Jump to content

Talk:Scientology: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 209: Line 209:
The other thing it neglects to mention is L.Ron Hubbards staple of scientology also adopted by Tom Cruise in his famous scolding of Brook Shields that medical problems
The other thing it neglects to mention is L.Ron Hubbards staple of scientology also adopted by Tom Cruise in his famous scolding of Brook Shields that medical problems
are psychological in nature and dont need medical treatment. Aparently scientologists all must be immune to aids and swine flu as thats obviously all in our heads, according
are psychological in nature and dont need medical treatment. Aparently scientologists all must be immune to aids and swine flu as thats obviously all in our heads, according
to cruise and other believers as L. Ron Hubbard must have had found a key by wishing us well and thinking happy that these things can be alieviated, according to L.Ron Hubbard who of course has all the good health psychological treatment you need for a price. Scientology is a mixture
to cruise and other believers as L. Ron Hubbard must have had found a key by wishing us well and thinking happy that these things can be alieviated, according to L.Ron Hubbard who of course has all the good health psychological treatment you need for a price. Scientology is a mixture
of psychology, accultishnessism, "advanced learning techniques (all privately given to payed members of course)" and a monetary product selling system.
of psychology, accultishnessism, "advanced learning techniques (all privately given to payed members of course)" and a monetary product selling system.


Revision as of 00:37, 11 November 2009


Former featured article candidateScientology is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 19, 2004Refreshing brilliant proseNot kept

Template:ArbcomArticle

Negative tone

This article conveys a somewhat negative tone towards the religion. While I don't disagree with this in general, I think it's inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. 220.245.127.197 (talk) 23:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still, most content in the article complies with WP:V and WP:RS. Sure, there is an overwhemingly negative tone in it, but it is a reflection of available sources. -- RUL3R*flaming | *vandalism 23:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's because biased editors and admins have decided anti-scientology references are always reliable... Like OCB, it is unreliable, yet it's deemed unquestionably reliable by anti-scientology Beaurocrats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.202.18.51 (talk) 14:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article on death conveys a somewhat bleak tone towards death. While I don't disagree with this in general, I think it's inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.74.114.94 (talk) 21:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"While I don't disagree with this in general, I think it's inappropriate for an encyclopaedia"... sure whatever you say. What else do you have to say? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.202.18.51 (talk) 15:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it would have a positive tone if Scientology had a positive impact on people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.40.39.10 (talk) 20:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In processing, often group engrams and their phrases may rise from their at rest sub-death tones up to death, to somewhat higher antagonistic and skeptical tones -- within a culture which has exterminated over 200 tribes of American aborigines and currently runs third world wars for big pharma (Afghanistan) and big oil (Afghanistan and Iraq) one could expect such jibes as the general "intelligence" would dictate, along with the blandishments of interesting psychoses acceptable to big military, big medicine, big pharma, big psychiatry and small, negatively toned closed minds. 71.51.75.154 (talk) 16:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, user 71, it is all due to the Psychologist empire. Psychologists financially defraud and abuses their patients, charging exorbitant fees for their 'medical' services, suing all critics and aggressively pursuing enemies of their 'profession'. It's very good that Scientology doesn't do the exact same thing. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 04:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

please read WP:TALK and stick to conversations dealing with edits within the article.Coffeepusher (talk) 06:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, 99, accuracy doth count, as the Psychiatric "empire" you attempt to indicate is well documented amongst the other technical hero-realms of Nazism, Irish Republicanism, trance-isms, Cathy O'Brien and Communism -- you could do well to study up on Denial as well, as the "Darvo" of your rant has led you somewhat inaccurately off topic -- thanks Coffeepusher, I'll have another cup of kindness. One can expect irrational outbursts from the engrammed ignorant, particularly on hot topics they may be paid to diss on 71.51.72.233 (talk) 17:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

donations?

