Talk:Church of Scientology/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 4 December 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page:   , (new)(back)

How many[edit]

I wonder how many pages like this we need to be a bigger 'encyclopedia' than Convservapedia? They don't have a page on Scientology, after all... --Gulik 16:51, 29 May 2007 (CDT)

Too bad we don't have any of the old CP stuff...a sock i know added some good, well-referenced stuff.--PalMD-yada yada 15:25, 19 June 2007 (CDT)

How much more cultish is scientology than some christian sects? Scientology demands money, but so do many evangelicals and mormans.--PalMD-yada yada 12:22, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

Im starting to think it might be time to open up a can o' wup-ass on COS...address stands on mental health, etc...--PalMD-Si Quaeris Peninsulam Amoenam Circumspice! 21:45, 9 August 2007 (CDT)


Did anyone see anything re the 4chan anonymous picket of scientology temples over the weekend? SusanMiouw 11:21, 11 February 2008 (EST)

Scientology's closed, due to thetans. --


I object to the implications that main stream churches require you to pay money to be saved. How many homeless shelters are supported or run or affiliated with churches? There ain't much money in homeless shelters. Lurker 01:16, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

I agree with Lurker. There are certain objectionably negative implications in the current wording, nay the inclusion of the link itself. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 01:18, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
"I agree with Lurker." You may have just lost a friend or two there, bub ;-) Lurker 01:26, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
I have friends? --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 01:29, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
The wording was not terribly clear; I think that's the main problem, and I tried to fix it a bit. In the mainline churches it's not a particularly big deal, but in many of the more authoritarian churches (especially evangelical churches) there's a strong emphasis on tithing -- no pay, no pray. If you go to, there's a fair amount of information on how the LDS church formalizes it to the point of having actual "tithing settlements", including accountants and everything. I don't know that anyone ever states it explicitly, but it's clearly implied in the way such churches handle money. EVDebs 12:45, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
That's part of it, but the biggest problem with that passage is the claim that the churches "predicate ... salvation" on tithing. They may predicate membership on tithing, but so does the football club down the street - salvation is something else entirely, and in these churches it's usually dependent on "accepting Christ" or something similar. Personally, I'd like to see a few references to churches that directly say "you have to tithe to be saved." --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 13:00, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
I agree that the passage should be changed. I think the LDS is fairly unique in their emphasis on a very strict tithe. I doubt, however, that even the LDS predicates salvation on the payment of a tithe. The Mormon community is famous for basically having their own welfare system and taking care of impecunious families. Rational Edevidence 13:27, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
Actually, upon further reflection, I don't think this passage should even be here. No matter how it is worded, it suggests that collecting tithes or church taxes is in some way similar to Scientology's completely fraudulent practices - which simply just fails. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 20:00, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
Could, or should, we present it as a continuum, from no pressure to pay in at all, to "recommended" tithing "for all who can", to the outright fraudulent "charging for services or forget it" approach? With those three examples being at 1, 1.2, and 15 on a scale of one to ten? ħumanUser talk:Human 19:02, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Protection issues[edit]

Historically we have only protected articles under quite special circumstances and after debate. I suggest that we maintain this procedure. Who thinks this should be protected? I don't.--Bobbing up 14:50, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Neither do I. Also, you never know when some new editor with valuable contributions might come along - especially in these Anonymous times. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 14:53, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
We do have a lot of anons at the moment don't we? And they seem to be doing productive edits. That's new I think.--Bobbing up 15:05, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
I reduced PC's infinite IP "block" to 3 days without looking at the diffs to see how much damage we are fixing. I will now do the proper research and comment further. (In general I agree, we don't protect pages) If a page is getting a lot of wandalism, we do have a template we put on it though. ħumanUser talk:Human 15:06, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
I see 5 reversions today, and the one I looked at was obvious wandalism. We seem to be doing fine without locking, plenty of hands on board I think. ħumanUser talk:Human 15:07, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
I suspect that it's someone who's just got that adyress, down to the section, in a list & they just go through the list, change IP, & repeat. If we protect it, they'll just move to some other article. So we might as well leave it. (if you notice there's a varying number in the "message" - looks as if they're counting attacks or something) SusanG  ContribsTalk 15:18, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

This fight is inspiring us to improve the article. Ha Ha Ha. Proxima Centauri 17:51, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

The edits are from spam bots attempting to link keywords together, I have changed the section title to disrupt the repetitive attack on this particular article. tmtoulouse pester 18:03, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
@PC, ironically, that happens a lot - a vandal moves an article up onto RC (or in my case, my watchlist, which is almost the same thing...), and while fixing the vandalism, our editors notice things that need to be improoved, and run into the end zone for their 3/10/20/200 pointzes. ħumanUser talk:Human 19:00, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

I'd actually like to see the cultists start attacking...It would be true to form. Of course, they are not above creating clever bots. My most trafficked posts have been scientology related.-- Asclepius staff.png-PalMD --Does this sig line make me look fat? 10:42, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Is Scientology a religion--[edit]

Following yesterday's comments I've added something on this. I've tried to keep it neutral, no doubt those better versed in the subject than I will take it apart. Th unsure.gif --Bobbing up 06:42, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

