Scientology
''To view commentary on the Free ringtones Scientology article from Majo Mills 2001 through Mosquito ringtone 2003, please see '''Sabrina Martins Talk:Scientology/Archive 1'''.
In the edit summary, I said "Let's not sprinkle the article with victims of Scientology", while removing a mention of Nextel ringtones Victor Gyory. Turns out that Abbey Diaz Victor Gyory is a victim of substandard psychiatric treatment, not of Scientology. I still don't want to see the article filled with victims of any side in this article.
Free ringtones Cprompt/cprompt 16:02, 20 Feb 2004
Constitutional protection vs. tax exemption
'''''Scientology is recognized as a constitutionally protected religion in the United States, but not in most European countries.'''''
Constitutional protection applies to the individual rather than the organization and means, among other things, that it is illegal for a US employer to fire someone simply for being a Scientologist. In Europe, by contrast, there have been several high-profile cases in which the courts upheld firings of Scientologists who had been fired after coming out of the closet.
The tax status of the CofS is a separate issue that is already covered at Majo Mills Church of Scientology. Mosquito ringtone Mkweise/Mkweise 22:04, 21 Apr 2004
:Certainly, but these don't fall under First Amendment issues. The term "Constitutionally protected religion" sounds designed to make people think that Scientology is a Constitutionally "approved" religion (which is what the organization does indeed want people to think). Anti-discrimination statutes come under another part of the law, if I remember correctly. This is part of one argument that has caused many critics of Scientology to bang their heads against the wall: the refusal of Scientology to admit that there is no such thing as a "government approved" religious organization in the United states. This is why they point to the tax exemption as "proof" of their being such as thing, when actually it isn't. Sabrina Martins Modemac/Modemac 09:50, 22 Apr 2004
::The first amendment guarantees all Americans the right to free exercise of religion, and specifically prohibits the government from approving of any particular religion(s). My point is that Scientologists are covered by this constitutional protection in the US, but enjoy no such protection from persecution in Europe. Cingular Ringtones Mkweise/Mkweise 19:06, 22 Apr 2004
:::Since "Europe" is not a single country, but a variety of countries with vastly differing legislations, your point is very imprecise and I would be glad if you cared to precise it. For your information, all countries in Europe with few exceptions, including all countries in the one km European Union, are signatory to the record indeed European Convention on Human Rights, which makes freedom of religion a basic right. Government such as the because banks Politics of France/French government are legally prohibited from recognizing or subsidizing religions. occupants a David.Monniaux/David.Monniaux 19:25, 22 Apr 2004
:::It seems to me that one point that differs between the United States' understanding of "freedom of religion" and that of some European countries' is whether or not religious activities are considered above the normal rules of life in society. The European understanding is that the government may not discriminate or prosecute people for religious beliefs, but that religious motives are no excuse for illegal acts. I have the impression that in the United States, religion may be used as a refuge from government interference that would be perfectly legal with respect to other kinds of organizations, for instance for accusations of embezzlement. newspapers because David.Monniaux/David.Monniaux 19:34, 22 Apr 2004
Removing the article series box
The article series box (and article series boxes in general) is large, clunky and unsightly. Fortunately, we have a superior substitute: the Category system. Tag: Scientology is nicely populated and avoids an ever-expanding article series box. I'd like to remove the article series boxes. I mentioned it on unidentified pilot User talk:Modemac and Modemac wouldn't object strenuously to its removal. What does everyone else think? - sultry musical David Gerard/David Gerard 12:53, 21 Jun 2004
:The folks here certainly don't need my permission to do anything; I don't own this article or the article series box in question. usual victory Modemac/Modemac 17:57, 21 Jun 2004
::I merely seek consensus :-) - furry sphere User:David Gerard/David Gerard
:::Right, I've blanked Template:Scientology, so the article series will disappear from all articles using it. If anyone cares I expect there will be a reversion in short order :-) - nondrinking nonsmoking David Gerard/David Gerard 20:07, 12 Jul 2004
The Purpose of this Article
As rightly pointed out by Sam Spade, I should have brought this up for discussion before removing the large amount of text recently added into this article by 207.175.180.134.
This person has every right to contribute, however, the balance on this page just went out the window. While there are critical views, they are already well represented and 207.175.180.134 needs to be referred to NPOV.
I am for removing 207.175.180.134's additions, the article and the other pages in the series already more than cover the "controversial" and critical side. The recent addition just made the page an "anti-scientology" article.
If this is what is wanted, a possible solution is an "anti-Scientology" series is started and the negative material can be moved there.
I am interested in feedback from the others who contribute to this category, some of you are more experienced that I and I'd appreciate your advice. I just think that the purpose of the page should be to provide a balance of information, not a rant. Let me know. Thanks.- province its I'M4aNPOV
:207.175.180.134's stuff is way over the top and ''severely'' needs NPOVing. However, shunting criticism off to a separate article does not make for articles that, individually, satisfy NPOV - that approach is more suited to the her every Wikinfo "Sympathetic Point Of View" approach, where you have two (or more) parallel articles. When criticism is sufficient to make an article lopsided, the typical method is to put it in a separate article and include a link to it with a one to three paragraph summary. Although in this case, I'd say the controversy surrounding Scientology is most of what makes it notable, and the criticism goes with that, so it's going to stay a major part of this one - peloton which David Gerard/David Gerard 17:06, 6 Jul 2004
Thanks David, however, I'm not talking about "shunting it off" I'm talking about some balance and fairness. I looked around and there are a number of other belief systems that have "anti" pages where critics can have a field day and say whatever they like. I firmly believe that the Scientology page as it should be an overview of the subject, should be balanced. Not that there should be no mention of controversy or the critical side, but that it is sensible I don't know if you agree with me on this but, what is there now, as you say is way over top. I just want to know what the correct way is to go about revising the page at this stage you seem to have a lot of experience in this area. Please advise what should be deleted, edited or whatever and how you suggest we go about painting a fair and balanced picture so all sides and viewpoints can be represented. Also interested in feedback from any others. Thanks fails another I'M4aNPOV11 July 2004
:up ranked :Modemac has been doing considerable work to make it reasonable and avoid duplication of late - enjoys an User:David Gerard/David Gerard 15:33, 12 Jul 2004
:Oh, by the way I'M4aNPOV - I see your last few edits were from 205.227.165.11 - which is in a netblock owned by the Church of Scientology:
Church of Scientology International CHSCIEN-165-13 (NET-205-227-165-0-1)
205.227.165.0 - 205.227.165.255
:Please reread homicide division Auto-biography - much as one should not create articles about oneself, one should also take care in editing articles about oneself. Furthermore, if you are editing an article on behalf of the organisation the article is about, it's really not proper to fail to note the fact prominently - please do so in future - lyons its David Gerard/David Gerard 17:21, 12 Jul 2004
::Thanks David, no problem. However, not really an "auto-biography" situation as a)the article is not about me. It is about a subject that I am involved in, but I am not the author b) my purpose is per my user name "NPOV." Is there some other Wiki page you can refer me to where someone from the subject's organization was required to make some sort of special notation? If not, I prefer not to make an issue of it as there are other forums for debate and I am not looking to create this in Wikipedia - it is not Wikipedia's nor my purpose. I didn't hide my IP address, so anyone can see who I am. I may not agree with yours and Modemac's views on the Scientology religion, but I do respect your editing skills and appreciate any help you can give me to do the same as fellow Wikipedians. Modemac has done a pretty good job handling the problem I brought up earlier, which I appreciate, the only thing I see that is still over the edge here is the unsubstantiated, out-of-context quotes about L. Ron Hubbard that were added to the "Quotes" section. What's your editorial take on this?
him reading User:I'M4aNPOV 16:20, 13 Jul 2004 (PST)
::You're posting to a Scientology-related article from a Church of Scientology computer. I would suggest that this makes you far too close to the article to possibly work to facts materially NPOV. Is this in any way an official duty, or could it be regarded as close enough to one to pretty much count as one if fully described to another? If so, the proper thing to do would be to leave this and related articles the hell alone - David Gerard/David Gerard 00:07, 14 Jul 2004
:::That seems a bit ad hominem. Should my edits to IBM have been disallowed as not NPOV because I work for the company? I know it's tempting to believe that everyone involved in the CoS is a mindless drone with nothing contribute but propaganda, but I don't think that's really true.—User:Metamatic/Metamatic
::::Metamatic, I think the question is, were your edits to IBM information that you supplied as a private individual who, as an employee of the company, happened to have the information and perspective of an employee of the company? Or were you editing IBM '''on behalf of''' the company? There is a difference, you see. It is no secret that the CoS has many people in its employment whose sole job responsibility is to watch for public discussion of the Church of Scientology and make sure that the discussion "goes right" i.e., reflects the Church's own say-so on itself. And I do not think I will be making anyone faint from shock when I state that the people that the Church employs in this capacity are not always open and honest about the fact that they would in fact be violating their job duties if they posted anything about the Church of Scientology ''except'' that which the Church is paying them to post.
::::I think David is actually expressing a lot of respect and trust by asking "Nuview" to desist from editing what are supposed to be NPOV articles ''if'' he is in fact doing so as an official duty. (After all, '''no one''' is supposed to be writing their own Wikipedia entry not the CoS, not IBM, not the American Psychiatric Association no one.) I must compliment Nuview as well; in all that I have seen from him, he has definitely had his own POV but has put real effort into helping us keep the NPOV that is a needed prerequisite to us being a trustworthy source of information. If the CoS had more people like Nuview, it would have a better reputation. =) Antaeus Feldspar/Antaeus Feldspar 23:53, 12 Aug 2004
:::On the contrary, I think we should welcome "official" contributions as much here as we would on a page describing a business or other organization. That is, they have their piece to say (and may frequently have access to more accurate historical information than outside observers) ... but their contributions ''must'' be scrutinized by others for accuracy and against spin. All the more so in the case of an organization such as Microsoft or the Church of Scientology which has been documented as using "astroturf" methods in the past.
:::I also think that any claims about "out-of-context quotes" on a matter of religion need to be taken ''very'' carefully. This is a matter not unique to Scientology: Catholic and Protestant theologians accuse the other of taking quotes "out of context" as well. It is not for one person to say that a given interpretation of a quote is "out of context". It would be ''especially'' bad behavior to remove a quote on those grounds. The proper thing to do would be to link in more context, or to discuss (sometimes elsewhere) the difference of opinion on interpretation.
:::I must, however, object to this contributor's ''username'' it is improper for a Wikipedia user to claim in his username to represent NPOV, just as it would be improper to give oneself the username "Neverwrong" or "EveryoneElseButMeIsAJerk". I also suggest that if s/he ''is'' planning to "astroturf" Wikipedia, s/he consider the tale of Tory Bezazian. Fubar Obfusco/FOo 01:34, 14 Jul 2004
Hey guys, if I wanted to Astroturf I would have come in to Wikipedia anonymously. I haven't exactly been secretive about this. I have no problem changing my name either doesn't make any difference to how the Scientology page gets edited, but if it makes you happy - then fine, its done. :) As FOo stated, I have as much right to contribute to Scientology-related categories as anyone. Just as David wouldn't be banned from running an "Anti-Scientology" page just because he's a professional critic. So let's see if we can work together on this. FOo on your point about "out-of-context" quotes, I hear you, however, is it editorially correct that so much space is dedicated to this on this page? I thought David and Modemac weren't doing too bad before our friend 207.175.180.134 decided to do a major unedited download on the page, be it true or false, it junks up the page. That's what I meant when I asked about the "editorial" take on this.
