![]() | This page 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. |
Scientologists are gay. All of them pretend to be helping this article, but they subtly use their clout to degrade the quality of it. Some of them even fight with each other to show others that they are 'on the right side'. In Soviet Russia, Scientology is a religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.193.112 ( talk) 03:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, this is an attempt to make this section more even-handed and NPOV, by portraying the ongoing battle between Scientology and its critics from both sides of the argument. This is not an easy task, and a lot of input is needed in this area. -- Modemac 12:23 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I honestly cannot see how this page can have edits or discussions with NPOV. It's a religion. It was built, if you will, to be argued over. If it is to be discussed at all, there must be bias, because you either have to be for or against it. This being said, I disagree with scientology as a whole. ( I'm biased. )
I have again moved the dealing with critics section to the top. That section contains most of the "meat" of this article, as opposed to the wilder, mostly unverified accusations that follow. Prior to my edit, the article started out with what is almost certainly an urban legend—a good article should present facts first and speculation last, not vice versa. Mkweise 21:46, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)
"The church of Scientology has been known to conduct covert black bag operations against opponents." - it would be nice to have some kind of citation here, and perhaps change the text to "There is evidence that..."
"In 1978, L. Ron Hubbard was convicted in absentia by French authorities and sentenced to fours years in prison." - for what??? Tax evasion? Spitting on the sidewalk from the Eiffel Tower?
Has the Co$ tried to do anything about this page yet? :)
Criticism sections should not be split away from main articles. This is grossly POV and therefore unacceptable. Please merge this section into the main article about either the church or the philosophy. —Eloquence 22:54, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)
How would you propose this section be merged into the others? All three of the articles have become quite large and detailed, and to merge this in with them may push one or both of them over the 32K "recommended" limit.
On a somewhat related note, you may want to look closely at this page:
This web site is already known for blatantly copying Wikipedia articles. Yet, strangely enough, all references to the section on "controversial issues" have been conveniently blanked out over there on that Web site. Hmmm. -- Modemac 00:05, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
An anon inserted a statement that the quotation about men who "attacked us" was taken out of context. I expanded the quotation and added some identifying information about the people Hubbard referred to. Having done that, I left in the anon's explanation, although characterizing it as one POV that was offered rather than flatly stating it as fact. The supposed explanation, which seems meritless to me, nevertheless deserves reporting if it represents the official position of the Church of Scientology or a notable member; not knowing whether the statement met this criterion, I left it in, hoping that more information could be provided later. JamesMLane 11:44, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The Church of Scientology denies these claims [that Hubbard talked about starting a religion for money], and has in fact sued publishers for making them.
The only such suit I know of is the lawsuit against Stern, which Stern won. Especially in light of the Church's expressed position on lawsuits ("the purpose of the law suit is not to win, but to harass") I think it's somewhat important to note which lawsuits ended with findings for the defendants, as lawsuits conducted for the purpose of the harassment might be expected to frequently do.
Also, there isn't a mention here of what was (at least it was in 1994) the Church's official response to the allegation: they pointed to a George Orwell quote where he said something about how you could make a lot of cash by starting a religion, and claimed that Orwell's quote had been misattributed to LRH. The late Robert Vaughn Young, however, said that he himself discovered the Orwell quote, and had made the suggestion that this could be publicized as the "true" source of the quote. (RVY's first-person account used to be up on the Net, before he passed away, but unfortunately I can't seem to locate it; I remember that it ended with him relating an e-mail he'd gotten from an angry Scientologist who was utterly insistent that Orwell and not Hubbard was 'the one' who had talked about making cash by starting a religion, and his terse reply to the Scientologist along the lines of "even if they both said it -- Orwell said it. Hubbard did it.") - Antaeus Feldspar 22:44, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
OK, I've found one of my own previous posts where I quoted RVY's post (which at that time I could still find RVY's original on the net) and here's what he said:
Unfortunately, Googling on those words doesn't bring up RVY's original anymore. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:18, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Try here: Vaughn's original statement -- Modemac 22:36, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
There have been stories floating around the Science-Fiction/Speculative-Fiction/et al community for years that a fellow writer - the most common versions of the story have either Isaac Asimov or Robert Heinlein - bet or dare or goad Hubbard into doing it. I'm currently attempting to ascertain a Harlan Ellison version that it was writer & publisher Lester del Rey who suggested to Hubbard the financial benefits of starting a religion after overhearing him complain about monetary problems at a writers get-together/party. LamontCranston 15:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Throughout this article there are numerous accusations against the Church of Scientology implying that the Church has overstepped its moral boundaries by litigating against individuals who were attempting to express their freedom of speech on the internet or elsewhere. These sort of statements are very misleading, if you omit an important fact which is that the Church has only litigated against individuals on the basis of violation of copyright laws and trademarks which like any other corporations it is entitled to do. Additionally litigation has also been directed towards individuals who have actually stolen materials from the Church and who have thereby made themselves liable to legal action.
[*Bullshit. L.Ron copyrighted every fart, then sued everyone who ever farted. —Interpolated comment by Doovinator 08:50, 2 July 2005]
Could the Church have taken a softer approach? , perhaps. Could the Church have conducted itself in a wiser manner in the prelude to the falling out of grace between the Church and individuals who later left the Church and became the violators of the copyrighted materials?, Of course. Did the Church exercise its legal prerogative? Yes it did. TruthTell
We ought to make a distinction between impartial information regarding events whether pro or con and slanted propaganda. I believe the reader would be better served by the former.
Well, it looks like Truthtell has unilaterally decided to change the subject of the article from "Scientology controversy" to "Church of Scientology controversy". The problem is that they are not exactly as separable as that; it is not as simple as simply converting every mention of "Scientology" to "Church of Scientology". For instance, Hubbard's dictum that every single psychiatrist is a sadistic torturer/murderer, if not in this life then in their past life in the Marcab whatever -- is that Scientology, or the Church of Scientology? -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:38, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'll let Mr. Hubbard speak for himself on the matter of the cancellation of Fair Game:
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 21 October 1968
Remimeo
CANCELLATION OF FAIR GAME
The practice of declaring people FAIR GAME will cease. FAIR GAME may not appear on any Ethics Order. It causes bad public relations.
This P/L does not cancel any policy on the treatment or handling of an SP.
L. RON HUBBARD Founder LRH:ei.cden Copyright © 1968 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/sp/pl-1968-10-21-cancel-fair-game.html LamontCranston 00:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Since someone is complaining that my POV tag (as well as other people who have tagged this) is "unjustified", here are my reasons:
1. The links on the page are all from the same group of two or three people, and are clearly not unbiased sources. Citing these people is like someone citing The Church of Scientology: if you're going to try to make your page NPOV, neither of these sources are the place to look!
2. Assuming you intend to KEEP these non-NPOV sources, it would only be fair to provide the other side of the argument. Keeping one side supported while ignoring the other isn't a good practice.
Therefore, I think it's EXTREMELY reasonable for me to simply leave a non-POV tag on this article. If I did what I actually think would be fair, I'm sure many people here would be chasing me down with tourches and pitchforks (metaphor - please don't assume something I didn't mean), as you have for past people (myself included) trying to conform to the supposed NPOV rules that you claim to stand for. Now before you get offensive and claim I'm the bad guy and that I'm a low-life, try rising above my level, and instead of doing to me what you think I would do to you, try to consider things from my point of veiw, as (not a Church memeber, but) someone who just thinks Wikipedia should be unbiased. Maybe, hopefully, someone will open their eyes.
I'm not arguing that legal court documents aren't acceptable, but rather suggesting (heaven forbid!) that when you provide one document, you supply another one where the Church won on the matter, or at VERY LEAST provide the reasoning behind the motives of both parties, as opposed to just the verdict. Still, those are not the sources I'm trying to advocate against. Rather, I think it's very unfair to use websites directly aimed against Scientology, especailly ones aimed at ALREADY TROUBLED people, who then commited suicide or such. If you're going to list sources like those, then at least try to conform to SOME amount of NPOV standards by including things such as how many people have been HELPED by Scientology [1] and [2]. I know that those are Scientology-officiated websites, but if you're going to get the anti-Scientology, you HAVE to have the pro-Scientology too if you truely expect to be considered unbiased. What makes the anti- websites ok and the pro- websites not ok? Just because all of the pro- sites are supported by Scientology, while the anti- sites aren't supported by any one orginization shouldn't matter. You can't punish Scientology for being "more together" than those who speak out against them, especailly not given the circumstances in which this lack of NPOV is being shown.
That's all. I hope that this meets your standards and merits a non-NPOV tag now. Further, I think it's stupid to remove a non-NPOV tag from a page without reason. Yes, I understand that you may want the issue resolved as to WHY they think it's biased, but that doesn't mean that they don't think it's biased. Removing someone's tag is even more stupid that them putting it there without posting the reason. I won't say anymore on that, since this isn't the page for it though. [Comment posted 21:53, 18 Apr 2005 by GodHelpWiki ]
It should be noted that in all articles critical to scientology, critical sites should not be referenced without the permission of the author, excepting only cases where such permission (dissemination of the content) is explicit in the goal or language of the site. This is due primarily to repeated legal threats from the CoS. Careless citations of small sites, or sites located within countries friendly to Scientology/ABLE/CoS, may cause individuals great legal complications.
GodHelpWiki suggested that the article is POV because it only uses sources from a few people. I cannot tell if the article is NPOV from my limited knowledge but the range of sources seems diverse to me. Here is my analysis of the sources that could have been used in the first half of the article (deduced from the article text):
--[User:TheoClarke|Theo]] 19 April 2005 07:27 (UTC)
I noticed you didn't include a complete list. I don't think that ANYONE can reasonably consider www.whyaretheydead.com a NPOV source. [Comment by GodHelpWiki ]
The article includes an interesting letter from Hubbard, apparently claimed by the FBI during the raid. Yet I see no source cited, and neither have I yet found one. Could someone step in and verify this piece with a good citation?
Several articles linked to this particular piece (the William Sargant thing, for example) have been edited and reedited repeatedly by people who cannot agree on a definition of NPOV. As this epidemic appears to have infected this page as well, I feel it necessary to ask here what can be done - mere squabbling on individual pages is going to solve nothing. -- User:206.114.20.121
206.114.20.121 lies to incite hate of Wikipedia contributor. Look at his accusation and take a reality check. [3]
I do not see how 206.114.20.121's "argument" is relevant to this article other than an attempt to discredit me. If my work ("squabbling") on psychiatric related articles is such a concern to contributors of the Scientology controversy, then help NPOV my latest contribution to Wikipedia: George Estabrooks. Please contribute YOUR POV. -- AI 00:38, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
The recent revert war about including this article in Category:Scientology is a weird one. For one thing, even when the "Scientology" category has been removed, it remains in place in the article, at least on my browser. Anybody else see this? As to the substance of the argument, I can't see any reasonable case for excluding this article from the main "Scientology" category: the whole reason for this article is to reduce the size (and editorial contentiousness) of the main article, right? This article is essentially an extension of the Scientology article, and as such it should be in the main category, and prominently linked to in the Scientology article. -- BTfromLA 03:25, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
This first sentence would require a citation proving the motivation of the Church of Scientology. I doubt if that is possible in this case: "attempting to receive sympathy from the fact that Jews were persecuted by the Nazis during the Holocaust. [4] "
This second sentence would require citations showing L. Ron Hubbard's inspiriation came largely from two men. Hubbard has listed those men who inspired him and it is a considerable list. But there is no citation in the article which mentions his inspiration came "largely" from the two in this sentence below: "Critics also allege that L. Ron Hubbard's Dianetics research was largely inspired by the achievements of other mental researchers such as Freud and William Sargant; the Church of Scientology maintains that Hubbard's work was entirely original and derived from no preexisting practice."
I have placed these two sentences (link also) here toward a good article being viewed by the public. This is exactly per Wikipolicy, WP:CITE. Uncited information, particularly biased POV information should not appear in an article unless cited. Proving the motivation of the Church of Scientology is to garner sympathy would be a difficult task. Proving Hubbard's inspiration was due to two men would be a difficult task. Povmec seems convinced the statements are accurate, but provides no citation. Terryeo 16:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Pasting here for citing and discussion this one: "Hubbard, L. Ron. Attacks on Scientology, "Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter," February 25, 1966" because there is not HCOPL 25 Feb 66 in the Church of Scientology today. If you present that as a historical document (not a present time document) then feel free. Cite it. But it can't accurately be presented as a document the Church of Scientology uses today.
The list of quotes is very poorly done, too. For example, "Technique 88" is not a book listed at the Library of Congress. What is it's ISBN, what page number is that quote from? According to Wiki Policy the quote should have a page number, the book should then be listed in references with its ISBN, author, who published it and so on. The idea being, a person might want to read more of that kind of thing ! so hey! give our reading public a chance and Cite your source more cleanly, okay? :) Terryeo 17:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
None of the references comply with WP:CITE. Understand I am not saying the references should not be there, but I am saying that none of them are done per Wiki direction. I've examined the whole list. Here is what is wrong with each quote, how it is not appropriately presented per WP:CITE.
