This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I suggest that this article be moved, as BTfromLA suggested to Scientology and popular culture and broadened to include not just references to Scientology but the broader topic of the relationship between the two. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:22, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Great idea! See Nuclear weapons in popular culture for how this sort of thing can be far better than the usual list article - David Gerard 19:24, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Greg Bears Novella Heads also features an organization called Logolists similar to Scientology, are books applicable in the popular culture section?

Only if they are popular.  ;-)

Look at this: A backdoor to inserting POV original research slams of Scientology:

• In The Simpsons episode titled "The Joy of Sect," originally aired on February 8 1998, the family joins a cult called Movementarianism. Many aspects of this cult appear similar to Scientology, including nutritional deprivation, group humiliation, indoctrination movies, brainwashing techniques, and alien cosmology. Also parallel is the extremely litigous nature of the Movementarians. The reddish-haired guru of the cult lives a lavish lifestyle using the money of his adherents.

This article looks like 90% Original Research. If you want to put a comparison here you have to source it, otherwise it is original research. Not just source the comparison but the source has to mention all those "similarities". Reputable sources, please.

Just to make myself clear: A "Scientology reference in popular culture" would be where Scientology, Dianetics, Hubbard, etc. are mentioned by name. All of these things that go by other names that you think are references to Scientology should not be here unless they can be sourced. Sorry to be a spoilsport but there are plenty of other places you can put your unsourced ideas; wikipedia is not one of those places.

By the way, this Simpsons episode seems to be parodying a number of cults and, from my impression of the article here on wikipedia, only the alien cosmology mentioned above parodied Scientology.--Justanother 14:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

There may be dubious entries on the list, but I do not agree with the interpretation you're expressing that no satiric similarity, no matter how clearly intended, can be acknowledged except when outside sources have spelled it out. There is a common-sense limit to WP:NOR, as there is to most policies, and it is unreasonable to cry "original research" when, for example, someone describes something as "potentially unsafe" that has already been noted as potentially causing a fatal illness. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi. It is clearly original research to say that someone is parodying Scientology when the person making the parody does not say so nor is there any reference to others making such a claim that can be sourced. The "Bowfinger" one I edited is a good example. Apparently there was sourced speculation and Steve Martin made a denial but even if there was no denial, if the speculation can be sourced, then it should be included. We don't have to place a "common sense" disclaimer to WP:V. There is already one there and it states that you can leave out the source if it could be easily sourced, i.e. "The sun rises in the east" kind of thing. This is definitely not in that category. There is a place to publish "truth" that cannot be sourced; it is your personal blog, not wikipedia. I remember you telling me that WP:V protects us all, or something to that effect.--Justanother 15:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree that the episode is a parody of several cults. But one aspect is clearly scientology: the part with the attorneys. --Tilman 16:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I understand that aspects of the episode likely parodied Scn. And believe me, I enjoy a good parody of Scn as much as anyone (and probably more than most). The problem comes in when we open the door for any editor to claim that anything, anything at all regardless of what the creator of the parody intended, is a parody or parallel of Scn. That is why these should really be sourced. By sourcing, we limit to those that are most likely related. Otherwise it really does just become the "OR Zone". Perhaps there should just be a separate article "List of cultic references in popular culture". Then all these could be placed there with no mention of what they might be parodying and the reader can make his own decision.--Justanother 16:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree that there's some original research there that could be toned down, although it's not that flagrant. There comes a point when one doesn't need a source for the fact that water is not wet. In the episode, Homer Simpson signs a trillion-year contract with the cult. That pretty much makes it clear which cult they're parodying the most. wikipediatrix 16:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Without repeating myself on OR (yet), from what I get from the article here, they are parodying Jim Jones the most, but with elements from other "cults", too. But I have not seen the episode nor am I enough of an expert on other cults to say what goes where though I certainly do not object to your and Tilman's characterizations of those specific bits. If we were watching it together we would probably all have a good laugh. The problem is adding our unsourced interpretations to wikipedia. That is the very definition of original research, even if we share them with lots others and even if they are "obvious".--Justanother 16:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

If we rephrase the article so it says "Widely regarded by fans as a parody of Scientology", there's sourcing here: [1]. (Incidentally, of all the people who have analyzed the episode at snpp.com, no one even mentions Jim Jones as being something the show is parodying.) wikipediatrix 16:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't object. I would like to hear what others say about the OR point. I would word it something like the below. Re: Jim Jones, that may OR here and/or it may be that the snpp guys missed obvious references because Jim Jones is almost 30 years ago.

• In The Simpsons episode titled "The Joy of Sect," originally aired on February 8 1998, the family joins a cult called Movementarianism. Fans believe that the episode parodied a number of alleged cults including Scientology; possible Scientology references include the use of an orientation movie, the extremely litigous nature of the Movementarians, Homer signing a trillion-year contract, and a reddish-haired guru[2].--Justanother 17:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks OK to me. I'd temper it to "Many fans have suggested" rather than "Fans believe". wikipediatrix 18:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I will put this one back as sourced. I will look at the others as time permits. Please, all, source them if you want them or discuss sourcing here. Thanks--Justanother 00:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I changed the page around because it is important to distinquish between actual references (including those veiled references that the creator acknowledges) and those that are mere supposition. The suppositions should still be sourced. Well they should all be sourced but the actual ones self-source. Oh, BTW, I see that I did not do the division exactly right. Feel free to correct my errors (of course). --Justanother 23:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I think you have gone too far. Suggesting that Repo Man's 'Dioretix - The Science of Matter over Mind' is only a "suggested veiled reference" to Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health is simply plain silly. There's no ambiguity about what it is parodying. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

