Talk:Scientology

WP article on Catholic Church compared to article on Scientology

Roman Catholic Church. I think this article leans too far to the positive side, as the Scientology one leans to the negative. I wanted to find the article on anti-Catholicism expecting it to be linked there. There was no section on controversy or criticism, although there was a short section on the current sexual abuse scandals at the end. Steve Dufour 13:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

You'd probably be better off raising this issue on the RC Church talk page --h2g2bob 13:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The issue I am concerned about more is the grossly unfair and mean-spirited treatment of Scientology here on WP, not the too friendly treatment of larger groups. Steve Dufour 13:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Welcome, Steve. Haven't seen you in discussions on this page before, so welcome. I've seen this issue raised before, frankly. Either the existence or at least perceived existence of an anti-Scientology bias on this and other pages. While I see the complaint a lot, I rarely see suggestions for solutions. See, one misconception you may or may not have is that the current article is in any way inaccurate. All that I can see are cited and factual sources. Thus, I'd request that you make known the parts of the article which you feel are unfair or fall short (leaving comparisons to other articles out of it, since comparing the problems of the RCC to the CoS, although both are numerous, is like comparing apples to oranges), and I and all others will surely work to make those sections comply with the encyclopedic and high standards of Wikipedia, irregardless of personal point of view. (POV is okay in editors, just not in articles, obviously.)

See, we can't do anything if you just say "This article treats Scientology too harshly", you instead have to do something about it, by pointing out the problems, and striving for concensus among all editors. Otherwise, we can't help, unless you identify the problems. Please do. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Raeft (talk • contribs) 20:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

::::Thanks. I will continue doing that.  I don't want to change too much too fast.  I am working on some of the other 236 or more Scientology related articles as well.  Steve Dufour 05:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that Scientology should be called a church. Catholisism is a church, Scientology is a cult. 81.156.32.71 19:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

History Of Scientology

This is what I feel to be a very accurate and well-written history of Scientology and it should be added to the main article:

Image:Thehistoryofscientology.gif

I'm sure the Scientologists will try and remove this information and continue to suppress free speech and criticism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Snuffaluffaguss (talk • contribs) 19:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

Piffle. I'll remove it since it'll be gone in less than a week with current copyright info and there's no reason to have an extra 885k overhead when loading the Talk page. AndroidCat 21:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

You could try putting link to it at the bottom of the page. Steve Dufour 10:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Editing Error

Regarding [1] edit, my reason got cut off:

"it is said" constitutes weasel words. This is as bad in some ways as "claims". Changed to: "It (as in the philosophical belief of Scientology, that's the "it" I mean) professes ...". This removes the implied imaginary supporters who "say" this.

Sorry, I didn't see your comment before I changed it back. "The philosopical belief of Scientology" itself does not "claim", "say", or "profess" anything. One thing we could do is give the sentence a subject. Did Hubbard say this? If so then say something like "Hubbard said that Scientology..." Steve Dufour 05:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I made some changes along those lines. Steve Dufour 06:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

There's actually no directly cited source that Hubbard said it, thus, making him the subject of all of the sentences is not, of necessity, suitable. Also, look up "professes" in a dictionary.

What if we were discussing, say, legislation? How would be state what the legislation documents "say", in your vernacular? It is suitable to place the contents of a set of teachings or book into the context of what the book or set of teachings "say", "profess", et al. The author and the philosophical doctrine which the author wrote are seperable, but since the information is drawn from his teachings, it is appropriate here. Raeft 20:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The English language can do lots of things, even make an abstract concept like "Scientology" come to life and start speaking. A while ago I was told that Scienology was entirely Hubbard's creation. What is wrong with having him the one speaking? Steve Dufour 02:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Celebrity trivia

Critics say the attention and care given to celebrity practitioners is vastly different from that of noncelebrity practitioners. Andre Tabayoyon, a former Scientologist and Sea Org staffer, testified in a 1994 affidavit that money from not-for-profit Scientology organizations and labor from those organizations (including the Rehabilitation Project Force) had gone to provide special facilities for Scientology celebrities, which were not available to other Scientologists:

“ A Sea Org staffer ... was taken along to do personal cooking for Tom Cruise and [David] Miscavige at the expense of Scientology not for profit religious organizations. This left only 3 cooks at [Gold Base] to cook for 800 people three times a day ... apartment cottages were built for the use of John Travolta, Kirstie Alley, Edgar Winter, Priscilla Presley and other Scientology celebrities who are carefully prevented from finding out the real truth about the Scientology organization ... Miscavige decided to redo the meadow in beautiful flowers; Tens of thousands of dollars were spent on the project so that Cruise and [Nicole] Kidman could romp there. However, Miscavige inspected the project and didn't like it. So the whole meadow was plowed up, destroyed, replowed and sown with plain grass." ”

Tabayoyon's account of the planting of the meadow was supported by another former Scientologist, Maureen Bolstad, who said that a couple of dozen Scientologists including herself were put to work on a rainy night through dawn on the project. "We were told that we needed to plant a field and that it was to help Tom impress Nicole ... but for some mysterious reason it wasn't considered acceptable by Mr. Miscavige. So the project was rejected and they redid it."

Diana Canova, who experienced Scientology both before and during her period of TV stardom, expressed it in a September 1993 interview: "When I started, I wasn't in television yet. I was a nobody - I'd done some TV, but I was not one of the elite, not by a long shot - until I did Soap. Then it became…I mean, you really are treated like royalty."

I would expect that this information is already given in some of the other articles that are linked from this section. It seems to me that this should be a short section saying that some celebrities are involved and then a short critical comment from someone on the other side. Steve Dufour 05:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and made these changes. Steve Dufour 17:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

While I, and I am sure many others, appreciate your many, many edits, you need to realize that discussion and concensus are key, and making unilateral edits to controversial articles is unwise. The celebrity information is not trivia, and reflects differing standards, given it is NOT mentioned in its entirety in other articles, I've restored it. Given the section it was in, and its relevance, removal would not be justified even if it WERE reproduced wholly in a linked article. This is a good article, and removal of relevant information serves, especially in this case, to make it less encyclopedic, not more. 12 hours may be a nice round time frame, but waiting a little longer next time would be advised, especially for large removals. Slow down the editing and give all people a chance to weigh in. Your changes of minor word inflections to "it is said" in many cases also constitutes creating a straw man of belief argument. Raeft 20:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I will wait awhile and see what other people have to say. If people think Tom and Katie romping in the wildflowers is important enough to be in the main article on Scientology I will not remove it again. (It's a very small point, but in my opinion the word "per" is not a good word to use in ordinary prose; just in legal documents and things like that.) Steve Dufour 02:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not "celebrity trivia". The interesting part of this cited & verified anecdote is the treatment of the Scientology staffers, specifically that the organization has them pull long hours in order to impress celebrity members. This isn't "People Magazine" stuff. --FOo 08:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the information on Tom and Katie should be in the article on Scientology and celebrities. However I don't really think it is important enough to take up so much space in the main article. That is just my opinion however. Wishing you well. Steve Dufour 14:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this fair?

Critics say that celebrity practitioners receive more attention and care than noncelebrity practitioners and that less is required of them.

Here I tried to express the points that critics make about Scientology celebrities. Do you think this is fair? Is there anything important that I have left out? Thanks. Steve Dufour 02:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I see no problem with this... --Delf 19:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

How many Scientology articles are needed?

I asked this question on the talk page of the the Scientology project and I thought I might ask it here on the main article page too. There are now 239 Scientology articles: 22 top Importance, 55 high, 95 mid, and 67 low. Three have been added in the last four days. How many articles do you think should there about this subject? Thanks. Steve Dufour 15:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Good question. The answer, from my perspective, is as follows:

There should be as many Scientology articles as there are coherent and individual informative occurrences, locales, people, or other originators of encyclopedic content related to Scientology. Adding information serves to make Wikipedia -more- coherent and encyclopedic, not less, and adding too much material to one article makes it overlong and clunky.

This is why we delineate, you see? We COULD put all of the information, 90 percent of which is unique, and the rest of which is justified overlap, into one article, called simply "Scientology". It would be hugely long, almost impossible to keep up with and police, and more than a little messed up. It would also be one hell of a thing to find anything on, and have at least 500 redirects to it from other searches. So, like with TV shows (Many of which have a page per episode), countries (Which have country pages, splits within country pages, regional pages, pages about people in them, pages about buildings, and any other notable thing which isinformative and constructive), and great moments in history (such as the civil war), along with so much else, we keep adding information in logically linked articles until all Scientology vanishes (at which point historical retrospectives of things we have just found out may still be added), or the sun explodes.

