Talk:Scientology

File:Is this xenu.jpg

Artist's rendering of Xenu, based on available information. Marvin the Martian says that's his own picture, but Xenu was too busy dating Xena the Warrior Princess to agree to that comment.

To view commentary on the Scientology article:

From Dec. 2001 through Feb. 2004, please see Talk:Scientology/Archive 1.

From Feb. 2004 through July 2005, please see Talk:Scientology/Archive 2.

External links needs a severe cull

Wikipedia is not dMoz. That external links section is ridiculously bloated. There should be only the most important available links - one or two CoS links, a few critical links. I have cut it right down. I have only included scientology.org as (as I understand it) all CoS content is actually available on that site, even though it's also available under a string of other domain names. Articles like Linux and Mozilla Firefox have the same link-list-creep problem. I strongly suggest the list be kept to ten or less, else everyone will want their favourite link listed also.

(And yes, I deleted the link to my own Scientology site.)

- David Gerard 14:48, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree, there are way too many links down there, especially many redundancies. I did some cleaning. Hope it suits everybody. Maybe more can be done. I aimed to keep the links which contain well written articles, rather than links which contains more links to articles.

- Povmec 13:33, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate the need to avoid external link creep, but are there objections to my reinstating the link to scientology-lies.com? I know I'm biased, but I think it really is a useful site, especially with the FAQs I've added recently.

- Kristi Wachter 07:22, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I know I am late piping in here. I agree it was getting out of control, but I do insist that there is a balance of positive and negative sites, also having a few neutral sites from respected sites should not be a problem. I don't see anything wrong with, and in fact for the user who knows nothing about the subject, I think it is important that the pro and the anti and the neutral are clearly delineated. If someone wants to set a limit of how many links for each category, thats cool too. David? Nuview 12:20, 22 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Life after Death

I have trying to understand the concept of Scientology. As a practicing Christian I have many questions about this "religion". I understand the concept of the mind and body. If Scientology claims to be a religion I was wondering what happens when you die? If anyone could answer this I would appreciate it.

That's pretty well covered in Scientology beliefs and practices, but in short: According to Scientology nothing much changes, except that you no longer have a body to lug around with you. However, most people reincarnate immediately after death due to a cumpulsive belief that they need a body. Mkweise 09:34, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tom Cruise / Matt Lauer (removal suggested)

Recently, the following bolded text was added: "Tom Cruise, who is perhaps the most outspoken celebrity Scientologist, having recently entered a contentious debate on The Today Show with Matt Lauer over Brooke Shields' use of anti-depressants in her recovery from postpartum depression." I contend this is unencyclopedic in nature and also very poorly worded. "Recently entered" is going to not be correct in a year, in ten years, etc. Relaying a specific incident here just seems unnecessary. Furthermore, if the text "who is perhaps the most outspoken celebrity Scientologist" is actually factual, it should be backed up with either an external reference or to an internal page listing all of the times he has spoken out. I think the statement probably constitutes original research and the sentence would be best if we chopped off everything after Tom Cruise. I'm not sure how he is any more outspoken on it than John Travolta, except that maybe Cruise's comments have come more recently. --MattWright (talk) 08:07, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Is any of the episode even notable? I'd think that for this article it should all boil down to something like, "Tom Cruise became outspoken about Scientology during publicity appearances for a summer 2005 blockbuster." The details seem more relevant to Matt Laurer, Tom Cruise or Brooke Shield than to this article. Cheers, -Willmcw 08:51, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

I concur with MattWright--for this article, a brief statement of Scientology's relationship to celebrities is all that's needed. Details about Tom Cruise's recent behavior make sense on the Tom Cruise page, or possibly on the list of celebrity scientologists, if we want to begin to annotate that. BTfromLA 17:17, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'd say it's notable. Celebrities have been known to make public declarations about their medical (or religious or political) beliefs in general terms before, but I'm not aware of a single other case where a celebrity on national television apparently regarded another celebrity's decisions about her own medical care as his business to approve or criticize. I have rephrased it, however, to note that he is a particularly outspoken Scientologist, rather than the iffier claim of the most, and removed the self-dating language about "recently entered". -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:33, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Celebrities speak out about all sorts of things and I just don't think this current event is encyclopedic enough to be included in an article about Scientology. --MattWright (talk) 22:19, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Right. It should also be pointed out that, contrary to popular believe, Hubbard never used (and the CoS still does not use) celebrities for their money. Scientology actually gives very rich celebs discounts for CoS programs, in the hopes that they will stay as cult advocates for the CoS. 70.20.216.117 18:11, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The statement is certainly a widely reported and notable statement about Tom Cruise. It may well turn out to be career-ending. Cruise is a notable spokesperson for Scientology. So the controversy over his criticism of Shields is notable. There was a time when becoming a Scientologist was considered a holywood career move, thanks to the Cruise outbusrts, not any more. --Gorgonzilla 14:54, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I think that we could loose the second paragraph on Cruise. What is really important to the Schientology article is that the Cruise incident reflected very baddly on the church and resulted in widespred ridicule of the church as well as cruise. It is also the most recent demonstration of the sinister side of the church in the mass media. Cruise came across as if he was a cult version of Pat Robertson. --Gorgonzilla 15:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

To put it quite simply I believe that this article has serious NPOV issues, for example the following phrase:

The Church presents itself as a non-profit religious organization\

I put up the NPOV tag for the moment until I and/or other users have the time and energy to change this article into a neutral point of view. Please remember however that the NPOV tag is meant to be only temporary and should be removed at the soonest possible time after this article is editied so that it conforms to WP:NPOV

Any suggestions on the best way to do that would be appreciated.

