fb03/ivk/mjr/pdfs/1999/articles/kent1999.pdf — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Maierstrahl (
talk •
contribs)
00:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a
consensus for this alteration before using the
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.Please say why this link needs to be on this page, also please put {{
Editsemiprotected}} when requesting a semi-protected edit request.--
Breawycker (
talk to me!)
Review Me!
21:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | → | Archive 33 |
The most recent data listed on the current Wikipedia article is 55,000 members in 2001.
Here is a credible, more up to date source
"One major survey of American religion shows Scientology declining in the U.S., however. The estimated number of Americans who identify as Scientologists rose from 45,000 in 1990 to 55,000 in 2001, then plummeted to 25,000 in 2008, according to the American Religion Identification Survey."
Newbie and won't edit the main page before discussion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.20.145.189 ( talk) 21:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
As in
Laozi and
A Course in Miracles, Hubbard seemed to imply it could take just one Fourth Dynamic Auditor person to solve earth's ills, hence, so long as that one is still a member the Scientology membership will suffice? Or perhaps the yin-yang of it all requires that one to be a non-member...hmmm.
71.51.72.233 (
talk)
23:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
The statement "Scientology has an associated mythology that its adherents hold to reflect religious truth." kinda goes along with Scientology being a religion. It could be said of any religion. Scientologists don't refer to their teachings as "Mythology", so why is it there. Only the next sentence uses the word mythology and the word isn't used again until close to the end of the section. It's extra verbiage and I'm taking it out,rephrasing the next sentence and removing similar verbiage that can be done without. Richard-of-Earth ( talk) 01:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
In an interview on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation current affairs radio program The Current with Hana Gartner, former high-ranking Scientology official Mark Rathbun commented that the decision to convict the Church of Scientology of fraud in France would not have a significant impact on the organization. [1] "On the France thing I don't think that's going to have any lasting impact, simply because they got a nine hundred thousand dollar fine I think - which is like chump change to them. They've got literally nearly a billion dollars set aside in a war chest," said Rathbun. [1]
Interesting stuff. Cirt ( talk) 04:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
This is not biased article as I see it as Im betting alot of scientologists are writing in being troublemakers, you guys need to state your political/religious statements when makeing amendments to articles so we know where your comming from lol.
Also the article completely neglects to mentions the controversial effects of the cult/religion/beliefe system, including that members advance in scientology based on how economicaly prosperous they are wich is why spokesmen for the religion are generaly movie stars, all high ranking members are wealthy status members. Greed is also a factor in scientology as the more you buy into scientology products, the better scientolgist you are and more scientology information you have, wich of course just makes those running scientology richer. The fact that it seems to be a payed religion/beilefe system has drawn much critisism as its anti-medicine stances.
The other thing it neglects to mention is L.Ron Hubbards staple of scientology also adopted by Tom Cruise in his famous scolding of Brook Shields that medical problems are psychological in nature and dont need medical treatment. Aparently scientologists all must be immune to aids and swine flu as thats obviously all in our heads, according to cruise and other believers as L. Ron Hubbard must have had found a key by wishing us well and thinking happy that these things can be alieviated, according to L.Ron Hubbard who, of course, has all the good health psychological treatment you need for a price. Scientology is a mixture of psychology, accultishnessism, "advanced learning techniques (all privately given to payed members of course)" and a monetary product selling system. It can almost be compared to a strange non-monothiest offshoot to Freemasonry.
Also is missing is wether or not lack of medical care may have resulted in John Travoltas sons death as no medical treatment is a major staple of scientology. Sadly this cannot be proven as Jets body was mysteriously cremated early before everyone was notified of a blackmail attempt against the Travoltas, no body=no further autopsy. It can be infered that this may be the reason the blackmailer was blackmailing the Travoltas in an attempt to accuse them for not treating thier son due to thier scientology beliefes.If were going to be fair and paint a picture then warts and all of an ideology need to be addressed, including newsworthy misattempts to promote the organization by members of the organization such as Travolta and Cruise. Lets be fair and partial but not blind.
Also missing is an attempt to mention that scientologists have been banned from editing wiki articles after it was found they were doing so to support thier own beliefe system and modifying medical/psychological information, wich can be googled for verification.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightgamer360 ( talk • contribs) 23:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Nightgammer, this page really tries to stress WP:NPOV in its edits, that tends to lead either one side or the other claiming preference. most of your comments are in fact contained in the article, but they don't use the same language as your comments because it would honestly be considered a little hostile and is written in such as way as to directly criticize the church as opposed to inform, and this is not the form to engage in such critisism. Coffeepusher ( talk) 07:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
From the article:
Scientology has been surrounded by controversies since its inception. It has often been described as a cult that financially defrauds and abuses its members, charging exorbitant fees for its spiritual services.[6][15][16]
Isn't that a bit like saying "Barack Obama has often been described as a president"?
I think that the following paragraph fits reality better:
As a cult which financially defrauds and abuses its members, Scientology has been surrounded by controversies since its inception. It has drawn frequent criticism due to the exorbitant fees charged for its spiritual services.[6][15][16]
Comments?
SubtractM ( talk) 23:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
For one thing, Aleister Crowley's religious philosophy is being described as "Satanism". In reality, it was Thelema, the religion he founded. This is just one example of the bias that pervades this article.
I'm not sure how much of this travesty of an article contains deliberate distortion of facts, and how much is just the result of a lack of knowledge on the subject.
Someone needs to go through the entire thing and ensure that every one of these rather suspect claims are cited, and not by the same 3 or 4 authors who waited until Hubbard had died to pump out sensationalized anti-Scientology books, if Wikipedia wants to even have a pretense at neutrality. 69.244.168.60 ( talk) 09:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Not on evidence but reliable sources? Define "evidence"...Of course there is no evidence or reliable source for any of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.192.190.94 ( talk) 05:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
This article is unreliable because of the unreliable sources being used.