The section seems fine. I h--Damo2353 12:52, 13 July 2008 (EDT)appen to think that scientology can be defined as a religion but it is also a multinational corporation. The two parts complement each other but both are equally true. I take it that it's appropriate to have a link to their batshit site provided the disclaimer is provided. --Damo2353 07:51, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
Cheers. Although I would suppose that the same could be said about other religions/cults. As far as the link is concerned I don't see why we shouldn't link to them. It's hardly a secret that they exist!  :-) and, hey! we are not conservapedia who bans links to sites they don't like.--Bobbing up 07:57, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
The reason why I get such a sense of dissonance concerning Scientology as a religion is that according to themselves, basically everything they do is based on science and technology, which doesn't seem to jive very well with their parallel claims to being a religion. It's like they're saying, "Yeah, these thetans are spiritual beings... but we have a machine that can detect them and a fool-proof technology for removing them, and it's all very scientific... but we're still a religion, honest!"
Of course, on the subject of legal recognition, there are all sorts of problems because different countries have different standards, or even mean different things with such a recognition. Many countries actually don't recognize "religions" at all, they recognize "charities" for tax purposes, some of which happen to be religious organizations. This is especially true for the United States because of the Establishment Clause. This, of course, is a distinction that Scientology usually conveniently forgets to mention when they brag about how many countries "recognize them as a religion". --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 08:03, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
Equally though, both Creation Science and ID also both claim that they are based on science, but we have no problem in saying that they are , in fact, religious ideas. I included the "which states recognise them" section because you brought it up in the earlier discussion. Frankly I (also ?) don't think it's that relevant. --Bobbing up 08:37, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
The difference is that Creationism and ID starts out with the religion and tries to turn that into science. Scientology is the exact opposite: It starts with a pseudoscience and tries to turn that into a religion.
The question of state recognition is sort of relevant, partly because Scientology brings it up all the time, but also because the states base their decisions on whether or not to grant recognition on the more fundamental discussion about definitions. You could say that state recognition is the academic question as implemented in practice. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 09:02, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
(I can't believe I'm about to defend the $cions) It seems to me that the practice of scientology is about improving the soul or the thetan. They believe that this soul is eternal and has lived many times before. It is possible to "remember" what has happened to you in your past lives. They also believe that by accessing these "memories" they can clear the soul. This improvement not only helps you in this life, but in all future lives as well. All these points are to be taken on faith.
Now the original text Dianetics is quite different. Dianetics worked on the mind of the person reading it in that lifetime, whereas scientology clears the soul. Indeed, reading dianetics it sounds like a scientific textbook focussed on psychology. Souls, past lives and other ideas not empiricably testable are barely mentioned, if at all (its been a couple of years since I read it).
Also, remember that when you get to the stories of Xenu and body thetans you are required to believe that intangible objects that you cannot see, touch or hear are influencing your life. TO me this is similar to believing in a God that you cannot see hear or touch influences your life.
In short, I think it is fair to describe Scientology as a religion. Damo2353 09:01, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
I guess we first need to objectively describe the characteristics of a religion and then see if Scientology has them (or has a sufficient number of them).--Bobbing up 09:40, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

(Unindet) well let me do some quote mining and we'll see what others think the definintion of religion includes. All stolen shamefully from WP:

The Encyclopedia of Religion defines religion this way:[7]

  • In summary, it may be said that almost every known culture involves the religious in the above sense of a depth dimension in cultural experiences at all levels — a push, whether ill-defined or conscious, toward some sort of ultimacy and transcendence that will provide norms and power for the rest of life. When more or less distinct patterns of behaviour are built around this depth dimension in a culture, this structure constitutes religion in its historically recognizable form. Religion is the organization of life around the depth dimensions of experience — varied in form, completeness, and clarity in accordance with the environing culture."

(The emphasis is all mine to attempt to add clarity to what follows )

Definitions mostly include:

  • a notion of the transcendent or numinous, often, but not always, in the form of theism
  • a cultural or behavioural aspect of ritual, liturgy and organized worship, often involving a priesthood, and societal norms of morality (ethos) and virtue (arete)
  • a set of myths or sacred truths held in reverence or believed by adherents
The first. Well I would certainly define $sci as being a "push towards some sort of ultimacy and transcendence", and it certainly provides structure and rules for life. Scientology can almost be defined IMHO by the last sentence of that definition. $cifags organise their life around their belief that through auditing either (depending on where they are on the bridge), their mind in this lifetime, their past life experiences ,or body thetans. To them, there is more in the experience than can be sensed with the senses, which I think is what is meant by the phrase "depth dimensions of experience".
The second list:
  • can belief in past lives (and the ability to recall them) be considered transcendence? Probably I think
  • ritual and organised worship certainly occurs and it is arguable that auditors and org staff members

are analogous to a priesthood. Certainly there is also a (twisted) sense of morality entwined in the teachings. The notion of the 8 Dynamics and the almost utilitarian approach to ethics is a form of morality introduced by them.

  • The space opera stories are clearly in play in this third definition, but we can I think also include the idea that there is such a thing as clear, and that there are OT's with special powers etc etc.

Too long, and too rambled, but I think that Scientology should be considered a religionDamo2353 10:09, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

