Talk:Scientology/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25

Controversy

"The Church of Scientology and its activities have been the subject of controversy in the past decades. A variety of reports and allegations have been made by journalists, and legal cases have been brought by and against the Church, claiming harassment and harm by and against Church critics."

Discuss it here. Since there is no reason to revert this at all, then consensus needs to be reached through discussion only Wikidan829 19:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• The opening paragraphs need to provide a quick overview of Scientology. The facts that controversy surrounds Scientology and that litigation by and against the Church exists are at this point both irrefutable and universally acknowledged, with even members of the cult agreeing that controversy exists and that court cases are taking place. The very least that this introduction should include is a referance to the existance of the contreversy and the court cases. The introduction doesn't even give specifics about the historical or present activities that brought on the controversy and court cases (contrast this with, say, Salmon Rushdie where exlicit referance to the alledged "crimes" and his death warrant are explained in specifics). (RookZERO 20:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC))

• My 2 cents is that it's fine, if not necessary. Regardless of one's beleif in the merit of the various controversies that have surrounded a subject of any sort, when controversy exists in such volume it is an intrinsic part of that subject's image. Scientology is famous at least in part for its controvesial views (again not questioning or asserting any merit to these views), as well as the general stigma that follows it. Not mentioning well-publicized controversies would be no different if they were the false convictions on a man later set free or the proven allegations of corruption on a fortune 500 company. --Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 20:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• I agree, I don't care either way. It is, however, well known that Scientology is a negative thing in the eyes of most of the public. It is a real point, it is relevant, and it is true. This should not be reverted because a Scientologist thinks that it's only there to "attack" the religion. To remove such a thing, when it is pertinent, is just trying to represent Scientology in the best possible light, at the cost of losing accuracy. It would be unencyclopedic at that point. Wikidan829 21:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

"To remove such a thing, when it is pertinent, is just trying to represent Scientology in the best possible light, at the cost of losing accuracy." Thank you... that is exactly the point I have been trying (unsuccessfully) to articulate about some of what is going on here.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 21:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Oni Ookami Alfador for your calm discussion on this matter. I don't disagree. My point is that if we are going to state there is controversy, state it, but not is such a way as to assert that it is true, and if there is a counter argument, allow that to be shown as well. That is all I tried to do, but my contribution continued to be deleted, leaving only the assertion of the controversy, stated in such a way as to give it un-challenged credence.Su-Jada 21:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for joining in. I cannot dig through the history at the moment, could you please paste in here as a reply, what your proposal for change. What do you think it should say? Once we know, we can gather a collective opinion, make the change(or keep it as it is), and even have it here as documented proof that this is what the community agreed on. Thanks! Wikidan829 21:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

"POV"

I would like ask everyone to refrain from using the acronym POV as a term indicating biased statements. Per Help:Describing points of view#Usage note, it is clear that this is not actually a useable definition of the word and that it inhibits fully effective communication between editors. In cases where neutrality is in question, I would like to remind everyone that words and phrases such as bias, non-neutral, opinion/opinionated, subjective/subjectivity will more clearly get your point across. --Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 19:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks for posting the link to Help:Describing points of view. That page deserves more publicity. SheffieldSteel 19:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

suggestions about a new intro for everyone interested in a WP:LEAD

@everyone who wants to contribute here! Please lets first discuss the structure of the introduction here and reach agreement. For detailed contributions on the content I would recomment to open up a new section !!! -- Stan talk 00:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

My suggestions would be:
1. general informations about scientology(members worldwide, the founder, different groups)
2. explain the beliefs and practices
3. overview of the controversy
any comments, additions or corrections for that ? If we could reach agreement on this we could start to discuss in detail. -- Stan talk 21:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like an excellent starting point. Building from your suggestion, taking into account the "contents" section of the article, and applying a bit of WP:UNDUE, suggests this:-

1. Brief definition/origin (inc LRH, Dianetics)
2. Beliefs and practices
3. Origins
4. Membership (The Church of Scientology and Scientology splinter groups, probably no mention of celebtrities here)
5. Controversy and criticism (either super-brief summaries or just try to document the amount and type of controversy that exists)

However, I may have applied my own WP:BIAS in selecting the sections to summarise. What do others think? SheffieldSteel 21:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems pretty much the way it is there already! Bravehartbear 21:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think the section that reads "Another principle of Scientology and Dianetics is that the basic command followed by all life is "Survive!" and that this urge can be best understood by subdivided it into eight "dynamics" (dynamic meaning urge, drive or impulse). Scientology holds that as a person becomes more aware and able, he or she naturally tends to care about and want to take responsibility for wider zones in life: family, group and even mankind and life forms in general. [5] Accordingly, Scientologists become involved in groups that apply Hubbard's teachings to such diverse areas as drug rehabilitation[6], criminal rehabilitation[7] and community outreach programs [8]" should be shortened or deleted entirely, and the section dealing with criticism and controversy should be lengthened to give a brief insight into WHY scientology is controversial and WHY it is in court. (RookZERO 22:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC))

Until we reach a consensus, I won't delete existing parts of the introduction. I think at the very minimum, the introduction should include information to the effect that: 1. Scientology was created by LRH 2. It is an outgrowth of Dianetics 3. It is very "controversial" and involved in many court cases. (RookZERO 22:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC))

