Template talk:ScientologySeries/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Maybe add Dianetics and Celebrity Centre to it. 2 Width 3 Controversy section 4 Where should this template be applied? 5 How to organize terms, and which terms should be used 6 it is MUCH better 7 about "organization" 8 What kind of Template this is 9 Increasing the usefulness of the Info Box 10 Unfortunately Krsont isn't with us 11 what would it take 12 Beliefs 13 Reversions without discussions 14 Dianetics studies - Scientology Studies 15 Xenu isn't a Scientology Belief 16 Template makes less good sense 17 Templates on templates - a warning to Terryeo 18 The Difficulty 19 Linking the template 20 enlinked template 21 Controversy Section (redux) 22 ARC and MEST and Tone Scale are not practices, they are beliefs. 23 About Xenu's Placement in the Template 24 Why not? 25 I rearranged some terms 26 "E-meter" is not a practice 27 Smaller is better 28 The xenu and other sf stories

Maybe add Dianetics and Celebrity Centre to it.

Maybe add Dianetics and Celebrity Centre to it.

Width

Can editors please keep the line-lengths short? Otherwise the template gets very wide. Thanks, -Will Beback 02:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Done some reduction on it. Ronabop 00:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Controversy section

Does this really belong in a template about scientology itself, or should there be a subtemplate for controversy, or what? Ronabop 03:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, most of the content added to this section was added by a now-banned (for repeated disruption) user. Hm. Ronabop 02:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

No it wasn't, the bans were proved to be unjustified and were removed - as for "disruption", it was made because I pointed out a copyright violation on the user page of an admin and an admin friend of the admin (a 15 year old, by the way) banned me permanantly for pointing this out.

as a small point of information, it was her action that got me a 24 hour ban based on the 3 revert rule. heh.

Well, good to see you back, then... a copyvio dispute got you banned? Yeesh. I had a hard time following the whole thing on your talk. You have to admit that this [1] doesn't look too good, though, which is where I got a good deal of my impressions. Ronabop 04:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, yeah, I think it belongs here. Most people don't even consider scientology a religion, and most governments don't either, legally; the large amount of controversy compared to other "religions" is very notable (and the fact that Terryeo and other Scientologists have tried to whitewash away the relevant articles speaks for itself). --03:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to take exception to your view of me as doing anything other than working toward good, cited articles. I do frequently remove for citing statements like, "most psychaitrists think .." because they are not per wiki policy. These are statements that go against wiki policy, you shouldn't tolerate them and shouldn't expect me to. Just because I'm the first guy who came along, followed WP:CITE, cut and pasted to discussion page, stated the source of my action, invited discussion and citing, hey! Put any dirt you feel the urge to in any article you want to, but cite it okay? Terryeo 15:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The whitewashing problem is on *almost* all religious articles I've worked on (Falun Gong is a lot of problem solving, as are most faiths that have unusual views about conventional medical practices). I think it's more of an issue of properly handling the extent of controversy, and accurately portraying things without overloading the controversy section. For example, most modern "religions" (and governments, for that matter) have persecuted and/or killed millions of people in the name of their creeds, so, for example, christianity articles really need to have nav links to things like the Inquisition or Crusades, but there's a balance to be struck between linking out to a few *central* articles to the topics of controversy, and linking out to tons of articles about controversy... for example, Clambake could be a sub-component of scientology and the internet, Sp's could be filed under Fair Game, etc. Ronabop 04:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I would say, Clambake's and Xenu's avowed intention is to destroy Scientology. Where do you think those bandwidth dollars come from? Fair Game doesn't exist. If you can find a citeable source and you think it right to do it, go right ahead. heh ! I'm kind of having fun and hope you all are too. ummm, could I invite you to first understand what makes a suppressive person, a suppressive person? Saddam is a suppressive person, Hitler was a suppressive person. Terryeo 15:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

That does nothing to explain "what makes a suppressive person, a suppressive person", no matter if you interpret "what makes a" as "what is the definition of a" or "what causes a person to be born as a/to become a". All it tells me is that someone who calls me a suppressive person is trying to compare me to Saddam and to Hitler. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

As covered earlier in the discussion, this controversy section is redundant. Other editors have expressed questions as to whether this section is really needed, including its creator. The controversy is included in the individual articles linked to in the info box. On this basis I being bold and removing the controversy section.Nuview 00:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Why exactly is it redundant? It hasn't been agreed here and deleting an entire section is certainly something we should get agreement on. Personally, I think removing it would be a bad idea; we can't get away from the fact that this is a very controversial subject, and it would be distinctly POV if we reflected none of that controversy in the template. -- ChrisO 22:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Not only do I not see why it would be considered redundant, I can't find any example of anyone claiming it's redundant. The closest I see is my own statement that if the template is applied on every Scientology-related article it starts to be redundant with the category system. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

When an obviously Scientology controversy is judged by editors to be a Scientology Belief, and then entered as being a scientology belief, directly and completely against the advise of scientologists, and further, in direct opposition to a vast quantity of evidence otherwise, the the template's "controversy" is redundant because every article on Wikipedia which contain or reference "dianetics" or "scientology" are just full of controversy, every article is 90 percent controversy and a small amount of real information. These the most obviously, baldly POV articles. An excellent case in point is the Xenu insistence. Another excellent case in point is the Dianetics article "Dianetics is (obviously) and activity. Yet another is the DMSMH wherein Feldspar and ChrisO have both stated in discussions that they don't intend the article to have any of the information within its covers. It is very obvious the template is redundant, you can't find an article on wikipedia that isn't just stuffed full of controversy. Terryeo 23:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Yet another is the DMSMH wherein Feldspar and ChrisO have both stated in discussions that they don't intend the article to have any of the information within its covers. Terryeo, we've been over this before, and your unwillingness to acknowledge what is really a very simple point reflects very badly upon you. There is no need to make Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health a platform for talking about "the information within its covers" because "the information within its covers" happens to be the subject Dianetics, which has had its own article since July 2001. It was a violation of Wikipedia's policies on content forking for Spirit of Man to create his own article on the subject of Dianetics (even an article on the subject of Dianetics named after the related subject of the book) because he thought the existing article on the subject took a negative point of view -- which he admitted was his intent. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

ChrisO, this has nothing to do with “censorship.” The creator of this index box (Ronabop) didn’t include any controversy section, this was added later by another. Ronabop was actually quite leery of this addition and questioned it himself. You have just come in on this discussion, 18 February I believe, and now you are throwing your weight around. This is not your index box – if anyone has something to say, it is Ronabop whose intentions were to provide something useful. Instead it has been made into a POV push on “controversy.” Do your research and look at where all these links go. You’ll find that just about every article has controversy (and/org critical POV) in it. So why does this have to be the focus of this index box? There are many subjects within the Scientology religion – controversy is not one of them. Check out the articles currently under “controversy” and tell me they aren’t negative POV, you even pointed this out yourself regarding the Rehabilitation Force Project article. I say it goes.Nuview 11:15, 24 February 2006 (PST)

As covered earlier in the discussion, this controversy section is redundant. Other editors have expressed questions as to whether this section is really needed. The controversy is included in the individual articles linked to in the info box. On this basis I am removing the controversy section. -- Nuview 21:00, 27 February 2006 (PST)

For "As covered earlier", substitute "As claimed and disagreed earlier". It's really disappointing to see an editor who previously had a good reputation going along with an argument so phony it hardly deserves a response. A section for those articles most notable for controversy is "redundant" because they're not the only controversial articles under the subject? Rubbish. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Antaeus Feldspar, it sounds like you misunderstood what I was saying. My point was that just about every article on the subject of Scientology currently contains “controversy.” So, what’s the point of a separate “controversy” section? It has been made the largest part and the main feature of the index box. What is someone going to think? The first impression a visitor is going to get is “Scientology is controversial” and I totally disagree with this being the focus. This index box is not NPOV. -- Nuview 15:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Might I point out that Scientology is controversial and always has been? A great many people (myself included) first heard of it because of the controversy. Given that the controversy is so central to public interest in the subject, it's surely necessary to include it in the template. Don't forget we should be enabling people to find articles, not make it more difficult to do so. -- ChrisO 00:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

ChrisO. Thank you, however, you fail to take into consideration the fact that throughout the ages many religions have been, and still are “controversial.” Including Christianity, Islam, Judaism and Wiccan. Looking at the articles on them, and the info boxes on their sites – I see not controversy. Let’s face it, the “controversy” in Wikipedia has been generated and this agenda is still being pushed, convincing others that this is the focus, rather than just giving them information (as is done on the other religion articles) of what the subject of Scientology is about. Your point doesn’t hold water. This “controversy” section is unnecessary; people can still find the articles perfectly well. Nuview 20:10, 9 March 2006 (PST)

Where should this template be applied?

If this template is placed on every article with any relation to Scientology, it just becomes redundant with the category system. In fact, someone created a new article and added the template to it, but neglected to add any categories! -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, there are some similarities to the several (12, including parent) Scientology categories we have, but I really don't think this template belongs on all of the same pages as *every* article with *any* relation to Scientology... I had intended the template (road to hell is paved with good intentions...) to be used in a similar manner to other religion templates, where if somebody was looking at a Scientology related article, and wanted to navigate around the main points of Scientology, they could quickly do so. With that in mind, here's where I think it "maybe" should belong:

• On articles strictly about Scientology beliefs themselves, eg Clear (scientology), Tone scale, ARC (Scientology)
• On articles about CoS locations and assets eg Gold Base, Freewinds
• On articles about Scientology texts eg The_Way_to_Happiness
• On articles about important CoS authorities eg David_Miscavige
• On articles about Scientology organizations and activities eg Sea Org

Here's some "maybe/maybe not" articles, depending on how close the ties are... some articles are iffy, because while they may be fairly relevant, they may not be relevant *enough*:

• On articles where Scientology may or may not play an important role, eg Battlefield Earth, Mission Earth
• On articles about people whose notability is partially, but not primarily, a product of Scientology interactions eg William_S._Burroughs, Ford_Greene
• On articles about things which are (or were) once related to Scientology in some way, but not are not directly about Scientology itself eg Clearwater, Florida, Quentin_Hubbard, Ronald_DeWolf, Galaxy_Press, Harvey_Jackins, Co-counselling

And here's some "doubtfuls" (I'd possibly remove the template if I saw it), because these articles aren't really about the topic of focus, and are marginally connected at best:

• On articles which are merely simple explanations (possibly dicdef's, even) of Scientology specific terms, but don't really say much about Scientology itself eg Adolphine, Dianazene
• On articles about people who are notable, but not because of Scientology involvement e.g. John_Travolta, Sonny_Bono, Jenna_Elfman
• On articles which are more about perceptions, accusations, or lampooning of Scientology than about Scientology itself eg Trapped in the Closet (South Park episode), Scientology_-_Outsider_Explanations, Bare-faced_Messiah and just about everything in List_of_Scientology_references_in_popular_culture
• On articles which only mention Scientology in passing, or as part of a larger discussion eg Jive_filter, Penet_remailer, Johan_Helsingius, Anti-psychiatry, Xenu's_Link_Sleuth, Only_A_Downstat, Writers_of_the_Future, Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation, USS_PC-815, Neopets, etc.

So, in comparison and contrast with the categories we have, there's some crossover, of course, because it's about the same general subject of Scientology, but it's not a 1:1 correlation. ....and quoting WP:CLS: "These methods should not be considered to be in competition with each other. Rather, they are most effective when used in synergy, each one complementing the other." Infoboxes and series boxes try to present quick navigation snapshots, but aren't much good at collecting vast numbers of articles into a tight grouping. Categories are great for collecting large numbers of articles, but lack the ability to prioritize information into essential chunks.... (etc. etc.) Ronabop 04:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

How to organize terms, and which terms should be used

At this point, from the point of view of a person who understands all of the terms on the template, the template is a collection of various words. It has almost no prioriterization of which datum is more senior and which is less important, its arrangement of organization is extremely poor (for example A.B.L.E. is over narconon, criminon, etc, they answer to and are overseen by A.B.L.E.) and the most obvious part of visible Scientology (many missions, Class V orgs, Saint Hills, Advanced Orgs, etc are not even mentioned). "Introspection Rundown" (perhaps delivered 100 times but I really don't know) is on there whereas "Student Hat" (perhaps delivered 50,000 times is not. The template lacks a sense of priority, of what is important and what is less important. I believe the most obvious use of such a template would be that a person could immediately view those elements important and those elements more to the fringe. As it stands it enhances the POV of those who know scientology to be some vast government conspiricy, against the best interests of mankind. lol. well, something akin to that. Terryeo 21:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, let's see if we can adress some things:

Since ABLE is over narconon and criminon, I'll leave ABLE and pull the others out, and since narconon, criminon, applied scholastics, and the Way to happiness are all under ABLE, we won't have to worry about adding them.

Which visible parts do we have articles for, and which ones aren't that important to have listed? We've got the celeb centres, which is what I found most visible, and the numerous missions are now under the big word Organization (now clickable). Is CMO important? RTC? OSA?

The instrospection rundown has been off the template for at least two days before you wrote this... (since Jan 10th). (??) Are you seeing an old version, somehow?

Student Hat redirects to Study Tech, should we link to there?

How would you organize the organization section? Which wikilinks would you use, in what order, to express the most *important* parts of scientology?Ronabop 04:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Those are excellent questions.

The Most obvious and most nearly right thing, E-Meter and auditing should be exchanged in position with each other because Auditing is senior to and uses E-Meter.

Switched. Ronabop 21:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Starting at the top of the template, Beliefs. Thetan would be an excellent first article there, unfortunately we have Operating Thetan The article title should be changed because how can one know what an operating thetan is until one knows what a Thetan is? If it is changed it would make a good starting entry.

Well, I can't do article moves, but I did change the name of the link. Ronabop 21:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Scientology administers and uses Dianetics. Dianetics actions result in Clear; Clear is prevented by a reactive mind. A reactive mind is composed of engrams. An implant is a specific kind of Engram. Argueably all of that is Beliefs.

So, Belief section in order: Thetan, Dianetics, Clear, Reactive mind, Engram? (and yes, there's the whole discussion over at Engram about keeping as one article, splitting, context, etc.) Ronabop 21:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The actual beliefs, well, there are no exclusive articles about them because every religion has about the same beliefs. Man has a spiritual existence, his spiritual existence is immortal. Man has the right to believe as he wishes too, etc.

But "ARC", "Tone Scale" and a host of other terms are educational subjects. They are in books and in courses. They aren't beliefs. I think an additional section should be added, perhaps titled "Educational Subjects exclusive to Scientology" (too long) and those would include "Tone Scale", "ARC" "Past lives", "MEST", "Study Tech" (which, by the way, should be titled "Study Technology". To attempt briefly here -- Past lives would be an educational subject because it is intended to introduce the idea instead of forcing anyone to believe that information. Such information is presented, "this is what happened in the case of Mr. John Doe, and this is what Mrs. James Smith said happened to her." So it is an educational subject and not anything at all like, "if you are a scientologist you better believe in past lives OR ELSE!" lol.

Well, some would argue that things like the existence of a Tone Scale is means that someone has a *belief* in a tone scale as a useful measuring device, which is likely why I categorized it there, but I think I see your point. How about a section called "Religious Education" (which seems shorter?) or maybe something better? Maybe "Study Subjects"? "Education Subjects" might work too, without "exclusive to Scientology" added on the end, because it's clearly a box about scientology. Anyways, that section would then have "Tone Scale", "ARC" "Past lives", "MEST", "Study Tech" (I think we're missing some stuff, like KRC and other tech, no?)... sound good? Ronabop 21:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I would say, The organization of the Church of Scientology is complex. I don't see an article on here yet that even approaches it. The Organizations it is composed of are mostly independent Orgs, each run independently but following common policy and yet, interconnected in ways which require a lot of education to to define. heh. I would quail at the thought of spelling out the whole Scn organization. However, people have poked at it and Those mentioned organizations define a tiny little piece of the whole of the Church of Scientology while ignoring the actual Churches in almost every city. Nothing much to do there right now.

