Talk:R2-45/Archive 1

Archive 1

Reference to R2-45 in Auditor #37

According to this excerpt from Nam McLean's affidavit:

«7. I have copies in my possession in which ex-Scientologists were declared "suppressive persons" and made subject to the "fair game law" and a copy of Auditor #37 placing 4 persons under auditing process R2-45. In the context of such Ethics Orders auditing process R2-45 cannot be considered humorous or a joke, but a serious order. The document attached hereto and marked Appendix "D", is a true copy of an original copy of the Auditor. The reference to Auditing Process R2-45, found in paragraph 7, under heading "Racket Exposed", was known by me as a staff member of the Church of Scientology to mean to kill someone with a Colt 45 automatic Pistol.» [1]

I think this reference to the Auditor #37 magazine should be included in the article. I will see if I can include it myself, although other editors who are better at english prose than I am can go ahead meanwhile. Raymond Hill 16:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

"Nan McLean". AndroidCat 12:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Oops, you're right, thanks for the heads-up. Raymond Hill 18:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Exteriorization

The article attempts to define a word used in Scientology. It says: Exteriorization, in Scientology, is the ability for the "thetan" (soul or true self) to leave the body, in other words: death

Exteriorization, 1. the state of the individual being outside his body. When this is done, the individual achieves a certainty that he is himself and not his body. 2. The phenomenon of being in a position in space dependent on only one's consideration, able to view from that space, bodies and the room, as it is. 3. the act of moving out of the body with or without full perception. Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary pg. 151, pub. Church of Scientology of California ISBN 0884040372

There is no special ability involved after a body dies. But the word Exteriorization does not mean death, it means, "exterior to the body". Terryeo 05:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, am I to understand that when Hubbard said R2-45 is "an enormously effective process for exteriorization but its use is frowned upon by this society at this time." it is your position he was not referring to exteriorization as a reference to death. Are you telling my that is what you believe? - Glen 08:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I am stating that the article mis-defines the term Exteriorization. Toward causing the term's use to be more understandable, I have provided 3 definitions, exactly quoted from the Tech Dictionary. The article presently states that exteriorization = death. I am stating that is not its meaning and providing 3 direct quotes which define what Exteriorization means (in Scientology). I am not telling you what I believe or what anyone should believe, but telling you the definition of the term, Exteriorization. I am doing that by quoting directly from the Tech Dictionary. If you like, I could provide more information about what Hubbard meant by "exteriorization", there are a number of technical bulletins and articles and Hubbard talked about it extensively. It doesn't mean death is the point I'm making here. It has a particular meaning which is not "death".

Actually, Glen, don't forget that in Hubbardspeak, what you describe would not be death, because the Thetan/soul is alive and the body doesn't matter. And Hubbard used to term "Exteriorization" inconsistently - there are Exteriorization exercises for leaving the body temporarily, but the BIG ultimate Exteriorization is, of course, to leave it permanently. However, Terryeo's statement "There is no special ability involved after a body dies" is also incorrect. wikipediatrix

It would actually be easier to communicate with you in this area if you understand what Hubbard meant. I am not attempting to cause anyone to believe a certain event can happen. I am simply attempting to cause the article to present what Hubbard meant. A reader can undertand what Hubbard meant without agreeing it was so, and without believing it was possible. But exteriorization = death is not what Hubbard was talking about, not what he meant. Terryeo 20:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to make this point. When an editor introduced in other words: death into the article, that editor introduced original research which is not cited, which is unattributable and which Hubbard did not say. That tiny phrase, in other words: death was not spoken by Hubbard, is not present in Scientology Tech and is OR (WP:NOR) on the part of an editor. I am again, not telling anyone what to believe or disbelieve but stating what Wikipedia policy has been ignored by an editor, ignored so a hot topic, an POV of view can be presented. So, if that tiny phrase comes out of there, if Wikipedia policy is followed, if Wikipedia guidelines are implemented, then its going to be a Wikipedia article. And, additionally, if there is some question of what I understand (not believe, but understand) Hubbard's statements to mean, I'm happy to respond. No problem. Terryeo 21:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

So basically, Terryeo, just as "being at cause over MEST" actually means being able to buy a book from a store or mortar a brick, when Hubbard said that the people he had named as "Enemies of mankind, the planet, and all life" should be exteriorized by Auditing Process R2-45, he meant for them to be shot in the head... but not in, y'know, a death-inducing way? -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Feldspar, it cheers me greatly that you exhibit a sense of humor. lol. Terryeo 09:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

As a trivial point of information, "being at cause over MEST" means glancing at your watch to see what time it is, picking up a pencil so that its operating end is in operation, pressing the button on the TV remote which causes the effect you want to create. That's what "cause over MEST means". Of course only within the Church of Scientology could such plainspeak exist, you think? heh. Terryeo 18:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a good thing we have you around to "clarify" such matters, Terryeo. It's doubleplusgood that we have your plainspeak to help us goodthink. I'd write you a thank-you letter, except I haven't reached the state of Operating Thetan where I become at "knowing and willing cause over life, thought, matter, energy, space and time", so I can't pick up the pencil in such as a way as to put its operating end in operation. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I see. If I pick a leaf from a tree and shred it, have I been cause over life? If I first choose to think of cake for desert, and then think of cake for desert, have I been cause over thought? If I pick up a watermelon and drop it from a tall building, have I been cause over matter? If I throw a switch, turning on an electric eraser, have I been cause over energy? If I close a door, have I been cause over space? If I run to the store instead of walking, have I been cause over time? Plainspeek, Scientology intends to be helpful to people. People attest, 1000s and 1000s of people attest Scientology is helpful. 1 + 1 = Plainspeek. Terryeo 15:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

If what they're attesting to is that being "at cause over MEST" allows them to do exactly the same things that anyone can do, even if they hadn't spent thousands of dollars on auditing and courses could do, they can "attest Scientology is helpful" all they like, but I for one ain't buyin' it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, that is the meaning, the most basic and commonly understood meaning of "cause over MEST". If you asked me, that is the definition I would give, I believe (that word) that if you asked any Scientologist, that is the definition they would give you. I further understand you have re-stated again the solidity of your opinion in the matter. Terryeo 05:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

External Links

Normally, most articles place External Links as a section at the end of the article, after the information of the article. Notes and References are part of the information of this article. External Links, in most articles, are placed after the information of the article. Terryeo 05:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I fixed it, thanks for pointing it out. Raymond Hill 23:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Mis-Use of the term "thetan"

The artice begins, The process of R2-45 specifically pertains to shooting the target with a Colt .45 pistol, causing the victim's "thetan" (soul or spirit) to leave the body (exteriorization). The term, thetan is misued. As stated the victim's thetan is something that he has and by golly, when he gets shot through the bean his thetan pops out of his body. That's what it says, The victim's thetan leaves the body. This editing mistake was created by User:Glen_S editing difference. His edit summary states rephrased. What he rephrased was, Exteriorization, in Scientology, is the ability for the "thetan" (soul or true self) to leave the body, in other words: death. Both of these statements are wrong. The present statement is wrong because it is a misuse of the word, "thetan". The earlier statement was wrong because it included the phrase, in other words, death which was not what Hubbard said and most certainly was not what Hubbard meant and is unciteable and unreferenceable by Hubbard's words.

• Solution. Quote Hubbard's words. Don't introduce a word more and don't leave out words. Quote Hubbard's words. This will cause the article to be accurate and factual and editors will not have to understand the terms which are used by Hubbard to create articles about these things. If an editor actually wishes to understand the word Thetan, that article is there to read. As the article's words are presently in place, a reader is immediately introduced, the editors of this article are unable to use a defined Scientology word. Terryeo 21:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Captain Bligh

Can someone please tell me the point of putting the "Captain Bligh" line in there. It has nothing to do with R2-45, does it? Are we trying Hubbard here? I think the article speaks for itself and that line serves no legitimate purpose. --Justanother 03:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

MacLean

If you read the MacLean article you will see that I have presented a truer version of what was said by the Scientologist. --Justanother 13:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Xenu.net / L.A. Times reference

Okay, it is my understanding that the information was actually gotten from Xenu.net / a google group, not the L.A. Times. (See Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources#unrecorded radio talk shows.) If I am mistaken about this, please accept my apologies. However, I changed the reference to show Xenu.net as the publisher (with credit given to the L.A. Times as the original publisher).

As xenu.net got the information from a google group, and the google group is not a reliable source, Xenu.net is not a reliable source on this either. While in-sentence attribution somewhat compensates for this, in the long run it would probably be better either to find the L.A. Times article and cite that, keeping xenu.net a convenience link (note - there is currently no consensus on WT:RS regarding convenience links), or to remove the information.

— Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 00:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

If the copy of the article on Xenu.net is questionable, the thing to do is remove the convience link to it, not say that xenu.net is the publisher. There does seem to be a mis-formated cite in there that's messing up the references with multiple listings, but preview doesn't display with the error. I wish it was possible to define refs other than embedded in the text. AndroidCat 02:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Per WP:CITE#Intermediate_sources:_State_where_you_got_it, it does matter if the editor looking at the source looked at the L.A. Times or Xenu.net. (And, per WP:RS, one of these is significantly more reliable than the other.) The formatting of the reference did not make this clear, and based on the discussion linked above, I believed the editor who used the source looked at Xenu.net. Removing the link to Xenu.net, or specifically labelling it a convenience link, only makes it look like the editor did in fact look at the L.A. Times, which might not be true. Clarification from the person who added it would of course be helpful. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 12:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

What actually seems to happen is this. Some dude in LA reads the LA Times, sees an article and in good faith hand types the article's content into the "I hate Scientology" version of google groups. He gives it his best shot, okay, notwithstanding that his interest is POV. Then Xenu.net picks it up out of the google group as a hand typed replication with nothing about copyright protection or anything. (or some editor who has access to Xenu.net's posting does this). Now we have the LA Times article archived via a google group on Xenu.net. Next, an editor here sees a chance to secondarily source some bit of information and uses the "conveninece link" to the LA Times (no copyright notice, no attribution to the author usually) and cites it here. This is a bad loop, don't you see? It depends on some unknown and unknowable typist duplicating a newspaper which then gets shipped around on T1 lines until it is archived at a personal website. Terryeo 09:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The thing to do is for one or more editors to go to a library or online service archive and verify it. Of course, once they do, we'll just have to take their word for it unless every reader wants to do the same. They could put the exact text up somewhere, but then they'd be the "unknown typist" barring a complete scan of the story (and images can be manipulated), and where do they put it up? Usenet? No. A web site? No, too personal. A web site owned by a corporation, but mainly operated by an individual? Still too personal. An organization? Like CAN, LMT... Nope, they usually become lawsuit-magnets for some reason. The online archive would probably be a for-pay service, so that's out. Have I missed any branches of that tree? (Other than the happy occurance where the publication makes a decades old narrow-interest story available online.) Oh yes, the copyvio claim if it's an exact reproduction and the rejection of commented fair-use versions.