Jtkiefer 21:38, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Curious about what in that statement you consider POV. --MattWright (talk) 22:23, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

In what way does the CoS not present itself as a non-profit religious organization? Jtkiefer, you really haven't made your point clear. 70.20.216.117 22:30, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Presents itself while not blatently against a neutral point of view seems to infer that they are falsely presenting themselves, either they are a NPO (non profit organization) or they aren't, infer seems to give a grey area to whether they are or they aren't which while not definately a NPOV issue should be a solid statement. Jtkiefer 22:36, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

As I understand it from the article, it is a grey area. Read further down in the article where it explains that in the US they are nonprofit, but in some European countries (Germany included) they have been denied that status. Seems like a well worded statement if the rest of the article is accurate. --MattWright (talk) 22:39, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Precisely, MattWright. To simply state it one way or the other is to deny that it clearly is a grey area. 70.20.216.117 23:06, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I didn't know that about Europe, well that seems to make sense then if it's a grey area internationally. Jtkiefer 23:53, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Good enough for me too. Since you haven't mentioned any other specific points of dispute, I'm removing the notice. If there are other specific portions you find to be NPOV, why not discuss them and work on them before resorting directly to the WP:NPOV flag? As I understand it, the flag is normally used when there is a pretty heavy dispute about an article's general neutrality that is likely to go on for some time, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. — Adam Conover † 00:42, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

I took the liberty of reverting an edit by an anon. IP which as I see it is quite none NPOV but in the interest of transparency I urge you to take a look at the diff [[1]] Jtkiefer 00:59, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

The statement didn't even make any sense: not as a religion, but a man-made cult. "Cult" is a term that describes certain religions. That's like saying "not as a fish, but as a type of salmon". (And if you're an athiest like me, "man-made" is a pointless redundancy, the Catholic church is just as "man-made".) 70.20.216.117 01:08, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think no matter who you are man made cult is a bit redundant. Jtkiefer 04:49, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

Okay - I need some input here. This page is altogether out of control. It has become a veritable junkyard to say the least. If anyone things it communicates a balanced viewpoint then they have rocks in their head. It is disjointed and as far as being informational, I think anyone who didn't know about Scientology reading this would come away utterly confused. Scientology beliefs and L. Ron Hubbard are made a mockery of and frankly if those with opposing views want to have a field day - then let them but lets set up an "Anti-Scientology" page and call it for what it is so we don't confuse the people who think this is an informational website where they can come to get some basic "factual" information on a subject. Wiki has a reputation to uphold as an encyclopedic reference site - it is not a battle ground nor is the purpose of this page to just pull Scientology to pieces. Can I have some sensible suggestions please so that we can clean up this mess. Nuview 19:30, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this shouldn't be biased against scientology but at the same time you have to be careful that we don'to bias this towards the church of scientology. Jtkiefer June 29, 2005 02:58 (UTC)

Certainly our goal should be to ensure that no anti-Scientology bias gets into the article, but to completely scour it of references to anti-Scientology groups and the widespread suspicion of Scientology would be dishonest. Someone who comes to the article seeking information would be done a disservice if no mention was made of the detractors of the religion. Fernando Rizo 30 June 2005 01:08 (UTC)

Thanks. I am not suggesting no mention of any controversy or opposing views, merely the cordoning off of the straight anti POV. Links can be put on the page if users want to read the anti POV. I'm attempting to get neutrality in here and the ridicule eliminated. It has nothing to do with whining, but everything to do with respect of others religious beliefs (whether people agree with them or not)and frankly just plain manners. There are other controversial religions in the world and looking over their pages on Wiki I don't see the anti POV, or their beliefs held up to public mockery, yet you can't tell me that they don't have critics also. If you have helpful edits in this direction I would appreciate it and I am requesting the removal of the "Xenu" section - this is already more than well covered on the Xenu page which in itself is another issue. Request assistance. Nuview 12:30, Jun 30, 2005 (UTC)

I wonder if you perhaps misunderstand the point of the NPOV policy. People often characterise the policy erroneously as meaning that articles have to be free of bias. It's subtler than that; I quote: "Articles without bias describe debates fairly rather than advocating any side of the debate ... The neutral point of view is not a "separate but equal" policy." In other words, the policy explicitly prohibits the "cordoning off" of so-called "anti POV" into pro- and anti- articles. This approach is taken in many other contentious articles - e.g. Flood geology, Creationism and Terri Schiavo to name only a few. "Pro" and "anti" content is intermingled to represent both POVs fairly.

Let me give you a practical example. In the Xenu section a couple of days ago, you deleted the existing content on Xenu (in fact, deleting any reference to Scientology's most famous doctrine), replacing it with the statement: "This is sacred scriptures of the Church, focused around the belief that people are immortal spiritual beings and of experiences that predate this current culture. However, there are misleading characterizations made of these writings, with altered pieces of it taken out of context putting them up to ridicule. Note: This is similar to what has been done with the Bible and the scriptures of other beliefs." This represents only the Scientologist POV. I changed it to reflect both POVs, retaining your key point: "Scientologists argue that mentions of Xenu by non-Scientologists are "misleading characterizations made of these writings, with altered pieces of it taken out of context putting them up to ridicule." Critics of Scientology reject this, pointing out that Xenu is part of a much wider Scientology belief in alien past lives, some of which has been in the public domain for decades."

I'm sure there are genuine POV issues elsewhere in the article and you're very welcome to address them if you wish. But the key point is that both sides must be represented, not "cordoned off" into separate pro- and anti- Scientology articles or sections. The NPOV policy has worked well for Wikipedia on other contentious subjects; let's not abandon it here. -- ChrisO 30 June 2005 19:46 (UTC)

I agree but it's two sides of a very slippery slope with a very small peak to stand on. Jtkiefer June 30, 2005 03:44 (UTC)

POV deletions of Xenu references

Could people please keep an eye open for POV deletions of the Xenu subsection? It was replaced yesterday with a familiar complaint about how OT III is taken "out of context". That's how Scientologists see it, perhaps, but it doesn't justify the section's outright deletion. -- ChrisO 29 June 2005 07:19 (UTC)

Yeah I noticed and reverted at least one instance of that, gotta keep our eyes out for it. Jtkiefer June 30, 2005 03:43 (UTC)

Excuse me, but why have a duplication of the Xenu page on the main Scientology page. This is getting into more detail than is necessary to summarize it for the overall subject of Scientology. My understanding is that Scientology is a large subject and to go into detail on every aspect is going to make this page beyond huge. This should be reverted to an earlier version. Someone can do this, or if no opposition I can. Cheers. Orchidgirl July 4, 2005 02:35 (UTC)

It isn't a duplication of the Xenu article. It's a short summary of the subject. The Xenu article is 8 pages long, while the short summary here is three paragraphs. It's enough to introduce the subject, introduce the controversy, and state why it is relevant to other alien-life-related beliefs of the CoS. Having brief summaries of related articles is very common on feature-quality Wikipedia articles, and is vastly preferable to simply making a link and expecting confused readers to figure it out. --FOo 4 July 2005 16:26 (UTC)

Cult?