I wonder what the above is supposed to mean? Maybe it should be added to the article as an example of Scientologic. 84.69.150.82 ( talk) 18:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Lots of eccentric and peculiar groups are designated religions by everyone. In this respect it is surprising why people should dispute the status of Scientology as a religion. There is absolutely no basis whatsoever in saying that Scientology is a 'commercial' organization. That can be said about ANY religion for that matter. Stonebronzeiron ( talk) 18:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Why has this article been edit-disabled all of a sudden? Simply because someone made a pro-Scientology edit? I suspect that there is a conspiracy with Scientology. And the conspiracy is not being hatched by Scientologists, it is being planned by people who seem to get subconscious satisfaction by vilifying this religion. Dr Shankar Prasad Nandi 10:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drspnandi ( talk • contribs) Well, editing by registered users has been enabled. That is good. Stonebronzeiron ( talk) 10:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
These are just a few sources on a quick search. Please do not make this change again without significant talk page consensus. Cheers, Cirt ( talk) 20:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I am a Scientologist, and I asked the church about all that crazy Xenu stuff in the article. They said that it's a complete lie! You should remove it immediately!! 68.68.88.36 ( talk) 23:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
This article undermines the entire concept of Wikepedia. It is not meant to relay or share knowledge but to decide on who thinks what. If it would be up to Wikepedia Galilei would be banned from editing any articles related to keywords such as Sun, Moon and Earth. A Scientologist can not edit an article, it is banned. The article lacks actual information about Scientology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Csurmi22 ( talk • contribs) 02:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
It's Galileo, now who needs to get their facts right!!! JM
Hey, I just wanted to point out that the game Fallout 2 has explicit references to scientology and to hubbard himself. I am not sure but is it not relevent to have a section of this article dedicated to pop culture references. In the same way that music articles talk about games that make references to the band name or song title.
The following is a list of excerpts linking scientology to fallout 2 hubology.
"Dick Hubbell, the founder of Hubology, bears several resemblances to L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology. In early game files, the Hubologists are called the Elron, a pun on the name of "L. Ron" Hubbard."
"The belief in neurodynes, alignment, and the AHS ranking system mirror Scientology beliefs in thetans, auditing, and the OT system. The "space culture" aspect of Hubology is similar to the advanced Scientology belief in the Xenu incident. The Hubologist holodisc includes a glossary, as does every Scientology book of their esoteric lexicon. "Oppressives" in Hubology are similar to "Suppressives" in Scientology, the "scapegoat" of all woes to those within the cult. The aggressive tactics of Hubologists towards their enemies bear some resemblance to those of the actual Church of Scientology"
Just like DM the leader of COS irl has OT 9 so too does the leader in game list as a lvl 9 while the in game tom cruise equivilent is a lvl 7... So as you can see the connections are obvious and i see no reason why a connection would not be made to fallout 2 on this article.
There is even a mention of xenu, "Xeno program: The subject on which the Shi scientists had hoped to establish a series of meaningful experiments has disappeared, presumed either destroyed or stolen by the Hubologists."
http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Hubology http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/AHS-9
So can we please add a section for this as well as for the many other games that have scientology references? Also senator Xenophon... nuff said Aaron Bongart ( talk) 22:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
http://www.youtube.com/user/fnogman333#p/a/f/0/4ABS0dA8KqI <-- original http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOU-s28Zn4A <--- Spoof
Just for a moment watch both videos and if you can tell me that there is absoluty no possible legitimate way to incorporate pop culture references and mock ups of scientology like this in the article then I will drop it. But Word for word phrase for phrase, there is intentional and satirical parody of a SPECIFIC scientology advertisement in the tarvu video.. As such I think there should be a section of the scientology article to include religions that were made as a spoof like tarvuism and the church of sub genius... Don't just skim actually watch the two and then try and tell me there is no provable connection between the two. Aaron Bongart ( talk) 18:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
from the article:
"Unlike other religions, Scientology charges precise amounts for its services which may or may not help others deal with their mental or spiritual problems but it most certainly makes it extremely expensive for people to admit their therapy has been anything but a resounding success.[202]"
38.109.88.194 ( talk) 21:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- ease of reading break - I actually like Rul3r's first suggestion better. It's clear, concise, doesn't imply anything about what may or may not be expensive and what expensive treatments may or may not cause practitioners to admit or deny. We've both made our opinions clear. Your wording is in the current edit and will remain, I'm assuming, until a middle ground or understanding is reached, yes? I don't believe it's quite there yet.
Note: from your current revision: "...processes are not guaranteed. It has been argued that the cost of these services..."