BTW, I love the loaded term "hand-typed" that Terryeo uses. It conjures up images of medieval monks pecking away at teletypes. AndroidCat 11:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and it is an accurate description when a document is not a purchased PDF or other whole document. Terryeo 15:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

And how do you think newspapers get electronic copies of old stories from before wordprocessors? Feed it through OCR software? And do you think that they assign their top-notch typists and proof-readers to go through the back issue crypts? AndroidCat 00:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the difference between a person whose whole universe is opposing Scientology in every way possible, typing a document and a hired typist whose daily bread is earned by accuracy of reproduction. Perhaps you don't. Perhaps it doesn't occur to you that the meaning of a sentence can change by including a comma where it doesn't belong, or mis-including a comma. Even a capitalization can change the meaning of a sentence. A newsgroup's "reporter" would not enter such a message unless he meant to put Sceintology into a bad light. If the standards you suggest we freely use, were applied accross all of Wikipedia, Wikipedia would no longer be an encyclopedic effort. Terryeo 00:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Good example of propaganda operations directed against wikipedia by the "guys who might cooperate".--Fahrenheit451 14:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

You don't understand. You continually present that I am attempting to harm these articles in some manner. You continually attempt to present that I am on one side and everyone else is on another side. That is not the actual situation. You frequently imply that I'm not a real person, that I am a representative of something you find distasteful, that is not the actual situation. I am not attempting to create a Scientology website here, do you understand? I have spoken of my effort many times. What is it, do you require an opponenet all of the time, what's the story ? Terryeo 00:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The basis of this is actually WP:NPOV, all published points of view. And WP:V, the idea being that if a lot of information is published which presents a point of view, then that point of view is easily substantiated. Terryeo 15:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The question is whether the editor who added the source to Wikipedia actually looked at the L.A. Times, or the reproduction(s) from the website(s) (which are unreliable publishers). If they did look at the L.A. Times, there is no problem. However, if the person who put the article on Xenu.net (which cites the google group) and the person who added it to Wikipedia are the same (is that what happened, Terryeo?) this is unlikely. If they didn't, then, as AndroidCat says, someone should check the L.A. Times. This of course will require more effort than internet-surfing, and may be inconvenient for some editors, and take time to happen. In the meantime, we could make the article honest to the current source of the information being an unreliable publisher by re-formatting the reference, adding {{Verify credibility}}, and making the attribution specific. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 14:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely ! If the editor who added the source looked at the L.A. Times or the website and reproduced himself, what he observed and reproduced it verbatim with exact punctuation and so on, then his edit falls into one area. But if he the reproduction left out a comma, it falls into another area. This is simply too much for us to ask Wikipedia readers to trust. While in theory it is possible, it is too much to trust. In fact, all of the people involved in the transition from the physical newspaper to an archived newsgroup message have contributed thier anti-Scientology point of view in their actions of duplication. It is just too much to ask. Terryeo 15:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

If the link is just a convenience link, and not an indirect source, then it doesn't need to be trusted. So long as the information in the article was verified by looking at the original source. — Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 16:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I love it ! Then we should write WP:RS so that indirect sources may not be used unless they include a citation to the original source of information. And not just a statement such as, radio broacast of Jun 13, 1980 by RTCT, Seattle, WA, but a way or manner by which a person could find a reliable copy of the original information? Terryeo 21:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, there are some occasions when the non-original publisher may still meet the requirements of "reliable and reputable". But aside from that, I agree that indirect sources should not be considered to meet WP:RS, although I have no objection to using them as convenience links provided at least one editor has checked the original source. (After that editor, you can either trust that editor, or go through the inconvenience of checking the original source yourself.) So, yay! By the way, somehow I got the Los Angeles Times reference and the Maclean's reference mixed up. I don't actually have any reason to believe that the editor who added the Los Angeles Times reference didn't look at the Los Angeles Times - but I do doubt whether the editor who added the Maclean's reference checked Maclean's (see our conversation on WT:RS. In any case, I found four search results for the L.A. Times on what looked like an official archive (copyright notices "Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission", scanned PDFs that you have to pay for, free abstracts, not to mention that latimes.com links to it). So if you don't trust the editor who added it, you can either pay $3.95 for one of them, or $10.95 for all four (or cheaper per article if you have a larger subscription). (Or, of course, you can go to a public archive near you, if there is one.) I couldn't find any official online archive for Maclean's that goes back to 1974, though. (My search results on the Maclean's website seemed to only go back to 2000.) But I'm sure AndroidCat will find it given time. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 02:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The Macleans issue cover looks interesting. I've added it my list for my next library reference hike. AndroidCat 00:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Does no one notice that the link to xenu.net includes not only what is purported to be a newspaper article, but takes a quote from Hubbard's 40 million published words which was used in quite another context and presents it juxtaposed against a newspaper article? Terryeo 16:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the Captain Bligh bit has no place here and I will remove it after appropriate time for comment. --Justanother 16:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

hmmm.... deja vu....

User:Justanother left this bizarre message on my talk page: "Wikipediatrix, please do NOT treat my good-faith edits on R2-45 as vandalism. If you have something to say put it up on the talk page and we can bounce it around as I did with "Captain Bligh". I am totally willing to work with others and for consensus. Thank you." And yet the word "vandalism" has not crossed my lips. And shortly after he criticizes me for an "improper reversion", he goes and reverts the page himself. User:Justanother, why do you think you can revert the page, but no one else should without consulting you first? You do not WP:OWN this article. I gave perfectly good reason in my edit summary for my changes, which were NOT a reversion but a mix of elements from several different editor's versions. wikipediatrix 14:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I left that message to remind you of what WP:REVERT actually, well, what it actually SAYS.:

"Reverting should be used primarily for fighting vandalism."

If I make a good-faith edit and you object to a specific part of it then post your SPECIFIC objection here and the community can hash it out. STOP treating my good-faith edits as vandalism. Funny that you should accuse me of EXACTLY what you are doing. I am editing, you are "defending" and attempting to WP:OWN. --Justanother 14:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Nope. As I said, my edit is a collection of elements from several different editor's versions. Yours is just your own recently-created stuff that you seek to hammer in there without consensus. If consensus here decides I am wrong in my edit, believe me, they'll quickly say so, and that'll be that. But you alone are not consensus. You are apparently reverting to your version for no other reason than that it is your version. I have stated in my edit summaries my reasons for removing it - namely, it contains false information (my copy of the book doesn't have the quote in all caps) and your version needlessly removed important info that doesn't fit your POV. :wikipediatrix 15:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Both Wikipediatrix and Feldspar have, believe me, a long history of "reverting vandalism" when it comes to someone (like me) who knows the actual subject and actually edits to produce actual information instead of slightly mistated statements. For example See my posting about, regards "mis-use of the word 'thetan'". For months the two editors reverted my edits when I correctly made really tiny corrections which removed mis-statements like "causing the victim's thetan to leave". In that case above it could be stated, "causing the victim to leave". I did a lot of that, Wikipediatrix and Feldspar, neither understand the language, reverted me with edit summaries such as "rv POV", "rv vandalism", etc. etc. Then, when pressed, wikpediatrix has tradiationally refused to discuss the issue. Recently wikipediatrix has dissmised discussion about references with, WP:RS is "just a guideline". I'm saying this because User:Justanother expects to meet good faith and to work with editors. His edits are obviously not vandalism and it is inappropriate to treat his edits collectively with anon editors who insert "Tom is Gay" and such silliness. Terryeo 16:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

"Both Wikipediatrix and Feldspar have, believe me, a long history of "reverting vandalism" when it comes to someone (like me) who knows the actual subject and actually edits to produce actual information instead of slightly mistated statements." Ah, so removing information that comes from a verifiable, reliable source on the pretext that it could have come by way of a personal website, even though it didn't and you made no attempts whatsoever to check your hasty assumption, is "editing to produce actual information"? Removing a reference to a verifiable, reliable source on the pretext that you can't figure out how a paragraph that ends "(hence the volcano reference on the cover of Dianetics)" (a paragraph which in fact gets reproduced specifically for your benefit) relates to the volcano on the cover of Dianetics -- that's suddenly "editing to produce actual information"? Inserting your own personal opinion that "the publisher of the book apparently feels it sells books" well after you have asserted to others easily a dozen times how an insertion of a private theory like that is original research -- in your "reality", that's now "editing to produce actual information"? Requesting that certain statements be backed up with reference to verifiable, reliable sources and then removing those references when you get them -- that's "editing to produce actual information"? Of course, asserting to Justanother that you were never doing anything in the least bit wrong when you got reverted not only paints a portrait of you as a lonely lawful crusader against a corrupt cabal, but develops traffic, you see? However, the problem is it does not match the facts. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Update: Justanother has just violated the three-revert rule, and still has yet to respond to the actual points of contention I have with this edit he is hell-bent on pushing. wikipediatrix 15:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I did not violate WP:3RR but I certainly think you do. Regularly. By misusing revert to protect pages that you are attempting to WP:OWN. You seem to see your role here as one of "gatekeeper", not as a contributing editor. You seem to think that all edits must pass your review. --Justanother 15:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Pot, kettle, black. The history page to this article stands as proof. wikipediatrix 15:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it does indeed. It shows that I edit and contribute while you "protect" and WP:OWN. --Justanother 15:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

That's the situation as I see it too. Wikipediatrix and several editors refuse to follow guidelines, communicate together in several ways to keep a shoulder to shoulder stance critical of Scientology. So then, instead of the information which comprises these subjects being presented, the controversy the words of these subject restimulate are presented. I have worked with Wikipediatrix and the several editors who WP:OWN these articles. User:Justanother deserves more respect than to be reverted as a vandal. Terryeo 16:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Is September's policy of the month WP:OWN? This is the same tired argument referencing yet another policy. --Davidstrauss 23:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

My recent edits

Although I explained my edits as I went, let me recap them here. I welcome comments.

The MacLean article is cited to present some imagined contradiction in what the Church says of the process but there is no contradiction. The church says it refers to shooting someone and it is a joke or jest. Read the MacLean article.

The original article slightly implies that recent revisions of the book COHA are perhaps different from earlier versions on this but it is just the same as the first edition and what is important is that it was included in 1954 and how it was described.

1954 was wrong, it was 1952.

It reads better if presented chronologically; 1952 to 1954, and logically; it is about shooting then here is what the CoS says.

That is it, a better and truer article I think and I think I defended that. Please let me know what you think. --Justanother 15:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, we have read the Maclean's article, Justanother. I must point out that it doesn't say quite what you claim it does. The statement by the Church of Scientology spokesman doesn't say that R2-45 is "a joke or jest", but that the name was "given in jest", and he may have been trying to say that the description of it as an "auditing process" was also part of the joke.

However, even if we had an absolutely clear, unambiguous statement saying "R2-45 is completely and totally and utterly a joke", even a statement to that effect from L. Ron Hubbard himself... I'm afraid that wouldn't be the end of the matter. Hubbard gave direct orders for Sea Org members to actually use "Auditing Process R2-45" in the "RACKETS EXPOSED" Ethics Order of 1968-03-06. No one has suggested that Hubbard was in the least bit joking about any other portion of that order. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

However unfortunate for the point of view who hopes to crucify religion, your purported - have - once - been - issued, "Ethics Order" is not citeable, it being an unpublished sort of privately distibuted information. It simply doesn't meet WP:V at all, nor WP:NPOV's requirement that all of Wikipedia's information be published information. It isn't published, it wasn't published. That some beanbrain stole a copy of it (Or maybe created a copy of it, who knows) and posted it on a newsgroup, which was then "archived" onto a personal website does not make it worthy of inclusion. Tsk, tsk. Terryeo 20:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand that you have entered an objection, Terry (thus developing traffic, you see?) However unfortunate for you, Terryeo, your objection is factually incorrect, and you would have known that if you had in fact read the article -- or do you not bother reading the articles anymore before you try to make big grand pronouncements about what they should and shouldn't contain? -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Roy Wallis, "The Road to Total Freedom", page 154, as the article already says. Another frivolous complaint, I'm afraid. -- ChrisO 12:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Then why not be curteous enough to spell out for the reader of the article that which you have spelled out for me, here ? citing a whole book for an information on a single page is simply not good referencing, see WP:CITE Terryeo 17:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand that you have communicated that you are unable to find the page number which is there, Terryeo. Perhaps with sufficient effort you could look and find it there, just as with sufficient effort you could verify a citation consisting of the name of the largest newspaper in America, a headline for an article therein, and the date of that article. Of course, whining instead that it does not follow the style guideline WP:CITE would instead advance a goal of wasting other editors' time in an effort to keep the encyclopedia from presenting useful information that people of a certain POV and the organization they belong to nevertheless would like to surpress. You see? -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

