Talk:Scientology/Archive 4

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

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Neurofeedback mania

I'm reluctant to jump in and cut all this stuff unilaterally, but it apears that some editor's personal obsession with "neurofeedback" has led to a lot of dubious additions to the article, including a rather whacked-out "mindmap" with a pic of Hubbard in the middle. While no doubt there is some connection between E-meters and subsequent popularizers of neurofeedback, "neurolinguistic programming." etc., I don't think this pertains directly to a description of Scientology, and some, like the "mindmap" is utterly non-encyclopedic. I think pretty much all of that stuff should be removed. Thoughts? --BTfromLA 05:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you on the neurofeedback and the mind map additions. A mind map is an obscure way of taking notes; perhaps it is the editor's own creation. I am familiar with Neuro-linguistic_programming. NLP, which does not use any machines, is not founded on Scientology related beliefs and Scientology had nothing to do with its development. I notice that someone has similarly polluted the Neuro-linguistic_programming article with similar comments.--Agiantman 11:11, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I cut the neurofeedback stuff out. Some of those details belong in an article on neurofeedback, but not in a concise intro to Scientology auditing. The "mindmap" doesn't belong anywhere in wikipedia, far as I can imagine. BTfromLA 23:59, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Hello BT. I think I understand what you mean. What is the definition of encyclopedic according to wikipedia though? Actually, just a bit of background, I added the map because it seemed very relevant to the section and added interesting and concise information. The map was produced(by me) at a scientology meeting, and summarises some of the strong connections between mind mapping(R) and scientology. The mind map was inspired (according to Tony Buzan) by the general semantic laden writings of science fiction writers such as Van Vogt and LRHubbard. It is similarly based on general semantics and reality distortion (the map is not the territory etc). Of course, the mind map and Buzan have developed their own vision and cult following. But it is clearly relevant and concise. Certainly that is encyclopedic! What is your opinion? W Conyers 10:22, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

W, the "mindmap" is basically unintelligible in this context. It doesn't offer any "relevant and concise" information at all--it comes across like someone's loopy doodle on the back of a paper placemat. It may help you to recollect some connections that occurred in your own mind as you made it, but it doesn't communicate information about Scientology to a reader who is not you. BTfromLA 16:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Age of the Universe

(NOTE: the post below was a response to another post that mysteriously disappeared--the anon poster raised questions about a claim about the age of the universe in the article, and he or she mentioned that he or she didn't know how to sign a post...)

I don't think you managed to edit the text, but I think it was a good editorial call, so I cut the line from the article. Not only was it factually dubious, it was superfluous to the description of the Scientology beliefs. You can sign your posts by simply typing the tilde symbol (~) four times in a row--the software will do the rest. BTfromLA 23:29, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

That would be me. Right after I made the decision to edit, I lost all ability to do so. For whatever reason, after I made the edit to this talk page, Wikipedia stopped accepting any edits from me, citing some kind of error I (being the new guy I am) didn't recognize. I tried multiple times, but it kept giving me the same error. Thanks for the advice, and removing the line for me. 68.35.71.22 05:27, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Authenticity of Information

IMHO: Opinions should not litter an article. Mostly facts should be presented, and authenticity of information should be traceable to credible sources. If some wish to influence readers towards a positive or negative opinion of Scientology then they should create a propaganda article elsewhere, not here. AI 10:42 18 Apr 2004 (HST)