For the record, I am not a Scientologist, nor do I have strong feelings about them or their practices one way or another. I care about keeping Wikipedia neutral and factual and reliably sourced. 38.109.88.194 ( talk) 04:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
|
|
On reflection, I am almost in favour of losing the para altogether. 38.109... is right; the source does not make its argument in the context of Scientology as a business. The source says that clears generally do not say that they aren't in fact clear yet. They would lose group status by doing so, and it would cost them money to repeat their courses, so they keep any doubts they have to themselves, and hope that the OT levels will clear these remaining issues. That is the author's argument, as best I can make out. Our paragraph creates the impression as though Scientology gets rich off people repeating their courses, exactly the opposite of what the author says: clears tend to dissemble and hide their doubts so they don't have to pay for courses a second time. -- JN 466 21:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC) If we keep the paragraph, we would have to frame it in terms of there being powerful intra-group disincentives to voicing customer dissatisfaction with services received. -- JN 466 21:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
“Typically when a logo or advertiser name appears in an ad there’s a decline in interest and/or believability. However, I have never seen such a precipitous decline in curves as was seen when the Scientology identification was shown on the screen,” noted Glenn Kessler, president and CEO, HCD Research. Interesting stuff. Cirt ( talk) 13:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Scientology_controversies#RfC:_Alleged_oppression_of_Scientologists_in_Germany. Cirt ( talk) 13:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Why cite an adjunct? Adjunct means "you know enough to teach stupid classes but your research isn't good enough to be a professor". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.2.131.238 ( talk) 20:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Removed link flagged as highly dangerous (Due to virus, spyware, spam and phishing scams) as per Web Of Trust Services. Users who access this link may leave their machine vulnerable to malicous software and practices. MindWraith ( talk) 23:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Web Of Trust appears as the first item when searched in google. It is one of the largest internet saftey services available on the internet today. And has dubbed scientology.org as a 'high risk site'. As such the link will be removed to protect unsuspecting users. MindWraith ( talk) 00:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
First item that appears when searched for in google. Not hard to find. http://www.mywot.com/ The number of rated and reviewd sites exceeds 25 million. MindWraith ( talk) 01:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
is a big giveaway. In short, bollocks. Rodhull andemu 01:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)How to increase your site's ratings
Trust is your greatest asset. You can improve your reputation, build trust, and add credibility to your site.Read reputation building tips
It is reported as "containing viruses, malware, spyware, or other malicous software" wether people like scientology or not, you cant change those facts. As such, a link like this should not be present on Wikipedia. MindWraith ( talk) 03:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I would also point out that Scientology is a subject that is highly vandalized, and not just on Wikipedia. I don't wish to debate the legitimacy of Web of Trust, but that service may have been vandalized simply because of the topic. McAfee's SiteAdvisor report for scientology.org looks fine. -- Tpk5010[ Talk 17:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
You guys are puppies. This entire argument could be avoided by looking at the WOT article on wiki, scrolling down to Rating Quality and noticing the glaring word "opinions". 99.236.221.124 ( talk) 06:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Thread unrelated to improving the article ( WP:NOTFORUM) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The way the article is layed out is very frustrating for anyone attempting to edit this while traveling through the Delta Quadrant. I for one have been attemptig to make edits while in deep space and the website is preventing me. Is there some sort of error with wikipedia or do I need to be closer to Earth for the edit feature to be functional? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.68.100.16 ( talk) 20:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
|
Can somebody please clarify what it means that Scientology is "banned" in certain countries? That could mean many different things, but surely it can't mean that "it is illegal to be a Scientologist, practice Scientology, or believe in Scientology." If the "Church of Scientology" as a corporate organization has been banned, that's a far cry from the mere practice of Scientology by individuals, being banned. We need more precise language on this point. Tragic romance ( talk) 00:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
That is because Scientology is a joke. Hubbard started the "religion" on a bet that he could not star ta religion based on total BS. Biggest scam sine 2 hour martinizing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.127.158.4 ( talk) 06:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Good man. Hubbard also started is because he was unable to succesfully sell his "Dianetics" book, so he made a religion out of it so people would be COMPELLED to buy it. Read it in a Rolling Stone article. That, plus LRH was involved in some kinky, sexually twisted black magicky stuff. I could probably find the article and offer it as a source of info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.34.212.59 ( talk) 16:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Beneath the picture of the Anonymous protestors, I wish that there were an edit to it.
Rather than saying:
"An Internet-based group which refers to itself as 'Anonymous' held protests outside Scientology centers in cities around the world in February 2008 as part of Project Chanology."
I feel it would be more appropriate to say:
"'Anonymous' picketters protested at Scientology centers in cities around the world in February 2008 as part of Project Chanology."
Anonymous is not an Internet-based group so much as it is... well... anonymity. Anonymous is anyone who doesn't reveal their identity, thus, how can they be grouped together if they have no affiliations?
That in mind, I also feel that this would be more appropriate if the first does not suffice for ye editors:
"'Anonymous' 4-chan picketters protested at Scientology centers in cities around the world in February 2008 as part of Project Chanology."
Thank you for understanding.
And for the record, I do not believe in Scientology or L. Ron Hubbard - much less his moral character. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.34.212.59 ( talk) 16:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
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) 05:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
ABC TV in Australia broadcast a documentary about Scientology on 8 March 2010. The program can be viewed online from the ABC's webpages about it at http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/default.htm Additional program-related material and links can be accessed there. Just in case anyone wants to make such an accusation, I am in no way associated with the ABC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.230.112.86 ( talk) 11:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
In the first sentence it says "Scientology is a body of beliefs and related practices" well that pretty much means it is a religion. Just because Scientology has only existed sicne the 1950s does not make it less of a religion just a more recent one. Xx1994xx ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC).
Not really. A good definition of religion would be "Belief in a supernatural force or being, and the organized body of lore, myth, worship, texts, and clergy that surround it."
Yes, but, Scientologists DO believe in God. It says so on their websites & books about their religion-- 174.95.66.253 ( talk) 16:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
While scientology has supernatural elements, there's no worship involved, so it fails the technical litmus test. It just ACTS like a religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.16.110.87 ( talk) 20:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Tell that to Buddhists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.30.198.79 ( talk) 14:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
The CoS officially labels Scientology an 'applied religious philosophy', which seems good enough to me. There are unfortunately a number of people who refuse to accept that Scientology is a religion for irrational emotional and propaganda reasons, so saying that that it is will be constantly reverted. Hartley Patterson ( talk) 16:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
It isn't good enough to say that just because the article will be vandalized that it shouldn't be classified as a religion. If we're going to call it a body of beliefs instead of a religion we need a better reason why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.51.239 ( talk) 08:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
{{ editsemiprotected}}
From: The movement quickly spread, both in the United States and other English-speaking countries such as Britain, Ireland, South Africa and Australia.
To: The movement spread quickly through the United States and to other English-speaking countries such as Britain, Ireland, South Africa and Australia.
