Talk:List of Scientology security checks

How does this page meet the verifiability threshold?

As noted on the Security Check Children talk page, this is obviously going to be controversial. Where can a Wikipedia reader go to verify the existence/accuracy/context of the Bulletins or Policy Letters? I note the following at WP:V:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed...

Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require stronger sources...

In general, sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight. Sources of dubious reliability should only be used in articles about themselves... Articles about such sources should not repeat any potentially libellous claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources...

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.

Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field or a well-known professional journalist. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

Also, how do the Atack and Wakefield books meet the reliability standard in WP:V? It appears that both of these contain the personal experiences of former Scientologists that currently oppose the Church and are (or have been) involved in litigation against it. ---- Really Spooky 21:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

As for "Where can a Wikipedia reader go to verify the existence/accuracy/context of the Bulletins", well, I own an almost-complete collection of the bound Technical Bulletins series myself, you could always come over one night for some Stoli and we'll sit around reading them. Failing that, the Bulletins are available here and here and [http://amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/102-1903508-1954524?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=scientology+technical+bulletins+ here], just to name three obvious sources off the top of my head. As for the reliability of Atack's and Wakefield's book, I think you just answered your own question. wikipediatrix 22:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I think I'll save my hard-earned cash and take your word for it. :) I have to admit that is some pretty bizarre shite... I will be intrigued to see if anyone provides some context or explanations for this stuff. Although something tells me you probably could if you wanted to. On a lighter note, depending on what part of the States you are in, I might just take you up on your Stoli offer when I am in need of a good laugh on that side of the pond... But before I do -- just to make sure --- have you ever zapped anyone? Really Spooky 23:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I too am taken aback. So, having some of the information which Wikipediatrix references, available, I looked at what I had. A link to Atack's book is not provided. Quotations to Atack's book are not provided in certain areas. As one example, the article states that Atack says: Hubbard urges the Sec Checks be done as an interrogation tool on involuntary subjects. Is that a direct quotation from Atack's book? Apparently is stated by Atack somewhere in chapter 6 of his book. A link to such an absurdity would be helpful. Then a quotation is taken from the context of something Hubbard wrote, HCOB 30 Mar 1960. So, I looked at HCOB 30 Mar 1960. It has that quotation, but the intent of that quotation is in a very, very different context than the article states. Very different. However, I could understand that Mr. Atack (a known critic of Hubbard and Scientology) could misunderstand the context of HCOB 30 Mar 1960. Atack isn't present and I can't argue with what he has published. But that is extraordinary. Could it be a little better documented, please ? Could we have a look at Atack's book, at the phrasing which he used ? Terryeo 00:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

In the time you spent typing that, you could have done a Google search and found what you seek in seconds, since the text of Atack's book is freely available online: click here. wikipediatrix 01:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I see. However, the claim is still, extraordinary. The reader can not be expected to go through the gyrations of your requirements about Atack's statement and his statement is still not quoted directly. Hubbard's HCOB presentation, misrepresented. Out of thousands of HCOB's, Hubbard created one about how to use an Emeter with a person who is less than willing. This article presents that as if it were in common use. It is quite likely the HCOB has never actually been used. The article presents an extraordinary claim and makes it sound as if Hubbard's HCOB is the source of such a practice and that such a practice is common in the Church. It should quote Atack's opinion and it should further state the Atack is a critic and has written a book spelling out some of his criticisms. Terryeo 02:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The Atack quote about involuntary application starts with the words "in theory", so I think you are going too far to say it is an assertion about common practice. OK, it is probably worth pointing out that Mr. Atack is a critic and a former Scientologist, but you don't seem to dispute that the quotes exist and are accurate. So what is it you are saying? That Scientology Security Checks are not used and this is nothing more than a historical foonote? If so, can you provide some evidence in support of this? Or that these particular Checks are presented out of context and/or are unrepresentative of common practice? If so, why not propose contextual material?