It is just a simple division. Either they specifically mention or they don't. If they don't, then they don't and it is a veiled reference. Pretty broad in the Repo Man case, sure, but still veiled. Let the reader draw his own conclusion. Otherwise it gets into too much shading, IMO. That is my point also about OR. If you put something sourced and then draw a conclusion from that info that is NOT in the source then you have done OR. Again, just put the info and let the reader draw his own conclusion . . . or find a source for the conclusion that you want to put in the article. Since wikipedia is not peer-reviewed the way it keeps out every editor's opinions and conclusions is by requiring them to be sourced. I know that a ton of articles are written (or pasted) that are mostly OR and are unreferenced but they are not controversial. Scientology is and has to stay very strictly to NOR or we will have a free-for-all. Thanks for discussing this here. Let's see what the other editors have to say. In short, put the reference as veiled and let the reader make the connection. --Justanother 05:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I find that your logic does not hang together. You are basically suggesting that no matter how broad, obvious, even inescapable a parody is, if it is a "veiled" reference, it is automatically a "suggested veiled reference". WP:NOR was never intended it to place obstacles in the path of observing that which no reasonable editor would doubt. Are you telling us that you actually doubt that "Dioretix" is a reference to Dianetics? -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Well yes, it is a veiled reference. Simple test here. Had the creator wanted a direct reference he would have said "Dianetics" not "Dioretix". Was he making a joke, like Dianetics is like a diuretic? Or like diarrhea? We don't know what he intended. And we don't have to guess. And this for an "easy one". What about the more remote ones. Should we assign each one a "veiling factor"? Easy solution: it is either direct or it is veiled.--Justanother 03:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Per discussions on the L. Ron Hubbard page, I've cut the parody section there: the contents are below, and should be incorporated here as editors see fit.

Hubbard was awarded the 1994 Ig Nobel Prize in Literature for "his crackling Good Book, Dianetics, which is highly profitable to mankind — or to a portion thereof". The presenter observed he was also the most prolific posthumous author that year.

In 2001,an independent film called The Profit was produced, which featured a character called L. Conrad Powers, founder of the Church of Spiritual Science, who used a device called a Mind Meter. Although the producers stressed that any resemblance to Scientology was entirely coincidental, the Church of Scientology obtained an injunction blocking its release.^[1] However, some of those who saw the film, even critics of Scientology, derided it as over the top, and the organisation behind the film's production, Human Rights Cinema, was accused of being an anti-cult group.^[2][3]

On the South Park episode "Trapped in the Closet", it was claimed that Stan Marsh is L. Ron Hubbard reincarnated and that Hubbard was a "prophet". As a reference to Scientology's litigious tendencies, all the credits at the end of this episode were changed to read "John/Jane Smith". The episode also has an animated version of the Xenu story; in case a viewer might mistakenly think South Park was exaggerating for satiric effect, this sequence is accompanied by a caption reading "This is what Scientologists actually believe". Isaac Hayes, who voiced "Chef" on the show and is himself a Scientologist, ostensibly left the cast on account of this episode. However, it isn't clear whether this was his own decision or a decision of upper-level Scientologists; during a radio interview on The Opie and Anthony Show after the episode aired, Hayes defended South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone, saying, "If you take the shit they say seriously, then I'll sell you the Brooklyn Bridge for two dollars". South Park further parodied Scientology when Isaac Hayes left South Park over the issue: in The Return of Chef - "Chef" is portrayed as being brainwashed by some "fruity little club," a group of child molesters called the "Super Adventure Club", a veiled reference to Isaac Hayes and his links to Scientology.

Anthony Boucher's murder mystery Rocket to the Morgue (1942) features cameos of members of the Mañana Literary Society of Southern California. Hubbard makes a dual appearance as D. Vance Wimpole and Rene Lafayette (one of his pen names). Jack Parsons is also there as the character "Hugo Chantrelle".

In Frank Zappa's rock-opera album Joe's Garage the main character Joe seeks advice from L. Ron Hoover of the First Church of Appliantology, who directs him to a lifestyle of having sex with appliances and robots.

In the David Eddings series of Tamuli books, a silly theatrical character who performs and tells tall tales in front of locals to gain support for a strange cult is named Elron (L. Ron).

Philip K. Dick's short story The Turning Wheel features a post-apocalyptic religion following the teachings of "the Bard, Elron Hu".

Niven and Pournelle's novel Inferno (a retelling of Dante's Inferno) has a description of a one-time science fiction writer who created his own religion "that masks as form of lay psychiatry" and is now - quite literally - in hell as a result.

There have also been numerous other jabs at L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology from other sources; for example, the final city in the computer game Fallout 2 contains the Hubologist cult which is a direct take on Scientology.

Hubbard is also a featured character in the novel The Chinatown Death Cloud Peril by Paul Malmont.

On the Millennium episode "Jose Chung's Doomsday Defense", the (fictional) writer Jose Chung interviews a member of the "Church of Selfosophy", founded by his former science fiction writer colleague, "J. Onan Goopta".

Steve Martin's movie, Bowfinger, features a cult called "Mindhead" whose posh celebrity center is said to be based on a Hollywood facility serving Scientology's star clientele.

Steven Soderbergh's 1996 comedy Schizopolis features a cult called Eventualism led by one T. Azimuth Schwitters which is seemingly inspired by Hubbard.

In Neal Stephenson's book Snow Crash, there is a character named L. Bob Rife who has an ocean-going fleet centered on a surplus aircraft carrier, and populated by mind-controlled followers.^[4]

The Snake Oil Wars by Parke Godwin satirizes Hubbard by having him serving his time in Hell as an answering machine.

The song Ænema, by the band Tool, denounces Hubbard with the line "...fuck L. Ron Hubbard and fuck all his clones."

