Talk:Free Zone (Scientology)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] 1934

How were German members of the Free Zone publishing a book on scientology in 1934? Wasn't scientology founded in the 1950's? -- 68.239.239.162

As you have realised, there were no scientologists in 1934. However, a book including the title "Scientology" (and completely unrelated to the cult) was published then. This has led some challengers to claim that the word "Scientology" is not owned by the religious group, since it had prior use. -- FP 20:52, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV?

"Scientology is evil; its techniques evil; its practice a serious threat to the community, medically, morally and socially, and its adherents sadly deluded and often mentally ill." That was one conclusion found in the Report of the Board of Inquiry into Scientology for the State of Victoria, Australia in 1965. It was based on half a year of testimony, demonstration and analysis. Note that the Church of Scientology is not what is criticized, but Scientology itself. The Board's experts found unanimously that Scientology techniques are dangerous to mental health. These condemned, hypnotic techniques are what are sold in the Free Zone.

Seems to me the assertion that the techniques are hypnotic is POV, if not the rest of this. I see no reason to introduce the techniques in such a negative light before saying this is what the Free Zone teaches. It would be better to explain what the Free Zone is up front and put the stuff below in a section on criticism that also mentions most criticism of scientology is applicable.

"Sold" is POV, as well.

Jdavidb 20:58, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yup, I've reverted those soapbox-style additions several times already. Note also the discussion I had with the user who keeps adding them back, which I'm pasting below. Mkweise 05:10, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

(From User talk:66.120.162.33) Please refrain from adding opinionated remarks such as "Scientology is evil" to articles. As an encyclopedia, it is our goal to treat even controversial subjects without bias. Thank you. Mkweise 16:03, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The "scientology is evil" quote was the lead conclusion of the Board of Inquiry, an impartial government assembly formed to investigate Scientology without bias in Victoria, Australia. The Church of Scientology cooperated for several months; the Board's sittings occupied 160 days and 151 witnesses were heard. The evidence covered 8,920 pages with nearly four million words, and also thousands of documents were put in. 11 parties were represented. The final report was 173 pages with 19 appendices. It was not a hasty, biased statement. A negative statement in conclusion does not necessitate bias any more than a positive statement does, and if you have a problem with bias, what is a quote from L. Ron Hubbard doing on the same page, unmolested? user:66.120.162.33
If the source can be verified, I'm not opposed to quoting it. However, your "soapbox" style of writing is unnecessarily inflammatory and clearly intended to convey a particular point of view. Please take some time and read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view before making any more edits. Mkweise 16:46, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
But why do not you tell the whole story? This conclusion was used as reason to ban the Church of Scientology in Australia in 1965, which was later (1983) reviewed by a court and the Church of Scientology was recognized as a bona-fide religion. This decision also de-facto denied the conclusion that Scientology is evil. (Sorry if my English is not good enough, it is not my native tongue) Profant 11:05, 12 Jul 2005 (UTC)
It's still recognized as a cult in most of the rest of the world, which doesn't make it "evil", but certainly doesn't make it a "religion". Note that the terms "evil" and "religion" are entirely relative, but that someone has to draw the line for cults somewhere. --mwazzap 01:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing link to slanderous anti- Tommy Thomson site...

Is it really appropriate to leave this link up?

Opinions please... posted by 71.104.40.152 (talk • contribs)

Yes. It should be left up. This sites looks like it tells the other side of the story. There are always two sides to the story.
Look at http://www.whatstommyupto.com and http://www.freezonesurvivors.to
Suzy posted by 67.19.123.2 (talk • contribs)
This is perfectly allright to have there these links. At least everyone can see what kind of critics the opponents to the Free Zone must turn to. They take something out of the educational video at Tommy's website (which is BTW solo session, Tommy does not audit anybody), add there a small view to an e-meter reading when Tommy drinks coffee and state that he does squirrel sessions. LOL. Profant 11:44, 12 Jul 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed

The current dispute is regarding categorizations. Free Zone is categorized in Category:Free Zone. The article does not define Scientology and therefore should not be in Category:Scientology.--AI 7 July 2005 22:42 (UTC)

WP:CLS Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes
"An article should not be in both a category and its subcategory, e.g. Microsoft Office is in Category:Microsoft software, so should not also be in Category:Software — except when the article defines a category as well as being in a higher category, e.g. Ohio is in both Category:U.S. states and Category:Ohio."

