Talk:Medical claims in Scientology doctrine/Archive 1

Citations

The citations need to be migrated to the new ref style. --Davidstrauss 19:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Citations would be helpful to a reader, indeed. For example the early - the - article paragraph, "In public statements, especially to newcomers, the Church claims that it has no problem with Scientologists taking drugs prescribed by a physician. However, the Church has a long history of opposition to drugs and medical treatments of any kind but their own. In their Narconon materials, they explicitly state that all drugs are poisonous and remain in the body permanently." If cited, would expose that Narconon materials state that drug residues remain in the body. The Church has opposition to psychiatric drugs, no arguement. However, it is a mispresentation to state the Church has a "long history of opposition to ... medical treatments of any kind (but their own)" for two reasons. The Church does not have any medical treatments. And secondly, the Church insists that medical conditions get medical treatments before any Church process begins. Terryeo 17:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The Church does not have any medical treatments. And secondly, the Church insists that medical conditions get medical treatments before any Church process begins. The church does not acknowledge that mental problems can be medical in nature. Therefore, unless I'm greatly mistaken, they would not include any psychiatric illness in the set of "medical conditions" to be treated before the church starts its thing; also, once you define all mental problems as non-medical, any remedies the church provides for them become non-medical by definition. It's circular reasoning. A2Kafir 22:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Dcottle561's changes

Dcottle561 (talk · contribs) is making some radical changes to this article. I think some of the information is good, but most of it is very pro-Scientology. I'm considering reverting some of the edits. I'm especially bothered by the removal of the existing introduction. --Davidstrauss 22:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• I just reverted to an earlier version of Dcottle561's changes. The original introductory paragraph is preserved.

HCO PL 1 Sept 62 Healing Promotion

This policy letter is vastly misquoted in the article. Stated at this time in the article appears:

• "We have resolved healing.... This program has the following thought major:" The "...." leaves out two paragraphs which spell out specifically what is meant by "We have resolved healing" and it does not mean nor even imply what the next sentences say, as they appear in the article. To preserve the meaning of the Policy Letter quoted, the first piece of sentence should come out. "We have resovled healing" should not be in the article unless an explanation of what is meant by that is in the article. Terryeo 09:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Body Thetans

Completely silly, people. The Church has not published anything about body thetans. The Church has not published a definition of the term. The Church has not published that they treat them, whatever they are. The Church has made no claim about them. But the first sentence states the Church treats them. That is simply original research, unsourced original research. And immediately the article present about 1950. It is going to confuse a reader to find himself reading about the Dianetics claims and Dianetics theory while his nose is rubbed in words like thetan, completely unknown in Dianetics. Terryeo 09:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Fortunately, the reader can simply click on the link to the Body Thetan article, which explains, with sources, why everything you just stated is a lie. wikipediatrix 13:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Church of Scientology document (2004): medical claims

Using Dr. Touretzky document at Tampa Org: Scientology Promo Flyer, I made a composite image that outlines a specific passage about Scientology being a science that can precisely determine and alleviate physical illnesses. Could this fair use excerpt from a contemporary CoS document be used in this specific article? Raymond Hill 17:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

external links

User:Jpierreg has been refurbishing the External links section of many of these articles... some I applaud, some are kinda iffy, but this one I have to object to: here's the diff. Too many links to Scientology's own sites, and the captions placed alongside them are a bit too POV for my taste. Definitely not in line with WP:EL. wikipediatrix 19:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

You are right. It’s true that the Scientology manual is already listed in the notes and we could probably do without since there is no other links other than those from the Church of Scientology. Note like other articles, I have been trying, as much as a can, to put the same titles on the web pages and this regardless of who is the publisher. I’ve changed the second link subtitle to something like: List of related to increased health and that should be better. Jpierreg 18:20, 26 October 2006 (GMT)