Talk:Study Tech

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.)

Nice article! Needs references, and could also do with criticisms. Could it do with a move to "Study Tech"? - David Gerard 14:35, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

This is a encyclopedia, not a tabloid where everything has to have a controversy. But if criticism is your objective, then that's you. --AI 01:20, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll see what I can do about references. I'd agree with a move to "Study Tech" as there are a few other books on the subject as well such as, "The Basic Study Manual" and "Learning how to learn"(for children). Anyway my account is too new to move pages so I'm putting in a request. - Wikired5

I've moved it - please update the lead to reflect this change. violet/riga (t) 09:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I believe the article should be titled "STUDY TECHNOLOGY" because that is, after all, the subject. Study Tech is a commonly used abbreviation but not the name of the subject. Terryeo 14:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Official site of Study tech

There's such a choice! In Tentacle, I have www.study-tech.com, www.study-tech.org, www.study-technology.com, www.study-technology.net, www.study-technology.org, www.studytech.org, studytech.scientology.org.uk, www.studytechnology.net, www.studytechnology.org. One of these things is not like the others, of course, but the rest are variously owned by CoS, ABLE and Applied Scholastics. Which one gets to be the official site of study tech? AndroidCat 19:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

This article presents Study Tech as a Church of Scientology function and is linked into by the Scientology template. Therefore, the site of those you list which is associated with the Church should be the main site listed, the offical site. There is only one that reads at the bottom of its page, Church of Scientology International and that is studytechnology.org. If you scroll to the bottom of all of the others, a special interest group (of the Church) spells out that it is their site. Most are created and maintained by Applied Scholastics, though the UK sites too are a localized group of interest within the Church of Scientology. studytech.org is of course a hostile site which misunderstands study tech and mis-presents its ideas. If you would like I'll spell out more exactly how that site mis-presents study tech's "3 barriers to study" idea more explicity. Terryeo 05:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

If the article only presents the link, studytech.org (critical site, misevaluates, misunderstands, mispresents the subject) and does not present studytechnology.org (official Church of Scientology International site) then the articles is obviously not fulfilling WP:NPOV.Terryeo 22:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy section

Terryeo, please stop removing pertinent information from the controversy section. There is even much more to add actually. Also, please refrain from transforming the footnotes into vague external links, their purpose is to detail where the information come from as precisely as possible. There is no good reason for you to justify what you did. If you think you have good reasons, please state this here. Raymond Hill 00:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Raymond. I won't and don't mean to remove controversy from the article (with very rare exception). Maybe I'm mistaken. As long as "study tech" (as presented by Scientology) is clearly laid out in the article as separate from that other site that almost looks like the real thing, I'm good. Put all you want in there. As long as it doesn't attempt to present itself as "Scientology Study Tech" and presents itself as "Controversial to Scientology Study Tech". The reason I say this is that I went through that site a little. They might think they know what they are talking about, but they don't. If you like we could discuss their mistaken presentations. I really got to insist on a difference in this article, but don't mean to disclude or dispose of controversy. Terryeo 01:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh, by the way Raymond, don't you think it would be appropriate in the controversy section where the link to a printable version of Study Tech Criticsm has been created by Chris Owen, don't you think it would be appropriate to use User:ChrisO, rather than the dispersive and less defined, "Owen, C" ? Terryeo 13:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alas

I see Feldspar has wasted no time in introducing "notes" as a subtitle to what are actualy "references" because those elements within it are cited to by <ref> and </ref> within the article, making them actual, honest to god REFERENCES and not simply "notes". And I also see the only reference to the actual information which this article purports to be about, this link has been removed to make room for the controversy which certain "good faith" editors would rather have presented in the article than the actual information which the article purports to be about. Why don't you all go ahead and change the "References" section to an appropriate title and include the obvious link (in 4 languages) to Study Tech as the title of the article states? A reader, after all, would expect to find a link to the study tech and not exclusively and only a criticsm of study tech. Terryeo 20:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barriers to Study

The second paragraph of the article reads: "Study tech emphasizes word definitions, grasping the physical reality ("mass") of subjects under discussion, and the proper order in which new material is introduced and absorbed." and that is completely, utterly wrong. Study tech presents there are several barriers to study. A person who is studying is treading a pathway through a sea of knowledge and assimilating some of it. There are barriers which crop up in his assimilation of knowledge. Barriers to Study, barriers which slow or stop a person's progress. The second paragraph does not present Barriers to Study but Barriers to Study is the only thing which Study Tech is about. Study Tech does not talk at all about "grasping the physical reality". That is utterly totally made up and wrong, you might find it on a personal website but you won't find it in the study tech, at the offical site. That concept is not present in Study Tech. To be very specific, Study Tech says that misunderstood words are a barrier between the student and the knowledge which he wishes to learn. They are a barrier, think low brick wall, think fence, think high building, think barrier. Misunderstood words are a barrier which makes study less easy and more difficult. Study Tech says there are three barriers to study. The article should present that Study Tech states there are three barriers to study.

Study Tech states there are three barriers to study

  • The misunderstood word.
  • A lack of mass.
  • An unobserved gradient.<ref>http://www.studytechnology.org</ref>