Wikipedia itself lists the Church of Scientology under its list of active cults, yet various editors on Wikipedia refuse to allow the term CULT to be added in the discription of the organization. The term cult is ALLOWED on ALL OTHER organizations listed under Wikipedia as cults except this one. I will be able to provide the links to those wishing to see them. It makes me wonder if the motivation of these editors is based on being members of the cult themselves.

• Actually it is listed under List of purported cults which is somewhat different. You, 62.204.200, pasted the phrase cult onto over two dozen pages [2], in many places distorting word order. Your edits were clearly POV, many admins would have blocked before warning you given the speed at which you worked. BTW, I'm a non-denominational Christian raised in a Full Gospel church, attending a Southern Baptist School, sorry to disappoint you. -JCarriker June 30, 2005 08:40 (UTC)

It makes sense that the cultic definition would not be allowed, but personally I don't define an exclusively favourable description of something as genuinely neutral. I apologise for my earlier rant on this page, but it looks as though it has since been removed anyway. My main issue was raised by references in the article to certain Scientology centres being described as "looking nice." That might sound insane, but in my mind describing Scientology centres as visually appealing (or really implying that Scientology is a legitimate religion at all) has around the same level of moral responsibility as advocating that a lion should be part of a petting zoo. It's like saying that Charles Manson "wasn't really so bad."

I can understand how people here might think that it is unprofessional to be overtly critical of the group, and I can also only speculate as to the amount of pressure being applied by the Church (sic) itself to maintain a purely positive image of it here. However, I am hoping that those people here who take the mission of this site seriously are able to remain focused on what Scientology's initial, core founding purpose was:- to destroy people's lives, and make money, and to perform these two functions exclusively, despite pretentions implying otherwise. Hubbard is well documented as having been a thoroughly Antisocial personality disorder, criminal, and generally abhorrent human being, who dedicated the majority of his life to enriching himself at the detriment of others.

The historical record is very clear as to the amount of harm that this organisation has done; indeed, it is a testament to such that it is with a certain amount of personal fear of offline retribution in some form that I write these words. I remind myself however that the only ultimate means of thwarting such groups is for individuals to be willing to speak the truth about them, and I also draw confidence from the fact that Scientology has had to try and silence a very large number of people online, and has ultimately been unsuccessful. Truth has a way of resisting attempts at its' burial.

This, then, is what I urge Wikipedians to remember; that although they may feel they are doing the right thing in portraying the organisation in a kinder, gentler manner, such is not necessarily the historically accurate way of doing so. It is also worth remembering that even if this site, as a member of the minority, continues to portray this group favourably, such a portrayal is not what will remain in the long term historical record, or in human memory, and is therefore at odds with Jim Wales' stated intention for this site. History at large will remember Scientology as exactly what it is:- the prototypical destructive cult.

~~

Blogospheric eruption

The blogosphere is going crazy about this article - check out all the references to it... [3] -- ChrisO 30 June 2005 19:51 (UTC)

what is OT III?

can we have some clarification of this BEFORE the acronym is used? IreverentReverend 4 July 2005 06:51 (UTC)

It is, actually, in the section just prior, "Past lives":

The "Hidden Truth" about the nature of the universe is taught in a series of Operating Thetan levels (eight in all) ... In the OT levels, Hubbard describes various traumas commonly experienced in past lives.

.

However, just because it's there doesn't mean it couldn't possibly be there in a clearer form. Any suggestions? -- Antaeus Feldspar 6 July 2005 00:33 (UTC)

I tried to address that about a week ago, but my edits were repeatedly reverted, perhaps because "Xenu" was a little less conspicuous in my version. Here's an excerpt from my last edit on 6.28.05:

The Advanced Levels The "Hidden Truth" about the nature of the universe is taught in a series of Operating Thetan levels (eight in all are in use, though Hubbard claimed to have completed as many as fifteen), for which the initiate needs to be thoroughly prepared. These are the levels above "Clear," and their contents are held in strict confidence within Scientology. The highest level, OT VIII, is only disclosed at sea, on the Scientology cruise ship Freewinds. However, since being entered into evidence in several court cases beginning in the mid-1980s, synopses and excerpts of many of these secret teachings have appeared in innumerable newspapers and other publications... (followed by examples, including the Xenu story.) BTfromLA 6 July 2005 00:45 (UTC)

Scientology is not related IN ANY WAY to Christian Science

I've put in a more emphatic statement so readers will not mix them up. I would see students getting them mixed up all the time, and not only that, thinking that they were branches of each other. Should be very clear on this, with no ambiguity, even if it doesn't read smoothly. (I happen to think it reads just fine). Fuzheado | Talk 9 July 2005 02:27 (UTC)

• I think Fubar Obfusco's edit is the way to go. Carries the emphasis you want AND it reads well. Viva la compromise! Fernando Rizo 9 July 2005 02:56 (UTC)

WikiProject Scientology

WikiProject Scientology - Dive in - David Gerard 19:35, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Katie Holmes

On the Scientology page, specifically the area about celebrities who are Scientologists, it says Katie Holmes is a recent convert. Does anyone have any sources to back that up? As far as I've seen she's only expressed interest in learning about it, and prior to her relationship with Tom Cruise she stated she was a devout Catholic. Granted, I don't exactly follow every article about Katie Holmes and Tom Cruise, but as far as I know she's not a Scientologist.

