From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

I'm new here but know some of the scientology philosophy. The article used to read:

  • Scientology is a controversial religion founded by science fiction writer Lafayette Ron Hubbard, based upon his self-help program of Dianetics. Its basic teaching is that all humans suffering comes from repressed traumatic memories, sometimes dating back to previous lifetimes, and that these memories of Xenu can be 'cleared' through a lengthy (and expensive) form of church therapy. Human souls are known as "Thetans".
    I removed the "all" of "all human suffering" because a person might knowingly wish to temporarily suffer, to some degree, in a situation toward a greater good. An example of that would be a minister living in primitive conditions, for example. So "all" human suffering could not be the result of past memories. The article also said something which implied all suffering came from a particular, long past memory which isn't at all what scientology proposes. I removed that word. Also, there are several ways a person can go about the Church's "therapy" and not all of them are expensive. But buying professional auditing can be expensive. Another method is co-auditing with a partner, it is significantly less expensive. A third method is to work within the Church, in which situation auditing is often given as a bonus. Terryeo 18:27, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Biasing a solid article

User:Vossy has edited the article to produce that Scientology is not a religion, but a cult (as the page reads). There might be rooom to discuss the topic, but there is a good deal of scholarly opinion stating that the Church of Scientology is a religion. Could we have some discussion, please, rather than boldly presenting unattributed opinion ?

Vossy also edited to produce that Dianetics is psychotherapy, i.e. based on his psychotherapy program, Dianetics. May we keep the article simple and neutral, rather than biased ? If Dianetics is to be called psychotherapy, may that be done in the aritle, Dianetics and that article doesn't exist at this moment. So can't we simply say, "Dianetics" without introducing the bias word "psychotherapy"? I'm quite sure the organization which promotes Dianetics does not present it as psychotherapy see:
Vossy also created, "Dianetics was later expanded to appear more like a religion in order to gain tax benefits". This statement it is not attributed in the article. The Dianetics website does not support such a statement. In general, the statement is more a critical personal opinion than a statement of fact. I don't believe anyone could find any presentation BY Dianetics that ever said it was a religion, nor "religious - like".
Finally, Vossy modified the article to produce, "Scientology has successfully converted a number of celebrities". But both Tom Cruise and John Travolta had been active in Scientology for some long while before making public statements about Scientology. Not to hammer a point home here, but "I am a Scientologist" is a self-declare, not a decree by the Church. It is not a statement of membership nor does it declare a faith, but says, "I find Scientology to be useful in my life". Can we discuss please ? Terryeo 02:17, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Religion or cult?

An old joke says "A cult is what a big religion calls a small one." But in this case, I think there are a few reasons to consider it a cult:

  1. Absolutly crazy beliefs.
    • There are few if any beliefs in Scientology. To say there are crazy beliefs is to apply misinformation that does not appear within Scientology.Terryeo 22:23, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
  1. Accusations of brainwashing techniques, with court cases to back them up.
    • If that is so (I doubt it very much), please present the data. Terryeo 22:23, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
  1. Pseudoscientific 'Dianetics' theory and complete self-contained worldview serves to isolate members.
    • If "pseudoscientific" is to be recognized, it would need a source much better than an uneducated person. Present the information. Terryeo 22:23, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
  1. A heavy element of a cult of personality - Ron Hubbard is revered.
    • Again, misinformation. Hubbard is widely respected, but not just by scientologists. He often said he was "just a man", Scientology does not worship or consider he was anything but a man.Terryeo 22:23, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
  1. Founder was a professional fiction author... and his 'religion' seems much the science-fiction he wrote.
    • Good of you to offer your opinion, In 1950 Hubbard was best known for his Science Fiction. Millions of words later, in different subjects, he was known for other writings. Terryeo 22:23, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
  1. Members are strongly pressured to convert others.
    • Again, misinformation. Not especially. However, should you 'just happen' to hang around a Church, certainly people are going to talk to you about what they are doing. Terryeo 22:23, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
  1. A central controling organisation with exclusive authority.
    • Good idea that, a practice every successful business on the planet practices, no ? Terryeo 22:23, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
  1. A long series of certifications and tests for members, each of which requires payment. Lots of payment.
    • My experience has been very very different from what you just stated. If you have such data, by all means bring it forth. Terryeo 22:23, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

All of these are cultlike aspects. Each of them alone would not be enough to call it a cult, but taken together... It sounds like a cult to me. And, really, if scientology had only a couple of hundred members, it would certinly be called a cult. Should mere scale allow it to turn somehow into a real religion?