Then the second paragraph will be accurately presented and accurately cited. Terryeo 07:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Study Tech does not talk at all about "grasping the physical reality" When I look at the official study tech site I see this: "The First Barrier – Lack of Mass -- Attempting to educate someone without the mass (or object) that he is going to be involved with can make study exceedingly difficult. This is the first barrier to study. For example, if one is studying tractors, the printed page and the spoken word are no substitute for an actual tractor. Lacking a tractor to associate with the written word, or at least pictures of a tractor, can close off a person’s understanding of the subject." Now it seems to me that Study Tech is actually recommending that we get the physical reality of the tractor if we want to grasp the concept of a tractor. To me "grasping the physical reality" is exactly what Study Tech recommends to its students when it is possible to do so. If grasping the physical reality is impossible, then it recommends that at least a physical picture of the reality be presented, right?
I believe that this article should point out that Study Tech teaches that there are 3 barriers to effective study and list them as Terryeo and studytechnology.org have done. Then we can briefly explain each of these comments means, since most people would not find "A lack of mass" or "an unobserved gradient" to be intuitive terms describing a barrier to study. Vivaldi (talk) 05:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Vivaldi, I understand your line of reasoning which you have spelled out. Apparently some other people have used that line of reasoning to arrive at a similar conclusion. However, isn't it possible that at least some people, some of the time will not go through that line of reasoning and so, therefore, should be presented with the raw data? That being, "a lack of mass is a barrier to study?" That line of reasoning works with tractors, but might not work with every subject. But the wording, "a lack of mass is a barrier to study" would work with every subject if "mass" is understood to be the quality of the physical universe which, on earth, manifests as weight. An low gradient example would be a young student learning to count. Give them mass (apples, blocks, etc.) to manipulate and they can demonstrate and use counting. But without masses the words are are just fleeting thoughts. Or fractions. If a person has a chance to cut up a piece of mass into fractions, they might more easily grasp the concept of fractions. Terryeo 00:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I just noticed that the article does list the 3 barriers to study already. So now I'm confused. Vivaldi (talk) 05:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
In any case, I reworded the 2nd paragraph and changed/added a few of the other statements throughout. Is this better? Vivaldi (talk) 05:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Its much better because the idea of barriers is introduced early on and then filled out in detail later. Thank you. Terryeo 15:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More about Barriers

The second paragraph presently begins: Study tech attempts to remove what it calls "barriers to study". Study Tech defines 3 barriers. As a dictionary defines words and as biology defines the cell "nucleus" and the "cell membrane", well, Study Tech defines 3 barriers which it says exist. It says, "there are three barriers to study", that is its message. It spells out the barriers and it says how to deal with these barriers when a student encounters them. Could we have Study tech defines three barriers to study and purports a methodology of dealing with them? The reason the present sentence is not accurate is because no matter how many times a student removes a barrier, he may meet the same barrier in the next word he reads. A student educates himself and then deals with barriers when he meets them. Terryeo 00:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weblog being used as a secondary source

The Controversy section has information which comes from and is referenced and cited to, a weblog (blog), a personal blog / website which is maintained by an individual whose sole purpose is the presentation of his personal point of view. No fact checking is done, no legal liability is claimed beyond This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License, which appears at the bottom of its main page. Terryeo 19:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC) WP:RS, in its section WP:RS#Bulletin_boards.2C_wikis_and_posts_to_Usenet, Posts to blogs, should not be used as primary or secondary sources. This is in part because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them, and in part because there is no editorial oversight or third-party fact-checking. Therefore, the two cited links, [3] and [4] exist counter to Wikipedia's concensus of editors as created by WP:RS and should be removed as links. The information which they purport would have to be supported by a published cite to be included in the article. Those two links might be moved to the External links section after the information in the Controversy section has been removed. Terryeo 19:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The Movable Type software being used to run the site automatically adds that notice. Using that software to maintain a site no more makes it a blog under Wiki rules than running it on Windows makes the author Bill Gates. AndroidCat 01:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
It is a personal website. WP:RS, in the same statement as I quoted above says the same about personal websites. There is good reason for this. The owner of that website presents his personal point of view which, in this case, is what he understands Study Technology to state. If Wikipedia allowed everyone who wished to make a statement about a subject, to make a statement about a subject in Wikipedia, we would have nothing but confusions. While I can tell you that David T's understanding is just plain wrong, it is not my opinion and David's opinion that is in question. It is David's website. Because it is his personal website, it is not useable as a secondary source of information, as the article is using it. WP:RS would be your platform to argue for a change. Terryeo 02:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Terryeo, your contributions here would have much greater value if you focused on the quality of the articles rather than on censorious invocations of policy and guidelines. Above you say "I can tell you that David T's understanding is just plain wrong." If there is some information in the Wikipedia article that is "plain wrong," please tell us what that is and how it might be corrected. If you can demonstrate that there are incorrect facts or an unfair presentation of the situation, folks here will take that seriously and make adjustments. On the other hand, if the info in the article is accurate, clearly written and fairly presented, there's no good reason to make noise about guidelines. BTfromLA 02:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
If you ask me on my page I will be happy to tell you exactly where D.T. is plain wrong. However, this page is about the article. The article uses a personal website as a secondary source of information. That is just plain wrong per WP:RS which states: Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. The two citations to his website should be removed. Your platform for arguement that D.T. just happens to be a well-known, professional researcher writing within his field of expertise (which would allow the citations to stand) should be argued at WP:RS. Had he, for example, completed the major portion of the Bridge to Total Freedom or, perhaps, had a Doctorate Degree in Religion, then he might be considered a "professional within his area of expertise". Terryeo 03:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm surprised that you recognize folks who have "completed the major portion of the Bridge to Total Freedom" as authorities, given your dismissal of Jon Atack's credentials. But really, Terryeo, you are refusing to look at my point: the guidelines have no authority at all, they are just suggestions. You will make a much more persuasive arguments by pointing out where and how the articles could actually be improved in terms of accuracy, fairness and clear writing. BTfromLA 03:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
You have not messaged me on my user page about the previous issue you raised, which I replied to. Now you bring up yet another suggestion and don't reply to the out-guideline point which I raise. If you hope to create a situation that any editor may create any article, irrespective of guidelines (which are actual implementations of policy which address specific issues) then your place to do so would be on those disccussion and guideline pages. Terryeo 20:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
As it happens, Dave Touretzky is widely acknowledged as a serious researcher on Scientology. If you do an internet search, you can find the video of a recent MSNBC interview program that introduces him as "an expert" on Scientology. He is frequently interviewed about Scientology by print journalists and on radio broadcasts. So that's that. Now, once again, I am asking you to address my more significant comments, which until now you have ignored. To recap: from my perspective, the key questions in editing are whether the articles are accurate, fairly presented and clearly written. Do you disagree? I submit that, compared to those three goals, focusing on the musings of a small group of editors who like to moot around universal rules for editing at WP:RS is of little value to the editing process. BTfromLA 21:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Touretzky runs a personal website. His site talks about Scientology's Study Tech. You don't dispute these statements? Yes / No ? Then if you do not dispute those statements we can go the next step, but until you do there is little sense in discussing his qualification because if that site is a site other than a personal website, other guidelines come into play. Terryeo 22:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I ask you once again, before we "go the next step," please respond to what I have asked above about the relationship of guideline enforcement to the goals of editing. I have written similar things many times, and you completly refuse to address them. Why? BTfromLA 22:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I would reply to you this instant about that matter if I could. Unfortunately I can not. I have an undelivered communication hanging in the air. I originated a communication about Touretzky's site, stating it was a personal website and that it is presenting Touretzky's personal opinion about Study Tech. I can not proceed until I am confident we are talking about that issue. If I become confident that you understood which issue I raised, then I can reply, else I can not since I have no way of being sure of what you are asking me. Terryeo 08:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand perfectly well that you are raising the questions "is it a personal website?," "does it express his personal opinons," "does it meet the threshold of a reliable source according to the guidelines?," and so on. My response is: you are focusing on the wrong questions, if your interest is in editing better articles. I have, just above and repeatedly in the past, asked you to respond to this, and you have consistently failed to do so. My other response is: why I should answer your questions when you refuse to address mine? BTfromLA 19:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