{{editsemiprotected}} In the second paragraph the articles describes that members get study materials and auditing courses in return for specified donations. In the fourth paragraph is stated that the organization charges fees for those materials. According to the definition of donations this term should not be used in this context: Donations are gifts given without return consideration. As the giver donates expecting the material and courses this is no more a donation. Maybe one could include this sentence: The members gain access to study materials and auditing courses in return for specified fees. --88.67.233.130 (talk) 11:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Object The fourth paragraph uses the "fee" wording as part of a representation of what critics say. The "donation" wording is not inappropriate in a context where the Church has charitable or religious status, and donations given to it are tax-exempt. JN466 11:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. The Church of Scientology can get donations. But that's not the point. By definition no organization can get donations in return for something else. For example wikimedia asks for donations. But it doesn't say: You only get access to wikipedia if you donate a specified amount of money. That's not how donations work. Therefore it's inappropriate to use the term donation in this context. --88.67.233.130 (talk) 13:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Welcome and thanks for contributing. Your request seem more focused on whether that choice of terms is valid, rather than on whether it fairly represents the sourced text. The sentence in question has a reference, so the question is simply whether that reference called them donations or not. Celestra (talk) 14:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is interesting. Do I understand you in the right way that something that is obviously wrong can be written in this article as long as it is possible to have an reference? It is quite obvious that this sentence contradicts the definition of donations. --88.67.233.130 (talk) 15:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
well you can't quote a source but before hand "fix" it according to your interpretations of what is correct. Its not obviously wrong that they ask for donations, there may be a more accurate word (fee) that would encompass the entire process but the church has chosen to describe the initial money exchange process as "donations" which isn't incorrect.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed that's a problem. But there is a simple solution: Instead of quoting Melton, one could quote the church itself (i.e. http://faq.scientology.org/finance.htm) and use quotation marks to show that this is not the normal definition of "donation". --88.67.239.119 (talk) 17:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
aaahhhh....yah there is a consensus around here not to quote primary sources because that has caused problems in the past (check the archives). I think it is more accurate to state that the church asks for "specified donations" because that is in fact what the church asks for and what the secondary and primary sources state. And I think that the word "specified" clarifies the meaning to the point that quotation marks are unnecessary. Coffeepusher (talk) 17:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The text should say: ... get study materials by a payment that they call "specific donation" (quote). Period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.16.132.233 (talk) 10:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is literally filled with inaccuracies, claims without citation, and false citations.

For one thing, Aleister Crowley's religious philosophy is being described as "Satanism". In reality, it was Thelema, the religion he founded. This is just one example of the bias that pervades this article.

I'm not sure how much of this travesty of an article contains deliberate distortion of facts, and how much is just the result of a lack of knowledge on the subject.

Someone needs to go through the entire thing and ensure that every one of these rather suspect claims are cited, and not by the same 3 or 4 authors who waited until Hubbard had died to pump out sensationalized anti-Scientology books, if Wikipedia wants to even have a pretense at neutrality. 69.244.168.60 (talk) 09:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to "Crowley's teachings". --JN466 15:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In response to IP 69.244.168.60, I urge wikipedia editors to not be too swayed by those statements. There is more than adequate evidence and citations to back up the scientology criticisms. Please leave them in, it is important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.20.239 (talk) 00:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I urge wikipedia editors to consider both opinions, and not just ignore 69.244.168.60. Also, this is not a courtroom, Wikipedia shouldn't be written on "evidence" but upon reliable sources.

Not on evidence but reliable sources? Define "evidence"...Of course there is no evidence or reliable source for any of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.192.190.94 (talk) 05:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is unreliable because of the unreliable sources being used.

Strings of epithets, gibbering in the darkness and disembodied voices are well within the psycho realm of engrams -- welcome to the world of Fox-news type accuracy and Republican-type multi- "truths." "Truth" is contained in engrams, too -- it's just a wee bitch more painful than the real thing. 71.51.72.233 (talk) 22:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what the above is supposed to mean? Maybe it should be added to the article as an example of Scientologic. 84.69.150.82 (talk) 18:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

St. Petersburg Times reporter Tom Tobin to appear Thursday in Scientology investigation by ABC's Nightline

Religion

Someone should remove "no" which stands alone under the "as religion" heading. It looks like vandalism or a mis-edit. (I'm not a Scientologist btw). 204.16.25.238 (talk) 16:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

having trouble finding the "as religion" heading or the "no" you are referring to.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Membership versus adherents

