“An Overview of Scientology” banner

Scientology® pages index  |  Contact

Scientology: Wikipedia or The burden of Sisyphus
(Scientology in the media and on the Internet (3))
(to other Scientology pages)

>> Do you want to help with preserving the original technology? <<  Consult my want list here!

Please note that words with an asterisk (*) are defined at the bottom of this page! Only first appearances are indicated.

“whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not — it doesn't belong in Wikipedia”
  Jimmy Wales              
  (from Wikipedia rules ‘Neutral point of view: No Original Research’)  

Scientology in the media and on the Internet   (page 3, Wikipedia)

Go to “Scientology in the media and on the Internet” index page


     The phenomena known as ‘Wikipedia’
                 - A general overview
        (Includes:  A summary;  The vandalization problem;  The ‘no guarantee of validity’ situation;  The use of warning banners in Wikipedia;  The Wikipedia courthouse, the ‘three-revert rule’ (getting outvoted) & tracking edits)
         - ‘Original research’ versus ‘authorities’  or  Wikipedia's questionable foundation
        (Includes:  Core content policies: ‘No original research’, ‘Verifiability’ and ‘Neutral point of view’;  A widely accepted standard: ‘Consensus’)
         - Personal experiences with editing on Wikipedia and boycotting it
  (a) How are controversial subjects dealt with on Wikipedia?
         - ‘September 11, 2001 attacks’
- ‘Creationism’
  (b) The (in)correctness of the Scientology related articles on Wikipedia
         - What you can expect while editing Scientology related articles
- Various examples of Scientology related articles with misrepresentations:
                        1. The ‘Scientology belief system’
2. ‘Science fiction author L. Ron Hubbard’

3. ‘Mary Sue Hubbard’ versus ‘Guardian Office’

4. ‘Operation Snow White’

5. Adding links to referenced studies to Wikipedia
  The Swedish episode  (my experiences editing on the Swedish Wiki)
      - Introduction and summary of my edits on the Swedish Wikipedia
- My arguments
- Blocked from editing on Swedish Wikipedia and action taken by me
- How my write up (report) was received
- Having an ‘agenda’
- My edits on the Swedish Wikipedia remain intact till this day & Final notices

Back to Main Index The phenomena known as ‘Wikipedia’

A general overview
    - A summary
- The vandalization problem
- The ‘no guarantee of validity’ situation
- The use of warning banners in Wikipedia
- The Wikipedia courthouse, the ‘three-revert rule’ (getting outvoted) & tracking edits
‘Original research’ versus ‘authorities’  or  Wikipedia's questionable foundation’ 
            - Core content policies: ‘No original research’, ‘Verifiability’ and ‘Neutral point of view’
- A widely accepted standard: ‘Consensus’
Personal experiences with editing on Wikipedia and boycotting it

Go back A general overview

Go back
A summary

A medium such as Wikipedia ( and all its offshoots do add a very interesting twist to the information that is found on the Internet. Wikipedia has ‘earned’ credibility solely because of its popularity and the fact that in many searches with for example Internet search machines such as Google, Yahoo, Ask, etc. may present hits with Wikipedia first. The question is if this credibility is rightfully earned.
Wikipedia promotes itself as an open content encyclopaedia of some sort,but a kind in Sisyphuswhich any person –be it a fool or a literate– can contribute, write and actually alter information in virtually any article. And these edits you can get published instantly on Wikipedia. So, nothing that you will ever write on Wikipedia will be safe. You will have to monitor in eternity. On top of that you can even be anonymous. Well, how does that sound for an encyclopaedia? When in a real encyclopaedia it would be a requirement to be actually merited (having a proven expertise) before being allowed to contribute.
It has also been found that various individuals purposely seek to manipulate the flow of information for propagandistic reasons. Various outsets and uses for personal agenda's are effectively touched in the article “Political tricksters fouling up Web site” published on on Saturday, 29 Apr 2006 (consult article here, pop-up window).

Probably in general the medium is fairly reliable, however controversial topics like religious and political issues, or for example Scientology and Creationism should be subjected to serious scrutiny. See, you can even work together with other people and add twists to the information found on Wikipedia. It has been found that routinely individuals monitor particular pages that instantly will revert something if it does not align their agenda.

It can not be denied that Wikipedia and the likes are interesting initiatives. Because any ordinary person can contribute, information will be written down that otherwise may never have been transformed to text in some orderly and searchable format.
On the other hand you will encounter the problem that when you enter some information on Wikipedia that although the information would be correct and fully verified. Then it may still get persistently rejected by individuals if it would go against the general agreements that people have. For that reason topics that are subject to strongly opposite views and interpretations can turn very chaotic indeed.
Then if you would decide to get involved with editing/writing on Wikipedia you also have to live with the worry that any person at any time may be vandalizing your contributions. Indeed these are not very comforting premises to work in! I just fail to see that serious established and researches would be willing to spend much time on such a medium.

Information and various viewpoints can also be found in this discussion group:
     ‘The Wikipedia Review’
(external link) (last checked: 17 Apr 2015).
Then there is another site that examines the phenomena and its consequences:
     ‘Wikipediocracy’ (external link) (last checked: 17 Apr 2015).

Go back
The vandalization problem

A rather huge problem would be that you will not ever know for sure if you are consulting a vandalized article at the very moment that you are consulting it! The claim may very well be that vandalism gets corrected in some minutes or so, but may be already too long. Either way you can never, never, never be completely sure about the correctness of what you are reading on Wikipedia as you may be consulting a vandalized article prior to correction.
Take as an example this article here (external link) that had changed 2.5% into 25%. It took 1 hour 14 minutes to get it corrected. If you were consulting in this interim you would have been fed with false information.
A problem is though also that the vandals are many. This in essence denotes Wikipedia as an outright unreliable source of information.

You see, a true encyclopaedia does not and can not change information just like that in an instant (at a whim even) by some anonymous and usually unmerited individual! Alterations/improvements have to be looked upon by various prior to implementation. Any and all of these verification lines prior to publication are gloriously skipped in Wikipedia. This Wikipedia instead is about correcting after the fact. The effects of this can be quite hazardous.

Go back
The ‘no guarantee of validity’ situation

It would seem that Wikipedia itself is aware of some the problems, as it will not give you guarantees. This is made quite clear in their own General Disclaimer: “WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY”. The article on it can be consulted here (external link) (last checked: 10 Apr 2013). It does provide for amongst other the following statements:
“Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here.”
“None of the contributors, sponsors, administrators, or anyone else connected with Wikipedia in any way whatsoever can be responsible for the appearance of any inaccurate or libelous information or for your use of the information contained in or linked from these web pages.”
No guarantees and no one takes responsibility. This may suffice as a warning!

Go back
The use of warning banners in Wikipedia

You can come across all sort of signs (banners) on Wikipedia in where one becomes aware of the subjectivity and unrealibility in particular sensitive/controversial articles. There is:
Wikipedia banner: Scientology related pages on probation
The above for example appears at present (18 November 2007) on all Scientology related discussion pages (‘talk pages’). Each Wikipedia article has its adherent ‘talk page’ in where suggestions and such can be made and/or proposed improvements can be discussed.

You may also find this one on the talk page if the topic is considered controversial and under dispute:
Wikipedia banner:  Controversial topic under dispute
I found the above on the talk page for article ‘Scientology’ (

The Wikipedia articles themselves also may have such a banner informing the visitors of a particular article about some situation. The below one for example I found at article ‘Office of Special Affairs’ (
Wikipedia banner:  Accuracy disputed

And I found the below one at article ‘Scientology’ (
Wikipedia banner:  Article locked because of vandalism
Note:  All the above banners were found at respective given links on 18 November 2007. They however may not always remain there.

Go back
The Wikipedia courthouse, the ‘three-revert rule’ (getting outvoted) & tracking edits

Being an editor/writer on Wikipedia may turn a very frustrating business, as you may end up spending most of your time reverting and battling/arguing with opponents. However if you have to fight against the general opinion you are likely to get outvoted. Another huge setback of the Wikipedia set up as you can factually get outvoted! You see, they have this three-revert rule. It means that you have 3 chances to revert an edit, if you do more then you will get an 24-hour ban. If you persist after that the ban may turn more permanent. Technically thus you will get outvoted if you are alone and have at least 2 persons that you are up against.