PS - Have you ever had sexual relations with a bird? (sorry, couldn't resist) ---- Really Spooky 06:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I am saying:

1. the statement in the article: Hubbard urges the Sec Checks be done as an interrogation tool on involuntary subjects Is false and can not be documented except (possibly) as Atack's opinion. Its presentation has changed slightly in the article but the Hubbard urges Sec Checks be done on involuntary subjects is still present and as false as it was when I first commented. The reference, the HCOB does not state "Hubbard urges ..." anything. The information is filtered through the POV of the editor who made the statement, the statement is unciteable by the HCOB reference given and the statement implies an attitude that Hubbard never presented.
2. If Atack's book is going to be used as a reference, then it should be more accessible, it should be linked, page numbers should be indicated. This is common form for any reference. Page number, publisher, author, and so on.
3. The tone of the article, beyond the single small section I am talking about is straight out of a critic's book, out of Atack's book. With 40 million published words from Scientology, Atack's poorly published, small circulation book is the center of the article. Since that seems to be the situation, Atack's book should be better cited and the article should note that Atack is a critic.
4. The referenced HCOB is one of thousands. Hubbard does talk in it about how to gain information from a person who is unwilling. However, the Church is not in a position to use such techniques to my knowledge. Terryeo 07:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I have made some edits that address Terryeo's concerns. Wikipediatrix, is the Atack quote (under 'Potential blackmail') really necessary? It is not fact, but the speculation of a known opponent of Scientology, and as such its inclusion just looks like negative spin. A brief, descriptive and objective paragraph at the outset on the purpose and application of Security Checks would IMHO be more informative.

PS - Why are there no questions on sexual relations with fish and plants? Was this an oversight or is this type of behaviour deemed to pose no threat to Scientology security? ---- Really Spooky 08:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The Atack "potential blackmail" quote is in the "Controversy" section, where it belongs. This is where such critical assertions from people like Atack are supposed to go. It's not like I stuck it in the intro or something. There's no reason to remove it. In fact, since Atack is far from being the only person to have made this assertion, the blackmail section could even be expanded further with more quotes and more sources. But I thought I'd keep it short :) wikipediatrix 14:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Spooky's edits did address the area and Hubbard is no longer represented as "urging" people to be "sec checked against thier will". That section is much more encyclopedic and doesn't contain bias words. Terryeo

Johannesburg Security Check

The article states: The Johannesburg Security Check -- An amended form is still in use [Ref. Atack's book]. Atack was active in the Church some years ago. His knowledge and the information in his book might have been current when he created his book. But the next reference is: HCO Policy Letter 7 Apr 61, Johannesburg Security Check. The article spells out some of what is purported to be within HCO PL 7 Apr 61, Johannesburg Security Check. I have a full set of Policy Letters, the green volumes and index. There is no such policy letter in them. My set was purchased in 1998. It is perfectly possible there was, at one time, such a policy letter in force and that it was cancelled. But the combination of Atack's book having been created from knowledge of some years ago and the 7 APR 61 policy letter no longer existing lead me to suspect that list of questions is not used by the Church today. Further, it is HCO Bulletins which contain the tech (such as a list of questions) while policy letters contain "how to run an organization". Terryeo 15:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

For once, you make a good point, although it could have been stated in a sentence or two. I'll amend the "still in use" bit. (As for the policy letters, yes, the 1998 version is highly censored and redacted. Tell Miscavige you want your money back.) wikipediatrix 16:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Page move?

Since this article really isn't a list per se, wouldn't this article be better renamed as Scientology Security Check or perhaps Security check (scientology) -- RoninBK _{T C} 03:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I'd be WP:BOLD but I'd rather get consensus first. I have populated those pages with redirects to here though. -- RoninBK _{T C} 03:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I was about to propose that this should be a prose article rather than a list, and I note this previous suggestion. I favour Security check (Scientology). Maybe there's a case for a separate page for a list of questions from security checks, since the different secondary sources each contain lists of their own. Then again, perhaps that's not necessary on WP given that the full text of some sec checks seems to be on Wikileaks. MartinPoulter (talk) 11:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Cancellation

Sec checks were never canceled. They were canceled *only* as a form of confessional. But sec checks in general are still routinely administered, and anyone wishing to do courses in the regular courserooms (as opposed to the courseroom for new people) has to go through a sec check, though without the more severe questions like "Are you a pervert?" Typically, after someone completes two or three courses, they will take a more intermediate course and will get sent to the regular courseroom, which is prohibited to new Scientologists until they have at least completed something like the Basic Study Manual. Laval (talk) 05:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)