This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Sexology and sexuality Start‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Scientology Start‑class Mid‑importance This article is supported by WikiProject Scientology, a collaborative effort to help develop and improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scientology. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on Scientology-related topics. See WikiProject Scientology and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.ScientologyWikipedia:WikiProject ScientologyTemplate:WikiProject ScientologyScientology articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

An entry from Scientology and sex appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 19 May, 2007.

Scientologists say they recognize marriage as a part of the second of the eight dynamics of existence. The second dynamic includes all creative activity, including sex, procreating and the raising of children.

• Reuters (November 18, 2006). "What is a Scientology wedding?: TomKat nuptials bring renewed focus to controversial religious sect". MSNBC. NBC. Retrieved 2008-11-27. {{cite news}}: |last= has generic name (help)

Cirt (talk) 17:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cirt, you had argued at the AfD for pruning back the primary-source content. At the moment, there are still a number of paragraphs sourced only to Hubbard. Shouldn't we take those out now? Jayen466 14:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. I think they are valid and are good complements at this point to the secondary sources. Prune/copyedit/trim, perhaps in places. Remove whole entire paragraphs? Disagree. Cirt (talk) 14:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to do the trimming then that you deem appropriate? Otherwise I am not sure what to make of your comment in the AfD. Jayen466 14:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, to reiterate: Prune/trim? Yes. I never suggested removing whole entire paragraphs in that comment. Cirt (talk) 14:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will list some problems that I see: The second lede para is based exclusively on a primary source, which is not referred to again in the main article. Assertions like the decree being "controversial", a "key teaching" etc. are unsourced. The lede does not summarise the article. Jayen466 14:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The lermanet page "Scientology's Questionable Policies on Rape and Public Relations" (currently ref 8) is a WP:SPS page from an avowed anti-Scientology site. I don't think use of this page as a source is appropriate. Jayen466 14:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Gene Zimmer "Alteration of Scientology Materials Report" (ref 4) does not have publication data. Is that an RS? Jayen466 14:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The entire section "Tone Scale and "Know to Sex" scale" is sourced to primary sources. If we can't find secondary sources discussing this, I am in favour of dropping it. Jayen466 14:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the first para in the Promiscuity section is primary-sourced. The second para is primary-sourced, as well, but luckily this can be fixed. Siker quotes the same policy letter on page 91: [1] Jayen466 14:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The parts of "Abuse your Illusions" that we cite (by Russell Krick, published by The Disinformation Company, [2]) are from a fictionalised account. While it claims to be based on the actual "case history of a friend", I think we would be better off seeking corroboration in a more reliable source. (Note that the second source given, "One Hand Jerking", is another book featuring the exact same fictional account.) Jayen466 15:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to the fictionalized account of the Jason Scott case by Anson Shupe ? Cirt (talk) 15:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some or all of these questions are quoted in the Anderson report. While that too is a primary source, its preceived factual reliability would be an improvement. Jayen466 21:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This source does not actually say in so many words that "Scientology Sex Scandal" was "one of the more popular articles in Australian publishing in 2007", as our article states; the source merely describes it as one of a "slew of blaring headlines" in one of the "celebrity gossip weeklies". I doubt we'll ever be in agreement on the status of women's mags of this type as reliable encyclopedic sources. :-) Jayen466 15:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The title of that article is "Selling off the rack". Also from the article: "A survey of the best-selling magazines of 2007 ..." Cirt (talk) 15:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We could say, The article, which discussed the relationship of Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes, featured one of the more notable headlines in celebrity gossip weeklies in 2007, being entitled "Scientology Sex Scandal". Jayen466 16:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Cirt (talk) 16:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re the use of primary sources: I am fully in agreement with you, and have said so in the past, that Scientology, as well as related Beliefs and Practices articles, should not quote from Scientology websites or books (unless these are sections that reliable secondary sources have seen fit to quote verbatim). To that extent, I am fully behind what Spidern has done in these articles. But the same thing then also applies to articles like this present one. If we're telling Scientologists they can't pick and quote "the good bits", but have to restrict themselves to what secondary sources have covered, then we can't pick and quote "the bad bits", but should likewise stick to what reliable secondary sources have discussed. I think this is a way forward that would benefit article quality in the long run. Jayen466 16:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the most part generally speaking, I agree. However for specific subsections in this article would like to wait to hear what others think. Cirt (talk) 16:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Paragraphs and sections based solely on primary sources are original research and should be removed. A responsible secondary source would do the work to fit the primary material into context and relative importance. A good example is the Pain and Sex bulletin, which in my experience as a Scientologist, is little more than a curiosity. Without a secondary source to put that in perspective we have little more here than the common Scientology critic ploy of picking alarming material from Hubbard out-of-context and holding it up to ridicule. Let's pare this down to those areas covered in secondary sources and perhaps a bit of primary material that corresponds. --Justallofthem (talk) 18:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• And if we are to be doing OR here then let's not forget a VERY important policy, Second Dynamic Rules, which states that a person's sexual activity is NOT a concern for the Church. That needs to be in the lead. --Justallofthem (talk) 19:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure there is good coverage of Pain and Sex in secondary sources, will do some research into that. Cirt (talk) 19:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now is as good a time as any to add such content yourself (provided it is well-sourced). I would also invite you to find some secondary sources for Scientology beliefs and practices, which is in a similar state. ←Spidern→ 19:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be a good idea to add the 2nd Dynamic Rules to the lede. They seem to be the basis of the practical laissez-faire approach espoused by the church today, so they're of fundamental practical importance to individual Scientologists. Jayen466 21:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What a piece of dreck the below bit is:

In 2007, New Idea reported that Scientology has "sex lessons" which can be given to couples looking to educate themselves to have "better sex".[3] This guide studies their sex life and suggests ways for the couple to improve upon their activities. The article, titled: "Scientology Sex Scandal", which discussed the relationship of Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes, was one of the more notable headlines in Australian celebrity gossip weeklies in 2007.[4]

Let's count the POV-driven errors:

1. The source article is MAGWATCH, which appears to be a column about gossip mags. This article is entitled "A ring of truth, but only about the lies (emphasis added)" which should give any editor pause before quoting from it.
2. Here is what it says:

   New Idea announces Tom and Katie's "scientology sex scandal". For some bizarre reason, the couple are reportedly taking "sex lessons" so they can learn to have "better sex". "Tom and Katie will have to share every detail of their sex life with an adviser, 'an intimate relationship guide', who will analyse their lovemaking and suggest improvements."

   So this is clearly about Tom and Kate, not about Scientology in general. Yet the editor here engaged in WP:OR generalization to invent that "Scientology has "sex lessons" which can be given to couples".
3. Now seeing as we now do that the bit is about Tom and Kate, a responsible editor might want to consider WP:BLP and think carefully about the quality of the sourcing.
4. Finally, a responsible editor might want to see if there is any other reliable source that mentions Scientologists taking "sex lessons". There is not and there are no such in Scientology. So an editor here just used terrible sourcing and outright original opinion to create a fiction about Scientology.
5. Oh, and calling it "one of the more notable headlines" is a definite reach. The article simply calls it one of "a slew of blaring headlines" about Katie that indicate that she is popular fodder for the gossip mags.

Personally I think any editor that would engage in the above is a ripe target for a topic ban as they obviously cannot control their POV and I am interested in input as to whether we should propose such a ban on the WP:AE page. --Justallofthem (talk) 18:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is information backed up to multiple sources not just one, and your attempt at biased POV spin and attack on an individual editor instead of discussing the content itself and coming to a consensus on the talk page - or even before engaging in any sort of dispute resolution on the talk page such as content RFC on the content you disagree with, or even WP:RSN on a specific source you disagree with, is nonconstructive and indicative of a disruptive problem. Cirt (talk) 18:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think the happy inclusion of such material is the real problem here as it demonstrates extremely poor judgment. Much poorer judgment than anything that I have seen from Shutterbug. Yet you and others had no problem attacking her and proposing topic ban. --Justallofthem (talk) 18:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Justallofthem. Jayen466 18:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not initially propose the topic ban, though I support it. The topic ban is due to disruptive editing plus WP:COI from the organization Church of Scientology and its computers in Los Angeles. Again, this is a separate matter and for further community input on content issues - WP:RFC-content is the way to go. For further community input on sourcing issues - WP:RSN is the way to go. Cirt (talk) 18:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(left) I made five (5) very salient points pointing up gross errors on that bit including WP:OR and WP:BLP violations, two of our most-important policies. You did not bother to address any of them but instead happily reinserted the offending material. There is something very wrong there. And I can point at plenty of previous cases where you acted in the same irresponsible manner. --Justallofthem (talk) 18:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the history of the paragraph: Cirt inserted it, then Cirt and I discussed it above. I had failed to notice, until Justallofthem pointed it out, that the source made a statement on Cruise and Holmes, rather than a general statement about Scientology. Apart from that, I have expressed elsewhere my concern over our quoting celebrity weeklies as encyclopedic sources. This section was very poorly sourced. I expressed similar concerns over other sources used in this article above. Jayen466 19:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we were to hold a content RFC on this issue I would of course defer to community consensus on the matter. Until such time, I see that there are questions about this material and will continue to invite others to discuss, I posted a note to WP:SCN so hopefully we will bring in some other previously uninvolved editors on this article. Again, this is something that was not simply discussed in one source, but multiple others as well. Cirt (talk) 19:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This quote is poignant and especially in this particular article goes to the heart of the subject of the article itself. Not to mention that it is a quote from L. Ron Hubbard's son, who was directly involved in initial stages of Dianetics/Scientology. It should be retained in the quote box in that subsection. Cirt (talk) 20:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are ignoring the fact that Nibs retracted much if not all of what he said about his father. That statement is ridiculous and not backed up by reliable sources. In Scientology, the focus is most definitely not on sex sex sex. There are lots of things you can say about Scientology - that is not one of them. See, that is my concern, your lack of judgment as to the veracity of questionable sources making statements not backed up in reliable materials. --Justallofthem (talk) 20:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Source to back up your claim that "Nibs retracted much if not all of what he said about his father" ? Cirt (talk) 20:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simple, just look at this Google search. And our own article on Ronald DeWolf. Of course critics have their "Um, uh" but the fact stands that the retractions were made. --Justallofthem (talk) 21:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In A Piece of Blue Sky former Scientologist Jon Atack writes:

In the updated revision of L. Ron Hubbard: Messiah or Madman?, Bent Corydon comments:

Not exactly a firm "retraction". Sounds more like a "settlement". Also it seems to refer to the book, but not to this sourced interview. Cirt (talk) 21:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DeWolfe has issued multiple retractions. He specifically retracted what he said in the Playboy interview. Those quotes are conjecture and I believe they apply to another instance of his retracting something he said. Not only is he not very credible given his waffling but he has specifically retracted much of what critics would like to quote him on. Just because Morton is a "celebrity muckracker" as one source you provided calls him does not mean that Wikipedia need be. or does it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justallofthem (talk • contribs)

Again, you fail to provide any sources to back up your claims. Cirt (talk) 22:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that by stating that he has retracted his statements, you only contradict your argument by saying that he is not credible. ←Spidern→ 00:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly. If someone says "A"; "no, not A, B" then "A-prime"; "No, not A-prime, B-prime", etc., etc. then that person, almost by definition, lacks credibility. The statements are not credible, the retractions are not credible, nothing the man says is credible. He is, by his own admission, not a credible source and his "revelations" have no place here in this article. In his own article perhaps, but nowhere else. --Justallofthem (talk) 01:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. To be quite clear, I wasn't defending the use of the statement in the article. Just pointing out the fact that if indeed a man is incredible, then his retractions are equally incredible (and thus, can't be used as an valid arguing point). The person arguing would be better served arguing for the lack of credibility of the subject. ←Spidern→ 01:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then we are in agreement. However, barring reliable sources that speak to the man's overall credibility, we, as Wikipedia editors, are on safer ground if we simply consider the statements as retracted. For those statements not specifically retracted then we, as editors, have a responsibility to at least see if his statements are backed up by other, perhaps more reliable sources. We would certainly not give the man's statements the prominence of a quote box. We should hesitate to include them at all. --Justallofthem (talk) 02:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will however say as Jayen466 has said many times that we must not draw conclusions about a source's reliability based solely on our own research, but there must be an academic mention indicating if that were the case. Once again, we must return to the principle of verifiability and use that as a criteria rather than drawing premature conclusions ourselves about a person's credibility. So in other words, if we can find valid academic mention of the subject, then we shall use it regardless of any subjective assertions that the source is not credible. ←Spidern→ 02:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bearing in mind that we are having trouble finding reliable secondary sources at all that topicalise "Scientology and Sex", I found the prominent display of this box, claiming that "In Scientology the focus is on sex. Sex, sex, sex.",

1. unrepresentative of prominent viewpoints on what Scientology focuses on, as published in the most reliable sources
2. poorly sourced (the statement was originally published in a porn magazine; it was later retracted; the source cited in our article remains unpublished in several countries as it risks falling foul of local libel laws)
3. likely to be perceived as being in poor taste by the average Wikipedia reader. Jayen466 01:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What a hoot - Morton did not even have his sources right. That comment was not from a Playboy interview, it was from the Penthouse interview that DeWolfe specifically retracted. Here is a bit more:

Penthouse: Did the Labor Party official get any of his young men via Scientology?

Hubbard: Yes. The British were ripe for Scientology. The British school system fosters lesbianism and homosexuality, because from the time you're born until you're in your twenties, all you see is the same sex. The schools are so segretated. And you'll notice in Scientology the focus on sex. Sex, sex, sex. The first thing we wanted to know about someone we were auditing was his sexual deviations. You know, in actual fact, very few people exclusively practice missionary-style sex. So all you've got to do is find a person's kinks, whatever they might be. Their dreams and their fantasies. And if you find that central core, their sexual drives and desires and fantasies, then you can fit a ring through their noses and take them anywnere. You promise to fufill their fantasies or you threaten to expose them --very simple.

A load of trash never substantiated and since retracted, covered adequately in our own article on Ronald DeWolf. --Justallofthem (talk) 04:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have given a supposed quote, but still not a source nor a way to verify any of these claims you have made. Cirt (talk) 04:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The link to the Penthouse article is in the DeWolfe article. --Justallofthem (talk) 04:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed as a link to a dubious site, and an attack/fishing site to boot. Cirt (talk) 04:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's in several places on the net, here e.g., or on Hein's site. Jayen466 05:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(left) You removed the link to the affidavit, not the Penthouse article. Anyway, I agree that using an alleged true copy of a court document on a POV site is dubious. I believe there are other instances of that that we can work on in the future. Here it is again but on a similar POV site, just not a listed "attack" site. This affidavit is referred to rather specifically in Corydon's book so we know it exists. What would y'all think would be the proper way to be able to have it as a reference? --Justallofthem (talk) 05:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still have yet to be provided a way to verify that document on an actual non-dubious/POV/attack site. Cirt (talk) 05:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You ignored the entirety of my previous comment? --Justallofthem (talk) 05:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have given no reliable way to verify any of your claims. Cirt (talk) 05:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a short summary from a scholar here; the scholar says he has a copy of the affidavit. Btw, do you think editors should assume that sites attacking Scientology are generally reliable, while sites sympathetic to Scientology are generally dubious? Jayen466 05:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No I do not think that. But these particular sites being linked to are dubious, and written by certain individuals from within the Church of Scientology tasked for certain specific purposes. Not reliable sites, not even safe sites. Cirt (talk) 05:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you agree then that ref 8 linking to a self-published attack site should be dropped from this article? Jayen466 05:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Ref 8 is not an "attack site", though it is self-published. Could be a matter for discussion at WP:RSN, however. Cirt (talk) 05:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, having just checked the scholar's description of the affidavit against the purported copy of it, I cannot off-hand see any discrepancy. Some phrases, too, I recognize from having seen them quoted in RS before. I guess the scholar could confirm that it's an accurate version; failing such confirmation, we could cite his paper. Jayen466 06:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With a subtitle of "Exposing the con", I doubt any other interpretation would be reasonable. I don't think we need RS/N here; WP:SPS is clear enough. Jayen466 06:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]