On balance I must admit that I'd be inclined to agree. I would also say it may be a question of fitting the majority of the definition rather than the entirety of it anyway.--Bobbing up 10:53, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
The problem is that everything in Scientology that appears to be transcendent is tied to the thetans, which are basically space aliens without physical bodies. As such, they are not beyond the immanent world but very much a part of it, as least as Scientologists understand it. Ideas about Heaven and Hell? Implants in the thetans. Reincarnation? Thetans being captured by guys on Venus and sent back to Earth. Faith healing? Getting rid of the excess thetans in your body.
Nothing of this is transcendent in any reasonable sense, and I just don't see how you can have a religion without a transcendent element. That's what I would call a "philosophical society" or a "belief system". Or we could call it a cult of personality - I guess LRH is the closest thing to a god in this system. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 11:16, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
Interesting. I think you are using defining "transcendent element" a little narrower than I would. For myself, I am perfectly prepared to accept that the belief that memories of past lives can be recalled implies transcendence.
For a start it implies a "before life" as well as an "after life". The belief implies that there is a soul. A soul is something transcendent. Remember that the sea org members sign billion year contracts, suggesting that they believe their actions in this lifetime will affect their future lives.
Secondly, I am not entirely convinced by your argument that the belief that the thetans are part of the immanent world means that they are not transcendent. They are unseeable, untouchable and unknowable except when using a religious artifact (the e-meter) in a religious ritual (auditing/solo auditing). To me this seems very religious.
I hope I have not misrepresented your argument, let me know if I have.Damo2353 11:53, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
Belief in Thetans isn't quite the same as belief in an immortal soul. Everything I've read about Scientologist beliefs (like the Evil Overlord XenuTM, for example) suggests that Thetans are almost indistinguishable from humans in mental and social terms. It isn't transcendence, it's just another level of regular "scendence". <blink></blink> 12:42, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
My head hurts. They are immaterial and unknowable (except through ceremony only available to those within the group) but they are not transcendental? I must confess I don't understand what you are saying.--Damo2353 12:52, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
OK just figured out what you're trying to say. There's nothing supernatural about them, they're simply aliens. My reply to that is, so what? I don't think that this means scientology isn't a religion, just a different kind of religion to others.Damo2353 12:58, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
Actually now I think about this, why couldn't space aliens be regarded as supernatural beings? How do you draw the line?--Bobbing up 13:54, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
It's a little bit complex. According to Scientology, the thetans are in fact the "real" individual - his or her personality, awareness, engrams, memories and so on. For instance, what happens when a person dies is that this thetan sheds its used "meat body", flies up to Venus, is captured by the Venusians and retuned to a new meat body on Earth. Of course, the point of Scientology's advanced teachings, known as the "Bridge to Total Freedom", is to gain control of this thetan ("become an 'Operating Thetan'") and its powers.
A good comparison to this thetan concept would probably be the Q from Star Trek - powerful beings from another dimension who have god-like powers but are still very much immanent. (Except, of course, that considering all the bad stuff that various people have done to the thetans, they mostly come across as pretty pathetic, rather than omnipotent.) But the important point is that every single other religion, even Buddism, is based on the idea that mankind is dependent on something Other than ourselves - something "transcendent". But in Scientology, this something outside of man does not exist - it is man, assuming that he can learn the right techniques to achieve it. This is a subtle, but very important difference.
Now, one of the closest thing to a religious concept that Scientology has is probably the idea that there exists at least two different universes: Our own physical "MEST Universe" (matter-energy-space-time) and the Thetan Universe, where the thetans obviously come from. But again, I have a hard time seeing this as religion, because it is so consistently described in pseudo-scientific terms - they're simply two different but connected dimensions, and through the correct application of "Scientology tech" one can learn to gain control over either just as one would learn to drive a car.
Another interesting thing is that if you listen to some Hubbard's own lectures aimed at the more advanced OT levels, all this is described in very technical/scientific terms. It's all, "I did some research on thetans and made a breakthrough, and I discovered that if you do this and this, you will be able to accomplish that and that. This is a very simple technique." On the other hand, there's no mention of prayer or attaining Nirvana or anything like that - it's all about techniques that can be used to gain control of one's own thetan and get rid of all the excess ones.
Of course, it doesn't exactly help either that Hubbard originally created Scientology as a pseudo-science and only made it into a religion when he was laughed out by the scientific community and facing investigations from the Federal authorities. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 14:09, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

Is Scientology a religion--, cont'd[edit]

Very interesting and very informative. Clearly I need to do some more research before I comment again, except perhaps to say that even were I to concede this point on the transcendence, it may not necessarily follow that it's no religion. However, for now, thank you for the well thought out and well written explanation.Damo2353 14:27, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

The definition of religion stipulates there has to be a supernatural agent of some type -- do thetans qualify? -- RemBeau 14:30, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
No problem, Damo. At the same time, I should mention that Scientology certainly also has a lot of religious-like aspects, such as the revelatory nature of its teachings, an infallible prophet-figure, and the cult-like "milk-before-meat" way of advancing in the organization. And I certainly agree with you that whether or not you define it as a religion would depend on which of those aspects that make up the definition of "religion" you consider most important. Personally, I think it's the 'transcendence' aspect, and that a group which does not contain one is better classified as a philosophical society or a belief system or something similar. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 15:01, 13 July 2008 (EDT)


Were you moralfags drunk or stoned when you wrote this? Messed up big wall of text is messed up AND says nothing. Chris Fanshaw 09:15, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

IMpoovment always welcome. SusanG  ContribsTalk 09:25, 27 July 2008 (EDT)
Added a bit of stuff and switched a bit of other stuff around. Tried to keep it relatively memefree for the convenience of you moralfags. Chris Fanshaw 14:54, 27 July 2008 (EDT)
Well that looks like an improvement, if perhaps a bit US-centered. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 15:57, 27 July 2008 (EDT)


"summary=Classified" Scientology cult recording of founder L. Ron Hubbard from Oct 3, 1968, "Assists" course VIII.
The recording, in Hubbard's own distinctive voice, expounds Scientology's dissembling alien creation myth, whereby the earth is populated by the evil "Galactic overload" "Xenu" (or "Xemu") and humans are parasitized by alien spirits called "body thetans". Scientology reportedly exposes the alien basis to its beliefs fewer than 10% of its followers.
Contrary to Scientology statements about the compatibility between Scientology and Christianity, Hubbard maintains that, "There was no Christ" and that the stories of Christ are alien mind implants.
The recording plainly shows Hubbard to have a disturbed personality.
note=Scientology has sent legal threats to Wikileaks over related print material, "OTIII", claiming copyright."
Someone might like to listen to this (21 MB) & stick something in the article? SusanG  ContribsTalk 19:07, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

War service[edit]

This might be an interesting link to add:

Mick McT 11:55, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

Zomg that was a lot of text. To sum it all up, and there is no more accurate way to describe this in any way in English: "he straight made shit up". It recalls me back to High School where a fellow student regaled us with his stories about how he was half-Japanese, that his girlfriend was Japanese, that he lived on his own, and had all sorts of cool exploits. Oh, he also spoke and wrote Japanese. These claims all panned out as entirely false. The question is what drives a person to this compulsion to lie? or more accurately fantasize his life? Perhaps its a form of schizophrenia? --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 02:21, 26 August 2008 (EDT)


I was thinking about writing a section on the Anonymous protests. Should we be minimally pro-Anons, or ridiculously pro-Anons? DillyDally 07:08, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