You've made a personal comment. But my post does not make a personal comment. My post points out that we could be more courteous to our article's readers by specifing the page number, rather than giving them the whole damn book to thumb through in order to find a 1/2 page reference. Your use of "whining" nonwithstanding, your developing additional traffic aside, my post is about how we can be more courteous (and helpful) to our readers. Happy Ho Ho's Terryeo 20:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you think that my acknowledging that you have communicated that you could not locate the page number, which any reader can in fact read without having to "thumb through" the "whole damn book", was a personal comment? I know it could not have been my simple observation that making petty complaints is a form of Dev-T, because you swore up and down that you had in no way tried to imply that a particular Wikipedia editor had been trying to increase his personal website traffic by ending a sentence observing that editor's action with "thus increasing his personal website traffic, you see?" You swore up and down that you were only commenting on the result of his edits, not the motivation behind his edits. I don't know why you think when I make a simple observation about the results of whining and making petty complaints that I am somehow making a "personal comment". -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

<undent>Apparently some part of "courtesy to the reader" can not enter the discussion, although this it the third time I've mentioned how we can better serve our readers. Terryeo 22:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

It's spelled "courtesy". You're welcome. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Footnote #1

Unfortunately, Footnote #1 references to a past newsgroup posting. From: lepton@panix.com (Mike O'Connor)

• Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology

Subject: Re: HUBBARD ORDERED MURDERS Date: Fri, 06 Mar 1998 09:25:22 -0500
Is the heading of that personal website's document. WP:RS clearly spells out, newsgroups are never citable as secondary sources. The citation should be removed. Terryeo 21:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I made the cites more direct, I think it's better now since there are convenient links to the whole material rather than small excerpts (people may want to read more about the subject). What do you think? Raymond Hill 18:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

No newsgroup postings should ever be used as secondary sources in any Wikipedia article. The reason I think that because WP:RS addresses the issue, has extensively discussed the issue and has made a guideline of it. The philosphy of NPOV as spelled out by WP:V and manifested for secondary sources is WP:RS. [6] references to a stored posting of a newsgroup on a personal website. No newsgroup or google group should ever be cited. Alt.Net.Scientology's posters are not only unattributable but they might all chant in unison, "L. Ron Hubbard made the moon into green cheese". Ha! I say, and Ha! again. Further, the references are inconsistantly done and poorly done. WP:CITE#Harvard_referencing tells how to do them. [2a] and [2b] reference to [2] which might be some part of a hand typed copy of some part of a newspaper article. Could you (or anyone) tell me where the newspaper article begins and where it ends and what part of that notebook looking webpage is newspaper article and what part isn't newspaper article and who created that newspaper article? It is not attributed. It has a quote by Hubbard at its head, this is unusual for a newspaper article. It doesn't read like a newspaper article, though some parts of it read like they might have been in a newspaper article. It is held on a personal website, Xenu.net. Xenu is so bad that Google no longer links to it (under normal conditions). I would say it would behoove wikipedia to find a better convenince link. [5] references to a poorly written attribution. Harvard referencing would be much cleaner and easier to understand. The book is "conveniently" linked to but its presentation is poorly formatted for the internet. It is 403 pages long but the reference to it is deep in its bowels. I think it would be wise to A) include the page number of the reference to it and B) find a better formatted "convenience link". Terryeo 10:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

In regards to Terryo's comment that Google no longer links to xenu.net "(under normal conditions)". As I'm sure that Terryeo is quite aware, Google doesn't link to certain specific things because of legal threats and copyright claims from the Church of Scientology (RTC) using portions of the DMCA in a questionable manner. AndroidCat 11:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The laws which you seem to object to are the very laws which protect the creators of publications and thus, provide that artists get rewarded for thier work. The Church has sometimes forged new pathways, especially in regards to the internet. But the Church has not been the only entity with the clout and laywers to protect the basic ideas of an artist earning a reward for his work, instead of his work being distributed for free, everywhere. Terryeo 18:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be wise to A) include the page number of the reference to it Then A) add your voice to those asking for Cite.php to be upgrade to allow per-invocation parameterization, and B) check the page source. Oh, and C) do try to stick to the truth, because "Xenu is so bad that Google no longer links to it" isn't. -- Antaeus Feldspar 13:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course the sequence of footnotes has changed. But why must it be I who points out obviously wrong reference to newsgroups? The editors who are engaging in discussion here understand Wikipedia's WP:RS well enough. All of you have done extensive discussion and sometimes rewrites of the guideline about newsgroups. If you wish to change wikipedia standards, WP:RS is there for you. In the meantime why not write articles according to concensus? This isn't alt.net.scientology, but a public presentation which many people would like to take some pride in. To cite an entire 300+ page book for a two sentence passage is plain bad editing. You lose readers that way. Terryeo 18:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

You know, Terryeo, if you really want answers to the questions you pose, you should try paying attention to the answers you get. Namely, if you had checked the page source, as you were already advised to do, you would know exactly which pages in the book contain the claim. At some future point when Cite.php allows sub-references, page numbers or chapter numbers can be added to individual references to a common work. Currently, however, Cite.php does not permit such sub-references. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, if you find better references, I will replace. For now, that's the best we have. I personally don't dispute the authenticity of the text there, although the quality of some HTML versions could be improved (like Messiah or Madman). If ever I drop by the national library, I may request a scan of the referenced portions, and give it to Mr. Heldal-Lund to provide it with the articles (and of course, you can contribute too.) Raymond Hill 20:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

If there is a particular subject or piece of data or data field you would like me to contribute, I would be glad to do so. I'm usually responsive about most anything. But those are books were written by people who did not understand what Hubbard was saying, though they are convinced they understood what Hubbard was saying. Terryeo 05:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Teyerro is incorrect to say that google no longer links to xenu.net, as he would find if he visited this link Lamuella (talk) 05:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Clarification

So, is this merely firing a warning shot at the ground or actual murder? If it's the latter, I think it should be in the introduction. --Davidstrauss 20:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

just funny guys. Just too, too funny. really. R2-45, guys, it is meant as a sense of humor, a quicky way to exteriorize an individual, lol, it is a joke guys. Guys, you are 'way too serious about it. Terryeo 06:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It's so funny, I forgot to laugh. wikipediatrix 13:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

There are circumstances where one might plausibly believe that Hubbard was only joking with references to "R2-45". Let me ask you, Terryeo: do you think that an order to Sea Org members on goldenrod paper is where you'll find lots of Hubbard jokes? -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, that you find it funny is expected. The Clearwater City Commission didn't find it funny though. The document "FINAL REPORT TO THE CLEARWATER CITY COMMISSION" includes this passage: [3]

Evidentiary Fact: N. The Church of Scientology has created a policy which orders the commission of homicide. 1. R2-45 means that you shoot the person in the head. (1-78) 2. R2-45 is shooting a person in the head. (1-96) 3. R2-45 is a Scientology policy created by Hubbard. (2-32, 33)

So the Clearwater City Commission concluded that there was enough evidence that R2-45 was actually a policy to commit murder, written by Hubbard. Since the source is reputable, something to integrate to the article. -- Raymond Hill 23:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Amazing. I would think that anyone who has read or studied very much of it understands completely that Hubbard is both making a joke and stating the actuality. lol. But, I guess if someone reads a tiny little piece of it, all by itself and it says "R2-45" then someone is going to take Hubbard's words literally. The rest of us will laugh and enjoy the humor. lol Terryeo 11:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that the whole Ethics Order is a side-splitting joke? In any case the article is based on proper cites, the readers will make their own mind. You are certainly free to laugh irrepressibly when you read the article. -- Raymond Hill 18:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that's really something. I am laughing. I read it and by golly, that's what it says. LOL. wow. Terryeo 06:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

OKay, I guess I'd better seriously reply, but it is funny.

• R2-45 was mentioned by Hubbard as a potential auditing process. Such processes are fall into "technical data" or "tech". Tech is published in RED ink and on white paper. "Policy" is another kettle of fish. Its purpose is to provide policy and hence, guideline for the day to day administration, the running of the Church. Policy is published as green ink on buff paper. R2-45 isn't policy, wasn't policy, can't be policy because it is Tech. Raymond's link to a court document which was apparently presented by the defendants might be actual, but is an unsigned document and you can't really be sure it was ever signed by or created by Hubbard. If Hubbard did create it, heh, you can easily see he was pissed when he did. But, today's Policies say that "nothing may be done contrary to the laws of the land". Which means the Church does not support nor condone any illegal act, be it some auditing process once thought up and never used, or by stealing or anything else that would be illegal. Also, the CLEARWATER REPORT is not dated and the manner in which it is presented at that link leaves at least some doubt to its authenticity. A good deal of it is directly contrary to modern Church Policy and worth noting is the relationship of the City of Clearwater, at present, to the Church, is far less suspicious than at the time of that report. Perhaps some of that is the money the Church has pulled into the Clearwater area, or the improvements they have made, the building materials purchased in the area, etc. etc. Terryeo 07:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Once more, Terryeo: Do you think that the middle of an Ethics Order in which Hubbard is laying out direct instructions on what is to be done with people pronounced guilty of "suppressive acts" and "high crimes" is where Hubbard is likely to slip in one of his little jokes? Phrased in the form of an instruction? You think Hubbard, Mr. Communication, expected the Sea Org to know that "They are declared Enemies of mankind, the planet and all life", "They are fair game," "No amnesty may ever cover them," "they are to be run on reverse processes" are all serious, but 'shoot them in the head' is just his little joke? -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I am sooo lol. really. You are asking me for a personal opinion. Have a nice day. lol. Terryeo 04:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

But you did give your opinion that R2-45 is a joke. Now suddenly you "lost" your opinion? --Tilman 08:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I stated my opinion. Feldspar asked for a personal opinion. Should I state my opinion again and yet again? I've danced around this bush before. I've stated my opinion and have no urge to attempt any modification of yours. Happy Ho Ho's. Terryeo 08:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes. You have danced around this bush before -- and you're still dancing. You're unable to say "Yes, I actually believe that L. Ron Hubbard, in the middle of an Ethics Order which gives specific, direct instructions on specific, direct retaliatory actions to take against 'Enemies of mankind, the planet and all life', put in one specific, direct retaliatory action which his readers would know literally meant 'shoot these people in the head', but intended it as a joke and never believed anyone would take it as anything other than a joke." You know it's not true. You know that Hubbard was accustomed to giving orders and having them obeyed. You know that even if Hubbard were to claim afterward (after someone had already been murdered) that it had all been a joke -- you know that he would have been responsible. He knew that people followed his orders. And he gave the order to murder. I won't press you in what must be a painful moment for you. I just wish you'd learn from these moments of dissonance. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I stated my opinion. I am still laughing. Happy Ho Ho's Terryeo 05:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