There's a List of Scientologists, but it seems to be out of date. Or maybe it just needs to have a section for "former members". Among others, I've heard that Mary Bono is no longer part of the CoS. There are several "ex" members clearly identified as such. -Willmcw 01:50, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

She's stated she has been studying it, I'll see what i can turn up in the way of refs - David Gerard 21:42, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

If there is anyone who seriously believes Katie Holmes hasn't been brainwashed and isn't a full-fledged COS cult member, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.--Agiantman 02:48, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

From AP: [4] "Katie Holmes says she's converting to the Church of Scientology, embracing the religion of her boyfriend, Tom Cruise."

I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that Holmes has never read this Wikipedia article, especially the section about Scientology's views about traditional religions. (Probably even Cruise doesn't know about this. At least that's my guess. Every Scientologist I've ever talked with about this who wasn't an OT-VIII was flabbergasted by it).

Scott P. 01:53, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

The Turnip Wars

This is an article that was deleted from the Wikipedia last June. Reminded me of this article. It certainly wasn't anything worthy of mentioning in the main Scientology article, so I thought I'd put a link to it here. It's:

Wiki Bad Jokes Deleted, The Turnip Wars

Cheers,

Scott P. 03:08, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Financials

Could anyone add how much an "auditing" costs and how often members are expected to go to a auditing per month ?

We need reliable references for recent price lists - David Gerard 21:42, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

From Auditor (Issue 300, May 2002)

ASHO PRICE LIST

SHSBC Premier Auditor Training Package: The Briefing Course plus all

material, including a Mark Super VII Quantum Emeter, for 30% off the

full donation.

Full Price US 48,000.00 Special Price 33,938.00

SHSBC AND OT III PACKAGE: 45 % off the full donation for Solo One

through OT III, when you donate for the SHSBC Premier Auditor Package.

See you AO Registrar for details on donations.

SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE

Full Price $32,000.00 Special Price $28,000.00

Hubbard Guidance Center auditing per intensive (12.5 hours)

Full $ 5,687.00 Special Price $ 4,550.00

Power and Power Plus auditing per intensive (12.5 hours)

Full $ 14,520.00 Special Price $ 11,616.00

OT Preparation and Eligibility for OT Levels Checks per intensive

Full $ 5,687.00 Special Price $ 4,550.00

BOOKSTORE MATERIALS

SHSBC Lectures (tapes)

Full $ 11,750.00 Special Price $ 8,225.00

- Sciens 14:16, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

External links

It's a goddamn forest again. I've pruned it to:

• scientology.org - the Church official page
• xenu.net - the main critical site
• altreligionscientology.org - a link list of the other several hundred critical sites
• clearing.org
• the about.com FAQ

If there's stuff in the deleted list that is actually references, put those in a separate ==References== section to keep it clear - a "External links" section really should be just the Most Important few links on a subject, in an encyclopedic sense - David Gerard 21:42, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I think this is a good list that should be the one used. Jtkiefer 06:05, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Jesus as a Homosexual Pedophile? Who makes up this stuff?

Can anyone point me to a court authority that can confirm the "fishman affidavit"? I'm having a hard time believing that the court confirmed that it was once part of their teaching that Jesus was a homosexual pedophile. - Tεxτurε 15:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

The court never confirmed that it was once part of their teaching. Numerous former members have, pointing to the affidavit to lay out in black and white exactly what this teaching is. To the best of my knowledge, neither has any court ever confirmed that the Xenu material was an official COS teaching, yet numerous former members have. You can click on the affidavit link and read more about the specific details of how it all fell into place if you want. According to the affidavit, Hubbard made up this stuff.

Scott P. 17:11, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

The purported OT VIII is generally regarded as being a forgery or hoax; it's certainly not written in Hubbard's normal style and doesn't read like anything he would have written. -- ChrisO 17:23, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

You mean, "generally regarded by active Scientologists, and the CoS's paid scholars as a forgery". The Church has also declared this document to be amongst its own copyrighted material. Go figure. What exactly did you find to be particularly 'un-Hubbard-esque' in this writing style, and why? I have read some of Hubbard's stuff and I didn't notice anything different about it.

Scott P. 17:48, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

ChrisO says that "OT VIII is generally regarded as being a forgery or hoax." He doesn't say who "generally" is (the Clearwater gang?). I think he will be sadly dissappointed when he finally raises up the scratch for OT VIII and discovers it's the same nonsense. If ChrisO knows of another version of OT VIII, would he please supply it to us?--Agiantman 23:57, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Agiantman and Scottperry: I too am a critic, but I question the authenticity of the OT VIII materials as they are portrayed by Prince in the Fishman declaration. Most of the well-known critics at a.r.s. including Dave Touretsky and former members also note that the OT VIII materials are not authenticated. There is at least one former member Michael Pattinson, that reached the end of the current Bridge by completeing OT VIII -- and he surely can't be considered a "CoS paid scholar", since he sued the CoS for millions after he blew the Sea Org. You can contact Michael Pattinson at mpattinson@gmail.com (verify this at a.r.s. if you paranoid) and ask him if he was taught about Jesus being a pedophile. MP just posted his OT VIII certs on a.b.s. and he answered directly my question about Jesus and pedophilia on a.r.s "There was nothing on that on the OT8 I did, but the materials were so lame that it looked like something huge was "missing". So either OT8 is different for different folks, it's changed since Fishman, or OT8 in Fishman was a forgery. Saying that OT8 definitely includes this story would be wrong for this article. -- Vivaldi 07:12, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Auditing Section too inflammatory?

