Talk:Narconon/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Narconon rejected by State of California 2 Controversial lines cut and pasted here per WIki Policy 3 Series Template 4 FASEnet and Utah 5 Controversies: success rates studies 6 Poorly Cited 7 The statistics Pro and Con 8 Quantity of Narconon Centers 9 "beam intention?" 10 Personal Websites 11 Revert Dcottle561 12 "Controversial Church..." statement 13 Reference 15 14 Reference [14] 15 A cool NarcAnon link 16 The article doesn't seem to be biased? 17 Narconon establishments 18 Recent edit 19 State Violations 20 Anonymous rant 21 Links failing WP:EL/WP:RS 22 Cleanup tag 23 Citations to add to the article... 24 Article Chatter

Narconon rejected by State of California

Coupla refs for someone to put in as needed. Government evaluation; CNN report. - David Gerard 00:36, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If it is to be included that the State of California "rejected", then shouldn't it also be included about the more recent "recognition" ? Terryeo 17:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Controversial lines cut and pasted here per WIki Policy

The paragraph of the article, Controvery included this portion which I have cut and pasted here for discussion, and potentially, for verification. When a published source saying the below is included with this information it becomes a Wikipedia "fact" and can be included in the article. This is per Wikipedia:Verifiability

There is no little hard evidence that Narconon sets out to recruit for Scientology.— a claim both Narconon and Scientology vehemently deny

I thought this sentence was a bit clumsily worded, so I've revised it and sourced it - hopefully it should be clearer now. -- ChrisO 19:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Further along in that same section, Controvery, was this portion which I do not believe is published, but which someone apparently does believe is valid, citeable information. BUT, it is not okay to place the infomation in an article unless the information is cited, this is what makes a Wiki fact, a fact. If it is in print, or has been spoken and can be quoted, then it is a wiki fact. Post the verifying source of information and let people themselves learn where 6% came from. On that basis then, readers can compare information presented to them. Here is what I removed:

no verifiable evidence for this appears to have been published by the organization, and independent researchers have found considerably lower rates — as low as 6.6% in the case of a Swedish research study.

Even as whomever states "no verifiable evidence" obviously is ignoring the many success stories from people doing it, from people who state publically their lives are freer, fuller, they are happier because they did the program, so too, the person understands externally instigated studies of Narconon have not been made. I appriciate that point of view. Cite the 6.6 %, that's Wiki Policy. Terryeo 00:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Anecdotal evidence is not verifiable evidence, virtually by definition. There's plenty of anecdotal evidence that placeboes "work", too. There's no independent peer-reviewed evidence of Narconon's success, though, and it's surely significant that Narconon itself says that it hasn't done this sort of study (why not?). I've provided a citation for the 6.6%, btw. -- ChrisO 19:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I see your 6.6 % link and went to it ChrisO. Thank you for being responsive and responsible about that. However, that page is in Swedish (I guess its swedish) and the only thing an english speaking person can get is a numbers without any context for them. It could be reading 6.6 apples per bushel or 6.6 meters above sea level, from an english speaking person's point of view. It is valid information, but it wouldn't be as easily understood as English would. Terryeo 20:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Series Template

Removing this Series Template from across the Scientology related pages. This is not correct usage of Series Templates per the guidelines. They were set up to show the history of countries and were different articles form a sequential series. This is not the case with the Scientology pages, which are random pages on different topics – not a sequence of any kind. Wiki’s definition of a series is: “In a general sense, a series is a related set of things that occur one after the other (in a succession) or are otherwise connected one after the other (in a sequence).” Nuview, 14:50, 10 January 2006 (PST)

Reference please? Article series doesn't appear to state that an series template must be a sequential series. "For example, the article Israeli-Palestinian conflict could contain a table that provides links to all the major issues surrounding that subject." Some of the examples are sequential, but only because they are examples of chronological historical series. AndroidCat 23:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed with AndroidCat. Helping users find related pages is exactly what article series and navigational templates are for. "Article series are useful for tying together information on very broad subjects." --FOo 04:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Further noted that the bulk deletion of this template from all Scientology-related articles was disruptive. In at least one case, it was accompanied by the undocumented deletion of a relevant link: here, where a link to Free Zone was deleted. --FOo 04:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I can't figure out why such a helpful infobox would upset anyone genuinely interested in disseminating information about Scientology from all perspectives. Because it calls attention to a few "controversy" pages that some would rather see buried at the bottom of articles, perhaps? I have no idea. Any issues of layout are easily fixed, and in some cases, I have already done so. wikipediatrix 04:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. The error of thinking that series templates are only for histories seems straightforward, but removing the Free Zone link at the same time doesn't seem connected. I await an explanation from the editor who did it; until further information I'll assume that it was an honest mistake. --FOo 05:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Certainly. Just because Nuview has sometimes apparently posted from an IP 205.227.165.11 belonging to Church of Scientology International, that's no reason to be sceptical, and we must assume it was an honest mistake. AndroidCat 05:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

205.227.165.11's contribution history is pretty interesting to read, too.... I'm starting to sense a pattern here.... wikipediatrix 05:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

FOo and AndroidCat, thanks for giving me the benefit of a doubt. I am forthright about my edits, my IP is no secret and sometimes (as I am sure happens with many others) I edit before I log in - so no big deal. As much as I would like the Freezone link removed, it was a slip. If we are going to discuss my editing habits can we move this to my talk page, as the Narconon discussion is not the correct venue. Nuview 15:25, 12 January 2006

FASEnet and Utah

Will someone puh-leeeeze tell User:Dcottle561 that the FASE information he keeps trying to insert about Narconon being endorsed in Utah is old news, and that when the state of Utah found out that not only was Narconon a Scientology front, but so was FASE itself, they cut all ties with it? Oh, wait, I just did. wikipediatrix 23:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

At the time I used the FASE report, I was not aware that FASE was a so-called "front." I had reviewed their website and I saw that 90 percent or so of the content was related to environmental issues and maybe 10 percent devoted to the study of Mr. Hubbard's work. dcottle561

Controversies: success rates studies

The Narconon article says, "Although Narconon claims a success rate of over 70%, no verifiable evidence for this appears to have been published by the organization, and independent researchers have found considerably lower rates — as low as 6.6% in the case of a Swedish research study.[4]”

My sister, a non-Scientologist, speaks six languages fluently and is a certified translator in German, French and Spanish. She speaks Swedish conversationally, and she translated a portion of the Swedish study, “Evaluation of Narconon Part I” dated 1 may 1981, referred to as "a Swedish research study" above.

The study says, in part "SUMMARY: In Group U1 [14 individuals who completed the program in 1977], we found 84.6% drug-free [in 1981], but taking into account the "dropout" (uncontactable subject - 1 individual), the results must be adjusted to 78.6% and thus give a certain minimum estimate of the proportion of drug-free. In Group U2 [47 individuals who dropped out of the program in 1977] we found at least 21.3% drug-free [in 1981]; here all dropouts are taken into account."

Later, the study says "CONCLUSION: As far as the Narconon program is concerned, it must be considered as good compared to other institutions. The dropout group U2 can be seen as a contrast group which shows how well Narconon succeeds with those who complete the whole program and there is a notable difference. This does not mean that the dropout group did not need Narconon; about that we know very little. Narconon can be credited for the group which later as individuals who managed to improve their own situations. For some in the dropout group, perhaps a shorter time at Narconon was sufficient."

Per the above, the current statement in the Narconon article on Wikipedia is incorrect. Whoever used the Swedish study and claimed 6.6 percent success is just wrong.

