Wikipedia

Talk:Narconon/Archive 2

< Talk:Narconon
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Grorp in topic Guardian: Amazon to donate to drug charity linked to Scientology
Archive 1Archive 2

User who claims to be Narconon UK manager deleting large amounts of article contents, seems to be claiming copyright over article text

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

12:32, 22 July 2016 (diff | hist) . . (-11,041)‎ . . Narconon ‎ (→‎History: The old information is based on bias and agenda, which are false. Also against copyright laws. I am manager of Narconon UK, have knowledge and right to update.)
12:28, 22 July 2016 (diff | hist) . . (-166,356)‎ . . Narconon ‎ (→‎Drug rehabilitation program: The old information is based on bias and agenda, which are false. Also against copyright laws. I am manager of Narconon UK, have knowledge and right to update.)
12:09, 22 July 2016 (diff | hist) . . (-10,163)‎ . . Narconon ‎ (→‎Narconon and Scientology: →‎History: I found several false information in the old text, and they are also against copyright laws. I am manager of Narconon United Kingdom, and I can supply true information, with all rights) (Tag: section blanking)
12:08, 22 July 2016 (diff | hist) . . (-4,242)‎ . . Narconon ‎ (→‎History: I found several false information in the old text, and they are also against copyright laws. I am manager of Narconon United Kingdom, and I can supply true information, with all rights) (Tag: section blanking)
12:05, 22 July 2016 (diff | hist) . . (-9,781)‎ . . Narconon ‎ (→‎Education program)
12:02, 22 July 2016 (diff | hist) . . (-5,550)‎ . . Narconon ‎ (→‎21st century)
11:07, 22 July 2016 (diff | hist) . . (+130)‎ . . Narconon ‎ (→‎External links)
11:05, 22 July 2016 (diff | hist) . . (-89)‎ . . Narconon ‎ (→‎External links)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/81.157.87.221

GeoIP shows 81.157.87.221 to be located Haywards Heath, West Sussex, England, United Kingdom, which is the approximate location of Scientology's HQ, Saint Hill Manor.

Further action needed?

Weeble91 (talk) 13:22, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Weeble91, this has been an issue on this article before. I reported it to ANI when the editor claiming to be the manager was actively warring, but they immediately stopped, and no action was needed. The page may need protection is persistent WP:POV pushing is an issue. In the meanwhile, it's probably best to revert, point them to WP:COI and carry on. TimothyJosephWood 13:47, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
FYI, if someone does want to take the time to make up an WP:AN3 report, the IP has already been sufficiently warned and notified of discretionary sanctions, and the report would probably be successful. If the user IP returns yet again, and I somehow don't notice, feel free to ping me back here and I will put the report together myself. TimothyJosephWood 14:39, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

A minor factual error

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

"The program is four to six months long and includes a regimen of detoxification..." -- In fact the program does not include anything about "detoxification," the Scientology enterprise claims that it does however the claim is false, it's a fraudulent claim.

I suppose it would not be helpful to include what Scientology thinks it is actually doing: Scraping off invisible murdered space space alien fragments they call "Body Thetans." That's what Narconon is actually doing here. Damotclese (talk) 16:26, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay. Can you think of a way of rephrasing this that clarifies that distinction, keeping in mind WP:ALLEGED? Grayfell (talk) 22:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't think that we can talk about scraping off BTs, I was thinking it would be nice to note that "detoxification" is not what they're doing, it's what they claim to be doing. In retrospect it seems unlikely that there's suitable wording that could address the public claims which oppose the organization's internal documents. I don't know of a way to do that, no. :) Damotclese (talk) 15:37, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Massive vandalism noted

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

IP address 81.147.26.44 committed massive vandalism to this page with a comment "removed copyright, false information and violation on human rights."

OrgName: RIPE Network Coordination Centre
OrgId: RIPE
Address: P.O. Box 10096
City: Amsterdam

It looks like Scientology operating out of Zutphen may possibly have committed the vandalism. Damotclese (talk) 16:40, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah. This is fairly run-of-the-mill for these types of articles. Repeated vandalism. Thinly veiled legal threats. Revert and repeat. TimothyJosephWood 17:05, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Category:Addiction and substance abuse organizations

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

The newly-added Category:Addiction and substance abuse organizations might be argued for removal since Scientology has nothing to do with drug addiction or substance abuse except as means to sell quack medical frauds to their unwitting customers. On the other hand, the improper classification could help steer potential victims to this article and inoculate them against being swindled -- except that Wikipedia isn't in the job of advocacy or warning people against such frauds.

What do other editors think about the newly-added category? Damotclese (talk) 17:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Who added it? I know I saw it pop up on my watchlist, but I'm not seeing it on the history. TimothyJosephWood 18:23, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't know, I had thought that it was a recent addition within the past week however the history doesn't show a recent entry. Very strange. For purposes of the extant article, the category entry is inaccurate, but that's a minor issue, it's probably irrelevant. Damotclese (talk) 17:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Well then, I removed the category. If someone takes issue with it, then can revert and join in the discussion. TimothyJosephWood 18:42, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Fraudulent "Studies" Removed

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

There were two sentences covering fictitious "studies" which were conducted by the Scientology corporation which I have removed, the two citations for the claims have been found to be false. In the references, the claims were made by a Scientology fake front which Scientology called their "International Conference on Chemical Contamination and Human Detoxification" Reference: Carnegie Mellon University Reference. This is the Scientology corporation notoriously using numerous fake fronts to try to claim legitimacy for other fake fronts which Scientology creates in order to sell verified nonsense to people who don't research what they purchase prior to their purchase.

As Doctor Touretzky and numerous other researchers have reported, Scientology's "Foundation for Advancements in Science and Education (FASE)" is a Scientology front, as is their Association for Better Living and Education (ABLE), Government Technology, and Association of Human Detoxification Specialists fake fronts.

So the fictitious claims were removed. Damotclese (talk) 16:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually maybe it would be better to retain those sentences and the fraudulent claims and add text which notes that it was Scientology fake fronts that are making the claims. That would be more informative, let readers see how Scientology concocts fake fronts to try to pretend legitimacy. Damotclese (talk) 16:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Narconon. 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:

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) 01:46, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Success claim document is not peer-reviewed

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Doing some checking in to the validity of the supposed success rate for a reference On This Link -- From checking with the NIH U.S. National Library of Medicine web site, what they do is archive such research documents regardless of whether they are peer-reviewed by any actual science-based body of judges, so the reference which suggests that it is peer-reviewed appears to be false. I have opened a ticket with the NCBI to confirm that no such peer review actually took place.

The claims in the references state that they are from:

  • Richard D. Lennox -- This individual appears to not publish and does not have legitimate credentials insofar as what's available to the public, however his name does not appear to be associated with the Scientology corporation outside of the fact that he (or she; we can't tell if the person actually exists since he does not publish in any actual science journals or, for that matter, does not appear to practice any kind of science) is mentioned in conjunction with this non-peer-reviewed reference.
  • Marie A. Sternquist -- A Scientology owner/operator/customer.

So the reference for success appears to be another Scientology lie. Once I get a response to my NCBI ticket and get confirmation that the claims are not backed by actual peer-review, I will propose correcting the extant article to remove that claim and note that the claims are not peer-reviewed in any way. Thanks! Damotclese (talk) 16:12, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Claim should be taken out of the lead entirely, the subsection can deal with any controversy over the validity of bogus research, the lede is no place for it. Thanks for looking into this. Mramoeba (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
I never got an answer from the NCBI, and likely they take weeks, months if they ever respond. On the face of it, yeah, looks like the claims are not peer reviewed however it would be good, perhaps, to keep the reference and note that it's unfounded and was written by Scientology, that shows how Scientology concocts false claims to try to sell this quack medical fraud. Maybe rather than remove it, it should be reworded to show an examlpe of fraudulent fake "research" that Scientology does to try to sell their unfounded claimed success rates. Damotclese (talk) 14:24, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Sauna, anyone?

Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

I do--I love saunas. But, User:Tweenkees, what was going on here was not OK. As I indicated, the two studies cited are on the subject of saunas, not on Narconon--thus, WP:SYNTH. The third reference is to a conference presentation (just that one, so your edit summary was incorrect), and presentations just don't cut it in medical subject matter. Plus, that content was odd:

"Based on a 1995 study, Narconon executive M.A. Cecchini observed that due to symptom improvement, 84% of Narconon clients that required medications to manage symptoms related to exposure to the World Trade Center 9/11 disaster were able to discontinue using their medication. M. Shields also concluded that those who participated in the program “reported marked reductions in drug craving.”

So--a conference presentation says that a Narconon exec said something? And who is this M. Shields, brought into this Narconon exec board meeting by way of an "also"? Oh--he is one of five presenters of the presentation cited, which begs the question, how and why does he cite a Narconon exec, and what is the medical authority of a Narconon exec? Finally, why should we cite a Narconon exec who is touting the benefits of a Narconon treatment method? Drmies (talk) 20:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

The "studies" that were talked about are not science-based studies, they were religion-based studies, polls of some people as claimed by the Scientology corporation, not by any actual medical or actual narcotics-reduction, science-based entity. The supposition that Scientology's "Purification Rundown" wherein sitting in a sauna some how "removes toxins" is debunked in any event in scientific, peer-reviewed journals. The no-so-hidden-any-more supposition that Scientology's "Purification Rundown" is scraping off invisible murdered space alien infestations is absurd on the face of it, so yes, the proposed update to the extant article was unsupported advertising and, in any event, blatant Scientology lies. Damotclese (talk) 14:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
But... just look at this Sauna right here. It's chock full of thetans. TimothyJosephWood 15:08, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
"M. Shields" is/was this person - a Scientologist doctor who died last year. Prioryman (talk) 19:58, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Also the fraudulent "study" has been attempted to be added to the extant article previously, this is the second time in some two years that the unfounded claimed have been attempted to be added to the article. Damotclese (talk) 14:49, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, unsourced but also not true

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

The Narconon network consists of 150 drug rehabilitation and education centers spread over 50 countries. -- The recently-removed text was mistaken in any event, not to mention being unsourced. The Scientology corporation has been forced to close most of its "Narconon" businesses world wide due to fatalities and civil lawsuits, raids by Federal and State law enforcement agencies, and lack of customers to the point where even though Scientology never had anywhere neat 150 Narconon business offices open at any one time, at the current point in time the corporation has at most some 20 to 30 offices.

An evaluation in to the scope and extent of this Scientology fraud was performed by Federal agents in the United States in 1999, and FBI researchers found that almost all of the Narconon offices that Scientology claimed to have open in the U.S. on various web sites did not actually exists, most were Post Office Box addresses. In 1996 the same had been discovered of Scientology's "Crimnon" fake front which consisted of nothing but a office in Studio City despire claims by the Scientology corporation otherwise. Damotclese (talk) 15:55, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Testing watchlist updates. Damotclese (talk) 14:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Narconon. 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:

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) 07:58, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Narconon. 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:

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) 22:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Narconon. 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:

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) 14:23, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Kim Poff

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There is extensive new information about Scientology's Narconon fraud At The Underground Bunker which really should be added to the text of the article here. AlsoMostlyHarmless (talk) 00:26, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree, but I'm not sure how to handle this. The article is already sprawling, and it's hard to know how to summarize this new source appropriately. Tony Ortega's website is a reliable source by my understanding, but I can understand why others disagree, and I've seen it removed from different Scientology-related articles several times. WP:SPS explains why this is disputed, since Ortega is an expert on Scientology who has been cited by many reliable sources, but there doesn't appear to be any independent editorial oversight on his site. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, however, so it depends on what's added. Grayfell (talk) 00:41, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Guardian: Amazon to donate to drug charity linked to Scientology

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Not sure where this could go

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/22/amazon-to-donate-to-drug-charity-linked-to-scientology

John Cummings (talk) 16:18, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Would The Guardian be considered an unbiased, reliable, scholarly source for this topic? Emiann1x1 (talk) 03:18, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
@Emiann1x1: Yes, The Guardian is a fine RS for this topic. The article is referring to the Amazon Smile program, which is being discontinued. The charities had to sign up to be Smile recipients, and the shoppers had to log in through the smile.amazon.com URL and select in Amazon what their favorite charity was. Then only certain products were eligible for the Smile program. So I seriously doubt there was much being donated to Narconon companies. I'm not sure how much due weight we should put on this, because it wasn't as if Amazon had made a decision to donate to a Narconon; it was individual shoppers who would have selected Narconon. Grorp (talk) 09:30, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Narconon/Archive_2&oldid=1158908636"