"Both" implies "two", but we're referring to five countries. Thank you. Zapriori ( talk) 09:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
'both' refers to the United States and other English-speaking countries and is therefore completely valid. both doesn't necessarily mean two distinct things, but can refer to groups of things. also 'quickly spread' sounds better than 'spread quickly' even if the former is a split infintive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.102.240 ( talk) 12:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC) I just wanted to add a celebrity (Giovanni Ribisi) to the celebrity section.
Haleyjordan (
talk)
20:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
If the writings you are reading are not from Scientology.org, then it is possibly altered information.
Why- Go to scientology.org and find out
Confused- Go to scientology.org and see for yourself the truth of what is Scientology —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbsweden9 ( talk • contribs) 07:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
The image in the Auditing subsection claims that it depicts a Scientologist showing someone an E-meter, yet there is a sign on the table in the picture that reads "FREE STRESS TEST." As far as I know, an E-meter is not merely a stress test and I doubt Scientologists would call it that. So, is this vandalism or a valid picture? And even if it is a valid image, it's a confusing one and should possibly be replaced. Fyrael ( talk) 21:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
The infobox mentions " ARC and KRC triangles" and says they're important concepts in Scientology. I think they should be directly linked with the section that explains them: Scientology#ARC_and_KRC_triangles but I can't make the edit because I've never created an account. I think it would be helpful for a curious reader rather than expecting him/her to find where the concepts are explained. 131.118.229.5 ( talk) 21:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
scientology is considered to be a cult. The Cult Awareness Network are trying to make people aware of this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_Awareness_Network
Steakyfask ( talk) 16:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
"In October 2009, a French court found the Church of Scientology guilty of organized fraud. Four officers of the organization were fined and given suspended prison sentences of up to 2 years. The organization was not banned or dissolved from activities in France and has appealed the judgment."
Could be rewritten as "In October 2009, a French court found the Church of Scientology guilty of organized fraud. Four officers of the organization were fined and given suspended prison sentences of up to 2 years. The organization has appealed the judgment. As the result of a law voted less than two months before the trial, the organisation was not banned or dissolved from activities in France."
Actually, the "not banned or dissolved" part is not interesting, since the Scientology could not have been dissolved: a recent law prevents organisations convicted of such frauds from being dissolved as a sentence. Pestorr ( talk) 17:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
talk about sin, against psychology i would understand but psychiatry...sick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.42.105 ( talk) 01:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Does wikipedia like to been named as advertising scientology as a church. A newspaper article recently asked. I wish wikipedia to review this article as may break wikipedia policy. Including policy like
Scientology does have a dubious history, and the fact that it has a history of litigation, and law breaking: Operation Snow White, makes it almost impossible to be neutral and not have a "bad tone". Also, "A definition for church is a place of public worship of a non-Christian religion" by Rul3r, doesn't seem like a neutral, WP regulation definition to me.-- Jacksoncw ( talk) 14:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
These lists were leaked by sources unknown, but appear to constitute membership costs, which increase in-line with status in Scientology. Of course, such an article might be too biasing for WP:Npov policy but should wikipedia tackle the returns? I really need someone more experienced in formatting articles in wikipedia to answer for this sources inclusion (or not) in the Scientology article. Thank you.-- Cymbelmineer ( talk) 23:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
There is ample consensus that Hubbard is to be described as a science fiction writer. See Talk:L._Ron_Hubbard/Archive_9#Neutrality I note that Jayen makes an inference from the fact that Dianetics sold well, not an argument that his preferred wording is more faithful to the sources. This seems to be a clear case of WP:SYNTH. MartinPoulter ( talk) 11:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
This question came up in WP:ARBSCI. At the time, I did a survey of reputable encyclopedias and found that the majority of them (including Britannica) did not describe Hubbard as a science fiction author in the lead sentence of their article on Scientology. This was what I found:
(Where encyclopedias were available on several sites, I only included them once in this listing. For example, the Columbia Encyclopedia is included on all three sites, the Oxford World Encyclopedia on two of them.)
So to summarise, there were Scientology articles from six encyclopedias featured on answers.com, encyclopedia.com and highbeam.com. Of these, five are definitely reputably published (Britannica, Gale, Columbia, Oxford University Press). Every one of these five encyclopedias says that Scientology was founded by L Ron Hubbard, without characterising him as a science-fiction writer in their lead sentence. This is the same approach as that followed by the immensely reputable Encyclopedia Britannica. Only one encyclopedia on the three sites sampled departs from this approach in its article on Scientology, the Encyclopedia of US History, "from an Answers Corp. partner". This was a random sample in the sense that the selection of which works to include was made by the operators of answers.com, encyclopedia.com and highbeam.com
Of course, our article mentions that Hubbard wrote pulp fiction, especially science fiction, and there is no dispute whatsoever about this. But he wrote in other genres as well, such as Westerns, adventure stories, travel writing, and screenplays. At the time the first Church of Scientology was established (1954), I think it is fair to say that he was best known as the author of Dianetics, which had spent the entire second half of 1950 on the New York Times best-seller list. And of course his writings about Scientology far eclipse in volume all the fiction he wrote (IIRC, he was acknowledged by the Guinness Book of World Records as the most prolific published author). Hence I think the most appropriate solution is to stick, in the lead sentence of the article, with saying "writer L. Ron Hubbard" or simply "L. Ron Hubbard", following the example of the above publications, and with saying in the article proper, as is currently done, that Hubbard first became notable as a writer of pulp fiction, especially science fiction. -- JN 466 01:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Jacksoncw: The fact that other sites don't call him a Science-fiction writer is not the point. Simply calling him a writer is not correct as it does indeed give him a sense of authority undeserved. The title "writer" comes with respect that isn't attributed to the term "science-fiction writer". I think that the fact that he was a "SCIENCE-fiction writer" also has extreme relevance since he founded SCIENtology. I agree with Jayen, we either take the "writer/author" part out completely or give him ALL due credit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacksoncw ( talk • contribs) 03:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
In recent years, religious recognition has also been obtained in a number of other European countries, including Sweden,[8][75] Spain,[75][76] Portugal,[77] Slovenia,[75] Croatia[75] and Hungary,[75] as well as Kyrgyzstan[78] and Taiwan.[8]
Taiwan is not a European country. Get it right. Sorry if this is in the wrong place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.134.206.94 ( talk) 05:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Please say whether or not you would support or oppose the above. Thank you very much.-- Cymbelmineer ( talk) 22:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
At the top it says "Its method of spiritual rehabilitation is a type of counseling known as auditing, in which practitioners aim to consciously re-experience painful or traumatic events in their past in order to free themselves of their limiting effects." Auditing is not recognized as an official form of counselling nor has it been proven helpful. Describing auditing as a "form of counseling" seems completely off to me. I would call it an "attempt at counseling" or something along those lines.-- Jacksoncw ( talk) 14:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
School counseling, marriage counseling, psychotherapy, even hypnotism has at least some proof/instances of helping people. To me, "attempt at counseling" implies lack of success, not failure. Trying to remember traumatic events in a past life does not have any proof of helping anyone. You certainly can't use it commercially. At least change "their past" to "their past life" since (If I understand right) that is what it does. If there are any counselors here, I would love you hear your opinion. -- Jacksoncw ( talk) 22:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't really see how that is an evaluation for the reader. Yes traumatic events are the whole point of most counseling....-- Jacksoncw ( talk) 02:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Exactly, tt was dismissed. It is not recognized as counseling. Saying that it is a type of counseling would be an evaluation for the reader would it not? Also, seeing as there is no verifiable proof that Auditing has ever succeeded, it does lack success.-- Jacksoncw ( talk) 22:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I found an article extremely relevant to this topic: http://oxfordstudent.com/2010/11/01/parasitic-circuits-the-secrets-of-scientology-2/ An Oxford student is left in a Scientology room. He finds documents that weren't intended for his eyes, it talks about a person's auditing session which was "confidential". I believe a paraphrase of this article or at least a mention of it is necessary to inform the readers. I would do it myself but I do not know how to make websites citable and know nothing of Wikipedia html-- Jacksoncw ( talk) 19:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Scientology article under Scientology category defeats the purpose of categorization. UFO cult and Western Culture are non-descriptive and too general. Are there not more descriptive categories such as new religious movements or self-help scams, quackery or even pseudoscience that would be more appropriate? Seems WP is lacking in such categories that describe this type of fraud. Eroberer ( talk) 11:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Could we discuss a merge of the article " Symbols of Scientology" onto this page? The whole article might as well be a section here. It's incomplete but could be added to the article as a collapsible table. At that point the old one could be deleted. TheFSAviator • T 21:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}}
If you re ad the article you will see it is far from unprejudiced and would slant the readers attitude toward the subject. When you are dealing with a religion, that is not a good idea.
Reference - consitution of the USA
74.64.25.109 ( talk) 09:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Forgive my lack of Wiki/HTML skill, but I think L. Ron Hubbard should be introduced as a "Science Fiction Author", as described on his page, and not just as an "author". I believe the title of simply "author" confers undeserved authority or prominence. Those who choose not to read beyond it may make the assumption that he authored non-fiction books, or was a prominent figure or expert in real-world matters. This is not the case, and because he wrote exclusively science fiction novels, I believe he should be introduced as such. Since Scientology, as a religion, seems to draw so heavily from fantasy fiction, I believe it would be a fitting, if not required edit.
I agree with this statement.-- 69.245.43.176 ( talk) 21:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
This is your 10th anniversary, Wikipedia. Such abject disregard for your own principles and policies (the originalones) is a shame. Are the people who run Wikipedia Scientologists? Please read The Scandal of Scientology by Paulette Cooper for an opposing view. Your Scientology article reads like a puff piece. There isn't even a category such as the Controversy subheading in the Chiropractic article. The article on Scientology and others like it demand such access to opposing viewpoints, if they are part and parcel of the subject (and you can't argue that in this case it is not).
Why is the word "sect" not used a single time in the whole text? It appears in the titles of several references. Also, some countries have placed Scientology on their list of sects (at least France, see the webpage of French parliament: http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/rap-enq/r2468.asp). I think this should be mentionned somewhere. Pestorr ( talk)
Because a 'sect' is an off-shoot from a main religion, Scientology cannot be a religion, I dare say, due to the fact that it is based upon a Science fiction story that humans are possessed by the ghosts of 75 million year old aliens. As far as I am aware the term 'Scientology' means 'the word of truth' (logos, word and sciere, to know), by extension, that puts it in the realms of a philosophy, yes? Radiojonty ( talk) 20:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
No it does not. Given the plethora of options in the realm of religion, I dare say that the Xenu story only hits at about a 6 on a 10 point scale of abnormal beliefs. I would say that the reason that Sect isn't used is because it has an ambiguous meaning. is there someplace in the article where the word "sect" would provide greater understanding than the way the word is employed now? Coffeepusher ( talk) 21:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
The problem with the word 'sect' is that in most European languages it has the same modern meaning as the word 'cult' in English. English media often use it as a euphemism to avoid saying 'cult', but as often happens to euphemisms 'sect' is now shifting in English to become the same as 'cult', a 'bad' word. This being English Wikipedia, 'sect' should be translated from other languages as 'cult' wherever possible. Hartley Patterson ( talk) 16:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, Hartley Patterson. I confess not being a native speaker, hence my misunderstanding. Cult is indeed more adapted. I guess this subsection can be deleted now.-- Pestorr ( talk) 09:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
It is not even a sect as defined in legal texts and officially acclaimed dictionaries. It is a cult based on a commercial enterprise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.88.125.20 ( talk) 11:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I support the idea of describing the Church of Scientology as a sect. My research on the subject back in university placed it among classical sects - due to abduction and oppression techniques used on its followers and requisition of their property. The matter is subject to debate, but it at least should be mentioned in the first paragraph of this article, that a viable part of scientific community and general population considers CoS to be sect.
P.S. A sect is defined not by the truthfulness of its ideas, but by abuse practices it uses against its standing and potential members. There are multiple evidence of such practices being used by CoS, and that should be noted in the first place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.196.194.154 ( talk) 22:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Jacksoncw: There is, in fact, a lot of evidence of such practices being used by CoS. Although in all cases Scientology makes claims like the act didn't have Ronald Hubbard's "blessing" as Operation Snow White is described. Just one of many examples of these practices is Lisa McPherson.-- Jacksoncw ( talk) 03:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree, there should be much more emphasis on the words cult and sect. I've read the article, it casts a very positive view on scientology in general, calling all accusations 'allegations'. I understand this is a powerful organization in the USA, but in the EU it is seen as a dangerous organization, even in Italy where it is legal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.82.27.1 ( talk) 03:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Why is Scientology not introduced as a religion, and as a 'body of beliefs and related practices', which on most accounts describes a religion anyway? I am not an adherent to Scientology, so do not understand the complexity of the issue, but I propose to refer to it as a religion. DanEdmonds ( talk) 06:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Jacksoncw: I completely agree, until Scientology is at least widely accepted as a religion, this request doesn't even deserve to be here. There are less than 20 countries who accept is as a religion, most of these being 3rd world countries. Describing it as a religion would definitely not fit the bill. November 16, 2010
It is officially NOT recognized as a religion in a majority of the world. And as it stands, majority rules. Canada, Uk, Germany, France,all officially recognize Scientology as NOT being a religion. Those are just a few countries of many that have yet to recognize Scientology as a religion. If a few people see it as a religion, yet the rest of the world does not, does it seem correct to classify it as a religion? To me THAT in itself seems "biased". -- Jacksoncw ( talk) 17:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
The Bald Eagle was not a very good comparison. I understand what you're saying but wouldn't we be making the judgement "for readers" that Scientology IS a religion if we put in in there? Wouldn't it be best to say it is arguably a religion or something like that?-- Jacksoncw ( talk) 20:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Aside from the fact that it is spelled -philosophy- that sounds good to me.-- Jacksoncw ( talk) 15:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
again, no church forces u to give money but Scientology, the catholic church or any other church don't kicks you out if you don't pay (it's 100% exclusive to Scientology, and thus proving it isn't a religion as religion is based around free-will and not greed) Markthemac ( talk) 00:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
In the USA Scientology isn't officially recognized as a religion. They get tax exempt status from the IRS for it but that isn't any kind of officially recognition. If you started up the Church of Dave that worships all things dave you could easily get the same exempt status. It's apart of that whole freedom of religion thing and separation of church and state bit. If the federal or state government questioned anyones beliefs that they claimed were religious beliefs or stopped anyone from making a claims of religious belief then that wouldn't really be a separation of church and state. The religious tax exempt status granted to the church of Scientology is only a recognition that the federal government has no reason not give them religious tax exempt status. There are groups in the United States denied the same tax exempt status. Groups that world wide would be recognized as religions even where Scientology would not be. Scientology using this as proof they are a real religion is Scientology grasping at straws. Someone start the church of anonymous and they'll likely get the same tax exemption. 70.15.191.119 ( talk) 14:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}}
Helo! I would like to request a correction in the page. Under the Scientology cross it is written Religious/Commercial. The reference is a simple opinion from somebody very seriously anti-Scientologist who is presenting straight lies about the status of the Church for example in Germany. I do not know about France, but in Germany the church has always been registered as a non-profit organization. The German courts have recognized Scientology's religious bona fides (original, true religion status) in over 40 cases. (!) On 12 December 2003, the Administrative Court of Appeal of Baden-Würtenberg determined that the Church of Scientology Stuttgart is a religious organization protected under the German Constitution.
In June 2004, the Hamburg State Administrative Court of Appeal determined that actions taken by the Hamburg government to discriminate against Scientologists interfered with their right to religious freedom protected by Article 4 of the German Constitution.
The European Court of Human Rights issued an unanimous landmark decision on 5 April 2007 in favour of the Secientology religion, upholding the religious freedom of Scientologists and their religious associations throughout the 48 nations that have signed and ratified the European Convention for the Protection of Human rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), adopted by the council of Europe in 1950.
In 1993 the American Government ruled that: 1.) Scientology is a bonafide (original, true) religion; 2) The Churches of Scientology and their related charitable and educational institutions are operated exclusively for recognized religious purposes; 3) The Churches of Scientology and their related charitable and educational institutions operate for the benefit of the public interest rather than the interest of private individuals. So anyone calling Scientology a cult or sect is in the best case not well informed and is getting information from the wrong source that is one of the most basic mistakes a Journalist can do. In fact Scientology is officially recognized as a true religion already in Australia, Croatia, Albania, Slovenia, Hungary, Portugal, Indonesia, Kyrgyzstan, South Africa, Sweden, Taiwan, USA, Venezuela, Brazil, New Zealand, Nepal, Tanzania, Kenya, Zimbabwe, Kazakhstan, Ecuador, Costa Rica, India, Philippines, Sri Lanka ... furthermore it is recognized by administrative and judicial decisions in: Italy, Denmark, Austria, united Kingdom, Norway and in Germany.
So what is written under the cross, that Scientology is "commercial", should be really removed. It is really not fail, not clever, not OK and it is just pure defamation and anti-Scientology propaganda, carefully invented by ill-intentioned people.
And I really really do not understand why is it that any anti-Scientologist can edit the Scientology web site, because it is full of anti-Scientology hate propaganda, and Scinetologists can not respond to it. It is like only Musims could edit the pages on Israel and only people from Tel Aviv could edit the Muslim pages. Makes sense? Of course not ... What is going on between Wikipedia and Scinetology?! I am shocked on this!!!
Anyeay, this "commercial" stuff is really not OK. Then I did not even read the article further, because as a Scientologist, I think it is just open provocation, and I do not agree to get provocation against my own will. I have the right to my own peace of mind.
But if any editors who have questions about my religion, can write to me: Istvan@volunteerministers.eu
P.s.: Could you please also include a link to my new web site: http://www.volunteerministers.eu ?
Best Regards, Rev. István Szaniszló Church of Scientology Europe
92.37.9.164 (
talk)
00:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Prevailing scholarly opinion is that Scientology is a religion. Some scholars (like Kent) assert that religion is only one aspect of Scientology, and that there are commercial aspects as well. Some governments recognise Scientology as a religion; other governments, like the German government, state that it is a commercial organisation. Present article status is a reasonable attempt to reflect these different viewpoints in a neutral manner. -- JN 466 04:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I meant to say it is commercial in EU, not the world. Either way I think that is fine, although there are European countries that do classify it as a commercial enterprise.-- Jacksoncw ( talk) 03:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
The section "Recognition as a religion" contains text covering the granting of tax exemption status by the enterprise however this is misleading, they were not recognized as a religion by the IRS, they were granted tax exemption as a charitable organization which is entirely different. The Scientology Corporation's crime bosses and ringleaders like to proclaim that the IRS tax exemption was a legal recognition as a religion, and that falsehood is repeated here.
If nobody else adds a few words underscoring that charity exemption is not recognition as a religion, I will do so. Damotclese ( talk) 15:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
The IRS reports on religious freedom include Scientology,yes. It also includes many other cults and pseudo religions. IRS reporting on religious freedom and recognizing something as a religion is completely different. I can worship a broomstick if I want, but the IRS probably isn't going to give me tax exemption. Religious freedom and religious recognition are not the same thing and this misconception has a lot to do with why people think that the IRS has recognized it as a religion when, apparently, it hasn't. If, as Damotclese stated before, the IRS gave Scientology tax exemption strictly for charitable reasons, there should be no confusion about the matter. Not only should we not make assumptions as JN said, but we should not misinterpret what has been said.-- Jacksoncw ( talk) 15:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
You probably can't edit the article because it is semi-protected. You must be auto-confirmed to edit a semi-protected article. -- Jacksoncw ( talk) 16:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I would propose that J. Gordon Melton, along with his books, is not a reliable source. The fact that he is a researcher of Vampirology is enough in my mind to write him off, but he is also known to have conflicting interests. On his page under section: Criticism, it is stated that: Stephen A. Kent and Theresa Krebs published a critical article When Scholars Know Sin, in which they characterize Gordon Melton, James R. Lewis, and Anson Shupe as cult apologists. Melton was also characterized as an "apologist" in an article in the San Francisco Chronicle, and by a Singaporean lawyer as a "cult apologist who has a long association of defending the practices of destructive cults" in The Straits Times, and in an article: "Apologist versus Alarmist", in Time Magazine. This is all sourced on his page. Please note I am referring to his biographical page and not his talk page. I propose a deletion of all information sourced from him since he clearly has conflicts of interest.-- Jacksoncw ( talk) 14:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I just wanted to chime in and applaud all the work of the editors of this article. It seems to me that all things considered, this is mostly fair. I've heard people complain that highly contentious articles simply can't be done well on Wikipedia, but I think this is a fine example of things done right. I wanted to speak up because I know most of the requests above are people either complaining that the article is Scientology propaganda or far too hard on Scientology. The fact that both types of comments are occurring at the same time just show the fine line that you editors have to walk. Bravo and well done.
To add a little constructive criticism to my comment, I though I'd try to help the process of NPOV along by identifying some lines I though may stay slightly from NPOV. I understand that my opinion is just one of many, and am simply highlighting these lines as potential candidates for change. Overall, I feel that the introduction has a subtle skeptical slant. I understand the need to highlight sourced skepticism, but at times it feels as though the writer herself, assuming one writer, is skeptical. I will try to give concrete examples:
"and the Church of Scientology emphasizes this as proof that it is a bona fide religion.[14]"
I checked the source on this and it is a book so I couldn't determine the nature of the source. But somehow the emphasis on on "bona fide religion" seems odd, and the first point when Scientology's religious status is brought into question. Now I have no problem with the religious status being brought into question, since it obviously is. But the roundabout way it is done here in the writing seems to me a violation of both WP:ALLEGED, implicitly because the article writer assumes doubt in a sort of way, and more importantly WP:CLAIM because, as the link states, "To write that someone claimed or asserted something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence." Perhaps I am inserting too much nuance, but "bona fide" comes off as slightly sarcastic as well.
"Further controversy has focused on Scientology's belief that souls ("thetans") reincarnate and have lived on other planets before living on Earth.[22]"
This line seems written fine, I suppose. Something seems misplaced about it, but I can't articulate it, so it can stand. The real issue is that I followed the link, hoping to find an account of what controversies have have happened in the past, but instead I got an article that was simply describing the belief of "thetans" in a slightly sarcastic manner. Which, I suppose, is a good example of someone stirring up a controversy. But it seems to me that to conclude the above line you have to do a small bit of original research to get from the article to the line. Perhaps this line would be better gone? Perhaps a better source documenting "thetan" controversy would be better. I don't really think it is a good example of controversy to put in the opening. Personally, I'm not really sure if theological differences can be called controversy. To use a possibly loaded example, no one call the status of Jesus as the Messiah a controversy, even though Jews disagree. It would be called dogmatic difference.