And you're still dancing. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I really don't understand, Feldspar. I try to communicate something to the editors here. I state my opinion. I state it honestly. That you refuse to accept what I know to be true is perfectly okay with me. That you refuse to accept what I know to be true and, in addition, refuse to recognize that I have have a point of view I could tolerate. That you refuse to accept what I know to be true, refuse to recognize that I have a point of view, and, in addition, make disparaging remarks of a personal nature goes beyond civility. You notice I did not laugh at anyone. You notice I did not make derogatory remarks to anyone, nor make anyone wrong for holding the point of view of their choice, nor for maintaining their own point of view. What I did do, and often do, is state my own point of view and my own knowledge in the area. Why do you persist with comments which are borderline incivility? Terryeo 09:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, knock off your false accusation of Antaeus that he is uncivil. It looks to me that you are not conducting yourself in good faith here by deliberately dodging discussion. --Fahrenheit451 14:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, your debate technique consists only of ignoring the arguments against you and saying "lol." Clearly you cannot be reasoned with. A reasoning person would consider the arguments of both sides, then reformulate the original statement to account for all the information and opinions on the table. But refusing to listen to the valid points of others, dismissing them with little or no explanation as invalid, and ignoring them only makes you a fool. You had one response that approached coherence, but it doesn't matter whether R2-45 was considered "tech" or "policy" within Scientology, because the government and people outside Scientology will necessarily have a different definition of "policy." You go on to say that the Policy of today is to follow the law of the land, but that's not the topic of the article we're discussing, merely a way to derail the arguments against you. Look at Scientology's track record. Operation Snow White, the infiltration of government agencies and companies, for which 11 scientologists went to prison for conspiracy, among other crimes. The wrongful death of Lisa McPherson, which, contrary to popular belief, has not been settled. Operation Freakout, the nearly successful plan to frame Paulette Cooper for making bomb threats because she wrote critically of the Church of Scientology. I could go on, but I'll spare you. Now here's your problem, Terryeo: you cannot invalidate the crimes I just listed by saying "the documents are unsigned" or "Hubbard was joking lol," because the above crimes are all well documented with plenty of attention from the United States judicial system. When the founder of an organization that commits crimes like this "jokes" about shooting people, it MUST be taken seriously.AnonymousDavid (talk) 08:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Umm, do you realise that you're responding to something that was posted 18 months ago by an editor who was later banned and so can't respond to you? -- ChrisO (talk) 08:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Personal opinion here: I know how in-jokes work from watching other people... I think odds are good that first few times it was used it WAS a joke. It may have easily evolved into an actual order to commit murder. 23:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.255.187.32 (talk)

M1911 versus .45 Colt

I am of the opinion that Hubbard meant a Colt M1911, which is often known as a "Colt .45" and not a .45 Colt revolver. The gun is more common, and would have been one that Hubbard had access to while in the military. I am changing the image to reflect this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faceless Enemy (talk • contribs) 21:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I put a picture in of a "Colt .45" - if someone could check the original stuff and see if it mentions "revolver" versus "pistol" ("pistol" usually means an automatic), then that would settle this pretty easily. Faceless Enemy (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Fuck. Just looked it up here [[4]]. It says "which Ron proceeded to demonstrate by firing a revolver into the floor of the podium." I'll go edit that out again. Faceless Enemy (talk) 22:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Someone else changed it to a 1911 again. Anyone else wanna change it back?Faceless Enemy (talk) 04:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

If you read through he whole document, you'll see most of the quotes refer to an "automatic" rather than a revolver where the type is specified (there's even a reference to a .44). The only one mentioning a revolver is Steward Lamont. Was he present at the talk? Did he know guns well enough to make the distinction? Suggestion: What about putting in a picture of a .45 bullet? Petter Bøckman (talk) 09:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

.44 is almost exclusively a revolver round (.44 Magnum). And there are 2 very distinct .45 rounds that he could have been using (.45 ACP and .45 Long Colt). ACP is almost exclusively an automatic round (though if I recall correctly the M1917 revolver used it) whereas .45 Colt is a revolver round (I can't think of any automatics that use it). Blah. I thought I read through the whole thing last time and I didn't see any reference to an automatic. However, looking through the document it looks like my first instinct was right and that they were referencing an automatic (almost certainly the M1911, which is the pistol he used in the military etc.). So I guess the current image (M1911) is correct after all. Thanks.Faceless Enemy (talk) 19:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Facts versus conjecture

There is some obvious original research in directly quoting Hubbard and interpreting the quotation to mean something other than what the Scientology sources claim (that he was joking), but that aside, considering the subject matter (homicide) and the sensitivity of such, there is no way to accept how the subject is presented as being in line with WP:NPOV. Laval (talk) 00:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

The two Hubbard sources that are presented do not mention anything about the model of Colt -- the word "gun" isn't even apparently mentioned by him specifically. Using the image of the gun is also blatantly inflammatory given the sensitivity of the subject matter (homicide) and the fact that this is a Scientology article, which have been prone to continual POV edit wars. Laval (talk) 00:11, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no other "Colt .45 Automatic" that would have existed in 1958. Faceless Enemy (talk) 01:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Uh, well, that has nothing to do with the subject of this article because Hubbard wasn't advocating actually using a gun and killing people. Talk about cherry picking and completely going overboard in taking things out of context. There is no a single shred of evidence to back what critics claim about this alleged process. It is not an actual process and it is not and has never been included as part of any auditing regimen. This has been clarified again and again. Laval (talk) 20:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Keyword is "alleged." The article as it stands gives undue weight to the absurd literalist interpretation that this "process" is actually real and used. The claim that the church actually verified this is obviously false and bogus. It's not a real process, it is not included in any of the training and cramming materials, nor is it used. We're talking about murder, for heavens sake, and alleging that Scientologists would actually murder someone because LRH mandated it.Totally false. Laval (talk) 20:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how you can reasonably claim that Hubbard wasn't advocating killing people when he authored a memo advising people to use R2-45 on certain people. What other reasonable interpretation can there be for that? --Slashme (talk) 08:08, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Excuse me? This article has nothing to do with killing anyone with a gun. Your allegation is not supported by facts and I suggest ypu seriously avoid stating as fact that this artice is about Hubbard advocating murder. Laval (talk) 09:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

What interpretation apart from advocating shooting people can you reasonably ascribe to "Any Sea Org member contacting any of them is to use Auditing Process R2-45."? --Slashme (talk) 10:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, I strongly suggest you read WP:OR, WP:RS and WP:UNDUE several times over. You don't appear to be new, so you should already be familiar with these policies and guidelines. Laval (talk) 09:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

That R2-45 refers to shooting someone is not OR: multiple independent sources flatly state this fact, with no need for synthesis. As for the reliability of the sources, we have a mix of books, blogs and lectures, so I don't think that's really an issue. And as for undue weight, I think the article is reasonably balanced. It shows that the church claims that it was just a little joke and that Hubbard never meant that anyone should shoot anyone else, and also presents the mainstream interpretation that the term was used in internal communications and in threats to ex-scientologists, and was intended to be understood as code for shooting someone to death. --Slashme (talk) 13:10, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

L. Ron Hubbard was advocating murdering people yes as part of the R2-45 "rundown," and no, it was not a "joke" as the Scientology enterprise attempts to paint his "technological breakthrough," as Hubbard originally called it. Murdering people was one way, Hubbard stated, to "exteriorize" (sic) someone, and not just the police, Judges, Federal agents, prosecutors, newspaper reporters et al. which were indicting him and his enterprise, the R2-45 exteriorization (sic) technique was a way to "end cycle" his own customers through suicide when his customers and owners/operators created media "flaps," as the enterprise's leader called it.

No such WP:NPOV issues arise when covering Scientology's policies, practices, and procedures as described verbally by Hubbard from his own lips faithfully recorded in his many lectures and endless other recordings inasmuch as for the extant article (and for Wikipedia as a whole) testable, falsifiable references and citations to those very same recordings available on YouTube, from Freedom of Information Act requests, and other sources are considered legitimate. One can't pretend that his core criminality was "jokes." Indeed, to suppose his advocacy and commission of endless criminal acts are "jokes" would be a bending of WP:NPOV.

I should add that witness testimony which has been provided under oath in numerous criminal and civil court cases, either before sitting Judge and during deposition, conducted for or against ex-customers and ex-owners/operators is also considered to be suitable references and citations for purposes of Wikipedia legitimacy provided it is clearly noted that same is in fact witness testimony which otherwise surmounts WP:NPOV worries.

Don't forget, for this particular issue one can also considered Hubbard's Jack Parsons history with intrusions in to the Ordo Templi Orientis (OTO) which would assist Hubbard in the mentally dysfunctional ideology which would allow for him to suppose that murdering people isn't really killing them and is merely removing their "Thetan" (sic) from their current "meat body" which, Hubbard likewise supposed, was merely an inconvenience" on what he called "the whole time track."

Hubbard's belief that human children are Thetans (sic) who have lived trillions of years in numerous other lives underscores his belief that R2-45 is just another "rundown" which his customers may utilize. Scientology customer Susan Meister was, in fact, subjected to R2-45 aboard one of Hubbard's ships while at anchor, so while Hubbard himself almost certainly did not engage in the "rundown," other people who followed him certainly considered the "rundown" to be wholly legitimate. (And considering the fact that the person responsible was never indicted gave further credence to the supposition that the procedure is valid.)

So the references and citations covering Scientology's R2-45 policy remain legitimate for purposes of Wikipedia. Damotclese (talk) 14:33, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Uh, no, that's not how it works. There is not a single shred, not one iota to back any of your absurd claims that hubbard was advocating murder. That is so insanely stupid and asinine. Wikipedia isn't Usenet and this sure as hell isn't "alt.religion.scientology" -- take your WP:SOAPBOX somewhere else. We deal in facts here, not allegations, especially not baseless allegations claiming the existence of a policy that does not exist. It's just ONE line in a book. Get over yourself. Laval (talk) 17:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

"There is not a single shred, not one iota to back any of your absurd claims that hubbard was advocating murder." - That's simply not true. There's excellent evidence that Hubbard himself issued an "Ethics Order" saying that any Sea Org member meeting a certain group of people should use R2-45 on them. Hubbard himself explained that R2-45 means shooting someone. This is not synthesis, and the connection has been made outside Scientology circles and outside USENET. --Slashme (talk) 19:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Good grief. Once more time around Piccalilli Circus. VICKI AZNARAN covered Hubbard's ordering of a "troublesome" staff member to R2-45 "end cycle" though to be fair, Hubbard did not provide a firearm. STEVEN FISHMAN and UWE GEERTZ have provided testimony under oath as well as AZNARAN as to Hubbard advocating murder and suicide to "end cycle" people who were causing the criminal enterprise "flaps" and people who were deemed by Hubbard to be "enemies."

One of the best summaries of Scientology's core R2-45 "rundown" may be found In The Under Oath Deposition Documents filed by ex-customers and ex-owners/operators who were part of the enterprise and worked closely with Hubbard.

The second in command of the Scientology organization during most of Hubbard's later years was Jessie Prince. He was questioned during trial about Scientology's R2-45 "rundown" During A Lisa McPherson-Related Murder Trial which absolutely confirms that it's a "rundown" used for both murder and suicide of people Hubbard wanted to "end cycle."

Laval wants to suggest that "dealing in facts here" consists of lying about Hubbard's murder / suicide "rundown" as if it was some kind of joke when in fact there have been a number of R2-45 deaths, with Susan Meister being the most notable and notorious homicide. Laval, you're overruled, the facts speak for themselves. If you object to the format or the tone which covers Hubbard's policies, suggest a change, however objecting to the fact of Hubbard's policy covered in the extant article, the evidence has spoken. Damotclese (talk) 15:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Ethics Order R2-45 Murder Step 7

We continue to have the occasional editor wanting to suggest that Hubbard's murder / suicide policy R2-45 is a "joke," that Hubbard didn't actually mean that his customers and owners/operators should murder people or commit suicide however this is not true.