[edit] Category:Free Zone

This article belongs in Category:Free Zone. It does not define Scientology nor is the Free Zone article in a category higher than Category:Scientology. See WP:CLS. --AI 2 July 2005 21:59 (UTC)

Antaeus, do you have a comment about your reverts?--AI 2 July 2005 22:21 (UTC)

Sure do. That comment is "Don't go past your misunderstoods." Re-read the very policy you yourself quoted, starting with the word "except". "Except when the article defines a category as well as being in a higher category." Does Free Zone define a category? Yes it does. If your interpretation of categorization was accurate, what would Category:U.S. states look like? It would have a subcategory for every state but the article for each state would be distinctly missing -- it would have been removed from the higher category, because it belonged to a subcategory. However, as you can verify for yourself, it is not that way, because the policy specifically states the exception.
You're argument is flawed. The Free Zone is not a part of Scientology, regardless of their beliefs.--AI 7 July 2005 22:48 (UTC)
What you mean is "Regardless of the Free Zone's beliefs, it is my belief that they are not part of Scientology." Wikipedia does not exist to present your beliefs in preference to the beliefs of Free Zoners. Even if one were to argue that only Scientology which is practiced with the commercial seal of approval of the Church of Scientology and proper licensing of the trademarks is "really" Scientology, there is no disputing that the Free Zone is relevant to Scientology, which is why it is a subcategory of Category:Scientology. If people read the article, they will find out your belief that what the Free Zoners practice isn't Scientology. But the fact of the article's existence is not going to be censored because you believe differently from the Free Zoners and don't want their point of view to be mentioned. -- Antaeus Feldspar 7 July 2005 23:20 (UTC)
Now, would you like to provide any explanation for why you are calling this article "disputed"? So far as this talk page shows, you haven't actually disputed the accuracy of a single statement in the article. That's generally considered a step that should come before the "disputed" tag. -- Antaeus Feldspar 4 July 2005 00:01 (UTC)
I'm not disputing statements, I'm disputing the categorization and your reverts regarding this categorization. Quit playing word games and quit wasting my time Antaeus, is Irmgard paying you? --AI 7 July 2005 22:45 (UTC)

I disputed the categorization 18 hours before adding the tag, and only added the tag after Antaeus' reverts.--AI 7 July 2005 22:45 (UTC)

Let me try to put this dispute to rest. The FreeZone consists of a small number of ex-Scientolgists who became dissatisfied with the Church of Scientology. You can liken them to a sort of disgruntled ex-employee. The few in the FreeZone argue that the Church has been "taken over" and no longer practices standard Scientology as written by L. Ron Hubbard; yet the Church owns the copyrights as willed to them upon the death of L. Ron Hubbard. People in the FreeZone have been excommunicated formally from the Church of Scientology. The Church argues that the FreeZoners commited crimes or had such gross mis-conduct, the need for extreme measures were necessary. This is called an expulsion, declare or excommunication. Some FreeZoners are proud to have been expelled formally from the Church and grandly display their expulsions on their own websites. The church states in these expulsions that the subject FreeZoner, violated the moral codes of the Church by mis-appying the science of the mind it teaches. The belief is that Dianetics and Scientology are a science and therefore must be applied exactly as recommended by the Founder, L. Ron Hubbard, in order to obtain successful results; such as a higher IQ or happier life. FreeZoners call themselves free of the Church of Scientology and therefore they are no longer in the catagory of Scientology. The other, and this is the main point, FreeZoners claim that they no longer practice the exact science of Dianetics and Scientology as by law, they cannot. There are infringement issues involved. FreeZoners in fact, MUST not practice Scientology or they would be in violation of infringement laws. The Church has the right to insist that its counselling methods be delivered standardly as they own and protect the copyrights. Just as CocaCola has the right to insist upon only selling the exact, correct recipe be bottled and sold round the world, the Church of Scientology has this same right to insist upon only offering to the public its exact recipe for mental treatment. If one were to practice the counselling methods of this religion, hang out a shingle and charge money for that counseling, one must practice the counseling as exactly taught by the Church. If you want to do it some other way, then you are not practicing Scientology and you are not a Scientologist. FreeZoners do not practice Scientology. They practice their own brand of counselling as they HAVE to change the techniques or be sued for infringement. Are they practicing Scientology? Not at all. Are they Scientologists? Not any more. Dan