The satirical art religion "The Church of the SubGenius" has as its prophet and Messiah figure a 1950's appliance salesman named J.R. "Bob" Dobbs, whose image of an always-smiling, pipe-smoking, Brylcreem covered head is appropriated from 1950's clip art. The Texas based group also integrates elements of Fundamentalist Christianity and televangelists into their writings and media projects.

L-Ron, a sentient robot from the DC Comics universe, and former assistant to Manga Khan, is named after Hubbard, as other robot assistants Khan of were named after science fiction writers (Hein-9, K-Dikk).

In the 1986 film, Stoogemania, which deals with a Three Stooges fan (Josh Mostel) attempting to break his addiction to the comedy threesome, said fan ends up going to a rehab clinic run by a mysterious figure named "L. Ron Howard" ('Howard' being the last name shared by Moe, Curly and Shemp). "L. Ron Howard" only appears on TV screens at the clinic - he is never seen in person.

((wikiquote))

Sooo this stuff goes into the article with argument, someone just needs to take the time to do it? Wikidan829 16:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, many of the above references had already been incorporated into the article, some have later been removed. I've struck out the ones that are either in there now or have previously been inserted and then removed. My opinions on the rest: (1) The Ig nobel mention and the Boucher mention shouldn't be here as their connection to Scientology is too tenuous. (2) The Eddings, Dick, and Niven/Pournelle mentions are similar to many veiled references that have been removed as WP:OR; these will need independent sourcing if they are to be included. (3) The Chinatown Death Cloud Peril looks like a vanity ref to me. (4) The Snake Oil and Stoogemania references are extremely minor ones and should probably not be included. (5) The DC comics ref might be okay, but again is really more about Hubbard, not so much about Scientology. Mangojuice^talk 16:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

For the ones that have previously been inserted and then removed: are there reasons behind them being removed? Wikidan829 16:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

My recollection: The Profit, Trapped in the Closet, and Joe's Garage are there currently. Fallout 2, the Millenium episode, Snow Crash, and Shizopolis were unsourced "veiled references." The Bowfinger ref is false; Steve Martin has said that Mindhead isn't specifically about Scientology (this is in the edit history somewhere, it's in a source). The Church of the Subgenius is really not a Scientology ref, but a general cult one and doesn't belong. The Tool song was removed by me because it was too minor of a reference, just a lyric from one segment of a song, nothing special. Mangojuice^talk 17:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• I think that if we can find some reputable secondary sourced citations that discuss some of these, they should be re-inserted. Smee 16:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

I agree. I will go through the list. The Tool one will have to stay. It is a mention in the song, but they also had an incident with Scientologists where Maynard spent an amount of time on stage bleating at them like sheep. I can source both, and is definitely worth a mention. Wikidan829 20:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

As long as reputable sourced citations are given, I certainly agree. Thank you for being so polite in this discussion. Smee 00:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

I added a ((fact)) tag to that item. I think its relevance in this article comes from the claim that Maynard is a "vocal critic" of Scientology (something not discussed in his article, BTW, although he is in the category). However, that claim is not backed up by the sources. This is actually typical of most of the sourcing problems here: non-controversial details are sourced, but the analytic claims made from them are not. Mangojuice^talk 14:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for not just deleting the whole section like most people would do ;) I will do some searching today. Wikidan829 14:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, if I was pretty sure it was unverifiable I would have removed it, but I wouldn't be that surprised if this can be verified. Mangojuice^talk 17:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

If you want to leave the other two parts(Aenema and the Pavilion incident) in there, and remove the leading statement, for now, that's fine with me. The truth is (my original research) that Tool is outspoken against any organized religion, not specifically Scientology. The statement kind of implies that he only speaks out against Scientology, but say, Christianity is okay, which is untrue. While Scientology does have specific honorable mentions(like in the song), they would have something equally to say about any church. Wikidan829 17:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I was just about to put the ((fact)) tag back in but my Internet disconnected :) Scientology isn't even mentioned in that article, just L Ron Hubbard. Like I said, I haven't had the time to find a source yet. If you want to remove that whole sentence, please feel free. Without a source it appears as wp:or under the guise of being actually true. Wikidan829 15:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone else see a certain resemblance between Sutekh and another alien dictator? ^_^ --207.245.10.221 18:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

This article is a complete mess. It's full of very non-notable trivia references, and some much more significant ones. For instance, that the Far Side once referred to "Cowintology" is not encyclopedic at all, nor is the mention about the scene in Airplane!... but I can't bring myself to say this needs deletion at the moment, some of the items are sourced and relatively important. But almost all of this is unsourced, hence the OR tag, and there is no selectivity. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, so some real work needs to be put in here. Mangojuice^talk 04:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Your help is welcome. Thanks --Justanother 04:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Basically, you claim that all is "not encyclopedic". Submit an AfD. Stuff like the scene in Airplane! is very important in my opinion - after all, all these mention shows the impact of scientology into the humor scene. Scientologists might not like it, however. --Tilman 07:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Seriously? That scene in Airplane referenced every kooky religion they could come up with that they thought the audience would have heard of. All that proves is that people have heard of Scientology. Mangojuice^talk 23:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've rewritten this to be a list, mainly of internal links, organized by general type. Now, this is a navigation aid rather than a list of trivia. The few items that are still described fully have sources. Otherwise, exactly how Scientology relates to the various topics is better explained in the individual article. For instance The Joy of Sect is the more appropriate place to discuss that episode's inspirations; similarly with many of the other references. Along the way I've removed a lot of items that are vague in their connection, irrelevant, or merely tangential. The motivation is simple: it is actually very relevant, for instance, to The Joy of Sect to discuss the episode's influence in various religions. Since it's appropriately covered at that article, we should just link there and let them cover it. Mangojuice^talk 19:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