<<Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted.>>

Are you even remotely familiar with WP guidelines and policy? Look at WP:V and WP:RS. The above is what is called a "primary document", and in this case, an alleged primary document. Even if you are able to verify that this is a legitimate document and not some kind of hoax, it still remains a primary source and doesn't even prove any of your bizarre conspiracy theories. Most of the sources in this article are junk hearsay and amount to nothing more than conspiracy theory. Laval (talk) 05:37, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Because this article is such a mess and being used to promote fringe claims and conspiracy theories based on hearsay and misusing news articles that don't even back these allegations, on top of using primary sources that are next to impossible to verify the authenticity of, I am recommending all the sources be checked and vetted over at the reliable sources noticeboard, because this nonsense and soapboxing cannot be left to continue unchecked. Laval (talk) 06:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

"Fringe claims" and "conspiracy theory" -- If you have references and citations to show that these Scientology documents are forgeries, and that witness testimony by people who ran Scientology are perjury, please do provide them. Thanks. Oh: I'll add that the criminal enterprise sued alt.religion.scientology human rights activists for divulging the contents of these documents, thus confirming that the enterprise does in fact admit they are not forgeries. Damotclese (talk) 15:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's a primary document, however, the practice itself is mentioned in secondary sources cited in the article. The primary document is given as illustration and to give context and weight to the secondary sources. --Slashme (talk) 07:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

There is also audio recordings of Hubbard talking about using R2-45 against his perceived enemies, however some editors would appear to like to pretend that these Scientology documents and audio recordings of Hubbard's lectures and written policies are forgeries -- which begs the question of why anybody would feel the need to contrive forgeries and why Scientology employees, owners and operators would lie under oath in criminal and civil courts and under deposition.

No, the evidence is solid, the references and citations in the extant article support the extant text. Also I would add that the documents in question are public record and no longer under seal after the Scientology enterprise attempted to hide these documents from public record in the Fishman Affidavit. Damotclese (talk) 15:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

20/Nov/59 Audio Recording Is Verified Source

The editor that removed the text with the explanation that the audio recording is not verified: the audio has been confirmed to be an original L. Ron Hubbard lecture. The Scientology organization exerted copyright ownership of the recording during and repeatedly after the Fishman Affidavit. If you wish furether confirmation, you may contact Scientology in-house attorney Kendrick Moxon <-- Using that contact information. Thanks. Damotclese (talk) 15:41, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, before making proposed changes to the extant article, please discuss it on Talk: first, we do not wish to have to impose protections on this article, let's ensure that editors remain polite and professional and reach agreement before making unfounded updates, please. Thanks. Damotclese (talk) 16:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC) topic

Sorry, but that argument is WP:OR. We need secondary and tertiary sources from reputable authors and editors to establish controversial claims. Blogs, primary sources, and self-published web pages are not sufficiently verifiable WP:V for a WP article. I made only well-founded updates. See also Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Wikileaks. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 17:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

You are already so far in violation of editorial conduct and policy that if we were to open an RfC, you would eventually find yourself topic banned for pushing this extremely controversial and aggressive anti-Scientology campaign, which you yourself have admitted right here on this talk. Do you want to let ArbCom know about your behavior or should one of us do so? Up to you. Laval (talk) 20:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Furthermore, every comment I've made on this talk page demonstrates the fact that the accuracy and POV of the article is in dispute. The fact that you are an admitted opponent of Scientology dating back to the Usenet era, in addition to your promotion of the most ridiculous and absurd conspiracy theories against Scientology and Scientologists should be reason for you to avoid any direct editing on your part. Do not remove the tags or attempt to put any of your conspiratorial nonsense sourced from Usenet posts and fringe blogs back in. Again, I strongly suggest you review WP:SOAP. Laval (talk) 20:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Claiming that "This article has nothing to do with killing anyone with a gun" when we have multiple reliable sources claiming exactly that (LA Times, Time Magazine and multiple books) leads me to believe that you are not exactly neutral either. --Slashme (talk) 06:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

And I also don't see any justification for removing a direct quotation from one of Hubbard's own books [5]. This is an abuse of WP:PRIMARY, frankly. This bit is important (my bolding): "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source." So in other words, it's a trivially verifiable fact that Hubbard wrote the words that appear in his book The Creation of Human Ability and there is no primary source issue about reflecting that fact in this article. I suspect Sfarney knows this perfectly well. Prioryman (talk) 14:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

An excerpted tape segment on an anonymous server may appear to be, but is not really, primary source. We are looking for WP quality, here, somewhat higher than tabloid quality. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 17:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, the audio recording is Hubbard's own voice talking about murdering people using the R2-45 rundown, there is no way that researchers could possibly mistake it as a forgery. If it were a text extract from his lecture, yes, then it would be weak enough to warrant a second look. Damotclese (talk) 19:11, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

The allegation here seems to be a conspiracy to commit murder and/or deadly assault (threat) within the church going back more than 55 years. It should be of vital interest to every criminal prosecutor everywhere in the world. Do you know of any cases where it was alleged in court or discussed in government investigations? Do you know of any court findings on this conspiracy, either way? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 20:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Government investigations, sure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/258988801/Charles-Berner-FDA-investigation-of-Scientology . Alleged in sworn statements before courts, sure: http://www.xenu-directory.net/documents/cw1982/cw4_7-77.htm#r2-45 (link to scanned transcript next to the text). --Slashme (talk) 23:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

The first link sends me to the record of a personal interview report that seems to match the description on Ortega's page. If they are one and the same, that agent was from the Food & Drug Administration (FDA). So on the one hand, we are looking for government investigations into murder, conspiracy to murder, conspiracy threat, etc. and on the other hand, the documents we have are from Food & Drug, which is kind of a different subject. The second link, which you introduce with the words, "sworn statements before courts", is headed by the words, "City of Clearwater Commission Hearing: The Church of Scientology". Do you see the difficulty, here? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 23:58, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I never claimed a conspiracy to murder. Laval removed a picture of a gun as illustration from this article, claiming that "This article has nothing to do with killing anyone with a gun", while we have non-tabloid newspaper and book sources saying that that is what R2-45 refers to, and which also point out that although Scientology denies that this was anything other than a joke, this interpretation is not universal. --Slashme (talk) 11:54, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

If murder were church policy, it would be a conspiracy to murder. If intimidating people with threat of murder were church policy, it would be conspiracy assault. That is the subject under discussion: Does that church conspire to commit these criminal acts? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 17:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

New version of article

I've rewritten the article to take account of some of the concerns raised above (with apologies to Damotclese - I felt that it was best to take a fresh look at it rather than make piecemeal changes). I'll just highlight a few points. We certainly shouldn't say in Wikipedia's voice that R2-45 is about murder. There's also no point discussing whether it's church policy to commit murder. What we can say is what is reported in various sources - Hubbard's own words and the interpretations of those words of Scientology spokespeople and ex-Scientologists, attributed to each source as appropriate. We are not in the business of determining "the truth", but simply reporting the facts and letting the reader decide. Prioryman (talk) 20:20, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

This sounds like a good, professional way to approach editors' concerns, yes. Damotclese (talk) 16:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I just want to note that I think this edit by Sfarney strikes me as an abuse of WP:BLP, which I presume is the underlying rationale for this edit. Sfarney's comment that "We don't accuse living people of criminal activity on the support of a blog only" is plainly bogus, as no living persons are even named - neither the letters' recipients nor their (apparently unknown) senders. The article doesn't even say that the Church of Scientology sent them. Given that this apparently happened 40-50 years ago, it's also far from clear whether the unnamed individuals involved are still alive. Prioryman (talk) 18:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

The implication of the article is possibly more direct than the editor intended : "Some critics of Scientology and ex-Scientologists have alleged that R2-45 was invoked by Hubbard to authorize killing individuals regarded by Scientology as antagonistic. There is no evidence that it has ever been put into practice ... The journalist and author Tony Ortega has suggested that R2-45 may have been used neither as a murder order nor as a joke, but as a means of intimidation." The suggestion is apparent to anyone who reads it as it is, and it violates WP:REDFLAG, WP:EXCEPTIONAL, and WP:EXTRAORDINARY. It does not matter whether we "name" the target, or we use circumlocution like "the black couple who live in that big White House" in Washington D.C. The WP:BLP article applies. And the source is not Bob Woodward. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 05:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm being dense, but how does BLP apply here? Hubbard, the author of that memo, discarded his body a while ago. And by the way, WP:REDFLAG, WP:EXCEPTIONAL, and WP:EXTRAORDINARY are all the same policy, so it's a bit funny to see you citing it three times. Furthermore I'm not convinced that it's an "extraordinary claim" that an organisation that sent itself bomb threats with Paulette Cooper's fingerprints, broke into the FBI offices and generally committed "criminal campaigns of vilification, burglaries and thefts ... against private and public individuals and organizations" would try to intimidate people. --Slashme (talk) 06:57, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I do hope you read the comments from uninvolved editors on the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Tonyortega.org:

If a high-profile claim like this was considered reliable, wouldn't it have been reported by news sources subsequently? Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

It's a reliable source and could be cited with WP:ATT but not stated in wiki-voice unless corroborated by other sources. Guy (Help!) 10:55, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I think it's a case where whether or not it's true, it's not appropriate for wikipedia because it's such sensitive information and it's not public knowledge. WP:WELLKNOWN "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." PermStrump(talk) 13:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

R2-45 is well known, the "rundown" was covered in KFI AM Talk Radio Lows Angeles by Dennis Erlich and Scientology ringleader Heber Jentzsch, along with Xenu and other issues which are not disputed by the enterprise. Numerous real world entities have covered R2-45, including the Scientology enterprise itself albeit they lie about it. Damotclese (talk) 15:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

They "do not dispute it" but "they lie about it"? Well... glad you cleared that up. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 18:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Image

A firearm image is not particularly educational or encyclopedic - people already know what a firearm is. What about showing a copy of the Racket Exposed ad instead? Feoffer (talk) 08:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, I've removed the picture again. As for the ad, wouldn't it be a copyright violation? --Slashme (talk) 08:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

That depends. Do we think inclusion of the "Racket Exposed" ad would meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria? Feoffer (talk) 08:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

It seems to fit that policy perfectly. --Slashme (talk) 07:03, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Looking a whole lot better

The article is looking a whole lot better. I appreciate everyone's efforts to clean this up and get it encyclopedic. Damotclese (talk) 16:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Ongoing discussions

Files for Discussion and Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Feoffer (talk) 01:01, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Unneeded images

I should just add that I don't think it's appropriate to add images to this article, other than perhaps a generic photo of Hubbard. The image of the notice in The Auditor didn't and couldn't pass muster under Wikipedia's copyright policies, and I don't see any point in adding a generic image of a revolver (or even a Colt .45 - I don't think Hubbard ever specified the type of .45 pistol). So please leave out the images for now. Prioryman (talk) 08:49, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I also wondered about that, it only adds emotive content. We don't want Scientology people finding any excuse no matter how weak to complain about the content and accuracy of the extant article. Damotclese (talk) 15:38, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

We are not here for or against Scientology or to construct an exposè — we are here to build an encyclopedia. Any other purpose is WP:NOTHERE. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Discourse 15:44, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

True, yet at the same time we have a number of editors being dragged in here to expend basically wasted time commenting on an issue which had already been hashed out years ago. I certainly have other things to do. :) Hopefully the current quality and accuracy and references are suitable that we've seen the last of attempts to pretend R2-45 is anything other than what Hubbard said it was. Hopefully (praying to Jesus in 3...2...1...) Damotclese (talk) 15:51, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Counseling believers to commit suicide?

prioryman (talk · contribs) You are in violation of WP:REDFLAG -- making outrageous claims based on WP:cherrypicking and your alleged interpretation of WP:PRIMARY with no reliable sources. Read those sections carefully and revert your reversion of 19:38, 26 April 2016. More threats against other editors is not an option. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Discourse 05:03, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