SheffieldSteel: Brief definition,origin(inc LRH, Dianetics) , I agree that it is notable. With membership I wanted to make statements related to the demographics. (How many members wordwide, in wich regions of the world with higher representaion etc.) I agree with you and RookZERO that on "beliefs and practices" must be applied a little bit WP:UNDUE. I think it should be reduced to 1/3 of size of the introduction. -- Stan talk 23:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah but I have found out that the Scientology demographics are not very clear. The amount of members and organisation are disputed. Part of the problem is that Scientologist can be part of other religions so is imposible to determine an exact amount. You can mention the countries Scientology have reached though.Bravehartbear 00:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I will not go into detail now. How to determine the amount we can discuss later. And if it is not possible we could just mention that the demographics are not clear. -- Stan talk 00:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that there is any unbiased source on the demographics. If you can find one, we can include it. (RookZERO 01:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC))

It seems like the consensus is that the demographics are unclear and/or disputed. I've certainly seen some widely varying figures mentioned. This is a tricky thing to sum up briefly and fairly. It might be better to say less on this particular subject, rather than say more and risk tempting further edit-warring as individual editors add opposing viewpoints to the lead. Perhaps I'm being too pessimistic :-) SheffieldSteel 01:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

There are some scientific estimations about this issue but you are probably right. To get an agreement would probably take years or numerous different estimations would go into the lead wich would expand it unnecessarily. And a range between 80 000 and 15 000 000 is not informative at all in the lead. I give up on that. Keeps at least the intro a bit shorter ! -- Stan talk 03:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

"How many scientologists are there" is a frequently asked question, so it has to be addressed. The present paragraph is fine in my view, giving the highest and lowest often quoted by by the media figures. It should be moved out of the CoS section into a separate one, since all the figures given are for adherents, not members. Demographics for organisations are best covered in their articles. --Hartley Patterson 16:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

detailed suggestions to the intro

1. Brief definition/origin

Scientology is a body of teachings and related techniques created by American author L. Ron Hubbard. Created in 1952 as an outgrowth of his earlier self-help system, Dianetics, Hubbard later characterized Scientology as an "applied religious philosophy" and the basis for a new religion.

The term "Scientology" is also used to refer to the Church of Scientology, the largest organization promoting the practice of Scientology, which is it self part of a network of affiliated organizations that claim ownership of and sole authority to disseminate Dianetics and Scientology.

This first paragraph goes strait to the point. The second paragraph is too much info for the intro. I recommend change the second paragraph to:

The term "Scientology" is also used to refer to the Church of Scientology.

2. Beliefs and practices

Scientology claims to offer an exact methodology to help people achieve awareness of their spiritual existence across many lifetimes and, simultaneously, to become more effective in the physical world. Scientology holds that the individual is a spiritual being (called a thetan to avoid confusion with concepts of the soul or spirit in other religions). The goal of Scientology is "making the individual capable of living a better life in his own estimation and with his fellows," and thereby "the attainment of complete and total rehabilitation of man’s native, but long obscured abilities."

Another principle of Scientology and Dianetics is that the basic command followed by all life is "Survive!" and that this urge can be best understood by subdivided it into eight "dynamics" (dynamic meaning urge, drive or impulse). Scientology holds that as a person becomes more aware and able, he or she naturally tends to care about and want to take responsibility for wider zones in life: family, group and even mankind and life forms in general. Accordingly, Scientologists become involved in groups that apply Hubbard's teachings to such diverse areas as drug rehabilitation, criminal rehabilitation and community outreach programs.

Scientologists claim that Hubbard's teachings have remedied a wealth of problems and enabled them to better realize their highest potential not only in their spiritual awareness but in all aspects of their lives including their business and family and personal pursuits.

The first paragraph goes strait to the point. The second is nice but could be elsewhere is the article, there isn’t enough coverage on the different applications of Scientology like drug rehabilitation and educational programs. The third paragraph is ok.

I recomend adding this paragraph:

Scientology is said to be applicable to all facets of life and to have enabled the creation of management, educational and drug rehabilitation systems currently in use by Scientologist and non-Scientologist alike.

3. Membership

• List of the MAJOR Scientology organizations, location and activities.

4. Controversy and criticism

The Church of Scientology and its activities has been the subject of controversy in the past decades. A variety of reports and allegations have been made by journalists, and legal cases have been brought by and against the Church, claiming harassment and harm by and against Church critics.

This line introduces the controversy and criticism nicely. The intro is no place for explanations, just introductions.

Bravehartbear 23:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

"Outgrowth" may not be the best word to decribe the relation of Scientology to Dianetics. Dianetics is a particular technique while Scientology is the broad study. The distinction seems unclear in some of the lectures from 1951; LRH later said that Dianetics deals with the mind, Scientology with the thetan. Here's my suggestion for the Brief introduction/origin bit:

Scientology is a body of teachings and related techniques created by American author L. Ron Hubbard as a development of his earlier self-help system, Dianetics. Hubbard later characterized Scientology as "an applied religious philosophy" and the basis for a new religion. The term "Scientology" is also used to refer to the Church of Scientology, founded by Hubbard in 1952. DavidCooke 01:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the cofs was founded in late 1953.--Fahrenheit451 01:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

We are not talking about when the church was founded. We are talking about when LRH presented Scientology to the world. Bravehartbear 06:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Bravehartbear, I remind you of WP:CIVIL. I responded to DavidCooke's statement, "The term "Scientology" is also used to refer to the Church of Scientology, founded by Hubbard in 1952." My response was sequitur. I suggest you read what was responded to before you waste time making erroneous statements. --Fahrenheit451 16:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

You could be right, I'll check sources on that. - DavidCooke 02:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The earliest mention by LRH that I could find was a bulletin of March 1954, where he says the Church had been founded. So, late 1953 or early 1954? The Scn page at www.forf.org says 1954 in Los Angeles so I've gone with that. DavidCooke 02:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The forf.org (or New CAN) site is quoting CoS's 1954 date for the incorporation of the Church of Scientology of California. For unknown reasons CoS never mentions the 1953 incorporation of the Church of Scientology and the parent Church of American Science in New Jersey by Hubbard and others, however the California branch is clearly descended from the December 1953 incorporations. The collection of The Aberree Scientologist fanzine is another interesting (if unofficial) look at the period. AndroidCat 16:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

DavidCooke, sounds like a good start to me. (RookZERO 01:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC))

DavidCooke, You got good points. Go ahead, do the honors.Bravehartbear 01:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

For the Church of Scientology and the word founded, the key date would be December 1953 when the first Church of Scientology of New Jersey was incorporated (and the parent Church of American Science). Before then, there were loose Scientology Clubs and HASI, with no religious organization. (TIME's Remember Venus and the incorporation papers for refs.)

