Talk:Church of Scientology

Who's at the top?

I want to know more about the inner circle at the top of the CoS. Does the evidence suggest they're firm believers, or is there evidence that they know the whole thing is a scam? People pour money into the CoS. Where does that money go? Who's getting rich? Who's the CEO? Did these people rise up through the ranks (which would be evidence that they're believers) or did they skip the typical initiation phase?

Tottenham Court Road photo

The photo of the Scientology Centre on Tottenham Court Road is out of date. The centre has since been refurbished and the front of it looks rather different - red sign rather than blue and a glassier doorway.

Vandalism

I just undid some vandalism. Someone added in a sentence of offensive obscenities in the article. Is this article vandalized often? When you undo something, does it automatically sent a message to the wikipedia moderators who look over offensive things, and ban the person making them? Or does it record the IP address and if someone gets their additions undone a few times, then they look into it? Any ideas? Dream Focus (talk) 14:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Beliefs

I think a brief section explaining exactly what the beliefs of the Church of Scientology are. It can reference the main article "Scientology", but I think an article on a church is incomplete without what its beliefs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.61.70.97 (talk) 07:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. What kind of article wouldn't include that? I just checked the articles for the Roman Catholic religion and for the religion of Islam and both of those articles clearly define the beliefs of those religions. Dream Focus (talk) 00:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe we already have an article about Scientology beliefs and practices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GoodDamon (talk • contribs) 02:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Criminal Actions

I think the intro should contain the phrase 'criminal organization' or something similar. The entire church is based on the actions of the Hubbards are their crimes are well documented (Snow White, etc), as are the ongoing harassment campaigns, baseless lawsuits, etc.

As it's fact (proof available on many Wikipedia pages) that the "church" and prominent members routinely engaged in intentionally criminal acts, with full church authority, it seems that this should feature prominently. Anything less horribly misrepresents the situation.

How about "The Church of Scientology is [a large criminal] organization devoted to the practice and the promotion of the Scientology belief system."?

Anything less hardly seems NPOV, as the current intro makes scientology look like any law-abiding organization. It's like opening an article on the mafia with "A large organization run for the appreciation of Italian culture". Far more important to a lay reader is what CoS does, not its purported goal. It's not for the practice of a religion, it's for the financial gain of its leadership and the complete extra-legal ruin of those who oppose it. Hubbard said as much, and the CoS's actions and his routinely demonstrated their intent.

Anyone who disagrees with me is fair game - I'll fake crimes in your name, attack you, file false lawsuits against you, and openly advocate your murder. Oh wait, that's Scientology's tactic... I'll just challenge your points. :) 24.82.203.201 (talk) 13:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Though I personally agree that there have been and are probably (tax evasion type stuff, not anything really seamy) criminal activities connected to the CoS, none of the sources have come out and labeled them a criminal organization. For us to cite the examples they do give and add the label ourselves we'd have to throw our rule about synthesis out the window. Anynobody 21:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

btw, is it considered kosher to edit other editor's comments?

I had meant this with a joking tone ('fair game', etc), so I apologize for its sound.

You make a very good point about synthesis. I realize my first phrase 'criminal organization' makes it seem like the CoS exists for the purpose of crime, where my point is that it is simply an organization which is now acting criminally. In my discussions with GoodDamon I thought of potentially better phrase - [organization with a scandalous criminal? past].

I feel the information in other CoS-related pages, such as (Operation Snow White) paint a different image of the church than this page. A more accurate picture from the point of view of someone researching the church. Details of the church's physical locations seem less relevant than allegations of ongoing conspiracy and attacks on ex members. This page doesn't address the issues of CoS-related crimes by its founders, which surely (at least in mentioning the scandal) should be part of the history section.

As it's the central power structure of the CoS that is implicated, it seems more accurate to make these claims on the CoS page than on the scientology page, which presumably should be related more to their teachings than the church's actions. Currently the header of the Scientology page contains more mention of criticism of the CoS than the CoS article does. This seems backwards, as presumably the religion itself is blameless while the members and organizations (church) may not be.

The Enron article (sorry for the comparison) header contains the phrase '... it was revealed that its reported financial condition was sustained mostly by institutionalized, systematic, and creatively planned accounting fraud'

How about 'Striking evidence of illicit and sometimes criminal actions by the founders and early leadership of the church cause many/some? to question the validity of the church'? That could be linked as appropriate to OSW and other pages, and the 'many' could be cited.