I just cleaned up the grammar and sentance flow of the second part of the Auditing section, but tried to leave the tone of the information intact. However, it seems to me that this section stands out from the rest of the article, including the first half of that section, as NPOV. The statements that formerly audited persons have compared auditing to "torture" may be correct, but by the same token, these very similar techniques are used by law enforcement during interrogation; this type of questioning is very common when the person being questioned is reluctant to talk. Also, it would be nice to have some references to (1) such statements from former Scientologists, and (2) CoS (mis)use of confidential information (I assume we're talking about blackmail here and that there is supporting evidence of these actions.) 66.193.169.29 18:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Ewps. Forgot to log in. 66.193.169.29 is me. Kutulu 18:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree that that paragraph doesn't fit the section. I cut it. See below. BTfromLA 22:39, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Some dubious recent additions

There have been some recent edits that in my view add little to the article, and frequently derail it with needless repitition, POV, and poor writing. I've cut the following from the intro to the "Beliefs and practices section--perhaps something here can be used, but please consider the overall shape of the article (e.g., whether this info is presented elsewhere_ before resoring or adding material. --BTfromLA 22:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

"The core beliefs of Scientology involve

1. The spiritual nature of men and mankind.
2. The rehabilitation of the human spirit.
3. The methodology for accomplishing such a rehabilitation.
4. The role of L. Ron Hubbard in developing such a methodology.
5. The inherent value that such a methodology has for all mankind.

Us Scientologists do not have a strong set of doctrines regarding past or future world events, and these do not form a important part of their core beliefs. The main focus for us is the technology, its use and applications. The Church states that the goal of Scientology is a world without war, criminals, and insanity, where good decent people have the freedom to reach their goals."

I cut the following as well, as inappropriate to the basic description of auditing (though some of this criticism might have a place elsewhere):

"During this process, the auditor may collect personal or confidential material from the person being audited. This information then becomes the property of the Church of Scientology, which can reuse this information as it sees fit. Some individuals who have been through the auditing process have reported that an auditor may spend hours trying to get answers to a single question. Some of these individuals describe the process as a kind of torture, where, for example the audited person must be given express permission to use the toilet."

I have restored all but the last sentence. (Which was clearly just a snipe at the process.) The rest of it is neutral information. (Unless you contend that the information does not become porpoerty of the church.) - Tεxτurε 22:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the second-to-last sentence should go too for the same reason. - Tεxτurε 22:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

And I cut this, which does not describe what the ARC triangle is--though some clarification of that would be good:

"The process of raising one of the ARC levels is accomplished through the teaching of courses from Scientology's curriculum. These courses provide the primary source of income for the Church of Scientology, and many of them are extremely expensive. If a member fails to acheive the desired goal, this is taken as failure on the part of the aspirant, who must then purchase the course again. Critics point out that this provides little financial incentive for the Church to properly teach aspirants, as failure to "pass" the course simply means repeat income for the Church. Prior to beginning any of these courses, the aspirant must sign a contact with the Church acknowledging the possible failure, and absolving the Chuch of responsibility for any resulting outcome." -- BTfromLA 22:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Can't we restore at least the first sentence? It seems a necessary thing to know about the process. (Or is it described elsewhere that you need to take the courses to advance?) You're right, it needs to be fleshed out but we shouldn't remove it altogether. - Tεxτurε 22:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I have no objection to a line that says that raising the ARC levels is a goal of scientology courses, though isn't that already implied, given that raising the ARC level is a stated goal of Scientology? BTfromLA 22:56, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Tone scale section

The bit about the Tone Scale is currently a mess. Somone who is familiar with how the Tone Scale is treated within scientology, please copy edit that part. BTfromLA 22:58, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Should the "beliefs and practices" section be shortened?

The "Beliefs and practices" section of this article is far too long and detailed, considering that the article Scientology beliefs and practices already exists and contains much or most of the same information. I suggest that much of this section be trimmed and/or merged into the Scientology beliefs and practices article. --Modemac 09:25, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Modemac, and have made a few recent trims to the section, but there's more to be done. I think the "Scientology and Other Religions" section is currently the worst offender-- almost all of it could go.

While we're at it, the article as a whole is becoming overlong, and I wonder whether the "popular culture" part is needed at all. It's entertaining, but hardly essential to describing scientology (a mention that Scientology has frequently been the subject of parody would probably be enough to make the point). Should we cut it? Does it merit its own article? --BTfromLA 02:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

If either, I'd say the latter. I've been too busy to prepare a good-quality summary of the incident, but there was a fairly notorious pressure campaign conducted to prevent a five-second popular culture reference to Scientology. In the movie Delirious, there was originally to be a sequence where one character (referring to John Candy's character) said that he had some mysterious power over her, to which her listener asks if he's a Scientologist. There was a well-documented pressure campaign to get that single line removed, a campaign that may have spilled over to criminal acts of intimidation. (to clarify that: it is known that the Church initiated a pressure campaign, instructing its members to call and write the producers to insist that the line be removed. It is also known that the producers received anonymous phone calls implying various threats if the line were not removed; it is also known that one of the producers' house was broken into at this time, with nothing removed from the house but the signs that there had been a break-in made very obvious. Since the parties behind the break-in and the anonymous threats were never caught, there is no proof that they were part of the Church's campaign.) So all in all, I would say that the section has not yet reached its full potential, but has potential to significantly add to the article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:49, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

That sounds like an extension of the discussion of scientology and its critics, which is most developed in Scientology controversy. But the anecdote you describe is really about the Church of Scientology's actions--that's rather different than the list of references to scientology in TV shows, etc. Re you suggesting a "Scientology and popular culture" article that incorportes both the list of references and a discussion of Scientology's attempts to influence or produce (e.g., Battlefield Earth) popular culture ? --BTfromLA 03:21, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

That's an excellent idea, IMHO. That fits everything we have in the current article section and adds room for more. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:36, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Discussion of changes to Scientology and Church of Scientology articles

I believe that the Scientology article should discuss the religious beliefs of the religion of Scientology as it is practiced by Co$, FreeZoners, or other groups. This would include the Xenu story and other basic things describing the practice of the religion such as auditing, engrams, thetans, etc...