I hope my answer has been helpful, and I am happy to hear of three new articles having been added to the massive and amazing thing that is Wikipedia. I know their editors will make them neutral, interesting to read, and informative within a short time, being surely, like all Wikipedia editors, people of vision and scope whose sole interest, like yours and mine, is to better the truthful and well-informed understanding of every man, woman, and child on this earth. Peace out. Raeft 20:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope so too. :-) Steve Dufour 21:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Of the hundreds of articles listed, some of those that are ranked as Low on the importance scale might be susceptible to deletion, perhaps merging the most important material they contain into other articles. Personally I fear to tread there :-) SheffieldSteel 01:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I've been here on WP for a little less than a year and I've taken part in a couple of deletion discussions. The process really seems like a lot of work, but I guess that's a good thing because you wouldn't want it to be too easy. I expect that 10 or 12 new Scientology articles would be created in the time it would take to delete one. BTW, I'm thinking about putting a notability tag on the Xenu article. It is about a mythical being that only a few dozen people in the world believe exists. That doesn't seem very notable to me. Steve Dufour 02:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and tagged Xenu as non-notable. Steve Dufour 16:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

My troll-o-meter just exploded. AndroidCat 16:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to explain Xenu's notability on his talk page. Steve Dufour 16:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you went ahead and did that, Steve. It really lets people know what they can expect from you. Tell me, where did you get the idea that the notability of an idea -- such as a posited entity -- is measured only by the number of people who hold one particular stance on the existence of that entity? -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

A mythical being in which only a few dozen people believe in does not seem very notable to me. The same with a character in a story that few people have ever read. Steve Dufour 20:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Your figure of "only a few dozen people" is highly suspect and your enthymeme that of all the people who have encountered or been affected by a particular construct, only those who believe in it count for purposes of notability, is counter to all logic. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it was telling that in the discussion about deletion nobody voted to keep the article because they said that Xenu was real. Steve Dufour 00:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, then, you're wrong. It isn't telling at all. The only way it could be perceived as even significant was if anyone had ever accepted your false talking point that notability of a construct can only come from those who believe in that construct. What is telling is that this false assumption of yours was pointed out to you multiple times and you never answered it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Please see WP:ANI#Violation_of_WP:POINT. - Thanks for your time. Smee 01:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for the tip Smee. I explained my position there. I could also mention the fact that only 5 or 6 people bothered to vote before the discussion was closed down is a clue that there is very little general interest in Xenu. Steve Dufour 04:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's much of a clue you have there. Seven people in four hours is hardly a sign of "no general interest" unless you are proceeding on the immensely fascinating premise that "no person can be said to be interested in an article unless they are checking it every four hours." -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually Steve, I would re-read the text at WP:ANI before coming to such a conclusion. Also you might want to skim through the AfD discussion - it's particularly informative if you only read the words in bold type. Now, if the result of the discussion had been Speedy Delete, then I'd be in full agreement with you, but as it is, I can only recommend reading WP:N. SheffieldSteel 04:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it was 7. I must have lost count. :-) Steve Dufour 04:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Misleading Paragraph

The paragraph beginning, "Based on an interpretation of Buddhist writings which described, among other things, a man from the west with hair like flames around his head..." is erroneous. It misleads you to believe that the Buddhist writings mentioned actually exist. If you go to the Wikipedia article on "Maitreya", it shows that the writings are claimed to exist by the editors in the preface of his book containing his poem in which he claims to be the Maitreya, but are unnamed. This is an unreliable claim by its self-sourcing nature. Furthermore, the fact that there is a reference at the end of this paragraph misleads you to believe there is evidence that there is an existing Buddhist text describing the Maitreya with those physical characteristics. I believe the paragraph should be changed to emphasise that it is L Ron Hubbard who is making this claim about the description of the Maitreya in the Buddhist literature and that is has not been substantiated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.165.205.30 (talk) 08:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

Is this important enough to be mentioned in the main article on Scientology? Steve Dufour 20:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

What would you suggest as a more appropriate article in which to mention it? -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Scientology beliefs and practices and L. Ron Hubbard Steve Dufour 15:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

External Links

How is "What Religious Scholars Have to Say about the Scientology Religion" - THAT LINKS TO A SCIENTOLOGY WEBSITE.... a non biased addition to Wikipedia? Pablo587 04:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm in favor of deletion Pablo587 04:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed. Deceptive sources, such as those that imply they are by independent scholars when they are by Scientology, are not OK here. --FOo 04:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed.

Watch editor User:Justanother - that is his whole game here (paid by the "Church" of Scientology)

He'll apologize all day long for his actions.... but it's all just a game.

If you notice the main Scientology page and L Ron Hubbard page, they look a lot different and more favored towards Scientology than they used to just a few months ago. This is all thanks to him.

These are "wins" in Scientology.

What are they considered to Wogs?

Pablo587 04:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

In reference to the removed link ("What Religious Scholars Have to Say...") it is what it claims to be. None of the authors are Scientologists. The deception lies elsewhere, in that the Church claims that if Scientology is a religion then the Church cannot be a cult. --Hartley Patterson 01:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

show effectiveness/hubbard opposition not established

I've yet to see any evedence that hubbard was even aware of the american psychological associations stance.

ONE THING I ALWAYS WONDER ABOUT: PEOPLE SEEM TO IGNORE THAT SCIENTOLOGY HAS ALWAYS BEEN TRYING TO TAKE OVER THE BUSINESS OF PSYCHOTHERAPY, SO OF COURSE IT IS THE MOST VOCAL OPPONANT. IT HAS THE MOST TO LOOSE. . IT CLAIMS TO BE A TOTALLY DIFFERENT AND SUPERIOR SYSTEM AND WAY OF THINKING WITH HUMAN PROBLEMS. THERE IS SOME REASON TO BELEIVE THAT THAT IS TRUE. LOOK INTO REMOTE VIEWING'S ORIGONS. THERE ARE OTHER PIECES OF EVEDENCE, THAT ARE MORE MINOR. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thaddeus Slamp (talk • contribs) 05:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

Slump

• Names Slamp. Firefox must be on a bender!

, please sign your comments and stop yelling around here, I am becoming deaf.

• Roger, Wilco. Every 1ce/a while I have to remind myself how much people hate all caps.

Er, and get Firefox with inbuilt typo correction

• Is there a spelling error?

Misou 05:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Slamp, not Slump. -- Antaeus Feldspar 06:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• You've yet to reply to my content.

Thaddeus Slamp 23:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is Wikipedia not a target?

As nearly as I can tell, the CoS adopts an extremely 'scorched-earth' policy re: those who host information on Xenu/the 'copyrighted' OT levels, or has material even vaguely critical of Scientology on their Web site.

Why, then, has the Wikimedia Foundation not been served with innumerable lawsuits reguarding Wikipedia's comprehensive material on Scientology, as we seem to fit both those criteria? -Toptomcat 22:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

My personal guesses are as follow:

• The Church does not know about Wikipedia.
• The information removed would just be brought back in by someone anyway.
• The Church's image would be reduced a bit if they'd attack an encyclopedia.
• They do not care about Wikipedia.
• They leave it in as most info aren't very biased against the Church like a certain book.

--Delf 19:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The CoS in my experience presently only takes legal action against obvious copyright violations plus any quotes from the secret scriptures. Wikipedia has neither. --Hartley Patterson 17:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia IS a target. They have their own WikiProject so they can get instant consensus on removing /rewording anything a little too ... unflattering. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 14:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Really? And where would I find that? COFS 16:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Wake up

The Church of Scientology IS the source of information about the Church of Scientology. It is OBVIOUSLY self-published. And, because Mr. Hubbard entrusted the Church with his writings, the Church is the SOLE source of Mr. Hubbard's publications. WAKE UP. The Scientology dispute to self-published sources should become aware.

The article is hopelessly out of date. The Church of Scientology has won recognition AS A RELIGION in the European Union Court System. Earthtimes news. It is exactly has Mr. Hubbard said. About 20 percent of the population is PTS and will fight tooth and nail to prevent any mention of help. Meanwhile, the Church marches on. Where? In areas that make a difference, no matter how far back in the dust Wikipedia stands. 208.106.20.67 18:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Specifically and particularly the Earthtimes news article addresses this case (Holy Smoke's prediction). The results were: (Scientology 1, Russia 0, Russian paying damages and costs). However, the European Court of Human Right's recognition of The Church of Scientology as a religion (Court's publication) is valid in throughout the European Union. 208.106.20.67 18:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, please log in to comment! Check out the article: The ECHR decision is in there since hours (and valid throughout the EC, not EU, as I just learned myself). COFS 18:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Well 208.106.20.67, just because information from the Church of Scientology is self-published, that doesn't mean that it should all be removed as non-RS. The rules (last time I looked) say that you can use such sources, but carefully. Fortunatly there's no need to remove all the Church site External Links even if they aren't RS. The EL is a guideline and invokes the RS guideline/policy via an extremely weak clause. However, if there is a wish by some editors to strictly apply RS to ELs, then most of the CoS ELs would have to removed. Hope that helps. AndroidCat 20:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

What do we need the Earthtimes news for if there is a whole judgment to link? Fairly useless discussion or not? Misou 04:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Meadow story

There is a story in the article about a meadow being plowed under. This meadow existed/exists and was plowed under at time but the context around it was invented (i.e. that the grass was sewn because of Cruise or some such nonsense). There had been a mudslide in that area and the grass had to be replanted. It was done wrong and had to be redone (Source: US District Court of California, Church of Scientology International vs. Fishman/Geertz, CV 91-6426, sworn declaration of James Hall with evidence photos, 11 April 1994). Any objections to take it out? COFS 23:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. It would be better, given that the allegations are in the public doman, to include them, followed by the Church's refutation of them. That way, anyone who wants to know the truth of the story will be able to judge based on all the information. SheffieldSteel 23:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I can see your point and support it. But...not in this article. There is so much back and forth in each and any of the many legal cases involving Scientology critics that this page would explode right away. it should be in the article of the related court case. COFS 23:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems, based on that, that this article should either state both sides of the story, or it should state the original allegations and direct the reader to the full details (including the Church's side) in the separate article. SheffieldSteel 00:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The source of the allegation was paid $17.000 to invent it. The lawyer who did it was thrown out of the law firm for that and some time later even removed from the Bar. The allegations have been rejected by the court and they have been countered in a sworn - under penalty of perjury - declaration. This quote violates all basic principles of Wikipedia, not because it is a lie but because it is known as a lie by those putting it in there. If we would do as you propose every time somebody thought up some BS about someone in or about Scientology this article would be unreadable. There is already a Scientology controversy article. Feel free to move it in there. Otherwise I recommend you get acquainted with the Scientology issue a bit better. COFS 20:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

So is your position that all controversy should be moved to a different page, or is it just that sources critical of Scientology should be removed from the main article? This doesn't seem to gel with wikipedia's policy on presenting information neutrally. SheffieldSteel 03:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I think there is enough sourced controversy so that unsourced, invented, half-true, alleged or paid stories do not need to be in there but can collect in some other article whose title does not give the expectation that you actually find information in there, like "Scientology Trivia", "Spamming Scientology" or so. And watch out, you are applying some prejudices on me ("sources critical of Scientology should be removed"), which is WP:BIAS. You might want to use your energy to get facts straight and help making neutral articles. Thank you for considering. COFS 03:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

That's not bias on my part, it's an empirically derived hypothesis. And since it isn't leaving the Talk page, it hardly constitutes WP:BIAS.

For the record, I believe you are absolutely wrong about allegations (or "stories" as you call them, or "lies" as one of your edit comments has, I believe, said). Wikipedia should report allegations that are notable, and if they are sufficiently notable to a subject, then they should be reported on that subject's main page. Of course, any allegation that is, as you say, invented (what a cool criticism to use in this, of all places) can be readily refuted using a reliable source. And Wikipedia should report that too. We must present both sides - neutrally - thus allowing the reader to judge for themselves. We do not sweep criticism under the rug, unless reporting it prominently would be giving it undue weight, of course. SheffieldSteel 03:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Look at how many articles there are about all kinds of branches, sub- and subsub-subjects of Scientology. Filling the main article up with controversial back and forth is what I cannot accept. The declaration at hand has been introduced in the CSI vs Fishman/Geertz case. This case has even its own Wikipedia article (which is kind of overdoing it, honestly). So have Fishman and Geertz. I would settle for a one sentence like I just did. Don't revert, improve if there is a need to. COFS 05:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The new twins SheffieldSteel/RookZERO have not put it up on the Controversy page. What does that tell us? It tells us that they are less interested in a readable article but in putting smear in this one here. Since RookZERO has been busted a couple of hours ago, there had been a 400% increase in anonymous vandals on this page and no other. Admins, you might want want to check into that? I am not making allegations but things happening at the same time sometimes have a source near to each other. Misou 01:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I did not put anything up on that page because I assumed that the material in question was a duplicate of material on the Controversy page, just as COFS implied. I shall go and rectify the situation. In the meanwhile, please try to remain WP:CIVIL and refrain from accusing other editors of "putting smear in". SheffieldSteel 01:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandal 24.168.118.136