Wikipedia has a whole system (a jungle basically) of guidelines, boards, ruling commissions, appeal, and so on. If you are getting caught up in disagreements with opponents and issues that need settling you can assemble a jury of some sort to come to some kind of solution or ruling, or you may request for the interference of such an Administrator. It all functions pretty much as some sort of courthouse. The question is if one actually wants to get involved in all that. It doesn't really matter though if such a justice sort of system intelligently has been put together. If you have few people that excel in good judgment you will either way not get very far in resolving quarrels! Generally it is rather easy to become such an Administrator. You just be active for a while cleaning up vandalism, then you get some people in favour of you, and then you can get voted. It is that easy. My experience has been that if you edit in more controversial sort of article, that you may find yourself 90% of the time battling with opponents.

The Wikipedia edit database. Interesting is that any previous version or edit is accessible in the database of Wikipedia. You just go to to the ‘history page’ (each article on Wikipedia has such, the link is somewhere at the top on each Wikipedia article). Here now you can in the greatest detail see what edit was made, who performed it, when it was done, and often a short note what the edit was about. This in essence means that you can track anything that ever was written on Wikipedia. If the editor was unregistered it will instead identify the user by its IP.

Go back ‘Original research’ versus ‘authorities’  or  Wikipedia's questionable foundation

(all quotations in the below from Wikipedia are of 3 August 2008, if not mentioned otherwise)

Go back Core content policies: ‘No original research’, ‘Verifiability’ and ‘Neutral point of view’

Now, Wikipedia names as its cornerstone pillars (“core content policies”):
      ►  No original research (link to article) (all external links)      
  Verifiability  (link to article)  
  Neutral point of view  (link to article)  
Each of these articles do also point out:
“Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with all three.”

I received the following response on some talkpage on Wikipedia’: “We have to go with what the verifiable, reliable sources say, whether or not its accurate. That's Wikipedia policy.”. This sort of adds an interesting twist in regards to turning Wikipedia into an objective and for all reliable encyclopaedia. So, what is the actual status quo on this?

a) No original research

A usual argument exercised for this is the Wikipedia rule ‘No original research’ that says:
“Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments.”
It continues with saying:
“Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.”
In the section ‘Reliable sources’ in the article it states further:
“‘Original research’ is material for which no reliable source can be found. A reliable published source that supports the material in the article is the only demonstration that the material is not original research. Even with well-sourced material, however, using it out of context or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source is original research”
Reliable sources being:
“In general the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication.”
Then pointing out:
“Material that is self-published, whether on paper or online, is generally not regarded as reliable”
The rule promoted:
“Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source”

b) Verifiability

As found phrased in the respective Wikipedia article:
“The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia already has been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.”
The ‘No Original Research’ article adds the following comment:
“This policy and the verifiability policy reinforce each other by requiring that only assertions, theories, opinions, and arguments that have already been published in a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia.”

c) Neutral point of view

These 3 points are found in the respective Wikipedia article, the introduction phrase however is how it appears in the article ‘No Original Research’:
“The inclusion of a view that is held only by a tiny minority may constitute original research. Jimbo Wales has said of this:
If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
If your viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then — whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not — it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Wikipedia is not the place for original research.”
Jimmy Wales (nicknamed ‘Jimbo’) is the founder of Wikipedia. Per this it could be perceived that Wikipedia may have been created with the intent to distribute false information and this with permission. After all the rule ruthlessly exercised is “whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not — it doesn't belong in Wikipedia”! With this it adjusts itself to commonly accepted opinion, sort of to majority vote. All that what is required to get something implemented and accepted in Wikipedia is to get it referred to or mentioned in some sort of reputed reliable source. This reliable source can be dead wrong, nonetheless this is the only material you are allowed to use!
What follows here is that you only have to see to it that accordingly all criticism towards the thus far accepted/established standard does not get accepted/approved for publication in “peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses”. All what is left then is “mainstream newspapers”. Thus if you control the textbooks and also the media you will have it made, now you can actually start poisoning the planet with misinformation! We may have to start realizing that in fact the Wikipedia concept actively supports and promotes such a scenario by its own rules!

Go back A widely accepted standard: ‘Consensus’

In addition there is also this thing referred to as Consensus (article, external link) that says about this:
This page documents an official English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all users should follow. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus.”.
Reaching a consensus is obviously considered a vital ingredient on Wikipedia:
“Developing consensus requires special attention to neutrality - remaining neutral in our actions in an effort to reach a compromise that everyone can agree on.”

The ultimate outcome of such would still be a general agreement amongst Wikipedia members/editors, rather than correctness. Question is if an encyclopaedia (worthy of that name) should be composed of or be subjected to such submissions.

Go back Personal experiences with editing on Wikipedia and boycotting it

Olberon - 'De Rode Ridder' album series #28
the blacksmith that can forge swords that
will cut through the hardest armour

I do have some personal experiences with Wikipedia as I have been active for a brief interim on both the English and the Swedish Wikipedia. My username there was Olberon. Things at times became very hectic indeed. Many of my edits are for the larger part gone by now, although I did notice that various crucial additions remain intact. You also do find many of my postings on the various discussion pages (called ‘talk pages’ on Wikipedia).
Either way today I have boycotted editing on Wikipedia. I prefer to perform my own research and writing and that can not get vandalized and disrupted by any anonymous fool that has access to a computer! At the time of me writing this the Scientology related pages on Wikipedia still need some serious adjusting and for all more objectivity and alternate views on the issues it discusses. I however will not get myself involved with that.

By various so-called Wikipedia editors I have been accused as if my research into Scientology and findings thereof would be of an amateurish nature. As a comparison one may wonder how professional it actually is to write on Wikipedia where everything in essence may be of a very temporary and impersonal nature indeed.

Go to index

Back to Main Index (a) How are controversial subjects dealt with on Wikipedia?

I picked 2 very different issues as examples which nonetheless both are considered controversial. The overtone however that is present in the treatment of the subjects addressed in these articles does go into one particular direction as if the arguments had been settled already. The question is in how far this approach affects the objectivity. Objective approach would be concerned about to not at forehand decide anything for the reader. As in you present the information, reference material, sources, provide for various options, and then let the reader decide upon this.

Go back ‘September 11, 2001 attacks’

Main 9/11 article:  ‘September 11, 2001 attacks’  (article, external link) 
9/11 conspiracy theories article:  ‘9/11 conspiracy theories’  (article, external link)

Indeed these September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11 or twintower incident) are considered highly controversial. The reason why I bring it up here is solely to examine how these happenings have been dealt with on Wikipedia. Is it objective? Have all angles involved with this received appropriate attention? And so on ...

It could be divided up in 2 fields. We have the official government supported version and we have the one that is usually referred to as the conspiracy version. We find that the main 9/11 article on Wikipedia primarily focuses on and factually adopts the official version as the only correct one. Only a small notice is found about the conspiracy version in this article. I print this little section here below in full (quotations are of 18 November 2007). See chapter ‘3.4 Conspiracy theories’:
“Conspiracy theories
  Various conspiracy theorists have emerged as a reaction to the attacks suggesting that individuals inside the United States knew the attacks were coming and deliberately chose not to prevent them, or that individuals outside of the terrorist organization Al Qaeda planned or carried out the attacks.[136] These theories are generally not accepted as credible by political leaders, mainstream journalists, and independent researchers who have concluded that responsibility for the attacks and the resulting destruction rests solely with Al Qaeda. A number of 9/11 opinion polls have established that there is disagreement in the general population as to the veracity of the mainstream account.”
Interesting is that it says: “These theories are generally not accepted as credible by political leaders, mainstream journalists, and independent researchers who have concluded that responsibility for the attacks and the resulting destruction rests solely with Al Qaeda.”. Now how true would this claim be? There is no reference material given that would support this evaluation. A link however is provided for another article on Wikipedia that addresses the conspiracy theory version: “Main article: 9/11 conspiracy theories”.
Often the use of the word theory implies that a flavour is given to this so that it is generally believed/accepted that it would have emerged from someone's imagination and therefore can not be considered to have any truth contained in it. The article linked to is sort of build around and presented as such. Nonetheless there are many supports from experts and researchers to various claims made. The way it is presented in this Wikipedia article is a direct invalidation to the credibility of various nonetheless valid arguments.
That which is interesting is that various pertinent and factually supported information is not implemented or referred to in the main Wikipedia article regarding the 9/11 incident. Instead these are relayed separately and mixed into the 9/11 conspiracy theories article, and thus their credibility are effectively being invalidated. The folding out of happenings as presented in the main article could easily be perceived as the one that is government approved.