I'm really willing to work on this. I don't intend to slander anyone's religion, but I think it's imperative that the article about the organization mention the scandals and really quite abusive actions that the power structure have been involved in, or it paints a picture of an group whose worst secret is a tiff with the IRS over tax-exemption status. Ideas? 24.82.203.201 (talk) 22:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

One thing you'll notice about Wikipedia is that there are many different ideas about what's kosher, so while I don't mind (to a point, obviously changing the message would be most taboo) you're bound to encounter individuals who feel "violated" by anyone editing their comments.

I totally understand your points, but the rules honestly don't support associating the church with the term criminal. However even if there were a good source saying they are criminal, you're bound to encounter trouble getting such an assertion into the article and I'll explain with a better term that is sourced. in 1991 Time ran a story called The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power, it's Time so there really aren't any concerns about reliability etc. and therefore one could format an intro like this:

The Church of Scientology is the largest organization devoted to the practice and the promotion of the Scientology belief system, and has been identified as a cult in pursuit of money and power.¹

This doesn't have a chance of making it into the article because of questions about neutrality and most likely the strong feelings of Scientologist editors. I'm pretty sure this is why Good Damon felt discussing this would be an exercise in futility and possibly invite angry responses from Scientologists. (He is usually a pretty fair editor and does a lot to fight vandalism, so I think your style coupled with your lack of account made him think you were trolling. Another thing about Wikipedia is that editors don't usually seem to work very well with anon users, I'm not saying you have to get an account, just that you tend to get a bit more good faith if you have one.) Anynobody 02:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

My concern is I see two representations of Scientology on Wikipedia and I want to bring them more into line. Pages such as Operation Snow White and Scientology controversy criticize the church, but this page links to those issues in an off-hand way that doesn't suggest required reading.

The controversy page even says that most scientologists prefer to note that the Church is the organization implicated, not the faith itself. I suggest the same. So the article here needs to note that all the criminal controversy revolves around this organization. This page says that the CoS is the largest organization [for] scientology. That implies fairly strongly that its practices reflect on the majority of the followers. To bring this page the distance that is sought on the controversy page we need to prominently display that many feel the need to distance themselves from the church's actions.

I want to make sure that people who read these articles in any order have a consistent impression. Currently if you start at some pages (OF or OSW) the church appears fascist and intentionally criminal, but if you start here, the church appears to be honest and non-abusive to its members and others.

That some find mention of this distasteful is irrelevant. These actions happened and have had and continue to have a grave impact on innocent people. This is fact. The pages I've mentioned are full of cites. The church is the organizational body that brings these attacks against people. This article needs to be representative of the range of scientology articles. As in the Enron article, a major scandal such as malfeasance of the directors against the members warrants significant mention.

The lead text currently reads 'The Church of Scientology is the largest organization devoted to the practice and the promotion of the Scientology belief system.'

I propose adding 'The church's actions have raised much controversy.' to that.

Then in the 'History' section, changing the text 'Church organization has faced allegations' to 'Church organization has faced [[Scientology Controversy|controversy] and allegations'.

And to the paragraph beginning 'Hubbard had official control ...' I propose appending 'Despite this distance, the Hubbards were both implicated in church scandals to frame or imprison critics and destroy evidence of this and other events in Operation Snow White, an international conspiracy.'

These edits are minimal, well documented on Wikipedia and externally, and are intended to highlight the church's and leader's involvement specifically, avoiding casting dispersion on scientologists in general.

What do you think? 24.82.203.201 (talk) 21:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I totally understand where you're coming from, I didn't know much about Scientology when I started editing here. After reading mainstream sources like the Time article, or LA Times series I think they in general show it as having monetary gain and suppression of dissent as its two primary goals. Moreover that they're capable of going to great lengths in pursuit of them. In a perfect world we'd be able to simply state both sides of the issue and then let the sources provide POV. The problem is that though you are quite correct in pointing out that personal taste should be irrelevant, here it is not because once you make the changes and no matter how well sourced they are, this is a site anyone can (and usually does) edit, including Scientologists who will generally not tolerate such information being added without a fight.

