Talk:Rehabilitation Project Force

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
 This article is supported by WikiProject Scientology, a collaborative effort to help develop and improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scientology.
The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on Scientology-related topics.
See WikiProject Scientology and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

rpf and kids http://www.anti-scientologie.ch/kinder-scientology.htm#7 anyone thinks this should be in the article? (refrenced)

Hi, I just read the RPF article. There's hardly a fact in it. Nothing is cited. People are overworked? Where source of information states that? "reports" are not cited, no mention of any real source of information is there. "work camps" has implications of WW II, forced labor. Whoever is writing this sucker could easily wear a nazi armband, there's hardly a straight sentence in it. Terryeo 08:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Three sources are provided, so I don't know how you can claim nothing is cited or information sources are unprovided. "Work Camps" does not have implications of "WW II" [considering your later remarks I presume you refer to the practices of ther Germans], the implications and indeed comparison is made to the forced labor re-education work camps of the Soviet Union & China. As for your indirect comparison of the writer to the Nazis, since I am in favor of free speech I would not recommend the writer take action however I am open to speculation about what you or your church would do if the claim was made that you or your church 'could easily wear a nazi armband' - prehaps that person would become Fair Game?. -- LamontCranston 13:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
3 sources, 3 links. And no citations. At no point does any portion of the text reference to any of the 3 links. That is how I am able to say, "nothing is cited." I think you said three times what I said twice which the article says once. Implications the RPF is forced labor. That of course tells me you haven't observed it in action nor spoken with people who are involved with it.  :) Then you conclude with a baiting remark about a policy long since dead. If you have anything to contribut besides baiting, dispertion, disruption and disgust to Wikipedia, have a nice time doing it. Terryeo 03:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
So, none of them directly refer to the links provided and thus "nothing is cited" - you are arguing semantics. And I was not baiting, it is a serious question, which I will rephrase for your benefit: Since you find it acceptable to compare to Nazis someone you disagree with, how would you feel about someone doing the same to you because they disagree with you? You would naturally conclude that it is a childish and spiteful act that is not a legitimate argument or criticism but rather is meant as vengeful misdirection and mud-slinging. LamontCranston 15:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I understand perfectly. There are 2 sorts of people in the world. Those who agree with you and those who sling mud. HEH ! More to the point Mr Lament, you've been baiting me for an arguement in the discussion pages of several arguements. My point of view is on my user page. Wiki has policy. Policy is to be followed. If we all do that we might find we have the finest encyclopedia extant. But it is a little like democracy. Democracy will not work if enough people don't want it to work. It is not a guarentee. There is some quantity of people needing to make it work, for it to work. Same here in Wiki. If say, 25% of the people who edit work hard at it, no information is going to be available to the reader. It takes more than one or two, but it doesn't take 1/2 the people who edit, to make articles unuseable. This is one of the controversys, but if you want real controversy where 25% (or more) are happily destroying the information have a look at the Palestian Issue. There is information about the RPF. Obviously. If you want a good article you will follow Wiki Policy and you will cite a source, an easily understandable source that a person can read with a mouseclick. Or a person can go to a library and get a book and read more. Or, you can do the other thing. You can bury a citation in a mound of pages such as referencing "a piece of blue sky" and not using a page number. Several authors have done that, the book is hundreds of pages long. I'm real upfront with it, I present information. I expect you to likewise present information. Terryeo 18:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Once more, my name is Lamont, Lamont Cranston. As for "There are 2 sorts of people in the world. Those who agree with you and those who sling mud." - you do realise the implications that has, correct? You were the one who slung the mud with the disgusting comparison to the Nazis. Do not deny it. LamontCranston 09:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Yet none of what you say replies toward the article presenting information for the reader.Terryeo 16:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
As The Shadow said in Mad Magazine's version: "Good Heavens! This man doesn't have a mind to cloud!" *wink* wikipediatrix 03:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I'll tell you this. Nearly any person who has communication with people in the RPF views it very differently than this article presents it. Further, nearly any person who has spent time on the RPF views it very differently than this article presents it. There is mainstream. This article present a small sliver which is not mainstream. Terryeo 16:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Mainstream? The average citizen in the mainstream has never of the RPF. Furthermore, The average citizen in the mainstream is suspicious of anything remotely related to Scientology. wikipediatrix 00:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Mainstream, and I use this word to attempt to communicate with you about how extremely far away from what actualy exists, this article is. While I have implied this many times in many articles, I thought I would try using "mainstream" in an effort to communicate how almost any Sea Org member who read this article would fall away laughing. Skepticism is healthy, it is reasonable. Hate is another matter. Most of these articles are edited toward expressing an extreme point of view. The reason why is that the 2 or 3 editors who are editing (myself included) and know something of it, are reverted frequently. No, the actual situation in the RPF is not represented here. The freedom any RPF member has to simply walk away is never mentioned. The many many Sea Org persons who have done one or more RPFs and now hold higher positions in Organizations is not mentioned either. The Fine condition of the estates of every Church of Scientology on our planet is not mentioned, but it is the RPF who creates and maintains that degree of quality. As with other articles, efforts I make toward presenting the situation as it actually exists are reverted, misunderstandings abound, large quantities of partially understood words are sprinkled all over like spaghetti. It takes more than one or two working toward a realisitic presentation when there are 5 or 6 working toward a poisonous presentation. Terryeo 02:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Mainstream is Sea Org? Sorry for the one-liner. Anyways, we do have less info than the Sea Org people, not having seen the stuff. Feel free to add what NPOV non-copyright stuff you can. Curuinor 02:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Now, now Wikipediatrix, there's no need for that. LamontCranston 19:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] cut paragraph from the article, here for citing

This paragraph appeared in the article. I post it here for citing because there is no reference on the page for it. I would also say that to prove this situation to the satisfaction of the reader would require several citations. Here: "In its goal of changing what the Church sees as incorrect thoughts and actions through work, the RPF now bears some resemblance to the system of reeducation through labor employed in China or the gulags of the Soviet Union." At no point does the Church ever attempt to change a person's thought. That's pure bullshit. That's so obviously wrong. Terryeo 17:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

And yet you compared the writer to a Nazi. LamontCranston
I made a statement. You did not reply to my statement, Lamont. You did, however reply to a portion included within my statement which was emotionally rousing enough to prompt a response from you.Terryeo 17:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Just because a person lacks evidence of his own doesn't mean it doesn't exist, many reports of abuse and fanatical actions have turned up and raised some eye brows. Either way you cannot beat a cult claiming it's a church when it bases everything it does on a 1984 system so just sit back and let it pass by so we can stop feeling sorry for the poor people who were tapped on the should one day and asked to take a personality test.

[edit] Good job Malber

Not only is it easier to read now, it makes more sense with your last edit. Terryeo 16:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uhm

Funny conflict. [1] Ronabop 18:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Ronabop raises a valid point. The intent of the RPF is to rehabilitate. That is, like many Scientology terms, given as its title. In general Sea Org members are dealing with information and with communication, it is the nature of the organization. When the occassion arises that they are not producing as well as expected, or for other reasons, the RPF provides them with activites designed to increase the ability to confront and handle things. I've known a number of people who have done it. By doing such things and the janitor duties, painting buildings and so on, they remain part of the Sea Org. On the other hand, any of them could walk away at any time they chose to, unlike either the military or a prison. Terryeo 10:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Reference & Notes

Section removed since no verifiable source has been cited, despite this having been requested earlier. Streamlight 17:01, 17 February 2006

[edit] Major NPOV, verification and factual accuracy problems

I think there are some major issues with this article. Its tone is, I think, quite clearly slanted against the CoS. I'm very uncertain about the claims of Miscavige changing the RPF rules, and I'd like to see some citations for this. Terryeo is quite right to call for citations here. -- ChrisO 02:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

As ChrisO points out, this page is severely POV and as there are no reliable sources given (Terryeo already made this point) so for a start I am taking this paragraph out again. There is no argument on this point. Streamlight 05:40 25 February 2006 (GMT)

Terryeo is also trying to argue that things which have been testified to in a court of law by Scientology's own witness Warren McShane have no "reliable sources". -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Just because he's wrong about that, he's not wrong about this too. ;-) -- ChrisO 10:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
No, I agree, he's not proved wrong about this. But saying "Terryeo already made this point" attributes to Terryeo a good judgement about which sources Wikipedia considers "reliable sources" that Terryeo fights hard each and every day to demonstrate that he doesn't possess. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, I think you are not exactly stating what I have tried to present, Feldspar, though I recognize you mean to. Here is a link to a "professional opinion" about the RPF, by a person who's father spent time with it, a person who has experience in the area. Laurie Hamilton at Experts.about Terryeo 05:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] paragraph moved (not just deleted) for referencing

Streamlight (talk • contribs) has removed the following paragraph twice. Since he never gave an edit summary, we can only guess at why. Perhaps he felt that the information was insufficiently cited; however, as we have seen on many of these articles, a great deal of information which can be cited simply hasn't been, yet. Therefore, I am placing the paragraph that Streamlight keeps cutting here, so that when citations are found, the information may be placed back into the article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

However, after David Miscavige began rewriting the policies of L. Ron Hubbard on the RPF, the program now can take many years.[citation needed] Members now must be approved by Miscavige's Religious Technology Center before they can co-audit, which can be arbitrarily refused[citation needed]. Weekly visits with spouses and children are now forbidden and members cannot originate verbal communication or visual contact with Sea Org members who are not in the RPF.[citation needed] There are reports of Sea Org members actually being advised by Sea Org ethics personnel to divorce their RPF'd spouses.[citation needed]

Take a look at this article which appeared in last month's Rolling Stone -- Inside Scientology. The article is over 13,000 words long. That should give you all the citations you need (for this article and others). --Big Brother 1984 22:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's another source which is also quite good. [2]. She's quite readable and responds as an expert to a number of Scientology related questions including the RPF. The Rolling Stone's article, as I've stated elsewhere, I think the guy accurate reports what he observes and he is allowed to observe just about everything he wishes to. But he hasn't done a lick of Scientology and doesn't, himself, have any clue why people would spend effort in either Scientology education or Scientology processing. As a middle aged college professor might observer skateboarders and report on them, the Rolling Stones author observes Scientology and reports on it. None of the guts of it comes through his reporting. Terryeo 19:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Uh-hunh. I lost interest when she answered the question "is it really plausible that every single former member who says that the RPF is inhumane is lying about that?" with "Of course! Don't be naive! Sociologists are perfectly agreed that people who leave groups always then proceed to tell big stinky lies about the group!" While that is, indeed, a view held by some sociologists, it is a highly contested view, which she does not mention at all. So she's basically presenting as "this is the way things are" what she chooses to believe and omitting the rest. Some "expert". -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
She certainly has an all but perfect rating. And enthusiastic feedback. Strangely, when full names are given in the feedback, these frequently match scientologists who have fairly high course levels. Shouldn't they be asking within proper channels rather than external terminals? AndroidCat 05:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] merge

This article is actually SHORTER than the section devoted to the RPF on the Sea Org article. Therefore, it seems logical that this article's content should be trimmed and merged into the Sea Org article. Highfructosecornsyrup 20:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree this should certainly should be merged into the Sea Org article, as long as that article doesn;t become too long. This article is currently also very very anti Scn POV. "Work Camps???" where the heck did that come from??? The rolling stone article cited said nothing of the sort. ---Slightlyright 16:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that this topic is important enough to have its own article. It should stay and be expanded.--Fahrenheit451 21:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rem POV misquote of ref (copied from Talk:Sea Org)

The real problem, HFCS, is that some Scn articles are written from a heavily anti-Scientology POV and liberties are taken with the sources to forward the POV. Case in point: the RPF article states "is a system of work camps" and then references the Rolling Stone article. But what does the Rolling Stone actually say? This:

Created by Hubbard in 1974, the RPF is described by the church as a voluntary rehabilitation program offering a "second chance" to Sea Org members who have become unproductive or have strayed from the church's codes.

Big difference, no? The article never calls them "work camps" at all; that is original research. Many articles here tend to predispose the reader against the Scn side of the story very early. Misnaming the RPF as "work camps" in the first description of them is an example. Saying that Scn was developed by a sci-fi writer in the first mention of Hubbard is another. The first mention of something should be very POV-neutral. Then make the case for both sides. The first mention of the RPF should be similar to the real Rolling Stone source, not the imaginary one. The real solution is simply to rewrite the POV portion in an NPOV tone being sensitive to the desire of both sides to present their view. Your help is welcome. --Justanother 02:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with both your criticism of the article and your proposed solution. I'll have a crack at the article in the New Year to see what can be done. -- ChrisO 23:31, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Debernification project force

As part of my longterm deBernification project (removing all links to anonmyous "Bernie"), I'll try to replace the sources with non anonymous ones.

Anti-RPF:

Pro-RPF:

--Tilman 17:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Hope you intend to stick to WP:RS which means that the claims made by the various parties have some hope of responsibility and error-checking. --Justanother 17:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Of course I will. That is in the mission statement of the debernification project force on Wikipedia. Soon to be available as a colorful Powerpoint slide. --Tilman 18:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RPF for married people

This edit [3] is an improvement by mentioning the policy, but is missing an important point. It should be added somehow that 1) they must get permission by the MAA first, 2) must be upstat, 3) no "discussion of case or condition" is allowed. This is all in the policy. --Tilman 19:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but that level of detail would be better placed elsewhere to avoid clutter in the intro. Just mention "under specified conditions" then. --Justanother 19:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I'll let someone else do it and comment. And maybe that entire paragraph should be moved outside of the intro indeed. --Tilman 20:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Raymond. My problem was that I couldn't come up with a useful english paraphrasing for "upstat". You did this very well. --Tilman 06:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scientology's side

This is unsourced: The Church of Scientology claims that no physical force is used to keep RPF members in the camps, and that RPF members always have the option of leaving their religion entirely, and that this makes the comparison inaccurate. While scientology has said so, its own FAQ [4] does not. Can any of the Scientologists here find a quote? It might even be in the "negative" articles, when a spokesperson is quoted explaining that the RPF is so wonderful etc. Or maybe the CESNUR study? --Tilman 16:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree we need a better source. I've been trying to find something but not much luck. I believe this can be sourced from news pieces though. For now, the "Scientology FAQ" is the closest I could find, as it states that members are free to leave whenever they wish. Raymond Hill 16:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rules tightened

Regarding this edit: Here is an extract that supports that rules have reportedly been tightened: "The rules have recently been tightened with a clause forbidding any connection with family. Previously, Scientologists on the RPF could be allowed to meet their spouse or children once a week." Raymond Hill 17:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the point. Don't know how I missed that. I corrected the article. --Justanother 17:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
So, Justanother, why have you deleted it? And why did you delete the two quotes showing that two people stayed FIVE YEARS in the RPF? This is a CESNUR study. Not exactly what I'd call a "critics source", so scientology likely agreed to be "studied" by them. --Tilman 17:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
There is no need to repeat the material in the sources; that is why we reference them and what the prominent repetition does do is act as undue weight. Just cite your sources for the article; that is all we need do. --Justanother 18:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/h/Talk%7ERehabilitation_Project_Force_6ace.html"