I am not picking sides but Dan, the legal "facts" you talk about is not the way copyrights work. The one this is, you cannot copyright data. CocaCola can't copyright their formula because it is data. They can only enforce the formula because they own the production company. Besides all the OT documents are public domain because they were used in a court case. Dianetics is available at any bookstore so all copyrights are taken care of provided you pay for your copy of dianetics. You can't copyright a procedure. You can patent a procedure though. However, I don't know of any patents on counciling methods ever being granted. As for trademarks the book Scientologie was published before Hubbard's Scientology. However, IANAL. --metta, The Sunborn 02:47, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
In any case, it's still moot to the question of categorization, or should I say, the two questions of categorization. The first question is, should Category:Free Zone be a sub-category of Category:Scientology? The answer is yes; the fact that they are not legally allowed to use the trademark of "Scientology" to describe their beliefs and practices does not stop them from being definitely, indubitably relevant to the subject of Scientology. The argument that "they are not really Scientologists, even if they think they are" is irrelevant; critics of Scientology are certainly not practicing Scientologists either, but the category is clearly relevant. So that establishes the answer to the first question.
The second question is, should the article Free Zone be placed in Category:Free Zone, Category:Scientology, or both? The answer is both. This might surprise some people, because one of the major purposes of establishing a sub-category is to reduce the clutter in a parent category. If an article's relevance to the subject of Scientology is entirely described by a sub-category (or more than one) this usually means that it should appear only in the sub-category (or -ies), and not in the parent category. However, what some people have failed to notice is that there is a clearly stated exception, for articles that define a sub-category. (Note: not "define the parent category" -- certain people persistently misread it as that, but they should not go past that misunderstood.) Thus: Free Zone defines the sub-category Category:Free Zone; Free Zone should belong to the same parent categories that Category:Free Zone does. L. Ron Hubbard defines Category:L. Ron Hubbard and thus should, like Category:L. Ron Hubbard, belong in Category:Scientology. However, L. Ron Hubbard bibliography does not define the sub-category it belongs to, and should not be added to the parent category as well as the sub-category. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
IANAL. The OT documents are publicly available, not public domain, as a result of their appearing in the various court cases. A search today on the USPTO website for "Scientology" indicates no method/procedure patents. Prior use of a trademark word or phrase does not automatically preclude it from being trademarkable. However, these are quibbles. From a religious studies standpoint, the "Free Zone" members can be considered variously as heretical and/or schizmatic sects of the "Church" of Scientology, much as Gnostics and Protestants are to Catholicism. Trademark law may prevent "Free Zone" members from calling what they practice Scientology in the United States, but that does not change the substance (or lack there of) of the practices themselves-- although noting such explicitly in the article may have merit to cover Wikipedia's legal backside. As such, the "Free Zone" category makes sense, both as subcategory and an item within the Scientology Category. [[User:abb3w|abb3w] 16:08, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Antaeus, the Free Zone article DOES NOT belong in Category:Scientology. You're insistence shows you do not know what Scientology is. --AI 03:03, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Your insistence that it does shows that you haven't even been bothering to read and correct your misunderstoods on what the crux of the discussion is -- just as you still clearly haven't bothered to read the speedy deletions policy before misapplying it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:46, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
It is proper Wikiquette to sign your posts on Talk pages. :Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages --AI 23:53, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Aren't you Scientologists purportedly all gung-ho on the importance of taking responsibility for your actions? And yet instead of taking responsibility for your attempts (up to three now!) to speedy-delete an article that does not fall under the criteria for speedy deletion, you whine (in bold, no less) about my forgetting to sign a post? Very well -- I will demonstrate responsibility and admit that yes, I forgot to sign that post. I am happy to say that it was the result of momentary forgetfulness, which cannot be said of repeated attempts to inappropriately speedy-delete articles that do not meet the criteria. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:23, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Just some consistency and systematics. Also for Scientology beliefs and practices, both the article and the subcategory is included in Category:Scientology. If that is right, it's also right for Free Zone. --Pjacobi 17:31, July 16, 2005 (UTC)