The first click on the section takes a user to List_of_Scientology_organizations, which has the actual churches, but yeah, this one is a whopper to sort out. I've asked some more folks for input, hopefully we can get some improvement. Ronabop 21:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Controversy, well, except for making that portion of the template into a flaming red volcano with the words scattered about randomly, I see no potential improvement. heh. good work. Terryeo 16:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

LOL, a volcano... I'm sure some folks would want a spaceship (DC-9) animated gif, with some silly alien characature, there, too. *shrug* ;-) Ronabop 21:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

It certainly makes more sense than it did. heh. How about "Education" as a category name? I'm not sure what will communicate the idea best. An example, "Tone Scale" is a number of pages of information to read. Then there is an exercise, the person goes onto the street and uses the information they have read to evaluate people they observe. You know, some people walk perky and uptone and some people shuffle with head down. Tone scale is an education in how to notice how people feel, what to look for. And what to expect in areas like "trustability", "how well can they pass a message on to a third person" and so on. A belief would be something to apply literally, wouldn't it, while an education would be an understanding that is applied with judgement. Which is why I suggest something like "education." Terryeo 00:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

This link explains the relationship of ABLE, CCHR and so on, at the bottom of that webpage: [2]. It says CCBA is the owner of the trademarks which ABLE and those under able, use. But here is where the difficulties I would like to talk about with you rears its head. CCBA is the owner of the trademarks, okay? ABLE uses those, Narconon uses those, Criminon uses those. So a template could go CCBA: ABLE - Narconon - Criminon. But, here is the sand in the mill, for operation, for day to day expertise, who does Narconon go to, in order to get their trained people and their written materials? Well, they go to ABLE, operationally, ABLE is the parent. But you only have my word on that as of right now. While you can view the webpage and what it says there. Honest, I hope I'm clarifing here and not making more complex. Terryeo 01:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Lol, actually, once I figured it out, it's much clearer. From what more I could gather, CBAA actually *leases* the trademarks for use from ABLE [3], so, ABLE still owns them, but then leases them to CBAA. Here's Narconon ownership [4][5][6] and Criminon[7]. Best as I can tell, ABLE is the central administration parent. Ronabop 05:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Well done and that exactly fits with what I know of the real world implementation of ABLE. ABLE administers all of the public reaching organizations and will become the central point of any action into the public which uses Hubbard's tech, but is applied to modern problems. Education, Crime, Drug abuse, Business, and so on. Any endeavor which is toward the result, the public becomes more Able, is administered by A.B.L.E. So the information you found Ronabop exactly co-incides with the atual administration, calls from below for help and expertise form above, and so on. So now the template can reflect the parent body and the bodies parallel but equal beneath it, heh ! Terryeo 06:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I added WISE because I think that it is a large and important public group, but doesn't fall under the ABLE umbrella. If any group needed to be sacrificed, I'd vote for the CBAA which does fit under ABLE and is a bare stub at the moment. AndroidCat 23:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see the template reflect actual organization, as much as possible. ABLE owns its own trademark and the trademarks of Applied Scholatics, Narconon, and Criminon. W.I.S.E. is a business group, its purpose is to apply administration technique into business. CBAA (Concerned Businessmen's Association of America) seems to be Business, as W.I.S.E. is, but who's intent is to promote, a sort of scholarship awarding group. So W.I.S.E. and CBAA both are composed of bussinessmen, though they are of different efforts. Terryeo 00:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

CBAA might be made up of businessmen, but their activities definitely fall under ABLE's agenda, and that's where they are on the command channels. They use the ABLE trademarks, and connect with other ABLE programs. WISE (the company, not the members) is tied more directly to the Church. AndroidCat 13:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

it is MUCH better

And the use of Fields of Study, I would say, is excellent. I think there is a need to be able to link some elements and make noticeable those links. While other elements stand by themselves. For example. Thetan is unique to scientology, stands by itself. It was a very good thing to present it that way instead of the article's name. But Dianetics has (clear - engram - reactive mind) as a sort of linked subcatagory that might be too wide for a single line of typing. In fields of study, "Study Technology" might come first, but no matter what you do it makes lots more sense than it used to. About Controversy. If that category doesn't grow like Jack's Beanstalk I would be real surprised. heh Terryeo 03:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

about "organization"

If "Sea Org" were placed to the left of "Church of Scientology" and the arrow to the right of "Church of Scientology" were placed immediately to the right of the present arrow which is on the left of the "Church of Scientology" then I believe the relationship between the Sea Org and the Church of Scientology would be illistrated. The two are equal, the two are independent but neither is designed to exist on this planet without the other. Take a Mission of Scientology, such as the one I started at in Honolulu, Hawaii. They have no Sea Org members. But they are overseen as an organization by an organization which is composed mostly of Sea Org members. Probably all of the overseeing organizations which make up the network of organizations which is the church of scientology is manned by Sea Org members. From time to time the overseeing organization might send one or more people to the Mission of Honolulu to handle a local problem, to work out a new program, or just for quality control sorts of reasons. The Church of Scientology is the organization, while the Sea Org is composed of members which man the Church of Scientology. On the other hand, to my knowledge, there is no centrality to the Sea Org. They are just people who serve where they have joined, usually. Each Mission, and Church is an independent organization, runs itself, pays its own bills, property tax, etc, buys its own food for its staff, etc. Hires its own staff and so on. Terryeo 07:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

What kind of Template this is

This template, everyone agrees, it is real useful. Could it be called a Subject Navigational Template? Looking at WP:CLS, it doesn't fit any of those descriptions. It has organization to it, viewing the template gives a person some sense of how various informations fit into the larger subject. Its far superior to a straight list of articles. Its possible Ronabop has created something new to Wikipedia (again, I haven't been editing very long) but in any event its useful. Terryeo 12:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, a rose by any other name... *shrug*. It could be called Wikipedia:Article_series, or Wikipedia:Series_templates or Wikipedia:Navigational_templates, they're all just various templates. Oh, and for giggles, see [[8]], which notes that WP:CLS has some... er... issues. Ronabop 02:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

That's some interesting information, giggle, and because we are dealing with one - click - to - access bodies of information, I suspect we are going to develop more than a single dimension access. Category is a list of potentially related information but it doesn't offer a depth. By its nature it can't do what the Scientology template does. Yet, categories are a wonderfully useful feature. For a related chunk of information like Scientology (or how to develop apple trees for warm and cool weather farming) an informational guideline is very useful. But It might make sense with some things, like with ABLE being over (Criminon, NARCONON, Applied Scholastics) to show the prioritization. Won't work with a right hand template. Could work with a bottom of page, linear kind of template arrangement, maybe. umm, say you were studying geometry and wanted the handful of theorms and stuff about parallel lines. An informational box of the 6 or 8 theorms and axioms about parallel lines could be helpful to the reader. I'm rambling. heh. have a good one. Terryeo 16:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I've moved a couple of items. I meant to accomplish the template becomes a little more narrow, but it is one line longer now. I tried also to cause those elements most senior and over other elements to appear higher and to the left of similar elements. Terryeo 02:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The longest line in the template now is "Public Groups and Recruitment" and if "and" became a capital " & " it would potentially reduce the width of it a bit. Also, the top line, "this article forms part of the series on" is now approaching the condition of being the longest line. If you all want it narrower, we might reword that line a bit. Terryeo 02:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Increasing the usefulness of the Info Box

Looking at how these categories should actually be broken down, they are a bit jumbled. I have made 2 new category headings to simplify what these subjects are. And earlier it was questioned if this xenu link should be included here, no, this link doesn’t actually fit, so I'm removing it.

I'm putting it back, there are enough evidence out there, even from Scientology's own literature, that clearly shows that the Xenu story is quite an important milestone for a scientologist.

«Until you pass through the First and Second Wall of Fire this magnitude of charge is unhandled on your case. Because of the depth and power of this charge, it's sitting right there with you, affecting you every minute of every day.» [9] [10] Clear_(Scientology) is not the ultimate goal for a scientologist, Total Freedom is, and to get there they need to go thru this important Wall of Fire. It certainly fits in the navigation box. Raymond Hill 03:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the “Controversy” section of the box. I am proposing to remove this section. Instead of the index box being useful, it is dominated by a large controversy section. However, I note that most of the pages included in this index box already contain plenty of “controversy.” Controversy is not what the subject is about and I agree with Ronabop, who had good points on this in an earlier discussion.Nuview 20:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I am against removing the controversy section. It is certainly a consistent characteristic of everything Scientology, that's the reason you find controversy on almost every topic related to Scientology. Let's just report it as it is. Raymond Hill 03:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I too think a controversy section isn't wrong.Terryeo 13:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately Krsont isn't with us

But is simply editing his POV into the template and destroying what we all agreed to. "04:53, 18 February 2006 Krsont (changed "scientology studies" heading to "scientology beliefs")" and "16:24, 17 February 2006 Krsont (re-added Xenu - even if it's apparently not important to Scientoloists themselves, I'm willing to bet it will be to those interested in Scientology)" Which throws off all of our Scientology areas of education like MEST and ARC and so on and adds additional randomity to an already difficult area. I've attempted to establishe communication with him, but it seems to spur him into more of the same kind of 'controversial' activity. Terryeo 13:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I certainly agree with Krsont's changes. Xenu has to be there, body thetan should be there too, as this is a very important belief from OT3 and beyond (scientologists spend a great deal of time and money auditing out body thetans once they pass OT3). Can you point me to what we all agreed to and by who? I just saw Nuview changing things without consensus. Xenu has to be there. Body thetan should be there. The controversy section must not be removed. Raymond Hill 14:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

You are completely wrong to ever want "body thetan" there for reasons which I have spelled out and persons even more exeprt than I am, have spelled out on the discussion page of the article. Why do you ignore the advise of experts who know the subject? Duh. Terryeo 21:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, Dianetics studies / Scientology studies needs to be replaced with Dianetics beliefs / Scientology beliefs, as everything in there are actual beliefs. Raymond Hill 14:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Very VERY VERY VERY wrong. That is just plain wrong. You people are working too hard. You are working to hard to present something you do not know about in a way which is misleading and false. That is just, plain, clearly wrong. Terryeo 14:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, what you mean by "misleading and false" is "something Terryeo doesn't agree with". Ditto with "something you do not know about". Tell me: can you comprehend the idea that someone might know just as much as you do about the subject and yet not agree with you about it? If so, then please explain for us all how such a person would have to edit in order for you not to claim he doesn't know what he's talking about and claim his edits to be "misleading and false". -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

By "misleading and false" I mean that Xenu is obviously controversial. It belongs, if in the template, in the area headed "controversy". That we even argue about it at all points out to the most simple person the subject belongs in "controversy". Feldspar. I am an exert editor (within what I know). You suggest someone else is also an expert editor and disagrees with me. Who are you talking about? Perhaps you are talking about ChrisO? Hmm? Will the real ChrisO step foreward and reveal his identity beyond, "I am a catholic" Terryeo 21:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Your reading comprehension, as always, needs work, and as always, you are trying to shift the argument off the issues and onto the fallacy of "who's the bigger expert on the issues? Clearly, I am, because I am a Scientologist! Therefore I'm the expert on Scientology and no one else (except fellow Scientologists) can have a meaningful opinion!" My question to you is still the same: under what circumstances would you accept that someone who holds a diametically opposed opinion to yours has an equally meaningful opinion to which just as much weight should be given? From your behavior, the answer appears to be "under no circumstances", which doesn't mean "Terryeo is right all the time", it means "Terryeo cannot see when he's wrong." -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Feldspar you begin your post with a criticsm of me. Then you pose a question. Then you pose your answer to the question you pose. Who are you talking with? Xenu is so obviously a controversial topic. Does the word "lawsuits" come to mind at all? Doesn't that define "controversial topic" for you? Terryeo 13:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

OK. I am really running out of patience. Xenu goes in Controversy. The entire website is based on one presmise. It seeks to DESTROY scientology and if you don't read that at the website your eyes are crossed. Xenu is obviously controversy. I am not sure how to say it any more clearly. What about destroy don't you understand? The xenu website hopes to destroy scientology. It isn't obvious to you? In thousands of pages, one page is Xenu. It is not a blief. but you know. I am getting damn tired of saying these things over and over. I have said all of this a lot of times. Xenu goes in controversy. It is not beliefs and practices. Why don't you get it?Terryeo 14:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it is important to note that the above user, terryeo, has posted the following on my talk page:

"All right. I will tell you exactly what it is. I am pretty sure you will not accept it. Here is what I believe is true. About 75 million years ago that Xenu incident happened. Its effect on people today is very slight. (this is what I think). However, when a person becomes very aware and before they can look at their past many billions of years of existence, they must first clear that slight bit of awarness that is blocked by the Xenu incident. If they do not, they can not look at their many billions of earlier years in a reliable, easy way.  :) Have a nice day Terryeo 14:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC) "

I'm not sure why they contradict themselves here by stating that Xenu "is not a blief"(sic), but it does appear to be a belief that is held by at least one person, even if the existence of the doctrine is kept secret by the church itself. --Krsont 14:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Probably your main thing is "why should such a thing be kept secret?". Well, I don't know. There's a handful of documentation in the OT levels that isn't revealed unless you are actually doing the levels. So hey, how is anyone going to believe something which they don't know and can't read about? heh !Terryeo 13:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

You don't get it. I tried to tell you and I will try to tell you again. The answer lies in the most basic element of Scientology and this Xenu thing is merely one of a long, long list of many individual examples of this very very basic information which is presented by the meaning of the word itself. Scientology means, "study of knowledge", it means, "knowing". This means that if I say the sky is blue, you attribute that statement to me and you look for yourself to see if the sky is blue. In the case of any Scientology printed word. The reader is expected to read it, to look for himself and see if it is true. Period. the MEST article, i use it for an example because most people can look at the idea "MEST" and see it makes a little sense. I will tell you, persons who have gone a long way on the bridge can look at events that happend 75 million years ago and see the truth of them. Or not, and it is their choice, not their belief. They can know the truth or falsity of that information. This ability to know is what scientology is all about. An individual document or subject such as Xenu is not and will never be a "scientology belief". It is a statement, you may treat it as a statement in the public sphere. It is not a belief, the Church of Scientology would have to make a comment on it for it to be considered a belief. Have I explained it yet? Terryeo 21:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

How Scientologists define their own beliefs is just one viewpoint. The neutral viewpoint, however, is that they are beliefs. They are not based on "knowing" anymore than any other religious belief is. As you said yourself when you talked about the Xenu incident: "Here is what I believe is true." That's all anyone can say about religious beliefs. Even if they "know" that they are "true"; that knowledge is still based on a belief, at least to everyone who doesn't "know" the same things that they do. But this is not the Wikipedia for OTIII Scientologists, it's for everyone. And to most people, Xenu is not a "truth". But that doesn't mean it's just a "statement". It's a belief about the world, held by some, but not by all. This is the best way to put it and categorize from a neutral, secular viewpoint, using neutral and secular terminology. And the same is true for all the other "statements" and "knowledge" that are associated with the Church. --Krsont 23:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

When the Church of Scientology states the Xenu document is part of their beliefs, then you or anyone could safely conclude the Xenu document was part of the church's beliefs. Until that time such a statement is original research on the part of an editor. That I have told you what I think is really trivial but what the church states as their position is what Wikipedia articles are mainly about. They do not comment about Xenu (as far as I know) and to state Xenu is a "belief" is original research. Let us put it, for now, in Controversy. If at some future time, you find Church statements which support that page of sillyness being a belief, then it could be moved.Terryeo 13:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, at least you are discussing. I see you state that the NPOV is that they are "beliefs". I understand that you utterly and totally understand that to be true. I submit that you are mistaken in a particular and specific way. But at least you are talking. The Xenu document is a piece of information, would you agree to that? Whether belief, fairy tale or historical fact, it is written information, would you agree to that? And the question arises then, What do people consider that information to be? This is the area we are talking about? (I hope). Terryeo 23:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this Wikipedia article will spell out what Scientologists believe and be helpful. Scientology_beliefs_and_practices#Beliefs_and_central_tenets_of_ScientologyTerryeo 00:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Xenu is widely confirmed to be a belief. It's part of OT3. It's an important belief as it explains the origin of body thetans, which is also an important belief: scientologists try to free themselves from body thetans from OT3 level and up. It has been discussed in books, newspapers and in court. Wikipedia is not bound to censor this belief like the Church of Scientology wish it was. Raymond Hill 15:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

no. It. Is. Not. And. You. Will. never. find. any. quotataion. from. source. which. says. so.Terryeo 21:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Xenu is certainly a controversial topic, but it's different in kind from anything under the "controversies" section, which deals entirely with actions and policies of the Church of Scientology. Xenu is not an action or a policy. I simply don't understand how it can be considered not a belief. -- ChrisO 15:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

There's ChrisO, dispersing the subject again. You guys don't even understand the actual meaning of the word, "scientology" and you are debating whether a specific document (of thousands of documents) is a belief, a knowledge, a practice or a fairy tale. I have tried to tell you. You don't listen to me except to pose arguments which justify your ignorance. Terryeo 21:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

what would it take

to get into discussion with you people who are destroying the little bit of usefulness of the template? As it is now the template is mostly useless. It does not catagorize the articles on wikipedai. This is a statement which any person who knows the subject would agree with. You who do not know the subjects do not agree. I can understand that you do not agree. However, when a painter tells you that the paint will dry with a darker color than when you apply it, you listen to him because he has painted and knows it. I tell you xenu goes in controversy. And I tell you there are education subjects and that heading should not be "beliefs". Continue to misrepresent the subject, or discuss. It is up to you. One expert can not bring sense to a horde of ignorance. Terryeo 21:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

