Talk:Scientology controversies/Archive 1

Officially Sanctioned Gender Orientation

Scientologists are gay. All of them pretend to be helping this article, but they subtly use their clout to degrade the quality of it. Some of them even fight with each other to show others that they are 'on the right side'. In Soviet Russia, Scientology is a religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.193.112 (talk) 03:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

??

Okay, this is an attempt to make this section more even-handed and NPOV, by portraying the ongoing battle between Scientology and its critics from both sides of the argument. This is not an easy task, and a lot of input is needed in this area. --Modemac 12:23 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

I honestly cannot see how this page can have edits or discussions with NPOV. It's a religion. It was built, if you will, to be argued over. If it is to be discussed at all, there must be bias, because you either have to be for or against it. This being said, I disagree with scientology as a whole. ( I'm biased. )

---

I have again moved the dealing with critics section to the top. That section contains most of the "meat" of this article, as opposed to the wilder, mostly unverified accusations that follow. Prior to my edit, the article started out with what is almost certainly an urban legend—a good article should present facts first and speculation last, not vice versa. Mkweise 21:46, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

"The church of Scientology has been known to conduct covert black bag operations against opponents." - it would be nice to have some kind of citation here, and perhaps change the text to "There is evidence that..."

"In 1978, L. Ron Hubbard was convicted in absentia by French authorities and sentenced to fours years in prison." - for what??? Tax evasion? Spitting on the sidewalk from the Eiffel Tower?

CAN you get convicted in absentia for that?--132.61.176.6 18:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Has the Co$ tried to do anything about this page yet? :)

A couple of anonymous contributors have deleted sections of the articles on Hubbard and Scientology that portray him as less than a perfect superman; though those edits were quickly reverted. Nothing more serious has happened yet. --Modemac 01:41, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I don't think any sane person considers him a "perfect superhuman", but at least we know that you're holding true to your NPOV status which is what Wikipedia stands for. (Sarcasm intended.)

(Sarcasm understood) This is your chance to present those sources of information which support your point of view. Why not present them cleanly, so people can see the arguement. Instead there are very poorly cited references without page numbers and full of induendoes, "Many critics claim" and implications, "the church of scientology makes no statement" ... ha ! The policy letters quoted are long since cancelled or revised and the whole article has little meat, critical reading shows most of it up as hot air. Terryeo 17:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Criticism sections should not be split away from main articles. This is grossly POV and therefore unacceptable. Please merge this section into the main article about either the church or the philosophy.—Eloquence 22:54, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)

I disagree, can you state the explict Wiki Policy which states your gross point of view is to be the one followed by Wiki Policy? Wiki Policy says to quote a source and to cite the source. You don't expect intertwined quotes do you? Terryeo 17:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

How would you propose this section be merged into the others? All three of the articles have become quite large and detailed, and to merge this in with them may push one or both of them over the 32K "recommended" limit.

On a somewhat related note, you may want to look closely at this page:

Scientology at 4reference.net

This web site is already known for blatantly copying Wikipedia articles. Yet, strangely enough, all references to the section on "controversial issues" have been conveniently blanked out over there on that Web site. Hmmm. --Modemac 00:05, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Quotations

An anon inserted a statement that the quotation about men who "attacked us" was taken out of context. I expanded the quotation and added some identifying information about the people Hubbard referred to. Having done that, I left in the anon's explanation, although characterizing it as one POV that was offered rather than flatly stating it as fact. The supposed explanation, which seems meritless to me, nevertheless deserves reporting if it represents the official position of the Church of Scientology or a notable member; not knowing whether the statement met this criterion, I left it in, hoping that more information could be provided later. JamesMLane 11:44, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Starting a religion to make money

The Church of Scientology denies these claims [that Hubbard talked about starting a religion for money], and has in fact sued publishers for making them.

The only such suit I know of is the lawsuit against Stern, which Stern won. Especially in light of the Church's expressed position on lawsuits ("the purpose of the law suit is not to win, but to harass") I think it's somewhat important to note which lawsuits ended with findings for the defendants, as lawsuits conducted for the purpose of the harassment might be expected to frequently do.

Also, there isn't a mention here of what was (at least it was in 1994) the Church's official response to the allegation: they pointed to a George Orwell quote where he said something about how you could make a lot of cash by starting a religion, and claimed that Orwell's quote had been misattributed to LRH. The late Robert Vaughn Young, however, said that he himself discovered the Orwell quote, and had made the suggestion that this could be publicized as the "true" source of the quote. (RVY's first-person account used to be up on the Net, before he passed away, but unfortunately I can't seem to locate it; I remember that it ended with him relating an e-mail he'd gotten from an angry Scientologist who was utterly insistent that Orwell and not Hubbard was 'the one' who had talked about making cash by starting a religion, and his terse reply to the Scientologist along the lines of "even if they both said it -- Orwell said it. Hubbard did it.") - Antaeus Feldspar 22:44, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OK, I've found one of my own previous posts where I quoted RVY's post (which at that time I could still find RVY's original on the net) and here's what he said:

The fact that Orwell said it means nothing . . . I doubt that he and LRH were hardly the only ones who said that a religion is a great way to make a buck. No, my friend, LRH said it too. The difference between LRH and Orwell is that LRH did it.

Unfortunately, Googling on those words doesn't bring up RVY's original anymore. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:18, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Try here: Vaughn's original statement --Modemac 22:36, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

oh, excellent! -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:47, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There have been stories floating around the Science-Fiction/Speculative-Fiction/et al community for years that a fellow writer - the most common versions of the story have either Isaac Asimov or Robert Heinlein - bet or dare or goad Hubbard into doing it. I'm currently attempting to ascertain a Harlan Ellison version that it was writer & publisher Lester del Rey who suggested to Hubbard the financial benefits of starting a religion after overhearing him complain about monetary problems at a writers get-together/party. LamontCranston 15:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

We need to clarify an important point regarding the Church of Scientology's litigation history.

Throughout this article there are numerous accusations against the Church of Scientology implying that the Church has overstepped its moral boundaries by litigating against individuals who were attempting to express their freedom of speech on the internet or elsewhere. These sort of statements are very misleading, if you omit an important fact which is that the Church has only litigated against individuals on the basis of violation of copyright laws and trademarks which like any other corporations it is entitled to do. Additionally litigation has also been directed towards individuals who have actually stolen materials from the Church and who have thereby made themselves liable to legal action.

[*Bullshit. L.Ron copyrighted every fart, then sued everyone who ever farted. —Interpolated comment by Doovinator 08:50, 2 July 2005]

errr... is there a way to apply that to daylight? Terryeo 17:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Could the Church have taken a softer approach? , perhaps. Could the Church have conducted itself in a wiser manner in the prelude to the falling out of grace between the Church and individuals who later left the Church and became the violators of the copyrighted materials?, Of course. Did the Church exercise its legal prerogative? Yes it did. TruthTell

"The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than win. The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway, well knowing that he is not authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly." -— L. Ron Hubbard, The Scientologist, a Manual on the Dissemination of Material, 1955

Impartiality in this article

We ought to make a distinction between impartial information regarding events whether pro or con and slanted propaganda. I believe the reader would be better served by the former.

Kindly explain how a quote from the judgement of Religious Technology Center v. Arnaldo Lerma, Washington Post, Mark Fisher, and Richard Leiby (November 29, 1995) is slanted propaganda? --141.154.235.84 17:05, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

separation of "Church of" from "Scientology"

Well, it looks like Truthtell has unilaterally decided to change the subject of the article from "Scientology controversy" to "Church of Scientology controversy". The problem is that they are not exactly as separable as that; it is not as simple as simply converting every mention of "Scientology" to "Church of Scientology". For instance, Hubbard's dictum that every single psychiatrist is a sadistic torturer/murderer, if not in this life then in their past life in the Marcab whatever -- is that Scientology, or the Church of Scientology? -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:38, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There is a difference between the Church and the subject itself.The Church is an ecclesiastic organization of imperfect human beings, Scientology is a body of knowledge or truths, as in "the Axioms of Scientology". When you confuse the two you make a mess because the subject of Scientology often is mis-represented by the behavior of individuals.The bulk of the accusations in this article are directed towards the conduct of people who were acting on behalf of the Church, which is why a clarification is in order.. TruthTell

That's a valid and good point. So now could you answer our valid and good point, about why you're saying "these are two separate subjects, and this article is only for discussing controversy related to one of those two"? Yes, a great deal of controversy is based on the actions of individuals who were acting on behalf of the Church of Scientology. But some of the controversy is right in the religion itself, like the dogma that anyone who experiences no gain from Scientology is a "suppressive person" who is to be "disposed of quietly and without sorrow". Are you telling me that L. Ron Hubbard was mis-representing Scientology when he instituted the Fair Game policy? -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:51, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

First of all the dogma you refer to is seriously misquoted , and the Fair Game policy was cancelled in 68 , but that being said, when the actions of any scientologist, no matter who, contradicts the basic truths of the subject of Scientology then bad outcomes result. TruthTell.

Aha, you're confused because you proceeded past a misunderstood. =) Hubbard stated very clearly "This P/L does not cancel any policy on the treatment or handling of an SP." The Fair Game policy was never cancelled, in 1968 or otherwise. All that was cancelled was the practice of declaring people Fair Game. In Hubbard's own words, "FAIR GAME may not appear on any Ethics Order. It causes bad public relations." All that changed was the outward appearance. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:50, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Fair Game was once a policy in the sense that several HCOPLs made statements about it. It was cancelled in the sense, a policy letter was written which cancelled it. And then, further, Policy Letters were revised which contained those words and then the policy letter which cancelled fair game was itself cancelled. There's just no mention of it, though one tiny bit of information was published in one of the revisions which states, "no sceintologist will disobey the laws of the land" (in reference to how to deal with a suppressive person). Actualy Policy Letters actually deny that the actions of Fair Game (in an earlier time) can be done by a Scientologist without the Church of Scientology bringing the person to justice. How clear can "cancellation of fair game" be ? It wasn't and isn't just a disallowment on an ethics order. What really happened (my opinion), Scientology overcame its main enemies, became established and plain quit fair game practices because Scientologists were being jailed for doing them. Terryeo 17:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Antaeus Feldspar states it was not cancelled. But as I have stated in the Fair Game article with extensive quotes of current Hubbard Communication Office Policy Letters it is no longer Church of Scientology Practice and in fact directly states that no action shall be done by any scientologist which is "against the laws of the land." That is policy today and has been policy for some years. Its not that you shouldn't know what was, but you should also recognize the CoS changed its tune after people were imprisoned for fulfilling Church Policy. (My take on the change of Policy, reflected in Policy letters.)Terryeo 06:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll let Mr. Hubbard speak for himself on the matter of the cancellation of Fair Game:

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 21 October 1968

Remimeo

CANCELLATION OF FAIR GAME

The practice of declaring people FAIR GAME will cease. FAIR GAME may not appear on any Ethics Order. It causes bad public relations.

This P/L does not cancel any policy on the treatment or handling of an SP.

L. RON HUBBARD Founder LRH:ei.cden Copyright © 1968 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/sp/pl-1968-10-21-cancel-fair-game.html LamontCranston 00:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Does that not just contradict itself? "This P/L does not cancel any policy on the treatment or handling of an SP."

It isn't a contradiction, but rather a matter of semantics. The "FAIR GAME" cancellation recorded here simply states that the TERM is not to be used, though the behavior is to continue. A similar situation would be (pardon the analogy) the Ku Klux Klan sending out a policy letter which stated "The word Nigger is no longer to be used. The cross-burnings are to continue." RvLeshrac 08:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The Use Of Sources (and other lock of NPOV points)

Since someone is complaining that my POV tag (as well as other people who have tagged this) is "unjustified", here are my reasons:

1. The links on the page are all from the same group of two or three people, and are clearly not unbiased sources. Citing these people is like someone citing The Church of Scientology: if you're going to try to make your page NPOV, neither of these sources are the place to look!

2. Assuming you intend to KEEP these non-NPOV sources, it would only be fair to provide the other side of the argument. Keeping one side supported while ignoring the other isn't a good practice.

Therefore, I think it's EXTREMELY reasonable for me to simply leave a non-POV tag on this article. If I did what I actually think would be fair, I'm sure many people here would be chasing me down with tourches and pitchforks (metaphor - please don't assume something I didn't mean), as you have for past people (myself included) trying to conform to the supposed NPOV rules that you claim to stand for. Now before you get offensive and claim I'm the bad guy and that I'm a low-life, try rising above my level, and instead of doing to me what you think I would do to you, try to consider things from my point of veiw, as (not a Church memeber, but) someone who just thinks Wikipedia should be unbiased. Maybe, hopefully, someone will open their eyes.

I'm not arguing that legal court documents aren't acceptable, but rather suggesting (heaven forbid!) that when you provide one document, you supply another one where the Church won on the matter, or at VERY LEAST provide the reasoning behind the motives of both parties, as opposed to just the verdict. Still, those are not the sources I'm trying to advocate against. Rather, I think it's very unfair to use websites directly aimed against Scientology, especailly ones aimed at ALREADY TROUBLED people, who then commited suicide or such. If you're going to list sources like those, then at least try to conform to SOME amount of NPOV standards by including things such as how many people have been HELPED by Scientology [1] and [2]. I know that those are Scientology-officiated websites, but if you're going to get the anti-Scientology, you HAVE to have the pro-Scientology too if you truely expect to be considered unbiased. What makes the anti- websites ok and the pro- websites not ok? Just because all of the pro- sites are supported by Scientology, while the anti- sites aren't supported by any one orginization shouldn't matter. You can't punish Scientology for being "more together" than those who speak out against them, especailly not given the circumstances in which this lack of NPOV is being shown.