HCO POlicy letter of 25 february 1966, ATTACKS ON SCIENTOLOGY.
The last one is done wrong too, but I'll correct that. Terryeo 05:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
"Somebody some day will say 'this is illegal'. By then be sure the orgs say what is legal or not." — L. Ron Hubbard, HubbardCommunications Office Policy Letter, 4 January 1966
"Don't ever tamely submit to an investigation of us. Make it rough, rough on attackers all the way." — L. Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, 25 February 1966
"Having viewed slum clearance projects in most major cities of the world may I state that you have conceived and created in the Johannesburg townships what is probably the most impressive and adequate resettlement activity in existence." — L. Ron Hubbard, Letter to South African Apartheid Government, 1960
"THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN CONTROL PEOPLE IS TO LIE TO THEM. You can write that down in your book in great big letters. The only way you can control anybody is to lie to them." — L. Ron Hubbard, Technique 88
"They smell of all the baths they didn't take. The trouble with China is, there are too many chinks here." — L. Ron Hubbard (Diary entry circa 1928)
"If anyone is getting industrious trying to enturbulate [sic] or stop Scientology or its activities, I can make Captain Bligh look like a Sunday-school teacher. There is probably no limit on what I would do to safeguard Man's only road to freedom against persons who… seek to stop Scientology or hurt Scientologists." — L. Ron Hubbard, 15 August 1967
"People attack Scientology; I never forget it, always even the score. People attack auditors, or staff, or organisations, or me. I never forget until the slate is clear." — L. Ron Hubbard, The Manual of Justice
"So we listen. We add up associations of people with people. When a push against Scientology starts somewhere, we go over the people involved and weed them out. Push vanishes." — L. Ron Hubbard, The Manual of Justice
"At this instance there are men hiding in terror on Earth because they found out what they were attacking. There are men dead because they attacked us — for instance Dr. Joe Winter. He simply realized what he did and died. There are men bankrupt because they attacked us - Purcell, Ridgway, Ceppos." — L. Ron Hubbard (Dr. Joe Winter was a board member of the Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation, but he broke with Hubbard over the use of "past lives" to explain engrams. Don Purcell, Derricke Ridgway and Art Ceppos were former supporters of Hubbard who also broke with him. One explanation offered for the context of this quotation is that Hubbard meant that the expansion of Scientology would save lives; Scientologists believe they are responsible for disasters because they did not disseminate their technology well enough.)
"Bluntly, we are out to replace medicine in the next three years." — Hubbard College Reports, 13 March 1952
I make these statements now because I seem to have a reputation for cutting and pasting and I mean to say, I'm not trying to upset the apple cart, but to create better Wiki articles. Terryeo 05:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Good God Terryeo you really are quite the Scientology apologist...
Wiki spells out how to make quotes. It is perfectly right to make actual quotes with actual cites, expressing the opinion of the author. Why are so many of these things done so poorly? First someone comes in with a 1/2 way right quote. For example, the first quote from a policy letter. It talks about illegal activites but it doesn't say what Hubbard was talking about. It could have been beans, illegally grown beans. One earlier line and it would be a good quote, it is a good policy letter, there could be some real controversy. Why isn't that done? instead it is done poorly. So I announce I am going to cut and paste here. I cut and paste here. Then a small handful of people look at my action, see that controversy is not well represented and revert it. Am I the only person with enough patience to look through these sorts of details, observe Wiki Policy about how to cite and point out the missing elements? This and other Scientology articles read like a junior high student has heard a rumor and is posting it for attention. Terryeo 08:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I think the intro needs to be cleaned up to follow the WP:MOS. I tried to wikify the first line so it looked like the template "This article is about....for other uses see...."
What do you think? Snailwalker | talk 21:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Fair Game (Scientology). AndroidCat 15:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Would someone explain why the cleanup tag is on this article? What exactly needs to be cleaned up and what should I as an editor do in order to get it cleaned up? Adding tags like this to articles that have a long history and numerous editors seems like a controversial thing that should be properly discussed on the talk page before they are added. Vivaldi ( talk) 02:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
A similar, controversial subject is seeking a peer reviewer. If you would be interested, we would appreciate your time at our article! Thanks! Kyaa the Catlord 16:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Not sure but I think this article was vandalized. Not sure which parts but it just seems a little out there... unless it really is. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.23.84.125 ( talk • contribs)
Greece has actually shutted down the local branch of Scientology in 1997 which didn't happen in Germany so far, so the word "strongest stance" is not correct. And Scientology isn't under surveillance for "criminal" activities. In Germany we have a seperate organisation called "Verfassungsschutz" (VS, Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution) and their job is to take a look on people who, while not committing crimes (so far as known), are hostile to the Constituition and therefore a possible problem. These are mostly extreme left or right-wing groups and fundamentalistic islamistic organisations. -- 136.172.253.189 21:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I took the liberty of removing the tag, seeing as the edit wars on this article seem to have calmed down since Terryeo's ban. Yandman 08:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Can we put him in the article? I mean he's giving the scientology a bad name.
I think the reverse is more accurate; that Scientology is giving Tom Cruise a bad name. Look at how his reputation has suffered right when he started making public pronouncemets about Scientology.
But no, I don't really think Tom Cruise has anything to do with the "Scientology controversy" as is the subject of this article. Any comments about Tom Cruise's beleif in Scientology would be more appropriate on the article about Tom Cruise than here. From what I've seen what's there is already sufficient.
This may not be very NPOV but honestly Scientology does a good enough job giving a bad name to itself!
John
19:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
The "External links" section is a mess. Not only are there way too many links, it is completely Original Research to decide what is a "fairly favourable" link or a link with an "opposing view". Let's not arrange the links according to someone's opinion of what they say. I urge User:Jpierreg, who has been on a Scientology linkspree lately, to study WP:EL closely. It clearly states that external links are to be "kept to a minimum", and not expanded practically into becoming articles of their own. wikipediatrix 23:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the four links that were added by Paul Horner to his own web site:
"[...] What is Scientology A humor site showing what really is Scientology"
Pointless, that brings nothing to the article. No need for a particular "humour" site.
"[...] Scientology's Deaths - The Ellie Perkins story on CBS 48 Hours"
Jeremy Perkins web site, is better covered in appropriate articles (as
Scientology and psychiatry), and in which case it is better to link to a good reference for the Jeremy Perkins case, and that would be Dr. Touretzky's site, as it contains first hand information.
"[...] South Park Scientology Episode nominated for an Emmy"
The
Trapped_in_the_Closet_(South_Park) is best covered in its own wiki article. And it just happened that external links to streams of the episode have been removed because of copyvio.
"[...] The Bridge Movie - A 2006 documentary on Scientology removed due to legal threats from the Scientologists. Remarkable the first ever critical movie released about The Church of Scientology"
The_Bridge_(film) has its own article, no need to bypass it. And links to streams of the movie were removed for copyvio reasons it seems. I don't know what is the current status on the issue though, as I thought the movie was released to the net with no restriction to its distribution.
Raymond Hill
01:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Links failing WP:RS and WP:EL were reinserted to this page. These links do not meet the rules on neutrality and are personal/self-published sites. I removed whyaretheydead.net, scientology-lies.com, and scientology freezone per their not meeting the guidelines for inclusion and this was reverted immediately. Thoughts? ju66l3r 23:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
HAS goes to a disambiguation page. Of the entries listed, I can make no obvious connection. -- Lincoln F. Stern 20:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Having reviewed this section, I've decided to remove it. I think COFS has a good point - the quotes are out of context, and they all seem to have been chosen to represent a critical POV towards Scientology. I don't think they really belong in this article without, at the very least, some sort of more detailed explanation and context. -- ChrisO 00:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
It honestly seems to me that no quote should excised if its properly cited. If you feel its taken out of context then add context, but quotes are clearly usefull for this page as its about scientology controversy. Clearly a quote can be inherently controversial even without context of any sort, for example if head of state were quoted stating that he enjoyed the services of prostitutes, but it was later learned they were just giving him/her a massage, it would be controversial solely because he/she used the term prostitute, regardles of the context. Colin 8 04:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Since the CoS has tried to eliminate the Free Zone, especially by copyright and trademark violation, it looks like the CoS is treating it as "competition" to be eliminated rather than a rogue belief to be dispelled by discussion. Anynobody 22:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
We are looking to merge Patter drill here. Please discuss the merge and what bits of Patter drill belong here. -- Justanother 02:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
support merge it seems to me that the whole page should be added as the practice itself is controversial. I find the whole "religion" controversial in itself, but taken solely from scientology's basic dogma its controversial due to the fact that its one of the few tenants/practices that Hubbard didn't create. Colin 8 04:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
The Church of Scientology denies that Hubbard ever made any such statement, and has sued at least one publisher, the German magazine Stern, for publishing claims that he did (Stern won the lawsuit). Anyone got a reference for that? Need it for the danish wikipedia. Thanks in advance. Mr Mo 22:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
There is a story in the Sydney Morning Herald today about an ongoing court case in Belgium at http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/scientologists-charged-with-extortion/2007/09/05/1188783277713.html. The entry in the 'Criminal behavior and allegations' section on the Belgium court case should probably be updated with some of the information in the SMH article. I've added the reference for now. Alans1977 06:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
This first section is sadly lacking in citation,and it skews the subject. The CSI/Freezone controversy is very minor compared to other points of controversy. Nevertheless, there are sources to reference and against which a sensible lead can be constructed, even if we do keep the emphasis on CSI/Freezone. This paragraph needs to be trimmed down and if we are going to keep it as the CSI/Freezone issue it needs to simply state what Scientologists believe and what those in the Freezone believe and eliminate the elaboration which is conjecture. Su-Jada 23:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
"not prohibited or limited in any way" is too open-ended. "Non-profit organization" should changed to something like "tax-free" or charity. (Operating in the UK as a tax-free Australian incorporation is interesting, and some might call that a limit.) As well, there might be problems with some of the listed countries:
The aggressive insults of Scientology claiming that especially Germany violates human rights [8] have nearly no justification. Not only that the german constitution, the Grundgesetz, forbids any activities like that:
Additional:
Articles included from the former Weimar Constitution:
Germany ratified [
Treaties] and respects international courts which guaranties an extremly high level of freedom. Few, isolated and minor cases only show that even germans aren´t angels. Powerful organizations like Scientology should have no difficulties to get any human or religious right and freedom which they are entitled to according to a extremly high level of international standards.
My personal opinion is that Scientology tries to blackmail the german government to get the tax-exempt status (as a reference for insults see first link). Scientology Crime Syndicate -- Is This A Religion? By Stephen A. Kent TheinfinitelyProlonged ( talk) 07:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
The European Union References are given in the article, mainly as Wikipedia-pages. A lot of reading can be done to understand Europe.
TheinfinitelyProlonged (
talk)
08:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Scientology's takeover of the Cult Awareness Network is listed under "criminal accustaions," despite not having and accusations of criminal behavior. I don't want to delete it wholesale, because it's useful and relevant, but I'm not sure where to move it. Suggestions? Reyemile ( talk) 17:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
This page is in dire need of protection. I just deleted the "Scientology's Replies" section (which if anyone feels like adding it back AFTER major cleanup, so be it) because the entire thing was nothing but ultra-biased commentary from a Scientologist(s). There's more throughout the page that needs work but I'm time restrained at the moment. Nemeses9 ( talk) 02:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
My word, what a horrible organization. I had no idea. I think I am going to try that Anonymous group out and see if I can do anything to help shut down these fraudsters. Ndriley97 ( talk) 01:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the first sentence in this article is biased. It's defending Scientology by presenting an argument of Scientologists, and a description of an action taken by Scientologists to defend their beliefs/religion. The first paragraph doesn't seem very well written. I don't have a lot of suggestions, but maybe it should begin with a sentence somewhere along the lines of "there are many controversies associated with Scientology"? VolatileChemical ( talk) 11:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I also moved the related material to the see also section as it makes more sense to me to place it there. I believe that's a neater division of the page but I understand if the consensus disagrees with me. However, I think some of the controversies that are on other pages, such as Scientology and psychiatry, instead of being in related material should have a small section with a main article link. I also feel since much of the controversy has to do with Hubbard and his family it would be convenient to have a section concentrating all the Hubbard controversy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.227.246 ( talk) 18:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I started an article, see the external link for info. David Graham (former scientologist). Equazcion •✗/ C • 06:01, 13 Apr 2008 (UTC)
Why has this article been nominated for deletion? I believe that based on the first amendment that this article should be protected, and monitored to make sure that no one attempts to tamper with it, and eliminate a valuable source of scientology controversies. Besides, who would want to delete an article unless it would be a danger to someone, or an organization? Just saying... Cm2dude ( talk) 17:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I think this is a well written wiki article on a difficult and controversial subject. Its very hard to maintain a neutral bias, but I think this article is about as neutral as you can get - it presents the facts and issues surrounding a case, without carrying any extra emotional bias to or for against Scientology. Also considering how often pages on Scientology liked to get reverted or altered with more pro-scientology information, id like to thank everyone for maintaining this page.
I don't see what's wrong with what was removed in this revision. Was there no references sourced? References should be briefly looked for before removing unsourced material, or flagged with 'needs citation' or whatever's appropriate there. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Scientology_controversies&diff=202665335&oldid=202654547 74.67.17.22 ( talk) 08:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Slapping 5 major tags on the article without discussing them here or trying fix them in the article seems a lot like sour grapes after a bad faith deletion by redirection failed and an AFD consensus strongly in favour of keeping the article. I'm against tag-bombing articles without discussion because, without an indication of exactly what the editor feels is wrong, it's hard to know when the points (if any) have been addressed and the tag can be removed. Many times these tags linger on for a year until someone finally cleans them off. I'm inclined to treat it as article defacement and remove them. AndroidCat ( talk) 15:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
(backdent) When people disagree with our fix, then we give justifications on the talk page. We don't try another method that is a similarly drastic change to see if others will be alright with it instead. The problem with relying completely on Bold, is that it's a two way street. You can boldly make a modification, and the other party can Boldly revert that change. This is why Bold is tempered with WP:CONCENSUS. When you justify your actions, it helps us to see that you are not some random vandal. When you justify them well, you potentially sway someone who may otherwise not understand your reasoning, disagree with your change, and revert your efforts. Alternatively, by presenting your arguments, someone else might be able to make a well-formed rebuttal that will cause you to withdraw your position. So I'd love to hear about your specific problems with specific passages or aspects of this article. - Verdatum ( talk) 23:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
After reading this I change my adverbs from "cairless" to "wreckless" and "arrogent" Coffeepusher ( talk) 22:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Septer has not tagged this article with a total of 10 tags, with no attempt to fix any problems, or any explination of what he believes is the problem. a "factual accuracy" tag definatly needs a detailed explination. the "manual of style" tag implys that he wants us to delete the entire reponce section from the COS which although it needs cleanup, does add well to this article. and the tags where placed with the edit summary "explained on talk page" and there is no new content from will on this talk page. Coffeepusher ( talk) 17:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
, my reading shows a large amout of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. I also think that this article is a great resource, but currntly has no real focus (it covers all topics of contriversy, without any rhyme or reason for what is included). having both critisisms and lists of legal conflicts listed by topic and instance, rather than listing "critisisms" while subsourcing points in time when it was problamatic...or listing insidents of conflict and suplementing them with critisisms that came out of those conflicts. I am also reading the responce section...and seeing less and less value for that section every time I read it. Coffeepusher ( talk) 21:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
What do people think? Cirt ( talk) 21:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Wow, that article is not full of POVs it IS a WP:POV violation. Let's start with the intro. No references. Shutterbug ( talk) 23:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Do the intro differ from the material in the article itself? Are the points in the article nonreferenced? Claiming the entire article is POV is a strong statement that might need a bit of clarification regarding what parts are subject to this. If the Intro is misleading and differs from the referenced points in the main article then please sugest a rewrite or point out the inconsistencies. Blanket statements regarding this article is rather pointless given the highly delicate matter of neutrality regarding controversies. (much like any other article regarding controversies) -- 213.115.40.148 ( talk) 10:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I see no evidence that this article is POV. The introduction summarizes the article. Thus, there is no violation of WP:POV. I think the truth is that Shutterbug does not like it because the article does not reflect the corporate scientology POV. Shutterbug is captiously nitpicking.-- Fahrenheit451 ( talk) 22:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I've made some changes, but it still needs more work. Editors should be reminded to make sure not to state allegations as undisputed fact, since the Church obviously disputes any claims of abuse and so forth. These articles really, really need to stop being a battleground between anti-Scientologists and Church people. Wikipedia's mission is to provide neutral, unbiased info, not outright bashing nor uncritical promotion. Laval ( talk) 13:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Good progress on proper sourcing finally happens now at Scientology. This [9] needs to be done here. "Controversy" is tough for starters but it can be done. Misou ( talk) 02:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
This article has several issues with neutrality. It repeatedly violates WP:NPOV
1. It focuses solely on the attacks Scientology has made during this controversy, instead of the actual controversy they sparked. This misses the point, and certainly violates WP:POV, as well as destroy the neutrality of the article. What it needs to do is instead of focusing on the attacks, which is more fit for another article, it should focus on the public reaction, whether it be positive or negative, and keep it first coherent with the article title, and second neutral.
2. It uses weasel words at several points. IE, when addressing a alleged attack, it refers to members of the Church of Scientology as cult members. Cult is a purely negative term, referring only to a religion considered invalid, inferior, and exploitative. It should be changed to a more neutral term. I do believe this should be fixed, and until then, somebody should place a 'weasel words' notice at the top.
I would fix these changes, but my computer is having issues, so I cannot edit the page. Don't ask why, I have no idea. Avianmosquito ( talk) 11:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I suggest that we do some source research and include these controversies at our earliest convenience. Jayen 466 11:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Here is another notable controversy: [14] [15] Jayen 466 14:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Jayen466, why did you simply revert *everything*? I wouldn't mind changing the wording but I think its somewhat crucial to leave the statements of the son of the founder in. It *is* controversial and it is ensured that he said that. His interviews are on records and it was his book.
Furthermore you even removed the part where
Mike Rinder, chief spokesman of Scientology, admits that the confession of the members are logged and stored, see
MSNBC interview. Is that not trustworthy, is it not worth mentioning or is the wording not good enough? Sorry, I am new to editing Wikipedia articles but I found the son's statements and Mr Rinder's statements both very relevant.
Dominik Seifert (
talk)
06:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Brent Corydon and L. Ron Hubbard, Jr., L. Ron Hubbard - Messiah or Madman?, Secaucus, N. J. 1987. Another very important book but also a deeply problematical item. L. Ron Hubbard, Jr. (who in civil life uses the name Ronald DeWolfe) is Hubbard's eldest son (born 1934 from his first marriage) who till a break in 1959 was his father's confidant. Bent Corydon is a former Scientologist who undertook to write the above mentioned book. Contrary to the title Hubbard Jr. is not co-author, but just contributed some intrviews used by Corydon. After the publication of the book Hubbard Jr. signed an affidavit in which he denied many of the statements made in the book (copy in my possession). He says he never had access to the manuscript and only was given a copy of the book using his name when it was already in print. It is usually assumed that the Church of Scientology paid Hubbard Jr. for this statement. This cannot be proven. A legal affidavit has to be taken into consideration. Many of the claims made in Corydon's book are very sensationalist. It is quite believable that Hubbard Jr. was not happy with the book even when he wanted to expose the darker side of his father.
You are obviously a very experienced Wikipedian, thank you for your directions. I see now that there is a difference between controversies and controversial conduct. I myself find it very disturbing that Scientology log and archieve many private secrets that they extract during Auditing. Who knows what they can use that for, especially when it comes to public figures. But - if I understood correctly, it would not be a controversy until a trustworthy source confirms that these secrets were used for exploitation? Dominik Seifert ( talk) 12:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
The section contains a large chunk of information which is only sourced to a couple primary sources. We needs some secondary sources for verification. ← Spidern → 19:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm concerned about use of legal documents as discussed here >>> [ [17]]
I'm specifically concerned with this citation,[ [18]] it's use seems to me like original research.
It would like to discuss this. Bravehartbear ( talk) 04:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I know this made quite the news, but while reading the article, it just looks a bit out of place, or just worded bad. Maybe I'm just seeing this from a wikipedian standpoint, but it just doesn't read right. Maybe "News outlets reported on May 27th... blah blah blah..." or something along those lines. Paranormal Skeptic ( talk) 18:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that this article in its current form is a big POV Fork WP:CFORK. I would recomend it for deletion but the article has potential. Bravehartbear ( talk) 03:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I was recently editing Criticism of Mormonism, an old article. And a new editor suggested re-naming it to "Controversies about Mormonism". I replied and pointed out that most articles that criticize religions have titles that start with "Criticism of .." as in:
But you notice that the latter three use "Controversy" in their title.
My question is: Would it help this encyclopedia if all these article started with "Criticism of ...", specifically starting with _this_ article? (by the way, Im new to this article, so if re-titling has been discussed before, I apologize).
But conistency is not the only benefit: I would offer:
A controversy is a debate, usually public, that may be postive or negative.
A criticism is a negative statement by a notable individual or group.
Virtually all the topics in all the above religion articles are criticisms.
Examples of controversies that are not criticisms:
Examples of criticisms that are not controversies:
The above examples should illustrate why (in the Wikipedia religious article context) "criticism" is a better title than "controversy". (Apologies about the lack of Scientology examples: that is not my area of expertise).
My point is: all the topics in all those articles are "criticisms", and many "controversies" (that dont include negative issues) are _not_ included. Therefore, the word "Controversies" in the article titles is not as good as "Criticism of ...".
In the interests of uniformity and accuracy, I propose changing the title of this article to "Criticism of Scientology". However, I'm new to this Scientology article, so if there is some history Im unaware of, please educate me. Im just trying to help the over-all encyclopedia.
Thanks for any input. -- Noleander ( talk) 23:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
-
Scientology controversies → Criticism of Scientology — For two reasons: (1) more consistency with a dozen other "Criticism of [some religion]" articles; and (2) the term "criticism more accurately represents the contents of the article, and is a more generic term that includes any negative asserstion about Scientology (vs. "Controversy" which is a narrower term that means "public debate"). See additional details (including a list of other "Criticism of ..." articles) above. Noleander ( talk) 13:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Noleander for setting out the reasons at length in such a clear way. My feelings on this are mixed, but I warn that there's potentially a POV issue with using "Criticisms" rather than "Controversies". Take the "Free Zone" for example. The Free Zone claim that they practice Scientology as it was originally intended, and that the Church of Scientology practice an altered version. Conversely, the CoS make the same claim about the Free Zone. Are either of these claims a criticism of Scientology? A similar concern can be raised about the Criticisms of Islam article: some muslims advocate violence, issue fatwas etc. but other muslims say that they have no authority to do so and that they are misrepresenting Islam. There's at least a viable point of view that what's being criticised or negatively represented isn't Islam, so the label "Criticisms of Islam" isn't quite appropriate. Looking at your list of articles, it seems some are definitely about criticisms but some are arguably a mix of criticism and controversy.
Back to this article, and the Scientologists' use of extra-legal methods, use of legal threats etc. From the Scientologists' perspective, these things just show how strongly committed they are, how Scientology deals with extremely important issues that sometimes merit extreme action, how Scientology takes a higher view of ethical authority than obeying every Earthly law, and so on. You describe them above as "negative things" and lots of people will share that point of view, but if we use that view to frame the article then we are implicitly excluding the Scientology point of view.
There's academic literature that mentions the controversial aspects of Scientology, not in an attacking way but just to illustrate how strongly committed the Scientologists are. So, although there's not much at stake here, I prefer to oppose. MartinPoulter ( talk) 16:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I have noticed that User:Wispanow and User:Pgreenfinch have deleted information relevant to the status of Scientology in Germany (by this I mean, this users are removing the whole section labeling it as "pro-cult propaganda" and "POV pushing".) As far as I can see, the section is well sourced and relevant to the topic of the article. I would like to invite both users to provide their rationales for the removal. Thank you. > RUL3R> trolling> vandalism 09:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
We can look at whether our description of the controversy is even-handed. The wording we have in the article right now does appear to give room to both sides' views. If there are any specific statements by the German government that editors would want included, we can look at that, but deleting the controversy is out of the question; it is far too notable for that. -- JN 466 12:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Dispute over subsection Alleged oppression of Scientologists in Germany. 13:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
The title of the subsection is itself inappropriate, as it violates WP:WTA. Perhaps simply titled it Scientology in Germany. And it could be weighted better to present more of a worldview instead of a heavily weighted United States view - with more inclusion of information from the positions of governments in France, Germany, Belgium, etc. Cirt ( talk) 13:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I've renamed the section "Scientology in Germany" for now. Basically, there has been a dispute between the United States and various European countries, above all Germany, over what the US perceive as discrimination against individual Scientologists. This has been a notable controversy; it led to a widely reported (see sources above) diplomatic row between German and the US.
One way we could go would be to make this section about this specific US–Germany row, and title it accordingly.
Another possibility would be to widen the scope and include similar disagreements between the US and other countries such as France and Belgium as well (cf. Kent's paper, "The French and German versus American Debate over 'New Religions', Scientology, and Human Rights"), as well as the views of the French, Belgian etc. governments that the US are meddling in European States' internal affairs.
My feeling however is that to date the US-Germany dispute, while indeed only one of several such disputes, has received by far the most press coverage, in both German-language and English-language sources.
Incidentally, this includes many British sources, whose reporting does not strike me as different from US reporting:
Generally, both the US and the British press take a dim view of Scientology in their domestic reporting; however, quite a few mainstream commentators (and that includes German scholars) feel that Germany's response to Scientology has been slightly over the top.
These are both highly respected, Pulitzer Prize-nominated journalists; Richard Cohen is American, and Alan Cowell is a Brit based in Paris. No doubt Germany is particularly vulnerable to being seen in a critical light over this, because of its Nazi history, but comments like that are notable. I don't mind adding French views on the controversy. Sources? -- JN 466 14:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
For those who might not have read my userpage, I consider myself a Scientologist. Just letting you know, as I don't want anybody to believe I am trying to push a pro-Scientology agenda, since I am not involved with the Sea Org, the RTC, nor the IAS. Now, returning to the topic. I find no major issues with the section, not any that would justify removal of the section anyway. Per above thread, it is heavily referenced, all fit WP:RS, no WP:OR, the tone may not be entirely neutral, but all statements are attributed. The fact that the Church of Scientology was convicted of fraud in a French court (a decision that, as far as I can tell, is passing through appeal, so it is not definitive yet) has nothing to do with the status of the organization in Germany. > RUL3R> trolling> vandalism 13:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Exactly what I was starting to write here, as I think it is of very bad taste that some accuse me not to play the game just because I cannot admit that in a WP article a section about another country is based on mostly American sources, which are a bit hard to trust as related to an organization based in the US. As for me, the real controversy is how the US could meddle in what democratic countries do to protect themselves against delictuous intrusions.-- Pgreenfinch ( talk) 13:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
It's hard to tell specifically what is being requested here, so I will respond to the comments that seem to me to be relevant to the RfC. I prefer the title "Scientology in Germany" or similar over "alleged controversies" or anything similar which utilizes words we try to avoid. Regarding whether some of the publications are "US-based", specifically Time and the New York Times, yes, they are. But Time has if I remember correctly several international editions, which indicates that even if it is based in the US it's influence extends well beyond that area. The New York Times, for what it's worth, is to the best of my knowledge one of the most respected newspapers on the planet, and thus also qualifies at least to my eyes as being more than just a US source. On that basis, I have to say that I can see no real reason to criticize either for alleged nationalism. John Carter ( talk) 14:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Currently ( this version) with the title "Scientology in Germany" seems balanced. I feel someone neutral on the subject would read it and get that there was a deep controversy. It is clear there is name calling, grand standing and uncompromising attitudes on both sides.
The new title is good because "Alleged" is a weasel word and "oppression" in the title is NPOV. In fact some of the other section titles in the article could be less POV.
I see from the edit history that it is felt that Germany is being singled out as oppressive. Scientology is controversial in all of Europe, but the controversy in Germany is particular strong and long standing warranting it's own section as supported by the Time Magazine article mentioned by Jayen466 above. (Bonfante, Jordan; van Voorst, Bruce (1997-02-10). " Does Germany Have Something Against These Guys?", Time)
If this were a paper encyclopedia, a lot of the material about Scientology in Wikipedia would not be included, because it is controversial. A paper encyclopedia would be more conservative about what might be found offensive. Wikipedia is clearly not conservative in that way.
Richard-of-Earth ( talk) 05:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Neither title is ideal. "Scientology in Germany" is a weak entry next to blunt titles like "Abuse of donations", "Brainwashing", and "Mistreatment of members"--a change which renders the article less NPOV in my opinion. Watering down the tone when it's pointed at Germany or other opponents, but giving a pass to the same kinds of emotion tinged titles when the target is Scientology isn't NPOV. "Alleged" smacks of an editorial qualifier. Change to noun form, "allegations", would be a little better. "Mistreatment of scientologists in Germany" would be every bit as NPOV as the "Mistreatment of members" and other such titles already used throughout. Professor marginalia ( talk) 19:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Fox, World Survey of Religion and the State, Cambridge University Press, 2008, says Germany is tougher than other countries on this. I can look up exactly what it says if others can't easily do so. Peter jackson ( talk) 11:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I've now got the book in front of me. Germany is listed under the following hierarchy of headings:
page 129:
"The German government closely monitors and often harasses Scientologists. Several state governments have published pamphlets about dangerous cults, including Scientologists. Firms bidding for government contracts must sign forms stating that their mamgement and employees are not Scientologists. This wording was changed in 2001 to a promise that the "technology of L. Ron [page 130] Hubbard will not be used in executing the contract. Government employment offices monitor companies that have suspected Scientologists working for them and warn prospective employees of these firms of this. Government officials have organized boycotts of movies starring John Travolta and Tom Cruise because they are Scientologists.
Many of Germany's major political parties, including the Social Democrats, the Christian Democratic Union, the Free Liberal Party, and the STAAT, have banned Scientologists from being party members. During the 1990s several regional governments asked the federal government to engage in a numbre of actions against Scientologists including criminal investigations; an investigation of whether membership in the Church should be regarded in the same way as drug addiction; the expansion of government "explanatory campaigns" on Scientology; and action to combat their economic influence. Government officials have published names of individual Scientologists and engaged in media campaigns against businesses run by them. Businesspeople have even advertised in newspapers that they are not Scientologists in order to avoid the social and economic repercussions of being associated with Scientology."
At the end of the whole section, which covers other "sects" too, a footnote cites the following sources:
Peter jackson ( talk) 11:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
The way in which this discussion is structured isn't particularly conducive to an efficient resolution of this issue. A quick look at the discussion page and the archive doesn't suggest that this issue has been discussed in any detail before. Couldn't this issue have been raised for discussion more conventionally rather than going straight to a more formal RfC structure? Adambro ( talk) 14:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the source above, Peter. -- JN 466 16:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I would just like to give a shout out to the Wikipedia editors of this page. It cannot be easy sifting through so much junk, constantly demanding linking to resources and whatever else it takes to keep this page as clean as it is. As a general reader, I am very impressed with the rational, measured way this page is presented and its consistent readability. Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.234.192.170 ( talk) 02:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
There is a deletion discussion going on at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Criticism_of_Judaism_(2nd_nomination), and any input would be appreciated. AzureFury ( talk | contribs) 02:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
The lede image is appropriate and should remain. It is noteworthy, notable, and historically significant. It is also pretty neat that it was taken onsite directly by a Wikimedia Commons photographer and Wikinews journalist. -- Cirt ( talk) 20:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
The image does indeed directly relate to the article subject. In addition to the image, a valid citation to an WP:RS source including text relevant to the article, was summarily removed unilaterally without any discussion about this. -- Cirt ( talk) 22:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
First off, I am sorry for the revert with the "check the archive" comment, I since discovered that I was remembering another discussion that occurred on a different page, not this one. I am not married to the idea of having that particular picture, but I do believe we should have some picture at the lede. I would like to propose this picture. It is easily identified as an act of protest specifically referring to a popular event that has been re-appropriated by several different groups in a variety of ways, this just demonstrating one of them. thus it does not highlight a specific group, but does instantly inform the reader both about the article and how some of the controversies are hashed out today. Coffeepusher ( talk) 22:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
It has been several days with no dissenting opinions voiced. I have added the image and summarized the image directly and its relation to the article, and wikilinked the appropriate words for further clarification. Coffeepusher ( talk) 16:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
The ever-litigious scientologists are at it again: " Councillor faces inquiry over tweet calling Church of Scientology 'stupid'". If this blows up into something moderately big (and already there's quite a lot of it on the internets), it might be handy to know whether the (newly?) LibDem John Dixon is related to the (previously?) Plaid Cymru John Dixon (Welsh politician). -- Hoary ( talk) 01:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Should somebody mention the proven fact that the Church sends PIs to track people who have been disconnected?-- Canadian Reject ( talk) 10:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
The Real Science behind Scientology; It's not what you think by Michael Shermer SciAm October 20, 2011 97.87.29.188 ( talk) 22:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
In the Allegations of criminality section I wikilinked the word grooming, in reference to gifts to London police officers with the article Adult grooming. I am 99% sure that's what was meant, but I want to draw some attention to it in case I've misunderstood it. Rhsimard ( talk) 22:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
The sentence introducing the recent Guardian article " Scientologist rallies followers against leader in leaked email" is
It appears that Cook is the person mentioned here. Quote from the article:
The last two words of that, "republished elsewhere", are linked to a blog posting, " Reformation – Division Within Corporate Scientology". (This is also here at WebCite.)
The Guardian article perhaps emphasizes the substance of the criticism less than the fact that it was internal. Something about this smells encyclopedic to me, but somebody more experienced than I am at editing these articles would have a better idea of what to do with it. -- Hoary ( talk) 02:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
In section "Allegations of criminality; criminal convictions of members", these two items:
- The Church of Scientology long considered the Cult Awareness Network (CAN) as one of its most important enemies, and many Scientology publications during the 1980s and 1990s cast CAN (and its spokesperson at the time, Cynthia Kisser) in an unfriendly light, accusing the cult-watchdog organization of various criminal activities. After CAN was forced into bankruptcy and taken over by Scientologists in the late 1990s, Scientology proudly proclaimed this as one of its greatest victories.[citation needed]
- In the United Kingdom the church has been accused of "grooming" City of London Police officers with gifts worth thousands of pounds.[37]
^ neither of these are allegations of criminality, or criminal convictions.
The first one seems to me like it might be more suited for the "Fair Game" section or article ('casting in an unfriendly light' is not a criminal activity), while a second one is a good example of Scientology schmoozing public officials, but that's not illegal.
If the tickets which Scientology donated to City of London officers had been direct bribes in return for specific favours (and I don't know of any sources that would support the contention that they were) then it would be illegal for police officers to accept them, but that's a bit different. If it was just lobbying then that's legal.
So might I suggest that both of these cases be moved to different parts of the article.
-- Mknjbhvgcf ( talk) 17:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
In the UK it is absolutely illegal to give gifts in return for "favours" from police. The "favours" in question here were suppression of protest outside the CoS building and high profile officers attending openings etc to give a sheen of respectability to CoS. Police officers who did not record the gifts are also guilty of an offence.
"Casting in an unfriendly light" is also illegal if it crosses the line into libel/slander or perjury, something many CoS communications have done. Altan001 ( talk) 23:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
A revert has been made by
Techbear that may reduce an illusion of controversy, but one that Techbear prefers to refer to as "conversation", a notion that I strongly disagree with. You can check the "View history" option yourself that should have added:
"Conclusion toward the Xenu charges is that no Scientology member is obliged to believe in the Xenu (-nonsense)." (Because of this splendid member-autonomy principle being part of Scientology corpus.)
It's my opinion that people have a right to factual information when it's available and this is such a case. I see no use for people to believe in these fabrications/illusions when one can reach a much more relieving point of personal standing in terms of information obtained in the true sense. Cheers!
95.34.149.202 (
talk)
12:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
I cleaned up the highly POV intro paragraph, but don't have time to check the rest of the article, which could definitely use a routine check every few months for blatant pro or anti POV creeping in. Laval ( talk) 14:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Also recommend moving article to Scientology-related controversies to remain in line with the category title and for accuracy. Laval ( talk) 14:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Following seven months without contentious talks since its placement, I have removed the POV check. Viridium ( talk) 02:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Scientology controversies. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Scientology controversies/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
*2 images, 29 citations. Smee 09:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC). |
Last edited at 01:51, 1 January 2012 (UTC). Substituted at 15:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
I removed the paragraph referring to the "Nova Religio" article Sensational Scientology! The Church of Scientology and Australian Tabloid Television. It is essentially a Scientology apologist article. It uncritically repeats the Church's position that Fair Game has been officially cancelled, merely saying that "ex-members" claim that it continues in practice; it takes issue with journalists discussing Scientology beliefs and practices with ex-members on the grounds that "due to Scientologist belief, members were not at liberty to discuss higher-level teachings"; and it describes the Rehabilitation Project Force as a voluntary stint. -- Slashme ( talk) 12:01, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Scientology controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/07/01/sci_psy/index_np.html?pn=1When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:03, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
In Belgium, after a judicial investigation since 1997, a trial against the organization is due to begin in 2008.
Can somebody update this? ☺ Dick Kimball ( talk) 15:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Scientology controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/1996/1996canlii1650/1996canlii1650.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/154clr120.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Scientology controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:02, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Scientology controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:32, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Scientology controversies has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hello! I would like to edit this page because I would love to add some information that isn't in the article. 69.129.118.103 ( talk) 20:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi @ TechBear: There was a long discussion that resulted in the Daily Mail being considered an unreliable source. I'm not against reporting on this incident, but the two options I can see for sourcing are the Daily Mail and a strongly POV book, so I'd like to see some better sources first. -- Slashme ( talk) 07:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Scientology controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:22, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
It is widely known amongst Scientology staff and public, especially those that are technically trained, that the process R2-45 referred to was blowing your brains out with a .45 calibre pistol. This is a semi-automatic handgun and was the standard military sidearm in U.S. armed forces from World War I up to the 1980's when it was replaced with the Beretta 9mm P-92 pistol. Hubbard, as a former serving naval officer would have been quite familiar with this weapon, hence the name of the process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chcgo undaground ( talk • contribs) 01:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Any news? The Wikipedia article has to been updated! =] Lawtheagoraphobic (talk) 01:57, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
This article doesn't mention Anonymous or the Miscavige family's books, two of the biggest recent controversies. In fact, this article seems to have not been significantly updated for about a decade- all events referenced are from before 2010 (unless i'm missing something). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.40.18.48 ( talk) 13:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Agreed, I wonder how much control the church has over the posts and comments here? Cannot convince me that they don't have people watching and keep things out.
![]() | This page 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. |
Scientologists are gay. All of them pretend to be helping this article, but they subtly use their clout to degrade the quality of it. Some of them even fight with each other to show others that they are 'on the right side'. In Soviet Russia, Scientology is a religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.193.112 ( talk) 03:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, this is an attempt to make this section more even-handed and NPOV, by portraying the ongoing battle between Scientology and its critics from both sides of the argument. This is not an easy task, and a lot of input is needed in this area. -- Modemac 12:23 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I honestly cannot see how this page can have edits or discussions with NPOV. It's a religion. It was built, if you will, to be argued over. If it is to be discussed at all, there must be bias, because you either have to be for or against it. This being said, I disagree with scientology as a whole. ( I'm biased. )
I have again moved the dealing with critics section to the top. That section contains most of the "meat" of this article, as opposed to the wilder, mostly unverified accusations that follow. Prior to my edit, the article started out with what is almost certainly an urban legend—a good article should present facts first and speculation last, not vice versa. Mkweise 21:46, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)
"The church of Scientology has been known to conduct covert black bag operations against opponents." - it would be nice to have some kind of citation here, and perhaps change the text to "There is evidence that..."
"In 1978, L. Ron Hubbard was convicted in absentia by French authorities and sentenced to fours years in prison." - for what??? Tax evasion? Spitting on the sidewalk from the Eiffel Tower?
Has the Co$ tried to do anything about this page yet? :)
Criticism sections should not be split away from main articles. This is grossly POV and therefore unacceptable. Please merge this section into the main article about either the church or the philosophy. —Eloquence 22:54, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)
How would you propose this section be merged into the others? All three of the articles have become quite large and detailed, and to merge this in with them may push one or both of them over the 32K "recommended" limit.
On a somewhat related note, you may want to look closely at this page:
This web site is already known for blatantly copying Wikipedia articles. Yet, strangely enough, all references to the section on "controversial issues" have been conveniently blanked out over there on that Web site. Hmmm. -- Modemac 00:05, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
An anon inserted a statement that the quotation about men who "attacked us" was taken out of context. I expanded the quotation and added some identifying information about the people Hubbard referred to. Having done that, I left in the anon's explanation, although characterizing it as one POV that was offered rather than flatly stating it as fact. The supposed explanation, which seems meritless to me, nevertheless deserves reporting if it represents the official position of the Church of Scientology or a notable member; not knowing whether the statement met this criterion, I left it in, hoping that more information could be provided later. JamesMLane 11:44, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The Church of Scientology denies these claims [that Hubbard talked about starting a religion for money], and has in fact sued publishers for making them.
The only such suit I know of is the lawsuit against Stern, which Stern won. Especially in light of the Church's expressed position on lawsuits ("the purpose of the law suit is not to win, but to harass") I think it's somewhat important to note which lawsuits ended with findings for the defendants, as lawsuits conducted for the purpose of the harassment might be expected to frequently do.
Also, there isn't a mention here of what was (at least it was in 1994) the Church's official response to the allegation: they pointed to a George Orwell quote where he said something about how you could make a lot of cash by starting a religion, and claimed that Orwell's quote had been misattributed to LRH. The late Robert Vaughn Young, however, said that he himself discovered the Orwell quote, and had made the suggestion that this could be publicized as the "true" source of the quote. (RVY's first-person account used to be up on the Net, before he passed away, but unfortunately I can't seem to locate it; I remember that it ended with him relating an e-mail he'd gotten from an angry Scientologist who was utterly insistent that Orwell and not Hubbard was 'the one' who had talked about making cash by starting a religion, and his terse reply to the Scientologist along the lines of "even if they both said it -- Orwell said it. Hubbard did it.") - Antaeus Feldspar 22:44, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
OK, I've found one of my own previous posts where I quoted RVY's post (which at that time I could still find RVY's original on the net) and here's what he said:
Unfortunately, Googling on those words doesn't bring up RVY's original anymore. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:18, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Try here: Vaughn's original statement -- Modemac 22:36, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
There have been stories floating around the Science-Fiction/Speculative-Fiction/et al community for years that a fellow writer - the most common versions of the story have either Isaac Asimov or Robert Heinlein - bet or dare or goad Hubbard into doing it. I'm currently attempting to ascertain a Harlan Ellison version that it was writer & publisher Lester del Rey who suggested to Hubbard the financial benefits of starting a religion after overhearing him complain about monetary problems at a writers get-together/party. LamontCranston 15:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Throughout this article there are numerous accusations against the Church of Scientology implying that the Church has overstepped its moral boundaries by litigating against individuals who were attempting to express their freedom of speech on the internet or elsewhere. These sort of statements are very misleading, if you omit an important fact which is that the Church has only litigated against individuals on the basis of violation of copyright laws and trademarks which like any other corporations it is entitled to do. Additionally litigation has also been directed towards individuals who have actually stolen materials from the Church and who have thereby made themselves liable to legal action.
[*Bullshit. L.Ron copyrighted every fart, then sued everyone who ever farted. —Interpolated comment by Doovinator 08:50, 2 July 2005]
Could the Church have taken a softer approach? , perhaps. Could the Church have conducted itself in a wiser manner in the prelude to the falling out of grace between the Church and individuals who later left the Church and became the violators of the copyrighted materials?, Of course. Did the Church exercise its legal prerogative? Yes it did. TruthTell
We ought to make a distinction between impartial information regarding events whether pro or con and slanted propaganda. I believe the reader would be better served by the former.
Well, it looks like Truthtell has unilaterally decided to change the subject of the article from "Scientology controversy" to "Church of Scientology controversy". The problem is that they are not exactly as separable as that; it is not as simple as simply converting every mention of "Scientology" to "Church of Scientology". For instance, Hubbard's dictum that every single psychiatrist is a sadistic torturer/murderer, if not in this life then in their past life in the Marcab whatever -- is that Scientology, or the Church of Scientology? -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:38, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'll let Mr. Hubbard speak for himself on the matter of the cancellation of Fair Game:
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 21 October 1968
Remimeo
CANCELLATION OF FAIR GAME
The practice of declaring people FAIR GAME will cease. FAIR GAME may not appear on any Ethics Order. It causes bad public relations.
This P/L does not cancel any policy on the treatment or handling of an SP.
L. RON HUBBARD Founder LRH:ei.cden Copyright © 1968 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/sp/pl-1968-10-21-cancel-fair-game.html LamontCranston 00:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Since someone is complaining that my POV tag (as well as other people who have tagged this) is "unjustified", here are my reasons:
1. The links on the page are all from the same group of two or three people, and are clearly not unbiased sources. Citing these people is like someone citing The Church of Scientology: if you're going to try to make your page NPOV, neither of these sources are the place to look!
2. Assuming you intend to KEEP these non-NPOV sources, it would only be fair to provide the other side of the argument. Keeping one side supported while ignoring the other isn't a good practice.
Therefore, I think it's EXTREMELY reasonable for me to simply leave a non-POV tag on this article. If I did what I actually think would be fair, I'm sure many people here would be chasing me down with tourches and pitchforks (metaphor - please don't assume something I didn't mean), as you have for past people (myself included) trying to conform to the supposed NPOV rules that you claim to stand for. Now before you get offensive and claim I'm the bad guy and that I'm a low-life, try rising above my level, and instead of doing to me what you think I would do to you, try to consider things from my point of veiw, as (not a Church memeber, but) someone who just thinks Wikipedia should be unbiased. Maybe, hopefully, someone will open their eyes.
I'm not arguing that legal court documents aren't acceptable, but rather suggesting (heaven forbid!) that when you provide one document, you supply another one where the Church won on the matter, or at VERY LEAST provide the reasoning behind the motives of both parties, as opposed to just the verdict. Still, those are not the sources I'm trying to advocate against. Rather, I think it's very unfair to use websites directly aimed against Scientology, especailly ones aimed at ALREADY TROUBLED people, who then commited suicide or such. If you're going to list sources like those, then at least try to conform to SOME amount of NPOV standards by including things such as how many people have been HELPED by Scientology [1] and [2]. I know that those are Scientology-officiated websites, but if you're going to get the anti-Scientology, you HAVE to have the pro-Scientology too if you truely expect to be considered unbiased. What makes the anti- websites ok and the pro- websites not ok? Just because all of the pro- sites are supported by Scientology, while the anti- sites aren't supported by any one orginization shouldn't matter. You can't punish Scientology for being "more together" than those who speak out against them, especailly not given the circumstances in which this lack of NPOV is being shown.
That's all. I hope that this meets your standards and merits a non-NPOV tag now. Further, I think it's stupid to remove a non-NPOV tag from a page without reason. Yes, I understand that you may want the issue resolved as to WHY they think it's biased, but that doesn't mean that they don't think it's biased. Removing someone's tag is even more stupid that them putting it there without posting the reason. I won't say anymore on that, since this isn't the page for it though. [Comment posted 21:53, 18 Apr 2005 by GodHelpWiki ]
It should be noted that in all articles critical to scientology, critical sites should not be referenced without the permission of the author, excepting only cases where such permission (dissemination of the content) is explicit in the goal or language of the site. This is due primarily to repeated legal threats from the CoS. Careless citations of small sites, or sites located within countries friendly to Scientology/ABLE/CoS, may cause individuals great legal complications.
GodHelpWiki suggested that the article is POV because it only uses sources from a few people. I cannot tell if the article is NPOV from my limited knowledge but the range of sources seems diverse to me. Here is my analysis of the sources that could have been used in the first half of the article (deduced from the article text):
--[User:TheoClarke|Theo]] 19 April 2005 07:27 (UTC)
I noticed you didn't include a complete list. I don't think that ANYONE can reasonably consider www.whyaretheydead.com a NPOV source. [Comment by GodHelpWiki ]
The article includes an interesting letter from Hubbard, apparently claimed by the FBI during the raid. Yet I see no source cited, and neither have I yet found one. Could someone step in and verify this piece with a good citation?
Several articles linked to this particular piece (the William Sargant thing, for example) have been edited and reedited repeatedly by people who cannot agree on a definition of NPOV. As this epidemic appears to have infected this page as well, I feel it necessary to ask here what can be done - mere squabbling on individual pages is going to solve nothing. -- User:206.114.20.121
206.114.20.121 lies to incite hate of Wikipedia contributor. Look at his accusation and take a reality check. [3]
I do not see how 206.114.20.121's "argument" is relevant to this article other than an attempt to discredit me. If my work ("squabbling") on psychiatric related articles is such a concern to contributors of the Scientology controversy, then help NPOV my latest contribution to Wikipedia: George Estabrooks. Please contribute YOUR POV. -- AI 00:38, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
The recent revert war about including this article in Category:Scientology is a weird one. For one thing, even when the "Scientology" category has been removed, it remains in place in the article, at least on my browser. Anybody else see this? As to the substance of the argument, I can't see any reasonable case for excluding this article from the main "Scientology" category: the whole reason for this article is to reduce the size (and editorial contentiousness) of the main article, right? This article is essentially an extension of the Scientology article, and as such it should be in the main category, and prominently linked to in the Scientology article. -- BTfromLA 03:25, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
This first sentence would require a citation proving the motivation of the Church of Scientology. I doubt if that is possible in this case: "attempting to receive sympathy from the fact that Jews were persecuted by the Nazis during the Holocaust. [4] "
This second sentence would require citations showing L. Ron Hubbard's inspiriation came largely from two men. Hubbard has listed those men who inspired him and it is a considerable list. But there is no citation in the article which mentions his inspiration came "largely" from the two in this sentence below: "Critics also allege that L. Ron Hubbard's Dianetics research was largely inspired by the achievements of other mental researchers such as Freud and William Sargant; the Church of Scientology maintains that Hubbard's work was entirely original and derived from no preexisting practice."
I have placed these two sentences (link also) here toward a good article being viewed by the public. This is exactly per Wikipolicy, WP:CITE. Uncited information, particularly biased POV information should not appear in an article unless cited. Proving the motivation of the Church of Scientology is to garner sympathy would be a difficult task. Proving Hubbard's inspiration was due to two men would be a difficult task. Povmec seems convinced the statements are accurate, but provides no citation. Terryeo 16:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Pasting here for citing and discussion this one: "Hubbard, L. Ron. Attacks on Scientology, "Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter," February 25, 1966" because there is not HCOPL 25 Feb 66 in the Church of Scientology today. If you present that as a historical document (not a present time document) then feel free. Cite it. But it can't accurately be presented as a document the Church of Scientology uses today.
The list of quotes is very poorly done, too. For example, "Technique 88" is not a book listed at the Library of Congress. What is it's ISBN, what page number is that quote from? According to Wiki Policy the quote should have a page number, the book should then be listed in references with its ISBN, author, who published it and so on. The idea being, a person might want to read more of that kind of thing ! so hey! give our reading public a chance and Cite your source more cleanly, okay? :) Terryeo 17:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
None of the references comply with WP:CITE. Understand I am not saying the references should not be there, but I am saying that none of them are done per Wiki direction. I've examined the whole list. Here is what is wrong with each quote, how it is not appropriately presented per WP:CITE.
HCO POlicy letter of 25 february 1966, ATTACKS ON SCIENTOLOGY.
The last one is done wrong too, but I'll correct that. Terryeo 05:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
"Somebody some day will say 'this is illegal'. By then be sure the orgs say what is legal or not." — L. Ron Hubbard, HubbardCommunications Office Policy Letter, 4 January 1966
"Don't ever tamely submit to an investigation of us. Make it rough, rough on attackers all the way." — L. Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, 25 February 1966
"Having viewed slum clearance projects in most major cities of the world may I state that you have conceived and created in the Johannesburg townships what is probably the most impressive and adequate resettlement activity in existence." — L. Ron Hubbard, Letter to South African Apartheid Government, 1960
"THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN CONTROL PEOPLE IS TO LIE TO THEM. You can write that down in your book in great big letters. The only way you can control anybody is to lie to them." — L. Ron Hubbard, Technique 88
"They smell of all the baths they didn't take. The trouble with China is, there are too many chinks here." — L. Ron Hubbard (Diary entry circa 1928)
"If anyone is getting industrious trying to enturbulate [sic] or stop Scientology or its activities, I can make Captain Bligh look like a Sunday-school teacher. There is probably no limit on what I would do to safeguard Man's only road to freedom against persons who… seek to stop Scientology or hurt Scientologists." — L. Ron Hubbard, 15 August 1967
"People attack Scientology; I never forget it, always even the score. People attack auditors, or staff, or organisations, or me. I never forget until the slate is clear." — L. Ron Hubbard, The Manual of Justice
"So we listen. We add up associations of people with people. When a push against Scientology starts somewhere, we go over the people involved and weed them out. Push vanishes." — L. Ron Hubbard, The Manual of Justice
"At this instance there are men hiding in terror on Earth because they found out what they were attacking. There are men dead because they attacked us — for instance Dr. Joe Winter. He simply realized what he did and died. There are men bankrupt because they attacked us - Purcell, Ridgway, Ceppos." — L. Ron Hubbard (Dr. Joe Winter was a board member of the Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation, but he broke with Hubbard over the use of "past lives" to explain engrams. Don Purcell, Derricke Ridgway and Art Ceppos were former supporters of Hubbard who also broke with him. One explanation offered for the context of this quotation is that Hubbard meant that the expansion of Scientology would save lives; Scientologists believe they are responsible for disasters because they did not disseminate their technology well enough.)
"Bluntly, we are out to replace medicine in the next three years." — Hubbard College Reports, 13 March 1952
I make these statements now because I seem to have a reputation for cutting and pasting and I mean to say, I'm not trying to upset the apple cart, but to create better Wiki articles. Terryeo 05:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Good God Terryeo you really are quite the Scientology apologist...
Wiki spells out how to make quotes. It is perfectly right to make actual quotes with actual cites, expressing the opinion of the author. Why are so many of these things done so poorly? First someone comes in with a 1/2 way right quote. For example, the first quote from a policy letter. It talks about illegal activites but it doesn't say what Hubbard was talking about. It could have been beans, illegally grown beans. One earlier line and it would be a good quote, it is a good policy letter, there could be some real controversy. Why isn't that done? instead it is done poorly. So I announce I am going to cut and paste here. I cut and paste here. Then a small handful of people look at my action, see that controversy is not well represented and revert it. Am I the only person with enough patience to look through these sorts of details, observe Wiki Policy about how to cite and point out the missing elements? This and other Scientology articles read like a junior high student has heard a rumor and is posting it for attention. Terryeo 08:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I think the intro needs to be cleaned up to follow the WP:MOS. I tried to wikify the first line so it looked like the template "This article is about....for other uses see...."
What do you think? Snailwalker | talk 21:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Fair Game (Scientology). AndroidCat 15:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Would someone explain why the cleanup tag is on this article? What exactly needs to be cleaned up and what should I as an editor do in order to get it cleaned up? Adding tags like this to articles that have a long history and numerous editors seems like a controversial thing that should be properly discussed on the talk page before they are added. Vivaldi ( talk) 02:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
A similar, controversial subject is seeking a peer reviewer. If you would be interested, we would appreciate your time at our article! Thanks! Kyaa the Catlord 16:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Not sure but I think this article was vandalized. Not sure which parts but it just seems a little out there... unless it really is. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.23.84.125 ( talk • contribs)
Greece has actually shutted down the local branch of Scientology in 1997 which didn't happen in Germany so far, so the word "strongest stance" is not correct. And Scientology isn't under surveillance for "criminal" activities. In Germany we have a seperate organisation called "Verfassungsschutz" (VS, Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution) and their job is to take a look on people who, while not committing crimes (so far as known), are hostile to the Constituition and therefore a possible problem. These are mostly extreme left or right-wing groups and fundamentalistic islamistic organisations. -- 136.172.253.189 21:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I took the liberty of removing the tag, seeing as the edit wars on this article seem to have calmed down since Terryeo's ban. Yandman 08:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Can we put him in the article? I mean he's giving the scientology a bad name.
I think the reverse is more accurate; that Scientology is giving Tom Cruise a bad name. Look at how his reputation has suffered right when he started making public pronouncemets about Scientology.
But no, I don't really think Tom Cruise has anything to do with the "Scientology controversy" as is the subject of this article. Any comments about Tom Cruise's beleif in Scientology would be more appropriate on the article about Tom Cruise than here. From what I've seen what's there is already sufficient.
This may not be very NPOV but honestly Scientology does a good enough job giving a bad name to itself!
John
19:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
The "External links" section is a mess. Not only are there way too many links, it is completely Original Research to decide what is a "fairly favourable" link or a link with an "opposing view". Let's not arrange the links according to someone's opinion of what they say. I urge User:Jpierreg, who has been on a Scientology linkspree lately, to study WP:EL closely. It clearly states that external links are to be "kept to a minimum", and not expanded practically into becoming articles of their own. wikipediatrix 23:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the four links that were added by Paul Horner to his own web site:
"[...] What is Scientology A humor site showing what really is Scientology"
Pointless, that brings nothing to the article. No need for a particular "humour" site.
"[...] Scientology's Deaths - The Ellie Perkins story on CBS 48 Hours"
Jeremy Perkins web site, is better covered in appropriate articles (as
Scientology and psychiatry), and in which case it is better to link to a good reference for the Jeremy Perkins case, and that would be Dr. Touretzky's site, as it contains first hand information.
"[...] South Park Scientology Episode nominated for an Emmy"
The
Trapped_in_the_Closet_(South_Park) is best covered in its own wiki article. And it just happened that external links to streams of the episode have been removed because of copyvio.
"[...] The Bridge Movie - A 2006 documentary on Scientology removed due to legal threats from the Scientologists. Remarkable the first ever critical movie released about The Church of Scientology"
The_Bridge_(film) has its own article, no need to bypass it. And links to streams of the movie were removed for copyvio reasons it seems. I don't know what is the current status on the issue though, as I thought the movie was released to the net with no restriction to its distribution.
Raymond Hill
01:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Links failing WP:RS and WP:EL were reinserted to this page. These links do not meet the rules on neutrality and are personal/self-published sites. I removed whyaretheydead.net, scientology-lies.com, and scientology freezone per their not meeting the guidelines for inclusion and this was reverted immediately. Thoughts? ju66l3r 23:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
HAS goes to a disambiguation page. Of the entries listed, I can make no obvious connection. -- Lincoln F. Stern 20:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Having reviewed this section, I've decided to remove it. I think COFS has a good point - the quotes are out of context, and they all seem to have been chosen to represent a critical POV towards Scientology. I don't think they really belong in this article without, at the very least, some sort of more detailed explanation and context. -- ChrisO 00:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
It honestly seems to me that no quote should excised if its properly cited. If you feel its taken out of context then add context, but quotes are clearly usefull for this page as its about scientology controversy. Clearly a quote can be inherently controversial even without context of any sort, for example if head of state were quoted stating that he enjoyed the services of prostitutes, but it was later learned they were just giving him/her a massage, it would be controversial solely because he/she used the term prostitute, regardles of the context. Colin 8 04:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Since the CoS has tried to eliminate the Free Zone, especially by copyright and trademark violation, it looks like the CoS is treating it as "competition" to be eliminated rather than a rogue belief to be dispelled by discussion. Anynobody 22:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
We are looking to merge Patter drill here. Please discuss the merge and what bits of Patter drill belong here. -- Justanother 02:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
support merge it seems to me that the whole page should be added as the practice itself is controversial. I find the whole "religion" controversial in itself, but taken solely from scientology's basic dogma its controversial due to the fact that its one of the few tenants/practices that Hubbard didn't create. Colin 8 04:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
The Church of Scientology denies that Hubbard ever made any such statement, and has sued at least one publisher, the German magazine Stern, for publishing claims that he did (Stern won the lawsuit). Anyone got a reference for that? Need it for the danish wikipedia. Thanks in advance. Mr Mo 22:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
There is a story in the Sydney Morning Herald today about an ongoing court case in Belgium at http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/scientologists-charged-with-extortion/2007/09/05/1188783277713.html. The entry in the 'Criminal behavior and allegations' section on the Belgium court case should probably be updated with some of the information in the SMH article. I've added the reference for now. Alans1977 06:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
This first section is sadly lacking in citation,and it skews the subject. The CSI/Freezone controversy is very minor compared to other points of controversy. Nevertheless, there are sources to reference and against which a sensible lead can be constructed, even if we do keep the emphasis on CSI/Freezone. This paragraph needs to be trimmed down and if we are going to keep it as the CSI/Freezone issue it needs to simply state what Scientologists believe and what those in the Freezone believe and eliminate the elaboration which is conjecture. Su-Jada 23:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
"not prohibited or limited in any way" is too open-ended. "Non-profit organization" should changed to something like "tax-free" or charity. (Operating in the UK as a tax-free Australian incorporation is interesting, and some might call that a limit.) As well, there might be problems with some of the listed countries:
The aggressive insults of Scientology claiming that especially Germany violates human rights [8] have nearly no justification. Not only that the german constitution, the Grundgesetz, forbids any activities like that:
Additional:
Articles included from the former Weimar Constitution:
Germany ratified [
Treaties] and respects international courts which guaranties an extremly high level of freedom. Few, isolated and minor cases only show that even germans aren´t angels. Powerful organizations like Scientology should have no difficulties to get any human or religious right and freedom which they are entitled to according to a extremly high level of international standards.
My personal opinion is that Scientology tries to blackmail the german government to get the tax-exempt status (as a reference for insults see first link). Scientology Crime Syndicate -- Is This A Religion? By Stephen A. Kent TheinfinitelyProlonged ( talk) 07:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
The European Union References are given in the article, mainly as Wikipedia-pages. A lot of reading can be done to understand Europe.
TheinfinitelyProlonged (
talk)
08:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Scientology's takeover of the Cult Awareness Network is listed under "criminal accustaions," despite not having and accusations of criminal behavior. I don't want to delete it wholesale, because it's useful and relevant, but I'm not sure where to move it. Suggestions? Reyemile ( talk) 17:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
This page is in dire need of protection. I just deleted the "Scientology's Replies" section (which if anyone feels like adding it back AFTER major cleanup, so be it) because the entire thing was nothing but ultra-biased commentary from a Scientologist(s). There's more throughout the page that needs work but I'm time restrained at the moment. Nemeses9 ( talk) 02:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
My word, what a horrible organization. I had no idea. I think I am going to try that Anonymous group out and see if I can do anything to help shut down these fraudsters. Ndriley97 ( talk) 01:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the first sentence in this article is biased. It's defending Scientology by presenting an argument of Scientologists, and a description of an action taken by Scientologists to defend their beliefs/religion. The first paragraph doesn't seem very well written. I don't have a lot of suggestions, but maybe it should begin with a sentence somewhere along the lines of "there are many controversies associated with Scientology"? VolatileChemical ( talk) 11:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I also moved the related material to the see also section as it makes more sense to me to place it there. I believe that's a neater division of the page but I understand if the consensus disagrees with me. However, I think some of the controversies that are on other pages, such as Scientology and psychiatry, instead of being in related material should have a small section with a main article link. I also feel since much of the controversy has to do with Hubbard and his family it would be convenient to have a section concentrating all the Hubbard controversy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.227.246 ( talk) 18:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I started an article, see the external link for info. David Graham (former scientologist). Equazcion •✗/ C • 06:01, 13 Apr 2008 (UTC)
Why has this article been nominated for deletion? I believe that based on the first amendment that this article should be protected, and monitored to make sure that no one attempts to tamper with it, and eliminate a valuable source of scientology controversies. Besides, who would want to delete an article unless it would be a danger to someone, or an organization? Just saying... Cm2dude ( talk) 17:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I think this is a well written wiki article on a difficult and controversial subject. Its very hard to maintain a neutral bias, but I think this article is about as neutral as you can get - it presents the facts and issues surrounding a case, without carrying any extra emotional bias to or for against Scientology. Also considering how often pages on Scientology liked to get reverted or altered with more pro-scientology information, id like to thank everyone for maintaining this page.
I don't see what's wrong with what was removed in this revision. Was there no references sourced? References should be briefly looked for before removing unsourced material, or flagged with 'needs citation' or whatever's appropriate there. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Scientology_controversies&diff=202665335&oldid=202654547 74.67.17.22 ( talk) 08:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Slapping 5 major tags on the article without discussing them here or trying fix them in the article seems a lot like sour grapes after a bad faith deletion by redirection failed and an AFD consensus strongly in favour of keeping the article. I'm against tag-bombing articles without discussion because, without an indication of exactly what the editor feels is wrong, it's hard to know when the points (if any) have been addressed and the tag can be removed. Many times these tags linger on for a year until someone finally cleans them off. I'm inclined to treat it as article defacement and remove them. AndroidCat ( talk) 15:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
(backdent) When people disagree with our fix, then we give justifications on the talk page. We don't try another method that is a similarly drastic change to see if others will be alright with it instead. The problem with relying completely on Bold, is that it's a two way street. You can boldly make a modification, and the other party can Boldly revert that change. This is why Bold is tempered with WP:CONCENSUS. When you justify your actions, it helps us to see that you are not some random vandal. When you justify them well, you potentially sway someone who may otherwise not understand your reasoning, disagree with your change, and revert your efforts. Alternatively, by presenting your arguments, someone else might be able to make a well-formed rebuttal that will cause you to withdraw your position. So I'd love to hear about your specific problems with specific passages or aspects of this article. - Verdatum ( talk) 23:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
After reading this I change my adverbs from "cairless" to "wreckless" and "arrogent" Coffeepusher ( talk) 22:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Septer has not tagged this article with a total of 10 tags, with no attempt to fix any problems, or any explination of what he believes is the problem. a "factual accuracy" tag definatly needs a detailed explination. the "manual of style" tag implys that he wants us to delete the entire reponce section from the COS which although it needs cleanup, does add well to this article. and the tags where placed with the edit summary "explained on talk page" and there is no new content from will on this talk page. Coffeepusher ( talk) 17:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
, my reading shows a large amout of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. I also think that this article is a great resource, but currntly has no real focus (it covers all topics of contriversy, without any rhyme or reason for what is included). having both critisisms and lists of legal conflicts listed by topic and instance, rather than listing "critisisms" while subsourcing points in time when it was problamatic...or listing insidents of conflict and suplementing them with critisisms that came out of those conflicts. I am also reading the responce section...and seeing less and less value for that section every time I read it. Coffeepusher ( talk) 21:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
What do people think? Cirt ( talk) 21:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Wow, that article is not full of POVs it IS a WP:POV violation. Let's start with the intro. No references. Shutterbug ( talk) 23:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Do the intro differ from the material in the article itself? Are the points in the article nonreferenced? Claiming the entire article is POV is a strong statement that might need a bit of clarification regarding what parts are subject to this. If the Intro is misleading and differs from the referenced points in the main article then please sugest a rewrite or point out the inconsistencies. Blanket statements regarding this article is rather pointless given the highly delicate matter of neutrality regarding controversies. (much like any other article regarding controversies) -- 213.115.40.148 ( talk) 10:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I see no evidence that this article is POV. The introduction summarizes the article. Thus, there is no violation of WP:POV. I think the truth is that Shutterbug does not like it because the article does not reflect the corporate scientology POV. Shutterbug is captiously nitpicking.-- Fahrenheit451 ( talk) 22:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I've made some changes, but it still needs more work. Editors should be reminded to make sure not to state allegations as undisputed fact, since the Church obviously disputes any claims of abuse and so forth. These articles really, really need to stop being a battleground between anti-Scientologists and Church people. Wikipedia's mission is to provide neutral, unbiased info, not outright bashing nor uncritical promotion. Laval ( talk) 13:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Good progress on proper sourcing finally happens now at Scientology. This [9] needs to be done here. "Controversy" is tough for starters but it can be done. Misou ( talk) 02:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
This article has several issues with neutrality. It repeatedly violates WP:NPOV
1. It focuses solely on the attacks Scientology has made during this controversy, instead of the actual controversy they sparked. This misses the point, and certainly violates WP:POV, as well as destroy the neutrality of the article. What it needs to do is instead of focusing on the attacks, which is more fit for another article, it should focus on the public reaction, whether it be positive or negative, and keep it first coherent with the article title, and second neutral.
2. It uses weasel words at several points. IE, when addressing a alleged attack, it refers to members of the Church of Scientology as cult members. Cult is a purely negative term, referring only to a religion considered invalid, inferior, and exploitative. It should be changed to a more neutral term. I do believe this should be fixed, and until then, somebody should place a 'weasel words' notice at the top.
I would fix these changes, but my computer is having issues, so I cannot edit the page. Don't ask why, I have no idea. Avianmosquito ( talk) 11:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I suggest that we do some source research and include these controversies at our earliest convenience. Jayen 466 11:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Here is another notable controversy: [14] [15] Jayen 466 14:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Jayen466, why did you simply revert *everything*? I wouldn't mind changing the wording but I think its somewhat crucial to leave the statements of the son of the founder in. It *is* controversial and it is ensured that he said that. His interviews are on records and it was his book.
Furthermore you even removed the part where
Mike Rinder, chief spokesman of Scientology, admits that the confession of the members are logged and stored, see
MSNBC interview. Is that not trustworthy, is it not worth mentioning or is the wording not good enough? Sorry, I am new to editing Wikipedia articles but I found the son's statements and Mr Rinder's statements both very relevant.
Dominik Seifert (
talk)
06:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Brent Corydon and L. Ron Hubbard, Jr., L. Ron Hubbard - Messiah or Madman?, Secaucus, N. J. 1987. Another very important book but also a deeply problematical item. L. Ron Hubbard, Jr. (who in civil life uses the name Ronald DeWolfe) is Hubbard's eldest son (born 1934 from his first marriage) who till a break in 1959 was his father's confidant. Bent Corydon is a former Scientologist who undertook to write the above mentioned book. Contrary to the title Hubbard Jr. is not co-author, but just contributed some intrviews used by Corydon. After the publication of the book Hubbard Jr. signed an affidavit in which he denied many of the statements made in the book (copy in my possession). He says he never had access to the manuscript and only was given a copy of the book using his name when it was already in print. It is usually assumed that the Church of Scientology paid Hubbard Jr. for this statement. This cannot be proven. A legal affidavit has to be taken into consideration. Many of the claims made in Corydon's book are very sensationalist. It is quite believable that Hubbard Jr. was not happy with the book even when he wanted to expose the darker side of his father.
You are obviously a very experienced Wikipedian, thank you for your directions. I see now that there is a difference between controversies and controversial conduct. I myself find it very disturbing that Scientology log and archieve many private secrets that they extract during Auditing. Who knows what they can use that for, especially when it comes to public figures. But - if I understood correctly, it would not be a controversy until a trustworthy source confirms that these secrets were used for exploitation? Dominik Seifert ( talk) 12:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
The section contains a large chunk of information which is only sourced to a couple primary sources. We needs some secondary sources for verification. ← Spidern → 19:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm concerned about use of legal documents as discussed here >>> [ [17]]
I'm specifically concerned with this citation,[ [18]] it's use seems to me like original research.
It would like to discuss this. Bravehartbear ( talk) 04:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I know this made quite the news, but while reading the article, it just looks a bit out of place, or just worded bad. Maybe I'm just seeing this from a wikipedian standpoint, but it just doesn't read right. Maybe "News outlets reported on May 27th... blah blah blah..." or something along those lines. Paranormal Skeptic ( talk) 18:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that this article in its current form is a big POV Fork WP:CFORK. I would recomend it for deletion but the article has potential. Bravehartbear ( talk) 03:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I was recently editing Criticism of Mormonism, an old article. And a new editor suggested re-naming it to "Controversies about Mormonism". I replied and pointed out that most articles that criticize religions have titles that start with "Criticism of .." as in:
But you notice that the latter three use "Controversy" in their title.
My question is: Would it help this encyclopedia if all these article started with "Criticism of ...", specifically starting with _this_ article? (by the way, Im new to this article, so if re-titling has been discussed before, I apologize).
But conistency is not the only benefit: I would offer:
A controversy is a debate, usually public, that may be postive or negative.
A criticism is a negative statement by a notable individual or group.
Virtually all the topics in all the above religion articles are criticisms.
Examples of controversies that are not criticisms:
Examples of criticisms that are not controversies:
The above examples should illustrate why (in the Wikipedia religious article context) "criticism" is a better title than "controversy". (Apologies about the lack of Scientology examples: that is not my area of expertise).
My point is: all the topics in all those articles are "criticisms", and many "controversies" (that dont include negative issues) are _not_ included. Therefore, the word "Controversies" in the article titles is not as good as "Criticism of ...".
In the interests of uniformity and accuracy, I propose changing the title of this article to "Criticism of Scientology". However, I'm new to this Scientology article, so if there is some history Im unaware of, please educate me. Im just trying to help the over-all encyclopedia.
Thanks for any input. -- Noleander ( talk) 23:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
-
Scientology controversies → Criticism of Scientology — For two reasons: (1) more consistency with a dozen other "Criticism of [some religion]" articles; and (2) the term "criticism more accurately represents the contents of the article, and is a more generic term that includes any negative asserstion about Scientology (vs. "Controversy" which is a narrower term that means "public debate"). See additional details (including a list of other "Criticism of ..." articles) above. Noleander ( talk) 13:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Noleander for setting out the reasons at length in such a clear way. My feelings on this are mixed, but I warn that there's potentially a POV issue with using "Criticisms" rather than "Controversies". Take the "Free Zone" for example. The Free Zone claim that they practice Scientology as it was originally intended, and that the Church of Scientology practice an altered version. Conversely, the CoS make the same claim about the Free Zone. Are either of these claims a criticism of Scientology? A similar concern can be raised about the Criticisms of Islam article: some muslims advocate violence, issue fatwas etc. but other muslims say that they have no authority to do so and that they are misrepresenting Islam. There's at least a viable point of view that what's being criticised or negatively represented isn't Islam, so the label "Criticisms of Islam" isn't quite appropriate. Looking at your list of articles, it seems some are definitely about criticisms but some are arguably a mix of criticism and controversy.
Back to this article, and the Scientologists' use of extra-legal methods, use of legal threats etc. From the Scientologists' perspective, these things just show how strongly committed they are, how Scientology deals with extremely important issues that sometimes merit extreme action, how Scientology takes a higher view of ethical authority than obeying every Earthly law, and so on. You describe them above as "negative things" and lots of people will share that point of view, but if we use that view to frame the article then we are implicitly excluding the Scientology point of view.
There's academic literature that mentions the controversial aspects of Scientology, not in an attacking way but just to illustrate how strongly committed the Scientologists are. So, although there's not much at stake here, I prefer to oppose. MartinPoulter ( talk) 16:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I have noticed that User:Wispanow and User:Pgreenfinch have deleted information relevant to the status of Scientology in Germany (by this I mean, this users are removing the whole section labeling it as "pro-cult propaganda" and "POV pushing".) As far as I can see, the section is well sourced and relevant to the topic of the article. I would like to invite both users to provide their rationales for the removal. Thank you. > RUL3R> trolling> vandalism 09:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
We can look at whether our description of the controversy is even-handed. The wording we have in the article right now does appear to give room to both sides' views. If there are any specific statements by the German government that editors would want included, we can look at that, but deleting the controversy is out of the question; it is far too notable for that. -- JN 466 12:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Dispute over subsection Alleged oppression of Scientologists in Germany. 13:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
The title of the subsection is itself inappropriate, as it violates WP:WTA. Perhaps simply titled it Scientology in Germany. And it could be weighted better to present more of a worldview instead of a heavily weighted United States view - with more inclusion of information from the positions of governments in France, Germany, Belgium, etc. Cirt ( talk) 13:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I've renamed the section "Scientology in Germany" for now. Basically, there has been a dispute between the United States and various European countries, above all Germany, over what the US perceive as discrimination against individual Scientologists. This has been a notable controversy; it led to a widely reported (see sources above) diplomatic row between German and the US.
One way we could go would be to make this section about this specific US–Germany row, and title it accordingly.
Another possibility would be to widen the scope and include similar disagreements between the US and other countries such as France and Belgium as well (cf. Kent's paper, "The French and German versus American Debate over 'New Religions', Scientology, and Human Rights"), as well as the views of the French, Belgian etc. governments that the US are meddling in European States' internal affairs.
My feeling however is that to date the US-Germany dispute, while indeed only one of several such disputes, has received by far the most press coverage, in both German-language and English-language sources.
Incidentally, this includes many British sources, whose reporting does not strike me as different from US reporting:
Generally, both the US and the British press take a dim view of Scientology in their domestic reporting; however, quite a few mainstream commentators (and that includes German scholars) feel that Germany's response to Scientology has been slightly over the top.
These are both highly respected, Pulitzer Prize-nominated journalists; Richard Cohen is American, and Alan Cowell is a Brit based in Paris. No doubt Germany is particularly vulnerable to being seen in a critical light over this, because of its Nazi history, but comments like that are notable. I don't mind adding French views on the controversy. Sources? -- JN 466 14:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
For those who might not have read my userpage, I consider myself a Scientologist. Just letting you know, as I don't want anybody to believe I am trying to push a pro-Scientology agenda, since I am not involved with the Sea Org, the RTC, nor the IAS. Now, returning to the topic. I find no major issues with the section, not any that would justify removal of the section anyway. Per above thread, it is heavily referenced, all fit WP:RS, no WP:OR, the tone may not be entirely neutral, but all statements are attributed. The fact that the Church of Scientology was convicted of fraud in a French court (a decision that, as far as I can tell, is passing through appeal, so it is not definitive yet) has nothing to do with the status of the organization in Germany. > RUL3R> trolling> vandalism 13:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Exactly what I was starting to write here, as I think it is of very bad taste that some accuse me not to play the game just because I cannot admit that in a WP article a section about another country is based on mostly American sources, which are a bit hard to trust as related to an organization based in the US. As for me, the real controversy is how the US could meddle in what democratic countries do to protect themselves against delictuous intrusions.-- Pgreenfinch ( talk) 13:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
It's hard to tell specifically what is being requested here, so I will respond to the comments that seem to me to be relevant to the RfC. I prefer the title "Scientology in Germany" or similar over "alleged controversies" or anything similar which utilizes words we try to avoid. Regarding whether some of the publications are "US-based", specifically Time and the New York Times, yes, they are. But Time has if I remember correctly several international editions, which indicates that even if it is based in the US it's influence extends well beyond that area. The New York Times, for what it's worth, is to the best of my knowledge one of the most respected newspapers on the planet, and thus also qualifies at least to my eyes as being more than just a US source. On that basis, I have to say that I can see no real reason to criticize either for alleged nationalism. John Carter ( talk) 14:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Currently ( this version) with the title "Scientology in Germany" seems balanced. I feel someone neutral on the subject would read it and get that there was a deep controversy. It is clear there is name calling, grand standing and uncompromising attitudes on both sides.
The new title is good because "Alleged" is a weasel word and "oppression" in the title is NPOV. In fact some of the other section titles in the article could be less POV.
I see from the edit history that it is felt that Germany is being singled out as oppressive. Scientology is controversial in all of Europe, but the controversy in Germany is particular strong and long standing warranting it's own section as supported by the Time Magazine article mentioned by Jayen466 above. (Bonfante, Jordan; van Voorst, Bruce (1997-02-10). " Does Germany Have Something Against These Guys?", Time)
If this were a paper encyclopedia, a lot of the material about Scientology in Wikipedia would not be included, because it is controversial. A paper encyclopedia would be more conservative about what might be found offensive. Wikipedia is clearly not conservative in that way.
Richard-of-Earth ( talk) 05:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Neither title is ideal. "Scientology in Germany" is a weak entry next to blunt titles like "Abuse of donations", "Brainwashing", and "Mistreatment of members"--a change which renders the article less NPOV in my opinion. Watering down the tone when it's pointed at Germany or other opponents, but giving a pass to the same kinds of emotion tinged titles when the target is Scientology isn't NPOV. "Alleged" smacks of an editorial qualifier. Change to noun form, "allegations", would be a little better. "Mistreatment of scientologists in Germany" would be every bit as NPOV as the "Mistreatment of members" and other such titles already used throughout. Professor marginalia ( talk) 19:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Fox, World Survey of Religion and the State, Cambridge University Press, 2008, says Germany is tougher than other countries on this. I can look up exactly what it says if others can't easily do so. Peter jackson ( talk) 11:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I've now got the book in front of me. Germany is listed under the following hierarchy of headings:
page 129:
"The German government closely monitors and often harasses Scientologists. Several state governments have published pamphlets about dangerous cults, including Scientologists. Firms bidding for government contracts must sign forms stating that their mamgement and employees are not Scientologists. This wording was changed in 2001 to a promise that the "technology of L. Ron [page 130] Hubbard will not be used in executing the contract. Government employment offices monitor companies that have suspected Scientologists working for them and warn prospective employees of these firms of this. Government officials have organized boycotts of movies starring John Travolta and Tom Cruise because they are Scientologists.
Many of Germany's major political parties, including the Social Democrats, the Christian Democratic Union, the Free Liberal Party, and the STAAT, have banned Scientologists from being party members. During the 1990s several regional governments asked the federal government to engage in a numbre of actions against Scientologists including criminal investigations; an investigation of whether membership in the Church should be regarded in the same way as drug addiction; the expansion of government "explanatory campaigns" on Scientology; and action to combat their economic influence. Government officials have published names of individual Scientologists and engaged in media campaigns against businesses run by them. Businesspeople have even advertised in newspapers that they are not Scientologists in order to avoid the social and economic repercussions of being associated with Scientology."
At the end of the whole section, which covers other "sects" too, a footnote cites the following sources:
Peter jackson ( talk) 11:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
The way in which this discussion is structured isn't particularly conducive to an efficient resolution of this issue. A quick look at the discussion page and the archive doesn't suggest that this issue has been discussed in any detail before. Couldn't this issue have been raised for discussion more conventionally rather than going straight to a more formal RfC structure? Adambro ( talk) 14:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the source above, Peter. -- JN 466 16:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I would just like to give a shout out to the Wikipedia editors of this page. It cannot be easy sifting through so much junk, constantly demanding linking to resources and whatever else it takes to keep this page as clean as it is. As a general reader, I am very impressed with the rational, measured way this page is presented and its consistent readability. Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.234.192.170 ( talk) 02:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
There is a deletion discussion going on at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Criticism_of_Judaism_(2nd_nomination), and any input would be appreciated. AzureFury ( talk | contribs) 02:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
The lede image is appropriate and should remain. It is noteworthy, notable, and historically significant. It is also pretty neat that it was taken onsite directly by a Wikimedia Commons photographer and Wikinews journalist. -- Cirt ( talk) 20:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
The image does indeed directly relate to the article subject. In addition to the image, a valid citation to an WP:RS source including text relevant to the article, was summarily removed unilaterally without any discussion about this. -- Cirt ( talk) 22:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
First off, I am sorry for the revert with the "check the archive" comment, I since discovered that I was remembering another discussion that occurred on a different page, not this one. I am not married to the idea of having that particular picture, but I do believe we should have some picture at the lede. I would like to propose this picture. It is easily identified as an act of protest specifically referring to a popular event that has been re-appropriated by several different groups in a variety of ways, this just demonstrating one of them. thus it does not highlight a specific group, but does instantly inform the reader both about the article and how some of the controversies are hashed out today. Coffeepusher ( talk) 22:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
It has been several days with no dissenting opinions voiced. I have added the image and summarized the image directly and its relation to the article, and wikilinked the appropriate words for further clarification. Coffeepusher ( talk) 16:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
The ever-litigious scientologists are at it again: " Councillor faces inquiry over tweet calling Church of Scientology 'stupid'". If this blows up into something moderately big (and already there's quite a lot of it on the internets), it might be handy to know whether the (newly?) LibDem John Dixon is related to the (previously?) Plaid Cymru John Dixon (Welsh politician). -- Hoary ( talk) 01:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Should somebody mention the proven fact that the Church sends PIs to track people who have been disconnected?-- Canadian Reject ( talk) 10:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
The Real Science behind Scientology; It's not what you think by Michael Shermer SciAm October 20, 2011 97.87.29.188 ( talk) 22:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
In the Allegations of criminality section I wikilinked the word grooming, in reference to gifts to London police officers with the article Adult grooming. I am 99% sure that's what was meant, but I want to draw some attention to it in case I've misunderstood it. Rhsimard ( talk) 22:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
The sentence introducing the recent Guardian article " Scientologist rallies followers against leader in leaked email" is
It appears that Cook is the person mentioned here. Quote from the article:
The last two words of that, "republished elsewhere", are linked to a blog posting, " Reformation – Division Within Corporate Scientology". (This is also here at WebCite.)
The Guardian article perhaps emphasizes the substance of the criticism less than the fact that it was internal. Something about this smells encyclopedic to me, but somebody more experienced than I am at editing these articles would have a better idea of what to do with it. -- Hoary ( talk) 02:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
In section "Allegations of criminality; criminal convictions of members", these two items:
- The Church of Scientology long considered the Cult Awareness Network (CAN) as one of its most important enemies, and many Scientology publications during the 1980s and 1990s cast CAN (and its spokesperson at the time, Cynthia Kisser) in an unfriendly light, accusing the cult-watchdog organization of various criminal activities. After CAN was forced into bankruptcy and taken over by Scientologists in the late 1990s, Scientology proudly proclaimed this as one of its greatest victories.[citation needed]
- In the United Kingdom the church has been accused of "grooming" City of London Police officers with gifts worth thousands of pounds.[37]
^ neither of these are allegations of criminality, or criminal convictions.
The first one seems to me like it might be more suited for the "Fair Game" section or article ('casting in an unfriendly light' is not a criminal activity), while a second one is a good example of Scientology schmoozing public officials, but that's not illegal.
If the tickets which Scientology donated to City of London officers had been direct bribes in return for specific favours (and I don't know of any sources that would support the contention that they were) then it would be illegal for police officers to accept them, but that's a bit different. If it was just lobbying then that's legal.
So might I suggest that both of these cases be moved to different parts of the article.
-- Mknjbhvgcf ( talk) 17:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
In the UK it is absolutely illegal to give gifts in return for "favours" from police. The "favours" in question here were suppression of protest outside the CoS building and high profile officers attending openings etc to give a sheen of respectability to CoS. Police officers who did not record the gifts are also guilty of an offence.
"Casting in an unfriendly light" is also illegal if it crosses the line into libel/slander or perjury, something many CoS communications have done. Altan001 ( talk) 23:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
A revert has been made by
Techbear that may reduce an illusion of controversy, but one that Techbear prefers to refer to as "conversation", a notion that I strongly disagree with. You can check the "View history" option yourself that should have added:
"Conclusion toward the Xenu charges is that no Scientology member is obliged to believe in the Xenu (-nonsense)." (Because of this splendid member-autonomy principle being part of Scientology corpus.)
It's my opinion that people have a right to factual information when it's available and this is such a case. I see no use for people to believe in these fabrications/illusions when one can reach a much more relieving point of personal standing in terms of information obtained in the true sense. Cheers!
95.34.149.202 (
talk)
12:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
I cleaned up the highly POV intro paragraph, but don't have time to check the rest of the article, which could definitely use a routine check every few months for blatant pro or anti POV creeping in. Laval ( talk) 14:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Also recommend moving article to Scientology-related controversies to remain in line with the category title and for accuracy. Laval ( talk) 14:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Following seven months without contentious talks since its placement, I have removed the POV check. Viridium ( talk) 02:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Scientology controversies. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Scientology controversies/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
*2 images, 29 citations. Smee 09:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC). |
Last edited at 01:51, 1 January 2012 (UTC). Substituted at 15:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
I removed the paragraph referring to the "Nova Religio" article Sensational Scientology! The Church of Scientology and Australian Tabloid Television. It is essentially a Scientology apologist article. It uncritically repeats the Church's position that Fair Game has been officially cancelled, merely saying that "ex-members" claim that it continues in practice; it takes issue with journalists discussing Scientology beliefs and practices with ex-members on the grounds that "due to Scientologist belief, members were not at liberty to discuss higher-level teachings"; and it describes the Rehabilitation Project Force as a voluntary stint. -- Slashme ( talk) 12:01, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Scientology controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/07/01/sci_psy/index_np.html?pn=1When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:03, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
In Belgium, after a judicial investigation since 1997, a trial against the organization is due to begin in 2008.
Can somebody update this? ☺ Dick Kimball ( talk) 15:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Scientology controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/1996/1996canlii1650/1996canlii1650.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/154clr120.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Scientology controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:02, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Scientology controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:32, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Scientology controversies has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hello! I would like to edit this page because I would love to add some information that isn't in the article. 69.129.118.103 ( talk) 20:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi @ TechBear: There was a long discussion that resulted in the Daily Mail being considered an unreliable source. I'm not against reporting on this incident, but the two options I can see for sourcing are the Daily Mail and a strongly POV book, so I'd like to see some better sources first. -- Slashme ( talk) 07:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Scientology controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:22, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
It is widely known amongst Scientology staff and public, especially those that are technically trained, that the process R2-45 referred to was blowing your brains out with a .45 calibre pistol. This is a semi-automatic handgun and was the standard military sidearm in U.S. armed forces from World War I up to the 1980's when it was replaced with the Beretta 9mm P-92 pistol. Hubbard, as a former serving naval officer would have been quite familiar with this weapon, hence the name of the process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chcgo undaground ( talk • contribs) 01:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Any news? The Wikipedia article has to been updated! =] Lawtheagoraphobic (talk) 01:57, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
This article doesn't mention Anonymous or the Miscavige family's books, two of the biggest recent controversies. In fact, this article seems to have not been significantly updated for about a decade- all events referenced are from before 2010 (unless i'm missing something). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.40.18.48 ( talk) 13:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Agreed, I wonder how much control the church has over the posts and comments here? Cannot convince me that they don't have people watching and keep things out.