It looks like we have a majority of opinion by editors on the quality of the current version of the article, sfarney. The article has been greatly improved during this past discussion cycle, I find nothing remotely inaccurate or not well-grounded with suitable references and citations. In fact the article is looking better now than it ever has. I think we could use more references and citations, including links to more audio and lectures, preferably to Hubbard's audio recordings currently available on Russian servers, but I don't want to belabor the point, the existing references are fine. Damotclese (talk) 15:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I actually think that the current text does give the wrong idea. There is plenty of evidence, primary and secondary, that Hubbard and others in the organisation used the term "R2-45" to mean shooting someone, but to suggest that Hubbard was seriously recommending that people solve their problems with suicide is a misrepresentation. The quote "If that fails you, well, you've always got suicide. You could propose that to the pc [preclear]. That would solve his problems. 'R2-45' by its various – various other techniques." should really not be used to support the conclusion that "he suggested suicide as a possible method of dealing with issues if other auditing techniques did not work". That's a clear case of taking a quote out of context with too much of a literal interpretation. Yes, with R2-45 he meant killing. No, he wasn't suggesting death as a therapeutic measure. --Slashme (talk) 11:25, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

If we had a reliable source, we could use it. But the current article text does not meet Wikipedia standards. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Discourse 17:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure I understand what you're saying we shouldn't use - can you explain a bit more? --Slashme (talk) 12:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Paragraph 3 is in violation of WP:REDFLAG -- outrageous claims based on WP:cherrypicking and personal interpretation of WP:PRIMARY source with NO secondary reliable sources. Primary sources are permitted in limited circumstances, and this does not qualify. Read WP:REDFLAG. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Discourse 16:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Ridiculous overuse of primary sources from Scientology

There is so much original research going on here, along with overutilization of primary sources quoting Hubbard and Scientology documents directly, that it really is something for anyone to argue how this article isn't in terrible shape or that there isn't an anti-Scientology bias going on here. I know some people believe Wikipedia is a battleground to attack subjects they don't like or even hate, but it isn't. As it stands, any RfC would demonstrate just how messed up things are here, and any ArbCom ruling would concur, especially with the sanctions in place. If there hasn't been an RfC already, one should be started, and if that doesn't lead anywhere, then ArbCom. Laval (talk) 18:37, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

When you can find anything in the extant article that is mistaken, not accurate, not backed up with testable references and citations, please do discuss it here in the specific, and of course if you would, suggest proposed changes. Aside from that, let's not waste any more of volunteer editor time. Thanks. Damotclese (talk) 19:31, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I have outlined the problem with the current article. One word: WP:REDFLAG. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 20:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Tony Ortega is not a reliable source

Ortega has never been a reliable source, and his blog entries are absolutely without question, unreliable. With so many better sources like Lawrence Wright, Hugh Urban, etc the fact that anyone would resort to using Ortega to promote fringe nonsense speaks volumes. You won't find legitimate journalists and researchers like Wright and Urban engaging in this garbage. Laval (talk) 18:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

When you can find anything that the award-winning journalist covers in his researched, referenced, and cited publications that are in any way mistaken, you'll let us know, won't you? Please be specific. That goes for any other journalist, psychologist, psychiatrist, reporter, Judge, District Attorney, criminal and civil prosecutors, and anyone else who covers the Scientology organization's activities and history. Thanks. Damotclese (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

• We can start with Ortega's allegation of criminal conspiracy that dead-ended 50 years ago with an investigator for the Food and Drug Administration -- and even though the FDA was at that time eager to find anything it could prosecute on Scientology or Hubbard, it went nowhere. However, in 2015, Ortega still reports it as though the allegation were true. Ortega is apparently still actively marketing his articles freelance which we know because occasionally something is printed in a random rural paper. But Ortega has not found a market for this piece. This dog don't hunt, even in Orlando. And that is not the competent journalism or investigation we need at Wikipedia.
• I have already told you what is wrong with Kent. He makes a medical diagnosis without a medical degree about a person he has never met or examined. He offers opinions about religions without a degree in religion. His opinions of cults, Scientology, and Hubbard are not in agreement with the consensus of the professions appropriate to the subjects on which he is offering his opinions. That particular piece is based completely on hear-say, so it is not good scholarship or professionalism on any level. It is not peer reviewed, so it is not good Wikipedia. Have I answered the question yet? Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 20:48, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it's just the English version of a peer-reviewed French article. I've added that ref. It's also a good secondary source for the fact that Hubbard said that Sea-Org members should apply R2-45 to that list of "enemies of mankind", because Kent also mentions the notice in The Auditor, and this addresses the allegation that the scanned pages are forgeries. It is also a secondary source that interprets R2-45 as referring to shooting people, which helps to elevate that above WP:OR. --Slashme (talk) 07:23, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, and one could add references and citations to the Marcabs, Fifth Invasion Fleet, and other "enemies of mankind" which Hubbard was bothered with. Yet to be sure, there is no amount of reason, references, or citations which a Scientology customer or owner/operator will accept, and the fact that Doctor Kent has been and is well regarded for his research and respected as a mental health figure is likely considered by Scientology customers to be all the reason needed to suppose that he's in collusion to enslave humanity -- and every other "enemy of mankind" notion Hubbard same up with.

There is also some ironic amusement that award-winning and highly respected journalists like Mr. Ortega who have covered the Scientology enterprise extensively and accurately are also found to be "enemies of mankind." It begs the question of how the few Scientology customers who are left reconcile Hubbard's "disposed of quietly and without sorrow" advocacy of mass extermination of said "enemies of mankind."

There is some irony in that Scientology customers also do not accept Hubbard's own writings and audio recordings when it's as embarrassing as the extant article covers, yet for purposes of the article, it has been reworked and improved enough to the point where no legitimate problems are forthcoming. Damotclese (talk) 16:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• Since Ortega is your only source for so many outrageous claims, how would you know he is "accurate"?
• "Scientology customers"? Who is the target of that statement? "Forthcoming" is exactly the problem, with no answers to repeated notices of WP:REDFLAG forthcoming from the editors who posted those ridiculous quotes. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 16:40, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Calm yourself and please remain civil. It's not a question of "my" source, the extant article is sourced, referenced, and cited sufficiently, and all the editors who have worked on the extant article over the years have volunteered extensive hours producing the quality you are unable to find anything wrong with. If you find anything mistaken in the extant article, propose suggested changes, please, and try to be civil about it. We don't want to have to ask third parties to warn you again. As it is, you have wasted valuable volunteer editor time enough on this. Move on. Thanks. Damotclese (talk) 22:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

The current article violates WP:REDFLAG. I have attempted to correct the page and others (including you) have reverted my corrections. I will seek outside assistance to avoid more edit warring. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 22:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any "edit warring." You need to point to something which is wrong with the page here. Until then you are wasting people's time. BiologistBabe (talk) 22:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Article created 28 May 2006‎ only one editor complaining

The article was created in 2006 and it has acquired consensus in the past 10 years among all the people who have worked on it, and I see there is only one editor who still believes that something is wrong with it. Other editors have complained about wasting time on this but hear me out, I'm new to this so I have to ask that one hold-out:

Is that Hubbard's voice talking about killing people with R2 45 or not? If it is not his voice, who do you think it is and why do you think it's a hoax, forgery, or whatever? If it is his voice, why you you think one of Hubbard's lecture points is "wrong" to cover in this encyclopedia?

And please, be brief and only answer if you have something legitimate to make. If you can't be civil, do not bother to answer. BiologistBabe (talk) 22:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I see that the R2 45 thing has also been in some of Hubbard's type-written stuff which is still being offered by Scientology. So are those forgeries and if so, why does Scientology still sell books with the forgery in them? BiologistBabe (talk) 22:20, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Since you are new to Wikipedia, please read WP:REDFLAG. The article currently accuses Hubbard and Scientology officials of threatening murder, publishing death warrants, and counseling people to commit suicide. You should realize that Scientology has been under study by every major government and hundreds of theologians and other scholars, none of whom support the allegations in this article. The allegations cite to data 50 years old and are obviously untrue because never, in all its history, has Scientology been accused or prosecuted for those crimes by any government. Only a professional conspiracy theorist could reconcile that fact with this article. You should ask how the page could be so "factual" and yet be so obviously wrong? The answer is in the process, just like it is in an arithmetic problem. The article has suffered gross deviations from many Wikipedia policies on how to write an encyclopedic article. You might begin your examination with your own bullying and name-calling on this talk page, which is not permitted in Wikipedia generally and is absolutely forbidden on Scientology subjects because of past history. Read WP:CIVIL and WP:PILLARS if you intend to continue as a Wikipedian. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 22:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Wow, how condescending. No, I am not "new to Wikipedia." Since you can't obey Wikipedia's civility guidelines I'm done talk t you. Well first I'll have you know I've been in Mongolia on the meningococcal meningitis pandemic you can Google about, my name is in the CDC reports. THAT is why I have not checked Wikipedia in some 9 months, I'm not "new to Wikipedia," that's more of your uncivil behavior everyone notes. So I'm done with you. BiologistBabe (talk) 23:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

According to your edit history, you never contribute edits to Wikipedia. Your history is exclusively talk pages. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 14:11, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

That is not entirely accurate, an individual researcher who went by the name "Mr. Safe" back in 1995 found that the "R2-45" -- it has a dash in the title in Hubbard's writings -- has been removed from what David Miscavige (he's the guy currently running the enterprise) is selling to his customers, and while Mr. Safe did not have access to the audio recording to see if that had been doctored, he did find that Scientology sells Hubbard's written lecture transcripts without the R2-45 sections.

But that was the same thing Mr. Safe found for a great many Hubbard writings, not just R2-45. Hubbard also had lectures which contained highly racist rhetoric which Scientology's current owner has removed, including "Chinks that smell of all the baths they did not take" and "Negros talking to hats, have you ever noticed that?" among other things in Hubbard's lectures which Mr. Safe found to have been removed from Hubbard's written transcripts.

This is important because R2-45 is not an isolated thing that Scientology tries to stop people from reading about. And yes, while it's just one person trying to claim something is wrong with the extant article, looking over what other editors have done here over the past 9 or 10 years it's obvious that a lot of people have done a lot of work to ensure that everything covered here is well-documented, referenced, and has testable, falsifiable citations.

Enough time has been spent on this, it's time for all editors to move on, including our troublesome hold-out. Thanks! And it's great seeing you, I heard your team had another fatality, BBabe. Damotclese (talk) 23:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Who is the "just one person" ?? Is that me or Laval? And are you accusing BBabe of being part of a WP:TEAM? Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 23:29, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Mr Safe was your client? You represented him in court?

The fatality was a traffic accident, she stepped in to traffic when we got in to Bayanhongor. She was not one of my people, she was under WHO loaned to USAMRIID. She left the hotel without her translator escort and stepped right in to traffic. BiologistBabe (talk) 23:58, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• If the alleged tapes contain something that is not in the transcripts, we have a choice of conspiracy theories: Either the recordings have been doctored or the transcripts are edited. Which conspiracy theory do you prefer, and why do you think that opinion qualifies as a reliable source? Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 00:30, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

If something is wrong, propose an update

I see that Scientology has been attempting to claim that what their founder said in audio recordings and what he wrote were some how "jokes" or that he did not actually mean what he actually meant.

Who ever the Scientology person is that is trying to make that assertion, you should post a citation to something Hubbard wrote which shows that it is a joke. I don't know anything about Scientology other than what I read in criminal and civil court cases against the organization's people, but checking the references provided here, they are all legitimate, including the copies of audio recordings which I assume is Hubbard's actual voice.