That's all. I hope that this meets your standards and merits a non-NPOV tag now. Further, I think it's stupid to remove a non-NPOV tag from a page without reason. Yes, I understand that you may want the issue resolved as to WHY they think it's biased, but that doesn't mean that they don't think it's biased. Removing someone's tag is even more stupid that them putting it there without posting the reason. I won't say anymore on that, since this isn't the page for it though. [Comment posted 21:53, 18 Apr 2005 by GodHelpWiki ]

The "NPOV" tag is too often abused by people who can't actually refute their opponent's points but nevertheless want to create the appearance that such points have hugely convincing refutations waiting in the wings that just somehow haven't shown up yet. That's not the way Wikipedia works.

There are also those who are just confused and who think that NPOV works like their daily newspaper, which will try to artificially balance the "sides" of a story so that, for instance, the guy with a 6th-grade education who claims he invented a perpetual motion machine in his workshed will get as much if not more airtime than the other "side", i.e., the professor of physics who patiently explains that if there was some way around the laws of thermodynamics, then there probably would have been some sign of it over the past two thousand years that people have been looking for it. NPOV doesn't work like that, either; it does not aim at "false balance". NPOV tries to present each view fairly; that is not the same as "equally". If ten thousand witnesses have testified to Corporation X's misdeeds, NPOV does not require that we print ten thousand of Corporation X's press releases about its virtues.

Finally, I think I could not sum up better why I think your NPOV tag was perhaps not made with the greatest amount of consideration than to juxtapose two sentences from your post:

The links on the page are all from the same group of two or three people...

... at least try to conform to SOME amount of NPOV standards by including things such as how many people have been HELPED by Scientology [http://www.correctauditing.org/] and [http://www.correctauditing.org/].

As my first paragraph indicated, there's a difference between wanting there to be a great case to be made for one side of the issue, and there actually being such a case. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:56, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please make your case with specific criticisms and proposals for amendments or additions to the article. If you think the changes will be controversial, please post them here for discussion before changing the article. If you actually can correct errors and address important omissions in the article, I'll bet your changes will find support here. But please do try to keep it concise--the thing is too long and rambling as it stands... BTfromLA 05:13, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To GodHelpWiki:

The links on the page are all from the same group of two or three people...

Could you name these two or three sources? I am not sure what you are referring to, I would like to understand more the issue. Naming the two or three sources will help clarify, as it will enable us to verify that the claims made by these two or three sources are or are not confirmed anywhere else. You must note though, that when specific information comes with evidence, or that the source is credible enough, it is likely to be good enough material to be included in the article. Povmec 15:37, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It should be noted that in all articles critical to scientology, critical sites should not be referenced without the permission of the author, excepting only cases where such permission (dissemination of the content) is explicit in the goal or language of the site. This is due primarily to repeated legal threats from the CoS. Careless citations of small sites, or sites located within countries friendly to Scientology/ABLE/CoS, may cause individuals great legal complications.

Sources

GodHelpWiki suggested that the article is POV because it only uses sources from a few people. I cannot tell if the article is NPOV from my limited knowledge but the range of sources seems diverse to me. Here is my analysis of the sources that could have been used in the first half of the article (deduced from the article text):

• Brinkema, Leonie M. Civil Action No. 95-1107-A: Memorandum Opinion, (Alexandria:US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia—Alexandria Division, November 28 1995)
• Hubbard, L. Ron. Attacks on Scientology, "Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter," February 25, 1966
• All England Law Reports (London: Butterworths,1979), vol. 3 p. 97
• Transcript of judgement in B & G (Minors) (Custody) Delivered in the High Court(Family Division),

London, 23 July 1984.

• [EFF "Legal Cases - Church of Scientology" Archive
• Owen Chris. 'The strange links between the CoS-IRS agreement and the Snow White Program', Scientology vs the IRS, (16 January 1998)
• Washington Post, January 8, 1983
• Catholic Sentinel, March 17, 1978
• United States District Court, District of Columbia (333 F. Supp. 357)
• Arizona Republic, September 22, 1988
• Scientology Press Release, (July 2 1997)

--[User:TheoClarke|Theo]] 19 April 2005 07:27 (UTC)

I noticed you didn't include a complete list. I don't think that ANYONE can reasonably consider www.whyaretheydead.com a NPOV source. [Comment by GodHelpWiki ]

I did not complete the list because I had to leave Wikipedia at that point. Are you aware that one of the guiding principles of Wikipedia is that we assume good faith? I rather thought that the partial list still made my point that the article was derived from diverse sources. --Theo (Talk) 19:20, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• GodHelpWiki: The fact that some biased perspectives are represented is not grounds for a POV dispute. You have misapplied the NPOV concept. That link is entirely appropriate in context: it is not presented as an "NPOV source"--it is provided as a link that documents certain accusations against the church. Here's where you might have a case about POV : "The Church of Scientology, in typical fashion, fought tooth and nail the various legal actions brought against them as regards the death. In the end, the prosecuting attorneys in the criminal case were forced to drop their charges, and the case was dismissed." You could make a case that "in typical fashion, fought tooth and nail," for example, assumes a biased tone. If you believe that to be the case, and you can replace it with a more neutral tone, do so. (Maybe something like " The Church of Scientology denied any responsibility for McPhearson's death and they vigorously contested the criminal charges; the prosecuting attorneys in ultimately dropped the criminal case.") Also, please sign you posts on the talk page, it helps communication. BTfromLA 18:36, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The document in question is a court filing archived at whyaretheydead. It doesn't matter if the document is hosted at whyaretheydead.net, scientology.org, or ilovespam.com -- the document in question is what's important. Whether or not the domain itself is biased against Scientology (or in favor of it), the court filing itself is presented as a way of presenting evidence while still maintaining a neutral point of view. --Modemac 00:33, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To my mind, there isn't really a pov dispute here, though I guess there is a dispute about whether to put the "disputed" tag on the article. I don't want to get involved in a revert war... do others agree that the banner should come off? BTfromLA 01:02, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree. --Theo (Talk) 09:47, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree, the person that put the tag in the first place was questioning the sources, but there doesn't seem to be real issue with these sources finally. Povmec 18:22, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree. This seems to be another case where someone applied the tag because of unhappiness with the results, not out of any substantive problems with the process. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:05, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Glad you all agree that someone disputing an articles POV status means that my feelings about the article are mute. I chose the name GodHelpWiki because of these sorts of problems. By definition a wiki website is one open to the public to change and build upon as the public sees fit. I think it is best described as a form of internet anarchy. I'm not saying that's a bad thing! Governing the internet would be somewhat illogical, considering that there are not true gatekeepers for the media here. However, trying to build a wiki environment while also claiming that you cannot dispute an articles POV because other people disagree is just dumb. It's paradoxical in a sense. What would be required for the POV tag to stay? More justifications? I thought I did enough of those. More voices? Do I really need to call my friends to sign up here to back my words? That seems silly for a type of website who's purpose is to include the voices of everyone reasonable. I don't think I'm asking the unreasonable here. If you'd like I could go in and completely rewrite the page as I would conform to NPOV - but I think a simple POV tag would be a lot easier, and save me some time. (I don't know about you guys, but I have a real job, and Wikipedia isn't it.) This whole POV issue transcends this single article. Still, I think this merits a POV tag.

"I think it is best described as a form of internet anarchy." Well, then, clearly you don't know as much about Wikipedia as you think you do -- you've never read WP:WIN#Wikipedia is not an experiment in anarchy, for one. It seems to be one of many things you still don't understand about Wikipedia, along with "NPOV". Perhaps if you'd listen to us you'd start to understand, but from what you've been saying I don't see any evidence you even bother reading what we're saying. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:49, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

GodHelpWiki: if you disagree with some parts of the article, your best approach is to suggest changes precisely. Tell others what you would like to be replaced, and with what. I see you questioned some parts of the article, but you need to go further and tell and state exactly your suggestions about sentences or paragraphs you would change, and to what. Cheers. Povmec 12:09, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I've included a citation for this quote: "Scientologists sometimes claim that Hubbard canceled the Fair Game policy in 1968. What the "HCO Policy Letter of 21 October 1968" actually says, however, is "The practice of declaring people FAIR GAME will cease. FAIR GAME may not appear on any Ethics Order. It causes bad public relations. This P/L does not cancel any policy on the treatment or handling of an SP."" - specifically the very Hubbard policy letter from 21 October 1968 that states that declaring people "Fair Game" will cease on account of bad publicity but the policy itself continue. LamontCranston 15:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

FBI document?

The article includes an interesting letter from Hubbard, apparently claimed by the FBI during the raid. Yet I see no source cited, and neither have I yet found one. Could someone step in and verify this piece with a good citation?

Hubbard letter to Helen O'Brien, 10 April 1953 (exhibit 500-4V in CSC v Armstrong 1984, cited in vol.12, p.1976 and vol.26, p.4619). Povmec 20:56, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Was the "evidence" produced by the defendant Gerry Armstrong who has a criminal history including forgery?--AI 2 July 2005 00:46 (UTC)

Was this "criminal history including forgery" determined by a judge and a court of law and a jury of his peers, or by the Church of Scientology, that ethical, seeking-a-world-without-crime organization which forged bomb threats against Paulette Cooper with the intention "to get P.C. incarcerated in a mental institution or jail"? Ironically, the documents presented at Armstrong's trial may well have been uncovered in the very same raid that uncovered the letter from Dick Weigand matter-of-factly telling Henning Heldt that he "conspired to entrap [Paulette Cooper] into being arrested for a felony which she did not commit. She was arraigned for the crime." -- Antaeus Feldspar 2 July 2005 14:31 (UTC)

Antaeus, your statements are irrelevant to this discussion of the letter mentioned.--AI 2 July 2005 23:27 (UTC)

No, they aren't: if the source that discredits Armstrong is the CoS, in whose interest it is to discredit sources embarring to Hubbard or the church, that seems very relevant. I don't know whether Armstrong has anything to do with the letter in question, but this seems worth mentioning as the CoS seems to have a history of attacking the personal reputation of its critics, rather than addressing the criticisms. (Though, according to a recent piece in Salon, this may be changing, at least so far as Scientology's relationship to members of the press who write about them.) BTfromLA 2 July 2005 23:57 (UTC)

Yes, his statements are irrelevant. I will have no further discussion with you as you don't fully investigate into situations as demonstrated in #squabbling below.--AI 3 July 2005 06:55 (UTC)

AI, your speculations that the Hubbard letter might have been, not among the copious amounts of documentation seized by the FBI straight from Scientology headquarters, but a forgery produced by Gerry Armstrong, are pretty damn irrelevant unless you can actually produce some sort of indication that this did happen -- not just irresponsible dribbling that it might have. Does the allegation that Gerry Armstrong has a "criminal history including forgery" count? Not when the allegation comes from an institution whose criminal history is known to include not only forgeries, but forgeries produced specifically to frame their opponents for "crimes" that never occurred. -- Antaeus Feldspar 3 July 2005 20:15 (UTC)

squabbling

Several articles linked to this particular piece (the William Sargant thing, for example) have been edited and reedited repeatedly by people who cannot agree on a definition of NPOV. As this epidemic appears to have infected this page as well, I feel it necessary to ask here what can be done - mere squabbling on individual pages is going to solve nothing. -- User:206.114.20.121

Ad hominem from 206.114.20.121.--AI 2 July 2005 00:27 (UTC)

not really. You may find it insulting (especially if you recognize yourself in 20.121's description) but "insulting" is neither necessary nor sufficient for ad hominem argumentation. -- Antaeus Feldspar 2 July 2005 14:17 (UTC)

Irrelevant to the article.--AI 2 July 2005 23:23 (UTC)

Huh? What is irrelevant to which? He was responding to your comment--your reply makes no sense. If you are saying that this digression about NPOV is irrelevant to the Scientology article, I agree. But please write less crypitcally--such uttenrances cause confusion. BTfromLA 2 July 2005 23:50 (UTC)

What is the dispute here? Keep squabbling of if you wish.--AI 3 July 2005 05:40 (UTC)

206.114.20.121 lies to incite hate of Wikipedia contributor. Look at his accusation and take a reality check.[3]

AI, your responses make no sense at all. Is there an issue here that is germane to the Scientology article? If so, please explain. If it's just some carryover from a personal dispute between you and user 206, skip it. BTfromLA 3 July 2005 05:56 (UTC)

What are you talking about? User:206.114.20.121 raised the "issue" not me. What is your point? If you don't know whats going on, skip it.--AI 3 July 2005 06:02 (UTC)

I do not see how 206.114.20.121's "argument" is relevant to this article other than an attempt to discredit me. If my work ("squabbling") on psychiatric related articles is such a concern to contributors of the Scientology controversy, then help NPOV my latest contribution to Wikipedia: George Estabrooks. Please contribute YOUR POV. --AI 00:38, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

sounds like someone needs a lesson in "assume good faith".--132.61.176.6 18:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Category

The recent revert war about including this article in Category:Scientology is a weird one. For one thing, even when the "Scientology" category has been removed, it remains in place in the article, at least on my browser. Anybody else see this? As to the substance of the argument, I can't see any reasonable case for excluding this article from the main "Scientology" category: the whole reason for this article is to reduce the size (and editorial contentiousness) of the main article, right? This article is essentially an extension of the Scientology article, and as such it should be in the main category, and prominently linked to in the Scientology article. --BTfromLA 03:25, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree it should be linked and easily accessible from the other Scientology articles. hmmm, the Template has a section for controversy and that might make a good linking arrangement. Terryeo 04:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

cut from The Legitimacy of Scientology as a Religion

This first sentence would require a citation proving the motivation of the Church of Scientology. I doubt if that is possible in this case: "attempting to receive sympathy from the fact that Jews were persecuted by the Nazis during the Holocaust. [4] "

I actually agree with you concerning the first sentence. We could replace it with a sentence that points at the fact that the Church of Scientology often compare its current problems with the German goverment to the past policies that led to the Holocaust [5]. Whether the Church is trying to use the Holocaust or not to draw sympathy will be left to the reader. Povmec 16:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

This second sentence would require citations showing L. Ron Hubbard's inspiriation came largely from two men. Hubbard has listed those men who inspired him and it is a considerable list. But there is no citation in the article which mentions his inspiration came "largely" from the two in this sentence below: "Critics also allege that L. Ron Hubbard's Dianetics research was largely inspired by the achievements of other mental researchers such as Freud and William Sargant; the Church of Scientology maintains that Hubbard's work was entirely original and derived from no preexisting practice."

Here it is more about the opinions of critics. This is what critics think, and it is part of why Scientology as a religion is controversial. I am not sure a cite is needed here, although it would certainly be if the sentence was found on the Dianetics article. Povmec 16:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

But you just said, "it is about the opinions of critics." And that is exactly the sort of information a reader wants. Which critic stated that Hubbards inspiration was largely from 2 persons? Hubbard states otherwise and can be quoted. If an opinion isn't cited it is origninal research and doesn't belong in an article. Terryeo 04:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I have placed these two sentences (link also) here toward a good article being viewed by the public. This is exactly per Wikipolicy, WP:CITE. Uncited information, particularly biased POV information should not appear in an article unless cited. Proving the motivation of the Church of Scientology is to garner sympathy would be a difficult task. Proving Hubbard's inspiration was due to two men would be a difficult task. Povmec seems convinced the statements are accurate, but provides no citation. Terryeo 16:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Cut from 'References'

Pasting here for citing and discussion this one: "Hubbard, L. Ron. Attacks on Scientology, "Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter," February 25, 1966" because there is not HCOPL 25 Feb 66 in the Church of Scientology today. If you present that as a historical document (not a present time document) then feel free. Cite it. But it can't accurately be presented as a document the Church of Scientology uses today.

The list of quotes is very poorly done, too. For example, "Technique 88" is not a book listed at the Library of Congress. What is it's ISBN, what page number is that quote from? According to Wiki Policy the quote should have a page number, the book should then be listed in references with its ISBN, author, who published it and so on. The idea being, a person might want to read more of that kind of thing ! so hey! give our reading public a chance and Cite your source more cleanly, okay?  :) Terryeo 17:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

what is wrong with the references, what needs to be fixed

None of the references comply with WP:CITE. Understand I am not saying the references should not be there, but I am saying that none of them are done per Wiki direction. I've examined the whole list. Here is what is wrong with each quote, how it is not appropriately presented per WP:CITE.

• Brinkema, Leonie M. Civil Action No. 95-1107-A: Memorandum Opinion, (Alexandria:US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia—Alexandria Division, November 28, 1995)

How about providing a link to this information, or to a summation of this information? How can a reader enlighten himself how this reference relates to the article? It is not even footnoted.

• Hubbard, L. Ron. Attacks on Scientology, "Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter," February 25, 1966 [10] [10] points to: http://www.suppressiveperson.org/hate/pubs/pl-1966-02-25-attacks-on-scn.html which has a photograph of what appears to be an HCOPL;

HCO POlicy letter of 25 february 1966, ATTACKS ON SCIENTOLOGY.

I tell you that policy letter is not extant today. It might have been at one time but it not a part of the Church of Scientology's policy today. Therefore it is a historical document (if it ever existed). It has not been a policy letter for at least 5 years. Further, the source is real questionable. It appears on a hostile-to-Scientology site complete with "ALL RIGHTS RESERVED" printed clearly on it. I think it would be smart to remove it.

• All England Law Reports (London: Butterworths,1979), vol. 3 p. 97

this is a good cite, but it would very helpful to have some online link to it or to a summantion of what it contains. As it stands who can know how it addresses anything in the article?

• Transcript of judgement in B & G (Minors) (Custody) Delivered in the High Court(Family Division), London, 23 July 1984.

This is another possible bit of useful information. But how can a person learn how that judgement applies to this article? Is there no online source, or summation or newspaper article that tells ?

• EFF "Legal Cases - Church of Scientology" Archive

this is a good link, but it has a lot of cases there, shouldn't the vast array of information be more clearly specified? State one or two of the links that come up there, somehow connect it with the article. It would take hours to read through all of that.

• Owen Chris. 'The strange links between the CoS-IRS agreement and the Snow White Program', Scientology vs the IRS, (16 January 1998)

This is a rather confusing site that says early on the confusion was instigated by a person "infiltrating scientology and stealing documents from them." What exactly is the point of that reference?

• Washington Post, January 8, 1983

This is not a good cite. When citing a newspaper article, the title of the article is needed. You can not expect the person to read the whole of the Washington Post's January 8, 1983 paper. It would be better if the article could be found online, thought not necessary.

• Catholic Sentinel, March 17, 1978

This is not a good cite. When citing a newspaper article, the title of the article is needed. You can not expect a person to read the whole of the Catholic Sentinel for March 17, 1978. It would be better if the article could be found online, though not necessary.

• United States District Court, District of Columbia (333 F. Supp. 357)

This is not a good cite. It needs more information.

• Arizona Republic, September 22, 1988

Oh really. Is "Arizona Republic" a book, newspaper, what? It needs a title, place of publication or something so a person could look it up. Then it needs a page number or article title. WP:CITE spells these matters out.

The last one is done wrong too, but I'll correct that. Terryeo 05:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

quotations

"Somebody some day will say 'this is illegal'. By then be sure the orgs say what is legal or not." — L. Ron Hubbard, HubbardCommunications Office Policy Letter, 4 January 1966

What "This" is being talked about? dinnerplates? Haircuts? Obviously a little more information is needed.

"Don't ever tamely submit to an investigation of us. Make it rough, rough on attackers all the way." — L. Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, 25 February 1966

that policy letter does not exist today in the Church of Scientology. You can not buy a copy of that today because it was cancelled years ago. If it is presented as a historical document then that's different but it isn't being presented as a historical document.

"Having viewed slum clearance projects in most major cities of the world may I state that you have conceived and created in the Johannesburg townships what is probably the most impressive and adequate resettlement activity in existence." — L. Ron Hubbard, Letter to South African Apartheid Government, 1960

The reference states it was a letter, but it doesn't give a date beyond the year and it doesn't give a source of information where a person can read the letter. Can someone supply a verifiable source of that information? Was it addressed to the whole government, to an individual job within the government, what?

November 7th, 1960. That's when the letter was published. You can read it here: http://www.solitarytrees.net/racism/slums.htm Dave420 12:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

"THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN CONTROL PEOPLE IS TO LIE TO THEM. You can write that down in your book in great big letters. The only way you can control anybody is to lie to them." — L. Ron Hubbard, Technique 88

Technique 88 is an early (1952) technique and book. That quote does not appear in the book. The reference to the source of that quote is very bad because it does not tell enough information about the source of information so a person could find it. Cite it or lose it.

"They smell of all the baths they didn't take. The trouble with China is, there are too many chinks here." — L. Ron Hubbard (Diary entry circa 1928)

What diary? Was that his diary? Was that someone quoting Hubbard, in their own Diary? The source of information is not good at all. More information about where that quote came from would be needed for a person to have confidence in that quote. Per WP:CITE it is okay to insert it, but unless it can be substantiated it should be removed.

"If anyone is getting industrious trying to enturbulate [sic] or stop Scientology or its activities, I can make Captain Bligh look like a Sunday-school teacher. There is probably no limit on what I would do to safeguard Man's only road to freedom against persons who… seek to stop Scientology or hurt Scientologists." — L. Ron Hubbard, 15 August 1967

What about 15 August 1967? How can a quote be attributed to a date alone? Was it a spoken or a written statement? Did a newspaper article carry it, if so, what newspaper and what was the title of the article. As it stands it is not a cited information and should be removed.

"People attack Scientology; I never forget it, always even the score. People attack auditors, or staff, or organisations, or me. I never forget until the slate is clear." — L. Ron Hubbard, The Manual of Justice

ah, the fabled "manual of justice." LOL. How about a nice page number, publication date, publisher and ISBN please. Else it isn't a verifiable citation and should be removed.

"So we listen. We add up associations of people with people. When a push against Scientology starts somewhere, we go over the people involved and weed them out. Push vanishes." — L. Ron Hubbard, The Manual of Justice

The "manual of justice." How about a nice page number, publication date, publisher and ISBN please. Else it isn't a verifiable citation and should be removed.

"At this instance there are men hiding in terror on Earth because they found out what they were attacking. There are men dead because they attacked us — for instance Dr. Joe Winter. He simply realized what he did and died. There are men bankrupt because they attacked us - Purcell, Ridgway, Ceppos." — L. Ron Hubbard (Dr. Joe Winter was a board member of the Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation, but he broke with Hubbard over the use of "past lives" to explain engrams. Don Purcell, Derricke Ridgway and Art Ceppos were former supporters of Hubbard who also broke with him. One explanation offered for the context of this quotation is that Hubbard meant that the expansion of Scientology would save lives; Scientologists believe they are responsible for disasters because they did not disseminate their technology well enough.)

Where does this information come from? It begins with a quote but does not cite a source of the quoted information. It goes on with interpretations which are likewise, not sourced. It needs a citation or it is off WikiPolicy, qualifies as original research and should be removed.

"Bluntly, we are out to replace medicine in the next three years." — Hubbard College Reports, 13 March 1952

I researched this one carefull. Where does one find "Hubbard College Reports?" Obviously the citation is very poor, it gives no page number, there is a date but is that the date of statement or the date of publication of the Report? Who published the report, what is the ISBN? There is not enough information there to verifiy whether it exists or doesn't exist.

I make these statements now because I seem to have a reputation for cutting and pasting and I mean to say, I'm not trying to upset the apple cart, but to create better Wiki articles. Terryeo 05:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I have looked carefully. "Hubbard College Reports" might at one time have existed, sometime in Arizona in the early 1950s. But the Church of Scientology today does not publish such a report, nor the policy letter which announced the formation of the "Hubbard College". It is history, it doesn't apply to the Scientology as practiced today. A careful historyical development of today's Scientology might include such information but to present today's controversy by using documentation which (probably) never applied to Scientology but certainly doesn't to day is just silly. It might have applied to Dianetics and Hubbard's early work in establishing Dianetics, about 1950 - 1952. Terryeo 16:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Good God Terryeo you really are quite the Scientology apologist...

what is it with people posting quotes like above

Wiki spells out how to make quotes. It is perfectly right to make actual quotes with actual cites, expressing the opinion of the author. Why are so many of these things done so poorly? First someone comes in with a 1/2 way right quote. For example, the first quote from a policy letter. It talks about illegal activites but it doesn't say what Hubbard was talking about. It could have been beans, illegally grown beans. One earlier line and it would be a good quote, it is a good policy letter, there could be some real controversy. Why isn't that done? instead it is done poorly. So I announce I am going to cut and paste here. I cut and paste here. Then a small handful of people look at my action, see that controversy is not well represented and revert it. Am I the only person with enough patience to look through these sorts of details, observe Wiki Policy about how to cite and point out the missing elements? This and other Scientology articles read like a junior high student has heard a rumor and is posting it for attention. Terryeo 08:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

I think the intro needs to be cleaned up to follow the WP:MOS. I tried to wikify the first line so it looked like the template "This article is about....for other uses see...."

What do you think? Snailwalker | talk 21:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Could 87.227.20.229 declare an interest?

Please see Talk:Fair Game (Scientology). AndroidCat 15:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Why is the cleanup tag on the article?

Would someone explain why the cleanup tag is on this article? What exactly needs to be cleaned up and what should I as an editor do in order to get it cleaned up? Adding tags like this to articles that have a long history and numerous editors seems like a controversial thing that should be properly discussed on the talk page before they are added. Vivaldi (talk) 02:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Peer review for Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy

A similar, controversial subject is seeking a peer reviewer. If you would be interested, we would appreciate your time at our article! Thanks! Kyaa the Catlord 16:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandalized?

Not sure but I think this article was vandalized. Not sure which parts but it just seems a little out there... unless it really is. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.23.84.125 (talk • contribs)

Well, without knowing which parts you're referring to, I can't say for sure... but I've looked over the whole article, and I can't see any signs of vandalism. This is a problem with covering Scientology, unfortunately -- so much of what really happened, of what Hubbard really said and did, of what the Church still claims in its doctrines and in its public statements, is so utterly outrageous that one questions whether it could ever be true. Did the Church of Scientology really set out, and execute most of, a written plan to frame an innocent journalist for bomb threats against the Church and against Henry Kissinger, and send in an agent to pose as her friend through the ordeal who reported back gleefully on how close she was to suicide, and "wouldn't that be great for Scientology?" Yes they did. Did they attempt to frame the mayor of Clearwater, Florida for a "hit-and-run" "accident" where the driver of the car and the "victim" were both Scientology agents? Yes they did. Did Hubbard write to the U.S. Navy asking for a confirmation that he'd won 27 medals for his service in wartime when in reality, his extremely inadequate wartime service only resulted in four medals, and he was writing to the agency that knew that better than any other? Yes he did. And that's even before we get into the space opera in the Church's doctrines... -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The legitimacy of Scientology as a religion

Greece has actually shutted down the local branch of Scientology in 1997 which didn't happen in Germany so far, so the word "strongest stance" is not correct. And Scientology isn't under surveillance for "criminal" activities. In Germany we have a seperate organisation called "Verfassungsschutz" (VS, Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution) and their job is to take a look on people who, while not committing crimes (so far as known), are hostile to the Constituition and therefore a possible problem. These are mostly extreme left or right-wing groups and fundamentalistic islamistic organisations. --136.172.253.189 21:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed tag

I took the liberty of removing the tag, seeing as the edit wars on this article seem to have calmed down since Terryeo's ban. Yandman 08:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Tom Cruise

Can we put him in the article? I mean he's giving the scientology a bad name.

