Talk:Scientology/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

External links needs a severe cull

Wikipedia is not dMoz. That external links section is ridiculously bloated. There should be only the most important available links - one or two CoS links, a few critical links. I have cut it right down. I have only included scientology.org as (as I understand it) all CoS content is actually available on that site, even though it's also available under a string of other domain names. Articles like Linux and Mozilla Firefox have the same link-list-creep problem. I strongly suggest the list be kept to ten or less, else everyone will want their favourite link listed also.

(And yes, I deleted the link to my own Scientology site.)

- David Gerard 14:48, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree, there are way too many links down there, especially many redundancies. I did some cleaning. Hope it suits everybody. Maybe more can be done. I aimed to keep the links which contain well written articles, rather than links which contains more links to articles.

- Povmec 13:33, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate the need to avoid external link creep, but are there objections to my reinstating the link to scientology-lies.com? I know I'm biased, but I think it really is a useful site, especially with the FAQs I've added recently.

- Kristi Wachter 07:22, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I know I am late piping in here. I agree it was getting out of control, but I do insist that there is a balance of positive and negative sites, also having a few neutral sites from respected sites should not be a problem. I don't see anything wrong with, and in fact for the user who knows nothing about the subject, I think it is important that the pro and the anti and the neutral are clearly delineated. If someone wants to set a limit of how many links for each category, thats cool too. David? Nuview 12:20, 22 Aug 2005 (UTC)

To maintain a proper balance between the three areas, Church, anti and Freezone, I have added a few Freezone sites. The Freezone is, in some areas, bigger than the Church and should be represented to the same degree as the church and Anti Sites.

Michael IFA

Life after Death

I have trying to understand the concept of Scientology. As a practicing Christian I have many questions about this "religion". I understand the concept of the mind and body. If Scientology claims to be a religion I was wondering what happens when you die? If anyone could answer this I would appreciate it.

That's pretty well covered in Scientology beliefs and practices, but in short: According to Scientology nothing much changes, except that you no longer have a body to lug around with you. However, most people reincarnate immediately after death due to a cumpulsive belief that they need a body. Mkweise 09:34, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tom Cruise / Matt Lauer (removal suggested)

Recently, the following bolded text was added: "Tom Cruise, who is perhaps the most outspoken celebrity Scientologist, having recently entered a contentious debate on The Today Show with Matt Lauer over Brooke Shields' use of anti-depressants in her recovery from postpartum depression." I contend this is unencyclopedic in nature and also very poorly worded. "Recently entered" is going to not be correct in a year, in ten years, etc. Relaying a specific incident here just seems unnecessary. Furthermore, if the text "who is perhaps the most outspoken celebrity Scientologist" is actually factual, it should be backed up with either an external reference or to an internal page listing all of the times he has spoken out. I think the statement probably constitutes original research and the sentence would be best if we chopped off everything after Tom Cruise. I'm not sure how he is any more outspoken on it than John Travolta, except that maybe Cruise's comments have come more recently. --MattWright (talk) 08:07, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Is any of the episode even notable? I'd think that for this article it should all boil down to something like, "Tom Cruise became outspoken about Scientology during publicity appearances for a summer 2005 blockbuster." The details seem more relevant to Matt Laurer, Tom Cruise or Brooke Shield than to this article. Cheers, -Willmcw 08:51, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

I concur with MattWright--for this article, a brief statement of Scientology's relationship to celebrities is all that's needed. Details about Tom Cruise's recent behavior make sense on the Tom Cruise page, or possibly on the list of celebrity scientologists, if we want to begin to annotate that. BTfromLA 17:17, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'd say it's notable. Celebrities have been known to make public declarations about their medical (or religious or political) beliefs in general terms before, but I'm not aware of a single other case where a celebrity on national television apparently regarded another celebrity's decisions about her own medical care as his business to approve or criticize. I have rephrased it, however, to note that he is a particularly outspoken Scientologist, rather than the iffier claim of the most, and removed the self-dating language about "recently entered". -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:33, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Celebrities speak out about all sorts of things and I just don't think this current event is encyclopedic enough to be included in an article about Scientology. --MattWright (talk) 22:19, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Right. It should also be pointed out that, contrary to popular believe, Hubbard never used (and the CoS still does not use) celebrities for their money. Scientology actually gives very rich celebs discounts for CoS programs, in the hopes that they will stay as cult advocates for the CoS. 70.20.216.117 18:11, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The statement is certainly a widely reported and notable statement about Tom Cruise. It may well turn out to be career-ending. Cruise is a notable spokesperson for Scientology. So the controversy over his criticism of Shields is notable. There was a time when becoming a Scientologist was considered a holywood career move, thanks to the Cruise outbusrts, not any more. --Gorgonzilla 14:54, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I think that we could loose the second paragraph on Cruise. What is really important to the Schientology article is that the Cruise incident reflected very baddly on the church and resulted in widespred ridicule of the church as well as cruise. It is also the most recent demonstration of the sinister side of the church in the mass media. Cruise came across as if he was a cult version of Pat Robertson. --Gorgonzilla 15:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

To put it quite simply I believe that this article has serious NPOV issues, for example the following phrase:

The Church presents itself as a non-profit religious organization\

I put up the NPOV tag for the moment until I and/or other users have the time and energy to change this article into a neutral point of view. Please remember however that the NPOV tag is meant to be only temporary and should be removed at the soonest possible time after this article is editied so that it conforms to WP:NPOV

Any suggestions on the best way to do that would be appreciated.

Jtkiefer 21:38, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Curious about what in that statement you consider POV. --MattWright (talk) 22:23, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

In what way does the CoS not present itself as a non-profit religious organization? Jtkiefer, you really haven't made your point clear. 70.20.216.117 22:30, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Presents itself while not blatently against a neutral point of view seems to infer that they are falsely presenting themselves, either they are a NPO (non profit organization) or they aren't, infer seems to give a grey area to whether they are or they aren't which while not definately a NPOV issue should be a solid statement. Jtkiefer 22:36, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

As I understand it from the article, it is a grey area. Read further down in the article where it explains that in the US they are nonprofit, but in some European countries (Germany included) they have been denied that status. Seems like a well worded statement if the rest of the article is accurate. --MattWright (talk) 22:39, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Precisely, MattWright. To simply state it one way or the other is to deny that it clearly is a grey area. 70.20.216.117 23:06, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I didn't know that about Europe, well that seems to make sense then if it's a grey area internationally. Jtkiefer 23:53, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Good enough for me too. Since you haven't mentioned any other specific points of dispute, I'm removing the notice. If there are other specific portions you find to be NPOV, why not discuss them and work on them before resorting directly to the WP:NPOV flag? As I understand it, the flag is normally used when there is a pretty heavy dispute about an article's general neutrality that is likely to go on for some time, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. — Adam Conover † 00:42, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

I took the liberty of reverting an edit by an anon. IP which as I see it is quite none NPOV but in the interest of transparency I urge you to take a look at the diff [[1]] Jtkiefer 00:59, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

The statement didn't even make any sense: not as a religion, but a man-made cult. "Cult" is a term that describes certain religions. That's like saying "not as a fish, but as a type of salmon". (And if you're an athiest like me, "man-made" is a pointless redundancy, the Catholic church is just as "man-made".) 70.20.216.117 01:08, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think no matter who you are man made cult is a bit redundant. Jtkiefer 04:49, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

Okay - I need some input here. This page is altogether out of control. It has become a veritable junkyard to say the least. If anyone things it communicates a balanced viewpoint then they have rocks in their head. It is disjointed and as far as being informational, I think anyone who didn't know about Scientology reading this would come away utterly confused. Scientology beliefs and L. Ron Hubbard are made a mockery of and frankly if those with opposing views want to have a field day - then let them but lets set up an "Anti-Scientology" page and call it for what it is so we don't confuse the people who think this is an informational website where they can come to get some basic "factual" information on a subject. Wiki has a reputation to uphold as an encyclopedic reference site - it is not a battle ground nor is the purpose of this page to just pull Scientology to pieces. Can I have some sensible suggestions please so that we can clean up this mess. Nuview 19:30, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this shouldn't be biased against scientology but at the same time you have to be careful that we don'to bias this towards the church of scientology. Jtkiefer June 29, 2005 02:58 (UTC)

Certainly our goal should be to ensure that no anti-Scientology bias gets into the article, but to completely scour it of references to anti-Scientology groups and the widespread suspicion of Scientology would be dishonest. Someone who comes to the article seeking information would be done a disservice if no mention was made of the detractors of the religion. Fernando Rizo 30 June 2005 01:08 (UTC)

Thanks. I am not suggesting no mention of any controversy or opposing views, merely the cordoning off of the straight anti POV. Links can be put on the page if users want to read the anti POV. I'm attempting to get neutrality in here and the ridicule eliminated. It has nothing to do with whining, but everything to do with respect of others religious beliefs (whether people agree with them or not)and frankly just plain manners. There are other controversial religions in the world and looking over their pages on Wiki I don't see the anti POV, or their beliefs held up to public mockery, yet you can't tell me that they don't have critics also. If you have helpful edits in this direction I would appreciate it and I am requesting the removal of the "Xenu" section - this is already more than well covered on the Xenu page which in itself is another issue. Request assistance. Nuview 12:30, Jun 30, 2005 (UTC)

I wonder if you perhaps misunderstand the point of the NPOV policy. People often characterise the policy erroneously as meaning that articles have to be free of bias. It's subtler than that; I quote: "Articles without bias describe debates fairly rather than advocating any side of the debate ... The neutral point of view is not a "separate but equal" policy." In other words, the policy explicitly prohibits the "cordoning off" of so-called "anti POV" into pro- and anti- articles. This approach is taken in many other contentious articles - e.g. Flood geology, Creationism and Terri Schiavo to name only a few. "Pro" and "anti" content is intermingled to represent both POVs fairly.

Let me give you a practical example. In the Xenu section a couple of days ago, you deleted the existing content on Xenu (in fact, deleting any reference to Scientology's most famous doctrine), replacing it with the statement: "This is sacred scriptures of the Church, focused around the belief that people are immortal spiritual beings and of experiences that predate this current culture. However, there are misleading characterizations made of these writings, with altered pieces of it taken out of context putting them up to ridicule. Note: This is similar to what has been done with the Bible and the scriptures of other beliefs." This represents only the Scientologist POV. I changed it to reflect both POVs, retaining your key point: "Scientologists argue that mentions of Xenu by non-Scientologists are "misleading characterizations made of these writings, with altered pieces of it taken out of context putting them up to ridicule." Critics of Scientology reject this, pointing out that Xenu is part of a much wider Scientology belief in alien past lives, some of which has been in the public domain for decades."

I'm sure there are genuine POV issues elsewhere in the article and you're very welcome to address them if you wish. But the key point is that both sides must be represented, not "cordoned off" into separate pro- and anti- Scientology articles or sections. The NPOV policy has worked well for Wikipedia on other contentious subjects; let's not abandon it here. -- ChrisO 30 June 2005 19:46 (UTC)

I agree but it's two sides of a very slippery slope with a very small peak to stand on. Jtkiefer June 30, 2005 03:44 (UTC)

POV deletions of Xenu references

Could people please keep an eye open for POV deletions of the Xenu subsection? It was replaced yesterday with a familiar complaint about how OT III is taken "out of context". That's how Scientologists see it, perhaps, but it doesn't justify the section's outright deletion. -- ChrisO 29 June 2005 07:19 (UTC)

Yeah I noticed and reverted at least one instance of that, gotta keep our eyes out for it. Jtkiefer June 30, 2005 03:43 (UTC)

Excuse me, but why have a duplication of the Xenu page on the main Scientology page. This is getting into more detail than is necessary to summarize it for the overall subject of Scientology. My understanding is that Scientology is a large subject and to go into detail on every aspect is going to make this page beyond huge. This should be reverted to an earlier version. Someone can do this, or if no opposition I can. Cheers. Orchidgirl July 4, 2005 02:35 (UTC)

It isn't a duplication of the Xenu article. It's a short summary of the subject. The Xenu article is 8 pages long, while the short summary here is three paragraphs. It's enough to introduce the subject, introduce the controversy, and state why it is relevant to other alien-life-related beliefs of the CoS. Having brief summaries of related articles is very common on feature-quality Wikipedia articles, and is vastly preferable to simply making a link and expecting confused readers to figure it out. --FOo 4 July 2005 16:26 (UTC)

Cult?

Wikipedia itself lists the Church of Scientology under its list of active cults, yet various editors on Wikipedia refuse to allow the term CULT to be added in the discription of the organization. The term cult is ALLOWED on ALL OTHER organizations listed under Wikipedia as cults except this one. I will be able to provide the links to those wishing to see them. It makes me wonder if the motivation of these editors is based on being members of the cult themselves.

• Actually it is listed under List of purported cults which is somewhat different. You, 62.204.200, pasted the phrase cult onto over two dozen pages [2], in many places distorting word order. Your edits were clearly POV, many admins would have blocked before warning you given the speed at which you worked. BTW, I'm a non-denominational Christian raised in a Full Gospel church, attending a Southern Baptist School, sorry to disappoint you. -JCarriker June 30, 2005 08:40 (UTC)

It makes sense that the cultic definition would not be allowed, but personally I don't define an exclusively favourable description of something as genuinely neutral. I apologise for my earlier rant on this page, but it looks as though it has since been removed anyway. My main issue was raised by references in the article to certain Scientology centres being described as "looking nice." That might sound insane, but in my mind describing Scientology centres as visually appealing (or really implying that Scientology is a legitimate religion at all) has around the same level of moral responsibility as advocating that a lion should be part of a petting zoo. It's like saying that Charles Manson "wasn't really so bad."

I can understand how people here might think that it is unprofessional to be overtly critical of the group, and I can also only speculate as to the amount of pressure being applied by the Church (sic) itself to maintain a purely positive image of it here. However, I am hoping that those people here who take the mission of this site seriously are able to remain focused on what Scientology's initial, core founding purpose was:- to destroy people's lives, and make money, and to perform these two functions exclusively, despite pretentions implying otherwise. Hubbard is well documented as having been a thoroughly sociopathic, criminal, and generally abhorrent human being, who dedicated the majority of his life to enriching himself at the detriment of others.

The historical record is very clear as to the amount of harm that this organisation has done; indeed, it is a testament to such that it is with a certain amount of personal fear of offline retribution in some form that I write these words. I remind myself however that the only ultimate means of thwarting such groups is for individuals to be willing to speak the truth about them, and I also draw confidence from the fact that Scientology has had to try and silence a very large number of people online, and has ultimately been unsuccessful. Truth has a way of resisting attempts at its' burial.

This, then, is what I urge Wikipedians to remember; that although they may feel they are doing the right thing in portraying the organisation in a kinder, gentler manner, such is not necessarily the historically accurate way of doing so. It is also worth remembering that even if this site, as a member of the minority, continues to portray this group favourably, such a portrayal is not what will remain in the long term historical record, or in human memory, and is therefore at odds with Jim Wales' stated intention for this site. History at large will remember Scientology as exactly what it is:- the prototypical destructive cult.

Petrus4 05:04, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Petrus4, I'd like to steer you in the direction of Usenet. It's a more proper forum for the flame war you seem to want. Your opinion of Scientology is not what articles are about. Well organized verifiable facts are all we need. Removing POV might seem to portray the organisation in a kinder, gentler manner, but it's just cutting down the chatter. Solid facts from unimpeachable sources will always have a place here.

Marbahlarbs 10:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Blogospheric eruption

The blogosphere is going crazy about this article - check out all the references to it... [3] -- ChrisO 30 June 2005 19:51 (UTC)

what is OT III?

can we have some clarification of this BEFORE the acronym is used? IreverentReverend 4 July 2005 06:51 (UTC)

It is, actually, in the section just prior, "Past lives":

The "Hidden Truth" about the nature of the universe is taught in a series of Operating Thetan levels (eight in all) ... In the OT levels, Hubbard describes various traumas commonly experienced in past lives.

.

However, just because it's there doesn't mean it couldn't possibly be there in a clearer form. Any suggestions? -- Antaeus Feldspar 6 July 2005 00:33 (UTC)

I tried to address that about a week ago, but my edits were repeatedly reverted, perhaps because "Xenu" was a little less conspicuous in my version. Here's an excerpt from my last edit on 6.28.05:

The Advanced Levels The "Hidden Truth" about the nature of the universe is taught in a series of Operating Thetan levels (eight in all are in use, though Hubbard claimed to have completed as many as fifteen), for which the initiate needs to be thoroughly prepared. These are the levels above "Clear," and their contents are held in strict confidence within Scientology. The highest level, OT VIII, is only disclosed at sea, on the Scientology cruise ship Freewinds. However, since being entered into evidence in several court cases beginning in the mid-1980s, synopses and excerpts of many of these secret teachings have appeared in innumerable newspapers and other publications... (followed by examples, including the Xenu story.) BTfromLA 6 July 2005 00:45 (UTC)

Scientology is not related IN ANY WAY to Christian Science

I've put in a more emphatic statement so readers will not mix them up. I would see students getting them mixed up all the time, and not only that, thinking that they were branches of each other. Should be very clear on this, with no ambiguity, even if it doesn't read smoothly. (I happen to think it reads just fine). Fuzheado | Talk 9 July 2005 02:27 (UTC)

• I think Fubar Obfusco's edit is the way to go. Carries the emphasis you want AND it reads well. Viva la compromise! Fernando Rizo 9 July 2005 02:56 (UTC)

WikiProject Scientology

WikiProject Scientology - Dive in - David Gerard 19:35, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Katie Holmes

On the Scientology page, specifically the area about celebrities who are Scientologists, it says Katie Holmes is a recent convert. Does anyone have any sources to back that up? As far as I've seen she's only expressed interest in learning about it, and prior to her relationship with Tom Cruise she stated she was a devout Catholic. Granted, I don't exactly follow every article about Katie Holmes and Tom Cruise, but as far as I know she's not a Scientologist.

There's a List of Scientologists, but it seems to be out of date. Or maybe it just needs to have a section for "former members". Among others, I've heard that Mary Bono is no longer part of the CoS. There are several "ex" members clearly identified as such. -Willmcw 01:50, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

She's stated she has been studying it, I'll see what i can turn up in the way of refs - David Gerard 21:42, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

If there is anyone who seriously believes Katie Holmes hasn't been brainwashed and isn't a full-fledged COS cult member, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.--Agiantman 02:48, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

From AP: [4] "Katie Holmes says she's converting to the Church of Scientology, embracing the religion of her boyfriend, Tom Cruise."

I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that Holmes has never read this Wikipedia article, especially the section about Scientology's views about traditional religions. (Probably even Cruise doesn't know about this. At least that's my guess. Every Scientologist I've ever talked with about this who wasn't an OT-VIII was flabbergasted by it).

Scott P. 01:53, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

The Turnip Wars

This is an article that was deleted from the Wikipedia last June. Reminded me of this article. It certainly wasn't anything worthy of mentioning in the main Scientology article, so I thought I'd put a link to it here. It's:

Wiki Bad Jokes Deleted, The Turnip Wars

Cheers,

Scott P. 03:08, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Financials

Could anyone add how much an "auditing" costs and how often members are expected to go to a auditing per month ?

We need reliable references for recent price lists - David Gerard 21:42, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

From Auditor (Issue 300, May 2002)

ASHO PRICE LIST

SHSBC Premier Auditor Training Package: The Briefing Course plus all

material, including a Mark Super VII Quantum Emeter, for 30% off the

full donation.

Full Price US 48,000.00 Special Price 33,938.00

SHSBC AND OT III PACKAGE: 45 % off the full donation for Solo One

through OT III, when you donate for the SHSBC Premier Auditor Package.

See you AO Registrar for details on donations.

SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE

Full Price $32,000.00 Special Price $28,000.00

Hubbard Guidance Center auditing per intensive (12.5 hours)

Full $ 5,687.00 Special Price $ 4,550.00

Power and Power Plus auditing per intensive (12.5 hours)

Full $ 14,520.00 Special Price $ 11,616.00

OT Preparation and Eligibility for OT Levels Checks per intensive

Full $ 5,687.00 Special Price $ 4,550.00

BOOKSTORE MATERIALS

SHSBC Lectures (tapes)

Full $ 11,750.00 Special Price $ 8,225.00

- Sciens 14:16, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

External links

It's a goddamn forest again. I've pruned it to:

• scientology.org - the Church official page
• xenu.net - the main critical site
• altreligionscientology.org - a link list of the other several hundred critical sites
• clearing.org
• the about.com FAQ

If there's stuff in the deleted list that is actually references, put those in a separate ==References== section to keep it clear - a "External links" section really should be just the Most Important few links on a subject, in an encyclopedic sense - David Gerard 21:42, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I think this is a good list that should be the one used. Jtkiefer 06:05, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Jesus as a Homosexual Pedophile? Who makes up this stuff?

Can anyone point me to a court authority that can confirm the "fishman affidavit"? I'm having a hard time believing that the court confirmed that it was once part of their teaching that Jesus was a homosexual pedophile. - Tεxτurε 15:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

The court never confirmed that it was once part of their teaching. Numerous former members have, pointing to the affidavit to lay out in black and white exactly what this teaching is. To the best of my knowledge, neither has any court ever confirmed that the Xenu material was an official COS teaching, yet numerous former members have. You can click on the affidavit link and read more about the specific details of how it all fell into place if you want. According to the affidavit, Hubbard made up this stuff.

Scott P. 17:11, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

The purported OT VIII is generally regarded as being a forgery or hoax; it's certainly not written in Hubbard's normal style and doesn't read like anything he would have written. -- ChrisO 17:23, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

You mean, "generally regarded by active Scientologists, and the CoS's paid scholars as a forgery". The Church has also declared this document to be amongst its own copyrighted material. Go figure. What exactly did you find to be particularly 'un-Hubbard-esque' in this writing style, and why? I have read some of Hubbard's stuff and I didn't notice anything different about it.

Scott P. 17:48, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

ChrisO says that "OT VIII is generally regarded as being a forgery or hoax." He doesn't say who "generally" is (the Clearwater gang?). I think he will be sadly dissappointed when he finally raises up the scratch for OT VIII and discovers it's the same nonsense. If ChrisO knows of another version of OT VIII, would he please supply it to us?--Agiantman 23:57, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Agiantman and Scottperry: I too am a critic, but I question the authenticity of the OT VIII materials as they are portrayed by Prince in the Fishman declaration. Most of the well-known critics at a.r.s. including Dave Touretsky and former members also note that the OT VIII materials are not authenticated. There is at least one former member Michael Pattinson, that reached the end of the current Bridge by completeing OT VIII -- and he surely can't be considered a "CoS paid scholar", since he sued the CoS for millions after he blew the Sea Org. You can contact Michael Pattinson at mpattinson@gmail.com (verify this at a.r.s. if you paranoid) and ask him if he was taught about Jesus being a pedophile. MP just posted his OT VIII certs on a.b.s. and he answered directly my question about Jesus and pedophilia on a.r.s "There was nothing on that on the OT8 I did, but the materials were so lame that it looked like something huge was "missing". So either OT8 is different for different folks, it's changed since Fishman, or OT8 in Fishman was a forgery. Saying that OT8 definitely includes this story would be wrong for this article. -- Vivaldi 07:12, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Auditing Section too inflammatory?

I just cleaned up the grammar and sentance flow of the second part of the Auditing section, but tried to leave the tone of the information intact. However, it seems to me that this section stands out from the rest of the article, including the first half of that section, as NPOV. The statements that formerly audited persons have compared auditing to "torture" may be correct, but by the same token, these very similar techniques are used by law enforcement during interrogation; this type of questioning is very common when the person being questioned is reluctant to talk. Also, it would be nice to have some references to (1) such statements from former Scientologists, and (2) CoS (mis)use of confidential information (I assume we're talking about blackmail here and that there is supporting evidence of these actions.) 66.193.169.29 18:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Ewps. Forgot to log in. 66.193.169.29 is me. Kutulu 18:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree that that paragraph doesn't fit the section. I cut it. See below. BTfromLA 22:39, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Some dubious recent additions

There have been some recent edits that in my view add little to the article, and frequently derail it with needless repitition, POV, and poor writing. I've cut the following from the intro to the "Beliefs and practices section--perhaps something here can be used, but please consider the overall shape of the article (e.g., whether this info is presented elsewhere_ before resoring or adding material. --BTfromLA 22:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

"The core beliefs of Scientology involve

1. The spiritual nature of men and mankind.
2. The rehabilitation of the human spirit.
3. The methodology for accomplishing such a rehabilitation.
4. The role of L. Ron Hubbard in developing such a methodology.
5. The inherent value that such a methodology has for all mankind.

Us Scientologists do not have a strong set of doctrines regarding past or future world events, and these do not form a important part of their core beliefs. The main focus for us is the technology, its use and applications. The Church states that the goal of Scientology is a world without war, criminals, and insanity, where good decent people have the freedom to reach their goals."

I cut the following as well, as inappropriate to the basic description of auditing (though some of this criticism might have a place elsewhere):

"During this process, the auditor may collect personal or confidential material from the person being audited. This information then becomes the property of the Church of Scientology, which can reuse this information as it sees fit. Some individuals who have been through the auditing process have reported that an auditor may spend hours trying to get answers to a single question. Some of these individuals describe the process as a kind of torture, where, for example the audited person must be given express permission to use the toilet."

I have restored all but the last sentence. (Which was clearly just a snipe at the process.) The rest of it is neutral information. (Unless you contend that the information does not become porpoerty of the church.) - Tεxτurε 22:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the second-to-last sentence should go too for the same reason. - Tεxτurε 22:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

And I cut this, which does not describe what the ARC triangle is--though some clarification of that would be good:

"The process of raising one of the ARC levels is accomplished through the teaching of courses from Scientology's curriculum. These courses provide the primary source of income for the Church of Scientology, and many of them are extremely expensive. If a member fails to acheive the desired goal, this is taken as failure on the part of the aspirant, who must then purchase the course again. Critics point out that this provides little financial incentive for the Church to properly teach aspirants, as failure to "pass" the course simply means repeat income for the Church. Prior to beginning any of these courses, the aspirant must sign a contact with the Church acknowledging the possible failure, and absolving the Chuch of responsibility for any resulting outcome." -- BTfromLA 22:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Can't we restore at least the first sentence? It seems a necessary thing to know about the process. (Or is it described elsewhere that you need to take the courses to advance?) You're right, it needs to be fleshed out but we shouldn't remove it altogether. - Tεxτurε 22:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I have no objection to a line that says that raising the ARC levels is a goal of scientology courses, though isn't that already implied, given that raising the ARC level is a stated goal of Scientology? BTfromLA 22:56, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Tone scale section

The bit about the Tone Scale is currently a mess. Somone who is familiar with how the Tone Scale is treated within scientology, please copy edit that part. BTfromLA 22:58, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Should the "beliefs and practices" section be shortened?

The "Beliefs and practices" section of this article is far too long and detailed, considering that the article Scientology beliefs and practices already exists and contains much or most of the same information. I suggest that much of this section be trimmed and/or merged into the Scientology beliefs and practices article. --Modemac 09:25, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Modemac, and have made a few recent trims to the section, but there's more to be done. I think the "Scientology and Other Religions" section is currently the worst offender-- almost all of it could go.

While we're at it, the article as a whole is becoming overlong, and I wonder whether the "popular culture" part is needed at all. It's entertaining, but hardly essential to describing scientology (a mention that Scientology has frequently been the subject of parody would probably be enough to make the point). Should we cut it? Does it merit its own article? --BTfromLA 02:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

If either, I'd say the latter. I've been too busy to prepare a good-quality summary of the incident, but there was a fairly notorious pressure campaign conducted to prevent a five-second popular culture reference to Scientology. In the movie Delirious, there was originally to be a sequence where one character (referring to John Candy's character) said that he had some mysterious power over her, to which her listener asks if he's a Scientologist. There was a well-documented pressure campaign to get that single line removed, a campaign that may have spilled over to criminal acts of intimidation. (to clarify that: it is known that the Church initiated a pressure campaign, instructing its members to call and write the producers to insist that the line be removed. It is also known that the producers received anonymous phone calls implying various threats if the line were not removed; it is also known that one of the producers' house was broken into at this time, with nothing removed from the house but the signs that there had been a break-in made very obvious. Since the parties behind the break-in and the anonymous threats were never caught, there is no proof that they were part of the Church's campaign.) So all in all, I would say that the section has not yet reached its full potential, but has potential to significantly add to the article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:49, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

That sounds like an extension of the discussion of scientology and its critics, which is most developed in Scientology controversy. But the anecdote you describe is really about the Church of Scientology's actions--that's rather different than the list of references to scientology in TV shows, etc. Re you suggesting a "Scientology and popular culture" article that incorportes both the list of references and a discussion of Scientology's attempts to influence or produce (e.g., Battlefield Earth) popular culture ? --BTfromLA 03:21, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

That's an excellent idea, IMHO. That fits everything we have in the current article section and adds room for more. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:36, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Discussion of changes to Scientology and Church of Scientology articles

I believe that the Scientology article should discuss the religious beliefs of the religion of Scientology as it is practiced by Co$, FreeZoners, or other groups. This would include the Xenu story and other basic things describing the practice of the religion such as auditing, engrams, thetans, etc...

I believe the Church of Scientology should discuss the particular current organization under the umbrella of the RTC and David Miscaviage. This is the article that should contain the sections about "why is it controversial". Most criticism of Scientology only applies to the Church of Scientology and not to people that practice the religious beliefs of Scientlogy outside of the CoS. FreeZoners do not practice "fair game", "disconnection", "RPF" jails, etc...

I believe it is very important to distinguish between the religion of Scientology and the organization called the Church of Scientology. The religion of Scientology is a set of technology and beliefs set out by LRH that people practice because they think it works. Whether or not the religion of Scientology does "work" is not relevant to an article about the religion -- anymore than debating the Christian belief that Jesus rose from the dead or walked on water -- these are things taken as tenets of faith by practioners of Scientology and should only be discussed in an encyclopedia article about the religion and not debated.

However one should discuss the controversy surrounding the cultic organization called the Church of Scientology and explain how this organization uses the practices of Fair Game, RPF jails, disconnection, etc... It is the Church organization that is cultic -- it is the one that has a ruthless all powerful leader. Folks can practice Scientology outside of the church, either through the FreeZone or other groups or private practice. The controversy surrounding Scientology does not apply to these people.

This is why the critical sections of Scientology should be moved to the Church of Scientology page and the page about Scientology should stick to pointing out the tenets and practices and various organizations that practice the religion and not the nature of the Co$.

I welcome discussion. Vivaldi 07:12, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

It isn't really defensible, in my view, to claim that the Church of Scientology and the controversy surrounding them isn't part of the subject of Scientology. This article should provide a brief overvue of the subject, while the related articles talk about beliefs and practices, the church management, free zoners, L Ron Hubbard, etc., in more detail. Take a look at the discussion called "list of critics," above, and at the intro to the Scientology controversy article for descriptions of why Scientology and the CoS can't be divorced. (I do, however, think that some of the critical material in the current draft can be edited down, and that there's no need to insert critical claims in sections that introduce the beliefs.) --BTfromLA 04:35, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

If by "critical sections of Scientology" you mean unflattering sections, of course they should not be moved or removed. To move or remove them is to remove NPOV. --Agiantman 12:07, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I believe this article is currently one of Wiki's top 10 most read articles (if you were to consider all sex related articles as a single article). Obviously it must be working. No need to make any fundamental changes to such a successful article.

Scott P. 03:39, July 30, 2005 (UTC)