The statements in the Scientology article about "critics" are not fact until the critics are named and claims proven.
--J.Tell 08:22, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm always in favor of naming critics. However it is not necessary, or even wise, to try to prove or disprove their claims. In fact, we shouldn't try to prove or disprove anything on Wikipedia. We're here just to summarize verifiable information in a NPOV manner. If a notable critic says something, we should include that criticism along with any official rebuttals, without indicating a preference for one or the other side. Cheers, -Willmcw 08:36, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with you about proving/disproving claims; Authentication and validation go hand in hand. Information not validated or authenticated should not be presented, this is not a tabloid or propaganda sheet.
--J.Tell 23:25, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Then you disagree with Wikipedia's fundamental goals; see Wikipedia:Original research. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:53, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We can't "prove" anything here. All we do is summarize verifiable information in an NPOV manner. If we can verify that a critic (or a supporter) said XYZ, and that comment seems relevant and notable, then it should be included, "true" or not. -Willmcw 04:26, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Scientology, other than that it's very controversial, but I have a general suggestion to make about choosing sources for controversial topics. The official policy in Wikipedia:Verifiability urges us to cite our sources, and says, "For an encyclopedia, sources should be unimpeachable." This means, I think, that we are not required to include claims by sources that are less than unimpeachable. Instead, we should try to present a variety of points of view from among the unimpeachable sources. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources gives good advice on choosing reliable sources, but for controversial articles, I think we should apply the highest possible standard of reliability: we should rely as much as possible on academic sources, rather than journalism. Academics who teach at major universities and research institutions are specialised in their subject and have been trained to study it. They are expected to be familiar with primary sources, and to cite those sources. Their work is often formally peer-reviewed, and informal peer review occurs when specialists critique each other's work in books and articles. Moreover, in reputable academic institutions, scholars enjoy a great deal of freedom to draw the best conclusions they can. Journalists, on the other hand, often write about a wide variety of subjects about which they lack in-depth knowledge. They rarely have the time to do adequate research on difficult subjects, peer review rarely takes place, and in any case journalists are not free to draw their own conclusions; they must follow the editorial line of their paper. I'm sure most people who know any subject well can think of examples of inaccurate reporting on that subject, even in major newspapers, particularly if the subject is controversial. Therefore, in the interest of making Wikipedia a reliable as well as NPOV source of information, I think that on controversial topics, we should stick to reputable academic sources as much as possible. --Beroul 11:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

The above claims are dubious--scholars frequently cite journalistic accounts of their subjects--but it is difficult to address them, because they are so general. Is there a specific criticism of this article in there somewhere? BTfromLA 19:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

BT, I'm sorry but I think yours is a weak argument which in my opinion is only made to support a perpetuation of anti-CoS POV. This discussion should involve the members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Scientology, specifically User:Fernando Rizo who has demonstrated a very neutral and civil approach. --AI 22:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

What argument? The argument that one should be specific? While we're at it, please don't start accusing users of pushing a pov unless you can point to specific evidence for that. BTfromLA 22:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Would you really like me to start a documentation process? --AI 23:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I certainly don't want to encourage you to start feuding with me or anyone else. If you can point to specific examples of inappropriate POV in the article, though, and can offer an NPOV alternative, please do so. But first, please respond to my earlier question: what "weak argument" was I making above? BTfromLA 02:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

It is NOT accurate to introduce this topic as "a therapy" because it was never presented as a therapy and is not and was not intended to be a therapy. Mr. Hubbard made this distinction clearly when he first presented it in 1952. The recorded audio lecture is titled, "Scientology: Milsestone One" and is available through BridgePub.org

"The Australian Report"

Scientology has also recieved criticisms concerning the manner in which auditing is conducted. The The Australian Report stated that auditing involved a kind of command hypnosis that could lead to potentially damaging delusional dissociative states. These are similar to the unethical covert command hypnosis, or hypnotic commands of neurolinguistic programming (NLP), which holds many New Age similarities with Scientology, such as belief in past life regression and super-human potential.

The preceding paragraph was removed because it fails to give enough information to let its claims be substantiated (what is The Australian Report??) and makes dubious POV assertions ("the unethical covert command hypnosis ... of NLP"). Someone else may have an idea where to go looking for what said Report is and what it actually has to say on the subject of auditing; I hope that if so they'll share their findings here. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Good cut... that may be some residue of the neurofeedback mania (see above) that I missed. BTfromLA 03:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Many apologies. Here is one source: http://www.suburbia.com.au/~fun/scn/press/651006au.htm?FACTNet It is a general criticism of this kind of hypnotic technique. Hubbard actually denied hypnosis, and he actually writes in a way to abolish it, but studies show that you cannot get away from hypnotic dissociation within auditing. The NLP connection comes about because it was inspired by the general semantics techniques that is used in dianetics and scientology, and NLP is to some extent adopted by auditors. The beliefs are very similar. It is also a common criticism of NLP.

I also hold good factual info for the claims of scientology and neurofeedback. We can discuss if you like. Dianetics and scientology use eeg meters in addition to e-meters. They use neurofeedback in this way for both research and practice. The claim is that it is convincing. I also have info to say that it is largely ineffective. I really would like to present it in a balanced way appropriate to wikipedia. Especially regarding which sections these facts would be most appropriate for integrating. Any pointers? DoctorDog 05:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Scientology uses one and only one meter, an e-meter. There are several versions which have been created but probably very little is done with early versions as the newer ones are hugely more responsive. There is no neurofeedback except in the very broad sense that an auditor observes changes in a Preclear's (auditee's) bodily resistance to electricity. A battery much like a flashlight battery is used for that. The manner in which the auditor speaks is very important. I don't believe you will ever find any documentation that says anything but that the auditor be in good communication with the PC, this means no hypnotism, no flat tone of voice. A great deal of practice and drilling are done to insure the audior can communicate naturally and easily with the PC under any conditions that might come up in a session. Terryeo 00:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi DocDog. You are very polite! But actually, what I was really getting at (none too clearly) was the criticism towards using the Korzybski connection in NLP and Dianetics. They are both criticized for using general semantics and hypnosis unethically, and NLP followed dianetics/scientology's lead in its use. They have both been criticized for using both unethical and potentially dangerous techniques. The criticisms are in the criticism section. I think it is fine to use the same strong language as the report.

The neurofeedback information seems plausible. Which sources did you have in mind? A.Warner 07:24, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Your anti choice argument is problematic as you are starting to suspect. Now, when you see the error of your ways, you will understand! And as you focus on that feeling you will start to realise how you have become weaker with your intention. And as you focus on that feeling, you will see how you need to stop! And consider how wrong you are. Because you must start to realise that your sources are wrong. Now, you must become more aware that scientology is benevolent. The best parts of your mind will start to realise how Scientology may indeed become more appealing when you start to consider. Yes, really consider, how much better you will feel when you let go and focus on that feeling. Now, just accept that you are free to choose Scientology. You may choose Scientology whenever you feel free. The world may choose it whenever they wish. All the best SpiritStar 16:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

SpiritStar! I am curious. Which planet are you posting from? Would it happen to be the planet NuLP, by any chance? Slightly concerned A.Warner 14:43, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I once heard a recording of an auditing session. It had many similarities with hypnosis. The auditor is trained not to modulate his voice during the session, and to deliver his commands to the auditee in a slow flat monotone, just as the hypnotist is trained to do. Hey Al! Is that the Allen I know?

Scott P. 15:24, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Scott. I'm actually an Albert Al. But your account of of an auditing sessions strikes a certain chord. There are some subtleties in the modularity though. It sounds monotone, but they are doing some thing special with the command words. Would you be able to give me some idea of your source? I am not interested in deleting what you have written because it does correspond strongly with my own studies. Regards A.Warner 16:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

"World renowned Scientologist Eden Shiferaw is reported to be the one and only Scientologist to attain the mythical OT IX, and, at the age of 18, is also the youngest" - a Google for Eden Shiferaw doesn't seem to return any relevant hits - is this a real person? If so, I think if they were "world-renowned" there would be more about them online. And where is it "reported"?

Cluseau records an auditing session

Hi A. Warner,
Since the Australian Report section was getting a bit overly long, I thought I's start a new section header in response to your question above. It has been about five or six years since I recall seeing this info. I believe I found it on xenu.net, and this is what I recall from it:

Some investigative journalists in England attempted to do a story on exactly what goes on in an auditing session.
First they sent in this reporter who was wired with a camera in the frames of his thick glasses, you know the Inspector Cluseau look, very popular they say, into an auditing session, he also had a micro tape recorder with him. As I recall I think he spared the auditors from having to deal with one of those fake moustaches. Thank God :-) . Somehow the auditors detected this, and called the police on the poor guy. What a shame ;-) .
Still the journalists didn't give up. Next they sent another guy in with no wires or recording devices, but with a good memory. It worked, but obviously he wasn't able to get a recording. In lieu of a genuine recording, the journalists then re-enacted the session from memory for the benefit of their TV audience, attempting to recreate the lighting, the uniforms, the tone of voice etc. etc. etc., as best they could. I would assume that this re-enactment was probably sufficiently close enough to the real thing that it at least gives us a fairly accurate general idea of what goes on in there.

If you were interested, I could probably re-locate this for you. Let me know.

Scott P. 02:23, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Funny pictures

I believe the page has been vandalized. There are falsely captioned pictures from the film Star Wars . It's pretty funny, but those pictures don't have copyright information, which could cause trouble.

Reverting the overly bloated Scientology and other Religions section...

On August 12, 2005 at 20:02 (UTC) User:Irmgard did a complete rewrite of the Scientology and other religions section, nearly doubling its length, repeated some information twice, deleted some of the key summary statements that attempted to summarize Hubbard's exact views towards Christianity, added other new sections making Scientology out as a new form of Gnosticism and as a religion that is "only for individuals seeking higher awareness."

Somehow in this edit he seemed to 'accidentally' bury the fact that Hubbard taught that Christianity, Jesus and Islam were essentially all forces of evil (entheta). This article is already long enough without having to read through additional pages only to find out that Hubbard was really a Gnostic in disguise, and that Scientology is a religion "only for individuals seeking higher awareness."

Let's stick to facts that are pertinent and germane to the article, without trying to bury these pertinent facts in various irrelevant speculations.

-Scott P. 01:03, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Numerous recent POV edits to this article

I have just noticed that since the last edit by Antaeus Feldspar on Aug. 11, numerous POV edits have been made to this article with strangely worded editorial explanations that did not actually mention what the actual contents of the edits were. Entire sections, such as the Xenu section were deleted. Other sections were carved up or mixed up to the point where they were either no longer relevent to the article, or were supposedly being 'moved' to the Beliefs article. All of this while using very odd editorial comments. I have recently restored the Auditing section, the Xenu section and the Scientology and other religions section. Help from others to fix all of this would be much appreciated.

By comparing Feldspar's last edit of Aug. 11 to the current version, one might more easily be able see what has been happening.

-Scott P. 02:04, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

I've been somewhat busy this week, but rest assured that I am watching this page and I do try to pitch in to keep it NPOV as much as I can. Fernando Rizo T/C 02:08, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

In addition to what I've already restored and fixed, the new additions to the Critics of Scientology section need to be wikified and NPOV-checked. Fernando Rizo T/C 03:05, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Scientology mindmap

I don't think [[Image:Scientology Mindmap.JPG]] adds anything of value to this article. It's more confusing than anything else, and I think that the labelling of Hubbard as a pseudoscientist is NPOV. I'm going to remove it; if anyone objects, let's discuss it here. Fernando Rizo T/C 02:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, he does pretty much fit the definition, he certainly wasn't a scientist by any definition generally accepted outside of Scientology. If Scientology is any kind of science, where are the independent, peer-reviewed journal articles where it's concepts and techniques are published? Where are the independently verified accounts of their techniques and methods? Where is the documentation of the methods Mr. Hubbard used to develop this belief system? He certainly didn't use the scientific method by any stretch of the imagination, and thus his claims are pretty clear pseudoscience. --Wingsandsword 21:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

The documentation of Mr. Hubbard's research are to be found in books which the Church of Scientology will happily sell you. Those are titled 'Research and Discovery Volumes.' There's lots of them, they are thick and blue. My own thinking is that when you label one man's research as pseudoscience you give it credence, whereas before such a label it is simply his individual research. Terryeo 01:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Scientology Page Clean Up

Someone above mentioned that this page was popular so it shouldn't be changed. I beg to differ. This page became popular because of media and interest generated in the subject, by Tom Cruise. This page doesn't attempt to be factual, it attempts to forward every possible viewpoint (mainly on the negative side if I may say so). It seems those working on it have lost sight of the word "balance." There is so much concern to make sure there is no positive POV. Excuse me but at the risk of being accused of whining (as I am frequently accused of if I speak up)this page is not being edited for the user. Personally, I think its time for a revamp.

Firstly, I am suggesting to combine the "Controversy and Criticism" and the "Scientology Critics" sections.

Also as a note, I am reposting my comment regarding the external links. No one commented and I went ahead.

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

Please give me your feedback - only interested in hearing from editors who want to improve the page for Wikipedia's users, not for Scientology bashing purposes. Nuview 17:50, 23 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Deletion of significant sections by anonymous editors with no reason or discussion provided is inappropriate

Recently user 168.209.98.35 deleted several sections without any editorial explanation or discussion. I have reverted these.

-Scott P. 22:31:39, 2005-08-27 (UTC)

This Just In (joke)

Scientologists have added flux capacitors to their DeLoreans so they can go back in time and shanghai the founders of psychology. Then they aim to use the founders' engrams to go Back to the Future. (/bad joke) 64.12.117.14 22:37, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the bigotry.

Edits by Marbahlarbs

I clarified the difference between Dianetics and Scientology, added some links, and changed the allusion to mystic religions to something a little less spooky.Marbahlarbs 07:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Cleaned up links.Marbahlarbs 07:31, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I wish I had a DeLorean.Marbahlarbs 07:33, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Moved the list of controversial points about Scientology from the critics section to the one above. It's more visible there, and more on topic. I want to make sure that my edits are creating NPOV and improving the article. Most edits so far have been pro-Scientology, because the article is laden with anti-Scientology comments. My goal is to have the Scientology articles as clean as the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints article. Lots of clean facts, and there's a section linking to controversies. Scientology is more controversial than LDS, so I think it should have a full section or two rather than just a link to the controversies and criticism page. Would like to get rid of every section containing a "critics say that" paragraph. Trey Parker and Matt Stone say that LDS is a big load of crap and people who believe it are idiots, but things like that do not belong on the main page in nearly every paragraph.

Anyway, happy editing!cool 08:00, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Moved the "most often cited criticism" paragraph to the criticism section. Revamped to indicate that Reader's Digest did not get the quote directly from Hubbard. This quote is also attributed to George Orwell. Marbahlarbs 21:46, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I changed some of the wording in the Scientology Critics section. The paragraph about the Australian ruling CHURCH OF THE NEW FAITH v. COMMISSIONER OF PAY-ROLL TAX was difficult to read and needed some NPOV. By the way, RTFA.[1] VERY interesting, and provides a lot of insight on the legal nature of religion. Marbahlarbs 22:51, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I reworked the paragraph about The Bridge in Beliefs and Practices. It subtlely made the whole process sound like brainwashing (not disputing that). Also expanded on why the Church claims that it makes everything so secret. Marbahlarbs 05:18, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Add a bit to Origins?

Could more be added to the Origin of Scientology about Saint Hill Manor in East Grinstead, England where the scientology [website] says Hubbard resided there and many scientology events happened. (BillPP) 3 Sept 2005

Question about 'pre-clear', 'clear' and 'auditee'

It is my understanding that the Scientology term 'clear' refers to a certain stage of progress along the 'bridge', that once attained, is assumed to be a fairly constant state of awareness. If this is so, then I believe that the use of the term 'pre-clear' to refer to all auditees may not be accurate, because should a 'clear' Scientologist be audited, then that person would not be referred to as a pre-clear. Based on this understanding, I have revised the section about auditing to use the term, 'auditee' wherever the person being audited is being referred to. Should anyone have a better understanding of this terminology and when it is appropriate to use the terms, 'pre-clear' and 'clear', then I would certainly be open to being corrected here.

Thanks,

Scott P. 18:15:45, 2005-09-05 (UTC)

You are quite correct, every scientologist is supposed to do auditing. Those of the OT levels just do it themselves with both e-meter cans in one hand. --metta, The Sunborn 18:40, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

The phrase 'pre-clear' is suitable for anyone undergoing auditing, even if the person has already reached the state of Clear (level on the Bridge). The term dates back to Dianetics when Clear was the ultimate goal. After the OT levels beyond Clear were established, the phrase 'pre-clear' (often abbreviated as PC) was kept in common usage. Using 'pre-clear' is much better than 'auditee', but there may need to be a sentence or two explaning that it means ANYONE who is being audited no matter their actual case level.

by Ayespy: I will edit the page to accurately reflect Scientology usage of terms. The word "auditee" seems to have arisen and been adopted exclusively in anti- publications, and is not used or understood by Scientologists. Therefore, the addition of an explanatory line or two should solve the apparent ambiguity of "preclear."

(later) on second look I also edited the line stating that claims of using auditing session information against the preclear would not be legally actionable. In plain fact, such would be actionable as extortion, blackmail, harassment, etc. I find no instance of a court upholding such a claim (based upon use of auditing data) but if there has been one, this can be so stated.

Appparent sock-puppet by user Mediatetheconflict

Judging by recent entry logs, it appears that the most recent page vandalism was most probably primarily the result of work by newly created sock-puppet user Mediatetheconflict operating under his own name, and also possibly under the apparent sock-puppet name of user Importancenn and possibly also as anonymous 70.24.216.133. Whatever Mediatetheconflict's true identity may be, this user appears to have most probably been involved with Wiki for some time, and to have a reasonably good understanding of various Wiki policies.

-Scott P. 17:36:30, 2005-09-10 (UTC)

Cult?

Why can't it be considered a cult? Shouldn't Wikipedia strive for the truth and not bend down towards any person who claims to be struck with inspiration from a divine source? I think that a NPOV perspective would must likely be an average of the consensus of society, not the average of the furthest left and furthest right into something that not one person may agree on.

As I understand it, wikipdia strives to be a source of accurate information, not an arbiter of "the truth." BTfromLA 23:35, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

"If information is accurate, then doesn't that make it the truth? ... Unfortunately in the US especially, people are so concerned with freedom that it allows cults to have the status of official religions

Like it or not, Scientology does have the status of a religion (or more exactly, a charity) in the US, and it isn't appropriate for Wikipedia to assert that they shouldn't have that status. No, accurate information is not the same as a "truthful" interpretation of that information. The label "cult" is an interpretive one, a point of view, and while many (myself included) hold that Scientology, particularly the Sea Org, can fairly be described as a cult, it isn't appropriate to insist on that label. There is plenty of description of the cult-like aspects of Scientology in the articles here, and many mentions of the fact that they are often called a cult. BTfromLA 01:58, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

--[!]--Remember scientology is considered a religion IN THE US, but NOT in other parts of the world... this should be mentioned somewhere. Like Yes: USA, etc... No: Italy, etc..

The word cult is used in a number of different ways. It's worth noting that nobody uses it to mean "a religion not recognized by the government", so it isn't reasonable to bring that up as a response to uses of the word "cult". Governments are many things, but they are never arbiters of what is real or what descriptions are valid to use for groups or people.

However, in most cases the word "cult" is used not as a neutral description of a group, but rather to either (a) insult the group that's called a "cult", or (b) to state that the group is dangerous or deviant. Neither of these are within Wikipedia's mandate, and both raise NPOV issues. --FOo 04:09, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

There are however other pages that label certain beliefs as cults, see Heaven's Gate (cult) or list of purported cults. Also, according to wikipedia, "a cult is a relatively small and cohesive group of people (often a new religious movement) devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding culture or society considers to be far outside the mainstream. Its marginal status may come about either due to its novel belief system or because of its idiosyncratic practices." Since scientology can safely considered to operate outside of mainstream religious views, entails a novel belief system and idiosyncratic practices, and is listed as a likely candidate on the purported cult list, it seems that labeling it a cult is a matter of consistency. New religious movement is a possible label as well, lacking any of the demeaning characteristics of the popular meaning of cult. Either term, imho, would be more accurate and concise than Scientology is a system of beliefs, teachings and rituals. Anetode 06:53, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

A few points:

1. Definitions are dangerous things. We are not writing a dictionary here; the fact that one of the meanings of the word "cult" is "new religious movement" does not by itself justify using the word to describe any new religious movement -- particularly irrespective of the other issues discussed at Cult.

2. You will notice that we have separate articles Scientology and Church of Scientology. The former deals with the beliefs, while the latter deals with the specific organization. If you take a "cult" to be a "cohesive group", then it would make more sense to apply that name to the latter. (There do exist practitioners of Scientology and Dianetics outside of the CoS.)

3. It isn't quite clear exactly in what way you'd like to use the word "cult" to describe Scientology. Can you give an example of a passage from the article which would be made more clear or descriptive, yet not run afoul of NPOV, by using this word? --FOo 15:04, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Re 1: This has already been done: Heaven's Gate (cult), Concerned Christians, Peoples Temple. I can see how the term might be negatively regarded as a matter of political correctness, but as long as it is well defined and used consistently, neutrality can be maintained.

Re 2: Good point.

Re 3: Here are two examples that concern the opening sentences of Scientology & CofS. I'm going to shy away from using the "c" word, but other descriptors might be equally useful:

Scientology is a mystery religion based on the teachings of science fiction author L. Ron Hubbard. Originally devised in 1952 as a pseudoscientific alternative to psychotherapy, it was later characterized by Hubbard as an "applied religious philosophy".

The Church of Scientology is a new religious movement founded by science fiction author L. Ron Hubbard as an organization dedicated to the practice of Scientology.Anetode 19:53, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I think the reason for introducing Scientology as a system of beliefs and rituals rather than a religious movement is that interested parties want to draw a clear distinction between Scientology—"the tech"—and the Church of Scientology (or any other organization or movement that utilizes that "tech"). BTfromLA 20:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

The distinction may be artificial, all forms of Scientology depend on a systematic proliferation of its "tech" as in the CofS. Either way, there is a term for a "system of beliefs and rituals" that concern supernatural explanations of life and morality, and it is religion. There is also a term for any organized body that imbues people with proprietary religious philosophies in exchange for money and devotion, and in this case, its NRM or cult. Anetode 20:55, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

References

Is it possible to use references that are NOT related to Scientology? Since most of the references point to Scientology "friendly" sites this article has at best a non-critical appearance. --Nomen Nescio 01:07, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

It isn't Wikipedia's job to favor the views of Scientology or the views of its critics, but rather to attempt to represent the facts as best as we can show them. The purpose of references is not to provide a "link farm" or to claim that the referenced works are true, neutral, or praiseworthy. It is, rather, to show what sources we have used in compiling the article. --FOo 04:12, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

As I understand it Wikipedia is meant to be neutral (NPOV). Although I agree that a multitude of links is not good, that is not my point. To use ONLY Scientology inspired references (few or many) does not suggest an unbiassed view. Therefore I would ask to refrain from using this much POV sites as reference. Or at least use an even amount of Scientology and non-Scientology related references.

The lack of balance makes this a potentially POV article. --Nomen Nescio 14:52, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

A bit of correction: Wikipedia abides by the principle of NPOV, which isn't the same thing as "neutrality". Many people misunderstand this, however, and think that NPOV means that all POVs must be given equal amounts of discussion, equal numbers of links, et cetera. People may honestly in good faith thinking that they're bringing balance when they see X number of critical sites listed and start adding Official Church of Scientology links to bring their total up to X... but that isn't the way NPOV works, that's false balance. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

When the majority of statements is based upon one side I don't see how that is not POV. --Nomen Nescio 14:16, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, the distinction between "fair treatment for all" (NPOV) and "equal treatment for all" (false balance) can be subtle; nevertheless, it is there. To give an analogy, however, which of the following accurately describes fair treatment as regards witnesses and evidence in a courtroom?

Both sides are bound by the same rules and restrictions regarding what witnesses they can call, and what evidence they can introduce, or;
Both sides are allowed to call exactly the same number of witnesses and introduce exactly the same number of pieces of evidence.

It's the former, of course. The latter leads quite obviously to absurdity, where if one side has ten witnesses who meet the requirements and the other side only has one, the side with ten witnesses is disallowed from calling nine of them or the other side is allowed to place nine people with no standing to testify on the stand, just to achieve numerical equality. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:22, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Citation

Is it not easier to use citations as reference. Succinctly stating its conclusion is much more efficient and on top of that I don't think this project is meant to be a number of quotations put together. PLease state the conclusion and use the original as reference. --Nomen Nescio 14:20, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that your suggested statement of the conclusion is neither accurate, nor does it adequately represent the complexity of what the APA's actual recommendation was. Here is the phrasing you would like to suggest is a succinct statement of the conclusion of the resolution:

the American Psychological Association advised its members against using Hubbard's techniques with their patients based upon its unscientific and potentially dangerous nature. (italics mine to indicate the disputed conclusion)

And here is the largest portion of the actual resolution I could find, as reported by the New York Times:

"'While suspending judgment concerning the eventual validity of the claims made by the author of "Dianetics," the association calls attention to the fact that these claims are not supported by empirical evidence of the sort required for the establishment of scientific generalizations. In the public interest, the association, in the absence of such evidence, recommends to its members that the use of the techniques peculiar to Dianetics be limited to scientific investigations designed to test the validity of its claims.'."

The proposed summary of the resolution simply doesn't summarize it accurately. The resolution says nothing about Dianetics' "potentially dangerous nature", and even if we overlooked the subtle distinction between "unscientific" and "not supported by empirical evidence", your proposed summary ignores that the APA actually brought up directly the possibility of its members testing the scientific validity of Dianetics' claims. If Hubbard was correct that Dianetics was scientifically sound and that the APA was trying to surpress realization of this, then the last thing that the APA's resolution would have suggested to their members is that they test Dianetics' claims themselves.

If someone can summarize the text we have from the resolution more succinctly than the actual quote, without losing any valuable points and without introducing any points unsupported by the resolution, then I would be in favor of it. Given the choice between the quote itself and an inaccurate summary of it, however, there is no question that the quote is what we should use. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:46, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

All right, we have a third version, this one by HistoricalPisces:

"the American Psychological Association advised its members against using Hubbard's techniques with their patients until its effectiveness could be proven."

This is an improved summary; however, I think there are still reasons to prefer the original quote. I think it's highly significant that the resolution didn't just say "do not use Dianetics until it's scientifically proven", but specifically addressed the possibility of its members doing the investigation necessary to obtain that proof; as I said before, if Hubbard's theory that Dianetics worked and the APA was trying to surpress it because it worked was true, you'd think the last thing they would do is bring up the possibility to its members that they could find out for themselves whether it worked. Also, I think the fact that this was a unanimous resolution, and the fact that the resolution did not say "these claims are not scientifically proven" but "these claims are not supported by empirical evidence" -- a rather substantial difference in magnitude. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Goofy picture

I think Scientology is weird and harmful, but isn't having a picture of an extraterrestrial dressed like Santa just a tad juvenile? I know it's just in the talk page, but I think discussion itself makes what Scientology is pretty clear without all that. Added to that wouldn't Santa Xenu fit better at Talk:Xenu?--T. Anthony 06:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Laughter the best medicine?

Hey T. Anthony,

I put the image there to replace the old image of Marvin the Martian that apparently some Scientologist thought was inappropriate, and therefore had the old image of Marvin as a 'potential Xenu suspect' deleted. (Probably using some bogus copyright infringement type of claim.) As this is only a talk page, it seemed to me that there might be room for a bit of tongue in cheek levity here, all in good faith of course. Still, if there appears to be a consensus amongst other editors here that poor Santa-Xenu is a bit over the top in his ridiculousness for even this talk page, I will not object to having his graceful presence dismissed from this page. Other serious editorial opinions about the proposed exile of Santa Xenu?

Scott P. 17:48, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm certainly no fan of their's and I'm cool with humor. I'm just kind of stodgy by nature so I guess I like jokiness being kept to a minimum. I'd be the same with a depiction of the Raelism's Elohim dressed as leprechauns or what have you. So I would think the Xenu stuff is best limited to articles specifically on Talk:Xenu or that Space Opera in Scientology talk. Still if Scientologists aren't offended I'm certainly not. Even if they are offended I'm not, except it maybe looking juvenile.--T. Anthony 00:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

It's not a matter of whether it offends us. It's a matter of whether it shows a derogatory attitude towards the subject that we're supposed to be covering neutrally. And that it does. So I removed it. --FOo 03:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Aww, Fooey! Scott P. 01:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Deletions

For those of you keeping track at home, Special:Contributions/64.65.189.42 who made such valuable contributions as this is an IP that belongs to Hollander consulting.

[/home/fvw] whois 64.65.189.42
Eschelon Telecommunications, Inc. ESCHELON-2000A (NET-64-65-128-0-1) 
                                 64.65.128.0 - 64.65.191.255
Hollander Consultants ESCH-64-65-189-40 (NET-64-65-189-40-1) 
                                  64.65.189.40 - 64.65.189.47

# ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2005-09-27 19:10
# Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN's WHOIS database.

Always nice to know we still matter to them. --fvw * 18:01, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

He/She just did it again.. the talk page this time. Jwissick ^(t)^(c) 18:13, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Neuro-linguistic Programming

I removed this paragraph... "The claimed unethical use of general semantics and hypnosis is common to both neurolinguistic programming (NLP) and Scientology, which both hold many New Age similarities, such as the belief in past life regression and super-human potential."

Neuro-linguistic Programming (NLP) has nothing to do with Scientology, so I question the relevancy of it being mentioned here. Secondly, NLP does not "believe in past lives or super-human potential." Someone has been spreading these rumours on the Neuro-linguistic Programming article as well. It is current in mediation about the term engram a term uncommon in NLP yet very popular in Dianetics and Scientology. --Comaze 07:58, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

"Radical religious cult"?!

Someone apparently thought it was acceptable here to call Scientology a "radical religious cult" in the introductory paragraph. I'd like to state in no uncertain terms that doing so was a violation of Wikipedia policy. The derogatory implications of the word "cult" are such that we cannot use this word in introducing a description of any group, even one with the egregious public reputation of Scientology.

For comparison, note that we do not use words such as "evil" or "fanatic" in the introduction to the article Nazism. We leave it to the reader to draw their conclusions about whether the Nazis were evil fanatics; and likewise we leave it to the reader to draw any conclusion on whether Scientology is a radical cult. If we present the facts sufficiently, the reader can draw conclusions such as this using their own value judgments.

I'd like to invite the editor who made that change to review our WP:NPOV policy, and more specifically our Wikipedia:Words to avoid. --FOo 23:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)