Its a cult. Does anyone have a reason why it isn't a cult? If not, I will put the contriversial word in later :)

    • It is not a cult. Probably none, but certainly few Scholars in the area of religion would say so. They would apply a 5 or 7 item rule and see if Scientology fulfilled the criteria for religion. Many have and have found that it does. Would you like some links to professional opinions? Terryeo 22:23, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
If you want to add that you will need a source for it, what source are you planning on using? Tmtoulouse 20:31, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
christianity is a cult too then, it fits all of those except #5 and #8--JamesLipton 21:54, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
Christianity is too broad to classify as a whole. Different denominations have all of those, but not Christianity as a whole. Scientology though has no internal divisions, its all unified. Besides, is there any better definition for a cult than the self-referential 'cult-like organisation'? I think Scientology is cultlike enough to deserve the term. So lets use it, not shy away for fear of insulting. Thats a liberal thing. - BornAgainBrit

History of the word

In 1952 Ron Hubbard gave a one hour, public lecture entitled, Scientology: Milestone One. In it, he defined the word, he spelled out why he used that particular word, where he was going with the idea and defined the basis of using that word. A google map search yields 6000 + Scientology locations. None of them are connected with the use of the word prior to the Church of Scientology. So why mention the word history in a brief article? Any websearch gives millions of results, almost all are about the Church of Scientology. Any news search gives hundreds (or more) results, all of them about the Church of Scientology. So why a word history study in a brief article ?Terryeo 02:59, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Significant changes to the article

Several of us have changed the article quiet a bit, the most controversial of these changes will involve the criticism section and the use of, also perhaps what calling L. Ron Hubbard a science fiction writer, which he is, and maybe the use of the term religion. I also assume there are other issues that will need to be discussed so lets bring them here. Tmtoulouse 16:55, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

If you prefer, Tmtoulouse. At Conservapedia_Talk#Standards_of_Sources there has been discussion about what sources of information are appropriate to a conservapedia. The discussion is ongoing. I have proposed that Wikipedia's use of personal website as a source of information is inappropriate to a conservative wiki. A good deal of the difficulty at Wikipedia revolves around inappropriate use of reference. I hope our threshold of inclusion here is higher than Wikipedia's. The personal website referenced by recent edits is / That personal website says on its front page, DISCLAIMER: I, Andreas Heldal-Lund, am alone responsible for Operation Clambake. I speak only my own personal opinions. So, you see, those references are to a single individual's presentation of his personal opinion. His personal opinions are not peer reviewed, indeed, they might be no better than a notice on a lamp post. He might be a bright critic, he might be a criminal, but one thing, he is individual. I am saying, let us remove any reference, anywhere, to personal website. If the information is good information, it will appear at other sources of information. It cheapens a document to rely upon one man's personal opinion, particularly when that one man (as Andreas Heldal-Lund has), has spent time in jail.

On March 18th, User:Conservative (sysop), User:Tmtoulouse (I am here but I am not, background in psychology and neuroscience), and User:Bturpin, made 18 edits to the article. Conservative and Tmtoulouse seem to have spontaneously found this article as a common target. Yet no talk about this article appears on any of the three user pages. The Bturpin account was recently created, that individual has engaged in only one discussion [1]. How did this seeming unity of mind spontaneously come about ? The collaberation changed the article from [2] (a brief, 13 sentence, two reference links to offical sites), to [3], (a 16 sentence article with 7 referenced links and 2 exterior links). The exterior links (frightening links from years ago that tell how bad scientology is) are presented first so the reader knows what he is getting into and can escape if he wants to. The 7 referencing links point to 3 official sites for the religion (just in case anyone wanted to know anything about the religion). The 4 remaining references are to:

  • A CBS story titled "The Sinking of Islam" (but misreprestened by the link element to substantiate, "unfavorable opinions of Scientology are widespread".
  • A link proposing there might be some question that Scientology is:
    • Christian in disguise (no Scientology site would ever suggest that, many Scientology links specifially address that and say no).
    • A cult -- this issue is worth discussing because it is an opinion. But the reason for the link is to substantiate (again) "unfavorable opinions of Scientology are widespread" which that link does a very poor job of because it introduces the brand new tidbit of information "Scientology might be Christian". Why introduce that tidbit when Scientology itself says "NO, we're not Christian" and any scholar you are likely to find says "No, Scientology is not Christian"
  • A link to a personal website, to substantiate and reference that Scientology has been accused (by whom a reader might wonder).
  • Another link to the same personal website,, to substantiate and reference a myth about alien souls.
I would like this article to present what Conservapedia proposes every article within it present. That is, a clear and easy to understand, brief introduction. Let us not indoctrinate our readers with our own personal points of view, nor hammer them with personal opinion from personal websites. Let us give our readers a foundation they can be certain of. In such a wise our readers can drop a subject, or not, confident they know something about it. Terryeo 19:16, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
The reason it was a common target is because there are very few edits really on this site, so when an edit occurs those of us that patrol the recent changes all collapse on it. No conspiracy or anything, just a function of the current conditions of this site. What information in the current article specifically do you want to see changed? Lets start there. Tmtoulouse 19:19, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
Thank you for the reply. Rather that say a particular information, could we instead address the issue of attribution? Because, if we address attribution the question of "what information" becomes moot, becomes nil and unimportant. The two attributions to present information. Rather than say, "hey, what sense does that make", I stated that is a personal website, a personal opinion by of one person. Rather than say "let's talk about this information", can we instead get good, substantial attributions ? The reason I say this is because if we do then we will have good information. And if we don't, we'll have personal opinion (one person on a planet of 6.5 billion). I believe what will happen is the "bad" information will be gone if personal websites are not used to support "bad" information. Terryeo 22:08, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
Okay, no more so all is copasetic? Tmtoulouse 22:30, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
If information is attributed and referenced, and if those attributions do not point to personal websites, then why would I object? My intention is toward presenting good information in those areas that I know about. By "good", I mean information that a person can have confidence in. Terryeo 23:01, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

K. Spaink, too, [4] is a personal website. The thing is, an individual person has no responsibility for good information. They might post, "the moon is made of green cheese". In that link Spaink explains her point of view and combines it with other opinion and what do we have? Good information, or very biased personal opinion ? Terryeo 23:06, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Quotes directly from primary sources and other secondary sources. Seems perfectly reliable to me. Tmtoulouse 23:16, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
I removed the link to that personal website and the information it referenced to. One personal website link might be of slightly better quality than another personal website link, One posting on a light pole slightly better than a second posting on a light pole. But neither are much good. Why do you argue for conservapedia and present yourself in one way on Wikipedia, but add in "evil" here on your userpage, and take issue with personal websites here, Tmtoulouse? Terryeo 01:17, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
None of the issues related to me matter at all. I see nothing wrong with the source, as things stand its an acceptable source for conservapedia. Your welcome to ask for admin comment on this. Until then the sourced claim should stay. Tmtoulouse 01:23, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

General points to be made:

  • Scientology is a religion. It may be a cult, but it is certainly classified as a religion, in that they believe in the supernatural (Thetans, for example)
  • It would be hypocritical not to use as some sort of reference. We use CSM, and all sorts of Christian websites when referring to Christianity. It may not be appropriate in some places, but in others, it can reveal the Dogma, the "Kosher" view of Scientology, if you will. As we know, the basis for inclusion is verifiability, not truth (though ideally it is truthful, though Scientology isn't the true religion according to most contributors).
  • Whats great about Scientology is, it hasn't splintered off into different branches (like Protestants, Catholics, Baptists, Easern Orthodox, etc.). So if you find a source, chances are it represents the view of all the Scientologists.