So to someone outside of Scientology who only knows of the Xenu story through those who released it in an effort to discredit Scientology, it's seen as a belief, but to an "expert" who is inside Scientology who actually does believe in Xenu, it's only a controversy, not a belief? How does that work? --Krsont 01:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Someone outside of the Church is free to view it any way they want to. Someone inside the church is free to view it any way they want to. I begin Scientology 25 years ago. I never heard of it until I got on the internet and found Xenu.net. I checked with another Scientologist who doesn't chat internet. They have been active (very including on staff in Sea Org) for 30 years. They never heard of it except from my talking with them about it. It is a non-issue. It is never mentioned. I don't even know, actually, if it is a document used on the OT Levels. It is most certainly an effort to discredit Scientology. Persons within the church don't even know about it except for those who happen, like me, to run into the discrediting influence because of internet chatting, etc. I mean how important can an event of 75 million years ago be? lol. Terryeo 13:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

“Xenu” and “Reincarnation” are not Scientology beliefs. With regards to reincarnation, Scientologists do believe in past lives. Please see this link for clarification. http://www.whatisscientology.org/html/part12/Chp36/pg0643-e.html Nuview 20:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Beliefs

It might be helpful to have an additional area of the template about Beliefs which is not present at this time. "Thetan" and "Reincarnation" might fit better into "Beliefs" than into "Studies" while "MEST" and "ARC" and, oh god, 100 other words, might fit into "studies". Other than being sure Xenu is a controversy raised to discredit Sceintology and most certainly not a belief, I don't have strong objection to including "Beliefs" as a sectionTerryeo 13:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

so you now completely deny and rescind your claim that you believe the Xenu incident happened? How can we even discuss this thing if you keep changing your story? --Krsont 14:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to be as clear as possible. How am I not communicating? Do you get it that I went 25 years in Scientology and never heard of Xenu? You see, I can not believe something I have never heard of, I'm sure you follow that? Is there any chance at all of communicating with you in this area? I am trying to be as straightforeward as I can of why Xenu does not qualify as a belief, though it is clearly controversial. Where am I failing? My friend went 30 years in Scienology, never heard of it. I can't say but if you asked 1000 scientologist who had not chatted online, probably none of them would have ever heard of it. So how can it be a belief? I am not trying to obstruct what you understand, I am attempting to realisitically present what I know of it to you. Terryeo 16:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I am going to give the editors who keep reverting this the benefit of the doubt as it may be they actually haven’t studied Scientology doctrine. This is not Church doctrine. I am going to remove these again; please leave them out. My only other choice is to put an “under dispute” tag on this, but that’s going to look pretty ugly. This index box is still extremely slanted to the “controversy” POV, I would appreciate editor assistance getting it cleaned up so it is more encyclopedic and professional. Thanks.Nuview 11:58, 9 May 2006 (PST)

I've reverted you again. You do not have consensus. If you put a "disputed" template on this template, I will remove it, as "disputed" templates are not to be placed on templates themselves. Despite what you think, we're not under obligation from WP:NPOV to balance positive and negative statements about Scientology, anywhere. Since the published statements are overwhemingly critical, I'm surprised it's not more "slanted" to criticism. --Davidstrauss 19:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Reversions without discussions

ChrisO is reverting my edits without discussion. I get into this talk page and I spell things out, I work to communicate what is. After a good deal of discussion after there has been no additional comment for some while, I make an edit. What does ChrisO do? He reverts my edit. Does he discuss? No, he doesn't discuss. He reverts and makes a smarmy comment like "reverted, POV" and doesn't discuss. Yet when it comes to a discussion page he doesn't present coherent discussion in an ongoing way. He just states his point of view, moves on and goes for his 3 reversions for the day. It sucks to edit with ChrisO when he does that.Terryeo 16:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Read edit summaries. In any case, the consensus is that Xenu is a belief. "Scientology beliefs" rather than "Scientology studies". Scientology is a religion. Raymond Hill 16:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

In rare instances one editor can be right and several editors wrong. 3 editors, you Mr Hill, ChrisO and the new onto the scene guy have a consensus. It is wrong. In discussions here I have talked about why it is wrong. No one has any verification that Xenu is a scientology belief. No one can make a case for it being a belief. You refuse to talk to me about it. ChrisO reverts without discussions. It is wrong to revert without discussion. Even if it were true it would not be right to revert without discussion. Which is exactly what made ChrisO appeal to mediation in the first place. When will you people begin to discuss in a sensible, sane way that follows Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines ! Terryeo 17:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

you posted the following on my talk page 17 minutes before you posted the above:

"I do not know whether Xenu was a real event or not. 75 million years ago is beyond my knowledge. It probably was a document which Hubbard wrote. I "believe" (in the sense that I suspect it happened but I do not know it happened) it probably happened."

By your own admission this is a belief, and not a falsification invented by those out to destroy Scientology as you have implied before. I really don't see why you keep contradicting yourself. --Krsont 17:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not contradicting myself. There are 2 meanings to the word belief. Both of those meanings have been used during our discussion. On one hand there is the meaning which the template states and which you, ChrisO and Raymond are saying that the Xenu document falls into, you are saying it by including it where the template says, "Scientology Beliefs". That is one meaning of the word, one use of the word. It is not such a belief. As used in the template the word means "#3. Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons." [11]. When I talk with you, as right now, I am using the word in a different sense. When I say, "I believe that event probably happened" I am using the word in a different sense than the template uses the word. I am using it to mean, "My best guess of yes or not is, yes it happened" and this use of the word can be found (probably any dictionary) "#1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever." [12]. There is the religious "belief" and there is the common, everyday use of the word belief as in, "I believe it will rain tomorrow." The template presents the first use of the word. Xenu does not fulfill that definition. I would never, ever, ever tell someone, "you should believe that Xenu was real" because I, myself, don't believe it happened in that sense. But, if you asked me "do you have more confidence that Xenu did or did not happen" I would say, "I don't have real confidence in either, but it probably happened". Does this make sense to you now? As a "Belief and Practice of the Church of Scientology" it is not. Terryeo 23:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Just because you're open minded about your belief does not mean that that belief isn't a result of your religious involvement with the Church of Scientology. Or are you saying that it's just a coincidence that you, a Scientologist, "believe" the Xenu Incident occurred, which was first documented by L. Ron Hubbard the founder of Scientology?--Krsont 13:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Heh. I suspect but don't know that Hubbard wrote the Xenu document. He didn't sign it. All of my experience in the church is with documents, books, etc. that he signed. Secondly, could you tell me exactly what sort of "research" a person can do for an event of 75 million years ago? How would anyone go about researching such a thing? And then, based on a single written, unsigned page, you expect me to "believe" it or "not believe" it? C'mon, that's just too big a streach of imagination, Krsont. I have tried to explain as clearly as I can, both my personal "beliefs" about it and the Church's official position which is "no comment".Terryeo 14:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I never said anything about research. Although you have stated previously that "persons who have gone a long way on the bridge can look at events that happend 75 million years ago and see the truth of them." Apparently "the bridge" is the way to go about researching an event that happened 75 millon years ago. Are you not far enough along it to know, but just trust in others higher up in your religion that they know better than you? does that not sound like a religious belief? --Krsont 14:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

That's right, it was I who brought up 'research'. I have stated that about people because I think that is true. I do not actually know for sure that is true or will always be true, but I think that is true. No, it is not important to me today, as I look across the Eel River Valley whether a particular event happened 75 million years ago, or didn't happen. It plays no part in my life or my religion or thinking. This is my personal manner of viewing the world and not the official Church position. The official church position does not comment on the Xenu document and the Xenu document isn't signed by Hubbard or by the Church of Scientology is it? So there's just no reason to stuff Xenu into "beliefs" (which should be studies) since the church doesn't say so. (A church would always stand behind its beliefs, would it not)?Terryeo 14:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

POV EDITING Krsont, it is not I who is doing POV edits. Your reason stated was: " 07:09, 20 February 2006 Krsont (rv pov edit) " And I have certainly tried to communicate with you that Xenu is not a church belief. Nuview has stated the same, the church has no such belief. The document is misrepresented with the implication you are presenting. A parallel situation would be the KKK (Ku Klux Klan) stating that Christianity's position is that all brown eyed people are the slaves of the white race. If you were to take the KKK's statement as the position of Christianity, it would be a similar position. Xenu Net does not represent the church, nor does Clambake represent the church. If you take what they say as the position of the Church of Scientology, you are doing a parallel action as a person taking the KKK's statements as representing Christianity. While I don't understand what prompts such an irrational behaviour, I would seek to communicate with you toward your understanding that the Church does have official positions. Those should be recognized by the articles here on Wikipedia, or the articles are useless to readers. Terryeo 15:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

You're saying that the official position of the church is the only one wikipedia can portray - obviously not a NPOV. See the page Xenu for details on why Xenu, although officially denied by the church, is a part of their doctrine and, yes, beliefs. --Krsont 16:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Nope. That's not what I am saying. I really would like you to acknowledge that I have done 2 things in our communication. I have given you my personal point of view. And, in addition, I have stated the Church of Scientology's official position. You might note also, Nuview has (above) given the Church of Scientology's official position. Would you please, Krsont, acknowledge that you have understood these things which we have been discussing about? And then I will happily address what you say that I am saying. Terryeo 19:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The reason I ask you to say that you do understand what the Church of Scientology's official position is about Church of Scientology beliefs is for the reason you might ask me if I understand the Catholic Church is the source of Catholic Church Beliefs. Opposing that, if some Muslim Cleric started a website which showed that priests had sex with little boys as a religious practice and tried to present that action as a core belief of the Catholic Church, the situations would be parallel. The Xenu Website does not intend to tell you about the Church of Scientology. It intends to belittle and destroy not only the church, but any information extant. It does that by dispersing attention, and by using the only really controversial document extant, Xenu, and by talking people into the idea that Xenu is somehow important in the Church of Scientology. Its not part of the beliefs of Scientology and not part of the beliefs of Scientologists. I hope to talk with you about it, rather than leave you with a false impression. Terryeo 19:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you understand the concept of secret doctrine? That there are some religious organizations that keep some elements of their beliefs secret from the public at large and from low level initiates? Do you then see how such practices would mean that the "official" position is not always right when it comes to a neutral discussion of actual beliefs? --Krsont 20:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

At last you are beginning to tell me what you are thinking and why you have chosen the position you have. Thank you for opening the area for discussion. I'll chew on that because I see the implications you are talking about and get back with you. Terryeo 23:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so can we use a parallel situation as an example? Perhaps the Mormon Church, before it ruled out Polygomy. Would that work? As I understand it, the more wives a man had, the higher his position in Heaven was purported to become, though this information was not shared with but a few high level Mormon Church Officials. Would that be a suitable parallel to discuss how the Church of Scientology's "official position" is somehow withholding vital information from both the public and commmon parishoners? Terryeo 00:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh boy. Uhm, no, you have the public, and secret, Mormon teachings all screwed up. Maybe this is why I try to use a sympathetic/light hand on these articles, because I grew up Mormon (and thus, understand how confused these things get). To digress for a second, the *amount* of wives was not actually really relevant to the man, but being married (actually, sealed in the temple, since civil marriage on this planet, in legal terms, is totally irrelevant to the faith) to a Morman man was *very* relevant to the women. Since an unmarried woman had less after-life opportunities than a married man, many marriages were 'sealed' (temple) marriages, which have *nothing* to do with people having sex in this life. A better example (hold your breath if you haven't seen this before), would be the Mormon teachings that humans can only attain a level of godhood *if* they were married (sealed) in the temple. A Mormon who was married 15 times, but never in a temple, would be unlikely to know this, even if he was a mormon all of his or her life. A Mormon who never got married or sealed would never be taught this in quite the same way. It's a temple ceremony only. Getting back to the numbers, a Morman man with 10 sealed wives creates (potentially) 11 new gods. A Mormon man with one sealed wife creates (potentially) 2 gods. Some argue for strength in numbers, but that's not doctrine. There is also the "insurance" mentality, where a guy could marry two wives, so if one divorced him, he would not be denied godhood in the afterlife.... Thus, plural marriage was an act of "enabling" men and women to become gods, and attaining godhood. Oh, and BTW, none of that is doctrine, it's revelation. Now, where was I? Oh, yeah, getting back to the differences and similarities, LRH and Xenu seems to be analogous to secret revelation, not CoS doctrine. Ronabop 06:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhas the OT stuff, like Xenu could be presented as a revelation. I mean its real clear that stuff isn't believed by almost all of Scientology Parishoners. But at a point on the bridge information is revealed to the parishoner and he (I guess) gains understanding from it. Terryeo 14:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

<reduced>That's an education!</reduced> Scientology has beliefs (in the sense of definition #3 at [13] (Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.) and these include First, that an individual human being is actually an eternal, spiritual individual who is motivating / using a human body. Second, there is a supreme being. Third, man is basically good and trying to survive (man in the general and not gender specific sense). Beyond those I don't know that Scientology has tenents, really. And people are strongly encouraged to question even those. (If it is true for you, it is true) Scientology says itself in its title. I sometimes say, "there are no beliefs" because I honestly think that is the truer statement than the three tenets which a person might or might not believe but it in no way changes their progress and status whether they believe those things or not. So, when things like Xenu come along I can safely state, "nope, that's not a belief" and when ChrisO comes along with his space opera thing and I point out "space opera is not a central tenent" (though his article is built on that premise), I can be sure that every Scientologist would tell you as I am telling you. Xenu isn't a belief. It could be it is real (did happen) but if it is real (if it did happen) then its whole purpose as a document would be in exactly the same direction as all the rest of the Scientology information. Toward clearing stuck attention and rehabiliting the individual through becoming fully aware of past trauma. In any event Xenu isn't a "Belief" (tenet accepted by a group of people). Because if it is an actual past event that happened, then when you get to that level you are able to know whether it is true or not. At that point you would know and it would not be a belief. Before that it doesn't matter if you believe it or not, you can't know it happened. Who can view what happened 75 million years ago?Terryeo 08:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The "revelation vs belief" thing is an interesting point - it seems to be both. According to CoS lawyer Warren McShane, Xenu is not secret (and he has a point - Xenu-related references are quite openly advertised in a variety of Scientology books and mags). The secret, he says, is the method used to deal with the body thetans left behind by Xenu. Take a look at the court transcript linked here, which I think is very relevant to this discussion. The belief element seems to be the "great catastrophe that occurred 75 million years ago that left this planet a desert" (in McShane's words), which I've seen advertised in publicly distributed Scientology magazines. The revelation element is the consequent method of auditing, which the CoS fought tooth and nail to preserve as a "trade secret". The Xenu article focuses almost entirely on the belief, so I think it's appropriately categorised thus. -- ChrisO 08:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo seems to be resorting to the time-(dis)honored debating tactic known as "making shit up" when he says that everything we know about Xenu comes from xenu.net. The story was extensively documented in the Los Angeles Times, amongst other papers (see [14] and [15]), based on original court documents. The CoS sued over the release of those documents in the Netherlands ([16]) and the CoS lawyer Warren McShane (who is a Scientologist himself) has testified in court in the US that Hubbard wrote the Xenu documents (see [17] under "Isn't this material a trade secret?"). I suggest that you ignore his rather poor attempts at bamboozlement. -- ChrisO 23:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry ChrisO, I've seen what is going on and I am not going to reply to you as long as you use phrases like, "making shit up" or other emotionally baiting phrases. Have a nice day :) Terryeo 00:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Terry, Warren McShane has done OT III (according to his testimony) and he was testifying in a court of law, under penalty of perjury. Why exactly should we prefer your views (I'd guess that you're a public who's not done the OT levels) over a source like McShane, who clearly knows a lot about it? Your personal views are clearly original research and aren't relevant to this question. -- ChrisO 00:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I see you do not understand the situation, ChrisO.Terryeo 08:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand the category that Xenu falls into. I also understand your attitude. You could have announced what you knew of the publication of certain confidential documents much earlier. You could have. No one discourged you from announcing what you knew. But you didn't. That makes your attitude fairly clear. I have stated what I know of Xenu, and as I say, I understand it enough to catagorize it. The event, if it happened, happened some time ago, 75 million years ago. That's a long time ago. Most people would insist that they did not exist 75 million years ago and therefore, such an event, should it have happened at all, would have no effect on them in present day. You of course, are free to believe, purport, and even vehemently insist on anything you wish. Myself, I understand the sitation and, further, I have stated what I know of the situation. Scientology states its beliefs, Scientology states its position about its beliefs. I have presented that information via links and am happy to do so upon request. I have also stated what the Church of Scientology states about Xenu, which is nothing at all. Further, I have provided links to neutral sites such as the site which the U.S. Navy maintains which presents Scientology to its personnal, and that can be considered a fairly neutral, secondary source. However, should Xenu be so vital and important to you, or to any editor, that they feel the compulsion to cite and link it, it is worth noting that the information is not as broadly published, nor as good a source of information as, say, Dianetics: the Modern Science of Mental Health which has sold millions of copies in dozens of languages and is practiced even today, straight out of the book by people reading and applying it. I understand the situation, but more, I am forthcoming what what I know of the situation. In addition, when 15 editors insist they are going to have Xenu listed as "belief" which is completely and utterly wrong, then, when that situation is clear, I choose to understand that. Your evaulation of my understanding is neither accurate nor welcome. Terryeo 05:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