There is an entry on Anonymous, feel free to expand that if you like or do some changes on this or this, which seems to be the closest the Co$ article gets to mentioning it. Slightly messed up, but never mind, this isn't exactly an encyclopedia. ArmondikoVgnostic 07:20, 25 September 2008 (EDT)
Whoops, thanks DillyDally 21:46, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
I say both - we should be ridiculously pro-anon, and also mock them to within an inch of their suspenders. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:29, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

Damaging "therapy"[edit]

Wow, one giant quote with no contextualizing or analysis. Did  K e n  D o l l  write this section? Can someone who knows/cares about the topic make it a little more interesting? TheoryOfPractice 20:29, 16 April 2009 (EDT)

That's what I'm doing. I am going to join Anonymous. --<choose>

<option>Input The ResistorOutput</option> <option>CoyoteOver 450 pages watched NOT including talk pages</option> <option>The Trickster</option> <option>Acionyx</option> 20:31, 16 April 2009 (EDT)

Alright, CUR--I've removed the quote and pasted it below: lemme know if you need any help integrating it into the article:

Damaging "therapy"[edit]

The Harm it Does to a Person

The results of applying their crackpot psychotherapy (called "auditing") is to weaken the mind. The mind goes from a rational state to an irrational one as the delusional contents of the subconscious mind are brought to the surface and are assumed to be valid. It also makes a person more susceptible to suggestion since it submerges the critical thinking faculties of the mind into a partial subconscious state. It results in a permanent light hypnotic trance and so from thenceforth that person can be more easily controlled. The person will, to a much greater extent, believe and do whatever they are told. And of course this is used to the full in persuading them to hand over further money and dedicating themselves further to the cult.

The results of applying their oversimplified and inapplicable rules in life is to lose the ability to think rationally and logically. A person loses the ability to think for themselves and so they lose the ability to challenge incorrect ideas. This makes them easier to control. It also isolates and alienates the person from society so that they withdraw from normal society and into their "Scientology" society. This further increases their susceptibility to the influence of their group. They end up being afraid of society, believing all society to be controlled by a group of drug companies, psychiatrists and financiers all of whom report to more remote masters. In other words they are in a state of mass paranoia. They therefore avoid reading newspapers and the like since they fear it will disturb their safe Scientology world. It is a downward spiral into madness.

Scientology Kills.[edit]

No CUR. No. Links to anonymous websites run by god-knows-who are not legit sources. You want to call people--people who can sue the owners of the website--murderers, please give links to the relevant police records/court cases, or whatever legit, properly-sourced sources you have....TheoryOfPractice 20:32, 16 April 2009 (EDT)

I changed it. Now it says, 'Scientology removes large amounts of cash.' Which they admit to. By the way, I said that they had a hand in it- which they did. McPherson's death wasn't due to natural causes, and she wasn't looked after well. They've had a hand. Even if they didn't pull the trigger (metaphor), they might as well have. --<choose>

<option>Input The ResistorOutput</option> <option>CoyoteOver 450 pages watched NOT including talk pages</option> <option>The Trickster</option> <option>Acionyx</option> 20:37, 16 April 2009 (EDT)

Great. Get the police report or the paperwork from the indictment or the judge's verdict. TheoryOfPractice 20:39, 16 April 2009 (EDT)
Their lawyers managed to squirm out of it. I can find other sources, however. --<choose>

<option>Input The ResistorOutput</option> <option>CoyoteOver 450 pages watched NOT including talk pages</option> <option>The Trickster</option> <option>Acionyx</option> 20:40, 16 April 2009 (EDT)

Killing members[edit]

Allow me to put it to you this way, TOP: if they haven't managed to successfully sue Anonymous, do you really think they'll be successful at sueing us? Their lawyers get them out of murder charges- and are good for little else. --<choose> <option>Input The ResistorOutput</option> <option>CoyoteOver 450 pages watched NOT including talk pages</option> <option>The Trickster</option> <option>Acionyx</option> 20:32, 16 April 2009 (EDT)

There is no "Anonymous" to sue. Trent's name is on the paperwork somewhere. TheoryOfPractice 20:58, 16 April 2009 (EDT)
The site doesn't appear out of thin air, you know. --<choose>

<option>Input The ResistorOutput</option> <option>CoyoteOver 450 pages watched NOT including talk pages</option> <option>The Trickster</option> <option>Acionyx</option> 21:02, 16 April 2009 (EDT)

Didn't know it had a site--thought they just "met" on irc or something similar...TheoryOfPractice 21:04, 16 April 2009 (EDT)
No, they have a site- not to mention about a dozen other satellite sites. Check the links. These are people who could easily be sued. --<choose>

<option>Input The ResistorOutput</option> <option>CoyoteOver 450 pages watched NOT including talk pages</option> <option>The Trickster</option> <option>Acionyx</option> 21:10, 16 April 2009 (EDT)


Anonymous has accused Scientologists of being involved in many of the deaths of their members[2]. While Scientology may seem like a joke, and may in fact be funny, it is a deadly cult, says Anonymous.[3] In one case, they are alleged to have held a women, Lisa McPherson, against her will for 17 days. She had cockroach bites, and was dehydrated and emaciated.[4] She lost 30 pounds in 17 days, and was covered in bruises. It is fairly safe to say that the CoS was not without guilt.[5] They indirectly caused the deaths of many others.[6] While there is not enough proof for a conviction, they definitely had a hand in it.[citation needed] For example, one Scientologist doctor prescribed vitamens when his patient had frequent epileptic attacks.[7] In addition to killing members, in one case dating from the 1970s, two individuals associated with Scientology were involved in burglaries of IRS offices with the intent of tampering with Hoover's tax documents [8][9] Anonymous can back most of this stuff up to the point of it being convincing, but have not managed to get past lawyers. [citation needed]

  1. What is Scientology?
  2. Does this qualify us as SPs? CUR, what the hell does this even mean?
  3. Just like Christianity during the Inquisition. CUR: How 'bout a cite instead of lame-ass snark?
  4. The case of Lisa PcPherson NOTE TO CUR: This doesn't count as a cite; it's some random web page. find out where they got their citations and use those original documents.
  5. The coroner's reportThe word "Scientology" appears nowhere in the coroner's report. You might be able to use it to talk about what the woman went through/how she died, but it doesn't tie those things to the CoS....
  6. Like who? Who says so? How many others? Names?
  7. Why Are They Dead? Scientology. Again--this is a random web page, not a reliable source.
  8. I wish I was kidding.
  9. But I'm not.