Just some general stuff. --Hojimachongtalk 01:45, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

I attempted to merge some of terryeo's edits into the article. Tmtoulouse 02:32, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

We seem to have arrived at a reasonable first and second paragraphs. It has taken some effort :) It is my understanding, however, that Karin Splink's (I write therefore I am) site should not be linked to for the reason that her site presents stolen documents. I don't know all there is to know about the situation, but I have read the documents can not be posted anywhere BUT The Netherland where her site is hosted. In fact, that is the reason her Netherland site carries them. We might be getting ourselves into a legal situation (again, I don't know all there is to know about it) if we link to her site in that manner. Terryeo 03:12, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
I don't see how linking can be a copy right violation, all the information in the article is derived from information that is pretty much with in the public commons. Xenu is probably the most recognized element of the Church of Scientology's teachings. Tmtoulouse 03:18, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
I'm not able to say what public opinion is. I can say that of the thousands of Scientologists and many staff members I have talked with, we have never thought of talking about that. And, I can say that I have never met that "teaching" in any Scientology Church or Mission I have entered. And I can safely say that it is not present in any of the published (to the public) works I own. (I searched) And I own about 95 % of the millions of words the Church has published. But, online, everyone screams bloody murder about it. While, in real life, no scientologist has heard about it. When did that myth supposedly happen? 75 years ago? 75 hundred thousand years ago? 75 MILLION years ago? Terryeo 04:59, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
Its undeniably part of the church's doctrine, the church has said so in various lawsuits. It maybe not an important part anymore but it is certainly linked very closely in the public's mind with Scientology. Have you ever hung around one of Scientology's recruiting tents at a college university? About 1/5 of the people that show up for their "free stress test" will make a snickering remark about Xenu. Its often yelled out by passing pedestrians. I have seen this phenomenon in multiple locations. So I think it meets any criteria we can set for inclusion in the article. Tmtoulouse 11:10, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
From what I recall during my days over to a-r-s Xenu was OT-III material, revealed only after the mark has (donated) spent thousands of dollars. It was in evidence during a trial of one guy named "Fischmann". Sometime between the occurrence of the trial and CoS's attorneys asking the documents be sealed, an enterprising person copied them and distributed them far and wide. Once the order to seal was set ALL these copies were illegal but somehow they managed to get onto the internet. The upshot is that though Xenu is widely known the actual documents are still copyrighted and not allowed to be seen in toto. But, as Groucho Marx pointed out "inside a dog, it's too dar to read. Crackertalk 11:22, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
You know what, Cracker? It really reeks that you would treat freedom of religion with so little respect that you use "mark" to talk about it. Why can't you speak civilized language, why can't you express your position without using such terms? It is completely obvious that you don't understand what the subject is, that's fine. But even if you disagree with a person's right to have a freedom of religion, you need not use disrespectful language, for a parishioner. Terryeo 22:12, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Fox News

Father Jonathan of Fox News has written for Fox News about Scientology. here. He then posted some of the comments he received here. There are at least two points that can be observed:

  • A clean, easily read article is widely read.
  • Readers will remind you of controversy even if you don't include it.

Let us err on the side of conservatism rather on the side of rumor-mongering. If our article is viewed with respect as Father Jonathan's seems to be, instead of the reactions to groupthink found at Wikipedia, we will have accomplished a great deal. Terryeo 12:17, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Good article

Gotta say the article as it currently stands is one of the better ones here. 13:33, 19 March 2007 User:Palmd001 (Good article)

Palmd001 refers, I think, to this edit [5] and I agree. I would prefer the article not be further modified without good reason. Terryeo 14:38, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Source for "applied spirituality"

We seem to disagree about how to handle the "applied spirituality" classification. Can you provide a source for it? Maybe that will help use with the wording. Tmtoulouse 13:52, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