You have at last responded to the reason I made a statement here in the first place. The website is used as a secondary source of information in a wikipedia article. The website is a personal website. One person who has little or no fact checking, reliability checking, legal responsibility or other responsibility to reputability beyond his own desire to maintain his own, personal status has created that website and made those statements. WP:RS applies and says that's not good enough. I'm glad you understand that :) Terryeo 23:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I just discovered this. Please consider it: WP:IAR. BTfromLA 21:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunate that, after all the discussion you and I did about how the study tech on David's website is mistaken, (and that was just the very first layer of his mistakes), you still feel it appropriate to cite a personal website as a secondary source of information even after I have discussed (extensively) how that website mis-presents the information. Yet, even if David T were completely accurate (he is not), his personal website would not be citeable per WP:RS. Terryeo 23:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I have not actually said that I want to cite a personal website as a secondary source of information. What I have said, among other things you continue to ignore, is that I hope you will read and think about WP:IAR. BTfromLA 23:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I see. Terryeo 00:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citations and personal websites

Reference [2] doesn't come up for me. Neither "Study Trouble" nor Scientology Handbook come up. However, capitalizing the suffix portion, to "SH1_1.HTM" Does bring up the first link. And changing the second link's suffix appropriately to "index.html" makes it work, too.
Citation [3] points to a personal website which offers a personal opinion of Study Technology. Both David S. Touretzky and our own, esteemed Chris Owen MBE, contribute to an opinion. However, their mutually agreed upon opinion is presented on a personal website, rather than published by a reliable source, such as a book, a newspaper article or a television interview. WP:RS states plainly, and in bold, Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources. This use of a personal website directly contradicts WP:RS which has been created by a concensus of editors from our policy, WP:V. If an editor wished to change WP:RS so that personal websites could be cited, then the discussion page of WP:RS would be the place to begin such a change.
Likewise with citation [4] which cites the same opinions on the same, personal website. Terryeo 19:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Accredited Study Tech

Of course, Applied Scholastics is the group which presents Study Tech into society. In Italy, it has become required study for school teachers. [1]. Terryeo 01:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Your link provided doesn't say anything of the sort. wikipediatrix 02:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, there's not a hint of support for Terryeo's assertion about "required study for schoolteachers." But I found it interesting to poke around the site. I notice that all of the "reports and research" about Applied Scholastics are unsigned and unattributed. It's a bit staggering: do they actually think this will impress readers with their high standards of scholarship? BTfromLA 03:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate that you've shown enough interest to comment about the link not containing the information "In Italy, it has become required study for school teachers." Here in my lap is Scientology News Issue 34. On page 8 it states: For the biggest change in the shortest time there's Italy. That's where Applied Scholastics recently submitted a formal request to the Italian Ministry of Education to place Study Tech courses on the line-up of continuing education programs that every teacher must take to keep their credentials up to date. In reply, Italian ministers issued another first: The full-scale national saction of LRH Study Tech which is now officially part of Italy's curriculum for the continuing education of every teacher in the nation. Terryeo 08:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Nothing there that supports your intitial claim, either. What is your point? BTfromLA 15:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
My "claim" as you call it is that a publication, Scientology News, published that information. That information (which my "claim" quotes) is that Italy's curriculum for the continuing education of teachers includes Hubbard's study technology. Where is the confusion ? Terryeo 16:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
It sounds as if some version of Study Tech appears as one of many choices on a list of approved courses for which teachers might possibly get "continuing education" credit. That does not mean "it has become required study for school teachers." Not close. BTfromLA 17:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I see what you're saying. "on an optional list" and not "on a required list". okay. coolness Terryeo 18:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The quote from Scn News seems to be worded in a somewhat misleading fashion. It implies that the study tech is "required" because it is "on the line-up". In actual fact what is likely is that continuing education is what is required and study tech has gotten approval to be an acceptable form of continuing education. I doubt that there is any requirement to take it specifically but if an individual teacher attends a study tech seminar then it can count toward his continuing ed requirement and the time taken will be paid time. Just my opinion. Still, of course a win for Scn, just presented in the mag, shall we say, "oddly". The Applied Scholastics website does not use misleading verbage--Justanother 04:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

From now on, the training initiatives promoted by Applied Scholastics of Italy and the Mediterranean are recognized by the Government and provides the right for school personnel to be exempt from duty while taking part in this training. [2] So yeah, it might be optional and not be required. Sorting through the Official Italian Government website about it [3] is beyond me. That is linked to from here Terryeo 09:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
With a bit of help from babelfish, I figured out that this is the search page for approved programs. If you seach "A" you can find Applied Scholastics Italia e Mediterraneo. Not sure where this fits. There are other examples of acceptance of study tech that could also be included. FWIW, this was a good exercise in linking for me.--Justanother 16:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
So, it appears that a Study Tech program has made it onto a list of hundreds of programs that Italian teachers can gain some sort of "continuing education" credit for. Is it safe to assume that less than 0.1% of Italian teachers take this particular program? I think so--the actual number is probably far smaller. This situation is very far indeed from "In Italy, it has become required study for school teachers." I realize that Terryeo has acknowledged the overstatement, and I wouldn't bring this up except that it is part of a consistent pattern of mis-statements by Terryeo, which require constant policing by editors who should be using theie time to improve the articles. Terryeo, PLEASE take care to make sure that you have the facts right before you make assertions. BTfromLA 17:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think we can assume much about how many Italian teachers took the course. I do imagine that if the program is promoted well and gets some acceptance it can become quite popular. It is actually quite a nice win for Scn. I don't blame Terryeo for his interpretation; that is the logical one to make from the article he read. There would, IMO, have been nothing "wrong" in stating in the main article exactly what he did using that mag for a source. It would have been caught quickly and corrected because of the vigilance on this subject. The main mistakes in the article are using the term "curriculum" instead of "curricula" and implying that each teacher must take the full "line-up". Either the PR person misunderstood what had been achieved or just fudged it. FWIW, I see much much much grosser misrepresentation when I read critical articles or even some right here on wikipedia.--Justanother 18:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Terryeo stated "In Italy, it has become required study for school teachers". His reference link doesn't even come close to saying anything of the sort, nor does it even imply it. Therefore, yes, there would be EVERYTHING wrong in stating it thusly in the main article. wikipediatrix 18:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi 'trix. You misread me. I said he could quote the mag, i.e. Scientology News, which is a publication so that is OK and, assuming that Terryeo transcribed it correctly, supports his claim. The fact that it is wrong does not mean that it can't be referenced in wikipedia. Hell, if we applied that criteria most of the Scn articles would go away (laff).--Justanother 18:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't want to belabor this, but I really don't agree that Terryeo's original claim was a reasonable interpretation of that Scientology News piece, though it is, as you say, misleadingly written. (Which seems typical of Scientology promotional materials and public statements, in my limited experience.) But his original statement was supported only by that link, which, as Wikipeditrix pointed out, "doesn't say anything of the sort"; "required" was even further from a plausible interpretation of that. Again, this is a minor issue taken alone, and it wouldn't be worth mentioning at all but for the fact that Terryeo does this very often, and continues to do it after scores of episodes in which he has, accurately, been criticized for his disruptive and deceitful practices. If you can point me to another editor--of whatever persuasion with regard to Scientology--who has a similar pattern of misrepresentation, I will be equally critical of them. I am aware of some who tend to be overzealous in dropping critical material about Scientology into every nook and cranny of the articles, but I am not aware of any who come close to Terryeo's pattern of disregard for facts and the basic premises of Wikipedia editing. BTfromLA 18:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi BT. I understand your point. But for me "LRH Study Tech which is now officially part of Italy's curriculum for the continuing education of every teacher in the nation" is still pretty close to "In Italy, it has become required study for school teachers."--Justanother 18:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Section on Acceptance of Study Tech

I think it is VERY appropriate that a section on acceptance of study tech by non-Scn entities be added to the article. I will rough one in now and we can add to it. As always, I welcome discussion. Yours in Harmonious Editing.--Justanother 16:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any objection to including details of the non-acceptance of Study Tech by educational experts in the same category? I'm thinking of some of the quotes in the LA Weekly article, for example. I think that, whatever level of acceptance it has recieved, it has been greeted with proportionatly much more rejection when it has been considered by educational professionals, in the US at least. BTfromLA 17:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
It can be done as a 2nd para under the section I made or under the Controversy section. If in the Acceptance section, I think it better if only rejections based on the merits of the study tech and not its connection to Scn are included there; rejections based on connection would do better under Study Tech's links to Scientology, IMO. As a minimum, if rejected due to connection with CoS and not on its merits then that should be mentioned. After all, we can assume that any acceptance is based on a presentation of its merits (perhaps IN SPITE OF its connection to CoS) and not "This is Scientology so you know it is good" (laff).--Justanother 17:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Right. What I have in mind are quotes from a couple of Education specialists talking about it exclusively in terms of educational curricula. If you look through that LA Weekly article, you'll see what I mean. I don't have time to add it now, but will do so at a later date, and will attempt not to overload it with examples--I want to avoid (and I think you do, too) the long and ever-expanding lists of pro-and-con examples that seem to proliferate in these articles, bogging them down in terms of readability. BTfromLA 18:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Are these education specialist opinions specifically related to a rejection of the study tech by some entity? I mean if we are just going to do battling experts we should do that in another section? Do you have something like "The LA School Board removed Study Tech from their list of approved programs based on Dr. Smith's evaluation that blah blah blah"?--Justanother 18:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
OK BT, I shot through the LA Weekly article. Let me know if my characterization is incorrect. The article states "But several educators who were asked to review the materials for this story strongly disagree." [emphasis added] It seems that the previous rejections of the materials by the school board committee were not on their merits nor even their connection but because they were not PC enough, i.e. they didn't show an Asian kid doing a clay demo. Applied Scholastics is addressing those issues and resubmitting. The article is basically just another smear job that really has nothing to do with the acceptance of the materials other than perhaps attempting to influence "concerned parents" to protest. I am not sure how the article fits at all to be honest.--Justanother 18:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm off to work, so I'll have to keep this short, and it'll be some hours before i can follow up. Yes, the article quotes people the reporter approached for comment for the article. I fail to see the problem with that. The point is that she asked leading educational theorists, including a professor of elementary education at USC and another specialist in literacy training, if I recall correctly. If you are implying that she cherry picked from the small number of experts who would "smear" the program, please produce the similarly credentialed experts who sing its praises. None of the folks on the Applied Scholastics page meet that test, and I don't know of too many other places where expert opinions on it's educational efficacy have been solicited; the occassional newspaper article like that one is about it. BTfromLA 18:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, have a nice day. Yes, there are a couple of professors mentioned in the LA Weekly article that pan the Study Tech after looking at the books. OK, though I doubt that that means much; I am sure you can find any number of professors to pan it without testing it. (There is is also the un-named "expert" that sounds a lot like our own Dave Touretzky, Mr. "Keep that wikipedia entheta coming" himself.[4]) This page lists a nice selection of "documented results of the implementation of Study Technology, explanations of the theoretical bases of L. Ron Hubbard's breakthrough discoveries and descriptions of current projects and pilots in need of support." Of course it is what some "editors" here would call a "shill page" but I have noticed that most documents against Scn are hosted on critical "shill pages", including the aforementioned Mr. Touretzky's page, so that should not be a problem.--Justanother 19:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Acceptance by Non-Scientology Entities"

The section so named says this: Study Tech has received some limited acceptance by non-Scientologist educators. One example is inclusion by the Italian Ministry of Education of Applied Scholastics training in the list of approved curricula that Italian teachers can take to maintain their continuing education requirement. The sole reference for this is the pubblica.istruzione.it link, and in fact, the insertion of this link is clearly the sole reason for this "Acceptance by Non-Scientology Entities" section of the article. The link itself does not actually say any of the things that the above text indicates it's supposed to say. Even when translated into English, it isn't clear whether the existence of this page proves the claims made in the article or not. Given this, I am removing the section. But even if it were a proper reference, it still is being given undue weight in the article, because the phrase "some limited acceptance by non-Scientologist educators" is really a stretch to extrapolate from one isolated instance in Italy. wikipediatrix 18:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Last year I think it was, the Piedmont region of Italy passed a law about study tech. That was published on various Scientology websites and Scientology News. Italy's government recognition of the validity of a teacher studying study tech was established back then. Now, within the past few weeks ? Study Tech has been recognized by the entire country of Italy. The recognition which happened about a year ago or 6 months ago, I don't know the exact date, that recognition has now been done by the entire Country. In the discussion above I've posted a link to the Applied Scholastics website. The information appears on that website and at scientology.org in English. There is then the Italian Applied Scholastic website (in Italian), and various links to Italian government sites which are the references to the details. My attention was brought to it via a Scientology Publication, Scientology News. Because The Auditor is used as a reference in other articles (R2-45), what reason would there not be to use Scientology News in this article? And of course, there are the English webpages at the Applied Scholastics site. Terryeo 19:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh Gatekeeper, please may I edit in wikipedia? Look, it is actually quite significant that AN ENTIRE WESTERN COUNTRY has accepted Study Tech as legit enough for any teacher that cares to to learn it and then use it in their classroom. That, by the way, is what continuing education is for. I severely downplayed just how big this is. I also mentioned that this is a rough-in and that we will add to it, don't worry.
I will add another reference that shows it better. All you have to do is ASK!--Justanother 18:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't get how the "Oh Gatekeeper, please may I edit in wikipedia?" comment is called for. I made my edit and gave my reasons for doing so. You can do the same. Leave the attitude at home next time though. wikipediatrix 19:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
But wikipediatrix, you did not "edit" anything; all you did was delete a good-faith editor's work. Such deletion is not much above vandalism, IMO. Leave it alone please and discuss on the talk page with the rest of us. Play nice, please.--Justanother 19:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
You insult me with your "gatekeeper" crack, and yet you say "Play nice"? And don't tell me to "leave it alone", you do not WP:OWN the article. If other editors disagree with my removal of your text, the consensus will bear it out. I couldn't care less whether your edit was good faith or not, it's unencyclopedic and that's all that matters to me. If you feel I am in error, feel free to take the matter to a higher power at Wikipedia. wikipediatrix 20:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
wikipediatrix, thanks for coming right out and letting me know that you "couldn't care less whether your edit was good faith or not". It is certainly encyclopedic too. What it is not is particularly critical of Scn. Sorry.--Justanother 20:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
wikipediatrix, gatekeeper simply describes how you act, similar to WP:OWN. Not particularly an insult. Just inappropriate behaviour on your part. Please play nice means talk with us on the talk page, don't go tearing up another's work because it does not work with your POV. Why waste the time of "higher powers" when the simple mechanism of "discussion, not deletion" would work just fine.--Justanother 20:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps User:Wikipediatrix's statement arises from having clicked the weblink some time ago. The page has changed. The text appears in Italian at the top of the page and in English at the bottom of the page [5] The bottom of the page states: From now on, the training initiatives promoted by Applied Scholastics of Italy and the Mediterranean are recognized by the Government and provides the right for school personnel to be exempt from duty while taking part in this training. Terryeo 19:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Terryeo, she was referring to when I just had a link to the ministry site in Italian. On another subject, I want to fix the enturbulation entry, it is really bad (and I mean bad as in BAD, not as in unflattering to Scn). Do you feel like looking up enturbulation and entheta in the Tech dictionary and posting the def's on the Talk:Enturbulation page. I would also need the full title, author, publisher, and published date for the Tech dictionary.--Justanother 20:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
What Applied Scholastics says about themselves on their own website isn't good enough, nor does it match the text in the article. Find some independent, third-party sources as per WP:V and WP:RS: "Caution should be used when using company or organization websites as sources....Exercise particular care when using such a website as a source if the company or organization is a controversial one." wikipediatrix 20:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
'trix, the Applied Scholastic site is simply hosting an image and translation of the actual letter from the Italian ministry. If you have a problem with that, let's pull every old article hosted on a critic's site. I'm up for it if you are. Huh??--Justanother 20:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Do you really need to have it explained to you the difference between what a critic's site says about the subject and what the subject's site says about the subject? wikipediatrix 20:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Do I really have to explain to you what an image of an actual letter from the Ministry of Education is. Do we really have to italicize really.--Justanother 20:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
It's only "actual" because you and Applied Scholastics say it is. I have seen nothing yet to verify its authenticity. The question's moot anyway because it's on Applied Scholastics' own site. I repeat, from WP:RS:"Caution should be used when using company or organization websites as sources....Exercise particular care when using such a website as a source if the company or organization is a controversial one." wikipediatrix 20:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Your "worry" is laughable because you can go to the Italian Ministry of Education website and see for yourself that the program is approved Just search "A". I reference that site extensively a bit higher on this page.--Justanother 21:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] unnecessary subsections

The subsections for "Clearing words", "Clay demonstration", "Spot Check", "Twins", and "Course supervisor" don't seem to merit separate sections for each. "Twins" in particular consists of one sentence. These subjects could all be gathered together under one section that explains such details. More troublingly, none of the aforementioned sections are referenced. wikipediatrix 19:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Good idea wikipediatrix. Why don't you go ahead and make the edit.--Justanother 19:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Acceptance Outside Scientology - Dispute; please take a look

wikipediatrix has disputed the factual basis of what I see as a very well-referenced edit. Please let me have the input of other editors. Please be specific in pointing out any issues and how you would like to see them resolved. Thanks--Justanother 00:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The citation is wonderfully acceptable, it being both a source of news (could be verified in other ways) and a primary source from the website which the article is about. I have tried to resolve the dispute with User:Wikipediatrix with my above posting. A Request for Comment about Wikipediatrix' edits might be in order because she has frequently refused to comment any further after stating her position about an issue. In earlier disputes of this nature she reverts but refuses to discuss on the discussion page. Terryeo 02:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't see the basis for dispute--the citations seem clear enough. As I suggest above (and will add this myself at some point if nobody beats me to it), more information about the prevailing view of Study Tech among educational specialists who have been asked to look at it should be included in addition to what's there. The only thing that I might quibble with in the section as written is describing those granting agencies as "educators." I'd vote for removing the "disputed" tag, unless Wikipediatrix or someone else can point out some good reason for disbelieving the claims in that brief section that i'm missing. Perhaps Wikipediatrix was reflexively suspicious of a "pro-scientology" entry because of the extensive history of dubious pro-scientology edits here. At the risk of seeming a Pollyanna, I urge my fellow editors to give justanother the benefit of the doubt: he (?) is not Terryeo or AI, hasn't exhibited the same disruptive tactics (at least not that I've seen) and shouldn't been condemned by association. I can see no reason to bring an RfC on Wikipediatrix though, but do what you like, Terryeo. BTfromLA 03:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
After such blatant insults and incivility as User:Justanother has exhibited, I don't think benefit of the doubt applies here. The references do not directly state what the article says they're supposed to say. They require that the reader make a leap of assumption that this document and this Italian website sort-of seem to suggest be taken as literal verification of the article's claims. It's not the same thing. I've already said all this, so anyone claiming I haven't explained my edits simply isn't paying attention. wikipediatrix 03:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for the slack BT; I really have no idea what has been done previously in the name of Scientology. I myself am not acting "in the name of Scientology", more in the name of all the good people I know that work their butts off to make this a better world for ALL of us and have PLENTY of successes to show for it even if one could not tell that from looking at wikipedia (watch the video on the LEAP site and see the hope in those teachers' and students' words and eyes for just one example of many many). I am not a disruptive person and it would take a lot for me to feel that I could not work with someone. Even if I get mad for a moment, it blows over. Re educators; I think we can call the Italian Ministry of Education and the THEC "educators" without a quibble. I would have to check if that Federal funding through US government's Fund for the Improvement of Education carries "educator" approval in any way but I would certain imagine so. On adding counterpoint; I think a few that are based on actual study and trial would certainly be appropriate as would any evidence of rejection by a school board or school (ex. a teacher getting in trouble for using it in the classroom); I don't think a comment based on "looking the books over" means much and is more "stacking the deck" against Scn; Scn would need a peer-reviewed study while anti-Scn just needs a rumor of a comment.--Justanother 03:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
There's a very good reason for that: we're talking about an organization that has already been found guilty of heinous things in courts of law, to the extent that it's now common sense that they no longer get "benefit of the doubt" for the same reason that we don't automatically accept things that other controversial organizations say about themselves on their own websites and press releases. This doesn't mean the articles can be free-for-all attacks on Scientology, but it does place them in the same boat as NAMBLA, Al-Qaeda, and Heaven's Gate, in that common sense dictates that the weight between the subject and its critics need not be distibuted 50-50. wikipediatrix 04:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Even without considering their reputation, the Study Tech-needs-peer-reviewed studies whereas experts can pass a decision based on perusing the books alone standard is appropriate. Let's say, for example, I claim to have discovered a cure for arthritis. Several eminent arthritis specialists are approached with a description of my treatment plan. Each of them concludes that my plan won't work--it is a technique that has been thoroghly tried and debunked in the past, and they find nothing novel in it that merits further study. The doctors may be full of it, but that is where expert opinion stands, and it is incumbent upon me to mount scientific evidence to the contrary. In that case, it would be entirely appropriate (wouldn't it?) for the wikpedia article on my arthritis cure to quote some eminent specialists, their conclusion that it was unworthy of study, and their reasons for that. Right? BTfromLA 05:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I happen to know that Study Tech produces really astounding results. I know this from personal experience and from observing others. Further, the reputation which you allude to but don't present any study on, and in fact say there is no study on, therefore there can be no reputation for, is untarnished. However certain Scientology critics who are against freedom of religion have published personal websites making wild misrepresentations of what Study Tech is composed of. But, oddly those person simply criticize anything and everything about Scientology, why would they make an exception of Study Tech? As for "peer - review", I present again that when it comes to SPIRITUAL REHABILITATION, there is no peer TO review. It is in the area of religion, not in the area of medicine, not in the area of psychology, not in the area of psychiatry. Terryeo 16:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I didn't realize that the goal of Study Tech is spiritual rehabilitation--I thought it was aimed at things like increasing reading comprehension skills. Forgive me if this seems overly personal, Terryeo, but I think you could benefit from some further training in reading comprehension. Your response above takes off on about five tangents, while never addressing anything I wrote. BTfromLA 16:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
My statement does not say that the goal of Study Tech is spiritual rehabilitation. The study tech website does not state so, either. User:BTfromLA alleged to a "reputation". I replied to that. Terryeo 01:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Good work, BT; nice example of working together all around. I can see why you softened the Italian bit; as none of us here are conversant in Italian (I assume) it is difficult to say much more than that it is listed. I would like to see if we can find an editor fluent in both languages to give us a good translation of the Italian letter or the applicable portion of the Ministry website. I did ask someone at random when this began but no reply yet (I don't think the user has logged in since I posted the request).--Justanother 20:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] breakin' it down

For those who still don't get it, let's take it real slow, one bit at a time. The part I'm disputing is this: "Study Tech has received some limited acceptance by non-Scientologist educators. One example is inclusion by the Italian Ministry of Education of Applied Scholastics training in the list of approved curricula that Italian teachers can take to maintain their continuing education requirement." This is followed by two citations to Scientology/Applied Scholastics' own website. I've said it before but I guess nobody heard me: WP:V and WP:RS clearly state: "Caution should be used when using company or organization websites as sources....Exercise particular care when using such a website as a source if the company or organization is a controversial one."

Okay, that's ONE excellent reason for my edit already. But wait, there's more: look closely at the two citation links. The first shows an alleged scan of an Italian document, and the second shows a created-in-a-graphics-program GIF that roughly translates it into English. Note that the document has had a portion removed from it. What did it say, and why did Applied Scholastics prefer it be left out and played down? As if the inherent bias of the site wasn't enough, the document we are using as a source is incomplete!

Okay, that was a SECOND good reason to edit.

THIRDLY, I've read the document many times and it just doesn't seem to say what the article says it says. Just repeat what the document says, don't try to embellish it, expand upon it, or extrapolate from it. It says that "this Board" (Applied Scholastics is actually not mentioned by name in the body of the document) is approved for the "training of school personnel". This isn't quite the same thing as "acceptance by educators". There's no guarantee that any educators are actually using it, just because it's on the approved list. In fact, it doesn't even say whether they can use their own Study Tech or if they have to amend it or change it entirely in order to pass muster with the Ministry and their standards. wikipediatrix 04:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

One bit at a time. There will never be a good excuse to removed cited information without editor discussion. Period. Terryeo 01:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
You're wrong. There are many good reasons to remove information from articles - even if it's cited. Back before you got banned from editing Scientology articles, I remember you removing cited information quite often. But in this particular case, I have been removing information that is not cited, because the info in the source citation does not match that which the article states. wikipediatrix 01:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid you are misinformed. "It is inappropriate to remove blocks of well-referenced information which is germane to the subject from articles on the grounds that the information advances a point of view. Wikipedia's NPOV policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view." Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy/Past_decisions#Neutral_point_of_view_.28and_associated_principles.29 Terryeo 17:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
"Acceptance by educators" has lead to a list of training that school personal may do. The "training of school personnel" is not the sweeping of streets or the reading of Homer and educators in Italy (as in the USA) come up with recommended training for school personal. Thus, the result of "Acceptance by educators" is a list of potential "training of school personnel". There you go. Terryeo 06:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry if I'm being dense, but I don't see any obviously omitted part of the document--are you talking about the translated letter? You are correct that we get no details about who the "educators" were who accepted it onto the list, how many if any teachers are actually taking those courses, and whether that Applied Scholastics school that is listed diluted the Study Tech program somehow to gain acceptance. But "some limited acceptance" is not a very high bar. Combined with the info about "LEAP" in Memphis, I think that test is met, unless you have some positive reason to believe that these Applied Scholastics programs or the documents are being misrepresented here. One thought--since what is being "accepted" is Applied Scholastics rather than Study Tech per se, perhaps it would make more sense to include this section in a sub-section (or separate article) on Applied Scholastics--a distinction reminiscent of the different-but-inseparable coverage of "Scientology" and "Church of Scientology". Scientology's self-promotional sites absolutely do fit that "exercise particular care" criteria, but looking over this set of links, I just can't see anything to suggest that LEAP didn't get that grant, or that the Italian Applied Scholastics school didn't land on that (very long) list of acceptible "continuing education" outposts. BTfromLA 04:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
The document is here. I'm not sure what to make of it, actually: the image is broken into two parts in such a way that is not commensurate with a normal page break. But at least you do get my main point that what is being "accepted" is Applied Scholastics as an organization, rather than Study Tech per se. In fact, it's really only "Applied Scholastics of Italy and the Mediterranean" that is being accredited, not the parent organization and not Hubbard's Study Tech. See here. Furthermore, LEAP getting a Government grant in no way constitutes "acceptance" of Study Tech - all kinds of crazy people apply for Government grants and get them, but that's not an endorsement. I doubt their grant application even mentioned L.Ron Hubbard or Study Tech anyway. And finally, the sentence "Study Tech has received some limited acceptance by non-Scientologist educators" is misleading because it makes it sound as if all the educators KNOW that it's Scientology. wikipediatrix 05:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
FYI, that letter looks like an intact single page in my browser. BTfromLA 05:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
You don't see it as broken into a second separate image? I'm in Internet Explorer which doesn't have a default white background setting, thus showing the space between itlet1.gif and itlet2.gif. I resized it on a graphics program to be actual stationery size and it doesn't match up. It could be because margins were trimmed, but we'll never know for sure because they didn't present the image as an exact scan. At any rate, this was the least important of my points. (Though I do consider it important.)wikipediatrix 05:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
You do know, trix, that they use metric-sized paper in Italy, don't you? Maybe that was why size didn't match? Looked great on IE7 for me (I switch between IE7 and Firefox)--Justanother 06:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm using Safari on a Mac. They line up seamlessly--there is a slightly overlarge line space between the paragraphs where the gif files meet, but I wouldn't have noticed that without having it brought to my attention. Definitely no big, conspicuous gap. BTfromLA 05:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Whow, hold on there. You're suggesting that a perfectly good piece of information be disincluded because the browser you personally use doesn't display it to your satisfaction? Why not include a note, "best viewed with IE" or something like that? We include pay sites (with a note) and include other sorts of information that not everyone can view. IE is the most commonly used browser, anyway. If it could ONLY be viewed with Safari on a Mac, that might be a reason to disinclude it, maybe. But the opposite situation? Bah, let's put a note on the link, "Best viewed with Internet Explorer". With IE it reads as italian on the top and English on the bottom and makes a perfectly good read. Terryeo 05:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
What on earth are you responding to? What you have written makes no sense. BTfromLA 06:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
After looking at the page source, it looks like they broke the scan up so that it would be easier for them to construct the image map that lets you click on the link in the letter. Breaking images into multiple pieces for speed of loading, image mapping, or any other reason is common on websites and says nothing about the validity of the image. The validity of the image is evidenced by the fact that it is just a form letter and the relevant information can be verified on the Ministy website, even using a crap bablefish translation. Not to mention that the Italian police might take a dim view of posting a forgery--Justanother 06:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
The image scan is the least of the situation. No editor should ever removed cited, pertinent information from an article without discussion. Policy and guidelines are quite clear about this element of referencing. Uncited, harmful information might be removed by any editor. But not cited pertinent information, not without discussion. Terryeo 06:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
But the information is NOT cited. There is nothing in the references on which to base the statement "Study Tech has received some limited acceptance by non-Scientologist educators". One minor branch office of Applied Scholastics is what has been "accepted" in Italy, NOT Study Tech. The Memphis branch office of LEAP is what has been accepted in Tennessee, NOT Study Tech. wikipediatrix 13:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Could everyone live with something like "Applied Scholastics programs, based on Hubbard's Study Tech, have received some limited acceptance by governmental education agencies"? BTfromLA 15:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

If, as Justanother says, this info can be verified on the ministry website, there is no reason not to include it. However, if the only source we have is the CoS.... Well, let's just say they don't have the same definition of "truth" as the rest of us. Yandman 12:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

As a point of information, Yandman, your comment is not appropriate to even Wiki talk pages because in the Scientology articles, The Church's publications are a Primary Source of information (WP:V) and should appropriately be included, while published but unreliable sources (such as blogs, newsgroup postings or personal websites) are of less repute, less reliability, less attribution, less legal responsibility and should not be included per WP:RS. Terryeo 17:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
As a point of information, Church of Scientology pages are not reliable sources in a number of areas, not the least of which is the life history of L. Ron Hubbard. AndroidCat 01:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
WP:RS is the place to hammer out reliability questions. Because the Church is primary source about its area of publication, it is certainly appropriate to cite Church information. Besides which, the Church is known to legally stand behind any statement they make, unlike some other sources of lesser repute. But if you feel the Church's publication in any area is "not reliable", the WP:RS would be your forum for establishing an editor concensus on that issue. Terryeo 01:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The CofS has been known to lie quite a bit about itself and those it considers to be "enemies", so your statement Terryeo is an outright falsehood, or as you would call it, "a lie!". Any and all cofs related websites are Partisan websites and not necessarily reliable. The forum for that is right here. Please stop attempting to obfuscate the issue. --Fahrenheit451 22:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I followed your advice, Terryeo, and went to read WP:V and WP:RS. Let's see: "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Oh dear. There's also WP:V#Sources_of_dubious_reliability, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Partisan.2C_religious_and_extremist_websites, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Company_and_organization_websites, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_evidence etc.... ad nauseam. yandman 07:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Don't forget Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_and_dubious_sources_in_articles_about_themselves. AndroidCat 14:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Footnote [5] states State of Tennessee THEC website accessed Oct 2, 2006 [6]. That link could be better presented so the page pops up with the "L" selections right at the top of the browser page my adding "#L" to the link to produce, [7]. The link in the article should probably change in this way because it would convenience the reader. Terryeo 16:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey guys, let's not take this somewhere it doesn't need to go. Yandman, thanks for the accord.--Justanother 01:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I've asked an editor who speaks Italian to make comment here. If anyone knows of an Italian-speaking editor, it wouldn't hurt to ask them, huh? Terryeo 16:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Terry, I did that when this first started; Girl-razor's reply is in my talk page. While there are also some interesting off-topic remarks there that I want to discuss a bit further with her, it seems as she is saying that the translation of the letter on the Scn site is OK. She makes the point about whether inclusion constitutes "accreditation". I don't think I ever made that claim; I simply claim that inclusion is part of "some limited acceptance". I do think that inclusion in the list constitutes some sort of acceptance; they are allowing Italian teachers to make their CEU there and pay them for their time doing it; there must be something more to it than just applying to be on the list and rubber-stamping everyone that applies. Perhaps, Girl-razor can help us out a bit more if I can do some of the work first with babelfish.--Justanother 23:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I had a look around the Italian Ministry of Education site. The letter on the Scn site is documented as Note 1502 which is unfortunately not published on the Ministry website [8] (not all notes are, because otherwise there would be thousands of them). However I did manage to find Applied Scholastics listed as an accredited institution for training in teaching methodology [9], so it is true and I've added a link to its listing on the Ministry site to your references. Their accreditation will last for three years. As has already been established, they are just one of hundreds of private organisations that teachers may choose to study at for their continuing professional development. What hasn't been mentioned is that, apart from the organisations on the list, a teacher can also choose to study at any University or public institute in all of the European Union [10] - Article 1(2). Regarding what you said about them approving and not just rubber-stamping, there is a pretty comprehensive list of what sort of qualities are required for approval [11] but considering the amount of organisations on the list and what I know of Italian beaurocrats, I have no doubt that it is just rubber-stamped in actual practice. But I can hardly put that in the article, can I? Daniel 11:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments, Daniel. I for one, find your comments to provide a point of view that lets us see the significance of that piece of information. Coolness :) Terryeo 17:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The second paragraph

Begins: Study tech claims to remove what it calls "barriers to study". Don't you all think this is moving just a little too fast? If the article would FIRST present, "Study tech claims there are barriers which come up during study", then there would be a logic which the reader could follow. Terryeo 03:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Acceptance Outside of Scientology

I see this bit has been rewritten with a heavy-handed "no post-secondary" slant. First off, of course, that would need to be sourced. If it can be sourced, all it needs is a mention, and not in the first line either as this section is about acceptance and lack of same is best mentioned a bit further on, if it can be sourced. Which reminds me that we need to add something about the ton of private schools that are accreditted at the elementary and secondary school level. Then making this repeated point about each mentioned entity is really redundant and a bit of a tangent as I doubt any of them are something like a college or university that would be accreditted as a post-secondary school. It boils down to a lot of POV-pushing but you didn't hear it from me (laff). --Justanother 12:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/t/u/Talk%7EStudy_Tech_be63.html"