So now it's we who have to find and reinsert all the elements that you deleted without having a consensus about it? --Tilman 20:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Please look here if you need to find any of the old refs. What he did was appropriate in that he cleaned out a lot of trash from the article and now entries that others feel are valid can come back in and we can discuss any differences we might have. --Justanother 20:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW the ones I removed basically fit into three categories: (1) very minor mentions, regardless of the venue. A pun on "L. Ron Hubbard" alone doesn't make for something notable. (2) things about real people; those belong in List of scientologists, and (3) things that either have no article, nor any parent article (such as the reference to the "The Truth Rockets" song; there is no article on the band or the song. Actually, the band article existed but was deleted in July). Also, some entries were duplicated. If I goofed on any of these, I don't disagree with fixing that mistake. Mangojuice^talk 02:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

For (2), in List of Scientologists, there is only their name and a reference with no detail. AndroidCat 16:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

While trimming out the non-notable bits that accumulate is good, I find that the change removes far too much detail and doesn't provide a solid framework for adding new entries. AndroidCat 16:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

There should not be a "solid framework for adding new entries," if by that you mean that it should be easy to add in new bits of trivia. No, entries should be added if they actually have some relevance to something, that's the whole point. I'm glad people restored the OR and cleanup tags. Let me be clear: if someone doesn't remove all the unverified statements and cut this down so it isn't a list of trivia, I'll just put it up for deletion like I did for several other "In popular culture" articles. Not right away, people should have time to work, but if you want to simply dismiss my hard work on the topic, do your own hard work. It's necessary. Mangojuice^talk 22:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it does need cleaning up, and I know that by pruning the existing page rather than expanding your cut-down version, I'm committing my time to make the effort. In the end, the result might be the same, but hopefully this way (in steps and discussed goals) will carry a lasting consensus, which didn't seem to be happening otherwise. AndroidCat 16:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm relatively new here so forgive me if I ask a stupid question. In the TV section the bit about the Millennium episode was marked as needing a source. Now that I've (re)added the source, should I remove that tag? Or does that tag apply to everything in the section? Thx Theangryblackwoman 13:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• The Boston Legal clip is a small section of the episode and is a useful link as a reference in this article. Smee 13:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Thanks for finally coming here. Actually, I strongly support the removal of the clip: it's not a small section of the episode, it's over 10 minutes long. It's also a copyright violation: Xenutv.com claims no rights to be allowed to host that content. Ok, this is different from Wikipedia hosting the content, but on WP:ANI it was widely agreed (a while ago, I'd have to dig through the archives) that copyvio YouTube links be removed from external links and references: we don't want to be associated with copyright violation. Not to mention that Xenutv.com is an attack site against Scientology: I wouldn't want ANY links there from a general article like this without a much better reason. Mangojuice^talk 13:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
    • (EC) Yes, my point exactly. And Smee, if I make a reasoned and measured change to the article and you do the "revert-o-matic" thing please do not expect me to respect your "edit" because I will not. Or your "special request" to not use your name in edit summaries. You are not invisible. --Justanother 13:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I would not consider it an attack site at all. Xenu TV merely hosts archived shows and commentary, with some original work. The Boston Legal clip is used in this case to illustrate the points made in the article, and do not diminish from the producers' ability to profit from the work in any regard. Smee 13:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC).
      • You're kidding, right? It's a significant portion of a 1-hour episode, shown without any commercials, for free over the internet. It absolutely does compete with the copyright holder. Attack site issues aside, I don't really care about those, it's just another point. Mangojuice^talk 13:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Perhaps others will comment on this. Smee 13:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC).
        • And User:Justanother, I resent your attitude and tack. If you wish for your edits to be respected, you must first learn to respect others and not characterize theirs in such an abrasive manner. Smee 13:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC).
          • Smee, my edits do just fine, thank you. If you make abrasive edits then I will call 'em likes I sees 'em. Smee, I strongly recommend that you slow down and analyze any edits I make before trying that "revert" button. I really do a pretty good job of following the rules here. As far as your edits, I would very much love to call your edits "admirable", "noble", even "reasonable", and will when it is called for. Your "blind reverting" is extremely RUDE and I thought that you were going to slow down on it. --Justanother 13:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Justan, your behaviour towards others that do not share your opinions is extremely RUDE and I thought that you were going to slow down on it. Smee 14:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Yes, I do get kinda rude toward those that do not appear to share my opinion that wikipedia is best served by sticking to the rules of WP:NPOV and WP:V. I do get kinda rude with those that will willingly break any rule here to forward their highly POV position. It is a failing of mine and I am working on it. BTW, some consider mocking another's words pretty rude in itself but I don't mind, I try to have a thick skin about the personal stuff. --Justanother 14:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Evidently Justan, evidently, because you are doing it right now... Smee 14:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC).
      • ps. my preferred nick would be Justa. Feel free to use it in edit summaries. Smee, really though, I almost think that we could get along fine if you would shelf the "revert-o-matic". I can guarantee you that so long as you revert repeatedly my proper edits then there will be little peace between us and that is just fine with me. It is also fine with me if you improve the articles and allow me to do the same. There are plenty of other "anti-Scientologists" here that I get along with just fine. --Justanother 14:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
        • I am not an "anti-scientologist" or anything of the sort. I do, however, take issue with suppression of information, and when certain individuals attempt to suppress information and facts, this should be reverted, yes. And I as well feel that we could get along better if you act more politely, regardless of your interpretations of the motivations of others' said actions. Smee 14:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC).
          • But Smee, think about it. I did not try to suppress that the episode existed, I simply suppressed inclusion of an inappropriate link, which is something that we should all do and something that I am more than willing to do for the "other side" too. Smee, we first met over a similar issue on "The Bridge" and I wonder if this is the "theme" of our conflict. But I also see you taking a confrontational stand with me by doing such things as injecting yourself in a discussion between me and User:Fahrenheit451 about something to do with his user space. In Scientology we call doing that "3rd partying" as the "3rd party" is often looking to stir up trouble. Certainly your right but why would you do that? Inject yourself? (Rhetorical question, I am not asking for your answer) I really hope that you have not decided to be point man for the "Scientology Haters Club". That is not a comfortable position to be in and you should really know what you are about if you find yourself there. --Justanother 14:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• I am not a "point man" for anything. And I have no idea how to interpret your Scientology jargon, which is quite confusing. And I am not going to respond any further to your veiled threats and insults, it is quite offensive. Smee 14:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC).
  • No matter. But for anyone else that might be confused by the "jargon". User:Fahrenheit451 and User:Justanother are having a discussion about something related entirely to them and not affecting any other part of the project in any tangible manner. We might be called the 1st and 2nd parties. Oh look, here comes Mr 3rd Party to make sure that User:Fahrenheit451 (an experienced wikipedian) understands just how "highly unusual and inappropriate in Wikipedia etiquette" User:Justanother is being. How helpful of him. --Justanother 15:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I am not going to get into this here with you on an unrelated thread. You are free to assume whatever you want, and have your own opinions about what you think my motivations are, but they are most likely incorrect. Smee 15:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC).
      • OK. I would be happy to just edit articles and not wonder about the motives of others. I know it was a rhetorical question above but if you would like to state your motive then, out of courtesy, I invite you to do so, and I will not dispute your stated motive. If you ever have questions about my motives then feel free to ask; I am a piece of glass. --Justanother 15:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Sounds good. Smee 15:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