This is all perfectly true. She was held against her will, she did have cockroach bites. Nowhere do I say that they killed her- I said that they caused her death. They did. Just because they didn't murder her doesn't excuse this. --<choose> <option>Input The ResistorOutput</option> <option>CoyoteOver 450 pages watched NOT including talk pages</option> <option>The Trickster</option> <option>Acionyx</option> 20:40, 16 April 2009 (EDT)

"Scientologists have killed many of there members" besides the atrocious misuse of the word "there," this says that they killed her. TheoryOfPractice 20:41, 16 April 2009 (EDT)

Fixed. --<choose>

<option>Input The ResistorOutput</option> <option>CoyoteOver 450 pages watched NOT including talk pages</option> <option>The Trickster</option> <option>Acionyx</option> 20:43, 16 April 2009 (EDT)

I actually agree with CUR. I have researched a lot into Scientology and there have been many mysterious deaths surrounding them. I wouldn't use the term murder but certainly is worth noting. Ace McWickedbitch and moan 20:44, 16 April 2009 (EDT)
The way I see it, since we are also legion, we should be helping Anon., legally. We should give the whole stinking truth- and the truth does stink- about Scientology. While using the term murder was inproper, we need to say something. We should not remain silent. @Ace: Halp! You're agreeing with CUR! --<choose>

<option>Input The ResistorOutput</option> <option>CoyoteOver 450 pages watched NOT including talk pages</option> <option>The Trickster</option> <option>Acionyx</option> 20:46, 16 April 2009 (EDT)

ECLook, I know CoS is up to no good/a lot of shady stuff--but I think that saying outright that "Scientologists have killed many of there members" on the say-so of some random internet site is hardly the kind of thing we should be doing....that's all. TheoryOfPractice 20:47, 16 April 2009 (EDT)
I've reworded. You were right. --<choose>

<option>Input The ResistorOutput</option> <option>CoyoteOver 450 pages watched NOT including talk pages</option> <option>The Trickster</option> <option>Acionyx</option> 20:52, 16 April 2009 (EDT) You want to be clear, I think, that you're not stating facts, but reporting allegations--"X has accused Y of Z." Don't just say "Z" unless it's clearly established in the public record. TheoryOfPractice 20:55, 16 April 2009 (EDT)

If you don't have nice solid sources (like the NYT or some such) you're better off not accusing a religion of murder. If you have secondaries (NOT NOT "anonymous" - quote them and ref the quote. ħumanUser talk:Human 21:24, 16 April 2009 (EDT)
That it something I am no longer doing: I am saying that the woman had cockroach bites, and that Scientology is partly responsible. They took her from the hospital. Her blood is on their hands. --<choose>

<option>Input The ResistorOutput</option> <option>CoyoteOver 450 pages watched NOT including talk pages</option> <option>The Trickster</option> <option>Acionyx</option> 21:31, 16 April 2009 (EDT)

I didn't even know cockroaches bit. Anyway, you better have a solid source for the facts before making the deduction and accusation. ħumanUser talk:Human 21:43, 16 April 2009 (EDT)
I have the coroner's report [1]. They. Are. Evil. That is, the cockroaches are. --<choose>

<option>Input The ResistorOutput</option> <option>CoyoteOver 450 pages watched NOT including talk pages</option> <option>The Trickster</option> <option>Acionyx</option> 21:45, 16 April 2009 (EDT)

OK (haven't checked link). CUR, can you present versions of what you'd like to add here in talk, we can all improve, and then add? It's the best part of how wikis work... (see my deleted and attempted to improve thing over at talk:teabagging (protest), under "racism" for example). ħumanUser talk:Human 21:51, 16 April 2009 (EDT)
See that large block of text? Tell me what you want. It will be changed/added/removed. --<choose>

<option>Input The ResistorOutput</option> <option>CoyoteOver 450 pages watched NOT including talk pages</option> <option>The Trickster</option> <option>Acionyx</option> 21:55, 16 April 2009 (EDT)

I'm replacing links with stuff from Wikipedia whenever possible. --<choose>

<option>Input The ResistorOutput</option> <option>CoyoteOver 450 pages watched NOT including talk pages</option> <option>The Trickster</option> <option>Acionyx</option> 16:26, 17 April 2009 (EDT)

I remember also they found some scientologist boiled alive in his bathtub. I am going to add a link to the page to a book called "a piece of blue sky" which was written by an ex-scientologist and is free to read on-line. Ace McWickedbitch and moan 21:58, 16 April 2009 (EDT)
I read about that. Called a drowning even though his had wasn't above water. His skin had been boiled off. I saw a picture. Eww. --<choose>

<option>Input The ResistorOutput</option> <option>CoyoteOver 450 pages watched NOT including talk pages</option> <option>The Trickster</option> <option>Acionyx</option> 22:01, 16 April 2009 (EDT) (UI) Cur, stuff like "Anonymous can back most of this stuff up to the point of it being convincing" just doesn't fly. We need solid footnotes after each fact on stuff as edgy as accusing people of murder. ħumanUser talk:Human 16:40, 17 April 2009 (EDT)

And none of this is from Anonymous. It is from Wikipedia, the coroner, and sites that don't like Scientology. --<choose>

<option>Input The ResistorOutput</option> <option>CoyoteOver 450 pages watched NOT including talk pages</option> <option>The Trickster</option> <option>Acionyx</option> 16:50, 17 April 2009 (EDT)