That article wasn't by the U.S. Navy, nor did they endorse it. This has been pointed out before. As for 75 million years, surely that's a short period of time compared to History of Man? "This is a cold-blooded and factual account of your last sixty trillion years." I know that Scientology doesn't like to use the word belief, but that's what the rest of the world would call it when someone has to duplicate source on Incident II to reach their end wazzits on OT III and progress up the bridge from there. AndroidCat 05:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

For those who are unfamiliar with the "Navy" document, it is merely a copy of the work of one man, B.A. Robinson of ReligiousTolerance.org. This man is clearly biased in favor of cults. His only scholarly reference on the subject of cults include the renowned cult apologist J. Gordon Melton. His only references that he used to find out about Scientology were from Church of Scientology owned web pages. (Robinson is admittedly not an expert on the subject of religions). So of course his analysis of Scientology is going to be nothing more than a rehashing of what the Church has already said. And just because the Church of Scientology offers up this biased "study" of its religion to the Navy doesn't mean that the Navy endorses it as anything other than a document that the Church of Scientology gave to them to explain the religion. It is not a Navy study, nor does it validate Scientology teachings at all that the Navy republishes the document. Compare ReligiousTolerance.org version to Navy copy of the same. Vivaldi (talk) 15:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

See also the disclaimer on the Navy's site. AndroidCat 18:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

By all means ! View all of the reasons and reasoning presented to not use the U.S. Navy's statements on the U.S. Navy's website in Wikipedia. Then, go to the U.S. Navy's website and view the U.S. Navy's statement about Scientology. The U.S. Navy's motivation is to serve its troops. It is not attempting to dissuade anyone. Terryeo 00:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Dianetics studies - Scientology Studies

The template had those two categories. Within them was exactly what the title suggested. Diantics studies had the subject studied. Dianetics, Engram, Reactive Mind. The template had a navigation use, but in addition, it had an organizational value. True with Scientology studies as well, actual organizational value. (Organisational if you prefer). Now it does not have an organizational value. It is still a navigational template but it no longer organizes the subject and presents at a glance what subjects are of one category and what subjects are of another. It took only 2 editors who actively destroyed that organizational value without disucssion, and by thier collusion. And then Raymond hill, viewing their argument as valid and agreeing made 3. What the three of you have done is you have created a dispersion. The organization of subjects has been dispersed. I understand the subject. If you wish to present the subject, you should talk with me or with someone who understands the subject. You have destroyed a portion of the meaning which leads to an easier understading (on the part of the reader), an easier understanding of the subjects.Terryeo 16:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, a word of advice - you keep using Scientology jargon in your comments. Terms like "dispersive", "dispersion", "dispersed" etc. don't mean anything much to non-Scientology. Please try to use plain English - it'll help people to understand better. -- ChrisO 00:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

definitionTerryeo 01:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Aren't you using the definition that Hubbard uses in the Tech Dictionary? "Theta turning into entheta and the inhibition of the flow of free theta"?

turning into entheta and the inhibition of the flow of free theta"?

I will demonstrate. When ChrisO attempted to advise me, I specified my use of the common, everyday English word "dispersive" and provided a link to one of the most common dictionarys on the internet as a verification of my use of this common word. ChrisO refused to roll his mouse pointer over the link labled "dispersive" and expose it as http:www.dicionary.reference.com/search?q=dispersion which was available for his perusal. The attendant meaning there states:

"n 1: spreading widely or driving off (syn: scattering)" That was a refusal to understand what I said. ChrisO then carried on, stating a false and misleading series of words; "Theta turning into entheta and the inhibition of the flow of free theta" which is both false and, as a definition of the common, everyday word "Dispersive", wrong, ChrisO was being dispersive. Because he didn't cite his source, and because I both have common and technical dictionarys available to me, I am able to say so with confidence. The word has no connection (as either I have used it or he has used it) with what ChrisO calls "Scientology Jargon" although he disguises the simplicity of the word's use with the dispersive juxtaposition of known Scientology jargon. Terryeo 02:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Xenu isn't a Scientology Belief

Period. There is no primary source which says it is. And (my estimation) no presently active (in the Church of Scientology) Scientologist who would tell you it is a Scientology belief. What you do find are opinions of secondary sources. Putting it into beliefs is one thing, insisting on it another. The editors who insist on it, Povemc, Krsont and ChrisO are misinformed. Discussion encouraged.Terryeo 00:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Warren McShane is a primary source. Warren McShane not only said it was a Scientology belief, he said it in court and volunteered its relation to the volcanoes on the cover of Dianetics. You can stay in denial until the cows come home if you like, but if by some remote outside chance you actually believe that "Xenu isn't a Scientology Belief" then the editor who is misinformed and insists on remaining so is you. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Warren McShane is an idividual. He was answering the court's question. Had the court asked him, "what are Scientology's Beliefs" then he might have answered differently. In an article on Xenu, it would be appropriate, would it not, to present his testimony as stating what he did. Admittedly his statement could be viewed toward considering Xenu to be a "Belief of Scientology". However, if we are to present the reader with that information, it has an appropriate place, in the Xenu article. The Church of Scientology states their beliefs. Experts about relgion have further stated what they understand the Church of Scientology to believe. None of that is Xenu. Terryeo 17:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

You find a man's word in court to be a stronger argument than the weight of many other sources. here Professional religious people who make their living by testifying before courts, governments and even the U.N. give their opinions of Scientology beliefs. They don't mention Xenu. The official church website doesn't mention Xenu. I've stated several times of my experience. That combined attribution can be weighed against what one man said in court one time. On that bases 4 of you (yourself, Feldspar, ChrisO, Krsont and Povemac) conclude Xenu is a Scientology belief and not a controversy. Against that is the information of the lawsuits Xenu generated and the information that it got into the public eye in the first place as a result of a court action. I understand, you all feel you are "revealing" some deeply secreted and hidden informations kept from the public. That you are doing your public duty by "bringing darkness into the light". One man's one time statement against a vastly larger body of evidence and your conclusion is mistaken. But I invite discussion and not dispersion. (definition here)Terryeo 01:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

"You find a man's word in court to be a stronger argument than the weight of many other sources." Uh, yes? I find the court testimony of a Scientologist who is testifying for Scientology that the belief does exist more convincing than an argument that you haven't yet been told it's part of the beliefs of your religion yet and therefore it isn't. Honestly, Terryeo, are you even trying to sound plausible anymore? -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Feldspar, honestly you are not even weighing the evidence of one individual against the information I have posted for you, experts opinions, the church's stance, etc. I've tried to put a perspective on the information that comprises Xenu. But the problem is, I don't really have a clue about those events. I'm not able to view those events. I certainly don't "believe" they happened in the sense of a religious belief, my only information about them is that docment which is presented in a hostile way every place I've read it. As a controversy it exists, but as a church belief it isn't. If you are saying the template is presenting what "Scientologists Believe" based on one scientologist's statement, why not choose mine? I'm here talking to you.Terryeo 10:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Am I weighing the evidence of a high-ranking Scientology official testifying under oath against the Church's public-relations apparatus and the not-under-oath opinions of "experts" (again, the Church's public-relations apparatus) and the beliefs of one Scientologist who happens to be talking to me who earlier claimed that I was making up the court case in which Warren McShane affirmed the existence of Xenu in Scientology doctrine? I sure am weighing it, and the weight of the evidence is pretty solidly clear that Xenu is a Scientology belief. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Isn't L. Ron Hubbard also a primary source? The full text of OT III has after all been leaked, and has been confirmed as genuine by the CoS in its various court cases.

You are talking about validity of information rather than classification of information. Belief or Controversy is what we are talking about here.Terryeo 10:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo comments above that "when you get to that level you are able to know whether it is true or not. At that point you would know and it would not be a belief." That's simply not so. Let's take a few comparisons. Creationists "know" that the world is only 6,000 years old. Mormons "know" that Native Americans are descendents of one of the tribes of Israel. Buddhists "know" that they will reincarnate after they die. And, of course, OT III Scientologists "know" that there was a nuclear holocaust 75 million years ago. All of these pieces of "knowledge" are pure issues of faith, unsupported by any objective evidence (and in these particular cases, actively disproved by science). In the case of Xenu, there is simply no objective evidence that those events ever occurred and quite strong evidence that they didn't (cf. Xenu#Scientific critiques). If Scientologists accept the "truth" of Xenu while ignoring the objective evidence, that by definition makes Xenu a belief. -- ChrisO 01:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

ChrisO states: "If Scientologists accept the "truth" of Xenu while ignoring the objective evidence, that by definition makes Xenu a belief". ChrisO hopes that Scientologists do that. ChrisO does not know that Scientologists do that. One person in one court room apparently said so. I don't. It is uncited to say that "Scientologists believe the moon is made of green cheese" unless there is verification. What you got is one, single indivudal who says he does. It is inappropriate to draw the conclusion from a single indivual or even from 100 indivuduals.Terryeo 10:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Copy/pasted from above: Church of Scientology flyers about OT3 [18] [19]... «Until you pass through the First and Second Wall of Fire this magnitude of charge is unhandled on your case. Because of the depth and power of this charge, it's sitting right there with you, affecting you every minute of every day.» or «The material involved in this sector is so vicious that it is carefully arranged to kill anyone if he discovers the exact truth of it.» Clear_(Scientology) is not the ultimate goal for a scientologist, "Total Freedom" is, and to get there they need to go thru this important Wall of Fire. Correlate this with other sources of information, and certainly, Xenu is quite an important belief: it explains the origin of body thetans, which is what the upper levels (NOTs) are about. Raymond Hill 00:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Scientology makes no bones that it intends to rehabilitate the human spirit. This means, "free" the human spirit of travails, this means, "help the individual contfont past travials". That's the meaning of the term, "rehabilitation of the human spirit". The meaning is not in question, but a specific (purported) travail. Would it help the reader to have Xenu listed as a Scientology Belief? Well no. I don't believe so. Would it be instructive to the reader to have Xenu listed as Scientology Practice? Well, I would say no because the document is variously listed as "OT III" and "OT VIII" and perhaps otherwise as well. Without an original source which says that Xenu is a Scientology practice there is only secondary opinions that say it is. Terryeo 01:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Warren McShane, court testimony, primary source, thank you, drive through. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I can see that Feldspar, what do you think, I'm not reading it? And I would attribute his words to him. Does that mean I think anyone should believe him? Hell no. I wouldn't recommend you, myself, or anyone believe that. That he believes it true doesn't bother me. It might bother you? It doesn't seem to bother the Church of Scientology who refuses to comment on what he said. A parallel situation might be to state the Catholic Church believes "glass tears are a sign of Jesus" because one female in Mexico once cried glass tears in the name of Christ. Terryeo 03:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

No, a parallel situation would be if a Roman Catholic cardinal testified in court that Roman Catholic doctrine included belief that a particular event happened at a particular point in history and that accepting this point of doctrine is part of what it means to be a Roman Catholic, just as a Scientologist who advances up The Bridge must go through the OT III levels which contain the Xenu story. You seem to be fixated on this false idea that you can make it go away by blustering about all the people who haven't paid enough moneyprogressed far enough in their studies to have learned the contents of OT III and 'professional experts' who avoid the subject thus "proving" there's nothing there. (Gee, I wonder if they're as dependable on the subject as the professional experts who held a press conference to set everyone straight about Aum Shinrikyo and the sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway?) -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The Roman Catholic cardinal is a useful parallel and you say, and that accepting this point of doctrine is part of what it means to be a Roman Catholic. There is the critical difference which causes Xenu to not be a Scientology Belief. The man who testified in court did not state that an acceptance of Xenu is part of what it means to be a Scientologist. Nor has the Church of Scientology stated so. Terryeo 13:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The belief in Xenu is a belief of Scientologists that have attested to OT3 and received the end cognition of OT3. If you want to demonstrate that only some small percentage of Scientologists stay in Scientology long enough (or pay enough money) to receive the information about the Xenu belief, then the proper place to discuss that is in the Xenu article and not on this template. Xenu is a belief of Scientologists that attest to OT3 and the Xenu document is not controversial -- it is admittedly a true and accurate record of the beliefs and practices that are provided on the OT3 level as they were written by L. Ron Hubbard in his own handwriting. This was admitted in court by a high official in the Church of Scientology. Vivaldi 21:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

If you ask Scientologists who have attested to OT3, "do you believe in Xenu", they might ask you, "what do you mean, 'believe in Xenu'?" And that is the issue we are confronting here. Our task is to classify the Xenu article or in some other manner, to deal with it. A religious belief or tenent is a widely held belief which the faith holds as core and central to itself and expects its members to believe and to practice. Except for the internet, Scientologists have never heard of Xenu. Obviously it is not "Central" to thier thinking if they have never heard of it. They have heard of "Belief in a supreme being" and they have heard of "man has a spiritual existence" and they have heard of, "man can better himself (rehabilitation of the spirit)". These are Scientology beliefs though I have not stated them well. Terryeo 17:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

And if Scientologists asked me "what do you mean 'believe in Xenu'?". I would ask, "Do you need a dictionary?". Most people don't have a problem with the word believe like you do Terryeo. It is actually quite a common word that doesn't have some supernatural meaning attached to it. You should look it up in a regular old dictionary some time. If you ask people that attest to OT3, "Do you think the OT3 story about Xenu is true, or do you think that LRH was wrong about Xenu" then the answers (assuming they were open and honest, which is generally an incorrect assumption) would indicate that newly attested OT3s think that the Xenu tale is a true historical account of an event that occurred 75 million years ago on the whole time track. Now when someone says, "I think that the story I just heard was true", most people would say this is synonymous with a statement saying "I believe that the story I just heard was true". Your denial of the generally accepted definition of the word "believe" seems to be part of your general twisted pretzel logic game diverting attention from the fact that to get up the Bridge of Total Freedom and through the OT3 level called "The Wall of Fire", a scientologist must pass through the Xenu story as it is related to them by L. Ron Hubbard and they must also undergo processing intended to cure the effects of Xenu's body thetans -- otherwise they cannot attest to further levels, which is the ultimate goal of any Scientologist that wishes to travail (sic) to the other side of the Bridge to Total Freedom. Vivaldi 05:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The day you find "xenu" in a dictionary, you be sure and ask some random Scientologist that question, okay Vivaldi? Meantime my statement is not intended to convince you, but to be a civil reply to you which states the situation. Terryeo 00:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Template makes less good sense

Scientology is obviously a study of knowledge. Dianetics is some kind of study and application. The template no longer says "Dianetic Studies" with links and no longer says "Scientology Studies" and presents links. That was a good use of the template because it organized information into something a person could deal with. As it stands, its dispersive rather than helpful.Terryeo 10:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Obviously I see ChrisO and a few other editors as being unwilling to edit responsibly. This issue of weighing a single person's testimony in court against the opinion of professionals is such a point of irresponsibility. But hey, as bad as you guy's ability to judge a situation is, you're nothing like this guy.[20]. Terryeo 14:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure you want to use the "Scientology Parishioners Committee" smear site for your information? AndroidCat 17:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

You don't understand Android Cat. While I have some knowledge, I respect that everyone has knowledge which they, individually know to be true. I am applying good sense toward presenting the information which comprises the subject of articles. Any additional information that you feel should be in articles, you should put into articles per wikipolicies. I don't attack people for what they believe to be true, I don't use weasel worded suggestions as your above statement suggests. You of course are free to use sarcasm and weasel wording if you feel you better communicate in such a wise. Terryeo 22:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

My comment was simple enough, please try to stay on track. Are you sure you want to reference RFW, such a good example of CoS's on-going DA and fair game policies, even in talk pages? As a source of information, it's laughable.