I think the reverse is more accurate; that Scientology is giving Tom Cruise a bad name. Look at how his reputation has suffered right when he started making public pronouncemets about Scientology.

But no, I don't really think Tom Cruise has anything to do with the "Scientology controversy" as is the subject of this article. Any comments about Tom Cruise's beleif in Scientology would be more appropriate on the article about Tom Cruise than here. From what I've seen what's there is already sufficient.

This may not be very NPOV but honestly Scientology does a good enough job giving a bad name to itself! John 19:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Linkmess

The "External links" section is a mess. Not only are there way too many links, it is completely Original Research to decide what is a "fairly favourable" link or a link with an "opposing view". Let's not arrange the links according to someone's opinion of what they say. I urge User:Jpierreg, who has been on a Scientology linkspree lately, to study WP:EL closely. It clearly states that external links are to be "kept to a minimum", and not expanded practically into becoming articles of their own. wikipediatrix 23:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I have put "Other Views" instead of "fairly favourable" views. Note that links are divided by saying "Opposing Views" on Yahoo and Google and dmoz. Jpierreg 23:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Links to scientomogy.com added by the owner of the web site

I have removed the four links that were added by Paul Horner to his own web site:

"[...] What is Scientology A humor site showing what really is Scientology"
Pointless, that brings nothing to the article. No need for a particular "humour" site.

"[...] Scientology's Deaths - The Ellie Perkins story on CBS 48 Hours"
Jeremy Perkins web site, is better covered in appropriate articles (as Scientology and psychiatry), and in which case it is better to link to a good reference for the Jeremy Perkins case, and that would be Dr. Touretzky's site, as it contains first hand information.

"[...] South Park Scientology Episode nominated for an Emmy"
The Trapped_in_the_Closet_(South_Park) is best covered in its own wiki article. And it just happened that external links to streams of the episode have been removed because of copyvio.

"[...] The Bridge Movie - A 2006 documentary on Scientology removed due to legal threats from the Scientologists. Remarkable the first ever critical movie released about The Church of Scientology"
The_Bridge_(film) has its own article, no need to bypass it. And links to streams of the movie were removed for copyvio reasons it seems. I don't know what is the current status on the issue though, as I thought the movie was released to the net with no restriction to its distribution.
Raymond Hill 01:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Links failing WP:EL/WP:RS

Links failing WP:RS and WP:EL were reinserted to this page. These links do not meet the rules on neutrality and are personal/self-published sites. I removed whyaretheydead.net, scientology-lies.com, and scientology freezone per their not meeting the guidelines for inclusion and this was reverted immediately. Thoughts? ju66l3r 23:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

"HAS" under section "L. Ron Hubbard and starting a religion for money"

HAS goes to a disambiguation page. Of the entries listed, I can make no obvious connection. --Lincoln F. Stern 20:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Quotations section

Having reviewed this section, I've decided to remove it. I think COFS has a good point - the quotes are out of context, and they all seem to have been chosen to represent a critical POV towards Scientology. I don't think they really belong in this article without, at the very least, some sort of more detailed explanation and context. -- ChrisO 00:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd disagree somewhat. Quotes such as these are fundamental to the reasons why Scientology is controversial. Like "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live", they are pointed to as the source of some of the Church's more questionable practices — which attribution may be correct, even if the quote is being taken out of context.

Furthermore, providing context has been an issue with the CoS for some time. Short quotes are often accused of being taken out of context; long quotes are accused of violating copyright. However, insisting on citation allows for a reasonable compromise. I'd say the section should be reinserted, but that the quotations should be properly referenced. After a reasonable length of time from when the {{cite}} flag is added — say, four weeks — unreferenced quotes should be removed. If CoS supporters feel that the quote is taken out of context, they should provide more to the limits of copyright, or (where possible) direct link to the full source material.

Anticipating a future problem, it might be worth adding some manner of highlighting to indicate which parts of the quotes are controversial, as there may be some back-and-forth between the "context" and "copyright" balance in scholarship. Abb3w 01:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Note that my revert had to do with the first sentence of the section: "The following is a selection of quotations from L. Ron Hubbard that are frequently cited by critics of Scientology ", which meant that COFS's edit to put the quote in context was not justified, since I rarely saw the specific quote within its context in critical pieces (and I would disagree that the context sheds a positive light on this particular quote, when we consider the whole Scientology scripture as the context anyway). I though consider there may be a problem of WP:OR in stating that these quotes are put forth by critics, I contend this could be ground to remove the section, although we may consider this is a trivial description — I am not sure. Raymond Hill 05:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Critics are usually an intrinsic part of controversy. Providing context doesn't seem a big problem (and is helpful for maintaining NPOV), as long as the quote proper is (as I suggested) somehow indicated. Since the quotes provide an essential backdrop to the controversy, providing context to help NPOV seems a lesser fault than outright removal of the section.

Disclosure: I consider myself a CoS critic. Abb3w 14:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It honestly seems to me that no quote should excised if its properly cited. If you feel its taken out of context then add context, but quotes are clearly usefull for this page as its about scientology controversy. Clearly a quote can be inherently controversial even without context of any sort, for example if head of state were quoted stating that he enjoyed the services of prostitutes, but it was later learned they were just giving him/her a massage, it would be controversial solely because he/she used the term prostitute, regardles of the context. Colin 8 04:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Just because something is properly cited doesn't mean it belongs in the article. A Wikipedia article is supposed to be above the controversy, not taking sides. It becomes "undue weight" when the article begins to build a case against Scientology and subtly start arguing the anti-Scientology position via excessive quotes such as these. wikipediatrix 16:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Free Zone

Since the CoS has tried to eliminate the Free Zone, especially by copyright and trademark violation, it looks like the CoS is treating it as "competition" to be eliminated rather than a rogue belief to be dispelled by discussion. Anynobody 22:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge

We are looking to merge Patter drill here. Please discuss the merge and what bits of Patter drill belong here. --Justanother 02:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support merge - I have not yet decided what bits should go here. --Justanother 02:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

support merge it seems to me that the whole page should be added as the practice itself is controversial. I find the whole "religion" controversial in itself, but taken solely from scientology's basic dogma its controversial due to the fact that its one of the few tenants/practices that Hubbard didn't create. Colin 8 04:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Source for scientology has sued the magazine stern?

The Church of Scientology denies that Hubbard ever made any such statement, and has sued at least one publisher, the German magazine Stern, for publishing claims that he did (Stern won the lawsuit). Anyone got a reference for that? Need it for the danish wikipedia. Thanks in advance. Mr Mo 22:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Belgium charges Scientologists with extortion

There is a story in the Sydney Morning Herald today about an ongoing court case in Belgium at http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/scientologists-charged-with-extortion/2007/09/05/1188783277713.html. The entry in the 'Criminal behavior and allegations' section on the Belgium court case should probably be updated with some of the information in the SMH article. I've added the reference for now. Alans1977 06:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Emphasis and Source for Lead Section

This first section is sadly lacking in citation,and it skews the subject. The CSI/Freezone controversy is very minor compared to other points of controversy. Nevertheless, there are sources to reference and against which a sensible lead can be constructed, even if we do keep the emphasis on CSI/Freezone. This paragraph needs to be trimmed down and if we are going to keep it as the CSI/Freezone issue it needs to simply state what Scientologists believe and what those in the Freezone believe and eliminate the elaboration which is conjecture.Su-Jada 23:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Problem paragraph

In many countries (including Belgium, Russia, Canada, Greece, France, Germany, the United Kingdom and Spain), the activities of the Church of Scientology are not prohibited or limited in any way. However, the extended trials of the Church of Scientology to receive the status of a Non-profit organization are rejected in several countries including Germany.

"not prohibited or limited in any way" is too open-ended. "Non-profit organization" should changed to something like "tax-free" or charity. (Operating in the UK as a tax-free Australian incorporation is interesting, and some might call that a limit.) As well, there might be problems with some of the listed countries:

• Russia: the St. Petersburg org was shut down in July 2007 for violating its charter.[6]
• Greece: The Scientology organization was shut down (for the second time) in 1997.[7] Need a ref for the current status.
• France. Need a ref for the current status. (As well as all the muddled trials of CoS officals, weren't some orgs closed?) AndroidCat (talk) 23:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The new text added by TheinfinitelyProlonged has serious flaws including POV, original research and gets several things completely wrong such as confusing the EU with the Council of Europe. It also continues the "not prohibited or limited in any way" mantra without any real references backing this up at all. I hope TheinfinitelyProlonged will discuss this here, because it needs serious fixing. AndroidCat (talk) 07:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry there was an editing conflict. What references do you accept, there are no evidence when there is no reason. Few, minor, isolated incidents collected over decades in which Scientology were granted or refused any wish mainly for tax-exempt status could be seen as a proof for the very high level of human rights in germany. But: Germany is investigating against Scientology for violating the human rights of his members according to the Grundgesetz. See below. TheinfinitelyProlonged (talk) 07:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Scientology in Europe and especially in Germany

The aggressive insults of Scientology claiming that especially Germany violates human rights [8] have nearly no justification. Not only that the german constitution, the Grundgesetz, forbids any activities like that:

• [Article 4]:
• (1) Freedom of faith and of conscience, and freedom of creed religious or ideological, are inviolable.
• (2) The undisturbed practice of religion is guaranteed.

Additional:

• (3) No one may be prejudiced or favored because of his sex, his parentage, his race, his language, his homeland and origin, his faith or his religious or political opinions.
• (2) The persons entitled to bring up a child have the right to decide whether they shall receive religious instruction.
• (3) Enjoyment of civil and civic rights eligibility for public office, and rights acquired in the public service are independent of religious denomination. No one may suffer disadvantage by reason of his adherence or non-adherence to a denomination or ideology.
• (2) Former German citizens who between January 30, 1933 and May 8 1945, were deprived of their citizenship for political, racial or religious reasons, and their descendants, shall be re- granted German citizenship on application. They are considered as not having been deprived of their German citizenship if they have established their domicile in Germany after May 8, 1945 and have not expressed a contrary intention.

Articles included from the former Weimar Constitution:

• Civil and political rights and duties are neither dependent upon nor restricted by the practice of religious freedom.
• The enjoyment of civil and political rights, as well as admission to official posts, is independent of religious creed.
• No one is bound to disclose his religious convictions. The authorities have the right to make enquiries as to membership of a religious body only when rights and duties depend upon it, or when the collection of statistics ordered by law requires it.
• No one may be compelled to take part in any ecclesiastical act or ceremony, or the use of any religious form of oath.
• There is no state church.
• Freedom of association is guaranteed to religious bodies. There are no restrictions as to the union of religious bodies within the territory of the Federation.
• Each religious body regulates and administers its affairs independently within the limits of general laws. It appoints its officials without the cooperation of the Land, or of the civil community.
• Religious bodies acquire legal rights in accordance with the general regulations of the civil code.
• Religious bodies remain corporations with public rights in so far as they have been so up to the present.
• Equal rights shall be granted to other religious bodies upon application, if their constitution and the number of their members offer a guarantee of permanency.
• When several such religious bodies holding public rights combine to form one union this union becomes a corporation of a similar class.
• Religious bodies forming corporations with public rights are entitled to levy taxes on the basis of the civil tax rolls, in accordance with the provisions of Land law.
• Associations adopting as their work the common encouragement of a world-philosophy shall be placed upon an equal footing with religious bodies.
• So far as the execution of these provisions may require further regulation, this is the duty of the Land legislature.
• Land connections with religious bodies, depending upon law, agreement or special legal titles, are dissolved by Land legislation. The principle for such action shall be laid down by the Federal Government.
• Ownership and other rights of religious bodies and unions to their institutions, foundations, and other properties devoted to purposes of public worship, education or charity, are guaranteed.
• Sundays and holidays recognized by the Land shall remain under legal protection as days of rest from work and for the promotion of spiritual purposes.
• Religious bodies shall have the right of entry for religious purposes into the army, hospitals, prisons, or other public institutions, so far as is necessary for the arrangement of public worship or the exercise of pastoral offices, but every form of compulsion must be avoided.

Germany ratified [Treaties] and respects international courts which guaranties an extremly high level of freedom. Few, isolated and minor cases only show that even germans aren´t angels. Powerful organizations like Scientology should have no difficulties to get any human or religious right and freedom which they are entitled to according to a extremly high level of international standards.

My personal opinion is that Scientology tries to blackmail the german government to get the tax-exempt status (as a reference for insults see first link). Scientology Crime Syndicate -- Is This A Religion? By Stephen A. Kent TheinfinitelyProlonged (talk) 07:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The European Union References are given in the article, mainly as Wikipedia-pages. A lot of reading can be done to understand Europe. TheinfinitelyProlonged (talk) 08:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

In reply to your link: Russia isn´t a member of the European Union. The court made a decision and Russia first replied positive, but it can´t be forced. Your link don´t give any further information about the reasons to close the center, and the situation of Scientology in Russia. Russia is NOT democratic. TheinfinitelyProlonged (talk) 08:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Cult Awareness Network

Scientology's takeover of the Cult Awareness Network is listed under "criminal accustaions," despite not having and accusations of criminal behavior. I don't want to delete it wholesale, because it's useful and relevant, but I'm not sure where to move it. Suggestions? Reyemile (talk) 17:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the only thing I can think of that it would fit under is "Suspicious/Incriminating Behaviour" or "Silencing of Critics". It is after all, a takeover of what would most likely be a very strong opponent of Scientology. Perhaps the first section? We'd need citations to prove at least that CAN was against Scientology, a bonus would be a Scientologist memorandum to take CAN out. Yours truly, Lethe (talk) 04:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Protection?

This page is in dire need of protection. I just deleted the "Scientology's Replies" section (which if anyone feels like adding it back AFTER major cleanup, so be it) because the entire thing was nothing but ultra-biased commentary from a Scientologist(s). There's more throughout the page that needs work but I'm time restrained at the moment. Nemeses9 (talk) 02:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the relevant edit can be found here. Player 03 (talk) 00:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, I'm not entirely convinced that it violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy, though I suppose it could use cleanup. Player 03 (talk) 00:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

After reading the removed chunk, it was definitely not written by a Scientologist or a pro-Scientology individual. All the same, I do agree it'd need some work before reappearing in some form. 67.188.106.35 (talk) 02:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

My word, what a horrible organization. I had no idea. I think I am going to try that Anonymous group out and see if I can do anything to help shut down these fraudsters. Ndriley97 (talk) 01:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

POV in introduction

I think the first sentence in this article is biased. It's defending Scientology by presenting an argument of Scientologists, and a description of an action taken by Scientologists to defend their beliefs/religion. The first paragraph doesn't seem very well written. I don't have a lot of suggestions, but maybe it should begin with a sentence somewhere along the lines of "there are many controversies associated with Scientology"? VolatileChemical (talk) 11:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I have tried to clear up the introduction and I have tried to morph the Scientologists' defense into a more general description of the nature of the controversies. However, I don't know if it worked or not. Just to clarify I'm not a Scientologist, I do think it is a religion but I think it is a bad one, somewhere in between a cult and a very bizarre church, but I am not a passionate opponent of Scientology (as someone might question why I'm not signing this post it is because I do not want to be part of the Wikipedia community and I hope you will judge my changes and comments by their merits instead of who you might speculate I am).

I also moved the related material to the see also section as it makes more sense to me to place it there. I believe that's a neater division of the page but I understand if the consensus disagrees with me. However, I think some of the controversies that are on other pages, such as Scientology and psychiatry, instead of being in related material should have a small section with a main article link. I also feel since much of the controversy has to do with Hubbard and his family it would be convenient to have a section concentrating all the Hubbard controversy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.227.246 (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Another high-ranking former member goes public

I started an article, see the external link for info. David Graham (former scientologist). Equazcion •✗/C • 06:01, 13 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Notability? Covered in multiple other WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources? Cirt (talk) 08:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Notability doesn't require multiple sources. The source is objective, reliable, and covers the topic exclusively. If you want to apply the common sense factor, the topic is of-interest, the article being mentioned in many different places (as a google search will show), despite the article barely being 24 hours old. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:34, 13 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Deletion?

Why has this article been nominated for deletion? I believe that based on the first amendment that this article should be protected, and monitored to make sure that no one attempts to tamper with it, and eliminate a valuable source of scientology controversies. Besides, who would want to delete an article unless it would be a danger to someone, or an organization? Just saying... Cm2dude (talk) 17:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Well written page

I think this is a well written wiki article on a difficult and controversial subject. Its very hard to maintain a neutral bias, but I think this article is about as neutral as you can get - it presents the facts and issues surrounding a case, without carrying any extra emotional bias to or for against Scientology. Also considering how often pages on Scientology liked to get reverted or altered with more pro-scientology information, id like to thank everyone for maintaining this page.

After having spent the better part of two hours reading the page and following the references, I'm very very much inclined to agree, and am removing the POV tag from the top (just as soon as I recall how to do that...It's been a while). The article is well written, and is just about as neutral as you can possibly get with any article. The assertions made on the page are supported with plenty of documentation from good sources. Jonathon Barton (talk) 19:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

In addition, every assertion I read was backed up by additional reading offsite. I removed the disputed tag, as well. Jonathon Barton (talk) 19:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Questioning a revision

I don't see what's wrong with what was removed in this revision. Was there no references sourced? References should be briefly looked for before removing unsourced material, or flagged with 'needs citation' or whatever's appropriate there. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientology_controversies&diff=202665335&oldid=202654547 74.67.17.22 (talk) 08:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Wall-o-tags

Slapping 5 major tags on the article without discussing them here or trying fix them in the article seems a lot like sour grapes after a bad faith deletion by redirection failed and an AFD consensus strongly in favour of keeping the article. I'm against tag-bombing articles without discussion because, without an indication of exactly what the editor feels is wrong, it's hard to know when the points (if any) have been addressed and the tag can be removed. Many times these tags linger on for a year until someone finally cleans them off. I'm inclined to treat it as article defacement and remove them. AndroidCat (talk) 15:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the taging of this article is mepthic of a bad faith variaty. a spontanious 5 tags, after a redirect, during an AFD all by the same editor seems more like a vendeta than a attempt to clean up wikipedia.Coffeepusher (talk) 15:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe I'm trying to clean up Wikipedia. No, it must be disruption because I'm a dirty deletionist heathen who should be shot. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

In that case, for future reference I would suggest deleting all content and redirecting be discussed on the talk page with a {{mergeto}} tag used, that maintenance, tags be added before nominating for AfD and that you use {{articleissues}} if their are more than 3 of them. As you acted it was disruptive even if it was in good faith.--Nate1481(^t/_c) 16:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Whatever happened to "be bold"? Sceptre ^(talk) 16:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

you will find the following text in the link you provided:

"Also, substantial changes or deletions to the articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories, such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or abortion, or to Featured Articles and Good Articles, should be done with extra care. In many cases, the text as you find it has come into being after long and arduous negotiations between Wikipedians of diverse backgrounds and points of view. A careless edit to such an article might stir up a hornet's nest, and other users who are involved in the page may become defensive. If you would like to make a significant edit to an article on a controversial subject (not just a simple copyedit), it is a useful idea to first read the article in its entirety and skim the comments on the talk page. On controversial articles, the safest course is to find consensus before making changes, but there are situations when bold edits can safely be made to contentious articles. Always use your very best editorial judgment in these cases and be sure to read the talk page." (emphasis added)Coffeepusher (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not "careless" at all. When an article inherently has problems, we fix them. A question: why are you so intent on keeping this article anyway? Sceptre ^(talk) 17:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

it did stur up a hornets nest, so if it ribbits and hops I call it a frog...my personal reasons for keeping the article are on the AFD...Coffeepusher (talk) 23:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

(backdent) When people disagree with our fix, then we give justifications on the talk page. We don't try another method that is a similarly drastic change to see if others will be alright with it instead. The problem with relying completely on Bold, is that it's a two way street. You can boldly make a modification, and the other party can Boldly revert that change. This is why Bold is tempered with WP:CONCENSUS. When you justify your actions, it helps us to see that you are not some random vandal. When you justify them well, you potentially sway someone who may otherwise not understand your reasoning, disagree with your change, and revert your efforts. Alternatively, by presenting your arguments, someone else might be able to make a well-formed rebuttal that will cause you to withdraw your position. So I'd love to hear about your specific problems with specific passages or aspects of this article. -Verdatum (talk) 23:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Scientology#Controversy article. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the link, however, that anchor could not be found in the current revision of the talk page. Did you mean to link to Talk:Scientology#Controversy redirect? If not, I'm a bit frightened to wade into that massive set of archives to search for it...Regardless, any major discussion on that talk page resulting in signifigant changes to this article should probably by linked to within this talk page from the start. -Verdatum (talk) 07:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I meant that. Sceptre ^(talk) 09:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

After reading this I change my adverbs from "cairless" to "wreckless" and "arrogent"Coffeepusher (talk) 22:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Septer has not tagged this article with a total of 10 tags, with no attempt to fix any problems, or any explination of what he believes is the problem. a "factual accuracy" tag definatly needs a detailed explination. the "manual of style" tag implys that he wants us to delete the entire reponce section from the COS which although it needs cleanup, does add well to this article. and the tags where placed with the edit summary "explained on talk page" and there is no new content from will on this talk page.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Explain how they aren't, and I'll support removing they aren't. For fucks sake, the entire aritcle bleeds "blah blah WE HATE TOM CRUISE YAY ANONYMOUS" The sources are flaky, and a lot are being misinterpreted to push an anti-COS POV. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

...This article isn't related to anonymous outside of one entry...your comment is making me believe that this is part of your anti-anonymous stance (lets not rehash that). There isn't a "contriversy section" so your manual of style comment is unfounded. the "factuality" of these events isn't desputed so that tag is bad (they happened). Your more recent use of the word "Fu@#" on talk pages is unexcusable and I wish you would be more professional in your talk practices, if wikipedia works you up to the point that you can't express yourself without profanity then you really should find a new hobby (aka, grow up kid). adding an edit summery of "explained on talk page" was a blatent lie, since you didn't explain yourself on the talk page. without those explinations and means of improvement, your tags are blatant defacement not constructive. Coffeepusher (talk) 18:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

This large amount of tags is not constructive. Perhaps we can move this discussion along to constructively and politely discussing how to improve this article itself, with specific recommendations, as opposed to a discussion over inappropriate usage of tags to push a point? Cirt (talk) 20:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

ok, I am obviously not on my best behavior...I will focus on the article in future discussions.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Improvements to article

, my reading shows a large amout of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. I also think that this article is a great resource, but currntly has no real focus (it covers all topics of contriversy, without any rhyme or reason for what is included). having both critisisms and lists of legal conflicts listed by topic and instance, rather than listing "critisisms" while subsourcing points in time when it was problamatic...or listing insidents of conflict and suplementing them with critisisms that came out of those conflicts. I am also reading the responce section...and seeing less and less value for that section every time I read it.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Going forward

1. Cut out/remove from the article all the poorly sourced stuff, and WP:OR/WP:SYNTH, and if some of that is contentious, discuss on talk page first. Cirt (talk) 21:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
2. Set up (on the talk page) a rough chronological order. Cirt (talk) 21:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
3. Perhaps break the order of the article into decades or periods of time, 1950s, 1960s, onward, etc. Cirt (talk) 21:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

   Doesn't have to be specifically by time period, could just label the subsections by the names of the controversies, and order chronologically. Cirt (talk) 21:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

4. Provide short summaries within each time period/subsection of what happened, controversies that arose, etc. Cirt (talk) 21:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
5. Remove The Church of Scientology's replies to its critics - merge each of its individual responses to each controversy in the subsection about said controversies. Cirt (talk) 21:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

What do people think? Cirt (talk) 21:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not too keen on the idea of ordering the article chronologically. Many of the controversies surrounding Scientology (taxes, litigation, treatment of critics etc) are issues that have been raised repeatedly, from the 1950s onwards. It would be more sensible to structure the article by general subject heading, for instance "Taxation status", "Relationship with governments", "Dealings with critics", "Treatment of members" and so on. The rest of your proposals sound sensible. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to establish the president of naming a contriversy only when paired with a notable incident(s). my reason is because otherwise it would leave this article open to puting any chritisism they want down and just citing a critic (which is what has happened in many places). so we could talk about the "alternitave to psychiatry" (can't remember the term) and introduce it with Lisa Mcpherson, or the Fair game principal with "operation snow white" etc. but we couldn't bring up the "Brainwashing tactics" without some notable example of it coming to press...just a thoughtCoffeepusher (talk) 23:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I am fine/in agreement with comment above by ChrisO (talk · contribs), sounds like a good thematic approach. Cirt (talk) 23:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with ChrisO (talk · contribs)'s thematic approach. I did see that there is a nice collection of litigation history at Scientology and the legal system. Perhaps it should either be merged with this article or the legal issues in this article transferred to Scientology and the legal system. Taiwan prepares (talk) 11:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

POV article

Wow, that article is not full of POVs it IS a WP:POV violation. Let's start with the intro. No references. Shutterbug (talk) 23:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Do the intro differ from the material in the article itself? Are the points in the article nonreferenced? Claiming the entire article is POV is a strong statement that might need a bit of clarification regarding what parts are subject to this. If the Intro is misleading and differs from the referenced points in the main article then please sugest a rewrite or point out the inconsistencies. Blanket statements regarding this article is rather pointless given the highly delicate matter of neutrality regarding controversies. (much like any other article regarding controversies) --213.115.40.148 (talk) 10:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I see no evidence that this article is POV. The introduction summarizes the article. Thus, there is no violation of WP:POV. I think the truth is that Shutterbug does not like it because the article does not reflect the corporate scientology POV. Shutterbug is captiously nitpicking.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 22:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Hubbard Center closed up in Samara

• Staff (November 20, 2008). "Hubbard Center closed up in Samara". Interfax. www.interfax-religion.com. Retrieved 2008-11-20.

Relevant source of info for this article. Cirt (talk) 16:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Making more NPOV

I've made some changes, but it still needs more work. Editors should be reminded to make sure not to state allegations as undisputed fact, since the Church obviously disputes any claims of abuse and so forth. These articles really, really need to stop being a battleground between anti-Scientologists and Church people. Wikipedia's mission is to provide neutral, unbiased info, not outright bashing nor uncritical promotion. Laval (talk) 13:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think that this is alot less Bashing then it could be considering the landfill of evidence and documentation expanding in the face of scientology and it's "abuses". We could easily get away with saying "atrocitys" but we go with the more nutral "abuses". This is weather we like it or not a fight, a fight between people who wish to share information (un-biased or not) with the world and on the other end people who wish to surpress this information because down to thier core it's what they belive is right. Call it what you will but this is regaurdless of how you paint it a fight between scientologists and non-scientologists. We can justify calling it this because it is well known and true that their goal is to surpress ANY critical information about the church. This is evident in numerous policy letters and makes a clear line in the sand as to the intent of all scientologists when placed as a variable in this kind of situation. The motives and intent of everybodyelse however are more varied and diverse. It is those I think we need to focus on. Yes I agree this article needs to be more nuetral but while keeping the general tone that this information is what it is, information and that in this information is the inately expressive in its descriptions of the argueably terrible acts of abuse. Aaron Bongart (talk) 01:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Progress

Good progress on proper sourcing finally happens now at Scientology. This[9] needs to be done here. "Controversy" is tough for starters but it can be done. Misou (talk) 02:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

With the complex out now and obviously no thanks to attempts by the "church" to surpress it then I think an entire section deserves existence here on the topic of the book and it's contents.Aaron Bongart (talk) 01:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article has several issues with neutrality. It repeatedly violates WP:NPOV

1. It focuses solely on the attacks Scientology has made during this controversy, instead of the actual controversy they sparked. This misses the point, and certainly violates WP:POV, as well as destroy the neutrality of the article. What it needs to do is instead of focusing on the attacks, which is more fit for another article, it should focus on the public reaction, whether it be positive or negative, and keep it first coherent with the article title, and second neutral.

2. It uses weasel words at several points. IE, when addressing a alleged attack, it refers to members of the Church of Scientology as cult members. Cult is a purely negative term, referring only to a religion considered invalid, inferior, and exploitative. It should be changed to a more neutral term. I do believe this should be fixed, and until then, somebody should place a 'weasel words' notice at the top.

I would fix these changes, but my computer is having issues, so I cannot edit the page. Don't ask why, I have no idea. Avianmosquito (talk) 11:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I changed the "cult member" reference, however the use in other places seems justified by the cites. (Using alleged attack is also a weasel, with the amount of incriminating documents recovered and stipulated by the defense.) AndroidCat (talk) 22:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality: Some notable controversies that are not covered

• I can't find a single reference, in all of Wikipedia, to the open letter that Dustin Hoffman, Goldie Hawn, Oliver Stone and other Hollywood stars addressed to the German government in the nineties, accusing the German government of discriminating against Scientologists in a manner comparable to the persecution of Jews in Nazi Germany. This was a very notable, and widely reported controversy: [10]. A copy of the letter is here.

• Germany's stance against Scientology has been the subject of considerable debate in the United States, both in the media and in government hearings, as has the stance of several other European countries. These too are Scientology controversies that I, as a reader, would expect to see covered here. See for example [11]

• Lastly, there has also been criticism of and debate about Scientology critics. For some scholarly sources, see [12] (pp. 261-268), [13]. In my view, this too should be reflected in an NPOV article covering "Scientology controversies".

I suggest that we do some source research and include these controversies at our earliest convenience. Jayen466 11:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Here is another notable controversy: [14] [15] Jayen466 14:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Criticism by Hubbard Jr.

Jayen466, why did you simply revert *everything*? I wouldn't mind changing the wording but I think its somewhat crucial to leave the statements of the son of the founder in. It *is* controversial and it is ensured that he said that. His interviews are on records and it was his book.
Furthermore you even removed the part where Mike Rinder, chief spokesman of Scientology, admits that the confession of the members are logged and stored, see MSNBC interview. Is that not trustworthy, is it not worth mentioning or is the wording not good enough? Sorry, I am new to editing Wikipedia articles but I found the son's statements and Mr Rinder's statements both very relevant. Dominik Seifert (talk) 06:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Multiple reasons, really. For one, Penthouse is not a great encyclopedic source. Second, Hubbard's son later retracted the statements he made in the interview, so there is at least some degree of doubt as to their accuracy, and it would be better to go to secondary sources to decide if and how to include this. See WP:PSTS. The same for the Rinder interview – to write an encyclopedia, we should not read an interview and conclude, by ourselves, that there is a controversy about what the person said or that it confirms that there is something controversial about a situation and write that in an article – that is original research. We should, rather, cite reliable secondary sources that provide published evidence that there is a controversy, and that this controversy focuses, in this case, on Rinder's statements. As it was, there was no evidence that Rinder's comments caused a controversy, or that the mental connections made reflected those made in a published source.

Basically, I would like to ask you to go to reliable, published secondary sources (scholarly books, quality press) that discuss such controversies and summarise what they are saying. For instance, you could do a google books search on Hubbard's interview [16] to see what other people have written about it. There is a book by Zellner, for example. Those are the sorts of sources we should use and summarise, because they will have analysed the claims, assessed their credibility, and so forth. We should not string primary sources together ourselves to advance a position, based on our own insight, and what we as Wikipedians consider relevant to the topic. Also see WP:SYN (Wikipedia policy) and WP:ORIGINALSYN (just an essay). Cheers, Jayen466 10:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

As a separate issue, there is some background information on the book by Corydon and Hubbard Jr. here in the Marburg Journal of Religion:

Brent Corydon and L. Ron Hubbard, Jr., L. Ron Hubbard - Messiah or Madman?, Secaucus, N. J. 1987. Another very important book but also a deeply problematical item. L. Ron Hubbard, Jr. (who in civil life uses the name Ronald DeWolfe) is Hubbard's eldest son (born 1934 from his first marriage) who till a break in 1959 was his father's confidant. Bent Corydon is a former Scientologist who undertook to write the above mentioned book. Contrary to the title Hubbard Jr. is not co-author, but just contributed some intrviews used by Corydon. After the publication of the book Hubbard Jr. signed an affidavit in which he denied many of the statements made in the book (copy in my possession). He says he never had access to the manuscript and only was given a copy of the book using his name when it was already in print. It is usually assumed that the Church of Scientology paid Hubbard Jr. for this statement. This cannot be proven. A legal affidavit has to be taken into consideration. Many of the claims made in Corydon's book are very sensationalist. It is quite believable that Hubbard Jr. was not happy with the book even when he wanted to expose the darker side of his father.

So it appears Hubbard Jr. didn't actually write the book. Jayen466 10:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You are obviously a very experienced Wikipedian, thank you for your directions. I see now that there is a difference between controversies and controversial conduct. I myself find it very disturbing that Scientology log and archieve many private secrets that they extract during Auditing. Who knows what they can use that for, especially when it comes to public figures. But - if I understood correctly, it would not be a controversy until a trustworthy source confirms that these secrets were used for exploitation? Dominik Seifert (talk) 12:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

There has been controversy around allegations that such auditing records have been or might be used, and those we can cover too, irrespective of whether the use has been proven or not, but we should present them as they are presented in published sources. According to the religious scholar J. G. Melton (2000, Signature Books, p. 29), allegations of misuse of auditing records have been made. Melton says that occasional abuses may have occurred, but he also adds that "the charges of abuse have not been substantiated when presented in courts of justice, and we are thus left with a lack of verified evidence of any invasion of members' auditing files or invasion of their privacy". He further adds that such behaviour would run counter to basic rules auditors are taught, and that there is a code of conduct that stipulates that any auditor who would abuse the records would be dismissed from Church staff. Note that on the overall spectrum, Melton (who also writes the Encyclopedia Britannica entry on Scientology) is quite sympathetic to Scientology; I don't know what other scholars like Kent have said on auditing confidentiality. Basically, auditing confidentiality is a worthwhile controversy to mention on this page, and we should research a spectrum of good scholarly and press sources that have commented on this. Cheers, Jayen466 12:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

"The Church of Scientology's replies to its critics"

The section contains a large chunk of information which is only sourced to a couple primary sources. We needs some secondary sources for verification. ←Spidern→ 19:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

That on the other hand is perfectly true. Jayen466 19:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Legal documents a primary source

I'm concerned about use of legal documents as discussed here >>> [[17]]

I'm specifically concerned with this citation,[[18]] it's use seems to me like original research.

It would like to discuss this. Bravehartbear (talk) 04:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ban on scientology

Ok, I know this made quite the news, but while reading the article, it just looks a bit out of place, or just worded bad. Maybe I'm just seeing this from a wikipedian standpoint, but it just doesn't read right. Maybe "News outlets reported on May 27th... blah blah blah..." or something along those lines. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 18:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

POV Fork

It seems to me that this article in its current form is a big POV Fork WP:CFORK. I would recomend it for deletion but the article has potential. Bravehartbear (talk) 03:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Not only NPOV issues but also weasel words. But, still this seems the best choice. RUL3R (talk) 15:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

There was already a WP:SNOWBALL on this, but it was SNOWBALL "Keep". Cirt (talk) 00:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It is also, flatly, utterly impossible to avoid a "Fork" in a Scientology article. Scientologists will claim that *any* source which does not abjectily depict the CoS in a positive light is not NPOV. Outside of CoS members, there are approaching no sources which depict the CoS in a positive light. While it may approach a "no true irishman," it is fair to say that no source which depicts the CoS in a positive light is not run by Scientologists (as the counterargument given by Scientologists to negative sources is that 'no true Scientologist would say anything bad about Scientology,' this is hardly unfair, especially since they are utterly unwilling to accept any negative source not written by a Scientologist). Given that the Scientology article is biased toward Scientology in a way that would never be allowed for, say, Holocaust Denial or Flat Earth, a Fork such as this is an absolute necessity. 96.25.188.62 (talk) 10:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

And that is a result that there are few, if any, secondary WP:RS that cover any CoS sponsored social program. I could only find 2 reliable sources for Volunteer Ministers (American Chronicle, Reuters) could probably be used somewhere... --RUL3R^{*flaming | *vandalism} 19:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

New title "Criticisms of Scientology"?

I was recently editing Criticism of Mormonism, an old article. And a new editor suggested re-naming it to "Controversies about Mormonism". I replied and pointed out that most articles that criticize religions have titles that start with "Criticism of .." as in:

• Criticism of Religion
• Criticism of Christianity
• Criticism of Hinduism
• Criticism of Islam
• Criticism of Judaism
• Criticism of Buddhism
• Criticism of Mormonism
• Criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
• Criticism of the Roman Catholic Church

• Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses
• Controversies about Opus Dei
• Scientology controversy

But you notice that the latter three use "Controversy" in their title.

My question is: Would it help this encyclopedia if all these article started with "Criticism of ...", specifically starting with _this_ article? (by the way, Im new to this article, so if re-titling has been discussed before, I apologize).

But conistency is not the only benefit: I would offer:

A controversy is a debate, usually public, that may be postive or negative.

A criticism is a negative statement by a notable individual or group.

Virtually all the topics in all the above religion articles are criticisms.

Examples of controversies that are not criticisms:

• Should LDS tithing be 10% of gross or 10% of net?
• Should a church permit birth control?
• Should the Catholic church prohibit eating meat on Friday?
• Which books should be included in the Bible?

Examples of criticisms that are not controversies:

• LDS church made 6,000 changes to Book of Mormon
• Judaism's circumcision ritual is child abuse
• Joseph Smith was convicted of crimes before founding the Mormon church
• Religion can be explained as a simple psychological construct, rather than divine

The above examples should illustrate why (in the Wikipedia religious article context) "criticism" is a better title than "controversy". (Apologies about the lack of Scientology examples: that is not my area of expertise).

My point is: all the topics in all those articles are "criticisms", and many "controversies" (that dont include negative issues) are _not_ included. Therefore, the word "Controversies" in the article titles is not as good as "Criticism of ...".

In the interests of uniformity and accuracy, I propose changing the title of this article to "Criticism of Scientology". However, I'm new to this Scientology article, so if there is some history Im unaware of, please educate me. Im just trying to help the over-all encyclopedia.

Thanks for any input. --Noleander (talk) 23:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I am not so sure about this, it might make sense to have a separate article "Criticism of Scientology", but this page seems to primarily deal not with criticism but rather with controversies created by the Scientology organization that it has brought upon itself. Cirt (talk) 04:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. The words critic/criticise/criticism appear 56 times in the article. Some of the issues in the article do look like simple criticisms that do not involve controversies (i.e. public debate or outcry), such as:

• The church maintains copyrights on its documents
• The church harrassed film-maker Sweeny
• Some members of the church leadership were convicted of crimes
• The death of daughter of Ole Gunnar Ballo after a personality test.

Im no expert on the history of Scientology, but I don't think there are "controversies" on these topics; they are really just negative aspects of, or criticisms of Scientology.

Anyway, I'll defer to the judgement of the editors that have worked on this article a lot. My concern is not so much the accuracy of the title (tho I do think "Criticisms of .." is more accurate) as over-all consistency with other "Criticism of ..." other religion articles. Perhaps I should put this request on Wikipedia:Requested moves to get more input? --Noleander (talk) 13:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

-

Any more thoughts on this re-name? I only see a "Not so sure". Maybe I'll do the formal Move request? --Noleander (talk) 12:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed rename

Scientology controversies → Criticism of Scientology — For two reasons: (1) more consistency with a dozen other "Criticism of [some religion]" articles; and (2) the term "criticism more accurately represents the contents of the article, and is a more generic term that includes any negative asserstion about Scientology (vs. "Controversy" which is a narrower term that means "public debate"). See additional details (including a list of other "Criticism of ..." articles) above. Noleander (talk) 13:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is the list of other similar articles:

• Criticism of Religion
• Criticism of Christianity
• Criticism of Hinduism
• Criticism of Islam
• Criticism of Judaism
• Criticism of Buddhism
• Criticism of Mormonism
• Criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
• Criticism of the Roman Catholic Church
• Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses

• Support - I am the originator of this suggestion. I dont have super-strong feelings about the name, but I've been working on the "Category:Criticism of Religion" category, and is just odd to have 10 religion articles start "Criticism of ..." yet this one is "Controversy .." Note: Jehovas Witnesses article used to be "controversies about .." but the consensus was to change it to "Criticism of ...". --Noleander (talk) 14:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - It might make sense to have a separate article "Criticism of Scientology", but this page deals primarily not with criticism but rather with controversies created by the Scientology organization that it has brought upon itself. Cirt (talk) 14:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Question - I hear what you are saying, but what about existing sections in this article like:

• The legitimacy of Scientology as a religion
• starting a religion for money
• Personality tests
• Copyright and trademark laws

Those sections dont quite seem to involve controversies. They seem more like simple "Here is a negative thing about Scientology movement". And then there is the section:

• Church of Scientology's response to criticism

--Noleander (talk) 15:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, things the organization has brought upon itself through its own actions. Cirt (talk) 15:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Historical events are not in and of themselves "criticism", they are just that, historical events that are quite controversial in nature. Cirt (talk) 15:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Noleander for setting out the reasons at length in such a clear way. My feelings on this are mixed, but I warn that there's potentially a POV issue with using "Criticisms" rather than "Controversies". Take the "Free Zone" for example. The Free Zone claim that they practice Scientology as it was originally intended, and that the Church of Scientology practice an altered version. Conversely, the CoS make the same claim about the Free Zone. Are either of these claims a criticism of Scientology? A similar concern can be raised about the Criticisms of Islam article: some muslims advocate violence, issue fatwas etc. but other muslims say that they have no authority to do so and that they are misrepresenting Islam. There's at least a viable point of view that what's being criticised or negatively represented isn't Islam, so the label "Criticisms of Islam" isn't quite appropriate. Looking at your list of articles, it seems some are definitely about criticisms but some are arguably a mix of criticism and controversy.

Back to this article, and the Scientologists' use of extra-legal methods, use of legal threats etc. From the Scientologists' perspective, these things just show how strongly committed they are, how Scientology deals with extremely important issues that sometimes merit extreme action, how Scientology takes a higher view of ethical authority than obeying every Earthly law, and so on. You describe them above as "negative things" and lots of people will share that point of view, but if we use that view to frame the article then we are implicitly excluding the Scientology point of view.

There's academic literature that mentions the controversial aspects of Scientology, not in an attacking way but just to illustrate how strongly committed the Scientologists are. So, although there's not much at stake here, I prefer to oppose. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I dont have a strong feeling one way or another, so I'll go ahead and drop the proposal. --Noleander (talk) 16:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Cirt (talk) 16:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support but a better alternative is have both articles. They are separate and notable topics. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The proposal was since dropped by the proposer. But I would agree to have both articles, but would oppose moving this article, instead, one could create the other article, independent of any change to this one. Cirt (talk) 08:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Information about Scientology in Germany

I have noticed that User:Wispanow and User:Pgreenfinch have deleted information relevant to the status of Scientology in Germany (by this I mean, this users are removing the whole section labeling it as "pro-cult propaganda" and "POV pushing".) As far as I can see, the section is well sourced and relevant to the topic of the article. I would like to invite both users to provide their rationales for the removal. Thank you. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 09:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think WP is a place to insult democratic countries and to represent as martyr an organization that has just been condemned for fraud in France. --Pgreenfinch (talk) 16:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is no grounds to delete information. If neutrality is disputed it requires copy-editing and sourcing, not deletion. About 10% of WP content could be deleted by that reasoning. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 02:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The only remedy to a libel is to delete it. Check what WP is and is not. --Pgreenfinch (talk) 07:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

So, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:AGF and WP:NPOV should be ignored just because you believe the intention of the section is to "attack" the German government? The truth is that the practice of Scientology in Germany is restricted, at best. There are a lot of reliable sources to that, and statements from the government of the US on the matter. It is notable. It is well sourced. It is relevant to the topic. And it is a relevant point of view of the German government toward Scientology. There is no reason not to note it here. Again, if you feel the prose is an attack on the German government, you are welcome to copy-edit and source the article. Also, the conviction was in France. What has Germany to do with that? > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 08:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The conflict between the CofSc and the German Government is well-documented and relevant to the notability of the subject. I cannot see the disputed section as violating neutrality, though changes to the wording and tone could be considered. Perhaps that should be discussed here, rather than deleting and reinserting the whole section? Rumiton (talk) 09:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• There has been a notable controversy about Scientology in Germany, with substantial criticism of Germany's position, especially from the US Department of State. This has seen extensive coverage in publications such as Time Magazine, the New York Times, and the Independent.

We can look at whether our description of the controversy is even-handed. The wording we have in the article right now does appear to give room to both sides' views. If there are any specific statements by the German government that editors would want included, we can look at that, but deleting the controversy is out of the question; it is far too notable for that. --JN466 12:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Alleged oppression of Scientologists in Germany

Dispute over subsection Alleged oppression of Scientologists in Germany. 13:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: Please do not have threaded discussions in your own subsection. Only do that in the subsection above this RFC on the talk page, or below in the General discussion section. Cirt (talk) 13:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Previously involved editors

Comments by Cirt

The title of the subsection is itself inappropriate, as it violates WP:WTA. Perhaps simply titled it Scientology in Germany. And it could be weighted better to present more of a worldview instead of a heavily weighted United States view - with more inclusion of information from the positions of governments in France, Germany, Belgium, etc. Cirt (talk) 13:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Jayen466

I've renamed the section "Scientology in Germany" for now. Basically, there has been a dispute between the United States and various European countries, above all Germany, over what the US perceive as discrimination against individual Scientologists. This has been a notable controversy; it led to a widely reported (see sources above) diplomatic row between German and the US.

One way we could go would be to make this section about this specific US–Germany row, and title it accordingly.

Another possibility would be to widen the scope and include similar disagreements between the US and other countries such as France and Belgium as well (cf. Kent's paper, "The French and German versus American Debate over 'New Religions', Scientology, and Human Rights"), as well as the views of the French, Belgian etc. governments that the US are meddling in European States' internal affairs.

My feeling however is that to date the US-Germany dispute, while indeed only one of several such disputes, has received by far the most press coverage, in both German-language and English-language sources.

Incidentally, this includes many British sources, whose reporting does not strike me as different from US reporting:

• Barber, Tony (1997-01-30). "Germany is harassing Scientologists, says US". The Independent. Retrieved 2009-09-11.
• "UN asks Germany to explain Scientology stand", BBC
• "German ministers try to ban Scientology", The Guardian
• "Cruise is 'Goebbels of Scientology', says German church", The Independent
• Moore, Tristana (2008-01-13). "Scientologists in German push", BBC

Generally, both the US and the British press take a dim view of Scientology in their domestic reporting; however, quite a few mainstream commentators (and that includes German scholars) feel that Germany's response to Scientology has been slightly over the top.

• Richard Cohen for example, writing in the Washington Post, said in 1996: "Scientology might be one weird religion, but the German reaction to it is weirder still – not to mention disturbing." [19].
• Alan Cowell, writing in the New York Times, said in 1997 that the German response to Scientology – motivated by officials' fear that Scientology "was a totalitarian movement growing, like the Nazi party, from inconsequential beginnings" – was itself redolent of "the Nazi era's authoritarianism."[20]

These are both highly respected, Pulitzer Prize-nominated journalists; Richard Cohen is American, and Alan Cowell is a Brit based in Paris. No doubt Germany is particularly vulnerable to being seen in a critical light over this, because of its Nazi history, but comments like that are notable. I don't mind adding French views on the controversy. Sources? --JN466 14:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments by RUL3R

For those who might not have read my userpage, I consider myself a Scientologist. Just letting you know, as I don't want anybody to believe I am trying to push a pro-Scientology agenda, since I am not involved with the Sea Org, the RTC, nor the IAS. Now, returning to the topic. I find no major issues with the section, not any that would justify removal of the section anyway. Per above thread, it is heavily referenced, all fit WP:RS, no WP:OR, the tone may not be entirely neutral, but all statements are attributed. The fact that the Church of Scientology was convicted of fraud in a French court (a decision that, as far as I can tell, is passing through appeal, so it is not definitive yet) has nothing to do with the status of the organization in Germany. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 13:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Pgreenfinch

Thanks. Exactly what I was starting to write here, as I think it is of very bad taste that some accuse me not to play the game just because I cannot admit that in a WP article a section about another country is based on mostly American sources, which are a bit hard to trust as related to an organization based in the US. As for me, the real controversy is how the US could meddle in what democratic countries do to protect themselves against delictuous intrusions.--Pgreenfinch (talk) 13:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Previously uninvolved editors

Comments by John Carter

It's hard to tell specifically what is being requested here, so I will respond to the comments that seem to me to be relevant to the RfC. I prefer the title "Scientology in Germany" or similar over "alleged controversies" or anything similar which utilizes words we try to avoid. Regarding whether some of the publications are "US-based", specifically Time and the New York Times, yes, they are. But Time has if I remember correctly several international editions, which indicates that even if it is based in the US it's influence extends well beyond that area. The New York Times, for what it's worth, is to the best of my knowledge one of the most respected newspapers on the planet, and thus also qualifies at least to my eyes as being more than just a US source. On that basis, I have to say that I can see no real reason to criticize either for alleged nationalism. John Carter (talk) 14:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Richard-of-Earth

Currently (this version) with the title "Scientology in Germany" seems balanced. I feel someone neutral on the subject would read it and get that there was a deep controversy. It is clear there is name calling, grand standing and uncompromising attitudes on both sides.

The new title is good because "Alleged" is a weasel word and "oppression" in the title is NPOV. In fact some of the other section titles in the article could be less POV.

I see from the edit history that it is felt that Germany is being singled out as oppressive. Scientology is controversial in all of Europe, but the controversy in Germany is particular strong and long standing warranting it's own section as supported by the Time Magazine article mentioned by Jayen466 above. (Bonfante, Jordan; van Voorst, Bruce (1997-02-10). "Does Germany Have Something Against These Guys?", Time)

If this were a paper encyclopedia, a lot of the material about Scientology in Wikipedia would not be included, because it is controversial. A paper encyclopedia would be more conservative about what might be found offensive. Wikipedia is clearly not conservative in that way.

Richard-of-Earth (talk) 05:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Professor marginalia

Neither title is ideal. "Scientology in Germany" is a weak entry next to blunt titles like "Abuse of donations", "Brainwashing", and "Mistreatment of members"--a change which renders the article less NPOV in my opinion. Watering down the tone when it's pointed at Germany or other opponents, but giving a pass to the same kinds of emotion tinged titles when the target is Scientology isn't NPOV. "Alleged" smacks of an editorial qualifier. Change to noun form, "allegations", would be a little better. "Mistreatment of scientologists in Germany" would be every bit as NPOV as the "Mistreatment of members" and other such titles already used throughout. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Peter Jackson

Fox, World Survey of Religion and the State, Cambridge University Press, 2008, says Germany is tougher than other countries on this. I can look up exactly what it says if others can't easily do so. Peter jackson (talk) 11:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I've now got the book in front of me. Germany is listed under the following hierarchy of headings:

1. Western democracies
2. Preferred treatment for some religions or support for a particular tradition
3. Moderate to high restrictions on minorities

page 129:

"The German government closely monitors and often harasses Scientologists. Several state governments have published pamphlets about dangerous cults, including Scientologists. Firms bidding for government contracts must sign forms stating that their mamgement and employees are not Scientologists. This wording was changed in 2001 to a promise that the "technology of L. Ron [page 130] Hubbard will not be used in executing the contract. Government employment offices monitor companies that have suspected Scientologists working for them and warn prospective employees of these firms of this. Government officials have organized boycotts of movies starring John Travolta and Tom Cruise because they are Scientologists.

Many of Germany's major political parties, including the Social Democrats, the Christian Democratic Union, the Free Liberal Party, and the STAAT, have banned Scientologists from being party members. During the 1990s several regional governments asked the federal government to engage in a numbre of actions against Scientologists including criminal investigations; an investigation of whether membership in the Church should be regarded in the same way as drug addiction; the expansion of government "explanatory campaigns" on Scientology; and action to combat their economic influence. Government officials have published names of individual Scientologists and engaged in media campaigns against businesses run by them. Businesspeople have even advertised in newspapers that they are not Scientologists in order to avoid the social and economic repercussions of being associated with Scientology."

At the end of the whole section, which covers other "sects" too, a footnote cites the following sources:

• Boyle & Sheen, Freedom of Religion and Belief, Routledge, London, 1997, pages 309-10
• Mary Williams, "Germany Versus Scientology", Los Angeles Times, Feb. 6, 1997
• [21]
• Lord Duncan McNair, "Report of the Ad Hoc Committee to Investigate Discrimination Against Religious and Ethnic Minorities in Germany", October 1996

Peter jackson (talk) 11:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

General discussion

The way in which this discussion is structured isn't particularly conducive to an efficient resolution of this issue. A quick look at the discussion page and the archive doesn't suggest that this issue has been discussed in any detail before. Couldn't this issue have been raised for discussion more conventionally rather than going straight to a more formal RfC structure? Adambro (talk) 14:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

See the disruption of the page itself, and the discussion above the RFC. Cirt (talk) 14:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The Profesor has a point above regarding the weakness of the section title. Perhaps something like "Effort to ban Scientology in Germany" or something along those lines, which would also be more informative than "Sceintology in Germany", might be acceptable. John Carter (talk) 20:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I just thought the same, and this is my attempt at remedying it: [22] --JN466 20:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the source above, Peter. --JN466 16:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Shout out

I would just like to give a shout out to the Wikipedia editors of this page. It cannot be easy sifting through so much junk, constantly demanding linking to resources and whatever else it takes to keep this page as clean as it is. As a general reader, I am very impressed with the rational, measured way this page is presented and its consistent readability. Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.234.192.170 (talk) 02:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of Judaism

There is a deletion discussion going on at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Criticism_of_Judaism_(2nd_nomination), and any input would be appreciated. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Lede image

The lede image is appropriate and should remain. It is noteworthy, notable, and historically significant. It is also pretty neat that it was taken onsite directly by a Wikimedia Commons photographer and Wikinews journalist. -- Cirt (talk) 20:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure. It doesn't really directly relate to the article subject and the article makes no mention of Anonymous. Adambro (talk) 20:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Despite I may fall in WP:COI; I think it is OK for the image to be removed. It only illustrates a group of people against another group of people. I does nothing to document a Scientology controversy. It would serve better on a hypothetical "Public image of Scientology" article, the article for Anonymous (group), and Project Chanology. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 20:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The article makes no mention of Anonymous or their protest activities, which can probably be taken to be essentially tangential to the topic of Scientology controversies. The image may belong in other articles, or perhaps if this article is expanded to include anti-Scientology protests/street theater.ClovisPt (talk) 21:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The image does indeed directly relate to the article subject. In addition to the image, a valid citation to an WP:RS source including text relevant to the article, was summarily removed unilaterally without any discussion about this. -- Cirt (talk) 22:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:BRD? I don't think we need a discussion before anyone changes anything. Adambro (talk) 22:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

It certainly would have been nice to have a post to the talk page about it. The edit summary failed to note that the user just went and removed the text, citation, and image, all in one edit, and failed to retain the text and citation. -- Cirt (talk) 22:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The text in question was simply the image caption. If someone says they've removed an image, I would think it would be implied that the caption would also be removed so I'm not quite sure what the issue is here. Adambro (talk) 22:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, it would have been a nice courtesy and polite to attempt to discuss removal of the text and citation. -- Cirt (talk) 22:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

First off, I am sorry for the revert with the "check the archive" comment, I since discovered that I was remembering another discussion that occurred on a different page, not this one. I am not married to the idea of having that particular picture, but I do believe we should have some picture at the lede. I would like to propose this picture. It is easily identified as an act of protest specifically referring to a popular event that has been re-appropriated by several different groups in a variety of ways, this just demonstrating one of them. thus it does not highlight a specific group, but does instantly inform the reader both about the article and how some of the controversies are hashed out today.Coffeepusher (talk) 22:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Support the image. It's more on topic. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 00:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Support the image. I agree with RUL3R (talk · contribs), this image is more relevant directly to the general scope of the topic at hand. -- Cirt (talk) 02:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It has been several days with no dissenting opinions voiced. I have added the image and summarized the image directly and its relation to the article, and wikilinked the appropriate words for further clarification.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done, looks great! -- Cirt (talk) 20:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Tweet tweet: stupidity and John Dixon

The ever-litigious scientologists are at it again: "Councillor faces inquiry over tweet calling Church of Scientology 'stupid'". If this blows up into something moderately big (and already there's quite a lot of it on the internets), it might be handy to know whether the (newly?) LibDem John Dixon is related to the (previously?) Plaid Cymru John Dixon (Welsh politician). -- Hoary (talk) 01:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Private Investigators

Should somebody mention the proven fact that the Church sends PIs to track people who have been disconnected?--Canadian Reject (talk) 10:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

potential resource Scientific American

The Real Science behind Scientology; It's not what you think by Michael Shermer SciAm October 20, 2011 97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

"Grooming" wikilink

In the Allegations of criminality section I wikilinked the word grooming, in reference to gifts to London police officers with the article Adult grooming. I am 99% sure that's what was meant, but I want to draw some attention to it in case I've misunderstood it. Rhsimard (talk) 22:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Internal controversy

The sentence introducing the recent Guardian article "Scientologist rallies followers against leader in leaked email" is

Debbie Cook says emphasis on fundraising under David Miscavige is betrayal of founder L Ron Hubbard's beliefs

It appears that Cook is the person mentioned here. Quote from the article:

In what appears to be a direct attempt to undermine Miscavige's leadership, Cook [...] urged people receiving the email to reject orders not directly backed up by Hubbard's teachings, and to encourage other members to do the same. / One recipient passed the email to New York's Village Voice, which posted it in a blog. While the email was later removed at the request of Cook – who has verified its authenticity – it has been republished elsewhere.

The last two words of that, "republished elsewhere", are linked to a blog posting, "Reformation – Division Within Corporate Scientology". (This is also here at WebCite.)

The Guardian article perhaps emphasizes the substance of the criticism less than the fact that it was internal. Something about this smells encyclopedic to me, but somebody more experienced than I am at editing these articles would have a better idea of what to do with it. -- Hoary (talk) 02:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Non-criminal things in section "Allegations of criminality; criminal convictions of members"

In section "Allegations of criminality; criminal convictions of members", these two items:

• The Church of Scientology long considered the Cult Awareness Network (CAN) as one of its most important enemies, and many Scientology publications during the 1980s and 1990s cast CAN (and its spokesperson at the time, Cynthia Kisser) in an unfriendly light, accusing the cult-watchdog organization of various criminal activities. After CAN was forced into bankruptcy and taken over by Scientologists in the late 1990s, Scientology proudly proclaimed this as one of its greatest victories.[citation needed]

• In the United Kingdom the church has been accused of "grooming" City of London Police officers with gifts worth thousands of pounds.[37]

^ neither of these are allegations of criminality, or criminal convictions.

The first one seems to me like it might be more suited for the "Fair Game" section or article ('casting in an unfriendly light' is not a criminal activity), while a second one is a good example of Scientology schmoozing public officials, but that's not illegal.

If the tickets which Scientology donated to City of London officers had been direct bribes in return for specific favours (and I don't know of any sources that would support the contention that they were) then it would be illegal for police officers to accept them, but that's a bit different. If it was just lobbying then that's legal.

So might I suggest that both of these cases be moved to different parts of the article.

--Mknjbhvgcf (talk) 17:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The legality of those acts are fairly dubious IMO. 203.97.127.101 (talk) 12:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

In the UK it is absolutely illegal to give gifts in return for "favours" from police. The "favours" in question here were suppression of protest outside the CoS building and high profile officers attending openings etc to give a sheen of respectability to CoS. Police officers who did not record the gifts are also guilty of an offence.

"Casting in an unfriendly light" is also illegal if it crosses the line into libel/slander or perjury, something many CoS communications have done. Altan001 (talk) 23:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Revert by Techbear

A revert has been made by Techbear that may reduce an illusion of controversy, but one that Techbear prefers to refer to as "conversation", a notion that I strongly disagree with. You can check the "View history" option yourself that should have added:
"Conclusion toward the Xenu charges is that no Scientology member is obliged to believe in the Xenu (-nonsense)." (Because of this splendid member-autonomy principle being part of Scientology corpus.)
It's my opinion that people have a right to factual information when it's available and this is such a case. I see no use for people to believe in these fabrications/illusions when one can reach a much more relieving point of personal standing in terms of information obtained in the true sense. Cheers! 95.34.149.202 (talk) 12:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The purpose of a talk page is to discuss the article and how to improve it; they are not forums for discussing the topic. I deleted your addition because it had nothing whatsoever to do with this article. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 13:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your passion, but understand that many of us have dozens or hundreds of articles on our watchlists, so when you post to a talk page, please make the connection to the article obvious from the beginning. Something like "Here's what should be changed about the article; now here are sources to back up my request". Andrew³²⁷ 16:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

POV issues

I cleaned up the highly POV intro paragraph, but don't have time to check the rest of the article, which could definitely use a routine check every few months for blatant pro or anti POV creeping in. Laval (talk) 14:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Also recommend moving article to Scientology-related controversies to remain in line with the category title and for accuracy. Laval (talk) 14:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not of strong opinion either way over a rename, but I don't think it's really necessary to widen the article title like that just to match the category title. People will still search for this title or Criticism of Scientology, etc. As far as accuracy goes, this title is already accurate, adding "related" into the name changes nothing. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 14:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I am provisionally removing the flag from the main page. The title is representative of the content of the page. Viridium (talk) 02:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Following seven months without contentious talks since its placement, I have removed the POV check. Viridium (talk) 02:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Scientology controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070510195456/http://www.stmi.bayern.de:80/service/publikationen/detail/16672/ to http://www.stmi.bayern.de/service/publikationen/detail/16672/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Scientology controversies/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

*2 images, 29 citations. Smee 09:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

Last edited at 01:51, 1 January 2012 (UTC). Substituted at 15:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

"Nova Religio" article

I removed the paragraph referring to the "Nova Religio" article Sensational Scientology! The Church of Scientology and Australian Tabloid Television. It is essentially a Scientology apologist article. It uncritically repeats the Church's position that Fair Game has been officially cancelled, merely saying that "ex-members" claim that it continues in practice; it takes issue with journalists discussing Scientology beliefs and practices with ex-members on the grounds that "due to Scientologist belief, members were not at liberty to discuss higher-level teachings"; and it describes the Rehabilitation Project Force as a voluntary stint. --Slashme (talk) 12:01, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Scientology controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/07/01/sci_psy/index_np.html?pn=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040802235201/http://www.eff.org:80/legal/cases/Scientology_cases/ to http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/Scientology_cases/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:03, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Severely dated entry

In Belgium, after a judicial investigation since 1997, a trial against the organization is due to begin in 2008.

Can somebody update this? ☺ Dick Kimball (talk) 15:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Scientology controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070601161307/http://www.nypress.com/20/22/news%26columns/feature.cfm to http://www.nypress.com/20/22/news%26columns/feature.cfm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/1996/1996canlii1650/1996canlii1650.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/154clr120.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090626222533/http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/1999/07/22/scientology/print.html to http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/1999/07/22/scientology/print.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100506140937/http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article2371180.ece to http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article2371180.ece
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/Scientology_cases/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Scientology controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5yLc3T9Xn?url=http://www.sptimes.com/News/32999/Worldandnation/Abroad__Critics_publi.html to http://www.sptimes.com/News/32999/Worldandnation/Abroad__Critics_publi.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160124225356/http://www.antisectes.net/sp-times-scientology-special-report-pulitzer-price.pdf to http://www.antisectes.net/sp-times-scientology-special-report-pulitzer-price.pdf
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5yLc3T9Xn?url=http://www.sptimes.com/News/32999/Worldandnation/Abroad__Critics_publi.html to http://www.sptimes.com/News/32999/Worldandnation/Abroad__Critics_publi.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050324093216/http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_1996_July_16/ai_18489022 to http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_1996_July_16/ai_18489022
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071226104617/http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5h-V0Ui506lPl-r8ImubpdUjFbuYA to http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5h-V0Ui506lPl-r8ImubpdUjFbuYA
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5o4YGXMBa?url=http://www.umhb.edu/files/academics/crl/publications/articles/the_church_of_scientologypursuit_of_legal_recognition.pdf to http://www.umhb.edu/files/academics/crl/publications/articles/the_church_of_scientologypursuit_of_legal_recognition.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160124225356/http://www.antisectes.net/sp-times-scientology-special-report-pulitzer-price.pdf to http://www.antisectes.net/sp-times-scientology-special-report-pulitzer-price.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:02, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Scientology controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110604102718/http://www.sptimes.com/2006/06/24/Tampabay/The_unperson.shtml to http://www.sptimes.com/2006/06/24/Tampabay/The_unperson.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:32, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2017

Hello! I would like to edit this page because I would love to add some information that isn't in the article. 69.129.118.103 (talk) 20:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 20:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Daily Mail

Hi @TechBear: There was a long discussion that resulted in the Daily Mail being considered an unreliable source. I'm not against reporting on this incident, but the two options I can see for sourcing are the Daily Mail and a strongly POV book, so I'd like to see some better sources first. --Slashme (talk) 07:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, I was unaware of that discussion. I will keep it in mind for some of the other articles I keep an eye on. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 07:18, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Scientology controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sptimes.com/News/32999/Worldandnation/Abroad__Critics_publi.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060613231010/http://www.anti-scientologie.ch/lesoir-magazine.htm to http://www.anti-scientologie.ch/lesoir-magazine.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.umhb.edu/files/academics/crl/publications/articles/the_church_of_scientologypursuit_of_legal_recognition.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:22, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

R2-45

It is widely known amongst Scientology staff and public, especially those that are technically trained, that the process R2-45 referred to was blowing your brains out with a .45 calibre pistol. This is a semi-automatic handgun and was the standard military sidearm in U.S. armed forces from World War I up to the 1980's when it was replaced with the Beretta 9mm P-92 pistol. Hubbard, as a former serving naval officer would have been quite familiar with this weapon, hence the name of the process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chcgo undaground (talk • contribs) 01:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

News

Any news? The Wikipedia article has to been updated! =]Lawtheagoraphobic (talk) 01:57, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Updates needed

This article doesn't mention Anonymous or the Miscavige family's books, two of the biggest recent controversies. In fact, this article seems to have not been significantly updated for about a decade- all events referenced are from before 2010 (unless i'm missing something). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.40.18.48 (talk) 13:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, I wonder how much control the church has over the posts and comments here? Cannot convince me that they don't have people watching and keep things out.