The controversy paragraph implies that only journalists and critics were involved in the "reports and allegations", and "harassment and harm". The "back and forth" with governments should also rate a terse mention. AndroidCat 03:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

AndroidCat: A government is a big entity with thousands of workers, maybe some that are Scientologist. Not because some government official have a view point means that it is shared by all government officials. (I work for the government, US military). Also what government are we talking about? Even in Germany some government officials have ruled in favor of Scientology. Now if you tell me that a goverment has pass a resolution into law by congress stating such then I could consider that as an official position of that goverment. I oppose putting an arbitrary or a generality in the intro. If you want to write specifics it can’t be in the intro. And you have to be very specific about an accusation of such magnitud.Bravehartbear 06:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

That said, it should say something of a group if at least two governments have formed task forces to deal with percieved threats to the constitution, as Germany has with the Hamburg Task Force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_Task_Force_of_the_Hamburg_Interior_Authority) and Russia has with its FSB Task Force on Scientology. (RookZERO 18:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC))

Please explain FSB Task Force on Scientology. Source? COFS 19:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

"Task Force on Scientology" is the Hamburg thing. Tilman, does Caberta still run that? --Justanother 19:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Worth reading [1] --Justanother 19:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting reading by Justanother link:

"Moscow City Court dismissed an outstanding and completely fabricated criminal investigation arising from raids on two of our churches in Moscow in February 1999. The Court found no evidence to substantiate the prosecutor's allegations, while the Church provided a wealth of evidence documenting the glaring errors and distortions in the investigation. That dismissal became final in May 2001 when the Court rejected the prosecutor's appeal."

It seems that actions by FSB Task Force were totally bull and were rejected by the court thus proving my point: You can't take the actions of some goverment officials and say that it represents the entire goverment. Bravehartbear 22:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• The Hamburd Task Force was created by and for the city of Hamburd so this is still not applicable to the whole country. You can take the actions of one city and say it represents the entire goverment. Bravehartbear 22:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The Office for the Protection of the Constitution (Verfassungsschutz), a branch of the federal government in Germany, also monitors Scientology (see the German embassy website at http://www.germany.info/relaunch/info/archives/background/scientology.html for the official statement from the German government). This is in addition to the City of Hamburg's own group. In Russia, while the FSB Task Force on Scientology failed to turn up evidence in one particular raid, the task force's existance doesn't seem to be in contention. (RookZERO 02:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC))

That link seems official enough but you can't generalize and say "some governments". You got to say Germany. Still I don’t see an official position for Russia.Bravehartbear 02:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

There's another confirmation for German federal monitoring at the German Verfassungsschutz's own webpage (http://www.verfassungsschutz.de/en/en_fields_of_work/scientology/). Give me a couple minutes and I'll see if I can find an official source for Russia. (RookZERO 02:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC))

Silent birth and infant care

I found information in this article that is false. The original barley formula was made with honey, I remember this clearly. I think it is in the book “the second dynamic”. Later because a warning about bacteria in honey, honey was changed to corn syrup. This change was not made by LRH. I remember reading the change. Bravehartbear 01:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Honey is certainly more consistent with the recipe dating from Roman times. SheffieldSteel 01:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

There was a Guardian's Order from the late 1970's that mentioned infant deaths occuring from consumption of raw honey and vegetables, allegedly from botulism.--Fahrenheit451 16:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Guesses x4, sigh. F451, please state date and serial number of that GO. COFS 19:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I think F451 is refering to the general caution that was discovered in the mid-1970s re botulism spores and infants. I mean that if there was an order it was a general advice not about Scn babies dying. --Justanother 19:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Justanother is correct, it was general advice. There was no rash of Scn babies dying, but Some may have. COFS wants the GO issue number. That I did not commit to memory, but I can tell you that it was only one page from the time period I stated. Many GOs were reissued later as OSA Network Orders, but I would bet that this one did not make it. Aside from being a bit off-topic. I believe that OSA Int has a GO archive and that may be located there.--Fahrenheit451 23:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Problems with "study by Davis" ref

Looking at his references for which countries recognize Scientology as a religion, many are sourced to Heber Jentzsch, president of Church of Scientology International, "The Growth of Scientolgy"[2]. (Some are even sourced back to Wikipedia in 2004.) AndroidCat 03:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

There are two sources by Jentzsch. One mentioning Germany and another mentioning france. I didn't used neither of those sections. The one refering to Wikipedia is about Russia. And that one is not used neither. The others seem fine. Bravehartbear 03:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry there is third source by Jentzsch and is just an opiniun of the history of religion in Europe that is not used. The rest of the document seems fine. A work done by a religious schoolar. Totally NPOV is a very big document with 69 citations.Bravehartbear 03:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget the Ibid refs of Jentzsch, covering 17-20 or almost the entire section of countries and recognition: Holland, Hungary, Portugal, Switzerland, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mexico, India, Albania, Hungary, Holland, South Africa, Slovenia, Croatia, and Japan; Sweden; England (no mention of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland? Sloppy work); Austria; New Zealand; Taiwan .. all ultimately sourced back to the Church of Scientology. AndroidCat 05:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Ohh I didn't know what "Ibid" meant, I see your point. I added Sweden, New Zealand and Austria using this source that traces back to Jentzsch. I also added Italy but Davis has a diferent citation for this country. So we are talking about three counties: Sweden, New Zealand and Austria. Do you have any information that contradicts Jentzsch allegation about Sweden, New Zealand and Austria?