And this is why it is best, as another editor suggested, to simply list the "reference" and link it to an article we have on it. So now we have to fill the article with crap like that so we have the proper balance of "Scientology is a bunch of crap": vs. "Anti-Scientologists are bigots". I will leave it to the viewer to decide which point the show was trying to make. I love the episode, myself. --Justanother 14:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

It is a great episode. James Spader is at his best during that speech. Smee 14:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

I removed the extensive summary of the episode. This is ridiculous: we should not be trying to retell jokes in an article. Justanother is right: this is why this article should be nothing more than a bare list, as I had cut it down to before. See this version, for instance. Mangojuice^talk 20:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• Justa, DO NOT edit with another user's comments. If you have a problem with something, say so on the talk page and NOT THE EDIT SUMMARY. Thanks. Smee 15:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Please STOP editing my comments. Perhaps I might even listen to you and remove whatever you have a problem with myself if you stop being so disruptive and impolite. Yeesh. Yuck yuck. Smee 15:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC).
    • OK, please remove it. Thanks. If the link is not appropriate in the article then it is not appropriate in the talk page either. And Smee, editing out an inappropriate EL is not the same as changing someone's comments --Justanother 15:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, it is. And in the last edit you summarily removed my entire comment. And no, the link is fine on the talk page, because we are talking about whether or not it is appropriate on the main page. As it has been removed from the main page, this is not an issue any more. However, for the sake of finishing this thread, I will remove it from here. Smee 15:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC).
        • Thanks --Justanother 15:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Three times, a note about a single joke in a Scrubs episode has been added. I've removed it twice now. This reference should be removed: unlike the other refences here that haven't been cut, this one really has no importance: not to Scrubs, not to Scientology, not even to the episode in question. If we put this back, we're heading back in the direction of a completely indiscriminate trivia article. Mangojuice^talk 21:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep reference - It is in the Suggested veiled references section, and yet is pretty obvious to conclude what they are referring to, at any rate... Smee 23:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC).
• I also vote to Keep reference because so far no one has explained how 'important' a reference must be to qualify as 'important enough'. The whole purpose of this article seems to be to list when Scientology has shown up in media/popular culture to highlight the effect it has had on the same. I think the Scrubs line highlights exactly that. Indiscriminate would be including any references in media to any cult at all. The Scrubs bit is pretty explicit. I personally think the way the article is organize right now isn't very useful. At the very least, the heading on the section in question might need to be changed. It makes it sound like everything under it isn't confirmed to be about Scientology and isn't explicit, but, in at least two cases, that's not true. Theangryblackwoman 05:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • It's explicit, but trivial. It should be removed because it's trivia, of importance to nothing. Mangojuice^talk 20:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Please explain to me what on this list is important and relevant? It's a list of movies, television, theater, etc. relating to Scientology, not an academic journal on archeology. Define important. Define relevant. In relation to the topic, it appears as relevant as anything else on this page. Theangryblackwoman 22:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Okay, I see your point, nothing is that important or relevant to anything, which is why "In popular culture" articles are not the best idea in the first place. And I do see that I haven't really explained myself on this point well so far. There's a world of difference between items like, say, the Millenium episode reference and, say, the Scrubs reference, or the reference from Airplane! that I earlier removed. In the first case, it shows that some awareness of Scientology has gotten into popular culture, enough for them to make full episodes of mainstream TV shows that are thematically based on Scientology and take on a lot of its beliefs and practices. If we want to make some kind of case that Scientology is in popular culture, references like that are far, far more useful than mere toss-off mentions like the second type. If the goal here, though, is just to collect notes with no level of selectivity, then the article should just be deleted -- that's not consistent with the goals of an Encyclopedia. Mangojuice^talk 13:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that this article has a major problem with indiscriminate trivia. I think this is being exacerbated by the title. Specifically, (1) as a "list" this will never make an attempt to incorporate the trivia into any sort of article. (2) As the subject is "Scientology references in popular culture" rather than "Scientology in popular culture", the title implies that we should be basically completely indiscriminate, but this is at odd with the basic nature of an Encyclopedia, and with guidelines like WP:AVTRIV. Basically, I see four ways to address this concern: we can:

1. Keep the current title, but reduce the article to a bare list, without all the excessive info. References that are easily and fully explained at another article could be included as links, references too minor for mention elsewhere would be removed. (I had done this before, but it was reverted).
2. Move to something like List of significant Scientology references in popular culture. Remove trivial references.
3. Move to Scientology in popular culture, and try to develop an article rather than a list of facts, per WP:AVTRIV.
4. Do nothing.

Thoughts? I prefer 3, then 1, then 2, then 4. Mangojuice^talk 20:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Prefer 4. - But then (3), then (2), then (1). Smee 20:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC).
• 4 Or, maybe a 4a, try to come to consensus about what is indiscriminate and what is relevant. because, at this moment, it seems like MangoJuice is working from some idea of what he/she thinks this article should be and maybe others don't agree. Let's compare this article to other 'list of references in popular culture' articles. Even if we change to 'significant' we may still disagree on what constitutes significant. Theangryblackwoman 22:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• I still like # 1. And I support Mangojuice's efforts. No real point in # 2; # 3 would take a lot of effort on the part of the editors here but I would be willing to help. # 4 is, well. # 4. And # 5, AfD, goes square against the wikipedian love of cruft and other factors best left unmentioned. --Justanother 23:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: - I've said my piece about this. Just so y'all know, I'm taking this page off my watchlist for a while, as a self-imposed break on it. Please let me know if this discussion progresses seriously in a particular direction towards a certain action. Smee 00:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

The credits were not John/Jane Smith to avoid legal action, it was a pun on the linguistics of scientology, as shown on the Trapped in the Closet episode page. Mr. Garrison (talk · contribs)

This needs to be referenced or it needs to be removed. Otto4711 04:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss at the talk:Cults and new religious movements in literature and popular culture#mergefrom - List of Scientology references in popular culture. I will add a bit more later but for now, I think List of Scientology references in popular culture violates WP:NOT, an indiscriminate collection of information. I think that we are trying to build a real article at Cults and new religious movements in literature and popular culture which is not the case at List of Scientology references in popular culture and the list should be merged in. --Justanother 20:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that there's no need for this proposal, really. Just go ahead and merge in anything you think would be useful. At some point this page could become a redirect to that one, but if that article needs info from here, take it. And it'd be simpler to decide on making this a redirect or not once it's already obsolete than approving a merge before knowing what form it would take. Mangojuice^talk 03:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• I like the idea suggested above by User: Antaeus Feldspar, and User:BTfromLA, and supported by User:David Gerard:

1. Change the article to Scientology and popular culture.
2. Model the new article after Nuclear weapons in popular culture.

• Thoughts? Smee 07:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
  • Go for it! I argued above that "list of _ references" is a bad-idea article title. However, Scientology in popular culture (rather than "and") would be a more standard name. That title exists as a redirect here, but I can reverse it if anyone wants to go ahead. I'd be proud to see an article here modeled after Nuclear weapons in popular culture but I think sourcing that kind of article here may be hard (per WP:OR): do secondary sources exist talking about Scientology in popular culture as a whole? Mangojuice^talk 14:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, if not, we can still rely sort of on the current list format, simply with more prose from referenced secondary sources. I will let you make a page switch/move if you wish, which I would support. Due to current circumstances I am not going to be making such changes of any kind without high consensus and discussion from polite editors on the talk page. Smee 14:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
      • I see that you made the move to Scientology in popular culture. NOTE: I did not move the page myself, but merely made the suggestion here politely on the talk page, which was then acted upon by a different editor. However, I do not object to the move. Thank you for your polite discussion demeanor with me. It is most appreciated. Smee 14:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
        • Yup. I was just about to make a note about it, but I was repairing redirects. I think this will be pretty uncontroversial. Mangojuice^talk 14:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Just so that there is no confusion here, for any who might notice this and raise concerns as to the page move and change in the future focus of the article. Other than the title change itself, however, new changs should be discussed in new subsections on this talk page. Smee 14:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

... to the article, in line with modeling after Nuclear weapons in popular culture, in order to focus efforts to specific tasks. Smee 05:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC).

"The 1992 PC RPG Ultima VII features a society called The Fellowship as the main adversary. This group advertises itself as a new self-help philosophy which is compatable with the already existing religion in the world of Brittania. The group is lead by a charismatic leader, Batlin, who establishes Fellowship churches all over the world and agressively recruits new members. Batlin even bears a physical resemblance to L. Ron Hubbard. The group also has secret knowledge known only to its upper echelon of members and philosophic retreats. After investigation by the Avatar the group is found to be a front for an interdimensional conquerer known as The Guardian who is seeking to enslave Britannia under his domination."

