Talk:Scientology/Archive 14

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Here is a citation for:

Scientologists have claimed benefits from auditing including improved IQ, improved ability to communicate, enhanced memory, alleviated dyslexia and attention deficit problems, and improved relaxation.[citation needed]

"Scientology Orientation Video" http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3463204714566011542&sourceid=zeitgeist

It covers some of it, but not all of it. I just watched this video and then came to the wiki to learn more about it. In the video they say improved IQ and communication.

blizz

Please fix syntactical point of confusion: Triple Negative

"While reliable information about Scientology membership is notorously elusive, there is little reason to doubt that most practicing Scientologists have not attained a sufficiently high level on "The Bridge" to have learned the details about Xenu and Body Thetans"

change to

While reliable information about Scientology membership is notorously elusive, there is reason to believe that most practicing Scientologists have not attained a sufficiently high level on "The Bridge" to have learned the details about Xenu and Body Thetans. 24.63.25.235 07:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

is it just me or is the 'Xenu Incident' section written in unintelligible gibberish? --Eamonnca1 22:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree and there is reason for that. The reason for that is that there is no primary source of information about Xenu whatsoever. Terryeo 23:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

As I recall, at one time you said that you hadn't taken the OT levels yet, so your opinion has less weight than accounts from people who have taken it. AndroidCat 03:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the reason for the unitelligibility was the fact that all description of Xenu had been edited out. BTfromLA 04:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It would be great if some ex-Scientologist that did the OT levels would write a section on the OT levels. Then perhaps the incident would "make sense" - within the context of Scientology Beliefs and Practices, of course.

It is unlikely that a verifiable source will be able to do this; even if they did, it would be original research. Chris Cunningham 17:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

erm...there is a primary source for xenu texts, hubbards own handwriting is used as evidence and this is accepted by ex members as a genuine document sourced from Hubbard, my research for my MSc into the subject led me to get this verified by ex members and handwriting speacialist link is http://sf.irk.ru/www/xenuleaf.htm, i have an audio recording of Hubbard speaking of this as well to those that want an audio example. kenscanna

another point to make is that there is a ton of ex OT level members online with their own accounts...I have interviewed 25 ex members (dude to ethics agreement cannot reveal names), and during my research found the library section of http://www.xenu.net to be most helpful, a couple of good examples are the sociological examination (though it is old) br Roy Wallis "The Road to Total Freedom" as well as "Bare Faced Messiah" and "A Piece of Blue Sky" are all available in text format free of charge. Wallis's book is least biased. kenscanna

erm, unless Hubbard was around and taking notes all those squillion years ago when Xenu was bombing the volcanoes with frozen aliens using his DC8s, he can hardly be considered a 'primary source' on the Xenu incident. --Eamonnca1 23:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Either it is done by someone that has personal reality or it will be butchered by critics but the material will be presented. That is unavoidable.--Justanother 03:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

As it presently stand, the References section presents that "Stephen A. Kent (1996)" is attributed with 88 cites. The reason it appears so is because of markup. The first four references which end with Kent's are not cited to by Wiki markup, (<ref>name of reference</ref>. It should be re-arranged, the title of References should change to Article References, the four first appearing references which include Kent's should be moved to a separate section, Additional References while the markup which flushes out the articles cited <ref>name</ref> which is <references/> should be inserted just under Article References. There would be other methods of handling the situation, this is my suggestion. Terryeo 23:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Is this policy? The current layout (general references used in creating the article first, cites following in the same section) is frequently used elsewhere. I don't think adding even more headers is going to make the article any clearer. Chris Cunningham 08:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you're both right. As I read the

relevant section of WP:CITE, it looks like it's normal for pages to have both "general references" and footnotes where appropriate, but that they normally get their own section headings. I've gone ahead and made that change. TheronJ

13:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, its appearence is less confusing as you have done it. Terryeo 17:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I could not be less sympathetic towards Scientology. However, as previously stated, if the article on

No attempt has been made to actually argue this with me, citing yet another maxim of the stoic WP revert police: "it's been discussed before". No evidence has been presented which indicates that when presenting a belief system, WP policy is to place criticism of said beliefs in-line right next to it.

And of course there's no reason that the barley water health issue (along with whatever other junk I removed) can't be added back; it just needs to be kept to its own section rather than making the article an unbearable swamp to read through. For now I'm reverting to the pre-Feldspar version and incorporating the good bits made since. I'll try to fish out those bits of the barley water paragraph which are of actual value (probably in the form of a "junk science" controversy) and add them back. Chris Cunningham 08:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I've added back the junk science stuff. It should probably sit higher in the article. Chris Cunningham 09:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

time cube is an amusing little topic with entertainment value for a small number of people and can apparently be handled with five easily obtainable cited references. Scientology is somewhat larger, more complex and involves many more issues than junk science. "it's the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning." By the way, archiving previous discussion because there had been nothing new in less than a week seems .. hasty. Some people can only spend time on Wiki once a week or longer intervals. AndroidCat

10:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the premature archiving. I find it hard to believe that the casual user could walk away from the information currently presented in this article thinking that it was advocating Scientology, assuming that the criticism section is well-written, and that readers can be expected to read the whole thing. Feldspar has previously argued for including superfluous information in the intro citing a supposed lack of attention span of readers. I believe it is this demeaning attitude towards readers which prompts people to refute arguments as soon as they are made rather than allowing the article to take its course. Chris Cunningham 11:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The "attention span" problem here arises when so much of the early paragraphs of the article give Scientology too much benefit of the doubt. I understand your noble NPOV-seeking rationale for doing this, but I posit that there are enough proven crimes, horrors, atrocities involved here that to minimize them from the getgo does indeed constitute whitewashing and bias.

KKK article jumps right into talk of violence and cross-burning right off the bat, and rightly so. When an organization creates so much controversy for itself - and in fact, controversy is really ALL that they're known for - it really has to be addressed from the opening paragraph. wikipediatrix

13:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, one third of the intro deals with Scientology being steeped in controversy and the TOC makes clear that there is a whole section of the article devoted to reporting this. If the intro didn't mention the controversy at all I'd see your point. Secondly, both the KKK and Al Queda have what is generally considered to be rather more transparent motives than the CoS. Thirdly, the belief system already has "Hubbard said that" or the like before most every claim, to remind readers that the information isn't normative. Fourthly, it's important to remember that this is the root Scientology article and not the CoS one; that there is some minor degree of separation between the two concepts makes it sensible to present the controversies within differently in the two articles.

Anyway, yeah. I'd argue that not allowing the information to at least be presented as publicly available from Scientology literature before rebutting it is forcing a negative POV by disrupting the paragraph, as well as looking unprofessional and not reading well. It violates NPOV to coerce the reader into adopting a certain impression of the subject matter through disrupting one side's arguments, regardless of whether the subject is

Chemical Ali. Chris Cunningham

14:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm the new kid here and I know that a lot of you have invested considerable effort in this article, however motivated. My motivation is that I am sympathetic to Scientologists and feel toward them the way I do toward adherents of most systems of belief, i.e. if it works for you . . . (please notice I said most). This may not be a popular stance here but I feel strongly that a researcher that comes to wikipedia should be able to discover what it is that Scientology is to Scientologists. I am not saying that should be the entirety of the article but it should be a large part of it. I think some object to that and feel that the purpose of the article is to pass judgement on Scn. or to inform others of its "true" nature. I think that those people need to word-clear (smile) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, most especially "Fairness of tone". Here are a few concepts that I see violated; I am not quoting much, please review the article:

"Many articles end up as partisan commentary even while presenting both points of view."

"There's a temptation to rephrase biased or opinion statements with weasel words: 'Many people think John Doe is the best baseball player.'"

"Disputes are characterized in Wikipedia. They are not re-enacted."

I saw a caution against inline criticism of a controversial subject but I can't put my finger on it right now, perhaps another knows where it is.