About Holland, Hungary, Portugal, Switzerland, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mexico, India, Albania, Hungary, Holland, South Africa, Slovenia, Croatia, and Japan it only says that donations to the mother church are exempt just like in Germany because of doble taxation. For Taiwan we already have a diferent citation. For Australia we can get a diferent citacion, I didn't added that one it was already there.

Sorry about my ignorance on the word "Ibid" :-) Bravehartbear 06:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I have desisted from using the Davis citation. I just found another one that presents the same information in a easier to read format. Here is the link: http://www.religioustolerance.org/scientol3.htm Any problems with this other citation? Bravehartbear 07:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

There are definite problems with www.religioustolerance.org's Scientology pages. Most of them are credited or co-credited to Al Buttnor, the DSA of the Toronto Org. That particular page doesn't mention him, but since the text on countries is identical to the Heber piece, I think it's clear that the source of the page is the Church of Scientology. AndroidCat 04:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

We will give NPOV citations precedence but that doesn't mean that Scientology citations can't be use as long as there is no conflicting evidence. Bravehartbear 05:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Russia

I want to apologise to RockZero for reverting him on a disagrement over the legal status of Scientology in Russia. I did more research the court order states:

http://www.cesnur.org/2007/scientology.html

"106...the Court has established the Government's obligation to take appropriate measures to remedy the applicant's individual situation" "Whether such measures would involve granting re-registration to the applicant, removing the requirement to obtain re-registration from the Religions Act, re-opening of the domestic proceedings or a combination of these and other measures, is a decision that falls to the respondent State. The Court, however, emphasises that any measures adopted must be compatible with the conclusions set out in the Court's judgment (see Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, § 202, ECHR 2004-II, with further references)."

The way I see it the court gave Moscow this options:

1. Grant re-registration
2. Remove the requirement to obtain re-registration
3. Or do something compatible with the conclusions set out in the Court's judgment. Those conclusions are:

"97. In view of the Court's finding above that the reasons invoked by the Moscow Justice Department and endorsed by the Moscow courts to deny re-registration of the applicant branch had no legal basis, it can be inferred that, in denying registration to the Church of Scientology of Moscow, the Moscow authorities did not act in good faith and neglected their duty of neutrality and impartiality vis-à-vis the applicant's religious community"

Scientology was already registered in Moscow as a religion so one way or another this registration needs to be continued. The court didn't said how, it just said that it must be done. Also it granted punitive damages in favor of Scientology. So we can assume that Scientology is once again registered as a religion in Moscow. To deny this would be simply hard headed. Bravehartbear 08:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Not really. The court ruled that Russia had to take the application of Scientology to be given tax-exempt status on religious grounds; Russia had refused to consider the application up to this point on the grounds that Scientology did not meet the 15 year establishment rule. The court has so far only compelled Russia to take find a way to consider the application - this does not mean that the application has been accepted (so far as I know, it has not yet been accepted, or denied and is still in consideration). (RookZERO 15:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC))

That is incorrect the word "application" is not even used in the document. The document states:

"granting re-registration to the applicant, removing the requirement to obtain re-registration from the Religions Act"

Stop using your own wording and use the wording in the document. Can your quote your allegation from the document? What paragraph number is stated what you say? Check Mate! Bravehartbear 16:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

In 106: "106. As regards the applicant's request for injunctive relief in respect of the re-registration of the applicant, the Court is not empowered under the Convention to grant exemptions or declarations of the kind sought by the applicant, for its judgments are essentially declaratory in nature. In general, it is primarily for the State concerned to choose the means to be used in its domestic legal order in order to discharge its legal obligation under Article 46 of the Convention (see Shofman v. Russia, no. 74826/01, § 53, 24 November 2005, with further references). By finding a violation of Article 11 read in the light of Article 9 in the present case, the Court has established the Government's obligation to take appropriate measures to remedy the applicant's individual situation (see Fadeyeva v. Russia, no. 55723/00, § 142, ECHR 2005-...). Whether such measures would involve granting re-registration to the applicant, removing the requirement to obtain re-registration from the Religions Act, re-opening of the domestic proceedings or a combination of these and other measures, is a decision that falls to the respondent State. The Court, however, emphasises that any measures adopted must be compatible with the conclusions set out in the Court's judgment (see Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, § 202, ECHR 2004-II, with further references)." The judgement held that : "FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY

1. Holds that the applicant may claim to be a “victim” for the purposes of Article 34 of the Convention;

2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 11 of the Convention read in the light of Article 9;

3. Holds that no separate examination of the same issues under Article 14 of the Convention is required;

4. Holds

(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following amounts, to be converted into Russian roubles at the rate applicable at the date of the settlement,

(i) EUR 10,000 (ten thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage;

(ii) EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) in respect of costs and expenses;

(iii) any tax that may be chargeable on the above amounts;

(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;

5. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 5 April 2007, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court." Note that Nowhere in the court's holding did it compell Russia to recognize Scientology. It DID decide that the 15 year rule was not a limit to Scientology, along with several other objections that the government raised. (RookZERO 17:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC))

Yes it didn't say exactly what Moscow had to do but it did stated that they had to do something compatible with the findings:

"Whether such measures would involve granting re-registration to the applicant" "removing the requirement to obtain re-registration from the Religions Act". This is what the court expects. I see your point but still Moscow has to do something compatible with the findings. And the findings are:

"97. In view of the Court's finding above that the reasons invoked by the Moscow Justice Department and endorsed by the Moscow courts to deny re-registration of the applicant branch had no legal basis, it can be inferred that, in denying registration to the Church of Scientology of Moscow, the Moscow authorities did not act in good faith and neglected their duty of neutrality and impartiality vis-à-vis the applicant's religious community"

Let me repeat: "in denying registration to the Church of Scientology of Moscow, the Moscow authorities did not act in good faith and neglected their duty of neutrality and impartiality vis-à-vis the applicant's religious community" So they are clearly stating Moscow can't deny registration. Bravehartbear 18:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

no, Moscow could also grant a different registration(as commercial business etc). The problem in russia was that the church had no legal status. Russia might also change the laws to avoid re-registration. -- Stan talk 18:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that your point Stan is compatible with the court findinds. Bravehartbear 19:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The court's problem was a "double bind" where scientology related organizations could not register as a religious group due to the 15 year minimum and could not register as a non-religious non-profit because of the Russian courts held they had religious content. The court indicated that it was unacceptable to bar Scientology from applying for religious status under the fifteen year rule. It did not compell any particular course of action to be taken beyond that the application for religious status would have to be reviewed. What happens from here? We will have to wait and see for an official decision. (RookZERO 23:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC))

Tanzania and Zimbabwe

Is it possible to find third party (non-scientology and non-critic site) confirmation for Scientology's legal status in Tanzania and Zimbabwe? (RookZERO 23:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC))

Usage of citations by the church of Scientology

Ok guys this is the deal; we will give NPOV citations precedence. But as long as there isn't any conflicting evidence citations by the church of Scientology are fine, specially press releases. I don't want to hear more complains on this issue. If you have conflicting evidence bring it up if not let me be.Bravehartbear 05:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

South Africa

I checked the citation for South Africa. While they indicate that Scientology will be allowed to conduct legal marriage ceremonies, I saw no indication that South Africa recognized Scientology as a religion. Is there a third party citation or referance for the religious status of Scientology is South Africa? (RookZERO 18:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC))

Yes, in this anti Scientology web site it states that Scientology is recognized as a religion in S. Africa: http://www.cosvm.org/africa.htm

Also this new paper clip: http://www.dispatch.co.za/2000/04/05/southafrica/HOMEAFFA.HTM

Also this press release by the church: http://news.scientology.org/press/2000/03042000.htm

The document that you read clearly states: I now have pleasure in informing you that the Constitution of your organization has been approved.

I doesn't take a genious to see he talking about religion. Bravehartbear 21:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

http://www.cosvm.org/africa.htm did you notice the green and red sub-titles: "Scientolgy claims" and "and now for the truth" (; but I think this this source might be ok and neutral. However, many countries aren't allowed to dictate what is a religion and what is not a religion since that opposes Constitutional seperation of church from state. This category "state-recognized" is problematic for all this countries in the list. There is a simalar problem with Sweden where likewise Scientology is allowed to conduct legal marriage ceremonies. -- Stan talk 02:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The Churches of Scientology

Why is there a large and growing section in this article which either belongs in the Church of Scientology article or is already covered in List of Scientology organizations? The links to the various orgs are just link-spam rather than references. AndroidCat 02:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

just wanted to write the same: (; I noticed that there are listed almost 20 major churches(orgs). Everey org has its own link. But there are about 130 organizations world wide. I don't think its informative. Major Italien orgs are not listed for example. I think it would be more informative to state the total number of organizations and also numbers on each continent or country. Baravehartbear opened also a new sub-title "Scientology Missions". Thats fine with me but writing about exotic countries is POV. Indians probably don't like to be called "exotic". I would like to change it and give an overview and show the total number on each country or continent. Would be more informative. Only selecting some orgs and mission is POV anyway. It would reduce 30 links to probably two or three links.-- Stan talk 02:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree about removing some links, the reason that I had to put the links is because I have to prove everything I say. But if you guys don't deny that those are the mayor orgs I don't have a problem with removing some link. The reason I couldn't write the exact amount of orgs is because that # is always challenged. They say: Can you prove it? "Those are just PO Boxes. Orgs in paper." That is why I had to put links, so there is evidence. Sorry about Italy but I couldn't find a link to a mayor org over there. There are a lot of missions in Italy thought. Bravehartbear 03:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree about the word exotic I will remove it. Bravehartbear 03:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I think this article should have just a stub mentioning the basic hierarchy structure of the missions, orgs, advanced orgs and leave it at that. Direct to the articles which should have this or already do. AndroidCat 03:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

If I want to know about Scientologist I want to know who they are. Are they from texas? Are they from Nebrasca or a small tribe in the Philipines. This is just basic information. There is no intention to mention every organization. Just the mayor ones. This is just basic info. And is not taking a big space. What I think you guys are trying to do is trying to hide the thruth about Scientology demographics. Hide how big is Scientology. Of course the Scientology controversy can be super big. Bravehartbear 03:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

but right now is is "link spam". And how do you define major org ? Are Rom, Milan, Munich not major Org's? They were close to St. Hill-size in the past (; I would just write the total number of orgs and maybe a total number on each continent. But i could also agree with AndroidCat and direct to the articles wich have this already.-- Stan talk 03:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that the in-depth data about individual churches fits better in the Church of Scientology article. I think that if we are going to have two large articles then some organization is in order and this one should concentrate on scripture, beliefs, and practices. (EC) And I hardly think it "link spam" to list major churches around the world. --Justanother 03:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok what is the plan? We could replace the orgs by number, or removed all the links. Like I said before the reason I couldn't write the exact amount of orgs is because that # is always challenged. I rather just remove the links it would be easier than to try to figure out the amount of org. This is just a easyer. Just to give people an idea of where is Scientology. There is not intension of being presice.Bravehartbear 04:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

could you agree with this? 1. ANZO (11 orgs) Africa (9 orgs) EU (34 orgs) EUS (21 orgs) Canada (11 orgs) UK - (9 orgs) WUS (31 orgs) Celebrity Orgs - (like 9 or 10 orgs) = approximately 136 Orgs Total -- Stan talk 04:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

That works, we just have to put it in plain English. I'm sorry about getting emotional earlier. You want me to do or you want to? Hey ad 1 for Latam Venezuela made Saint Hill size! I know those #s are not right but at least they are close. Let say those are the mayor orgs. Lets keep the language ambigious.Bravehartbear 04:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You can do it if you want to. I would probably make to many grammatical mistakes. Thats why I don't like to write entire sub-titles and just try to improve. -- Stan talk 04:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

ohh you make mistakes, English is my second language, I have to spell check in word. Bravehartbear 05:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

;) I noticed (citacion) ! ... small comment on above. With "major orgs" (Milano,Rom, Munich) I wanted to point out that it is hard to say wich Org is important and which one is not. I think their is no official Saint Hill Size Org anyway ?! (not included advanced orgs) I would only divide between the status Organizations, Missions, Sea Orgs. What a Sainthill-Size Org is and how many there are should maybe explained in Church of Scientology. -- Stan talk 05:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course, I was just looking for big nice looking buildings. I just wanted to give a taste. The main Scientology page is just a intro. I don't want to get in details. I even named all Scientology advance organizations as Advance Orgs because I didn't want jump in detail about FLAG and ASHO and AOLA, they all do diferent things. But this is detailed info that can go elsewhere. Like I said before people just want to know who are the Scientologist and where they are. How a Scientology church looks like. Just a intro. Bravehartbear 05:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I didn't like the link you gave me so I going to a manual count from the Scientology Directory, I will only count orgs that have a web site. That will prove that the org is real. All class 4 orgs should have a website. Then I will post all the links in the talk page as evidence. I hope that is ok. I already removed all the links. Bravehartbear 06:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

please don't do it that way ! you can find an alternative source as well. But if you bring the evidence only in the talk page, it will be deleted soon. New editors will have a hard time to find this references! I must go now ... -- Stan talk 06:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I can reference the Scientology directory just like I did with the missions. Bravehartbear 06:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Listen the link you gave doesn't even have an amount of orgs for LATAM. If we can't post acurate info is better not post anything. I just changed the sentence to this:

Churches of Scientology can be found in the USA, Mexico, Canada, Venezuela, Puerto Rico, Spain, United Kingdom, Germany, France, Italy, Denmark, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, S. Africa and Russia

you forgot some countries, (Sweden, Portugal, Austria, Sitzerland, Hungary, Chech Rep., Belgium, Netherland, Taiwan have at least one "org".) Just what I saw now. Probably still not complete. At the end it might be better to give just an estimation. Scientology estasblished churches in over # countries. The same for missions according to this list-- Stan talk 14:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we can agree to this. Bravehartbear 07:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Just want to compliment Stan and Bravehart on working together harmoniously in a spirit of co-operation. Well done, guys! Keep it up. --Justanother 11:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

thanks, I really hope we can all keep it that civil on more controversial issues as well.-- Stan talk 14:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Wearing my Demographics hat, I have no problem with naming the 5 ASOs then giving the number of Orgs and Missions and how many countries they cover (not sure exactly 25 and 50+?) with links to the relevant CoS pages, which are reasonably accurate. Further details belong in the CoS article at minimum and probably not in Wikipedia at all. Just imagine listing every Catholic church in Wikipedia! --Hartley Patterson 17:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

i agree and finally found an accurate source for the organizations

total 142 organizations in 28 countries

300 missions in 50 countries-- Stan talk 18:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It's taken years of nagging to get them to do this in place of the awful MapQuest. :-) The Org (not 'organisation') list is not perfect being inconsistent over Celebrity Centers but good enough. --Hartley Patterson 19:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Scientology#Silent_birth_and_infant_care //scurvy warning

Since the University of Miami warns about a threat to the life of innocent children caused by the formerly mentioned recipe, I made that paragraph invisible. We see here already the consequences of this possibly misleading information (a wikipedian who is allegedly a citizen of F.Rep.GERM insinuates that Scientology causes scurvy -- hopefully Tom Cruise's child gets better food). I would like to point out, that there is no source given, that this weeds-slime is really the complete infant-diet, that Hubbard/SCN recommends. I would guess, that SCN recommends some smashed fruits and vegetables (and I dont know what they recommended in the 60ies). --Homer Landskirty 15:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia usually doesn't protect people from dangerous informations! But to give a complete overview the University of Miami -source may be added. There was a source for this wheet slime that stated it came from Hubbard.(before you deleted it). The German who made this insinuation (thausherr de.wikipedia.org) introduced this source there without any comment refering to this article here. I don't see a connect between your statement above and your link. -- Stan talk 17:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I would paint a picture, if I were not too lazy... first path: THausherr->unoundmedicine...->UM->scurvy case due to weeds-slime; second path: en:Scientology->weeds-slime-recipe [->UM->scurvy] --Homer Landskirty 17:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I have a problem with source, I cannot see (maybe there is such a HCO maybe there is not or maybe there is a different content in that HCO; if I recall correctly, HCO r _secret_, so that just certain people but not the public can know them)... The MDs at UM did not cross-check, too (and how could they)... --Homer Landskirty 17:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

My biggest concern is, that nobody said, that this recipe describes the complete recommendation... So it might be, that Hubbard was aware of the necessity of vitamins in infant food... If that is the case, then we would not only provide dangerous information but also provide a wrong picture of Hubbards work... Since we cannot know, what SCN really recommends, and since I wrote all those words here, further propagation of that half-baked story would be negligent. --Homer Landskirty 17:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

-- hopefully Tom Cruise's child gets better food Was that your or his statement ? -- Stan talk 17:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

That was my personal concern (the article and THausherr sounded like all Scientologists would give their children inappropriate food...)... --Homer Landskirty 17:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

That formula is intended for infants that are breast feeding only. Not for children that are eating solids your link is about a 2 year old child is not revelant. There isn't a former study on Hubbard's formula. You are comparing oranges with apples. I really don't care much about that article you might as well delete it complete it. I just wanted to tell you that your link is not revelant. Hey thank you for your concern. Modern formulas are far more nutricios than the cereal formulas back them than didn't had vitamins neither. Bravehartbear 18:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Those parents said different in their testimony in front of the MDs of their infant(see section title) (according to Univ. of Miami). And I am afraid that resources like Wikipedia (in combination with a not so good health care system) might be the cause of such maltreatment. --Homer Landskirty 18:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with every statement THausherr makes but I know what Hubbard's earlier statements where about the barley formula(and no vitamins were recommendet by him). But I don't know what Scientology actually promotes today. And I am too lazy for research on this as well and I will not change your edits back. However, this HCO Bulletins are not a secret and open for most Scientologists. Maybe that is the reason why some critics insinuate Scientology for the harm "The barley formula" may bring. And Scientology never revisioned officialy any HCO Bultin written by Hubbard(only the fair game policy) and still insists that every word from him is true ! -- Stan talk 18:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I still doubt, that Hubbard did not recommend vitamins for infants (0years - 18years or even 21 years)... I still think, it is more likely, that Hubbard recommended a sufficient diet including vitamins (e.g. for adults he does recommend vitamins). There is no trustworthy source that states, that Hubbard wants infants to eat this "Barley" for 2 years or even 18 years... This "fair game policy" sounds like a joke compared to the usual "game" (drugs, rock&roll, slime in dark caves) (especially funny wording (I would guess it says/said something like "do whatever is necessary to do") makes it a joke). --Homer Landskirty 18:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Listen I have read the barley infant formula policy letter. The barley formula was created as a responce to the cereal formulas back in the 60ties that were mostly carbs with no proteins or vitamins(the ones that were a cereal that you mix with milk or water). Nowadays modern formulas are scientificaly formulated to make a complete diet. So really Hubbard's formula is not aplicable no more. I'm a Scientologist and I never used that formula. So we are talking about a practice that is not used no more. The barley formula was created for mother that couldn't breast feed. I recomend to just delete the whole section. Bravehartbear 18:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

But it is used and that issue with the Miami doctor proves it. I wanted to look at the full article but it costs over $50!!! My boy was born in 1999 and we made a few batches of barley formula to supplement the breast milk. We ended up using store-bought formula a bit and then soy milk - LOTS of soy milk (we used to call him soy-boy). But certainly not as a diet mainstay. You cannot feed a two-year-old child only barley formula! That is wacked! We do not even know if the person doing it was a Scientologist or just some wacko that saw the formula. --Justanother 19:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

But then we loose the silent birth link... And why did those parents tell the MDs at UM, that they did like the Scientologists told them? Is it a really evil plot against SCN (I already informed the US State Department and the UM itself about my findings)? Or is my English too bad? Maybe we should püt a warning about counterfeits of certain HCOs at the place of the secönd paragraph? --Homer Landskirty 19:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Homer, do you have access to the entire article? --Justanother 19:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Nope... And I havnt got any feedback from UM... I would guess, that UM's employees did not assess the SCN-part of the story so much (that would be not their job, I think)... In F.Rep.GERM the government offers regular cross-checking of the efforts the parents took. Do the USA offer such service, too? --Homer Landskirty 19:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It happens in all religions that people misunderstand the writings. I never said it is plot or that the whole section on silent birth should be deleted. But certanly that people that gave that formula to an 2 year old child realy mess up. Bravehartbear 19:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I can understand that... Luckily the parents presented the child to those MDs after some time... --Homer Landskirty 19:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I just took the first secondary source by google. But it is not a reliable! And yes, it does not seem to make sense that Hubbard recommended such a formula. Especially when today Scientology provides "Purification rundown etc. " where vitamins are the "key". But he did ! And the "barley formula" is a breastfeeding replacement. It has nothing to do with scurvy by kids(2 - 18 years) wich are not candidates for breastfeeding anymore. I don't know why Thausherr actually brought that up in de.wiki.org. I experienced that he usually has reliable sources for his statments. Just ask him on his userpage why he stated that this breastfeeding recomondation has anything to do with the kid suffering skurvy. -- Stan talk 19:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You can give the child the formula, why not? But not as sole sustenance. And the fact that they ended up with a sick child and with a physician makes me think that the parents were not regular Scientologists. That would have been caught and corrected, IMO, before reaching the point of scurvy. --Justanother 19:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Briefly, the 'barley formula' as recommended by Hubbard is missing certain vital vitamins. It should not be used as a complete baby food. This was corrected by a FLAG instruction in 1980, which gave sound medical advice. The instruction was withdrawn in 1991 and the 1994 Scientology handbook went back to the original, specifically ruling out extra vitamins.
The abstract for the 'scurvy' scientific article is in lots of places:
Vitasearch Websciences Pubmed
If you want to quote a reference the last (PubMed) is best. The full text is online but only through pay to view or subscription services. --Hartley Patterson 18:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I restored it and tried to add the additional data and sources. No one here seems to deny that this "barley formula" is written by Hubbard. -- Stan talk 23:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Shameless (and ridiculous) self-promotion.

"The US Government makes no claim to Scientology's legitimacy through tax-exempt status as this is also granted to non-religious entities, such as the Red Cross[122] or the Wikimedia Foundation, which runs the online encyclopedia Wikipedia."

OH COME ON! Is Wikipedia now the place for shameless and completely abstract shameless self promotion?! The Red Cross, fine, everybody knows what the Red Cross is... but including the Wikimedia Foundation in that sentence?! *head shake* --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 05:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I chged it a little... But the point here is, that it seems to me like every group can rightfully say, it is a religious group (especially car manufacturers who promise "freedom" and "safety" in their TV commercials...)... So I do not understand all this noise about "it is a religion" ./. "it is not a religion"... --Homer Landskirty 07:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't seem silly to me. Wikipedia editors are familiar with the wikipedia, so it makes a good example for comparison. (RookZERO 20:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC))

The point is moot; that line is OR. You need to find it in RS before putting it here. We do not show how clever we all are and "create arguments" here. --Justanother 20:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

This whole conversation has been absurd. Multiple court rulings have up held the religious nature of Scientology in the USA. Scientology is part of the religions freedom reports by US department state and the US department state has been critical of Germany and others for not recognizing Scientology as a religion. This shows a commitment by the USA to defend the religious freedom of Scientology per the constitution of the United States. Bravehartbear 22:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

state- recognized religion

state.gov "Once the Government recognizes them, religious confessional communities have juridical standing, which permits them to engage in such activities as purchasing real estate in their own names and contracting for goods and services. A religious group that seeks to obtain this new status is subject to a six-month waiting period from the time of application to the Ministry of Education and Culture. According to the ministry, as of May 2006, thirteen groups had applied for the status of religious confessional community, and ten were granted the new status. The Church of Scientology and the Hindu Mandir Association withdrew their applications. The Hindu Mandir Association reapplied under the name Hindu Religious Community and was granted the new status. The ministry rejected the application of the Sahaja Yoga group in 1998. Since then, its decision has been upheld in the Constitutional Court and Administrative Court. I will take austria out again. and i am still suspicious about this countries: Italy, Taiwan, Zimbabwe ... -- Stan talk 22:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

goodbye italy italian supreme court-- Stan talk 22:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Stan, you are enjoying that little to much, someone might think that you are bias. Here is the english version of that document:Scientology is a Religion but Narconon's Profits are not Tax-Exempt, Says Italian Supreme Court . I'm not geting in a revert war with you but this document clearly states that Scientology is a religion in Italy.

The decision follows the previous Supreme Court decision of October 7, 1997 which stated that Scientology is a religion, rejecting several objection from anti-cult sources.

In fact, the Italian IRS in decisions about local branches of the Church of Scientology has decided that auditing is not taxable, and the Justice Court of Turin in a final decision came to the same conclusion, thus settling a long battle between the local branches of the Church of Scientology and of the IRS.

The Supreme Court ruling is final. Can you prove the oposite? Or were you just hoping we couldn't speak Italian?Bravehartbear 00:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

actually I did not enjoy it. The problem was that I did know before that Scientology is not recognized in Austria and I didn't trust this source. And it is quite frustating finding reliable sources to disprove false informations from unreliable sources. And it was not the first time I deleteted this list. For italy Italy in English again. I only brought up the italian because some people here get upset by sources with German origin. -- Stan talk 00:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for giving you a hard time. There is always diferent views is always compicated. But I have the same distrust as you do from some sources that I view are bias. Bravehartbear 03:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing you have to be sorry for! We only have different POV's. -- Stan talk 05:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

That article [3] is from the F.Rep.GERM Department of State. I dont understand, why u write "Italy"... :-) Furthermore that article seems to be outdated (8 years r not recently) and accuses CoS to wrongfully shorten the facts, while itself wrongfully shortens the facts, too (I have beep heard of somebody beep for beep in beep GERM beep beep under psychiatric beep shock... <-- its possibly illegal for citizens of GERM to write the complete sentence...). --Homer Landskirty 06:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Because: "Given this background, Germany, as well as Belgium, France, Great Britain, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Spain, Israel and Mexico, remain unconvinced that Scientology is a religion. that is the statemant of this source. And we discussed the viewpoint if Scientolgy is in Italy a "state recognized religion" ?! -- Stan talk 06:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Which facts where actually wrongfully shortened by the Gereman Embassy ? -- Stan talk 06:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that statement is talking about politics, there are forces on those countries that are unconvinced. That doesn't mean that Scientology has not been recognised. Big diference there. Bravehartbear 10:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I dont comment on that any further, because I have to be afraid, that it would be punishable, although I have not the slightest idea why it should be... Just some little hints: Compare the methods Nazi GERM and F.Rep.GERM (and other western democrazies and eastern democrazies) use in order to govern, in order to make people make money ("work"), in order to "heal" the nerves, in order to "protect" the public "health"...--Homer Landskirty 20:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletions

There is a guy just deleting stuff Neilbeach. I don't know how to give warnings. Could some one please take care of this. Bravehartbear 00:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Neilbeach didn't delete stuff ?! He just made some typo. -- Stan talk 01:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

He did 4 edits and in the first two he deleted entire paragraphs, in the second two he did the typos. Bravehartbear 01:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

no, was just typo. -- Stan talk 01:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You are right! Bravehartbear 01:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)