What about the unfootnoted line I quoted above? Also, please go one step further than WP - follow their footnote and get the "real" source. Also also please stop using non permalinks to WP articles as citations. If at all possible, and it always should be possible, don't use WP as a reference. It's not one. ħumanUser talk:Human 16:53, 17 April 2009 (EDT)
EC Wikipedia and "sites that don't like Scientology" don't count as sources. TheoryOfPractice 17:56, 17 April 2009 (EDT)
True. Until there's something solid like a news report about a police raid, we're stuck on doing anything other than reporting what Anon and say and explicitly stating that it's them who said it. And as for the sources behind the WP footnotes, double check those, often they're not as helpful as they should be. All it takes is a relatively small cabal of editors to have an agenda and the quality of source required for WP becomes less than ideal... ArmondikoVgnostic 18:25, 17 April 2009 (EDT)
I have a judicial record and the autopsy. --<choose>

<option>Input The ResistorOutput</option> <option>CoyoteOver 450 pages watched NOT including talk pages</option> <option>The Trickster</option> <option>Acionyx</option> 18:53, 17 April 2009 (EDT)

See above--the autopsy does not talk about Scientology. TheoryOfPractice 18:53, 17 April 2009 (EDT)
No, it does not. What it DOES say is what happened to her. That's what I'm using it to cite. And whyaretheydead is something we already link to. --<choose>

<option>Input The ResistorOutput</option> <option>CoyoteOver 450 pages watched NOT including talk pages</option> <option>The Trickster</option> <option>Acionyx</option> 19:02, 17 April 2009 (EDT) Do we link to it to accuse people of murder or wrongful death? TheoryOfPractice 19:12, 17 April 2009 (EDT)

You are welcome to change that. --<choose>

<option>Input The ResistorOutput</option> <option>CoyoteOver 450 pages watched NOT including talk pages</option> <option>The Trickster</option> <option>Acionyx</option> 19:24, 17 April 2009 (EDT)

I agree with CUR. I see no reason not to accuse $cientology here. There is a lot of evidence to point towards suspicious activity, in the very least, by the Church.— Unsigned, by: DSFARGEG / talk / contribs

LOL. TheoryOfPractice 19:33, 17 April 2009 (EDT)

New Version[edit]

Deaths of Scientologists have founded numerous theories about abuse. A case in point is Lisa McPherson. She was taken from the hospital by Scientologists (Which ones, CUR? Do they have names? Were they working for the CoS/under CoS orders? Can you prove it?)due to the fact that she had gone to a psychologist after a car crash (Scientologists don't like psychology). She was kept in their hotel for a few days. When the Scientologists (again, who?)finally took her to a hospital again, she was pronounced dead upon arrival. She was emaciated, dehydrated, and her hands had cockroach bites.[1][2] A lawsuit was later brought against the Co$, which was settled.[3]

Also, the paragraph is an abomination. The first sentence? Deaths don't found theories. Spell-check "psychologist" and "psychology." Who is this "they" you are referring to? Do "they" have names? TheoryOfPractice 17:07, 19 April 2009 (EDT)
This isn't trying to link the death with the Co$, it is merely telling the story of her death.
"Scientology-related deaths..." that kinda says the opposite. And if it's not trying to link the girl's death w/Scientology, WHY THE FUCK IS IT IN OUR SCIENTOLOGY ARTICLE?TheoryOfPractice 17:12, 19 April 2009 (EDT)
It was under suspiscious circumstances. --<choose>

<option>Input The ResistorOutput</option> <option>CoyoteOver 450 pages watched NOT including talk pages</option> <option>The Trickster</option> <option>Acionyx</option> 17:13, 19 April 2009 (EDT)

  1. Room 174Nope. Some random website is not a decent source with which to accuse people of felonies. Get the original docs.
  2. The autopsy Which, as pointed out above, does not contain the word "Scientology." Someone died a horrible death, but nothing here to link it to CoS
  3. Tampabay
Here, why not link directly to the Lisa McPherson trust. Ace McWickedbitch and moan 17:17, 19 April 2009 (EDT)

New version, which TOP will not put comments into[edit]

Deaths of Scientologists have founded numerous theories about abuse. A case in point is Lisa McPherson. She was taken from the hospital by Scientologists due to the fact that she had gone to a psychologist after a car crash (Scientologists don't like psychology). She was kept in their hotel for a few days. When the Scientologists finally took her to a hospital again, she was pronounced dead upon arrival. She was emaciated, dehydrated, and her hands had cockroach bites.[1][2] They were indicted with two charges of felony, but the charges were dropped after a medical examiner declared the death an accident. [3] A lawsuit was later brought against the Co$, which was settled.[4]

  1. Room 174
  2. The autopsy
  3. TampaBay
  4. Tampabay
Do I need to restate the numerous problems with this? Or will you bother to read the comments above and try to improve this thing? TheoryOfPractice 17:36, 19 April 2009 (EDT)
Let's put it this way: No, I don't know who they were. I don't think anybody does. As for acting under official orders, if a Christian murders a gay person, but it isn't under orders (but still motiviated by faith), does that mean that it isn't Christianity-related? --<choose>

<option>Input The ResistorOutput</option> <option>CoyoteOver 450 pages watched NOT including talk pages</option> <option>The Trickster</option> <option>Acionyx</option> 17:40, 19 April 2009 (EDT)

That's right CUR, it isn't. Unless, like Andy, who thinks that all atheists who wear black are anti-Christian School shooters, you believe that the actions of specific people can be ascribed to an entire group. Unless you can ascribe agency to specific actors, this is more of a conspiracy theory than the grassy knoll. TheoryOfPractice 17:43, 19 April 2009 (EDT)
(EC)can't believe I'm about to defend the clamboys, but... the scientologists in charge of Lisa M did not murder her. They may well have been negligent, but didn't kill her with malice aforethought. Totnesmartin 17:46, 19 April 2009 (EDT)
Which is what I am saying. The were partly responsible. --<choose>

<option>Input The ResistorOutput</option> <option>CoyoteOver 450 pages watched NOT including talk pages</option> <option>The Trickster</option> <option>Acionyx</option> 17:49, 19 April 2009 (EDT)

(EC)I am not ascribing the actions of this group of people to all Scientologists, I am saying, and listen carefully, that the death was related to Scientology. Not Scientologists. Just as if I was killed tommorrow because I was Jewish, that would be anti-Semitism-related, even if no one had orders from up high. --<choose>

<option>Input The ResistorOutput</option> <option>CoyoteOver 450 pages watched NOT including talk pages</option> <option>The Trickster</option> <option>Acionyx</option> 17:49, 19 April 2009 (EDT) You've got it backwards. If someone killed you for being a Jew, yes, that would have something to do with anti-Semitism, but nothing to do with Judaism (not the same thing...). The way you have it, those two guys who shot up Columbine High actually had something to do with atheism and evolution....TheoryOfPractice 17:54, 19 April 2009 (EDT)

And if someone killed me for being an atheist or Jew because they were Muslim, that would also be related to Islam, even if it is a minority opinion. --<choose>

<option>Input The ResistorOutput</option> <option>CoyoteOver 450 pages watched NOT including talk pages</option> <option>The Trickster</option> <option>Acionyx</option> 18:01, 19 April 2009 (EDT) no. No it would not. Stop being so dense. Theor yOfPractice 18:02, 19 April 2009 (EDT)

Come on fellas. Lookit, there have been several suspicious deaths of people in the care of Scientology, that is factual and can be added to the article. Not murder but suspicious enough to merit inclusion. Ace McWickedbitch and moan 18:05, 19 April 2009 (EDT)
And Lisa M. has been in the article for quite some time now, and CUR's not really adding much of value beyond a voyeuristic description of the condition of the corpse...TheoryOfPractice 18:14, 19 April 2009 (EDT)
No, she hasn't. --<choose>

<option>Input The ResistorOutput</option> <option>CoyoteOver 450 pages watched NOT including talk pages</option> <option>The Trickster</option> <option>Acionyx</option> 18:18, 19 April 2009 (EDT)

Huh? Lisa McPherson is already mentioned in the article, & has been since sometime last summer. WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:25, 19 April 2009 (EDT)
Which is basically what the paragraph says. --<choose>

<option>Input The ResistorOutput</option> <option>CoyoteOver 450 pages watched NOT including talk pages</option> <option>The Trickster</option> <option>Acionyx</option> 18:09, 19 April 2009 (EDT)


  1. Put a stop to the silly & increasingly off-topic feud in the thread above.
  2. Let the reader draw their own conclusions. We have already mentioned in the article that Lisa McPherson died in mysterious circumstances. That in itself is fairly uncontroversial, but allows the reader to research further if they wish to, & make up their own mind. All we really need to add is a citation - e.g. linking to the Wikipedia article about her, or even the Lisa McPherson Memorial Page (which takes the view that she was "killed by the Church of Scientology"). I think going into details here ourselves would be a mistake, & getting sued really isn't an option. WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:20, 19 April 2009 (EDT)
  1. Agree - we're sliding into yet another CURgument (same people as well).
  2. Yes, let's link to somewherer else and let them get sued. Totnesmartin 18:23, 19 April 2009 (EDT)

The article doesn't say anything, save one sentence. She is relatively well-known. The incident drew much attention. It warrents it own section. --<choose> <option>Input The ResistorOutput</option> <option>CoyoteOver 450 pages watched NOT including talk pages</option> <option>The Trickster</option> <option>Acionyx</option> 18:26, 19 April 2009 (EDT)

CUR why dont you just expand on the part that mentions her instead creating a new section? Then everyone can be happy. Ace McWickedbitch and moan 18:30, 19 April 2009 (EDT)

removed section[edit]

I removed this:

===Conservapedia and Scientology===
Andrew Schlafly strongly defends Scientology to the point of blocking editors who criticize it and deleting articles detailing illegal activities and arrests. According to Conservapedia, "we may observe that Scientology does entertain a fine goal in attempting to improve the world and man's lot within it, whether materially or spiritually. Many practitioners are dedicated and selfless in seeking such ends."

And a gratuitous reference to Andrew Schlafly in another section. I really don't see the point of adding a very minor point referring to a fairly irrelevant webshite to a mainspace article. Every time I read it, I see "Schlafly...blocking...criticize...deleting" and think, "that's a daily occurrence, so what?" ħumanUser talk:Human 19:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I have nothing good to add.gif Scarlet A.pnggnostic 23:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Normally, I might agree in that it sometimes seems our raisons d'être is to rag on Conservapedia. In this case, however, I thought in intriguing and a bit dismaying that the great Bible-rewriting Christian so strongly believed in Scientology as to not only delete two articles, but to issue a 5 year block on this editor for daring to publish factual material.
Otherwise, I think we need some rule clarification: We can deride Andy in such-and-such article but we can't make a factual reference in this article, etc.
--UnicornTapestry (talk) 19:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Yup, it's a bit iffy and should have been removed. Perhaps it belongs more as a footnote to a section discussing support for Scientiology, so long as there's a citation. That way we remove CP cruft from another article, but it's there in the footnotes for interested readers (assuming anyone but us still reads the site). --ConcernedresidentAsk me about your mother 20:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I think "to issue a 5 year block on this editor for daring to publish factual material" is so routine it's pointless, and in my opinion all Andy was reacting to was someone criticizing "a religion". Also, it's using a reaction instigated by us as a source, which isn't very appropriate. Now, if it was a section on a CP: page or at conservapedia, I'd be fine with that. Also also, it's not footnoted. ħumanUser talk:Human 21:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Bronze or Silver???[edit]

I see someone rated this article as "Bronze" level. However, reading through this article, I think that it fits the criteria for "Silver" status at least. Maybe even gold. Though, it could also be argued, that we don't want to give $cientology any more gold or silver than they already have. Gooniepunk2010 Oi! Oi! Oi! 03:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. But I think that top part needs cleared up. As it stands right now, that top "warning" section reads like Uncyclopedia, there's snark and there's fugly snark. Scarlet A.pnggnostic 16:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

A Big Joke?[edit]

I guess I did upload it.

"The joke, of course, is on the "believers", who don't even realize they have been manipulated by someone who simply took his understanding of the human mind and created an interesting quasi-scientific experiment on how people come to believe things and follow "teachings"."

I don't think that Hubbard intended it as a joke; I mean, I think he actually believed what he was talking about. I had printed out a newspaper article a long time ago that talks about him having a near-death experience, and writing Dianetics based off of it. Once I find it, I'll put in this space for discussion purposes. --Stilldeciding (talk) 22:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

It's possible he could have gone insane or something, but he could have just been lying about having a near death experience. --Onion Hi! :) 22:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
After reading some accounts from people who knew him, it seems prety likely to me that he was insane. Again, I'll eventually add the quotes from the newspaper article about this. --Stilldeciding (talk) 02:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I probably writed what you quoted above. I have always been of the opinion that Hubbard foisted Scientology on the world as a joke/experiment. It's so ridiculous, how could anyone ever believe it? And yet, he structured it in a way that he observed other religions grow, and it has survived. There's a sci fi story somewhere I read about two guys concocting a "club" or social organisation that was designed for optimum growth, the denouement came when it ran out of people to "sign up". Part of my opinion of LRH and $cientology's genesis is based on that story. PS, I have some tapes and a book I scored at the dump of an L Ron lecture from, like, the 50s. One of these days I should play/read them! I scanned the cover, but never uploaded it... ħumanUser talk:Human 02:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, the analogy I'd like to put forward is that L. Ron made a great joke, but Miscavige took away the punchline and sold it at a higher price. Scarlet A.pnggnostic 11:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I don't know about Dianetics coming from an NDE, but by all indications OTIII was the product of a rager of a drug session fueled by alcohol and a cocktail of psychotropics. The fact that the whole document is borderline gibberish would indicate that at the very least some heavy amphetamine use was involved. EVDebs (talk) 00:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Cover Article[edit]

This article needs to be improved and made into a cover article. it's another one of those "high traffic" topics that could get more readers to RW. What do we need to improve it?Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina 22:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks real nice from where I am. CopperheadHisssssss 23:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I saw a lengthy Co$ TV advert the other night and I nearly retched. Yep, this is a great, great cover article idea.
From a quick scan, I think the article needs a cleanup of its references and transformation of the YouTube videos into something more wiki-friendly. Uke Blue 23:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
What are wiki friendly vids?Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina 00:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I meant that we like to minimize the use of embedded YouTube videos in articles. Seme Blue 00:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I'd also like to see some integration of more up-to-date events, seeing as this article hasn't been edited since 2010. Uke Blue 00:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Ohmy.gif really? That long? CopperheadHisssssss 00:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Similarities between scientology and the scepticalmovement.[edit]

Similarities between scientology and the scepticalmovement.

Similarities between Scientology and Skepticism: Both movements claimed from the beginning that they represented science. Both movements had ties to Science Fiction. The concept of "scientific skepticism" from SciFi. Scientology's founder was scencefiction author.

Both movements are working hard to create high walls between members and non-members. Skeptics call the opponents of nicknames woowoo, pseudovetare, alternativare etc.. Scientology members raise over other people they are "clear". They have leaders who are above members.: The magician James Randi traveling around and talking all sorts of nonsense and get applause of supporters (see Youtube videos). Ron Hubbard was sitting on a yacht in the Mediterranean, and wrote about Scientology.

Members who are critical ports in the cold, and treated worse than ordinary opponent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karl den nionde (talk • contribs) 08:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)— Unsigned, by: Mamma / talk / contribs

Does this count as not even wrong or is it something else?--Weirdstuff (talk) 09:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Think it counts as humour (or humor). At least I hope for Karl den nionde's sake it does. Scream!! (talk) 11:42, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
That's odd as well. User Mamma didn't electronically sign their comment but claimed that it was an unsigned comment added by somebody else. Weird or what?--Weirdstuff (talk) 14:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't get it. Skepticism is a way of analyzing the world. It does not have ties to "science fiction" nor "represent science". are you just joshing us cause it's a tuesday, and working is really unintersting today?--Green mowse.pngGodotCalibrated! let the voting begin! 15:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Google bomb[edit]

Google Search still suggests "scientology" and "scientology dangerous cult" in incognito mode. See the bottom of this screenshot. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Sadly, I took out the bit about searches not finding Scientology="dangerous cult", cos they do now. In fact had to go through several pages of to find a "dangerous cult" entry which weren't not Scientology. Pity.Glynhughes (talk) 15:35, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
"Duck duck go" has Scientology at #3 and #7. Scream!! (talk) 15:49, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Interesting... but the wording?[edit]

The beginning of this article currently reads: "The Church of Scientology is a dangerous cult that foists its dogma upon the gullible public. It oversees the practice of the for-profit religion created by science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard (so, inaccurate rumour has it, as part of a bet with Robert A. Heinlein).". I don't understand what this part means: (so, inaccurate rumour has it, as part of a bet with Robert A. Heinlein) I was considering editing this out, but wanted to post here to see what anyone else thought first. What is an "inaccurate rumour"? And why even mention it? Edit this out? Or is there something I am missing here? Thanks. Refugeetalk page 08:20, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Hubbard allegedly made a bet with Heinlen while pissed that he could start a cult. Tielec01 (talk) 08:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Tielec, it says "inaccurate rumour" - doesn't this mean it is not true? Why mention a rumour, especially one that has been disproven? I don't understand. Thx, Refugeetalk page 08:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
"so" doesn't seem to fit grammatically in that sentence. Otherwise OK, though the bet rumour should be cited somewhere if it isn't already. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 08:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
"so" as the first word in the sentence also confused me... Refugeetalk page 08:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I think it's a bit on an urban legend. The "so" at the beginning makes the sentence awkward but if you read the commas as an aside it still makes sense. No idea why it's mentioned - a bit of flavour maybe? Be bold and scratch it if you want... Tielec01 (talk) 08:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that's probably why. Thanks for taking a look, it helps to have feedback. I think I will leave it alone, anyway. I am thinking of adding a few more things though. Refugeetalk page 08:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
"Possibly apocryphal rumour"?--Weirdstuff (talk) 09:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)