![]() | 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 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | → | Archive 33 |
you should mention that most churches and non-profit organizations use .org not .com, the web domain itself brings one to question the religious aspect considering a .com domain points it to being a corporation....just a thought —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.136.249.233 ( talk) 07:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The below listed paragraph taken from the last paragraph of the first page of Scientology does not appear to be balanced and from a neutral point of view. The listed paragraph appears to be written by someone with a slanted perspective of Scientology and based on opinions. I have read your wiki articles on other religions and they don't list former member complaints or "litigation" tactics. Although the person that wrote this paragraph obviously has the right to do so in some newspaper article, I don't believe it deserves its place in a neutral encyclopedia. I believe that after reviewing the below listed paragraph one would agree that it does not fall in line with Wikipedia's mandatory core approach to neutral, unbiased article-writing. Thank you for your consideration into this matter.
"It has often been described as a cult that financially defrauds and abuses its members, charging exorbitant fees for its spiritual services.[9][18][19] The Church of Scientology has consistently used litigation against such critics, and its aggressiveness in pursuing its foes has been condemned as harassment.[20][21] Further controversy has focused on Scientology's belief that souls ("thetans") reincarnate and have lived on other planets before living on Earth.[22] Former members say that some of Hubbard's writings on this remote extraterrestrial past, included in confidential Upper Levels, are not revealed to practitioners until they have paid thousands of dollars to the Church of Scientology."
69.111.183.174 ( talk) 04:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. I'm not sure how you're recommending the paragraph be changed. It seems reasonably balanced to me, in that it specifically cites relevant, reliable sources. That other religions don't have similar comments isn't particularly relevant; many religions, though, have full, independent articles of criticism (just as Scientology does). If you can explain, though, exactly what you think should be changed, please do so and change the "yes" in the template above to "no".
Qwyrxian (
talk)
04:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
It is stating facts and citing quotes, I don't see how this could be considered bias.-- Jacksoncw ( talk) 02:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
The reason why most religion articles don't have sections on litigation is because most religions don't have a documented history of aggressively suing anyone who criticizes them. That's even more of a reason for it to be included in the article, and considering that it is citing quotes and reliable sources, as well as the fact that it is a documented part of Scientology history, I recommend that it remain unchanged. If you would like the article to have a more balanced point of view, perhaps include a couple of sentences detailing Scientology's official responses to such claims. Luvanger666 ( talk) 17:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello,
Per discussion with Coffeepushers, I am proposing adding to the Scientology page. I wanted to propose this edit for the "Organizations" section:
NEW CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY
David Miscavige initiated a strategy in 2003 to build new Churches of Scientology in every major city in the world. Since then, twenty-four new Churches have been opened, a number of them in the world's cultural capitals, including Madrid, New York, London, and Berlin. Miscavige has dedicated ten of these new Scientology Churches since 2009 in Italy, Australia, Mexico, Russia, Sweden, Belgium, Germany, United Kingdom, Spain, Canada and the United States, and 50 Churches are in design, planning or construction phases in 16 different countries.
The current expansion has been estimated at $500 million. Worldwide estimates have been made as to Scientology having more than 8,500 Organizations, Missions and affiliated groups in 165 countries. The expansion has included acquisition and renovation of many historical buildings, and has been said to be helping to revitalize the urban landscape. Total assets and property holdings of the Church of Scientology internationally have doubled since 2004.
Sources include: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/10/business/10scientology.html http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2012502517_scientology01m.html http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2010/07/12/scientology-opens-new-national-organization-mexico-city-palaces/#ixzz1PB3f3ILX
Is this a reasonable edit to make? If so, I'll go ahead and do so. Thanks, NestleNW911 ( talk) 23:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I have applied this edit. Thanks. NestleNW911 ( talk) 19:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I am not allowed to reverse the changes myself, but the addition by NestleNW911 is propaganda. The claim that there are 50 churches in design is not referenced. The claim that there are 8500 churches is church propaganda and patently untrue. Remeber there are only 25000 Scientologists in the US. Can somebody authorised to do so please reverse the change? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Startwater ( talk • contribs) 14:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I see that the 4th paragraph has been questioned by 69.111.183.174. I agree that this portion doesn't seem to comply with WP:NPOV. It jumps right away to negative perceptions of the church, without airing the other side. To give a more balanced point of view, I propose that the following be added:
The Church of Scientology has been recognized as a religious denomination in its home country, the United States and has received full recognition in various other countries such as Italy, South Africa, Australia, Sweden, New Zealand, Portugal and Spain.
Location: After "The Church of Scientology is one of the most controversial new religious movements to have arisen in the 20th century" on the fourth paragraph.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Scientology_status_by_country
Thanks. NestleNW911 ( talk) 00:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Your suggested change is already in the second paragraph of the same section. It doesn't bear repetition in the fourth paragraph. It will only make the article less readable. Startwater ( talk) 15:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Which proposed section is more relevant , is Scientology a Cult or is it Madness proposed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.219.233.72 ( talk) 05:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Someone keeps changing the opening sentence of the article to read "cult", which seems to be causing a little bit of drama, not to mention the fact that people keep requesting an edit to remove sections involving criticism of and crimes committed by Scientology from the article despite said sections citing reliable sources and being relevant to the article.
I don't think that the article should list Scientology as a cult due to the fact that "cult" is a poorly-defined term that could easily be applied to any religious group. It should definitely mention the fact that critics frequently refer to it as a cult, but certain crazy fundamentalist groups have over-applied that word to the point where it's a virtually undefinable term with extreme negative connotations. Pretty much any religious movement can be referred to as a cult. Since "cult" is such a subjective term, its use can't really be justified as neutral except in extreme cases where almost everyone regards the group as a cult (i.e. Peoples Temple, Branch Davidians), and even then, it's a bit iffy.
I also think that it's a little bit paranoid to imply that someone is a secret $cientology propaganda agent just because they recommend that something be changed in a Wikipedia article, which a couple of editors have been doing on the talk page lately, not to mention giving some strongly implied personal insults. We all know that Scientology does have propaganda agents, some of whom are probably trying to edit this article to make it more attractive, but we still have to maintain some semblance of maturity when editing an encyclopedia. I'm not a fan of Scientology myself to say the least, but I think that some users are really showing a lack of maturity when it comes to interacting with others.
There are also certain editors who repeatedly ask for sections of the article (especially those that cover criticism of Scientology) to be removed or rewritten despite being cited perfectly, being written from a neutral point of view, and being entirely relevant to the article. This seems to happen a few times per week, and it's getting plain ridiculous.
In any case, I was wondering if an admin could watch this talk page to quickly topic-ban editors who use personal insults or ask for the same damn thing over and over again, because this talk page has become a breeding ground for trolling, immaturity, and biased thought, none of which is particularly helpful to the development of an encyclopedia article. I'm not saying that Scientologists or critics of Scientology should be banned from editing the article and talk page, but something really needs to be done about the trolls and propagandists who clutter it with personal attacks, blatant propaganda, and other things that detract from edits that are actually relevant.
Any thoughts?
Luvanger666 ( talk) 06:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm not a contributor to these articles, but thought to point out a glaring conflict between the wiki article Scientology and psychiatry, which states:
L. Ron Hubbard, Scientology's founder, was critical of both Freudian theory and biopsychiatry.[4][5][6]
and this article (Scientology and psychiatry), which states:
Sigmund Freud's psychology, popularized in the 1930s and 1940s, was a key contributor to the Dianetics therapy model, and was acknowledged unreservedly as such by Hubbard.[133]
Thought it worth pointing out so that those in the know could correct or clarify as appropriate. (I posted this same message at the talk page for the Scientology and psychiatry wiki) Allonepeople ( talk) 02:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
One of the few explicit intellectual influences on Hubbard, and thus the scientological model of reality, is the popular-science reception of Freud in the 1930s and 1940s, whose basic assumptions had a defining influence on the Dianetical understanding of therapy. This includes the basic elements of his teaching about the mind, the analytic and reactive mind, which are so closely modelled on the concepts of the conscious and unconscious mind that one has to assume an explicit and significant influence on the scientological model of reality (Wallis 1976a: 31ff., Whitehead 1987: 21) – even if Hubbard turns the Freudian intentions of psychotherapy upside down with the practice of Dianetics. [Footnote 24: What Freud was ultimately concerned with was using the unconscious as a means to open a pathway to the complexity of what it means to be human, while the practice of Dianetics is aimed at no less than the extinction of the unconscious (see Fromm 1950: 7 for general background on Hubbard's misunderstanding of Freud).] At least in his early works, Hubbard expressly acknowledged Freud positively: "[...] no praise can be great enough to give such a man, and the credit I give him for my own inspiration and work is entirely without reservation or bounds" [Footnote 25: Hubbard 1955a (216). See also: "A Brief History of Psychotherapy, DAB 1951, Vol. 2, No. 59, November 1951 in TB 1979, Vol. I: 181ff. as well as "The Hope of Man", Ability, Minor 5, June 1955 in TB 1979, Vol. II: 209. The constant reference to his close personal friendship with a declared Freud pupil and expert (Commander S. Thompson) likewise speaks in favour of an adaptation of Freudian thinking (ibid., I, again 1951a: Thanks, Hubbard 1952b: Dedication)].
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:ScientologyCenter1.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 10:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC) |
Under the beliefs header, the way things are formated almost suggests a bias towards the religion. I think that someone might want to review this, and perhaps scan the rest of the article. -- PiKaPi talk blog 19:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
"Some former members claim that some of Hubbard's writings on this remote extraterrestrial past, included in confidential Upper Levels, are not revealed to practitioners until they have paid thousands of dollars to the Church of Scientology."
I've mentioned this a few times over the years, but this ridiculous must be resolved. The space opera and extraterrestrial stuff is clearly "revealed" in publicly available books and lectures like A History of Man and literally dozens and dozens of lecture series that may be purchased at any Church bookstore or perused in their Church libraries (and also can be found in plenty of regular libraries.) The OT levels barely contain any space opera except for the OT III Xenu and BTs business, and by that point, Scientologists have been fully indoctrinated to accept space opera via the dozens of lectures they are required to endure to attain eligibility for the OT levels.