The role of a section on 'membership' is confusing if the article is to remain focused on the belief system (Scientology) rather than an organization (Church of Scientology etc.). Are there citable figures for the number of adherents of Scientology beliefs as distinct from members of the Church of Scientology? Even if no distinct figures could be found I would use 'adherents' or 'believers' rather than 'members' (or 'membership') in a statement of the number of people subscribing to a belief system.70.109.216.103 (talk) 03:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Perhaps the subheading should be changed to 'Demographics'.
    The ARIS data deals with 'adherents', though ARIS doesn't use that term. The CoS includes adherents in its worldwide membership 'millions' figure, whilst denying that those not in 'good standing' with it (ie heretics) are scientologists. Census data is likely to relate more to adherents. That's all there is that is citable really - Scientology is simply too small to register on other religious surveys. I have lots of data from separate sources but Wikipedia can't cite me directly - original research on a personal and POV website! --Hartley Patterson (talk) 01:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One feels one may somewhat miss the point of the word, "scientology," which depicts, "knowing of knowing," and rests beyond, hopefully above, the concept of "belief:" that which avers a deep faith and liking/affinity for some object or system. Organizational "membership," is not, therefore necessary to the general practice of "scientology," which seemingly may occur whenever a person actually may know or realize/recognize that that person, or any other person, truly knows something about knowing itself. For example, a person who can recall many phone numbers correctly knows that as such one's memory is accurate; a person who can recall the names of numerous philosophers wives, from Pythagoras to Hubbard, knows that triviality of recall is also amusingly fine, if not generally particularly helpful. "Belief" in "scientology" is not necessary for its practice, although an Eightfold Path first status may well be liberally interpreted as, "Right Belief," and following on, the "Right Thought/Intention" to carry on with such a path. The softer, more recent translation of status first, namely, "Right View," could certainly help demythologize the processes of organizational scientology -- since the maniacal enemies of organizational scientology attempt to propagandize the systems as "erroneous beliefs" when in fact they are individual, knowledge based progressions and not particularly matters of faith, hope or blind charity. This is not to deny that after twenty centuries of Christianity such faiths, hopes and charities may in fact well up within a grateful adherent, just as well as stir up certain rages and blood lusts within the long time experienced persecutors of their more innocent religious human companions. You need look no further than the stories of Christian martyrs and Holocaust victims to view the results of extreme forms of disbeliefs, deceits and desecrations of humanity, the which Scientology proclaims to be here to rescue one from. It is indeed unfortunate that sometimes when a fireman reaches into a blaze to grab a smouldering infant, that in the obfuscating smokes and flames he might incidentally give the child or other rescued a black eye by mistake: at least the rescued may live to complain and as humans we may have to recall that no organization is perfect, even if/as it is working on perfection and perfecting itself and us. Just think, "Catholic," means "Universal," and how erroneous is that, even within the somewhat controversial and amusing context of "Papal Infallibility." In short, we need "right view" of ourselves before we go about making "catholic" pronunciamentos about "scientology"71.51.75.154 (talk) 01:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the specific religious group started by L. Ron Hubbard. It is not about Buddhism, Christianity, Thelema, or any any other group or philosophical movement, even if those had some kind of indirect influence on Hubbard or his followers. --FOo (talk) 08:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One helps oneself with understandings of backgrounds within the fields of religions; e.g. it can prove helpful to understand something of Judaic history in order to understand Christianity -- it can give perspectives and often discloses meanings hidden by ignorance of the engrammed, unconscious, biased or bigoted. Adherents to Scientology organizations on many counts were either rejected by or rejecting of previous practices, including all prior earth religions, organized or not. 71.51.72.233 (talk) 17:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(@FOo) Actually this is an article about the beliefs of the group started by Hubbard, on the group itself go to 'Church of Scientology'. That's why I suggested the nearly-identical 'Membership Statistics' paragraphs in the two articles (that on the beliefs, and that on the organization) be differentiated, or cross-referenced, or something. 70.109.216.103 (talk) 18:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ABC News Nightline

  • Bashir, Martin (October 23, 2009). "Former Scientologists Level Accusations: Ex-Members Say Leader David Miscavige Hit Subordinates; Church Denies Accusations". Nightline. ABC News. Retrieved 2009-10-25. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Source for material for addition to the article. Cirt (talk) 20:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Haggis

I think this neds to be incorporated somehow into the article. He makes some scathing remarks, but more importantly accuses the cherch of denying the existence of the disconnect policy which he claims is untrue. http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/holy-post/archive/2009/10/27/canadian-filmmaker-haggis-renounces-scientology.aspx sherpajohn (talk) 14:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is just one guy's opinion, in a blog, and one with a stated agenda. Hardly a reliable source. Rodhullandemu 23:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While it is a blog, it is a blog of the National Post. While I am not sure of the editorial oversight, I am sure there is some. I would say that it carries as much weight as an editorial in the same newspaper - which has a daily circulation of 200,000. It is one of the top national newspapers in Canada, for the record. What is this "stated agenda" the Holy Post has? DigitalC (talk) 23:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I misread it in my haste to do some improving of this encyclopedia- it seems they treat all religions with equality; commendable, in my view. Rodhullandemu 23:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Church of Scientology convicted of organised fraud in France - 27 Oct 2009