I also want to make sure you understand that what I've been saying here is just my opinion, you're welcome and encouraged to actually make the edits in question to see if they "stick". I honestly don't plan to edit this page (I get enough quality time with Scientologists on L. Ron Hubbard and L. Ron Hubbard and the military. Plus even though I don't think the changes have much of a chance staying in, doesn't mean I'm right.) Anynobody 04:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for helping me come up with better edits. I've made them, we'll see what the reaction is. 24.82.203.201 (talk) 20:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

On the recent coverage of Tom Cruise as #2

I noticed an attempt to include the video being mentioned in the news. Your instincts are probably correct in that it's worth briefly mentioning here, and the desire for a better link is definitely correct, though asking for one would've been more appropriate on the talk page. Also the heading Popular Culture tends to be read as Trivia and treated as such. Instead you'd probably want to make an edit like:

(Under the History section)
In May 1987 David Miscavige, one of Hubbard’s former personal assistants, assumed the position of Chairman of the Religious Technology Center (RTC), a non-profit corporation that administers the trademarked names and symbols of Dianetics and Scientology. Although RTC is a separate corporation from the Church of Scientology International, whose president and chief spokesperson is Heber Jentzsch, Miscavige is the effective leader of the movement. Just over two decades later, a 2008 unauthorized biography by Andrew Morton has placed Tom Cruise as the second in command at the Church of Scientology, who was shown discussing his feelings about the church in a leaked video from 2004 provided by a disgruntled member at the same time.
References

I would only add the words "de facto" or "effective" second-in-command, as not including such language gives the impression of official status, which may not be the case here. John Carter (talk) 16:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

On the video

The video is simply part of the presentation made to all Scientologists at the annual celebration and awards ceremony of the IAS. It is no secret and anyone can walk into any org on the planet and view the DVD from the event and see that bit for themselves. I saw the video when it was first presented. It is simply a treat for rank and file Scientologists to see that Cruise truly shares their dedication and is not simply a "Hollywood Scientologist" (my term). It shows Cruise affirming that he would like to use Scientology in a no-nonsense manner to improve conditions on this planet - pretty scary stuff!! But nothing special - most Scientologists would say the same sort of stuff ... and frequently do. --JustaHulk (talk) 16:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

On the 2nd-in-command

Who knows. I certainly don't. But it is one report in a book that also claims that Suri is from Hubbard's frozen sperm? [1] The church denies it emphatically. Sounds like tabloid trash talk. --JustaHulk (talk) 16:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I've got to side with you on the book; without some damn good corroboration on that sperm thing, I don't think the book would pass muster as a reliable source for much of anything. How in the world could the author even substantiate such a claim without a sample of Hubbard's and Suri's DNA?

But that said, the video isn't "nothing special", it is Tom Cruise making unequivocal statements about Scientologists such as "When you drive past an accident, it's not like anyone else, as you drive past you know you have to do something about it because you're the only one that can actually help." (Emphasis added) To be frank, that is a bizarre -- and factually incorrect, as accident victims need paramedics more immediately than spiritual counseling -- statement made by the most publicly visible member of the church. And I'm not taking that quote out of context; since that is one of the quotes appearing all over the news, I watched the entire video to be sure. I think the notability of the person making the statements, combined with the bizarre content of those statements, elevates the video's own notability quite a bit. --GoodDamon 16:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It is just a misunderstanding of Scientology - that video is for a Scientology audience that would not misunderstand it. Of course, any Scientologist that stops at an accident scene is going to call 911 if needed and apply first aid if needed and if competent in first aid. But you well know that at most accidents scenes the injuries are minor but the participants are often disoriented and upset. That is where the Scientologist can help and, in the eyes of the Scientologist, others cannot. There are simple techniques that all Scientologists know that help immensely in non-critical situations and even in critical situations as an adjunct to first aid. I don't know what the big deal is - all he is talking about there is responsibility - the responsibility to do something if there is something you can do as a Scientologist. It is analogous to me not doing CPR on someone that needed it - I am trained in CPR and any CPR, no matter how unsure, is likely better than none if the situation calls for CPR. Does that make more sense to you? --JustaHulk (talk) 17:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It is sorta like this. The responsibility to use what you know to help others. --JustaHulk (talk) 17:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't those "techniques" be the Scientology spiritual counseling I described? That's precisely the strange "help" I was referring to. Unless there's a study I'm not aware of that shows Scientology techniques stabilize disoriented and upset people after accidents, it's an entirely baseless claim. If the accident has resulted in a serious medical condition, the victim needs 911 as you say, and if they don't, then I don't see how a Scientologist would be better at providing comfort after an accident than any other decent human being with a measure of empathy.