So excuse me if I find the claims of a few disgruntled members who claim they were "shcoked" and "surprised" to learn that they suffer from clusters of BTs and were exploded in volcanoes by an intergalatic dictator. Its nonsense since OT eligibility requires a multitude of prerequisite courses which involve listening to hundreds of lectures and auditing past lives back to trillions of years and so forth. By the time OT III arrives, the Scientologist has been forced to audit so many imaginary incidents in distant galaxies that Xenu and the BT problem would not be surprising at all.
So, can we begin to clarify this issue for the average reader and enlighten them as to the reality that there is nothing secret in Scientology about space opera? Laval ( talk) 05:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
http://www.watoday.com.au/national/scientology-says-cult-tag-defames-the-church-20110709-1h7rq.html
Possible source for improving the article? DigitalC ( talk) 18:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
That goes without saying, cult has a negative connotation. Also, scientologists have tried to get the term cult removed before, try again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.49.24.190 ( talk) 23:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
That's because it is a cult Kfcdesuland ( talk) 19:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I do small edits and such, but I am not experienced enough at this site to even begin to want to touch this article. However, the recent claims that a woman was imprisoned for several years on a Scientology cruise ship may be a point of interest for section 7, controversies. The article is here http://www.limelife.com/blog-entry/Scientologists-Imprisoned-Woman-On-A-Cruise-Ship-For-12-Years/138132.html and their official statement is here http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-11-28/church-of-scientology-statement/3700214 Myrab51 ( talk) 17:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
A lot of the source links that are pro-scientology don't work. And many of the rest (260 being the first one that got my attention, but there are a lot) are referencing Wikipedia. A source (Wikipedia) can't site itself as evidence. This has to change or non-functioning and self-referencing links will be removed. StolenBlueBox ( talk) 06:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
replace "controversial new religious movements" with "controversial of the new religious movements"
Erjoalgo ( talk) 20:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
The article says: "more recently, high-profile defectors Mark Rathbun and Mike Rinder have formed the nucleus of a group of Independent Scientologists".
This is very problematic:
This should be clarified or removed. -- Amir E. Aharoni ( talk) 21:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
On the lede paragraph of this article referring to L. Ron Hubbard as a science fiction and fantasy author. Fact of the matter is that he wrote in many genres: adventure, western, science fiction, fantasy and articles for newspapers and magazines. He cannot be classifed simply as a "Science Fiction author." In the following reference: Encyclopedia of American religious history, Volume 3 By Edward L. Queen, Stephen R. Prothero, Gardiner H. Shattuck - this information is supported. This is the exact text in the encyclopedia:
"From the 1930's until around 1950, Hubbard spent much of his time as a writer of pulp fiction. Also best known as a science fiction writer, Hubbard also wrote western, fantasy, and adventure novels."
In order to acknowledge the wide scope of his writing and not limit him to two genres, I propose we change this to: "Scientology is a body of beliefs and related practices created by author L. Ron Hubbard (1911-1986)..."
Thanks. NestleNW911 ( talk) 23:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for acknowledging my proposal. All for the continued improvement of this page. I've been doing some research on Dr. Joseph A. Winter, one of Hubbard's key supporters on his Dianetics ideas. The Dianetics portion of this article seems to be lacking NPOV, as it does not present exactly why it was supported by the people who did. It merely shows that the ideas were presented by Winter and rejected. It will serve the readers to know more about Winter, why he supported Dianetics, and ultimately, get a more balanced idea about Dianetics.
I would add after the sentence, "Two of Hubbard's key supporters at the time were John W. Campbell Jr., the editor of Astounding Science Fiction, and Dr. Joseph A. Winter."
"Joseph Augustus Winter is an M.D. who got into Dianetics in its early, science-fiction days. Physician Winter, a Manhattan psychosomaticist, was impressed by Hubbard's theory that the mind can register impressions ("engrams") even during unconsciousness. And he was soon convinced that the Dianetics technique of relieving emotional upsets by reliving them before another Dianetics devotee ("auditing") was an improvement on psychoanalysis."
Reference: Departure in Dianetics. Time [serial online]. September 3, 1951;58(10):53. Available from: Academic Search Premier, Ipswich, MA. Accessed January 9, 2012.
Thoughts? NestleNW911 ( talk) 01:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I have added information on the scholarly view in order to achieve more NPOV. Thanks. NestleNW911 ( talk) 22:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Should include reference to Church of Scientology in the Distinguish-Template 93.213.52.103 ( talk) 11:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
This section is at the Gold Base article:
I dont think the holysmoke.org ref is a reliable source. I would simply remove it, but i wanted to bring it to someones attention here, as the article gets very little attention, and i have of course noticed the strict concerns about NPOV for all COS articles. I have no connection with COS or any agency related or critical of it. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 05:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
The last sentence of the second paragraph of the lede states "In other countries, notably France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, Scientology does not have comparable religious status."
I would propose adding Canada to that list. The fact that a majority of G7 nations (ostensibly the most economically advanced nations, with similarly sophisticated legal systems and democratic ideals) don't extend the same rights to the Church of Scientology as they do to other religious organizations is notable, is it not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.52.240.108 ( talk) 04:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
The WP page Scientology in Canada has a reference (not online) listed [1] to what appears to be a book under the heading "Legal Status as a Religion." I'm not suggesting making the point about G7 nations and their legal systems (that would arguably be synthesis, and invite contention), but rather just that adding Canada as a notable nation that doesn't grant the CoS tax exempt status seems reasonable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.52.240.108 ( talk) 05:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Then why is there a line in the lede at all, then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.52.240.108 ( talk) 02:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
To prevent the discussion from being reduced to pedantic linguistic circles, let me rephrase my point. While it could be debated whether or not Canada is "notable" enough to be included in the already existing statement, I am suggesting that when you consider that the other three nations listed are G7 nations, and that Canada is also a G7 nation, the fact that a majority of them don't extend tax free status to the CoS is notable. When I originally read the existing statement, I immediately scanned the article to see how other wealthy advanced nations treated the Church. Therefore, in THAT context, I think it is quite reasonable to include Canada in the statement in the lede. I'm also curious about Japan, but wasn't able to easily ascertain the Church's status in that country. Otherwise, if you object to duplicating information, then delete the statement altogether. The article is protected, or I would make the changes myself. I'm simply suggesting adding the one name. Other readers can draw (or not) the same conclusion that I did on their own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.52.240.108 ( talk) 02:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Dude, read the LINE I'm asking to be edited. It says "In other countries, notably France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, Scientology does not have comparable religious status." Read the context in which the statement is made. And then tell me that adding Canada in that list in no way makes sense to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.52.240.108 ( talk) 02:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
OK, please read the lede. The second paragraph in particular. The statement is talking SPECIFICALLY about tax exempt status. Why is this such a difficult discussion? I'm simply asking for a one word edit, that makes supreme sense to me, for reasons I've tried to very clearly convey. Every counter has been completely off point, as though the editor in residence is just trying to protect the page, without actually reading or caring about the material. Either explain why the proposed edit doesn't make sense in the CONTEXT of the existing lede, or just say "We own the page and are not making edits."
I apologize for being curt, but it seems to me that either I'm not making myself clear, or you aren't actually looking at the material I'm referring to here. Please tell me if I'm unclear, and I will either try harder, or accept my own failing and give up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.52.240.108 ( talk) 03:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps it is worth noting that it is the statement immediately preceding the proposed edits that discusses the Church's supposition that tax exempt status is proof that it is a recognized religion. And then the statement in question noting that those three countries don't grant the CoS comparable status. Neither does Canada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.52.240.108 ( talk) 03:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
The option wasn't yours, it was mine. And you might want to work on your reading comprehension skills. But thanks for the input. My law school would beg to differ with you.
Paragraph 2 of the lede "...Scientology is legally recognized as a tax-exempt religion in the United States and some other countries,[10][11][12][13] and the Church of Scientology emphasizes this as proof that it is a bona fide religion.[14] In other countries, notably France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, Scientology does not have comparable religious status."
Let's deconstruct here, specifically, the word "comparable." In this instance, I don't believe that anyone could dispute that it means "tax exempt." OK, now that we're there (I hope), let's consider what I'm proposing. I propose that adding Canada to THAT statement is worthwhile, because the IMMEDIATE question that came to my mind when I originally read it was to wonder how the rest of the most advanced nations treat the Church. It isn't clear for Japan, it's tax exempt in Italy, and the article already explicitly states that it IS tax exempt in the US. It is NOT tax exempt in Canada. So, it would be reasonable if someone wanted to re-write the lede to take account of these facts, but what I'm simply proposing is that Canada be added to the already existing line in the lede. Alternatively, delete mention of individual countries, and just make the statement that the majority of G7 nations don't grant the CoS tax exempt status, although I would expect that statement to be more contentious. However, that FACT is far more notable than any of the individual countries mentioned, IMO. Since I expect stating it explicitly would be contentious, I propose simply adding Canada to the statement and allowing the reader to draw their own conclusion.
Your logic doesn't address the lede as it already exists. Why then are France, Germany and the UK, notable? Perhaps the statement should be deleted altogether if you feel that it's already included further in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.52.240.108 ( talk) 03:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello Wikipedians! I had observations regarding the statement -"The Church of Scientology is one of the most controversial new religious movements to have arisen in the 20th century. It has often been described as a cult that financially defrauds and abuses its members, charging exorbitant fees for its spiritual services."
Could we word this in such a way that is more balanced? Though there are references that regard Scientology as a cult, it has been recognized as a religion in many places as well. Based on Reference: Huus, Kari (2005-07-05) "Scientology courts the stars" ( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8333804/print/1/displaymode/1098/ and a Wikipedia article ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_status_by_country), we can word this to be more neutral. My suggested wording would be "Scientology, recognized by the U.S. federal government and various other countries such as Italy, South Africa, Australia, Sweden, New Zealand, Portugal and Spain as a religious organization but labeled by its critics as a cult, is one of the most controversial new religious movements to have arisen in the 20th century."
Thank you very much and looking forward to collaborating on this. Scifilover386 ( talk) 00:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I totally agree that the lede section is "supposed to summarize the content within the article proportionally to the article itself as well as the external sources." The "Scientology status by country" section is very extensive yet this sentence on the lead shines on only one side of the story, that Scientology has "often described as a cult." Vague wording too, btw. Perhaps, we can change it to: "Scientology, accepted in many countries as a religious organization yet labeled by its critics as a cult, is one of the most controversial new religious movements to have arisen in the 20th century." It is only fair and neutral to shed light on both positive and critical perceptions of the religion. Scifilover386 ( talk) 00:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I have taken the liberty to slightly modify the statement mention above. I think it is in the interest of making the page more balanced, and it is due weight to acknowledge that Scientology is accepted in many countries. I am open to discussion. Thank you very much! Scifilover386 ( talk) 00:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Thimbleweed. I acknowledge your protest of the removal of the sourced statement, however, I disagree that we can disregard my point altogether. We can still balance this out by mentioning that Scientology is accepted in many countries as a religious organization. Perhaps a version we can agree on is "Scientology, accepted in many countries as a religious organization yet labeled by its critics as a cult, is one of the most controversial new religious movements to have arisen in the 20th century. Its critics claim that it financially defrauds and abuses it members, charging exorbitant fees for its spiritual services." Let me know what you think. NestleNW911 ( talk) 00:48, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi, BTfromLA. Sorry for the confusion. I was merely supporting Scifilover's argument and providing input. I meant to say, "I disagree we can disregard his point altogether..." NestleNW911 ( talk) 17:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I've added information about the etymology of the word Scientology. I thought it was appropriate to include the perspective of Hubbard here. NestleNW911 ( talk) 22:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Why is Xenu not mentioned in the introduction of the article? It seems pretty important. 132.204.221.149 ( talk) 00:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
from the intro: "The Church of Scientology is one of the most controversial new religious movements to have arisen in the 20th century."
shouldn't that be just, "Scientology is one of the most controversial new religious movements..."? The Church of Scientology was described earlier in the intro as being an organization that oversees the implementation of Scientology; in other words, not the religion itself, but its church.
unless there's some meaning here that i'm missing; i'm uninvolved and unfamiliar with the terminology. 24.20.120.165 ( talk) 03:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
hmmm. 24.20.120.165 ( talk) 06:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
i think that the current wording will trip up many general readers; it just feels wrong (then again, maybe not - how many have read this article, and this issue apparently hasn't come up before!). but imagine reading that the christian church is a controversial religious movement. rather, you'd expect to read that christianity is a controversial religious movement. 24.20.120.165 ( talk) 17:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Regarding this section, "While acknowledging that a number of his colleagues accept Scientology as a religion, sociologist and professor Stephen A. Kent wrote: "Rather than struggling over whether or not to label Scientology as a religion, I find it far more helpful to view it as a multifaceted transnational corporation, only one element of which is religious" [emphasis in the original].[194][195] Kent also holds that the US government sees Scientology not as a religion, but as a charitable organization due to their religious claims."
There is a need to add more information here to make it more NPOV. I've found some information on a well-known scholar, J. Gordon Melton, who speaks from an alternate perspective. I've added the following text:
Religious scholar J. Gordon Melton asserts, “The Church of Scientology is very much a religion in the fullest sense of the word.” Reference: http://www.neuereligion.de/ENG/melton/page01.htm
Thank you. NestleNW911 ( talk) 22:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
May 25, 2012
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Within the sub-section marked 'Auditing confidentiality', in the section 'Controversies', it currently states "Charges that private information from auditing files has actually been used against individuals have not been upheld in court." using a book by J. Gordon Melton as reference. However, this is false. I suggest the statement either be removed completely, or followed by another statement relaying the following quote from the court file of 'Larry Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology of California' ( http://www.xenu.net/archive/CourtFiles/occf105.html): "There is substantial evidence Wollersheim divulged private information during auditing sessions under an explicit or implicit promise the information would remain confidential. Moreover, there is substantial evidence Scientology leaders and employees shared this confidential information and used it to plan and implement a "fair game" campaign against Wollersheim."
Riffraff913 ( talk) 00:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
( Jonathanfu ( talk) 19:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC))
I'm doing some research on this ... for the moment, this is as far as I got:
E. Scientology's Improper Disclosure of Information Wollersheim Gave During Confidential Religious Sessions Is Not Religious Expression Immunized From Liability by the Constitution
There is substantial evidence Wollersheim divulged private information during auditing sessions under an explicit or implicit promise the information would remain confidential. Moreover, there is substantial evidence Scientology leaders and employees shared this confidential information and used it to plan and implement a "fair game" campaign against Wollersheim. Scientology argues there also is substantial evidence in the record supporting its defense that Scientology leaders and employees shared this confidential information only in accordance with normal procedures and for the purpose of gaining the advice and assistance of more experienced Scientologists in evaluating Wollersheim's auditing sessions. However, the jury was entitled to disregard this innocent explanation and to believe Wollersheim's version of how and why Scientology divulged information he had supplied in confidence.
The intentional and improper disclosure of information obtained during auditing sessions for nonreligious purposes can hardly qualify as “religious expression.” To clarify the point, we turn once again to a hypothetical situation which presents a rough analogy under a traditional religion. Imagine a stockbroker had confessed to a cleric in a confessional that he had engaged in “insider trading.” Sometime later this same stockbroker leaves *900 the church and begins criticizing it and its leadership publicly. To discredit this critic, the church discloses the stockbroker has confessed he is an insider trader. This disclosure might be said to advance the interests of the cleric's religion in the sense it would tend to discourage former members from criticizing the church. But to characterize this violation of religious confidentiality as “religious expression” would distort the meaning of the English language as well as the United States Constitution. This same conclusion applies to Scientology's disclosures of Wollersheim's confidences in the instant case. And, since these disclosures do not qualify as “religious expression” they do not qualify for protection under the freedom of religion guaranties of the Constitution. (See Discussion at pp. 887-889, supra.)
As with any counselling process which survey a person’s entire life, many intimate, embarrassing, and even questionable incidents may be highlighted. A file of information concerning a person’s past actions which may be compiled as auditing continues might offer the possibility of misuse. For example, were the content of a file leaked, it could be used to blackmail an individual who had disclosed past illegal or immoral acts. Some former Scientologists have charged that, in fact, such illicit use of their auditing files has occurred. Going far beyond those reports, some critics have charged that the misuse of auditing files are (or have been) a common practice within the church in an attempt to control undisciplined members. Generally speaking, although amid the hundreds of thousands of hours of auditing done in the church an occasional abuse may have occurred, the charges of abuse have not been substantiated when presented in courts of justice, and we are thus left with a lack of verified evidence of any invasion of members‘ auditing files or invasion of their privacy. Such actions would run counter to to the basic rules taught by auditors in their professional code of conduct to which each must adhere. Each auditor promises “never to use the secrets of a pre-clear divulged in session for punishment or personal gain.” Any auditor found operating in violation of “The Auditor’s Code” would be dismissed from the church’s staff.
During the auditing process, the auditor may collect personal information from the person being audited. [1] Auditing records are referred to within Scientology as preclear folders. [2] The Church of Scientology has strict codes designed to protect the confidentiality of the information contained in these folders. [1] However, people leaving Scientology know that the Church is in possession of very personal information about them, and that the Church has a history of attacking and psychologically abusing those who leave it and become critics. [2] On December 16, 1969, an Guardian's Office order (G. O. 121669) by Mary Sue Hubbard authorized the use of auditing records for purposes of "internal security." [3] Some former members have said that while they were still in the Church, they combed through information obtained in auditing sessions to see if it could be used for smear campaigns against critics. [4] [5] The Church of Scientology of California responded by stating that the letter which gave Mary Sue Hubbard authority to cull confessional files was not official policy and had been previously canceled. Charges that private information from auditing files has actually been used against individuals have not been upheld in court. [1]
August 2, 2012
An addition to the the membership section:
I just saw an ad for Scientology on YouTube where they claimed to have 10,000 churches and add 4.5 million new members per year. I was going to add this claim to the membership section when I saw the article is locked. I think it is important to ad this information because there is a huge difference between what the church is claiming and what others are saying about it. I suspect both sides are biased and that the real numbers are somewhere in between. One way to promote a movement is to say many people are involved. One way to squash a movement is to say that few people care enough to participate. We see this every time there is a demonstration in Washington DC. People always argue about how many protesters were there. The protesters always argue there were more than what the news agencies are reporting while those who are against the protesters always argue there were fewer people. Often the two sides have drastically different numbers.
I have added more information about the Volunteer Ministers in the Technology Application Organizations section. NestleNW911 ( talk) 21:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I have also added a qualifying statement to the "Status by country" section. NestleNW911 ( talk) 21:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I tell you! Without the explicit citing of "Aims of Scientology", the credibility of this article only goes that far! You could almost remove the 10 commandments from the page of Christianity in violating the encyclopedic commitment of Wikipedia when this article is to give precise and factual information of the CoS! There is a deleted section here. Why is this? Please, be aware of the quality level here. Thank you. LFOlsnes-Lea 04:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LFOlsnes-Lea ( talk • contribs)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
NestleNW911's edit on 19 June 2012 should cite a different source, or be rolled back. The source currently cited doesn't back the statement made in the edit ("The IRS’s examination of Scientology was reported to have been the most exhaustive review of any non-profit organization in history"). PlanetaryIntergalactic ( talk) 00:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
put in Church of Scientology? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.16.241.158 ( talk) 05:59, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Regarding this section:
"In the OT levels, Hubbard explains how to reverse the effects of past-life trauma patterns that supposedly extend millions of years into the past.[121] Among these advanced teachings is the story of Xenu (sometimes Xemu), introduced as the tyrant ruler of the "Galactic Confederacy." According to this story, 75 million years ago Xenu brought billions of people to Earth in spacecraft resembling Douglas DC-8 airliners, stacked them around volcanoes and detonated hydrogen bombs in the volcanoes. The thetans then clustered together, stuck to the bodies of the living, and continue to do this today. Scientologists at advanced levels place considerable emphasis on isolating body thetans and neutralizing their ill effects.[122]
We need to frame this in the proper context for NPOV. This version presents it as default truth, but we need to reflect the discussion around this bit of information. I propose to add: "There are varying statements from the Church of Scientology about the truth of the Xenu Story. Senior members of the Church of Scientology have several times publicly denied or minimized the importance of the Xenu story, but others have admitted its existence. "
This is based on another Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenu#Church_of_Scientology.27s_position This is one third party reference: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/03/16/scientology_xenu_confirmation/
This statement reflects the debate around the Xenu story, thus promoting NPOV.
Thanks. NestleNW911 ( talk) 23:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
As you said, this discussion is well covered in the Xenu article. It is worthy to mention it in more general terms in this article, since it is a high traffic article that is pivotal to the subject of Scientology. I wasn't suggesting that we quote any COS officials. If you examine my suggestion closely, it merely provides an overview of the current reaction and sentiment to the Xenu story from the church. To go to in detail is yes, unnecessary. But to provide an overview is helpful and necessary. NestleNW911 ( talk) 21:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I find it offensive that this page still has the cross on it despite the fact that it is now removed from the Scientology online pages and falls under (a slight) breach against notions of Aberration and Engrams. There are strict rules for this in Scientology and as I understand it, it has now been rolled back to the usual "two triangles of ARC and KRC and the S". Can you remove the Cross, please? LFOlsnes-Lea 18:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Actually, there may be something to what LFOIsnes-Lea is saying. For example, the Buffalo Church building was recently rededicated: [16]. The outside of the building used to sport the Scientology cross; it now only shows the pyramid and the two triangle/S symbol. If the cross now plays second or third fiddle as a symbol of Scientology, we should make it less prominent. J N 466 21:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
just did a google of scientology while the "offical" scientology sites do use a dual gold triangle linked with a S as their logo almost all major buildings/curches including american HQ, Aus HQ and sea org still have the cross above their buildings. it may be ona to do list to remove but until it occurs it is still technically an identifying symbol of the curches and followers beliefs. it should also be noted that Hubard himself defended the cross and stated wearing one was required by high ranking members. this has been changed under modern practices to the new symbol. as such keeping the cross for historical purposes is probally not a bad thing as only anti scientologists or cathlic/christian people would be truly offended by it. 152.91.9.153 ( talk) 00:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Just checked out the new source from NestleNW911. I don't know squat about law and how these documents work, but this header "DECLARATION OF DAVID MISCAVIGE" stands out to me. Was Miscavige under oath? Or is he able to say whatever he wants? If so, excellent source. If not, we could change the tidbit from "The IRS’s examination of Scientology was reported to have been the most exhaustive review of any non-profit organization in history." to "David Miscavige claims that the IRS’s examination of Scientology the most exhaustive review of any non-profit organization in history." ( Jonathanfu ( talk) 05:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC))
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apotheosis - is there a relationship to Apotheosis/deification and also to the idea of The Fall and the idea of rebirth and Salvation and Justification restoring a lost vestige of divinity? The story of Thetans forgetting their true nature also echoes extra-canaonical and conspiracy stories of fallen angels breeding with people. The article suggests links to the Bhuddist Taoist and Hindu and generally 'eastern thought' and gnostic thought but there is arguably a christian part in the blending of these ideas as well; this isn't too strange a suggestion without supporting quotesg; scientology was born in the US! But can people find any? Kathybramley ( talk) 18:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Can that possibly be NPOV? It's my personal opinion that Scientology IS a cult, but can we really say something like that here at all, let alone without a citation? Christianity is a cult too (and I'm a Christian), but I doubt we'd ever dare refer to it as such. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 00:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
No need to lie, evanh. It is a consistently used tactic for scientologists to use "im with you" jargon to get people to agree with them, if you actually have a legitimate reason for removing the term please say so, otherwise stay out of the discussion page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.49.47.34 ( talk) 18:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
yeah evanh or shes going to wiki kick you off the internet. wiki has become a place for intelligent trolls to argue. I'm starting to enjoy this... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.169.224.100 ( talk) 14:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
please see WP:TALK, this is not a forum for the usage of the word "cult." no where in this article does it describe scientology as a "cult" except in places where it is quoting criticism from WP:RS, the original post was referring to something that was identified as vandalism. please check the article and identify a problem. Coffeepusher ( talk) 22:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm surprised that this article isn't tagged with the Category:Destructive cult. I'd like to add that category, but I'm seeking input here before doing so. 66.90.146.89 ( talk) 23:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
I have made a couple of minor changes in the lead - changed the vague mention of the Scientology Volunteer Ministers and WISE to their proper names. Why mention them vaguely when these organizations are noteworthy enough to have their own Wikipedia articles? NestleNW911 ( talk) 22:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
This article fails to comply with academic standards when it comes to references, hence Chicago Manual of Style. The article contains this, several places: 7.^ Neusner 2003, p. 227, 8.^ a b Melton 2000, pp. 28. I also find it academically dubious that this article has little or no references to the original material, and that references with "hearsay" are supposed to enter by default as in "finding something on them", the blind persecution by idiots! Do you mind amending, please? LFOlsnes-Lea ( talk) 00:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
is supposed to mean. Which references are you referring to? Jonathanfu ( talk) 07:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)references with "hearsay" are supposed to enter by default as in "finding something on them"
Can someone ban this idiot already? -- 98.243.198.124 ( talk) 18:15, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
In this section, the countries that Scientology is recognized in is referred to as "some other countries" and the countries where Scientology "does not have comparable religious status" is enumerated. There is subtly hidden rhetoric that pushes the POV that Scientology in a greater sense is not a bonafide religion. In order to achieve more NPOV, I have edited so that a few of those countries where Scientology is recognized in be enumerated as well. NestleNW911 ( talk) 19:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
In the light of NPOV, I've added a counterstatement expressing the view of the church in the fourth paragraph of the lead section. This is to balance out the information and represent all sides. Thanks. NestleNW911 ( talk) 00:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I've modified it to reflect source closer. "Suffering a concerted campaign" seems to express a whole other meaning entirely not asserted by the Urban book. I think it would be safer to make the edit as close to the source as possible, so as not to distort the meaning. NestleNW911 ( talk) 23:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
The development of Dianetics and various reactions to it are recorded in a detailed manner on this section. What is lacking is a more thorough definition of what Dianetics actually is, since it is the title of the heading, not "The History of Dianetics." I have added more information to this section from an article found through JSTOR. NestleNW911 ( talk) 22:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
This looks great. Thanks. NestleNW911 ( talk) 23:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I've added more information about Dianetics that I found in a scholarly journal and in Melton's Church of Scientology book. Thanks. NestleNW911 ( talk) 23:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Added a clarification sourced from J. Gordon Melton's text. NestleNW911 ( talk) 23:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
This section could be improved by removing the short forms (orgs, stats). I suspect that the write included those because those are the terms used by members in common speech, but since that is not said explicitly this just introduces vagueness and an unnecessarily informal tone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.148.98 ( talk) 01:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
On the statement, "According to several of his fellow science fiction writers, Hubbard had on several occasions stated that the way to get rich was to start a religion." I verified this statement against the cited J. Gordon Melton resource (Book:Studies in Contemporary Religion: The Church of Scientology ISBN: 978-1-56085-139-4) and an important part of the sentence was left out. Melton specifically mentioned "there is no record of Hubbard having ever made this statement." It is a grave misconception that must be corrected. I have inserted the qualifying text referencing the abovementioned book and added a bit of information I found from the Scientific American in order to improve this section for accuracy and NPOV. Thanks. NestleNW911 ( talk) 22:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Wikiquote: L. Rob Hubbard has much useful info on this. Best source seems to be Eshbach: "The incident is stamped indelibly in my mind because of one statement that Ron Hubbard made. What led him to say what he did I can't recall — but in so many words Hubbard said: "I'd like to start a religion. That's where the money is!"" (L. Ron Hubbard to Lloyd A. Eshbach, in 1949; as quoted by Eshbach in his autobiography Over My Shoulder: Reflections On A Science Fiction Era (1983) ISBN 1-880418-11-8) -- Mknjbhvgcf ( talk) 14:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm researching Narconon, just came across this source which might be useful for the main Scientology article.
It's a German interview with a Scientology defector, in 1996.
I think it provides an interesting perspective on the German government's attitude to Scientology.
Original article in German is here, machine translation to English is here.
-- Mknjbhvgcf ( talk) 13:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
These sociologists do not live apart from reality and thus Kent needs to see that "In plain English, the purpose of Scientology ethics is to eliminate opponents, then eliminate people's interests in things other than Scientology." [6], even though Scientology has clearly defined its ethics as common sense ethics, i.e., ethics that everyone can identify with." Abrupt lies can't be accepted as part of article!!! LFOlsnes-Lea ( talk) 04:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
A bit more from mr. Grumpy: Aims of Scientology
I tell you! Without the explicit citing of "Aims of Scientology", the credibility of this article only goes that far! You could almost remove the 10 commandments from the page of Christianity in violating the encyclopedic commitment of Wikipedia when this article is to give precise and factual information of the CoS! There is a deleted section here. Why is this? Please, be aware of the quality level here. Thank you. (This is actually undoing a former Talkpage notification.)
LFOlsnes-Lea (
talk)
04:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I find it interesting that these aims are for the whole of 'civilisation', not just for Scientology or Scientologists (i.e. that scientology wants to impose its aims on the whole of civilisation - this ties in with independent commentary from Der Spiegel, linked above). Discussion of the Scientology definitions of some of the key terms in the aims:THE AIMS OF SCIENTOLOGY (Written by L. Ron Hubbard in September 1965). A civilization without insanity, without criminals and without war, where the able can prosper and honest beings can have rights, and where Man is free to rise to greater heights, are the aims of Scientology.
{{
cite journal}}
: |pages=
has extra text (
help); Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help); Kent cites Hubbard, L. Ron (1976a). Modern Management Technology Defined. Copenhagen, New Era Publications.
![]() | 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 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | → | Archive 33 |
you should mention that most churches and non-profit organizations use .org not .com, the web domain itself brings one to question the religious aspect considering a .com domain points it to being a corporation....just a thought —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.136.249.233 ( talk) 07:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The below listed paragraph taken from the last paragraph of the first page of Scientology does not appear to be balanced and from a neutral point of view. The listed paragraph appears to be written by someone with a slanted perspective of Scientology and based on opinions. I have read your wiki articles on other religions and they don't list former member complaints or "litigation" tactics. Although the person that wrote this paragraph obviously has the right to do so in some newspaper article, I don't believe it deserves its place in a neutral encyclopedia. I believe that after reviewing the below listed paragraph one would agree that it does not fall in line with Wikipedia's mandatory core approach to neutral, unbiased article-writing. Thank you for your consideration into this matter.
"It has often been described as a cult that financially defrauds and abuses its members, charging exorbitant fees for its spiritual services.[9][18][19] The Church of Scientology has consistently used litigation against such critics, and its aggressiveness in pursuing its foes has been condemned as harassment.[20][21] Further controversy has focused on Scientology's belief that souls ("thetans") reincarnate and have lived on other planets before living on Earth.[22] Former members say that some of Hubbard's writings on this remote extraterrestrial past, included in confidential Upper Levels, are not revealed to practitioners until they have paid thousands of dollars to the Church of Scientology."
69.111.183.174 ( talk) 04:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. I'm not sure how you're recommending the paragraph be changed. It seems reasonably balanced to me, in that it specifically cites relevant, reliable sources. That other religions don't have similar comments isn't particularly relevant; many religions, though, have full, independent articles of criticism (just as Scientology does). If you can explain, though, exactly what you think should be changed, please do so and change the "yes" in the template above to "no".
Qwyrxian (
talk)
04:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
It is stating facts and citing quotes, I don't see how this could be considered bias.-- Jacksoncw ( talk) 02:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
The reason why most religion articles don't have sections on litigation is because most religions don't have a documented history of aggressively suing anyone who criticizes them. That's even more of a reason for it to be included in the article, and considering that it is citing quotes and reliable sources, as well as the fact that it is a documented part of Scientology history, I recommend that it remain unchanged. If you would like the article to have a more balanced point of view, perhaps include a couple of sentences detailing Scientology's official responses to such claims. Luvanger666 ( talk) 17:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello,
Per discussion with Coffeepushers, I am proposing adding to the Scientology page. I wanted to propose this edit for the "Organizations" section:
NEW CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY
David Miscavige initiated a strategy in 2003 to build new Churches of Scientology in every major city in the world. Since then, twenty-four new Churches have been opened, a number of them in the world's cultural capitals, including Madrid, New York, London, and Berlin. Miscavige has dedicated ten of these new Scientology Churches since 2009 in Italy, Australia, Mexico, Russia, Sweden, Belgium, Germany, United Kingdom, Spain, Canada and the United States, and 50 Churches are in design, planning or construction phases in 16 different countries.
The current expansion has been estimated at $500 million. Worldwide estimates have been made as to Scientology having more than 8,500 Organizations, Missions and affiliated groups in 165 countries. The expansion has included acquisition and renovation of many historical buildings, and has been said to be helping to revitalize the urban landscape. Total assets and property holdings of the Church of Scientology internationally have doubled since 2004.
Sources include: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/10/business/10scientology.html http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2012502517_scientology01m.html http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2010/07/12/scientology-opens-new-national-organization-mexico-city-palaces/#ixzz1PB3f3ILX
Is this a reasonable edit to make? If so, I'll go ahead and do so. Thanks, NestleNW911 ( talk) 23:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I have applied this edit. Thanks. NestleNW911 ( talk) 19:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I am not allowed to reverse the changes myself, but the addition by NestleNW911 is propaganda. The claim that there are 50 churches in design is not referenced. The claim that there are 8500 churches is church propaganda and patently untrue. Remeber there are only 25000 Scientologists in the US. Can somebody authorised to do so please reverse the change? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Startwater ( talk • contribs) 14:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I see that the 4th paragraph has been questioned by 69.111.183.174. I agree that this portion doesn't seem to comply with WP:NPOV. It jumps right away to negative perceptions of the church, without airing the other side. To give a more balanced point of view, I propose that the following be added:
The Church of Scientology has been recognized as a religious denomination in its home country, the United States and has received full recognition in various other countries such as Italy, South Africa, Australia, Sweden, New Zealand, Portugal and Spain.
Location: After "The Church of Scientology is one of the most controversial new religious movements to have arisen in the 20th century" on the fourth paragraph.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Scientology_status_by_country
Thanks. NestleNW911 ( talk) 00:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Your suggested change is already in the second paragraph of the same section. It doesn't bear repetition in the fourth paragraph. It will only make the article less readable. Startwater ( talk) 15:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Which proposed section is more relevant , is Scientology a Cult or is it Madness proposed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.219.233.72 ( talk) 05:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Someone keeps changing the opening sentence of the article to read "cult", which seems to be causing a little bit of drama, not to mention the fact that people keep requesting an edit to remove sections involving criticism of and crimes committed by Scientology from the article despite said sections citing reliable sources and being relevant to the article.
I don't think that the article should list Scientology as a cult due to the fact that "cult" is a poorly-defined term that could easily be applied to any religious group. It should definitely mention the fact that critics frequently refer to it as a cult, but certain crazy fundamentalist groups have over-applied that word to the point where it's a virtually undefinable term with extreme negative connotations. Pretty much any religious movement can be referred to as a cult. Since "cult" is such a subjective term, its use can't really be justified as neutral except in extreme cases where almost everyone regards the group as a cult (i.e. Peoples Temple, Branch Davidians), and even then, it's a bit iffy.
I also think that it's a little bit paranoid to imply that someone is a secret $cientology propaganda agent just because they recommend that something be changed in a Wikipedia article, which a couple of editors have been doing on the talk page lately, not to mention giving some strongly implied personal insults. We all know that Scientology does have propaganda agents, some of whom are probably trying to edit this article to make it more attractive, but we still have to maintain some semblance of maturity when editing an encyclopedia. I'm not a fan of Scientology myself to say the least, but I think that some users are really showing a lack of maturity when it comes to interacting with others.
There are also certain editors who repeatedly ask for sections of the article (especially those that cover criticism of Scientology) to be removed or rewritten despite being cited perfectly, being written from a neutral point of view, and being entirely relevant to the article. This seems to happen a few times per week, and it's getting plain ridiculous.
In any case, I was wondering if an admin could watch this talk page to quickly topic-ban editors who use personal insults or ask for the same damn thing over and over again, because this talk page has become a breeding ground for trolling, immaturity, and biased thought, none of which is particularly helpful to the development of an encyclopedia article. I'm not saying that Scientologists or critics of Scientology should be banned from editing the article and talk page, but something really needs to be done about the trolls and propagandists who clutter it with personal attacks, blatant propaganda, and other things that detract from edits that are actually relevant.
Any thoughts?
Luvanger666 ( talk) 06:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm not a contributor to these articles, but thought to point out a glaring conflict between the wiki article Scientology and psychiatry, which states:
L. Ron Hubbard, Scientology's founder, was critical of both Freudian theory and biopsychiatry.[4][5][6]
and this article (Scientology and psychiatry), which states:
Sigmund Freud's psychology, popularized in the 1930s and 1940s, was a key contributor to the Dianetics therapy model, and was acknowledged unreservedly as such by Hubbard.[133]
Thought it worth pointing out so that those in the know could correct or clarify as appropriate. (I posted this same message at the talk page for the Scientology and psychiatry wiki) Allonepeople ( talk) 02:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
One of the few explicit intellectual influences on Hubbard, and thus the scientological model of reality, is the popular-science reception of Freud in the 1930s and 1940s, whose basic assumptions had a defining influence on the Dianetical understanding of therapy. This includes the basic elements of his teaching about the mind, the analytic and reactive mind, which are so closely modelled on the concepts of the conscious and unconscious mind that one has to assume an explicit and significant influence on the scientological model of reality (Wallis 1976a: 31ff., Whitehead 1987: 21) – even if Hubbard turns the Freudian intentions of psychotherapy upside down with the practice of Dianetics. [Footnote 24: What Freud was ultimately concerned with was using the unconscious as a means to open a pathway to the complexity of what it means to be human, while the practice of Dianetics is aimed at no less than the extinction of the unconscious (see Fromm 1950: 7 for general background on Hubbard's misunderstanding of Freud).] At least in his early works, Hubbard expressly acknowledged Freud positively: "[...] no praise can be great enough to give such a man, and the credit I give him for my own inspiration and work is entirely without reservation or bounds" [Footnote 25: Hubbard 1955a (216). See also: "A Brief History of Psychotherapy, DAB 1951, Vol. 2, No. 59, November 1951 in TB 1979, Vol. I: 181ff. as well as "The Hope of Man", Ability, Minor 5, June 1955 in TB 1979, Vol. II: 209. The constant reference to his close personal friendship with a declared Freud pupil and expert (Commander S. Thompson) likewise speaks in favour of an adaptation of Freudian thinking (ibid., I, again 1951a: Thanks, Hubbard 1952b: Dedication)].
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:ScientologyCenter1.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 10:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC) |
Under the beliefs header, the way things are formated almost suggests a bias towards the religion. I think that someone might want to review this, and perhaps scan the rest of the article. -- PiKaPi talk blog 19:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
"Some former members claim that some of Hubbard's writings on this remote extraterrestrial past, included in confidential Upper Levels, are not revealed to practitioners until they have paid thousands of dollars to the Church of Scientology."
I've mentioned this a few times over the years, but this ridiculous must be resolved. The space opera and extraterrestrial stuff is clearly "revealed" in publicly available books and lectures like A History of Man and literally dozens and dozens of lecture series that may be purchased at any Church bookstore or perused in their Church libraries (and also can be found in plenty of regular libraries.) The OT levels barely contain any space opera except for the OT III Xenu and BTs business, and by that point, Scientologists have been fully indoctrinated to accept space opera via the dozens of lectures they are required to endure to attain eligibility for the OT levels.
So excuse me if I find the claims of a few disgruntled members who claim they were "shcoked" and "surprised" to learn that they suffer from clusters of BTs and were exploded in volcanoes by an intergalatic dictator. Its nonsense since OT eligibility requires a multitude of prerequisite courses which involve listening to hundreds of lectures and auditing past lives back to trillions of years and so forth. By the time OT III arrives, the Scientologist has been forced to audit so many imaginary incidents in distant galaxies that Xenu and the BT problem would not be surprising at all.
So, can we begin to clarify this issue for the average reader and enlighten them as to the reality that there is nothing secret in Scientology about space opera? Laval ( talk) 05:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
http://www.watoday.com.au/national/scientology-says-cult-tag-defames-the-church-20110709-1h7rq.html
Possible source for improving the article? DigitalC ( talk) 18:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
That goes without saying, cult has a negative connotation. Also, scientologists have tried to get the term cult removed before, try again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.49.24.190 ( talk) 23:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
That's because it is a cult Kfcdesuland ( talk) 19:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I do small edits and such, but I am not experienced enough at this site to even begin to want to touch this article. However, the recent claims that a woman was imprisoned for several years on a Scientology cruise ship may be a point of interest for section 7, controversies. The article is here http://www.limelife.com/blog-entry/Scientologists-Imprisoned-Woman-On-A-Cruise-Ship-For-12-Years/138132.html and their official statement is here http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-11-28/church-of-scientology-statement/3700214 Myrab51 ( talk) 17:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
A lot of the source links that are pro-scientology don't work. And many of the rest (260 being the first one that got my attention, but there are a lot) are referencing Wikipedia. A source (Wikipedia) can't site itself as evidence. This has to change or non-functioning and self-referencing links will be removed. StolenBlueBox ( talk) 06:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
replace "controversial new religious movements" with "controversial of the new religious movements"
Erjoalgo ( talk) 20:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
The article says: "more recently, high-profile defectors Mark Rathbun and Mike Rinder have formed the nucleus of a group of Independent Scientologists".
This is very problematic:
This should be clarified or removed. -- Amir E. Aharoni ( talk) 21:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
On the lede paragraph of this article referring to L. Ron Hubbard as a science fiction and fantasy author. Fact of the matter is that he wrote in many genres: adventure, western, science fiction, fantasy and articles for newspapers and magazines. He cannot be classifed simply as a "Science Fiction author." In the following reference: Encyclopedia of American religious history, Volume 3 By Edward L. Queen, Stephen R. Prothero, Gardiner H. Shattuck - this information is supported. This is the exact text in the encyclopedia:
"From the 1930's until around 1950, Hubbard spent much of his time as a writer of pulp fiction. Also best known as a science fiction writer, Hubbard also wrote western, fantasy, and adventure novels."
In order to acknowledge the wide scope of his writing and not limit him to two genres, I propose we change this to: "Scientology is a body of beliefs and related practices created by author L. Ron Hubbard (1911-1986)..."
Thanks. NestleNW911 ( talk) 23:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for acknowledging my proposal. All for the continued improvement of this page. I've been doing some research on Dr. Joseph A. Winter, one of Hubbard's key supporters on his Dianetics ideas. The Dianetics portion of this article seems to be lacking NPOV, as it does not present exactly why it was supported by the people who did. It merely shows that the ideas were presented by Winter and rejected. It will serve the readers to know more about Winter, why he supported Dianetics, and ultimately, get a more balanced idea about Dianetics.
I would add after the sentence, "Two of Hubbard's key supporters at the time were John W. Campbell Jr., the editor of Astounding Science Fiction, and Dr. Joseph A. Winter."
"Joseph Augustus Winter is an M.D. who got into Dianetics in its early, science-fiction days. Physician Winter, a Manhattan psychosomaticist, was impressed by Hubbard's theory that the mind can register impressions ("engrams") even during unconsciousness. And he was soon convinced that the Dianetics technique of relieving emotional upsets by reliving them before another Dianetics devotee ("auditing") was an improvement on psychoanalysis."
Reference: Departure in Dianetics. Time [serial online]. September 3, 1951;58(10):53. Available from: Academic Search Premier, Ipswich, MA. Accessed January 9, 2012.
Thoughts? NestleNW911 ( talk) 01:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I have added information on the scholarly view in order to achieve more NPOV. Thanks. NestleNW911 ( talk) 22:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Should include reference to Church of Scientology in the Distinguish-Template 93.213.52.103 ( talk) 11:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
This section is at the Gold Base article:
I dont think the holysmoke.org ref is a reliable source. I would simply remove it, but i wanted to bring it to someones attention here, as the article gets very little attention, and i have of course noticed the strict concerns about NPOV for all COS articles. I have no connection with COS or any agency related or critical of it. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 05:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
The last sentence of the second paragraph of the lede states "In other countries, notably France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, Scientology does not have comparable religious status."
I would propose adding Canada to that list. The fact that a majority of G7 nations (ostensibly the most economically advanced nations, with similarly sophisticated legal systems and democratic ideals) don't extend the same rights to the Church of Scientology as they do to other religious organizations is notable, is it not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.52.240.108 ( talk) 04:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
The WP page Scientology in Canada has a reference (not online) listed [1] to what appears to be a book under the heading "Legal Status as a Religion." I'm not suggesting making the point about G7 nations and their legal systems (that would arguably be synthesis, and invite contention), but rather just that adding Canada as a notable nation that doesn't grant the CoS tax exempt status seems reasonable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.52.240.108 ( talk) 05:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Then why is there a line in the lede at all, then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.52.240.108 ( talk) 02:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
To prevent the discussion from being reduced to pedantic linguistic circles, let me rephrase my point. While it could be debated whether or not Canada is "notable" enough to be included in the already existing statement, I am suggesting that when you consider that the other three nations listed are G7 nations, and that Canada is also a G7 nation, the fact that a majority of them don't extend tax free status to the CoS is notable. When I originally read the existing statement, I immediately scanned the article to see how other wealthy advanced nations treated the Church. Therefore, in THAT context, I think it is quite reasonable to include Canada in the statement in the lede. I'm also curious about Japan, but wasn't able to easily ascertain the Church's status in that country. Otherwise, if you object to duplicating information, then delete the statement altogether. The article is protected, or I would make the changes myself. I'm simply suggesting adding the one name. Other readers can draw (or not) the same conclusion that I did on their own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.52.240.108 ( talk) 02:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Dude, read the LINE I'm asking to be edited. It says "In other countries, notably France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, Scientology does not have comparable religious status." Read the context in which the statement is made. And then tell me that adding Canada in that list in no way makes sense to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.52.240.108 ( talk) 02:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
OK, please read the lede. The second paragraph in particular. The statement is talking SPECIFICALLY about tax exempt status. Why is this such a difficult discussion? I'm simply asking for a one word edit, that makes supreme sense to me, for reasons I've tried to very clearly convey. Every counter has been completely off point, as though the editor in residence is just trying to protect the page, without actually reading or caring about the material. Either explain why the proposed edit doesn't make sense in the CONTEXT of the existing lede, or just say "We own the page and are not making edits."
I apologize for being curt, but it seems to me that either I'm not making myself clear, or you aren't actually looking at the material I'm referring to here. Please tell me if I'm unclear, and I will either try harder, or accept my own failing and give up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.52.240.108 ( talk) 03:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps it is worth noting that it is the statement immediately preceding the proposed edits that discusses the Church's supposition that tax exempt status is proof that it is a recognized religion. And then the statement in question noting that those three countries don't grant the CoS comparable status. Neither does Canada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.52.240.108 ( talk) 03:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
The option wasn't yours, it was mine. And you might want to work on your reading comprehension skills. But thanks for the input. My law school would beg to differ with you.
Paragraph 2 of the lede "...Scientology is legally recognized as a tax-exempt religion in the United States and some other countries,[10][11][12][13] and the Church of Scientology emphasizes this as proof that it is a bona fide religion.[14] In other countries, notably France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, Scientology does not have comparable religious status."
Let's deconstruct here, specifically, the word "comparable." In this instance, I don't believe that anyone could dispute that it means "tax exempt." OK, now that we're there (I hope), let's consider what I'm proposing. I propose that adding Canada to THAT statement is worthwhile, because the IMMEDIATE question that came to my mind when I originally read it was to wonder how the rest of the most advanced nations treat the Church. It isn't clear for Japan, it's tax exempt in Italy, and the article already explicitly states that it IS tax exempt in the US. It is NOT tax exempt in Canada. So, it would be reasonable if someone wanted to re-write the lede to take account of these facts, but what I'm simply proposing is that Canada be added to the already existing line in the lede. Alternatively, delete mention of individual countries, and just make the statement that the majority of G7 nations don't grant the CoS tax exempt status, although I would expect that statement to be more contentious. However, that FACT is far more notable than any of the individual countries mentioned, IMO. Since I expect stating it explicitly would be contentious, I propose simply adding Canada to the statement and allowing the reader to draw their own conclusion.
Your logic doesn't address the lede as it already exists. Why then are France, Germany and the UK, notable? Perhaps the statement should be deleted altogether if you feel that it's already included further in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.52.240.108 ( talk) 03:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello Wikipedians! I had observations regarding the statement -"The Church of Scientology is one of the most controversial new religious movements to have arisen in the 20th century. It has often been described as a cult that financially defrauds and abuses its members, charging exorbitant fees for its spiritual services."
Could we word this in such a way that is more balanced? Though there are references that regard Scientology as a cult, it has been recognized as a religion in many places as well. Based on Reference: Huus, Kari (2005-07-05) "Scientology courts the stars" ( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8333804/print/1/displaymode/1098/ and a Wikipedia article ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_status_by_country), we can word this to be more neutral. My suggested wording would be "Scientology, recognized by the U.S. federal government and various other countries such as Italy, South Africa, Australia, Sweden, New Zealand, Portugal and Spain as a religious organization but labeled by its critics as a cult, is one of the most controversial new religious movements to have arisen in the 20th century."
Thank you very much and looking forward to collaborating on this. Scifilover386 ( talk) 00:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I totally agree that the lede section is "supposed to summarize the content within the article proportionally to the article itself as well as the external sources." The "Scientology status by country" section is very extensive yet this sentence on the lead shines on only one side of the story, that Scientology has "often described as a cult." Vague wording too, btw. Perhaps, we can change it to: "Scientology, accepted in many countries as a religious organization yet labeled by its critics as a cult, is one of the most controversial new religious movements to have arisen in the 20th century." It is only fair and neutral to shed light on both positive and critical perceptions of the religion. Scifilover386 ( talk) 00:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I have taken the liberty to slightly modify the statement mention above. I think it is in the interest of making the page more balanced, and it is due weight to acknowledge that Scientology is accepted in many countries. I am open to discussion. Thank you very much! Scifilover386 ( talk) 00:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Thimbleweed. I acknowledge your protest of the removal of the sourced statement, however, I disagree that we can disregard my point altogether. We can still balance this out by mentioning that Scientology is accepted in many countries as a religious organization. Perhaps a version we can agree on is "Scientology, accepted in many countries as a religious organization yet labeled by its critics as a cult, is one of the most controversial new religious movements to have arisen in the 20th century. Its critics claim that it financially defrauds and abuses it members, charging exorbitant fees for its spiritual services." Let me know what you think. NestleNW911 ( talk) 00:48, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi, BTfromLA. Sorry for the confusion. I was merely supporting Scifilover's argument and providing input. I meant to say, "I disagree we can disregard his point altogether..." NestleNW911 ( talk) 17:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I've added information about the etymology of the word Scientology. I thought it was appropriate to include the perspective of Hubbard here. NestleNW911 ( talk) 22:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Why is Xenu not mentioned in the introduction of the article? It seems pretty important. 132.204.221.149 ( talk) 00:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
from the intro: "The Church of Scientology is one of the most controversial new religious movements to have arisen in the 20th century."
shouldn't that be just, "Scientology is one of the most controversial new religious movements..."? The Church of Scientology was described earlier in the intro as being an organization that oversees the implementation of Scientology; in other words, not the religion itself, but its church.
unless there's some meaning here that i'm missing; i'm uninvolved and unfamiliar with the terminology. 24.20.120.165 ( talk) 03:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
hmmm. 24.20.120.165 ( talk) 06:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
i think that the current wording will trip up many general readers; it just feels wrong (then again, maybe not - how many have read this article, and this issue apparently hasn't come up before!). but imagine reading that the christian church is a controversial religious movement. rather, you'd expect to read that christianity is a controversial religious movement. 24.20.120.165 ( talk) 17:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Regarding this section, "While acknowledging that a number of his colleagues accept Scientology as a religion, sociologist and professor Stephen A. Kent wrote: "Rather than struggling over whether or not to label Scientology as a religion, I find it far more helpful to view it as a multifaceted transnational corporation, only one element of which is religious" [emphasis in the original].[194][195] Kent also holds that the US government sees Scientology not as a religion, but as a charitable organization due to their religious claims."
There is a need to add more information here to make it more NPOV. I've found some information on a well-known scholar, J. Gordon Melton, who speaks from an alternate perspective. I've added the following text:
Religious scholar J. Gordon Melton asserts, “The Church of Scientology is very much a religion in the fullest sense of the word.” Reference: http://www.neuereligion.de/ENG/melton/page01.htm
Thank you. NestleNW911 ( talk) 22:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
May 25, 2012
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Within the sub-section marked 'Auditing confidentiality', in the section 'Controversies', it currently states "Charges that private information from auditing files has actually been used against individuals have not been upheld in court." using a book by J. Gordon Melton as reference. However, this is false. I suggest the statement either be removed completely, or followed by another statement relaying the following quote from the court file of 'Larry Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology of California' ( http://www.xenu.net/archive/CourtFiles/occf105.html): "There is substantial evidence Wollersheim divulged private information during auditing sessions under an explicit or implicit promise the information would remain confidential. Moreover, there is substantial evidence Scientology leaders and employees shared this confidential information and used it to plan and implement a "fair game" campaign against Wollersheim."
Riffraff913 ( talk) 00:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
( Jonathanfu ( talk) 19:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC))
I'm doing some research on this ... for the moment, this is as far as I got:
E. Scientology's Improper Disclosure of Information Wollersheim Gave During Confidential Religious Sessions Is Not Religious Expression Immunized From Liability by the Constitution
There is substantial evidence Wollersheim divulged private information during auditing sessions under an explicit or implicit promise the information would remain confidential. Moreover, there is substantial evidence Scientology leaders and employees shared this confidential information and used it to plan and implement a "fair game" campaign against Wollersheim. Scientology argues there also is substantial evidence in the record supporting its defense that Scientology leaders and employees shared this confidential information only in accordance with normal procedures and for the purpose of gaining the advice and assistance of more experienced Scientologists in evaluating Wollersheim's auditing sessions. However, the jury was entitled to disregard this innocent explanation and to believe Wollersheim's version of how and why Scientology divulged information he had supplied in confidence.
The intentional and improper disclosure of information obtained during auditing sessions for nonreligious purposes can hardly qualify as “religious expression.” To clarify the point, we turn once again to a hypothetical situation which presents a rough analogy under a traditional religion. Imagine a stockbroker had confessed to a cleric in a confessional that he had engaged in “insider trading.” Sometime later this same stockbroker leaves *900 the church and begins criticizing it and its leadership publicly. To discredit this critic, the church discloses the stockbroker has confessed he is an insider trader. This disclosure might be said to advance the interests of the cleric's religion in the sense it would tend to discourage former members from criticizing the church. But to characterize this violation of religious confidentiality as “religious expression” would distort the meaning of the English language as well as the United States Constitution. This same conclusion applies to Scientology's disclosures of Wollersheim's confidences in the instant case. And, since these disclosures do not qualify as “religious expression” they do not qualify for protection under the freedom of religion guaranties of the Constitution. (See Discussion at pp. 887-889, supra.)
As with any counselling process which survey a person’s entire life, many intimate, embarrassing, and even questionable incidents may be highlighted. A file of information concerning a person’s past actions which may be compiled as auditing continues might offer the possibility of misuse. For example, were the content of a file leaked, it could be used to blackmail an individual who had disclosed past illegal or immoral acts. Some former Scientologists have charged that, in fact, such illicit use of their auditing files has occurred. Going far beyond those reports, some critics have charged that the misuse of auditing files are (or have been) a common practice within the church in an attempt to control undisciplined members. Generally speaking, although amid the hundreds of thousands of hours of auditing done in the church an occasional abuse may have occurred, the charges of abuse have not been substantiated when presented in courts of justice, and we are thus left with a lack of verified evidence of any invasion of members‘ auditing files or invasion of their privacy. Such actions would run counter to to the basic rules taught by auditors in their professional code of conduct to which each must adhere. Each auditor promises “never to use the secrets of a pre-clear divulged in session for punishment or personal gain.” Any auditor found operating in violation of “The Auditor’s Code” would be dismissed from the church’s staff.
During the auditing process, the auditor may collect personal information from the person being audited. [1] Auditing records are referred to within Scientology as preclear folders. [2] The Church of Scientology has strict codes designed to protect the confidentiality of the information contained in these folders. [1] However, people leaving Scientology know that the Church is in possession of very personal information about them, and that the Church has a history of attacking and psychologically abusing those who leave it and become critics. [2] On December 16, 1969, an Guardian's Office order (G. O. 121669) by Mary Sue Hubbard authorized the use of auditing records for purposes of "internal security." [3] Some former members have said that while they were still in the Church, they combed through information obtained in auditing sessions to see if it could be used for smear campaigns against critics. [4] [5] The Church of Scientology of California responded by stating that the letter which gave Mary Sue Hubbard authority to cull confessional files was not official policy and had been previously canceled. Charges that private information from auditing files has actually been used against individuals have not been upheld in court. [1]
August 2, 2012
An addition to the the membership section:
I just saw an ad for Scientology on YouTube where they claimed to have 10,000 churches and add 4.5 million new members per year. I was going to add this claim to the membership section when I saw the article is locked. I think it is important to ad this information because there is a huge difference between what the church is claiming and what others are saying about it. I suspect both sides are biased and that the real numbers are somewhere in between. One way to promote a movement is to say many people are involved. One way to squash a movement is to say that few people care enough to participate. We see this every time there is a demonstration in Washington DC. People always argue about how many protesters were there. The protesters always argue there were more than what the news agencies are reporting while those who are against the protesters always argue there were fewer people. Often the two sides have drastically different numbers.
I have added more information about the Volunteer Ministers in the Technology Application Organizations section. NestleNW911 ( talk) 21:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I have also added a qualifying statement to the "Status by country" section. NestleNW911 ( talk) 21:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I tell you! Without the explicit citing of "Aims of Scientology", the credibility of this article only goes that far! You could almost remove the 10 commandments from the page of Christianity in violating the encyclopedic commitment of Wikipedia when this article is to give precise and factual information of the CoS! There is a deleted section here. Why is this? Please, be aware of the quality level here. Thank you. LFOlsnes-Lea 04:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LFOlsnes-Lea ( talk • contribs)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
NestleNW911's edit on 19 June 2012 should cite a different source, or be rolled back. The source currently cited doesn't back the statement made in the edit ("The IRS’s examination of Scientology was reported to have been the most exhaustive review of any non-profit organization in history"). PlanetaryIntergalactic ( talk) 00:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
put in Church of Scientology? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.16.241.158 ( talk) 05:59, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Regarding this section:
"In the OT levels, Hubbard explains how to reverse the effects of past-life trauma patterns that supposedly extend millions of years into the past.[121] Among these advanced teachings is the story of Xenu (sometimes Xemu), introduced as the tyrant ruler of the "Galactic Confederacy." According to this story, 75 million years ago Xenu brought billions of people to Earth in spacecraft resembling Douglas DC-8 airliners, stacked them around volcanoes and detonated hydrogen bombs in the volcanoes. The thetans then clustered together, stuck to the bodies of the living, and continue to do this today. Scientologists at advanced levels place considerable emphasis on isolating body thetans and neutralizing their ill effects.[122]
We need to frame this in the proper context for NPOV. This version presents it as default truth, but we need to reflect the discussion around this bit of information. I propose to add: "There are varying statements from the Church of Scientology about the truth of the Xenu Story. Senior members of the Church of Scientology have several times publicly denied or minimized the importance of the Xenu story, but others have admitted its existence. "
This is based on another Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenu#Church_of_Scientology.27s_position This is one third party reference: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/03/16/scientology_xenu_confirmation/
This statement reflects the debate around the Xenu story, thus promoting NPOV.
Thanks. NestleNW911 ( talk) 23:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
As you said, this discussion is well covered in the Xenu article. It is worthy to mention it in more general terms in this article, since it is a high traffic article that is pivotal to the subject of Scientology. I wasn't suggesting that we quote any COS officials. If you examine my suggestion closely, it merely provides an overview of the current reaction and sentiment to the Xenu story from the church. To go to in detail is yes, unnecessary. But to provide an overview is helpful and necessary. NestleNW911 ( talk) 21:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I find it offensive that this page still has the cross on it despite the fact that it is now removed from the Scientology online pages and falls under (a slight) breach against notions of Aberration and Engrams. There are strict rules for this in Scientology and as I understand it, it has now been rolled back to the usual "two triangles of ARC and KRC and the S". Can you remove the Cross, please? LFOlsnes-Lea 18:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Actually, there may be something to what LFOIsnes-Lea is saying. For example, the Buffalo Church building was recently rededicated: [16]. The outside of the building used to sport the Scientology cross; it now only shows the pyramid and the two triangle/S symbol. If the cross now plays second or third fiddle as a symbol of Scientology, we should make it less prominent. J N 466 21:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
just did a google of scientology while the "offical" scientology sites do use a dual gold triangle linked with a S as their logo almost all major buildings/curches including american HQ, Aus HQ and sea org still have the cross above their buildings. it may be ona to do list to remove but until it occurs it is still technically an identifying symbol of the curches and followers beliefs. it should also be noted that Hubard himself defended the cross and stated wearing one was required by high ranking members. this has been changed under modern practices to the new symbol. as such keeping the cross for historical purposes is probally not a bad thing as only anti scientologists or cathlic/christian people would be truly offended by it. 152.91.9.153 ( talk) 00:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Just checked out the new source from NestleNW911. I don't know squat about law and how these documents work, but this header "DECLARATION OF DAVID MISCAVIGE" stands out to me. Was Miscavige under oath? Or is he able to say whatever he wants? If so, excellent source. If not, we could change the tidbit from "The IRS’s examination of Scientology was reported to have been the most exhaustive review of any non-profit organization in history." to "David Miscavige claims that the IRS’s examination of Scientology the most exhaustive review of any non-profit organization in history." ( Jonathanfu ( talk) 05:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC))
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apotheosis - is there a relationship to Apotheosis/deification and also to the idea of The Fall and the idea of rebirth and Salvation and Justification restoring a lost vestige of divinity? The story of Thetans forgetting their true nature also echoes extra-canaonical and conspiracy stories of fallen angels breeding with people. The article suggests links to the Bhuddist Taoist and Hindu and generally 'eastern thought' and gnostic thought but there is arguably a christian part in the blending of these ideas as well; this isn't too strange a suggestion without supporting quotesg; scientology was born in the US! But can people find any? Kathybramley ( talk) 18:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Can that possibly be NPOV? It's my personal opinion that Scientology IS a cult, but can we really say something like that here at all, let alone without a citation? Christianity is a cult too (and I'm a Christian), but I doubt we'd ever dare refer to it as such. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 00:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
No need to lie, evanh. It is a consistently used tactic for scientologists to use "im with you" jargon to get people to agree with them, if you actually have a legitimate reason for removing the term please say so, otherwise stay out of the discussion page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.49.47.34 ( talk) 18:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
yeah evanh or shes going to wiki kick you off the internet. wiki has become a place for intelligent trolls to argue. I'm starting to enjoy this... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.169.224.100 ( talk) 14:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
please see WP:TALK, this is not a forum for the usage of the word "cult." no where in this article does it describe scientology as a "cult" except in places where it is quoting criticism from WP:RS, the original post was referring to something that was identified as vandalism. please check the article and identify a problem. Coffeepusher ( talk) 22:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm surprised that this article isn't tagged with the Category:Destructive cult. I'd like to add that category, but I'm seeking input here before doing so. 66.90.146.89 ( talk) 23:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
I have made a couple of minor changes in the lead - changed the vague mention of the Scientology Volunteer Ministers and WISE to their proper names. Why mention them vaguely when these organizations are noteworthy enough to have their own Wikipedia articles? NestleNW911 ( talk) 22:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
This article fails to comply with academic standards when it comes to references, hence Chicago Manual of Style. The article contains this, several places: 7.^ Neusner 2003, p. 227, 8.^ a b Melton 2000, pp. 28. I also find it academically dubious that this article has little or no references to the original material, and that references with "hearsay" are supposed to enter by default as in "finding something on them", the blind persecution by idiots! Do you mind amending, please? LFOlsnes-Lea ( talk) 00:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
is supposed to mean. Which references are you referring to? Jonathanfu ( talk) 07:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)references with "hearsay" are supposed to enter by default as in "finding something on them"
Can someone ban this idiot already? -- 98.243.198.124 ( talk) 18:15, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
In this section, the countries that Scientology is recognized in is referred to as "some other countries" and the countries where Scientology "does not have comparable religious status" is enumerated. There is subtly hidden rhetoric that pushes the POV that Scientology in a greater sense is not a bonafide religion. In order to achieve more NPOV, I have edited so that a few of those countries where Scientology is recognized in be enumerated as well. NestleNW911 ( talk) 19:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
In the light of NPOV, I've added a counterstatement expressing the view of the church in the fourth paragraph of the lead section. This is to balance out the information and represent all sides. Thanks. NestleNW911 ( talk) 00:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I've modified it to reflect source closer. "Suffering a concerted campaign" seems to express a whole other meaning entirely not asserted by the Urban book. I think it would be safer to make the edit as close to the source as possible, so as not to distort the meaning. NestleNW911 ( talk) 23:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
The development of Dianetics and various reactions to it are recorded in a detailed manner on this section. What is lacking is a more thorough definition of what Dianetics actually is, since it is the title of the heading, not "The History of Dianetics." I have added more information to this section from an article found through JSTOR. NestleNW911 ( talk) 22:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
This looks great. Thanks. NestleNW911 ( talk) 23:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I've added more information about Dianetics that I found in a scholarly journal and in Melton's Church of Scientology book. Thanks. NestleNW911 ( talk) 23:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Added a clarification sourced from J. Gordon Melton's text. NestleNW911 ( talk) 23:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
This section could be improved by removing the short forms (orgs, stats). I suspect that the write included those because those are the terms used by members in common speech, but since that is not said explicitly this just introduces vagueness and an unnecessarily informal tone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.148.98 ( talk) 01:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
On the statement, "According to several of his fellow science fiction writers, Hubbard had on several occasions stated that the way to get rich was to start a religion." I verified this statement against the cited J. Gordon Melton resource (Book:Studies in Contemporary Religion: The Church of Scientology ISBN: 978-1-56085-139-4) and an important part of the sentence was left out. Melton specifically mentioned "there is no record of Hubbard having ever made this statement." It is a grave misconception that must be corrected. I have inserted the qualifying text referencing the abovementioned book and added a bit of information I found from the Scientific American in order to improve this section for accuracy and NPOV. Thanks. NestleNW911 ( talk) 22:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Wikiquote: L. Rob Hubbard has much useful info on this. Best source seems to be Eshbach: "The incident is stamped indelibly in my mind because of one statement that Ron Hubbard made. What led him to say what he did I can't recall — but in so many words Hubbard said: "I'd like to start a religion. That's where the money is!"" (L. Ron Hubbard to Lloyd A. Eshbach, in 1949; as quoted by Eshbach in his autobiography Over My Shoulder: Reflections On A Science Fiction Era (1983) ISBN 1-880418-11-8) -- Mknjbhvgcf ( talk) 14:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm researching Narconon, just came across this source which might be useful for the main Scientology article.
It's a German interview with a Scientology defector, in 1996.
I think it provides an interesting perspective on the German government's attitude to Scientology.
Original article in German is here, machine translation to English is here.
-- Mknjbhvgcf ( talk) 13:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
These sociologists do not live apart from reality and thus Kent needs to see that "In plain English, the purpose of Scientology ethics is to eliminate opponents, then eliminate people's interests in things other than Scientology." [6], even though Scientology has clearly defined its ethics as common sense ethics, i.e., ethics that everyone can identify with." Abrupt lies can't be accepted as part of article!!! LFOlsnes-Lea ( talk) 04:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
A bit more from mr. Grumpy: Aims of Scientology
I tell you! Without the explicit citing of "Aims of Scientology", the credibility of this article only goes that far! You could almost remove the 10 commandments from the page of Christianity in violating the encyclopedic commitment of Wikipedia when this article is to give precise and factual information of the CoS! There is a deleted section here. Why is this? Please, be aware of the quality level here. Thank you. (This is actually undoing a former Talkpage notification.)
LFOlsnes-Lea (
talk)
04:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I find it interesting that these aims are for the whole of 'civilisation', not just for Scientology or Scientologists (i.e. that scientology wants to impose its aims on the whole of civilisation - this ties in with independent commentary from Der Spiegel, linked above). Discussion of the Scientology definitions of some of the key terms in the aims:THE AIMS OF SCIENTOLOGY (Written by L. Ron Hubbard in September 1965). A civilization without insanity, without criminals and without war, where the able can prosper and honest beings can have rights, and where Man is free to rise to greater heights, are the aims of Scientology.
{{
cite journal}}
: |pages=
has extra text (
help); Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help); Kent cites Hubbard, L. Ron (1976a). Modern Management Technology Defined. Copenhagen, New Era Publications.