User:Nuview (formerly I'M4aNPOV) 21:10, 13 Jul 2004 (PST)
:"Professional critic"? That's a truly weird assertion. What on earth makes you think I'm a professional critic? That is, in the same sense that you're editing the Scientology articles from a Scientology computer - David Gerard/David Gerard 12:57, 14 Jul 2004
Perhaps this was a bad analogy.
I'd still like to have someone answer my question in my last entry?
"FOo on your point about "out-of-context" quotes, I hear you, however, is it editorially correct that so much space is dedicated to this on this page? I thought David and Modemac weren't doing too bad before our friend 207.175.180.134 decided to do a major unedited download on the page, be it true or false, it junks up the page. That's what I meant when I asked about the "editorial" take on this."
User:Nuview 14:00, 14 Jul 2004 (PST)
:I personally thought they didn't help the article any in that form. However, they could conceivably be contextualised. I would tend to leave them, since they're true and relevant quotes.
:I'm still interested in your substantiation for this assertion that I'm a "professional critic" - David Gerard/David Gerard 21:42, 14 Jul 2004
::Me too. As for the quotes, I think it would be worthwhile to add a link for each one to the context e.g. the HCOPL memos. It's true that it's possible to choose damning quotes from any person who speaks and writes a lot. If these are in fact out-of-context, then linking in the context will prove them absurd. If they are ''not'' out-of-context, then linking in the context will prove their relevance.
::For that matter, many of these quotes might be more informative as lead-in material on sections in other pages we do have a page on Scientology vs. the Internet for instance, which might be a good place to put the Hubbard quotes that promote violence against critics. Fubar Obfusco/FOo 23:50, 14 Jul 2004
::I'm not involved in the discussion, just scanning this talk page, but I read Nuview's comments as meaning if David ''were'' a professional critic, hypothetically. Just another interpretation. Glengarry/Glengarry 01:56, 15 Jul 2004
Incidentally does anyone else think that the section on the Church of Scientology contain slightly loaded language:
projects to implement workable and effective educational methods in schools (Applied Scholastics), a campaign to return moral values to living (The Way to Happiness), an organization to educate and assist businesses to succeed (World Institute of Scientology Enterprises, or WISE), and a crusade directed to world leaders as well as the general public to implement the 1948 United Nations document, "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights."
I'm no moralist, nor have I any opinion on the US educational system, but tis wording rather implies that it is unworkable and ineffective and that moral values are absent from our way of living. Neither of those are NPOV. IMHO Brentford/Brentford 03:05, 3 Dec 2004
NPOV for "vs. Internet"
Even though I personally agree with the point-of-view that Scientology has been attacking freedom of speech on the Internet, I think the small blurt on "Scientology vs. The Internet" really needs re-working to remove that point-of-view and make it NPOV. I believe I have a way to phrase the dispute so that it covers both sides without endorsing one or the other, but I'm going to need some time to work on it. I'll post it when it's ready if no one else has tackled it in the meantime. User:Antaeus Feldspar/Antaeus Feldspar
:Sounds like a plan. Let us know. Also, I removed the "Other" section that had two duplicative links in it. We already have positive and negative representation so don't really see the purpose for "Other" links. User:Nuview
Mirrors
Can someone please clarify for me, or direct me to the appropriate guideline regarding linking to mirrors. This would seem to me to be superfluous and tend to junk up the page? If it is an acceptable practice then I can't argue and could do the same, however, it doesn't seem sensible. Please let me know one way or the other. Thanks.
Nuview/Nuview 09:30, 14 Oct 2004
:I don't ''think'' there's a guideline established, but I think it's because in general the answer is obvious. It takes a very small amount of space, both storage-wise and page-wise, to include the link to a mirror; it's far less disruption than is caused by obvious troll edits, and ''those'' get saved for posterity. I can't see why including a link to a mirror would be objectionable, when ''that'' is useful. Antaeus Feldspar/Antaeus Feldspar 18:01, 14 Oct 2004
Categorization
I think a case can be made for categorization of Scientology as something more specific than a New religious movement. The history of the organization is quite well known, it only became a religion when its pseudo-medical claims were subjected to scrutiny by the US government. Its use of high pressure sales techniques, indemnities, non-disclosure agreements and the like, and its extraordinary use of the courts to attack its perceived enemies, set it apart from other modern religions. So while I wouldn't want to deny that it is a religion and should be categorized as such, perhaps it should also be categorized according to its commercial and legal profile. It's a highly litigious entity, it's an unscrupulous money-making entity, and in the past it certainly has been a criminal entity at the highest levels. Minority Report/Minority Report 16:09, 7 Nov 2004
:What category would you suggest? Antaeus Feldspar/Antaeus Feldspar 16:12, 7 Nov 2004
:: Hard to find one that would be NPOV. How about Ponzi schemes? Corporations, certainly. Famous (or infamous) litigants? We get consistent stories from former church members that they've been pressured to apply for loans to pay for church services, and that church employees have been taught high pressure sales techniques, so there's no question that this is a commercial entity in which the making of money takes precedence over ethical behavior. There must be a NPOV way of doing this, such that reality is reflected, rather than traduced, which in my opinion would be the case if we stop at "New religious movements."
NPOV notice
Anonymous user 62.248.140.107/62.248.140.107 has added a NPOV notice. Usually when I see such a notice I go to the talk page to see what justification the person inserting the notice has to give, or else if there's an existing serious dispute going on in the talk page. I see neither. I'll remove the NPOV notice tomorrow if it hasn't already been removed in the meantime and there is no objection to my removing it. User:Tony Sidaway/User:Tony Sidaway/Tony Sidaway/User talk:Tony Sidaway#Page_Footer/Talk 12:03, 5 Dec 2004
Neutrality
First, I am and have been a Scientology public for 15 years. A "public" is one who takes http://www.scientology.org/en_US/religion/introductory/pg001.html and receives http://www.auditing.org/wis5_2.htm but does not work for Scientology.
I have a comment on the WP page on Scientology. The views expressed herein are mine and do not reflect the official view of the church or any of its organisations. I have put the NPOV notice on the page, following the documentation on that tag.
To me the page on Scientology does seem to exhibit certain level of neutrality and I would like to acknowledge WP for that!
There are still statements and hints on the page that need some more work to make them neutral. Here's some sampling and my view on why they are not neutral.
* "''The Church of Scientology is also a commercial organization''". If it were a commercial organisation then the IRS would not have declared it and all its affiliates tax exempt. See http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-news/ir-97-50.txt for lack of a better reference. '''In short, Scientology is officially recognised as non-profit and I doubt WP is a forum to question official recognition.'''
* "''zealously using high pressure sales techniques to extract money from its members''". Yes, some services are expensive. No question about that. But consider the following details:
** The tax-excempt status granted by the IRS: vast amounts of financial records have been peered through by the IRS, including those of recording the most expensive services people had paid for and received. Consider this for a moment: '''if any of those payments had profited the church, would the IRS have found the church non-profit, "operated exclusively for religious and charitable purposes" (quote from the above statement)?'''
** The level of skills required to deliver higher level services: the higher level it is, the longer it takes to fully train the technical person to deliver it, be it the auditor or the course superviser, and the army of administrators backing the technical person, who have to be trained along different lines to ensure as smooth delivery as possible. I have a B.Sc and M.Sc in computer science but I have never seen anything that comes close to the rigorous technical training that Scientology auditors undergo. It takes years to master the technical skills and the knowledge to be certified as a higher level Scientology auditor. '''What you pay for when you enroll to a service is the years of training and the time spent on you buy highly trained professionals.'''
** Paying for the services is not the only way to get them and is the most expensive way of the many. You can go to training instead and work together with another trainee to deliver the services to each other ''for free''. You can join staff, do some whatever administrative work you feel comfortable with and receive 12.5 hours a week ''free training/auditing''. You can join the http://www.whatisscientology.org/html/part06/Chp26/index.html of Scientology and get ''free boarding'' and ''free training/auditing''. What is expensive is to buy the services of highly trained personnel. '''This phenomenon is ''not'' particular to Scientology.'''
* "''Some European countries officially view Scientology as a cult and have denied it the status of a religion.''" The word "cult" itself should be questionable on a page that promotes NPOV. To be fair, it should also be noted that more and more of the European countries are recognising Scientology as a religion, including Italy and Germany, the very countries that "critics" use to put weight behind anti-scientology claims. See the http://www.bonafidescientology.org/append/09/page00.htm.
* "''The nature of Scientology is hotly debated in all of these countries, regardless of the official position.''" Hotly debated by whom? '''This is a generalisation that does not stand NPOV scrutiny.'''
I would also like to bring to attention the following studies on the religious doctrines of Scientology conducted by prominent experts of religion from various faiths. Quite various, indeed:
** http://www.bonafidescientology.org/append/02/index.htm by Bryan R. Wilson, Ph.D., Emeritus Fellow, Oxford University England
** http://www.bonafidescientology.org/append/03/index.htm by Frank K. Flinn, Ph.D., Adjunct Professor in Religious Studies, Washington University, Saint Louis, Missouri, U.S.A.
** http://www.bonafidescientology.org/append/04/index.htm by Régis Dericquebourg, Professor, Sociology of Religion, University of Lille III, Lille, France
** http://www.bonafidescientology.org/append/05/index.htm by M. Darrol Bryant, Ph.D., Professor of Religion and Culture, Renison College, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
** http://www.bonafidescientology.org/append/06/index.htm by Alejandro Frigerio, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Sociology, Catholic University of Argentina, Buenos Aires, Argentina
** http://www.bonafidescientology.org/append/07/index.htm by Urbano Alonso Galan, Doctor in Philosophy and Licenciate in Theology, Gregorian University and, Saint Bonaventure Pontifical Faculty, Rome
** http://www.bonafidescientology.org/append/08/index.htm by Fumio Sawada, Eighth Holder of the Secrets of Yu-itsu Shinto
- Xernon, 05.12.2004
First of all, the endless arguments over the definition of a cult is being discussed over at the Wikipedia article on '''cults'''. It is a fact that Scientology is frequently accused of being a cult, from many different sources, including media outlets and religious spokespersons. Do a Google search for the terms "scientology" plus "cult" and you will receive literally thousands of results. As you say, Wikipedia is not a forum for deciding whether or not Scientology is a cult. But it is frequently accused of being one, and this fact is noted here.
The issue of Scientology being tax-exempt is already addressed in the Church of Scientology article, under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Scientology#Church_or_business.3F.
The studies cited above are usually dismissed by critics as being biased, in that they were commissioned by Scientology to deliver exactly the results that Scientology wants people to see. But I'll include them in the article nontheless, for the purpose of maintaining a Neutral Point of View/Neutral point of view.
And finally, remember that you can edit this article, and any other article, and make the changes you feel are necessary to maintain NPOV. However, Wikipedia users frown the practice of simply wiping out large parts of an article that one person does not agree with. It's better to work together and come to an agreeable solution for this and other issues. Modemac/Modemac 17:40, 5 Dec 2004
Thanks, Modemac. For what it's worth, I agree on all accounts with you, including the debates about the word "cult", the fact that this word is often used to denote Scientology or the controversy surrounding the presence of Scientology in countries. The way you put these was neutral and I think I will, after some scrutiny, rephrase the text on the Scientology page to better match the neutral style used by yourself in your response.
I had no desire to influence the contents of the page by the inclusion of more pro-Scientology content and so I leave it up to you to see whether linking to the studies I mentioned improve the neutrality of the page or not. For one I'll be happier because some of them are from people who do not seem to submit to financial manipulation - like the last one by a prominent Shinto cleric - but what I personally like should not matter.
Thanks again for the fair treatment. I have had my share of hatred and your efforts to maintain neutrality is a refreshing experience.
Xernon, 05.12.2004
Nosense?
perhaps tjis is material for Bad_jokes_and_other_deleted_nonsense:_The_Return_of_the_Nonsense/BJODN
'''L. Ron Hubbard as a Homosexual Activist'''
During the 1950's and 1960's, after founding the helpful and holy religion of Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard cruised around the world on his Sea Org ship as a homosexual activist. The Sea Org was composed of former members of the United States Navy who were "outed" during and after World War 2 for simply being gay, an injustice that continues to this day. L. Ron Hubbard, or "Ronny the Rod" as he was called by his male lovers, brought these gay men onto his Sea Org ship and with the help of Dianetics, his therapeutic book of miracle working, and numerous phallic shaped E-meters, he released their body thetans and brought them into a higher state of being.
During this time, Ronny is also known to have starred in several pornographic films, including Daddy, Don't Touch Me There!, Body Thetans Bare #35, Xenu, I'll Be With You, and a more seriously-themed film called How To Scam a Bunch of Idiots Out of Money By Starting Your Own Religion. After Hubbard's hot adventures aboard the Sea Org, he decided to take a step back from the stressful and busy life as a gay male activist, especially with the Federal Government pressing down on him for various illegal activities.
Sometime during his carousing during the 1970s, Hubbard contracted the sexually transmitted virus HIV. He died of AIDS in 1983, as a broken, lonely man.
:The same nonsense was on L. Ron Hubbard. I've BJAODNed it from there. Fubar Obfusco/FOo 23:26, 16 Dec 2004
::Definitely nonsense. LRH was notoriously homophobic. Not funny enough for BJAODN, IMHO, but suit yourself. Antaeus Feldspar/Antaeus Feldspar 23:58, 16 Dec 2004
whoa
this has got to be hard to moderate, in the five minutes I was reading this the article was replaced by spam :( definitely needs to go back to previous ver.
:It's already back. This is actually not the hardest article to moderate by a long shot if you want a laugh, watch Sollog and see how often that flips back and forth between the real-world version and the "Wikipedia and Slashdot are HATE GROUPS and the FBI has already been CONTACTED about putting ALTMAN and WALES in JAIL and a LEGAL BODY has ORDERED Wikipedia to remove EVERYTHING SOLLOG DOES NOT LIKE" version. Antaeus Feldspar/Antaeus Feldspar 00:37, 22 Dec 2004
Recent vandalism
User Talk:67.171.251.183 has continued to vandalize this page, which will be protected for 24 hours, allowing the user to explain his edits here. Continued vandalism will result in the user being blocked. My apologies to the other editors of this page, who I think will agree with this decision. See: Vandalism in progress#67.171.251.183 -Visorstuff/Visorstuff 23:06, 27 Dec 2004
:Well, I agree with it. Antaeus Feldspar/Antaeus Feldspar 23:35, 27 Dec 2004
The (near) 24-hour protection has now ended. Additional vandalism will result in the IP address being blocked for a period of time. -Visorstuff/Visorstuff 21:00, 28 Dec 2004
restoration of quote from High Court of Australia ruling
I agree with Fvw on this. It's not just any old opinion, it's the reasoning behind the ruling. If the ruling is relevant, so is the reasoning. To report just ''part'' of the ruling and omit other parts is what would be non-NPOV.
BTW, I notice that the 1993 IRS tax exemption is actually mentioned in the section twice; that should probably be consolidated. User:Antaeus Feldspar/Antaeus Feldspar
History of Scientology
The Harlan Ellison interview account is not described in the
'Scientology Controversy' section
and belongs in the history section of the main Scientology page,
otherwise the account of Scientology's history is woefully inadequate.
:While there are numerous plausible accounts of people saying that they heard Hubbard say on a particular occasion that starting a religion was the way to make money, or that he would start a religion to make money, Harlan Ellison's is not one of those plausible accounts. It is definitely not NPOV to add it to the article in the fashion you have done, describing it as if there was not, in fact, serious dispute over whether it had occurred. It is particularly telling that you do not even describe it correctly: you claim that Harlan describes how "he, Robert Heinlein and L. Ron Hubbard met at a science fiction convention" but Ellison's account does not mention Heinlein. Antaeus Feldspar/Antaeus Feldspar 01:58, 21 Jan 2005
Removing any discussion of the myriad quotes regarding Hubbard's financial motive in
founding the religion from the section on the history of the religion is
extremely misleading, and leaves a gaping hole in the Wikipedia account that is
otherwise widely known in other online resources.
e.g. http://www.bible.ca/scientology-1million-start-a-religion.htm
One suspects the enthusiasm
for such censorship comes from a True Believer cult member more concerned with
performing PR for the COS than with contributing to Wikipedia's historical completeness.
User:Pietzsche/Pietzsche
... Gahahahahahahah! Oh, Pietzsche, man, you don't know it, but you just made my night. Seriously. Zappaz is going to think I paid you or something. Hilarious. Antaeus Feldspar/Antaeus Feldspar 05:31, 21 Jan 2005
Without mention of the well-documented history of Hubbard discussion of
founding a religion as a means to make money, the present section on the origin
of Scientology gives a grossly distorted picture of its origins, and is a disservice
to those seeking information on Scientolgy's origins. Granted,
this information is readily available elsewhere on Wikipedia and the web in
general, but to have it specifically excluded from the article whose specific
focus is Scientology, is a quite peculiar exclusion.
For an accurate article, I think it is essential and appropriate to
cite the following well-documented record of Hubbard's motivations in
founding this religion:
"Numerous accounts http://www.bible.ca/scientology-1million-start-a-religion.htm
describe L. Ron Hubbard discussing with fellow science fiction authors
the founding of a religion as a means to make money around 1948 to 1949 .
Hubbard is quoted as saying: "The way to make a million dollars is to start a religion." "
User:Pietzsche/Pietzsche
:"To have it specifically excluded from the article whose specific focus is Scientology" completely ignores the fact that we have an :Tag: Scientology/entire category of articles whose specific focus is Scientology. It is covered in detail at Scientology controversy, as I have repeatedly tried to make clear, and anyone who reads ''this'' article will find out about it in the Scientology#Controversy and criticism/Controversy and criticism section, as well as finding out where they can read more.
:Should it be covered in some fashion in the Scientology#Origins of Scientology/Origins of Scientology section? I would argue ''yes'' but the problem is, in ''what'' fashion should it be covered? You say that it is "well-documented" but the problem is that, unlike many criticisms of Scientology, ''this'' one is not supported by written evidence. We have the testimonies of several highly-regarded figures such as Sturgeon and Moscowitz and Eschbach, versus Hubbard who not only provably lied on many occasions but who lauded the tactical uses of lying to control people. Is that enough to convince you and me? Sure ''I'' don't doubt that Hubbard said it. But it is not enough to eliminate dispute. If you insist on ''your'' side of the dispute being covered in another venue, other than the article where it is currently (and arguably most appropriately) discussed and examined in detail, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientology&diff=9537023&oldid=9533326. It is simply ''not'' an option to say "We will address this and ''only'' this side of the dispute in this section." Antaeus Feldspar/Antaeus Feldspar 02:45, 25 Jan 2005
This particular 'dispute' is analogous to disputing evolution as only a 'theory', I wonder if
the Wikipedia page on evolution maintains the absurd level of NPOV you are arguing for
in this Scientology article. Are CoS PR agents with a vested interest in proselytizing
to be accorded free reign in defining what is and is not 'controversial'?
"To summarize: we have eight witnesses: Neison Himmel, Sam Merwin, Sam Moskowitz, Theodore Sturgeon, Lloyd Arthur Eshbach, and the three unnamed witnesses of Robert Vaughn Young. There is some confusion and doubt about one of the five (Sam Moskowitz). Two are reported via Russel Miller: one is reported via Mike Jittlov: one reported in his autobiography; and one reported in an affidavit. The reports describe different events, meaning that Hubbard said it at least five times, in five different venues - definitely not just once. And the Church's official disclaimer is now reportedly a flat lie. Conclusion: He definitely said it (and more than once)." [http://www.bible.ca/scientology-1million-start-a-religion.htm]
Relegating this information to only the controversy page and not referring to it
in the central section on the history of Scientology is quite misleading imho.
User:Pietzsche/Pietzsche
:I believe you spelled it out yourself when you said: ''"this information is readily available elsewhere on Wikipedia."'' Modemac/Modemac 15:30, 25 Jan 2005
:Well, you're repeating your amazingly incorrect assumption that I am a "CoS PR agent" again, so let me spell it out for you: I am not a CoS member, nor have I ever been one, nor will I ever be one, nor am I a CoS employee in any capacity, nor have I ever been one, nor will I ever be one. You might have realized this much sooner if you had not jumped to the highly suspect conclusion "He's not letting me make an edit '''I''' think is appropriate and important he must be ''working for the cult!''" So I might as well turn it back on you: are ravening crusaders, so paranoid that they can't comprehend that anyone except "cult PR agents" could disagree with them, to be accorded free reign in defining what is and is not established fact?
:You still do not understand important and basic principles of Wikipedia like Civility/civility, as evidenced by your http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientology&diff=9636606&oldid=9633903, and to be frank, your research skills are clearly lacking, since if you'd done even a half-way decent job of investigating ''me'' you'd have soon found out I ''hardly'' favor the cult. In fact, some people http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Moral_panic&diff=9352635&oldid=9352229 for it. So, the more you press on with this absolutely unfounded allegation that you are now treating as a fact the idea that I am a cult PR agent, a conclusion that you jumped to purely because you didn't get your own way the ''less'' likely I or anyone else is to regard your opinion, despite your "imho", as humble. Or for that matter, as reasoned and proportionate.
:Your own reference says it: "Conclusion: He definitely said it (and more than once)." Conclusion. ''Conclusion''. It is not the job of Wikipedia to tell the reader "This is the conclusion that any sane person would come to if they looked at the facts!" it is to present the reader with the facts. I have told others who were trying to advance a point-of-view I agreed with, by methods that I could not agree with, that "if you want to win the case, you do so by marshalling your arguments, and presenting them as calmly, logically, and solidly as you can. You don't do it by jumping in the jury box and trying to take the jury's place." What you are trying to do now, by insisting that it's not enough to have the accounts of Hubbard saying he'd start a religion for money discussed, they ''have'' to be discussed in the "Origins of Scientology" section, and it's not even ''enough'' to have them there, you '''have to have''' your "key citation" to an external page which tells people "'''this''' is the right side of things, this and no other, it's concluded, it's certain!" you're not just trying to jump into the jury box, you're trying to intercept the jury on their way into the courtroom and tell them "you're not needed, go home, the other jury was already here and they already made the judgement and you're just redundant!" Antaeus Feldspar/Antaeus Feldspar 08:46, 25 Jan 2005
Scientology-critical music
During the peak of the Scientology-vs.-the-Internet unpleasantness, a handful of musicians recorded songs critical of Scientology and distributed them through mp3.com and other online media. At least some of these musicians (such as El Queso) were Church of the SubGenius/SubGenii and extensively used SubGenius references (such as Slack) in their music. Praise "Bob"!
The Church of Scientology took a few efforts to suppress the music, IIRC threatening mp3.com with a lawsuit that impelled them to delete El Queso All-Stars material from their servers and turn over the identity and home address of one of the band members. Many of these songs are still available online, however, e.g. http://crimjob.tripod.com/ and http://www.soundclick.com/bands/6/enturbulator009music.htm.
Question: Where should Scientology-critical, SubGenius-inspired music be covered on Wikipedia, if at all? Fubar Obfusco/FOo 00:55, 29 Jan 2005
:Speaking as a SubGenius myself, I say this subject is so obscure and trivial as to be worth an external link, possibly. Some musicians did set out to get the organization ticked off at them, yes, but they were rarely more than an amusement. Modemac/Modemac 02:46, 29 Jan 2005
European countries considering Scientology as a cult
The article states in several places that "some" European countries consider Scientology a cult, while the US considers it a constitutionally protected religion. I consider that this sentence has some underlying POV (namely, that US constitutional rights should be superior, or that perhaps European countries don't have constitutional protections for religions). But what I find more annoying is that this broad statement is vague: there's no list of the countries considered, and the legal and practical implication of being considered a "cult". David.Monniaux/David.Monniaux 20:20, 3 Feb 2005
Legal aspects
I think that there is some confusion regarding the legal aspects of Scientology, and that this confusion largely arises from the confusion of two linked, but different notions:
* that of ''religion''
* that of ''religion-supporting organization''.
The distinction is important because legal systems often only deal with the latter. For instance, statute law (and, as far as I know, constitutional principles) prohibits the government of France from granting recognition to any ''religion'' (except in Alsace-Moselle etc., but let's not enter historical discussions). However, the government recognizes some ''associations cultuelles'' (associations of worship), which are nonprofit associations that organize religious worship. The definition of what constitutes a bona fide ''association cultuelle'' does not take religious doctrine into account.
This legal distinction has already caused considerable misunderstandings and propaganda opportunities. For instance, Jehovah's Witnesses claim that they are discriminated against because some of their branches are not considered to be a religion, and demand that they should be considered a religion – whereas this is legally impossible.
This is why it's misleading to claim that "Scientology" is officially considered a "cult" or a religion. In fact, I do not know of any European country with a legal category of "cults". When dealing with legal matters, the topic is whether the Church of Scientology (or rather, its branches) is considered in the same legal category as other organizations supporting religions; and if not, why it is not, and the legal implications of it. Furthermore, it is important to stress that such determination may have nothing to do with the topic of freedom of religion and the constitutional guarantee thereof; for instance, France considers that ''any'' association that has for-profit commercial activities ''cannot'' be a bona fide ''association cultuelle'', and this has nothing to do with the religious doctrine practiced.
To me, "freedom of religion", at the governmental level, has the primary meaning of absence of governmental bias with respect to religious dogma (theist vs non-theist, polytheist vs monotheist, Christian vs Muslim, etc.). It does not mean that anybody can do anything and claim tax exemption because of "religious" implications (this would be an enormous tax loophole). David.Monniaux/David.Monniaux 08:53, 4 Feb 2005
Proper use of bona fide
Please be careful in using the phrase ''bona fide''. In colloquial usage it means "real", but in the law it means "good faith". The two are not always the same under the law, as evidenced by the decision of the High Court of Australia, which determined that the State Government of Victoria could not declare Scientology not a religion even if the source of that religion was not ''bona fide'', but a charlatan. Antaeus Feldspar/Antaeus Feldspar 18:08, 4 Feb 2005
:I actually meant the legal sense of "in good faith". Explanation of this distinction: in France, you can register a nonprofit association as being an organization devoted to the support of religious worship under the 1905 law (''association cultuelle''). However, tax exemptions implied by this status are only granted to associations having this status in good faith (literally, ''bona fide''); that is, it's refused to associations who claim this status but behave in a way incompatible with this status (for instance, associations that run commercial businesses).
:Note that these criteria have absolutely nothing to do with the origins of the religion, its doctrine, etc.; this is sometimes difficult to understand for foreigners, who think that the French government classifies beliefs into "true religions" and non-religions, whereas the criteria are of a very formal and legalistic nature.
:For a fictional example: if I founded a group worshipping the Sacred Asparagus (and I had followers, but let us assume I could get these), I could probably claim the status of a ''bona fide'' religion-supporting organization, even though I'm a charlatan and my religion has no history. In comparison, if I was a priest of a well-known branch of Christianism, but I ran some side business such as a hostel within the same legal entity, then my association would no longer be a ''bona fide'' religion-supporting organization. David.Monniaux/David.Monniaux 00:32, 5 Feb 2005
::Okay I defer to your expertise on the matter. =) I just wanted to alert people to be careful, since it has a legal meaning that doesn't always coincide with the informal usage. Antaeus Feldspar/Antaeus Feldspar 21:24, 5 Feb 2005
NPOV
Somewhere along the line the purpose of this page got lost between the bickering and some unqualified "editors" feeling some malevolent obligation to keep controversy alive.
I do not include Modemac or Antaeus Feldspar in this categorization (and there may be others that I omit, if so I apologize), I respect their editorial experience and though they are not pro-Scientology, they do take their editorial positions serious and try and maintain some equilibrium, which isn't easy and is appreciated.
Back to the page at hand. I hadn't looked at it for a while and decided to just look at it as though I know nothing about the subject. Wow - I was shocked by the degree of bias included in most of the sections. There are a couple that seem just straight and unopiniated, but a lot that definitely aren't. Do this yourself and tell me honestly if you are left swayed in any one direction - I think you'll find you are. Editorially, and Wikipedially, that's got to be wrong.
The other option is to keep "controversy" under "controversy" and any opposing views could be kept neutral. The subject list, check it out, the negative and the positive, do you see any kind of balance? I personally put the balance in to the external links or they would be mainly negative too. There is still some work to do here.
I could attempt to "balance" some of these sections, but is that what you would suggest, or is it better for someone else "neutral" to tackle this?
Feedback please. Nuview/Nuview 17:20, 7 Feb 2005
:Well, with due respect, Nuview, I think you may be coming at this with a wrong assumption your third paragraph suggests it. "Do this yourself and tell me honestly if you are left swayed in any one direction - I think you'll find you are. Editorially, and Wikipedially, that's got to be wrong." You don't say ''why'' this would be wrong. The goal is to assemble the information and let the reader draw their own conclusion, and you seem to be saying that ''if the reader draws a conclusion'', something must be wrong with the article, and that's not really what NPOV is about. The goal is to make sure the case for each side is presented fairly not to make sure the jury winds up deadlocked. =) Antaeus Feldspar/Antaeus Feldspar 02:45, 8 Feb 2005
::True enough, of course the reader is free to draw his/her own conclusion, you covered that point, yes, the fairness factor is relevant to the discussion and a NPOV. However, I don't look on Wiki readers as a jury there is no trial here. We are just talking about everyday people looking for information on a subject. So with unbiased fairness in mind, what's your take on the "assembly of the information" on this page do you see it purely NPOV or should there be some revision to make it so? Nuview/Nuview 16:47, 9 Feb 2005
::As you've made the statement "I was shocked by the degree of bias included in most of the sections," then I'd suggest you point out what you feel is biased. From there we can work towards fixing it. Modemac/Modemac 00:47, 10 Feb 2005
:Hi people. I think this is the best article on scn that I've read. You (the writers) should all be proud. Eventhough you talk about biases, it is not easy to find ''any'' article anywhere that is not heavily pro or heavily against scn.
:You should however mention that state of "clear". Fred chessplayer/Fred chessplayer 21:04, 15 Feb 2005
I see that anonymous 152.163.100.200 decided that this article's NPOV was to be discussed, but yet nothing is being discussed here. So I removed the warning until the author agrees to add it again with a further description of why the NPOV should be revisited. Regards. Povmec/Povmec 06:56, 6 Mar 2005
Why does a cult not get called a cult?
For example, look at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven%27s_Gate_%28cult%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AUM_Shinrikyo
I can see we don't want to be NPOV. But quite frankly, the only difference in practices between scientology and most cults, is that scientology has a relatively large amount of people in it. I think we should add that it is a cult, if other articles can havbe the label, this one deserves it too. User:GregNorc/-GregNorc (User_talk:GregNorc/talk)
:In the case of Heaven's Gate (cult)/Heaven's Gate, the difference is that the mass suicide at the behest of Marshall Applewhite eliminated directly most of the people who would have disputed that it was a cult, and probably changed the minds of most outside observers who would have said "Heaven's Gate is a ''new religious movement'', not a ''cult''! Cults are crazy people who do stuff like mass suicides; there's no reason to insult a completely legitimate NRM like Heaven's Gate by calling them by the pejorative label of 'cult'!"
:In the case of Aum Shinrikyo, perhaps you need to look more carefully. The article acknowledges that the Aleph (formerly Aum Shinrikyo) group is considered by some parties to be a cult. The article itself does not take the position that Aleph is a cult; the article does not take the position that Aleph is not a cult. It's a bit hard to argue that this article should follow the example of the Aum Shinrikyo article, by doing something that the Aum Shinrikyo article does ''not'' do. Antaeus Feldspar/Antaeus Feldspar 16:38, 19 Feb 2005
Regarding tone of the COS's promotion of sources passage
12.210.209.83, I understand your goal of using more neutral language COS's promotion of sources, but I'm not convinced your change wasn't a little too sympathetic. Would anyone else like to comment on the recent change[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientology&diff=0&oldid=10442643] before I revert?User:FeloniousMonk/FeloniousMonk 00:21, 20 Feb 2005
In the edit summary, I said "Let's not sprinkle the article with victims of Scientology", while removing a mention of Nextel ringtones Victor Gyory. Turns out that Abbey Diaz Victor Gyory is a victim of substandard psychiatric treatment, not of Scientology. I still don't want to see the article filled with victims of any side in this article.
Free ringtones Cprompt/cprompt 16:02, 20 Feb 2004
Constitutional protection vs. tax exemption
'''''Scientology is recognized as a constitutionally protected religion in the United States, but not in most European countries.'''''
Constitutional protection applies to the individual rather than the organization and means, among other things, that it is illegal for a US employer to fire someone simply for being a Scientologist. In Europe, by contrast, there have been several high-profile cases in which the courts upheld firings of Scientologists who had been fired after coming out of the closet.
The tax status of the CofS is a separate issue that is already covered at Majo Mills Church of Scientology. Mosquito ringtone Mkweise/Mkweise 22:04, 21 Apr 2004
:Certainly, but these don't fall under First Amendment issues. The term "Constitutionally protected religion" sounds designed to make people think that Scientology is a Constitutionally "approved" religion (which is what the organization does indeed want people to think). Anti-discrimination statutes come under another part of the law, if I remember correctly. This is part of one argument that has caused many critics of Scientology to bang their heads against the wall: the refusal of Scientology to admit that there is no such thing as a "government approved" religious organization in the United states. This is why they point to the tax exemption as "proof" of their being such as thing, when actually it isn't. Sabrina Martins Modemac/Modemac 09:50, 22 Apr 2004
::The first amendment guarantees all Americans the right to free exercise of religion, and specifically prohibits the government from approving of any particular religion(s). My point is that Scientologists are covered by this constitutional protection in the US, but enjoy no such protection from persecution in Europe. Cingular Ringtones Mkweise/Mkweise 19:06, 22 Apr 2004
:::Since "Europe" is not a single country, but a variety of countries with vastly differing legislations, your point is very imprecise and I would be glad if you cared to precise it. For your information, all countries in Europe with few exceptions, including all countries in the one km European Union, are signatory to the record indeed European Convention on Human Rights, which makes freedom of religion a basic right. Government such as the because banks Politics of France/French government are legally prohibited from recognizing or subsidizing religions. occupants a David.Monniaux/David.Monniaux 19:25, 22 Apr 2004
:::It seems to me that one point that differs between the United States' understanding of "freedom of religion" and that of some European countries' is whether or not religious activities are considered above the normal rules of life in society. The European understanding is that the government may not discriminate or prosecute people for religious beliefs, but that religious motives are no excuse for illegal acts. I have the impression that in the United States, religion may be used as a refuge from government interference that would be perfectly legal with respect to other kinds of organizations, for instance for accusations of embezzlement. newspapers because David.Monniaux/David.Monniaux 19:34, 22 Apr 2004
Removing the article series box
The article series box (and article series boxes in general) is large, clunky and unsightly. Fortunately, we have a superior substitute: the Category system. Tag: Scientology is nicely populated and avoids an ever-expanding article series box. I'd like to remove the article series boxes. I mentioned it on unidentified pilot User talk:Modemac and Modemac wouldn't object strenuously to its removal. What does everyone else think? - sultry musical David Gerard/David Gerard 12:53, 21 Jun 2004
:The folks here certainly don't need my permission to do anything; I don't own this article or the article series box in question. usual victory Modemac/Modemac 17:57, 21 Jun 2004
::I merely seek consensus :-) - furry sphere User:David Gerard/David Gerard
:::Right, I've blanked Template:Scientology, so the article series will disappear from all articles using it. If anyone cares I expect there will be a reversion in short order :-) - nondrinking nonsmoking David Gerard/David Gerard 20:07, 12 Jul 2004
The Purpose of this Article
As rightly pointed out by Sam Spade, I should have brought this up for discussion before removing the large amount of text recently added into this article by 207.175.180.134.
This person has every right to contribute, however, the balance on this page just went out the window. While there are critical views, they are already well represented and 207.175.180.134 needs to be referred to NPOV.
I am for removing 207.175.180.134's additions, the article and the other pages in the series already more than cover the "controversial" and critical side. The recent addition just made the page an "anti-scientology" article.
If this is what is wanted, a possible solution is an "anti-Scientology" series is started and the negative material can be moved there.
I am interested in feedback from the others who contribute to this category, some of you are more experienced that I and I'd appreciate your advice. I just think that the purpose of the page should be to provide a balance of information, not a rant. Let me know. Thanks.- province its I'M4aNPOV
:207.175.180.134's stuff is way over the top and ''severely'' needs NPOVing. However, shunting criticism off to a separate article does not make for articles that, individually, satisfy NPOV - that approach is more suited to the her every Wikinfo "Sympathetic Point Of View" approach, where you have two (or more) parallel articles. When criticism is sufficient to make an article lopsided, the typical method is to put it in a separate article and include a link to it with a one to three paragraph summary. Although in this case, I'd say the controversy surrounding Scientology is most of what makes it notable, and the criticism goes with that, so it's going to stay a major part of this one - peloton which David Gerard/David Gerard 17:06, 6 Jul 2004
Thanks David, however, I'm not talking about "shunting it off" I'm talking about some balance and fairness. I looked around and there are a number of other belief systems that have "anti" pages where critics can have a field day and say whatever they like. I firmly believe that the Scientology page as it should be an overview of the subject, should be balanced. Not that there should be no mention of controversy or the critical side, but that it is sensible I don't know if you agree with me on this but, what is there now, as you say is way over top. I just want to know what the correct way is to go about revising the page at this stage you seem to have a lot of experience in this area. Please advise what should be deleted, edited or whatever and how you suggest we go about painting a fair and balanced picture so all sides and viewpoints can be represented. Also interested in feedback from any others. Thanks fails another I'M4aNPOV11 July 2004
:up ranked :Modemac has been doing considerable work to make it reasonable and avoid duplication of late - enjoys an User:David Gerard/David Gerard 15:33, 12 Jul 2004
:Oh, by the way I'M4aNPOV - I see your last few edits were from 205.227.165.11 - which is in a netblock owned by the Church of Scientology:
Church of Scientology International CHSCIEN-165-13 (NET-205-227-165-0-1)
205.227.165.0 - 205.227.165.255
:Please reread homicide division Auto-biography - much as one should not create articles about oneself, one should also take care in editing articles about oneself. Furthermore, if you are editing an article on behalf of the organisation the article is about, it's really not proper to fail to note the fact prominently - please do so in future - lyons its David Gerard/David Gerard 17:21, 12 Jul 2004
::Thanks David, no problem. However, not really an "auto-biography" situation as a)the article is not about me. It is about a subject that I am involved in, but I am not the author b) my purpose is per my user name "NPOV." Is there some other Wiki page you can refer me to where someone from the subject's organization was required to make some sort of special notation? If not, I prefer not to make an issue of it as there are other forums for debate and I am not looking to create this in Wikipedia - it is not Wikipedia's nor my purpose. I didn't hide my IP address, so anyone can see who I am. I may not agree with yours and Modemac's views on the Scientology religion, but I do respect your editing skills and appreciate any help you can give me to do the same as fellow Wikipedians. Modemac has done a pretty good job handling the problem I brought up earlier, which I appreciate, the only thing I see that is still over the edge here is the unsubstantiated, out-of-context quotes about L. Ron Hubbard that were added to the "Quotes" section. What's your editorial take on this?
him reading User:I'M4aNPOV 16:20, 13 Jul 2004 (PST)
::You're posting to a Scientology-related article from a Church of Scientology computer. I would suggest that this makes you far too close to the article to possibly work to facts materially NPOV. Is this in any way an official duty, or could it be regarded as close enough to one to pretty much count as one if fully described to another? If so, the proper thing to do would be to leave this and related articles the hell alone - David Gerard/David Gerard 00:07, 14 Jul 2004
:::That seems a bit ad hominem. Should my edits to IBM have been disallowed as not NPOV because I work for the company? I know it's tempting to believe that everyone involved in the CoS is a mindless drone with nothing contribute but propaganda, but I don't think that's really true.—User:Metamatic/Metamatic
::::Metamatic, I think the question is, were your edits to IBM information that you supplied as a private individual who, as an employee of the company, happened to have the information and perspective of an employee of the company? Or were you editing IBM '''on behalf of''' the company? There is a difference, you see. It is no secret that the CoS has many people in its employment whose sole job responsibility is to watch for public discussion of the Church of Scientology and make sure that the discussion "goes right" i.e., reflects the Church's own say-so on itself. And I do not think I will be making anyone faint from shock when I state that the people that the Church employs in this capacity are not always open and honest about the fact that they would in fact be violating their job duties if they posted anything about the Church of Scientology ''except'' that which the Church is paying them to post.
::::I think David is actually expressing a lot of respect and trust by asking "Nuview" to desist from editing what are supposed to be NPOV articles ''if'' he is in fact doing so as an official duty. (After all, '''no one''' is supposed to be writing their own Wikipedia entry not the CoS, not IBM, not the American Psychiatric Association no one.) I must compliment Nuview as well; in all that I have seen from him, he has definitely had his own POV but has put real effort into helping us keep the NPOV that is a needed prerequisite to us being a trustworthy source of information. If the CoS had more people like Nuview, it would have a better reputation. =) Antaeus Feldspar/Antaeus Feldspar 23:53, 12 Aug 2004
:::On the contrary, I think we should welcome "official" contributions as much here as we would on a page describing a business or other organization. That is, they have their piece to say (and may frequently have access to more accurate historical information than outside observers) ... but their contributions ''must'' be scrutinized by others for accuracy and against spin. All the more so in the case of an organization such as Microsoft or the Church of Scientology which has been documented as using "astroturf" methods in the past.
:::I also think that any claims about "out-of-context quotes" on a matter of religion need to be taken ''very'' carefully. This is a matter not unique to Scientology: Catholic and Protestant theologians accuse the other of taking quotes "out of context" as well. It is not for one person to say that a given interpretation of a quote is "out of context". It would be ''especially'' bad behavior to remove a quote on those grounds. The proper thing to do would be to link in more context, or to discuss (sometimes elsewhere) the difference of opinion on interpretation.
:::I must, however, object to this contributor's ''username'' it is improper for a Wikipedia user to claim in his username to represent NPOV, just as it would be improper to give oneself the username "Neverwrong" or "EveryoneElseButMeIsAJerk". I also suggest that if s/he ''is'' planning to "astroturf" Wikipedia, s/he consider the tale of Tory Bezazian. Fubar Obfusco/FOo 01:34, 14 Jul 2004
Hey guys, if I wanted to Astroturf I would have come in to Wikipedia anonymously. I haven't exactly been secretive about this. I have no problem changing my name either doesn't make any difference to how the Scientology page gets edited, but if it makes you happy - then fine, its done. :) As FOo stated, I have as much right to contribute to Scientology-related categories as anyone. Just as David wouldn't be banned from running an "Anti-Scientology" page just because he's a professional critic. So let's see if we can work together on this. FOo on your point about "out-of-context" quotes, I hear you, however, is it editorially correct that so much space is dedicated to this on this page? I thought David and Modemac weren't doing too bad before our friend 207.175.180.134 decided to do a major unedited download on the page, be it true or false, it junks up the page. That's what I meant when I asked about the "editorial" take on this.
User:Nuview (formerly I'M4aNPOV) 21:10, 13 Jul 2004 (PST)
:"Professional critic"? That's a truly weird assertion. What on earth makes you think I'm a professional critic? That is, in the same sense that you're editing the Scientology articles from a Scientology computer - David Gerard/David Gerard 12:57, 14 Jul 2004
Perhaps this was a bad analogy.
I'd still like to have someone answer my question in my last entry?
"FOo on your point about "out-of-context" quotes, I hear you, however, is it editorially correct that so much space is dedicated to this on this page? I thought David and Modemac weren't doing too bad before our friend 207.175.180.134 decided to do a major unedited download on the page, be it true or false, it junks up the page. That's what I meant when I asked about the "editorial" take on this."
User:Nuview 14:00, 14 Jul 2004 (PST)
:I personally thought they didn't help the article any in that form. However, they could conceivably be contextualised. I would tend to leave them, since they're true and relevant quotes.
:I'm still interested in your substantiation for this assertion that I'm a "professional critic" - David Gerard/David Gerard 21:42, 14 Jul 2004
::Me too. As for the quotes, I think it would be worthwhile to add a link for each one to the context e.g. the HCOPL memos. It's true that it's possible to choose damning quotes from any person who speaks and writes a lot. If these are in fact out-of-context, then linking in the context will prove them absurd. If they are ''not'' out-of-context, then linking in the context will prove their relevance.
::For that matter, many of these quotes might be more informative as lead-in material on sections in other pages we do have a page on Scientology vs. the Internet for instance, which might be a good place to put the Hubbard quotes that promote violence against critics. Fubar Obfusco/FOo 23:50, 14 Jul 2004
::I'm not involved in the discussion, just scanning this talk page, but I read Nuview's comments as meaning if David ''were'' a professional critic, hypothetically. Just another interpretation. Glengarry/Glengarry 01:56, 15 Jul 2004
Incidentally does anyone else think that the section on the Church of Scientology contain slightly loaded language:
projects to implement workable and effective educational methods in schools (Applied Scholastics), a campaign to return moral values to living (The Way to Happiness), an organization to educate and assist businesses to succeed (World Institute of Scientology Enterprises, or WISE), and a crusade directed to world leaders as well as the general public to implement the 1948 United Nations document, "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights."
I'm no moralist, nor have I any opinion on the US educational system, but tis wording rather implies that it is unworkable and ineffective and that moral values are absent from our way of living. Neither of those are NPOV. IMHO Brentford/Brentford 03:05, 3 Dec 2004
NPOV for "vs. Internet"
Even though I personally agree with the point-of-view that Scientology has been attacking freedom of speech on the Internet, I think the small blurt on "Scientology vs. The Internet" really needs re-working to remove that point-of-view and make it NPOV. I believe I have a way to phrase the dispute so that it covers both sides without endorsing one or the other, but I'm going to need some time to work on it. I'll post it when it's ready if no one else has tackled it in the meantime. User:Antaeus Feldspar/Antaeus Feldspar
:Sounds like a plan. Let us know. Also, I removed the "Other" section that had two duplicative links in it. We already have positive and negative representation so don't really see the purpose for "Other" links. User:Nuview
Mirrors
Can someone please clarify for me, or direct me to the appropriate guideline regarding linking to mirrors. This would seem to me to be superfluous and tend to junk up the page? If it is an acceptable practice then I can't argue and could do the same, however, it doesn't seem sensible. Please let me know one way or the other. Thanks.
Nuview/Nuview 09:30, 14 Oct 2004
:I don't ''think'' there's a guideline established, but I think it's because in general the answer is obvious. It takes a very small amount of space, both storage-wise and page-wise, to include the link to a mirror; it's far less disruption than is caused by obvious troll edits, and ''those'' get saved for posterity. I can't see why including a link to a mirror would be objectionable, when ''that'' is useful. Antaeus Feldspar/Antaeus Feldspar 18:01, 14 Oct 2004
Categorization
I think a case can be made for categorization of Scientology as something more specific than a New religious movement. The history of the organization is quite well known, it only became a religion when its pseudo-medical claims were subjected to scrutiny by the US government. Its use of high pressure sales techniques, indemnities, non-disclosure agreements and the like, and its extraordinary use of the courts to attack its perceived enemies, set it apart from other modern religions. So while I wouldn't want to deny that it is a religion and should be categorized as such, perhaps it should also be categorized according to its commercial and legal profile. It's a highly litigious entity, it's an unscrupulous money-making entity, and in the past it certainly has been a criminal entity at the highest levels. Minority Report/Minority Report 16:09, 7 Nov 2004
:What category would you suggest? Antaeus Feldspar/Antaeus Feldspar 16:12, 7 Nov 2004
:: Hard to find one that would be NPOV. How about Ponzi schemes? Corporations, certainly. Famous (or infamous) litigants? We get consistent stories from former church members that they've been pressured to apply for loans to pay for church services, and that church employees have been taught high pressure sales techniques, so there's no question that this is a commercial entity in which the making of money takes precedence over ethical behavior. There must be a NPOV way of doing this, such that reality is reflected, rather than traduced, which in my opinion would be the case if we stop at "New religious movements."
NPOV notice
Anonymous user 62.248.140.107/62.248.140.107 has added a NPOV notice. Usually when I see such a notice I go to the talk page to see what justification the person inserting the notice has to give, or else if there's an existing serious dispute going on in the talk page. I see neither. I'll remove the NPOV notice tomorrow if it hasn't already been removed in the meantime and there is no objection to my removing it. User:Tony Sidaway/User:Tony Sidaway/Tony Sidaway/User talk:Tony Sidaway#Page_Footer/Talk 12:03, 5 Dec 2004
Neutrality
First, I am and have been a Scientology public for 15 years. A "public" is one who takes http://www.scientology.org/en_US/religion/introductory/pg001.html and receives http://www.auditing.org/wis5_2.htm but does not work for Scientology.
I have a comment on the WP page on Scientology. The views expressed herein are mine and do not reflect the official view of the church or any of its organisations. I have put the NPOV notice on the page, following the documentation on that tag.
To me the page on Scientology does seem to exhibit certain level of neutrality and I would like to acknowledge WP for that!
There are still statements and hints on the page that need some more work to make them neutral. Here's some sampling and my view on why they are not neutral.
* "''The Church of Scientology is also a commercial organization''". If it were a commercial organisation then the IRS would not have declared it and all its affiliates tax exempt. See http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-news/ir-97-50.txt for lack of a better reference. '''In short, Scientology is officially recognised as non-profit and I doubt WP is a forum to question official recognition.'''
* "''zealously using high pressure sales techniques to extract money from its members''". Yes, some services are expensive. No question about that. But consider the following details:
** The tax-excempt status granted by the IRS: vast amounts of financial records have been peered through by the IRS, including those of recording the most expensive services people had paid for and received. Consider this for a moment: '''if any of those payments had profited the church, would the IRS have found the church non-profit, "operated exclusively for religious and charitable purposes" (quote from the above statement)?'''
** The level of skills required to deliver higher level services: the higher level it is, the longer it takes to fully train the technical person to deliver it, be it the auditor or the course superviser, and the army of administrators backing the technical person, who have to be trained along different lines to ensure as smooth delivery as possible. I have a B.Sc and M.Sc in computer science but I have never seen anything that comes close to the rigorous technical training that Scientology auditors undergo. It takes years to master the technical skills and the knowledge to be certified as a higher level Scientology auditor. '''What you pay for when you enroll to a service is the years of training and the time spent on you buy highly trained professionals.'''
** Paying for the services is not the only way to get them and is the most expensive way of the many. You can go to training instead and work together with another trainee to deliver the services to each other ''for free''. You can join staff, do some whatever administrative work you feel comfortable with and receive 12.5 hours a week ''free training/auditing''. You can join the http://www.whatisscientology.org/html/part06/Chp26/index.html of Scientology and get ''free boarding'' and ''free training/auditing''. What is expensive is to buy the services of highly trained personnel. '''This phenomenon is ''not'' particular to Scientology.'''
* "''Some European countries officially view Scientology as a cult and have denied it the status of a religion.''" The word "cult" itself should be questionable on a page that promotes NPOV. To be fair, it should also be noted that more and more of the European countries are recognising Scientology as a religion, including Italy and Germany, the very countries that "critics" use to put weight behind anti-scientology claims. See the http://www.bonafidescientology.org/append/09/page00.htm.
* "''The nature of Scientology is hotly debated in all of these countries, regardless of the official position.''" Hotly debated by whom? '''This is a generalisation that does not stand NPOV scrutiny.'''
I would also like to bring to attention the following studies on the religious doctrines of Scientology conducted by prominent experts of religion from various faiths. Quite various, indeed:
** http://www.bonafidescientology.org/append/02/index.htm by Bryan R. Wilson, Ph.D., Emeritus Fellow, Oxford University England
** http://www.bonafidescientology.org/append/03/index.htm by Frank K. Flinn, Ph.D., Adjunct Professor in Religious Studies, Washington University, Saint Louis, Missouri, U.S.A.
** http://www.bonafidescientology.org/append/04/index.htm by Régis Dericquebourg, Professor, Sociology of Religion, University of Lille III, Lille, France
** http://www.bonafidescientology.org/append/05/index.htm by M. Darrol Bryant, Ph.D., Professor of Religion and Culture, Renison College, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
** http://www.bonafidescientology.org/append/06/index.htm by Alejandro Frigerio, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Sociology, Catholic University of Argentina, Buenos Aires, Argentina
** http://www.bonafidescientology.org/append/07/index.htm by Urbano Alonso Galan, Doctor in Philosophy and Licenciate in Theology, Gregorian University and, Saint Bonaventure Pontifical Faculty, Rome
** http://www.bonafidescientology.org/append/08/index.htm by Fumio Sawada, Eighth Holder of the Secrets of Yu-itsu Shinto
- Xernon, 05.12.2004
First of all, the endless arguments over the definition of a cult is being discussed over at the Wikipedia article on '''cults'''. It is a fact that Scientology is frequently accused of being a cult, from many different sources, including media outlets and religious spokespersons. Do a Google search for the terms "scientology" plus "cult" and you will receive literally thousands of results. As you say, Wikipedia is not a forum for deciding whether or not Scientology is a cult. But it is frequently accused of being one, and this fact is noted here.
The issue of Scientology being tax-exempt is already addressed in the Church of Scientology article, under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Scientology#Church_or_business.3F.
The studies cited above are usually dismissed by critics as being biased, in that they were commissioned by Scientology to deliver exactly the results that Scientology wants people to see. But I'll include them in the article nontheless, for the purpose of maintaining a Neutral Point of View/Neutral point of view.
And finally, remember that you can edit this article, and any other article, and make the changes you feel are necessary to maintain NPOV. However, Wikipedia users frown the practice of simply wiping out large parts of an article that one person does not agree with. It's better to work together and come to an agreeable solution for this and other issues. Modemac/Modemac 17:40, 5 Dec 2004
Thanks, Modemac. For what it's worth, I agree on all accounts with you, including the debates about the word "cult", the fact that this word is often used to denote Scientology or the controversy surrounding the presence of Scientology in countries. The way you put these was neutral and I think I will, after some scrutiny, rephrase the text on the Scientology page to better match the neutral style used by yourself in your response.
I had no desire to influence the contents of the page by the inclusion of more pro-Scientology content and so I leave it up to you to see whether linking to the studies I mentioned improve the neutrality of the page or not. For one I'll be happier because some of them are from people who do not seem to submit to financial manipulation - like the last one by a prominent Shinto cleric - but what I personally like should not matter.
Thanks again for the fair treatment. I have had my share of hatred and your efforts to maintain neutrality is a refreshing experience.
Xernon, 05.12.2004
Nosense?
perhaps tjis is material for Bad_jokes_and_other_deleted_nonsense:_The_Return_of_the_Nonsense/BJODN
'''L. Ron Hubbard as a Homosexual Activist'''
During the 1950's and 1960's, after founding the helpful and holy religion of Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard cruised around the world on his Sea Org ship as a homosexual activist. The Sea Org was composed of former members of the United States Navy who were "outed" during and after World War 2 for simply being gay, an injustice that continues to this day. L. Ron Hubbard, or "Ronny the Rod" as he was called by his male lovers, brought these gay men onto his Sea Org ship and with the help of Dianetics, his therapeutic book of miracle working, and numerous phallic shaped E-meters, he released their body thetans and brought them into a higher state of being.
During this time, Ronny is also known to have starred in several pornographic films, including Daddy, Don't Touch Me There!, Body Thetans Bare #35, Xenu, I'll Be With You, and a more seriously-themed film called How To Scam a Bunch of Idiots Out of Money By Starting Your Own Religion. After Hubbard's hot adventures aboard the Sea Org, he decided to take a step back from the stressful and busy life as a gay male activist, especially with the Federal Government pressing down on him for various illegal activities.
Sometime during his carousing during the 1970s, Hubbard contracted the sexually transmitted virus HIV. He died of AIDS in 1983, as a broken, lonely man.
:The same nonsense was on L. Ron Hubbard. I've BJAODNed it from there. Fubar Obfusco/FOo 23:26, 16 Dec 2004
::Definitely nonsense. LRH was notoriously homophobic. Not funny enough for BJAODN, IMHO, but suit yourself. Antaeus Feldspar/Antaeus Feldspar 23:58, 16 Dec 2004
whoa
this has got to be hard to moderate, in the five minutes I was reading this the article was replaced by spam :( definitely needs to go back to previous ver.
:It's already back. This is actually not the hardest article to moderate by a long shot if you want a laugh, watch Sollog and see how often that flips back and forth between the real-world version and the "Wikipedia and Slashdot are HATE GROUPS and the FBI has already been CONTACTED about putting ALTMAN and WALES in JAIL and a LEGAL BODY has ORDERED Wikipedia to remove EVERYTHING SOLLOG DOES NOT LIKE" version. Antaeus Feldspar/Antaeus Feldspar 00:37, 22 Dec 2004
Recent vandalism
User Talk:67.171.251.183 has continued to vandalize this page, which will be protected for 24 hours, allowing the user to explain his edits here. Continued vandalism will result in the user being blocked. My apologies to the other editors of this page, who I think will agree with this decision. See: Vandalism in progress#67.171.251.183 -Visorstuff/Visorstuff 23:06, 27 Dec 2004
:Well, I agree with it. Antaeus Feldspar/Antaeus Feldspar 23:35, 27 Dec 2004
The (near) 24-hour protection has now ended. Additional vandalism will result in the IP address being blocked for a period of time. -Visorstuff/Visorstuff 21:00, 28 Dec 2004
restoration of quote from High Court of Australia ruling
I agree with Fvw on this. It's not just any old opinion, it's the reasoning behind the ruling. If the ruling is relevant, so is the reasoning. To report just ''part'' of the ruling and omit other parts is what would be non-NPOV.
BTW, I notice that the 1993 IRS tax exemption is actually mentioned in the section twice; that should probably be consolidated. User:Antaeus Feldspar/Antaeus Feldspar
History of Scientology
The Harlan Ellison interview account is not described in the
'Scientology Controversy' section
and belongs in the history section of the main Scientology page,
otherwise the account of Scientology's history is woefully inadequate.
:While there are numerous plausible accounts of people saying that they heard Hubbard say on a particular occasion that starting a religion was the way to make money, or that he would start a religion to make money, Harlan Ellison's is not one of those plausible accounts. It is definitely not NPOV to add it to the article in the fashion you have done, describing it as if there was not, in fact, serious dispute over whether it had occurred. It is particularly telling that you do not even describe it correctly: you claim that Harlan describes how "he, Robert Heinlein and L. Ron Hubbard met at a science fiction convention" but Ellison's account does not mention Heinlein. Antaeus Feldspar/Antaeus Feldspar 01:58, 21 Jan 2005
Removing any discussion of the myriad quotes regarding Hubbard's financial motive in
founding the religion from the section on the history of the religion is
extremely misleading, and leaves a gaping hole in the Wikipedia account that is
otherwise widely known in other online resources.
e.g. http://www.bible.ca/scientology-1million-start-a-religion.htm
One suspects the enthusiasm
for such censorship comes from a True Believer cult member more concerned with
performing PR for the COS than with contributing to Wikipedia's historical completeness.
User:Pietzsche/Pietzsche
... Gahahahahahahah! Oh, Pietzsche, man, you don't know it, but you just made my night. Seriously. Zappaz is going to think I paid you or something. Hilarious. Antaeus Feldspar/Antaeus Feldspar 05:31, 21 Jan 2005
Without mention of the well-documented history of Hubbard discussion of
founding a religion as a means to make money, the present section on the origin
of Scientology gives a grossly distorted picture of its origins, and is a disservice
to those seeking information on Scientolgy's origins. Granted,
this information is readily available elsewhere on Wikipedia and the web in
general, but to have it specifically excluded from the article whose specific
focus is Scientology, is a quite peculiar exclusion.
For an accurate article, I think it is essential and appropriate to
cite the following well-documented record of Hubbard's motivations in
founding this religion:
"Numerous accounts http://www.bible.ca/scientology-1million-start-a-religion.htm
describe L. Ron Hubbard discussing with fellow science fiction authors
the founding of a religion as a means to make money around 1948 to 1949 .
Hubbard is quoted as saying: "The way to make a million dollars is to start a religion." "
User:Pietzsche/Pietzsche
:"To have it specifically excluded from the article whose specific focus is Scientology" completely ignores the fact that we have an :Tag: Scientology/entire category of articles whose specific focus is Scientology. It is covered in detail at Scientology controversy, as I have repeatedly tried to make clear, and anyone who reads ''this'' article will find out about it in the Scientology#Controversy and criticism/Controversy and criticism section, as well as finding out where they can read more.
:Should it be covered in some fashion in the Scientology#Origins of Scientology/Origins of Scientology section? I would argue ''yes'' but the problem is, in ''what'' fashion should it be covered? You say that it is "well-documented" but the problem is that, unlike many criticisms of Scientology, ''this'' one is not supported by written evidence. We have the testimonies of several highly-regarded figures such as Sturgeon and Moscowitz and Eschbach, versus Hubbard who not only provably lied on many occasions but who lauded the tactical uses of lying to control people. Is that enough to convince you and me? Sure ''I'' don't doubt that Hubbard said it. But it is not enough to eliminate dispute. If you insist on ''your'' side of the dispute being covered in another venue, other than the article where it is currently (and arguably most appropriately) discussed and examined in detail, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientology&diff=9537023&oldid=9533326. It is simply ''not'' an option to say "We will address this and ''only'' this side of the dispute in this section." Antaeus Feldspar/Antaeus Feldspar 02:45, 25 Jan 2005
This particular 'dispute' is analogous to disputing evolution as only a 'theory', I wonder if
the Wikipedia page on evolution maintains the absurd level of NPOV you are arguing for
in this Scientology article. Are CoS PR agents with a vested interest in proselytizing
to be accorded free reign in defining what is and is not 'controversial'?
"To summarize: we have eight witnesses: Neison Himmel, Sam Merwin, Sam Moskowitz, Theodore Sturgeon, Lloyd Arthur Eshbach, and the three unnamed witnesses of Robert Vaughn Young. There is some confusion and doubt about one of the five (Sam Moskowitz). Two are reported via Russel Miller: one is reported via Mike Jittlov: one reported in his autobiography; and one reported in an affidavit. The reports describe different events, meaning that Hubbard said it at least five times, in five different venues - definitely not just once. And the Church's official disclaimer is now reportedly a flat lie. Conclusion: He definitely said it (and more than once)." [http://www.bible.ca/scientology-1million-start-a-religion.htm]
Relegating this information to only the controversy page and not referring to it
in the central section on the history of Scientology is quite misleading imho.
User:Pietzsche/Pietzsche
:I believe you spelled it out yourself when you said: ''"this information is readily available elsewhere on Wikipedia."'' Modemac/Modemac 15:30, 25 Jan 2005
:Well, you're repeating your amazingly incorrect assumption that I am a "CoS PR agent" again, so let me spell it out for you: I am not a CoS member, nor have I ever been one, nor will I ever be one, nor am I a CoS employee in any capacity, nor have I ever been one, nor will I ever be one. You might have realized this much sooner if you had not jumped to the highly suspect conclusion "He's not letting me make an edit '''I''' think is appropriate and important he must be ''working for the cult!''" So I might as well turn it back on you: are ravening crusaders, so paranoid that they can't comprehend that anyone except "cult PR agents" could disagree with them, to be accorded free reign in defining what is and is not established fact?
:You still do not understand important and basic principles of Wikipedia like Civility/civility, as evidenced by your http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientology&diff=9636606&oldid=9633903, and to be frank, your research skills are clearly lacking, since if you'd done even a half-way decent job of investigating ''me'' you'd have soon found out I ''hardly'' favor the cult. In fact, some people http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Moral_panic&diff=9352635&oldid=9352229 for it. So, the more you press on with this absolutely unfounded allegation that you are now treating as a fact the idea that I am a cult PR agent, a conclusion that you jumped to purely because you didn't get your own way the ''less'' likely I or anyone else is to regard your opinion, despite your "imho", as humble. Or for that matter, as reasoned and proportionate.
:Your own reference says it: "Conclusion: He definitely said it (and more than once)." Conclusion. ''Conclusion''. It is not the job of Wikipedia to tell the reader "This is the conclusion that any sane person would come to if they looked at the facts!" it is to present the reader with the facts. I have told others who were trying to advance a point-of-view I agreed with, by methods that I could not agree with, that "if you want to win the case, you do so by marshalling your arguments, and presenting them as calmly, logically, and solidly as you can. You don't do it by jumping in the jury box and trying to take the jury's place." What you are trying to do now, by insisting that it's not enough to have the accounts of Hubbard saying he'd start a religion for money discussed, they ''have'' to be discussed in the "Origins of Scientology" section, and it's not even ''enough'' to have them there, you '''have to have''' your "key citation" to an external page which tells people "'''this''' is the right side of things, this and no other, it's concluded, it's certain!" you're not just trying to jump into the jury box, you're trying to intercept the jury on their way into the courtroom and tell them "you're not needed, go home, the other jury was already here and they already made the judgement and you're just redundant!" Antaeus Feldspar/Antaeus Feldspar 08:46, 25 Jan 2005
Scientology-critical music
During the peak of the Scientology-vs.-the-Internet unpleasantness, a handful of musicians recorded songs critical of Scientology and distributed them through mp3.com and other online media. At least some of these musicians (such as El Queso) were Church of the SubGenius/SubGenii and extensively used SubGenius references (such as Slack) in their music. Praise "Bob"!
The Church of Scientology took a few efforts to suppress the music, IIRC threatening mp3.com with a lawsuit that impelled them to delete El Queso All-Stars material from their servers and turn over the identity and home address of one of the band members. Many of these songs are still available online, however, e.g. http://crimjob.tripod.com/ and http://www.soundclick.com/bands/6/enturbulator009music.htm.
Question: Where should Scientology-critical, SubGenius-inspired music be covered on Wikipedia, if at all? Fubar Obfusco/FOo 00:55, 29 Jan 2005
:Speaking as a SubGenius myself, I say this subject is so obscure and trivial as to be worth an external link, possibly. Some musicians did set out to get the organization ticked off at them, yes, but they were rarely more than an amusement. Modemac/Modemac 02:46, 29 Jan 2005
European countries considering Scientology as a cult
The article states in several places that "some" European countries consider Scientology a cult, while the US considers it a constitutionally protected religion. I consider that this sentence has some underlying POV (namely, that US constitutional rights should be superior, or that perhaps European countries don't have constitutional protections for religions). But what I find more annoying is that this broad statement is vague: there's no list of the countries considered, and the legal and practical implication of being considered a "cult". David.Monniaux/David.Monniaux 20:20, 3 Feb 2005
Legal aspects
I think that there is some confusion regarding the legal aspects of Scientology, and that this confusion largely arises from the confusion of two linked, but different notions:
* that of ''religion''
* that of ''religion-supporting organization''.
The distinction is important because legal systems often only deal with the latter. For instance, statute law (and, as far as I know, constitutional principles) prohibits the government of France from granting recognition to any ''religion'' (except in Alsace-Moselle etc., but let's not enter historical discussions). However, the government recognizes some ''associations cultuelles'' (associations of worship), which are nonprofit associations that organize religious worship. The definition of what constitutes a bona fide ''association cultuelle'' does not take religious doctrine into account.
This legal distinction has already caused considerable misunderstandings and propaganda opportunities. For instance, Jehovah's Witnesses claim that they are discriminated against because some of their branches are not considered to be a religion, and demand that they should be considered a religion – whereas this is legally impossible.
This is why it's misleading to claim that "Scientology" is officially considered a "cult" or a religion. In fact, I do not know of any European country with a legal category of "cults". When dealing with legal matters, the topic is whether the Church of Scientology (or rather, its branches) is considered in the same legal category as other organizations supporting religions; and if not, why it is not, and the legal implications of it. Furthermore, it is important to stress that such determination may have nothing to do with the topic of freedom of religion and the constitutional guarantee thereof; for instance, France considers that ''any'' association that has for-profit commercial activities ''cannot'' be a bona fide ''association cultuelle'', and this has nothing to do with the religious doctrine practiced.
To me, "freedom of religion", at the governmental level, has the primary meaning of absence of governmental bias with respect to religious dogma (theist vs non-theist, polytheist vs monotheist, Christian vs Muslim, etc.). It does not mean that anybody can do anything and claim tax exemption because of "religious" implications (this would be an enormous tax loophole). David.Monniaux/David.Monniaux 08:53, 4 Feb 2005
Proper use of bona fide
Please be careful in using the phrase ''bona fide''. In colloquial usage it means "real", but in the law it means "good faith". The two are not always the same under the law, as evidenced by the decision of the High Court of Australia, which determined that the State Government of Victoria could not declare Scientology not a religion even if the source of that religion was not ''bona fide'', but a charlatan. Antaeus Feldspar/Antaeus Feldspar 18:08, 4 Feb 2005
:I actually meant the legal sense of "in good faith". Explanation of this distinction: in France, you can register a nonprofit association as being an organization devoted to the support of religious worship under the 1905 law (''association cultuelle''). However, tax exemptions implied by this status are only granted to associations having this status in good faith (literally, ''bona fide''); that is, it's refused to associations who claim this status but behave in a way incompatible with this status (for instance, associations that run commercial businesses).
:Note that these criteria have absolutely nothing to do with the origins of the religion, its doctrine, etc.; this is sometimes difficult to understand for foreigners, who think that the French government classifies beliefs into "true religions" and non-religions, whereas the criteria are of a very formal and legalistic nature.
:For a fictional example: if I founded a group worshipping the Sacred Asparagus (and I had followers, but let us assume I could get these), I could probably claim the status of a ''bona fide'' religion-supporting organization, even though I'm a charlatan and my religion has no history. In comparison, if I was a priest of a well-known branch of Christianism, but I ran some side business such as a hostel within the same legal entity, then my association would no longer be a ''bona fide'' religion-supporting organization. David.Monniaux/David.Monniaux 00:32, 5 Feb 2005
::Okay I defer to your expertise on the matter. =) I just wanted to alert people to be careful, since it has a legal meaning that doesn't always coincide with the informal usage. Antaeus Feldspar/Antaeus Feldspar 21:24, 5 Feb 2005
NPOV
Somewhere along the line the purpose of this page got lost between the bickering and some unqualified "editors" feeling some malevolent obligation to keep controversy alive.
I do not include Modemac or Antaeus Feldspar in this categorization (and there may be others that I omit, if so I apologize), I respect their editorial experience and though they are not pro-Scientology, they do take their editorial positions serious and try and maintain some equilibrium, which isn't easy and is appreciated.
Back to the page at hand. I hadn't looked at it for a while and decided to just look at it as though I know nothing about the subject. Wow - I was shocked by the degree of bias included in most of the sections. There are a couple that seem just straight and unopiniated, but a lot that definitely aren't. Do this yourself and tell me honestly if you are left swayed in any one direction - I think you'll find you are. Editorially, and Wikipedially, that's got to be wrong.
The other option is to keep "controversy" under "controversy" and any opposing views could be kept neutral. The subject list, check it out, the negative and the positive, do you see any kind of balance? I personally put the balance in to the external links or they would be mainly negative too. There is still some work to do here.
I could attempt to "balance" some of these sections, but is that what you would suggest, or is it better for someone else "neutral" to tackle this?
Feedback please. Nuview/Nuview 17:20, 7 Feb 2005
:Well, with due respect, Nuview, I think you may be coming at this with a wrong assumption your third paragraph suggests it. "Do this yourself and tell me honestly if you are left swayed in any one direction - I think you'll find you are. Editorially, and Wikipedially, that's got to be wrong." You don't say ''why'' this would be wrong. The goal is to assemble the information and let the reader draw their own conclusion, and you seem to be saying that ''if the reader draws a conclusion'', something must be wrong with the article, and that's not really what NPOV is about. The goal is to make sure the case for each side is presented fairly not to make sure the jury winds up deadlocked. =) Antaeus Feldspar/Antaeus Feldspar 02:45, 8 Feb 2005
::True enough, of course the reader is free to draw his/her own conclusion, you covered that point, yes, the fairness factor is relevant to the discussion and a NPOV. However, I don't look on Wiki readers as a jury there is no trial here. We are just talking about everyday people looking for information on a subject. So with unbiased fairness in mind, what's your take on the "assembly of the information" on this page do you see it purely NPOV or should there be some revision to make it so? Nuview/Nuview 16:47, 9 Feb 2005
::As you've made the statement "I was shocked by the degree of bias included in most of the sections," then I'd suggest you point out what you feel is biased. From there we can work towards fixing it. Modemac/Modemac 00:47, 10 Feb 2005
:Hi people. I think this is the best article on scn that I've read. You (the writers) should all be proud. Eventhough you talk about biases, it is not easy to find ''any'' article anywhere that is not heavily pro or heavily against scn.
:You should however mention that state of "clear". Fred chessplayer/Fred chessplayer 21:04, 15 Feb 2005
I see that anonymous 152.163.100.200 decided that this article's NPOV was to be discussed, but yet nothing is being discussed here. So I removed the warning until the author agrees to add it again with a further description of why the NPOV should be revisited. Regards. Povmec/Povmec 06:56, 6 Mar 2005
Why does a cult not get called a cult?
For example, look at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven%27s_Gate_%28cult%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AUM_Shinrikyo
I can see we don't want to be NPOV. But quite frankly, the only difference in practices between scientology and most cults, is that scientology has a relatively large amount of people in it. I think we should add that it is a cult, if other articles can havbe the label, this one deserves it too. User:GregNorc/-GregNorc (User_talk:GregNorc/talk)
:In the case of Heaven's Gate (cult)/Heaven's Gate, the difference is that the mass suicide at the behest of Marshall Applewhite eliminated directly most of the people who would have disputed that it was a cult, and probably changed the minds of most outside observers who would have said "Heaven's Gate is a ''new religious movement'', not a ''cult''! Cults are crazy people who do stuff like mass suicides; there's no reason to insult a completely legitimate NRM like Heaven's Gate by calling them by the pejorative label of 'cult'!"
:In the case of Aum Shinrikyo, perhaps you need to look more carefully. The article acknowledges that the Aleph (formerly Aum Shinrikyo) group is considered by some parties to be a cult. The article itself does not take the position that Aleph is a cult; the article does not take the position that Aleph is not a cult. It's a bit hard to argue that this article should follow the example of the Aum Shinrikyo article, by doing something that the Aum Shinrikyo article does ''not'' do. Antaeus Feldspar/Antaeus Feldspar 16:38, 19 Feb 2005
Regarding tone of the COS's promotion of sources passage
12.210.209.83, I understand your goal of using more neutral language COS's promotion of sources, but I'm not convinced your change wasn't a little too sympathetic. Would anyone else like to comment on the recent change[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientology&diff=0&oldid=10442643] before I revert?User:FeloniousMonk/FeloniousMonk 00:21, 20 Feb 2005
posted | 4:31 PM
|
0 comments
