Talk:Religious Technology Center

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 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.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.

Wikipedians in Los Angeles County, California may be able to help!
The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Contents

[edit] Restoring redirect

Often, when there is a subject that may one day merit its own article but which is currently discussed in some other article, it's often good practice to create a redirect to that article; that way if someone searches for the term, they'll be redirected to the most information we currently have on it.

A redirect is appropriate when two article titles are synonyms, but it doesn't work the other way; a redirect doesn't imply that two entities are the same entity. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:50, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The uncited statements in the article

Wiki has a specific policy about citing sources of information. It includes these words: The need for citations is especially important when writing about the opinions held on a particular issue. Avoid weasel words such as, "Some people say…" Instead, make your writing verifiable: find a specific person or group who holds that opinion, mention them by name, and give a citation to some place where they can be seen or heard expressing that opinion. [1] I am removing the rumor sort of statement to this page, again per wiki policy and if it is more specifically cited it could then be moved back to the article page. That paragraph is:

  • Neither RTC nor the Church of Scientology have made public statements about the status of these two high-level executives or any changes in the structure of the RTC Board of Directors. Speculation among Scientology-watchers (for example, contributors to the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology) is that Rathbun and McShane have been ousted from the RTC by David Miscavige, leaving Miscavige as the sole member of the RTC Board. ((does the COS normally disclose changes in staff? Who are the speculators, how many are there, what are their qualifications that would tell us they are qualified in this area?))

Additionally these three statements are uncited, I have cut and pasted them here per Wiki Policy until they are appropriate sourced.

  • virtually all observers of Scientology agree that the RTC, and its Chairman David Miscavige, control the entire complex of Scientology enterprises. (which observers are those, how have they drawn that conclusion?)
  • The RTC has an office and an official address in Los Angeles;

(what is that address?)

  • journalists and former Scientologists report that the RTC is actually headquartered at Scientology's highly fortified Gold Base near Hemet, California. (Who says that and what information do they use to draw that conclusion with and of what significance is the "highly fortified?")
Which journalist says so? What publication is that information in? Cite a source. The Jesse article implies some people whom work in the RTC might sometimes be found at 'gold base' but it does not state, that I can find, "RTC is located at Gold Base." So, I'm going to follow Wiki policy, WP:CITE until such time as a valid citation appears. The Jesse citations don't state it, or if they do it is real difficult to dig out of it. Terryeo 16:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Lol, Fortified base? The Vatican is fortified. As the setup at this base is clearly (in the pictures) nothing like that are you sure you are not adding your own ideas to this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.148.169.109 (talk) 00:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

Terryeo 21:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Terryeo, your revisions and edits seem to me to err on the side of a pro-Scientology POV. While I endorse the principal of specific examples and clear citations, some of your demands for specifics strike me as excessive: why should we list their LA address? (You can find it on the RTC website if you're curious, but I can't see what it matters to the article.)
We should list their address if a second address is implied because of the suggestion that the organization "fronts" while actually working at a seperate, more secure location. But the point is that any statement should be cited, and why not? The RTC is not hidden in some mountain hideaway but can be accessed by public people knocking on the door, at least to some degree. The office is large and whomever presently is the incharge oversees a large network of people. Did you know, for example, that every Scientology Organization has a communication box to RTC which anyone can drop a communication into? Terryeo 02:44, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

It is a well-documented fact that rtc is headquartered at the gold base, but the legal address is in los angeles. No one stated rtc is in a mountain hideaway, you alleged that. "At least to some degree" access rtc by knocking on a door? That is nonsense.--Fahrenheit451 18:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

As to RTC being headquartered at Gold Base, and Miscavige being the most powerful figure in the Scientology network of organizations--is there any controversy about this?