According to the Times newspaper of 27 October 2009, "The Church of Scientology was convicted of organised fraud in France today in a ground-breaking judgment which denounced the cult for swindling vulnerable members out of thousands of euros." http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6892075.ece 94.76.252.9 (talk) 14:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Scientology in France. As regards the reason why Scientology was not banned, the Times article is at variance with other sources (e.g. BBC) which say there was a change in law/a legal loophole which removed the legal basis for a ban. --JN466 21:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Compatibility with other religions

I've removed the "Compatibility with other religions" section. Most of the references don't support the text and with the removed unsupported information it doesn't make sense. The referenced material I found in Google books and checked them. Aside from the LA Times article, they seem derivative and vague as to what is known about Scientology and what is supposition. This would indicate the are anti-cult books and are not NPOV.

Specifically: (I've signed each point so they can be discussed separately) Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Scientology states that it is compatible with all major world religions. (Ref: Wheeler, Tompaul (2006). "Things they never taught me". Review and Herald Pub. Assoc. pp. 51. ISBN 0-8280-1978-9.)
I was not able to find this reference, but why use it, this information is on the Church of Scientology's website. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, due to major differences in the beliefs and practices between Scientology and especially the largest monotheistic religions, a simultaneous membership in Scientology is not always seen as compatible. (Ref: G. P. Geoghegan "Protestantism: the dark night of Christianity", p. 290, Lulu.com, 2007 ISBN 978-1430318125 )
Google books seem to say that this book only makes a passing reference to Scientology, but it has only a limited preview. However the statement is broad and doesn't say who finds it incompatible. Without the following statements (below) there is no support for this. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scientology only allows a passive formal membership in a second religion. (Ref: John A. Saliba "Signs of the Times", pp. 29–32, 31, Mediaspaul, 1996 ISBN 978-2894203262, Ref: Bryan Wilson "New Religious Movements", p. 18, 2001 ISBN 978-0415200509 )
I looked, I don't see a statement like this. The author of "Sign of the times" says Scientology's definition of god is vague and unspecified and then goes on to to quote some other author claiming Scientology's concept of god is radically different from that of traditional Christian religions. This citation is contradicting itself. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Saliba is a relevant source, and the pages in question can be viewed in google books: [1]. However, I can't find anything about "formal passive membership" in Saliba either. --JN466 14:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Members are not allowed to engage in other religious activities or ceremonies. (Ref: Steve Bruce: "Cathedrals to cults: the evolving forms of the religious life". In: Paul Heelas (Hrsg.): "Religion, Modernity, and Postmodernity", Blackwell Publishing 1998, pp. 19–35, 23 ISBN 978-0631198482 )
I looked at the article, it just doesn't say that. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. What it does say is here: [2] JN466 14:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a quote of the article, not L. Ron Hubbard. I don't think Hubbard ever said that. The actual quotes of L. Ron Hubbard in the article imply that the story of Christ is an "implant" (leftover brainwashing from a past life), but I've seen a quote from Hubbard elsewhere that he thought there may have been a Jesus that the story was based on. Also just because someone is brainwashed to believe something, doesn't mean it isn't true. It may be a fair interpretation that Hubbard didn't believe Jesus wasn't anything more then a man, but that would be an interpretation, not a direct quote of L. Ron Hubbard. I've also seen a quote by Hubbard to the effect that he looked for Heaven and couldn't find it. Finding that quote would be a better reference. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never checked through the references for that para, but will confess that it always struck me as a little bit WP:SYNny. The topic of compatibility with other religions is relevant, and I've seen it discussed elsewhere. I'll look for some scholarly sources. Cheers, --JN466 13:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There have definitely been statements on the subject by spokespeople for other religions. I'd say they were a more reliable source for compatibility with their own belief systems than Scientology would be. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article Scientology and other religions seems to have better references with actual reactions from Churches and individuals. Although it has that ridiculous "Jesus was a pederast" reference. It reduces the reliability of the whole article. I guessing attempts to remove it results in it turning up elsewhere. Thanks for the Wikipedia policy references, I'm not a Wikipedian and not familiar with exact references. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated membership statistics

The most recent data listed on the current Wikipedia article is 55,000 members in 2001.

Here is a credible, more up to date source

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/11/01/national/a100041S26.DTL&feed=rss.news_nation

"One major survey of American religion shows Scientology declining in the U.S., however. The estimated number of Americans who identify as Scientologists rose from 45,000 in 1990 to 55,000 in 2001, then plummeted to 25,000 in 2008, according to the American Religion Identification Survey."

Newbie and won't edit the main page before discussion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.20.145.189 (talk) 21:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article is from Associated Press, I've added the 25,000 number sourcing to the original article via the AP Google feed. Lest anyone ask, the figure does not appear in the 2009 ARIS report as Scientology had fallen below their cutoff line, but ARIS do respond to requests for it.
    It is highly inaccurate, +/- 103%, but I don't suppose I can add that as though number crunched from the provided ARIS data it would be 'original research'. All the ARIS figures indicate is that there are far fewer scientologists than claimed by the Church, they don't reliably indicate changes in scientologist numbers over time, only probabilities. --Hartley Patterson (talk) 17:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


As in Laozi and A Course in Miracles, Hubbard seemed to imply it could take just one Fourth Dynamic Auditor person to solve earth's ills, hence, so long as that one is still a member the Scientology membership will suffice? Or perhaps the yin-yang of it all requires that one to be a non-member...hmmm. 71.51.72.233 (talk) 23:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beliefs and practices - Body and spirit

The statement "Scientology has an associated mythology that its adherents hold to reflect religious truth." kinda goes along with Scientology being a religion. It could be said of any religion. Scientologists don't refer to their teachings as "Mythology", so why is it there. Only the next sentence uses the word mythology and the word isn't used again until close to the end of the section. It's extra verbiage and I'm taking it out,rephrasing the next sentence and removing similar verbiage that can be done without. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 01:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One billion dollar "war chest"

In an interview on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation current affairs radio program The Current with Hana Gartner, former high-ranking Scientology official Mark Rathbun commented that the decision to convict the Church of Scientology of fraud in France would not have a significant impact on the organization.[1] "On the France thing I don't think that's going to have any lasting impact, simply because they got a nine hundred thousand dollar fine I think - which is like chump change to them. They've got literally nearly a billion dollars set aside in a war chest," said Rathbun.[1]

Interesting stuff. Cirt (talk) 04:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scientologys Anti Medicine and Payed Echelon Status

This is not biased article as I see it as Im betting alot of scientologists are writing in being troublemakers, you guys need to state your political/religious statements when makeing amendments to articles so we know where your comming from lol.

Also the article completely neglects to mentions the controversial effects of the cult/religion/beliefe system, including that members advance in scientology based on how economicaly prosperous they are wich is why spokesmen for the religion are generaly movie stars, all high ranking members are wealthy status members. Greed is also a factor in scientology as the more you buy into scientology products, the better scientolgist you are and more scientology information you have, wich of course just makes those running scientology richer. The fact that it seems to be a payed religion/beilefe system has drawn much critisism as its anti-medicine stances.

The other thing it neglects to mention is L.Ron Hubbards staple of scientology also adopted by Tom Cruise in his famous scolding of Brook Shields that medical problems are psychological in nature and dont need medical treatment. Aparently scientologists all must be immune to aids and swine flu as thats obviously all in our heads, according to cruise and other believers as L. Ron Hubbard must have had found a key by wishing us well and thinking happy that these things can be alieviated, according to L.Ron Hubbard who, of course, has all the good health psychological treatment you need for a price. Scientology is a mixture of psychology, accultishnessism, "advanced learning techniques (all privately given to payed members of course)" and a monetary product selling system.

Also is missing is wether or not lack of medical care may have resulted in John Travoltas sons death as no medical treatment is a major staple of scientology. Sadly this cannot be proven as Jets body was mysteriously cremated early before everyone was notified of a blackmail attempt against the Travoltas, no body=no further autopsy. It can be infered that this may be the reason the blackmailer was blackmailing the Travoltas in an attempt to accuse them for not treating thier son due to thier scientology beliefes.If were going to be fair and paint a picture then warts and all of an ideology need to be addressed, including newsworthy misattempts to promote the organization by members of the organization such as Travolta and Cruise. Lets be fair and partial but not blind.

Also missing is an attempt to mention that scientologists have been banned from editing wiki articles after it was found they were doing so to support thier own beliefe system and modifying medical/psychological information, wich can be googled for verification.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightgamer360 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ a b Gartner, Hana (October 30, 2009). "Part Two: Scientology - Former Scientologist, Scientology - History". The Current. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved 2009-11-04.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Scientology&oldid=325154524"