Strictly taken what actually determines which is the true conspiracy version, the officially endorsed version or the one that is purposely presented as being the conspiracy version? Then who decides which is to be either of these? Realizing with this that the one that is presented as the conspiracy version will automatically be perceived as the rather nutty version and will by habit and by the far majority not be given much credibility. These are interesting aspects to the issue in regards to the actual representation of something.

It is my intent here to simply draw the attention to that the way something is presented already may influence how you are going the regard that which is addressed. In my opinion adding phrases like “These theories are generally not accepted as credible by political leaders, mainstream journalists, and independent researchers who have concluded that responsibility for the attacks and the resulting destruction rests solely with Al Qaeda.” reflect a state of mind that is already set and one stops looking. It thus opposes the intent for creating an objective encyclopaedia. If there are various facts that have come forward in research then they should not get mixed in with conspiracy theories stories and thus also be regarded as non-valid or even non-existing.
You may however study these articles and make up your own mind about this. Realize however that it bears no relevance here if the conspiracy theories would be true or not. That is not the issue that I address here. It is the presentation of the various materials I am bothered about.

Go back ‘Creationism’

Main article:  ‘Creationism’  (article, external link)
Controversy article:  ‘Creation-evolution controversy’  (article, external link)

The first paragraph of the main article reads:  (quotations are of 18 November 2007)
“Creationism is a religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their original form by a deity or deities (often the Abrahamic God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam), whose existence is presupposed.[1] In relation to the creation-evolution controversy the term creationism (or strict creationism) is commonly used to refer to religiously-motivated rejection of evolution.”
When it comes down to it, in regards to how it is defined in the above, it does not make creationism into something you can work with in a serious manner. It is simply not very workable as you have put it into a box. A box that received a label that directs amongst other to a preconceived idea. This preconceived idea being that this collection of 66 books (bible) tell the only true version of the events and thus should be taken as that by which everything has to be measured. After all here creationism is put as something that is “commonly used to refer to religiously-motivated rejection of evolution”.

But you see, in regards to what generally is referred to as creationism, it is not about this preconceived idea. In fact this bears or rather should not bear any relevance whatsoever! You simply should regard the facts that one has and then draw an evaluation based on these. You are not supposed to try to fit these facts into an already established preconceived idea. Be it creation or evolution. The way however one generally goes about things is to try to fit things according to the belief or preconception one already has. When you have done so you have introduced boundaries into your research. This in essence then also has turned evolution into evolutionism. Considering this evolution has become (in practice) as religious as creationism.
Accordingly we could denote that ‘creation vs evolution’ equals ‘creationism vs evolutionism’.
The -ism turns it into a doctrine, system or principle. This would then be looked upon as a sort of belief system and practiced from a preconceived frame of mind. The word creationism received this flavour of not being credible solely because of the choice of the word. Evolution is not addressed as evolutionism so then why is creation addressed as creationism, or rather why do we not use evolutionism? Either way the word choice (-ism) does place it on a level of predetermination.

The first paragraph of the controversy article reads:
“The creation-evolution controversy (also termed the creation vs. evolution debate or the origins debate) is a recurring political dispute about the origins of the Earth, humanity, life, and the universe,[1] between those who espouse the validity and superiority of a particular religiously-based origin belief (i.e., creationism), and the scientific consensus, particularly in the field of evolutionary biology, but also in the fields of geology, palaeontology, thermodynamics, nuclear physics and cosmology.[2] Within the scientific community and academia the level of support for evolution is overwhelming,[3] while support for biblically-literal accounts or other creationist alternatives is very small among scientists, and virtually nonexistent among those in the relevant fields.[4]
So it says: “Within the scientific community and academia the level of support for evolution is overwhelming”, which probably is fairly true, but why is that? It is also persistently claimed that the evidence in favour of evolution is overwhelming, but this is rather a matter of presentation, not of fact. It continues with: “while support for biblically-literal accounts or other creationist alternatives is very small among scientists, and virtually nonexistent among those in the relevant fields”, which is not actually true.
Strictly taken there is no evidence for evolution. For the larger part it is based on a complex system of assumptions that in their turn are interpreted and presented in a particular way to confirm the preconception. This cardhouse of assumptions does not fall apart if an inconsistency is uncovered. Simply a re-interpretation or a new assumption is put in its place. However so-called mainstream scientists will tell you otherwise. That which I wish to draw attention to is that one should investigate and analyze how this system actually works and which criteria are being exercised! In essence you can not provide hard evidence for evolution and not either for creationism. It can also be seen as an utopia to use the often by evolutionist forwarded argument as if the facts fit best and confirm the evolutional view of things. This is simply a matter of how one goes about in regards to the presentation. The presentation can make people to adopt and believe about everything! Presentation has in essence and it its practical use seldom any relation with hard fact.

The focus should also be more on examining how one actually goes about things and not to just fold out the different systems of preconceptions that are in use. Also it should not be entirely based on what some mainstream scientist claims or says. The general agreement should also not be the determining factor. We should not have people or other dictating what is to be true to us through means of this kind of persuasion. This alternate view of how to look upon this is not offered in these Wikipedia articles. When going through the articles it becomes clear that a decision has already been made if it be evolution or creation, if it be a young earth or an old earth, or if it be Intelligent Design or just all a coincidence. These matters practically and factually may not be so obvious as many seem to believe or rather as we are told. Some may understand what I try to relate about here. Many, far too many questions and aspects have not been explained adequately with the proposed answer evolution. Also far too many arguments from these creationists are being washed over simply because they may not confirm the evolutional view of things. This is a simple reality. With this evolution-creation controversy we find ourselves on very shaky ground. Where then does the objectivity display itself in these Wikipedia articles about these matters? Again it is the presentation that bothers me.

Go to index

Back to Main Index (b) The (in)correctness of the Scientology related articles on Wikipedia

What you can expect while editing Scientology related articles
Various examples of Scientology related articles with misrepresentations
           - 1. The ‘Scientology belief system’
- 2. ‘Science fiction author L. Ron Hubbard’
- 3. ‘Mary Sue Hubbard’ versus ‘Guardian Office’
- 4. ‘Operation Snow White’
- 5. Adding links to referenced studies to Wikipedia

Go back What you can expect while editing Scientology related articles

Now why would the Scientology related articles on Wikipedia contain incorrect or incomplete information? Also here (as with the 9/11 incident & creationism) the presentation of the information is going into a certain direction. The reality is that the far, far majority that in fact is editing these Scientology related pages are not in particular in favour of the subject. For the larger part this would explain why the information found on these Scientology related pages is so to say rather twisted. Indeed I encountered very few editors that could be judged being appreciative towards the subject of Scientology. Very few of these appear to be interested to go around editing them. There is also the situation that those that once arrived there with all good intentions may quickly be scared away by those that are monitoring these pages. You may find out about this for yourself if you would decide to edit the Scientology related pages for a while. The tactics used are not very nice, not very nice indeed.
One of the usual tools exerted is intimidation. Quickly one may get jumped on if one does something that the other does not approve of. Threats disguised as intimidation may follow. Especially in the case of persistent reverting and defending one's stance. Your arguments usually are run over just like that and not even listened to or considered. One also gets the impression that various persons that are going around there seem to have it as their full time job to go around editing and all that in an effort to ensure that the pages of their choice will continue to approve of their preconceived state of mind. It is quite obvious that the serious researcher has no interest whatsoever to invest time to fight these battles over these trifles and persistently implemented twists. Those that remain editing are primarily those that run some sort of (personal) agenda. If things get awry often it may start to resemble some sort of kindergarten out of control. The child that persists making noise commonly wins the argument. Or it must be the one that has the most ‘friends’ to support the opinion (majority vote). Of course these are nice premises for the truly objective encyclopaedia ... Sometimes I wonder if this Wikipedia does not resemble more a courthouse that adjudicates over disputes than an actual serious attempt to create some worthwhile sort of database of information put together with honest intent. When met with opposition the communications turn rather quickly harsh and accusative.

It could also easily be perceived that the Church of Scientology does not directly promote the initiative to edit on Wikipedia either. Various persons did report to me that they received the advice from Church side to not get involved with all that as it may interfere with their progress when simultaneously receiving services in Scientology. It is just that one sooner or later get into battle with the various anti-Scientology individuals that are going around monitoring these pages and they generally are not going about things very gently.
My advice? Let Wikipedia be, or it must be that you want (for a brief spell) to find out how it is like and get reality about the real world of Wikipedia, and to learn what is actually happening behind the scenes.

Go back Various examples of Scientology related articles with misrepresentations

As an annotation it could be judged quite noteworthy that neither of the Scientology/L. Ron Hubbard related pages on Wikipedia make any mention anywhere about if it really was L. Ron Hubbard that supposedly died in 1986. The happenings surrounding this and various time periods in the history of Scientology that are relating to later developed/released technology have nonetheless been questioned and with rather good reason. Alright, you don't have to buy any of these either. But at the time I am writing this Wikipedia makes no mention at all about it, where it is a rather developed topic of discussion elsewhere on the Internet. I personally find this rather exceptional! It is also noted that the version that tells that L. Ron Hubbard died in 1986 is the one supported by the Church of Scientology and odd enough also by the various anti-Scientologists. That the anti-Scientologist adopts it can be explained with that the person L. Ron Hubbard then can be held directly responsible for all bad that happened during the later years. It is found that anti-Scientologists primarily target the person L. Ron Hubbard for about everything.

(all quotations in the below are of 18 November 2007, if not mentioned otherwise)

Go back 1. The ‘Scientology belief system’

‘Church of Scientology’  (
The first sentence already reads:  (underlining is mine)
“The Church of Scientology is the largest religious organization devoted to the practice and the promotion of the Scientology belief system.”
One should be quite clear about that Scientology's outset never has been that of some belief system. In fact quite the contrary. Any may turn this into his or her belief (and various enthusiastically do), but this is actually not what Scientology is about at all.
We find that the same is phrased in the Wikipedia article ‘Scientology’ as:  (underlining is mine)
Scientology is a body of beliefs and related practices initially developed by science fiction author L. Ron Hubbard in 1952 as an outgrowth of his earlier self-help system, Dianetics.[1]
I address various of its aspects in regards to this on my page “Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard - An Introduction”, see chapter “Scientology: ‘A belief system?’” or click here (separate window).

Go back 2. ‘Science fiction author L. Ron Hubbard’

‘Scientology’  (
A battle also has been fought concerning how to present L. Ron Hubbard. Would he be introduced as a ‘pulp fiction writer’, a ‘Science Fiction writer’, or the neutral ‘American author’? As L. Ron Hubbard has been writing in about any possible genre it would be proper to simply address him as an ‘American author’. It is noted that the bulk of his writings is not actually fiction. For a while I battled about this and also wrote rather extensively on the related ‘talk pages’ of the applicable Wikipedia articles. Nonetheless persistently time after time my edits got reverted and it got changed back into ‘pulp fiction writer’ or something like that. At the time that I had quit editing on Wikipedia it said this still. Now when I am writing about this I checked back on this and it said on the Wikipedia article ‘Church of Scientology’ ( ‘American Science Fiction author’. You see, some wish that Scientology will be associated with Science Fiction, or they may even believe that it really is Science Fiction. In fact even the fiction part of the work of L. Ron Hubbard that falls under the category Science Fiction constitutes of a rather small percentage (less than 25%) of his complete fiction legacy, and in particular in the 1932-50 period (be it especially noted that no fiction stories were published during 1950-81). See my study on my page “L. Ron Hubbard and his works of fiction”.

On this Wikipedia article ‘Scientology’ it appears as:  (underlining is mine) (18 November 2007)
Scientology is a body of beliefs and related practices initially developed by science fiction author L. Ron Hubbard in 1952 as an outgrowth of his earlier self-help system, Dianetics.[1]
A reference () is provided that leads to a site from the Church of Scientology ( This is not even a good resource for the claims made in that sentence. Especially not in regards to “science fiction author L. Ron Hubbard.”.

Then for about a month or so it just had said: “L. Ron Hubbard”. Then once again it got changed into “science fiction author L. Ron Hubbard”. However a consensus was proposed and accordingly agreed upon and since 22 January 2008 it said:  (underlining is mine)
Scientology is a body of beliefs and related practices initially developed by American speculative fiction[1] author L. Ron Hubbard in 1952 as a successor of his earlier self-help system, Dianetics.”  (source, external link)
A reference () given for this was “‘L. Ron Hubbard: Master Storyteller’. Author Services, Inc.” The link given here lead to Now, this lasted for quite a while!

And then, which is so very typical for Wikipedia, some other person came around and changed it (6 months later) on 7 July 2008 again into:  (underlining is mine)
Scientology is a body of beliefs and related practices initially created by American science fiction[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] author L. Ron Hubbard.”  (source, external link)
This individual used the argument (see also at above link) that: “While Scientology websites and a variety book ads, blogs, and chat pages refer to him as a speculative fiction author, most of the most reputable, independent sources, ranging from encyclopedias (Encyclopedia Britannica, Columbia Encyclopedia, Oxford University Press' World Encyclopedia, etc) to prominent newspapers and magazines (TIME, The Guardian) refer to him only as a science fiction author.”.
Accordingly references given were:
Encyclopedia Britannica states “science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard (1911–86)” in its coverage of Scientology issues. Available at: [link].
The World Encyclopedia (2005) says “Hubbard, L. Ron ( Lafayette Ronald) (1911–86) US science fiction writer and the guiding spirit of the Church of scientology. (World Encyclopedia 2005, originally published by Oxford University Press 2005.)
The Oxford Pocket Dictionary of Current English ( 2008) states that Scientology “was founded by science-fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard (1911–86) in 1955.
THe Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition (2008) says that “A prolific author, Hubbard wrote many works on Scientology and is also noted for his science-fiction novels and short stories.”
A TIME magazine article from May 6, 1991 By RICHARD BEHAR states that “The Church of Scientology, started by science-fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard to “clear” people of unhappiness, portrays itself as a religion.” Available at: [link]
An article in the UK paper The Guardian from June 2007 says “The Church was the creation of L Ron Hubbard, the American science fiction author, as the religious development of his earlier secular ...” (link)
The Scifi Horizons! magazine refers to him as “L. Ron Hubbard, science fiction author and founder of Scientology (link)
MSN Encarta's article on Science Fiction states that “...Campbell’s magazine introduced many soon-to-be famous science-fiction writers, including L. Sprague De Camp, Lester del Rey, Theodore Sturgeon, L. Ron Hubbard, Fritz Leiber, A. E. Van Vogt, Arthur C. Clarke, and Robert Heinlein.” (emphasis added). (link)

Now it may be thought that reliable sources have been given for the claim of L. Ron Hubbard being a Science Fiction writer. However, it is forgotten here that neither of these sources actually represent particular studies made into the area. Where did they get that information from? See, they fail to explain or give sources or referencing for how they actually came to that conclusion. These entries referred to appear only to provide for a general circumscription or introduction of some sort.
More importantly however it appears that even these entries that are provided for as a reference source do not necessarily give a correct presentation of that what we actually find in them. Let's investigate these reference sources:
♠  Encyclopedia Britannica states “science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard (1911–86)” in its coverage of Scientology issues. Available at: [link].
That link takes us to a page on
  We find at:  (as of 6 August 2008)
  And at:  (as of 6 August 2008)
L. Ron Hubbard in front of Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, West Sussex, England, 1970s.[Credits : Express Newspapers/Hulton Archive/Getty Images]
L. Ron Hubbard American writer

Aspects of this topic are discussed in the following places at Britannica.

Assorted References
     development of Scientology ( in Scientology )
international movement that emerged in the 1950s in response to the thought of Lafayette Ronald Hubbard (b. March 13, 1911, Tilden, Nebraska, U.S.-d. January 24, 1986, San Luis Obispo, California), a writer who introduced his...
     history of New Religious Movements ( in New Religious Movement: “Scientific” NRMs: UFO groups and Scientology )
...biological evolutionary theory. Other groups, including the Church of Scientology, fashion spiritual teachings and mythology in the language of modern psychology. Founded by science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard (1911-86), Scientology began as Dianetics, which was Hubbard's term for a kind of therapy that claimed to eliminate destructive imprints of past experiences, called...


L. Ron Hubbard in front of Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, West Sussex, England, 1970s.[Credits : Express Newspapers/Hulton Archive/Getty Images] Scientologyinternational movement

L. Ron Hubbard in front of Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, West Sussex, England, 1970s.[Credits : Express Newspapers/Hulton Archive/Getty Images]international movement that emerged in the 1950s in response to the thought of Lafayette Ronald Hubbard (b. March 13, 1911, Tilden, Nebraska, U.S.-d. January 24, 1986, San Luis Obispo, California), a writer who introduced his ideas to the general public in Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health (1950). Hubbard's stated goal was to analyze humankind's mental aberrations and to offer a means for overcoming them. He eventually moved away from Dianetics' focus on the mind to a more religious approach to the human condition, which he called Scientology. The Church of Scientology was founded in 1954.
...He married in 1933 and settled down to a career as a writer. His writing spanned various genres—from westerns to horror and science fiction—and he was a popular contributor to pulp magazines....

Now, this encyclopaedia does not carry an article at ‘L. Ron Hubbard’, but nonetheless he is here at the top only referred to as an “American writer”. This online version of this encyclopaedia therefore carries instead 2 assorted references in where mention is made of L. Ron Hubbard. The first one being the article ‘Scientology’ (partly printed on the right in above column). The second one being ‘New Religious Movement: “Scientific” NRMs: UFO groups and Scientology’, and he is only in this second one referred to as a science fiction writer, which is in relation and relevant to what this article focuses on. The main article ‘Scientology’ does not address him as such. Consult the above selected quotations from this article yourself in above column on the right.
For completeness it must however be noted here as well that this it is phrased in this Britannica Encyclopaedia article ‘Dianetics’ as: “Founded by science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard (1911-86)”, but this is not consistent with how it is relayed in some of the other articles in this same encyclopaedia! (the following text in this article fully matches the text as found in the encyclopaedia article ‘New Religious Movement: “Scientific” NRMs: UFO groups and Scientology’. This would clearly indicate that one of these articles has copied it from the other. We don't know however for which of these articles these lines had originally been written for!)
Nonetheless, what do we see happening in the Wikipedia article? The person that edited here makes up: “Encyclopedia Britannica states “science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard (1911–86)” in its coverage of Scientology issues.”. In fact this is not so found in the main article ‘Scientology’ in this very encyclopaedia! Sounds pretty much as an attempt for propaganda to really associate Scientology with science fiction and present it as such. This same person had also claimed that these reference sources “refer to him only as a science fiction author” (source, external link), quite obviously this is a false statement as can be seen!

♠  The World Encyclopedia (2005) says “Hubbard, L. Ron ( Lafayette Ronald) (1911–86) US science fiction writer and the guiding spirit of the Church of scientology.(World Encyclopedia 2005, originally published by Oxford University Press 2005.)
Encyclopaedia is a rather big word for this one volume book. Instead I have consulted the 22 volume ‘World Book Encyclopedia’ (2005 Edition) which generally is considered to be one of the finest general encyclopedias on the market today. Per reviews it continues to be a first choice for libraries, schools, and homes. It says at the entry ‘Scientology’: “a religious movement founded by L. Ron Hubbard, an American writer and visionary thinker”. I find not a word about science fiction in the whole article. There are no entries found for L. Ron Hubbard or Dianetics.

♠  The Oxford Pocket Dictionary of Current English ( 2008) states that Scientology “was founded by science-fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard (1911–86) in 1955.
It quotes here from a pocket version. It is really not advised to actually refer to pocket versions of works and use that as a reference source. Note also that the subject of Scientology dates actually back to December 1951. Then the Church of Scientology was actually founded by L. Ron Hubbard and 2 additional persons (Mary Sue Hubbard & John Galusha), this was in December 1953. Just this one little sentence contains 3 incorrect/incomplete data.

♠  THe Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition (2008) says that “A prolific author, Hubbard wrote many works on Scientology and is also noted for his science-fiction novels and short stories.”
This is actually a correct presentation, and this does not support either to address L. Ron Hubbard as a science fiction writer in the Wikipedia article.
The remainder of these reliable sources as found in the Wikipedia article are deriving from magazines, and should accordingly be taken less seriously than proper encyclopaedical publications.

I list here another entry that is actually not listed in the Wikipedia article and that is found in the ‘Encyclopedia Americana International Edition’ (2001). It says at ‘Scientology’: “founded by an American, L. Ron Hubbard (1911-1986)”. The article makes no mention of science fiction. No entries are found for L. Ron Hubbard or Dianetics.

So, do all these entires justify that L. Ron Hubbard is to circumscribed as a science fiction writer? Not quite, that has become rather clear now. It is not supported as the various presticious encyclopaedia's do not actually say that.
An additional interesting development occurred later in the reference sourcing (3 August 2008). Some Wikipedia editor figured that there were too many reference sources which he phrased as follows: “too many refs. let;'s not get crazy here”. And we then find that he removed all the magazine sources [5][6][7][8] and more interestingly also reference source [4]. An encyclopaedical reference that was not in favour of the label of science fiction writer (consult here, external link). One can say here, that this is Wikipedia in action! An eternal going forth and back & adding and removing, not seldom with a propaganda in mind.

There in fact exists a work that actually does present a detailed study into this matter:
      William J. Widder, M.A.; The Fiction of L. Ron Hubbard: A comprehensive bibliography & reference guide to published and selected unpublished works.; Los Angeles, CA, U.S.A.; Bridge Publications, Incorporated, 1994; ISBN 0-88404-936-1      
But this work is not even mentioned in this Wikipedia article. Why? Simply because it is not considered a reliable source as it was published by the church of Scientology. In fact this William Widder is not even a Scientologist or sorts. It appears to be so that one chooses to blindly focus on various chosen reliable sources that have been carefully picked at forehand. It doesn't matter if one knows or if it is proven incorrect, this is what we will follow either way! Well, at least we have a few Wikipedia editors here that are of that opinion, and that happily submit to this approach. However in regards to introducing L. Ron Hubbard simply as a science fiction writer turned to being an utter joke. Why? Just walk into a larger library or some Scientology organization and you see these many thick book volumes which do not contain science fiction by a long shot. Now, are Wikipedia's reliable sources senior to that?
Accordingly I wrote on the talkpage of the Wikipedia Scientology article: “In fact it bears little relevance if such sources all tell that he would be a ‘Science Fiction’ writer. All these sources, either way, have to submit to what the actual statistics are. Time after time people have purposely made the association with Science fiction. Somehow this got stuck in people's minds, and in those that wrote these source entries. The fact is that he wrote in all genre's of fiction (and other), and the majority of them (and most certainly prior to 1950), it was by far not Science Fiction. As I have predicted a while back already, this matter will be an everlasting war. This time around the ‘authority’ argument is being tried, rather than the statistically correct argument.”.
A point however could be made with that L. Ron Hubbard attracted most attention for in particular his Science Fiction stories, but after all the 30's-50's were the Golden Age of Science Fiction, and this expressed itself also in other media such as film. The question is if it would then be correct to, solely because of this, address him as a predominant ‘science fiction writer’ rather than ‘fiction writer’. I don't think that it would be, although mention of this could be made.

In addition there is also this thing referred to as Consensus (article, external link).
A consensus had been reached 6 months ago in this Scientology article regarding this. And now, once again, it had been broken. Why is it broken? Because this changing back ignores entirely to compromise! It brutally violates to be willing to have a consensus that everyone actually can agree upon.

Well, I guess that this entry in this Wikipedia article will continue to say this, until a more intelligent and objective oriented person comes along. Either way, any will see that these quarrels will continue into eternity on Wikipedia.
The problem is that people when they go and read and consult this article. They will say: “Ah, he was a Science Fiction author, alright. Now matters fall into place!”. Then when they get deeper into the subject and find out more about the subject of Scientology, they then will find out it was a highly incorrect statement. It has turned to a premeditated association concocted and enforced by some editor(s) on Wikipedia. And this is even accomplished by these referrals in various supposed reliable sources. The proclaimed aim of Wikipedia is to give the various information and let then the reader decide. This aim marvelously failed (once again) with this entry. It resulted in an obvious misrepresentation.
It is interesting to see though how persistently the flow of information on Wikipedia is being twisted for reason of propaganda, or is it limited intelligence?
Related information about the matter of this fiction legacy you will find on my page “L. Ron Hubbard and his works of fiction”, consult here (separate window).

Go back 3. ‘Mary Sue Hubbard’ versus ‘Guardian Office’

‘Mary Sue Hubbard’  (
The first paragraph in the section entitled ‘Disconnection’ reads:
“The furor over Mary Sue's trial and subsequent guilty plea, along with tactics employed by Mary Sue's Guardian's Office, were an embarrassment for the Church, and Mary Sue was shunned (or “disconnected”) from the Church where she once was a top leader.”
It says: “Mary Sue's Guardian's Office”. In fact she was at the time evidently not heading it. Per the information consulted we can confirm that the Guardian Office was actually run by Jane Kember. The role of Mary Sue Hubbard is noted and accordingly could be seen as that of an overseer. Nonetheless she could be considered overall responsible as she was hierarchically wise directly senior to the Guardian (Jane kember). However the way I present it here is not relayed anywhere on Wikipedia as far as I have seen. Mary Sue is pointed out as THE person. In fact I find it very hard to locate instances where Mary Sue Hubbard in person would have acted in regards to or relating to the Guardian Office. For the most I only find persons that claim to act on some written or verbal order that was said/claimed to be deriving from Mary Sue. It is an open question to me in so far she had anything at all to do with or was involved in the actual activities of the Guardian Office at least so since about 1973.
Further the quoted sentence and the text following it presents a situation. There in fact exists an alternate view and explanation to that. Things may not all seem to be as how they are presented here. Wikipedia makes no particular mention of this other interpretation. I touch various of this on my page “The story of Mary Sue Hubbard”, see chapter “A note about the ‘Guardian Office’ episode”.

Then mind that the Wikipedia article about Mary Sue Hubbard did note as if she had submitted to a “subsequent guilty plea”, which is a confabulation or more precisely a lie. The fact is that she and the ten others plead nolo contendere, and this is not quite the same as pleading guilty. Omar V. Garrison phrases this as follows in his book ‘Playing Dirty’ (1980): “U.S. Attorneys then prepared a 282-page stipulated record of evidence against the defendants. Under terms of the procedure, the defendants agreed to be found guilty without challenging the Government's evidence, but also without agreeing to its accuracy. ‘We don't agree to one fact, as stated by the Government,’ declared defense counsel. ‘We only agree that this is the Government's evidence, and we rest without putting on any evidence of our own.’” (see page 237). There was a reason for doing this which this chapter 11: ‘The Just and the Unjust’ of Garrison's book clearly folds out.

Also in this Wikipedia article about Mary Sue Hubbard we see the phrasing used: “wife of American pulp fiction author and Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard”. Fact is that the bulk of the writings of L. Ron Hubbard is not fiction, then why addressing him as a pulp fiction author? To make it appear as if Scientology would be pulp or fiction as well?

Go back 4. ‘Operation Snow White’

‘Operation Snow White’  (
It reads in the first sentence:
“Operation Snow White was the Church of Scientology's name for a project during the 1970s to purge unfavorable records about Scientology and its founder L. Ron Hubbard.”
You see, the thing that is actually wrong here is how it is presented, it is not objectively. It was not about “purging unfavorable records” per sé. Its main aim was to effectively expose false reports for which there was no foundation in fact. This is something different. The recorded history that followed may speak for itself, however it doesn't need to be presented in this manner. This example is actually just a minor subtlety.

If we then go to the section entitled: “Background” we read in the first sentence:
“The ‘Snow White Program’ was written by L. Ron Hubbard (LRH)[3]
It is referenced with [3]: “Miller, Russell (1987). Bare-faced Messiah: The True Story of L. Ron Hubbard. Henry Holt & Co. ISBN 0-8050-0654-0.”.
The ‘Wikipedia:WikiProject Scientology/History Article Project’ then actually makes a comment about this (visit here, external link) (last checked: 10 Apr 2013). It says:
“Wikipedia Operation Snow White
  ‘The “Snow White Program” was written by L. Ron Hubbard’ cites Bare-faced Messiah, any documents written by Hubbard?”
In fact that L. Ron Hubbard would actually have authored this is quite unconfirmed. Documented evidence for that has not come forward. Also do mind that this Russell Miller is not in particular reputed for his accuracy concerning facts.

Coincidentally on Wikipedia page “L. Ron Hubbard” we find to date in the introduction of the article: “In 1983 L. Ron Hubbard was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in an international information infiltration and theft project called "Operation Snow White".” (visit here, external link) (last checked: 10 Apr 2013) We see that not a single reference source is even given for this entry!

If we track the Wikipedia history of this particular entry we see that an anonymous person has added that on 05:36, 25 Aug 2011. Indeed anonymous because the person is only identified by the IP number (, for all we know if we track this we may end up at a library or something.
Then we see it was reverted 9 minutes later (at 05:45) by registered user ‘Tbhotch’ for indicated reason “WP:NPOV”, which means that it would violate Neutral Point of View. An factually it does because of the lack of any reference source supplied.
Nonetheless 8 hours later (at 13:44) the entry was restored again by user ‘ResidentAnthropologist’ whow adds the notice “Reverted good faith edits by Tbhotch (talk): Revert deletion of material, take it up on talk.” And that was the end of it. Thus an anonymous person put in that notice, lacking any reference source, and then another registered user maintains/restores it for the wrong reason. Obviously it should have remained being deleted as it it does violate NPOV. See, this is not something you restore being there and it then to be discussed on some Talk page on Wikipedia, you simply supply accurate reference sources to support the claims the entry makes. If you don't or are unable to do so, then you remove that entry. Instead that entry has now been on that page for a whole 3½ years.

The entry makes 2 claims. One being: “L. Ron Hubbard was named as an unindicted co-conspirator”, which is just an unsupported opinion. Not at any time any paper has come forward that would indicate any involvement of this person in the matter. The second claim being: “an international information infiltration and theft project called "Operation Snow White"”. When we consult that actual papers that lay out the actual details of this “Snow White Program”, then this claim too appears just opinion. It is one thing to have so-called mission orders detailing an operation, it becomes en entirely different matter what some people in the Scientology organization may have made of it. If we read this entry on Wikipedia we are not particularly supplied with such a discrimination, instead we are prone to believe that the actual documented concept of Operation Snow White was all set up as it is presented in that entry. Of course this violates NPOV.

Various recorded details about this you find in link here below:  (separate window)
    “Operation ‘Snow White’ (Apr 73)”

Go back 5. Adding links to referenced studies to Wikipedia

‘Rundown (Scientology)’  (
‘Golden Age of Tech’  (
In the ‘Rundown (Scientology)’ article you will find no information about the so-called Primary Rundown (one sentence however appears on the article ‘List of Scientology Rundowns’, visit here, external link). Also the ‘Golden Age of Tech’ article provides for indeed very little information about what this is actually about. It is mostly focusing on discussing the changes in regards of the E-Meter, which has actually little to nothing to do with what the Golden Age of Tech actually involved.
Both these aforementioned articles used to have a link to my extensive and fully referenced studies that I made about each of these topics. See my studies on my pages “Treatise of the ‘Primary Rundown’” & “‘Golden Age of Tech’ analysis”. Today these links have been removed from these articles. Why are these links gone today? Simply because some persons that were not in favour of the subject of Scientology had some personal opinion about my studies or may be rather my person. In fact it is not even very relevant if my studies or not considered reliable sources as per the Wikipedia criteria. This for the simple reason that my pages, as a rule, contain a treasure of reference material concerning the matters that I address. Either way 2 persons then literally conspired about this on one of their user ‘talk page’ and then went about removing any and at all links to my pages from the Wikipedia articles, also arguments were forwarded in relation to New World Order. Consult this strange discussion here below:  (external link) (note here that since I have changed the New World Order wording on my site to A New Order since imply because this identifies the topics that I address more correctly)
    Discussion found on Tilman's user talk page (conspiring) (external link)  (alternate, pop-up window)
It was found convenient to at the same time to include removing links to the site ‘Another look at Scientology’ (, in the discussion this is referred to as the ‘“Bernie” page’. I protested on the various boards, contacted Administrators, etc. to no avail whatsoever. The whole happening was simply ignored. I also placed a complaint on this noticeboard for administrators, some discussion followed there, consult here below:  (external link)
    Complaint posted on the Wikipedia Administrators’ noticeboard and discussion  (alternate link)
Either way the no interest from the administrators that I personally approached and the rather illiterate or should I say infantile responses that I was facing from others (see the 2 earlier links to discussions), all this was for me the final drop to actually boycott Wikipedia. Also remember that nothing ever will be safe on Wikipedia. People will continue to come and go and do as they please, removing and adding. Silly arguments, being unspecific, no duplication, and the displayed human behaviour will go on and on. These links to these particular studies may return one day on these Wikipedia articles, however it will be of no concern to me.

And we could go on like this. We should never, never, never forget that there exist various ways of how something can be presented. Subtle ingredients may give you a seriously wrong impression of what some situation actually is about. Therefore any presentation should be as objective it possibly can be. Also alternate interpretations existing should be given appropriate attention i.e. if there be sufficient with reason for it. After all Wikipedia, as it is promoted and interpreted, aims to let the readers decide.

Go to index

Back to Main Index The Swedish episode (my experiences editing on the Swedish Wiki)

Why did I decide to write about this here? Simply because there are some interesting observations to be made from this. It shows human behaviour. It folds out in what manner people can behave when various go in agreement with each other about some things. I post it because a lesson can be drawn from this. This now has become an interesting record of actual history!

Go back Introduction and summary of my edits on the Swedish Wikipedia

This Swedish episode was indeed quite shortlived and hectic. It required only 4½ days to get blocked. This was back in May 2006. I encountered an obvious monopole of various Swedish users that intended to maintain the flow of information on the Scientology related articles on the Swedish Wikipedia negative and subjective, 5 of these persons were actual Administrators. So what did I actually do?

Well, I simply attempted to introduce a little more neutral approach towards this rather heated topic of Scientology. See, the various related articles had a rather negative and subjective overtone in the way things were presented in them. Pertinent information was simply missing. It was that bad. It was my intent to just make a few additions/changes and then let it be. My edits however usually got reverted or responded to within just a few minutes.

In the Swedish Wikipedia article ‘Scientology’ I exchanged the sentence:
“It consists of partly Science Fiction unsystemetically mixed with psychology, older philosophies and teachings, and various from medicine, technologies and research.”
“The Church of Scientology presents itself as a religious nonprofit organization dedicated to rehabilitate man as a spiritual being and to provide for guidance and rehabilitation programs.”
I actually had copied this sentence from the English Wikipedia article ‘Scientology’, and then simply translated it into Swedish. Although initially there had been some protests this sentence finally got accepted. The sentence that I removed did reappear further down in the article rewritten as:
“The ideological substance of Scientology has been described as a mixture of Science Fiction, psychology, older philosophies and teachings, and various from medicine, technologies and research.”
At present it has moved again to the beginning of the page. Indeed exchanging “… consists of …” gives quite another approach than “… has been described as …”.

In the same article I had also exchanged “Science Fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard” to “fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard”. This in the end also was accepted. Today it says “USA born writer L. Ron Hubbard”.

In the Swedish article ‘L. Ron Hubbard’ I found various external links to only critical sites. I attempted to provide for a few alternate links. I added amongst other:  (all translated from Swedish)
    “L. Ron Hubbard, A Portrait”  (
Then another user came along and changed the description to:
    “The tribute site of the Swedish Scientologists”
Nonetheless if one follows the link the title of the page is as I wrote it. The description that replaced it is an interpretation, in addition it could be taken as if a belittlement. There was no reason to have it circumscribed as such and so I protested. The readers when visiting the link would have to make their own mind about that. In the end we were able to settle this with:
    “L. Ron Hubbard -- a portrait  (from Scientology movement)”

The above 3 are the basically all the main changes that I implemented. By now as it appeared later I had earned myself to be considered a propagandist of Scientology. I was only there to run my agenda a variety of persons started to claim. Various discussions developed on the various Scientology article related ‘talk pages’. I participated in these discussions and simply folded out my view of things.

Go back My arguments

Amongst other I referred to an article that had appeared in a Swedish newspaper Svenska Dagbladet, (SVD) on 30 March 2006 that relayed about this person at the Stockholm University that had taken various words and had compared how they were defined in the National Encyclopaedia and on Wikipedia and gave his opinion about how he perceived them. One of the words was Scientology:
  1. National Encyclopaedia:  Good focus and the most central parts of Scientology had been addressed. It gives a neutral and objective impression.
  2. Wikipedia:  Gives the impression to be well researched, tries to balance in the critical voices against Scientology, but little too much focus on the mythical uncertain aspects.”
   (translated from Swedish, source can be found here, external link) (last checked: 10 Apr 2013)
It seemed to me then that the various Scientology articles could use some improvement to instead to more balance out the negative and the positive voices. Various entities apparently had another opinion. I continued to defend my stance on the talk pages with supported arguments that I was quite clearly not some propagandist that runs some agenda. But it was thought that I had to have some agenda as the only topic I had been editing in were Scientology related articles. One may wonder in how many different topics one would be able to edit in just a few days! I received the glorious response: “Exactly right. If you during 4 days occupy yourself with the same thing then it is obvious that one has an agenda.” (translated from Swedish write up, see link later in this chapter). The reality actually is here that would I not have been met with such an aggressive opposition by various my interim with the subject of Scientology on Wikipedia would have been very brief indeed! Thus my time spent on the subject was regulated solely by my opponents that persisted in aiming to maintain a subjective presentation of the topic! This is a simple reality.
Alright then, I battled with various users and as much as 5 Wikipedia Administrators. One of these Administrators then resorted to give me a warning, he received full support from 4 other Administrators and various users. Their messages and comments are fully recorded in the Wikipedia database (history pages). There is also a sense of insecurity in regards to the Administrator that blocked me, various times he is conferring with others on the various talk pages and is asking for acknowledgements and advice that/if he has done the right thing. It is duly noted that the accusations at my address had failed to be supported with any other argument then sole opinion. No specifications have ever been provided for in regards to what Wikipedia's policies and rules I supposedly would have violated. I asked for this repeatedly, but received none. Would it have been a real court of law, the case would have been dismissed terminatedly and permanently due to lack of any supporting arguments/evidence.
In this regard it is interesting to see that various of these persons advocate on their own Wikipedia User pages that they promote objectivity and neutral point of view (NPOV). Similarly incapable to practice this towards certain topics.

Go back Blocked from editing on Swedish Wikipedia and action taken by me

      I had registered for the Swedish Wikipedia on: 14 May 2006 hr.20.31
  My last registered edit in an article was on: 17 May 2006 hr.16.57
  I received a warning for blocking:   18 May 2006 hr.14.09
  I got blocked for a month on:   19 May 2006 hr.08.57

It appears quite clearly then that I had been blocked solely for reason of joining the discussions on the ‘talk pages’ and not for the actual editing in the articles! I figured that this was quite absurd. Has one no right for defence? Because of the treatment received and the seriousness of the injustice that I thought it to be I decided to get active with this. I started to contact more and more Administrators without getting particular responses. In the end I wrote a report about the matter (22 May 2006) and posted this on the Internet (only available with exact link).
    My write up that folds out the misbehaviour of various individuals on the Swedish Wikipedia with full referencing (in Swedish!) (pop-up window)
Then I informed a whole variety of persons of this write up and requested their response to this. Due to the lack of reactions I contacted more and more persons. Finally I attempted to simply contact all Administrators (60 at the time), although I noticed that a variety of them (close to 20 or so) had not registered even an email address in their profile. This I perceived as being rather strange as these had placed themselves out of reach for those that had been blocked. An Administrator that can not be reached??

Go back How my write up (report) was received

Alright now, in my write up I was seriously questioning the integrity of a variety of Administrators, and if in fact this Swedish Wikipedia could have a future when people go about things as had been done here. I can't say that I received much response to this. Although a counter that I had placed on the Internet posting revealed that it received a total of 106 visits (this could only be consulted if one had received an exact link to its location, I also had arranged/programmed that it could not turn up while performing a search on the Internet). So people actually did go to see it, but simply did not respond, or rather not to me. I just recently found out that some individuals actually had discussed the matter on some Swedish forum, consult here (external link) (last checked: 10 Apr 2013). It is interesting to read there that in spite of that it is acknowledged that “the article about Church of Scientology is not that good and neutral as it should be”, that it nonetheless is claimed by the very same person that the use of “methods, especially the mass-emailing ..., shows that the user has an agenda that is not compatible with Wikipedia's working method and its demand for neutrality.” (quotations translated from Swedish). I wonder what one would have expected me to do as no one was in particular responding to my alarm. I acted and so it is figured I had to have had an agenda?? Wikipedia's rules quite clearly note that one can complain to its Administrators for reporting matters. And as it happened to be because of the little responses that I received I was getting curious to find out how widespread the inactiveness towards injustices would turn out to be in regards to its Administrators.
An additional response on this Swedish forum says: “It may be so that he is in error and if he starts publishing names then I find it correct to report him to the police.” and “He is evidently criticizing us at present, but it is likely only others that share his opinion that do not realize that this is about bitterness.”. Well, I did not publish any names. I tell nothing that they have not shared already themselves publicly on their own Wikipedia user page. Further there is no bitterness at my address. For me it was never about anything else than achieving fairness in the matter. These were an additional 2 of these Administrators discussing the matter (and finding wrong with me) without ever contacting me in person.
That I would have acted in the way that I did probably no one had expected. It was likely assumed/hoped for that I was going to submit to the intimidation and demand. Would they have evaluated me better, they would have known that I would not let go just like that. I respond rather bad to intimidation and I also will never submit to majority vote if it does interfere with my integrity and sense for justice. It appears that it then was decided to instead be silent about the matter. The messages that I had send to those responsible remained unresponded to. I never received any response from the person that actually had blocked me, and thus I received never a clarification from this person. Till this day he continues to act as an Administrator. As do 3 of the other 4 Administrators that acted against me. Then I found that one of the users that had supported these Administrators is today also active as Administrator (since September 2007).
It is an interesting side note that one of these Administrators actually used his know-how of me being boycotted on the Swedish Wikipedia as an argument to support/promote to get me kicked on the English Wikipedia as well. This individual responded on my talk page on the English Wikipedia, see here (external link) (last checked: 10 Apr 2013). It makes you serious wonder on what level of morality some people are actually living. Well, has any of them grown to be any wiser since then, I don't know, let's hope that they did ...

Go back Having an ‘agenda’

From the previous it can be seen that I repeatedly have been accused as if having some sort of agenda. So what is actually meant by that? It can be easily perceived though that it is used in the sense of something unfavourable.

The ‘World Book dictionary’ (1974 edition) defines ‘agenda’ as:
    “1. things to be attended to or done
  2. a list of things to be dealt with or done”
The ‘Webster's New World Dictionary for Young Readers’ (1989 edition) lists for ‘agenda’:
    “a list of things to be done or talked about, as at a meeting”

Per these definitions can it be perceived as being correct to denote as if I was running some sort of agenda? Meaning did I have an ‘actual list of things’? Not quite, I never had any such thing. All that I did was reading these entries on Wikipedia on a variety of different subjects, I saw an incorrect presentation and left-out information on Scientology related topics and various other in which I had a particular expertise. Solely this motivated me to register as an editor and to get active on the English Wikipedia, to add information and make corrections. Be it noted that I only aimed to correct the obvious big errors, and then let Wikipedia be. Later I decided to check out various on the Dutch and Swedish Wikipedia as well. I never had any particular agenda that involved running some particular script that involved adjusting things according to some preconceived idea or fixation that one may have. It dumfounds me when some would perceive that I had. Sorry, no such thing ... Any attempt or effort taken to show that I had miserably failed to substantiate anything.
I am sure though that some will continue to believe that I had. I find that various persons simply figure that if one tells something about the topic Scientology that is not an attack or make-wrong that this would be perceived by them as if that person must have an agenda or being a propagandist for that matter. After all you must have been brainwashed to say something positive or even aim to present it objective without bias where it concerns that topic! See, you can't say anything positive about that, people need to get warned about that weird space sect! Now, with this state of mind, who actually aims to run an agenda?

Go back My edits on the Swedish Wikipedia remain intact till this day  &  Final notices

Bottom line:  It is noted though that even if I was thought to be running some agenda for Scientology, still all my main additions and changes on the Swedish Wikipedia remain intact to this day! (last checked: 2 Dec 2007). Indeed a strange agenda I must have been running! My opponents appear to actually approve of my edits! This also obviously eradicates any reason or validity in to have me blocked from editing! Still this is exactly what was done.
The Scientology related pages as they appear today on the Swedish Wikipedia have a much more objective presentation. Already while I was still active arguing back in May 2006 various other users actually started rewriting/rephrasing/changing/improving the texts. My brief appearance there apparently must have stimulate things for the better and very rapidly (this can fairly easily be verified while checking the history pages, and compare before I arrived and after I left). So why was I actually put through to this rather unpleasant ordeal at the time?

Now compared to these experiences on this Swedish Wikipedia how does the English Wikipedia fall out? If I regard the opposition that I received on the English one, in essence I do not see too large a difference. The general agreements are fairly similar. On the Swedish Wikipedia however you have much lesser people you can go to for filing your complaint. Also the people going around on the English Wikipedia appear generally much more open to actually respond to communications. From the 40+ Administrators on the Swedish Wikipedia that I notified about the happening I received just one expression of worry from an Administrator, he however never responded to any other message I send him.
I can however sort of commend one Swedish person that actually got in contact with me about the matter and that guided me about how I would go about things to get an Administrator dismissed. You have this committee and you can bring out a vote or request a removal for reason so and so. He send me links and urged me to do so. I didn't see however what my single vote would do. I also didn't see how this matter internally would be settled properly judging by how absurd the responses had been so far. Not to mention the nonresponsive attitude of the remainder of the Administrators and various other. It needed an interference from outside the Wikipedia community. Also by then I had simply lost interest. Either way this was the only somewhat constructive response that I received. Then there also appears an anonymous posting on my Swedish user ‘talk page’ that acknowledged the improper treatment that I was subjected to.

Per all my above experiences man still does not appear to have outgrown his efforts to hunt for supposed witches.



The mental image picture collection collection of a person. It comes from computer technology where all data is in a “bank”. (HCOB 30 Apr 69)  See also at ‘reactive mind’ in vocabulary.
Central Bureaux Order’. An issue-type mainly distributed to Sea Org sections and executives.
1. To stand facing or opposing, especially in challenge, defiance or accusation. (OODs 27 Apr 72)  2. To face without flinching or avoiding. (OODs 27 Apr 72)  3. To be able to see what is or isn't before one. (CBO 190)  4. Direct observation. (HCO PL 18 Sept 67)
     Free Zone:
Free Zone generally is regarded being those groups (as in plural) that practice Scientology outside of the control of the official Church of Scientology. Various of these groups may have their personal approach about how to use the Scientology technology. See also my note here (separate window).
An usual abbreviation for ‘L. Ron Hubbard’.
Mimeograph section. The section within the Scientology organization that takes care of all the printed references, printing, storing, organizing, filing etc. Since the 80's however the printing is not done anymore with a mimeograph machine (or ‘Roneo’), it became off-set printing. However the name Mimeo is still the name used to address this section.
Orders Of the Day’. A type of ship's “newspaper” containing an item from the Commodore, the daily schedule for that day, news and notices, as well as orders necessary to administration of the ship's business. A copy of the OODs is delivered every morning to each in-basket on the ship. It should be read each day carefully so that you keep informed of what is going on around the ship and in the various divisions. (FO 2674)
Office of Special Affairs’. A network within the Church of Scientology International which plans and supervises the legal affairs of the church, under the board of directors. (What Is Scientology? (1992), p. 649)
     reactive mind:
1. That portion of a person's mind which works on a stimulus-response basis (given a certain stimulus, it gives a certain response) which is not under his volitional control and which exerts force and the power of command over his awareness, purposes, thoughts, body and actions. It consists of GPMs, Engrams, Secondaries and Locks. (Scientology Abridged Dictionary)  2. Stored in the reactive mind are engrams, and here we find the single source of aberrations and psychosomatic ills. (Scientology 0-8, p. 11)  3. ‘bank’: a colloquial name for the reactive mind. This is what the procedures of Scientology are devoted to disposing of, for it is only a burden to an individual and he is much better off without it. (Scientology Abridged Dictionary)  4. The reactive mind acts below the level of consciousness. It is the literal stimulus-response mind. Given a certain stimulus it gives a certain response. (The Fundamentals of Thought, p. 58)
     Sea Org (SO):
Short for ‘Sea Organization’. This is the senior organization within the Church of Scientology that see to it that Advanced Organizations (AO's) and the Class IV-V organizations do function well. They send out so-called missions if there are indications or if they find that improvement or corrections are called for. They also provide for dissemination and other programs that the Scientology organizations are to comply with. Missions may be send out to implement these and instruct the organizations.
Short for ‘suppressive person’.
1. The living unit we call, in Scientology, a thetan, that being taken from the Greek letter theta, the mathematic symbol used in Scientology to indicate the source of life and life itself. (Ability Magazine 1)  2. The person himself—not his body or his name, the physical universe, his mind, or anything else; that which is aware of being aware; the identity which is the individual. The thetan is most familiar to one and all as you. (Auditor 25 UK)
1. What we usually mean by valence is somebody else's identity assumed by a person unknowingly. (17ACC-10, 5703C10)  2. the valence mechanism produces whole people for the preclear to be and will include habits and mannerisms which are not mentioned in engrams but are a result of the preclear's compulsion to copy certain people. (Science of Survival, Bk. 2, p. 202)  3. a valence is a false or true identity. The preclear has his own valence. Then there are available to him the valences of all persons who appear in his engrams. (Science of Survival, p. 106)  4. a valence is a substitute for self taken on after the fact of lost confidence in self. (SH Spec 68, 6110C18)  5. the combined package of a personality which one assumes as does an actor on a stage except in life one doesn't usually assume them knowingly. (5707C17)  6. there are many valences in everyone. By a valence is meant an actual or a shadow personality, one's own valence is his actual personality. (Self Analysis, p. 159).

Go to top of this page