Abuse reported to: Road Runner HoldCo LLC, RRMA, 13241 Woodland Park Road, Herndon, VA 20171

COFS 20:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

What you just posted here seems like deliberate harassment. While I too dislike vandalism, it's a common fact that people vandalize articles all the time. Reporting Wikipedia abuse to an ISP is a waste of their time and of yours. Unless, of course, you wish to ressurect thoughts of the Fair Game policy ... Maxvip 22:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I actually only did this to see who would attack me for it. Thank you. COFS 02:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Next vandal caught - IP 147.126.31.168

Loyola University Chicago, LUC-1, 6439 N. Sheridan Road, Room 202, Chicago, IL 60626

Abuse report sent. COFS 22:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

One revert that you disagree with doesn't qualify as vandalism. Please read WP:Vandalism, and I'm sure the admins at Loyola U gave your e-mail all the consideration it deserved. AndroidCat 22:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Read the edit summary first. COFS 22:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Fluctuation of vandals here today:

Next one is from UK. PIPEX Internet, The Hinshelwood Building, Edmund Halley Road, Oxford Science Park, Oxford, OX4 4GB, United Kingdom.

Abuse report sent. COFS 22:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

deletions

COFS et al appear to be deleting or modifying material that is critical of scientology even where it was sourced. (RookZERO 00:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC))

Indeed. I am trying to ensure that important material (and neutrality) is retained but it's an uphill struggle. SheffieldSteel 00:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice, that you two are one soul here. But the quality of your edits has only messed up the article. Do some homework or find some sources instead of putting up or supporting stuff without citation or reference. This is biased and edit warring. You don't like COFS? Ok, so what. Does not give you the right to vandalize pages or put up cynic nonsense. Misou 01:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Please either substantiate or retract this remark: "This is biased and edit warring." Thank you. SheffieldSteel 01:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Diction, diction, familiar, hmmm... Here RookZERO messes up the article, reverting 10-12 edits by different editors at once. That was not you. But YOU "applauded" him for this here. Your message: "Great action, beat the Scienos", or something close to that. That is bias and your support of vandalism by RookZERO is support of vandalism. I also have not seen you jumping on another vandalism happening later here. You actually supported it again. The damage had to be repaired by several editors, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. Probably I overlooked half of them. And on top you almost started an edit war, by repeating cross-deletion. Misou 02:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

That's all very well, but it's all based upon your definition of vandalism, which is apparently "a reversion that I disagree with". SheffieldSteel 02:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and the if you compare the various versions inbetween, you will see that they change relatively little, so its not as though I am changing some massive amount of content. My changes have been to return unjustifiably deleted information. (RookZERO 02:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC))

I have no agenda here. My interest is simply in keeping all relevent perspectives and materials in the article. Were someone trying to delete material that reflects positively on scientology without cause, I would oppose that as well. If you do not agree with the material, then find a sourced rebuttal (note that the rebuttal is a response, counter-claim or a counter-statement, not a "refutation" which implies the rebuttal to be correct and the origional claim to be incorrect). (RookZERO 01:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC))

GOOD! Why don't you do just that, then! Misou 02:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and incidently, the material COFS keeps deleting is cited from the Los Angeles Times, which is hardly "cynic nonsense" sources. (RookZERO 01:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC))

The context needs to fit too, man. The Los Angeles Times weather forecast in an article about mustard wouldn't make sense either, right? Misou 02:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Since the objection is now one of context, would it be acceptable to include the disputed material in the Controversy section? SheffieldSteel 02:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, let's say the context is "affidavits of former Scientologists" or "disputed experiences of former staffers". Right now you are trying to connect two topics like "Organizational structure of Scientology" (introducing "Celebrity Centers") with "Mud throwing in legal cases" (where the rules are different than in publications - telling a disputed story not even happening at a such a Center and mixing up times and being illogic like hell (notice the "we", "they", "I" mess up in the L.A. Times article)). Misou 02:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Huh? How is the material not relavent to the article? The Times articles deal DIRECTLY with scientology - no weather forcast in a mustard article here. (RookZERO 02:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC))

All "Scientology" as you "understand it" (for your little own purposes there) is more than some city library I worked in. You might want to read the top of this discussion. It's there already. Misou 02:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It's there already... and the consensus (exception: Seteve Dufour) was that the material should be included. SheffieldSteel 02:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Heeeeeello! F****in' nice of you to forget me. And there was COFS as well. And BTW, what is "a consensus" per Wikipolicy? Misou 02:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you were talking about the Celebrity Trivia section above, which deals with exactly this material. SheffieldSteel 02:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm still having trouble figuring out what your objection is Misou. Regardless of whether or not you believe what the LA Times wrote is irrelevant. If you find a sourced counterargument, then by all means post it as a rebuttal. The LA Times material deals directly with the Celebrity Centers, and I have difficulty seeing how it could be seen as not related. (RookZERO 02:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC))

How about putting the L.A. Times source in? The other part is covered already above anyway. These quotes are just inappropriate in context and in size, considering that this is an article about Scientology as a whole and considering that this data has been quoted elsewhere in Wikipedia (3 or 4 different places, I think). CSI LA 02:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Where is the other part quoted? (Honest question, I haven't seen it). (RookZERO 02:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC))

Reference 58. I just saw that 59 and 60 are double again. Will fix that. Misou 03:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Panorama Photo

I removed a photo that SheffieldSteel has now restored and moved into another section of this article. I don't agree with that photo appearing anywhere on the Scientology page. Using a cartoon, invented by the Panorama show to "illustrate" a point of Scientology doctrine is ridiculous. Why not use the Muhammad cartoons to illustrate the main page of Islam, while we're at it. This is supposed to be an encyclopedic source. It just denigrates Wikipedia to do this.Grrrilla 01:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

You are not the first editor to have removed this image. Its removal has previously been reverted on the grounds that it is relevant, and notable. I was merely emulating the actions of another absent editor.

More importantly, though, your actions are at odds with the wikipedia editing process. You should seek consensus before making changes to the article, particularly so when the subject is liable to dispute or contention. You have recently made a large number of edits to this page without any attempt at gaining consensus, and your attitude as expressed in your edit comments[[2]][[3]] - putting the burden on those you disagree with to convince you, otherwise your version will prevail - is also fundamentally incompatible with wikipedia policies and guidelines.SheffieldSteel 02:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Fubar Obfusco

Ah, I had been waiting for you, somehow. Did you notice that you just produced double-content? That what you put it IS ALREADY BEEN REFERENCED one line before that? You are not as green but still you did not SEE that all that data is already in there? Misou 02:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Absurdities

After reading the whole article from top to bottom there is two absurdities about it: 1) the wording tends to be negative about Scientology (and language can be bent a lot) and 2) there is so much emphasis on "past live stories" and "space opera" that one could think that these are the basic tenets of Scientology. Well, they are not. And 95% and more of all Scientology doctrine and practice does not even remotely deal with that. The article is a mirror of what has been spread on the internet about Scientology but not a mirror of real life. I want to change that. Who else? CSI LA 03:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure. How about putting some references in to start with? The "space opera" section is not referenced at all. Misou 03:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Which sections have negative wording? If I see it, I'll gladly change it. On the whole, this article actually seems rather positive relative to the articles on many other religions. (RookZERO 03:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC))

No other religion has 250 articles on Wikipedia and for sure not such ones which only consist of "a lost court decision" (there is no article about those which were won) or other religions do not have 40 or more pages of "former members", some dead ones, some alive ones, some of them thrown our in disgrace. The "Scientology" article specifically has slanted wording in the sections:

"The upper levels of Scientology" (which is totally nonsense and blown out of proportion), :"Scientology and other religions", a loose collection of trivia of what others supposedly have said (sometimes one priest somewhere, now presented as general viewpoint of a whole religion), :"Scientology as a state-recognized religion", the list is incomplete and omits a lot of pro-Scientology data so as to bent the reader's conclusion in the wrong direction,

"Scientology as a cult", this is obviously slanted,

"Scientology as a commercial venture", same,

"Scientology versus the Internet", this is the biggest nonsense. The Church has this and that fight and did some legal blunders in the past, but also has been deliberately misinterpreted in its efforts. This fight is artificially upheld right now and might be a great sociological study but not the loose leaf collection there in this section is just ridiculous.

"Scientific criticism of Scientology's beliefs", paradoxon. I think we can agree that religions cannot be scientific, some practices might be or could be but never religion as a whole.

CSI LA 03:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)