How can I correct the Narconon article? dcottle561

As I told you already on my talk page, just because your sister says something doesn't make it a valid source for an encyclopedia article. wikipediatrix 21:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I was not clear enough: My sister TRANSLATED the report, she did not WRITE it. And whoever put the so-called "6.6%" figure in the article has no support for it either. If that original "6.6% editor" can make his or her unsupported assertion based on his or her personal translation of the Swedish-language report, I should be able to make a more-complete edit based on that same report, but which also gives the context. I only want to get the verified program success rate of 78.6% from the Swedish report included, not the erroneous 6.6% information which is currently in the article. And, to paraphrase your own comment above "just because the '6.6% editor' says something doesn't make it a valid source for an encyclopedia article." dcottle561

I understand that you have stated your sister translated the report. Your sister's translation is still not a valid Wikipedia source. However: the question is moot: I just added a source to the article which corroborates the 6.6 figure. Problem solved. wikipediatrix 03:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is a more detailed analysis of the report, in English. [1] and from an anti-narconon site. However, it states that of those who finished the program (14 persons), 13 were contacted and of those 13 persons, 11 were not presently using drugs at the time of contact. Thus, 11 of 13 were not using drugs. Based on that, a good rate. but based on other sampling methods (11 of 64 persons who begin the program) a lesser success is noted. Terryeo 20:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

That link spells out the 6.6 figure and how it was arrived at from the raw data and the 78.6 figure and how it was arrived at from the raw data. Full disclosure, same report. Terryeo 23:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Since two sources seem to solve the problem, why don't we include one or two more, just to make sure the problem is fully solved? For example, we all know that some groups have reported some things about the Church, and then later, make completely contractary and reports. So let's at least report what we can find, okay? The Church has reported certain figures, Narconon has reported certain figures. the 6.6 figure is the result of one study. But our point of view is to be Neutral, right? Present all points of view equally, though better published should be presented as being better published. Terryeo 13:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

A possible additional statement and statistics source might be from addiction.com which states: "76% rate" and the guarantee "problem at any time within 6 months of completetion we will re-admit you at no cost".Terryeo 20:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC) Additional statistics are are addiction resource (licensed in Okalahoma) Terryeo 23:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Why should another Narconon site be considered an additional source? AndroidCat 23:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Because the second site spells out more explicitly and in more detail, the statements of the first site. For example, when xxx number of people begin the program and x people complete it, is the success of the program based on the number of completions who are not using drugs a year after completing? Or on the number of people whom complete the program. The link spells out the raw data, from that a person can draw their own conclusions rather than rely on the 6.6 percent or the 78 percent, and so on. That's why. And, for a disinterested third party's point of view, here is a newspaper article from the San Francisco Chronical (major newspaper) of an article about narconon S.F. Chronical, narconon Terryeo 00:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

And then too, some crime websites have interest in narconon, here's an example. arrested.comTerryeo 00:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Poorly Cited

Some of the article is poorly cited. For example, one paragraph begins with, "Since its establishment, Narconon has faced considerable controversy, mainly over the safety and effectiveness of its rehabilitation methods", yet no citation or reference is given. The earlier paragraphs present that the early controversy was mainly about Narconon's religious affilition, but this paragraph then, further, presents that was not the main issue at all. These statements contradict each other, yet neither of them is cited or verified in the least, leaving the reader with a confusion. Should the reader consider "mainly over the safety..." or should a reader consider the earlier statement about early Narconon's religious affiliation to be the more important? Since neither is cited, the reader has nothing but contradictary information from within the article. Its poorly cited. Wikipediatrix, you have the 300 page booklet from Narconon, don't you? I don't. Isn't there something in there which states the situation, at least from Narconon's perspective? Terryeo 13:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The statistics Pro and Con

This sentence appears in the article: "Although Narconon claims a success rate of over 70%, no verifiable evidence for this appears to have been published by the organization" whereas this link narconon studies states: "Overall, approximately 73 percent of the Narconon students released from prison remained clean while on parole." and that same link goes on to specify the particulars of that and various further studies. The same site, narconon also contains such statements as Alfonzo Paredes M.D. Professor of Psychiatry who "regularly reviews peer publications in addition to having contributed more than 100 articles or studies of his own". And, Megan ShieldsM.D. who "graduated from the Medical College of Virginia and is a Diplomate of the American Board of Family Practice." So while narconon makes statements for which they present statistics and expert's opinions, and while such statements are of course, presented BY narconon and not by third party sources at the narconon website, they nonetheless seem to present bonafide experts and their studies are specific enough to be considered to be of substance. If a Swedish study is to be presented (in english of course) then a corresponding study, created by narconon at their own expense, should likewise be presented. This sort of approach only exemplifies the controversy of the area and doesn't make either the advocacy or the counter-advocacy right or wrong and is in keeping with a neutral point of view. Terryeo 19:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

It is likely the Swedish study is going to be stated in a number of ways, that's the trouble with having 'experts' interpret results without reading the the thing. Here are some raw data informations, Narconon is ongoing so it keeps adding more information to its database of persons who started the program, whether it was alchohol or drugs being treated, etc. Narconon Arrowhead is licensed by the State of Oklahoma, it has stood for some years. The bare bones of its approach, size and cost are here.

Shelley L. Beckman. Ph.D. presented a 1997 report, including some statistics on Narconon. [2] and here's another link to the same report on another site. [3] Narconon in Oklahoma has a 70%+ success rate.[4] I got these results by searching "narconon +statistics" and excluding the most common websites that came up (-xenu.et -friendsofnarconon, etc)Terryeo 05:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

First two links: The study is hosted on Narconon-affiliated pages in both cases, and has major issues (it does not appear to have even evaluated the rate of relapse in the patients studied, and may have been financed by Narconon, as it doesn't state its funding). As to the ICRA link, a summary in a French web directory is far from a reliable source, especially considering that the summary is probably written by the site owner. (ICRA doesn't evaluate web sites. Note the unrelated spam results in that page for SEO, mortgages, and porn.) Zetawoof^(ζ) 05:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, well I would like to find more reliable studies, anything with a simple to use sample like "numbers of persons in, dropouts, completions, a year later", anything like that should make an easy study to keep track of numbers. The Swedish study was some years ago, Narconon has lots of sites, there ought to be some numbers somewhere. Terryeo 07:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Quantity of Narconon Centers

The Narconon website [5] states "over 100 centers" while this Scientology News, issue 32 on my lap states: "a total of 192 centers across 39 nations". The article could be more specific about that.Terryeo 18:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

A Church of Scientology publication is definitive for the number of Narconon centers? Interesting. AndroidCat 04:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

What better source than the horse's mouth? Narconon uses Hubbard's technology. It is a stand alone corperation, paying ABLE for its use of certain technology. The Church of Scientology is ABLE's parent body, who apparently leases certain trademaks and copyrights to ABLE, who it turn oversees Narconon (as I understand the situation), and Narconon stands or falls by its own efforts, using the technology it pays for in ways helpful to society, thus reaping enough money to continue its operations. This is no secret, various studies which governments have done, the secular nature of the technology which Narconon uses have always been presented and usually been presented first in the study. Do you want an example of this? The State of California made such a study and noted Narconon's secular ties. Terryeo 04:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

"beam intention?"

A single individual, apparently, Janet, states that it is her opinion that TR8's action is to "beam intention" into the ashtray. Coolness. However, what do 1000 other Scientologists say? What does the Training Routine document actually state? On one hand is Janet, former Scientologist, she has an opinion. On the other hand there is the document, TR8 itself and 1000s of Scientologist who would happily tell you that's plain silly. Therefore, it is not good writing to present, "Former 'Scientologists say" when it is a single individual who is saying. Terryeo 04:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

"Janet" is a former Scientologist? Flunk, go back and clear your M/Us. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

You have replied, rather you have corrected but you have not replied to the statement. That is, rather than reply to the obvious, 1000s of Scientologists do TR8 per the TR8 bullitan while (your name of choice here) "beams" her intention into the ashtray. There is a difference there, perhaps not one visible to the witnessing eye, but nonetheless a difference. That was the issue I addressed and though you didn't reply to it, you did find something to talk about Terryeo 18:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

According to the Rolling Stone article, which I read completely, this was an interview with a current Scientologist who said, "You're supposed to be beaming your intention into the ashtray." I corrected the reference in the article. The Rolling Stone article said nothing about "moving" the ashtray without touching it so I corrected it. dcottle561

Unfortunately Feldspar has edited the article inaccurately. His original research is that Janet constitutes a plurality of Scientologists and so therefore he presents "Scientologists beam intention .." rather than an accurate quotation and citation of a published source of information. The document itself, TR8, does not mention anything about "beaming", what is the difficulty with the article being accurate? Terryeo 08:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

So now we know that neither DC nor Terryeo has done L12... -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

That is uncivil of you, Feldspar. Those people whom you refuse to address are observing you, too. Terryeo 08:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, after just ending a one week block for threatening Antaeus with harrassment, I am astonished to see you author this remark. In the context of your earlier threats, this "you are being watched" stuff is grossly inappropriate. BTfromLA 15:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Personal Websites

Notes 2, 4, and 11 cite personal websites for verification. While a personal website might have accurate information, it as well might not have accurate information. A personal website is beholding to no one but its author, no one is responsible for it but one person, the site reflects their personal opinion and their personal opinion might be one way one day and another way the next day, there's no assurance of stability, fact checking or quality control. A personal website might have any statement from, "the moon is made of green cheese" to hard data and it could change anytime at the whim of the author. Therefore such sites as secondary sources of information within Wikipedia articles are discouraged by WP:V and discussions of particular sites often take place at its guidenline, WP:RS (reliable sources). As a note, the article is very very far from balanced and neutral in presentation, is this what you guys really want? Terryeo 07:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, you have an active ArbCom case against you in which you are accused of removing references using this exact sort of logic. You are also currently banned from editing articles related to Dianetics and Scientology. You're treading on very thin ice here. Zetawoof^(ζ) 10:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

What is it that you're saying Zeta? I have pointed to the appropriate guideline for links which are not used appropriately within the article. Those same links are, per WP:RS able to be included in a section such as "exterior links" or perhaps, "additional sites of interest" or something like that. Are you commenting because I did not spell out the full guideline, nor quote exactly from WP:RS nor from WP:V?

You have pointed to a guideline, yes, and then you have placed on it a particular interpretation which has been specifically rejected by just about everyone that you hoped would support it. Note 4 is an excellent example. You claim that note 4 'cites a personal website for verification'. In actual fact, what it does is cite an article from the San Francisco Chronicle which also happens to be mirrored at a personal website. You have argued, quite unconvincingly, that since the possibility exists that a personal website owner could host a modified version of such a document, that clearly Wikipedia must disallow the use of any document which is mirrored on a personal website. However:

• Despite repeated requests, you have failed to produce even one example of a personal website modifying information in the manner you describe;
• Despite repeated requests, you have failed to explain why the risk that a personal website owner might host a modified version of a document and claim it to be the original is any greater than the risk that a Wikipedia editor might place in an article or on a talk page material of his own invention and falsely attribute it to some other source. (This, by the way, is something that you yourself are accused of doing on numerous occasions, asserting that this guideline or that policy uses particular language which -- curiously -- no one else is then able to find on the page which you claim states it as an inviolable dictate.) Since Wikipedia clearly chooses to run the latter risk and deal with violations if and when they come up, your stubborn assertion that Wikipedia unquestionably must interpret the guideline in question as a dictate to avoid any possibility of any risk whatsoever is quite curious.

In any case, if you had actually been concerned about the accuracy of the information, it would have been the work of a few seconds with Google -- as it was for me -- to confirm its accuracy. The fact that you couldn't be bothered to take a few seconds towards correcting a problem that you claimed you saw, shows us that you don't actually view it as a problem at all, but as a tool. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Good, let us take citation #4 and ignore the more boldly out-policy, out-guideline citations #2 and #11. Okay, good. It is not me who is attempting to persuade you, nor me who is attempting to persuade Zetawolf about the validity of the policies and guidelines we edit under. Those activites of pro and con are for the appropriate talk pages of the appropriate guidelines and policies. And it is good that you have read the arguement which is present on the WP:RS talk pages because a newspaper article is an excellent example of how a personal website is acting as a repository for information which is freely available on more established servers, such as the newspaper's own server. Our task is to provide high quality information. This is best done with high quality sources of information. I'm not trying to convince you, that is simply the the policy we edit under, WP:V. Your preference or your arguement or whatever you wish to call the, "I like personal website repositories over large newspaper sites", that's yours to argue on the appropriate talk page. I point out WP:V and point out that broadly published is preferred over narrowly published. I'm not trying to persuade you, I'm not trying to argue with you, I'm pointing out the relevant guideline and policy. Broadly published is preferred over narrowly published. People who keep quoting personal websites, you begin to wonder if they are trying to help their friends get website hits or something. The policies and guidelines tell us to use broadly published in preference to narrowly published, it only follows that newspaper sites are better sites to link to for information than personal websites. You are wrong in only one particular. It is wrong to accuse me of wrongdoing when I point to the guidelines and policies we edit by. If you were actually interested in discussion, you would reply about the policies, rather than attempting to circumnaviagate them. I'm sure a disinterested reader understands that broadly published, large sites (such as newspapers) are better referred as sources of information than personal websites (which might be gone tomorrow). Terryeo 02:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, thank you for letting us know what editing standard you are claiming to regard at the current moment as non-negotiable and would yourself would be willing to follow. It's good that you give us such regular updates, since that data is so liable to change without notice. -- Antaeus Feldspar 12:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes Feldspar, and as you have witnessed, I am willing to inform you. Specificaly I inform you now since it is possible that you are not aware that I have been enjoined not to edit the Dianetics and Scientology articles until the Arb Committe has finished the arbitration which you contributed to. At first I thought you were, perhaps, being a snot nose, saying, "I found a good citation but I'm not going to put it into the article, instead I'm going to make you find it because I perfer repositorys on personal websites and this illustrates my point. Now I understand, that was not your intention at all. You were simply inviting me to edit the article. However, I have been enjoined by the arb committtee not to edit Dianetics and Scientology articles while the arbitration is underway. There's no need for you to be sarcastic, I'm perfectly happy being upfront with you. By all means, put a better source of the citation into the article, a good wikipedia is what we're doing :) Terryeo 17:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

"Snot nose"?? Is this the same Terryeo who, only a few days ago, was whining that people were committing "personal attacks" on him? And, when reminded that he himself was far more guilty of personal attacks (such as calling Antaeus Feldspar "Beanbrain" and "Idiot", and calling one of my edits "bullshit"), simply changed the subject? wikipediatrix 18:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course, one of Terryeo's vast intellect (going Clear raises your IQ, didn't you know??) could clearly figure out that if he were to find a better "repository" for a particular article and note it on the talk page, that any editor, including the ones whom he continues to personally attack by accusing them of trying to "prevent the subject from being communicated", would be happy to make that edit for him. And one of Terryeo's vast intellect could clearly figure out that if he wanted anyone to actually still believe that he wanted these articles to be well-sourced, that's exactly the course of action he should take. How long would it have taken Terryeo to find the "better repository" for footnote 4, considering that he has access to Google and the entire original article text? Took me about ten seconds. So there you have it -- Terryeo, who cares so much about article quality that he's willing to badger other editors endlessly about the current hour's interpretation of WP:RS, was unwilling to take ten seconds to actually look for a better "repository". -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you amusing yourself? Your sarcasm is not generating a better sourced article. Terryeo 07:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, alerting others that a disruptive troublemaker (you) is afoot, and explaining how you are doing it, DOES contribute to the well-being of the article. Also, it's done in the remote hope that sooner or later it will finally sink in on you that you should stop disrupting Wikipedia and stop pushing your POV by any desperate wikilawyering measures you can come up with. wikipediatrix 11:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I have edited here for a few months. I stated my POV once on my user page, and, when asked, state it in response. You, Modomac and others, including Feldspar frequently raise the issue of my POV, and I invite you to engage such discussion on my user page if you wish. At no point in the above discussion have I done as you have just accused me of doing. At every point in the above discussion I have pointed toward how the article might improve by quoting a better source than a personal website. Yet, you ignore all that has been said because you wish to admonish me about my POV. I suggest to you that your infatuation with my POV might be satisfied by reading my user page once. And then, after that, we might discuss how to implement Wikipedia Policies and guidelines. That's certainly what I've been discussing on this page.Terryeo 16:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't care less about your POV. That's why I remove it every time you insert it into an article. Or at least, I did before you were banned from editing Wikipedia articles for the atrocious POV-pushing behavior you are still in denial about. wikipediatrix 13:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I have frequently attempt to communicate with you about these matters in the appropriate discussion area. That would be your discussion page or my discussion page. I would still invite that sort of discussion. But when you raise an issue on this page, the discussion page for an article, raise an issue of "POV" and I reply, then the discussion of POV happens here, rather than in the appropriate area where it might more easily be resolved, and be less disruptive to the article's discussion. One solution would be not raise raise accusations of "POV pushing", but to take them to the editor's discussion page instead. In that manner articles discussion pages will be used to discuss articles, rather than discuss POV. Terryeo 18:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Give it a rest. The fact that you are you a proven POV-pusher and abuser of Wikipedia's Scientology articles (which is why you are now BANNED from editing them) is absolutely relevant to any post you make on these pages, and no amount of double-talk from you is going to change that. Sorry, but that's how it is. And if you're really so concerned that the matter isn't relevant to this page, then stop replying to me and stop arguing about it. wikipediatrix 20:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Happy to give it a rest. I was not banned for "POV Pushing" and "abuser of Wikipedia articles" was not mentioned either. Both of those statements which you have originated are not to be found in the document which spells out my ban. It is uncivil of you to misrepresent that document. Terryeo 00:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Revert Dcottle561

His edits were a copyright violation of the material on the Narconon website. --Davidstrauss 19:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

How can a relatively small amount of information which is cited from a Narconon Website be a copyright violation when a larger amount of information (the table of estimated costs for OT, for example) (or the tone scale in full, for example) be considered okay? The intent is toward fair use and the brief statement of the 9 steps is somewhat different that some other programs use. Other programs which ChrisO has stated this program might be confused with. In addition, the 9 steps are briefly stated. To state even one of them in full would take a great deal more page space. Terryeo 22:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Cottle's edit lets you understand what the program is about. The more recent edit lets you understand some people think its controversial. Cottle's edit examplifies what Wikipedia states articles should be, the more recent edit doesn't tell you how the program works. Instead it exemplifies controversial elements of the program. Terryeo 09:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

"Controversial Church..." statement

Their affiliation with the controversial Church of Scientology has made Narconon itself a focus of controversy. Says the first sentence of the third paragraph in History. That is an uncited original research on the part of an editor. The adjective controversial isn't appropriate to the statement and shouldn't appear. There is a large number of articles Scientology articles. If an editor wants to present the Church as being "controversial", there is plenty of opportunity to include published sources of information which say so. User:BTfromLA edited that original research into the article at:[6], the applicible policy is WP:NOR Terryeo 02:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You don't think that Narconon is controversial? You don't think that the Church is controversial? Certainly you will admit that both statements are true, right? Do you think that these statements can't be properly sourced? Vivaldi (talk) 11:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The point I make is that it isn't encyclopedic to make an unsourced statement in that manner. When the New York Times publishes that statement, then that statement can be used. The article is about narconon, should it develop that the article wants to present that the Church is, then okay, but an unsourced statement isn't the way to present that the Church is controversial. The way to present that the Church is controversial is to present published information which says the Church is controversial. Its a point of contention and should therefore be cited if it is made. Terryeo 15:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

There's already a sizable number of reference links to newspaper stories that refer to CoS as controversial. Why the New York Times in particular? I see it so often that I begin to wonder if some editors have some sort of vested interest in producing website hits for their friends. AndroidCat 16:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't get it that I used The New York Times as a singular example. I do not accept it that the Church is to be controversial in such a wide manner that an article may state so and not present information which is published, which has said so. I do realize that active posters to alt.religion.scientology consider that to be the situation, however such individuals comprise an extremely small portion of our planet's population. Therefore, to include such a statement in a wikipedia article, it is only necessary to follow WP:V which is to say, present a previously published, reliable source of information saying that. I used the New York Times as an example. Perhaps you see that there are other sources of information which could be used, but in every case, widely published is what Wikipdia articles are mainly made up of. So, therefore, find a widely published (should be easy if that is the actual situation) source and quote and use it. Terryeo 21:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Per wiki WP:NPOV, if an editor wishes to include a persentation such as controversial or beanbrained or even the ever-famous, debunked, then that editor has only to quote a published to the public source which uses that phrase or term, then include the source which states so. Else any of those terms are original research on the part of editors per WP:NOR.Terryeo 20:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Since there are no occurances of beanbrained or the "ever-famous", debunked in WP:NPOV, I'm guessing that's more Terryeo-quoting? Isn't there also something in there about not having to provide references that water is wet? AndroidCat 01:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, please help me with my Scientological vocabularly. You once told me that my grasp of Hubbard's "Dev-T" concept was imperfect. As I understand it, "Dev-T" involves needless work that gums up the smooth operation of an enterprise. In Scientology, "Dev-T" is sometimes used as a tactic to harass or confuse "enemies," by deliberately injecting distractions, costs and inefficiencies into their operations. Posting a complaint that demands attention from editors on the grounds that the topic sentence for a well-referenced paragraph that labels the Church of Scientology as "controversial" is "a point of contention" that violates the policy on "original research" is a clear-cut example of the "Dev-T" concept in action, right? BTfromLA 16:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[7] Terryeo 20:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I assume that you are granting my premise that the above agitation by you is a textbook example of "Developed Unnecessary Traffic." BTfromLA 06:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, while I appreciate that you spell out your assumption, That is not what my link to a definition of Dev-T replied to. I did not reply to your assumption, but replied to your question. Terryeo 00:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you want to revisit this now, but ok: my point above was that since your response did not include any objection to my premise, i.e., that your argument that mentioning the fact the the Church of Scientology is "controversial" in this context was a bit of "dev-t" subversion on your part, it seemed reasonable to assume that you were granting the point. BTfromLA 20:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I see. I replied as simply as possible with as little additional commentary as possible. My reply was not meant as anything other than a direct response to your direct question. Terryeo 21:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Your answer strikes me as disingenuous, Terryeo. Your reply--directing me to a very curt and non-informative dictionary definition--did not respond to my question in any useful way. BTfromLA 00:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Really, a link appears there to the word which you requested a definition of. Terryeo 15:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

That "definition" didn't respond to my question in any useful way, and you know it. BTfromLA 16:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't know it. I replied to you in the most direct, brief, way I knew how to reply. You asked me a definition and I posted a link to the definition, and it is a good definition. I would post exactly that definition to anyone who asked for that definition. There is no better way possible to respond to a request for a definition than to post a link to the definition. Anyone, God, ghost, Scientologist, public or Psychologist, I would post that definition without comment or interpretation and without ancillary discussion. Frankly, if I asked for a definition I would hope for similar courtesy. However, if you wish to engage in discussion about the definition, then you have only to engage in duscussion regarding the definition. And, this is exactly how it works in Scientology classrooms. The most experienced instructor, the most experienced fellow Scientologist would never (well,almost never) give his or her verbal definition of a term. Nor would I give you that discourtesy, you are perfectly capable of understanding the written word. If there is something you wish to discuss, you only have to begin the discussion. Terryeo 20:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, thank you for explaining your reasoning. In my view, the Scientology method as you describe it, responding "without comment or interpretation and without ancillary discussion," seems to undermine communication and to project hostility in this context. It appears that you did not read, or wish to address, what I wrote--I did not ask for a definition, I specifically invited you to engage in interpretation (that is, thinking) and discussion. The definition you linked to was simply another way of writing "Dev-T"--it didn't address, in the slightest, what I had asked you to comment on, i.e., whether my summary of the term was in some way mistaken or misleading, and whether what you were doing on this page was an example of "Dev-T" as a deliberate tactic. BTfromLA 14:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me see if I actually understand what you said, BT. I think you said, "without comment .." projects hostility? Is that what you said? Did you say that to reply directly and with no interpretation, discussion, ancillary comments, etc, is to "project hostility?" Is that what you are saying? The fewer the words, the greater the projected hostility? So like, I say, "nice day isn't it?" and because I did not use 100 words of more than 5 letters I have "projected hostility?" And if I reply to such a query by saying, "yes" then I have projected hostility because the quanity of words I have used as been few and I am therefore "projecting hostility?" Is that what you are saying that I am saying? 'Cause man, I'll tell you. I am NOT going to engage in discussion when the topic of discussion is a word which is not understood by both parties. Terryeo 15:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

No, Terryeo, that's not what I meant. Responding to this particular question--a small cluster of questions, really--with a three-word expansion of the abbreviation that offered no new information and no direct response to the issues I'd raised is what seemed to me a bit hostile. There is nothing inherently hostile about brief responses--neither are they inherently gracious or appropriate. It has to do with the context, Terryeo--with the meaning of your utterance within and in relationship to an ongoing discussion. Clear enough? BTfromLA 16:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. well it seems like we might have a situation where what you consider normal, civil behaviour (and obviously 1000s who think as you do) is considered by me (eeek, just me) to be unethical. It would be completely against my ethics to tell you what the meaning of a word is, and this is particularly true of a Scientology - jargon word. In a Scientology acadamy, if an instructor responded to the question, "what does 'Dev-T' mean" with the slightest hint that it meant something, the instructor would be performing an unethical action. Acadamy instructors would respond by pointing to a reference, or by presenting to the student the meaning of the term in some other manner, but never by personal means and only by already written means. And an instructor would do that without the slightest hint of their own, personal understanding of the meaning of the word. Am I being clear, but responsive? Terryeo 21:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Terryeo, you are indeed being clear and responsive. Thank you for that. This is very interesting to me, but we've wandered pretty far from the Narconon article, so I'll respond on your talk page in hopes of continuing the discussion there--I hope that seems appropriate to you. BTfromLA 22:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

All right. Terryeo 11:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

"Acadamy instructors would respond by pointing to a reference": that makes me wonder, what happens in the case where the reference might be erroneous? Nobody can discuss it, so it will never get corrected? Also, what happens if my understanding of the reference is wrong? Who will know that I misunderstood whatever concept is referred if I can't discuss it with anybody? Just curious. --Raymond Hill 01:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Raymond. I think you are asking about the conduct of acadamy instructors? BTfromLA asked me about a definition of "Dev-T". I replied with a link and without ancillary discussion. The resulting discussion has gone on. I did say that about acadamy instructors. In this particular situation they would point the student to the definition in Mondern Management Technology Defined, pg. 149, abbreviation, pg. 572 ISBN 0884040402. That would not be wrong. Discussion does happen and is certainly not curtailed. The point I was making is that an individual is capable of reading the printed word and understanding for themselves, the meaning of the printed word. Acadamy Instructors are human and have made mistakes. There are processes of correction, a division of Scientology Organization is called "Qualifications" and its responsibility includes correcting erroneous actions. An acadamy supervisor acts as the first step in educational procedure. But he is not the only help a student has. And if he makes a mistake, there is a division of organization designed to correct his misunderstanding which led to his mistake. Hmm, But as I re-read your question, Raymond, maybe you are talking about whether people can talk to each other? Of course people talk to each other ! :) Terryeo 04:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

That would be Div 5 or QualDiv as expressed by a visit from a Cramming Officer, right? Wasn't the one-time Chief Cramming Officer of all Scientology, Dennis Erlich, posted there by L. Ron Hubbard? AndroidCat 02:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

3000 Orgs and missions, 3000 cramming officer hats. Normally a person is routed to Qual because Qual is set up with the references in place and other MEST materials to perform their fuction. I've no idea about specific personal in specific Orgs, what are you speaking about a management org ? Terryeo 02:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect. It's always "3000 Orgs, missions and groups", isn't it? There are close to 148 orgs by my count. According to the RTC, there are less than 586 orgs and missions the last time I checked. It is easy to keep a file drawer full of "groups", so 3000 might be possible that way, especially if groups like Narconon are included. I did clearly say that Dennis Erlich was appointed by Hubbard as Chief Cramming Officer for all of Scientology, and not just an Org or Continental office, right? AndroidCat 02:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you must be suggesting that only Orgs and Missions use a Cramming Officer job and that Narconon and groups do not ? Terryeo 02:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It's so nice that you're sure about what I'm suggesting. In fact, since I've seen ads for Applied Scholastics organizations hiring Ethics Officers, I have little doubt that they, Narconon, WISE, etc, employ Cramming Officers as well. AndroidCat 02:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Reference 15

Is to a completely unacceptable source of information. It surrounds itself with "Associated Press" and other, reputable sounding terms but the actual information appeared in a GOOGLE GROUP ! Completely unacceptable information. WP:RS clearly spells out and spells out explicitly that no newgroup or blog may be used as a secondary source of information in any wikipedia article. That reference is completely wrong ! It must be removed. Terryeo 21:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

No, the "actual information", as you term it, appeared in the New York Times on July 17, 1989. I dunno, Terryeo, even after all the effort that the members of the ArbCom put into explaining it to you, you still don't seem to grasp the distinction between a newsgroup or a blog or a "personal website" as a source, and as a relayer of information from other sources. In this case, since the actual source is quite highly regarded indeed and since we have the date and title of the article, it would be quite easy to check whether the article does in fact contain the information that is cited in the reference (as I did, in fact). It's so easy to check, in fact, that it's rather puzzlingly stupid to suggest that such a reference "must be removed". Have you, perhaps, forgotten that the idea of Wikipedia is to bring well-sourced information to the reader? Rather than just to attack the source of the information in an effort to get it "removed"? -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I see the use of a google group as a reference for that information has changed. I won't go into the chain of logic which you will find both at WP:RS and in the talk page of WP:RS which explain in detail how information which appears in a google group is not a citable source. If you wish to present the arguement, "information which is good information may be cited wherever it appears", your platform would be WP:RS and the consensus of opinion there. My statement is a reflection of that consensus, and I'm glad to see the google groups reference out of there, in this manner Wikipedia readers can have better confidence in our articles. And by the way, Feldspar, your "rather puzzlingly stupid to suggest.." remark borders on incivility. Terryeo 08:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

And I won't go into how much of your ArbCom case was about your frequent attempts to remove information which could have been easily verified under the pretext that some factor such as the presence of a convenience link meant that it had never been verified (an assumption in which you were frequently wrong). That argument was certainly not the consensus of opinion in your ArbCom case, nor do I think you could point to a consensus of opinion anywhere on Wikipedia that if we have a reference which points to one of the largest and most widely available newspapers in the world and gives us a specific date and a specific article title (please tell me, can you construct a possible scenario in which a reference would be easier to check?) that "That reference is completely wrong ! It must be removed." without any mention of other options? Such as, say, checking the reference (which, not to put too fine a point on it, is precisely the point of a reference)? I'm sorry that you perceive incivility in it being pointed out that such a failure to explore any other option represents puzzling stupidity, but not only is it stupidity, it's stupidity on the scale that jokes are made of. "Oh no! The light bulb in the front hall went out! We'll have to sell the house!" "The car is out of gas! Look, there's the gas station! Maybe they can tell us where to buy a new car with gas in it!" "Oh no! This reference might not be a 100% accurate representation of a New York Times article whose date and title are fully known! It must be removed!" -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

One grows bored with your incivil comments, dispersive arguements, personal attacks, and references to past difficulties. I raised the issue that a google group was acting as a repository for information. If you feel google groups should be perfectly acceptable to Wikipedia, your place to argue the issue is WP:RS. Terryeo 19:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Just as one grows bored with your antics, Terryeo. You didn't "raise the issue" that Google Groups was serving as a repository for information obtained from a perfectly verifiable source, you decreed that the reference "must be removed". This is like saying "The cat is coughing up a hairball! We must take him to the vet to be put to sleep!" and then when your obvious overreaction is pointed, pouting and pretending to be a martyr and claiming you were only "raising the issue" of the cat's hairballs, and pretending that whoever disagreed with you obviously doesn't care about the poor cat and his hairballs. See, there wouldn't be any "references to past difficulties" if you weren't continuing pretty much the same behavior that caused those past difficulties. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

• my statement: Reference 15 is to an unacceptable source of information. GOOGLE GROUP !
• Feldspar: Refuses to confront issue. Talks about the original source of the information.
• My reply: WP:RS, glad to see it out of there
• Feldspar: Refuses to confront issue. Raises past ArbCom case.
• My reply: I raised the issue that a google group...
• Feldspar: Refuses to confront the issue raised and states, You didn't raise the issue.
• This reply. I raised the issue. Feldspar refused to confront the issue raised 3 times. Besides not confronting the issue raised (information in a google group being used as a secondary source of information) Feldspar manifests borderline incivility. Terryeo 03:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Face facts, Terryeo. You tried something sneaky, and we didn't fall for it. "Hey! Here's something that's easily fixed! But I don't want it to be fixed; I want it to be removed instead! Maybe if I lie and announce that it must be removed, people will somehow overlook that there are much better options than what I am falsely claiming is the one we must take!" You tried, you failed, accept it, move on. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Per WP:PAIN, I ask you to stop your personal attacks, Feldspar. Terryeo 16:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• guffaw* Oh, Terryeo. You just get more and more hilarious. You accuse other editors of acting in a secretly coordinated conspiracy[8] and yet at the same time you demand that the same people never suggest that you did anything wrong because that would be a "personal attack"? ROFL. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

*guffaw* indeed. Myself, I find it quite amusing that a group of individuals of like mind and fixated on presenting what millions of people have found to be helpful, are working with mutual effort and interest to display the difficulties that group of millions has had. While this link is a neutral person's presentation of the Church's effort, the articles here prefer to find tidbits of past difficult, such as Fair Game and when I say, hey, you know, "that hasn't been a practice for years" and cite and quote HCO Policy Letters then editors come back with, "how can we believe you?". Where is the wikilove, huh? Terryeo 15:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Bravo! That is perhaps the one Scientology article on that site that doesn't officially credit Al Buttnor, Director of Special Affairs (OSA) for the Church of Scientology Toronto as author or co-author. Neutral... On Bizarro World, maybe. AndroidCat 15:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Reference [14]

Reference [14] [9] states some information. That HTML page says it is information generated by "the Board of Mental Health, State of Oklahoma" and the date, "13 December 1991" appears. However, there is no indication the information was every published. There is no indication of where the information was published, if it was published. There is no certification of publication, no recognition of copyright regarding the source of publication, no mention of any person or authority of any kind whatsoever except the owner of the website. In regard to who owns the information of that HTML page, the article presents 2 conflicting information because the webpage presents that Jeff Lee wrote the page but the article presents that Dave Touretzky is responsible for presenting the information. No part of that reference complys with WP:RS which attempts to guide us editors toward the kind of reader confidence WP:V intends us to present. Terryeo 11:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Excerpt from "State Mental Health Board Denies Narconon Certification Bid", by R. W. Lobsinger, The Newkirk Herald Journal, 19 December 1991: «Reasons for denial of certification were listed in a document called Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, which was released following the meeting by Hurst.» Raymond Hill 20:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you have posted, Raymond. Apparently The Newkirk Herald Journal published the information. What confidence do you have that the HTML document which your link points to has been reproduced with the blessings of the author of the article? It appears on a personal website. We might be contributing to a crime ! If not with this reproduction on a personal website, with other HTML reproductions on personal websites which do might not have the author's permission to reproduce the article. There is nothing on that page which says it honors the copyrights of the creator of that information, there is nothing which says it was reproduced with the permission of the author. There is no reason the personal website owner should, either. Apparently he feels he can get away with typing in HTML, reproducing someone's hard work at his whim without permission and without honoring the author's copyright. No mention is made of copyright. WP:V says we should use reliable, reputable sources of information. A personal website which reproduces an author's work at a whim, just because it suits his point of view, with no recognition of copyright, should probably not be considered a reliable, reputable source of reposited, secondary information. Terryeo 03:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Here are links to information about the legal status of various Narconon facilities: "May 20, 1970 Narconon Los Angeles was recognized by the state of California as a nonprofit corporation" [10]. "August 14, 1992 The Oklahoma Board of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services granted Narconon Chilocco an exemption from their certification process on the basis of Narconon’s accreditation by the prestigious Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities" [11]. "October 26, 1992 The Oklahoma State Department of Health granted Narconon Chilocco its license – the final administrative step that officially allows Narconon Chilocco to operate as a drug rehabilitation facility" [12]. Terryeo 15:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

A cool NarcAnon link

This pro-scientology link talks about some of the issues the editors of this article have confronted Front Groups. Terryeo 04:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

"I don't actually know, but I think the whole National Mental Health Assistance evolution must have been a huge tongue-in-cheek poke in the eye of psychiatry and psych drug front groups, of which we consider the National Mental Health Association to be one."

That sounds like an admission to deliberately picking a name to confuse people. The derogatory statements which follow basically amount to saying, "Because we (Scn) hate psychiatry, we want to do things that hurt it." --FOo 04:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I'll ask her a question: Why there are Narconon web sites that don't even admit that they're Narconon? (Like this one Search on the phone number.) AndroidCat 11:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

While I understand the reason, I wouldn't really expect anyone else to. The reason is (my opinion) that Narconon essentially leases the use of technology developed by Hubbard and used by the Church of Scientology. That technology is not, by itself, of a religious nature. Some reading is required, is reading a religious experience? Most people would not think so. Some sweating is required, some vitamins, some exercise, some minerals, etc. Are those things, by themselves, religious in nature? Terryeo 19:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Re-read what I asked: Why doesn't the site (with a Narconon toll-free number) at least say that they are Narconon? (The standard licence agreement is 10% of gross income from all sources, btw.) Could you cite a reference as to when the courses stop being secular and start being religious or how the two versions differ? WISE also says that their courses are secular, but WISE is incorporated "for religious purposes", so it's all a little confusing. AndroidCat 02:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you ask them in an email ? I have sketched out my opinion. They seek to sell a product into society, having leased certain technology. This sort of business arrangement is quite common. However, as you must certainly know by now, 'Cat, I'm no part of the Church's organization and can't tell you anything but my opinion.Terryeo 07:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

wow, Jimbo Wales has edited this article. wow. Terryeo 22:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The article doesn't seem to be biased?

For example, Heber Jentzsch was arrested in Spain is spelled out in blazing detail. Unsupported detail is given, too. The full force of the government of Spain's wrath seems to be railed against the Church of Scientology for fraud. Yet those charges were dismissed, I believe. Courts, somehow, simply didn't find any of that to have substance. But does the article say so? No, the article presents the most inflammatory elements of the case as presented years ago. Does the article say the government of Spain created the charges, just made them up out of the thin air? No, the article only spells out the most inflammatory elements of long ago. Another example, much is made of the Guardian's Office, a long since disbanded organization which was disbanded precisely because it had become an anti-Scientology group with some power, working within the Church. The article presents a biased POV. Suppose I supply some detail here on the discussion page which would reflect when some of the past biased nonesense actually met the court system and what happend ? It doesn't seem right to me that I'm always working toward "the other side", really. It would seem to me that editors would actually want a balanced presentation. But I'll supply such details if someone is willing to consider putting them into the article and not instantly reverting them "for POV reasons". Terryeo 10:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course all the charges with the Spain thing have been dropped and the situation has been spelled out as being false to begin with. Terryeo 04:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The article is nothing but negative, it reades like alt.net.scientology. Here's a headline and link on a little more positive note. Global Assault on Drug Abuse by the Church of Scientology International [13] Terryeo 04:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Press/marketing releases do tend to be positive. [14] AndroidCat 10:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

On Aug 10, 2004, Georgia Tweedie had submitted the pertinent article which was then posted [15] on that date. User:AndroidCat has presented a link which makes analysis of the situation addressed by Tweedie's press release. While 'Cat's information might apply in several areas, nothing is mentioned about Narconon (this article) and nothing is mentioned about drugs and nothing is mentioned about Narconon Programs in either the release nor the analysis of the release. Terryeo 14:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Narconon establishments

There are 13 locations where the Narconon treatment plan is presented in the USA [16] and many world wide locations. Yet the article makes the situation sound far different. It doesn't help that a large list of notes and references present these various arguement about whether Narconon has a connection with the Church of Scientology or not. The article takes a widely established organization which seems to be prospering and offering both education and treatment, and make it sound as if it is a splinter group, opposed by governments. Terryeo 17:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing "widely established" about it if they only have thirteen locations in the USA! (Did you know that Hungry Howie's Pizza has over 525 locations in the USA?) And of these 13 locations you mention, most are located in dinky strip malls and low-rent office buildings in obscure places like Burley, Idaho and Norcross, GA. Some others are actually private residences and two are run out of post office boxes. As Scientology fronts go, Narconon is actually pretty shoestring. wikipediatrix 20:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, your manner of speaking about the subject is in keeping with implications in the article. Whereas my attempt is toward a more realistic presentation of the subject. But first, Narconon is not a "front group". A "front group" is "is any entity set up by and controlled by another organization. A front organization may simply be a proxy that keeps the parent group's name out of the picture or it may look publicly as if it is set up to do one thing, but actually be set up to do something else on behalf of its parent group." [17] A "front group" isn't the situation with Narconon. Narconon pays a fee for the use of some technology and uses that technology and stands on its own use of that technolology to produce a result. It was organized with a purpose in mind and produces what it advertises with the technology it pays a fee to use. Narconon deals with drug addiction, it produces results in that area and it is a comprehensive program which includes an improvement in the individual in the areas which lead a person toward drug addiction. Terryeo 21:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

It's well established that things are not as you say they are, so you're wasting your time. I won't waste mine in arguing with you further. wikipediatrix 21:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Did you want me to point to which parts of the article state Narconon pays for their use of Hubbard's technology? That Narconon deals with drug addiction? Some of its statistics of success, perhaps? [18] Do you prefer its educational presentation about street drugs and alcohol ? [19] Terryeo 22:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I prefer to discuss the editing of these articles with people who are not banned from doing so. wikipediatrix 22:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Ahhh, yes, that makes several of your comments much clearer. This one this may be difficult for you to wrap your head around but I am NOT a POV editor ....

Recent edit

The most recent addition to the article is a pragraph presenting several difficulties.

Narconon facilities in California were cited repeatedly for violations by state inspectors. Violations included administering medication without authorization, having alcohol on the facility, and not having proper bedding for clients. Narconon has also used traditional Church of Scientology tactics to silence opposition, including sending letters to neighbors of a proposed facility in Leona Valley, California threatening legal action for criticism. Residents of the Leona Valley were concerned that Narconon would increase crime. [34] The local town council recommended an eight foot security fence and independent security, which was objected to by Narconon officials. [35]

The first 1/2 of the paragraph is unsupported by reference. [34]'s link says the article is no longer present and searching for the phrase of its title produces no hits on the site, nor do various other searches of less restriction bring up the article. It is a fairly serious statement for our article to say, "... were repeatedly cited for violations by state inspectors", and the article should present such a reference. In addition, unless a secondary source specifically states, Narconon has also used traditional Church of Scientology tactics to silence opposition, such a biased phrase should not appear in Wikipedia articles. Terryeo 04:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

As usual, this is a problem of wikipedia (not believing print articles), but I'll go ahead and copyright infringe the article anyway from Lexis-Nexis. Calwatch 05:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

LEONA VALLEY - An organization with ties to the Church of Scientology that wants to open a drug treatment center in Bouquet Canyon was cited for dozens of violations by state inspectors within the last five years, according to documents.[... remove copyright infringement]

The second link talks about the relationship of the town council where it will be located, the county's planning commission and the county's board of supervisors. It is unclear which body has the authority to allow the permit or if several bodies much each pass it in turn. But that second link is good, published information, typical of the complex building codes some of us know and love. lol. Terryeo 04:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The town council is advisory but generally has the ear of the local supervisor/mayor, Mr. Antonovich. The Regional Planning Commission can vote on the subject but the BOS has the right to overrule their opinion by scheduling a rehearing. Or the BOS can punt to the RPC. After this, lawsuits will inevitably be filed. Calwatch 05:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

State Violations

The article states: Narconon has also attempted to silence opposition, including sending letters to neighbors of a proposed facility in Leona Valley, California threatening legal action for criticism. That statement is pretty extreme, yet the link does not make much of "threats of legal action" but instead talks about the proposed (not yet existant) Leona Valley facility. Residents of the Leona Valley were concerned that Narconon would increase crime. [34] The local town council recommended an eight foot security fence and independent security, which was objected to by Narconon officials. [35]. NONE of the statements imply nor even claim that there has been a State Violation but the information is present under the subtitle "State Violations". In addition, the Facility referred to has not yet been constructed. The permit referred to is about the proposed use of the land. What violation? Terryeo 17:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Your complaint has so little merit that it feels almost like intentionally disruptive editing (something which I believe you're on probation for). Don't get me wrong, I like that you pick through these articles with a fine-toothed comb - in makes the articles more bulletproof (though you've certaintly raised questions in the community about your true motives), but we will never, ever remove valid, pertinent material from the article. We also reserve the right to ignore (not even discuss, just outright ignore) the more useless among your suggestions.

That said, I'll take the time to answer you here... The state code violations are clearly addressed in the referenced article (a copy of which may still be found at http://www.religionnewsblog.com/15361/proposed-narcanon-rehab-clinic-raises-concern-among-residents), here is the relevant sections: At the Newport Beach facility, state inspectors found in January 2003 that staff members administered medication to residents without authorization and had alcohol on the premises. In February 2003, state inspectors found two staff members at Narconon’s Watsonville facility went drinking with a graduating resident from the program... Another violation state Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs inspectors found at Narconon facilities was beds without mattress pads, including an inspection at the Newport Beach facility in November 2004, that found 24 beds without pads." The legal threats accusation is also clearly addressed in the article, "Ron and Sherry Howell, who live near the former boarding school site that would be used for the project, received a letter from an attorney for Narconon in January telling them to stop attacking the project or face legal consequences. They received the letter after submitting their written opposition to the project to the county Department of Regional Planning, and after Sherry Howell had written a letter to a local newspaper... Alice Benoit, who would be living near the facility, also feels that Narconon has targeted opponents of the project, including herself. “They kind of like invade our Town Council meetings and shout us down,” she said.." Vpoko 19:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous rant

I am moving this newly written, anonymous rant (left from an IP address) from the top of the page to the bottom. Vpoko 19:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

From the tenor of the article it is clear that the only real point is slandering Scientologye even if it means denying real information to people who have a really serious problem (with drug addition). While I respect the author's freedom of speech - as this is wikipedia and not just a blog - the article should stick to the facts. It reads like communist propaganda. The biggest problem with the "anti-" approach is that it makes it obviosu that the author has an ax to grind and in this case apparently he is against effective help for drug addiction. This is a shame since these people deserve help. Jsut people have drug addiction doesn't mean that they do not deserve a chance to turn their lives around. Narconon is recognized as the most effective and humane programs in the world - witness the many awards and government alcolades it has recieved over the years. Fortunately there are some accurate sites on teh web sith concise ehlpful info about Narconon. I have met many addicts who undeniably conqesred their addictions and got their lives back. Fortunately, Narconon is the most successful program in the world and continues to be so to this day - I guess the fact that it does so well despite a rant like the author of the psoted wikipedia article - speaks volumes about it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.58.29.50 (talk • contribs)

Thank you for your feedback, if you have specific recommendations to make please do so, but nothing in the above post helps anyone write a better article. Vpoko 19:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Everything in the article is properly cited by verifiable sources. The only "rant" here is the misspellings-and-insults-filled speech just given by 70.58.29.50. wikipediatrix 19:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay. To consider the anon's statement, I looked at the article. While I use the broad term, "statement" and do not classify his statement as a rant, a claim, an attestation, or an arguement, another editor might. However it is classified, the article has many criticsms. Measuring the linear inches dedicated to criticsm, to the linear inches dedicated to pro-Narconon, I come up with a ratio of about 55 to 1. So, there is some substance to the anon's statement. Terryeo 15:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, if you find a verifiable source that God himself praised Narcanon, it can go in the article. Otherwise it can't, simple as that. Vpoko 14:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Links failing WP:EL/WP:RS

Links in the external links section fail WP:EL or WP:RS, namely that they are personal/self-published sites being used as a secondary source on Narconon. The Stop Narconon and Narconon Exposed links should be removed per the policies of Wikipedia but when I removed them, they were reinserted immediately. Thoughts? ju66l3r 23:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Personal/self-published sites certainly shouldn't be used as sources (per WP:RS). However, I thought the external linking requirements were a bit less strict? Don't forget WP:RS is a policy, but WP:EL is only a guideline... -- ChrisO 23:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Guidelines and policies are essentially the same in terms of their use for editing a page. One is only more official and less likely to be modified. The WP:EL page gives a definition for "links normally to be avoided" that includes Links to blogs and personal webpages, except those written by a recognized authority. Are either of these sites a "recognized authority"? ju66l3r 00:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The reason listed for removal was rm linkspam, which they weren't. AndroidCat 00:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. I mischaracterized my objection to them in the edit summary. If i remove them with fails wp:el, will they be reverted? ju66l3r 00:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. --Tilman 06:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You need to explain yourself better than that. For what reason do these links improve the article and satisfy WP:EL and/or WP:RS? ju66l3r 08:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I have an idea. I'll just go through the whole wikipedia, delete all external links, and when people protest, I'll request in each one for people to explain to me, why they satisy WP:EL. Never mind that this was already checked when the links were added (or someone else would have deleted them immediatly).

Dave Touretzky, for example, is a recognized authority on scientology, including narconon. He has often been quoted by the media. --Tilman 08:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I would propose that you go through the Narconon Exposed web site, you will probably come to the conclusion that this web site has to be provided, as this is an excellent thesis disputing the statements put forth by Narconon on its own efficacy, Narconon's statement that it is secular, etc. all of this thoroughly sourced. Raymond Hill 13:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Note that the current wording on WP:EL was added less than two months ago during some rather heated editing. Reviewing the discussion archives to see exactly how other editors thought that wording should apply might be an idea. Previously the links and guideline were in sync. AndroidCat 13:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup tag

This article could use a little spring cleaning. The structure needs work to make things more coherent, and the History topic is unreadable. 207.67.84.171 21:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC) -Marbahlarbs is too lazy to log in.

Citations to add to the article...

AP and Post Wire Services. "Crui$ing for Cash", New York Post, April 19, 2007. 

Staff. "Cruise to detox NY", Sunday Times, Australia, April 19, 2007. 

Smith, Kyle. "Don't Be Tricked By $ci-Fi Tom-Foolery", New York Post, April 20, 2007. 

Seifman, David. "Crui$e is 'Detox' of De Town", New York Post, April 20, 2. 

Sanchez, Hazel. "Cruise Thinks Scientology Can Save 9/11 Responders", WCBS-TV, CBS, April 20, 2007. 

Staff. "Tom Cruise holds fundraiser for Scientology 9/11 detox project", WABC-TV, ABC, April 20, 2007. 

Friedman, Roger. "Tom Cruise Fires Up Negative Feelings", FOX News, FOX, April 19, 2007. 

These should be incorporated into the article. Smee 08:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

Article Chatter

Thanks for the nice words about Narconon Exposed - as the author, I'm glad to see that it's appreciated!

I've rewritten the Narconon entry to make it a bit more concise and bring out (to better effect, I hope) the important facts. See what you think.

ChrisO

You might concisely include accurate information, such as the quantity of Narconon brick and mortor sites its website presents (72) [20] or the quantity of sites some of the current Scientology documents present (over 100) instead of the "several dozen" which the article presently is presenting as the quantity of Narconon brick and mortar sites. Terryeo 17:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

As a comment, is it really appropriate to site one's own personal website, ChrisO, as a source of information when writing an article of this nature? Should a personal website author write an article which advertises their own site? Isn't there a number of Wikipedia policies which deny that you, as an wikipedia author, should not site your own personal website in a Wikipedia article? That is your own personal website, right? It says the copyrights, etc. are owned by Chris Owen, gives a yahoo email address. [21] Terryeo 05:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

As a comment, is it really appropriate to site one's own employer & religion, Terryeo, as a source of information when writing an article of this nature? Should an employee & member of a contentious religious organisation write an article which defends the ethics and business practices of their own employer & religion? Isn't there a number of Wikipedia policies which deny that you, as an wikipedia author, should not site your own employer & religious organisation in a Wikipedia article? You are a Scientologist, right? LamontCranston 15:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

---

One of the finest sources of facts and information about Narconon resides at http://narconon-exposed.org

It is important to make the distinction between Scientology's front group narCONon and the legitimate drug rehabilitation program Narcotics Anonymous: the two are totally different. The word "NarcAnon" is some times used by the Friends of Narcotics Anonymous organization: Scientology Inc. deliberately used the word "narCONon" to obfuscate their business with the legitimate one.

See WP:NOR, on the other hand, if you find a published source which makes that statement, it could appear in the article. Terryeo 08:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The fact that "Narcanon" and "Narconon" appear similar is patently obvious, and does not require citation. If the article were to claim that this was a deliberate attempt at confusion, that would probably require citation; however, it doesn't make that claim, so no citation is needed. Zetawoof^(ζ) 08:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Looking over the original entry for Narconon, I see that it was almost entirely wrong. Radically, fundamentally wrong. Its present entry appears to be accurate. This shows just how well the "openness" of Wikipedia seems to be working. Is this progressive improvement common throughout Wikipedia? Desertphile July 9 2003 11:39AM PDT

If I recall correctly, the original page was written by a user who also edited some other Scientology pages in ways that seemed to take a pro-Scientology POV. There have been only a few attempts by such persons to remove or whitewash information on Wikipedia -- see for instance this edit and this one. It's valuable that on Wikipedia everyone can see everyone else's edits and quickly correct problems when they are introduced.

I know I mentioned this on your user talk page, Desertphile, but I'd also like to mention it here so it will be connected to the public record of the page: Wikipedia isn't helped by derogatory expressions like "narCONon" in the articles. They're intended to describe things, even nasty things we personally don't like, from a neutral point of view. I think Narconon is a con, and you think it is, but Wikipedia doesn't talk like that. --FOo

---

Thank you for correcting my behavior. The word Narconon and the word Narcanon appear to have been chosen by Hubbard to deliberately obfuscate the two. My putting the CON in capital letters is standard for civil rights and human rights activists when we write about Narconon because newspapers, magazines, and Public Service Announcement programmers more often than not do not know there is a difference. Plus CON is too fun a pun to pass up at times.

It might be of some slight interest to some people that you are able to read the Deceased Hubbard's thinking in that moment when he chose a title for that organization. While it might have some connection or implication to "narcotics", your enlightened presentation of his opinion would be more useful to Wikipedia if you could document it. Possibly he sketched a note to a friend, or possible he spoke in an aside to a friend and said something like that. If that is published by a source of good repute, then that should be included in the article. If not, it creates additional difficulty in articles which are already difficult enough. I mean, isn't it obvious, the articles about Scientology and Dianetics and related articles are already difficult to read through and understand. Adding yet one more "disambiguation" (Narconon doesn't mean Narcanon) and yet one more Original Research (Hubbard chose "Narconon" for its similarity) doesn't contribute to the clarity of the article. However, if you had a published source which said that, then it could be included. Terryeo 21:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't about making fun puns, though, and if the purpose is to point out that Narconon is not Narcotics Anonymous, simply stating that (as the Narconon and Twelve-step program pages do) seems to work. There isn't anything named "narCONon". --FOo

The 12 step program is Nar-Anon (no 'c'), not Narcanon. Based on the two entries in Wikipedia Nar-Anon is slightly younger than narconon. I'm not going to comment on narconon since I don't have any direct knowledge, but I was surprised to see a person from narconon used as an expert on a History Channel show about addiction (near where it was talking about the U.S. civil war). However, on the other hand, some N.A. members are confused about the lack of a 'c' in Nar-Anon. - Bill Smith 00:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I was working on a Wikipedia entry for fair game complete with about fifty footnotes and images of HAS and HCOPL files seized by the FBI. Striving for a NPOV might be impossible. For example:

• Paulette Cooper wrote an expose' about Scientology, and was "fair gamed." She was framed for making bomb threats; a woman impersonated her and performed psychotic acts in her community, telling people she was Paulette Cooper; her name and telephone number was written on the walls of men's bathrooms in seedy bars; a undercover "Guardian's Office" agent befriended her, moved in with her as a roommate, and reported back to Scientology Inc. her every thought and move; finally, a man showed up at her residence with a pistol hidden in a bunch of roses, knowcked on the door, and when a friend of Ms. Cooper's opened the door, the man put the pistol to her head and pulled the trigger--- the gun didn't go off. Can any of this be a NPOV? I dunno.

• Scott Mayer was scheduled to testify against Scientology Inc. in a trial where Scientology Inc. was seeking tax-exemption. He had been hiding from GO/OSA for a few years, fearing for his life. A few days before the trial, he came out of hiding and visited a friend he hadn't seen since going into hiding. He parked his car at that friend's house over night, but spent the night elsewhere. The next day a bomb blew up his automobile in front of his friend's house. (No one was killed or hurt.) Mayer successfully testified, then went back into hiding. He was "fair game" because he was the captian of Hubbard's toy "navy" while Hubbard was a fugitive from the USA and france.

• Aww, hell. The list is too bloody long. see http://fairgame.org

A neutral point of view probably is possible, if the writer can report just the facts and then adds "waffle words." I can't. Desertphile 19:16 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Believe me, I understand your frustration. When we go to describe the actions or claims of someone we consider horrible and evil, it is very hard to neutrally describe the situation. This is why pages like Scientology, antisemitism, or the like are hard to write! But that's what Wikipedia is -- hard to write sometimes. It's a lot easier to write neutrally about, say, physics, than about social problems.

I'm sorry you feel that NPOV constitutes "waffle words". I don't think it does. I don't think it's waffling to say, for instance, "Paulette Cooper describes her experience with Scientologist agents as such ..." or "Scott Mayer recalls ..." It isn't non-neutral to state what these people have had to say -- in their own words even! The NPOV problem happens when the wording of the article itself adopts the point of view of a partisan, rather than stating what the partisans have to say (as well as what the agreed-upon or established facts are).

I also suspect it's important to avoid the buzzwords -- repeated phrases that seem to be used in place of more descriptive or specific ones. Repeatedly writing "civil rights and human rights activists" instead of more specific expressions -- such as "protestors against Scientology practices" or "plaintiffs in lawsuits against CoS" or "online Scientology critics" -- comes off as a buzzword.

It's very important when discussing any doctrinaire organization -- be it CoS, medieval Catholicism, or Stalinism -- to avoid falling into that organization's own definitions of the world. Stalinists and Trotskyists can argue for weeks over who "betrayed the revolution" and it doesn't change the fact that Stalinists killed millions. Likewise, while trying to take the expression "human rights activists" away from CCHR and other front groups may seem like a worthwhile defense of the language, to an observer outside of the issue it smells of fanaticism. --FOo

---

Arrrgh we had one of these Narcanon morons come to our school today, told us complete lies about drugs. He even told us a bit about the origin of Narcanon, he was like "the founder was in prison for drug crimes. But then he found the philosophical writings of L. Ron Hubbard" at that point I just laughed and ceased to care what the speaker had to say. Wafflecop 19:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)