Yes, there is controversy about that. I'm prefectly willing to accept the Mr. Miscavige is a powerful person in Scientology in the narrow sense of holding a job at the top, but what information points toward RTC being headquartered at Gold Base? The 1/2 slanderous, 1/2 hinting of hidden things statements - that need some citing - don't clearly state that is the situation. And too, the additional uncited statements put even more doubt into the area. Terryeo 02:44, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

If so, I suppose we could start a long list of various independent journalists who have written about Miscavige and RTC (beginning with the Los Angeles Times' features from last week); many such articles, from different sources at different dates are linked to on the Operation Clambake site--that link is already part of the article, embedding it at that point in the text might be a more direct method of citation, if you want. Or we could add a bunch of links to the individual articles at the bottom of the article. Miscavige himself agreed to Ted Koppel's description of him as "the leader of Scientology" when he was interviewed a number of years ago: is there any credible source that denies these things at this point?

Yes, if Wiki will allow such newspaper articles, why not? But I'm not sure that "suspicions about COS leadership" belong in this article. Terryeo 02:44, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Where you have a point is with the speculative claims about McShane and Rathbun--I'd say the line about Miscavige ousting them can go. But the rest of that paragraph should definitely be restored. Rathbun was once "president" of RTC, I believe, and whether or not Scientology's policy is to comment on staff changes, it is extremely unusual for a large organization to have two of it's top three executives "disappeared" after decades of service--references to them, even in historical news articles, were eliminated from the record--with no public comment from either the corporation or the ex-execs and no replacement executives being appointed, leaving the appearance of of Board of Directors with only one member (if you look at the RTC website now, that appears to be the case). That situation is so weird (you aware of any other corporate Boards with only one member?) and so central to the organization's identity that we'd be irresponsible not to mention it.
good job to mention it, I understand perfectly. But to speculate on why a person no longer holds a job doesn't really belong in an encylopedia article, does it? That statement implies the COS should satisfy someone that they move an executive. This is just not the case. Nor does the Catholic Church explain to the public why they chose this person to be bishop over that person. Nor do they explain how they keep their internal records. Terryeo 02:44, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
I'd also argue with your labelling of the links: "Controversy" doesn't make much sense ("Critical Sources" would be better), but there was no need for these categories at all: the list of links was concise and the biases of the sites clearly labelled before you added your headings. BTfromLA 02:00, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Okay, fine. Let's change them to "Critical Sources" and perhaps "Neutral Sources" Terryeo 02:44, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
"Neutral Sources" does not work. That has been tried before and the result was people filling it with supposedly "neutral" sources that proved upon investigation to be merely reprinting Scientology press materials. We can be sure that some links are "Other"; to put a heading that characterizes the links therein as "Neutral Sources" is just to invite armchair spin-doctors to play games. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
I understand how "neutral sources" implies a point of view while "other sources" does not, ty. Terryeo 21:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removed here for citing about the location