"For the inner cadre of Scientologists in that period, involvement depended not so much on belief in a particular doctrine but on absolute, unquestioning faith in Hubbard.[55]"
This line struck me as extra harsh while reading through. And I can't decide if it is or isn't. It is hard for me to disentangle my feeling properly. If this article were about Jesus or Mohammad, it wouldn't seem that odd, but attached to a contemporary it seems to subtlety highlight the inherent weirdness of the situation. I tried to look at the source, but again it is a book, with a range of 23 pages for this one sentence and the one before it. Certainly whoever wrote it was summarizing, not quoting, a large section of the book. Seeing that it is merely a summery, perhaps we could tone down the repetitive phrase "absolute, unquestioning faith" to just one of the two adjectives. Unquestioning in particular has negative connotations and is already covered in absolute. I understand that we aren't supposed to sugar-coat a topic to maintain NPOV, but "absolute, unquestioning" seems a little redundant. I think the facts of the issue are conveyed with only the word absolute.
I'd like to clarify that I don't really have any personal associations with the CoS, and my only real experience is this article. By nature I am a little skeptical, which is why I tried to identify occasions that resonated with my natural outlook and highlight them for revision. I feel that I am in too biased a position to identify pro-scientology slant, since I come from the other side. Although to be truthful, I can't really identify that much. You guys and gals have done a good job. 66.129.58.144 ( talk) 11:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
The Independent has published an article about the use of Churchill's image and quotations on Scientology fundraising literature, and the protests of Churchill's descendants.
Should a mention of it be added to this WikiProject? Maybe to Nicholas Soames as well? -- Codex01 ( talk) 10:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether this is important enough or relevant enough to fix or not however there is a caption for a photograph which reads The Scientology cross has eight corners representing the eight dynamics of existence which is not accurate. L. Ron Hubbard took the "crossed out cross" symbol from Aleister Crowley's Ordo Templi Orientis and the Thoth tarot deck designed by Crowley and Lady Frieda Harris. The back of every card in the OTO's Thoth deck contains the identical symbol since the origins are OTO, not Scientology.
The Scientology cross does not represent "eight dynamics." The OTO's crossed out cross existed long before either Crowley or Hubbard came along and long before Hubbard met Jack Parsons who was a friend and contemporary of Aleister Crowley. It is true that Hubbard adopted the OTOs symbol and applied it to his own enterprise however the miss-attribution of the symbol's meaning seems to me to be rather stark, more so when the origins of the symbol are readily researched.
It seems reasonable to suggest that the origins of the symbol be accurately described or at minimum a reference or footnote be provided which accurately describes the origins of the symbol. A quick check of how symbology is describe elsewhere by examining the Swastika page, I see that perhaps a new entry describing the symbol's origins might be appropriate.
What do you think? Damotclese ( talk) 08:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
The New Yorker has just published an article on their website intended for the February 14, 2011 issue. It's long and has some potentially useful information for this and other Scientology articles. — UncleDouggie ( talk) 06:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
i used to live in toronto and would visit the Spaced Out Library of science fiction started by famous author and editor judith merril, which is now part of the toronto public library. she claimed to have a friend who was present on hubbard's yacht when he came up with the idea for scientology. it was begun as a bet off the cuff he said to a friend "i'll bet you a million dollars i can start a religion." i have no references for this outside of my personal experience, plus the fact that judith was a pretty smart and canny gal. 184.74.68.133 ( talk) 19:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)grumpy the alien
Editor Sam Merwin, for example, recalled a meeting: "I always knew he was exceedingly anxious to hit big money—he used to say he thought the best way to do it would be to start a cult." (December 1946) [2] Writer and publisher Lloyd Arthur Eshbach reported Hubbard saying "I'd like to start a religion. That's where the money is." Writer Theodore Sturgeon reported that Hubbard made a similar statement at the Los Angeles Science Fantasy Society. Likewise, writer Sam Moskowitz reported in an affidavit that during an Eastern Science Fiction Association meeting on November 11, 1948, Hubbard had said "You don't get rich writing science fiction. If you want to get rich, you start a religion." [3] Milton A. Rothman also reported to his son Tony Rothman that he heard Hubbard make exactly that claim at a science fiction convention. In 1998, an A&E documentary titled "Inside Scientology" shows Lyle Stuart reporting that Hubbard stated repeatedly that to make money, "you start a religion." [4] I took this from the Scientology Controversies article.-- Jacksoncw ( talk) 04:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
The Xenu story refers multiply to "implants". It is explained elsewhere in Scientology literature that this is a metaphor, not for physical implants, but a mental concept like belief in Christ. It seems to refer to pre-existing beliefs taken by Scientology's as pathological
However after attracting their attention by mocking the Xenu story with a teenager's abandon in the nineties, they stuck me with a real life, physical implant three years ago. It's a chip or something, I've seen its output on an EEG but not an image of it. It produces cartoon faces in my head that act happy or excited when it's not appropriate, depriving me of dignity, privacy, and peace and quiet daily. I know how this sounds
I think it should appear in the article that Scientology's "implants" have become real devices like a pacemaker. Given their interest in other machines designed to work on the mind (E-Meter, etc?) this is not beyond belief, though bizarre.
Thanks. I'd appreciate it, if you think this topic is crazy or inappropriate, if you just ignore it until the 30 day limit for archival rather than (keep!) deleting it
65.92.108.223 ( talk) 10:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
{
The new link to Stephen Kent's article ("Scientology -- Is This a Religion?") is
http://www.uni-marburg.de/fb03/ivk/mjr/pdfs/1999/articles/kent1999.pdf — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Maierstrahl (
talk •
contribs)
00:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a
consensus for this alteration before using the
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.Please say why this link needs to be on this page, also please put {{
Editsemiprotected}} when requesting a semi-protected edit request.--
Breawycker (
talk to me!)
Review Me!
21:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)