Talk:Suppressive person/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Series Template

Removing this Series Template from across the Scientology related pages. This is not correct usage of Series Templates per the guidelines. They were set up to show the history of countries and were different articles form a sequential series. This is not the case with the Scientology pages, which are random pages on different topics – not a sequence of any kind. Wiki’s definition of a series is: “In a general sense, a series is a related set of things that occur one after the other (in a succession) or are otherwise connected one after the other (in a sequence).” Nuview, 15:40, 10 January 2006 (PST)

wow, what an interesting article. No indication is made from where the word Suppressive Person comes from or what the word Suppressive Person means. Suppressive to what? Law enforcement is suppressive to criminals. Today's youth claims parents and schools are suppressive to them. What does the Church of Scientology define a suppressive person to be? The point I'm making is, the article cites two external web sites. But doesn't define the title, "Suppressive Person." WP:V (our policy) states that it is up to the editor to suppy "unimpeachable" sources of information for those informations introduced by said editorTerryeo 14:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

"Often, the principal grounds for declaring an individual "SP" is that they are alleged to have been publicly critical of Scientology, and in practice, this means making a negative comment in private. Other times, it is the result of a Committee of Evidence, or leaving employment of a Scientology organization without permission."

How would you refine the intro? Ronabop 15:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh gosh Ronabop. You are doing good work on here. This article was created by people who have no clue in the world what the term "suppressive person" means. A history of edits show only people who always edit in a hostile way about Scientology. If I begin making this article accurate I'll have 5 hostile people taking out every third word I put into it. A "suppressive person" is a statement, a declare. It can only be issued by persons who hold a certain job within the Church. Anyone can say, "hey, you're a suppressive" to anyone else, right? But to be declared a Suppressive Person is an act that a person who holds a specific job within the Church does. The job is called "Ethics Officer." To hold it requires training and has other requirements also. Myself, I couldn't hold that job in the lowliest mission of scientology. It requires a very very clean history, no street drugs, no convictions of crimes and other things. I don't know it all. But the first thing the article needs of course is a definition of the meaning of the term. After all, isn't that a wiki guideline? Term, topic, context?  :) Terryeo 19:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

No, Terryeo, it is NOT a wiki guideline, and you've already been set straight on that by Antaeus Feldspar. And furthermore, I'd like to know who mean specifically when you say that others are making "hostile edits". No one has been making "hostile edits" to Scientology pages that I am aware, aside from the occasional vandal. wikipediatrix 19:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I see you have attempted to justify your undocumented creation of this article, wikipediatrix. By attacking my statement of course, rather than doing the actual work of seeking out and reading and understanding the information about it. But it is also clear that your interest is not in understanding. I mention the most basic element this article lacks, a definition of the term, "suppressive person" which should have been the base of the article. But of course you ignore that. Until a term is defined, there is no article. There might be emotional reactions, there might be slanderous implications but there won't be an article. The term isn't defined. It wasn't defined when the article was created and it isn't defined yet today. When I get involved in defining "term, topic, context" then people refuse to allow that a topic should be defined. You all don't seem to understand what the meaning of the term is, yet you babble on about it. You have an idea because you understand some meanings of the word "suppressive" but you don't know how Scientology uses the word in the term, "suppressive person." And for "hostile edits" good gosh. If using a source of information which is itself stolen and obviously disputed isn't hositile, what would be hostile? WP:CITE and WP:V make clear. Sources of information must be "unimpeachable" and it is incumbant on the person making a citation to provide, clear, reliable sources. Any one reading your edits, Wikipediatrix, can immediately see your mean to be sure that no one anyplace learns of any good coming from Scientology. That is what I mean by "hostile edits." Terryeo 11:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

First, I didn't create this article. Secondly, you still refuse to listen to all attempts to explain to you that your idea of "term, topic, context" is wrong and not set-in-stone Wikipedia policy. Thirdly, you need to reassess your definition of "hostile". Doubletalk like this is why I rarely bother trying to communicate with you anymore. wikipediatrix 11:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, you didn't create it. But you contributed to it at an early date [1] and you do the same with other articles in the Scientology area without any definition of the topic, like in this article. :) Secondly, you asked and I replied what I meant by hostile. Its not double talk but straight talk. By Hostile edits I mean edits which always deny information which would be helpful to a person who hopes to learn what Scientology and its terminology is and is about. Skepticism is one thing, hostility another. I have told you what I meant by "hostile edits" Its a straight answer. Terryeo 12:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

That's my whole point - what YOU mean by "hostile" is not a proper use of the term. Speak English, not Hubbardese. And who cares if I contributed to this article at an early date? Go eat some breakfast and wake up. wikipediatrix 12:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

to argue whether my answer to your questions fulfills your understanding of my use of my words would be pointless, don't you agree? heh! BTW, it is just barely possible the basic reason for the edit controversies is to be found in the discussion I initiated at Talk:Clear_(Scientology)#How_can_we_resolve_the_good-guy.2C_bad-guy_editing. Perhaps you would like to take a lookt at it and comment toward aligning our efforts rather than bickering. Terryeo 16:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

It is not "bickering" when I take outrage at you making false statements about me on multiple talk pages repeatedly, and then shrugging it off when you're proven to be wrong. It is not "bickering" when I call you to task for repeatedly twisting the WP guidelines to suit your needs when myself and several other editors have already been VERY patient with you and attempting "aligning our efforts" but you still won't let go of this "term, topic, context" notion. Then, when someone loses their patience with you after having the exact same conversation a half dozen times with you, you act innocent and give this "oh, why can't we get along?" routine. It won't wash. wikipediatrix 16:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I see. Well, thanks for the reply. lol. Terryeo 17:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

no definition

This article isn't "misdefined" it is "not defined". There is a word there, it brings an idea to mind but there is no definition of that word. Instead of the meaning of the word, people are editing based on their created meaning of the word. HEH ! and then you people are tossing in all the controversy you can think of. "Fair Game" and other trivial pursuits, based on an invented definition of "Suppressive Person" when you don't have a definition of "Suppressive Person" to begin with. In several articles I have jumped in and supplied a definition when there was none, to prevent the kind of "invented definition" that the editors are using here. It has made me reluctant because editors immediately and incessently remove any bit of actual definition they find, substitute their invented definition and proceed to edit, edit, edit ! Wheee ! Terryeo 00:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

There are really 2 separate ideas which are presented in the article at this time. One is, "there might be a suppressive person somewhere". What sort of fellow is this guy? Well, if he is attempting to destroy a segment of society, he's a suppressive person. If he threatens to eradicate western civilization, he's a suppressive person. Saddam, Hitler and Stalin are examples of people who eradicated large portions of population. They suppressed mankind. But just killing people doesn't make a suppressive person. People kill in self defence, or extensions of self defence. Hitler simply saw it that everyone who wasn't of his race and thinking were out to get him and he used his position to get them first. That's suppressive. Then the second question. How does the Church of Scietology arrive at declaring a person to be a suppressive person. That's a much more exact definition. It can be done by most of the organizations which make up Scientology, but it is what you would call a legal action, done by a person trained in the technology. Terryeo 18:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

severe editing

Well, I've tried to spark discussion. Soon I begin to edit, removing unciteable portions to the talk page here for citing. Terryeo 16:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

That's just wrong. That's not what a suppressive person is and Fair Game was long ago cancelled. You people who are convinced Scientology has only people in it who don't understand the real situation are completely misrepresenting the actual situations. When you find yourself unable to stop a subject from being communicated to the reader, you disperse the subject with excessive secondary sources. Very little of the subject is communicated in any of these Scientology and Dianetics articles. This one especially. When the subject is never presented, the only subject communicated is, "this is bunk". Space opera, for example. Its bit of information but for most of you it can be nothing but "central to scientology" In any event not only is no subject communicated, but none of you allow the subject might be communicated. Certainly there is no realistic definition of Suppressive person here and no citation that presents the subject either. I think it would take only 3 people who were convinced Scientology / Dianetics was bunk to disperse and misrepresent the subject sufficiently that good articles couldn't appear here. No need to mention names, you all are quite certain your POV is the only POV. Terryeo 07:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Three people? I just spent some time looking over your past contributions, and computed that roughly 95 percent of your edits in the last few weeks have been reverted, and by many editors, such as Modemac, Ronabop, Wikipediatrix, Mistress Selina Kyle, Antaeus Feldspar, Fubar Obfusco, Comaze, Fahrenheit451, Drini, BTfromLA, ChrisO, LamontCranston, Povmec, Zetawoof, AndroidCat, and others. So everyone else is wrong and you're right? If it seems like everyone else thinks you're doing the wrong thing, consider that maybe, just maybe, you ARE. wikipediatrix 14:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm replying to Wikipediatrix's comment. She has stated, "Scientology is bunk" which tells me how she understands Scientology. ChrisO has insisted an unpublished (Confidential and never published to the public) document should be citeable. Povmec has stated, "Scientology has been debunked many times". Lament can hardly justapose two words together but to overflow with sarcasm. Fahrenheit451 has insisted he has the right to insert his opinions as he wishes, regardless whether they meet WP:V (the threshold for inclusion is verifiability). I recognize that each of you are doing what you consider to be the honorable thing. That is, you are editing to present information about the subject. As an example of off-wikipedia-policy I'll point to ChrisO's Space Opera article. He includes in the introduction something like "Space Opera is central to Scientology" and I cut and paste and invite discussion and say it is unciteable. For evidence I produce opinions of professionals (Doctors of Divinity, etc.) whom never mention space opera. I indicate the quantity of "space opera" compared to the quantity of Scientology information. I invite discussion but that doesn't work with you. Several editors revert the sentence. On that particular one, I am right and any number of other people are wrong. In this article it is different. The subject is not defined. I said so None of you can tell me the least reason why "suppresive person" is defined by the Church of Scientology. You think it is because the Church is defining someone to punish. That's not it. If the entire planet thought that, it still would not be true. The suppresive person technology (perhaps as much as a linear foot of shelf space) exists with one idea in mind. That idea has nothing to do with punishment but is found in Scientology's purpose. It is rehabilitation. I deleted a large amount of text from this article. I deleted uncited portions. The subject is not presented, the subject is not cited. Not only do you not attempt to present the subject as it actually exists, but too many of you refuse to understand the least thing about Scientology. Of course you are free to do that.  :) Terryeo 17:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

That does it. I have NEVER stated "Scientology is bunk". Find the place where I said it and show me. This is the fifth time you have deliberately attributed comments to me that I never said. wikipediatrix 17:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The article goes straight into controversy without a correct introduction. Then. what is explained is not accurate. In Scientology ethics material it is plain to see that HANDLING is done before disconnection with intimate ties. disconnection is used as a last resort. --JimmyT 15:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

An introduction

Presently the introduction to the article states: "..coined by L. Ron Hubbard to refer (sometimes) to "enemies." The first word of this article is "Suppressive". At dictionary appears "5. To inhibit the expression of (an impulse, for example); example: suppress a smile." This is what Hubbard meant by the word in this context. At (webster's) "5 a : to restrain from a usual course or action <suppress a cough> b : to inhibit the growth or development of." The Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary states: "To squash, to sit on, to make smaller, to refuse to let reach, to make uncertain about his reaching, to render or lessen in any way possible by any means possible, to the harm of the individual." This is what the word "Suppress" means in this context. A "Suppressive Person" is a person who manifests that kind of behavior more than they manifest other actions. For example, Hitler did that to the Jews. Saddam did that to the Kurds. Some parents do that to their kids. Extreme examples are parents who have kept their kids in closets, who did not allow their child to normally develop. These are extreme examples of what Scientology jargon means when using the term, "Suppressive Person". If this is not argued with, if this is clear and plain then I will put it into the introduction of the article because the article does not, at this time, introduce what Scientology means when it uses this term. Will that be okay with other editors? Terryeo 23:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, either no one reads the discussion pages or everyone is convinced there is nothing worth talking about. Okay, I'll go ahead and put the article in order. I know this will bring the hostility to a boil and start a revert war which I am certainly trying to avoid by discussing first. Almost all of this article is based on information from hostile-to-scientology sites, based on a small handful of disaffected people, based on long-ago-defunct policies and bulletins. A tiny minority creates a lot of inflammatory information and it creeps into wikipedia. It isn't in perspective and it disperse real information and then various editors insist on it. Terryeo 02:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

That statement is so incredibly POV, I wouldn't hold out much hope for anything mutually agreeable. AndroidCat 02:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

When did they disaprove of POV in discussion? --JimmyT 15:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Clearly, AndroidCat means using a POV statement from a discussion as material for an article and, yes, Terryeo, your statements are very POV, generalities, and very disputable.--Fahrenheit451 17:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

No, "incredibly POV" is AndroidCat's maladroit misrepresentation of Terryeo's illustration of resounding reference to dictionaries and Scientology's own Technical Dictionary. AndroidCat's suppressive statement is a weak attempt to invalidate Terry's communication. Fahrenheit451, review Terryeo's statement. If you find Terryeo's statements disputable, then why are you supporting AndroidCat's 'hopeless' POV instead of simply disputing Terryeo's statements and directly cited definitions of SUPPRESSIVE? --JimmyT 02:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what to make of your vortex of verbage. Is the Elronic language meant to be sarcasm or humour? AndroidCat 03:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying you don't understand? Get a dictionary. --JimmyT 07:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

JimmyT, the twelve characteristics of a SP is a descriptive and differentiative definition, which is clearly cited in the article.--Fahrenheit451 23:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

There is little to disagree with Terryeo's NPOV over the definition of Suppressive, to introduce the concept of Suppressive Person. --JimmyT 15:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The term S.P. has been grossly misused in the cofs, and Hubbard acknowledged that in the SHSBC citation I provided. The situation continues to this day. Example, you don't agree with miscavige talk to the wall patter drills, you get comm ev'd and declared S.P. Someone who disagrees with these patter drills can hardly be compared to hitler, stalin, or john dillinger. --Fahrenheit451 17:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course no one is required to agree with anything. Patter drills are an educational technique. What sort of disagreement do you have that you are talking about people being declared SP because they don't "agree" with them. Don't agree with what part of them? There are hundreds of pages of drills, they contain direct quotes from HCOBs (mostly). What is there to disagree with? Is it the idea of saying something to a wall? Terryeo 07:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

This is about the 100th time you have talked about your disagreement about patter drills Fahrenheit451. Could we talk about this situation? What is the deal? Do you know someone who refused to do patter drills per its stated procedure? What's the deal? Terryeo 05:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The introduction is completely wrong

The introduction is not presented in an encyclopedic way. The introduction is presented as an inflammatory newspaper article might present it which was attempting to rouse public opinion against the Church of Scientology. A definition of "suppression" is not present. A definition of "Suppressive Person" is not present. There is no introduction of the concept. What there is, there is a sort of "Scientology uses this word to punish people with, people who disagree with them". And even that is presented as if some unknown, unknowable, hidden high portion of the organization met in secret and made these declares. Its not a good introduction. Farenheit451, I understand that might be how you feel about SP declares but might it be possible to present the article with less passion and a more encyclopedic point of view? What say you? Terryeo 06:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

What do you propose? I did list the twelve attributes of an anti-social personality, with citation, as well as LRH's comments on S.P.'s from the SHSBC, with citation. That presents an accurate definition of SP. In the cofs, it has become "any person who the ijc says is in an ethics order". That is very far from LRH. Over to you.--Fahrenheit451 15:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

There are two elements the article presents. Listing the twelve attributes of an anti-social personality is good, it is a sort of partial definition of a suppressive person. It is also true there is an organization which makes "declares." An official organization which officially makes declares. On one hand the technology can be helpful to a person who knows it, helpful in choosing his friends and even helpful in the workplace. But on the other hand, I think it is beyond the scope of the article to present the many policy letters which an Ethics Officer must study before he is qualified to make an offical suppressive person declare. Terryeo 16:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, I wonder if you are making a technical degrade in your statement, "it is a sort of partial definition of a suppressive person." It is a descriptive and differentiative definition of an SP. Period. Could it be that the organization is grossly misusing LRH's works and falsely declaring people? You need to look at other possibilities, one of which could be that the cofs is currently altering and misusing LRH's works. Your statement, "the many policy letters which an Ethics Officer must study before he is qualified to make an offical suppressive person declare." indicates that you think there is "other policy" which allows certain people to circumvent standard policy and label people SPs at will.--Fahrenheit451 23:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course you wonder, Fahrenheit451, and you are free to wonder. Or, alternatively, you are free to educate yourself. I view your "wondering" as your own. I want you to understand the use of Talk Pages, Fahrenheit451. These pages are for discussion. These pages are toward communication, toward us helping each other create good articles for Wikipedia readers. You, myself or anyone can state anything here which we feel will bring about better articles. You are free to wonder, wander, whistle or warp. Then the last sentence of your statement evaluates my attempt at communication on this page. Did you have a question ? Opp, My signature got removed from my statement, somehow. So I am signing it now. I don't know whose this is just below. Terryeo 06:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course you wonder, Terryeo, and you are free to wonder. Or, alternatively, you are free to educate yourself. I view your "wondering" as your own. I want you to understand the use of Talk Pages, Terryeo. These pages are for discussion. These pages are toward communication, toward us helping each other create good articles for Wikipedia readers. You, myself or anyone can state anything here which we feel will bring about better articles. You are free to wonder, wander, whistle or warp. Then the last sentence of your statement evaluates my attempt at communication on this page. Did you have a question ?

I tweaked the intro a bit. It's true that in normal English, "suppressive person" would probably mean "people who suppress other people", but it has a specific meaning and history within the context of the CoS. It's the specific CoS meaning of this term that is the entire subject of the article, so I think it's better to say how they use it than to express an english tautology. Friday (talk) 19:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair Game and Suppressive Person

As this link - http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/sp/pl-1968-10-21-cancel-fair-game.html - clearly shows, in 1968 Hubbard ordered the declaration of 'Fair Game' to cease on account of BAD PUBLIC RELATIONS, while the policy on how to deal with the fair game, that is a Suppressive Person, is to continue. LamontCranston 10:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

You are leaving out HCO PL 21 July 1968. See Foster Report or chapter 10 on this page. --Olberon 17:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

There is more to the situation than you have stated. That portion of the "Fair Game" policy which you have not stated but is available, but only on critical websites like you have cited, those present that "fair game" included actions which any court of law would consider illegal. That is not the case today. Today it is against Church Policy to do "anything against the laws of the land" in treatment of a suppressive person. There is specific policy which states that and I put it and that quote into the Fair Game article because it contrary and opposite to the now long defunct and abandonded Fair Game policy which everyone is quoting like mad. Terryeo 14:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Fair Game continues in the cofs. There are many accounts of this on the internet and in the published media.--Fahrenheit451 23:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

No, "fair game" does not continue in the Church of Scientology. Yes, "suppresive person" does continue. There is a technology about dealing with people and "suppressive person" is part of it. In 100 people (on average) 2.5 percent of them will be "suppressive people" which means they will work toward making the other 97.5 percent feelling smaller, worse, less able, less capable, etc. They will happily stab you in the back, saying a bad word to the boss behind your back for no other reason than it is their nature. A very tiny handlful of people have been declared by the Church of Scientology as "suppressive persons." They are denied services. However, a correction procedure is simotaneously issued with a suppressive person declare. A person may, if they choose to, work through it and become active in the Church again and that has happened too. But the idea of "fair game" (any scientology may do anything to a suppressive person) is specifically forbidden by policy, as the Fair Game presents last I read it. There is no "eternally declared evil" guys, not in the Church of Scientology. Terryeo 16:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, a lot of experts (including former Church members) say that the "Fair Game" policy still continues in reality even though it was "officially" rescinded on paper. What makes you right and them wrong? In light of this discussion, I think it's ominously relevant that Tom Cruise recently sent out Scientology gift plaques that say "Never fear to hurt another in a just cause". [2] wikipediatrix 19:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

If let's say a childmolestor is caught in the action I don't think any decent human being would fear to hurt that person as it would be a just cause. Just cause is defined as that which can be properly substanitated with evidence, witnesses and such. --Olberon 17:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong about that Terryeo, there are many documented cases in the media and internet where former members and critics have been targeted by the cofs for harassment. Terryeo, you are either not telling the truth, or you are not cognizant of what has happened.--Fahrenheit451 22:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Harrashing is not by definition Fair Game. --Olberon 17:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

"I would have given you $5,000 last year at this time that there is NO Fair Game. But the truth is, Fair Game is alive and just as bad as ever. I was even doing it, and didn't realize it." (Tory Christman) -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The thing to do there, Feldspar, is to get that statement actually published by a publication house of some repute, say the New York Times or Doubleday Books. Then, at that point, that statement would make a fine inclusion in any wikipedia article. Why beat around the bush with personal essays on personal websites when the avenue is wide open ? Simply get the information published and it can then be included in Wikipedia articles, but can't be included until it is published. That's WP:V in action. Terryeo 23:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

How come you didn't "know"?? --Olberon 17:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

"No, "fair game" does not continue in the Church of Scientology. Yes, "suppresive person" does continue." - Terryeo is able to successfully argue this point and not look like Forrest Gump because of that very Hubbard order I quoted and linked to. Now it is important to remember though only the name 'Fair Game' has been dropped while the policy on how to deal with such persons remains in place to this day. (something Terryeo will no doubt 'beat around the bush' about) LamontCranston 02:28, 26 March 2006

There is the issue of "does fair game continue." By all means, present the information you wish to according to Wikipedia standards. I understand that several of you refuse to accept my statement. The article doesn't care unless you insert your information into it. However, whether you do or not, the article as it stands right now, presents "Suppressive Person" as a tool the Church of Scientology uses to isolate enemies. The article should instead present what the term means as it is used. Scientology has developed a number of terms, of specialized jargon. This one has particular meaning. How can we work together to get the actual meaning of the term into the article. Its actual meaning now, as the article is written now, appears something like, "Its a term Scientology uses to isolate enemies". This article is a predecessor, a base for the "Fair Game" article. If the term "suppressive person" is well presented here, the "Fair Game" article will make more sense to the reader. Terryeo 06:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo is right. There is no official policy of Fair Game in practice or in use in the church Of Scientology. If it was, I would have known that. Overactive people however you do find everywhere. --Olberon 17:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Olberon, I know you've already had Wikipedia:No original research pointed out to you. Please abide by it. The idea that you "would have known" if a Fair Game policy was in use is laughable. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Feldspar, we have danced around this tree many times. To talk on this discussion page, presenting one's own experience and knowledge is encouraged by Wikipedia policies, guidelines and practices. It is not "Original Research" as per WP:NOR to talk about one's own experience, one's own opinion, one's own point of vies. In fact, it is what makes wikipedia workable, without many experiences from many points of view, Wikipedia would not be workable. You have accosted me, and other editors have accosted me and as much as accused me of OR when I state on a discussion page, my own experience. It is abiding by Wikipedia, just because your knowledge does not extend to the same degree as the next fellows does not mean that the next fellow does not have that experience. Olberon, as did I (many times) states the situation as he knows it to be. That is entirely appropriate on discussion pages. The idea, you see, is that discussion can take place. You can compare your experience to Olberon's experience, citations for such experience can be found and applied and thus, better articles can be created. Further, Feldspar, you state your personal opinion, not based on experience necessarily, but your bold personal opinion, "that is laughable". I have also stated that "Fair Game" is not a policy used today in the Church of Scientology. But Olberon and I are not the only ones who have made this statement, others have also. You continue to laugh up your sleeve, knowing the statement is not real. I've seen that statement made here, made in the Fair Game article, even made on several other pages, "Fair Game is not a practice of the Church", yet you always ignore it. Its perfectly cool that you have your own point of view. It is not perfectly cool that you attempt to control discussion page talk, so as to exclude statements which are realistic statements, such as the one Oberon has made. Hello? I've made the same statement, or similar enough, and others have too. Terryeo 07:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I utter these words on a discussion page. Have I not substantiated with undisputable dokumentation that what I say is correct? Check out Wikipedia:Verifiability. Terryeo by the way is totally correct in what he writes! As far back as I can remember (25 years) Fair Game is regarded by Scientology staff as something that is from the past, live with it. --Olberon 10:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Introducing "Suppressive Person"

Scientology Tech says that about 2.5 percent of the population of the planet fulfills the definition of "Suppressive Person". 2.5 % of 6,500,000,000 (6.5 billion) = 162,500,000 persons. That's Scientology's estimation of the quantity of "Suppressive Persons" on our planet today. How many of them are "enemies of Scientology"? Well, who knows, but 162 million people is a lot of people to have declared as "enemies" But that is exactly what the article presents. It presents and introduces that Suppressive Persons are declared enemies of Scientology and implies that they are declared because they are somewhat critical of Scientology. That isn't the meaning of the term "suppressive person" as Hubbard created it nor as the Church of Scientology uses it. As one example, sometimes people are declared "suppresive persons" and then work through the program which is always included in any suppressive person declare, and become active members and in training or auditing again. Yet if I try to edit the article, other editors always revert me as being "too POV" or some other, like sounding reason. Suppressive persons are simply that, people who would rather suppress you than to help you. There is quite a lot of technology (or call it something besides technology if you like), but anyway, quite a lot of it to the idea. Hitler was one, Saddam was one, extreme criminals are suppressive. You simply can't have a winning situation for everyone with a suppressive person in the mix.Terryeo 03:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, a lot of experts (including former Church members) say that the "Suppressive Person" concept, in reality, is exactly how it is stated in the article. What makes you right and them wrong? wikipediatrix 12:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for asking. Scientology Gossary states: "Suppressive person: a person who possesses a distinct set of characteristics and mental attitudes that cause him to suppress other people in his vicinity. This is the person whose behavior is calculated to be disastrous. Also called antisocial personality." And then, another official glossary states: "Suppressive person: a person who possesses a distinct set of characteristics and mental attitudes that cause him to suppress other people in his vicinity. This is the person whose behavior is calculated to be disastrous. Also called antisocial personality." That same site goes on to spell out more about this sort of personality, the antisocial personality which is presented here as "Suppressive Person," at: details of it It says in part: "there are those among us – about 2 1/2 percent of the population – who possess characteristics and mental attitudes that cause them to violently oppose any betterment activity or group. Within this category, one finds the Adolf Hitlers and the Genghis Khans, the unrepentant murderers and the drug lords." "It has been found that a person connected to an antisocial personality will suffer greatly decreased survival, impeding ... progress ... in all aspects of his life." The next page, more of that website goes on to state something about the effect such an anti-social personality (suppressive person) has on other people: "While it is commonly believed to take two to make a fight, a third party must exist and must develop it for actual conflict to occur." And finally there are a number of Scientology technical bulletins, booklets and references about it which spell out further details and state again the things the websites state. Terryeo 16:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've put it in there. The meaning as Wikipediatrix reverted it out of there really means nothing at all. If you want a good Wikipedia you won't leave this article as it is because it completely mis-states the concepet which Scientology introduced and which the article is titled. I don't think "POV" quite describes the situation. Scientology has coined a term. This article uses that term as its title. Does it present what Scientology means by the term? No, it doesn't and I've told editors why it doesn't and proved links to Scientology's meaning. That wasn't enough, apparently. So I edited the article to present the meaning Scientology created when it coined the term. What happens? It is reverted. Not creatively reverted, but just, simply reverted. Wikipediatrix does a lot of that. On same days she comes along behind me and reverts all, or nearly every edit I make. And I've see Wikipediatrix ask other editors if she thinks it would be a good idea to invite some frequent posters at alt.scientology to edit against me. I don't think "POV" quite describes her action. Terryeo 17:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't help it if almost every edit you make is atrociously written. Sentences like "this is the person whose behavior is calculated to be disastrous" is just plain bad writing and reads like gibberish. wikipediatrix 17:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I see, so your logic is, if it isn't "well written" then, no matter what its content nor how throughly I explain and cite here on the talk page, you will ignore all of that and revert without any creation at all, is that your action? Terryeo 03:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

That is correct, because your edit is so poorly written that I cannot even tell what its content is supposed to be. If you wrote "Supresive persuns R sumthin that sientoligy talx about and its realy kool, cuz it stops peeps from doin bad stuf", I would revert that, too, and for precisely the same reasons. wikipediatrix 16:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe I've approached your standard, though thanks for speeling it out explicitly. heh. Terryeo 23:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The article is extremely POV and inaccurate

What would it take to get some concensus? The article does not state what the term means in Scientology. It inaccurately states how a declare of a suppressive person is made. It gives perhaps 5% or some small percentage of its use within Scientology. Every word of the article is some sort of biased criticsm without a single sentence which clearly states the actual situation without bias. Yet I attempt a reasonable introduction and it is reverted, not used to create a neutral article, but baldly reverted. What would it take? Are all of the editors so POV that they cannot tolerate the simple definition of the term? Terryeo 03:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Why do you persist in accusing EVERYONE ELSE of being POV as if the whole world is wrong and you are right? wikipediatrix 16:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I placed the official Scientology glossary definition, right off their official site, in the intro. Happy now? Heh. wikipediatrix 16:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

That is lots more reasonable. May I ask, do you feel it being introduced in that manner in some way makes less of the controversy ? I'm trying to understand what motivation editors would have for not wanting it introduced as the originator of the idea originated it. It at least is introduced now. Terryeo 18:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The bad writing is more tolerable when it's in the context of a specific quote from the Church itself. You were cut-and-pasting it directly into the text of the intro, as if it was Wikipedia itself that was uttering clumsy and weird phrases like "This is the person whose behavior is calculated to be disastrous". As for containing sufficient mention of controversy, I think the "Antisocial Personality" bit covers that amply. wikipediatrix 18:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I generally do not agree with your evaluation of "good editing" and "bad editing." However, the introduction does present the meaning of the term within the context the article was created around. That is sufficient for the moment, as far as I'm concerned. Terryeo 23:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The anti-social personality

Wikipediatrix likes, "warns" about the anti-social personality. I like "educates" because the term, the codification of such people as Hilter and Stalin, Saddam and others is a new idea. History tells of their atrocities but history does not give us lessons so we can know what to look for in people and understand what motivates such people. History doesn't educate us about how to deal with such people or how to predict the behaviour of such people. Scientology does. I like "educates" and Wikipediatrix likes "warns". Terryeo 17:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

"Educates" implies there is some truth or validity to the subject - and I'm not saying there isn't - but it's still a slanted and loaded way of putting it. The church's scientologyethics.org website is plainly warning against antisocial personalities, noting the importance of detecting them and warning of the devastating negative effect they have on those around them. wikipediatrix 18:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The source used doesn't contain the words "warn" or "educate", but a simple plain-English reading of the text makes the intent pretty clear, I think. To quote, Although most blatantly antisocial types may be easy to spot, if only from the bodies they leave in their wake, others are less obviously seen. I think categorizing this as a warning is accurate and fair. Friday (talk) 18:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

By all means, let us use the plain text representation! By all means, let us not evaluate and present our evaluations to the reader ! Let us follow WP:V and simply quote and cite ! Let us remove all of our evaluations. I do understand perfectly well there is a completely valid and realistic point of view which views that as a "warning" and I do not argue that it can be taken as a "warning". My arguement is that it is primarily and foremost and education. After a person is educated in a matter (such as birds poop while flying) then a person can know what to be warned about. Let us get our evaluations out of the articles and present the information to the reader without any evaluations. When a website uses the word "warning, anti-social personality" then by golly, let us get "warning" into the article. But until then, my evaluation "education" and Wikipediatrix's evaluation, "warning" should not be presented to the reader ! Terryeo 17:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

What verb do you recommend, then? wikipediatrix 18:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph which contains "warns" (or would contain another verb) states: 'The Church warns against these "antisocial personalities", meaning those "who possess characteristics and mental attitudes that cause them to violently oppose any betterment activity or group", including the Church itself.' But that statement has already appeared and is already linked. Why do we need to re-state that information and evaluate it as a "warning", "education" or anything? The article already has that information, what need is there to tell the reader what the blockquote he has just read, means? Let us just delete it. Terryeo 18:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

You must be looking at a version of the article from an alternate Helatroban dimension or something. The article does NOT already have that information, and it is NOT already linked. wikipediatrix 19:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, perhaps you're right I read:

The Church's official glossary of terms states: suppressive person: a person who possesses a distinct set of characteristics and mental attitudes that cause him to suppress other people in his vicinity. This is the person whose behavior is calculated to be disastrous. Also called antisocial personality.

and then I read:

The Church expresses concern about these "antisocial personalities", meaning those "who possess characteristics and mental attitudes that cause them to violently oppose any betterment activity or group", including the Church itself.

I recognize you have used the phrase, "expressed concern" and I appriciate that you did. But isn't the second statement almost an exact word - for - word of the first statement with an evaluation of what the Church is doing ? Terryeo 22:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

No. Although the language is somewhat similar, the first quote is the definition of "suppressive person" direct from the Scientology glossary, and the second quote is the (slightly but significantly different) definition of "antisocial personality" direct from Scientology Ethics. Both are necessary. The second quote has further importance because it specifies that one can be an AP/SP by opposing any "betterment group". wikipediatrix 13:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

That is possible the central difficulty. Any person might be, at any moment an "anti-social personality", everyone has brief moments they just don't feel like being social and moments when they want to kick their dog in reaction. But to feel like that all the time and to oppose social betterment all the time, then that is a different kettle of fish. Which is exactly why a good definition of this term is so difficult to get into the article. Instead, certain editors are inflamed with the idea, it is an idea which is easily mis-presented. Terryeo 23:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, as "dry and encyclopedic" is our goal, why don't we use the word, "states" and present the whole sentence. That is an accurate presentation. And I have included the whole sentence without any evaluation of what the Church is attempting to accomplish with their statement. Terryeo 17:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I see you have quit discussing and are reverting, editing, reverting, editing and creating your own, personal POV of what the Chruch of Scientology states, evaluating their statements and presenting them into the article with your preliminary, emotionally biased POV. And, you are no longer discussing. You are reverting. You have removed a clearly cited quotation, cleanly presented and insist your emotional criticsm be included in the Church of Scientology's statement. Terryeo 22:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair Game was cancelled as the "Foster Report" confirms.

The practice of Fair Game was cancelled by following reference.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex 
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 21 JULY 1968
(Cancels HCO Pol Ltr 18 October 67 issue IV) 
Remimeo 
PENALTIES FOR LOWER CONDITIONS 
(Applies to both Orgs and Sea Org) 
LIABILITY - Dirty grey rag on left arm. May be employed at any additional work.
Day and night confinement to premises. 
DOUBT - May be confined in or be barred from premises. Handcuff on left wrist.
May be fined up to the amount carelessness or neglect has cost org in actual
money. 
ENEMY - Suppressive Person order. May not be communicated with by anyone except
an Ethics Officer, Master at Arms, a Hearing Officer or a Board or Committee.
May be restrained or imprisoned. May not be protected by any rules or laws of
the group he sought to injure as he sought to destroy or bar fair practices for
others. May not be trained or processed or admitted to any org. 
TREASON - May be turned over to civil authorities. Full background to be
explored for purposes of prosecution. May not be protected by the rights and
fair practices he sought to destroy for others. May be restrained or debarred.
Not to be communicated with. Debarred from training and processing and advanced
courses forever. Not covered by amnesties. 
Note: Any lower Condition assigned is subject to a Hearing if requested and to
Ethics Review Authority or Petition if the formula is applied. A ship captain's
okay is required in the SO for conditions below Danger, similarly in orgs where
the Exec Council must approve one (Exception is Missions during the Mission who
have unlimited powers). 
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
 LRH:js 
Copyright © 1968
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Cowen/audit/foster07.html 

I think this kind of challenges the arguments that have been made previously in the discussions about this matter on this page. --Olberon 17:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea why you'd think that. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Because that spells out all of the lower conditions. "Fair Game" is never mentioned at all. And there is no lower condition except those lower conditions which are spelled out there, Treason being the lowest possible condition. "Fair Game" is not there, there is no "fair game". Not only is that term not used in present Church policy, including no policy which cancells it, but specific direction is given that no action shall be taken by the Church or its members which violate "the laws of the land." Terryeo 07:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Because this is a reissue of HCO Pol Ltr 18 October 67 issue IV. Check out that issue! This 21 July 1968 issue also foregoes HCO POLICY LETTER OF 21 October 1968 CANCELLATION OF FAIR GAME. Again Terryeo is right! --Olberon 10:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

What has been presented here indicates that the Fair Game policy letter was cancelled, but the practice is a different body of data. That practice could still be in place and countenanced. --Fahrenheit451 18:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Now you are talking in the area of difficulty, I think. A Policy Letter was cancelled, and you point to the idea, "sure it was cancelled, but what does that mean to the practice?". That is a less easily addressed issue. The Policy Letters are many, those volumes together are two and a half feet of shelf space. The issuance of a new policy letter or the cancellation of an old policy letter effects the actions of the members of the Churches. How that happens is a question of a little more complexity than the stroke of the pen which bring it about. As a point of information, there was also a Policy Letter issued which forbade one of the elements of the old Fair Game policy. It stated that under no circumstances should any memeber do anything "against the laws of the land". Not to individual persons and not under any circumstances. That quotation was in the article and stood for quite a while. Terryeo 19:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

"THE HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex 
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 18 OCTOBER 1967 
Issue III 
POLICY AND HCOB ALTERATIONS
HIGH CRIME 
Recently, during the reorganisation of WW, it came to light that in some
Continental orgs EXEC SECS an SECS had an occasion actually ordered that 
certain Pol Ltrs and HCOBs were not to be followed. 
This order is an illegal order and any staff following it is guilty of 
executing an illegal order. 
Any executive issuing such an order shall hereafter be considered as 
committing a high crime which on proof beyond reasonable doubt constitutes 
a HIGH CRIME and can carry the assignment of the Condition of TREASON for 
both the person issuing the order and the person who receives and executes 
it. 
All such instances MUST be reported at once to the International Ethics 
Officer at WW. 
Failure to report such an order to the Int E/O when one knows of it carries 
with it the assignment of a Condition of Liability. 
Lines for the amendment of Policy already exist as per other Pol Ltr and 
until an amendment is legally and completely passed the old policy must be 
followed. 
HCOBs cannot be amended. 
LRH: jp
Copyright © 1967 

and then we have also:

“HCO Policy Letters do not expire until cancelled or changed by later HCO Policy letters.” LRH

(from HCO PL 5 March 65 Issue II “Policy: Source of”)

This would take care of that. --Olberon 19:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, what is policy in writing and what is done are two different bodies of data. "In the fog of war", one can justify all manners of law breaking, certain cofs members who were in the Guardian's Office were caught at breaking laws even after policy was in place otherwise. So, the issue is, even though Fair Game is cancelled as a policy, is the practice still extant in the cofs?--Fahrenheit451 21:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Scientology admits "Fair Game" still in effect

All this back-and-forth about old HCO PLs is a moot point: As recently as 1994, in appeals for Wollersheim vs. Church of Scientology, Scientology's position was that "Fair Game" was still a "core practice of Scientology", and therefore protected as "religious expression". (Source: Wollersheim vs. Church of Scientology, JCA-147, pages A-7, 15 & 16.) That would take care of this. wikipediatrix 19:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you post a link to the source of information that is important to your assertion? Then other editors could read the same information and understand your reasons for wishing to include the assertion. The burden of proof is on the editor presenting an assertion, per WP:CITE because, obviously, there is no policy whatsoever about fair game today and it is your assertion and your desire to present it as a present time practice in the face of a lot of documentation that says otherwise. Terryeo 22:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The reason I ask is, I don't believe anyone has read such a thing. What is present on the internet is Gerry Armstrong's personal website which states his personal opinion of that document and those pages. And I find his word duplicated on many other personal websites. But no where do I find the pages themselves, nor duplicates of the pages. What is actually happening is Armstrong has created an opinion. His opinion has been duplicated on other sites, word for word. The reference on which his personal opinion is based, that isn't anywhere. People are just swollowing Armstrong's opinion wholesale and completely and making a huge arguement on Wikipedia in this and the Fair Game article based on the hot air from Armstrong's computer fan. So if you could provide a link to the root of this dispute, that would be helpful. Terryeo 06:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Aha, as I suspected. Here is a reasonable presentation of that court case. metnews It presents the situation far differently than is stated in the article and far differently than Armstrong implies. The case itself happened 25 years ago. 2006 - 25 = 1981. The various appeals and countersuits have gone on for years. The most recent one is that the original attorney is attempting to get more than the $100,000 he recived, whew, what can you expect from attorneys? Terryeo 07:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

You want to keep: "Those classified as Suppressive Persons are automatically specified as Fair Game.", which is a lie. It does not appear on Ethic Orders, Church staff are very clear about that Fair Game is something from the past. But no, you want to have something that is SOLELY based on what some person in court said?

Whatever happened with NPOV? On one side we have 'some' person claiming something in some court of law ('some' person may not necessarily be the Church of Scientology). And on the other side we have the policies of Hubbard that say what they say. I've quoted in the previous HCO POLICY LETTER OF 18 OCTOBER 1967 Issue III POLICY AND HCOB ALTERATIONS. Do you have a problem with that policy letter? The CoS is run by HIS policies. NPOV. I did not remove the quotation of that 'Wollersheim' thing! YOU however want EVERYTHING adjusted to it. And that is POV. Meaning that it is here documented that you actually violate NPOV. --Olberon 20:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't just "some person" in "that Wollersheim thing", it was the Church themselves. And their attorneys. In an official court statement. It was a key argument in their appeal. This has little or nothing to do with an old HCO PL from 1967, nor does it have anything to do with your repeated removal of citations to xenu.net, fairgamed.org, and the Scientology Justice article in your edit-warring. wikipediatrix 20:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

"Wollersheim, who had long suffered from manic depression, joined the church in 1969 ... leaving the church in late 1979 or early 1980" metnews which means the court cases of Wollersheim v Church of Scientology revolves around Church Policy during that time period. The statements found in the court documents unless otherwise stated would be about that time period. You notice how the website which presents those quotations carefully omits a reference to when statements. Personal websites are notorious for omitting some information, for presenting that information which most manifests the website's personal point of view. Terryeo 21:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The organization is run by L. Ron Hubbard policy. You oppose NPOV! I have not removed any citations, I moved them to the bottom of the page. Your links (both of them) go to personal sites which give a personal opinion and it does not mention HCO PL 21 July 1968, making it highly POV and unsuitable as referensmaterial. Having it as external link is proper. --Olberon 05:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

A little too late, but clarification for my edit today (in response to Olberon's comment at my user page): I was enforcing multiple earlier reverts by wikipediatrix. Other edits reverted were: irrelevant external link, wrong indentation (quotes should not be indented) Dick Stevens 21:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

"irrelvant external link"? The added link is totally proper and fully valid. You insist on only site information that support your case! You oppose NPOV! Indentation is proper. Why did you not un-indent the first quotation of suppressive person? --Olberon 05:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

As I saw your message first on my talk page - my reply is there. Dick Stevens 14:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

And I enforcing Olberon's reverts because I know he is correct about fair game, not Wikipediatrix. --Nikitchenko 00:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

You "know"? This is your unsupported POV that should not affect Wikipedia. Wikipediatrix is correct, and proven it. Dick Stevens 14:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair Game was canceled a long time ago. Who knows if it was a forgery, but LRH canceled it. I think, because he knew it was wrong. Andreas' website is no a reliable source and this officially determined this in Terryeo's arbitration --Nikitchenko 00:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Tsk, tsk, Nikitchenko. That's not the truth, and you really must know it isn't. In point of fact, Terryeo did specifically request for Xenu.net to be found not reliable. But you can't have missed the fact that the Arbitrators did not make any such finding. What does it say about you that you're brazenly and falsely asserting that they did? -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

You are completely mistaken, Feldspar, when you state I requested for Xenu.net to be found to not be reliable. That was not my request at all. Since in recent days you have refused respond fully and you insist that people "connect the dots", I shall not spell out for you exactly what I did request. The present status of Xenu.net is "personal website" and it is to be treated as such, the discussion for that happened at WP:RS and any changes in that status should likewise take place there, not here. Terryeo 05:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, Feldspar, your discussion with Nikitchenko is uncivil, as your discussion with me was until I was uncivil in reply. Which begat an Rfc, which begat an Rfa, which begat a ban from editing. You are using precisely the chiding, uncivil manner you used with me. Where as your chat to editors whom you are more willing to agree with show you are capable of being polite :) All in good faith of course ! The Arbitrators were wise. They were divided on voting either for or against a particular website. However, as they specified there are vehicles to discuss and deal with such issues. WP:RS has gone into extensive discussion about Xenu.net, the most well known anti-scientology site on the net. If you wish to change the status with which Wikipedia uses Xenu.net, your discussion forum to do that is WP:RS. It is a personal site, it may be used for accurate, attributed repository information but may not be used as a secondary source of information. Terryeo 04:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Antaeus Feldspar opposes NPOV. See my earlier respons to Wikipediatrix. --Olberon 05:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

was or is fair game?

This sentence sometimes appears in the article. Those classified as Suppressive Persons are automatically specified as Fair Game (FG), which is a Scientology classification in its own right. That sentence could assert "were automatically specified as Fair Game, which was ...", but it is just plain wrong to assert: "are automatically specified as Fair Game which is ...". That wrong assertion is supported by two references. The second is: whatisscientology That link does not say that fair game is a practice, nor does it say that fair game was a practice", it doesn't say anything about about Fair Game.

• The first reference for that wrong assertion is the link: [3] which is a page of the personal website of Andreas Heldal-Lund, Xenu.net. It presents some text which is separated with a grey background. Heldal-Lund narratively describes it as having been in a "1989 course manual". He doesn't state who authored the course manual. He doesn't state that it was published. He doesn't state it was created by the Church of Scientology. He doesn't state how he obtained it, whether purchased or donated to him. It doesn't state if it appears as part of a book or is looseleaf. The document in grey uses the term "fair game" but his presentation does not tell us that the Church of Scientology created it. Conceivably it could have been created by anyone at any time, stapled to a "course manual" and given to Heldal-Lund. A published document is one published to the public, his presentation does not include that the greyed "document" was ever published by anyone. He doesn't state its official designation. He just calls it a "course manual", gives its title and states that he has it in his possession. Could I make up a looseleaf "course manual", give it that title and include that greyed piece of text and give it to him? Yes, I could. Would he accept it and publish it on his site? That would be up to him and his personal opinion.
• Then the Heldal-Lund website writes a little narrative which purportedly quotes a document he doesn't present. He gives the source of the quote, but his writing is narrative, and his writing is his personal opinion and not useable in Wikipedia as a secondary source of information. He goes on with his narrative, citing but not producing the findings of two additional court cases, one in 1984 and the other in 1989. According to his narrative those cases somehow support his assertion, though how exactly they do is unstated. He concludes by re-stating his opinion once more. Narrative writing on personal websites isn't suitable as a secondary source in Wikipedia articles, although we can use accurate repository material.
• Heldal-Lund's assertion rests on (someone) having typed text into his computer from a 1989 "course manual". It might be possible to find an old copy of that, but unlikely. Frankly I've never heard anyone use the term "course manual". You frequently hear "Course Pac" (package) or "Course Binder", but not "course manual". I've never seen that sort of disclaimer included in anything. The points against his narrative are: 1) it uses a title and date, 1989, but does not say it was published, nor where it was published nor by whom it was published. It does not state his means of procuring the course manual. If he purchased it directly from a Church, it might be an admissable ciation because its would have been published by the Church. But he doesn't tell us how he obtained it. He doesn't even state if it was originaly purchased from a Church of Scientology. By omitting where he obtained it and only using the course title, it might have published by the man in the moon. Or even not published at all. 2). most of that page is written in a narrative style. It is not just "repository information stored on a convenient personal website". 3). That was 1989, 17 years ago. None of it says anything about present Church Policy.Terryeo 22:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

This page is subjected to obvious VANDALISM that also seriously oppose NPOV!

I incorportated the following editing:

1. 23:13, 30 April 2006 Olberon (External links - Added link) The external link that I added was to a site that in particular lays out various details about HOC PL 23 Dec 65 that was actually used for declaring someone a 'suppressive person'. Also it provides for an alternative view on the issue of 'suppressive persons'. About all the previously provided linking found in this article go to highly biased sources.

2. 12:41, 1 May 2006 Olberon m (Misuse of S.P. label within the Church of Scientology - Fixed indentation.) I implemented indentation to facilitate easy reading and clarity.

3. 12:43, 1 May 2006 Olberon m (Changed S.P. to SP) 'suppressive person' abbreviated is referred to as 'SP' and not 'S.P.'.

4. 17:31, 21 May 2006 Olberon (Moved 2 impropriate source refs (personal opinions on 2 personal websites) as external link at bottom of page. Declaring Fair Game via EOs is something from the past, valid referencing provided for.) This was a little more extensive (see below).

I changed sentence:

Those classified as Suppressive Persons are automatically specified as Fair Game (FG), which is a Scientology classification in its own right [6] [7].

Into: (changes/additions in bold)

In the period 1965 till 1968 those classified as Suppressive Persons were automatically specified as Fair Game (FG) in socalled Ethics Orders[1], which is a Scientology classification in its own right.

What I write is totally true and verified. The term 'Fair Game' has not been in use since 1968. (I also provided for fully valid referencing: "Enquiry into the Practice and Effects of Scientology; Report by Sir John Foster, K.B.E., Q.C., M.P.Published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London, December 1971, Chapter 7 ('Foster Report')", linked to it's exact location on the Internet). To claim that "Those classified as Suppressive Persons are automatically specified as Fair Game" is a falsity and completely unsubstantiated! In the original text 2 sources are provided for: '[6] [7]'.

[6] goes to http://www.xenu.net/archive/disk/fairgame.htm, this is the personal website of Andreas Heldal-Lund. This particular page on his site linked to is largely a personal opinion from this person. It in addition bases it's conclusion on actually ignoring HCO PL 21 July 1968 that previously had cancelled the Fair Game policy letter (this is quoted in full earlier on this discussion page!).

[7] goes to http://www.fairgamed.org/, this is one of the personal sites from Fredric Rice. A particular page on this site http://www.fairgamed.org/fairgame.htm also makes no mention of HCO PL 21 July 1968 and is basing it's conclusion while ignoring that very policy letter.

Obviously both these 'reference sources' are quite improper to be used as such. They may be used as an external link, but using them as a 'reference source' is seriously violating Wiki NPOV rules! Both these links I had moved to the bottom of the page as 'external links'. I did not remove them out of the article as a few have claimed. A comment has to be made here about this paragraph that I left fully intact in the article: "The Church claims to have stopped declaring people "Fair Game" in 1968, but in 1989 and 1994 appeals for Wollersheim vs. Church of Scientology (see JCA-147, pp.A-7, 15 & 16), Scientology's position was that "Fair Game" was still a "core practice of Scientology", and therefore protected as "religious expression". This forwards one angle of the situation and is basically what some persons have claimed in a court of law.

And what do we see? ALL of my additions and corrections forwarding NPOV are being reverted repeatedly! Specific substantiated arguments are also not being presented. For the most it is done through expressing generalities. The comments made in the history of the article will speak for themselves. The first person to revert is Dick Stevens

12:09, 24 May 2006 Dick stevens (Reverted changes by Olberon (for the same reason as all previous attempts of Scientologists to change this article were reverted). Other Olberon's changes also reverted, they are just distractions.) I started a discussion on his talkpage about this.

Then we have Wikipediatrix:

14:55, 24 May 2006 Wikipediatrix (rv Olberon's needless removal of info and sources, back to edit by dick stevens)

18:10, 24 May 2006 Wikipediatrix (rv. My reasons for reverting to previous edit are the same as previously stated by those who instituted it in the first place. Olberon's version removes important information.)

19:28, 25 May 2006 Wikipediatrix (rv to last version by Dick Stevens. Olberon's edit-warring is going against consensus.)

Question is what important information did I discard of? Fact is that I did not remove any data! I simply moved it to the appropriate places. But Wikipediatrix however physically gets rid of my fully valid added link (=data), and my verified referencing to the 'Foster Report'. Also what 'consensus' does she refer to? Is the 'consensus' not to follow NPOV and discuss on the talkpages? This person is not joining with arguments. I started this discussion on her talkpage. She comments: "Whatever. I said all I have to say in my edit summary. If you don't like it, feel free to complain to Wikipedia's management. Bye-bye. wikipediatrix 19:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)"

But her edit summary claims that I removed data when I did no such thing. She however discards of my valid referencing and data!

Another person is:

03:45, 25 May 2006 Antaeus Feldspar (rv to previous by Wikipediatrix)

No reason given for this revert.

A last person is:

20:09, 25 May 2006 Stollery m (Reverted edits by Olberon (talk) to version 55119530&action=edit by using VandalProof)

Also no reason for this revert is given. Although this person placed following message on my talkpage: "Thank you for experimenting with the page Suppressive Person on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you for your understanding. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. - Glen TC (Stollery) 20:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)"

I will let his comments speak for themselves, although it is obvious irony. The person does not join either the discussion on the talkpage of this article!

This article probably will need some interference of others to ensure the information is forwarded in a neutral manner and that information to both sides of the issues are properly represented! Any of the mentioned persons reverting my edits are factually defying NPOV on this article. --Olberon 09:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

All recent reverts by Wikipediatrix, Stollery, Dick Stevens, and Antaeus Feldspar are for the same reason and nobody is going to repeat you same thing forever - you and (before ban) Terryeo are removing important information without appropriate trusted source to support your POV. If you still insist on reasoning, check article history for Wikipediatrix' comment from 00:37, 21 April 2006.

As for Xenu and FairGamed - according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources:

"Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications."

Also both websites contain huge amount of contributions from third-party authors, which effectively elevates them from the "personal website" status to the community-supported websites.

Futurix 11:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Futurix, you have mistakenly presented an arguement here which has been extensively argued out already at WP:RS. Specifically, Wikipediatrix, Fahrenheit451 and others attempted to make that arguement. Clambake.org presents that it is the personal property and opinion of its author. That situation has been extensively talked about at WP:RS, the result being that clambake is a personal website and editors are to treat it as a personal website. Which means, it can not be used as a secondary source of information. Which means, if there is a book or document which is accurately present at Andreas Heldal-Lund's personal website, then that could be quoted and cited. Your venue for changing Wikipedia guideline is WP:RS, not here on a discussion page, especially because that particular website has been particularly and exhaustively talked about there, at the guideline page. Terryeo 21:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Please back up your claim that I remove any data from the article! Provide exact specifics. I have provided for exact specifics, you give me generalities. Giving generalities is POV. You claim "you are removing important information without appropriate trusted source to support your POV". What information do I remove? Back up your accusations with fact and specifics! Thank you. --Olberon 13:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Duh: Anyone can look at the history and click "diff" between your edit and anyone else's, and see text what you removed. I don't understand why you feel a need to not only remove vital text, but then pompously hold court here demanding that other editors waste their time telling you what you removed. I'm not playing along with your game anymore, and I encourage other editors to stop feeding your "look at me!! hear me!! answer my challenges!!" desperate pleas for attention, especially when you show a repeated pattern of insisting that you are right and all other editors are wrong. If you honestly think I, or any other editors here, are treating you unfairly, I suggest you lodge a complaint with a higher power at Wikipedia and pursue it there. wikipediatrix 13:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

You claim and accuse but do not back up anything. What did I remove? We may have to assume that you will never tell as I did not remove anything. My documentation (in all details) are here in this chapter. Anyone can see what I did and if they wish also verify my editing in the history of the article. --Olberon 13:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Compare revisions: here - yours on the right. Changed text highlighted with red. The difference is obvious. Futurix 15:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

What information did I remove? Do you copy? What information did I remove? Details! Exact information! I have described in detail the things that I did and did not do! Do you query the correctness of my tale? Then expose me! If you truly have an argument you will tell! If you do not have an argument you disappear or will reason your way out of without clarifying anything. --Olberon 16:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

O.K., in the incident that I highlighted technically you did not remove the information, you added words that changed the meaning of the information. However no matter how you will call it, the result is the same - misinformation. Futurix 17:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Olberon removed the citations to xenu.net and fairgamed.org, which he has acknowledged doing, even as he bafflingly continues to deny that he has removed anything. (Moving these links down to the very bottom of the page, out of the body of the article, still constitutes a removal from the article proper). More importantly, his insistence on inserting a claim that "Fair Game" only existed from 1965 till 1968 is unacceptable. He refuses to accept that the Church's official position in a court of law in 1994 was that "Fair Game" was still an important part of Church doctrine. wikipediatrix 18:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I forgot about the links... Futurix 18:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Alright. But I only changed it into NPOV and that what can be substantiated. Claiming that Fair Game is official in use can not be substantiated. I changed misinformation into verifiable information that resembles reality. You give me again POV. --Olberon 18:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it can be substantiated. You've been provided the exact source for the 1994 court proceedings, right down to the exact page numbers. wikipediatrix 18:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it can't because that 1994 court proceeding is in reference to an action that happened in 1970 or therabouts. The quote uses a few of the words mentioned, without the context which is not in regards to 1994, or even to 1990, but in regards to an earlier time. metnews spells out that timeline. Terryeo 21:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Please start reading and duplicating! You write: "Olberon removed the citations to xenu.net and fairgamed.org, which he has acknowledged doing", this is not true!!! I moved these links as external links to the bottom of the page, they were not moved out of the article! But you in fact move my additional external link and referencing to the 'Foster Report' out of the article! Fact is that you do yourself of what you accuse me of doing, it is documented! These 2 referencing links of yours provide biased opinions offering a conclusion based on ignoring data. Thus making it POV and therefore unsuitable as reference source. These are comments from 2 persons on their personal website! That what I say is confirmed by actual documented fact! (HCO PL 21 July 1968)

You are unable to substantiate that "Those classified as Suppressive Persons are automatically specified as Fair Game" today or even 1994 or 1981! Show me the writings from Ethics Orders etc. itself that this is the case. Fair Game is only confirmed being in actual Church writings in that particular time period! We have 2 conflicting data, BOTH should be fairly represented in the article! You base your WHOLE CASE on what some person(s) said in some court. NPOV. Both of you violate it.

The neutral point of view The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It should not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.

Above are the rules of how to deal with this! --Olberon 07:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you done ranting yet? Everything you're expounding upon has already been addressed here, but you choose to ignore it and continue blowing your horn. wikipediatrix 15:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The documentation is not in your favour. Let the readers decide. In the interim my information is available for any to read! --Olberon 16:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Areas of possible agreement

Is it possible that we could agree on a couple side issues and get those out of the way? Myself, I don't have a problem with SP rather than S.P. and with the indentation. As far as I know, CoS doesn't use periods in their documents for acronyms. AndroidCat 16:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I think either is fine. If you want to remove the periods I won't object. Vivaldi (talk) 16:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Same here, SP or S.P. makes no difference to me. wikipediatrix 16:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, done. This should make it easier to concentrate on the actual problems. AndroidCat 17:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

(tried to post this sooner but had a connection problem) In all the Church of Scientology's documentations I have read (ex. SP declares), SP is used rather than S.P. My opinion would be to use SP rather than S.P. In any case, the article needs to be consistent: the first sentence of the article uses SP, while the rest is S.P. Raymond Hill 18:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's talk about actual NPOV! Improper referencing (to personal sites and opinions of the holders). Removing valid external links. Removing valid referencing ('Foster Report'). Missing Church documentation of Fair Game officially in use. --Olberon 20:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I was trying to cut down on the areas reverted and re-reverted each time, then you can argue about the rest. Is this the five minute or the full half-hour? AndroidCat 21:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I provided for the documentation and provided for exact reasoning in discussion #13. Get to the point! Indentation and S.P. or SP is just silly things. --Olberon 23:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Olberon's attitude

Until Olberon stops accusing every other editor who disagrees with him (and there are many) of "opposing NPOV" and other simplistic insults, I don't see any chance of constructive conversation with him being possible. By continuing to insult and alienate anyone who dares question his ranting, he begs the question whether his real desire is to simply disrupt this article, instead of working with other editors to improve it. If Olberon is sincere, he might do well to turn down the attitude six notches and accept that Wikipedia works by consensus: NO ONE can singlehandedly make Wikipedia articles say whatever they want them to; not myself, not AndroidCat, not Stollery, not Terryeo, and certainly not Olberon. wikipediatrix 21:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

My arguments are very clear and straightforward, you on the other hand do not give exact and detailed clarification of your queries which is duly noted.

About majority votes! Wiki is not about a majority vote! It is about what can be verified in documentation and that which is NPOV. You violate these rules which I very clearly pointed out in discussion #13. Who is user Monkeypower and where did he come from? This is also a way to get majority voting which you seem to want to rely on. --Olberon 22:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

This is precisely the condescending, insulting, accusatory, bad attitude I was just referring to. wikipediatrix 11:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

What I say is documented. --Olberon 12:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Adding valid external link, anyone objecting?

I added: *Information about Ethics Orders, Declares and Suppressive Persons

Please forward your exact arguments why this would not be proper! --Olberon 12:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not happy with the idea any editor adding his own personal appendix to a page, even if it is an external link rather than a reference. I'm not sure that it breaks the letter of any policy however. AndroidCat 15:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Firstly you don't know who I am. Secondly it is the data presented on some site that will have to be judged being relevant or not. In any event it is offered as an external link, not as referencing source. Thirdly how do you know that Andreas Heldal-Lund and/or Fredric Rice have not used a sockpuppet to post those links to their personal websites and that in fact are being used as referencing sources. --Olberon 16:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

There are thousands of pages that may be relevant to the topic - it does not justify adding any of them to the article. Futurix 10:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

About 2 links used as 'source referencing' which lead to the opinions of 2 webmasters on their personal websites

5th paragraph, following the text "Those classified as Suppressive Persons are automatically specified as Fair Game (FG), which is a Scientology classification in its own right [6] [7]."

[6] goes to http://www.xenu.net/archive/disk/fairgame.htm, this is the personal website of Andreas Heldal-Lund. This particular page on his site linked to is largely a personal opinion from this person.

He writes amongst other:

"When confronted, many Scientologists claim the "Fair Game" policy was cancelled in 1968. First of all it's bad enough that such a policy ever was made. Secondly it's a lie the policy actually was cancelled. They gamble that people trust them without checking the facts. Well, I'm not that naive!"

The facts is that andreas does not mention HCO PL 21 July 1968 (quoted in full earlier on this discussion page) that previously had cancelled the Fair Game policy letter (HCO Policy Letter of 18 October 1967, Issue IV). Instead Andreas refers to HCO Policy Letter of 21 October 1968 and draws the erroneous conclusions:

Truth is:

1. This HCO Policy Letter (HCO P/L) only cancels the use of the term 'Fair Game'.

2. It states clearly that the practice described in the policy (deprived of property, injured, tricked, sued, lied to or destroyed) is not cancelled. It's not what they call it that scares us!

3. The "Church" of Scientology don't change anything because it's wrong, but because a word gives bad PR!!!

Fact is that HCO Policy Letter of 18 October 1967, Issue IV had already been cancelled by HCO PL 21 July 1968 3 months earlier! This is confirmed by the 'Foster Report' "Enquiry into the Practice and Effects of Scientology; Report by Sir John Foster, K.B.E., Q.C., M.P.Published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London, December 1971, Chapter 7.

[7] goes to http://www.fairgamed.org/, this is one of the personal sites from Fredric Rice. A particular page on this site http://www.fairgamed.org/fairgame.htm Fredric Rice writes: "After massive media exposure of this document, Scientology issued the following order making followers continue their Fair Game activities and racketeering against its enemies but orderig them to stop using the term "Fair Game" in public:" He is then referring to HCO Policy Letter of 21 October 1968. A conclusion based on the ignorance of HCO PL 21 July 1968 the policy letter that cancels HCO Policy Letter of 18 October 1967, Issue IV exactly 3 months earlier.

Obviously both these 'reference sources' are quite improper to be used as an actual reference source. Firstly because these are personal opinions of both the webmasters of these sites. Secondly they are proven to contain incorrect information. They may very well be used though as an external link, but using them as a 'reference source' is violating Wiki rules. Suggested is to move these links to the bottom of the article as external links. The 'Foster Report' is proposed as a valid reference source. --Olberon 16:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

In plain words: Foster report is invalidated by later court findings (in the 90s). Stop referring to it - it will never be accepted as valid evidence that Fair Game is cancelled. Futurix 11:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Not an argument. The 'Foster Report' is an official published report and therefore valid as reference source. You also give no source for your supposed claim. Then you ignore the fact that you reinstall 2 links that go to opinions of 2 personal websites that base a conclusion on factually igoring data. HCO PL 21 July 1968 is confirmed to cancel HCO Policy Letter of 18 October 1967, Issue IV. Which is also confirmed by the HCO PL subject Index published 1976. --Olberon 12:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

This is an argument. The 'Foster Report' is outdated and proven wrong. See first paragraph of "Scientology admits "Fair Game" still in effect" section on this very page for it's rebuttal. Futurix 13:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Basically Wiki is not about being right or wrong.

Wikipedia:Verifiability "Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed."

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources."

And you want to remove the 'Foster Report' reference that is "sourced material"? Your reference: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Terryeo/Evidence#xenu.net_content)

"DISCLAIMER: I, Andreas Heldal-Lund, am alone responsible for Operation Clambake. I speak only my own personal opinions. Critics of the Church of Scientology (CoS), including Wikipedia which is NPOV, are free to use images and text on this site that are made by me if proper credits are given. Pick up the stick! ..."

xenu.net content

"Notwithstanding Heldall-Lund's disclaimers, xenu.net contains many works by prominent independent critics of the Scientology church ..."

These 2 links discussed in this chapter are presently found in the article direct to 2 personal opinions. It does not say in that reference (Request for Arbitration) that this is allowed as source referencing. Some data from that site xenu.net may, and some data from that site may not be used as such! It simply depends on what you are linking to. You can not cover the whole of xenu.net under this! It does not say in the information found at your link that the decision has been taken that you actually can! Direct us to it if it does! The outcome is that you have no argument. --Olberon 16:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Olberon please STOP

It seems like every month another $cientologist pops up (Terryeo, Al, JimmyT, UNK, Nikichenko, Nuview now you...) and we have to cover this issue again and again: Xenu.net is a valid source, see here
Okay? - Glen ^T_C (Stollery) 13:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Xenu.net is a personal website. It is as valid as any poster stapled to any lightpost, anywhere on the planet and holds a similar level of repute, since all of the website is the personal property and the personal opinion of one individual who claims no legal status, who has been thrown in jail for his crimes before, who is widely recognized as a critic of religions. Terryeo 00:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Ooh! Got any sources for the "who has been thrown in jail for his crimes before" part, other than the slander site RFW? AndroidCat 00:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Slander site? Is that a legalese for, "I don't like that site" or is that a legal statement in some way? What are you saying, precisely ? Terryeo 00:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

So you don't have any real sources for the "thrown in jail" claim. Got it. AndroidCat 03:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo is blatantly trolling. Don't feed him. wikipediatrix 03:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Provide details about your claim. You link does not conclude that what you claim!

What Terryeo, Al, JimmyT, UNK, Nikichenko, Nuview and I don't know who did got nothing to do with it. Fact is that I provided for information that was not forwarded previously. That's by the way 6 other persons you talk about, are all these wrong? Is that not strange? So, I am number 7. Doesn't that suggest that there is some argument to be made about this? You xenu.net argument does not hol, see discussion 17. --Olberon 18:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Stollery's link does indeed illustrate his point, and no amount of bullying from you will change that. And yes, not only are those "six other persons" wrong, they're not all even real: five of them have been banned, and of those five, AI and Nikitchenko have been found to be the same person, and JimmyT and UNK were found to be the same person. So much for "some argument to be made". wikipediatrix 18:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

You do not address the arguments I forward in discussion #17. --Olberon 20:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not ask for the religious affiliation of its editors. Wikipedia has a single goal which is to present good information to people. Olberon has spelled out why some of the information in the article is not good information. Surely, Stollery and Wikipediatrix, your goals are Wikipedia's goals, are they not? Good information, cleanly presented, good attributions, easily linked and explored by the reader ? Scientology comprises a large amount of information, personal websites present certain aspects but Wikipedia's standards raise the bar and require attributions and not just personal opinions and original research. Olberon has made valid statements which anyone can easily check out. To refuse to reply to what he has stated, to continualy revert personal website opinions into Wikipedia articles is vandalism. WP:RS states, "personal websites may not be used as secondary sources of information (in wikipedia articles)". 65.147.74.58 20:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC). I am user 65.147.74.58 and didn't realize I wasn't singed in. Terryeo 12:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It's worth noting that this is 65.147.74.58's first-ever post to Wikipedia. Anyone who can read can plainly see that the editors have replied to Olberon repeatedly on this page. wikipediatrix 20:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

This is user Terryeo. Elsewhere on this page he writes: "Oh sorry, I was User:65.147.74.58 and didn't realize I wasn't signed in until it showed up in red. Terryeo 20:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)". In fact my arguments have not been properly addressed. You are missing on the responses as well. --Olberon 15:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm well aware. He posted this, and I posted my response, before he identified himself below. As far as your "arguments" go, I have already said all I have to say to you. wikipediatrix 21:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe an editor has the right to "say all they are going to say" and then revert when the points raised by another editor have not been replied to. To behave in that matter isn't appropriate, I'm not sure what policy, exactly, disallows it. The Guideline in question here is WP:RS. I specifically saw you, Wikipediatrix, personally speak to User:SlimVirgin about this exact issue. You attempted to adress her one her discussion page and she placed your discussion on the WP:RS discussion page for reasons she spelled out in public. Personal opinions on personal websites are not published opinions. Published opinions appear in newspapers, books and other sources while personal websites are below Wikipedia's standard. Stollery, Wikipiatrix, Fahrenheit451 and other participated in that discussion. In fact, Wikipediatrix was specifically told that the guideline WP:RS is set in stone within its area of address. No personal websites may be used as secondary sources of information, and that did not change. For good reason, it is based on WP:V. Terryeo 22:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Fake user

I want to point out that two reverts today were made by user "Monkey_power", however revert on May 26th was made by user "Monkeypower" (notice missing underscore) - these are two different users, and one probably tries to impersonate another. Should we do something about that?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Futurix (talk • contribs) .

Best we ask one if he knows the other (may be just an alternate account. Who posted first? - Glen ^T_C (Stollery) 15:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to sign my comment. "Monkeypower" was first, but none of them actually have any other edits outside this article - so I guess it does not really matter who is impersonator. However one of them any pro-CoS edit, and another anti-CoS edit - that's what surprised me. Futurix 15:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. No, thats not me. This is my first and only account on Wikipedia. I am flattered someone decided to create an account in homage of me, though. If they are here only to create mischief for other editors then I am sorry, as that was not my intent for editing here. --Monkeypower 13:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Im not a part of any cabal thats all I have to say --Monkey power 23:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Why I have deleted "Actions that indicate a person may be declared an SP"

OK. A review of this talk page and the Scientology "information war" on Wikipedia tells me I am wading into controversial waters. So I will start first of all with my POV - I am neither a Scientologist nor an anti-Scientologist and know next to nothing about Scientology doctrine except what I have read on Wikipedia. My interest is to work toward making Wikipedia as reliable and objective as possible as a reference source and countering attempts to turn it into a battleground of hotly held opinions. In short, my observation is this - I fail to see how a list of Actions that indicate a person MAY be declared an SP can serve any purpose except to promote someone's personal negative opinion of Scientology. If there is a policy letter out there issued by Scientology that contains this list - fine, but then some sort of verifiable reference is needed. However, I note that no attempt has been made to include any verifiable reference (including by the author who added this material) since the "citation needed" tags were introduced over three and a half months ago. As to the quality of the article generally, I note that this feature of Scientology appears to be similar to that of excommunication prevalent in many religions. It seems to me that a section acknowledging this with some sort of comparison of the differences and similarities with excommunication in mainstream religions would raise the standard considerably. Really Spooky 21:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

That bit did have problems, as you say. Maybe if it was done up David Letterman style? AndroidCat 21:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

This is somewhat questionable part or article, however it is better to have it then have nothing instead. Reverted (especially after I saw your previous edits of Scientology-related articles - it is hard to decide whether you are trying to improve quality of Scientology-related criticism or remove it?). Futurix 21:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Oops! Of course it wasn't your "revert", it was your "removal". Futurix 21:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

We know that you remove mine, and you do not supply for proper documentation and verifiability other than opinion either! You fail to continue discussion #17. I will soon request for arbitration in the matter. --Olberon 05:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Futurix, you say my removal of this section was "unsubstantiated", although I clearly set out my reason for doing so on this page and made express reference to this in the edit summary. In fact, it is the removed material itself which is unsubstantiated, and the burden of proof lies, not with the person who removes it, but with the the editors who introduced the material or wish it to remain. See WP:V:

The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references. If an article topic has no reputable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic. Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but do not remove large tracts of Wikipedia without first giving people a chance to provide references to support their inclusion.

In this case, "citation needed" tags have been on this section for over three and a half months, so ample opportunity was given to editors to provide a supporting reference. Futurix, you also state that your revert is justified "considering [my] previous reverts of Scientology criticism". However, it is not the purpose of Wikipedia to criticise Scientology, but to present facts. See WP:NOT:

Wikipedia articles are not... [p]ropaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views. You can also use Wikinfo which promotes a "sympathetic point of view" for every article. Wikipedia was not made for opinion, it was made for fact.

The removed list is not fact, it is someone's opinion about what might cause a person to be labelled an suppressive person by Scientology.

Your comment in your edit summary suggests you are familiar with my contribution history. If that is the case, then you are also not doubt aware that I have also provided supporting references for edits unfavourable to Scientology. So I fail to see how my previous edits on other articles provide any justification for reverting my edit here. I have not acted in bad faith but rather made a relatively small removal to improve the article's objectivity. Really Spooky 07:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Removal of that uncited garbage ("Actions that indicate a person may be declared an SP") is what I support. Who's original research is it? --Monkey power 23:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The information flow in this article is being manipulated by various who are antagonistic to Scientology

See discussion # 17 for details.

Invalid source links are being pushed as such, when reality is that they lead to personal opinions of 2 persons on their personal website. In addition it has been shown that various information found there is false and is pushing an opinion while ignoring certain data.

An argument is made with this info about xenu.net: The conclusion made was "Notwithstanding Heldall-Lund's disclaimers, xenu.net contains many works by prominent independent critics of the Scientology church". This basically indicates that these works as being indicated as deriving from "prominent independent critics" (this having been established by publication in bookform or being recorded as official reports and various) can be specifically be used as a reference source. That information though that is not indicated as such and clearly indicate that these are the personal opinions of the webmasters of these sites can not be used as reference sources. "I, Andreas Heldal-Lund, am alone responsible for Operation Clambake. I speak only my own personal opinions."

When I remove these links as indicated in discussion #17 and change them to external links they get reverted time after time after time by users such as Futurix and Wikipediatrix. Comments are being used such as: "(rv of Olberon's edit - for the very same reasons as Wikipediatrix, Stollery, and other editors)". These persons however do not address my arguments in my detailed query as found in discussion #17. All that I say is ignored and brushed off with a general comment!

An additional point is that my reference source also gets discarded of. This is the socalled 'Foster Report' "Enquiry into the Practice and Effects of Scientology; Report by Sir John Foster, K.B.E., Q.C., M.P. Published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London, December 1971." (see details in discussion #17). Meaning that the readers of the article do not get a chance to consult this official report.

It appears that arbitration is needed to settle this. I don't see how an agreement can be reached with these persons reverting these edits. The subject is quite controversial. In any way the subject should be approached in a neutral way in order for the reader to make up his/her own mind about it. If there exist alternate information of different opinions they should ALL be properly represented. The reverts of my edits however prevent that from happening! A particular interpretation is pushed and the other is deliberately disposed of.

A last comment can be made that Fair Game was only in use in the period 1965-68. This is the only period in which it is documented being in use. This 'Foster Report' lays out in detail with full quotations of the relevant policy letters how it was dealt with. But as explained previously my referencing to this official report is discarded of by Futurix, Wikipediatrix and also Stollery. (some of Futurix comments why he finds this improper to use are found in discussion #17)

For above reason I changed sentence:

Those classified as Suppressive Persons are automatically specified as Fair Game (FG), which is a Scientology classification in its own right [6] [7].

Into: (changes/additions in bold)

In the period 1965 till 1968 those classified as Suppressive Persons were automatically specified as Fair Game (FG) in socalled Ethics Orders[1], which is a Scientology classification in its own right.

This improvement is also repeatedly being rejected.

All these actions basically show that some intend to maintain a certain flow of information to be kept in this article. I write these lines here in order for that the unknowing reader can read here what is happening and that one should be aware that this article apparently is at war. --Olberon 05:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

1. "Pushed" source links (including xenu.net) were found to be valid in all earlier Wikipedia disputes.

2. Your repeated queries are ignored, because nobody wants to reply with same things again and again - all earlier answers are readily available in "history", just click the friggin' link.

3. You are using "Foster Report" to prove that Fair Game was cancelled, when it is well known that report was incorrect (as discovered in later court findings). Hence the report has no place in the article (as it is irrelevant).

4. The article is based on facts, not on opinions (and facts does not have "alternatives" - well, except lies of course).

And finally, your last sentence may be interpreted as violation of WP:BITE.

Futurix 11:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• 1. No, they were not. WP:RS (reliable sources) has made clear, Clambake org is a personal website. Its only use would be for accurate repository information such as Jon Atack's A Piece of Blue Sky. Wikipediatrix particularly raised the issue on the appropriate WP:RS discussion page. The issued doesn't belong here at all and has already been resolved by extensive discussion there.

  2. Clambake (and other personal websites) attempt to imply that Fair Game is a current practice of the Church. It has not been for quite a number of years. The 1994 court mention has to do with the Church's actions many years ago, the court case went on and on. The weakness is that no citation in recent years exists. Therefore, to state "Fair game is a practice ..." (present time practice) a citation is required. There is no such citation because that is not the situation.

  3. It is appropriate to quote and cite. It is inappropriate to revert cited information out of the article. I realize this kind of thing tends to get into one point of view saying one thing and the other, another thing. There is room for more than a single point of view, but an information must be cited. And it is inappropriate to revert cited information out of an article under normal conditions.

  4. Your attention to WP:BITE is not helpful toward resolving the situation and producing a good, readable, accurate article. I realize you are utterly convinced of the situation, this is nearly the same difficulty that happened at the Fair game article. So, would you mind, can we simply follow Wikipedia policy. That is, WP:V, quote and cite and don't remove other, contrary to what you believe to be true, information even if it is contrary to your citation. It is perfectly possible that two published sources contradict each other. So both published sources should be included in an article. I might also point out, When an editor refuses to communicate, an editor is acting in bad faith. To simply revert without discussion and to refuse to communicate and continue to revert without discussion is clearly against Wikipedia guidelines. I realize it bites, but it is easily resolved. When doubt exists, communicate. That's simple isn't it? Terryeo 07:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

1. While WP:RS does not have anything specific on xenu.net (and Wikipediatrix did not do anything there), Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo has - and it's exactly opposite of your claims.

2. The (questionable) evidence that "Fair Game" was cancelled is older then evidence that "Fair Game" is still a practice inside CoS - so it is still valid and stands. I read Foster report and is no proof of cancellation in the report itself - it only cites the CoS "cancellation of the term" paper.

3. As I wrote - Foster report does not prove anything related to the article, so it does not make any sense to mention it here.

4. I'm not going to compete in rhetoric with you, but it is really funny how you completely ignored the real 4th point in my list and wrote your usual logical fallacies instead :-)

Futurix 11:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

1. You contradict yourself. You say here "The point is that third-party information from xenu.net is perfectly acceptable as Wikipedia source. Personal opinions of xenu.net webmaster are obviously not acceptable and were never used on Wikipedia (despite Terryeo's claim)." I have proven by fact that this is being done in this article with your 2 links. They specifically address the personal opinions of the webmasters, but you push them! (see also discussion #17 & #13).

2. The 'Forster Report' Chapter 7 confirms:

"HCO POLICY LETTER OF 21 JULY 1968

(Cancels HCO Pol Ltr 18 October 67 issue IV)"

That issue redefined the Fair Game definition. The 'Foster Report' also notes "Some idea of the strictness of the internal discipline can be gleaned from the following", it then it quotes in full HCO POLICY LETTER OF 18 OCTOBER 1967, Issue III POLICY AND HCOB ALTERATIONS - HIGH CRIME. HCO PL 21 July 1968 was the valid policy and as such was to be followed and not HCO Pol Ltr 18 October 67 issue IV that was previously cancelled by it.

3. Which is your personal opinion. The 'Foster Report' is an official published report that supplies alternate information about the issue and you deliberately delete it as it does not confirm your POV. This action violates Reliable Sources & Verifiability.

4. You deliberately dispose of alternate information. You writing "and wrote your usual logical fallacies instead :-)" could be interpreted as a personal attack.

I filed a complaint for vandalism for this article. --Olberon 12:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It is very good that you've filed a complaint for vandalism - the sooner we'll be over this, the better.

As for the rest, I'm done explaining same thing over and over again. You complain but never listen.

Futurix 13:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

"Personal opinions of xenu.net webmaster are obviously not acceptable and were never used", (your words) you claim that this was never done. It obviously was done. The respons in discussion #24 "A Bystander's Plea" from user KSevcik also makes that one's again very clear. You have not explained anything. I have done the explaining to which you gave no detailed or exact responses. --Olberon 14:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The links are there to point to the documents on the mentioned website, not to the personal opinions of their webmasters - I think this is pretty clear. Futurix 14:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is very clear indeed. Discussion #24 on this page "A Bystander's Plea. --Olberon 16:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Hubbard's explanation of how S.P.s get into high positions

Fahrenheit451, this quote doesn't looks like it is about SPs - in fact it can be attributed to usual careerists. Why do you think it is worth keeping? Futurix 11:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to put my signature before. And to clarify to earlier statement - I just don't see anything worth reading in that quote ;-) Futurix 11:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, the article is about the scientology topic of S.P.s. This is quoted information from Hubbard on that topic. I think careerists and what Hubbard describes are two different things so it not a fact, but rather your view on it. I do not express my POV in the quotation. --Fahrenheit451 20:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

This was removed by another editor without a discussion. I added it back with wikipediatrix's formatting.--Fahrenheit451 01:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Village Pump

I've asked at Village Pump how to deal with this situation. Obviously a personal essay on a personal website is not to be used as a secondary source of information as Stollary, Wikipediatrix and other editors are doing with their reversions. So I've asked what the procedure is for this sitatuation. I included difference links to show the reverted edits by some editors. and quoted some edit summaries.Terryeo 08:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

A Bystander's Plea

People... I ran across the Village Pump discussion. You might not want an outside opinion, but here it is anyways. The xenu.net link is obviously a personal essay. All the text interspersed with the Policy Letters can be only that. The fairgamed.org link is an entire website being cited for one sentence. The arb decision noted that convenience linking to third party info was fine. If you're referencing the Policy Letters, can't you just cite the individual letters and use the xenu and fairgamed links as convenience links?

Also, why exactly is the intro longer than the article itself? With the things Olberon is removing it's virtually the entire article. KSevcik 12:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

An outside opinion is especially what we want. So you seem to think that the xenu.net link would not be suitable as 'source reference' (personal essay). Then the fairgamed.org link would rather be suitable as a general external link because basically it is the introduction page to that whole site.

I only rearranged some things. --Olberon 13:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with KSevcik - If the third party documents on xenu.net are verifiable documents, they're probably ok, but the essay materials are self-published and therefore don't meet WP:V. TheronJ 15:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Gosh, thank you for commenting ! Terryeo 13:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

"What consensus?"

In the edit summary of his latest edit-war revert, Olberon denies that the consensus is against him on this. "What consensus?", he asks. Well, let's see.... so far, Olberon's edit has been reverted by Futurix, AndroidCat, Stollery, Fahrenheit451, Wikipediatrix, Dick stevens, Vivaldi, Monkeypower, Antaeus Feldspar, and 81.66.101.199. Olberon's primary cohorts in his edit war have been Nikitchenko (who turned out to be a sockpuppet and is now banned from Wikipedia) and Monkey power, which looks like another sockpuppet specifically designed to imp Monkeypower and cause confusion. wikipediatrix 15:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

All these that you name are persons that appear antagonistic to Scientology (judging from their communications and arguments on discussion pages). Again this is not about some majority vote. I have shown that with the reverting of my edits basic Wiki rules are being violated. Majority vote does not outlaw or overrun Wiki rules (Reliable Sources, Verifiability and various). Majority vote (concensus) is always within the rules of Wiki. In foregoing discussion (#24) "A Bystander's Plea" you have by the way 2 other persons not agreeing with the concensus. --Olberon 15:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

You're not entirely correct here- no matter how many people "vote" to put original research into an article, for example, it's still not allowed. If you find that many people are disagreeing with you, it's probably best to tread carefully, whether you believe the "rules" are on your side or not. Friday (talk) 16:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Olberon, I have not said, nor have I implied, that a "majority vote" can overturn the rules of Wikipedia. Reliable Sources is a guideline, not a policy or a rule. In such instances, it really is about Wikipedia community consensus. wikipediatrix 19:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Your reverts are violating Wiki rules and you talk persistently about your concensus. How else am I going to interpret your words? You list 9 users objecting to my edits and compare that with me and one other person. Doesn't make any sense. What do these 9 persons have to do with the Wikipedia community consensus? --Olberon 22:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Original research is against Wikipedia Policy, however, and this is a point that Olberon does not want to acknowledge, Reliable Source is a Guideline, subject to consensus. RS is a matter of editorial judgment. And for Olberon's edification, I am Not antagonistic to Scientology, rather I majorly agree with it. I am dismayed by those who call themselves scientologists, but attack editors who disagree with them, flagrantly and repeatedly violate wikipedia policy, then give long-winded justifications for it, and in general, create enemies of themselves and the church of scientology on wikipedia. --Fahrenheit451 20:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Fahrenheit451, you and Wikipediatrix raised that exact issue at WP:RS about 6 weeks ago. Do you remember what the consensus of editors arrived at on that guideline page? Farenheit451's comments Reliable sources is a guideline, thus, within its area of expertise it is "set in stone" and can not be ignored at the whim of an editor. Terryeo 01:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I did not say it could be ignored at whim, you just said it could not. The application of the guideline IS subject to consensus. I think you are captiously argueing, so we end this discussion here.--Fahrenheit451 00:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS (reliable sources) is the guideline and WP:V is the policy about this issue of personal websites appearing within Wikipedia articles. Editor concensus has hammered out those issues on those discussion pages. Presently, Wikipedia has set a standard which includes that personal opinions on personal websites are not considered published. Nor blogs, nor newsgroups either, but a published to the public piece of information can be included in an article. That's the standard. The place to change that standard would be WP:RS but wouldn't be here on this talk page. No amount of discussion on this page will change Wikipedia's standards. Wikipediatrix, Stollery and Fahrenheit might attempt to bully an editor into accepting a lower standard in a single article, but Wikipedia Standards would not be changed by any amount of discussion on this page. Several of the editors who are attempting include a personal website's opinion have been replied to at WP:RS before, Wikipediatrix's question about exceptions to the guideline has been replied to and Fahrenheit451's attempt to place the whole guideline into arbitration has been replied to. The place to work it out is there. 65.147.74.58 20:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It's worth noting that 65.147.74.58 has never contributed to Wikipedia until about ten minutes ago. wikipediatrix 20:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I was User:65.147.74.58 and didn't realize I wasn't signed in until it showed up in red. Terryeo 20:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Banned user Terryeo, you are hereby advised to cease and desist from personal attacks: "Wikipediatrix, Stollery and Fahrenheit might attempt to bully an editor into accepting a lower standard in a single article,"--Fahrenheit451 23:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