What exactly would Scientology offer in that situation above and beyond what paramedics and any non-Scientologist passers-by could provide? --GoodDamon 17:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

(EC) So if you have a technique or techniques that you know work to help "stabilize disoriented and upset people after accidents" - you've studied it, used it to excellent results on numerous occasions, etc. - you would not use it until there was a peer-reviewed study on it? I don't think you nor any other reasonable person would truly take such a, pardon the term, silly stance. You would not object to a stranger giving an upset person a hug - does the hugger have a peer-reviewed study on hugging in his back pocket? I have applied these techniques to strangers in a public environment and have spoken to many others that have also. The usual result is that bystanders are respectful of what you are doing, perhaps interested, perhaps appreciative. All Cruise is saying is that Scientologists have to get off their butts and use what they know. Trust me, when there is a situation to be handled, any help is appreciated and anyone that steps up to help is appreciated. That is what the article I linked to shows also. --JustaHulk (talk) 17:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking, although I can't be sure of this, that maybe Cruise was implying that people in such a position, if they can be persuaded to accept the possibility of Scientology doctrines being accurate, might maybe be able to improve their situation the next go-round, maybe like a lot of Catholics like me want to have our version of "one for the road", the viaticum, shortly before our own deaths, in the hope that it might improve our subsequent situation? John Carter (talk) 17:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi John. Believe or not, you often do not even tell them it is Scientology. Scientology is for spiritual, not physical, treatment so even if the person were physically hurt, you are only concerned about the spiritual factors and only treat those factors (using first aid, if you know it, for physical trauma - or standing aside and letting someone who does know first aid tend to the person). Scientology is not for broken bones or gushing blood. It is for upset, disorientation, even psychosomatic pain (and a lot more pain is psychosomatic than people realize). Again, all Cruise is saying there is that he is a dedicated Scientologist and recognizes his responsibility to help if he can and not just drive by. It was shown to Scientologists to inspire them to do the same as Cruise has no official standing or authority in the Church to tell any Scientologist what to do but many Scientologists look up to him and respect him for his accomplishments. --JustaHulk (talk) 18:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't make what Cruise said sound any better. If anything, I'm afraid it puts it in a dimmer light. If he's referring to activities that basically amount to proselytizing without saying that's what you're doing, and applying Scientology "handling" techniques to accident victims, it goes from just a bizarre statement to a really creepy one, at least for non-Scientologists. It certainly gives me the heebies.

In any event, we're getting off-topic. The real point of discussion should be whether or not this video is notable, and should be used in this (or maybe another) article. I think it's notable enough for inclusion, myself. --GoodDamon 18:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you think it creepy to help someone with something that helps them regain their composure and sense of self and for with they sincerely thank you, then . . . OK. Is the video notable? IDK, but no reason for it not to be mentioned in his article as "Cruise was awarded a special Freedom Medal by the International Association of Scientologists for his work in disseminating Scientology. The awards ceremony included a nine-minute video presentation of Cruise discussing his commitment to Scientology. This portion of the event was posted to the internet but quickly removed for copyright reasons." That is all there is to it. --JustaHulk (talk) 19:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

(Indent reset) That looks pretty good. Neutral tone, just a statement of facts. I would add to it that the content of the video, once released on the internet, stirred up some controversy, but I don't see a way to put any of the actual content in the article without treading close to OR. --GoodDamon 19:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Folks, I know it may sound abstract but in this case the book isn't actually our source, it's the Telegraph article called Tom Cruise Scientology video leaked on web The video comes as a new book by the royal biographer Andrew Morton says the actor has become the de-facto second-in-command of the Church of Scientology and is consulted on every aspect of the controversial group's planning and policy. It's the source's source.

It's notable because it was discussed in popular media, and that actually overrides our opinions. Hell I think it's dumb; Cruise has been alleged to have authority in the CoS, not exactly a shock. Then there's the video where he describes how he feels about being a Scientologist, also not a big deal in my estimation. However The Telegraph thought it was worth mentioning, so my opinion takes a back seat. Just like all of our opinions are secondary to what the sources cover. Anynobody 01:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

German Federal Labor court judgment

Does anyone have a translation of this PDF? It's being claimed as a reference for a court finding (and is the current topic of editing by Shutterbug and Wispanow), but I don't speak German and Google is failing me. --GoodDamon 22:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Note that www.menschenrechtsbuero.de is a site of the Church of Scientology, the document copyright is Scientology Kirche Deutschland. That's a WP:RS only for what the Church of Scientology says, not for the German courts. Find a neutral secondary source for a reference. AndroidCat (talk) 15:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a church-owned site? I wasn't aware of that (hence the "I don't speak German" comment). Thanks. --GoodDamon 17:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Damon, are you having technical problem with the translation? If so, stick this long URL in Babel Fish. Doing that, it looks like the document itself is a summary prepared by the Church. Council of Europe Human Rights rulings are available in English here and here is a search of the site. --JustaHulk (talk) 16:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but I tried Babel Fish and it came out really difficult to understand. In any event, we shouldn't be using this site at all, since it's Church-owned. --GoodDamon 18:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Shutterbug should reference the case itself, not a Church summation. --JustaHulk (talk) 18:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)