Why was this entry deleted? It is valid. The game is a clear reference to Scientology. For more connections between the two see this site: http://www.geocities.com/hoki_dragon/u7-scientology.html There's already a Wikipedia article about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fellowship_(Ultima) Anyway, I don't see why the onus is on me to prove this so that it isn't auto-deleted by some moderator. 219.169.90.2 14:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Find a reliable source that says so, and it can go in (that one is not a reliable source) . It sounds like fan speculation to me, which is only appropriate if it's sourced. If you do find some verification, I would suggest you also add it to The Fellowship (Ultima), since there's none there either. My suggestion is to look for reviews of the game in game magazines... unfortunately given the date of Ultima VII that's probably not available on the Internet. As for the "onus" - see Wikipedia:Verifiability: it's always on the one wanting to include information to justify it. But in this case, it's been removed before for the same reason, so we need a source now. Mangojuice^talk 14:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I deleted this a few days ago. Sure it "sounds like Scientology".. but it doesn't explicitly say it's based off of it(probably for legal reasons). To assume that Scientology is EXACTLY what it is based off of, without being able to source it, is totally original research and unacceptable. When you find a good reference for it, you can put it back in. Wikidan829 14:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep. It's clearly a Scientology-like situation, sure, but the article is pretty much for actual references to Scientology or overt parodies of them like Zappa's "L. Ron Hoover and Appliantology", and this video game is neither, at least the way it's being described here. A source would most likely only verify that someone else out there thinks it sounds like Scientology to them too. wikipediatrix 14:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Btw I went to the video game article, removed the geocities "reference" there and marked the article "unreferenced". I think I'll be cleaning up the OR in there too. I welcome someone else to take a look. Wikidan829 14:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• We should establish what is and is not a significant enough mention in a popular culture medium to appear in this article. Smee 12:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC).
  • As long as it can be sourced it should be significant enough. If what is being mentioned is notable. I won't start an anti-Scientology band that's a hit in my town and put it in. Drawn Together is absolutely a notable TV show, so if the reference can be sourced, it should definitely be put in. Wikidan829 13:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Including tangential mentions like this would just make the article worse. Smee wanted to see this modeled after Nuclear weapons in popular culture You have to realize that a mention like the one I removed has absolutely no importance and cannot hold a place in any good article on this topic. Scientology is not something someone made up just last week, in which case, yeah, a completely toss-off mention like this in a notable show might be interesting. But when Scientology has been used as the theme of multiple full episodes of television shows, as the basis for films, et cetera, then this just doesn't matter. As to this particular instance, I don't think a secondary source confirming that the joke exists is sufficient, because that doesn't establish it as notable. If, on the other hand, a reputable secondary source actually attributes some kind of importance to the joke, that would be another matter (for instance, if the Church of Scientology threatened to sue over the joke). Mangojuice^talk 18:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

As to general guidelines, here's what I try to go by. There are two scales - significance of the work and importance of the connection. If the connection is very strong (i.e. a work entirely about Scientology or in which Scientology is a major element) then we should include it as long as the work is significant enough to be covered in secondary sources. This covers examples like The Bridge. If the connection is significant (i.e. a work in which Scientology is a minor but significant element, or in which Scientology is mentioned or referred to repeatedly) then I would like to see some significance in the work. So, for instance, the Tool reference would be okay, but that's because Tool is pretty significant: if this was some barely-notable up & coming band instead, I'd think we would be better off without it. Finally, if the connection is very weak (i.e. a work which references Scientology once or very rarely, and in which Scientology is not at all an element of the work) then we should leave it out no matter how important the work is, unless we can find a secondary source that argues the mention is an important example of a reference to Scientology in popular culture. Mangojuice^talk 18:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Just another reference I did not see mentioned: (band) Faith No More's (song) Land of Sunshine, off of (album) Angel Dust, uses direct quotes of questions from the Church of Scientology's personality test (often given to the curious or new entrants), including "Does emotional music have quite an effect on you?" and "Does life seem worthwhile to you?". Jseckrosh 15:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)jseckrosh

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

• I went through and formatted all cites present with Wikipedia:Citation templates. In the future let's make sure all new cites are formatted with WP:CIT, and meet the standards at WP:RS. Cirt 04:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC).

The following lists specific Scientology references in popular culture.

Entries are organized in subsections by the medium in which the reference appeared. Within within each subsection, entries are sorted by chronology with most recent last.

• These were the "list" instructions that I removed from the top of the article. I also added an introduction, summarizing the individual Scientology references. I know, I know, the intro is at parts more analytical than the individual entries themselves at the moment, but it is of an appropriate size and I will begin to flesh out some popular culture analysis in each of the below entries soon. Cirt 05:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC).

• The song "US Forces" by Australian rock band Midnight Oil (on the album 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 1982) includes the lyric "L. Ron Hubbard can't save your life."
• Many of Chick Corea's songs contain explicit references to Scientology and various works by Hubbard. For example, "What Games Shall We Play Today?" refers to the philosophical concept in Scientology that life consists of "games" in which the objective is to extract joy and satisfaction for oneself. His 2004 album To the Stars is a tone poem based on Hubbard's science fiction novel of the same name. His latest album, The Ultimate Adventure, is also based on a Hubbard novel.
• In Tenacious D's song "Kielbasa," Jack Black compares dianetics to Hinduism in the line "Dianetics junior much better than Krishna/ dianetics junior much better indeed."
• Australian rock band Something for Kate released a song titled "All The Things That Aren't Good About Scientology", which includes lyrics such as "too much to see, too much to read, on your bridge to OT."^[5] The album version features the lyrics "tonight in your town, the stars are looking down, on you and me"; however, when played live, lead singer Paul Dempsey alters the lyrics to "...Tom Cruise is looking down, on you and me."
• The song "Land of Sunshine" from Faith No More's Angel Dust album is a lyrical mix of fortune cookie sayings and scientology personality test questions.

I moved the above unsourced material out of the Music section of the article, feel free to add it back in if sources/citations are provided. Cirt (talk) 11:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC).

I just noticed that some of the above stuff is mentioned in the intro/lead of the article, so I will work on trying to find more sources and then add it back into the Music section. Cirt (talk) 11:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC).

An organization with similarities to Scientology, called Selfosophy, was a central part of an episode from the second season of Fox's Millennium (TV series) that aired on 21 November 1997, entitled "Jose Chung's Doomsday Defense." Selfosophy was created by a science fiction writer who had spent time in an insane asylum. Matt Roush of USA Today wrote that the episode was "written with the density of a Simpsons cartoon. You'll scream till you laugh, or laugh till you scream."^[7]

Moved this from the article, newly added. Doesn't really seem like a noteworthy mention, and there were no secondary sources to back it up. Cirt (talk) 05:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC).