I am willing to do a good deal. I am willing to verify EVERY WORD of the edits I introduce. I am willing to write an article on Dianetics and more. But unless the article can stand for 5 minutes without bias creeping in, it would make no sense to do so. For example, "Scientology is an applied spiritual philosophy" becomes "Scientology is presented by adherents as an applied spiritual philosophy". An earlier statement, "Scientology, like Buddhism, is an applied spiritual philosophy" was similarly chopped up. Where does the problem lie? Am I to convince Tmtoulouse of the validity of every edit I make with direct quotations

for a dozen websites before the least word of my edit can stand for 5 minutes? If it is your intent to make me defensive about perfectly good, substantial, verifiable edits, you have certainly succeeded, User:Tmtoulouse. Terryeo 14:30, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Show me a source for the phrase "applied spiritual philosophy" google comes up with nothing. [6] Tmtoulouse 14:35, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
That link shows 31 returns. The one I like best is [7]but of course everyone has their own tastes. Did you seek additional links then ? Terryeo 14:45, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
At position #5, this link to an official Church site [8] presents Scientology as an "applied spiritual philosphy". Terryeo 14:51, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
So then its just as I had written, it is the church/adherents that refer to it as such. Others refer to it as a body of teachings, others a cult, others far worse things. What wrong with saying that this particular definition is what the Church says? Makes sense to me. Tmtoulouse 16:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
The official link I provided use the exact words, "applied spiritual philosophy", just I stated. "Applied religious philosophy" is more commonly seen and, in fact, an entire book has been written and published, extant for some years, revolving around the second definition. Who else WOULD say it? Scientology was created by Hubbard, Scientology was entrusted to the Church of Scientology by Hubbard, who would say what it is BUT the Church and their publications? No one else is expert in the area, where is the difficulty. Now let us say that as simply as possible, okay ? Why say, "the experts in neurology say that neurology is about ....." Why not say, "neurology is about ....."and (reference) ? Terryeo 16:18, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
I would have no problem with "experts in neurology define neurology as...." if there were other different definitions. There are many other ways to define Scientology as has been done by many people. It needs to be qualified. Tmtoulouse 16:27, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Edit war

This is the edit war we are talking about? Tmtoulouse implies, "I refuse to allow any person to consider there is any authority, anywhere, about scientology". I state, "Scientology was created and entrusted to an organization, that organization is the authority about itself".
Does that about sum it up ? Terryeo 16:43, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

When there are multiple definitions for a term and some of those definitions are in conflict, one should source whose definition you are using. Seems pretty straight forward to me. Tmtoulouse 16:53, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
A web search for "scientology" yields millions of hits. A google maps for "scientology" yields thousands of locations. A book search for scientology yields many results. Do you wish the article to refer to one of the definitions that you have not yet presented on this page ? Do you wish to include a word study of the roots of the word? Terryeo 16:57, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
At this point I just want the definition we are using to be properly attributed. Thats all. Tmtoulouse 16:59, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
Okay, here is the link we have been using: [9] and its first sentences begins, "Scientology is an applied religious philosophy". Which is what the article says, word for word. What would you like changed ? Terryeo 17:05, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
Nothing, use the definition but attribute it in the text to the Church, since that is who owns and runs that site. Just as I have been advocating from the start. However, here is another option I might be okay with, use your wording, but add a sentence afterwards giving other definitions and sourcing them as well. Tmtoulouse 17:09, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
You are thinking that millions of websites, thousands of locations worth millions of dollars, books available everywhere, even public libraries, you're thinking that these things do not make public opinion? That because someone once used a similar word in 1901, is not translated, owns no property, and probably wouldn't be known by the public at all, except as a dispersive kind of "someone else used the word FIRST!" ? You're thinking that is so noteworthy that it must be included ? What's the point? The Church owns more than a billion dollars of property, has millions of adherents, Hubbard is the most widely translated author in history (Guiness Book of World Records), its on every continent and in almost every country. You're trying to say all of that is equally important to one guy's 1901 use of the word? Terryeo 19:58, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
Nope, I am talking about the many definition that have come after Hubbard and his books, it can be a religion, a cult, a murderous organization, a joke, ect. Your using the Church's definition so we source it to the Church. Tmtoulouse 20:16, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

<undent> Definition is a word, it means: 2. the formal statement of the meaning or significance of a word, phrase, etc [10]. "Cult", "murderous organization", "joke" or any other such term is a classification and not a definition. For example, "An apple is a joke", there, does that tell you anything about apples? "John Smith is a killer", does that tell you what 'John Smith' is? John could be a computer program, killing computers or A pet called John Smith could be a wild tiger, run amook in a city. You want to know first, Is John Smith a man. Then you can apply classifications to it. Scientology is an applied religious philosophy. That is its definition. After a reader understands that, he can begin to classify and use his judgement on it, but until he understands it is a body of knowledge (whether you personally agree with that knowledge or not), he can not apply a classification. The Church of Scientology is a large and expanding organization. It presents some kind of information to the public. Obviously. What is that information? How does one define or classify that information? Is it information about apples? Tigers? Or is it knowledge, information from a single source, and applicable in some way? It is applicable (many many people say so), it is knowledge in an area (a philosophy) and its area of application is religious. I know this, you are free to deny it, the Church of Scientology Formally Defines it So. Therefore, any article definition should contain this information. Terryeo 22:02, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

There we go, I am happy with the sentence now. Tmtoulouse 22:32, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

The use of the Time Magazine reference

The article states something about "criticized heavily for mind control and brainwashing" and references Time Magazine. The Time article is 11 pages long, that is a long article. If a reader wanted to find more information about that issue, he would be forced to read through the whole article to find it. Does it actually say, in there anywhere "criticized heavily for mind control and brainwashing" ? I could not find that phrase. Why don't we get a little bit more specific, why don't we serve our readers a tiny bit better and provide at least a page number, or two pages numbers ? I bring this issue up because such references that say Scientology practices either mind control OR brainwashing are very few. Perhaps Time is the only one that says both. Let's serve our readers with good articles, let's not encourage them to spend hours of reading to understand our 4 paragraph article. Terryeo 22:39, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Its a summation of various points in the article, if you prefer we can go through the Time article and pull out specific issues and phrases with direct quotes, page numbers, ect. But it would require greatly expanding the criticism section. Tmtoulouse 22:42, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
Possibly you don't grasp the point I am trying to make. Would you quote a whole book to substantiate a phrase? The situation here is not that bad, but is bad enough. Say you were having a friend read the article, he came to "mind control" and is interested. How can he go about finding out who, where, what and how the Church is accused of mind control. As it stands he has no choice at all. He must read through all of the Time article. Perhaps he is interested in mind control techniques and wants to find out what the Church has used, toward applying it because, say, he is a policeman. It makes a very large read for him, we could serve our readers better by being more specific with our presentation.
  • One other point, Tmtoulouse. It has become obvious that you don't, of your own knowledge, understand the subject nor understand its foundation, Dianetics. This is not an accusation. It has become further obvious that your intention is to present the article in such a way as to make small of (at least) the philosophy and religion which is Scientology. The Time article happened years ago. Criticisms you have presented into the article happend some years ago. In recent years there have been far fewer court cases, far less of the controversial attitude that (at least on a-r-s) made Scientology a topic of conversation. Let us write a good article for Conservapedia, let us create an article that can be read and written about and talked about and pointed to as good information. Very few good sources of information exist by third parties, lots of third party information is a rehash of and KSplaink's view about the subject. Scientology is large, let us not treat it in as a target to throw tomatoes at. Terryeo 22:55, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
Would you prefer specific phrases from the article such as "In various cases judges have labeled the church 'schizophrenic and paranoid' and 'corrupt, sinister and dangerous.'" ? Tmtoulouse 23:00, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
I have tried to communicate and have said, "I prefer articles that present good information to a reader". If that means a page number in a reference's link, or a paragraph number, or a dozen references, then good. I want good information, cleanly presented, so a reader can understand the subject without muddling through 1000s of pages of opinion, disparaging remarks, baised statement and psychobabble. "The sky is blue", "the moon is made of green cheese", "apples are red". Good clean easy to understand information without the reader having to read between the lines, without the reader necessarily having to hold a sarcastic attitude to "get it". Clean, easy to read, uptone, light mannered. That's what I want, whatever that takes. Terryeo 23:17, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
So I should expand the sentence to include a range of specific issues and quotes? Tmtoulouse 23:43, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

<undent> OKAY, I will specify the problem you have created, Tmtoulouse. Our Scientology article has this this sentence and link: Scientology has also been criticized heavily for using brain washing and mind control. [11]

  • You introduced that sentence at this editing difference. At that time the link was to a personal essay titled THOUGHT CONTROL AND SCIENTOLOGY. Later, without changing the sentence (same sentence) you changed its attribution. This editing difference. That was the sequence. The new attribution to the sentence became the Time article. So now we have it as a reference to Scientology's purported mind control and brainwashing. So I read the Time article. The term mind control appears twice.
  • Pg. 2 (top); "According to the Cult Awareness Network, whose 23 chapters monitor more than 200 "mind control" cults, no group prompts more telephone pleas for help than does Scientology."
    • This statement says the Cult Awareness Network monitors mind control cults and by implication, considers that Scientology is such a cult. It does not say that Scientology has ever used mind control and gives no example or or even indication that Scientology does. The Cult Awareness Network is no more, through its own criminal mistakes and other mistakes, it no longer exists as it did. Therefore, The Cult Awareness Network's classification of Scientology as a mind control cult does not stand up, it does not hold water.
  • Pg. 3 (middle) "Psychiatrists say these sessions can produce a drugged-like, mind-controlled euphoria that keeps customers coming back for more."
    • A sentence of this nature does not tell us exactly what a "drugged-like, mind-controlled euphoria" is. Nor does not tell us how many psychiatrists said so, or how detailed their studies were to produce the psychiatric conclusion. It doesn't tell us that any of the psychiatrists who said so had ever seen the people they were talking about, it gives us no real basis of their judgement. Hardly enough data to say, "criticized heavily for using mind control, would you say?
  • There is no three. Mind Control (in any form) is used only twice in the whole of the article. Brainwashing does not appear at all. Said simply, the sentence is not supported by its attribution.
  • That is what I am talking about, okay ? Terryeo 03:04, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

The Time article does not make a case for Brainwashing, nor for Mind Control. The statement of the article is not attributed. Commandment #1. says: Everything you post must be true and verifiable. My edits are true and verifiable, this statement is not. Okay? That's what I am saying and why I am saying it. Terryeo 11:28, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

I disagree. I think the article is fine as written, I say its time to move on for now. Tmtoulouse 12:46, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
No offence Tmtoulouse, but it is a disservice to our readers when an article makes an unattributable statement. Particularly an extreme statement, i.e. scientology is heavily criticized for brainwashing and not support the statement. It defies Commandment #1, The_Conservapedia_Commandments to ignore the situation. I understand that you think the article is fine now, but I disagree. Terryeo 13:23, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
Fine we won't use brainwashing, now everything in the article is found in the source. Tmtoulouse 13:33, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
How can I present this to you gently, Tmtoulouse? Your user page states that you hold 2 educational degrees. I don't doubt for a minute that anyone who holds 2 educational degrees has written many papers and in those papers, has substantiated his creation with attributions, with references for the statements within the created articles. But here you just edited to produce:
  • "....and has been labeled by a Justice of the High Court of London as "corrupt, sinister and dangerous." Time Magazine link That article does not mention any Justice of London, it does not mention the High Court of London, it does not quote any lawyer saying "corrupt, sinister and dangerous." Using the standards you present here, I could say the moon is made of green cheese and quote the Time article. How can I present this to you gently, Tmtoulouse ? I am going to go ahead and remove the unattributed line. Please, when you reference, use a reference that applies to the attributed data. Terryeo 14:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
The quote was in the article, it was attributed to a judge in the article, I expanded that attribution for the article, but you want a specific reference for it we can cite a copy of the hearing. Tmtoulouse 15:31, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
Where in the article was the quote? I looked through the whole article. Besides, it would be nice to direct our readers to "page 2" or "page 11". I couldn't find the quote, nor any mention of an English Justice, nor of the English Court system. Yes, I understand you have presented additional references. But the thing is, we are trying to present a good clean article, okay? Where is the quote in the Time article ? I mean, your approach seems to be something like, "here is some dis and here are references to dis, sort it out for yourself. This is completely unacceptable and directly defies Commandment #1, I'm sure you understand where I'm coming from. Where, specifically, is the quote ? Terryeo 16:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
First page third paragraph. Tmtoulouse 16:05, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
Now we are getting somewhere! It says, "In various cases judges have labeled the church "schizophrenic and paranoid" and "corrupt, sinister and dangerous." Okay, good. So why doesn't the article present that? Instead the article presents, "...has been labeled by a Justice of the High Court of London as "corrupt, sinister and dangerous." Are we back to using's personally hand typed replication of court documents to substantiate the article ? Terryeo 16:23, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
Also a typed version of a time magazine article covering it, and a scan of that article. When you combine all three together looks reliable to me. And no one has said no personal websites, and this is confirmed by multiple sources. Tmtoulouse 16:27, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
As I said, I do see you have added ADDITIONAL attributions. Surely, in earning 2 degrees you have written papers and used references. My points are these:
  • The Time article says one thing, another source says another thing. You combine both individual partial sayings into a complex sentence with its own meaning. THEN you attribute the combined meaning to 2 very different sources written by 2 very different people at 2 very different times in 2 very different locations and 2 very different circumstances. Then, confusing the issue still further, you add yet another reference. You can not say, "American Mary said apples in 1936, Britan Bob said bananas in 1991" ref, ref, ref. Surely you recognize that is bad writing ? A parallel would be to quote part of a bible verse, add to it another partial bible verse, stick a comma in the middle and attribute it to the Bible ! Instead of helping a reader understand the issues, it convolutes and confuses the points you are attempting to convince your reader of.Terryeo 17:20, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
All sources are discussing the same incident. Tmtoulouse 17:24, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
What incident do you see all sources discussing? Terryeo 17:41, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
The justice calling Scientology "corrupt, sinister and dangerous." Tmtoulouse 17:48, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
Okay Tmtoulouse. Then we simply want as direct a quotation as possible. Just as you appropriately insisted on for the first sentence. No problem. Terryeo 20:01, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

How to write this article

Here is a public example nearly pralleling our article here columbiamissourian article. Whereas here is an example, again public news, written without a criticism section earthtimes article. As one small element of our article here, may I suggest we don't describe Mr. Hubbard as a "science fiction author" because as the columbiamissourian (which also criticizes) says, "Hubbard was also a prolific author of more than 5,000 writings and 3,000 tape-recorded lectures about dianetics and Scientology. Hubbard wrote science-fiction and adventure books." If no one objects, I'll change our article's "science fiction author" to simply, "author". Terryeo 00:38, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

I vehemently object, if you want to add another adjective in ADDITION to science fiction author okay (depending on the adjective of course). Tmtoulouse 00:46, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Okay. How should we choose the adjective(s) to describe his authorship? Do we agree that in the 1940s he wrote and was known for his science fiction ? Is that a reasonable beginning point? Because, as the news article says, 5,000 writings and 3,000 lectures. That's more writing than his science fiction writings, I think. Maybe A library of congress search to find how many of what kind by Hubbard? Would that satisfy ? Terryeo 01:39, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Okay, the Library of Congress [12] yields 301 entries (individual works I think) for "Hubbard, L. Ron (La Fayette Ron), 1911-1986". Simply looking at the titles, they are Dianetics and Scientology books, lectures and so on. But included are the 10 volumes of his "Battlefield Earth" which is science fiction. So, what pen names did he write his science fiction under, then we can compare quantities. Terryeo 02:24, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
I really don't care what additional description you want to append, as long as "science fiction author" stays, add what descriptor you want and as long as it seems reasonable I won't argue. Tmtoulouse 02:33, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

<undent> I understand. This is a link to a man who is somewhat critical of Hubbard. At this page he analysis Hubbard's fiction, saying:

  • As is well known, Hubbard started his career as a writer in all genres of popular literature. In the Thirties he wrote mainly adventure fiction, aviation stories, travel stories, but also mysteries, western, romance, and even some love stories. Later he concentrated on fantasy and especially science fiction.

So we'll do it your way and list his various fictional genres. Terryeo 03:29, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Basic Teachings

The people who are modifying the article's Basic Teachings section are in error, they are operating on false information or they know better and are deliberately sabotaging the article, or some other reason. The recent edits are presenting false information. I am going to go ahead and remove the false information because such edits should be discussed, first. If you have some doubt, discuss. That's what the discussion page is for. The Controversy section is for controversy, you see, the Basic Teachings section for BASIC teachings. Terryeo 11:15, 24 March 2007 (EDT)