Any way the article looks fine. Maybe editors should request protection since Scientology has a history of trying to scrub information about their organization off of the Internet, not just Wikipedia. BiologistBabe (talk) 16:36, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Who are you accusing of being Scientologists? Nobody as far as I can tell is a Scientologist here. On the other hand, we do have a number of people -- including yourself, apparently -- who are explicitly anti-Scientology. Are you under the mistaken impression that Wikipedia is here to dump on, ridicule, mock and promote conspiracy theories about Scientology? Laval (talk) 18:25, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Open season on Scientology, it seems. Almost as though these editors have their own "fair game" policy. Includes violating copyright. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 18:39, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

WikiLeaks

Wasn't this issue over the WikiLeaks source taken to RfC and the conclusion was that WikiLeaks is not a reliable source due to simply being a publisher of (mostly) unverifiable primary sources? It's one thing to quote lectures from say Lawrence Wright, but WikiLeaks? If the RfC concluded WikiLeaks isn't an appropriate source, then I can't see why anyone is attempting to insist on its inclusion, especially when numerous other published secondary sources exist. Laval (talk) 23:01, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Interesting, that's a good point. Does WikiLeaks still retain a copy of the R2-45 document? And if so, did Scientology attempt a take-down DMCA complaint or anything to get Wikileaks to remove it? I had not heard anything about this, likely because I stopped commenting on Scientology-related issues for a decade or so before getting dragged in again. :) Damotclese (talk) 23:06, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

What I'm thinking is that if Scientology issued a take-down notice on the grounds of copyright violation, that is another confirmation that Hubbard's R2-45 statements -- audio and transcripts -- are not hoaxes or spoof. If they claim ownership, that's confirmation. Damotclese (talk) 23:07, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

For our purposes here, it wouldn't matter if Scientology issued a takedown notice, because unless that was reported in a reliable source, then it remains original research. This is similar to the issue of the Fishman OT VIII dox in which Hubbard allegedly called himself the Antichrist and so forth. Scientology has consistently refused to issue any takedown notice for those documents, claiming they are forgeries and fakes, and most critics have agreed. However, there have always been others, including former Scientologists who have been on the course when it was first released, who claim that they were genuine, and/or that OT VIII has been subject to numerous revisions over the years. Point is, no one knows the truth because none of it is verifiable. It is the same exact situation here, except R2-45 has never been demonstrated to be anything more than a stupid joke. Laval (talk) 23:15, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

So nobody disputes that that is Hubbard's voice in the recordings, right? "I don't like it" seems to be the contradictory person's only valid complaint, plus he is not very civil. If the audio recording and text files that have the "joke" in them appear to be -not- hoaxes, I don't see any valid complaint about this page. Yes, one could beef-up the supposition that Hubbard was joking in this page, but the page here lays out Hubbard's recording and written texts dispassionately and I don't see any valid argument. For that matter if the claim were to be made that he was joking, the page would need to provide references to back that claim up. I assume Scientology's current people are claiming it's a joke, right? BiologistBabe (talk) 00:06, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

There is neither dispute nor agreement about Hubbard's voice -- nobody knows, including you. It is simply not a valid issue or significant question. Wikileaks is not a reliable source. Please act like a Wikipedian. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 00:14, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

My opinion on whether or not it is Hubbard's voice is totally irrelevant. There are LOTS of audio recordings that are alleged to be of Hubbard, with many being claimed as official hoaxes or what not by critics. Whatever we ourselves think is absolutely irrelevant. We need reliable sources and verifiability. Period. Laval (talk) 01:46, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

That's true, we have current and past Scientology owners/operators and customers who have commented on R2-45, provided copies of R2-45 in court filings, and Wikileaks, all of which can not be verified for accuracy inasmuch as the Scientology organization itself is not likely to vouch for the accuracy of the text contained within. So we're left with (as most things in life) a preponderance of evidence which researchers must judge for themselves whether they meet the falsifiability test.

We're going to find that lacking Scientology blessing the text, we have to use our own judgement, and I think the references and citations which have been offered are fine. If a researcher is unable to evaluate the sources, no amount of references and citations might assist them. As it stands, the extant article has been greatly improved, the editors who have brought the article up to Wikipedia "B"ish quality have expended considerable time on this and the results look good.

We are not going to get 100% consensus on any Scientology-related page, and trying to make a contentious editor happy is not something volunteer editors should spend any more time on. Unless Scientology makes undefendable edits to this article to white-wash R2-45, I'm moving on. The article's last cycle of improvements look good. Thanks, everyone, who worked on this. Damotclese (talk) 22:12, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Again, where is the evidence that Scientology or individual Scientologists are attempting to whitewash anything? The only editors consistently active here who have a problem with this article are me and User:Sfarney. Neither of us are Scientologists or represent the Church of Scientology. The idea that our attempts to impose NPOV and verifiability equal support for Scientology or whitewashing on behalf of Scientology is offensively stupid. Laval (talk) 02:32, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

You also assume that articles are meant to remain stagnant on Wikipedia. You can move on, but that doesn't mean changes -- whether you agree with them or not -- are not going to happen. As it stands, the issue over WikiLeaks has not yet been resolved. From my understanding, the last ANI over this article (that I was not personally involved with, as it was during my absence) conceded that WikiLeaks was not a reliable source and not appropriate for use here. Is that correct or not? Laval (talk) 02:35, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

By the by, please avoid further comments such as your previous "annoyance verging upon anger". [6] That's not how things work on Wikipedia, fortunately, and there is no consensus whatsoever that this article is in any way good, let alone neutral or accurate. That said, you have every right to "move on" and completely ignore this article and whatever changes may or may not occur here. Laval (talk) 02:51, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Unresolved issues

The tags, which are constantly removed by editors here who have voiced strong bias against Scientology, should not be removed, especially considering the fact that they have not been resolved at all. Rewriting the article using peacock terms and weasel words is not helpful. Laval (talk) 06:43, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

There is no "bias against Scientology." What you are complaining about are editors working to keep factual information about the Scientology enterprise from being covered accurately and fully. This is an encyclopedia, Laval, encyclopedias work to be informative and educational, so unless you can find something that is wrong, mistaken, not supported by testable, verifiable references and citations, you're wasting editor's valuable volunteer time. I'm getting very tired of people trying to demand that R2-45 isn't what Hubbard said it is. Annoyance verging upon anger. Damotclese (talk) 19:53, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

By the by, consensus does not equal a bunch of editors, particularly those with a stated bias against the subject (that subject being Scientology) coming up with a version of the article that is only agreeable to their viewpoint. The current version of the article has not, in any way at all, solved the issues that I have brought up. There is no appropriate rationale to constantly remove the tags every time I add them. If I have been absent for a few days, it's because I like to take a break from Wikipedia to cool down. Such an absence is no justification to removing those tags. Laval (talk) 06:54, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

You added the tags to a previous version of the article. The current version of the article was written specifically to address several of the issues that you and Sfarney had raised. I agree that there were problems with how sources were being used in the previous version, but these have been resolved now. The only issue that you raised earlier that seems to me to have any application to the current version is your complaint about the use of primary sources - specifically the 1959 lecture. But as I have already pointed out to Sfarney at [[7]], this is a non-issue. There is no question about the authenticity of the quotation as you can check it yourself if you wish. The lecture in question is publicly available (you even can order it online). The current version of the article uses it exactly as WP:PRIMARY specifies - "to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." The facts being that Hubbard made a particular statement at a particular time, as recorded in the lecture. The interpretation of those facts is, as required by WP:PRIMARY, sourced exclusively to other reliable sources.

So having disposed of that issue, do you have anything else that you would like to raise? Prioryman (talk) 08:44, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

The article currently cherry-picks words to say something quite different from the Ortega recording. We shall discuss that when the copyright question is settled. Grammar's Li'l Helper 09:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Since Ortega isn't being used as a reference for anything to do with any recordings, I fail to see what your point is. Are you sure you've read the current version of the article? Prioryman (talk) 18:46, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Presuming the Ortega recording is a true excerpt of the lecture, this statement is not a fair summary: "He said in a 1959 lecture that "even cops or gangsters" could make a "Clear" out of a person "by taking a Webley 38 or Smith & Wesson, or Colt or something like that and doing R2-45." It is a classic example of Wikipedia:Cherrypicking. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Discourse 19:05, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Nobody is "cherry-picking" anything, the audio of Hubbard describing R2-45 is available on line for anyone to download and listen to themselves, and the extant article fully and accurately covers the Scientology enterprise's "rundown" which is described. Journalist Tony Ortega and every law enforcement agency and criminal and civil Judge which has commented on R2-45 are not "cherry-picking" what Hubbard said. If any editor can find anything wrong or not supported in the extant article then suggest a proposed update! Stop trying to pretend that R2-45 isn't what Hubbard said it is, you're wasting valuable volunteer editor's time! Damotclese (talk) 20:01, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Then why not quote at least one complete sentence? Instead, the editor picked words and phrases out of context to make a statement that says the very opposite of Ortega's recording. That is called Wikipedia:Cherrypicking. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Discourse 02:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

If you would, suggest an update proposal, if you would please. Select a complete sentence which you consider to be more accurate and make the update, if it's golden I'm sure editors will agree. Thanks! Damotclese (talk) 16:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

This is a synopsis: In that recording, the lecturer clearly states that clearing involves more than exteriorization. Exteriorization was all that Buddha accomplished. If that were the only thing required for clearing, a cop or a thug could "clear" people with a pistol. The context of the lecture is all that has come before in Dianetics, including the statement that clearing has never before been possible. So implicit in the cops and thugs statement is the syllogism that shooting people is NOT clearing them. The whole statement is irony. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Discourse 17:17, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

If you still have concerns, maybe you could propose additional text that is verifiable, not original research or synthesis? The article could provide broader context and background if it can comply with content policies. FWIW, the recording does indeed suggest that the typical members of the live audience did not interpret the lecture to mean murder was standard church policy. The article does note "audience responded with laughter", for example. Feoffer (talk) 00:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

The entire paragraph is described by WP:REDFLAG: "challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest". Redflag content is not good Wikipedia, and it doesn't matter who does it. In this case, the editor asserts that Hubbard tells ministers to counsel the believers into committing suicide. Absolutely no secondary sources support that statement. REDFLAG Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Discourse 00:24, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

The problem with most if not all Scientology articles is that the COS is notoriously secretive, and have had a habit of suing people publishing anything about their secret processes. This article cites the few sources that are available. The question that should be addressed is "is this a real phenomenon?" and if so "is it fairly and dispassionately described?". My humble opinion is yes on both counts. If mrs. Laval and Grammar's Li'l Helper would suggest an alternative better wording, I'm all for discussing it. Thimbleweed (talk) 11:25, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

That "secretive" complaint does not agree with mainstream the opinions of theologians. In point of fact, they have thousands of books and tapes for sale on the web page, and they seem eager to tell anyone who will listen. The problem with this article is WP:REDFLAG, as I say many times. The problem is not in the topic, but in the editing. Wikipedia has standards, and this article does not meet them -- by a mile. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 14:16, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

If you can find any of COS' publications discussing the R2-45, it would be most welcome! It would also help if you proposed an alternative wording, so that we can address it.

I am at a loss over what part of WP:REDFLAG it is you think this article is in breach of. Please specify. Thimbleweed (talk) 16:00, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

​​Your comment strongly implies you do not understand

1. the difference between primary and secondary sources,
2. why secondary are required in wp, and
3. what the wp is all about.

In short, you are too new to WP to make useful contributions to the project. Start with wp:pillars, read all my comments in this talk page, and study the wp links provided. Repeated requests for the same answers is not good etiquette. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 05:44, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I am perfectly aware what secondary sources are, and why they are the preferred sources on Wikipedia. The perfect secondary source is a basal grade university textbook, because whatever's there is likely to represent a well rounded summary of current knowledge by an expert in the field. The problem here is that there aren't any proper secondary sources, we'll have to make do with what we have. This is why this article state things like "according to the author..." and "'have alleged" and "have said". This how to handle primary and tertiary sources in a neutral manner. If you go to my user page, you'll see I've been here as long as you have.