The point is that the Beliefs and Practices section is not the place to debunk those beliefs and practices. It should show a true NPOV of what Scientologists belief and practice. How does criticism fit in that? It doesn't.--Justanother 16:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

By that same rationale, articles about serial killers, pedophiles, racists, etc. shouldn't include verifiably sourced third-party criticism of their beliefs and practices? I'm not being hyperbolic here: Scientology is primarily notable for negative things. Do a search of just news stories and you'll see it's almost entirely someone getting sued, someone getting attacked, someone getting killed, someone getting their life ruined, someone making an ass of themselves on TV. It's not a bias against Scientology: if a pro-

KKK editor tried to soften the intro to their own article and say "hey, let's maintain a neutral POV about their beliefs, they do lots of positive things too, let's leave the controversial stuff for later in the article as it takes its course", I doubt anyone would take them seriously for a second. Organizations notable for negativity must have that negativity noted from the getgo. wikipediatrix

17:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Spare us the hyperbole; "serial killers, pedophiles, racists, etc." indeed! We are talking about a religion here with perhaps 500,000 members. There is plenty of positive press out there and I don't need to get in a debate with you over who stirs up what in the press. There are, however, some 16,000 testimonials to Scientology helping an individual on the Scientologist Online site but how many testimonials to being "harmed" by Scientology, a few hundred? So if it is numbers you are interested in, then the critics are the minority. I mean informed critics and critical ex-scientologists, not know-nothing vandalizers and people that you imagine would be critical. --Justanother 17:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

500,000 members? Sorry to disappoint (and nit-pick), but it's around 50,000Extanto 17:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a non-issue; I think it is agreed that NPOV sources put the total active parishioners at between 100,000 and 500,000, hence my "perhaps 500,000".--Justanother 17:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

As I said already, I was not being hyperbolic. I was dead serious. I'm not necessarily comparing Scientology to the KKK as far as their relative merit goes, I'm impartially comparing them in terms of how their articles should be treated. And please don't give me the "they help more people than they hurt" argument, because then I have to give the "There are more people Ted Bundy didn't kill than did" argument, and that way lies goofiness. wikipediatrix 17:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Again with the serial killer.--Justanother 17:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I think such comparisons are useful for the purpose of article discussion, because they both deal with subjects that are highly controversial, demonstratably hated and feared by large amounts of people, and literally found guilty of crimes in courts of law. The bad stuff is what Scientology is notable for, and it must appear prominently and early in the article. wikipediatrix 17:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we disagree. On most of your claims. However, luckily for me, that is not the issue. The issue is whether this article is "allowed" to be NPOV or whether it will be forever held hostage by critics. It boils down to this: Yours is not the only opinion. A LOT of people feel that Scientology has value (I also draw attention to the fact that this is the "Scientology" article and it is specifically distinquished from the Church of Scientology article). And you know what, that is a very important point because most, if not all of your complaints are with the CoS, not the "system of beliefs". But, on point, the introduction mentions the controversy and it is appropriate that the discussion of controversy follow an exposition of the true beliefs and practices, not be interspersed throughout. Otherwise it is not "Beliefs and Practices" it is "Beliefs and Practices and Disproofs Thereof". That will degrade into endless debate. Let the Scientologists say what they believe and practice and then let the critics say why that is just so f#cked-up. Isn't that fair? --Justanother 18:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I haven't given any of my own opinions in this discussion. I'm not interested in opinions, neither yours nor mine. I can provide valid sources that demonstrate what I've said. I can cite relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines that support what I am saying. I'll try to refrain from more comparisons, since they irk you, but I will tell you there is considerable precedent for controversial organizations having their controversy stated early-on, not buried deeper in their Wikipedia article. wikipediatrix 18:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Wikitrixie or whatever his or her name is. Aroundthewayboy 03:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Please let's not turn the talk page into a battleground for discussing the topic, again. Allegations of bais in the article are best addressed on a productive, case-by-case basis rather than on heavily-indented ideological debates. Chris Cunningham 17:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, we'll run out of colons =8-D --Justanother 17:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not having an ideological debate. I'm being completely impartial here, believe it or not. It is verifiable and provable that Scientology is world reknowned for many, many, many, bad, bad, bad things, and that these bad things are, in fact, its real claim to notability here. If anyone wants to show me overwhelming evidence from valid

WP:RS sources that indicate that Scientology is, in fact, more notable for philanthropy or something, I'm willing to look and listen. But TIME Magazine's cover article was called "Scientology: The Cult of Greed", not "Scientology: The Nice People who help Little Old Ladies across the Street". wikipediatrix

18:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

While I would happily take this up on my discussion page or yours, Wikipediatrix, I'm not sure what I could cite more that the thousands of individuals who have written their personal attestations, published only by their initials and contrary of Time Magazine's presentation.

Terryeo 11:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I would just like to point out, that pointing out a groups point view is immaterial as far as NPOV is conserned, for instance tens of thousands of people are willing to testify that Hezbollah is a legitimate philanthropic organisation (as seen on TV), and that getting raped is a reason to stone the girl, that bombing abortion clinics is Gods work etc. NPOV is just a collection of facts, like cults are really dangerous. (user:just passing)

Luckily, we don't have to prove anything to one another. Or debate anything other than the point I make above as to whether or not this article will be "allowed" to follow NPOV.--Justanother 18:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to prove anything to you. I'm trying to edit an article. It isn't about you. wikipediatrix 19:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I've never made it about me. You, on the other hand, cannot claim that. "If anyone wants to show me overwhelming evidence from valid WP:RS sources that indicate that Scientology is, in fact, more notable for philanthropy or something, I'm willing to look and listen." I am upfront about where I am coming from, why do you pretend neutrality? No-one has to prove the Scn viewpoint to you or anyone else for it to be entitled to NPOV representation.--Justanother 21:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I am perfectly neutral on the subject as far as my editing goes. I have defended Scientology articles from "L.Ron Hubbard was gay" and "Scientology is a scam" vandalisms often. I'm not suggesting the article be loaded with negativity and criticism, nor am I suggesting the article cheerfully report that Scientology is just what it claims to be. I am in the middle. wikipediatrix 00:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Good, then we may not be so far apart. Do you then see my point that the "Beliefs and Practices" section should represent what Scientologists actually believe and practice, from an NPOV certainly? You can stress that controversy exists in the intro and exposit to your heart's content in the sections following B&P. That is my only point here. I came to the article and felt that the B&P section was sadly lacking any coherent sense of what Scientologists really believe and practice. I found it to be a disjointed collection of mostly accurate material but without much of a hierarchy or order and interspersed with blatent critic POV insertions. I think that I have laid out plenty of specific wikipedia policies that apply in my previous comments, the main ones being fairness of tone and sympathetic treatment. I think if a climate is allowed wherein persons familiar with Scn can actually edit the section that they are most qualified to edit without constant sniping by critics then a very valuable article can result and by valuable I mean that someone that wants to know what Scientology is about can get more than the criticisms of it. You know, if I personally go to the article on Sufism, for example, it is because I would like to gain some insight into what they believe and practice. Someone else might consider it really important to categorize it as an unauthorized alteration of Islam, an abberation if you will, and that should be there and it is, but I can go over there and, I hope, gain some understanding of the religion as a religion. I would like the same for this article.--Justanother 02:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and am I to understand that you are claiming that if Scn did not have detractors then it would have no place in wikipedia?? "these bad things are, in fact, its real claim to notability here."--Justanother 18:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that's what Wikipediatrix is saying at all, but she can certainly answer for herself. I'd like to address her concerns about the intro--Wikipediatrix, if I read you correctly, you think that the current three paragraph intro fails by deferring any mention of controversy and criticism until the third paragraph. Have I got you right? If so, and assuming that you agree that we want to keep the intro concise, what would you suggest as a remedy? Do we need to insert a line describing sharply opposing views in the first paragraph? BTfromLA 18:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there some other meaning to her statement ""these bad things are, in fact, its real claim to notability here.". Have you looked at the wikipedia definition of "Wikipedia:Notability". Scientology is "worthy of notice" in and of itself, regardless of negative press. Or are we disputing that? I think most of us wear our POV on our digital sleeves, some of us are more willing to admit to it.--Justanother 15:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I take it you are addressing me, Justanother. While I can't speak for wikipediatrix, I'll tell you how I interpret what she wrote: the history of Scientology includes a well-documented track record of highly controversial and even criminal behavior, and that is big part of what Scientology is noted for, and why it elicits far more concern from the public at large than, say, the Theosophical Society. If Scientology were merely a belief system or philosophy with a few thousand followers, it would still be notable, but the fact is, that is not the main reason it gets so much attention. As for the "POV on our digital sleeves"... I'm not clear on what you mean to say. BTfromLA 19:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey BT. Now you sound like a reasonable person (I assume that you are a person despite you handle). The 2nd remark was intended for people that have their POV clearly influencing their posts and edits and yet claim "impartiality". I didn't mean you. I have this bad habit of reading what people actually write; perhaps I am too literal. The 'trix didn't say something that needed interpetation, she said what she said. Please leave the rephrasing to remove objectionable content to the professionals; wait, that's all of us (laff).--Justanother 19:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

There's an old journalism trick about burying information "below the fold", in other words, being able to say "hey, we put the info right on page one" but knowing that if it's below the fold of the front page, it might as well be on page 2 or page 67. I'd like to see the controversy be "above the fold" here, meaning above the point which the user must scroll down, at the very least. Perhaps a concise but action-packed sentence that mentions that they have attracted voluminous controversy, with the word "controversy" linking to the

Supernatural claims

.