The article said that RTC is located at Gold. Anyone have a verification about that? Here is the sentence: "While the legal address for the RTC is in Los Angeles, California, it is physically located near Hemet, California at the Gold Base." I'm disputing the Hemet, California bit. Terryeo 22:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I added the Jesse Prince article which verifies the edit you removed. Terryeo, I suggest you go to Gilman Hot Springs and get a tour - if you haven't already. --Fahrenheit451 01:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The occassion when you find a statement that says, "RTC is located at Gold Base" (or equivalent) that will be the day you are justified in putting it in the article. What Jesse says is not that. He mentions that some people whom work RTC sometimes appeared at Gold Base. By that reasoning, if they eat in a restaurant in China, RTC is housed in China. Terryeo 02:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I read through most of the Jesse Prince articles you present as links. It does not state that RTC is housed at Gold Base. If it had said so, the appropriate manner to present the information that RTC is housed at Gold Base would be: "Jesse Prince stated that RTC is housed at Gold Base in his affidavit of ....." He does not and so, once again, I am removing that state which says RTC is housed at Gold Base. Should you run into any published source which supports your orignial research, why then, you should appropriatly cite and enter that information into the article. Until then, it is original research. Terryeo 06:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
It is most certainly not original research. My God, Terryeo, at least try to actually read the policies once or twice before you start throwing around the terms; when you use them in ways that make absolutely no sense, what do you think you're accomplishing? -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
How clear can WP:CITE be? You quote something like, "RTC's address is...." and state a source of information. What is the difficulty with presenting the reader with information which he can, for himself, read and view and understand as much as he wants to? Terryeo 22:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Jesse Prince's affidavit shows that the senior RTC officials worked out of Int Base at Gold. AndroidCat 16:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
"worked out at" does not mean quite the same thing as "housed at." For example, a person living in Los Angeles might attend at the LA complex, work out at some health club. Does that mean they are "based" at the health club? Well, no it doesn't. It means the people involved wored out, have been known to have worked out, sometimes work out at a location. "Housed at" means something different. It means the day - to - day activites, every day or almost every day, take place, emenate from, communications are sent from and received to a location. RTC is not documented to be "housed at" gold base simply because some persons sometimes work out or even stay for a few weeks at Gold Base. Terryeo 07:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, RTC is documented to be based at the Gold Base. That is a well-established fact. I think you are just engaging in captious arguments here. Please stop fabricating. --Fahrenheit451 15:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Fahrenheit451, we have danced around this tree before. You say "this is a well established fact, that is a well established fact" I say, "if it is a well established fact, present the verification" this is exactly per wikipolicy, WP:CITE. Would you have our readers take your word for something? Why not cite a source which states something like, "RTC is located at ..." to support what you say. Everyone else does, why should your statements be different? Terryeo 22:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Terryeo is right about this point. If "that is a well-established fact," you should be able to provide a source. Remember, verifiability, not truth. I'm removing the claim from the article in the meantime. Superm401 - Talk 04:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting earlier edit

There was no good reason for this to be changed – I am putting my edit back in. (Revision as of 05:34, 25 February 2006)Streamlight 14:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of anything else, that was a botched edit with links replaced by [1] text. AndroidCat 16:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

This is just factual. No editor should have a problem with this. POV is just being used as an excuse. Streamlight 09:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually you seem to be removing a number of facts with references, especially any mention of Gold. AndroidCat 13:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with Gold. Its just the “facts” referred to are out of date. Streamlight 13:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Gold and the RTC have moved? Where to? (Please provide three good references.) AndroidCat 14:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Doesn’t an affidavit by the person concerned (even if someone else puts it up on their website) still constitute primary source? I don’t see these references are valid on this basis, making this unverified by a credible secondary source. Also I am restoring my earlier edit for the same reasons discussed earlier. Streamlight 11:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Gloria, please stop attempting to vandalize this article.--Fahrenheit451 17:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

User:Fahrenheit451 changed the controversy section by renaming it "Attacking the competition" and removing attribution. I've reverted his changes, as they made the article less NPOV. Superm401 - Talk 01:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I added the link data which has no bearing on NPOV.--Fahrenheit451 03:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Source missing

Can somebody please provide a source for the half-sentence, "that Miscavige is on the infamous list of CIA sources published by CIA-vice-director Robert Crowley (CIA). This gives an new perspective to the real purpose of RTC, as independent Scientologists claim." The preceding half-sentence and its source establishes that an unreliable source published claims of this, but what about the fact itself? --Pjacobi (talk) 19:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RTC in news acticles

Some articles have more substance than others. AndroidCat (talk) 19:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Verifiability?

Are all of the various sources such as licence agreements and organizational covenants recently added WP:V verifiable? AndroidCat (talk) 20:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

They will be uploaded on Wikimedia within the next week and then linked with the references.Geo1967 (talk) 20:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Photo requested

Do you know any ars people, who might be willing to "donate" photos from Gilman or from the various Scientology buildings in LA to wikimedia, so they are in the public domain and can be used here? Jeff Jacobsen must have some photos from Gilman and Petrolia. Geo1967 (talk) 23:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

There is an existing photo of the building with RTC's official LA office. Image:Hollywood scientology building top.jpg (We could use it for the WISE article and probably others too, heh.) AndroidCat (talk) 03:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of RTC lawsuits

There is an interesting story to be told about RTC's innovative use of intellectual property law. Regardless of one's perspective on the social value of Scientology or the RTC's litigiousness, as a purely legal issue, RTC's litigation record is fascinating. Below is a list of 29 citations to RTC lawsuits that resulted in substantive court opinions (i.e., not just denial of cert or summary decisions). Although the list is long, I believe there's really only about 3 or 4 themes here because many of the parties appear several times, and even different parties involve similar issues. It would be great if someone would have the time to read through these decisions and pull together a succinct summary of the legal issues in these litigations. Perhaps this should even be a separate article. I realize these decisions may be difficult to access. If I have time, I will post the actual text of the decisions at Wikisource[2] and insert links here.

  • In re Henson, Slip Copy, 2006 WL 3861370, Bkrtcy.N.D.Cal.,2006. April 21, 2006
  • Religious Technology Center v. Liebreich, 98 Fed.Appx. 979, C.A.5 (Tex.),2004. May 10, 2004
  • Religious Technology Center v. Liebreich, 339 F.3d 369, C.A.5 (Tex.),2003. July 22, 2003
  • Religious Technology Center v. Ward, 33 Fed.Appx. 884, C.A.9 (Cal.),2002. April 19, 2002
  • Religious Technology Center v. Henson, 229 F.3d 1158, C.A.9 (Cal.),2000. June 23, 2000
  • Religious Technology Center v. Henson, 182 F.3d 927, C.A.9 (Cal.),1999. June 04, 1999
  • Religious Technology Center v. Netcom On-Line Communication Services, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp., 1997 WL 34605244, N.D.Cal.,1997. January 06, 1997
  • Religious Technology Center v. F.A.C.T.Net, Inc., 945 F.Supp. 1470, D.Colo.,1996. November 21, 1996
  • Religious Technology Center v. Lerma, Not Reported in F.Supp., 1996 WL 633131, E.D.Va.,1996. October 04, 1996
  • Religious Technology Center v. Scott, 82 F.3d 423, C.A.9 (Cal.),1996. April 11, 1996 [3]
  • Religious Technology Center v. F.A.C.T.N.E.T., Inc., 907 F.Supp. 1468, D.Colo.,1995. December 11, 1995
  • Religious Technology Center v. Lerma, 908 F.Supp. 1353, E.D.Va.,1995. November 29, 1995
  • Religious Technology Center v. Lerma, 908 F.Supp. 1362, E.D.Va.,1995. November 28, 1995
  • Religious Technology Center v. Netcom On-Line Communication Services, Inc., 907 F.Supp. 1361, N.D.Cal.,1995. November 21, 1995
  • Religious Technology Center v. F.A.C.T.NET, Inc., 901 F.Supp. 1528, D.Colo.,1995. October 03, 1995
  • Religious Technology Center v. Netcom On-Line Communication Services, Inc., 923 F.Supp. 1231, N.D.Cal.,1995. September 22, 1995
  • Religious Technology Center v. F.A.C.T.NET, Inc., 901 F.Supp. 1519, D.Colo.,1995. September 15, 1995
  • Religious Technology Center v. Lerma, 897 F.Supp. 260, E.D.Va.,1995. August 30, 1995
  • Religious Technology Center v. Netcom On-Line Communication Services, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp., 1995 WL 86532, N.D.Cal.,1995. February 23, 1995
  • Religious Technology Center v. Gerbode, Not Reported in F.Supp., 1994 WL 228607, C.D.Cal.,1994. May 02, 1994 [4]
  • Bridge Publications, Inc. v. Vien, 827 F.Supp. 629, S.D.Cal.,1993. May 04, 1993
  • Religious Technology Center v. Wollersheim, 971 F.2d 364, C.A.9 (Cal.),1992. July 29, 1992
  • Aznaran v. Church of Scientology of California, Inc., Religious Technology Center, 937 F.2d 611, C.A.9 (Cal.),1991. July 11, 1991
  • Yanny v. Church of Scientology Intern., Religious Technology Center, 933 F.2d 1018, C.A.9 (Cal.),1991. May 13, 1991
  • Religious Technology Center, Church of Scientology Intern., Inc. v. Scott, 869 F.2d 1306, C.A.9 (Cal.),1989. March 10, 1989 [5]
  • Religious Technology Center v. Scott, 660 F.Supp. 515, C.D.Cal.,1987. March 09, 1987
  • Religious Technology Center v. Wollersheim, 796 F.2d 1076, C.A.9 (Cal.),1986. August 08, 1986
  • Church of Scientology Intern., Religious Technology Center v. Elmira Mission of the Church of Scientology, 794 F.2d 38, C.A.2 (N.Y.),1986. June 23, 1986
  • Church of Scientology Intern., Religious Technology Center v. Elmira Mission of Church of Scientology, 614 F.Supp. 500, D.C.N.Y.,1985. August 01, 1985

Taiwan prepares (talk) 15:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Some of them should be definitely included in the article, as litigation has been a major activity of RTC. The problem is that you have to have at least the original complaint and the final decision as a reference, if you want to include here. The federal lawsuits can be obtained through Federal Pacer service of the U.S. Dept of Justice, but each page costs 8 cent. What shouldn't be done in my opinion is just throw some opinion or "mid"-order of one these lawsuits out of context in the reference chapter. If one of these lawsuits are included, at least the original complaint and the final decision should be available. My five cents.Geo1967 (talk) 16:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent point Geo1967. I agree that it's important to focus on the final holding and simply exclude intermediate decisions that have been subsequently overruled or are merely peripheral. I suppose the original complaint could be useful, but I'm not sure it would be necessary. I think the decisions nicely summarize what the court regarded as the legal issues. Also, since complaints often make claims for everything and the kitchen sink, only to have the court whittle down the claim to the essentials, the actual complaint may be more distracting than illuminating. Taiwan prepares (talk) 17:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Hm, I only speak for myself here. If I have a list of court documents of 1 case, then I first read the complaint to know what it is all about and then the final ruling in order to have an overview.
When you begin uploading the decisions, please start with the Robin Scott lawsuit. This is the mother of all copyright/trademark lawsuits of RTC. Cheers. Geo1967 (talk) 23:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I added both the Scott opinions. The 1989 decision discusses the issue of whether religious texts are protectable under trademark law, whereas the 1996 decision is unpublished and simply delays with attorneys fees and counterclaims. Very fascinating discussion in the 1989 opinion. It was cited to by 87 other cases, 72 of which were the 9th Circuit itself. Thanks for the pointer.Taiwan prepares (talk) 20:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Cool. I will include the document and the information in the litigation chapter of RTC over the next two or three days.Geo1967 (talk) 23:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] OR issues

This article uses a massive amount of PDF files as references, all of them uploaded and added by the same user. Might be OR. Shutterbug (talk) 22:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Have you actually *verified* the references, which I had added, before you flagged the article?? I doubt it. Tell me one phrase, that I wrote, which is not *verifiable* through the references!Martin Ottmann (talk) 23:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Martin is right, Shutterbug. You have to challenge the references themselves. The PDFs Martin uploaded as courtesy links are no different than uploads of topical pictures. You're making a mountain of a molehill, and frankly, it's of a pretty typical POV-pushing variety for you. Yes, very few of these documents paint a flattering portrait of the Church of Scientology, but that's not a good enough reason to attack them. If they were unverifiable, that would be a different matter. But things like court and tax records are extremely verifiable. Stop accusing him of original research for using them. --GoodDamon 00:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
The fact that "a massive amount of pdf files were used as references" and which were "added by the same user" is no indication whatsoever for *original research*. Why don't you point out the specific pdf files in question?
I removed your tag. It did not even address the "issue" properly. Cheers. Martin Ottmann (talk) 22:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)