I believe the Church of Scientology should discuss the particular current organization under the umbrella of the RTC and David Miscaviage. This is the article that should contain the sections about "why is it controversial". Most criticism of Scientology only applies to the Church of Scientology and not to people that practice the religious beliefs of Scientlogy outside of the CoS. FreeZoners do not practice "fair game", "disconnection", "RPF" jails, etc...

I believe it is very important to distinguish between the religion of Scientology and the organization called the Church of Scientology. The religion of Scientology is a set of technology and beliefs set out by LRH that people practice because they think it works. Whether or not the religion of Scientology does "work" is not relevant to an article about the religion -- anymore than debating the Christian belief that Jesus rose from the dead or walked on water -- these are things taken as tenets of faith by practioners of Scientology and should only be discussed in an encyclopedia article about the religion and not debated.

However one should discuss the controversy surrounding the cultic organization called the Church of Scientology and explain how this organization uses the practices of Fair Game, RPF jails, disconnection, etc... It is the Church organization that is cultic -- it is the one that has a ruthless all powerful leader. Folks can practice Scientology outside of the church, either through the FreeZone or other groups or private practice. The controversy surrounding Scientology does not apply to these people.

This is why the critical sections of Scientology should be moved to the Church of Scientology page and the page about Scientology should stick to pointing out the tenets and practices and various organizations that practice the religion and not the nature of the Co$.

I welcome discussion. Vivaldi 07:12, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

It isn't really defensible, in my view, to claim that the Church of Scientology and the controversy surrounding them isn't part of the subject of Scientology. This article should provide a brief overvue of the subject, while the related articles talk about beliefs and practices, the church management, free zoners, L Ron Hubbard, etc., in more detail. Take a look at the discussion called "list of critics," above, and at the intro to the Scientology controversy article for descriptions of why Scientology and the CoS can't be divorced. (I do, however, think that some of the critical material in the current draft can be edited down, and that there's no need to insert critical claims in sections that introduce the beliefs.) --BTfromLA 04:35, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

If by "critical sections of Scientology" you mean unflattering sections, of course they should not be moved or removed. To move or remove them is to remove NPOV. --Agiantman 12:07, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I believe this article is currently one of Wiki's top 10 most read articles (if you were to consider all sex related articles as a single article). Obviously it must be working. No need to make any fundamental changes to such a successful article.

Scott P. 03:39, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Neurofeedback mania

I'm reluctant to jump in and cut all this stuff unilaterally, but it apears that some editor's personal obsession with "neurofeedback" has led to a lot of dubious additions to the article, including a rather whacked-out "mindmap" with a pic of Hubbard in the middle. While no doubt there is some connection between E-meters and subsequent popularizers of neurofeedback, "neurolinguistic programming." etc., I don't think this pertains directly to a description of Scientology, and some, like the "mindmap" is utterly non-encyclopedic. I think pretty much all of that stuff should be removed. Thoughts? --BTfromLA 05:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you on the neurofeedback and the mind map additions. A mind map is an obscure way of taking notes; perhaps it is the editor's own creation. I am familiar with Neuro-linguistic_programming. NLP, which does not use any machines, is not founded on Scientology related beliefs and Scientology had nothing to do with its development. I notice that someone has similarly polluted the Neuro-linguistic_programming article with similar comments.--Agiantman 11:11, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I cut the neurofeedback stuff out. Some of those details belong in an article on neurofeedback, but not in a concise intro to Scientology auditing. The "mindmap" doesn't belong anywhere in wikipedia, far as I can imagine. BTfromLA 23:59, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Hello BT. I think I understand what you mean. What is the definition of encyclopedic according to wikipedia though? Actually, just a bit of background, I added the map because it seemed very relevant to the section and added interesting and concise information. The map was produced(by me) at a scientology meeting, and summarises some of the strong connections between mind mapping(R) and scientology. The mind map was inspired (according to Tony Buzan) by the general semantic laden writings of science fiction writers such as Van Vogt and LRHubbard. It is similarly based on general semantics and reality distortion (the map is not the territory etc). Of course, the mind map and Buzan have developed their own vision and cult following. But it is clearly relevant and concise. Certainly that is encyclopedic! What is your opinion? W Conyers 10:22, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

W, the "mindmap" is basically unintelligible in this context. It doesn't offer any "relevant and concise" information at all--it comes across like someone's loopy doodle on the back of a paper placemat. It may help you to recollect some connections that occurred in your own mind as you made it, but it doesn't communicate information about Scientology to a reader who is not you. BTfromLA 16:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Age of the Universe

(NOTE: the post below was a response to another post that mysteriously disappeared--the anon poster raised questions about a claim about the age of the universe in the article, and he or she mentioned that he or she didn't know how to sign a post...)

I don't think you managed to edit the text, but I think it was a good editorial call, so I cut the line from the article. Not only was it factually dubious, it was superfluous to the description of the Scientology beliefs. You can sign your posts by simply typing the tilde symbol (~) four times in a row--the software will do the rest. BTfromLA 23:29, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

That would be me. Right after I made the decision to edit, I lost all ability to do so. For whatever reason, after I made the edit to this talk page, Wikipedia stopped accepting any edits from me, citing some kind of error I (being the new guy I am) didn't recognize. I tried multiple times, but it kept giving me the same error. Thanks for the advice, and removing the line for me. 68.35.71.22 05:27, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Authenticity of Information

IMHO: Opinions should not litter an article. Mostly facts should be presented, and authenticity of information should be traceable to credible sources. If some wish to influence readers towards a positive or negative opinion of Scientology then they should create a propaganda article elsewhere, not here. AI 10:42 18 Apr 2004 (HST)

The statements in the Scientology article about "critics" are not fact until the critics are named and claims proven.
--J.Tell 08:22, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm always in favor of naming critics. However it is not necessary, or even wise, to try to prove or disprove their claims. In fact, we shouldn't try to prove or disprove anything on Wikipedia. We're here just to summarize verifiable information in a NPOV manner. If a notable critic says something, we should include that criticism along with any official rebuttals, without indicating a preference for one or the other side. Cheers, -Willmcw 08:36, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with you about proving/disproving claims; Authentication and validation go hand in hand. Information not validated or authenticated should not be presented, this is not a tabloid or propaganda sheet.
--J.Tell 23:25, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Then you disagree with Wikipedia's fundamental goals; see Wikipedia:Original research. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:53, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We can't "prove" anything here. All we do is summarize verifiable information in an NPOV manner. If we can verify that a critic (or a supporter) said XYZ, and that comment seems relevant and notable, then it should be included, "true" or not. -Willmcw 04:26, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Scientology, other than that it's very controversial, but I have a general suggestion to make about choosing sources for controversial topics. The official policy in Wikipedia:Verifiability urges us to cite our sources, and says, "For an encyclopedia, sources should be unimpeachable." This means, I think, that we are not required to include claims by sources that are less than unimpeachable. Instead, we should try to present a variety of points of view from among the unimpeachable sources. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources gives good advice on choosing reliable sources, but for controversial articles, I think we should apply the highest possible standard of reliability: we should rely as much as possible on academic sources, rather than journalism. Academics who teach at major universities and research institutions are specialised in their subject and have been trained to study it. They are expected to be familiar with primary sources, and to cite those sources. Their work is often formally peer-reviewed, and informal peer review occurs when specialists critique each other's work in books and articles. Moreover, in reputable academic institutions, scholars enjoy a great deal of freedom to draw the best conclusions they can. Journalists, on the other hand, often write about a wide variety of subjects about which they lack in-depth knowledge. They rarely have the time to do adequate research on difficult subjects, peer review rarely takes place, and in any case journalists are not free to draw their own conclusions; they must follow the editorial line of their paper. I'm sure most people who know any subject well can think of examples of inaccurate reporting on that subject, even in major newspapers, particularly if the subject is controversial. Therefore, in the interest of making Wikipedia a reliable as well as NPOV source of information, I think that on controversial topics, we should stick to reputable academic sources as much as possible. --Beroul 11:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

The above claims are dubious--scholars frequently cite journalistic accounts of their subjects--but it is difficult to address them, because they are so general. Is there a specific criticism of this article in there somewhere? BTfromLA 19:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

BT, I'm sorry but I think yours is a weak argument which in my opinion is only made to support a perpetuation of anti-CoS POV. This discussion should involve the members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Scientology, specifically User:Fernando Rizo who has demonstrated a very neutral and civil approach. --AI 22:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

What argument? The argument that one should be specific? While we're at it, please don't start accusing users of pushing a pov unless you can point to specific evidence for that. BTfromLA 22:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Would you really like me to start a documentation process? --AI 23:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I certainly don't want to encourage you to start feuding with me or anyone else. If you can point to specific examples of inappropriate POV in the article, though, and can offer an NPOV alternative, please do so. But first, please respond to my earlier question: what "weak argument" was I making above? BTfromLA 02:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

"The Australian Report"

Scientology has also recieved criticisms concerning the manner in which auditing is conducted. The The Australian Report stated that auditing involved a kind of command hypnosis that could lead to potentially damaging delusional dissociative states. These are similar to the unethical covert command hypnosis, or hypnotic commands of neurolinguistic programming (NLP), which holds many New Age similarities with Scientology, such as belief in past life regression and super-human potential.

The preceding paragraph was removed because it fails to give enough information to let its claims be substantiated (what is The Australian Report??) and makes dubious POV assertions ("the unethical covert command hypnosis ... of NLP"). Someone else may have an idea where to go looking for what said Report is and what it actually has to say on the subject of auditing; I hope that if so they'll share their findings here. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Good cut... that may be some residue of the neurofeedback mania (see above) that I missed. BTfromLA 03:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Many apologies. Here is one source: http://www.suburbia.com.au/~fun/scn/press/651006au.htm?FACTNet It is a general criticism of this kind of hypnotic technique. Hubbard actually denied hypnosis, and he actually writes in a way to abolish it, but studies show that you cannot get away from hypnotic dissociation within auditing. The NLP connection comes about because it was inspired by the general semantics techniques that is used in dianetics and scientology, and NLP is to some extent adopted by auditors. The beliefs are very similar. It is also a common criticism of NLP.

I also hold good factual info for the claims of scientology and neurofeedback. We can discuss if you like. Dianetics and scientology use eeg meters in addition to e-meters. They use neurofeedback in this way for both research and practice. The claim is that it is convincing. I also have info to say that it is largely ineffective. I really would like to present it in a balanced way appropriate to wikipedia. Especially regarding which sections these facts would be most appropriate for integrating. Any pointers? DoctorDog 05:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi DocDog. You are very polite! But actually, what I was really getting at (none too clearly) was the criticism towards using the Korzybski connection in NLP and Dianetics. They are both criticized for using general semantics and hypnosis unethically, and NLP followed dianetics/scientology's lead in its use. They have both been criticized for using both unethical and potentially dangerous techniques. The criticisms are in the criticism section. I think it is fine to use the same strong language as the report.

The neurofeedback information seems plausible. Which sources did you have in mind? A.Warner 07:24, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Your anti choice argument is problematic as you are starting to suspect. Now, when you see the error of your ways, you will understand! And as you focus on that feeling you will start to realise how you have become weaker with your intention. And as you focus on that feeling, you will see how you need to stop! And consider how wrong you are. Because you must start to realise that your sources are wrong. Now, you must become more aware that scientology is benevolent. The best parts of your mind will start to realise how Scientology may indeed become more appealing when you start to consider. Yes, really consider, how much better you will feel when you let go and focus on that feeling. Now, just accept that you are free to choose Scientology. You may choose Scientology whenever you feel free. The world may choose it whenever they wish. All the best SpiritStar 16:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

SpiritStar! I am curious. Which planet are you posting from? Would it happen to be the planet NuLP, by any chance? Slightly concerned A.Warner 14:43, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I once heard a recording of an auditing session. It had many similarities with hypnosis. The auditor is trained not to modulate his voice during the session, and to deliver his commands to the auditee in a slow flat monotone, just as the hypnotist is trained to do. Hey Al! Is that the Allen I know?

Scott P. 15:24, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Scott. I'm actually an Albert Al. But your account of of an auditing sessions strikes a certain chord. There are some subtleties in the modularity though. It sounds monotone, but they are doing some thing special with the command words. Would you be able to give me some idea of your source? I am not interested in deleting what you have written because it does correspond strongly with my own studies. Regards A.Warner 16:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Cluseau records an auditing session

Hi A. Warner,
Since the Australian Report section was getting a bit overly long, I thought I's start a new section header in response to your question above. It has been about five or six years since I recall seeing this info. I believe I found it on xenu.net, and this is what I recall from it:

1. Some investigative journalists in England attempted to do a story on exactly what goes on in an auditing session.
2. First they sent in this reporter who was wired with a camera in the frames of his thick glasses, you know the Inspector Cluseau look, very popular they say, into an auditing session, he also had a micro tape recorder with him. As I recall I think he spared the auditors from having to deal with one of those fake moustaches. Thank God :-) . Somehow the auditors detected this, and called the police on the poor guy. What a shame ;-) .
3. Still the journalists didn't give up. Next they sent another guy in with no wires or recording devices, but with a good memory. It worked, but obviously he wasn't able to get a recording. In lieu of a genuine recording, the journalists then re-enacted the session from memory for the benefit of their TV audience, attempting to recreate the lighting, the uniforms, the tone of voice etc. etc. etc., as best they could. I would assume that this re-enactment was probably sufficiently close enough to the real thing that it at least gives us a fairly accurate general idea of what goes on in there.

If you were interested, I could probably re-locate this for you. Let me know.

Scott P. 02:23, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Funny pictures

I believe the page has been vandalized. There are falsely captioned pictures from the film Star Wars . It's pretty funny, but those pictures don't have copyright information, which could cause trouble.

Reverting the overly bloated Scientology and other Religions section...

On August 12, 2005 at 20:02 (UTC) User:Irmgard did a complete rewrite of the Scientology and other religions section, nearly doubling its length, repeated some information twice, deleted some of the key summary statements that attempted to summarize Hubbard's exact views towards Christianity, added other new sections making Scientology out as a new form of Gnosticism and as a religion that is "only for individuals seeking higher awareness."

Somehow in this edit he seemed to 'accidentally' bury the fact that Hubbard taught that Christianity, Jesus and Islam were essentially all forces of evil (entheta). This article is already long enough without having to read through additional pages only to find out that Hubbard was really a Gnostic in disguise, and that Scientology is a religion "only for individuals seeking higher awareness."

Let's stick to facts that are pertinent and germane to the article, without trying to bury these pertinent facts in various irrelevant speculations.

-Scott P. 01:03, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Numerous recent POV edits to this article

I have just noticed that since the last edit by Antaeus Feldspar on Aug. 11, numerous POV edits have been made to this article with strangely worded editorial explanations that did not actually mention what the actual contents of the edits were. Entire sections, such as the Xenu section were deleted. Other sections were carved up or mixed up to the point where they were either no longer relevent to the article, or were supposedly being 'moved' to the Beliefs article. All of this while using very odd editorial comments. I have recently restored the Auditing section, the Xenu section and the Scientology and other religions section. Help from others to fix all of this would be much appreciated.

By comparing Feldspar's last edit of Aug. 11 to the current version, one might more easily be able see what has been happening.

-Scott P. 02:04, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

I've been somewhat busy this week, but rest assured that I am watching this page and I do try to pitch in to keep it NPOV as much as I can. Fernando Rizo T/C 02:08, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• In addition to what I've already restored and fixed, the new additions to the Critics of Scientology section need to be wikified and NPOV-checked. Fernando Rizo T/C 03:05, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Scientology mindmap

I don't think [[Image:Scientology Mindmap.JPG]] adds anything of value to this article. It's more confusing than anything else, and I think that the labelling of Hubbard as a pseudoscientist is NPOV. I'm going to remove it; if anyone objects, let's discuss it here. Fernando Rizo T/C 02:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Scientology Page Clean Up

Someone above mentioned that this page was popular so it shouldn't be changed. I beg to differ. This page became popular because of media and interest generated in the subject, by Tom Cruise. This page doesn't attempt to be factual, it attempts to forward every possible viewpoint (mainly on the negative side if I may say so). It seems those working on it have lost sight of the word "balance." There is so much concern to make sure there is no positive POV. Excuse me but at the risk of being accused of whining (as I am frequently accused of if I speak up)this page is not being edited for the user. Personally, I think its time for a revamp.

Firstly, I am suggesting to combine the "Controversy and Criticism" and the "Scientology Critics" sections.

Also as a note, I am reposting my comment regarding the external links. No one commented and I went ahead.

(I agree it was getting out of control, but I do insist that there is a balance of positive and negative sites, also having a few neutral sites from respected sites should also not be a problem. I don't see anything wrong with this, and in fact for the user who knows nothing about the subject, I think it is important that the pro and the anti and the neutral are clearly delineated. If someone wants to set a limit of how many links for each category, thats cool too.)

Please give me your feedback - only interested in hearing from editors who want to improve the page for Wikipedia's users, not for Scientology bashing purposes. Nuview 17:50, 23 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Deletion of significant sections by anonymous editors with no reason or discussion provided is inappropriate

Recently user 168.209.98.35 deleted several sections without any editorial explanation or discussion. I have reverted these.

-Scott P. 22:31:39, 2005-08-27 (UTC)

This Just In (joke)

Scientologists have added flux capacitors to their DeLoreans so they can go back in time and shanghai the founders of psychology. Then they aim to use the founders' engrams to go Back to the Future. (/bad joke) 64.12.117.14 22:37, 27 August 2005 (UTC)