You write "I am dismayed by those who call themselves scientologists, but attack editors who disagree with them, flagrantly and repeatedly violate wikipedia policy, then give long-winded justifications for it, and in general, create enemies of themselves and the church of scientology on wikipedia." that's a generaliztion for which I don't see you give any support. --Olberon 05:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

That statement is not a generality, but is based on my observation of a number of editors who call themselves scientologists, such as Terryeo, UNK, Nikitchenko, Al, and so on.--Fahrenheit451 00:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

What does this respons of Fahrenheit451 got to do with anything? The consensus has been made already. If you want to oppose the RS consensus then this is not the correct place to do that. Go to the RS article and do it there. All I do is defend which I think is right. If I violate any Wiki rule then let someone point that out that to me with exact details. Where did I attack anyone? If you accuse someone of something, then be sure that you can sustantiate it. --Olberon 22:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Olberon, you seem to be wikilawyering here, just giving captious criticism. RS is a guideline and any edits under that guideline are subject to editorial consensus. The consensus here is contrary to your POV. You will have to defer to this consensus. --Fahrenheit451 23:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Personal websites are also inappropriate under WP:V.TheronJ 23:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The upshot is that If it is not verifiable, then it violates wikipedia policy. A personal website can have verifiable content. Perhaps we have different definitions of what constitutes a personal website. --Fahrenheit451 23:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The element in question is what is published to the public. A book publishes to the public, a newspaper publishes to the public while a personal website does not publish to the public. That is the issue here. WP:RS applies. Personal opinions on personal websites are not published to the public and therefore can not be used as secondary sources. Yes, they are verifiable. But they are not published to the public. The two links should be placed as Exterior Links because those pages contain personal opinion. The opinion is false, but that isn't the issue. Instead the issue is WP:RS No Personal websites may be used as secondary sources (except as a link to repository information such as Jon Atack's A Piece of Blue Sky. Terryeo 22:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Wrong again, Terryeo, anything put on a publicly accessible website is legally published to the public.--Fahrenheit451 00:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Since you mention it, "legal" has some effect on Wikipedia Policy but is not the policy which we editors are constrained to. Your forum for changing Wikipedia Policy is WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:CITE. You have been unsuccesful so far. Terryeo 03:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not attempting to change it. You are under a indefinite ban. You have demonstrated that you cannot apply editing policy. You have been unsuccessful so far. --Fahrenheit451 05:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not Civil, Fahrenheit451 because it interprets and mis-states the decision of the arbitration committee. Besides which you are not addressing the article. Please stop your personal attacks, User:Fahrenheit451 Terryeo 13:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

That is a personal attack. Stop doing that! That what you should address are his arguments and determine if they have any validity. You don't address directly the person and ignore the arguments forwarded. Wiki is quite clear about this! You are gently requested to quit attacking the person. --Olberon 09:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I have laid out the details in discussion #17. You have no argument here, you are proven by fact being incorrect. Various around here do not agree with you. What does "The consensus here is contrary to your POV." exactly mean??? --Olberon 05:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

That is a generality, Olberon. I do have a valid argument, you have not shown any facts to prove my assertions to be incorrect, and you seem to not know what the word consensus means. Suggest you clear it. --Fahrenheit451 00:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Your reactions to my arguments are 'missing'. The article by the way has been rewritten during the last couple of days and my suggestions for the editing have about all been implemented. There is a variety of persons here now that are acknowledging my arguments to which they have responded. --Olberon 09:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

One of the difficulties about personal websites is the creation of this kind of situation: [4] and [5] The arbitrator's make statements about Clambake.org: [6] An arbitrator states in discussion, "...As for the website being a personal one, we seem to all be in agreement that it is one. Please note that the Proposed decision has not made any ruling regarding whether or not article on it can be referred to or linked to." [7] He then goes on to say, "The issue has been framed as to whether or not xenu.net is a personal website, which is why I've responded to that specifically; it undoubtedly is. However, when a website is merely reproducing information from reliable sources (e.g. Time magazine), then I don't see any issue in linking to that website for convenience. Note, this is not a blanket approval for doing so in all cases. I have seen many instance of websites that are not reliable enough to even reproduce outside information". At WP:RS, Fahrenheit451 was part of an extensive discussion on this issue at [8] and [9] Clambake's status as a personal website has been extensively addressed at WP:RS by Fahrenheit451, by Wikipediatrix and by Stollary. Here is one example of past discussion: [10]Terryeo 01:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Clambake problem restated

I know I'm a newcomer, so I apologize if I've got it wrong, but is the current dispute whether the statements:

Another controversial policy related to those classified as Suppressive Persons is "Fair Game", which is a Scientology classification in its own right [11] [12].

and

The SP declaration process has not always been so bureaucratic: former Scientologist Bent Corydon describes seeing Scientology franchise holder Gary Smith declared Suppressive on the spot during the October 1982 Mission Holders' Conference, simply for not obeying a shouted order to change his seat.Corydon, Bent (1987). L. Ron Hubbard: Messiah or Madman?. Secaucus, New Jersey: Lyle Stuart. ISBN 0-8184-0444-2. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) An online edition of the book is at [13].

are properly sourced? In other words, are those the only clambake cites, and is there a dispute as to both of them, or only one? Thanks,TheronJ 02:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It is especially about the xenu.net link, although the fairgamed.org is basically just a general link to a page with a whole bunch of links. Therefore proper as an external link about Fair Game. More details are found in discussion #17. --Olberon 05:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think the xenu.net link is clearly a personal essay (presumably by the owner of xenu.net, though it doesn't actually seem to have any named authors) and so would clearly not qualify as a reliable source. I suggest it should be taken out of the article. -- ChrisO 21:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Hunh. Somehow I missed this. Anyways, there is no dispute, or at least there is no true basis for dispute, on the second reference. I was working from a hardcopy of the book; while certain people like to assume that the existence of a convenience link allows them to assume that the material was never fully checked, it's not the case here. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Another question on the Clambake dispute

Thanks, Oberon, let me ask one more question to clarify this dispute.

The first Clambake link leads to two letters apparently published by the Church of Scientology, plus some personal commentary. Does everyone agree that the letters themselves are authentic or are they in dispute?

The second Clambake link goes to the text version of a 1998 book Messiah or Madman. Is there a dispute as to whether the relevant section of the book is reproduced accurately? (Alternately, if the article just cited directly to the book without the link, would there still be a dispute?)TheronJ 22:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The letters themselves are probably accurate copies of letters which the Church cancelled and doesn't use anymore. I say probably because I don't have the letters to check them against. The issue isn't the letters themselves, but the personal opinion which appears with the letters. Conclusions are drawn for the reader and those conclusions are the personal opinion and original research of the webhost. That is the issue which Wikipedia's WP:RS addresses. Terryeo 22:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

In regard to the book. A personal website can act as a repository for a book. Some care must be taken, we editors should have some confidence that copyrights are not being violated and should have some confidence that the book is accurately presented. If the reposited material meets those standards then it can be quoted and cited, or cited as a secondary source within a Wikipedic article. Terryeo 22:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The policy letters are certainly authentic. I have hard copies in front of me as I type, so I can confirm that they're an accurate (though necessarily truncated) replica. However, the way xenu.net presents them is in the context of an essay by an unknown author - presumably the site owner, though it doesn't say that explicitly - and as such I think it clearly fails to meet the criteria of WP:RS.

The book is also reproduced accurately (again, I have a hard copy so have been able to check this). I can see no good reason for not citing it, and the link is simply a convenience for the reader. -- ChrisO 22:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I can positively confirm that these policy letters found at that link are authentic, although they are not being in use anymore. Their correctness is not being disputed. What is disputed however is that the xenu link is ignoring HCO PL 21 July 1968 which was the policy letter that cancelled the first one quoted at the xenu link. This PL is quoted in full in discussion #10. --Olberon 09:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

When it comes to presenting a convenience link to reposited information such as Messiah or Madman, it has been suggested that the original publisher of the book be included. It makes our citations a little more encyclopedic, it would also allow a reader to more easily find an original copy of the information if he wished to. Terryeo 23:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The original publisher of "M or M", Lyle Stuart, is cited in the note and has been since the first time I saw the reference. I agree that the xenu.net opinion piece is a far from ideal context for us to present the Hubbard policy letters--we could simply cite the letters and drop the web link, I think. Aren't the relevant passages quoted in full in the "Fair Game" article? It'd be nice if there were a more straightforward documentary presentation of those--anybody know of such a source? BTfromLA 00:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the ' Foster Report'. It is official published material and therefore can be used as a valid reference source. I found that it does not quote HCO Policy Letter of 18 October 1967, Issue IV, but it does quote the policy letter that was replacing it in July 1968 and various other policy letters relating. "Enquiry into the Practice and Effects of Scientology; Report by Sir John Foster, K.B.E., Q.C., M.P.Published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London, December 1971, Chapter 7.

I've found the full text of the Foster report in two locations in PDF format: Published Dec 1971, (178 pages) pdf at holysmoke, and pdf at apologeticsindex Terryeo 13:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

A published copy of HCO Policy Letter of 18 October 1967, Issue IV can be found in: Scientology; Basic Staff Hat Book, Number 1, released 1968, page 26. This publication is however seriously rare. --Olberon 10:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Since it seems inevitable that defunct, cancelled policy letters are going to be quoted and cited, then for balance shouldn't we include something in the reference like: (since cancelled) Terryeo 06:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

A suggestion regarding the Clambake documents

If I understand correctly that:

1. Clambake is being cited to establish the contents of the Hubbard letters, and
2. The same letters are available in other, less controversial sources,

then it seems to me that the easiest solution is just to replace the first Clambake cite with the less controversial cites, and move Clambake to the bottom of the page. Are there any objections?TheronJ 17:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Clambake is not being cited as a source for information. The actual source of information is either an HCOPL by L. Ron Hubbard or a book that is published elsewhere. Clambake is merely a convenient host for hosting a reproduction. The actual verifiable documents being sourced are located elsewhere. Using personal websites for convenience links to (not sources of) information that are verifiably found elsewhere has been deemed acceptable by a large number of editors of Wikipedia. Vivaldi (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I get that, but if that's the case, isn't it just as easy to cite to other, less controversial sources for the same information?TheronJ 19:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It isn't being cited as source. That is the whole point you are missing. Nobody is arguing that Clambake is presenting inaccurate copies of the material. In fact, the opposite is the case. Many people have vouched that it has provided true and accurate copies. The whole point is that ANY site that provides the actual words will be considered "controversial" by those that want to see this material removed from Wikipedia. If you know of any "less controversial" site with the same information, you are free to change the convenience links in the article. Vivaldi (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Then I will exchange it for the 'Forster Report'. --Olberon 19:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm against such exchange. "Foster Report" is already linked from the article, so in fact you will just remove one more "critical" link. Besides xenu.net being controversial is arguable, and even more - the reference points to the unmodified book hosted on the website, not to the original content of the website.

The fact that the majority of links/references in the article point to the websites controlled by CoS is much more "controversial". Futurix 22:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The xenu.net link is violating Wiki rules, period. --Olberon 06:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The xenu.net link is questionable under some Wikipedia quidelines, however it is up to the editors to decide. Futurix 09:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The issue has been extensively discussed and decided at WP:RS. The result was, xenu.net is a personal website. Its opinions can not be included in articles. If it has repostited books or other material which stands by itself and is accurate then that can be used as a convenience link. Terryeo 06:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

For the most part I will agree with Terryeo. I believe the personal opinions of Andreas about topics regarding Scientology that are presented solely on his own webpages probably do not meet the requirements of WP:RS and probably should not be used. However, if Andreas' site is being used for convenience links to information that is sourced elsewhere, then I believe it may be appropriate to use his site. Currently I don't believe that any claims in the Scientology article's can be traced at all to statements that Andreas has made. I think the complaint is that extraneous comments not related to the sourced documents make it wrong to use Xenu.net as a host for convenience links. I would agree that it would be better if we found convenience link to the exact same text on another source -- and I don't care if it is a "critical site" or not. I just want for the claim in the article to stay -- and for there to be an easy place where the reader can go to read the full context of the documents. I doubt any reader of this article will be persuaded one way or the other by the extraneous comments on the Xenu.net page -- but if that is truly deemed a problem then I would support finding a page without those comments so that we can go about writing a better article. Vivaldi (talk) 06:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

And I would like to mention, that although I mainly agree with Terryeo's points above, I do not agree that any us are bound by what happened on the talk pages of WP:RS, nor are we ultimately bound to even follow the guidelines listed on WP:RS, because guidelines are not policy -- and exceptions to guidelines can be made when the consensus of editors agrees to make an exception to improve the quality of an article. That being said, I believe that we ought to follow the guidelines of WP:RS most of the time. Vivaldi (talk) 06:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The issue has been extensively discussed, but nothing specific was decided at WP:RS. The general consensus seems to be that while personal opinions on personal websites are generally not suitable for Wikipedia, third party documents even on personal websites are (as long as they are not modified).

Anyway, this discussion is pointless, since the link in question was replaced with less questionable one. Futurix 08:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Commentary by Hubbard on SP's and careerism

What is the purpose of that section? It is painful to read, and adds nothing to the article. Futurix 12:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Rather than removing it I only added the first paragraph which gives the proper context. But it is a matter of discussion if any of this quotation should be there at all. Personally I haven't made up my mind yet. --Olberon 13:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I added it as it is about the subject of sps. It is relevant for that reason. I don't think there is anything painful about it. Olberon actually added half of the prior paragraph. I opine that it enhances the article with more relevant information. --Fahrenheit451 21:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The question is how many get something out of it. I understand it, but does someone who just run through this article and knows little about Scientology, does that person actually duplicate what it conveys? This is more for those who are pretty familiar with the subject, and therefore it may be incorrect to include it here on Wikipedia in this article. --Olberon 22:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

External links

It's funny how in the last 2 days most links to materials critical of Scientology were removed (only 3 left, at the very end of article, and 2 of them are to church documents - not the critical materials on the same websites). At the same time article gained many new links to official CoS websites (and Foster report, of course). Makes you think, isn't it? Futurix 13:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The opposite is true as well. Previously any counter information to the criticial view got removed. You are free to add external links if they are proper. There should be a balance of pro and anti. This is the only thing I have been fighting for. --Olberon 13:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no policy that references should be "balanced". That is your POV.--Fahrenheit451 21:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Is not what I indicated. If there is an obvious pro and an anti side of things, you may choose the middle way and provide for a balance in links and various to places where the subject is discussed favourably and critically. --Olberon 22:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Olberon says, you may choose the middle way and provide for a balance in links and various to places where the subject is discussed favourably and critically. However, it is not neccessary or even proper that we should do so. Points of view that are held by very few people should not be balanced with points of view held by many people. "Balance" doensn't need to be acheived at all. WP:NPOV only requires that we present the information in a neutral tone and that we give various points of view the amount of space they deserve based on the number and quality of the adherents to those points-of-view. Vivaldi (talk) 19:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

That is pretty close to what WP:V is saying, but slightly different. I think WP:V says "widely held opinions" will be "widely published opinions" and thus, easy to substantiate. While "narrowly held" will be "narrowly published". I think the handful of people who dedicate bandwidth to this issue are mis-using their resources, actually. Scientology has produced 100s of publications in many languages. Those are recognized publications, per WP:V. Stacked up against that are about what, 3 or 4 books and a couple of feet of court documents? My own opinion is, those guys are wasting their publication dollar by paying for bandwidth. Terryeo 23:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Is the issue of Fair Game controversial or is it not? This answers your query. Points of view are not senior to actual documentation, although they may be included if different POV exist. Where by the way do your 'very few' and 'many people' come from? --Olberon 08:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

So that's one source (self-published, no independent review, partisan religious) weighted against several published books and large amounts of legal documents and decisions by courts? AndroidCat 01:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Let us compare the differences between your statement and my statement. Yours says "several published books", mine says "3 or 4 books (published)". Yours says "large amoutns of legal documents" (the decisions themselves are part of that), mine says, "A couple of feet of court documents". Yes, I see. our statements are different. Mine says "100s of publications in many languages" while yours does not. Yours says instead, "one source, self-published, partisan, religious". Right, we have stated the situation somewhat differently. A remaining question might be, "how in the HELL was Scientology able to scrape together enough money to self-publish AND buy millions of dollars in real property? Terryeo 05:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You talk about your POV. There is 2 sides of this. One can't and should not overthrow the other. That's up the the Wiki readers to determine. Not you, not me, not anyone else. Wiki provides for the information nothing more, nothing less. --Olberon 08:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

"several published books and large amounts of legal documents and decisions by courts" - I see no POV here. Futurix 09:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The POV is in the self-published, no independent review, partisan religious which attempts to dismiss thousands and thousands of published pages with a brief disparagement. Bridge Publications presents the author's words in the manner the author wished them published. This is what publications houses do. "Partisan religious" is more a judgement of a point of view than a recognition of its existence and "no independent review" happens because no independent organization has the least interest in conducting such a review. Terryeo 16:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Swept

Removed uncited cruft. Do NOT add again without proper citation. --Monkey power 10:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Monkey power (talk · contribs) is indefinitely blocked for impersonating another user. Vivaldi (talk) 19:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Cruft, heh. Sounds like another software programmer. Terryeo 23:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Edit Summaries

The most recent edit summary reads much like a personal attack. Wikipediatrix (rv vandalism by Monkey power, whose name is apparently chosen to deliberately cause confusion with Monkeypower, who was editing this article first.) This isn't the place to bring up user names because nothing can be done about user names here. There is a guideline and a page about user names and that is the place to bring up confusions people have about user names. The Village Pump has discussed user names, some user names are not allowed for various reasons. This isn't the place to bring up user names. To state that an editor is "deliberately causing confusion", yet to refuse to participate in the discussion about the reverted material is uncivil, at least uncivil. Also, it isn't a very enlightening edit summary and it isn't a creative edit. For large, wholesale reversions like that, there is a section of this talk page. That is what it is for, to talk about that section. One editor asked about that material, "why is it there, its painful to read". Terryeo 15:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Since the confusion is being caused ON THIS ARTICLE, I think it's perfectly relevant to mention it in my edit summary FOR THIS ARTICLE. Duh. If you don't like my edit, Terryeo, why don't you edit the article in a way you prefer? Oh, wait, never mind. wikipediatrix 21:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You again refuse to discuss the article. Instead you make an uncivil comment to me. Your communication is not addressing the creation of a good article but is instead speaking to an individual. Please stop your shouting, will you? Please address the issues which might create a good article, will you? Terryeo 22:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It's irrelevant now, anyway, as I've indefinitely blocked User:Monkey power for having a user name that's too close (and probably deliberately so) to User:Monkeypower (see Wikipedia:User names). He can of course continue to contribute, just not under that user name. -- ChrisO 16:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

'Foster Report' versus scan of HCO PL 21 Oct 68

TheronJ, you can't exchange the 'Foster Report' link with a link that goes to a scan of HCO PL 21 Oct 68 Cancellation of Fair Game in 2nd chapter, 3rd paragraph where it says: "The extent to which this policy has continued beyond 1968 is a subject of controversy. The Church claims to have stopped declaring people "Fair Game" in 1968 [6], but in 1989 and 1994 appeals for Wollersheim vs. Church of Scientology etc.."

The cancellation of Fair Game issue is not only about HCO PL 21 Oct 68! The 'Foster Report' addresses the situation at that time. We are not just quoting here from this HCO PL 21 Oct 68 as at the other location. --Olberon 06:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

1. The new link was added to the article, it did not replace anything. So no exchange took place.

2. Please, show other editors the exact text that makes you think Foster report more valuable then the link you've tried to remove.

Futurix 09:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Is not the issue here. You just oppose to the the 'Foster Report' and that's why you take any opportunity to get rid of it. The 'Foster Report' explains the arguments from the Church in detail. For this reason when you remove the 'Foster Report' reference source it is an act of Vandalism. Wikipedia:Vandalism: "Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia." If you continue removing I will file a complaint for exactly that reason. --Olberon 09:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The link to 'Foster Report' is still there, nobody tried to remove it (neither me, not TheronJ). Futurix 10:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Olberon, (1) no one has removed the Foster Report, (2) if the Foster Report has some significance, the current article doesn't show it -- would you be interested in writing a properly cited sentence explaining what significance it has? ThanksTheronJ 10:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I've just noticed that there is already article on Foster_Report, and I wonder why 'Foster Report' in this article is linked to the external website and not to the Wikipedia's own article?!? Futurix 10:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Because a reference is made to specifically chapter 7 of the 'Foster Report' which deals directly with "The Church claims to have stopped declaring people "Fair Game" in 1968". --Olberon 15:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

As I understand Olberon's concern, he thinks the Foster report is independently significant. I have changed the cite in the footnote from "the letter is also published in" the Foster report to "see also" the Foster report. Also, per Futurix, I have included a link to the Wikipedia page. Any thoughts?TheronJ 14:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, any additional information about Foster report can go into dedicated article - I think Olberon can write a new section there with explanation why (he thinks) Foster report is important. Futurix 14:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

At the place where just a quotation is made from HCO PL 21 Oct 68 a reference to the scan of that issue does suffice. It does however NOT suffice if we have a different situation. At this particular location it has to address "The Church claims to have stopped declaring people "Fair Game" in 1968". Why is this so hard to understand? --Olberon 15:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why I don't understand, but I don't yet. The current version of the article reads:

The extent to which this policy has continued beyond 1968 is a subject of controversy. The Church claims to have stopped declaring people "Fair Game" in 1968,[cite] but in 1989 and 1994 appeals for Wollersheim vs. Church of Scientology, the Church's position was that "Fair Game" was still a "core practice of Scientology", and therefore protected as "religious expression".

[cite]L. Ron Hubbard, "HCO Policy Letter (HCOPL) of 21 October 1968"; see also Enquiry into the Practice and Effects of Scientology; Report by Sir John Foster, K.B.E., Q.C., M.P.; Published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London, December 1971, ("Foster Report"), Chapter 7, paragraphs 176-77

Olberon, are you saying that there's something wrong with the citation as it is currently written, or something wrong with the sentence it's attached to? Thanks,TheronJ 15:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It is not about HCO PL 21 Oct 68. Fair Game had already been abolished by HCO PL 21 July 68. The 'Foster Report, chapter 7 explains this in detail. Check out the 'Foster Report, chapter 7. At this location in the article only a reference sourcing to chapter 7 of this report would be proper. HCO PL 21 Oct 68 does not address the surroundings of "The Church claims to have stopped declaring people "Fair Game" in 1968" where the 'Foster Report' specifically does! --Olberon 06:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

A single mistake with a citation

The footnote appearing as [9] states: Hubbard, "The Auditor", no. 31, p. 1. (1965). But The Auditor no. 31 could not have been published in 1965. I am not accusing anyone of making something up, but the Auditor no. 31 was published sometime between the Auditor no. 27 (Aug 1, 1967) and the Auditor no. 34 (March 1, 1968) and could not have been published in (1965). Either the date is wrong, the number is wrong or the publication is mis-stated in some other way. I don't have a copy of that issue and can't tell you what, exactly is wrong. User:ChrisO introduced that quotation and citation: 14:41, 3 June 2006 ChrisO (some major revisions; rm dubious xenu.net link, add more info) [14] Terryeo 15:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Originally a St-Hill magazine, quickly a USA version appeared, and much later a separate AOSH EU edition. It was a montly magazine. Per Terryeo's data #31 would be dated December 1967. In the St-HIll series #31 was the second number issued that carries the copyright 1968. The contents of the USA and St-Hill version however do not match as per issue #. It is assumed that the #31 with that particular article is the USA version (Gerry Armstrong introduced it), then the date of release December 1967 would be correct. --Olberon 06:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

A double mistake with footnote eleven

The footnote appearing as [11] references the section Alleged abuse of SP label within the Church of Scientology and is mis-stated. The quotation within the article is accurate but the date of the lecture within the article is also wrong. The date of that lecture was 19 July 1966 and not 19 June 1966. The footnote should appear more like this: About Rhodesia, Hubbard, lecture given on 19 July 1966, a Saint Hill Special Briefing Course lecture. The quote begins, "You should upgrade your idea ..." and the quote is accurate but the date of the lecture is wrong. And the attribution is incomplete because it does not name the lecture as it should. Terryeo 18:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I made these changes in the article. Contributions like these--that focus on improving the factual accuracy of the information in the article--are useful, Terryeo. If most of your edits were like this, you'd have had few problems with other editors here, as far as I can tell. I don't know the correct info about "The Auditor"--I'll flag it with a question mark until somebody who knows better comes along. BTfromLA 03:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Footnote twelve

Footnote or reference [12] Flag Executive Directive 2830RB of 25 July 1992, "Suppressive Persons and Suppressive Groups list". A Flag Executive Directive is distributed to various organizations of the Church. It is rarely published to the public, perhaps never. To my own personal knowledge, no FED has ever been published to the public. I could be mistaken. If it has not been published to the public and is an internal distribution, then it should not be used as a secondary source of information. Terryeo 06:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

To use the analogy of an internal memo -- if we can demonstrate that a company did in fact release an internal memo based on the testimony of those that were privy to see the memo and copy it -- then it might be appropriate to use it as a source. I understand this could turn into a slippery slope, but as far as I can tell nobody is disputing that the copy of Flag Executive Directive 2830RB of 25 July 1992 is not an actual copy of that document. I haven't seen any sources that have denied the existence of the document, so I tend to think that we have the genuine article. Vivaldi (talk) 06:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

An internal memo is an excellent analogy. I believe it is 100 % accurate. Because internal documents are not published to the public then they can't be used, per WP:V, as I understand that policy. It states ". . Which have already been published by reliable, reputable sources". So, IF the Church's internal memos are so "reliable and reputable" that they may be cited, (though unpublished) how is it that the Church's "8 million parishoners" is not likewise reliable and reputable? Terryeo 10:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Terryeo, are you suggesting that the referenced document does not exist or that the article misrepresents its content? If so, then I suggest it would be appropriate to make that clear and ask the editor who introduced this reference to provide evidence of its existence and/or content - the burden of proof is on the person who wishes the information to remain. If there is no dispute on these matters, however, I see no reason why it should not be mentioned here just because it is not available to the public; although a sentence noting the fact that it is an internal document only might help to put the list in context. Really Spooky 07:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I state the document has not been published to the public. Terryeo 09:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The document's citation was placed 14:41, 3 June 2006. [15] Terryeo 17:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Is the document available in court papers somewhere, or published in a non-Scientology book? If not, I think Terry's probably right. According to WP:RS, "We may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a reliable publisher." (boldface in original).

I appreciate that RS is a guideline, not a policy, but it's still a guideline. What's the specific evidence that this document is authentic?TheronJ 13:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo might want to be a bit more cautious in his statements, as he's wrong about this. Yes, it is an internal memo, but it's also one that's been publicly published. It was attached as exhibit 29 to the affidavit of Hana Eltringham Whitfield in the case CoS International vs Fishman and Geertz, No. CV 91-6426 HLH (Tx), April 4, 1994 and was used as evidence in the case, in which the issue of "Fair Game" was a major point of contention. Whitfield states (para 46) that the list "contain[s] approximately 415 groups and 2,230 individuals". [16] This isn't quite accurate - it lists aliases and duplicates, making counting the exact numbers a little complicated - so I did a more exact count which produced the figures in the article.

The 1994 court case marks the first public publication - the de facto publisher would have been the court itself, as the exhibits would have been on public display. The list was copied and subsequently republished numerous times on the Internet (see e.g. http://www.xenu.net/archive/enemy_names/enemy_list.html). To the best of my knowledge, its authenticity has never been challenged. So I don't think there's much doubt that this meets our requirements for published sources. -- ChrisO 22:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Apparently you don't dispute that the document was created as an internal memo sort of document? Why didn't you tell of its circumstances and date of publication to begin with? The citation to it should include its date and circumstances of becoming public. Terryeo 20:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, ChrisO. Do we know whether the Church continues to maintain such a list? Really Spooky 02:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Almost certainly it does. The Church still has a policy of keeping expelled individuals out of the fold, and in order to enforce that it will need to have some record of their names - hence the list. The policy hasn't gone away and nor, I would guess, has the requirement to track the expellees and other "enemies". -- ChrisO 14:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the reasons run even deeper than that. As you know, any individual who is expelled from the church (often compared to the Catholic ex-communication) receives as part of his notice of being expelled, a person or office with whom he may communicate and a list of actions he must do if he wishes to once again become active in the Church. Terryeo 04:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

FYI, it is kept on harddrive only now after the 1994 "spillage" into the public domain.--Fahrenheit451 02:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, would you like to propose an edit setting out what you have described? I think adding more material placing the list in context would be more constructive than attempts to exclude information that is not in dispute. I understand that you may not be able to make the edit yourself, but I'm sure that there are editors on this page that would support the its inclusion, provided it is well-referenced. Really Spooky 13:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I've already expanded the footnote to read "Flag Executive Directive 2830RB of 25 July 1992, "Suppressive Persons and Suppressive Groups list", exhibited in Church of Scientology International vs Fishman and Geertz, No. CV 91-6426 HLH (Tx), April 4, 1994" - do we really need to expand this further? -- ChrisO 14:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

ChrisO, I was referring not to the list itself but rather Terryeo's claim (at 04:02, 11 June 2006 above) that a person declared an 'SP' receives a notice informing him of the decision, a contact person within the Church and a list of conditions for reinstatement etc. It appears from Terryeo's last post that his real concern is that inclusion of the list is misleading as opposed to being factually inaccurate. If that is right, I think the most constructive approach is to encourage him to provide referenced facts supplying the context rather than removing the information altogether, something that he might be well-placed to do given his self-declared involvement with Scientology. Really Spooky 19:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

My comment or claim, whichever you prefer to call it (at 04:02, 11 June 2006 above) was intended to add substance to ChrisO's comment or claim, whichever you prefer to call it (14:15, 10 June 2006 above) because ChrisO included, "has a policy of keeping expelled individuals out of the fold" instead of the more whole situation which I state (or claim) is to provide a pathway by which said individuals may join the fold again. It sounded like, once out, forever banned, and I stated (or claimed) that the situation is otherwise. Scientology's basis is Dianetic's basis, Man is basically good and trying to survive, thus no one is forever banned. However, to more directly reply to the spooky thought of my supplying information of Flag Executive Directives to specified (possibly spooky) editors, I can only say, FEDs are not published. ChrisO has found one that was published because it was introduced in a court case, which document then became public through its being part of the court record. Thus, should any editor have stacked on his desk every single FED ever distributed, none could be used in Wikipedia Articles. With the rare exception as ChrisO has noted, where they were published as part of a court record (or other public publication). Terryeo 20:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm perfectly willing though, to provide documentation about the Church's policy regarding suppressive persons or anything published to the public. I probably don't have anything that isn't published to the public, anyway. I'll research and find some information regarding the point I mentioned, that declared and expelled people have a communication line/person and a list of actions to perform whereupon they may continue in the Church. Terryeo 20:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Hubbard Communication Office (that organization which originated and distributed Hubbard's communications) Policy Letters are documents about the policy and day to day administration of the Churches, Missions, and Organizations of the Church of Scientology. HCO PL is the commonly used abbreviation. 16 Mar 71 (the date March 16, 1971) Issue II (the second unique document of this level of document issued by Hubbard on that date)

HCO PL 16 Mar 71 Issue II, An Operating Standard Rule "This is rigid policy, not advice: . . . all Ethics Orders or actions must state what the person has to do to be reinstated in good standing." The same word for word statement appears in Introduction to Scientology Ethics Chapter 13, page 345, Bridge Publications, Inc. 1998, ISBN 1573181323

HCO PL 23 Dec 65RB (revised 8 Jan 91), Suppressive acts suppression of Scientology and scientologists spells out what must be included in an ethics order, such as an ethics order which would expell a suppressive person. This includes a list (A to E), doing the list of actions would then reinstate the person in good standing. During the expelled person's reinstatement actions there is a single office of the Church which they communicate with. "<The expelled person's> only <line of communication> is the International Justice Chief, who: A) Tells the person .. to cease all suppressions. B) Requires the person to do a public announcement (sometimes by writing a letter) about their situation and change of attitude. C)Requires that all debts owed to Scientology be paid. C) May require that a suitable amends project be done. D) Requires training beginning at the lowest level of the Bridge. D) <the holder of the office of Justice Chief does certain paperwork> E) <the holder of the office does more paperwork>"

• Is this the sort of thing that makes sense about that? Terryeo 03:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is an example of an ethics declare which expells a person. It states that which I have stated. Any communication marked "To International Justice Chief" which is handed to any receptionist in any Church of Scientology would be, I believe, routed to that office. Terryeo 03:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Spooky's reversion

Really Spooky (rv, Hubbard's quote cannot affirm anything it was made 40 yrs ago + it affirms nothing, he only expresses concern of possible abuse). Hubbard was the creator of the idea of Suppressive Person. He is deceased and the idea is widely published. When did he create the idea? Well, he created the idea 40+ years ago. His quote affirms 1) he created the idea. 2) the organization which he likewise created should use the idea 3) the idea should be used with some care. The idea is a powerful one and is that a small percent of people create most of the trouble. But everyone knows that. The idea though, must be used with some care because it certainly isn't appropriate to jail everyone who jaywalks nor to excommunicate everyone who doesn't prey 3 times a day, nor to expell everyone who says, "I can't believe what Hubbard is saying in this paragraph?!?!" (a phrase I have myself used). Terryeo 15:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Basically Good

I'm not sure what purpose is intended by the phrasing "...the Church of Scientology claims is an assertion of Hubbard that 'regardless of apparent traits, all men are basically good....'" This is, in fact, asserted by Hubbard; it is stated explicitly in Introduction to Scientology Ethics, and from what I understand is a basic belief of Scientologists. Darguz Parsilvan 00:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you can find an actual quote by Hubbard to that effect, we can use that instead of what we have now. The problem is that the quote we have there now isn't a quote of L. Ron Hubbard, it's a quote of the Church of Scientology describing L. Ron Hubbard's beliefs. To be accurate we therefore need to describe it accurately as what the Church says LRH said, rather than what LRH said. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• "Years ago I discovered and proved that man is basically good. This means that the basic personality and the basic intentions of the individual, toward himself and others, are good." from Introduction to Scientology Ethics Hubbard, pg.17 Published Bridge Publications, Inc. ISBN 1573181323
• "The Dianetic assumption that man is basically good and is damaged by punishment holds valid in . . tens of thousands of cases. That disposes of the vile nature of man by staggering poundage of evidence." HCOB 9 June 60 The basic assumptions of Scientology versus overts from The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology, Volume V (1959 - 1960) pg 406 ISBN 0884044769 (1991)
• "There may not be evil people, but there are people currently devoted to doing evil actions." HCO Informational Letter of 2 Apr 64, found in The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology, Volume VII (1963 - 1965) pg 392 ISBN 0884044777 (1991)
• "Scientology believes man to be basically good, not evil. It is man's experiences that have led him to commit evil deeds, not his nature." What is Scientology (hardbound) pg.3 Bridge Publications, Inc. ISBN1573180785. Terryeo 17:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

None of those quotes quite hits the spot for the article--they don't address the possibility of repentance, which is the key issue in this context. I'd vote to keep what's there, but I agree that languagealong the lines of "claims is an assertion of Hubbard" adds little other than a hint of skepticism. As I recall, at an earlier stage the article simply stated that the "goodness" bit was a tenet of the church, with no explicit reference to Hubbard. That seemed concise and accurate to me. BTfromLA 22:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

BT's hit it on the head. It's not the "man is basically good" part that we need to hear in Hubbard's own words, it's the "can be redeemed even if seemingly unrepentant." It seems to be very much at odds with other statements that we do know Hubbard made such as "Well, a cleared cannibal is still only a cleared cannibal so who needs them?" -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

BT missed and hits another nail on the head and Antaeus points to this "other" nail while ignoring this first point. LRH says all men are basically good and that includes any men who are "unrepentant". --Social personality abused 02:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

http://www.dictionary.com defines Repentance as; "Remorse or contrition for past conduct or sin. See Synonyms at penitence"; which states "These nouns denote a feeling of regret for one's sins or misdeeds." Would you agree that when we talk about "Repentance" we are talking about a feeling or an emotion that an individual experiences? That is what that particular dictionary says, "a feeling of regret". Well, you know that a feeling which a person has does not build the house back which the arsonist burnt down, nor make the leg whole that the dangerous driver smashed into. I honestly don't see what applicability "repentance" has to "being redeemed", nor even what "being redeemed" has to do with anything, anyway. Man is basically good. If he makes a mistake and harms the Church then the harmed party, (the Church) keeps the door open a crack so he can again become active in the Church. Do you see? Man is basically good. Period. Therefore the Church's policy of dealing with a declared suppresive person is based on that information, man is basically good.Terryeo 04:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• HCOB 20 Feb 74R states: "When you clear a cannibal what do you have? Experientially you have a cannibal. That's how he's handled life and people around him, that's what he knows how to do.. This person is unaware of his responsibilities to other dynamics and is unfamiliar with proper behavior and responsible actions towards others." (Terryeo's POV - He doesn't know how to get along with family, in groups, in soceity, except as a cannibal .Terryeo 04:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Does Clearing Cancel the Need for Training? in Ability the magazine of Dianetics and Scientology late March 58: "The fact is that a cleared Zulu is a cleared Zulu. A cleared advertising man is a cleared advertising man. A cleared Zulu is not a cleared advertising man. Now, a Zulu uncleared has scant chance of becoming an advertising man. But a cleared Zulu would probably be able to become one rapidly. And there's the difference."Terryeo 04:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

This might be one of those cornerstones of non-understandable difference which I have found here and there. No quote quite fits "repentant" because "repentant" is considered to be an emotion, it is placed on the emtional Tone scale and the organization moves on. That a formerly declared SP feels an emotion is perfectly okay but has nothing at all to do with the actions which will be taken (or not taken). However, it might be noted that a "program of amends" is sometimes required for an expelled individual to become active in the Church again. Terryeo 04:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, rather than getting bogged down in responses to the choice of words on a talk page, here's what the article says: "Scientologists in good standing are expected to "disconnect" from these "suppressives" (i.e., sever all relations with them), unless and until such time that the SP has completed a course of amends to restore them to the good graces of the church. The possibility of recovering from "suppressive" status is connected to what the Church of Scientology says was stressed by Hubbard, that "regardless of apparent traits, all men are basically good – even the most seemingly unrepentant." What part of this are you disagreeing with? BTfromLA 22:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

BTfromLA, what the article says is incorrect, first of all a person using scientology is not REQUIRED to disconnect from an SP in every case. Every single problem is looked at uniquely and Scientologists are expected to use good judgement in applying Scientology. For example a son, connected to an SP mother is not required to disconnect from her, however, the son may not be able to receive auditing or training or join staff while connected to the mother. --Social personality abused 23:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Scientologists are not exactly "expected to disconnect". It is a last resort. There are a number of policies in the area and it would not be a brief description to present the whole of the information here. But, this link is a pretty good narrative description. Laurie

I read the linked material--it doesn't really address the question. Isn't being declared suppressive considered the "last resort"? Is the statement in the article wrong--is it fine for rank-and-file scientologists to retain relationships with those who have been declared "suppressive."? BTfromLA 18:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

BTfromLA your confusing the discussion. The original question was concerning the statement that the church wrote men are basically good even the most unrepentant and Terry provided references. LRH said all men are basically good. That includes, the unrepentant, the forgiving, the murderers, the healers, the stalkers, the friendly, the forgers, the honest, and even Jimbo Wales. --Social personality abused 00:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Laurie is correct, BTfromLA is confusing the discussion by introducing "being declared supppressive" as a last resort, when actually it was disconnection as possible the last resort that was being discussed. This is concerning family members: "When an Ethics Officer finds that a Scientologist is PTS to a family member, he does not recommend that the person disconnect from the antagonistic source. The E/O's advice to the Scientologist is to handle." AN INTRODUCTION TO SCIENTOLOGY ETHICS, PTSNESS AND DISCONNECTION by L. Ron Hubbard Im sure there are more references. --Social personality abused 00:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm confused at this point. Does "PTS to a family member" mean that the family member has already been declared Suppressive? And what does "handle" mean in this context? Are you saying that there are a significant number of active scientologists in good standing who maintain close relationships with people who are officially "expelled and declared"? BTfromLA 02:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

OK. No, "PTS to a family member" does not mean the family member has been declared. One does not have to be declared to be a Suppressive. Whether or not someone is considered Suppressive is determined by the traits. Declaration is just an administrative notice. Anyway, yes, there are many scientologists connected to SPs via family members and other close relations. They are required to handle the situation so they are not being adversely affected by the connection. The ETHICS book and other Scientology policies cover this. --Social personality abused 02:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm still not clear what you are objecting to in the sentences in question, since they explicitly address people who have been adminstratively "declared." If you can suggest a way to rewrite those sentences to correct any errors of fact, please do so. BTfromLA 02:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• An individual can "recover" from "suppressive" status. If the article presents that, that's what I was hoping for unless editors want more detail about that path of "recovery". In which case I'll supply more information ? Are the above 2 points responsive to what you asked or am I missing something? Terryeo 18:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The article mentions "The possibility of recovering from "suppressive" status..." in the intro. What's the problem? BTfromLA 18:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The section regarding abuse

I believe ReallySpooky may not have understood my reasons for changing the section header earlier today. I base this on his/her edit summary: "Let’s keep in NPOV – stating there is abuse is critical opinion; noting there have been allegations and/or warnings of abuse is reporting the facts". This was in response to my changing the section header from "Alleged abuse of the SP label within the Church of Scientology" to "Abuse of the SP label within the Church of Scientology", which I explained with my edit summary: "it seems that "alleged abuse" and "predicted possible abuse" both fall under the topic of "abuse"."

ReallySpooky is correct that "stating there is abuse is critical opinion"; where I believe he/she is going wrong is in thinking that naming a section header "Abuse of the SP label" is, inherently, stating there is abuse. According to that logic, we should be going through all the Scientology articles and getting rid of any section headers such as "Thetans", "Reactive mind", "Engrams", or "Suppressive Persons" -- these are all things which only some people allege to exist, and if merely naming something in a section header is equivalent to asserting its existence, then we certainly can't assert the existence of all these very disputed constructs by giving them section headers.

Obviously, such a thing would be absurd. Naming something in a section header only asserts that it is a topic of discussion. In this case, not only is it a topic of discussion, it would be even if no one had ever alleged that abuse of the SP label had ever occurred! Hubbard is quoted as discussing the possibility that the SP label would be abused; to discuss Hubbard's prediction that such abuse might happen in the future, it would be entirely logical to use the section header "Abuse of the SP label". It is what he's discussing! The fact that we're also discussing actual allegations of such abuse just makes it doubly logical. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not going to get into a “revert war” over one word, but I think it is self-evident that a heading entitled “Abuse of the SP label within the Church of Scientology” inherently asserts that such abuse exists within the Church. What if the heading read instead “Rape and Murder within the Church of Scientology”? Do you think a reader would expect to find under that heading abstract discussions on the topic by members of Scientology?

The suggestion that this conclusion would logically lead to renaming headings such as “Thetans”, “Reactive Mind” etc. is a false analogy. Sections with such headings are introducing concepts and doctrines that indisputably exist within Scientology. If, however, the heading were to read (for example) “Thetans’ Beneficial Effect for Mankind” or “Modern Psychiatry’s Failure to Treat the Reactive Mind”, that would convey opinion and IMHO be inappropriate for a Wikipedia article. Really Spooky 09:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems that what makes the header really objectionable, then, is the "in the Church of Scientology". "Abuse of the SP label" is in fact a concept that exists within Hubbard's writings, and unlike "thetans" or "the reactive mind", no one disputes that the entity of the SP label exists, but specifying "in the Church of Scientology" does tend to promote the idea that specific incidents are being asserted to exist. This is a good point; I'll remove that part of the header. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Really Spooky 15:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposed "Abuse of Social Personalitites by SP's" section

Why do you editors cover "abuse of SP label by church" but you don't also cover "Abuse of Social Personalitites by SP's" such as murders, kidnaps, death threats, poisonings, forgeries, imposterings, stalking, lying. Why is there a Suppressive Person article but no Social Person article. This is POV pushing... having one article but not the other. I was stalked, forged, impostered, and other sabotage for years by notable anti-scientologists just because I was a scientologist who exposed their crimes which were later indisputibly documented. --Social personality abused 23:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Prove it. wikipediatrix 02:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Prove What? That I was stalked, etc? It would be easy to prove and can easily dig up all the proof, but I don't have to prove it because this article is not about me and my experiences. --Social personality abused 02:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Then what do you want? And if you admit this article is not about you, then why are you talking about yourself? This isn't the place.wikipediatrix

I don't want anything but to make it clear that certain anti-scientologists have been using this article and other Wikipedia articles for their anti-scientology POV pushing. Thank you. --Social personality abused 02:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Without being more specific, as in word by word and line by line, this doesn't make anything clear at all. wikipediatrix 03:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe the actions of Wikipediatrix make his comments valid. Wikipediatrix once asked ChrisO whether she should "go to alt.net.scientology and get more editors" to edit against me. To state the articles present a negative view of Scientology is, actually quite an optimistic statement. Feldspar was greatly cheered by a known anti-scientologist's commending he and a small handfor for "Creating a glowing mass of entheta" on Wikipedia. Clambake.org, possibly the most widely known anti-scientology person website has a link to Wikipedia on its front page. How many clues does a person need to observe these articles are not well balanced, but written as with an anti-scientology bais? It is so obvious that some readers can not sort through the stuff in the article and come to the talk page to ask a question in hopes of becoming informed about Scientology. My pointing to the gross negligence of certain editors who quote and cite to newsgroups and personal websites is only the tip of the iceburg when it comes the the disparaging, non-neutral point of view present in these articles which, at this time, are more or less controlled by a handful of editors. Mr. Social Personality has a point and has more than a point. But I see the staunch editors reactive and present, denying both the information he presents and attacking him for pointing out the obvious. Terryeo 03:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Feldspar was greatly cheered by a known anti-scientologist's commending he and a small handfor for "Creating a glowing mass of entheta" on Wikipedia. Technically correct, Terryeo, but I'm mystified as to how you think this is relevant to the process of writing articles. As you clearly know, "critics" of Scientology (i.e., those of us who do not blind ourselves to the flaws and abuses of Scientology and the crimes committed in its name) do in fact think that people should remain aware of reality. We believe it is especially important to confront the parts that make us question what we believe, the parts which Scientologists label as "entheta" and attempt to hide from. When Dave Touretzky compliments myself and others on a "glowing mass of enthera" we understand that what is really meant by "entheta" is "the kind of information that Scientologists attempt to surpress, since it would let others make an informed decision." But what does this have to do with Barbara Schwarz's proposed article? Are you now claiming that Dave Touretzky was actually complimenting us on the "murders, kidnaps, death threats, poisonings, forgeries, imposterings, stalking, lying" that Barbara Schwarz claims and that you can back that up with sources other than vanity presses and newsgroup postings by Ms. Schwarz? I mean, by the principle of "assume good faith", I can entertain the possibility that you're actually addressing a point, rather than going on an irrelevant tangent so you can make insinuations about your fellow editors being "antisocial personalities", but I must say I don't see any evidence of it. Perhaps you might try to explain where your point is. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I've made 2 statements, toward illustrating examples which tell of the POV which these article are presented with. The replies to the examples I have used have been used, not to address the issue of this section. My examples addressed the issue of this section. Replies to my examples were attacking the validity of my example, rather than addressing the issue of this section. Terryeo 12:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Your alleged quote from me is incorrect. You have repeatedly proven yourself incapable of remembering a quote from me without mangling it and twisting the meaning, so stop putting words in my mouth that I did not say. wikipediatrix 03:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Why isn't there a Social Person article, yet there is this Suppressive Person article? Why? Because the anti-scientologists here are POV pushing. --Social personality abused 02:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Your comments are not specifically about the editing of this article, which is the only purpose of this article's discussion page. Feel free to start a Social Person article and see how far you get with it. wikipediatrix 02:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

My comment is that certain anti-scientology POV pushers are here and ignoring NPOV and preventing NPOV. --Social personality abused 02:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you keep saying that over and over. Are you done? wikipediatrix 03:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, you know what he said is true. The most casual reader of nearly any of the articles in the series can spot it straightaway. It is certainly no secret. That the editors who are controlling the articles accuse any new editor of presenting a "POV" only underlines the attitude of the editors who hope to maintain an anti-scientology POV in the articles. Terryeo 03:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's all a conspiracy, isn't it? And the admins who banned you from editing Scientology-related articles were also all part of the conspiracy, weren't they? So how does your vague mass-insult help the editing of the article? Do you have anything specific and constructive to add to the discussion? wikipediatrix 03:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Besides the suggestion I have stated below, not much right now. I am still confused about how those edits which User:Wikipediatrix creates seems to sometimes dissappear from the history of a page, such as Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources. Perhaps that's why I have a little difficulty finding the exact quotations of her words in order to reply to her. Or perhaps I just haven't looked far enoughTerryeo 06:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

One does wonder why you sometimes seem to have a hard time seeing what everyone else sees, Terryeo, and at other times have no trouble at all seeing things that no one else sees and that you are then never able to find again. I mean, you were able to see User:Fahrenheit451 using a racial slur -- at least that's what you accused him of,[17] and of course you'd never throw such accusations carelessly, even though you were never able to find even a single instance backing up that accusation. I guess we are all confused about how so many edits by so many of the people you have named as "black hat" editors have managed to disappear so completely without ever having been seen by anyone except you. It's as if they never existed... -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The reply is an attack, rather than a reply to the issue.Terryeo 12:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

It is easily seen the articles are anti-scientology by the most casual, uneduated reader. How that comes about and maintains is what I talked about in my previous post. I do have a suggestion. The early section which states: The term is often applied to those whom the Church of Scientology perceives as its enemies, i.e. those whose "disastrous" and "suppressive" acts are said to impede the progress of individual Scientologists or the Scientology movement.[2][3] would be better placed after its following paragraph. My reasoning for saying so it that a reader will better understand that statement if he first understands that the Church has a mechanism in place which makes such declares. When a reader understand such a mechanism exists, a reader can then better understand that statement. Terryeo 04:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Social personality abused Al, how can we miss you if you won't go away? AndroidCat 20:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh hum, I guess 'Cat is implying something about an editor's screen name. You're sure right, 'Cat, I would love to see Registration Required on Wikipedia and Proof of identity so we editors could only use one editing identity. Wouldn't that suit a cat's nine identities? Terryeo 16:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, are you implying that AndroidCat uses multiple "sock puppet" identities on Wikipedia? That's how I read what you've just written. Please clarify whether you really want to make that accusation. BTfromLA 17:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear. Can't we all just get along? Really Spooky 18:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, let's just get along with each other :) Terryeo 19:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Just so long as you can take parthian shots, right? AndroidCat 19:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's my "parthian shot". I would like to see Wikipedia require registration to edit. I would like to see Wikipedia provide proof of identity to register. Terryeo 19:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, we would then know your real identity for sure. --Tilman 10:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

That would be perfectly Okay with me, and if my statement spurs you to actually implement the policy I suggest I would be greatly cheered. Hate and suppression happen most easily in environments which don't require exposure. Public exposure is the first and probably best defence against hidden purposes and hate filled viewpoint. For example, the KKK became powerless by exposing its members to public scruitiny. Today's terrorist first seeks anonymity by wearing a concealing facemask. Should those persons who have been Expelled and Declared as suppressive persons be allowed to edit Scientology articles in complete anonymity? Wikipedia allows it, I would have it otherwise. By all means Tilamn, cause registration to be required to edit ! Terryeo 16:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to reveal your identity right now. You already know mine. --Tilman 17:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[Deleted my own post in response to Really Spooky's response, below BTfromLA 22:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)]]

Can the Scientologists and former/anti-Scientologists please settle their personal differences on their personal talk pages (if this is indeed necessary at all)? BTfromLA, I note your disclaimer "this isn't merely a personal question, it may provide some info germane to the SP article", however even assuming the question has been posed in good faith and is not merely sarcastic or designed to goad Terryeo, I fail to see how any answer he might give to that question will provide information that could be incorporated into the article given WP:NOR. Really Spooky 18:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I could offer a defense, but to an extent at least, you're right--my post, as phrased, was more likely to add to the vitriol than really contribute to the article. Thus, I've removed it. Thanks for helping me to stay civil. (PS--I'm not a Scientologist or ex-Scientologist, nor do I see myself as an Anti-Scientologist, though my experiences here have left me rather skeptical about the group, to say the least.) BTfromLA 22:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The "Cross-Hatting" paragraph

Fahrenheit451, I note your quote from Hubbard that 'cross-hatting' is a trait of an SP. Could you (or someone else knowledgeable on the subject) please add a line explaining what this means in Scientology-speak? If that cannot be satisfactorily done, or this is just a throw-away comment by Hubbard that doesn't really have anything to do with the topic, IMHO it just clutters up the article. Also, what is the purpose of the "waffle-waffle-waffle-waffle-waffle" line? If this line has any informative value at all, it is not evident and some context would seem in order. If its inclusion is simply designed to make Hubbard look incomprehensible and silly, however, it should be removed. Whilst it may be entertaining, the purpose of an encyclopedia is to inform, not take the piss out of Scientology. Really Spooky 15:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

This information is taken directly from the Establishment Officer lectures. The "waffle-waffle" is simply a quote from the lecture. I do not agree the quote makes Hubbard incomprehensible and silly. This is additional data that does inform. Someone here seems to be presenting a POV that the Establishment Officer Course (esto for short) is for Sea Org members only and that is an outright falsehood. The reference information given in abbreviations and numerals are the identifications given each lecture. This same person is also falsely stating that it is original research, however that assertion is nonsense as the reference is directly quoted. --Fahrenheit451 02:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• HCO PL 22 Sept 70 HATS: HAT - A term used to describe the write-ups, checksheets and packs that outline the purposes, know-how and duties of a post. It exists in folders and packs and is trained in on the person on the post. The term and idea of a hat comes from conductors or locomotive engineers, etc., each of whom wears a distinctive and different type of headgear. A hat therefore designates particular status and duties in an organization. Any slump an org goes through can be traced directly and at once to an absence of one or more hats being worn.
• Cross-Hatting, you're trying to hat this person as one thing and somebody has crossed your lines and is hatting him as something else. That is one of the favorite tricks of a suppressive person. Modern Mangement Technology Defined, pg.120, published by Pubs Organization ISBN 0884040402
• However, there is a possible misunderstanding if a person reads those two pieces of information and combines them with another piece of information which has to do with Sea Org Members becoming skilled in several jobs. On a ship at sea, it is a darn good idea for every crew member to be able to fight a fire (as an example), to be able to take the helm, to be able to do a number of jobs on an as needed basis. It might be possible for a person to misunderstand the term cross-hatting if a person did not fully understand what the term meant. Is this documented answer sufficent ? Terryeo 17:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph presently reads: From the lecture 7203C05 ESTO-10 "Revision of the Product/Org Officer System - Part 2" Hubbard also included another trait: "So, an SP does various things and one of the things he does is cross-hatting. And it's a phenomenon I hadn't actually analyzed until fairly recently and looked back over the number of times it has happened. Cross-hatting. You're trying to hat this person as one thing and somebody has crossed our lines and is hatting him as something else. And I'd begun to realize that that is one of the favorite tricks of an SP. You really don't want to be here, what you really want to be doing is waffle-waffle-waffle-waffle-waffle." It is ORIGINAL RESEARCH an editor has done when an editor stated Hubbard also included another trait. That is not what Hubbard did. It is false to say so. The traits are listed. The new paragraph introduces the abbreviation "ESTO-10" with no explanation whatsoever and the information "7203CO5" with no information of what the symbols mean, the paragraph is dispersive and not informative, it contains ORIGINAL RESEARCH which an editor has introduced and it is NOT an additional characteristic, but is part of the education which Staff Members of the Sea Org get after they join the Sea Org and are learning the ropes. The only person who would ever observe a suppressive person creating a Cross-hatting situation would be a Sea Org Member. The 12 characteristics of a Suppressive Person are spelled out. There are no others. It is false and original research to state that there are others. It is, in fact, an outright LIE ! Terryeo 17:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Now User:Fahrenheit451 has removed the lie by calling his introduced information "an additional datum". Well good. But, his introduced information still has the difficulty of having brought into the article a brand new Scientlogy Jargon term which is Cross-Hatting. The article does not contain any definition of that term which is not widely known and has a very specialized meaning and is particular to Scientology Administration. Where is a reader to learn ? Common dictionarys don't define the term, as the article stands it presents confusion. Terryeo 05:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Tried to clean up for everyone's benefit. Cross-hatting and waffling are now somewhat explained before the rather odd (and somewhat out of context) statement. Ronabop 06:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The cross-hatting paragraph can only apply within the Church. The 12 charactertics were published to apply to everyone, are published on websites and in books. It is a different addressed public. The reader is reading along, he is reading information designed for everyone and POW, suddenly he has "hatting" and "cross-hatting" and words he has never seen, thrown into his face. The addressed audience changes suddenly from everyone to a specialized audience, Staff Members. Well, staff members have had education about Scientology, education about administration, education about the words "hat" and "cross-hat" and "suppressive person" and they know what is being said. I would say the very best thing to do is to remove that paragraph because it is addressed to an educated audience. It introduces words which need to be defined and explained. It disperses from the meaning of "suppressive person" rather than contributes to an understanding of the meaning. Terryeo 22:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting comment, as Hubbard nowhere qualifies or limits the application of his statement to only "within the Church". It is also interesting that someone wants to remove this paragraph after the terms have been defined. Suppression of knowledge is a horrible thing.--Fahrenheit451 00:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting indeed, since the reference which you quoted is a lecture which is apparently unpublished. Instead it was an intra-organizational lecture. When it has been published to the public by reliable and reputable sources, it then satisfies WP:V, when it is an intra-organizational memo, unpublished to the public then it does not meet the threshold of WP:V, which is in place to explain exactly how a Neutral Point of view is to be achieved in Wikipedia articles. Intersting indeed. Terryeo 19:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

"Apparently unpublished"? Last I checked, any cofs member could take the FEBC, get esto hatting and own the written transcripts. So, it IS published. Your "published to the public" is your own rendition. As an additional point, the lectures were made in 1972 and at that time, to obtain a copyright, one was required to submit copies of the work being registered to the Copyright Office. Your statement "it is an intra-organizational lecture" is an outright falsehood. (And I will not use the uncivil term you did above "an outright LIE!") The edit meets all requirements for inclusion in wikipedia. Interesting indeed.--Fahrenheit451 19:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, are you suggesting that the lecture did not actually take place or that the Hubbard quote is inaccurate? Really Spooky 00:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to be late replying. The lecture is unpublished. I can not tell you why it is not published, many (almost all?) of Hubbard's lectures are published. From Fahrenhiet451's quote, the lecutre has a number of jargon word which require earlier education to understand. The "Flag Executive Brifing Course" is about 2 years of solid, full time study. It contains the lecture. Terryeo 16:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo statements about the Flag Executive Briefing Course are interesting. If the reference Terry cites really exists, it is the first time there has been any statement from the Church of Scientology International that the ESTO lectures are "unpublished". The Church of Scientology of California never made any such statement and the definition in Admin Dictionary by L. Ron Hubbard ISBN 0-88404-040-2, which is culled from Church issues written by Hubbard, make no such claim. What is more, in the soft cover version of What is Scientology, 1998, ISBN 1-57318-122-6 has no page 950, but on page 481 it states, "In April 1970, Mr. Hubbard invited executives from all churches to attend his Flag Executive Briefing Course on the flagship Apollo. The end result placed true administrative experts in all local churches. And with the later publication of the Organizational Executive Course and Management Series volumes, all policy was now readily available to the 2,553 staff of the 118 churches and missions in 20 nations." There is no evidence that the febc or the esto lectures were "an inter-organizational memo", but in fact they were course lectures in Church policy given by Hubbard, which is and has been offered to any Scientologist. According to the Admin Dictionary by L. Ron Hubbard, a memorandum is "a written communication such as an informal letter, report or dispatch showing who it is directed to, who wrote it, the subject matter, date, message, and signature. It is primarily for use in communicating to different people, departments, branches, or locations of the same organization. In communicating to persons outside of the organization, one uses a formal business letter." So those lectures aren't a "memo". Terryeo's term "publication to the public" is perhaps his own version of how he wants wikipedia policy to be. But on wikipedia, publication is sufficient, and both the esto and febc transcripts have been published, despite what the CSI may now claim, if indeed they do. Also, the numerical code on Hubbard's lectures are not even defined in Technical or Administrative dictionaries. Both cross-hatting and esto were defined. Terryeo should Assume Good Faith on the part of other editors he does not agree with and understand that wikipedia is a work in progress.--Fahrenheit451 00:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Once again, I would like to ask Terryeo: are you suggesting that the lecture did not actually take place or that the Hubbard quote is inaccurate?

Alternatively, can Fahrenheit451 provide a link or some other place a reader can go to that would allow him or her to verify the accuracy of the statement? Presumably you didn't just jot it down from memory. Really Spooky 13:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo is currently blocked from violating his attack probation. I am not aware of an internet site where one can read the FEBC or ESTO lectures. The transcripts are published and given to students of those courses. --Fahrenheit451 20:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

OK. I'm afraid I don't know what FEBC and ESTO courses are, but I will assume good faith and presume you are or have been a student and therefore have seen the transcripts yourself. But how can I, as a reader of Wikipedia, verify the quote? Really Spooky 22:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

FEBC=Flag Executive Briefing Course ESTO=Establishment Officer. Several ways: If you know of someone with a copy of the transcripts, you can verify it, if the copyright office has a copy on file, it can be checked there, if another party has posted the quotes fair use to a "reliable" website you can verify it, or if the copyright was not filed in accordance with the laws extant in 1972, the work would be public domain.--Fahrenheit451 00:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I see a serious problem with this. Each one of the ‘several ways’ of verification you list are fundamentally flawed (which you have effectively acknowledged by introducing each one with the word “IF”):

• 1) ‘IF you know of someone with a copy of the transcripts, you can verify it’: I don’t, so unfortunately I can’t. Even if I did, what if they don’t want to show them to me?
• 2) ‘IF the copyright office has a copy on file, it can be checked there’: Does it? I take it that wasn’t where you got the quote from, so I hope you aren’t just wasting my time with speculation. In any event, the burden of proof is on the editor to identify a verifiable source for his or her information.
• 3) ‘IF another party has posted the quotes fair use to a “reliable” website you can verify it’: But didn’t you just say in your last that you were unaware of any internet site where one can read the FEBC or ESTO lectures?
• 4) ‘IF the copyright was not filed in accordance with the laws extant in 1972, the work would be public domain’: Where is this ‘public domain’ located, so that I can verify the quote? Whether or not the lecture might be in the “public domain” as a matter of copyright law is irrelevant to the issue of Wikipedia policy requiring a verifiable source for your edit.

I note the following from WP:NOR:

In order to avoid doing original research, and in order to help improve the quality of Wikipedia articles, it is essential that any primary-source material… has been published by a reputable third-party publication (that is, not self-published) that is available to readers either from a website (other than Wikipedia) or through a public library.

This is what seems to be at the heart of Terryeo’s complaint, and it is a legitimate one. No Wikipedia reader or editor can verify (or indeed refute) your quote, unless of course they also happen to be a ‘Flag Executive’, an ‘Establishment Officer’ or some other high-ranking person in Scientology. Stylistic issues aside for the moment, your edit needs to meet the basic verifiability criterion if it is to remain. I invite you to provide a verifiable source for the quote, otherwise it should be removed. As it stands it is primary-source material that is not verifiable by Wikipedia readers, and whilst I of course assume your good faith that cannot extend to taking you at your word on unsourced material. Why not? The answer is in WP:V:

… Because it is not verifiable in a way that would satisfy the Wikipedia readership or other editors. The readers don't know who you are. You can't include your telephone number so that every reader in the world can call you for confirmation. And even if they could, why should they believe you?

I realise there are Scientology opponents out there that may find this policy terribly inconvenient: after all, it is an impediment to exposing Scientology's sinister inner secrets! But look at it this way: What if someone came along and started posting all sorts of information favourable to Scientology from sources YOU couldn’t verify? Wouldn’t YOU demand a verifiable source?

I hope the above doesn’t come across to you as overly combative – it isn’t. If you have a verifiable source – great, identify it. But Wikipedia readers deserve no less. Really Spooky 19:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The transcripts ARE published and any student is given the lecture transcripts to keep for their reference. The original publisher is the Church of Scientology of California Publications Organization. That organization was disbanded and suceeded by the Church of Scientology International Golden Era Productions. The course is taken by enrollment and paying the required fee. Yes, both the lectures and the transcripts bear copyright notices. So, there is no original research here. The arguments Terryeo provided on his talk against it are not valid.--Fahrenheit451 20:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I add a quote that Terryeo removed from his page because it is right to the point and demolishes his "published to the public" argument"--Fahrenheit451 20:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

What Terryeo means by publishing "to the public" is that such materials have been published (they don't constitute unpublished works, as would be the case with the Stephen King manuscript you cite in your analogy) but only circulated to a limited audience of a few thousand or tens of thousands of Scientologists. Many of them have subsequently been leaked and/or republished without authorisation to a broad public audience, as in the case of the Xenu papers. The fact that the CoS hasn't authorised the broad publication is irrelevant to establishing the fact that board publication has occurred; further, even large-scale distribution within an organisation still counts as publication, even if the general public wasn't meant to benefit from it. The situation is very analogous to the famous case of the Pentagon Papers, which still haven't officially been released by the US Government despite being placed in their entirety in the Congressional Record. -- ChrisO 07:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The ESTO lecture mentioned has not been published to the public. It are not available to the public. I've directly quoted from a publically available, widely published book which says so. Terryeo 00:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, please stop with your "published to the public" stuff. The ESTO lectures are published. The cofs data on the web page you quoted is clearly a falsehood.--Fahrenheit451 01:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is not that they haven't been published. The problem is that they haven't been published where Wikipedia can get to them and cite them as sources. This makes referring to their contents rather problematic, wouldn't you agree? Unless you are proposing the fantastic idea that Wikipedia just give CoS a ring on the telly and jolly them into giving us permission to reprint their dirty laundry? Nonsense. Terryeo's claims are not verifiable, they are a form of secret knowledge which is being protected (by U.S. copyright law) from being made available to us. There is no way to base a substantive argument on such lack of communication. Kasreyn 22:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I should make it clear that in the quote posted above by Fahrenheit, I was referring specifically to Terryeo's argument that the materials are "unpublished" and therefore can't be cited at all. To quote, "Permission of the copyright owner is not required to cite an unpublished work as a source or to use information from it." [18]

The issue of whether a source is verifiable per WP:V is a separate matter. If the original source (in this case the FEBC lecture "The Org Officer/Product Officer System Part 1") can be purchased from the CoS, or has been deposited in public libraries, or has been quoted in reliable sources, or is otherwise publicly accessible, then it's verifiable and legitimate quote fodder. If hasn't been, then it isn't. The onus really is on the people who wish to include this quote to demonstrate that it meets any of the conditions I've just mentioned. -- ChrisO 23:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It can not be purchased. You can purchase it, I can't purchase it, it has not been published to the public. However, something like 40 million words have been published to the public. Perhaps a few of those would be better sources for Wikipedia readers. Terryeo 00:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

That is a falsehood, it CAN be purchased. The course is just over $21,000 US at Flag. --Fahrenheit451 01:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, ChrisO, I think that is spot on, that is exactly the issue I am raising. The only caveat I would add is that the possibility to purchase it from Scientology is not sufficient if, for example, only a high-ranking member can purchase it and it is therefore inaccessible to the general public. Otherwise it remains unverifiable by Wikipedia readers: Verifiability cannot depend on whether I want to effectively dedicate my life to Scientology by advancing to a "flag executive" or whatever else is required to the courses, which I understand from the other pages are also very expensive.

Fahrenheit451, the difference between the quote you have introduced and, for example, the Pentagon Papers, is (as you have noted) the latter are in the Congressional Record and for that reason are verifiable by any member of the public. Therefore, I am removing the quote for now unless and until you provide a verifiable and reliable source. I realise you may feel completely confident the lecture and quote exist and may have even seen them yourself, and I also note that you have been helpfully responsive to requests to clarify the language, but so far we can only take you at your word, and that does not meet the Wikipedia standard of verifiability. Really Spooky 14:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

You said:

"The only caveat I would add is that the possibility to purchase it from Scientology is not sufficient if, for example, only a high-ranking member can purchase it and it is therefore inaccessible to the general public."

Good point, but even more critical is the fact that a source which is only available to high-ranking members of CoS is even less justifiable as a reliable one because non-Scientologist editors and readers would have no guarantee of NPOV. There have been many accusations in the past of CoS suppressing untoward facts about their religion - regardless of the truth of these allegations, we must address them, and in addressing them, it is impossible to treat as "reliable" a source which only CoS members have access to. There would be no way to prove that NPOV was being adhered to. CoS-member-only sources must not be accepted here. Kasreyn 21:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, although I think once a verifiable source is identified the question of its reliability is closely linked to the purpose for which it is used. If it is merely to demonstrate the fact that the quoted material actually exists, a Scientology source is no less reliable than any other, if it is used to demonstrate Scientology's point of view on a matter that too is probably OK, however if it being used to establish the truth of e.g. Scientologist testimonials or assertions about its opponents then its reliability as a source may be brought into question. --Really Spooky 22:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me state for the record here that I have absolutely no problem with mentioning a source (although that does not necessarily mean citing it as authoritative) from Scientology. My problem arises when I am not allowed to view that source unless I am a Scientologist. The requirement of being forced to buy a copy itself is immaterial (otherwise we couldn't use the New York Times as a source, since their online edition requires a subscription). However, a requirement of faith goes too far. Kasreyn 01:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Some false information has entered into this discussion: The FEBC and ESTO course are available to ANY member of the CofS who has taken the prerequisite courses. There is no such requirement as "high ranking". There is also no stipulation anywhere in Scientology that a non-Scientologist may not view the FEBC or ESTO materials. Let's not use false assumptions to jump to bogus conclusions. --Fahrenheit451 23:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The FEBC and ESTO courses are not trival courses and are not simply 'taken' by every Scientology staff member. But even if they were available to every Scientology staff memeber they are not available to the public and that is the basic requirement per WP:V. Terryeo 00:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The FEBC and ESTO are available to every Scientologist, period. Terryeo, please refrain from attempting to redefine WP:V with your own criteria. Thank you. --Fahrenheit451 01:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

So, you're claiming that I, a non-Scientologist, could simply drive up to Clearwater, waltz into the CoS building there, and ask to read their copies of the FEBC ESTO course documents? If they asked me why I wanted to read them, I would of course honestly reply that I was wanting to verify some claims made on Wikipedia, and might use them as a source there myself. Can you honestly assure me that if I did so, I wouldn't be denied access to the documents? Because from what I've heard about the CoS, their response to my request seems more likely to include steps such as throwing me out of the building and applying threats of legal action to ensure my silence. I remain very doubtful about whether we can use such sources. Kasreyn 04:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Heh, they would explain those documents require a fair amount of pre-education to understand and try to talk you into some of the pre-education required to understand. Anyone can walk into any Church and talk. Membership isn't required. The handful of widely known, declared suppressive would have you believe otherwise. But the simplicity is, lots of people go into a Church with lots of questions, they ask their questions and talk with people. Many questions concern the written information, sometimes those can be answered by the receptionist picking up a book and pointing to a relevant passage. Terryeo 00:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The folks at the flag land base probably would not even let you in, unless you were some high mucky-muck v.i.p. They have been known to bar cofs members from entering their buildings. One could probably set up an appointment at another venue and be allowed to see them.--Fahrenheit451 15:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Fahrenheit451, several editors now have pointed out the Wikipolicy standard on verifiability, yet you still insist on keeping the quote without a source that meets that standard. In fact, you haven't even identified your own source for the quote. I am still willing to assume good faith on your part but it is getting more difficult, particularly after that last reply. So I have a few questions for you -

• 1) You say there is no requirement such as 'high rank' in Scientology to access the lectures. Yet at the same time you say that lectures are available to ‘ANY’ member with the very significant qualifier ‘who has taken the prerequisite courses’. This sounds rather misleading to me. Isn't the 'Flag Executive Briefing Course' a top-level administrative training course for Scientology executives that run Scientology organisations? That's what my web search tells me, anyway -- for example here[19]. Is this wrong or are you suggesting that every Scientologist is an executive?

The definition is incorrect. Here is an online link:[20] and the definition from the Management Dictionary pg. 211 by L. Ron Hubbard is: "the febc consists of high level administration technolgy. It is the Class VIII Course for admin. The name, Flag Executive Briefing Course reflects the fact that this course was intitially developed in 1970-71 on Flag. The febc checksheet is built around the Management Series volume plus the FEBC tapes which give the Product/Org Officer system. It includes a daily period of training drills through the course time plus some personal Esto actions done on the student such as product clearing and post purpose clearing. (HCO PL 17 May 74R)--Fahrenheit451 15:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• 2) Irrespective of your answer to the above, it does not help me one jot as a Wikipedia reader because I am not a Scientologist. How can I verify the quote?
• 3) You say ‘There is also no stipulation anywhere in Scientology that a non-Scientologist may not view the FEBC or ESTO materials.’: How do you know that no such stipulation exists? Are you a 'Flag Executive'? Even if you are, why should I take your word for it? In any event, this completely ignores the central, practical issue of verifiability. I don't know any Scientologists personally, much less any taking the course. Can you point me to a Scientologist that will show me the lecture? --Really Spooky 11:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Really Spooky, I am advising you to remain civil, your tone seems to be getting hostile. You or someone else alleged the stipulation that a non-scientologist may not see the febc or esto transcripts. I refuted it, but the burden of proof is on the originator of the allegation if this person cares to pursue it. I would be happy to show you the lecture transcripts if you were here. In any case, I will be searching the web for an online reference. --Fahrenheit451 15:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Fahrenheit451, I bear no hostility toward you and have no reason to do so. If anything I have written has given you that impression, please be assured that was not my intent. If you are able to locate a reliable online source for the quote I agree that would be the best way forward. My primary concern was and remains verifiability. --Really Spooky 18:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that's not quite correct. You propose that we include this claim and this source, and that the burden of proof is upon the person alleging that the source is unverifiable, to prove its unverifiability. This is backwards. The burden is upon you to show that your source is verifiable; if you cannot, then we can't include the source. I appreciate your search for an online reference; thank you for doing that for us. If we are in luck, that will render this entire argument moot.  :) Kasreyn 20:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I did a Google search earlier; the only hits I found on this lecture were from copies of this article. I've never seen it in print (and I've seen a lot of very restricted internal CoS materials). I can only guess that Fahrenheit is quoting from a privately-held copy, which is by definition unverifiable. -- ChrisO 21:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I did several searches and found that almost no cofs issues are available on the internet from cofs websites. If they make them available at all to non-cofs publics, they have to be purchased or specially requested. While the febc and esto lecture transcripts are published, they are not as widely distributed as books written by L. Ron Hubbard. This makes verifiability more difficult for those works. --Fahrenheit451 17:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

About the lecture you quoted, I have stated the Church's position. In discussion above I have quoted the Church's position which is the lecture is not and has never been published. You refused to accept that what I quoted and gave source and page number for is valid. Now you again say the information is invalid. So, hey, I may as well say again the lecture is unpublished. There is reason for the Church's management decisions about that. I can only guess. My guess is, the education required to understand that lecture is about 2 years. My guess is, the lecture has enough specialized jargon within it that the Church doesn't want to publish to the public, complex, difficult to follow information. That's just my guess. The actual position of the Church is, "we aren't going to sell this to the public", from the hardbound What is Scientology. Terryeo 21:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no way to verify that the church of scientology international's position is that the febc is unpublished, and if indeed that is what is stated, it is clearly a falsehood. The Church of Scientology of California made no such statement. The lecture and transcript are published for distribution to students of said course. As for your speculation about the publication motives of the CSI, the "jargon" is no more difficult than reading HCO policy letters. The fact is, the CSI DOES sell the febc to a public who are students that have done the prerequisites. --Fahrenheit451 23:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, I did a websearch and cannot verify your statement about the febc being "unpublished". I even went here [21] and there is no such data. Only the softcover version of WIS is available from that site, so there is no way for me to order it. Could it be that the hardcover version of What is Scientology is "unpublished"? --Fahrenheit451 00:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the scientology.org bookstore and only found the softcover, as you did. So I went to amazon.com and found soft and hardcovers, the hardcovers are for sale at a real good price. I searched [http://www.amazon.com amazon] for "what is scientology" (book search) and got [http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0000WA134/sr=1-2/qid=1153735004/ref=sr_1_2/103-2707538-4343827?ie=UTF8&s=books] which details led to [http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B0000WA134/ref=dp_olp_2/103-2707538-4343827?ie=UTF8]. I do not know why it is not available at the scientology.org website but I didn't email and ask, either. I put the soft and hardcovers side by side and compared the table of contents. The hardcover shows 42 chapters and 738 pages. The hardcover, 49 chapters and 1060 pages. The difference was that chapters were added. The added chapter titles are: Important Dates in Scientology, The Victories of Scientology, Pledge to Mankind, The Holidays of Scientology, The Complete Auditing and Training Services of Scientology, The Books, Lectures and Videos of Scientology and Complete List of All Materials. It was from that last chapter which I quoted the unpublished status of audio lecture 7203C05 (March, 1972 lecture on medium CO5). The book states about those 12 lectures delivered March 01 to March 06: unpublished work, not available for purchase. Terryeo 10:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I think you should take a look at these images: [22] and [23] This is a promo scan I made that clearly shows the FEBC is offered to cofs public. I am not accusing You of deception, but based on my direct observation and this promo, it is verifiable that the course is offered to the public. The recordings may not be offered for public sale at present, but students purchase transcripts with the course, which they keep. :-)--Fahrenheit451 13:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I have viewed the images which you presented and I request you remove them from the page, now. On an standard telephone line modem they very greatly slow the loading of the page. I think you will find other editors too, find the page loads more slowly than is wanted. Of course, with DSL or a cable modem connection, the page's load speed would not be 30 seconds. But to address the point for which reason you enpaged the images, I might understand the point you are making. I think you are making the point that the lecture can be procured, though not published. May I request, if you wish to persue inclusion of the lecture's quote, that the issue move to WP:RS because this is one of those examples of unpublished information, not available easily, which might nonetheless get a concensus of editors. My feeling is, let's use WP:V, there is LOTS published, lets use it instead. But what you do is up to you, of course. Terryeo 17:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

My point is that it IS published, but of rather limited distribution, which can make verifiability difficult.--Fahrenheit451 19:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to say, based on these leaflets, I think it's pretty conclusive that the source is not adequately verifiable. Note the leaflets say that (1) the materials are limited to Scientologists only, and (2) they are only available to those who have already done the prerequisite courses. They may be publicly advertised but they are plainly not available to the public at large. Would I, as a non-Scientologist and a critic of the CoS, be able to go on this cause and see the materials? Clearly not. If people have to swear loyalty to L. Ron and all his works before they can see the materials, and if there's no other place where they can be seen by the public, then there's no way that they can be regarded as readily verifiable. -- ChrisO 20:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Another element of difficulty has to do with the education needed in order to understand the lecture. Even the very first symbol of the lecture's title "E" (Establishment) as in Establishement Officer, requires some definition, it is a job, but a specialized job with particular actions and responsibilities. One of those of course is to look for and be aware of any "cross-hatting" that goes on. The flyer says that Staff Status II is required before taking the course. Well, even Staff Status 0 is a whole lot of checksheet, a whole lot of education. I'm sure you know the Admin 0 Volume is more than 800 pages long. Terryeo 03:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

C7203C05 (delivered in the 03 month of 1972 and contained on medium 'CO5', which is a kind of audio tape) was a lecture by Hubbard. It was delivered aboard the ship, Apollo that month. Its title was Handling Personnel. The Church published a hardbound book titled; What is Scientology, of 1059 pages, ISBN 1573180785. Apparently Fahrenheit has the paper back version which does not contain a chapter which the hardbound contains. The hardbound says about that (and the other 11 lectures of that series, delivered abord the Apollo), on page 950, Delivered to Flag Executive Briefing Course students aboard the Apollo, this series of lectures details the Establishement Officer system. (Unpublished work, not available for purchase. Can be heard by those enrolled on the Flag Executive Briefing Course and Establishement Officer Course.). Please notice, the Church clearly announces the lecutre is not for sale and further, please notice the lecture can not be owned by individuals. In fact a person may only listen to that lecture and may never own that lecture. Terryeo 06:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

And that is an outright lie. The audio recording is no longer for sale. The transcription is for the student to keep and use in the future. The "church" in this case is the church of scientology international, not the original church of scientology of california, which made no such statement. --Fahrenheit451 08:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

You have stated that I have stated an lie. It is possible I have made a misstatement, I am capable of making a mistake. But I certainly did not deliberately mislead nor state a lie. I quoted text exactly, text from a book whose ISBN I supplied, a book which is on sale at amazon.com for a good price. I stated the bold truth. The full truth would also include that you do not now, nor have you ever been granted permission to own your personal copy, neither by sales receipt nor by someone verbally saying to you, "this transcript is yours to keep.". I didn't state the full truth, I stopped short of that. The audio recording was never for sale. The transcript has never been for sale. Your statement could be made more gently, User:Fahrenheit451. Terryeo 21:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, F451 and I don't seem to cooperate very well in this section. However, I have located an online repository of some of the information which F451 implies I have "lied" about, that is, the hardcopy version of the book What is Scientology has a chapeter 48, Complete List of Scientology Materials which the softbound book does not. A similar list appears online at thislink. Terryeo 09:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Footnote [8]

Reference #[8] the 12 characteristics of a suppressive person references to HCO PL 27 Sept 66, Issue II, The Antisocial Peronality The Anti-Scientologist. It is a perfectly good reference. However, the 12 characteristcs of a suppressive person appear at Scientology's official website. That link is [24] Both references might be used, the official online version is far more available than a written policy letter. The policy letter expands the online version very slightly, but both pieces of information are word for word duplicates. Terryeo 17:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The webbed version is based on the original. Both should be cited, then. --Fahrenheit451 13:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

An Editor's Original Research

At Origins and definitions the article states: The concept appears to have first been introduced into Scientology in 1965, possibly as a response to increasing challenges to Hubbard's authority from discontented members [4]. The original research appears is, possibly as a response to increasing challenges to Hubbards authority from discontented members. That is pure whoop-dee-do original research. It is a conclusion on the part of an editor. It states what an editor sees as a possibility. The reference to [4] is an attempt to substantiate User:ChrisO's personal research which he introduced editing difference on 3 June 2006. If that reference [4] makes that statement, then quote the source and cite the page number. As it stands right now the article presents ChrisO's original research and WP:NOR applies. Terryeo 00:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you having trouble working out how to use references, Terryeo? Click on the little [4] and you find exactly what you're asking for: Ruth A. Tucker, Another Gospel: Cults, Alternative Religions, and the New Age Movement, p. 313. (Zondervan, 2004). -- ChrisO 08:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you having trouble understanding the written word, ChrisO? The concept appears to have first been introduced ... Is not a statement of fact. It is not an assertion. It is not a statement which can be included in Wikipedia articles but is a weasel-worded, sly attempt to create a slanderous implication. The article could state, The concept was introduced in 19xx in the publication (cited source). Weasel wording "appears to..." is your personal and original research and is boldly refused admission in Wikipedia articles by the concensus of editors who write and edit WP:V. Terryeo 16:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you go and look up the source then, because the statement in the article comes directly from the book - hence the reference. -- ChrisO 17:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you use quotations then. If the article actually states, ''The concept appears to have first been introduced into Scientology in 1965, possibly as a response to increasing challenges . . then it should be quoted. It is cited. But it is not quoted. The statement is weasel worded, appears to have first been introduced ... and if the article says that, then quote that. If the article does not use those words, then the article should not have such a weasel worded statement within it. Terryeo 22:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem here is the problem that often happens when you read a section and present information in an article, ChrisO. You do not directly quote the information which has led you to the conclusion you present in the article. Such writing may be perfect in your articles at clambake.org, such writing may be stunning in your posts on newsgroups. But such writing is not encyclopedic, it does not satisfy WP:V which states explicitly that the responsibility for information introduced by an editor, be quoteable by that editor. You have introduced a weasel worded phrase. Can you supply an internet page which has that weasel worded phrase of page 131? Then there is the second part of your introduced information. possibly as a response to .. which is an evaluation of Hubbard's motivations. I know otherwise, but I don't expect you to understand otherwise. What I expect you to do is exactly what WP:V and WP:RS and WP:CITE spell out you should do. You should quote the book, you should use the words it says in print. That would be encyclopedic writing and I suspect the weasel worded phrase, appears to have been introduced in 1965.. does not actually appear in the book. Terryeo 22:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I looked the up Ruth A. Tucker's book on the internet. I found exerpts from it. [25]] She makes contradictory statements. According to the exerpts Tucker states:

• In a nutshell, Scientology teaches that all humans descended from a race of uncreated, omnipotent gods called Thetans

  and then states:

• 4. Sin and Salvation. A major creed of L. Ron Hubbard states that "man is good," an immortal Thetan, able to create MEST'

  The two statements obviously contradict each other. One says that humans are descended from thetans. The other says that humans are thetans. It is no wonder User:ChrisO's edit is unable to quote her book at all ! It is no wonder that ChrisO felt it necessary to evaluate what her book states, rephrase it and introduce some of the information from her book as his original research. "Apparently ... first introduced in 1965 ..". Well, that is not good writing. To introduce when the first publication of "Suppressive person" appeared, an editor would quote the first publication of "Suppressive person" and cite the source. It gives a reader no confidence in Wikipedia to use words like "apparently". The work should be quoted if used, but using a source that uses "apparently.." would be poor encyclopedic writing. Then, User:ChrisO attempts to psychoanalyze Hubbard's motive in introducing Suppressive person technology. He says the book says ...possibly as a response to increasing challenges to Hubbards authority... But he doesn't quote the book. Instead he presents his evaluation of what the book says. It is not encyclopedic. It could be called essay writing but it couldn't be called encyclopedic writing. Enclyclopedic writing would be a direct quote from the book, a page number and other specific information from the book. It appears as User:ChrisO personal opinion instead of Tucker's opinion. Terryeo 10:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Disconnection

The whole of Suppressive Person Technology is an ethical action and its only purpose is to allow technology to happen. It is used if technology is stopped, it is used to stop that thing which is stopping technology. The article presently states: One of these is "disconnection," in which Scientologists are ordered to cease all communication with the declared "suppressive,". That's not entirely wrong but it presents information without a context. That might have happened a few hundred times but other ways of dealing with the situation were tried first. It is a last resort, but the article doesn't present the action in its context. In extreme cases, one of these is "disconnection," in which a Scientologist is ordered to cease communication with the declared suppressive person," would be accurate. Alternatively, After other methods have been tried could be used. Terryeo 16:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)