A big problem in making the intro concise is that so much attention is lavished on the convoluted details of what it is and why it's called that. I know of no other article about a religion that spends so much time dissecting minutia in its opening paragraph. Instead of slogging thru the maze of "Is it a belief system? A self-help philosophy? An applied religious philosophy? A religion by its basic tenets? A non-profit organization?" language, can't we stick such analysis of nomenclature deeper in the article? wikipediatrix 19:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I took a stab at rewriting the intro in response to Wikipediatrix's comments, while keeping it concise (even shortening it a bit). Comments? BTfromLA 20:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm likin' it. Would still like to see

Supernatural abilities in Scientology doctrine linked to somewhere before the contents box though. wikipediatrix

20:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. I linked supernatural abilities to "total freedom"--does that seem appropriate? BTfromLA 21:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Likin' it, although it would probably be more appropriate to have that phrase link to something that explains "The Bridge to Total Freedom".... how about following it with the sentence "

Supernatural abilities are promised along the way"? wikipediatrix

00:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm likin' you likin' it, Wikipediatrix, but I'd like to keep that intro as concise as possible, and I'm not sure that promises of supernatural abilities are an essential part of the very first level of info about Scientology. The mention of multiple lifetimes in the second sentence already clues you to expect a supernatural element here. I might be persuaded, though... I have heard of people being attaracted to scientology by the promise that they could "exteriorize." How about adding a short section on supernatural abilities to the beliefs and practices section? That would also have the effect of mentioning supernatural abilities in the table of contents. And with a short intro like the current one, readers get to that contents list fast. BTfromLA 17:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

This page spells out what Scientology might mean to a person who begins. [1] My summary would include the word, "help", its information is helpful to people in their daily lives. Terryeo 20:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, Wikipedia articles are not here to induct people into practicing Scientology. I don't really see what your point is, here. The page you linked to doesn't use the word "help" (except for "how you can Help" with regard to Volunteer ministers). The current article intro does, however say "It claims to offer an exact methodology to help humans achieve awareness of their spiritual existence across many lifetimes and to, simultaneously, become more effective in the physical world." and "Church spokesmen attest that Hubbard's teachings (called "Technology" or "Tech" in Scientology terminology) have saved them from a plethora of problems and enabled them to better realize their highest potential in business and their personal lives." Seems to me the idea of Scientology helping people in their daily lives is clearly communicated, though it is stated (appropriately) as something Scientology says it offers, rather than a simple fact. BTfromLA 20:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The first external link is to the official Church page. Certainly someone that wants to find out how Scientology can help them can begin there. What is the point of a deeper link?--Justanother 23:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

A deeper link? I'm not clear what you are saying. Maybe it's because we interpreted Terryeo's post differently... I thought he was trying to offer that link as an example of how to introduce an article on Scientology (+ the word "help"), you thought he was trying to say that we should add a link to that introductory site, is that it? Terryeo, can you please clarify what your intention is here?BTfromLA 00:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if Scientologist wikipedians would explain to

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientology Public Relations for the discussion. These users have both falsely accused me of making personal attacks when I pointed out that this user is a vandal. Thanks, Republitarian 18:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Republitarian, "vandalism" on Wikipedia means edits which make their bad-faith nature inarguable. "L. RON HUBBARD WAS A GAYBOY" is vandalism. An article about some aspect of Scientology -- even if incoherent, even if unflattering to Scientology -- is not vandalism.

In short, TheFarix and Orsini were correct; you are incorrect and you are compounding your own error by trying to summon "Scientologist wikipedians" only to the AfD discussion to push your erroneous agenda. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually a "vandalism" would be any edit by any editor which was inserted toward a false (to that editor) representation of (that editor's) opinion, or, alternatively, an editor who inserted text and cited text from what he knew to be an unreliable source (such as a newsgroup). Anything clearly against Wikipedia policy which the editor knew was against Wikipedia policy. Terryeo 11:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The definition is narrow - if there is any doubt as to whether something is vandalism or a content dispute, it's always going to be considered a content dispute (e.g., no admin is going to intervene because somebody liked to a site some people consider unreliable). Now if there is clear consensus and the user ignores it, that's another story, but charges of vandalism should only be used when it's obvious vandalism. See

Hanlon's Razor. (Oops - forgot to sign this before) VxP

15:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, we don't have a "Vandalism" guideline (as far as I know) which defines exactly what a vandalism is. But we can all recognize them when they happen. Usually an anon editor will insert an off the wall statement early in an article which doesn't fit. Such editing contradicts good writing style, contradicts

cite a source. Several things at once, you see. Of course it would be hard to know what the editor who makes the edit knows of Wikipedia, so a charge of "vandalism" could be made, but to actually make it stick would be more difficult. Terryeo

17:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

"Well, we don't have a "Vandalism" guideline (as far as I know) which defines exactly what a vandalism is." Gee, we don't? I wonder what Wikipedia:Vandalism is, then? I can't believe that you've developed so much traffic over accusations of vandalism and you never once checked Wikipedia:Vandalism to see if "vandalism" might just possibly have a very specific meaning on Wikipedia -- as other editors clearly informed you it had. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

To avoid a cascade-thread, I'll move this down here to a new header. Responding to a comment above about how my comments seem more suited to Church of Scientology rather than Scientology, this is a fallacy so old it ought to have a long white beard, but here goes again: The argument that Scientology as a "thing" is totally separate from the Church and all its controversies is a false one, because:

• It was developed by the same people involved in the controversies
• It was developed for purposes directly related to the controversies
• It is currently promulgated by people involved in the controversies
• It is, in fact, central to these controversies
• And most importantly, Scientology auditing is only available from the Church of Scientology. Therefore, the two are inseparable. (Unlike Christianity, you cannot open your own Scientology church or write a Scientology self-help book without getting sued.)

The above are not opinions. They are verifiable from reliable sources as per

Alright already. I concede the point, if you'll refrain from treating the word "controversies" like you get royalties for saying it.

I don't concede that point at all and in fact I consider it un-informed. Scientology as a philosophy is believed and practiced by many non-CoS members whether they call themselves "Freezoners" or nothing at all. The CoS controls the use of the term as a trademark (trade = business) but they cannot stop people from practising Scientology off official lines, nor do I think they want to. In fact, in my experience, they will happily sell books and tapes to declared SPs, though likely not through front-line channels; the SP would have to go through ethics channels to purchase materials openly. LRH, by his own statement, "gave" Scientology as a gift to the world. While one could argue whether the CoS is true to that, it is irrelevant for this discussion, Scientology, as a "belief system", does have meaning apart from CoS. One should also further distinquish between "tech" and "policy", HCOB and HCOPL. The "belief system" of Scientology is contained in Ron's books and lectures; the "tech" for improving one's spiritual condition in the same and in HCOBs. The policies that most informed critics would agree are the most offensive aspects of CoS, e.g. fair game, are contained in policies to run the organization, HCOPL, not in theory or tech. Policy governs the CoS and its members, it does not govern someone that believes and practices Scn off official lines.--Justanother 16:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Last word from me on the hidden-under-the-fold thing: we are not, have not and probably will not be talking about the intro. We're talking about a section which already lies under a paragraph which says that Scientology is hugely contradictory and widely scorned. Chris Cunningham 20:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Speak for yourself. I am obviously talking about the intro. I find your current edit of it unacceptable. I am confused by your statement that you will not be talking about it. wikipediatrix 20:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. this diff shows that the intro hasn't change any dramatic manner since before I began editing the article, and if anything is more critical than it used to be. I'm disinclined to defend myself from something I, like, didn't actually do, and I try to avoid talk page banter which doesn't take the form of concrete suggestions or actions. Chris Cunningham 21:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I offer a sort-of apology, then: I have not checked earlier edits of this article in quite awhile, but since you announced your intention to come in and overhaul the article and have been doing so, I assumed the current state of the intro was your handiwork, or at least approved by you. And if you, as I infer, are content with the current state of the intro, then we do indeed still disagree, and I have indeed given - in copious detail - suggestions for actions. wikipediatrix 23:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not best pleased with any part of the article right now, so bits I haven't changed certainly aren't spared because I "approve" them. Go right ahead. Chris Cunningham 07:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Haven't you guys noticed that the whole basis of Scientology seems suspicioulsy like the Sci-Fi book "From Beyond Infinity" by Thomas Mawson. It was published in 1947 and was quite popular at the time. Could it be that L. Ron Hubbard simply adapted to someone elses ideas for his religion. Triumph's Hour 04:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

That's a difficult line of reasoning to follow. Scientology was introduced in 1952 at a lecture following 2 years of Dianetics sessions and results. It was introduced for the reason that people were recalling memories which were obviously not of the current lifetime. If the basis of Scientology is a Science Fiction book, the thousands of pre-this-lifetime memories, recalled by many people over a period of years would make its basis a widespread popularity. Does Mawson's book talk about memories and recalls of memories ? Terryeo 17:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect. It was introduced in 1952 after Dianetics was exposed as quackery. — 

NRen2k5

14:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I haven't heard of this book, and quick searches of Google and an internet bookserch engine find no mention of it, so I am skeptical that the named book actually exists. There is, however, plenty of influence of ideas from the science fiction of the 40s in Scientology--it would be a good research project for somebody to start to point out his sources in that realm; has someone done that already? BTfromLA 17:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Not found at the Library of Congress [2] either.--Justanother 23:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure? I picked it up at a garage sale in my neighborhood. Triumph's Hour 00:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe that was Mawson's garage. BTfromLA 00:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

That one put a smile on my face. — 

NRen2k5

14:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Reference [35], http://groups.google.com/group/alt.answers/msg/f3716ab6b331c0d1 links to [3], an archived newsgroup. Newsgroups are poor quality sources of information because information on them is unattributable.