I still suggest you write a suggestion for an amended text for the relevant section, so that we may discuss it.Thimbleweed (talk) 09:28, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I have already edited the page toward conformance with Wikipedia standards, and the resident editors here reverted the edits. Now you answer a question for me. You admit agree: "The problem here is that there aren't any proper secondary sources..." I am glad you agree. So why should Wikipedia cover it with improper sources? Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 15:27, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

For some reason the contrarian editor has not provided any explanation on what is wrong with the article and curiously seems to think he or she has made changes which editors have reverted. Looking at the history I don't see any "edit warring," as the individual claims. If he or she can point to anything that's wrong in the article and suggest actual proposed updates he or she needs to do that rather than be uncivil to other editors and complain about vague "It's wrong."

Editors have wasted enough time with the issue. Unless there is something the contrary editor can point to that needs fixing, it's time to move on. Damotclese (talk) 15:55, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

What a fine case of WP:IDHT! As Thimbleweed (talk · contribs) has just agreed, there are no proper secondary sources for the article. None. The bloggist Ortega tries to make a case about it, and one other fringe writer. The scholars and even Scientology's harshest critics do not mention it. But these editors here have gone way beyond even what those two fringe writers say with no secondary sources at all. That is WP:REDFLAG. To make the case, the editors have used WP:CHERRYPICKING, WP:PRIMARY, and WP:OR. But perhaps you are right: I wasting my time saying this again and you will just respond with WP:IDHT. If this discussion is closed, let's move on. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 16:18, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

There is still also of the viability of using material from WikiLeaks as a source, which aside from any primary sourcing issues is unverifiable and has never been covered in any secondary sources. But that's the least of the problems with this bizarre article. Laval (talk) 21:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Since some editors here are oblivious to Wikipedia standards, indifferent to the article's gross flaws, and obdurate that only their view shall prevail, this article needs Arbitration Enforcement oversight. I have limited time and the process is not just-add-water -- it needs research. Anyone who cares to assist me in composing the request will be most welcome. Please see AE request draft at the bottom of this page. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 21:51, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Your assertion that there are no secondary sources isn't entirely correct. Source no 12 (Wallis, 1976: The Road to Total Freedom) is a secondary source per Wikipedia standards. It's not an ideal secondary source, but still secondary. There's also a peer reviewed source, which Wikipedia is thick with (check any science article). Several of the tertiary sources are very good, and are also acceptable per WP policy. Primary sources too are actually perfectly acceptable as long as they are being used to document what said source says, see WP: Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. The article is very carefully written to use the primary sources properly.

With very few exceptions, all Wikipedia articles can be improved. This article certainly can. However, just saying "red flag" and 1) refuse to detail exactly what's wrong, and 2) not of offer an alternative text isn't going to achieve that. If you want to help out, I suggest you write an alternative text so we may discuss it. Thimbleweed (talk) 20:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

In the first place, you are the editor who asserted "The problem here is that there aren't any proper secondary sources".[8] I agreed with you, but that does not make it my assertion. If you are correcting your previous statement, please say so. If you have forgotten you wrote that and you have changed your mind, please say so. At this point, you are simply contradicting yourself.

As for primary sources, please see WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. You should also see WP:CHERRYPICKING, which is the technique of stripping context out of phrases and sentences, and constructing new meaning from old words. If this topic were notable, all the secondary sources would be screaming about it and we would not have to cherrypick words from a half dozen primary sources to build the case. In fact, we should not be building cases on Wikipedia from obscure sources to make a point that no one else in the world is making -- even if it is true. That is the essence of WP:REDFLAG, to which I have referred on multiple occasions and explained in detail elsewhere on this page. You are playing WP:IDHT ad nauseum. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 21:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

You will notice the section of WP policy I linked to actually is from WP:OR, and the text here carefully avoid the trap described in WP:SYNTH. My statements of the lack of secondary sources were for the sections covered by only primary and tertiary ones (which I assumed you were referring to), not the whole article. I am however starting to tire of wikilawyering, please, show a bit of WP:GOOD FAITH and play ball, mate. Please? Thimbleweed (talk) 21:39, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

The person who you are trying to reason with has not exhibited any capability of reason, I expect that the person is a Scientologist. He is the only person who seems to think something is wrong with the page yet he has not been able to point to anything that is actually wrong. I like that term "wikilawyering" that is a new one on me but I think we have to start looking at banning someone who seems to be a Scientologist --0 which I see had to be done for a number of Scientology-related pages. BiologistBabe (talk) 21:49, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Considering user:Sfarney still haven't come up with anything except generalities, I suppose you're right this is futile. Thimbleweed (talk) 05:33, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

So, seeing it's really only one editor who thinks the article has major problems, can we remove the many tags from the article page? Thimbleweed (talk) 13:46, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't know why you keep saying that about Laval (talk · contribs). I also consider the article has major problems. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 18:39, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, unless you or Laval (talk · contribs) can point to specific wordings that are problematic, or suggest an alternative text, I'll remove the tags. Thimbleweed (talk) 06:32, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

The article makes a number of assertions that are WP:FRINGE -- they are not in agreement with the consensus even among the critics of Scientology. All of those claims should be removed. The claims are that:

1. Hubbard advised ministers to counsel the believers to commit suicide;
2. Hubbard published lists of people to be murdered
3. Scientology used or uses threat of death to intimidate people

Those extraordinary claims are not supported by any consensus of reliable sources, even among the strongest critics, and certainly not among scholars. The cherry picked quotes from recordings should be removed. See Wikipedia:Fringe_theories: ...for writers and editors of Wikipedia articles to write about controversial ideas in a neutral manner, it is of vital importance that they simply restate what is said by independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality. There is no wiggle room in that policy to permit an editor to develop controversial ideas from primary sources, or to use blogs that promote novel ideas. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 07:39, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

The assertions are well backed up by the sources they cite. The very fact that it was issued is covered by the primary source itself (a perfectly acceptable solution). Unless you wish to argue that two numbers of "the Auditor" are forgeries, there's no escaping the fact that the "Racket Exposed" articles were published. There's also no escaping that the two articles contain a list of names and the order to use R2-45 on them. This is extremely neutrally reported in the article without comment, which is how it should be done. Then, there's a peer-reviewed article with Prof. Kent's comment on it, again clearly written as showing this is his interpretation, again a perfect use of the source. Your claim no. 3, that the COS uses the R2-45 to threaten and intimidate people is not found in the article.

In the second last section, both the critiques and the COS are cited in the name of neutrality. The sources further up are Hubbard's and cite him on the process, so your assertion of cherry-picking is not sustainable. Your assertion that the material here is fringe depends on there existing an alternative narrative that the majority of experts prefer. If you can find a secondary source saying the majority of relevant experts do not believe the R2-45 was ever uttered, or that it is meant to be understood metaphorically, please go ahead and add that source. So far I have not found anything like it.

Since these are your grips with the article, I'll remove the tags. If you find the source backing up your fringe-claims, you can always suggest an amended wording. Thimbleweed (talk) 12:12, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

How do you justify this blatent violation of Wikipedia policy? Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 15:34, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I really want to stick to discussing wording and sources. You have already brought this case in for arbitration, and did not received support for Prioryman who wrote the current version being in breach of anything. So please provide alternative sources or a suggestion for an amended text, and quit suggesting the other editors are in blatant breach of WP guidelines. Please. Thimbleweed (talk) 21:15, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

• How odd. You can call my editorial objections, "your grips [sic]" and attempts to "escape", but I cannot write "blatant violations" after outlining the exact violations. What code of editor conduct are you working with? Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 21:47, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
• Nothing in Wikipedia policy permits the promotion of a fringe theory not supported by secondary sources. If you have no secondary sources on a controversial statement, you must leave out the theory. Them's the rules: it is of vital importance that they simply restate what is said by independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality. And no one has answered my request for evidence that Kent's article was "peer reviewed." So far, it's just an empty assertion. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 21:55, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

You still haven't shown anything here being fringe, or even that there exists an alternative viewpoint except the one extolled by the COS (which is included in the article already). If you find the other editors here so blatant in breach of policy, you can take it up with the ArbCom (again). I, editing under a legal sock, am more likely to be sanctioned than most.Thimbleweed (talk) 10:16, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, finally an address to the point. Answer: ANYTHING without solid secondary sources is fringe. That is the essence of the WP:FRINGE policy. You have yourself stated more than once that the topic has this is problem, so I don't have to show that part to you. Now go to the policy page and read how Jimmy Wales views such problems. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 14:48, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

'malignant narcissism' NPOV/UNDUE?

Is the following line appropriate:

According to Stephen A. Kent of the University of Alberta, such orders are demonstrations of "the manifestation of Hubbard’s malignant narcissism and, more specifically, his narcissistic rage."[18]

As is, it seems pseudoscientific and judgmental. Should we balance it with other opinions? Excise it? Accept it's okay as is? Feoffer (talk) 09:27, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Doctor Kent's credentials, academic research, and reporting on psychological dysfunctions are fairly well known among academia, his work is considered to be well regarded. The classification of "narcissistic" certainly is accurate despite Doctor Kent never having gotten Hubbard under formal evaluation on his couch. There is the need to ensure that such "remote evaluations" conducted by psychologists of someone's behavior and history are not evaluations suggested for non-benign motivations -- such as when psychologists weight-in on a politician's exhibited behavior despite never having acquired hands-on back-and-forth with the individual, done purely for political reasons. However when a psychologist evaluates a public figure's behavior and publishes findings lacking unfriendly motivations, their professional findings hold the same weight as the Doctor's reputation.

Kent's BRAINWASHING IN SCIENTOLOGY'S REHABILITATION PROJECT FORCE (RPF) released as Revised Version of a Presentation at the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion, San Diego, California (November 7, 1977). by Dr Stephen Kent [University of Alberta, Canada] - December 3, 1997 (2nd Draft) is considered to be one of the most submitted exhibits for civil and criminal cases by ex-customers in cases filed against Scientology since his work is considered to be accurate, well researched, and above reproach.

For purposes of the extant article, considering Kent's standing in his profession and among academia, I think the quote is suitable for Wikipedia. The quote is even better rooted in professional evaluation than has been Judges who have stated in their court findings at core the same thing. Damotclese (talk) 02:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a source on Kent's reputation? His theories on brainwashing are still fringy, not accepted by mainstream psychologists. No one has been able to prove brainwashing in a laboratory under controlled conditions. After decades, Kent's theories are still pseudoscience. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Discourse 17:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

People who do not accept the validity of the benefits of the practices of the mental health industry -- or the medical environment entirely, of which I'm part, for that matter -- always consider science to be "fringe." No amount of achievements, experience, or accomplishments sways ideologues.

You could Google "Stephen A. Kent" yet I seriously doubt you or any other Scientologist consider any psychologist, psychiatrist, or medical physician to be anything but Satan -- or the Scientology equivelent of Satan. BiologistBabe (talk) 16:42, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Your ad hominem is noted -- and set aside. I will not be provoked by WP:PA. Kent is fringe for the reasons stated above: His views of brainwashing run counter to the consensus of his profession, as does his opinion that Hubbard was a narcissist, let alone a malignant narcissist. A single polemical professional is not a reliable source. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 07:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Kent isn't fringe. But the way he is used here may be undo weight, more prejudicial than probative. It's strange for the article to include one expert to do little more than wrap a moral judgment in the trappings of psychology. Feoffer (talk) 08:12, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

The article pretends to make a medical diagnosis of someone the authors never met or examined. It is apparently self-published, not peer reviewed, and should have no standing. It is not WP:RS. We can do better than that, folks. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 14:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I've included the French version of the same article, published in Criminologie, a peer-reviewed journal. I think it's logical to keep both citations, because the English one is more convenient for our readers. --Slashme (talk) 07:11, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Please provide your evidence that that magazine is peer reviewed by people qualified to diagnose psychiatric conditions. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 05:38, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

The identity of reviewers is confidential, so it's impossible to fulfil that request. --Slashme (talk) 07:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC)