Talk:Free Zone (Scientology)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Free Zone (Scientology) article.
Article policies
The Arbitration Committee has placed all Scientology-related articles on probation (see relevant arbitration case). Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages.
Scientology Portal
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. See comments


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.

Ever heard of Kangaroo Court?

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?

Wasn't this back in the 50's or 60's? If So, Omar V. Garrison covers it in The Hiden Story of Scientology]]/comes up w/ very different conclusions. He's a non-scio, too 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.

Who sais someones got to draw the line for cults somewhere? That whole model has been steadilly falling by the way-side in the last 20 years. Most of the sociologists and what not are like "have you hugged your new religion today?" these days. And ALOT of people agree. The rabbid anticultists have been increasingly seen as fringe elements. This makes sence, too, as thats how it is in other fields of study. Why should 1 be different. Cults and sects been going on since time immemorial, and show no signs of stopping. I know I provide no reference, but REALLY...Look into it. I'm sure you'll discover what I have. Theres lots of rabbids, but these days a cook cultist and a cook anti-cultist are seen as pretty identical.

I think this has been true since (aproximately) it was found that people who left cults voluntarilly, usually felt pretty relaxxed about the whole deal, @ least in comparison to people who'd been deprogrammed.

--mwazzap 01:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Gosh; I've always had the impression, that both the terms cult and sect were designed to catagorise particular types of new religions, tho there are other uses for the former term. So despite the claims of one author here, the term cult in fact AFFIRMS that a particular group IS a religion. The author might want to look into his own associations with the word cult, which is after all just a term, and one which unfortunately seems to stir up spooks in the head for a lot of people. I will note that L. Ron Hubbard, amongst others, both before and after him, knew of this pheonomina, and created techniques he thought were designed and effective at getting rid of the pheonominon (buzzwords causing agitated mental states)Thaddeus Slamp 20:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

"I've always had the impression, that both the terms cult and sect were designed to catagorise particular types of new religions ..." Nope, that's a popular misconception, and it's one that some parties have a vested interest in promoting, but a misconception is what it is. Most cult checklists don't even mention religion, let alone have it as a prerequisite, and there are numerous examples of cults which have no religious component (to name just one notable example, the LaRouche movement.) Any contention, therefore, that to call something a 'cult' is to acknowledge a religious nature to it, is simply incorrect. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I figure if you'd noticed the section I've now put in bold, you'd have mention it, as it beggs mentioning in the sort of response you just made. I, therefore, am near certain you failed to notice (or worse, actually meant to behave irrationally in hopes of peeving others. I'm betting on the former, however). Hopefully the bold corrects that.Thaddeus Slamp 06:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Before you make more suggestions along the lines of "actually meant to behave irrationally in hopes of peeving others", please consult Wikipedia:Assume good faith. I did indeed notice the section that you put in bold, and I did indeed notice that your statement overall was problematically ambiguous. If you yourself acknowledge that there are other uses for the term "cult" then the claim that "the term cult in fact AFFIRMS that a particular group IS a religion" becomes even weaker, since it becomes even more difficult to say with certainty that the person using the term "cult" meant it in a sense which makes such affirmative claims as opposed to any of the others which do not.
Even if we restrict ourselves to only those usages of "cult" which are compared are contrasted with "sect" in the professional disciplines, it still does not support the idea that all such usages of "cult" affirm a religious nature. Take for instance The Road to Total Freedom by ppRoy Wallis]], one of the seminal works on the sociology of Dianetics and Scientology. Wallis introduces his typology as follows: "Cults are presented as highly individualistic collectivities prone to fission and disintegration. The transformation of a cult into a sect is viewed as a strategy by means of which leaders seek to perpetuate and to enhance their status by arrogating authority in an attempt to create a stable and cohesive following." Nowhere in there, or indeed in the whole of the book, is a religious component presented as a requirement. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Sir: As a matter of coincidence I happen to have read some of your other stuff, it is for that reason that for now I will "assume good faith" (it's not much of an assumption. I think you may be the smartest/wisest wikipedian I've yet encountered. Also I did not notice when I wrote that that you are not the origonal author of this subject heading.). For now I am going to let this lie. BTW: I've scanned that book fairly thoroughly (about a decade and a half ago).Thaddeus Slamp 19:54, 27 March 2007 (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)

Are either of you aware that the 1st allegation of the existence of the book was in a book highly critical of scientology?Thaddeus Slamp 00:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

That rather begs the question, doesn't it? What you mean is that when you have traced back the history of the book as far back as you are able to and willing to go, it stops at "a book highly critical of Scientology", which of course to people with certain prejudiced mindsets equates to "a book filled with vicious lies." However, unless we circularly assume the premise in question, we have no reason to believe that you have in fact identified "the 1st allegation of the existence of the book". If the book existed then naturally the "1st allegation" belonged to A. Nordenholz himself, who did not "allege" the existence of the book but stated it (correctly) as a fact. In any case, let's save this talk page for its intended purpose, which is the discussion of the article. Until allegations of the book being a hoax are anything other than original research, they really merit no place here. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Much of (estimation: 85%)what is written critical of scientology @ least gets really quite close to exactly that. Viciouse lies. Anyone who knows some scientology knows this to be true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thaddeus Slamp (talk • contribs)
According to their online catalogue, the Library of Congress holds a copy of the 1934 edition of Nordenholz's Scientologie; wissenschaft von der beschaffenheit und der tauglichkeit des wissens, 112 pp., published by Reinhardt at Munchen. McPheeters' Scientologie published by "FreiZone" in 1995 purports to be an English translation of this book. However, there was also a 1937 publication by Nordenholz, Scientologie; System des Wissens und der Wissenschaft, 139 pp. which could be either a later retitled edition or a separate work. The Bodleian Library catalogue lists this as published in Munchen; Berlin-Spandau by Druck: Stèuckrath & Co.; it's also in LIBRIS, the Swedish National Library database. So the hypothesis of a recent hoax seems most improbable. An organisation like MI5 or the CIA might be able to print bogus volumes, artificially age them and smuggle them into major libraries - but the freezoners? In any case, Nordenholz coined the term scientologie for what today might be called metascience, a scientific analysis of the various sciences: it's a homonym, rather than a synonym, of Hubbard's scientology (study of knowledge). DavidCooke 03:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Old Scientologie, and cos have almost no relation to eachother. Is that point to be missed?!

[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)

I don't know why I made that edit. I've always been pretty sure the book does exist. But it's sort of a what of it. It had no real impact, appearantly. Did Hubbard read it. If he did. He was better read than many like to admitt. If he didn't, then the point is pretty mute. It had no real relation to Hubbards works. In fact I suspect that finding takes on that suffix prefic combo farther apart would be difficult if you had a blinded panel of 100 make something up. The preceding was meant tounge in cheek (half joke, half serious).

[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)

[edit] I think I dissaprove

I think this whole article is done entirely wrong. I think that other than the people who intentionally distract, and the idea (based on usenets nature), that freezoners post messages all day, (that might accidently be arrived at by the unwary reader), the best picture of the freezone is in the usenet newsgroup alt.clearing.technology. You seem to ignore the pleathora of people inspired by hubbard and willing to go thru the harrassment due to said inspirations. The article seems to ignore that there are many many sides here. The Bill Robertson angle is 1 possible angle. I don't see objectivity here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thaddeus Slamp (talk • contribs) 22:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

Well, let me explain the problem that we face, and you can tell me if you know of anything that would help us solve the problem. The problem is that we are bound by Wikipedia's policies on reliable sources (now part of the larger policy WP:ATTRIBUTION.) Whatever we put in the article has to be from reliable sources -- it could not be, for instance, from you or I reading through alt.clearing.technology and forming an assessment of the activity there and adding our assessment to the article. The question is, what is a reliable source for this matter? Despite the title of the article (which I am increasingly coming to think we should change) there isn't one solitary organization comprising the majority of independent Scientologists whose views on themselves we could reliably attribute. There are multiple organizations of independents out there, yes, but who's to say which of them are the major ones? I have thought for quite some time that we need to include more of the perspective of the freezone (I'm using the lowercase version, to mean independent Scientologists in general and not that specific organization) but we face an even greater problem with determining what is a reliable source -- and frankly, arguing with those who don't want it to be a reliable source -- than we already do on the general subject of Scientology. So if you have any suggestions to help us resolve this problem, please share them, it can only help us get closer to a fairer and more accurate picture. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I really don't know what to say here. Having read your user page, tho, I think you will understand me when I say that truth should not have to pay for some kinda rules of literary criticism stuff. The problem is huge. The media and books outside of cos never got scientology right and now will we get freezone wrong, too? Example the article on freezone takes 1 quote from scientology in such a way as to suggest that there are 1 or 2 quotes by hubbard that suggest he beleived in freedom, when actually it was 1 of his favorite themes. I beleive that, assuming Hubbard wasn't a completely maliciouse wacko somewhat good at hiding it, there is MUCH reason/ MANY MANY MANY quotes to suggest Hubbard would have supported the freezone if he thought it were being run in a way that could work torwards greater good for greatest # of dynamics, and would drop support of CoS if he felt freezone viable and cos not, for whatever reason that such might prove to be the case. I think there is @ least a 50 percent chance Hubbard was not a fascist jerk/ know his ideas/ intentions have very rarely been presented accurately, in the media. I have trouble w/ that here on Wikipedia, too. My biggest complaint: If you are trying to give an account of scientology concepts, shouldn't the 8 dynamics be near the top of the list? P.S.:More later (probably, @ least).

Also, Omar V. Garrisons Hidden Story of Scientology is nowhere to be found. This is an important book as it is the only non-scientologist, pro-scientology defence of scientology history I know of. THo @ this point I've digressed pretty far, it surprises me that there is no article on Mr. Garrison who wrote many books on a wide variety of topics, from the late great Howard Hughes, to Tantra.

One thing I have been thinking is it might be a good idea to post to alt. clearing.technology asking if they've a link-list or if a responsible type there-in would be willing to compile such.Thaddeus Slamp 21:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC) 131.252.130.192 20:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External links and Sources

The external links section is becoming too long, indeed one editor has attempted to delete it altogether and been reverted.
This is a symptom in my view of the lack of independent information available about the Freezone. The references and sources requested in the present warning don't exist outside of Freezone and critic websites.
Things to do:

  • The introduction is OK in my view.
  • The CoS vs the Freezone needs more references. It would be a good guess that 'The Church has taken steps to suppress the Free Zone and shut down dissenters when possible' but that's not good enough for WP.
  • The links need pruning and annotating. I see no point in listing Rons Org branches for example since www.ronsorg.com has an up to date list.

--Hartley Patterson 22:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I would be okay with removing certain ELs if arguments were made for the deletion of those links. It's the removal of all entries at once with no more 'explanation' than the description "promotional links" in an edit summary that tends to rub good editors the wrong way.
As regards pruning of the ELs, good observation re: the Rons Org branches. It wasn't actually obvious from a look at the links themselves that multiple branches of the same organization were being represented. I think the two "tribute" links can go for the same reason, as both sites are operated by the International Freezone Association, a link to which precedes these two. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll make another attempt to push Freezoners into paying attention. The concept that having written stuff you have to be prepared to defend it doesn't seem to have sunk in yet. Ditto for the highly doctrinal POV Rons Org article. --Hartley Patterson 12:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lack of references

I have been researching some other freezone related topics and I was surprised how little mention of it there has been in the mainstream press, in contrast to the great amount for the CoS. Steve Dufour 17:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:COFS reverts without discussion

I have added back the links removed by COFS. This looks like vandalism from this user.--Fahrenheit451 23:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adding reputable sources

I am going to add a bunch of reputable sources to this article, so I am going to add the "Work In Progress" tag, but only for a short while. Thank you. Smee 02:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

Tag removed. There should still be some other info found in the citations I gave that could be used to even expand the article more... Yours, Smee 02:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Recent edits

That must have been a lot of work, Antaeus, and appreciated that you are not reverting everything without discussion. I am writing in bold between the lines. COFS 03:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Rather than edit war, I am going to list some recent changes that have been made and explain some of the reasons why these changes were improper.

  1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Free_Zone_%28Scientology%29&diff=121811685&oldid=121808497
    Text added: "Over the past years the Free Zone helped the German Government to destroy Scientology.<ref><i>"Maybe it makes you feel more confident, for example, if you learn that the office for safeguarding the constitution (Verfassungsschutz) of the German state of Baden-Wurttemberg has stated years ago that the Ron's Org is not a part of the Church of Scientology and that there is no need to observe them as the Ron's Org has no anti-constitutional goals. Indeed, there is some cooperation between members of the Ron's Org and state authorities who observe the Church of Scientology and investigate their activities.</i>[http://www.ronsorg.de/englisch/mehr_infos/ausf_texte/antworten.html English FAQ on German Ron's Org site]</ref>."
    Problems with this edit:
    1. The reference is about the specific group known as Ron's Org. The term "Free Zone" may refer to that specific group or to an entire category of groups that may have no organizational connection to Ron's Org. Changing the "Ron's Org" used in the reference to "the Free Zone" invites confusion.
      The claim in the beginning of the article that Free Zone and Ron's Org are interchangeable is not from me. If this is wrong, correct that. However it is not true either that "only Ron's Org" works with secret service agencies. This applies to German Free Zone as well. If you need reference for that let me know.
      I don't see anything in the article that claims that "Free Zone" and "Ron's Org" are interchangeable. What it says is that the group now known as "Ron's Org" was once known as "the Free Zone" but that now "the Free Zone" can refer to any of several groups. This, I think, is enough to show that the two terms are not interchangeable.
      If you have references for other Free Zone groups cooperating with state authorities, feel free to bring them up. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
      1) http://www.freezone.de/akt/faq.htm this is German and says under the heading "Woher kann ich wissen, ob die Freie Zone nicht eine Tarnorganisation der Scientology-Kirche ist?" that the Free Zone cooperated with the Verfassungsschutz as well. Freie Zone e.V. is the umbrella organization for at least the European FZ groups. It is also the organization running the Nordenholz/Scientologie legal action mentioned in the article. 2) http://www.geocities.com/freezonetruth/luebeck.htm This is not a RS in terms of text but some summary on the guys in that organization. The documents on there however would be WP:RS. COFS 16:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
      You seem to think that I can read no German, and that I cannot recognize the German document which you assure me says "the Free Zone cooperated with the Verfassungsschutz" is nothing more than the German version of the English FAQ which we have already seen. Neither document makes the claim you keep saying it does, that "the Free Zone cooperated with the Verfassungsschutz". As far as the Geocities site, I very much doubt that any of the documents on there would be WP:RS... even if they didn't 404. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
      I don't know anything about your language capabilities but there is a major difference between http://www.freezone.de/akt/faq.htm and [4] and that is the organization publishing it and the domain they sit on. One is RO and the other one FZ. That they chose to publish almost identical FAQs, well, is not my problem. They are both damn proud of working with the German secret service which - as you correctly point out - is not GESTAPO anymore, but still has the function to infiltrate and spy out German citizens. I remember media reports that the Verfassungsschutz was having the problem of infiltrating Churches of Scientology as their agents were not trained. The complaints stopped after the FZ jumped in, shortly after the aboev FAQ was first published in the RO mag. I can't think of a bigger abuse of LRH tech than to give it to a spy to pervert it and use it against Scientologists. COFS 21:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
    2. The reference only says that members of Ron's Org (not synonymous with "the Free Zone", BTW) has had "some cooperation" with "state authorities who observe the Church of Scientology and investigate their activities." Jumping from "observe" and "investigate" to "destroy" is original research and an obvious NPOV violation.
    3. The reference is to Ron's Org itself. Any information attributed to this reference must be noted as the claims of Ron's Org about themselves, rather than the claims of an independent source.
  2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Free_Zone_%28Scientology%29&diff=121811685&oldid=121808497
    Text deleted: "Over the past years the Free Zone has cooperated with the German government in observing Church of Scientology practices." to "Over the past years the Free Zone has cooperated with the German government."
    Problems with this edit:
    1. Removing the information about what Ron's Org has cooperated with the German government on does not improve the article in any way. Note that this edit is by the same user who previously asserted that Ron's Org was trying to "destroy" the Church of Scientology; also note that the edit summary was "Germany - article and quote adjusted to that some truth shines through". This edit is an obvious NPOV violation.
      It is the German Secret Service's activity to destroy the Church of Scientology's activities. And Ron's Org is helping them. I agree that the current version of this edit is better than the "destroy" one. You are living in the past here. RO does not say that they cooperated in investigating (even though that would mean that they trained their agents with LRH auditing tech - for their "cover" - or infiltrated the Church themselves). It says they cooperated, period. It was me who changed the edited to the current version. It is completely cited. So, what is your point?
      "It is the German Secret Service's activity to destroy the Church of Scientology's activities." That is your own personal opinion. You are entitled to hold your own personal opinion, but you cannot change "observe" and "investigate" to "destroy" just because it is your opinion that that is what is 'really meant'. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Free_Zone_%28Scientology%29&diff=prev&oldid=121871386
    External link added: http://www.scientologymyths.info/squirrels/who-was-captain-bill-robertson-and-the-galactic-patrol.php , with link text "On Bill Robertson".
    Problems with this edit:
    1. Wikipedia:External links lists, among "Links normally to be avoided", "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research." That is certainly the case with this link. There is no attempt to substantiate the allegations the page in question makes about Robertson's alleged sexual proclivities and alleged marital indiscretions; nearly every single sentence on the page linked to would be a WP:BLP violation if placed on a Wikipedia page.
      Yes, I agree, that link is in the same category than truthaboutscientology, clambake, lermanet etc. It is a personal page (even though there are documents on there which is how I found it). WP:BLP does not apply since BR died of cancer a while ago (I somewhere have a photo showing his bloated throat). Let's get rid of it.
      No, Truthaboutscientology.com , Operation Clambake, and Lermanet are much different from Scientologymyths.info . It's quite easy to identify who operates the first three sites, and they tell you where they get their information from. The latter site doesn't appear to identify anywhere who's responsible, and gives little or no information about the justifications for the claims it makes. Take the following "correction": "Q: Does Scientology have a drill called TR-L that teaches people how to lie? [A:] No. Scientology tries to help people live better and more honest lives, not the opposite." First sentence: Utterly misleading, completely fails to mention the fact that Scientology has had a drill called TR-L which has been cited by Scientology's own lawyers in court proceedings. If you tried saying "No" in court when you were asked that question, you'd be cited for perjury, and no judge would listen to your excuse of "Oh, well, you see, it was really the Guardian's Office that had that drill, and despite the GO being headed by Mary Sue Hubbard herself we totally claim that the Guardian's Office was never a part of Scientology but just a bunch of paid infiltrators." Is "Scientology tries to help people live better and more honest lives, not the opposite" an answer to an inquiry about the existence of TR-L? Not remotely -- no more than "Roman Catholic clergy take very serious vows of chastity" is an answer to an inquiry about "Have some Roman Catholic priests had sexual affairs with parishioners, including some who were minors and even some who were pre-teens?" -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Free_Zone_%28Scientology%29&diff=next&oldid=121871743
    Text added to introduction: "Sector Commander Elron Elray alias Bill Robertson issued a decree in 1982 to establish the Freezone: [complete text of Free Zone Decree snipped]"
    Problems with this edit:
    1. This is an article about the multiple groups that are known under the collective title of "the Free Zone". This material is relevant to only one of those groups. The introduction to an article should give an overview of the subject. Posting the Decree in full, with all nine points, is far too much detail for the introduction. (One cannot help noting that accusations are often levelled at critics of Scientology claiming that they overemphasize the "space opera" elements of Scientology and claiming that they do so for the purpose of ridiculing Scientology; now we are seeing supporters of Scientology overemphasizing the "space opera" elements held by one of the many groups in the general category of "Free Zone groups", in what is supposed to be a neutral overview of the whole field.)
    2. The added text, "Sector Commander Elron Elray alias Bill Robertson", is completely incorrect. As shown here when Bill Robertson referred to Elron Elray, he meant L. Ron Hubbard; he believed that this was the name Hubbard was known by "on the wholetrack".
    3. The website freezone.org, which hosts the Free Zone Decree at http://www.freezone.org/cbr/sector9/e_fzdecr.htm , is known to be actually affiliated with the group in question. Nothing is known about who http://freezone.najbjerg.info/freezone is affiliated with.
      Good catch. I did not know that. Did you correct it?
      Yes. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Free_Zone_%28Scientology%29&diff=next&oldid=121976448
    Text altered from "... the Free Zone has cooperated with the German government." to "the Free Zone has cooperated with the German Secret Service." Edit summary: "Germany - important distinction, isn't it. is it external or internal Gestapo?"
    Problems with this edit:
    1. The reference in question says that members of Ron's Org have cooperated with "state authorities who observe the Church of Scientology and investigate their activities." It is original research to decide that this is "the German Secret Service". It is a massive POV violation to use the edit summary to allege a similarity to the Gestapo of Nazi Germany.
      Sorry, but this is not ok. The RS for this sentence SAYS that they have been and are cooperating with the Verfassungsschutz, which is the German word for Secret Service (internal, as can be easily found on their homepage, which is wrote to you in the same context). You are making up an allegation here out of nothing and trying so is not ok.
      No, the RS for this sentence says "Verfassungsschutz" in one sentence and "state authorities" in the next. We have no reliable source that both sentences are referring to the same governmental organization(s), especially since as we have already seen that the distinction between German federal agencies and the agencies of the individual German states is being incorrectly ignored. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Free_Zone_%28Scientology%29&diff=next&oldid=121977876
    Text deleted: "A November 2004 Press Release from the Free Zone entitled: "The Truth Is Out Here!", quoted L. Ron Hubbard's own words, concluding with: "The Work Was Free. Keep It So."[press release reference snipped here.] The Press Release concluded by citing the Free Zone Web site, http://internationalfreezone.net/[1]." Edit summary: "WTF? Since when is that allowed? WP:EL? Ever heard of it?"
    Problems with this edit:
    1. WP:EL says plainly "The guideline of this article refers to external links other than citations". The guideline that would apply to the citation in the removed text is not WP:EL but WP:RS. There are no extraordinary claims being attributed to that reference; it appears to be used entirely as a primary source about itself, which WP:RS lists as an acceptable use of self-published material.
      Now what? There is no discussion here. I put the whole press release as a reference in the article and adjusted the style to the rest of the text. No text was lost. I disagree only if it reads like a self-published promotional piece in the middle of an encyclopedic article. That IS a violation and unacceptable use of self-published material. Summarizing it in one sentence and citing the original - as I did - is acceptable.
      The edit link was provided. It doesn't happen to be your edit.
  7. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Free_Zone_%28Scientology%29&diff=next&oldid=121978899
    Text changed from "[[Hamburg, Germany|Hamburg]] Scientology Commissioner [[Ursula Caberta]]" to "[[Hamburg, Germany|Hamburg]] Scientology Commissioner [[Ursula Caberta y Diaz]]<ref>[http://web.uni-marburg.de/religionswissenschaft/journal/mjr/goodman.html On Ursula Caberta:<i>"Ursula Caberta of the Hamburg Interior Ministry, who has initiated some of the most egregious violations of the rights of Scientologists in Germany, among them so-called "sect filters" -- documents which require applicants for employment or contractual relations to declare that they are not Scientologists before their application will be considered. Caberta, despite ten years of propagandizing at taxpayer expense, has been unable to find anything wrong with Scientologists and their Church."</i></ref><ref>[http://bernie.cncfamily.com/sc/caberta_welt_article.htm German Newspaper "Die Welt"] of 30 Sept 2001 (english translation), Original article [http://www.welt.de/print-wams/article615730/Scientology-Beauftragte_unter_Verdacht.html here]</ref>"
    Problems with this edit:
    1. "Ursula Caberta" gets 13,700 Google hits. "Ursula Caberta y Diaz" gets 151. In an article about Ursula Caberta, an argument about the most correct form of her name would be relevant. Here, it is not; our responsibility is to put it under the name she is most commonly known by. Even in an article where her exact name was an issue, we would need a valid reference for the claim that she should be or could be known as "y Diaz"; none of the "references" provided in this edit meet that description.
      Ursula Caberta y Diaz is her real and full name and is - as you say - used that way as well. I don't really care except that I cannot find a good reason why to cut her name short. You are trying to give the impression as if there were guidelines about how somebody's name should be written. I was not able to find that on Wikipedia.
      The good reason to cut her name short (besides the lack of referencing) is that we are creating a red link to an article that has not been created yet. We want to make the red link such that if someone creates an article about that person, our article will already be linked to it. The odds appear to be about 100-to-1 in favor of that article being created at Ursula Caberta, not Ursula Caberta y Diaz. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
    2. The "Goodman" reference makes several inflammatory claims damaging to the reputation of Ursula Caberta, accusing her of "egregious violations of the rights of Scientologists" and "ten years of propagandizing at taxpayer expense". These accusations do not come from a reliable source, despite being published in the Marburg Journal of Religion; they come from a letter written to the Journal by Leisa Goodman who lists herself as Human Rights Director, Church of Scientology International. They are irrelevant to the subject of this article. There does not, in fact, appear to be any claim at issue which the "references" supplied support, or are needed to support.
      You know, if you call a publication in a highly reknown University paper a lacking reference, then there is no RS on Wikipedia. Just because you are disagreeing with what Goodman has to say, this is no reason to slide into arbitrary evaluations of sources. The Marburg Journal of Religion is regularly cited in other articles on Wikipedia and I have not seen you protesting there. Why? Maybe because the text there is more in alignment with you POV.
      To explain this again: a letter written to the New York Times is not reliable the way an article printed by the New York Times is reliable. a letter written to Nature is not reliable the way a paper published in Nature is reliable. a letter written to the Marburg Journal of Religion is not reliable the way a paper published in Marburg Journal of Religion is reliable. Goodman's piece is a letter to the Journal, not a work selected for publication in the Journal by editorial staff who found her letter to be a knowledgeable and accurate contribution to the discipline. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Free_Zone_%28Scientology%29&diff=next&oldid=121994581
    Text changed from "Ron's Org states that rather than being in conflict with the state authorities it cooperates with them in their monitoring of the Church of Scientology." to "Over the past years the Free Zone has cooperated with the German Secret Service." Edit summary: "Undid revision 121993896. rvv The source actually says Secret Service. The Verfassungsschutz is Germany's internal secret service (see their english HP if you don't believe it)." The reference in question, cited to http://www.ronsorg.de/englisch/mehr_infos/ausf_texte/antworten.html : "Maybe it makes you feel more confident, for example, if you learn that the office for safeguarding the constitution (Verfassungsschutz) of the German state of Baden-Wurttemberg has stated years ago that the Ron's Org is not a part of the Church of Scientology and that there is no need to observe them as the Ron's Org has no anti-constitutional goals. Indeed, there is some cooperation between members of the Ron's Org and state authorities who observe the Church of Scientology and investigate their activities."
    Problems with this edit:
    1. The source does not "actually say Secret Service". It says "office for safeguarding the constitution (Verfassungsschutz) of the German state of Baden-Wurttemberg". That is not even the same thing as "German office for safeguarding the constitution", since "the German state of Baden-Wurttemberg" and "Germany" are two different things.
    2. Even if the source had said it was the federal Verfassungsschutz, rather than that of the state of Baden-Wurttemberg, there is still no justification for altering it from "German office for safeguarding the constitution" to "German Secret Service". No reference has been provided, and merely saying "see their english HP" is not an acceptable substitute for a reference.
    3. Even if we had a reference, there seems no possible reason except POV for altering "office for safeguarding the constitution" to "Secret Service", and since it would be a synthesis of material intended to advance a proposition, it would be barred as original research.
    4. Even aside from the attempt to substitute "German Secret Service" for "Verfassungsschutz", the claim that Ron's Org or members thereof have cooperated with that agency under any name whatsover, is actually an improper synthesis of two different sentences. All that is said about the "Verfassungsschutz" is that they made a statement distinguishing Ron's Org from the Church of Scientology and explaining why surveillance of Ron's Org was not necessary. The only statement that is made about Ron's Org cooperating with anyone is in the next sentence. That sentence says that members of Ron's Org have cooperated with "state authorities who observe the Church of Scientology and investigate their activities". There is absolutely no justification for the claim that those "state authorities" must be the "Verfassungsschutz" mentioned in the previous sentence.
      See above. Are you trying to blow up this section with repetitions earlier discussions? Ron's Org is BRAGGING with the fact that they are COOPERATING with the VERFASSUNGSSCHUTZ. You may want to read the full quote in the reference. Don't explain it away for them. LRH would never agree that his technology is given in the hands of secret services. By the way, the German Freezone issued a pretty similar, if not identical, text about their cooperation with a German Secret Service here (use babelfish.altavista.com)
      Are you trying to blow up this section by repeating claims already known to be false? I have read the full quote in the reference. If you were to do so you would see that there are two sentences in it, and the sentence which mentions the Verfassungsschutz is not the same sentence which mentions cooperation with state authorities. Nothing indicates that the state authorities in question must be the aforementioned Verfassungsschutz; indeed one would think that if they were both deemed not a threat by the Verfassungsschutz, and cooperating with the Verfassungsschutz, and found the imprimatur of the Verfassungsschutz flattering enough to mention it by name in reference to the first claim, that they would have specifically identified the Verfassungsschutz as the "state authorities" members were cooperating with in the second sentence. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  9. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Free_Zone_%28Scientology%29&diff=next&oldid=121997932
    Text changed: "A November 2004 Press Release from the Free Zone entitled: "The Truth Is Out Here!", quoted L. Ron Hubbard's own words, concluding with: "The Work Was Free. Keep It So."" to "A November 2004 Press Release published by the Free Zone claims that their activities are what L. Ron Hubbard expects from them." Edit summary: "promotional blabla cut. Antaeus, I highly doubt that you would not allow this on any other site if it were pro-Scientology."
    Problems with this edit:
    1. Since one of the major arguments made by the various Free Zone groups for their own legitimacy is that they are following the "tech" of L. Ron Hubbard as faithfully if not more so than the Church of Scientology, to remove any mention of the fact that the press release in question claims to be quoting Hubbard's own words is manifestly POV. Nothing in the edit summary gives any rationale for removing entirely the press release's assertions that their activities are supported by Hubbard's own words.
      This is solely your very personal point of view. You have every right to think that way and fight for it. But you are assuming that Wikipedia is a "Scientology-Wiki" and its readers know what you are talking about. This might be the case with us brothers and sisters here, but not with the much more numerous other readers. If you think that the FZ's main concern is their legitimation, well write it and reference it. That's why "anyone can edit". Otherwise I did put the press release and reference in, so what's your point?
      My point is that in areas of disputed POV, we try to explain for the reader why reasonable people might hold the various POVs. One reason that people might hold the POV that the Free Zone is carrying out the work of Hubbard is that they are quoting Hubbard's own words about keeping "the work" free. As such there is every reason to include that information and no reason to censor it out.
  10. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Free_Zone_%28Scientology%29&diff=next&oldid=122001616
    Text changed: "[[Hamburg, Germany|Hamburg]] Scientology Commissioner [[Ursula Caberta y Diaz]]" (note the reappearance of the still unsupported "y Diaz")" changed to "[[Hamburg, Germany|Hamburg]] Sect Commissioner [[Ursula Caberta y Diaz]]<ref>[http://bernie.cncfamily.com/sc/caberta_welt_article.htm German Newspaper "Die Welt"] of 30 Sept 2001 (english translation), Original article [http://www.welt.de/print-wams/article615730/Scientology-Beauftragte_unter_Verdacht.html here]</ref>".
    Problems with this edit:
    1. We have a reference for Ursula Caberta as "Hamburg Scientology Commissioner". We have no reference at all for the claim that she is a "Sect Commissioner", which is to my knowledge a religious office rather than a government position. The two "references" supported do not support the claim about her being a "Sect Commissioner" and in fact do not appear to be supporting any claim at all in the text. These edits are highly problematic, with a great deal of original research and a clear attempt to push POV. This is not something that we can tolerate on Wikipedia.
      Ursula Caberta y Diaz is the Hamburg Scientology Commissioner since 1992 and has been quoted in thousands of newspaper articles, hundreds of which have been translated into english and are online. Same is true for her being a "Sect Commissioner" which is what she proudly announced in 2001. Her post title is mentioned in the article I put in there as reference in english and with the german original. Antaeus, I am really getting tired of your accusation and blame under the cloak of a discussion. I believe - and prove me wrong if you can - that you are just prejudiced because I am a Scientologist. That is what makes you scrutinize my edits more than others. That maybe explains why the FZ article has been deteriotating to a link list (or Directory in violation of WP:EL) until I beefed it up. Feel free to contribute, feel free to add data to it which I don't know. Maybe you are a FZ member. Allright, there you have your responsibility to inform about your group, factually and appropriately. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong. But the moment arbitrary reverts and blind accusations come in, you can count on me cutting your head off (verbally).COFS 03:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
      If she "proudly announced in 2001" that she was a Sect Commissioner then find a reference from a reliable source which actually mentions it, because neither the Die Welt article nor the English translation mentions it. The closest it comes is calling her a "sect specialist", which is obviously a description and not a title. If you don't want to face accusations that you have done wrong things, then try to stop doing wrong things, like changing "observe" and "investigate" to "destroy", like asserting without proof that "state authorities" mentioned in one sentence must refer to a specific state authority mentioned in a completely different sentence, like asserting that the claim "Ursula Caberta is a Sect Commissioner" is supported by a reference which does not in fact say anything of the sort. As for your accusations of prejudice, they are false and will be ignored. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The two editors responsible between them for all these edits may have their own private hatreds against Scientologists who aren't in their particular group but that does not justify their edit warring and their violation of policy and guideline to slant the article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPA vio. I was hoping you could withhold this braindead accusation, but no. You are not contributing anything but hatred, man, and you are simply unbearable as a co-editor. Why, Antaeus, do you feel you have to be opposite to me? I did not start this. COFS 03:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Fact: You and Misou have been edit warring, on this and other articles. Fact: You and Misou have been violating policy and guideline. Fact: The net effect of your violations on this article has primarily been to smear the Free Zone: pulling the word "destroy" out of nowhere to accuse them of trying to "destroy" the Church of Scientology; jumping to conclusions about the identity of unnamed "state authorities" to make a claim that the reference wouldn't support even if your uncited claim about "Verfassungsschutz" meaning "Secret Service" were more true than your untrue claim about the Die Welt article identifying Ursula Caberta as a Sect Commissioner; stuffing a huge textdump of the space opera beliefs held by one out of numerous groups in an introduction that's supposed to be a general overview of those groups. "Why, Antaeus, do you feel you have to be opposite to me?" Because I prefer Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to your violations of them, and I prefer Wikipedia's goal of NPOV to your apparent goal of painting the Free Zone with a villainous brush no matter what liberties you have to take with the truth to do so. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

Paragraph two contradicts paragraph one. It refers to a Press Release as being 'published by the Freezone' in 2004, whereas the first paragraph makes clear that there is presently no single Freezone organisation.

The 'Germany' section is so weirdly POV I can't understand why it hasn't been deleted. Two unexplained hostile references do not constitute an article section.

Ursula Caberta is the most used form of that person's name, and thus the one that should be used. There is no Wikipedia article entitled 'Anthony Charles Lynton Blair'. --Hartley Patterson 04:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clarifying focus and possible rename

The fact that "Free Zone" refers to one specific group and also to a whole category of group has caused a lot of confusion, some of which may even have been accidental. I think we need to seriously consider renaming the page to something like Independent Dianetics and Scientology, and let Free Zone (Scientology) be a disambiguation page between Ron's Org and Independent Dianetics and Scientology. This page will of course mention the fact that "the Freezone" is a common umbrella term for such practitioners but will avoid using that term wherever feasible so as not to perpetuate confusion. -- Antaeus Feldspar 06:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The first paragraph explains the evolution of 'Freezone', the meaning of the term has changed and its original usage is obsolete. The 'confusion' is engineered by those attempting to claim that all heretics are followers of Captain Bill, he was mad, therefore... There is far worse confusion between Scientology (beliefs) and Scientology (Church), but no one is suggesting 'Scientology' should become a disambiguation page. --Hartley Patterson 12:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Funny you should mention that, I have been contemplating making exactly that suggestion about turning Scientology into a disambiguation page. I have not made the suggestion yet, since I'm not fully convinced that the subject of Scientology can be divided neatly enough into "Scientology the belief system" and "Scientology the organization", but it seems to me a proposal definitely worthy of consideration.
I agree with you that the first paragraph does explain the correct usage of "Freezone", and if it isn't as clear now as it could be, it could be made even clearer, so that there would be no reasonable excuse for disruptive editing such as taking statments that are specifically about Ron's Org and falsely presenting them in the article as statements about "the Freezone". However, disruptive editors generally don't restrain themselves and wait for reasonable excuses, they just use any excuse they can find. Avoiding unnecessary usage of the term "Freezone" denies them that excuse, and closes the door to other disruptive tactics; you just can't stretch and misinterpret "independent practitioners of Dianetics and Scientology" in the same fashion. Add to this the fact that many independent practitioners actually do not like and some do not accept the term "Freezone", and to my mind everything is indicating that we should eschew "Freezone" in favor of more precise referents. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I still believe in this proposal. As long as the article is named after the Free Zone, then people with agendas to push will try to treat the article as if Ron's Org, the former "Freezone", is the only group being discussed, or the one of the greatest importance. Frankly, the fact that the name they adopted got turned into a generic name for such groups doesn't mean theirs is the most significant group in the category. Since the proposal has not gotten much discussion here so far, I'll drop a note at WP:SCN asking for other opinions. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scientology#Proposal for change of Free Zone article and category for this proposal. It's probably best to keep the discussion centralized in one location. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comment: Verfassungsschutz

This is a dispute about how to describe the relationship of independent Scientology groups to various governmental agencies in Germany. Specifically, the points at issue are:

  • whether the "state authorities" mentioned in one sentence of the reference can be assumed to refer to the Verfassungsschutz (the office for safeguarding the constitution) of the German state of Baden-Wurttemberg, which was mentioned in the previous sentence;
  • whether the Verfassungsschutz should be referred to as "German secret services" or variants of such.


Reference whose correct interpretation is under dispute

How can I know that the Ron’s Org is not another camouflaged organization of the Church of Scientology?
...
Maybe it makes you feel more confident, for example, if you learn that the office for safeguarding the constitution (Verfassungsschutz) of the German state of Baden-Wurttemberg has stated years ago that the Ron’s Org is not a part of the Church of Scientology and that there is no need to observe them as the Ron’s Org has no anti-constitutional goals. Indeed, there is some cooperation between members of the Ron’s Org and state authorities who observe the Church of Scientology and investigate their activities. Source: http://www.ronsorg.de/englisch/mehr_infos/ausf_texte/antworten.html#Woher%20kann%20ich%20wissen


Statements by editors previously involved in the dispute

Regarding the assertion that "state authorities" includes the Verfassungsschutz

  • Ron's Org is BRAGGING with the fact that they are COOPERATING with the VERFASSUNGSSCHUTZ. You may want to read the full quote in the reference. - COFS 03:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


  • ... the claim that Ron's Org or members thereof have cooperated with that agency [the Verfassungsschutz] under any name whatsover, is actually an improper synthesis of two different sentences. All that is said about the "Verfassungsschutz" is that they made a statement distinguishing Ron's Org from the Church of Scientology and explaining why surveillance of Ron's Org was not necessary. The only statement that is made about Ron's Org cooperating with anyone is in the next sentence. That sentence says that members of Ron's Org have cooperated with "state authorities who observe the Church of Scientology and investigate their activities". There is absolutely no justification for the claim that those "state authorities" must be the "Verfassungsschutz" mentioned in the previous sentence. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • ... one would think that if [the Free Zone groups in question] ... found the imprimatur of the Verfassungsschutz flattering enough to mention it by name in reference to the first claim, that they would have specifically identified the Verfassungsschutz as the "state authorities" members were cooperating with in the second sentence. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


Regarding the assertion that "German Secret Service" may be used to describe the Verfassungsschutz of the German state of Baden-Wurttemberg

  • The source does not "actually say Secret Service". It says "office for safeguarding the constitution (Verfassungsschutz) of the German state of Baden-Wurttemberg". That is not even the same thing as "German office for safeguarding the constitution", since "the German state of Baden-Wurttemberg" and "Germany" are two different things... Even if the source had said it was the federal Verfassungsschutz, rather than that of the state of Baden-Wurttemberg, there is still no justification for altering it from "German office for safeguarding the constitution" to "German Secret Service". No reference has been provided, and merely saying "see their english HP" is not an acceptable substitute for a reference... Even if we had a reference, there seems no possible reason except POV for altering "office for safeguarding the constitution" to "Secret Service", and since it would be a synthesis of material intended to advance a proposition, it would be barred as original research. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


  • The RS for this sentence SAYS that they have been and are cooperating with the Verfassungsschutz, which is the German word for Secret Service (internal, as can be easily found on their homepage, which is wrote to you in the same context). - COFS 03:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
This is simply untrue. "Verfassungsschutz" is NOT the german word for "Secret Service". The german word for "Secret Service" is "Geheimdienst".
However, the "Verfassungsschutz" is an intelligence organisation, similar to NSA, CIA, FBI etc.
I support using the accurate translation I gave in my edit (and that is also in the edit of AF) and pointing to Verfassungsschutz. --Tilman 06:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


The Verfassungsdschutz is not a German Secret Service, that would be the BND or the MAD (civilian and military) the mission of the Verfassungsschutz is to observe groups that could undermine constitutional rights of German individuals and/or governmental institutions. The Verfassungsschutz only acts upon suspected "Anti-German-Constitution" activities. It also observes several religious organizations (radical Islamists and Scientology for example) whose perceived ultimate aim is to supplant the constitutional rights with their religious believes. Calling the Verfassungschutz Secret Service is false AlfPhotoman 14:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The Verfassungsschutz certainly is a German Secret Service. The literal back translation into "Geheimdienst" is a German colloquial term which is not officially used but summarizes intelligence organizations. Those have no police function in Germany but are data collection and spy organizations only. As Tilman points out the Verfassungsschutz is such an organization. COFS 15:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Additionally, there are several neutral organizations (neutral to this discussion and topic) who are using the same translation, Verfassungsschutz into Secret Service, like here (that is a scholar organization and the "world socialist organization", not to mention a couple of Wikipedia articles, for example Celle_Hole, Human_rights_in_Germany, Red_Army_Faction and Cults_and_governments. I am sure Google would find you some more if you would care. COFS 16:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
One really must wonder why you can't provide the reference which you yourself said was easily located on the Verfassungsschutz's own English home page. One also wonders how anyone could describe the "World Socialist Web Site" as a "neutral organization". -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
You are changing the subject. This seems half a dozen sources for "Verfassungsschutz = secret service" to me. Misou 21:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Funny, took me 2 minutes to find it on the homepage. Misou 22:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Where on that page does it say "secret service"? -- Antaeus Feldspar
Don't be ridiculous. This thread is about what these guys are doing and how this is called. And they do secret service work so it is called secret service. So much blabber about two words, unbelievable. Misou 23:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
There is a slight misunderstanding here, the Verfassungsschutz is more a plain clothes police than it is a Secret Service. The general understanding of a Secret Service is that its scope is to protect a state and or its assets in a covert way. The Verfassungsschutz is not to protect the state as such but the constitution of that state. AlfPhotoman 21:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Yep, the Verfassungsschutz's task to to protect the German Constitution. And they can spy, infiltrate, secretly collect information by intelligence means and, as happened recently with a "right extremist" party called NPD, use agent provocateurs in their work. No secret, you can read it in the Verfassungsschutz-Gesetz (law), like here. Just like any secret service. Except for one thing (and here you are wrong, Photoman), they have no police powers. No arrests or prosecution actions. On the other hand they don't have to act when they see a crime happening. Like any true Government secret service organization. Misou 21:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Not really, because of provocateurs the German constitutional court refused to forbid the NPD (about two years ago) citing illegal and unethical methods in procuring evidence by the Verfassungsschutz, especially for having agents in the top hierarchy of that party. That would make them an illegal Secret Service. The best comparision I have is with the FBI before Edgar Hoover. They could collect evidence but that was more or less the extend of their powers. AlfPhotoman 12:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously not involved in the dispute

[5] The Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz (Google: Federal Office for protection of the constitution) can be abbreviated BfV. Looks very similar to the FBI. Anynobody 23:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments

I'm not going to dignify an unexplained hostile reference by quibbling about the meaning of one of the words in it. The subject, 'Germany', does not match the content, both should be deleted. --Hartley Patterson 11:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
If you disagree that Freezoners and Ron's Orgers work with secret service organizations you should make this known to them and not here. I disagree with that too and find it treasonable conduct towards L. Ron Hubbard's philosophy, which said that you NEVER work with intelligence organizations (called a PTS TYPE C connection) as they would not try to use it to free man but control him. COFS 15:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Hartley, I too doubt that a section called "Germany" is the best place in this article for this information. However, I think it's interesting and valuable information that other groups which identify themselves as following Scientology do not share the general hostility to government that the Church of Scientology does. Regardless of whether the purpose for which the reference was originally added was hostile (and in the face of the evidence no other hypothesis seems possible) it still seems good and useful information. Some (such as myself) find it to the credit of those groups that they, apparently unlike the CoS, can maintain healthy relationships with the government of the land. In addition, we hear the claim quite often that the authorities in Germany despise any non-mainstream religious or spiritual belief and that this must be taken as the full explanation for the troubles experienced by the Church of Scientology in Germany; however, certainly the version of Scientology practiced by Ron's Org is no more "mainstream" than that of the Church of Scientology (considerably less, even, considering the "space opera" beliefs that Ron's Org does openly disclose) and no evidence has been submitted suggesting that this triggers any of the alleged prejudice of the German government against non-mainstream beliefs.
(I almost hesitate to address this, in case it falsely implies that I attach some credence to his constant assertions and implications about the supposed malign intentions of the Verfassungsschutz, but one wonders whether COFS has ever read Hubbard's HCO Bulletin of 30 Mar 1960, where he wrote "use E-Meters to make a country secure" and specified that "when the subject placed on a meter will not talk but can be made to hold the cans (or can be held while the cans are strapped to the soles or placed under the armpit) ... , it is still possible to obtain full information from the subject." The purpose of obtaining "full information" from the unwilling subject, Hubbard says, is to "use E-Meter "clean hands" to convince people that the population is loyal and the reforms are in order.") -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
COFS's statements above are raw paranoia out of his own nightmares. COFS disconnects the fact that the Office of Special Affairs is an intelligence organization. Evidently, some Ron's Org people did, in their own defense, work with the Verfassungsschutz. I would say that the cofs perpetually creates their own enemies, as they seem to do on wikipedia as well. --Fahrenheit451 03:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Sure you would agree with abusing Scientology to make people worse. I am not surprised. COFS 18:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
User:COFS you are to stop your personal attacks immediately. You seem to verify my statement about creating enemies.--Fahrenheit451 23:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] California Association of Dianetic Auditors

The article lists California Association of Dianetic Auditors as a breakaway group. However, the California Business Portal site lists two incorporations by that name. One, founded in 2/27/1951, is suspended. The other one, 10/20/1987, has a service address of 1306 L. Ron Hubbard Way, the address of the Advanced Organization of Los Angeles, and is listed as a Scientology organization in the 1993 IRS documents, which doesn't sound too breakaway to me! The article might want to make it clear which CADA it is talking about. AndroidCat 13:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmmm, that's really quite strange. The CADA with the website at http://www.ca-da.org says it was "incorporated as a non-Profit Educational Corporation on Feb. 27 1951", but says nothing about suspension... -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not consider that CADA is a Freezone group. It existed long before the Freezone came into existence.--Fahrenheit451 23:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

That is one of the reasons that I proposed above a refocus and renaming of this article. Consider it this way: either "Freezone" is a legitimate umbrella title for all breakaway organizations, or it's not. If it's not, then we would need a separate article anyways to talk about those breakaways that are not considered part of the Freezone, even though a lot of the important information is going to be similar. Even if we were to agree (for the sake of argument) that all independent groups are part of the Freezone, we'd still have trouble with people coming along and trying to apply (by accident, or not) a much more restrictive definition of Freezone ("I'm deleting all the information I find about David Mayo's break with the CoS because obviously all of that happened before the Free Zone Decree!") and confusing Freezone-the-umbrella with Freezone-the-group-now-known-as-Ron's-Org. I think it's a better solution to make it clear that the subject of the article is "independent Dianetics and Scientology" and then mention the Freezone as an umbrella title/network that's applicable to a lot of the above, but not necessary. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I would call CADA a "splinter group". The Freezone are really those groups that formed after the hostile takeover the the cofs by Miscavige, Aznaran, and their gang in 1982. Actually, a neutral term which describes all such groups is "Independent Field", a term which is actually used by the independent folks who practice some form of scientology. --Fahrenheit451 23:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I've started a discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scientology#Proposal for change of Free Zone article and category, so maybe we should centralize discussion there. I think we should definitely discuss "Independent Field" as a possibility. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Linkfarm

The list of External links is getting WAY out of hand here. As per WP:EL, they need to be severely cut back. If all of these links are so important that they need to be here, then why aren't they utilized as references in the body of the article? wikipediatrix 13:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is a problem; see previous discussion under section #External links and Sources. The solution is a bit trickier to determine, though. There is no doubt that the Free Zone as a whole is significant, but that doesn't mean that each and every organization which considers itself part of the Free Zone is significant. How to determine which ones are and which ones aren't? I have some suggestions but no hard answers. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Isn't there some page out there that contains a collection of all these links, so we can just link to it? wikipediatrix 21:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Drastic pruning done! Easier than I thought - some links were to pages by the same group, others to apparently abandoned websites. The Regional links all went. Idenics was shifted to 'other' as it claims not to be scientology but kept as it illustrates a point made in the article. --Hartley Patterson 11:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Freezone survivors"

Please discuss, with reference to the previous discussion on this website. No revert wars please. --Hartley Patterson 21:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Tilman's removal of the anonymously sponsored "freezonesurvivors" website. It is clearly partisan, but the sponsor is too much of a coward to be responsible for it. Definitely NOT a reliable source. User:Misou was definitely doing POV editing in regards that link.--Fahrenheit451 01:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

IMO, this is a similar situation than with the rrexposed site, or the bernie site. Anonymous sources shouldn't be used. --Tilman 06:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
See previous discussion. A representative of the website named him/herself, so assuming good faith it is not anonymous, and two well known ex-CoS scientologists expressed their opinions. It concluded with an argument by User:Antaeus Feldspar in favour of keeping the link, with which I concur.
On the other disputed matter, whether/how this website should be annotated, I think putting it in a links subsection called 'Critical links' as on the main Scientology article is sufficient. --Hartley Patterson 14:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


Per WP:EL, I've removed a bunch of external links of the type "normally to be avoided." The remaining links to organizations may be considered. If the article mentions an organization, I think it makes sense to link to the website. Perhaps some of these could be converted to inline courtesy links, or better, into references if appropriate. Jehochman Talk 20:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Jehochman, I think you overdid it a bit. Idenics is a well-established freezone practice. You removed that.--Fahrenheit451 20:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
"Normally to be avoided" is indeed the phrase we are considering. Should criticism of the Freezone be ignored if is untrue? I think not, if to do so makes the article incomplete. The article on The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion, an infamous forgery, has an external link to an Internet text of it, not for publicity but for reference purposes.
Is criticism of the Freezone of sufficient importance to require reference to it? I would contend that it is.
As for inline links: this article is woefully incomplete, the situation is fluid with organisations appearing and disappearing, and those who know what's going on are not here to Edit. A Link List of current websites is presently easier to maintain by ignorant non-Freezoners such as myself. --Hartley Patterson 17:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scientology Parishioners League

And just who is the "Scientology Parishioners League", what is their official relationship with the Church of Scientology, and how authoritative are their statements? AndroidCat 21:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, according to Tory Christman who used to work for them, they are literally the CoS themselves, speaking through this organization created to "handle" negative publicity. wikipediatrix 21:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
So anything Tory says doesn't need to referenced? Excellent! AndroidCat 22:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't follow you. Not in the mood for games. If you have a point, make it. wikipediatrix 00:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Update: I see you've now put a fact-tag on the article, questioning whether the ScnPL is actually connected to the CoS. That's really weird coming from you, since they're a pretty well known arm of Scientology. Not sure why you're making such a fuss about this, when it's an established fact that no Scientology organization can use the Scientology name without being directly controlled by the RTC/CoS. But if you look here, I'm sure you can find something that tickles your fancy... wikipediatrix 01:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I know that they're a front (I've got a little list), but why use them as a cite instead of all the offical CoS sites? (ibid) No, I fact-tagged if they were authorized and citable in any way speak for CoS. Likewise, can we quote the RFW site of the Scientology Parishioners Committee as official statements by the Church? (Also ref'ed by Tory.) Sooner or later someone would jump all over those sections of the article as being unreferenced, and then it be someone else's problem to see that the articles weren't gutted. Why not get all the refs in a row now rather than later? AndroidCat 06:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the SP League have some volunteers editing wikipedia. It is definitely controlled by OSA public relations section.--Fahrenheit451 02:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd bet money that they are, especially since their online form asks "What is your familiarity with the internet?" wikipediatrix 02:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I see that Terryeo is still active out there on the net. AndroidCat 06:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
(That would be reeeeally nice and appreciated. Come on, troops, this way! Dream on. Misou 18:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC))

[edit] idenics

Idenics is a commercial organization selling "special" processing for $150/hour[6]. They are free to do that but WP:EL says "Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services." are a no-no. I'll take it out then. Misou 18:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Misou, there are no products available on the Idenics site and no services may be purchased through that site as well. This is unlike some cofs sites that do sell products. Idenics never called themselves a "church", but that is immaterial. The site does not exist primarily to sell anything. "Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. For example, instead of linking to a commercial bookstore site, use the "ISBN" linking format, giving readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources." Misou seems to be twisting a Guideline to suit his anti-Freezone POV. Misou, I think you have a severe WP:COI issue here.--Fahrenheit451 23:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Fahrenheit451, it is you who has an obvious POV/COI issue, deleting valid links with no reasoning. Your attempts to move this discussion on "other grounds" is ridiculous. The idenics site is promoting commercial services and does not give any helpful information for the Freezone article. It is pure commercial promotion. I'll leave this up to you and Misou to sort out but these are my two cents. COFS 23:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

User:COFS I see you are edit warring here. You are perverting the guideline WP:EL. It states nothing about "commercial services". You may have your two cents back.--Fahrenheit451 23:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

How is COFS edit warring? You're closer to violating 3RR than COFS. wikipediatrix 23:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
3RR has not been violated. We are discussing the WP:EL guideline.--Fahrenheit451 23:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CofS Commerce

Commercial means "related to commerce". As the CofS engages in commerce selling books, emeters, CDs, jewelry, etc. Then those cofs sites that sell such items should be removed.--Fahrenheit451 23:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Freezonesurvivors site violates WP:EL

Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research".--Fahrenheit451 23:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

"Factually inaccurate material" is WP:OR on your part, so is "unverifiable research". The FZ survivors are on the website in full name and photo. How verifiable you want it? Show size, social security number? COFS 23:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Photo of what? Where is this organization incorporated? What is its address? What content of the site is verifiable?--Fahrenheit451 23:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Uh... since when do we need to know someone's address to decide whether they pass WP:EL?? Careful. These same questions you're pursuing could also be asked of several anti-Scn sites that commonly get lots of linkplay around here. wikipediatrix 23:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
There is no evidence the site represents a real organization. It follows the pattern of a black pr site with accusatory statements and no evidence, no contact address, no names of staff or directors. It does link to the scnpl.org site. Coincidence?--Fahrenheit451 00:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Your argument seems to be "it looks like the CoS might be behind it, therefore, we should get rid of it". It doesn't matter if Conan O'Brian is behind it, it's still worth mentioning regardless. wikipediatrix 00:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Wikipediatrix, that is your assumption. I stated nothing of the sort. Look at the site and ask yourself where the verifiable research is. --Fahrenheit451 00:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
It's an external link, not a reference. For fuck's sake, give it a rest. wikipediatrix 00:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
But where is the verifiable research?--Fahrenheit451 00:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Cart before horse approach. WP:EL says "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research." Where is the "unverifiable research", F451? Misou 03:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Horse before the cart approach. The unverifiable research is staring you right in the face on the home page. Try to look.--Fahrenheit451 18:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Same to you. Possibly hard to "confront" that some of the FZ know-best club got abused. But it's true. And it's easy to get to the guys who wrote their statements. Just send an email. Misou 02:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Misou, your epithet, "FZ know-best club" comes across as a violation of WP:NPA. The "guys who wrote their statements" should be overt on the website. No email should be necessary.--Fahrenheit451 02:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
They are obvious, full name, photo. Look! Misou 03:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

What I see is a handfull of mostly anonymous folks who allege that the people who were not affiliated with the cofs, who audited them did a bad job.--Fahrenheit451 03:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Mostly anonymous, well, enough non-anonymous and verifiable to serve as WP:EL. Sure you know some of those named as much as I do. Misou 03:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Not verifiable. I have never heard of any of those people.--Fahrenheit451 04:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Too bad then. Misou 04:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipediatrix disputes Fahrenheit451

Fahrenheit451 has isolated the FZ Survivors link from the "organizations" header, stating in his edit summary "no evidence of it being an organization". I guess the nearly synonymous word "association" didn't tip him off. Even if there are only two entities in this group and one of them is a tapeworm, it's still an "organization". wikipediatrix 00:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no evidence it is an organization. No evidence of a tapeworm, either. --Fahrenheit451 00:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Duh: It chooses to call itself an association, and an association IS a form of organization. And anything can call itself an association if there's more than one person involved, so there's really no arguing about it. (And don't put words in my mouth by changing the title of threads I start. This distinction is, IMHO, a nonsensical waste of time.) wikipediatrix 00:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Wikipediatrix, then please look at the site and give me the name of one of the officers or staff of the association.--Fahrenheit451 00:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tendentious Editing from User:Shutterbug

Shutterbug added a link to Bridge Publications, the cofs publishing organization, in the anti-freezone links here:[7]. That has nothing to do, for or against, the freezone. --Fahrenheit451 23:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The section is titled "Other" and consists of External Links, amongst them one to L. Ron Hubbard books, which is what Free Zoners are reading. What's your problem? You are the one promoting a commercial service called Idenics, including links to advertisement of "Free Introductory" sessions etc leading to sales of their product. If I am not mistaken you also wrote the section on "Idenics" which now read like an advertisement, while fully omitting any reliable information what the relation between this company and the Free Zone is. Shutterbug 23:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Shutterbug, please stop your edit warring. The Bridge Publications link is a scientology spam link. Idenics is a freezone group like all the others. Stop your tendentious editing.--Fahrenheit451 00:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Using strong words in an attempt to trigger off some admin does not help the fact a) that you are promoting a commercial group in an advertisement-like manner and b) that you are violating WP:EL by removing links. Further you accuse me of putting a link - by the way, a "spam" link would not show where it is from, unlike mine - under the heading "anti-freezone" when it's not. In summary, I would like you to show that you are actually interested in a sort out here (that is what those tags are for) and that you stop spilling out accusations and blame. Thank you. Shutterbug 00:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
a)most interisting, I thought you inserted 2 unrelated commercial links ? The Idenics link is at least content related. -- Stan talk 00:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with Fahrenheit about the reference section. Spamming it with unrelated and unreliable(for this issue) Scientology references is not ok. (How many Free Zone links will you find on the CoS article ? 0, because unreliable and the same should be valid here; you already have your "hate site" "Free Zone Survivors" included wich should also go. No need to spam the article with 2 more CoS links) In the Scientology article are now 8 external links to CoS but you are moaning about one idenics link here ?!
  • However, I agree with Shutterburg about the advertisement tag. I contest the sentence: "When this is thoroughly done, the undesired condition ceases to exist." It is wrongly presented as fact without reliable scientific sources and should be more clear who states or beliefs that something "ceases to exist". I don't want to remove it but would suggest rewording. The other sentence Fahrenheit removed is fine with me. Covering the aims of idenics is neither POV nor advertisement. It can be deleted or not without affecting POV in my opinion. I'll leave the ad tag but revert Shutterbugs changes in the ref section. -- Stan talk 00:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Stan En, I see your point and agree with you. That section should be edited accordingly. Ironically, I removed one advertisement-like sentence, but Shutterbug reverted it, adding it back!--Fahrenheit451 00:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


{{editprotected}} Here is a proposal how it should go in the article, taking into account what Stan says above:

[edit] Idenics

Idenics is a commercial personal counselling method developed by John Galusha beginning in 1987, a researcher for L. Ron Hubbard during the 1950s, and one of the founders of the first Church of Scientology in 1953.[2][3][4][5][6] Galusha followed a different research line than Hubbard, who favored a series of gradations, each having a number of processes that are targeted at certain disabilities Hubbard believed were common to all people.[7]

And the other part:

[edit] Organizations

[edit] About Free Zone by others

You will note that I took off the link to the publishing house. My purpose was to show what these guys mean when they say they study Hubbard. The publishing house site is the only one I know which has all books listed and no biography pages (which cannot be used as this normally results in edit wars with the anti-faction). Shutterbug 00:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The idenics.com link should be added back as well. That group is no more commericial than Ron's Org or any of the other Freezone groups. As far as the second group of links, it should read Anti-Freezone as that is what it is. The freezonesurvivors.to has no evidence that any statements are from "former members" and members of what group? The SP League link is not from "Scientologists" but rather by whoever runs the league, likely OSA. --Fahrenheit451 01:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The SP League is as far as I know what it says it is, a group of Scientologists. Maybe they get materials from OSA, who cares. If I need a court decision or church publication this is who I call for that. It's their job to provide such. I see your point on BPI but not on the "SPL". I disagree on adding idenics back in the link list, it's purely commercial using Hubbard works without exchange. It's questionable already why this gets its own section in the article at all. Just some group using half-Hubbard, half their own brew (as you even say). What's their significance? You have not stated anything on that. Shutterbug 01:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Shutterbug, clearly you know nothing about Idenics, except perhaps what you have been told by some osa people. Idenics does not use any of Hubbard's works. Not one scientology or dianetic process is used. It is based on a few observations made by John Galusha in the 1950's and developed by him beginning in 1987. Idenics is no more "commercial" than Ron's Org or the Freezone organizations. As far as how Idenics came about, that is on this website: [8] --Fahrenheit451 01:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and no, I have no other information than the one in this article and the website. This is what counts, right? I assumed it uses Hubbard. Now, if idenics has nothing to do with Hubbard, why is it in an article about "splinter groups" of Scientology? Shutterbug 01:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Shutterbug, as stated in our discussion, John Galusha was Hubbard's research assistant and researched Idenics beginning in 1987. It is partly based on some observations he made in the 1950's while researching scientology with Hubbard. Between 1982 and 1987, Galusha was delivering standard scientology outside the cofs. I hope that is clear now.--Fahrenheit451 02:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] external link dispute

  • CoS is not the best source to choose critical links from.[9].
  • "Scientology by others" should be at least renamed to "critical links". -- Stan talk 01:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • if "idenics" is an important part of the freezone(beliefs and practices) there should be at least one informative link about this subject. It should be informative but can be a personal website and/or "commercial"-- Stan talk 01:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed.--Fahrenheit451 01:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed on the renaming of the section. On idenics, see question above. Shutterbug 02:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

are there any reliable secondary references or websites wich describe idenics ? I mean neither Freezone nor CoS sources. It might be usefull to describe idenics and may be a compromise for the EL section ?! x-- Stan talk 01:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] idenics dispute

The section should explain applied techniques appropriatly. Shutterbug's proposed version is to too short. The existent version in the article has some misleading statements wich should be improved. -- Stan talk 01:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed.--Fahrenheit451 01:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Nice that we all agree so much :). Now, here's my point: The intro says the FZ is "a variety of groups and individuals who practice Scientology-like beliefs and techniques independently of the Church of Scientology". Fahrenheit451 says they don't use Hubbard. With a definition so broad that it also embraces groups not related to Hubbard works we would have to include Buddhism as well, being a "Scientology-like belief", or any philosophy/religion/self-improvement measure. And that does not make sense right now. Shutterbug 02:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I cannot agree that Buddhism is a scientology-like belief system. There are some fundamental differences. One salient point is that Buddhism espouses Non-theism while scientology espouses Theism. Scientology-like has not been precisely defined. Perhaps a better term would be scientology-influenced. In that case, Buddhism definitely does not qualify and all the practices started by former scientologists likely would.--Fahrenheit451 02:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
can we please discuss idenics in this section and not intro wording(Scientology, Scientology-like or scientology-influenced). I think consensus(or even agreement) in the idenics section should be possible to reach. Shutterbug, besides proposed changes from Fahrenheit and me; What else do you consider as advertisement in this section?-- Stan talk 18:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Evidently, Shutterbug has gone away for an undetermined amount of time. I find your proposed wording to be satisfactory. The intro wording is less important. I am going to request unprotection. If the edit warring starts again, I will call an informal mediation. --Fahrenheit451 (talk) 23:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
"I'm off now for a day or two", I said. Two it were. The Idenics section is not advertisement anymore, hooray. Shutterbug (talk) 06:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

What is wrong about this senteces ? Idenics is designed to help a client handle areas of their life that the client wants to handle, resolve, change or improve.[22] Unlike Hubbard's system, Idenics has no preconceived agenda for people and focuses only on the personal concerns of the client. Idenics uses guidelines that direct the Idenics facilitator to get the client to inspect areas of concern.

Idenics comes from the word "identity," defined in Idenics as "a way of being in order to accomplish something."[24] From Idenics comes the idea that unwanted personal conditions come about when identities are automatically assumed by the individual in inappropriate circumstances

How important is idenics for Free Zone members ? Depending on importance within the Free Zone I would suggest to explain it more detailed than the present part does.

Galusha followed a different research line now its too short(what is different, how is it applied etc.).

But I don't see any POV or advertisement issue in the present version.-- Stan talk 00:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Done and over with. Let's do something worthwhile. Shutterbug (talk) 06:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I left the Idenics link in when I drastically pruned the links list on 8 May because as noted then I felt it illustrated a point made in the article, that there were groups that had deviated considerably from Scientology. Perhaps making that explicit would help. I did not intend that it should be expanded. A proper Freezone article would be saying something about all the groups presently just linked, the present one is a stub. People presently quibbling over minutia (sorry guys) would be better employed expanding the article methinks. --Hartley Patterson (talk) 00:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Right. Shutterbug (talk) 06:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editprotected request

Since the page was protected today for edit warring, no admin will change the content of the page until the dispute is resolved and the page is unprotected. Minor spelling errors, interwiki changes, etc. can be requested, but any changes to actual content need to wait for unprotection. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Getting there. I'm off now for a day or two and will pick up again then. Shutterbug 02:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Neutrality Problems

I came here looking for a quick look-up and was immediately struck by the biased tone of the article. I mean, take this whole paragraph here:

"The Scientology Parishioners League website describes the Free Zone movement as "a small clique of ex-members who are no longer in the Church and now seek to spread lies about their former religion". [11] They go on to note that apostasy is common with all religions, and that the motive for Free Zone to attack the Church is that "they are in it for the money, since they hope they can persuade Scientologists in good standing with the Church to leave and join them instead."

Cliques, ex-members, lies, apostacy, "in it for the money".... It's in quotes at least, but could the language be more leading??? This is just one example. Although there are also quotes from free zone scientologists themselves, I still find that the whole article is anything but neutral, reading at best as a carefully-worded argument between two sides, and at worst a carefuly-worded rejection with opposing quotes inserted here and there in an attempt to appear balanced.

I think in the entire time I've used wikipedia, I've only ever been motivated to leave a comment in the talk section once before. This article jumped out at me. I came here looking for information and got instead a whole pile of rhetoric that I don't trust. I have no more information than before I came here. Disappointing. I realize this is a charged issue right now, and I think that makes it even more important that we strive for neutrality. This article desperately needs a rewrite.

70.72.202.157 (talk) 06:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that there are no Wikipedia editors with knowledge or interest enough to write about the subject and no Freezoners interested in contributing. See my comments earlier. --Hartley Patterson (talk) 00:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)