Agreed--not a reliable source (and press accounts of that make-money-by-starting-a-religion are plentiful, so a more suitable reference source shouldn't be hard to come by, if it is even needed). I cut the google group ref. BTfromLA 18:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Coolness. Now how often do I have to beat you to arrive at the next level of complience? Heh ! (personal websites!) Heh. TY. Terryeo 23:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

As a point of information (I'm kind of keeping track of editors who are willing to degrade Wikipedia by citing archived Google Groups, newsgroups, etc.) it was User:Raymond Hill who cited the Google Group posting which BTfromLA has removed at editing difference It quoted Donald C. Lindsay posting what Lindsay called "a rumor". Terryeo 01:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

In fairness to Raymond Hill, Terryeo, the whole point of that citation was that it analysed and attempted to separate fact from fiction in a variety of stories about Hubbard that have long circulated as rumors. So, of course, the author described some "rumors" in the course of his article. BTfromLA 01:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Good, let us consider Raymond Hill's edit in good faith, let editors take the small hint about newsgroups citations and let us press onwards toward a good quality, Wikipedic article ! Terryeo 02:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that unfortunately you're all wrong. They are clearly presented as "accounts" and not as matters of fact. So - regardless of their source - as long as they don't degrade the article (e.g. by the collection being obviously biased to lead the reader to a certain belief) they should stay. — 

NRen2k5

14:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Damn, I hate it when we are ALL wrong (laff). Point is, NRen, that a newsgroup can not be a credible source of anything except for discussion of the nature of the newsgroup (and then only if sourced elsewhere) and perhaps such obvious trivialities such as how many posts there are on a specific subject (and then you still are not going to use the newsgroup for source). Why? Because it is the least reliable of all unreliable sources, even for an "account". Newsgroups have zero credibility of themselves. There is no way of knowing who is claiming to be "a former Sea Org Member" or "David Miscavige's personal barber" or whatever. No newsgroup info, thank you. Let's not get into tracking them back using their PGP key or verifying their identity off the newsgroup, that goes way beyond what we do here; I am talking about simply using a newsgroup post as source. Newsgroups can, however, steer you to a reliable source or give you clues to find one. --Justanother 14:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Newgroups postings are well below Wikipedia's standards.

That particular archived newsgroup posting by Chris Owen was introduced into this article by administrator User:ChrisO at this editing difference. [6] Terryeo 02:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I see that wikipediatrix treated my recent good-faith edits as vandalism, citing "POV scented". Please do not do that. That is not "Harmonious Editing". If you have something to contribute, then do; don't try to stop others from contributing. Again, I think my edits were in the direction of a clear NPOV exposition of the subject.--Justanother 00:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I can see what she was reacting to, though I don't think wholesale revert was merited--I've tried to salvage the best from both versions (including your removal of the Xenu cartoon). Seem ok? BTfromLA 00:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. If she is reacting to the vetting, sorry but that is a fact, central to the practice, and should be included.

Your change, about not disclosing in an "unauthorized manner," renders that sentence pretty meaningless. Aren't the authorized settings for discussion of the contents of the OT levels extremely few? It is my understanding that they cannot discuss them with their families, with other scientologists, or with non-scientologists. Correct? When can they discuss it?--We should be clear what the exceptions are. BTfromLA 01:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Dang it, got an edit conflict and have to type this again. They would discuss the materials with appropriate technical staff under an array of approved situations from training to word-clearing, repairs to botched sessions, or corrections to errors in their solo technique. But I think I put it best the first time and hinted at the penalties, which are stiff. "The contents of these advanced courses are held in strict confidence within the Church and individuals with direct knowledge may not discuss nor disclose what they contain without jeopardizing their standing in the Church."--Justanother 01:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

That is better, because it doesn't include "in an unauthorized manner." But I don't see why you needed to add that to the leaner version of the sentence, if it wasn't needed in your earlier version. By the way, you don't lose what you've written in an edit conflict, just scroll down the page, you'll find it, cut and paste it to the current edit window, and you're set. A little unweildy, but much better than a wholesale do-over. BTfromLA 01:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I looked for the lost edit but didn't find it, I'll look closer next time. OK, your "by any means." struck me as awkward. Better would be perhaps "in any fashion" but I couldn't write that because it was not true. In my original version, I left it for given that they would only get in trouble for unauthorized disclosing; I saw no reason to add more removeable material by listing authorized discussion. It is really too much detail. The important points are that it is forbidden and carries a penalty.--Justanother 01:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Just say that, then. "By any means" was trying to get at the fact that they couldn't put in writing, etc., either but that's probably implied, They are forbidden to disclose it and risk their standing with the church if they do. That covers it, right? BTfromLA 01:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Done--Justanother 01:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's talk about my original 2nd line "These courses are available by invitation only and prospective candidates are vetted by their contributions to the furtherance of Scientology and their behavior in accordance with Scientology Ethics principles." This is an important aspect of the upper levels and would be of interest. I wrote it NPOV; I don't characterize either of those requirements as good or bad. They are facts which I can reference by HCOPL and are commonly discussed online by ex-Scientologists.--Justanother 02:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this did have that whiff of POV that wikipediatrix mentioned--someone with a critical stance might say the contribution they're vetting for is monetary, and the "ethics" principals are a whole can of worms; Scientology ethics don't exactly correspond to the way most non-scientologists understand the word "ethics." This brings up security checking, loyalty tests, suppressive person doctrine, all kinds of stuff. So, while I understand that there is a vetting process, and no doubt it is important to Scientologists, I'm not sure it is so crucial that we want to wander away from this brief description of the OT levels and their place in the Scientology beliefs to hammer out all of the specifics related to vetting here. I think that is better left to the Operating Thetan article, or perhaps the dedicated beliefs and practices article. Remember, this page is an overvue that points to more detailed information elsewhere (and it is too long as it is, if you ask me). BTfromLA 02:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

This kinda speaks to my main complaint about the B&P section. It isn't organized or prioritized well. This stuff on silent birth and barley formula is, to a degree, somewhat obscure LRH advices. A Scientologist that is going to have a baby might research what LRH had to say about child care, or they might not. I would imagine that before TomKat most Scientologists might not even know what "silent birth" referred to although they should be able to figure it out from general Dianetics principles. These are not even close to core beliefs. But "Going OT" is, in a very real sense, the whole point of "doing Scn"; it is the carrot, and, for the believers, the solution to all ills across the dynamics from a runny nose to the war in Iraq. It should have more detail, much more. The vetting process is important and much more important to understanding Scn than barley formula. I can leave out the word Ethics and, sure, those further contibutions can be monetary, what is wrong with that? "These courses are available by Church invitation only and prospective candidates are vetted by the Church by their contributions to the furtherance of Scientology and their behavior in accordance with Scientology principles."--Justanother 06:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm ok with adding the above sentence (grammatically, should they be vetted for their contributions?), although others may have different reactions. Alas, some relatively trivial things will inevitably be featured in response to public demand, which is a driver of wikipedia articles, like it or not: if something shows up in the news, wikipedia jumps in to provide documentation, and editors want to at least mention topical items prominently in the principal article on a subject, like this one. So, the birth and baby-care stuff probably needs to be here, at least in a brief form, with a pointer to more info in dedicated articles, exactly because of all the people reading tabloids who turn to wikipedia wanting to know if it's true about Katie Holmes. For a similar reason, I put in a "Xenu" subhead afer you cut Xenu from the section name... we need to flag it, as Xenu has become a major symbol of Scientology's beliefs, even as he is unknown to many scientologists (although I've got to believe most "public" scientologists have heard or read something about Xenu by now). Sad to say, the relentless demands for citations and counter-examples in the scientology articles have made it difficult to edit with an eye toward concise, readable articles, or to ask questions like "does it really improve the article if we include this?" BTfromLA 06:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there are two firmly entrenched opposing POVs that are each dedicated, IMHO, to preventing clear and neutral exposition of the other POV. The Scientologists, however, are at a distinct disadvantage because it is trendy among netizens to oppose the CoS due to its heavy-handed defense against opposition while Scientologists, by and large, would avoid the site to avoid being affected by the perceived misrepresentations and revelations of confidential materials. So exposition of the Scn POV is generally left to a few Scientologists that often stress POV, neutral parties without much 1st hand experience, and critics, some of which are attempting to be fair.--Justanother 19:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

No doubt you are correct that the Scientologists are likely to be outnumbered here, but I also have to say that some of the Scientologist editors who have been here have behaved very badly, disrupting the editing process with an almost daily dose of ill-conceived charges, demands, personal attacks and incoherant edits, leaving Scientologist editors with a poor reputation. Justanother, you appear to be sympathetic toward and knowlegeable about Scientology, a competent writer, and willing to work with others. As such, I for one welcome you here, and I think a clear majority of editors want the Scientology material presented fairly and accurately, even if that goal sometimes gets lost in the POV wars. Previous editors have made your job more difficult, and establishing your credibilty may require quite a bit of patience on your part. I advise you to cut the other editors slack for a while if they revert or make dismissive comments about your changes--pretty much all the regulars here who have come to these articles to edit in good faith, whatever their personal bias with regard to Scientology, are thoroughly exasperated by the track record of the pro-Scientology editors, and are quick to become impatient with what they suspect as more of the same. With time, as it becomes clear that you are actually editing to improve the quality of the articles rather than interfere with unflattering information about Hubbard and Scientology, I predit they'll become much more accomodating and respectful. BTfromLA 20:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

One more thing that may save you some grief: the idea of presenting controversial material sympathtically before introducing commentary or criticism has been considered and rejected at Wikipedia: a parallel project, wikinfo.org, sprung up largely in response to that policy (wikinfo solicits seperate articles from multiple points of view as opposed to attempting a unified "neutral" presentation). BTfromLA 20:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

For example, Wikinfo article] Terryeo 23:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks BT, that is kind and good advice. I hope that I will edit more in the B&P section. I also hope that I can set an example and further the establishment of a climate where Harmonious Editing is the norm for all sides of the issue. Wikipedia is important to me personally and fast becoming, IMHO, the most important repository of knowledge on the web if it is not already so. It is important that Scientology be fairly represented here as more and more people turn, as I do, to wikipedia FIRST to begin their research on a subject. I hope that more Scientologists will aid in the effort by contributing to those areas they know best while limiting their attacks to clear violations of the three primary editing principles without attempting to whitewash the article. Amen--Justanother 02:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand that editors have gone to some trouble to find a neutral, objective source for the claim that Scientology is a genuine religion, as opposed to a cult or pseudoreligion. However, the reference cited considers whether scientology is a religion, where religion is given a meaning roughly equivalent to 'belief system'. As this encompasses both legitimate religions and cults, would it not be appropriate to find a more applicable reference?

Those who seperate "real" religions from "cults" are likely to put Scientology in the latter camp, don't you think? Maybe there are exceptions... I don't know. That citation seems fine as an example of a scholar accepting Scientology as fiulfilling his definition of a religion--but it is just one voice, it doesn't verify that many scholars share that conclusion. There are a bunch of degreed people who've written papers to that effect at bonafidescientology.org, but those papers are dubious as reliable sources--they are clearly sponsored by scientology in order to get their desired result. So, I think an additional citation might be good, if somebody cares to find one. I doubt that will be difficult. BTfromLA 06:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

As I can not edit the page while it is protected could someone please change "Although many scholars accept Scientology as a bona fide religion" to "Although some scholars accept Scientology as a bona fide religion" as the word many is too inexact and ambiguous to have any useful meaning. If there are 10000 religious scholars in the world, how many is 'many'... 100.... 1000.... 10... 5001, 'some' although just as inexact does not convey any extra meaning about the quantity of scholars.

I don't agree--both are inexact, certainly, but "many" in this context connotes a significant fraction of the scholars who have considered this, possibly a majority, whereas "some" implies a minority, possibly a very small minority. I think "many" is more neutral and accurate here, unless I'm wrong about the level of acceptance of this view. An why not just establish a user name and edit? BTfromLA 17:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I would guess far less than 50% of scholars view Scientology as a religion, but that's just my opinion. I'd say if there's no reference related to scholars' view of Scientology, that the whole statement be deleted. VxP 21:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

What's the basis for your guess? It seems to me that it is routinely treated in discussions of "new religious movements," and, while their are real doubts about whether the CoS can be honestly characterized as a charitable organization, the Scientology beliefs focus extensively on spritualism, the traditional domain of religion. What we have now is documentation of one scholar who concludes that it counts as a religion. BTfromLA 21:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The basis for my guess is nothing more than a gut feeling, so it certainly would not belong in the article. For that reason I'm not going to get into it here (I don't want to turn this into a discussion about the merits of Scientology) VxP 22:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I've added a ref and made a small change in response to this discussion--please take a look. BTfromLA 23:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Scientology is a belief set. The Church of Scientology is an organisation whose members practise Scientology. The Church is often called 'Scientology' since it is the only widely known scientology group. This article does (or should) distinguish consistently between organisation and belief. Using 'Scientology' when the Church is meant should be avoided. Scientology could be a bona fide religion and the Church could be a cult. Both identifications are debateable and deserve an NPOV that sets out those debates, but they are seperate. --Hartley Patterson 19:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the Church of Scientology proposes certain beliefs. Beliefs, as used here are "tenets of faith". There is another definition of "Beliefs" and here are some dictionarys that define this meaning which is separate from the idea of "tenents of faith". definitions 1 and 2, from another dictionary, definitions 1, 2 and 3. Scientology is NOT a belief set. I have said this many times and no person who has not studied the subject could be expected to understand what I freely state. However, ask any Scientologist and they will tell you that there are no beliefs in the information which comprises Scientology. The word itself says, Study of Knowledge and in this sense "knowledge" is meant as a difference to "belief". It is not about belief, it has nothing to do with belief, it can not be applied from belief alone but can only be applied as knowledge. The very first time a person applies a new piece of information they have little confidence that it will work. But as a person applies a piece of studied knowledge, they gain confidence in their ability to apply the knowledge. And this is the situation with Scientology information. It is knowledge, belief plays no (or almost no) part in it. Terryeo 20:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I think that "belief" could be defined as "subjective knowledge". Take, for example, a saved Christian. We might say he "believes" he is going to heaven but for him it is rock-solid knowledge. How does he know? The Bible, the Word of God, tells him so. Terryeo, I know a basic premise of Scientology is "What is true for you is true for you" but there are some basic "truths" in Scientology that are shared and each Scientologist is informally expected to eventually come to accept as "true for them". Past lives are one and, you will not progress far in Scn until that is "true for you". So the point is not where you are going in the Scn belief system just how long it takes to get there. Ron presents as "knowledge" that past life incidents can affect you in the present. But there is no objective proof of that, it is totally subjective. A person audits a past-life incident, gets some relief, repeats, until they come to "believe". It is now "true for them", it is knowledge. But only for them. Such "subjective knowledge" can only be labeled "belief".--Justanother 21:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Perfectly that every person you have met has the "belief" of past lives, perfectly okay with me. That has not been my experience. I have met many Scientologists who did not believe in past lives and would happily tell you so. The Church presents that by Studying and doing Scientology a person can come to the knowledge that they are an eternal being. I'm pretty sure neither Scientology (the philosophy) nor the Church of Scientology suggest anyone believe in "past lives". Let me ask you something. Do I have 10 fingers, or nine? You can not know that unless I tell you. But do you trust what I tell you to be true? Is my knowledge mine to tell you? I say that the philosophy doesn't suggest anyone believe in past lives. I further suggest that you don't know how many fingers I have. If you grant that I know how many fingers I have, then you must also grant that I might know what I had for breakfast this morning, and by extension, what I had for breakfast 33 centuries ago (if individuals actually existed 33 centuries agao). How exactly can you divide my certainty into "oh, that is knowledge" and "oh, that is belief" ? You know what you know, I know what I know. And I know how many fingers I have and you don't. nah ! heh. Terryeo 04:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Help me to understand this, Terryeo. Say Jane Jones reads some books and takes some scientology courses. At a point she announces her conclusions: "There's no such thing as a thetan, that's not true for me. L Ron Hubbard lied about his personal history, those stories about him aren't true for me. But I think the study tech is very helpful, and true for me." Expressing that set of views, and showing no interest in altering her beliefs, would she be accepted as a scientologist in good standing? BTfromLA 05:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. That answer is yes. The only threshold for an individual being a Scientologist is their own declaration. From the Church's standpoint, any person with any beliefs is in good standing with the Church unless they become expelled from the Church. But even in that situation if they declare they are a Scientologist, I don't believe the Church as a thing to say about it because it is a self-declare, not a decree by authority. Terryeo 17:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I think I am starting to get his point. What he wants to call "knowledge" would be understood better as "teachings". As in, LRH presents what he terms the results of his research and you study and come to believe them (or not). So while the Church presents them as having the same validity as the physical sciences, Terryeo needs to realize that that viewpoint is not held outside of Scientology and therefore, the outside world will always view them as beliefs. I am not going to analyze Terryeo's example right now, perhaps I will later, but I would bet that he has only nine fingers. BT, per your question; I think Jane would do fine with the 1st claim (provided she is not obnoxious with it), that is very much "what is true for you is true for you" material". Re the 2nd she could hold that view but if she openly asserted it, especially in the academy, that she would eventually find herself under a "Non-enturbulation Order" which is only one step away from an SP declare. She might also be the recipient of "handlings" such as PTS-handling, dead-agenting, false data stripping, word clearing, etc. designed to find out where such an erroneous idea might have come from and address that. But not if she just kept it to herself and got from Scientology what she found to be of use to her. You really are allowed to believe what you like, you are not allowed to enturbulate (upset) others. One thing to always understand about Scn that they are a dedicated group on a life-or-death mission. If you understand that you will understand their actions a lot better. They really feel that if this world is to be saved it will be done by, well, them. There is no saviour coming and we ain't going to any better place. The work has to be done here and now and they see precious few people doing it and plenty screwing it up.--Justanother 14:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clear explanation, Justanother. So, then, is Terryeo correct in saying that many active Scientologists do not accept the existence of past lives? BTfromLA 16:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, any Scientologist might not believe in the existence of past lives and for sure, many beginning public persons would tell you they didn't believe in past lives. My experiences is along the lines of "well, I just don't know about that". Terryeo 17:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I will augment Justanother's explanation: If this girl with disagreements exercised her first amendment right to free speech in an innocent, non-malicious manner, she would likely be put under the so-called "non-enturbulation order" which is a political tool used to silence politically incorrect statements from cofs members, in addition to being presumed to be a potential trouble source, have false data, misunderstood words, or black propaganda. Rather than just outright tell her, "If you don't agree with us fully, you must leave or keep your mouth shut." a course of action is engaged in to dominate and make her wrong. Justanother's statement, "One thing to always understand about Scn that they are a dedicated group on a life-or-death mission. If you understand that you will understand their actions a lot better." could also be the statement of a terrorist group and I don't think his statement is accurate. Now back to the girl, if she continued to voice her disagreements with certain aspects of cofs doctrine, she would receive a military-style tribunal called a comm ev, then likely be declared a suppressive person, even though no procedure is done to verify she has a majority of suppressive traits most of the time. Some would say it is an authoritarian racket. Others would say it is a political organization masquerading as a church. You be the judge.--Fahrenheit451 17:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I completely disagree. Anyone is free to state what they know and what they believe at any time, in all circumstances. Jane's statements are hers alone. If she were to attack the Church that could be different but when she states what she knows and believes that is purely hers and she can quite easily be a Scientologist in good standing and state, "I don't believe the idea of Thetan is real at all ! Terryeo 17:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

You may disagree, Terryeo. Sure, a cofs member is "free" to state what they know and believe at any time, but not with impunity. There are too many documented cases to the contrary. On the subject of "attack", that can be broadly construed to mean persistently stating a situation and asking for answers. I suggest you do a websearch if you doubt me. --Fahrenheit451 17:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I doubt you. I did a websearch and still doubt you. I had a cup of coffee and it didn't help any, either. heh. Terryeo 18:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and I could make the analogy that "One thing to always understand about Scn that they are a dedicated group on a life-or-death mission." could be the viewpoint of the United States Marine Corps (USMC). But I did not make that comparison in my original post even though I thought of it because analogies are a form of persuasive arguement and I was not trying to associate Scn with an unrelated group for the purposes of advancing my position. Fahrenheit451 certainly does a decent job of advancing the critical position. He is entitled to his POV and it should be presented fairly in the article.--Justanother 17:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I think many Scientologists, especially newer ones, do not have a personal reality on past lives. That wording means that they understand the concept and accept that others accept it but it does not (dare I say "yet") have personal meaning for them. Some may not even have encountered the concept yet. The concept of past lives as being important is not presented early on. Once you start serious training it is all through the tapes you listen to and some processes actually require that a past-life incident be contacted in session. I would think that almost all staff members "believe" in past lives along with practically all OTs and most Clears. Things in Scn make a lot more sense if you make the leap of faith that what you are experiencing in session are valid memories of past lives and not some sort of self-fabrication.--Justanother 17:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Even on pre-OT levels, the reality of past lives varies greatly, from those who feel certain to those who think it is their imagination. So even a "leap of faith" does not give one more reality, but rather keeps one going with the hope that it may become real to them.--Fahrenheit451 17:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I see the "leap of faith" as a decision, perhaps not vocalized or clearly conceptualized, to accept as true for oneself that which cannot be proven. The leap of faith is, I think, an integral part of any religion and I think you could even define an agnostic as one who has not or can not make such a leap and an atheist as a person who will not. I see the acceptance of past lives as one of the key leaps in the Scientology religion. --Justanother 18:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, are you saying that you have exactly as much evidence, and evidence of the same quality, regarding the number of fingers on your hands as you have regarding what 'you' had for breakfast 33 centuries ago in a past life? Because otherwise, your argument that if you can "know" one you can "know" the other doesn't hang together logically. We are willing to grant that you "know" the number of fingers on your own hands, under the quite reasonable assumption that you have a variety of ways to test how many fingers are on your hands -- counting them visually, having someone else count them visually, drumming them on a countertop and listening for how many taps they make. On the other hand, we have remarkably little evidence for things that happened 33 centuries ago -- you might say you "know" that 33 centuries ago on the morning of August 28th you were such-and-such a person and you had this-and-such for breakfast, but where is your evidence? Suppose you say "I know I was a goatherd under the Babylon ruler Hammurabi and I know I had a sausage for breakfast that morning" and I say "I know you're wrong; you weren't even that goatherd, let alone having sausage for breakfast that morning" -- what then? If you can "know" something without evidence to confirm or deny it, then I can "know" the opposite without needing evidence to confirm or deny it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

That is the sort of logical chain it presents, truely. An individual might know how many fingers and what he had for breakfast. By extension, what he had for breakfast 33 centuries ago. Yes, that is the logic of it. No matter how softly or how vehemently I say what I had for breakfast, it would be really (often impossible) difficult to prove because it has been eaten, by the next day, digested. Breakfast last week would be even more difficult to prove. Breakfast 33 centuries ago? Ha! Who could prove it to another person? But, a person can know for themselves what they had for breakfast. Terryeo 16:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying now that to remember what one had for breakfast that morning, to remember what one had for breakfast a week ago, and to remember what one had for breakfast in a past life 33 centuries ago are all equal in difficulty? That if you can successfully remember what you had for breakfast less than 24 hours ago, then "by extension" you have the ability to remember what you ate 28,908,000 hours ago? Even though if there was a "you" eating 28,908,000 hours ago, it was a "you" in a different body, one that is almost certainly dust by now? I'm sorry, but your argument still seems to be boiling down to "If I feel really, really, really, really sure of something, that means I 'know' that something, rather than 'believe' that something. The difference between 'believing' and 'knowing' has to do with the strength of the conviction, rather than what actual reasons one has for concluding a state of affairs to exist." -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not as easy for me to recall breakfast this morning as breakfast last week. And breakfast a long time ago is harder still. But, when I am sure that I have recalled breakfast last week, I can tell you so because I know that. Of course my example of breakfast is a simplification, but I can be certain of at least one, memorable past breakfast that no one else could possibly know. For example, if I remember a breakfast at a good restaurant of, say, 30 years ago and everyone else who ate there at that time is no longer around. I know it and no one else does. I know it comparing it to memories of how I got to the restaurant, the weather that day, how large the resturant was and so on. The combination of several memories together creates a better strength of knowledge. And yes, that is what happens in auditing. (trying to be brief and to the point). Terryeo 17:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

You're still confusing the same points, Terry. What you seem to be saying here is that if you have beliefs and they are particularly consistent with each other, that means they are "knowledge" rather than "beliefs". How does that follow? And why are you not addressing the differences between your example and the point under debate? If by some chance we discovered previously unknown film footage taken 30 years ago of you having breakfast in that restaurant and the film footage confirmed everything you were saying, that wouldn't be utterly surprising; it's well-established that people can remember things that happened decades ago in their own lifetime (though it's also well-established that people can misremember things under the same circumstances...) By contrast, when you say you "know" what "you" had for breakfast 3300 centuries in another life, you're telling us that we should accept "knowledge" that came from your memory of your own first-hand experience, and "knowledge" that came from the unproven process of auditing, as equally reliable! For someone who spends such a prodigious amount of time complaining about "reliable sources" it is absolutely dumbfounding that you are asking us to overlook this vast difference, and give Scientology a privileged promotion, certainly not awarded to any other religion, from "belief system" to "knowledge". -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I would never (well probably never) ask anyone to accept what I remember. I would never ask someone to base their own beliefs on what I remember. I really doubt any Scientologist will ask you to. I can demonstrate some of what I know, You can demonstrate some of what you know, but neither of us can demonstrate some of the things each of us know. Even if a video of my memorable breakfast came into your possession, there would still be many things I know that I can not demonstrate. This idea of indemonstrable knowledge is precisely where Hubbard did his work. And there's the difficulty. Western Society is built on Science which is based on demonstrable knowledge. No, I don't ask anyone to believe or even accept my indemonstrable knowledge. However, I know that everyone over the age of, say, 5 years old has at least some indemonstrable knowledge. And you won't see me placing my indemonstrable knowledge into articles, either. Articles use substantial, previously published sources of information. I can't convince you that we exist as thetans, it is indemonstrable. On the other hand, it is possible to sketch out the idea with words. Thetan Terryeo 15:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, do you see a qualitative difference between verifiable "knowledge" and memory ("subjective knowledge"). A neutral observer could count your fingers and report "Terryeo has nine fingers". That same observer could ask you what you had for breakfast today and only report "Terreo says he had oatmeal for breakfast". The only way to say more than that would be to pump your stomach and that would only help for today's breakfast, not for last week's. So we would report "Terryeo says . . ." Now, when a group of people "say" something that cannot be verified objectively and what they say does not have very broad agreement in the overall culture, we call what they say a "Belief". Whether they are right or wrong has no bearing on the term used.--Justanother 16:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Well that is true and I suspect it is the demarkation point that Hubbard used in 1950. And the demarkation point today, too. People insist, "you can't know it because you can prove it to someone else". While Hubbard used, "if it is true for you then it is true, period". That demarkation point, that's a biggy ! One is "demonstrable knowledge" (science) and the other is "personal knowledge". Terryeo 17:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I keep saying, "Scientology isn't a belief system" and other editors scoff and say, "obviously its a belief system". Here is a Scientologist who doesn't say exactly as I do, but talks about "belief" as applied to Scientology. at experts.com Terryeo 05:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC) And here's another, 3) I was not/am not required to accept anything on faith. [7] Terryeo 05:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC) And finally, What's the one thing you wish people would understand about Scientology? Laurie Hamilton Terryeo 06:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo; OK, we can say that Scn is a collection of LRH's theories (which could be called his beliefs) about the nature of the universe and a system of techniques (the Technology) developed by LRH to bring people to higher states of spiritual awareness and ability. There is not "Sunday School", "Hebrew Academy", or whatever to school young people in the "beliefs". Nor much of a Sunday Service for adults either (there is what I consider a rote service for PR purposes to appear more "church-like" and promote Scn). So it is clear that "beliefs" are not the mainstay of Scn. What is the mainstay is the tech and the Bridge. So people either study the tech or have the tech applied to them. When you study Scn you are drilled hard on the tech, the theory or beliefs are there in the material pretty much as background and you can take them or leave them. So perhaps we have reached a point of agreement???

Yes. In the sense that those presentations are not actually wrong. A middle ground between how I would state it and how it is stated. A middle ground which neither side actually likes a lot, but is willing to tolerate. Terryeo 15:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Laurie Hamilton has some good things to say and she makes a good point about Scientologists editing in wikipedia in another of her articles. I think she is being unrealistic when she says that What's the one thing you wish people would understand about Scientology? bit. Yes, Scientology is a "school of religious thought, aka a religion - a way of looking at the universe" but it is also an organization some find oppressive or worse. You don't get one without the other. It sounds like she discovered that when she was on staff for 12 years and I wonder if when she says she has not experienced the oppression (my term, not hers) in 27 years if it is because she left staff about that long ago?? Scientology is very nice to do if you are public and play by the rules but woe unto you if you do not, especially if you are staff or Sea Org.--Justanother 13:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes. Somehow I knew it would be Laurie Hamilton, at the so-called "experts.about.com". It amazes me that you whine so continuously at the use of supposed "personal websites" and then cite Laurie Hamilton's personal opinion as if her opinion essays were somehow meaningful because about.com pays the hosting bills as opposed to, say, blogger.com. (I have to say, insofar as I can laugh at grotesque self-deception, I got a good belly-laugh out of Hamilton's attempt to deal with Hubbard's notorious multiple 'start a religion for money' statements. She tried to argue that because there were so many witnesses who said that they personally heard Hubbard say that he wanted to start a religion for money, that meant their stories were inconsistent and therefore not believable! Haha! And I guess Ted Bundy never killed anybody, ever, as proven by the fact that people produced evidence of him killing so many different women, in different places, right?) -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

"Whine?" I am trying to understand how those words can be thought of as a "whine". At best that is a very biased manner of understanding what I have said. Whine? I place someone else's response in the area which we are discussing not to cause any editor to sympathize, I don't want sympathy. The least useful reaction would be sympathy. I place Hamilton's comments in an effort to at least recognize that User:ChrisO has said several times about getting other editors into the mix. She won't edit here, I'm sure but, on the other hand, perhaps her statements could round out the point of view I speak of. I don't expect to rouse your sympathy or your refusal of feeling sympatheic. I don't want your sympathy, I simply want you to understand there is a viewpoint that exists, Scientology is not a belief system. Terryeo 14:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

From various answers on expert.com, the responders have control of what they answer, but once they submit they then have no control. Once in, forever in. No response required. So it isn't a personal website, the respondees more or less write an email response to an email question. BTW, there would be 100 ways a person might joke about creating a religion to making a million dollars. And Bill Gates might well have joked with his high school buddies about defeating "BIG BLUE", long before he defeated Big Blue with his operating system. Terryeo 15:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Please explain how the system you describe in operation at experts.about.com makes the personal opinions of those responders one iota more reliable than if they were using a personal website to house their personal opinions? Yes, there could easily be 100 ways a person might talk about creating a religion in order to make money. And if multiple witnesses stated that they had heard that person talk about exactly that subject, in many of those ways, the obvious inference is that that person talked about that subject a lot. Trying to draw the conclusion instead that that person never said any such thing is simply ludicrous, and shows the folly of starting at a desired conclusion such as "Hubbard never talked about starting a religion for money" and trying to manipulate the evidence to look like it supports the conclusion. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Good man, I do not attempt to create reliability by linking to Hamilton's personal opinions. I attempt to create editor understanding. In the situation you mention, she has presented a more extensive breadth of the history of that (purported) quote than we have here, but I am not suggesting Wikipedia use her words as a secondary source. Terryeo 19:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Debbie Collins has a higher rating and she says "Scientology can give you: 1.A higher IQ to handle your problems 2.Higher awareness to get a better job 3.More energy to make more money 4.Better health to breast life 5.Better morale to handle upsets 6.Less despair 7.More life 8.More years to live". AndroidCat 02:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

AndroidCat, you forgot to mention that she is "licensed". :-)--Fahrenheit451 05:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Cat, I think you might have some bad info. This is what I found at the allexperts for Debbie "This expert has elected not to be rated". Further I see that Laurie has contributed a very large number of answers and is highly rated while Debbie has contributed, well, nothing. I really don't know why she would enter this discussion other than to point out that a certain Scientologist is a bad writer?

The experts.com is essentially a collection of personal websites. Hamilton has appointed herself as "scientology expert". It is very POV and she trashes those who disagree with her in various covert and overt ways. Experts.com is essentially like a kiosk where different people and stick notices. It is unreliable. --Fahrenheit451 00:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Fahrenheit451, After reading a number of Laurie's answers, I do not see any support for your trashing her. Would you please provide some quotes from her so that I may see what you refer to? Thank you. --Justanother 12:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I am going to make a comment here. I was asked for substantiation about an opinion and provided a link to a Scientologist's statements in the area. User:Fahrenheit451 completely, utterly ignores the issue which prompted my response. That is, We are talking about apples and I'm asked, "can you substantiate that piece of information about apples". So, hey, why not. I present a link about apples. In complete, utter ignorance of the discussion about apples, several editors tie up the discussion with sniping comments about the source of information I provide about apples. It ends the discussion about apples. It brings up all kinds of nonesense which isn't about apples. "she is very POV" is not about apples. "She trashes those who disagree" is not about apples. Then too, the use of language, "trashes", "POV", those are emotionally enhotting terms which do not contribute to the subject of apples. But User:Fahrenheit451 is not the only editor who refuses to understand the issue is about apples, other editors too, User:AndroidCat ignores the apple issue and offers up his opinion about why my response is inappropriate. All of that being done in invective language, presenting the source of information as being unbelievable, unreliable, biased, useless and implied "trashy". While ignoring the subject. User:Antaeus Feldspar doesn't get it either, he challenges me to prove to him that the source I have pointed to fulfills his idea of quality. What's the point guys? You ask for something, I provide it. You do nothing but attack the quality of the source of information while ignoring all of the information applicable to the question I responded to. Terryeo 06:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, Terryeo was just trying to establish that Scn should not be labeled a belief system because that is not how it is presents itself to Scientologists nor is that what Scientologists see it as. He was pointing at Laurie to support his stance in this forum, not for inclusion in the main article. But based on what I have seen of of Laurie's posts there she certainly is knowledgable enough about Scn and able to get the POV of the neutral observer also, especially on those issues where she is being asked to explain Scn and not defend it. While she might not be appropriate to define what Scn is in some idealized NPOV statement such as the introduction, she is certainly relevant to what they study (a better term than "believe"?) and what they practice and could certainly serve as a source in the main article for those areas.--Justanother 12:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Presently, Scientology#Notes numbered [55], [61] and [70] point to non-english webpages, [8], [9] and [10], respectively. In some articles it might be a real contribution to cite non-english sources but surely Scientology has been widely published about and is itself widely published in English. Wouldn't our readers be better served if they did not have to sort through information they can not read ? Terryeo 01:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I would say the English language Wikipedia should only use English language sources. VxP 05:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS#Sources_in_languages_other_than_English AndroidCat

05:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Please tell me what you think. I will tell you what I think now. The first presents TR-0 from a POV that UNDERSTANDS both the purpose of the drill from the Scientologist's perspective and the criticism that it instead has some nefarious purpose. It presents both. The second example shows no understanding of the former and only contributes to an understanding of the criticism. It does not contribute to any real understanding of Scientology. I think wikipedia is better served by presenting both understandings.--Justanother 20:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

It's hard for me to know what I think, partly because of that "then under the criticism section." Are you saying that the criticism is segregated elsewhere in the article from the description of the process? In this case only, or all cases? Your "sympathetic" description seems fair, but the line about the "Flunk" rebuke also seems perfectly germaine to a description of the process, so I can't see why that couldn't also make it in to an NPOV description. The real issue is about the extent to which critical views need to be incorporated in the descriptions of the practices. I'm afraid that'll have to be hammered out case-by-case, article by article, at least for now. Maybe some general principals will emerge. Offhand, it seems to me that some beliefs, like the ARC triangle, can be described without critical comment, while others, like the Suppressive Person doctrine, are so embroiled in controversy that the controverial views have to be immediately acknowledged. And as someone else pointed out, the appropriate format may be different for dedicated articles as opposed to introductory overvues. BTfromLA 21:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

You are both discussing how to arrange the herd of horses which you both envision being behind the fence. If you will both agree to abide by the policies and guidelines then all else will simply fall into place. Quotations and citations can be presented. In between areas can be created by simple text which is not original research. Newgroups shouldn't be used and personal website should not be used. Presenting TR0, as an example, quote the purpose and the reference and don't say a word about hypnotism until a reference which says TR0 is hypnotic is found. Then quote it and cite it. Yo Oh, heave ho. Where's the problem ? Terryeo 21:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem is writing-related, not about sources. It has to do with 1. the implied point of view in the author's choice of words and choice of details and 2. the organizational structure of the articles--the order in which the info is presented and the way those choices impact the reader's understanding of the topic. Policies and guidelines don't write articles. BTfromLA 21:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Terryeo. Please show us how you would write the bit on TR-0. That is the point of this exercise. Assume all information presented can be referenced. Assume the critics will have their say (you can just put "blah blah" for their stuff).Justanother 21:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

TR 0 CONFRONTING (revised 1971)

Position: Student and coach sit facing each other a comfortable distance apart -- about three feet.

Purpose: To train a student to confront a person. The whole idea is to get the student able to be there comfortably in a position three feet in front of a person, to BE there and not do anything else but BE there^[1]. This drill is one of a series of drills which practice each of the elements of a student communicating with a person. Various criticsms have been made of this drill because the position of the student and preclear are fairly close to each other, i.e. three feet apart which will mean their legs will touch. Depending on the degree of proficiency required by the student, the the drill procedure might require him to do nothing else for some period of time, i.e. hours. As it is unusual in any social situation to simply sit three feet in front of another person and do nothing but confront the other person and be there, several criticisms have been made of this drill. Terryeo 22:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the horses are "over there". We are not horses. We are attempting to understand horses without becoming one. To the degree that is possible we will have a good article.--Justanother 21:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The "sympathetic-unsympathetic" dichotomy is nonsense and has nothing to do with Wikipedia policy. Any such discussion belongs on the talk pages of the relevant wikipedia policy page. NPOV has worked quite well and prevails as wikipedia policy. --Fahrenheit451 22:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

To the contrary, all points of view contribute to Wikipedia. Any attempt to curtail or otherwise control discussion page chat, reduces the potential for editor creation by just a tiny bit. Better to bring these issues up, better to discuss them, come to understanding and concensus of editor opinion on such situations than to constrain them to some small undefined zones. Many issues are discussed which "have nothing to do with policy", it leads toward a concensus and agreement. Terryeo 22:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

451, Hey. I think you need to read the

WP:NPOV

policy. "Sympathetic treatment" is mentioned at least twice there:

"Let's present all significant, competing views sympathetically."

"There are numerous other success stories of articles that began life as virtual partisan screeds but were nicely cleaned up by people who concerned themselves with representing all views clearly and sympathetically."

We will continue discussing the best way to create this article here, if you don't mind. I would be interested to see how you would write the above bit.--Justanother 22:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Justanother, Hey. I think you need to read my statement again,"The "sympathetic-unsympathetic" dichotomy is nonsense and has nothing to do with Wikipedia policy." I was not condemning "sympathetic". Please understand comments before you reply, if you don't mind. Regards--Fahrenheit451 02:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Then perhaps you can explain. Are you saying there is no such thing as "sympathetic-unsympathetic". I doubt you will get much agreement there. And are you saying it has nothing to do with wiki policy when it is clearly stressed in the policy on NPOV, especially as regards "Fairness of Tone" and I have given many, many examples and references throughout my comments on this page. I don't think your position is defensible; it is just an unsupported statement on your part.--Justanother 03:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Justanother, just read my comment as it is. It appears to me that you are going off on a tangent and arguing non-existent issues. And your position of doing that is definitely not defensible, and it is an unsupported statement. --Fahrenheit451 16:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Jeez, am I a slow n00b. Give me another one, I think I'm starting to get it.--Justanother 04:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I would say that your frivolous arguing is not "getting it" at all.--Fahrenheit451 16:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Gentle reminders of

WP:PAIN Terryeo

17:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Fahrenheit451, I do not appreciate the insulting and confrontational tone that you are taking with me and I would appreciate if you would address me in a more respectful fashion. Thank you--Justanother 17:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Justanother, I would appreciate your being civil in your discussions here and you seem to be assuming bad faith. Please be advised that "Respect" is NOT wikipedia policy, but rather civility and assuming good faith are. --Fahrenheit451 17:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Fahrenheit451, thank you, you make my point exactly. Calling my disussions here "frivilous" and claiming that I am not "getting it" is certainly neither civil nor assuming good faith on my part, especially when my comments speak to the very structure and tone of the article. My calling you on your incivility to me is not being incivil on my part. Thank you --Justanother 17:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Justanother, you are verifying my point exactly. I am not calling you frivolous, but this particular discussion of yours for reasons I pointed out above. Same thing with your term "getting it". I point out that you are being uncivil and are not assuming good faith. Please correct yourself.--Fahrenheit451 17:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

451, hey. This is fun but I fear we are boring other users. If you care to contnue this please do so on my talk page. Thank you --Justanother 17:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Justanother. You think this is fun. I disagree. I want it to be productive and end right here. Your talk page is currently inaccessible, even though I have no interest in carrying on what you consider to be "fun".--Fahrenheit451 17:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

OK then, let's end it here then. We do other users a disservice with our sparring over what constitutes incivility. If we disagree then so be it. I will not argue that point further with you but I will continue to take an interest in instances of incivility directed at me. --Justanother 17:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, thank you. First, do you see that my statement pretty well covers the position and purpose as per the HCOB? I think that you will need to get over any idea that paraphrasing is "alter-is" or "verbal tech". This is not the Academy. I don't think any PR person in Scn would think that yours is better than mine and mine is defensible as NPOV. I would like you to offer up readable prose that accurately reflects the truth as you know it and back it up. And Terryeo, umm how do I say this, the criticism is not that their knees will touch, it is that they are being BRAINWASHED by a form of sensory deprivation. Better you just write "critical blah blah" and leave it at that. I know that particular criticism is hogwash but I can duplicate it (i.e. wrap my brain around it).--Justanother 22:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

You asked for it, I stated it. Since I won't be putting any portion of it in the article, it is obviously everyone's to substitute "blah, blah" at any point they wish to. I've cited that portion which is quoted. Editing the page exposes the citation which can likewise be used. Or not. Terryeo 04:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Historical note: March, 1952. Hubbard introduced the term Scientology and lectured its definition and scope. He developed it until his death. He wasn't even close to today's technology until some years after 1952. I don't know exactly the development sequence but the Saint Hill Special Briefing Course spells out the whole tree and he didn't begin that until 7 May 1961. Terryeo 14:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the word was introduced by a German philosopher in the 1930's. Hubbard knew it had already been in use, but he decided to use it anyway. In truth, a number of people besides Hubbard developed the subject, except Hubbard subsumed it under his works. You may or may not know about John Galusha, John McMaster, and David Mayo, and actually many lesser known folks who contributed to the development of the subject. Hubbard went off organizational involvement in mid-1976 and off active research involvement in 1982. --Fahrenheit451 15:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

That's an interesting line of thought and probably deserves at least its own subtitle on this page. Terryeo 18:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'm rather surprised at the lack of mention of David Mayo in here at all. Given the rather crucial role he (and the Church's reaction to him) played in changing the nature of Scientology, it probably deserves a mention. Before him, I think things were much more open. After, it was all copyrights and protectionism. Of course, I was like...5 at the time, so my memory could be faulty, and I don't trust it enough to edit without more research. I remember what my parents and their friends said, though. Chaleur 23:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

In the lead it says "some scholars accept Scientology as a bona fide religion" with two refs. The first paper explicitly makes no judgment about whether it is a good or bad, true or false religion, the other says "Although some social scientists insist that Scientology is a religion, the more appropriate position to take is that the organization is a multi-faceted transnational corporation that has religion as only one of its many components", and names one such in the few pages I read. I would be inclined to change this to "some scholars accept Scientology as technically a religion" or "some social scientists accept Scientology as a religion".