Your comment was unsigned. See wikilink Wikipedia:Sign_your_posts_on_talk_pages states: "Signing your posts (on all Wikipedia talk pages - but not on articles) is an important aspect of Wikipedia's developed etiquette, and an essential aspect of the community communication that helps articles to be formed and developed." If you require help in this area, please see: Wikipedia:How_to_fix_your_signature. If you choose to stand up for what you posted and sign your post, then please see Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#What_may_talk_pages_be_used_for.3F which states: "please keep discussions on talk pages on the topic of how to improve the associated article." (rather than call into question my willingness to state and sign what I stated and signed), Mr. Android Terryeo^Contact02:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

In other words, you're going to ignore the question. You have just said so. AndroidCat 03:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Your first question in this section was, "are you sure you wish to use the link .." and I have replied to you. I said yes. Your second statement is not about your question but a weasel worded implication that I did not understand what you were saying. Perhaps you didn't mean I should? Then you suggested there might be subjects and communications which should not be talked about. Perhaps that is how you feel? Then you state I "ignore" you question. Perhaps you didn't actually mean to ask one?Terryeo 08:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Templates on templates - a warning to Terryeo

Terryeo has now added a citation template to this template no less than four times. This is an extraordinarily dumb idea and isn't supported by any Wikipedia policy that I know of - indeed, in the two and a half years I've been editing on Wikipedia I've never come across anyone doing anything like this before. Terryeo, you've been told not to do this at least three times by three different users. Some points:

• Adding a citation template to an infobox template results in the citation template being displayed on every page that includes the infobox template.

• Templates are not articles. They're blocks of text or images that are transcluded into articles. WP:CITE clearly specifies that citations are required in articles, and does not specify this requirement for templates. Nor should it - there's nowhere for such citations to go. They should be discussed on the template talk page, not footnoted in the template itself.

In my view, your repeated additions of a citation template constitute deliberate disruption, and if you persist I will request an immediate block of your editing privileges. Consider this an official warning - there won't be another. -- ChrisO 20:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh god! I'll put this warning right in there with your earlier warnings, unsuccessful daggers, unsuccessful mediations, refusals to discuss, etc. etc. Now can we talk about good sense on the template please? Terryeo 04:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I see. You say, "I've never come across anyone doing anything like this before". And you addtionally say, "there's nowhere for such citations to go". However, as you've witnessed, such requests for citations can fit on some templates. You are carping about such an event because oneone thought of it and you didn't? Or are you dispersing the frequent attempts I've made to communicate in this area and your frequent refusals based on one man's opinion (admittedly in a court of law)? Are you denying what you witnessed, as you did when people told you that Confidential Class VIII documents were not appropriate verifications for the Encyclopedia standards we work under? Are you suggesting your interpretation of WP:CITE superseeds the intent of WP:V ? Or are you suggesting you have clean, perfect thinking in this area unlike your earlier muddled thinking when you requested mediation of the Dianetics article instead of (as you should have done) talking on the discussion page of Dianetics (which ended up happening anyway)? What is stopping you from talking about it? I'm operating under the policies we all operate under :)

• Specifically and according to WP:CITE#When_there_is_a_factual_dispute (that is what we have here, a factual dispute which several editors who are not familar with the information of the subject have a different opinion than those of us who are familar with the information which comprises the subject).
• I'm doing: Disputed edits can be removed immediately, removed and placed on the talk page for discussion, or where the edit is harmless but you dispute it and feel a citation is appropriate, you can place {{citation needed}} after the relevant passage. This should be used sparingly; Wikipedia has a lot of undercited articles, and inserting many instances of {{citation needed}} is unlikely to be beneficial. The template {{citecheck}} can be useful for flagging quotations taken out of context and other misuse of citations.
• The reason I am doing it is because communication with ChrisO and a couple of other editors has failed. I have tried and tried again. There has been a little discussion but when I have replied to the points several editors have raised then my replies have not been treated as replies. I place {{citation needed}} because communication has failed and I've no recourse because I know the facts of the situation to be other than are presented by the template. So there you have my reasoning. I invite discussion. Xenu is not a "Scientology Belief" for reasons I've stated above.Terryeo 13:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense to use {{tl|citation needed}} in the template. Do you really expect we will have a footnotes section in the template? You mention «you can place {{tl|citation needed}} after the relevant passage»... Do you really consider a topic in a navigational bar to be a "passage"? The Free Dictionary - passage: a section of text; particularly a section of medium length. You mention «I place {{tl|citation needed}} because communication has failed»... You clearly don't take any responsibility for that "failed communication", it's "all others' fault"... Isn't convenient to think this way? Xenu is a scientology belief for reasons we have stated above and on the Xenu talk page (and with references to the Church of Scientology's own documents.) Raymond Hill 15:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Xenu is not and has never been and can not be a Scientology Belief. It is possible the Xenu document could be considered contributory to a Scientology Revelation (revealed only to higher ups) but that connection would have to be cited. The fact that the Xenu document is unsigned, is not taken responsibility for by the Church of Scientology or the RTC waters the argument that the Church cares about its content. I'm communicating. I am taking responsibility for my actions. I did place the citation needed in the template. I have not stated it is all anyone's fault, the placement of fault isn't going to bring consensus. What will bring consensus is understanding. I am doing that.Terryeo 04:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, we have Hubbard's voice talking about Xenu. We have OT3 in Hubbard's own handwriting. We have OT3 as it was presented to the court. We have Warren McShane, a powerful executive at the Church of Scientology, speaking on behalf of the church, admitting that the OT3 document is the genuine article that is taught to people who attain OT3. We have NUMEROUS people that have completed OT3 and have testified that Xenu was part of the story of Incident II that they learned after they paid their money and completed the OT3 course. Now you can try say it is or is not a belief, or whatever else you want. But the document was presented by Warren McShane as an historical fact. He told the judge that Xenu was a historical character and his story was not something they were not trying to claim trade secret status on (because its against the law to claim trade secret status for a historical event. If I discover that 10 million years ago pink unicorns ruled the galaxy, I can't tell people its a trade secret...if its part of history then it's free to tell anybody). Parts of OT3 may be subject to trade secret protection, but thats up to the courts to decide, and it appears that CoS is not willing to test this out. Now OT3 does have copyright protection, but as part of copyright protection there is also something called "fair use" which allows us to quote the materials. And we do so liberally. We can do so even more liberally, but then your church would say we are exceeding the boundaries of fair use. It is clear that current copyright law makes it perfectly acceptable to cite portions of this formally secret text. Vivaldi 03:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I understand your statement as you have presented it, Raymond. Xenu might be a Scientology Revelation, you would have some basis of argument there. But a belief? nah, it isn't. I thought my placing the template was rather creative, actually ! HEH Terryeo 15:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you think that Hubbard believed what he wrote? Or do you have some special definition for the word "believe"? Hubbard said that Xenu was a Galactic Overlord 75 million years ago. He talked about him and wrote about him. Now you say that he didn't want his followers to know that the story was true? He didn't want them to believe him? Which documents of Hubbard's are Scientologists to believe? According to you, it must be none. So let us ask you this question. Did Hubbard have a tendency to state falsehoods in his writings? When Hubbard wrote about Xenu, was he telling the truth, or was he lying, or was he just too hopped up on pinks and greys to know the difference between reality and fantasy? Do most Scientologists believe that Hubbard was smart, or good, or honest? Vivaldi 03:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Vivaldi, Since you actually asked me I shall actually answer you. BUT I don't want anyone crowing at me, "POV! POV!" because you have asked a personal question and I am giving you a personal reply in public. I'll tell you exactly what it is because you will never believe me. I'll tell you exactly how it is viewed by probably every Scientologist of experience because you will never believe a word of it. And I tell you this because of my own personal experience and because I have talked with people like myself. L. Ron Hubbard become more aware by his Dianetic Auditing. He found people were recalling incidents of long ago. When those were audited by exactly the same procedures he had developed, people became happier, more able in exactly the same manner as when running an "earth" incident of the current lifetime. This led to Scientology. L. Ron Hubbard became more and more aware and able to look. He looked at what was going on in the far past, saw the unconciousness and found ways to run it which produced good results. He states what he knew, not what he believed. I too have looked at other things and I have talked with people who also did. It is knowledge, Vivalid, it is knowledge and it is nothing but knowledge. There is not a word of Scientology which anyone should believe. Now, I tell you because I'm real sure that you and everyone who reads this will disbelieve it.  :) Terryeo 01:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you, as a Scientologist, believe in anything? Are Scientologists in general expected to believe in anything? Vivaldi (talk) 16:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

A Scientologist is not expected to believe anything. There is no such expectation by the Church of Scientology, by fellow Scientologists and as far as I know, even L. Ron Hubbard encouraged skepticsm in every particular. The Church does have an "offical word" in this area of knowing as compared to believing. I don't have a link right at the moment, but "what is true for you is true" is pretty much the basis of Scientology. What do I believe? I believe it is better to know than to believe because with knowledge you can deal with things, while with belief, a person is kind of making his best guess. On the other hand, if I know and you don't, is it my responsibility to convince you of my knowledge? no. You know what you know and I know what I know. Is this an answer that makes sense or am I out in left field and not replying to what you asked, Vivaldi? Terryeo 17:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you familiar with the Scientology Creed? I'm guessing you aren't, so here's a quote from that page: "The Creed of the Church of Scientology was written by L. Ron Hubbard shortly after the Church was formed in Los Angeles on February 18, 1954. After L. Ron Hubbard issued this creed from his office in Phoenix, Arizona, the Church of Scientology adopted it as its creed because it succinctly states what Scientologists believe." Then you might also note that it states as the first line of the Creed: "We of the Church believe:" Then it proceeds to list off some ~20 different items of belief. Can you explain the discrepency between this list of some 20 odd Scientology beliefs, with your statement that a Scientologist is not expected to believe anything? It seems like your Church does in fact support a system of beliefs, right? You learn something new everyday, Terryeo! --Vivaldi (talk) 19:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, Vivaldi this discussion would go smoother if you weren't attempting to cause me to be embarressed. But I'll reply to you. "Belief" has several meanings. One of them is a religious "tenents of faith" and an example of that would be, "I believe that Christ rose from the dead" and another might be, "I believe that Christ died on the cross for my sins". The meaning of "Belief" which means, "tenents of faith" (based on scant evidence, long past and unproveable in today's world) is one of the meanings of the word "BELIEF" and frankly I assumed your question to me was in that area. That is, I thought you were asking me, "Do you, as a Scientologist have such tenets of faith" or were asking me, "Are Scientologists expected to have tenents of faith". In that sense my answer to you, or to anyone, remains the same. I don't have myself and don't expect, nor know of any Scientologist who would support such tenents of faith. But, you bring up the Scientology Creed. It uses the word "belief" and it uses it frequently. In the sense of the word as used in the Creed, well, that is another matter, a different meaning of the word. To me that use of the word means, "Do I have confidence in ... the datum "That all men of whatever race, color, or creed were created with equal rights" (first example). Well, yes I do. I don't actually think of it as a belief, I think of it as an inalienable human right. Hell, the constitution of the USA states it, why do I need to separately say that I believe it? I thought everyone was of that attitude. Terryeo 19:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The Difficulty

"Beliefs" are extant in every religion. Scientology has shown itself to be religious in nature (believing that man is a spirit and belief of a supreme being). In this sense Scientology is the same as other religions. It differs from other religions because it presents knowledge, though most religions present at least some knowledge. It differs because an increase in knowledge is its main purpose, its main activity to its parishoners. Its "rehabilitation of the individual spirit" is exclusively by knowledge. Both education and examination of past travials (gaining better understanding of past difficulties) are the 2 pathways to knowledge (of self) that Scientology practices. This can be a little confusing because, except for Buddhism, few religions portray their catechism as "knowledge" but instead portray their catechism as "belief". "Studies" is a helpful template category, I would like to see come back into the template. Terryeo 14:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Most people don't have such an odd use of the word "belief". I "believe" that 2+2=4, while others "know" that 2+2=4. To "believe" just means you think that the knowledge imparted is true. You seem to think that classifying a bit of knowledge as a belief, deprecates the value of "the knowledge", but that is a unique view that I've only seen Scientologists try to fumble around with. If anything, believing in the knowledge imparted gives more credence to it than the alternatives, of not believing or not knowing whether it is true. Scientologists are in no better position than anybody else to determine the truthfulness of propositions or knowledge than anybody else. The knowledge imparted by the Auditor, or by L. Ron Hubbard through his courses and books -- is either believed to be useful, accurate, or true, or it is not. If you go around doing the things that L. Ron Hubbard suggests, then you believe that LRH is providing you with useful knowledge to live your life (or perhaps you are a masochist?). Scientologists sometimes try to say "If its true for you, then its true", as if each and every proposition put forth by the church is open to Scientific testing and open discussion and rebuttal -- but we know this isn't the case. e.g. If you as a Scientologist discover the truth about L. Ron Hubbard, that he lied about his military service and you attempt to openly inform other public Scientologists of the truth about LRH, you will eventually be Sec Checked, and eventually declared SP if you don't stop. Some things, Scientologists must accept and never openly question. Those are also "beliefs". Vivaldi (talk) 17:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

"Belief" does have a lot of meanings, no doubt of it. [21] lists 30 meanings in various dictionarys for the word. I am not trying to be odd in my answer to you, nor to deny answering what you ask. Quite the opposite. I would use the word "knoweldge" for 2 + 2 = 4. I recognize that once in a while, unders stress I might use the phrase, "I believe 2 + 2 = 4, doesn't it?" but generally I would think of "that which I can demonstrate to another rational human" to be knowledge. But if I couldn't clearly demonstrate it to another rational human, the it would be belief or "my best guess". As long was we are eye to eye on what we are attempting to discuss, I'm perfectly good with saying, "Scientology doesn't have tenents of faith which a practitioner is expected to believe". There is some mention of the education, you make. A guy learns or educates himself in how to audit and in MEST, ARC, Tone Scale, and so on, but that does not mean a person believes in it. Until they have applied a bit of knowldge, a person has little confidence in the knowledge. Certainly we can not expect a beginning engineer to build a quality bridge until he is confident in which piece of knowledge applies first, which is of secondary importantance, etc. Terryeo 20:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Linking the template

What does it cost? It costs nothing. What does it gain? It allows a reader to see what is going on with the Scientology series. I think we should link the project page to it too. Accessibility, transparancey are helpful. Really, you all might consider discussion pages once in a while, you all do edits and try to get away with the whole of your discussion as an edit summary even though there is obviously not a consensus. But you all are still mistaken about Xenu. The Xenu document isn't even an official record of the church. One guy in court says so but that doesn't qualify Xenu as a belief. At most it might be contributory to a "revelation" or something. Terryeo 15:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, yet again you misunderstand: the Mediawiki software does not allow you to link an article or template to itself. So it doesn't matter if you want to do it or not, it simply won't work. -- ChrisO 16:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, I just understood what you want here: you want the reader to have the ability to see this talk page. I missed that part, at first I didn't see the point of having the template shown alone on a page. Actually, if the purpose is to give the reader a way to access this talk page, and unless there is a cleaner mechanism, I agree with you here, since it is really not obvious for a reader to reach this talk page, unless he is aware of how wikipedia works. Raymond Hill 16:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for duplicating my intent, Raymond. Yes, that's exactly right. It makes it easy for a reader to come to the article of this talk page, then to here and makes the template accessible to every editor with a single mouseclick. Quite as any article, really. Linking in the manner I did doesn't detract from the presentation of the template either. So why not? And actually, the template certainly qualifies as an "article" in a broad, general sense. Terryeo 00:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

It still runs into the problem that you can't link an article or template to itself. It simply isn't technically possible. Petition the developers if you wish, but please don't try to make the software do something it can't do. -- ChrisO 18:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, you are free to examine how I did it. Then from any article which shows the template, it is one click to this talk page's article. Terryeo 00:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Did you actually check it after you pressed the submit button? Your link didn't appear, even though you included the link tags. As I said, that's because the software doesn't allow self-linking. -- ChrisO 00:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I checked it every time I did it. I went to a random article in the template by clicking the template's article. And then click the link I had installed (usually the word "article" early in the template) and it brought me to the page which is this article's page. Terryeo 00:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Chris, it doesn't appear on the template page itself, but the link appears when the template is integrated within an article. Raymond Hill 00:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's it ! heh. Terryeo 01:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, but you then still have the problem that the term "this article" does not refer to the template (which is of course not itself an article) - it refers to the article on which the template appears: "This article forms part of the series on Scientology". But as a matter of general principle, I don't think it's a good idea to include self-referential links within templates. I've certainly never seen it done in any other template. I've asked for some advice on this. -- ChrisO 01:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, who is expert in the area, are we going to "template talk" or something? My reasoning was, "the template itself is an article" and I figured any mark-up that applied to an article would apply within the template. Terryeo 01:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I think this probably settles it - Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. Self-referencing is generally discouraged for templates, except in a small number of listed special cases. Self-referencing for the purposes of enabling people to "see what is going on" (as Terryeo puts it) is outside the permitted scope of the guideline. If Terryeo is unhappy about the way this template is organised, it's better in any case to take it to the right place - Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy.

On the issue of whether a template is an article, no it's not. An article is anything that appears in the article namespace (i.e. not modified by Talk:, User:, Template: etc). Templates are not part of the article namespace. That's why they have the Template: bit in the name, to distinguish them from articles, talk pages, user pages etc. -- ChrisO 01:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

In the broadest, most basic sense of the word "article", any page on wikipedia is an article. In the somewhat more specialized sense "a reader reads wikipedia articles" a template isn't a normal article. For us editors, the template is an article to edit. For the reader, a template, isn't a normal article. Are we happily splitting hairs into wittle bitty slices? heh. Terryeo 16:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Here is a template that links to itself: Help:Template as ours does presently. I know you are making a big deal ChrisO, about a template, infobox or whatever we want to call this thing, it not being an article because you don't want to see "citation needed" in it. Actually I think U guys mostly revert anything I do just because you've developed the habit to automatically look at history, see I've done something and revert my edit without reading it. Hell, this one, its a good idea and I got reverted what, 3 times before any real communication took place? Terryeo 02:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

ChrisO, your link, Wikipedia:Avoid self-references is not talking about ease of naviagation, it is talking about creating content and cautioning editors to create articles rather than to redundantly reference information (text). It does not talk about navigation, transparencey of navigation, etc. Linking the Template will make it easier to navigate the project and its good technology. If it isn't obvious to you that it makes getting around in the Scientology series easier, I don't know what to say.Terryeo 02:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the link again. If Wikipedia's intent were to link editing templates, it would be in the software. Adding an "edit this template" link is a hack, and there's no special reason this template should be any more "editable" than other articles' navigation templates. --Davidstrauss 09:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I am pleased to see the template linked to its article page and to its discussion page. It is a relatively new, green template and the articles pull in readers who might wish to contribute. Terryeo 00:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

enlinked template

Can we discuss this issue? Is this going to be another one of those unilateral, undiscussed things that go to some "higher authority" because ChrisO's point of view on it isn't 100 % agreed with?Terryeo 22:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue the toss with you. A template is not an article, period. I've already raised this question at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Template self-linking question and the consensus from other administrators is that it is inappropriate to include a self-link in this template. The self-link stays out. -- ChrisO 22:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I see. You might have civilly informed me of the full details, rather than hinting as you did earlier. Terryeo 02:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

You have misstated my action to the persons you asked. You stated: "A user (not me!) is seeking to include a link to a template's talk page within the template itself" but I did not at any time link to this page we are talking on. I linked to Template:ScientologySeries. You have misrepresented my action and my intent. Fortunately you told me where you asked for opinions and I have stated so on that page, have a good one. Terryeo 07:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I took the suggestion of one of the persons whom responded to you on Village Pump and have included the possibility of editing the template as part of the template :) Terryeo 07:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity Terryeo, why did you feel the need to add a link to this template's talk or edit page to the template itself? --Krsont 22:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Out of curiosity? Simply read the priors on this discussion page, it presents the unilaterality of the template. Xenu is a particular and specific piece of information. It is contained on, perhaps, two typewritten pages. The whole of Scientology's information is perhaps 25 feet of shelf space. Xenu concerns a specific period of time and specific events during that period of time. It is simply beyond any good sense to think any specific and particular event of the past spells out a present day belief of the Church of Scientology. Past events, whether actual or hypothetical, are not beliefs of Scientology. Period. "Scientology believes that god exists", now there is a belief. "Scientology believes that man has a spiritual existence", now there is a belief. But "Scientology believes that in 1500 A.D., a 9.0 earthquake caused damage to the Indians long the northwest coast of North America" is not a belief. It is a past event that either happened, or didn't happen. A person can accept it happened, or not. But a past event, real or hypothetical, is not a belief. Terryeo 15:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Can you guys stop arguing about citations (requiring reliable sources). I have a good solution – let’s get rid of the info box altogether. Since it’s been put up it has done very little except be a point of contention. It sits on pages that are complete stubs (pages that have very little content) and looks ridiculous. The controversy section of the box, at least, is totally unnecessary. I am removing it again and ChrisO or anyone else, before just reverting this – I did clearly state my reasoning in the discussion, but no one had the courtesy to comment at the time. --Nuview 20:05, 3 March 2006 (PST)

I would say that the Info (navigation) Box is helpful IF the we are very conservative it creating and editing it. The reason is, it is extant in a number of articles, therefore it should present a conservative point of view and allow its articles to expand a conservative point of view into stronger statements. Is Xenu a belief or controversy? Is "Suppressive Person" an area of study or controversy? I believe the Box can be quite helpful if we are conservative in presenting the articles we might put in it, and very misleading, dispersive and unhelpful (to a reader) if we edit it toward an editor derived POV. NPOV applies especially strongly to a navigational box because it is present in so many articles. Terryeo 15:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I hear there was a prior box, with similar problems... the problem, to me, seems to be sorting out the controversy. If it's not warring about the infobox, it's the categories, if not the categories, the links, if not the links, the article content itself (head->keyboard). We could get rid of all of the above, and remove Scientology from wikipedia entirely, and thus remove the evidence and items of contention.... and then we can argue about whether or not having any new articles themselves is encylopedic. This.... seems to be going in the wrong direction. ;-) So.... (see below).... Ronabop 07:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I liked the Dianetics, Scientology Beliefs, Areas of study, etc and then controversy. It makes sense. It helps a reader navigate. It prioritizes information for the reader. But the template is very easy to make useless too. One word can make a lot of difference in the wrong place. Thus placing the burden of understanding back on the reader again. Terryeo 18:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Controversy Section (redux)

Looking at infoboxes for Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Latter_Day_Saint, Buddhism, Hindu the significant matters of contention *are* indeed, often mentioned. I'd like to hear discussions on how we can handle this with scientology, and any examples of infoboxes for other NRM's might be good (as they, too, have less of a settled debate in public discussion). Ronabop 07:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, thanks largely to your good work, Ronabop, we have a Controversy section with this template. Were you thinking it might want to have some subdivisions? My arguments have been about arrangements of articles, to appropriately present controversial articles, educational articles, beliefs and so on. My biggy is, Xenu is so obviously not a belief that only a beanbrain would think so. heh. Terryeo 15:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow -- all this time I thought Terryeo's favorite word "beanbrain" was just a personal attack, and it turns out it means "someone who is connected to reality". Who knew? -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I think in Scientology that is a personal attack. --Krsont 14:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Yep, stating "only a beanbrain would consider Xenu a scientology belief" is about right. There are several elements to the statement. First is, There is no published document which states it is such a belief. That's first. A religious belief is usually stated so by the religion presenting the belief. That's first. Scientology does present some beliefs. You can call them that. Belief that man has a spiritual existence. Belief in a supreme being. These things have been examined by experts in the field of religion who have testified before courts of law, before governments and even before the United Nations. None of them hold the opinion that Xenu is a Scientology belief. That's second. I would go on, but other editors ignore the simple truth when their nose is rubbed in it. Only a beanbrain would think Xenu to be a scientology belief. Terryeo 18:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, a "beanbrain" must therefore be someone connected with reality, since only one who wasn't would be entirely dismissing the court testimony of a high-ranking Scientology official affirming that the existence of Xenu is a point of Scientology doctrine. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I would like to get into communication with you Feldspar. That you have a reality different than my own, and that I have one different than yours is only to be expected. That court case which you point to again, again, again did happen. I again point out that "belief" as used in that court case, by that individual, in that situation is not what the "Beliefs" means as used in the template. Terryeo 23:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The only editor here that is on topic is Ronabop. As he suggested, I looked over the index boxes of these other religions mentioned. Christianity - nothing particuarly controversial in this index, Judaism - has one entry called “conflict”, Islam – no controversy section, Latter_Day_Saint – no controversy, Buddhism – a very small box with no inference of controversy], Hindu – again, no controversy. I also checked the Bahá'í House of Worship – their info box also has no controversy section. So, taking these other religions as an example only validates that there should not be a controversy section in this box. I maintain that section is especially POV. Nuview 20:19, 9 March 2006 (PST)

except of course, those religions aren't nearly as controversial as Scientology is. Removing it is far more POV than keeping it. --Krsont 11:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is what I saw as controvesies in various templates: Christianity has Crusade, where that particular faith practiced a rather violent (murderous?) form of warring and missionary work (the article itself explains this much better), and the possibly rather unusual belief (at least, to an outsider like me when I was growing up) that God is actually 3 separate gods, or rather, something like that... (Trinity vs Tawhīd vs Arianism etc. etc. etc...). Judaism has Zionism, Arab-Israeli_conflict, Jewish-Roman_wars, and General_Jewish_Labor_Union, matters where religion and politics intersected (quite often, violently, with modern combat that continues to this day, quite literally). Islam has the aforementioned Tawhīd, Jihad (stop on by for fun edit warring!), Women_in_Islam and Sharia. LDS has Godhead_(Mormonism)... I'm really not sure what else in the LDS template might seem controversial to outsiders. Buddhism is a super-minimal template, almost zen-like (badum-ching!). Hindu has Indian_caste_system... but again, I'm not sure what would be more controversial to outsiders. I don't know enough about Bahai to even figure out what might be controversial in their template. So, depending on the perspective of the reader, some controversial things about a faith are about historical controversies (wars, governments), some are accepted (if odd to the reader) tenets of a given faith (Trinity vs. Monotheistic issues), some are social controversies (treatment of women, the poor), etc... Ronabop 23:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I am revisiting the issue regarding the validity of this controversy box. A comparison of the other religion’s info boxes was done, however, I don’t see a “Controversy Section” in any of them. To get to the controversy one goes to the article and that is where it is visible. Not to pick on any one religion, but you can’t say the Catholic religion hasn’t had controversy, yet I don’t see a “Controversy section” anywhere on the info box. I am removing this section. Nuview 23:45, 27 March 2006 (PST)

Some of the most imformative sections are linked in the controversy part of the box. It should not be removed... RandomObserver 04:26, 28 March 2006 (EST)

Do not remove this section. Controversial beliefs will be discussed in this template, and the entire controversy section was created to appease Terryeo who didn't want the controversial beliefs to be included in the other areas. If you want to remove the controversy section you will need to come up with places for the articles that are currently in that section. Vivaldi 08:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

It would be okay with me if we removed the Controversy section from the main template or even made a separate "controversy template" because that portion of the template. By the way, Vivaldi, here's a link about the Xenu stuff from someone who gives an answer to that question which might, possibly make sense to you. As I've said a number of times, I don't know the Xenu stuff myself but have brought up that it might be misrepresented. [22]. Terryeo

ARC and MEST and Tone Scale are not practices, they are beliefs.

One does not ARC something, nor does one MEST something, nor does one Tone Scale somebody. These are all things that scientologists believe have meaning and value, but they aren't verbs that one practices. Nobody goes around and practices the art of MEST. No scientologist would suggest that they MESTing about the house. That's because MEST isn't something you practice, its something you believe to be true. Vivaldi 21:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess you are making a joke or something. MEST is exactly as presented, a noun which means "the physical universe". It is a word. It stands for an idea. Here is another word, "log" perhaps you "blieve" or "disbelieve" in the idea which it stands for? Here is another, "cupcake", should one "believe" or "disbelieve" in the idea behind the symbol "cupcake?" MEST is a term which is used as a word and stands for an idea as every word does. Rather than pack a log around so as to be able to talk with another person about a log, we pack around the idea. That's as far as this particular term goes, it is a term which represents an idea and that idea is "the physical universe." period. There is no belief to it, there is an idea it stands for. Terryeo 02:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

You believe that MEST is a symbol for the "the physical universe"? Do you know why Scienos use the acronym MEST instead of the already available term, physical universe? Vivaldi (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

That's quite right, that's exactly it, MEST is a quickey way to say, "the physical universe". Why did Hubbard come up with it? I can only give you my opinion. It allows a speaker to put equal significance on the vast wealth stored within Fort Knox (the MEST in Fort Knox) and on the MEST owned by an individual. "Jimmy, move all of your MEST into room 12 ! .... By creating "MEST" then he had two vast divisions, MEST and Theta. One word, one breath, quick and clean, Hubbard could swich the topic or make a scene.Terryeo 15:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Well Vivaldi. There are several things. First of all, policy does not say, "No Personal Attacks unless someone tells a lie about what you said" and it does not say, "No Personal Attacks unless someone attacks you first". It says "No Personal Attacks". Period. Can you get the meaning of this? There is no justification, ever for any personal attack. Period. Secondly, anyone who had educated themselves in Scientology would happily tell you as I am about to. ARC, MEST and Tone Scale are not Scientology Beliefs. "Belief in man's spiritual existence" is a Scientology Belief. "Belief in a supreme being" is a Scientology Belief. MEST is an acronymn. It is a word used instead of the term "physical universe". Perhaps you see how an acronym is not a belief, perhaps you don't. ARC is another such. It is not a belief but a 3 letter quickie used insteady of the longer, "Affinity, Reality and Communication" and that too is not a belief, but merely an acronymn. Those are their exact and specific meanings. Anything in addition to that is possible, but that would be an education. Tone Scale is another educational subject. Why am I telling you this, you have not acknowledged anything I have said to you except to reject and argue. Terryeo 22:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

First off, I have no idea why you would bring up personal attacks in a discussion that has nothing to do with personal attacks. Are you trying to bullbait me? "Can you get the meaning of this?" . This is another example of your subtle form of attack. "anyone who had educated themselves in Scientology", implying that I am uneducated on the subject is also a form of personal attack that you frequently engage in. My education in Scientology far exceeds what you have been made privy to since you have stated that you aren't even a clear. Would you consider a personal attack if I asked, "Are you too stupid to grasp this concept"? Vivaldi 05:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Secondly, the acronyms I mentioned stand for things that are beliefs of many Scientologists. The fact that something called "Affinity, Reality, and Communication" exists at all, is a belief of Scientologists. The fact that there is something called "MEST" is a belief of Scientologists. If MEST is a one-to-one correspondence with "physical universe" then there would be no reason for Hubbard to have invented the word. Just as "thetan" does not have a one-to-one correspondence with "spirit". Scientologists believe there is something that exists called a "thetan". Scientologists believe there is something called "ARC". Scientologists believe there is something called "MEST". These are all things that are, nearly without exception, things that only scientologists believe in. Thus they are listed as beliefs. Vivaldi 05:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

How did this personal attacks thing get in here? Anyway, a word stands for an idea. There is nothing about belief to a word, it is a brief way of saying a more expansive idea. MEST stands for "physical universe" and ARC stands for "Affinity, Reality, Communication" and that's the whole story. That's it. Tuffer than skateboarding, isn't it? A word stands for an idea. <wipes brow> Terryeo 02:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

How did this personal attacks thing get in here? You probably did a cut-n-paste on accident I guess. MEST stands for "physical universe" and ARC stands for "Affinity, Reality, Communication" and that's the whole story. That is your belief -- that MEST stands for "physical universe". Vivaldi (talk) 05:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

"It says "No Personal Attacks". Period. Can you get the meaning of this? There is no justification, ever for any personal attack. Period." Oh, you mean personal attacks like starting a post "Get a clue you beanbrain" and finishing it "Beanbrain. Dogfood. Idiot."? [23] -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I see the most innocent amongst us has thrown the first stone. heh. lol. Your language has often been pointed to as being at least abrasive and you have even been banned for your personal attacks Feldspar. LOL. You need not defend a man whose urge to argue is stronger than his urge to edit :) The template could be much more useful than it presently is. MEST is a word which means, "physical universe" (as compared or opposed to thought). That's its use. There are other informations too which are not "beliefs" but are simply short ways of saying a kind of complicated idea. Every specialized area has such things. The template could be more usefully arranged. Terryeo 01:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

"a man whose urge to argue is stronger than his urge to edit". You seem to be engaging in a number of personal attacks Terryeo. Are you too stupid to realize that personal attacks are against the policy of Wikipedia? Vivaldi 05:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Bumblebee, bumbleumm, request for acceptance, request for ()hmm. Bumblebee, bumblehum, Vivaldi has asked if I am dumb. Engage in discorse! Engage in fun! Engage with spirit! Are you a bum? lol. Let me ask you this, Vivaldi. If you view the above as a "personal attack" how is that you do not, likewise view your, "are you too stupid...?" as a personal attack? We simply want to keep our fingers up on the table where we call all talk to each other without the threat of some hidden, underlying meaning creeping in. No Vivaldi, I'm not especially stupid and I'm not especially well-educated. That's the beauty of Wikipedia ! We can all work toward good articles because we have such a wide variety of backgrounds, such a wide variety of sources of experience. Have a good one. Terryeo 18:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The "Are you too stupid" comment was to demonstrate the kind of personal attack that you engage in, whilst simultaneously telling others not to engage in. Hypocrisy. So now we call all sit around in the stink you helped to create. Either start cleaning up the mess or toss more poop. Your choice. Vivaldi 10:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I see.Terryeo 16:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

To the degree that an individual believes an uttered sound or a written word can communicate an idea, to that degree "MEST" is a Scientology belief. It is a jargon word, perhaps similar to "RAM" (random access memory) or similar to the military's "CONUS" (Continential United States). It is a quick term used to communicate an idea. Because Scientology is mainly directed toward education and other processes designed to "rehabilitate the spirit", MEST is an easy, one word term indicating Matter, Energy, Space and Time collectively. You know, most of our existence revolves around MEST, using MEST, feeding ourselves, driving to work and so on, these are all MEST activities and we manipulate MEST. It is simply a convenient term of use. Terryeo 16:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Because I agree with both sides, I'm trying to end the controversy by moving MEST and ARC to a new category, "concepts", as MEST and ARC are neither Scientology beliefs nor practices (in the strictest senses). Hopefully, we can agree that MEST and ARC are at least important concepts for Scientology. --Davidstrauss 06:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Great, concepts, areas of education, areas of study. Something like that fits well, good. "Tone Scale" could go there too. "Study Tech". There might be others Terryeo 14:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer to not put Tone scale in the concepts section because truly accepting the Tone scale requires believing that people have ordered tone levels. One doesn't have to accept any beliefs in Scientology to agree with what MEST and ARC are defined as. As long as we have a beliefs section that's separate from concepts, I think Tone scale belongs in beliefs. Without such a distinction, almost everything falls under "concepts", which will doom the categorization to uselessness. --Davidstrauss 19:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll add that I think the same applies to Study Tech. Accepting Study Tech requires belief in MUs and other things Hubbard introduced. This again contrasts with MEST and ARC because MEST and ARC don't require belief to accept their definition. The best parallel I can think of is the cross in Christianity. One doesn't have to accept Christianity to accept the concept of a cross. Christianity just gives that concept religious meaning. I see MEST and ARC the same way, but Study Tech seems more analogous to Communion in Catholicism. Study Tech and Communion's definitions alone hinge on beliefs. --Davidstrauss 19:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. You do study tech by volenteering to do study tech and you quit if you choose to. You either do it or you don't do it. If you do it, you get results, if you don't do it, you also get results. What "belief?" You pick up the book and you open the page and you read until you are not reading well and then you go back and you find where you were doing well and scan foreward and find the misunderstood word and you clear the word and proceed. What belief? Terryeo 02:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

About Xenu's Placement in the Template

Here is a site which talks about that. Perhaps the editors who are soooo convinced that Xenu is a Scientolgy "belief" would read it. In addition, the woman responds to a number of other questions about Dianetics and Scientology. [24] Terryeo 18:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

how on earth does that support your claim? they never deny the Xenu incident (or even mention it specifically) and infact admit that "space opera" is part of Scientology, even if it is only a small part. --Krsont 03:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really making a claim. I simply don't know about it. The site does say something about it, a person who is familar with it talks about it as much as you are likely to find anyone who is a member in good standing talking about it. Further than that I can't help you. Again, I don't know and am not making a claim except I am presenting that "xenu is not a belief". Terryeo 05:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

That is exactly my position or as you call it, "claim". If a person recalls "space opera" that's just fine and is treated in a session as any other recall. It has the same significance as a person who is clearing up the confusion he had when his teacher slapped his hand with a ruler in 4th grade. Therefore space opera is not some vast, huge, central belief. More central is the idea that an individual can become more able by becoming more fully aware of past travials, past pain, past unconciousness. Whether it is some long ago incident involving space opera, or some recent incident it is equally significant. Thank you for reading that Krsont. Did I state my "claim" in a confusing manner? Terryeo 07:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

So how does this mean Xenu shoudn't be on the template? The Xenu story is presumably one of these apparent "recalls" or "incidents" that cause negative feelings to pre-clears or OTs or whatever they call themselves. It has as much a place in the template as the link to Dianetics does. --Krsont 11:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding the situation I stated, as I stated it. That is what I understand Xenu to be about. A long ago incident of travail. But that's as much as I have figured out about it, and as I've said before, I dont' actually know for sure anything about it. A particular incident isn't a "tenet of faith", ok?Terryeo 20:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

"Scientology Beliefs" are, roughly stated, "Man has a spiritual existence" and "A supreme being exists". Other religions likewise have their stated beliefs. In a broad, stated belief such as "Christ rose from the dead" there can be a number of possible scenarios. "He rose from the dead and visited Mary Magdalene", "He rose from the dead taking his body to heaven", "He rose from the dead and visited his deciples and then went to heaven". One sect of Christianity might consider the visit to Mary Magdalene key to their faith, another that Christ rose with his body into heaven. Xenu seems to be thought of as actually having happened 75 million years ago. Myself I don't know that and probably none of us who are editing know that, but the past event doesn't effect the present beliefs of Scientologists. Scientology presents their beliefs. Scientology does not state that any event of the long past is important to their beliefs. They want to "rehabilitate man's spiritual existence", they don't want to cause people to believe that an event happened 75 million years ago. If such an event did happen, they would be working to free people from it. Their documents and procedures would be to free poeple from any attention stuck in such a far past event (if it happened). The belief, "man can be freed from his past" is a Scientology belief (roughly stated), but a particular event in the far past isn't because it is quite possible that only a few individuals experienced the far past event. So Xenu isn't a belief. Does this answer make sense to you? Terryeo 16:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

not really. As far as I can tell it is a belief, in that there is no evidence it occurred outside of the fact that only Scientologists, in wishing to be "freed from the past", can attest that it ever happened. How many Scientologists it concerns, how important it was, how big a part of the beliefs it is, or even if Scientologists all believe it literally or have differing views on it's truthfullness, is irrelevent. The fact remains that the Xenu story only exists because of Scientology, only makes sense when viewed through Scientology doctrine, and exists solely as a belief of Scientologists; through the belief that this event occurred and that it may have some bearing on their lives. It might not be relevant to all Scientologists, but to those that it apparently is it only achieves this relevance and place in their belief system through Scientology's religious practices and rituals, not through anything else. It is a Scientology belief, plain and simple. --Krsont 16:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The belief is, "Man is a spiritual entity, motivating / using / running a human body and can be rehabilitated" The specific and particular example (if it actually happened) is an event of 75 million years ago. Another example of an event that could use some rehabilitation is the birth engram which a lot of people probably have. Another example ... (in billions of years how many examples are there?) was the time when (any name here) experienced pain and unconciousness. Get it? Xenu isn't a belief. It might, possibly be called a revelation (if it was an actual event and if the OT documents talk about it), but nobody knows that except those who have done those levels and they aren't talking. Its not a belief. Terryeo 05:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. There is no way of knowing Xenu occurred as an "event". Infact the physical evidence suggests quite the opposite; very few alien skeletons have been found by paleontologists. The only way someone would come to believe these strange things about the past is through Scientology. Same about the belief that these events could have any effect on us today, through body thetans or engrams or who knows what. The only basis for these ideas is Scientology doctrine, and Scientology belief. However, bizarrely, you seem to think the only proof needed for the Xenu incident would be for an OTIII Scientologist to tell you - that they somehow have an innate ability to know (a knowledge that apparently cannot be characterized as belief) what happened 75 millions years ago more than you, and more than the whole sum of all of humanities knowledge about what actually did happen back then, gained through scientific investigation. I understand that this is your POV, but it is not wikipedia's POV. The NPOV is that ideas that have no evidence, even if those that hold them choose to ignore the concept of belief in favour of dodging words such as "incident" or "event", should be characterized as they are, as pure belief. --Krsont 12:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

It sure seems odd to me too. There's no evidence (that mankind knows of at this time?) about an event 75 million years ago. That is sure a correct understanding of the situation as far as anyone is concerned. And that has never been contested by anyone. This is a belief issue, the template presents it as a belief. People leap to the conclusion that "Scientologists believe that happened". But in fact, the Church of Scientology does not encourage any belief. It says, "if it is true for you, it is true period". (or something very similar). It encourages healthy skepticism. The information about long ago events are not revealed to normal practitioners so the average or normal Scientologist does not meet that information at all. So it isn't a belief by the "average" Scientologist. Maybe we can call it a "revelation?".Terryeo 14:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not it is a revelation is irrelevent. Lots of religious or spiritualist organizations have initiation rituals that involve revelatory information. But that does not mean that those revelations aren't belief just because they aren't known by the general populace. It's not about falsifiability either - the only way it would be "true" for anyone is if they are a Scientologist and are taught to believe it through Scientology ritual and doctrine. This is not a belief that just spontaneously occurs in people who happen to be OTIII level Scientologists through introspection. It is only "true for them" because it's a tenent of their faith. --Krsont 19:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

It is not published by the Church of Scientology. Therefore it can not be a "Scientology Belief". It is a piece of information. It came into existence because of the Church of Scientology. Probably anyone could think of disputed "beliefs" in every religion. Unless a church publishes and stands behind information, you certainly can not think they "believe" that particular thing. Terryeo 06:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it is published by CoS. You just haven't paid the money to read it yet. There is a big difference between "it is not published" and "I haven't read it yet because my church says I shouldn't". Vivaldi (talk) 15:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Lol, It is not published by the Church of Scientology. It isn't sold to the public, actually. People do not buy it from the church. I've stated earlier of what significance that information could be to me. Besides, what difference does that make, we are writing articles rather than attempting to convince other editors what is and what is not. Our editing should simply follow the guildelines laid by WP:V. If it is widely published then it should be widely cited, narrowly published, then cited with less repute implied. Terryeo 05:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo- you can hem-and-haw around it all you want, but the Church of Scientology has "published" versions of OT3 that are used to train members that have paid huge sums of money in order to read it. We know this is a fact because the Church of Scientology admitted it in open court. The church said one of their copies of OT3 was stolen. The Church admitted that the copy presented in court was a legitimate copy of the document written by L. Ron Hubbard. It was explained that the document was a confidential document used to train people on OT3. WP:V doesn't require that a document be "widely published", only that it is verifiable and from a reputable and reliable source. The source of the document is the Church of Scientology itself and verified as authentic by the Church of Scientology and it is easily available from a courthouse to anyone that requests it. We know also have hundreds of mentions of Xenu and OT3 documents by 2nd hand sources, which surely you have noticed. (I count about 10 new Xenu mentions per week in the press over the last year). So its well within the guidelines for a reliable and reputable source. And remember Terryeo, there are a number of people that have completed OT3 that have testified that the Xenu story was a part of it. I can hook you up with them if you are interested in learning more about your church. 15:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

We've been over this before, Terryeo. Scientology is an initation mystery cult, and therefore it doesn't make public it's secret teachings. And as I have already stated, it's status as a "revelation" is completely irrelevent to whether or not it is a belief. --Krsont 10:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

You are free to believe as you wish. I know Scientology to be other than a "cult", other than a mystery, and other than having initiations. For example, the church publishes information which stacked, reaches higher than most ceilings. The unrevealed information is a rather small quantity. heh ! Terryeo 05:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Terryeo, xenu is not “a belief” and doesn’t belong in the belief section. Are items just going to be added continuously until the “Controversy” section of this index box takes over every page it is on? Or any article a critic cares to put up? This is out of control and this section, as I have brought up before, is extraneous. I am still inclined to push for getting rid of it altogether, however, for now it is getting trimmed back down.Nuview 19:56, 14 April 2006 (PST)

Nuview, have you completed OT3 yet? OT3 is a higher level course in Scientology. When you progress up "The Bridge to Total Freedom", you must pass through OT3. It is called "The Wall of Fire". It is during this course that Scientologists learn that Xenu was an intergalactic overlord that blew up space aliens and created the Body Thetans that infest humans. Higher levels of Scientology teach how to remove the Body Thetans that Xenu himself created. Now you can hem and haw around that Xenu isn't a "belief" -- because you presumably have a different definition for the word "believe" than normal English language speaker. People pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to get the Body Thetans exorcized out of the body, that they learned were created as part of a conspiracy between psychiatrists and Xenu. Now why would people pay to continue up the Bridge to Total Freedom if they doubted the Xenu story? Why would pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to remove Body Thetans and clusters from your body, if you doubted that Xenu existed? Clearly many people do believe in Xenu. And don't forget we also have the testimony of many people that have actually taken the courses. 04:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Hubbard is deceased. The Church of Scientology does not request that its parishoners believe any jot, any tittle, any portion of anything it publishes, nor anything Hubbard every wrote or said. Not any of it. The Church presents information. What a parishoner does with it is entirely up to them. "If it is true for you, it is true" might be considered another way of defining the word, "Scientology" (knowing how to know). It is about knowledge and it is not about believing some fantastic - seeming science fiction story of 75 million years ago. Those are the actual datums. What you do with them is up to you, what I do with them is up to me. If you were doing a course in Scientology and read the Xenu document and asked someone about it, do you know what they would respond? They would say, "where did you understand it? And when you point to the line you understood, they would say, "what is the meaning of .... and choose a word...until they found the word you did not understand. And then, after you had cleared that word, you would restudy the information and that procedure would take place every single time you asked someone, "was Hubbard telling the truth?" Every single time. And no one would ever tell you whether Hubbard was telling the truth because Scientology is not based on what I can tell you, nor what a course supervisor can tell you. It is based on your being able to know for yourself. You, like me, will have to make your own decision whether the information of the Xenu document actually happened or not.Terryeo 05:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo- You are leaving out a minor detail. A Scientology parishioner cannot come to the end of OT3 and attest to completing it and receive the end cognition, while maintaining that the whole thing is a bunch of hooey. The point is that, the people that attest to OT3 think that the Xenu story is TRUE FOR THEM. They BELIEVE IT, or else they lie about it and just pretend to think it is true to get out of word clearing sessions that can cost them upwards of $400/hr. Scientologists frequently say to unsuspecting public, that you are free to believe whatever you want -- that Scientology is compatible with all religions. But one cannot be a Scientologist if one has determined that what is true for them is that L. Ron Hubbard was an unrepetent liar (for example). If as a Scientology parishioner you continue to advise other public that LRH was a liar and you continue to show people proof of Hubbard's lies, then you WILL be kicked out of the church. You will be Sec Checked and declared as a Supressive Person. For example, check out the SP Declare for Claire Swazey. She had a few thoughts that were incompatible with the current administration's ideas (who she feels are "out tech") and she was given the boot. She still considers herself to be a Scientologist, even though she can't ever say she is a member of the Church of Scientology (or any other group with Scientology in its name). So what is true for Claire might be true for Claire -- but she can't be a Scientologist since she found out the "wrong" truth". Vivaldi (talk) 15:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry partner, no one ever "received" any cognition, ever. It is a misuse of the word. Now it may be possible that deep in the bowels of psychology someplace, someone uses the word in such a manner that a cognition is "received" from an outside source, but not within Scientology is the word ever used in that manner. As far as I can make out the common dictionary likewise uses the word "cognition" to mean, "an action initiated by an individual" rather than an action which an individual "receives". I therefore find it difficult to understand what you mean to say. Terryeo 17:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC) Fortunately, I have no information about OT III and therefore can talk with you about it all I like. But before we do, allow me to point out the fallacy around which a lot of your talk seems to revolve. A definition of the word "publish" Publishing states, "the activity of making information available for public view". The common dictionary states: "To prepare and issue (printed material) for public distribution or sale."[25] And in both definitions, "public" is generally presented to mean, "Open to the knowledge or judgment of all" [26] although of course I recognize the possibility there can be a specific public, or a narrow public or a limited public. But generally, Wikipedia would prefer its citations and verifications happen with "published to the broad public" publications. You know and I know that the Church of Scientology has not, will not and considers themselves ethically bound to never publish to the public the OT III information. That's just peachy with me. How it sits with you is up to you. Xenu isn't a Scientology belief. Terryeo 12:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

But...but...but...what are all those people doing out on street corners giving out free personality tests? Aren't members of the public allowed to become Scientologists and proceed up the Bridge and pay for the course and receive OT3? And you are now also forgetting that the Xenu story has been published (by whatever sense of the word you want to use) by literally hundreds of sources that vouch for its authenticity. The Xenu story is also "published" by a government agency, which will hand it out to you if you pay for your copy. This document is verified by Warren McShane, a CoS executive who was speaking on behalf of the Church, to be an authentic document. Xenu is forever a story that is taught to Scientology members that reach the level of OT3. Perhaps some Scientologists don't believe it after they are taught it, but certainly ones that attest to OT3 levels and undergo treatments to exorcise body thetans must think that the Xenu story is true. Why else would you continue to pay thousands of dollars to remove body thetans if you didn't think you really had them? Vivaldi (talk) 15:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

By "receiving" the end cognition I do not mean to imply that is is given by someone else. I just mean that the individual goes from a state of not having the end cognition to the state of having the end cognition. They "receive" the cognition from their own knowledge, intuition, vision, perception, hearing, analysis, logic, or whatever else that one might use to formulate a cognition. In any case, we are running in circles. You refuse to admit that people that complete OT3 and remain in Scientology, in general, think that Xenu was a being that lived 75 million years and blew up space aliens creating body thetans. Your information regarding the subject is limited, because you say the people that you have talked to about OT3 don't talk to you about Xenu, and because your church says its a secret. Howevere we have plenty of other sources and evidence that demonstrate that the Xenu story is taught to Scientologists and that people that complete OT3 are expected to have "cognited" that Xenu is responsible for their body thetans. Vivaldi (talk) 19:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, as long as we are talking with a common language and both willing to talk about the same thing, there's no reason we can't talk. I do think the understanding achieved is critically important to the question which I understand you to have asked me, and so, I kind of got to get into what is meant. The American Hertigage Dictionary uses: 1. The mental process of knowing, including aspects such as awareness, perception, reasoning, and judgment. 2. That which comes to be known, as through perception, reasoning, or intuition; knowledge.[27] I myself consider that "judgement" is an absolutely critical difference. A person can have vast knowledge and no judgement at all. The two definitions from the same dictionary differ vastly. An OT (any roman numeral here) must achieve (by earning) a cognition which includes judgement in the matter. Then, at that point he or she has achieved the result. Whereas, if the person only gains knowledge and not judgement, the end result is not achieved. A parallel happens with "Clear" (Scientology Clear). A person can know they are mocking up their reactive mind, but not have the judgement necessary to quit mocking up their reactive mind. The judgement is the critical piece of "cognition" which does not come easily, but which marks the end result of many of Scientology's processes. Terryeo 20:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't belong in the template at all. If you just gotta include it, stick it in controversy. There is no publication, published by the creator(s) of it and published to the public. Whatcha got, you got rumor, stolen information published by the odd laws of a single country, duplicated many times and spread as rumor. You got no case. Heh. Terryeo 19:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

There is more than one newspaper and more than one magazine and more than one book where people can discover that the Xenu story is a part of the OT3 level. It isn't just a single court in some "odd country". You can read the Xenu story in many places now. And in fact, Warren McShane, a powerful executive representing hte Church of Scientology admitted that the Xenu story was not a trade secret -- because historical facts can not be given trade secret status. You can get his testimony directly from the U.S. court. You are trying to shove toothpaste back into the tube Terryeo. It isn't working. It won't ever work. You are only making a mess of yourself. Vivaldi (talk) 02:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

HERE ! Here's a link from someone who is publically responding to just exactly the sort of situation that we are having here. And she has done the level and so she would know whether the Xenu stuff is presented accurately or not. [28] Terryeo 22:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

But we already know that CoS members who reach OT III must sign a contract promising to never reveal the contents of the OT III information to anyone or admit its existence. That fact renders all Scientologists' claims that the information doesn't exist (including the one in your link) useless. wikipediatrix 13:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

You have stated an untruth. I am not going to tell you what the untruth is that you have stated, instead I am going to provide a link, somewhat akin to the above link, but with more specificity within its response to your misstatement. [29] Terryeo 17:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Heh. An artificially high-rated expert answering a "Fred Durks" question. That's worth a chuckle! AndroidCat 18:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Why not?

Why should an editor not have access to contribute to the template? An "edit this template" stood for some while and it present on other templates, why should this one be special and different and not be available for contributes? I am placing that link into the template again. Terryeo 02:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Do not place self-referential links in the template. It can be edited, as any template can, without such a link. Jonathunder 03:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

this is the link that ChrisO edited to create an appropriate link: [30]

the discussion about linking the template for editing happened at. Template_talk:ScientologySeries#Linking_the_template This page tells how to link a template for editing and states in part; "To edit a template, one can follow the link, and go to the edit page of the template." Help:Template#Link_for_editing_a_template The full template help page is [Help:Template] and demonstrates how a template can be linked for editing. It could perhaps be done better, it is not inappropriate, according to that uneditable guideline, to link a template. Terryeo 07:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

You managed to edit the template quite a few times without any self-referential link. So can everyone else. The template does not need a redundant "edit this" button to clutter it up, and if you add it again I will simply revert it. It's just not needed. Jonathunder 13:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, that is a direct reply to me, and it is a statement of your position and I appriciate that you are clear about both of those things. However, it does not reply to the Wikiguideline which differs from your stated position. I understand perfectly well that you intend the template not be accessible except from a single page, you just said so. However Wikiguidelines say otherwise. I understand that you will revert such an edit on sight. However, wikiguidelines say otherwise. Do you know of a method we might use to arrive at consensus? Perhaps modifying the guidelines or something? Terryeo 16:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The link is unneeded clutter. You haven't demonstrated otherwise. There's nothing to discuss. Jonathunder 16:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand that you have reaffirmed you position. However, Wikipedia guidelines provide for template linking. This is not a personal attack, nor a reply to your judgement that such a link would be "unneeeded clutter" but a statement about Wikipedia Policy and guidelines which tell how to link a template :) There might be an issue, but you are refusing to discuss it. :) Terryeo 17:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

There is good help about how to use, edit, discuss and link a template. Here is the page about linking a template, it addresses the self reference issue, also Template:Edit. Then Help:Template#Link_for_editing_a_template states: "To edit a template, one can follow the link, and go to the edit page of the template" and goes on to say, "This link can be put in the template itself." However, Jonathunder, and nonetheless, I respect that you have a point of view and consider any such linking to be "unneeded clutter" leaving us nothing to discuss. In which case you have your work cut out for you because the following templates do have a link within them to edit them: [Template:Politics_of_Vatican_City] (a template with an editing tag) and [Help:A_quick_guide_to_templates] (another template with an editing tag). Happy editing :) Terryeo 09:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

First, help is not policy. Just because help tells you how to do something doesn't mean it's en.wikipedia.org policy. Help is shared across Wikimedia projects and must therefore instruct users in a union (set theory meaning) of the needs for Wikimedia projects. Second, the use of a style elsewhere in Wikipedia -- even undisputed -- does not make that style policy or even a guideline. The Politics of Vatican City template could also be stylistically bad. Finally, I agree that Wikipedia should consider the need to easily edit templates, but such a change should occur in software, the source for all the other [edit] links. we should not run around adding hack-ish [edit] links to templates. --Davidstrauss 09:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, at last someone is discussing, isn't that what discussion pages are for? Arriving at a consensus? I understand it is not required that an "edit this template" appear on every template. I understand it is not policy that such a link appear. I understand too that "help" and "guidelines" are exactly that and not "policy". This template is not a mature template, it has not been in existence for a long time. The project is still developing articles, there are a number of articles not included in any template yet. For these reasons, and for others, it seems reasonable to me that the template contain an editing link. But Davidstrauss, if you wish to, each and every time that no discussion about it happens, no consensus is reached, no exchange of editor information happens, if you wish to report each and every addition I make faithfully and fully on my Rfc page (and not sign it either), then hey, whatever keeps you happy, man. Terryeo 12:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

You've split the debate about linking this template into three sections in this talk page. That's why it's on your RFC. Also, there's no need to sign evidence. The listings are merely links to the practices in question. There's no POV for "here's a link to something Terryeo did". --Davidstrauss 05:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Why thank you for the recognition, davidstrauss, thank you for noticing how dispersed and diffuse the "linking the template" discussion presently appears. Did you likewise look at the dates involved? If you do, then you can follow the logics of how the discussion became to appear to be 'split into three sections' (and all due to my efforts, right?) heh ! As for why it appears on my Rfc, you are welcome to your opinion but I would say, why not follow the evidence before your eyes? ChrisO's statement on my Rfc does not specifically mention "the edit war about the edit linking template is split into 3 parts because Terryeo did it !" and the reason he doesn't is because the discussion of the situation was at first disagreed with, then agreed with and then after JohnThunder entered the editing, once again disagreed with. But if you actually do follow the dating and other things, You'll see that, no problem. Terryeo 05:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

You started the latter two sections. It's pretty clear that you're the cause of the split. --Davidstrauss 19:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm the cause of this enormous trouble. okay. I was the initiator of "link the template" and now the template is not linked. But it is a new, kind of green template. Anyway I'm going along with the consensus you see? Terryeo 02:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I rearranged some terms

MEST, ARC, Tone Scale are really areas of education. They have particular meanings, they have particular application, they are areas of study. They aren't "tenents and beliefs". nor is "E-meter" a tenent or belief, it is a tool used in practice. These all take education, even auditing which actually is a practice, takes some education from either side of the table. In any event, all of those are much closer to practices than tenents or beliefs and I rearranged the terms. Terryeo 05:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

"E-meter" is not a practice

I think it's pretty clear "E-meter" isn't a practice, but I'm not sure where to move it. --Davidstrauss 23:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, no, but what you do with an E-meter is a practice. I'd say it could stay in "practices" just as "Rosary" might go in "Roman Catholic practices". IMHO. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

But the practice already has an article, auditing. Shouldn't we distinguish the E-meter from auditing? --Davidstrauss 08:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Auditing is a practice, an E-meter is a tool and educational area,an area of study. Would the maintenence and use of electricity in a church be a belief? A practice? A daily grind? It takes a little education to keep the lights working, and it takes a little education to use an E-meter. It is a tool used in a practice. But the "Auditing" article will link to "E-meter". Terryeo 02:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

How about we redo the categories slightly. How about we have a "Scientology" (the philosophy), a "Church of Scientology" (the organization), a "Scientology Doctrine" and a "Scientology Practices" and a "Scientology Studies" and a "Scientology Controversy?" Is that enough for everyone? Terryeo 21:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Smaller is better

I shrunk the size of the letters, and compacted the entries for greater brevity. The size of the template is starting to interfere with some of the articles, and from a layout standpoint, smaller fonts just look better anyway, since it helps to differentiate the template from the article. I also removed 'E-Meter' because I agree that having it and 'Auditing' side by side is rather redundant. Perhaps this will spur someone on to improve the Auditing article, which is sorely needed. wikipediatrix 15:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The xenu and other sf stories

putting xenu and other stories in the scientology series is POV and insultive - it is clearly meant to discredit the religion. -- 19:18, 6 April 2006 CeBuCCuCmeM

That's exactly right, it is POV editing of the smelliest sort to put Xenu as a bonafide Scientology belief, area of study or anything else because the Church of Scientology makes no comment about it. It is not a signed or claimed document. Even the judge who was resonsible for that document becoming public called it a "fairy tale."Terryeo 18:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Since the Church of Scientology has maintained in court that the Xenu story is indeed part of their protected practices, it would be POV not to highlight it! And yes, I think everyone who reads it can see it's a fairy tale, but the Church has fought greatly to conceal from the public that this fairy tale is, or has been, part of OT III. wikipediatrix 18:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

What about verifiability? This seems to be very POV to me, to include this section about doctrine. It seems like slander. You claim that you cant prove it since it is secret. So, it is unverifiable at least, and has no place in wikipedia.CeBuCCuCmeM 18:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

It used to be secret. It's not anymore. It's been upheld in a court of law. And rather than denying the Xenu story's validity, Scientology actually fought to defend it and protect it. Read the Xenu article and its accompanying discussion page, where this conversation really belong anyway. Recordings even exist of Scientology lectures on Xenu and other alien civilizations. wikipediatrix 19:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipediatrix, it is perfectly okay with me however you wish to think of things. I am proposing that we follow wikipedia's standards about wikipedia editing. Specifically, the Xenu stuff which you can find on the internet is not published to the public by the Church of Scientology. If it were published to the public then it would be Wikipedic, WP:V type information. If it were published to the public then people could ask the Church of Scientology about it, about what it means, about the various questions which editors have. It isn't, doesn't and won't. There will be no answers because it is not published to the public. Therefore, if you wish to get into that area the source of such publication will need to be considered. I think I'll do as those persons in the Church of Scientology do, I think I just won't comment in the area. It isn't fruitful and as witnessed by my earlier, honest attempt with another editor, it leads to misunderstanding and no real communication. I will again state the Xenu article most certainly does not belong in "beliefs."

You can talk in circles all you like, Terryeo, but it won't wash. The information was published in open court records before they were sealed again, and nothing you say can ever change that. The information does state Xenu is a key part of OT3, and nothing you say can ever change that. Scientology didn't deny Xenu in court, they admitted it to be classified Church doctrine - they HAD to, so they could attempt to suppress it using Copyright Law. And nothing you say can ever change that. wikipediatrix 22:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Happy days :) Terryeo 23:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

So let me get this right - because I nominate Template:Persecution of Serbs for deletion you decide to get back at me by slapping an NPOV notice inside this completely related template? That's one of the pettiest things I've ever come across on Wikipedia... -- ChrisO 18:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The Xenu thing most certainly should not be in beliefs. There is no primary source which puts it into beliefs but the court witness which, by a gesture, you are building the whole case on. Experts who testify before governments do not consider Xenu to be a Scientology belief, the Church of Scientology does not state it to be a belief and won't even comment on it, high level OT people refuse to comment on it and it is a silly line of reasoning to arrive at that deduction. Terryeo 22:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

templates do not go into templates - you put NPOV in one template, and remove from the other, completely POV, but it is your POV. How petty! You have to be consistent. Your slander of Scientology (you seem to hate whatever starts with S) is very POV. But, if you dont want notice, it suits me. So, off go the npov notices in templates - you know better, after all. As for deletion, we shall see. CeBuCCuCmeM 18:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't add the NPOV template. Check out this diff. And please tone down your accusations - see Wikipedia:No personal attacks. -- ChrisO 18:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, sorry about that. But in any case, I agree that templates should not go inside templates, it looks ugly. And I do think that the doctrine section here is at least as POV as my after WWII section. One has to be consistent in applying policies. CeBuCCuCmeM 18:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

May I introduce, an article about Christianty truly should present the "Christian point of view" and an article about "apple farming" truly should present the "apple farmer's point of view" (its damn hard word), and an article about "commercial fishing in Alaska" should present the Alaskan commercial fishermen's point of view (its damn dangerous). To exclude the point of view of the originator of a subject in order to present a WP:NPOV defies the intent of that policy. It should be presented, it should be given good reader space (if it is widely published). Right behind it should come the controversy, the other publications which deny, disperse or detract from its use and value. Terryeo 17:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Terryeo, an article about a believers' point of view should present their point of view, as well as the views of the detractors. However, some critics will get hung up on blasting their trumpets about Xenu, others will get hung up on constantly mentioning Kolob (go check it out :-) ). The solution with Kolob wasn't to try and eliminate Kolob references (as it really is an existent, but totally minor thing in the faith), but to place it in proper context with all of the other beliefs, doctrines, and practices of a faith. We need more high-quality articles, about really core, important, Scientology beliefs, practices, and doctrines (we have no shortage of source material, as you are fond of noting)... Where's the wikipedia KRC article? The hopefully lengthy article on Dynamics? The article focusing on the bridge? Can somebody put up an article at least *explaining* what "Chinese school" is, within the church? There's *so* much about the church to learn, and write about (i.e. that needs to be written into wikipedia articles, not chatted about on talk pages), that Xenu/OT III currently seems much more important simply because it's one of the few existing CoS subjects we have with really, really, good coverage. As a result, it easily seems as if it's one of the core elements of the faith to outsiders (and, indeed, to critics who rarely get an "inside view"). Once we have many more articles to choose from, maybe we can have an OT levels section, or something similar, to place the whole Xenu thing in proper context. Ronabop 04:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

KRC (an acronym for Knowledge, Responsibilty, Control]] could be an article, The Dynamics could be a good article. And I'll explain "chinese school" which is an educational technique. But there is no reason not to confront the difficulty which Xenu is causing in the template. There is information about the subject. Now how is the informaiton viewed, that is the question. It is information, there is some secondary sources of information which mention it. Is it Knowledge or is it (less than knowledge) belief or is it rumor? Information can be assigned a value based on its validity and use. That is the question we confront as we place Xenu into the template. Knowledge or belief are probably the 2 possibilities, would you say? Terryeo 17:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

"Chinese School" is a kind of drilling of information. If first graders were chinese school drilling the times tables, the teacher would have put a chart of some portion of the times tables before the class and would use a pointer and point to a box on the chart which had "2 x 3" in it and the class would verbally respond in unison "6". and the teacher would point to another box, "2 x6" and the class would verbally respond, "12". That is Chinese School drill, its called drill or drilling. Ok ? Terryeo 17:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)