Talk:Scientology/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

The lastest disburance

While the link that was so brashly edited into the page covers some very suspicious questions about scientology and tells an important message it obviously does not belong in wikipedia. Although... I won't be the one to remove it. Chris8535 22:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

General info: HeadleyDown, and about 14 sockpuppets blocked on similar article to this

This post is just for the record in case anyone here has had issues with the named editor or others editing similarly on this article. The following editors are as of June 5 2006, blocked indefinitely under any name:

• HeadleyDown editing as "Camridge (talk · contribs)"
• HeadleyDown editing as "AliceDeGrey (talk · contribs)"
• HeadleyDown editing as "HansAntel (talk · contribs)"
• HeadleyDown editing as "Bookmain (talk · contribs)"
• HeadleyDown editing as "HeadleyDown (talk · contribs)".
• Also identified as sockpuppets and indefinitely blocked: "JPLogan (talk · contribs)", "DaveRight (talk · contribs)", and 4 or so "single-use" sockpuppets.

• Finally, "Flavius vanillus (talk · contribs)" was also blocked, for breach of multiple policies (not a sock of HeadleyDown, but repeated major conduct and editorship issues)

It is not confirmed whether other editors are also in the same sockpuppet/meatpuppet group. They may be. It may also help to be alert in general, to new editors and repeat behavior. Reversion of heavy duty POV editing and forged cites added over many months (back to May 2005) has been needed in cleaning up that article.

Please see Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming for more, including summary of reasons and behaviors related to this.

Formal ban and block documentation at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Neuro-linguistic_programming#Documentation_of_bans.

FT2 (Talk) 14:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I for one am glad to be informed of that, thank you FT2.Terryeo 19:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Pulp Fiction versus Science Fiction

Why is Hubbard primarily shown as a "pulp fiction" writer? He is best known for his science fiction. That's like saying that Steven King is primarily a pulp fiction writer. It would be totally untrue. (And, yes I can cite that Steven King has written pulp fiction. Many writers have at some point.) The intro should list him as a science fiction writer since that was his most famous form of writing. (Possibly to include scientology, but hey, that's just my opinion...) - Tεxτurε 17:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

He was an author, he wrote all kinds of things. --Olberon 07:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The citation to "Atack, Jon (1990). A Piece of Blue Sky. New York, NY: Carol Publishing Group. ISBN 081840499X." does not clarify why he is being reported as a pulp fiction author. From his bibliography he could be considered a fantasy/science fiction writer if you don't think science fiction is accurate enough. - Tεxτurε 17:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that one of the PR people at Bridge Publications (William Widder) came up with a particular way of totalling up Hubbard's published works so that the majority of it wasn't F/SF. (By counting a short story the same as an eight hundred page book, with an attempt to include unpublished works.) And that's what the church uses to support their line that he wasn't a science fiction writer, and W. Widder's book is the only reasonably complete bibliography. Refuting it could be done, but would involve getting ahold of that rare book, putting the results up on a personal web site and verging on Original Research. Pulp writer is broader but can't be contested since most of his writing pre-Battlefield Earth was for the pulp magazine market. Olberon will be along shortly to accuse you of vandalism. :) AndroidCat 17:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Hubbard's published work in Dianetics and Scientology is easily 30 feet of shelf space, thousands and thousands of pages. His fictional works are what, maybe 10 feet of shelf space ? Terryeo 06:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Check out his fiction bibliography for some great fantasy and science fiction. If you haven't read the Mission Earth series of books I highly recommend them. Unlike Battlefield Earth, Mission Earth is intended as a comedy where the main protagonist is a bumbling fool of a villian. (Olberon forgive me...) - Tεxτurε 18:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and the leader of Earth is calculated by the good guy/antagonist as the largest oil baron... - Tεxτurε 18:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

William Widder was not even a Scientologist, just that you realize that. Be my quest to refute the Widder book. Present your own research. The book is not rare at all, it is all over the place on the booksearch machines on the Internet, and it sells cheap. It is a 'Fiction Bibliography' it does not include his non-fiction from these days. Meaning he also wrote non-Fiction, not only Fiction (amongst other in mag 'The Pilot'). Even that claim is incorrect. --Olberon 07:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

What's your cite that William Widder wasn't a Scientologist? (Note that I said that he was a Bridge publicist, not a Scientologist.) AndroidCat 14:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I'd be fine with him being described as a science fiction writer. However, we actually had people trying to argue that he must not be described as such because it wasn't sourced. Describing him as a pulp fiction author, a "pulpateer", we can source directly to LRH himself. By the way, Texture, please be more careful when you edit references. When you see a reference in the form <ref name="Etrawl">Etrawl, Xxxx. ''How to Goof the Floof in Just 36 Days!'' Marcab Publishing, Helatrobus</ref>, with the "name" attribute in the ref tag, it means there is probably at least one more reference to the same work somewhere else in the article, in a tag that looks like <ref name="Etrawl"/>. This happened to be the case; you deleted two references because you thought one was unnecessary. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

You say personally, meaning your opinion. If it is documented that no more than about 25% could be considered Science Fiction then you can not address him as being a Science Fiction writer. It is against Wiki rules about objectivity and neutrality.

You've tried to implement it http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Church_of_Scientology&diff=57192619&oldid=57190855 here, although you don't actually say that! Your edit notes say:

15:40, 6 June 2006 Antaeus Feldspar (revised description; "late" is not needed for everyone who is no longer alive)

You don't mention what else you did. --Olberon 07:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

This is like calling Michael Jordan a baseball player or George Washington a bricklayer but I will accept that opposition to (potentially embarrassing) facts in this article may be politically motivated. The fact that "we actually had people trying to argue that he must not be described as such because it wasn't sourced" makes it clear that there is a war going on. Oh, and my apologies for my technical editing error. I will try to avoid that mistake in the future. - Tεxτurε 14:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Poorly written first 3 paragraphs and why

The article begins: Scientology is a system of beliefs and practices (It is a philosophy). created by American pulp fiction author L. Ron Hubbard (Hubbard did many things. "author" would be much better encyclopedic writing). created .... in 1952 (Hubbard introduced the idea in 1952. He created the philosophy until his death in 1986). as a self-help philosophy (While there is some self-help elements to it, it generally requires such a level of expertise that it is not considered self-help). By 1960 Hubbard had redefined it as a "religion by its basic tenets" (he defined it as entering the realm of religion the first time he mentioned it in 1952). The Church of Scientology, by far the largest organization promoting the belief system of Scientology, is sometimes referred to simply as "Scientology". (It is not a belief system) (By introducing that the Church is referred to as "Scientology" early in the article, it defeats the use of separate articles for Church of Scientology).

"Saved them from ... homosexuality?" "perceived problems?" (good gosh)

The controversial organization has attracted much criticism and distrust throughout the world because of its closed nature and strong-arm tactics in handling critics. If the article does state, "Controversial organization" then it should be attributed. Millions of Scientologists would disagree with "attracted much distrust". The first 3 paragraphs could be direct cut and paste out of alt.religion.scientology or from xenu.net, they are so badly written. They mis-present known, quoteable information and put the worst spin on information which is widely known. Terryeo 07:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Millions of Scientologists would have to exist before they could disagree. --Davidstrauss 07:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course Mr. Strauss, I recognize that you are no newcomer to the statistics of Scientology, stated both by the Church and by critics (such as Clambake.org), and I understand that it would not be a reply to you were I to state, once again for you, statistics from any source. Not statistics of 8 million and not statistics of 9 million, nor even 10s of millions of books sold, I understand, you have seen all of that before and say such statistics are inaccurate and don't reflect what actually exists. Terryeo 06:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay. The Church owns millions of dollars of property which they have purchased for cash. Where did that come from? There are something like 3000 organizations internationally. A google search for "millions of Scientologists" www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22millions+of+Scientologists%22&btnG=Google+Search here. But hey, there is no reason why other points of view should not be presented in addition to the point of view, "millions of Scientologists" If you wish to eliminate official scientology statements try this search: www.google.com/search?num=20&hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=+%22millions+of+Scientologists%22+-scientologytoday+-site%3Ascientology.org+-freedommag+-freedom+-scientologyreligion+-rtc&btnG=Search

Surveys of the American populace show that only ~55,000 Scientologists exist in all of America. Where do you think the "millions of Scientologists" are? The U.S. is home to Flag, the mecca in Clearwater, and its the home to the headquarters of Scientology at Gold Base, and its home to most of the Celebrity Centres. The 3,000 orgs claim, I highly suspect. Can you give us a source that lists the addresses of these orgs? Are any of these orgs really just some guy's house? There is no doubt that CoS has raised millions of dollars and purchased millions of dollars in real estate. With just 55,000 Scientologists in the U.S. and no others in the entire world, it would only take yearly payments averaging $100 per parishionner to get $5 million / year. Add on the wackos that have given them hundreds of thousands and millions of dollars all in one shot -- then you can see how an organization with 50,000 members can produce millions of dollars a year in income. Vivaldi (talk) 08:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, you say "surveys" but I recall reading that number. It was the number of people on the last census who wrote in as their religion (no answer required there). If you have an actual survey and not simply a volenteer question on the 2000 census, you might present that information. Here is Scientology's statement www.authenticscientology.org/, follows some cached, highlighted examples: A noted scholar's statement 66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:Ob7qHmxCyMsJ:www.signaturebooks.com/scientology.htm+%22millions+of%22+Scientology+-scientologytoday+-site:scientology.org+-freedommag+-freedom+-scientologyreligion+-rtc&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2 J. Gordon Melton, here a newspaper [66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:8msX7khwXD0J:www.pub.umich.edu/daily/1997/feb/02-04-97/edit/edit3.html+%22millions+of+Scientologists%22+-scientologytoday+-site:scientology.org+-freedommag+-freedom+-scientologyreligion+-rtc&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=10 The Michigan Daily Online, and www.meta-religion.com/New_religious_groups/Groups/Eclectic/Scientology/creed_scientology.htm Metareligion.com, and 66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:xq4ClS_AQf8J:www.freespiritlifestyle.co.za/index.php%3Fmod%3Dsubmain%26SubPage_ID%3D228+%22millions+of+Scientologists%22+-scientologytoday+-site:scientology.org+-freedommag+-freedom+-scientologyreligion+-rtc&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=24 Freespiritlifestyle Terryeo 10:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't find the 55,000 number. I thought I remembered seeing it as the quantity of persons who had wrote in their religion as Scientology on the 2000 census. Do you have a link for any third party study about the quantity of Scienotlogists? Terryeo 23:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The link is on the main page . How is this not a third party? Ashmoo 23:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

In any event, there is plenty of opportunity to present the Church's statement. And other statements, estimations, surveys, etc. No need to deny anyone's considerations, is there? Terryeo 00:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi guys. I added Beyerstein's view on Scientology. I tried to make it fair by stating the other subjects he exposes. Beyerstein, B. L. (1990) Brainscams: Neuromythologies of the New Age. Intl. J. of Mental Health. Special issue on quackery 19(3):27-36. HongKongMasterofSci 07:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

New material

I added more information under the 'Scientology versus the Internet' section regarding YTMND. This information is verifiable and can be currently found on the main page where Max addresses the users. I would like someone to 'Wikify' my information. PunkCabana 15:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)PunkCabana

Trademark infrigement

This is big. Scientology letters have sent a cease and cecease to ytmnd..

• www.ytmnd.com/info/l_ron.html

What is wicked is they claim that a wikipedia article is trademark infrigement. See the section that includes:

• gaysci.ytmnd.com ... Mineralè 16:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

A defaced Wikipedia article. If CoS is interested, I could probably dig up the IP address used by the vandal. (It's quite easy to fake up a Wiki page to make a screen shot without vandalism. I'm guessing this person didn't bother.) By the way, Avagrams are a dime a dozen and this is not big news. AndroidCat 16:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

They are objecting to the logo in the artice. They ignored the fact that the wikipedia article is fair use and on top of that it's being used as a parody. Mineralè 17:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

What is the biggy on it? Is ytmnd some part of Wikipedia? Terryeo 06:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Nope. This is neither relevant nor new. --InShaneee 14:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Mention of YTMND should probably be removed from this article, unless there's cited independent coverage of it. Even then, such specifics, probably go in Scientology versus the Internet, not here. --Rob 08:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. I'm simply trying to keep it as simple as possible for the moment since sources are not being provided for any of the 'updates' added. --InShaneee 14:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

If it listed everyone who's ever received a Korbogram/Avagram warning, it would be a rather long article. That's only SP3 on the old ARSCC [wdne] scale, and it's no place that Slashdot, Something Awful and probably Fark and others haven't gone before, years ago. AndroidCat 15:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Seems that this was agreed upon but nobody actually took it out. Initially when I removed it I was accused of vandalism and it was immediately put back in and there was no discussion at the time, however there has been feedback since so this shouldn't be a problem now so as I tend to be a bold editor (as is encouraged) I am have taken this paragraph out. Nuview 10:05, 24 July 2006

Footnotes and References

The article presents what it calls "Footnotes". But before it does, it presents what it calls "References". The citations should preceed the "References", I believe because they are a part of the article. But the 5 "References" are not part of the article and should, therefore, be placed after what are called "Footnotes". The title, "References" is slightly misleading too because the article is fairly well documented, with many citations. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to call that section which is now labled "References" as "Additional References" or perhaps, "Additional Information" and place it last in the article? And as a matter of balance, perhaps it should include a Scientology publication too. Such as Introduction to Scientology Ethics, Hubbard, Bridge Publications Inc. 1968 ISBN 1573181323 Terryeo 00:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Information which should be elsewhere

The title of the article is Scientology. The first paragraph presents information which a church would put forth. The second paragraph talks about the Church of Scientology. Later in the article is "In June 2006, Max Goldberg, owner of the website YTMND.com, was sent a cease and desist regarding the alleged infringment of trademarks and copyrighted Scientology material used in some sites. In response, Max put up a Scientology section on the front page and a slightly satirical disclaimer." Obviously that cease and desist was an action taken by the Church of Scientology because a subject (such as Biology or Physics or Buddhism can not send a cease and desist. The Max Goldberg information should go either in the Church of Scientology article or perhaps Scientology versus the Internet, as someone has suggested. Terryeo 00:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Why?

Okay, you treat scientology as a legitimate religion, why? It's pretty much common knowledge that the whole thing is a moneymaking scam, it's just as out there as the church of the flying spaghetti monster. What I'm asking, and this is an honest question, not vandalism, why do you even entertain the possibility that Scientology is true?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.117.6 (talk • contribs)

You ask for a personal opinion. See WP:NOR, which precludes anyone's personal opinion to appear, indeed, to even be relevant to any article. However, if you actually wish to discuss a personal opinion, the place to do it would be user pages, but then only if a user wished to. Terryeo 02:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

This talk page isn't the place for these sorts of discussions. Ashmoo 01:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Than what is? This whole religion is crap made up by a sci fi writer, that relates to the article. Basically, your article entertains the possibility that a moneymaking scam is a legitimate religion.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.117.6 (talk • contribs)

Anon talk page poster, 64.12.117.6, why don't you register a screen name? Most vandalism is done by anon users, though occassionaly anon users make contributions which are useful. Terryeo 02:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The article is neutral on that point. The idea is to present verifiable facts to the reader and let them draw their own conlusions. AndroidCat 01:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

While I think that scientology is one of the worst examples of how stupid mankind can be I cannot agree that this article is in favor of scientology. It´s pretty much neutral, showing claims from both sides. It is one of the only places in the net that do not exposes mostly one extreme or the other. You should read the article before posting in the talk page. By the way the talk page is not a place to discuss the implications or perceptions of something, it´s not a forum. It´s a place to discuss the article itself, propose changes that would change the article in a drastic way, etc. Regards. Loudenvier 01:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

While I know and use it and know many who do. That a person re-examine moments of past physical or emotional pain, and re-evaluate them is not a new idea. Dianetics did it, before Dianetics, Psychology, before Psychology, the Catholic Church's confessional, before that (probably) one person simply talked to another about their problems. That is precisely the base on which Dianetics and Scientology are built. A difference is that Hubbard found what questions actually make a difference to a person as they review a past trauma. A lot of other things are present too, but that was and is the foundation. Without the "techology" of an individual reviewing past traumas, there would be no Scientology. However, the article hardly presents this idea at all and is, in my opinion, so POV as to be practically useless. Terryeo 02:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, isn't all that detailed in the Dianetics article? Ashmoo 05:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Its beginnings are just barely present in the Dianetics article. Its a tough read to get through the controversy, but the beginnings of it are there. Dianetics established certain procedures to listen to people talk about their past moments of travial. Those same procedures were followed when people remembered things which, would normally be considered imposssible memories. For example memories before birth. Following the same listening procedures, asking the same kinds of questions, listening in the same way led people, again and again, to view a trauma and they felt better afterward. There's the difference between Dianetics and Scientology. Dianetics is designed for one's current lifetime. Scientology is designed for more. So no, it isn't covered in the Dianetics article. Terryeo 14:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

any moron can figure that this is a scam (of course) but this is highly inappropriate for a wikipedia talk page. Joeyramoney 06:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Where's the picture/symbol?

I'm sure this has been discussed ad nauseum but I can't find where so... where the !@#% is the Scientology symbol? If we capitulated to a threat made by them then a lot of the faith I had in this encyclopedia has been lost. Nrbelex ^(talk) 21:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

It's still in the article. As I understand it, it was removed from the template because it would have been possible to argue there that it was serving as an actual trademark violation (i.e., that someone might actually think that the Scientology symbol on the template meant "this is approved by the Church of Scientology" rather than "this is about Scientology.") There's no basis for a plausible argument there, though, when the symbol is presented as the symbol of the Church of Scientology: it's not there as a 'mark of trade' but as an object of examination. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

-Exactly, how the hell can you claim a symbol blocking educational purposes?

I was actually talking about the red and yellow triangle and S symbol. I don't see it anywhere. Anybody confused by the symbol being in the template probably wouldn't be able to comprehend the content of the template anyway (joking). Seriously though, I think it was important and am really disturbed to see it gone in anticipation of a problem. Nrbelex ^(talk) 22:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

If you are asking about Image:Scientology new style logo.png, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions&oldid=58958519#Simple_scientology_logo this is the relevant conversation, which explains removal from the template. There was no discussion (to my knowledge) of its useage in any particular article. I have never heard of any legal threat related to the image (and I was the one who posted the question). I would assume it is justifiable to use it in this article, if done properly. Removal from the template poses no great problem. Wikipedia is just being cautious (going beyond what the law requires), by compelling editors to place fairuse images in articles, one-at-a-time, rather than "auto placement" with templates. We actually have more freedom now, because the template can be used in other articles, that fairuse may not apply. Also, to split hairs with Antaeus Feldspar, nobody objects to a fairuse image visually appearing in a template box in an article, but its name must be specified in the individual article, not be "hardcoded" into the template. That's why the featured article, Coca-Cola, is perfectly acceptable, despite having a bigger logo, within an template info box. --Rob 02:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

What you say, Thivierr/Rob, is not quite what appears at the discussion you point to. The discussion points to Wikipedia's fair use which says a trademarked image can only be used in an article which discusses it. Used in a template, many articles it would appear in would not discuss it. What if we used a less exact image, perhaps the Scientology 8 legged cross isn't trademarked? Terryeo 02:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The issue is not whether a given logo is "trademarked" (by which I presume you mean that a trademark is registered). What matters is that Wikipedia is not using the trademark falsely. Wikipedia is not in the business of spiritual services, just as we are not in the business of software or sugar-water. Rather, we are providing information about these businesses -- so we can safely make illustrative use of the logos of Scientology, Microsoft, or Coca-Cola. We can safely use logos such as Microsoft's or the Microsoft Windows logo on articles that discuss issues pertaining to the company or its products; and likewise, we can safely use Scientology's logo on articles that discuss issues pertaining to Scientology.

Nonetheless, this message is not legal advice. If you are unsure about the legitimacy of using a logo on articles that pertain to the organization whose logo it is, please send a note to Wikimedia's legal counsel asking for advice. --FOo 04:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Makes perfect sense to me. An article about the trademarked logo can use the trademarked logo. An article about Fair Game which uses the trademarked logo implies the owner of the logo supports the statements within it. Obviously that is not the situation. Terryeo 05:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it doesn't, actually. It implies (correctly) that the statements are about the organization whose logo is used. Yes, even if they are historical rather than current-events statements. As we've discussed before, Wikipedia articles represent the history of their subjects as well as the current state.

The use of a trademark in articles describing an organization should never be taken as a sign of endorsement. We do not assume that The Walt Disney Company has endorsed the statements that Wikipedia makes on the article that describes it; nor for that matter that the Southern Baptist Convention has endorsed that article. In a descriptive article, trademarks do not mean endorsement. Rather, they aid the reader in understanding that we are talking about the selfsame group whose trademark is illustrated. --FOo 06:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Makes perfect sense to me. An article about a trademark may use the trademark. An article about beans, cannot use the trademark. An article about religion can not use the trademark. An article about Fair Game can not use the trademark. An article about Scientology can not use the trademark. An article about The Trademark of Scientology can use the Trademark of Scientology. Makes perfect sense to me. Terryeo 08:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Footnote #56

It points to a webpage which is an HTML of (apparently) a court affidavit. There has been a fair discussion about that http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources&curid=1553589&diff=59057063&oldid=59054683#Affidavits here. It would improve the quality of Wikipedia if the affidavit were in PDF, or if it were cited to a previvously published book or other source. Appearing as it does on a personal website, with mispellings within it and without a date of creation and without a notary signature block and without even the person's name or initials who retyped it into an HTML presentable format (are the mispellings duplicated or created by the typist ?), it has less substance, it is of less repute than the original document. Terryeo 04:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Why is this protected?

Heh, Which one of the admins is into Scientology?

I'll probably get banned by them just for saying this.

--Ringdo 03:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It's merely sem-protected, so new users can't edit it. You'll be able to edit it, after a number of days. Also, it may be unprotected much sooner anyhow (normally such protection is short-term). --Rob 03:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

What Rob said. The reason it was protected against the edits of the newest users is because it was being defaced with petty vandalism and attacked with linkspamming. You don't have to be "into Scientology" to dislike that. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I later noticed it was just semi-protection.

--Ringdo 10:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Demographics

Footnote 11 refers to the US Census Bureau, but though they have republished the data on their website the link is to the original webpage at City Uni NY. Looks like an 'appeal to authority' to me!

Footnote 12 leads to Adherents.com, the best known database on the subject. The Scientology notes there are out of date, still using the 1990 City Uni data instead of the 2001 update and quoting data from me (ha!) that I've since revised. The webmaster hasn't responded to requests for updating. Unfortunately this is the most accessed website on religious demographics, so I'm reluctant to just delete the link.

Footnote 13 leads to Kristi Wachter's Statistics website, which while excellent is wrongly noted as having membership/adherent data.

I'd add a link to my own webpage www.daisy.freeserve.co.uk/stolgy_4.htm Millions of members? but that would be bad Wiki practise...

--Hartley Patterson 12:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Read WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is intended to be a giant appeal to authority, and there's nothing wrong with that. --Davidstrauss 04:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

May I understand your comment about footnote 11? Are you suggesting the data (55,000) is inaccurate, are you making a disparaging comment about the website www.gc.cuny.edu/faculty/research_briefs/aris/key_findings.htm, or are you suggesting by, 'appeal to authority', that primary sources should be viewed with doubt,or are you suggesting something I haven't listed ? Terryeo 15:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The text implies that the survey was done by or on behalf of the Census Bureau. This is not the case - it was done by University researchers and only reprinted by the Bureau. 'Census says only 55,000 scientologists in USA!' looks better in a headline, and I've seen it quoted in that fashion.

No, I'm not questioning the survey itself, the methodology looks fine to me.

This is a complex subject and not easily condensed into a paragraph, but I'll have a try at rewording soon. Hartley Patterson 20:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll accept Steve Dufour's removal of 'adherent'; this term is commonly used by religious demographers to mean what the text now says, but general readers may well not know this. --Hartley Patterson 21:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)