There is vurtually no freezones in the Sahara, this is an added inappicable.

There were 5 links to the same site, 'Freezonesurvivors'. This is superfluous. I have removed three of them. I left the Tommy one as it is a different site although the same people.

Also removed the word 'almost' into what I originally write.

Michael Moore President International Freezone Association support@internationalfreezone.net

(Michael, you need to learn how Wikis are edited to be understandable. Your Wiki signature is on one of the editing buttons. The Saharan reference is to a geographical region called the Freezone) --Hartley Patterson 00:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC) )


This is not an issue that can be resolved here, as is part of a wider dispute in which the opposing sides are not presently engaging in any meaningful dialogue.

The situation in Scientology is akin to that within Christianity during the Reformation. The Catholic Church maintained that it was Christianity, Protestants claimed that it had become hopelessly corrupt and that they were the 'true' Christians. Extremists on both sides were convinced that their opponents were controlled by the Devil. Much burning at the stake followed.

In the present case Church loyalists are not going to accept anything that connects the Freezone with Scientology. There is no point in trying to reason with them, they aren't listening.

So it is for outsiders to determine where the Freezone belongs in Wikipedia, which is by all logic within the category Scientology but not within the category Church of Scientology which has a seperate article. There is no intended judgement in doing that as to whether or not freezoners are scientologists. --Hartley Patterson 00:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is the factual accuracy of this article disputed?

If so, what are the specific disputes? -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:11, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

You already know or have you forgotten? --AI 03:07, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I already know what it is you are disputing. I also know that it has nothing to do with the factual accuracy of the article, and that changing the header in order to change the question will not succeed in changing the subject for you. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:54, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Are there any "factual" contents are in dispute in this article? --AI 10:18, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Mr. Feldspar's conclusion seems to be correct. I am but a humble student of religions, educate me. This is what I (we) see:
  1. Scientology is a religion
  2. Christianity is a religion
  3. The Roman Catholic Church teaches Christianity
  4. The Coptic Church teaches Christianity
  • Therefore different bodies can teach the same religion
  1. The Church of Scientology teaches the religion of Scientology
  2. The FreeZone teaches the religion of Scientology
  • Therefore the Free Zone article should be in the Scientology category
If this is not the case, by all means prove us wrong. --metta, The Sunborn 03:50, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
Well, I took me a while to get oriented in the complexity of this discussion. Well, I think you are not quite right. The Free Zone article does belong to the subject of Scientology, but probably only to it's subcategory of the Free Zone. You are right, that both the Church of Scientology and the Freezone teach Scientology. But the word Scientology itself is used in two meanings: 1. the subject itself and 2. the Church of Scientology. Not in the meaning of the Free Zone. That is IMHO why these two articles do not necesarily belong to the same level. --Profant 13:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
The Coptic Church is not categorized in it's respective christian category AND the main christian category. Neither is the Roman Catholic Church. They are in subcategories dealing with different denominatinos. So why is a main freezone article in the scientology directory? --AI 10:17, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
The category system is a mess, for instance that just means they didn't follow the rules for those two chruches. Here are the churches that did follow the rule: Eastern Orthodox Church, Salvation Army, and some minor denominations. --metta, The Sunborn 14:33, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
The Coptic Church does not belong to a sub-category that it defines. The Roman Catholic Church does (Category:Roman Catholic Church), which means that it should also be placed in the two categories of which Category:Roman Catholic Church is a sub-category: Category:Christian denominations (where it in fact is already placed) and Category:Christianity (where it isn't, but will be shortly.) -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:02, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Yes, Antaeus, you have just disputed the following information. Take a look at the history for proof of your claiming "dubious".[1] --AI 02:23, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

There is an interesting Book about Psychiatry and the Freezone at this link http://www.freezonesurvivors.to/psych_in_freezone.html. It was written by a Russian and there is a translation at this site. The book exposes the connection of ex-scientologists in the Freezone, in Russia and Europe who are in league with psychiatrists. The russian author claims that many people who run and organize the freezone, help russian psychiatrists deliver false Scientology services to Scientolgists. Pat

I have reworded it as following and Antaeus is still disputing it:[2] ::AI 02:23, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

A Russian book exposes the connection of the Russian and European "freezoners" who are in league with psychiatrists. The author claims that some people who run and organize the freezone are actually help Russian psychiatrists deliver false Scientology services to Scientologists.

Antaeus, explain why you think this is dubious and what proof do you have to discount it? --AI 02:23, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
I do not get your point. You have a link to all this in the article so what do you fuss about? If you want to proove that there is no real Scientology in the Freezone then look first at the list of all the changes that RTC has made to LRH materials and technical procedures. One list is at http://www.freezone.de/english/news/tech-changes/technical_changes.htm , but far from complete. That can be found throughout the Internet. I do not want to really get into this as nobody can win a battle of critics and propaganda, so you better realize it. --Profant 10:07, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


Some correction is needed here also.

The Free Zone is not an organised body of people. It is a collection of individuals and individual groups who operate as individuals and individual groups. There is no 'Organised Body' running the Free Zone.

It is exactly as it is described in Wikepedia in the first few paragraphs.

Michael IFA

[edit] FreeZone survivors

Text removed from the article:

I would like to start a new subject: Freezone Survivors. http://www.freezonesurvivors.to/
We are a group of people who found each other after surviving the incorrect application of Scientology technology as practiced in the Freezone.
As survivors, some of us have our stories published on our website. http://www.freezonesurvivors.to/casehist.html We hope that by our own example, we can reach out to others before they come to harm in the hands of Freezone practitioners. We band together to provide support for each other. As such, we can and have been repairing the damage from the counseling or training we received in the Freezone.
Another goal we have is to be exit counselors for anyone who is currently experiencing any ill affects from having practiced or undergone the off-beat counseling in the Freezone. We can help those currently bogged under from freezone counseling or help family members and friends who have friends or family under the influence of Freezone counselors. There is proof that the Freezoners do NOT apply Scientology http://www.freezonesurvivors.to/whoswho.html and this link will show you the truth.
Our website does not seek remuneration of any kind. We do however, wish to reach out and help those who have been caved in by any 'technology' imposed upon them in the Freezone. There are links http://www.freezonesurvivors.to/fzlinks.html that show some of the damage done and how it was repaired.
Pat Harrison


It does however comtain implications and generalities and little substance other than to denigrate people in the Freezone. (anyone can verify that by checking out the web site)

I doubt that it would warrant an 'additional' subject.

The link is quite sufficient.

There is the official church and there are those who practice outside the church and there are those who are anti. All are represented in Wikipedia quite satisfactorily.

Michael IFA


The site contains blatant lies about myself and others. As it is not based on factual data it has no part in an encyclopedia and should be deleted.

Ralph Hilton


It has been removed as contains slanderous and possibly libellous material about individuals. It is full of inuendo and inferences and, as stated above, should not be in an encyclopedia of facts.

Michael IFA


It seems that the link was reinstated without discussion. I shall delete it again. The site is defamatory and actually in criminal violation of the Perjury Act of 1911.

Ralph Hilton

The links were reinstated without discussion because deleting it in the first place wasn't in line with Wikipedia's practices. Me, personally? I believe you; I look at those sites and the attempt to "dead agent" the Free Zone is almost comically blatant. However, there's a difference between what I as a reader do not believe, and what I as an editor can class as a source that should not be available to readers to make up their minds from. I'm afraid the precedent is fairly clear that people can't just look at the external sites and say "This is BS and it insults me and I know it's wrong and defamatory and so Wikipedia shouldn't link to it and I'll remove the link" because then just about every link would be gone. The same kind of people who put up "Free Zone survivors" sites with really transparently false 'testimonials' will claim "Well, I look at those Free Zone sites and I don't believe their side of the story so I'll remove that." If you obtain an actual legal judgement that the content of the sites is perjurious/defamatory/libelous/what-have-you, please let us know, but I'm afraid we can't just remove links because one side claims that they know the content to be false. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:15, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The book is NO hoax

Evidence: The Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin (Library of the State in Berlin/Germany) lists the book in her catalogue. Visit it at http://stabikat.de and search for "Scientologie". It was published in 1934 by Reinhardt/München.

This is still disputed information, so please do not remove my labels without providing hard evidence in the future. Thank you. What you are committing here is a fallacy of argument from authority rather than presenting actual evidence of the book's existence. A small entry in an online database is not much more convincing than the sheaf of typewritten pages. Is it not true that the "Freie Zone eV," the German Free Zone company, was responsible for both "rediscovering" and registering this supposed book with the German government? As the history of Scientology is riddled with subterfuge, infiltration of government agencies and deception, and given the obvious benefit to "Freie Zone eV" as a result of the copyright judgment (which would allow them to use the phrase "Scientologie" without persecution from the Church of Scientology), there is still significant suspicion about the existence of this book, whose only evidence remains to be, as far as is known yet, a set of typewriter-produced pages whose authenticity was never scientifically verified.
The obvious beneficial nature, to "Freie Zone eV", for having such a book exist, make the flimsy claims worth investigating. Now that we exist in an age where high-definition image scanners and high-speed communications are ubiquitous, why not take advantage of this to prove that "Freie Zone eV" is not merely inventing a convenient situation to create or exploit a loophole in German trademark law? The fact that this book was discovered at such a convenient time, in order to assist "Freie Zone eV" in their trademark disputes, seems very suspicious to me. If actual bound, printing-press-published copies of this book exist, why have they not yet been imaged and placed on the net? This book's authenticity has been disputed for over 5 years now, yet no more information has surfaced in that time, except for a small bit of text on a German index, which could conceivably have been altered.

I'm new to this issue, and really don't care much about the subject at hand, but I can't help noticing that you can download the entire book in PDF scans right here. If that's a hoax, it's a pretty damn elaborate one. I'm inclined to go along with the WIPO and consider its existence verified. There is a point where the preponderance of evidence places the burden of proof on the other side. The book is available in current printing and as a scan of the first printing with date and imprimatur intact, it is listed in the database of a large state-run German library that any involved party can visit to verify its existence, and in a semi-legal arbitration centered around intellectual property rights related to the book, no one suggested or entered evidence that the book was a fraud. The legal implications of the book's existence are for courts to decide, but I should think if you want to contest that its fake, you need to supply the evidence - not the other way around. --Diderot 10:28, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The book Scientologie may be a hoax

I'm hereby requesting evidence that there was a book entitled "Scientologie" published in 1934 by an A. Nordenholz. I can find no evidence of this book's existence outside of Free Zone lore; past edits of this wikipedia page suggest that the source copy was actually a collection of typewritten or even Xeroxed pages rather than the bound sort of book with covers you might expect from a publisher. I also find it disturbing and curious that this information has been revised away completely from the article, with the relevant text reverted back to its earliest form.

Please cite objective sources verifying this book's existence.

The text bound in book form was available at Library of Congress, Washington, D.C., in 1968 c.e. The publisher may have been unrelated to F.Zone, memory is imprecise.

Thank you for this information. The Library of Congress added the book in 1995. However, they have no record of a first edition. Their copy is a 1968 (supposed) translation -- by a Free Zone Scientologist named Woodward R. McPheeters (of "Aberree" fame). I doubt therefore whether the publisher was unrelated to Free Zone.
There seems to be a real problem finding original editions of this book. Apparently, even the "Nordenholz family" only had access to the strangely typewritten manuscript (actually, the source manuscript was not even an original, but rather a third-generation Xerox copy -- I smell a "shore story") that has served as the basis for every subsequent translation and claim. (I am unsure whether the "Nordenholz family" are themselves Free Zone Scientologists, however they have not spoken for themselves on the Scientologie issue; rather, all information has mysteriously been filtered through Free Zone Scientologists who purported in 1995 to have contacted them).
So what you are saying is that you prefer to believe that Free Zone Scientologists somehow successfully engineered a hoax upon two libraries, including one that is the library for one of the world's major nations, rather than the simpler explanation, that the book existed? The best that can be said about your belief is that it is possible. However, the burden of proof is upon you to show some sort of actual evidence for your theory. You have shown none. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:05, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "undiscussed deletion"?

I'm not exactly sure what information was lost in this edit that prompted someone to revert it. What did I miss? -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Church of Scientology and the Free Zone

There's a LOT of weasel wording and unverified claims the last section of this page. Can someone clean it up a bit and back up some of the "some"s? I'm not qualified to do so on this subject, and I'm too transfixed by the subject matter to even try to educate myself. nae'blis (talk) 20:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "views with disdain" statement

This portion of sentence: "views "rogue" Scientologists with even more disdain than those who dismiss Hubbard's teachings outright. " is placed here because there is no verification of it in the article. WP:V states the threshold for including information is verifiability, not thruth. Should someone find citation which says the Church of Scientology views with disdain, well hey, then it ought to go back into the article. Until then it is POV, original research on the part of editors. Terryeo 18:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harvey Jackins

Recently there has been some discussion of whether Harvey Jackins belongs in the category Category:Free Zone. There's been some suggestion that he's regarded as one of the early practitioners of Dianetics/Scientology outside the hierarchy of the Church of Scientology, but not a lot of evidence to confirm or deny this. Can anyone comment? -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Judging by the Wiki article Re-evaluation Counceling, the movement Jackins founded, doesn't fit into Category:Free Zone. There were many splinter groups that emerged from the collapse of the original Dianetics movement, and this one seems to have quickly mutated into something quite different. The Freezone is a later phenomenon, individuals and groups that have left the Church of Scientology. --Hartley Patterson 00:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The book could well be a hoax

It is hardly out of character to imagine zealous Scientologists perpetrating a hoax. Opponents of this idea act as if the Library of Congress has any protocol for investigating the veracity of submissions; they do not, their job is to catalog existing books, fabricated or otherwise. For example, The Hitler Diaries are indexed[3], and without comment. It is not their job to analyze submissions, so its existence in the index is no proof of its actual ancestry.

As for the assertions that the explanation fostered by Free Zone Scientologists with strong motives to have the book exist (due to copyright and trademark issues over use of the term) is the so-called simpler one, where is the justification for that? I find the tale of a manuscript for a book supposedly published but of which no other record or copy exists, being discovered in the attic of a family which cannot be contacted, to be a very complicated explanation compared to the idea that disgruntled Free Zone Scientologists invented it in order to aid in the promotion of Scientology outside of the confines of the official Church without legal difficulty.

I am not exactly convinced that the book is a hoax, but I also see no good reason to believe the persons who produced it without question, as there is a clear and outstanding motive. If anyone is so certain the strange story behind its supposed rediscovery is true, where is *their* proof - aside from the weak appeal to irrelevant authority? Where is the proof that the Nordenholz Family story is true, aside from the repeated claim that it must be? Are there any citations anywhere which can verify this? If so, where are they?

I have yet to see any objective verification of the claims of Free Zone Scientologists. The best arguments anyone has managed to produced amount to: it is indexed at the Library of Congress, and, it would have taken a long time to do. These are not particularly compelling. 69.41.167.202 19:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, what do you think Wikipedia should do about it? Do you think Wikipedia should insert your theory that the book is all a hoax into the article? If the answer is "yes", please read Wikipedia:No original research. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Demographics

Removed for discussion: "There is no completely accurate count of the number of Scientologists involved in the Free Zone, but it may be more than the 500,000 or so who are members of the Church of Scientology."

There is no count at all, since independent surveys haven't asked about adherence to organisations, only to religion. The 500,000 figure presumably comes from the main Scientology article, and is a misunderstanding. The number of members of the Church of Scientology is heavily disputed (10 million versus under 100,000). One 500,000 figure is an extrapolation of the national membership numbers claimed by the Church, the other is a guess (no more) at the total worldwide number of adherents of Scientology.

I don't think any meaningful guess can be made about Freezone numbers at present. 'Less then Church membership' is as far as I'd go.

--Hartley Patterson 20:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

What makes you think there are fewer Free Zone people than CoS members? I think something should be said about the number of people. Steve Dufour 17:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Ron's Orgs has to be smaller as it has a lot fewer Orgs, it only equals the Church in Germany and Russia in that respect. I believe there are a lot of inactive Church adherents who are in the process of shifting to the Freezone in secret, frightened of Church retaliation if they go public. Perhaps a note to say why numbers cannot be estimated? --Hartley Patterson 11:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Steve Dufour's 2 July version is fine with me. Antaeus, we're not going to get citations from anywhere right now, the Church/Freezone struggle is taking place mostly in secret at present. Those who know aren't telling. --Hartley Patterson 18:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's the problem, though. Right now the article is making a positive statement, even if it's vague on the details, that "Most observers think the number of Free Zone members is somewhat less than that of Church members." If the Church/Freezone struggle is taking place mostly in secret, and those who know aren't telling, we need to either find some reputable source who is telling anyways -- or remove the statement! I'm totally fine with a statement explaining "this is why we don't actually know whether there are more Freezoners or CoSers out there" but that's not the statement that's in the article now... -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientology Public Relations

I'd appreciate it if Scientologist wikipedians would explain to TheFarix and Orsini that the page "Scientology Public Relations" is an obvious attack on Scientology by the vandal Lord Xenu.

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientology Public Relations for the discussion. These users have both falsely accused me of making personal attacks when I pointed out that this user is a vandal. Thanks, Republitarian 18:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Republitarian, "vandalism" on Wikipedia means edits which make their bad-faith nature inarguable. "L. RON HUBBARD WAS A GAYBOY" is vandalism. An article about some aspect of Scientology -- even if incoherent, even if unflattering to Scientology -- is not vandalism.
In short, TheFarix and Orsini were correct; you are incorrect and you are compounding your own error by trying to summon "Scientologist wikipedians" only to the AfD discussion to push your erroneous agenda. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/r/e/Talk%7EFree_Zone_%28Scientology%29_ab88.html"