• However, if secondary sources are found that put this into a context and discuss it, then it could be added back into the article at a future point in time. Cirt (talk) 05:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC).
  • The secondary sources must themselves make the connections to Scientology - otherwise we the editors are doing Original Research, which is against Wikipedia policies. Cirt (talk) 05:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC).
    • LevelTubes (talk · contribs) has added a secondary source to make the appropriate connections, so this info can stay in the article, thanks. Cirt (talk) 06:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC).

Is this long quote really appropriate? It breaks up virtually the entire page, and just doesn't look very nice in the article. Cirt (talk) 05:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC).

• I removed the quote, and kept the paragraph about the television episode itself. Longer quotes can be moved to Wikiquote. Cirt (talk) 06:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC).

Image:The bridge.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

"Fiction" is the most appropriate name for this section - there is no non-fiction analyzed/discussed in the section. (Excepting a brief description of Operation Freakout given for context of a fictional work based on those events). Cirt (talk) 20:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, I know I've been remiss in working on this article, but actually I and a couple others have been working on sub-articles related to this one and upgrading their quality status, and then will use references from those articles to expand this one, soon. Cirt (talk) 20:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

An anon changed it to "non-fiction". That was clearly wrong, but the section does talk about Burroughs writing about Scientology, which would be non-fiction. But yeah, Fiction is right. After all, the non-fiction part isn't really "popular culture" in the same way. Mangojuice^talk 21:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Cirt (talk) 21:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• "Law and Order Depicts Theresa Duncan's Death". Media Bistro: FishbowlLA. mediabistro.com inc. May 1, 2008. Retrieved 2008-05-01. ((cite web)): Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Staff (April 30, 2008 - Season 18, Episode 15). ""Law & Order" Bogeyman (2008)". Internet Movie Database. IMDb.com, Inc. Retrieved 2008-05-01. ((cite web)): Check date values in: |date= (help)

Regarding Law & Order Episode 18-15: "Bogeyman" 2008.04.30 - will see if there are other WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources for this. Cirt (talk) 18:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Will add this back in with citations to secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources, moving out of article temporarily as unsourced. Cirt (talk) 05:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Scientology critic Bob Minton financed a feature-length satire of Scientology called The Profit, which premiered in 2001. In the film, Scientology terms such as "Auditing" and "Scientology" itself were renamed, but the filmmakers stated that they used Scientology and its founder, L. Ron Hubbard, specifically as role models for the settings, plot, and characters in the film. The film was screened theatrically only once, in Clearwater, Florida. It has not been released on video. It is one of the few films blocked from distribution by a U.S. court order.

Eighteen-year-old filmmaker Brett Hanover directed low-budget feature-length film The Bridge in 2006, a fictionalized story of involvement and disillusionment with Scientology. Unlike The Profit, the film did not shy away from using the name "Scientology" and explicitly used Scientology terms throughout its storyline, going so far as including actual clips from official Scientology promotional and training materials. Rather than release the film theatrically, Hanover premiered The Bridge on the Internet, and made it available for free downloading and viewing at several popular Web video sites, including Google Video and the Internet Archive, where it is no longer available for the stated reasons of "issues with the item's content".

Boston Legal aired an episode in which a person sues his previous employer for being fired due to being a Scientologist, entitled: "Whose God Is It, Anyway?"^[8] The show covers Scientology doctrines such as engrams, operating thetans, evolution from clams, leaving the body, and Xenu and the space opera in Scientology doctrines while discussing religious freedom in general and calling attention to the fact that singling out Scientology for special treatment would be bigotry. See also List of Boston Legal episodes.

In the South Park episode "Trapped in the Closet", Stan becomes a Scientologist after being recruited to take a personality test and then becomes their leader after followers start believing he carries Hubbard's thetan. This episode is controversial for a few reasons. It calls Scientology a "worldwide global scam", and makes fun of Tom Cruise's ordeal with the media calling his sexual orientation into question. Soul singer and voice of 'Chef,' Isaac Hayes quit the show, Matt Stone and Trey Parker believe it was over its treatment of his religion. The episode depicts Tom Cruise as denying being 'in the closet' amid several blatant pokes at this. To ostensibly avoid legal issues all names in the credits are John or Jane Smith.

30 Rock aired an episode in 2007 entitled The Fighting Irish referencing a religion named Practicology involving what appeared to be an E-meter in which Tracy Morgan (as Tracy Jordan) confessed to believing in a variety of odd things, e.g. that there are 31 letters in the white alphabet.^{[citation needed]}

The Chaser's War On Everything aired a segment with Julian Morrow out the front of the Church of Scientology in Sydney, asking if people would like to take a 'gullibility test.' Some of the questions included "Can you believe that a famous science fiction writer also created a completely true religion?" and "Can you believe that Tom Cruise is a completely normal human being?"

It's extremely odd that the article is illustrated, right at the top, with a still from a film that isn't mentioned anywhere in the text. Why does the "Film" section only talk about Bowfinger? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.62.47 (talk) 20:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It was removed at one point because info on The Bridge in this article was not sourced too well. I will add a section on that back in, sourced to WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources, pretty soon. Cirt (talk) 20:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

He is mentioned in the intro but not in the body of the article. Is this an oversight? Steve Dufour (talk) 09:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Scientology in popular culture/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Last edited at 05:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 15:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I also noticed that Hubbard's own books are not mentioned. I understand that he used Scientology themes in some of his fiction. Isn't that popular culture? Steve Dufour (talk) 10:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Scientology in popular culture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071010064841/http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2007/06/writer-i-was-stalked-by-scientologists.php to http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2007/06/writer-i-was-stalked-by-scientologists.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080509020851/http://www.blender.com/guide/articles.aspx?id=2002 to http://www.blender.com/guide/articles.aspx?id=2002
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071117152731/http://www.playbill.com/news/article/102090.html to http://www.playbill.com/news/article/102090.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC)