Talk:Scientology as a business

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.)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Scientology as a business article.
Article policies

I think it makes sense to have a separate section for Scientology as a Business. I don't think that the "business" aspects, although often focused on in the press, should be such a large part of this page. Copied over the info, if everyone agrees it should be split off, please remove dupe info from this page. Seriosity 22:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Commissions

The lead off sentence states: "Scientology pays members commissions on new recruits they bring in" which is not entirely false, but is not entirely true, either. What actually happens is the person is rewarded by the Church donating into the person's Church account. People who do what the article is calling "recruitment" don't get cash, but get a portion of their next service as a reward instead of cash. Terryeo 05:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Cash or not, it's still a commission. --Davidstrauss 19:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
No, it is not a commission. It is, instead, a promise made if certain further actions take place. The only actual act is a promise which is far less than that article states. For example, should I promise you, Davidstrauss, to send you 1 pence stamps every day for a year if you will only eat 3000 cheeseburgers tomorrow, would that promise be a commission? That's what people who recruit get, a promise and nothing more. Terryeo 03:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it IS a commission. In fact they are referred to as "FSM commissions". It looks to me like the information that Terryeo is providing here is blatantly false. --Fahrenheit451 02:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

There are commissions paid, but the statement needs to be made with a little care, or it can easily mis-present the actual situation. It is actually a promise of potential future commissions. As compared, say, to an outright cash payment. Terryeo 14:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
A cited quote further down: "You receive a 15% commission on those services, which is payable when she arrives at the Org to do them, ($1,200.00)." It's a cash payment on delivery of the courses to the new member. In other words, a complete transaction. That's fairly standard on sales commissions. AndroidCat 15:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no sense in weasel wording it or adding your own false interpretation, Terryeo. The FSM commissions are paid by cheque to the field staff member.--Fahrenheit451 15:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

First the promise. That's the first thing. Then later, if the selectee purchases services, then the commission. I'm attempting to fill in the bag of tricks you see and not just have the reading public look at the outside of the bag, you see, and have a false impression of wealth. Terryeo 10:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
That's standard practice for a sales commission. Car salesmen don't get paid for people thinking of buying a car and sales clerks with commission don't get it if someone returns that new dress. Until the services are actually delivered to the new member, the fees they give to CoS are refundable and accounted for seperately on the books (in theory). AndroidCat 11:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Costs

The costs list is misleading and should probably be more clearly stated as being one man's personal estimation, a man who is hostile to Scientology and who presents, in his best estimation, that's the cost. It is encylopedically misleading to have only one man (and a known critic at that) estimate costs and have his personal opinion presented in the article. The costs vary widely, from free to high cost, depending on whether a person exchanges services with the Church, or trains and audits, or various other means. That table is misleading and it would be unlikely any person has ever paid those exact costs. Terryeo 05:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

So, cite other sources that counter it. The leading published sources seem to agree with the table. --Davidstrauss 19:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
If any editor wishes to change Wikipedia policy, an article's discussion page is not the place to do it. WP:V's discussion space would be the place to do it. Until it changes, any editor may remove any information which is not cited by a reliable published source. A personal website is not a reliable published source, per WP:RS. Your arguement is not with me, nor with the article, nor with clambake, but with a concensus of editors who have established and maintain the policies and guidelines we edit under. Agreement, no agreement, or otherwise, your personal opinion and original research do not make a concensus of editors. Terryeo 14:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Until you can present counters, they should remain.
Wrong. To place bad information into an article because an editor is lazy is not how WP:V says to edit. Terryeo 03:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Footnote [5] is a large chart. It should come out of the article. It links to Andreas Heldal-Lund and states: "The current (conservative) total cost for the whole bridge to OT9 readiness is estimated at $365,000 - $380,000. "Auditing hours are calculated on the basis of an average case. It could cost a lot more. Read on for the full price breakdown." Reading on; "Okay. Here is the long awaited CoS (Flag) processing price list, from "Raw Meat" to OT8, with a glimpse beyond even that." Well, whose expertise developed those tables? The webpage exactly reproduces some whole charts which the Church published, but most of that webpage uses the Church's published information and adds calculation to it. Apparently the owner of the website has created those charts (the one's not published by the Church of Scientology) and obviously, it is presented as personal opinion. WP:RS#Personal_websites_as_secondary_sources states: Personal websites . . . should not be used as secondary sources. That is, they should not be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website. Heldal-Lund is presenting that the cost of services is very high. However, his opinion is unpublished. That is, he has not written any published book nor has he been interviewed by a newspaper which published his opinion. He put his opinion on his personal website. Wikipedia articles may not use his opinion as a secondary source of information, as this article uses it. Besides, here's a link by a person who has done some of those levels and by the methods she used, it cost her $625 to go Clear. [1] Terryeo 04:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

That's such a sad, sad misrepresentation, Terryeo. Even the link you provide says she paid for many of her service by working for the CoS. --Davidstrauss 06:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
There is a saddening element of such a presentation. WP:RS specifically tells us that we are not to use personal opinion on personal websites as sources of information for any subject other than the subject of the website itself, or the owner, himeself. The sadness is the direct defienece of WP:RS. Terryeo 17:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

People are still reverting to link the personal opinion of Clambake.org's owner. His opinion is not a reliably published opinion. Per WP:V, his opinion can not be included in any article except an article about himself or his website. On the other hand, the Church of Scientology publishes certain costs which can be included in articles, the Church being a reliable, published (though special interest) source. That's the difference, AndriodCat (the lastest reverter who asked why Xenu.net can't be linked). Terryeo 14:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I was Treasury Secretary for a Class V org and I can guarantee you we regularly cut real checks to FSMs and filed 1099s as necessary. Do not confuse FSM commissions with training awards, which are non-cash. Also, the costs listed in the main article are a bit on the low side, according to my experience.69.255.4.11 01:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Astonishment at copyright abuse

Scientology claims to be a religion for tax exemption but exhibits all the traits of a pyramidal sales organisation. Furthermore they use Copyright to protect their secrecy. This is the most blatant abuse of copyright I have heard of. Aren`t the general public entitled to know the objectives and teachings of a group such as Scientology???

Let me see if I got it correctly, say there are some lectures reserved to Level 7, or whatever, and that to get to this level one has to go through a certain number of courses for which one has to pay. Now, if one makes public the contents of these lectures, i.e. in internet, he is sued for copyright violation??? So what are the alternatives for this ficticious character,? To make a summary of the teachings and publish it? That should be considered as a derived work and would not be a copyright violation... What about the law which requires any publication to be registered, and copies sent to the main libraries so they may be accesible to the public???

It would be helpfull if knowledgeable editors could clarify, thank you. Cgonzalezdelhoyo 01:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll spell it out for you. The amount of Scientology information is large. There is a small quantity of it which is confidential and unpublished. I don't know of anyone who could tell you exactly what the ratio is, but I'll give you my personal estimate based on incomplete information. 40 million published words and 4000 unpublished words. That's a rough guess. The unpublished information necessarily requires a good deal of education to understand it. Quite aside from any issues of religious revelation, it might be compared to a person learning math. He would need to understand arithmetic, algebra, etc., before he could understand calculus. No person simply sits down with confidential Scientology information, there are always a number of prerequisite actions that the Church requires the person do first. In the specific situation you mention, there are some Class VIII lectures which are unpublished. They contain a lot of specialized words, terms which are not in common use and require prerequisite education to understand. I'm saying, an uneducated (in Scientology) person isn't going to get anything out of those unpublished informations that would be helpful to them. While the Church insists, when presented to a person in a step by step manner, the information is helpful to them. Terryeo 14:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
The Church of Scientology has explored all possible legal avenues: copyright, trade secrets contracts, trademarks, perhaps even patents... With a summary, there is a Catch-22. If you don't use any reference quotes of the original document, the claim is that you're making it up. If you quote part of it, you're "taking it out of context", and if you quote all of it (even with commentary) you're on the dangerous ground of fair use/fair dealing. I believe the record is suing over the quotation of as little as 20 lines (NOTS-34?), but it might be less than that. I believe there are equivalent texts available in the Free Zone for a lot of things, but the Church of Scientology will tell you that the squirrel stuff just isn't the same.
In fairness, the original copyright-type protection laws were invented by the states and church to stop people from printing their own versions of the bible. The copyright of the King James bible is still active and owned by the crown in some commonwealth countries. AndroidCat 02:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
In all fairness, if a person wishes to practice with freezoners, that's up to them. Hubbard did not charge the freezone with responsibility for a quality of technical expertise. Nor the protection of the information which comprises Scientology. But if a person wishes to practice with that group, or with Mayo's group or with, who knows, aliens, hey. Feel free. You make your game, I'll make my game. I have said that a person who migrates from the Church to the Freezone has a misunderstood word or they wouldn't. That is my opinion. But a person might be born of parents who practice Freezone and might not have any such misunderstandings. But, with or without misunderstandings, life goes on. Terryeo 00:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately current copyright law is illogical and abusive, drawn to protect financial interest and giving limited individuals control of information which should by all standards be in the commons. Cgonzalezdelhoyo 21:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello Cgonzalezdelhoyo. Scientology is a pretty large body of information. The information which makes up the subject might be 20 feet of shelf space. In addition, the infomation about organization which runs the Church might be another 5 and one half feet of shelf space. Hubbard's written and spoken words on the subject have been estimated at 25 million, 40 million, 50 million. Whatever it is, it is quite a lot. It is all available for purchase by memebers and by the public. It is copyrighted. You mention secrets and level 7. In addition there is a relatively small quantity of information which has not released to the public. I have never seen a good estimation of that quantity. I don't know myself what quantity it is, but I would guess maybe as much shelf space the width of a spread hand. For all of it. That's a guess, just a guess, only a guess. That information is not available for sale to members and not available for sale to the public. It is "confidential" and its information is used by memebers who have had quite a lot of education in the Church and quite a lot of what the Church calls "auditing", the reason the Church gives is that it can not be understood before the previous education and auditing has been achieved. I hope this response is helpful. I have tried a number of different ways of communicating this idea that until you have been educated in the meaning of certain Scientology words, a Scientology technical document is almost useless to you. Still people often want to know the "secrets" before they understand what MEST means Terryeo 04:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal websites as secondary sources WP:RS

Footnote [1a] and [1b] reference Dave Touretzky's personal website and states: Even as the cult of Scientology tries to destroy the truth, the truth shall be loosed over the planet forever. Dave's personal opinion is an an introduction a previously published work, Time Magazine May 6, 1991, pg.50 (copyright 1991 by Time Magazine). He writes 4 paragraphs of personal opinion as a sort of introduction to the article which then appears. This is one of the reasons that personal websites rarely make good citations. His opinion is not useable as a Wikipedia reference because he is using the Time Magazine article as a method of getting web hits so that he can preach his personal, unpublished opinion. The citation needs to be removed and a citation to the Time Magazine article would then need to be found which did not include 4 paragraphs of a personal website owner's unpublished opinion. Terryeo 04:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The article isn't referencing the part containing his personal opinion. It's merely a registration free convenience link. What happened to Mr. "Convenience for the Reader"? --Davidstrauss 06:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, so a reader is expected to be aware that the first 4 paragraphs of the page are the website owner's personal opinion, ignore the website owner's personal opinion, thereby gaining confidence that Wikipedia maintains high standards, and if the reader has any question about that, they can damn well read WP:RS which says, Personal websites may not be used as secondary sources, thereby holding Wikipedia in high repute. Yeah, That's an easy reasoning to follow David. However, why don't we just stick to the guideline and not use a personal website which contains the website owner's personal opinion in the first place, as WP:RS (based on WP:V) suggests? What is the BIG DEAL that this particular article is so incredibly important that we MUST BEND wikipedia guidelines to suit the whim of editors here? Terryeo 23:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Footnote # [2]

Footnote [2] points to the Los Angeles Times. It is a site which requires registration to view the article. registration required could be noted in the reference, it would save readers from uselessly following the link, who did not want to register with the Los Angeles Times. Terryeo 05:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and if we didn't include a URL at all, we could note trip to the library required in the reference, to save readers from uselessly trying to get a look at the article simply by staring at the screen harder and harder. These complaints of yours are getting more and more frivolous. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
It works for me, and I'm not registered. Raymond Hill 17:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I say, "could be noted", I believe such a note would be appreciated by wikipedia readers. This is not an uncommon situation as more newspaper articles are online and we are likely to meet it more frequently, rather than less frequently. That it "works for you" may be just fine for you, but the issue of clicking a link from Wikipedia and arriving at a "registration required" or a "pay registration required" is not an issue so easily dismissed. It has been discussed at WP:RS, too. As far as I know, a standard procedure has not been agreed on by a concensus of editors. I also note again, User:Antaeus Feldspar that your personal comment regarding the direction of my effort approaches incivility. There is simply nothing productive to be gained by your These complaints of yours are getting more and more frivolous. I did not make a complaint, actually. I point out that a convenience to Wikipedia readers could be included in the article. I understand you say such a concern is "frivolous". But to reply that my polite indication about Footnote [11] is a complaint borders on incivility. Terryeo 04:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
the issue of clicking a link from Wikipedia and arriving at a "registration required" or a "pay registration required" is not an issue so easily dismissed. It is when you're the only one who seems to have this problem. What a peculiar life you lead. You're the only one who gets a "registration required" screen; you're the only one who can see certain racial slurs which afterwards disappear entirely from history as if they had never existed; you're the only one for whom certain portions of certain referenced articles mysteriously disappear, causing you to report that they do not contain information which they do contain, but only for everyone else... oh, and I'm sorry that your standards of what "approaches incivility" are set so high, and apparently getting higher on a regular basis. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, hey, it would be a civil thing to do, huh? Terryeo 10:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] time and convenience links

Convenience links are ok, unless your making it convenient for somebody to unlawfully obtain copyrighted material. Time owns the copyright to its cover article, and nobody can take a full copy of it, without their permission. WP:EL suggests we not link to such violations. I pointed it to Time's web site. People wishing to read the full article can either pay them, or go to a legit source, most likely their library. Claiming a full copy of an article as "fair use" is utterly laughable, as the copy removes any motive of a person to pay Time to read the article.. --Rob 14:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm with you on that one Rob, Wikipedia can establish itself as a reputable source if we all work together to make it a reputable source. Terryeo 17:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Broadening of article topic: Scientology as a financial entity?

Some have argued that the scope of this article is inherently POV. I cannot agree but it has struck me that broadening that scope from "as a business" to "as a financial entity" would allow us to examine the issues as part of a fuller picture, which would also have the effect of making the article more NPOV. Thoughts? -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I think broadening the scope to "as a financial entity" is a good idea. I did not think the "business" title was POV until I read your change suggestion, AF. Zeke pbuh 03:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No personal website opinion as secondary source

About 1/2 the article is Clambake's personal opinion about costs. It is nothing but personal opinion. An estimation of costs, because it varies greatly will always be an opinion. But at this time that opinion directly defies WP:RS, Personal opinion on personal websites may not be used as secondary sources of information. It is directly contrary to our Policies. It is just plain wrong. It could be included as an exterior link or additional reading or additional information or "opinions about cost (exterior link)" but is directly against and defies Wikipedia policy as it appears. What is it, are editors so inflammed with including Clambake's point of view that editors defy Wikipedia ethics? Why must such obvious, clear, wrongnessess be pointed out ? Can't you guys rub two sticks together without being policed? Its wrong. It has been there a while, it has been pointed out to be wrong. Terryeo 15:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not at cause over MEST yet, so I can't rub two sticks together successfully. Can't get the operating ends in operation, you see. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientology as a business

The result of this debate was keep.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  17:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] There are 2 problems with this article.

The first is that a large piece of the article is one man's personal opinion. The chart which lists COSTS is the personal opinion of one person who declares that it is his personal opinion. It is an unpublished opinion. That is, no publication on the planet has considered his opinion valuable enough to trash their publication with it. Yet it appears here on Wikipedia as if his opinion was worth a WP:BEANS. That information should be removed. It is in the article in direct violation of the concensus of editors as manifested in WP:RS (reliable sources).Terryeo 17:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The second is that the article states: Scientology pays members commissions on new recruits they bring in, so Scientology members routinely try to "sell" and that is false information. I suspect the TIME article does not quite say that. It might almost say that, but it probably doesn't quite state that. But, even if the TIME article actually states that, it is a mis-statement. Scientology organizations have never and do not pay member commissions on new recruits. There are commissions paid to memebers who bring in recruits IF those recruits purchase books or services but not if they don't. The statement is nearly correct, but not quite correct. Terryeo 17:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Really? But I thought that Field Auditors usually make a significant amount of their income from FSM Commissions. This is from referring their preclears to nearby Class V orgs or to the Sea Org orgs for advanced training and processing. AndroidCat 04:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
That is possible. But that could only happen over the long term. When a field auditor selects an individual to a Church organization and the individual agrees the field auditor is the Field Staff Memeber (FSM) who selected him to the organization, then, (I think it is any) moneies the individual spends to the organization is involved. A percentage of the money the individual spends to the organization is awarded to the FSM as a commission. It is my understanding that such commissions are not awarded in cash to the FSM, but as debits for future services which the FSM can take at the organization. In any event, until the individual person actually spends some money, the FSM does not get an award. Terryeo 04:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, let's look at the numbers. Say you send your preclear into a nearby org, and she buys an Academy Training package for $8,000. You receive a 15% commission on those services, which is payable when she arrives at the Org to do them, ($1,200.00). If you were to send 20 preclears a year into the org for similar packages, you would have $24,000 in income just from selecting your public to train. Even if the income is deferred until the courses are actually delivered (which is CoS practice), that's quite a stream of income if the Field Auditor maintains that each year. As well, even if it's taken as a credit for services, surely you're not suggesting that the services aren't worth the $24,000? :) AndroidCat 04:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
No further comment about commisions and income, especially now that I added it to the article and cited CoS? According to their figures, they are implying that a Field Auditor can make upwards of half a million dollars in a year. (Assuming a 45 week working year, with seven weeks vacation, an auditor can make 45 weeks × $8,640 auditing + $24,000 commission or $412,800 per year. Note that the cited source implies that it would be easy to have more clients parishioners "paying preclears" and make even more.) AndroidCat 13:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

What part of "no personal websites" as secondary sources are you not getting, Android Cat? You re-inserted the link to Xenu.net's personally presented opinion about costs.  ?????? Terryeo 14:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The part that WP:RS is not a rule, but just a guideline? Quote: "not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception". xenu.net presents a lot of scanned original CoS documents with minimal commentary. Futurix 15:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo has been informed multiple times that Reliable Source is a guideline, but keeps arguing as if it were policy. That is nothing new.--Fahrenheit451 02:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

If you wish to change WP:RS to reflect your personal views of what Wikipedia should be, the guideline is there for you to edit. Feel free. But, until you do, it is appropriate to follow it because it is created and maintained by an concensus of editor opinion. Terryeo 20:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editors are defying WP:RS

Personal websites can not be used as secondary sources of information in Wikipedia articles. The costs table is a personal opinion of the owner of a personal website. I can tell you that he has no clue what almost everything on the table means, but my knowledge is not in question. The article mis-presents information which lowers Wikipedia's reputability and is inappropriate and improper. Terryeo 03:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS is not a rule, but a guideline. As I quoted before: WP:RS "should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception".
The costs table is a scan of official documents from CoS and not a personal "opinion". There is no known misrepresentation of facts in the page. Futurix 15:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
It is quite likely that you do not understand the situation because the article mis-presents the situation so badly as to make the situation beyond the understanding of people who have not studied the area throughly. The right most column of the table presents, "total cost". The Church does not present such a figure. The right most column is pure whoop-dee-doo hogwash. One individual who is known for the large amounts of time and effort he has put forth to mis-present Dianetics, Scientology, and everything connected with those subjects created that chart. It is his personal opinion, it is contained on his personal website and here, WP editors have cited his personal opinion as if it were a published fact. It is not a published fact. No person on the planet can tell you how much the average cost is for any level. Some rare people could give you a reasonable guess, but those would be Sea Org people who work with the stuff every day, and even then, it would be only an average guess. There are a great many variables. The other columns, the columns which the Church publishes, those are good information (or were, the pieces I checked). Terryeo 23:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I am sure that there are editors who opine that material on cofs websites is "whoop-dee-doo hogwash"; Those misrepresent the real operations and actions of that corporation. --Fahrenheit451 02:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Any editor who uses a personal website opinion as a secondary source of information in any Wikipedia article is wrong. Supporting such editing is likewise, wrong. It creates a Wikipedia of poor quality. It defies editor consensus. It is wrong. Terryeo 02:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Aren't you tired of repeating same thing all the time? Futurix 10:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
The table of costs which xenu.net presents is personal opinion. It doesn't belong in Wikipedia. WP:RS says so. Terryeo 19:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
This is not a personal opinion and you know that. And in any case: <insert explanation of "WP:RS is just a guideline" here>. Futurix 17:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
A reference to a personal website from within a Wikipedia article, quoting text from the personal website and especially personal opinion does not belong within any Wikipedia article. Terryeo 20:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
A tendentious, disruptive editor is wrong and does not belong on wikipedia.--Fahrenheit451 04:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I believe you have stated that many times, User:Fahrenheit451. Not always in those words. Have a pleasent day, you hear? Terryeo 04:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I have placed notification of this defiance here, a step toward resolution. Terryeo 22:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

While the chart is not "personal opinion," I do think it makes sense to add a line clarifying the ways in which the fees may vary from Scientologist-to-Scientologist, and the reasons for that: rate changes, package deals, additional paid auditing hours required, or courses offered in exchange for labor, as with staff members. I'm not sure I know the details as well as some others here, so I'll leave it to somebody who is familiar with the specifics to drop in such a sentence, if you agree that's a good idea. BTfromLA 23:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
You may accept it or reject it but I tell you. Any such chart made up by any individual anywhere is personal opinion. If that chart were made up by the most experienced man on the planet, who dealt with that every day, it would be his best estimate. Unless the Church actually publishes statistics (which it doesn't) then any such chart is someone's personal opinion. That you state otherwise is a refusal to recognize there is no statistical source for the amount of hours, much less the many manners in which said hours are paid for. The portion of the chart which gives donation per hour might be accurate. The portion of the chart, the right most column, which gives costs to completion is pure whoop-dee-do. Terryeo 03:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Agreed regarding adding a disclaimer. Anyone want to take a stab at wording it? As far as keeping the chart - is its actual accuracy (the costs) in question? The secondary source (footnote 7) seems to lend credibility to the source you're questioning (footnote 6) and I'm for keeping it in. Regarding editor consensus, Terryeo, I am slightly put off by you claiming (especially on the mediation page) that editor consensus has been reached and others are defying it. I do not see ANY consensus for your argument here - in fact all editors here have considered and rejected your point. Vpoko 00:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Personal opinion from personal website, waffled with a "disclaimer" does not satisfy WP:V because personal opinion from a personal website is not a reliable source. That is, there is no research beyond the individual's own, there is no legal responsibility byond the individual's own, there is no certainty the facts are realistic, we don't know his sources and his willingness to be responsible for his posted words is low. And so on. A personal website does not satisfy WP:V and the concensus of editor opinion which WP:RS manifests says so. If you wish to include such personal opinion, your platform is WP:RS, until then, it is inappropriate. If those figures were of such note that any major newspaper or book felt they were worth publishing then they would be published. They are not. The right column of the chart is one person's opinion, and I can tell you, and you know, he is unqualified to internationally create and post such an opinion. Why won't editors simply abide by WP:RS ? Why is it so critically important that personal website by cited again and again in these articles? Terryeo 04:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Terryeo, can you find one other person on planet earth who thinks that 3,300 x 2 = 6,600 constitutes "original research" ? Do us all a favor and identify a real problem before you start your daily campaign of objections. If the totals should be labelled as estimates, or if there is some better source than the photocopied church publications and the church-operated website, or if the arthmatic is wrong, or if the group of "completions" necessary to reach "clear" are mis-stated, tell us. You just look foolish calling basic arithmatic "original research." BTfromLA 04:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
It is the "2" which is original research. The Church's presented information tells of the cost for training. And, it tells of the donation rate (I guess that is what it is called) for an intensive of auditing. But neither the Church nor anyone can give a real estimate of how many intensives would be required. Take for example the very first row, "Life Repair". "Intensives required" says "2". Now sometimes a person might require 2, another person might require a small part of one and a third person might require, who knows, 7, or any number. Many people do not require a life repair at all. The chart presents a great deal of personal opinion when it says "2". The chart says that every person is required to purchase and fill 25 hours of auditing, at the end of that time the person has finished their Life Repair. Well, that isn't the way it actually works. That's the first row of the chart which is the most established row. It gets less certain and more complex from there on. People on staff often get a Life Repair (if one is needed) for no cost at all because they are essentially working for their auditing. But, for the sake of arguement, let us take an average person who does a Life Repair and purchases "2" intensives at the full cost. He might use all of those hours, or he might use only a portion. It even happens (I think) that on rare occassion he needs to purchase another intensive. Whatever the quantity, no one can predict, no one, how many hours he will use, and how many of his purchased hours will be carried foreward. Sorry, I thought everyone had read the Clambake site and compared it to the chart and had seen the differences which are the original research and unstated by the Church (because it can not be stated). Terryeo 07:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Like I said, I would be in favor of adding a dislaimer to the chart explaining that the total costs can greatly vary from person to person. Terryeo, please understand that your interpertation of WP:V and WP:RS and how they apply to this article are not absolute. Wikipedia content is decided by the consensus of its editors, and the consensus of the editors in this article is clearly to keep the chart. You might feel VERY strongly the other way, but you do not have the unilateral competence to interpert the policy - that task falls to the editors as a whole. Vpoko 12:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The situation is about a piece of information. Andreas Heldal-Lund states his opinion, that "2" auditing intensives will be required to get a person a "Life Repair", the first row on the chart. I am familar with the area. I can tell you that Heldal-Lund's opinion is plain wrong. However, none of these articles is about my opinion, these articles are about good information. That is wrong information. Anyone who is familar with the area would tell you the same thing I am telling you. The issue is stated clearly at WP:RS. It says: Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources. The information is wrong, it is cited from an informational source which is known for its anti-Scientology attitude. This has to do with how Wikipedia intends to be a substantial source of information. This has to do with the quality of the information which comprises Wikipedia. An editor may not cite personal opionion on personal website and especially not in areas like this one, where Heldal-Lund's personal opinion appears as if is real information because it is juxatposed alongside good information. Terryeo 15:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your input, Terryeo. I respectfully disagree and do not see editor consensus for removing the chart. Vpoko 16:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
How can you possibly consider personal opinion which is presented on a personal website to be of so much value that you refuse to recognize WP:RS ? Are you of the opinion that Xenu.net is not a personal website ? Terryeo 05:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I am of the opinion that the use of information from Xenu.net can be appropriate, and is in this case. The line between a personal website and whatever other kind of websites there are is blurry, and a blanket exclusion on Xenu.net as a source would not be in the best interest of presenting the whole story, nor is it a requirement of ANY Wikipedia policy or guideline. Vpoko 14:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate that your opinion is based on thought and reason. I had hoped you would become involved in the mediation about this subject. However, this cite on this subject in this article is currently being discussed here which came about because of discussion at WP:RS here. Your reasoned statements would probably be useful in any of those areas if you refuse to mediate, or if you would rather not include me in discussion. Terryeo 21:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Terryeo, I do not oppose mediation on its face, I just didn't think we were at that point yet (there had been no RfC or attempts to get other editors involved). It seems like there is now a healthy discussion going on at the link you included, and hopefully one that will lead to a compromise everyone is happy with. Personally, I don't feel I have anything important to add to that dicussion. so I'm glad to just let it run its course. Vpoko 21:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The Xenu.net chart cite states on it, Wherever there was missing data on the list, I have estimated the cost (statement by Xenu.net's website owner). But he does not say how many "missing data" were on the list before he supplied his estimations. The other original research which appears on our chart is the number of intensives required for, for example, Life Repair. His estimate is "2", but he cites no source for his estimation. All of the rest of his auditing estimations do not cite any source of information either. The chart contains a good deal of original research, but we can not know how much of it is original research. Worse, the chart cites an official Church website as if it were an official Church statement. Terryeo 21:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harassment from User:Terryeo?

Terryeo, we have no obligation to do anything for you. You are banned from editing any Scientology-related articles. Reliable Source is a guideline. I refuse to play your game. No, I am not mediating with you. --Fahrenheit451 22:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I got that. You are not mediating with me. Terryeo 23:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
And what about the rest that you didn't get? Are you still going to ignore text of WP:RS? Futurix 17:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Who me, or User:Fahrenheit451 ? Have I not responded to an issue you have raised ? Terryeo 20:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
It is pretty clear from the sequence and context that Futurix means YOU. Please stop pretending stupidity.--Fahrenheit451 23:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
It is pretty clear from your choice of titles ? and your postings in other areas about me, personally, "Is this a personal attack ?" and your refusal of mediation that your grasp of interchange could be a little more civil, Fahrenheit451. Would you be gracious enough to allow Futurix to respond without aid ?
Obviously I was asking Terryeo. Futurix 09:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't get it that User:Fahrenheit451 feels harrassed. I have tried to talk with him but he refuses to communicate. Is that the question you meant me to understand that you were asking? If, instead, you were asking me about the implementation of WP:RS, I believe I have stated, already ? Terryeo 15:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
User:Fahrenheit451 was also taking about WP:RS, and I was referring to your ignorance of "Reliable Source is a guideline" sentence.Futurix 16:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
**Let's all step back from the ledge and focus on the article. Anyone who doesn't like Terryeo's comments is free to ignore them. Nobody is compelled to make an edit they don't agree with, and Terryeo's opinions and interpertations of policy are just that: opinions. Vpoko 19:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
That's a darn good idea ! We don't need to be uncivil and the issue isn't about religion but about the quality of the source of information used. Terryeo 01:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Terryeo attempts to change the subject by not answering Vpoko's statement, but originating something else. Rather manipulative and underhanded of Terryeo. Vpoko stated, "Anyone who doesn't like Terryeo's comments is free to ignore them. Nobody is compelled to make an edit they don't agree with, and Terryeo's opinions and interpertations of policy are just that: opinions." --Fahrenheit451 23:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Vpoko reminded us gently of WP:CIVIL. "manipulative and underhanded" verges on WP:PAIN. These are issues we have gone around the mulberry bush before, Fahrenheit. Let's do as Vpoko suggests and you see my statement, agree to, support and would strongly perfer, okay? Terryeo 23:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Your last sentence above does not make much sense (I'm talking about "and you see my statement, agree to, support and would strongly prefer"). Can you rephrase it please? Futurix 10:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
You're right, it makes no sense. I have no idea. I was trying to cool off the situation per Vpoko's reminder of WP:CIVIL. Frankly it confuses me that there would be any issue except WP:RS's no personal websites as secondary sources. "harrassement?" I have no idea. "manipulative and underhanded of me?" I have no idea. The only issue I've raised is in regard to the implementation of WP:RS. In particular I initiated a mediation,specific to this article, specific to a cite to a personal website. Terryeo 10:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
And no mediation occured, rather another editor provided his comments. And yes, Terryeo's statement, "and you see my statement, agree to, support and would strongly prefer" is non-sequitur and he did not explain it, but obfuscated instead. It's a dramatization of the "no-answer answer training routine" a product of the Guardian's Office still in use today. It is a way to avoid discussing an issue. But again, to quote Vpoko, "Anyone who doesn't like Terryeo's comments is free to ignore them. Nobody is compelled to make an edit they don't agree with, and Terryeo's opinions and interpertations of policy are just that: opinions".--Fahrenheit451 18:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Wow ! So apparently you are unwilling to work toward an editor concensus in the matter of unreliable sources even though an editor consensus has been arrived at, at WP:RS? Terryeo 07:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
No, Terryeo, you just falsely accused me of that, which you seem to be doing quite a bit lately. Knock it off.--Fahrenheit451 15:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
My statement above is a question. Were I to reply in the tone which you just used it would lead to further quibble. I ask a question, "Are you unwilling to work toward an editor concensus?" Terryeo 18:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I think that one already exists for this article.--Fahrenheit451 22:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
So apparently you prefer to drink vodka in the morning even though beer is healthier, as published in Forbes?
Your original question was barely a question. Of course this is one of the typical GO tactics... Futurix 22:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
The Guardian's Office was a collection of people who didn't understand the job they were charged with. It caused the organization it was charged with "guarding" a lot of trouble. The policy which created it was re-created, it was disbanned, its members were delt with. What's your point? You attempt to imply that I am performing as the GO once performed? I am civil through this section and Futurix and The hot F are less than civil, actuall Fahrenheit451 begin this section as a question, had Fahrenheit451 been able and confident in Fahrenheit451, then Fahrenheit451 would not have posed the question because Fahrenheit451 would know the answer to the question and, further, would know how to deal with the information which Fahrenheit451 has. I've encouraged communication, I'm encouaging it now. I see no reason for not communicating. I am as I appear to be, I'm willing to talk, I'm willing to flex, I'm willing to cooperate. And I don't drink much. Happy Ho Ho's. Terryeo 00:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
The drink question was an example of logical fallacies GO employed, I don't care about your drinking habits. And GO may be disbanded, but its practices still exist.
You have strange definitions of "civil" and "communication". Futurix 09:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining the source of your previous comment. Myself, I've never met anyone who told me they were a member of the GO, I've never been part of any GO activity and. I guess your claim that GO practices are still in effect is accurate. For example, you just told me the GO used to do that and you did that (the drink question) and that is one demonstartion that what you claim to be true, is true. Are there other "GO activities" worthy of discussion? And if you want to discuss definition, I'm willing. Terryeo 10:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
What I obviously meant is that those practices are still alive in CoS. But nice try (in redirection). Futurix 10:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Well Futurix, that's news to me, buddy. But you did spell out what you were talking about after using one of those techniques, according to what you said. No, I wasn't trying to redirect. I guess I just don't 1- understand what relevance the body of techniques you call "GO practices" has to discussion pages and 2- don't know what they were and 3- don't, myself know they are used today (except that you used one a moment ago) and 4- doubt their effectiveness because, at least on a talk page, the respondee isn't in a social situation where a quick rejoinder to: So apparently you prefer to drink vodka in the morning even though beer is healthier, as published in Forbes? is going to reveal anything of importantce, while in a social situation, such a prompt might be revealing. Terryeo 11:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • GO practices is of course not a very good term - let's call them logical fallacies.
  • My drinking question was a parody on your unwilling to work toward concensus question. I admit, it was a bad one, but still it highlights why your question was understood by Fahrenheit451 as accusation.
Futurix 12:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

<reduced>Well, I've stated, I don't know anything about the subject you are talking about. Specifically, I don't have a clue what a "GO practice" is, except what you stated, about drinking. And I therefore don't have a clue why you would call what you used to call "GO practices", "Logical Fallicies" and, therefore, hey, I can't agree that "we should call them logical fallacies" because I simply don't know anything about them, nor what you mean to reference by stating and then restating the term for the body of information which you seem familar with, but which I am not knowledgeable about. Sorry, can't help you in that area. As for the question, you see it as a heading. I don't know why such a question is raised on an article discussion page. A User page (in this case mine?) would seem a more appropriate area for discussing such an issue. Terryeo 13:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, let's pretend I believe that you don't know what Logical fallacy is, and that you don't know much about Guardian's Office (even though you are participating in the discussion for it).
Clearly there is no point to continue this discussion then - anyway it became off topic. Futurix 16:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay Terryeo 22:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scientology as a business entity

This page is about the business activities of the Church of Scientology and related entities. Whether Scientology is a religion or not is outside the scope of this page, and there's no point in adding links to debate "the other side" (of a false dichotomy since it is both a religious organization and an incorporated series of companies doing business worldwide). Likewise, a page about the activities of the Vatican Bank wouldn't be a relevant place for links about Catholic dogma and faith. AndroidCat 14:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, this article is not specific to the USA where Scientology is legally considered as a religion. As a matter of fact Scientology is considered as a religion almost only in the following countries: South Africa, Australia, the USA, India, Italy, Mexico, New Zeeland, Portugal, Sweden, Taiwan, Tanzania, Venezuela and Zimbabwe. Elsewhere its legal status is different and a matter of controversy.
Secondly, I have observed that user AndroidCat seams to be from the “Free Zone (Scientology)” which main criticisms are that the Church of Scientology is a business but not the “Free Zone (Scientology)”. For instance, the contribution of user AndroidCat on this article have only sought to demonstrate the point that the Church of Scientology is a business: [2] [3]
Thirdly, and contrary to the example of Vatican Bank as cited above, this article is classified as controversy. This article is classified as controversy and this is perfectly justified seeing the general situation of Scientology. Since controversy is controversy the other side of the story also needs to be presented and this even though the other side of the story has not been expressed in the article. WP has also its use in retrieving pertinent links. Jpierreg 17:15, 15 October 2006 (GMT)
Firstly, I have no bias for or against the Free Zone. Please note that the Church of Scientology, specifically the RTC, owns the word Scientology as a trademark. By exclusive trademark, this page discuses the business (trade) aspects of the Church of Scientology and not the Freezone (even if there were citable information about it).
Secondly, this page doesn't mean business in a pejorative sense or in an exclusive manner. It's just not arguable that Scientology isn't a business. Even a non-profit corporation, religious or otherwise, is a business if it takes funds in and pays them out for various purposes and expenses. Vatican Bank, Salvation Army or Church of Scientology. At least one editor has used the amounts of property owned by Scientology as a measure of its success. Well, this would be the article to examine that, as well as which part of the organization controls those assets and where the money came from to aquire them.
Thirdly, can you explain exactly what the controversy is? If you say that Scientology is not a business (regardless of any other status, or your personal interpretation of the word business), then we have a basic disagreement. AndroidCat 18:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, Here is all the presently visible contribution of AndroidCat to the article on the “Free Zone” [4]
Secondly, the Vatican Bank, Salvation Army are not clearly presented as a controversy of their church in a WP article as much as it is in this article.
See ScientologySeries: "This article forms part of a series on Scientology"
To say this article does not mean business in a pejorative sense is subject to interpretations and personal opinion.
Thirdly, What I mean by controversy and business. For instance here is a quote, from just a few days ago, taken from an online paper:
“Scientology has the legal right to operate as a religion in Germany, though the government has refused it tax-exempt status.’Scientology is not a religion. It is a business and its aim is to gain power over individuals and try to brainwash them,' Beckstein added. 'We see it as the duty of the state to inform students and parents about the danger of these schools.” See the whole article: [5]
Then later here is an article about a march (that came later I think) for Human Rights from an article dated on the 9 of October in Scientology Today [6].
I understand we agree that Scientology can only be a business in a narrow sense of the word. Therefore it is fair that the religious aspect be also somehow presented unless the title of this article be changed to something like: "Business aspects of Scientology" . Jpierreg 18:35, 16 October 2006 (GMT)
I puzzled how editing the free zone article makes me biased one way or another. I have a large database of web sites of various sorts and their current status. I knew within days that the whatistommyupto site had changed to a parking page (my edit had a typo with 2005 instead of 2006). And while I was there, I picked up a few new sites and dropped off that "ability meter" site. I've added some CoS sites to articles too, but that doesn't make me a Scientologist. And I'm further puzzled where you think that accusing me of a bias is going to get you.
I will say that this article needs a small introduction added that clearly states that this article is concerned with business activities and costs and not the "religion OR business" controversy (which would only duplicate other pages). I'll comment more later. AndroidCat 01:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I can agree with this last statement. (See also the below discussion that started at the same time as this one) Jpierreg 20:20, 17 October 2006 (GMT).

[edit] The following external links which provide some of the main credentials that Scientology is not a business have been deleted twice

[7] [8]

Since this is a controversy article and since there are no references advocating that Scientology is not a business but a religion, those links need at least be present to show the other side of the story:

Jpierreg 17:15, 15 October 2006 (GMT)

This article makes no statement that Scientology is or is not a religon. Scientology conducts business, it takes money in, it pays money out, it is a complex series of profit and non-profit corporations bound by contract, QED, it is a business. Links that say that it is also a religion are irrelevant. AndroidCat 19:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
This article makes no statement that Scientology is or is not a religion but it is placed in a controversy framework See ScientologySeries:
Controversy
Suppressive Person • Fair Game
Snow White • Operation Freakout
Scientology vs. Internet
Patter drill • South Park
Legal cases • Fishman Affidavit
R2-45 • Scientology as a business
Free Zone • Operation Clambake
This box: view • talk • edit
Unfortunately, the general controversy, brought about by some media and some of the Anti-Cult Movement, is “Is Scientology a religion or a business?” [9]. In my opinion a small paragraph and some links that explain how Scientology is a religion are pertinent and relevant. Jpierreg 15:40, 16 October 2006 (GMT).
But those links and controvery aren't part of this article—yet. (If you open up that can of worms by adding one side, then they should be.) Add the links to articles where that question is raised, if they aren't there already. (Just because there are some 1300+ CoS web domains, doesn't mean they have to be added to every article.) AndroidCat 01:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, I understand you are not so much interested in having aspects of the religiosity of Scientology presented in this article as this can be presented elsewhere. As far I’m concerned this may be ok and this even though I still find it a bit unfair as for instance this article presently states “Courts of law have upon more than one occasion declared Scientology to be a business.”, the title of this article is “Scientology as a business” and this article is presented in a framework showing as if it was a general controversy. However there is still room for improvement Jpierreg 21:10, 17 October 2006 (GMT)
Scientology is a large organization, but the Catholic Church is a large organization, too. In order to maintain Churches, pay the lights and water and sewer bills, provide pastor's salary and so on, any Church must necessarily operate as a business to some extent. Yet both the Church of Scientology and the Catholic Church are widely recognized as charitable organizations. If Wikipedia has an article presenting any charitable organization's business practices (The Red Cross, The First Babtist Church, The Catholic Church, etc), then this article should probably follow a similar format. Terryeo 05:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the same format as other groups that require large amounts of money for courses and spiritual counselling, pay commissions, transfer assets around in complex transactions between a number of companies, groups, off-shore trusts, at least one of which is a for-profit incorporation. (The Catholic Church's Vatican Bank has a series of articles, and the Salvation Army has a controversy section.) AndroidCat 03:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I find I am in complete agreement with Jpierreg's first statement of this sub-section. The article's tone is critical rather than even-handed and at least some indication should be made to the reader that the Church of Scientology is legally (in the USA and a number of countries) a tax-exempt, charitable organization espousing a philosophy which various legal systems see as "for the good of mankind". Terryeo 04:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The Church of Scientology is a much smaller organization than the Catholic Church, so is a very poor comparison. Many profit making corporations engage in substantial charity, so that is an irrelevant point. The cofs was tax-exempt from late 1993 to the present. It is not tax-exempt or recognized as a religion in most european countries. It is outlawed in Greece and China.--Fahrenheit451 05:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images of text

User:Fahrenheit451 has provided scans of Church of Scientology literature in a Links sub-section. Careful examination of them suggests the user may "download a high resolution" image of the literature. I would question whether those images which are scans of mostly text, fulfill the requirements of the copyright notice, necessarily attached to the images. Terryeo 04:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

That is a misreprentation Terryeo. There is a linked caption under the image "download a high resolution image" but you clearly did NOT carefully examine them as the cited image is 4 pixels per millimeter resolution, which is still low in resolution. You and I have been through this several times but you refuse to acknowledge it, the caption is the result of code that is in error.--Fahrenheit451 05:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not your opponenet, Fahrenheit451. I am not opposing you. The useful discussion about your scanned images is taking place at:

Wikipedia_talk:Fair_use#Guidelines_for_.22low.22_and_.22high.22_resolution where you are involved and your discussion will matter. There you will find: Fahrenheit451: you misunderstand, WP:FU and templates are using the correct definition of resolution, you are not [10] Terryeo 01:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:FU (Fair Use) tells us that we might use a portion of a copyrighted document. Those scans reproduce 5 whole pages of document. The images present at the link labled, "download a high resolution image" are of high enough quality that a person could conceiveably download the image, reprint the image and in so doing, bypass the organization which created and copyrighted the document. I am expressing concern here, not making any kind of legal threat, ok? I've mentioned this same concern elsewhere too. At the village pump, for example. This is not meant to be a personal attack and is not an accusation, but is a concern based on the statements within WP:FU. Terryeo 07:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I think you miss the point that this is a pricelist, not a page from a book or magazine.--Fahrenheit451 07:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Those links are scans of copyrighted text. If you took 5 pages of a book, scanned the book and reproduced 5 entire pages of the book as photographs, suitable for reprinting, it would be a parallel situation. To use large portions of copyrighted text in any manner, violates copyright law. Do us all a favor. Terryeo 19:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

One hates to agree with Terryeo, but he's right and the high-res version of the image should go (the low res version seems OK). Note that since these are prices (simply factual information), they are probably not copyrightable, but the layout is. So, we could reproduce all the info shown in the pictures in order to present the same information, and keep just the low-res image so readers know the prices are actually from the CoS. For that reason, this image also probably fails the fair-use unrepeatability requirement. Vpoko 20:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't consider these images "high res" because they're already skirting on the edge of readability, as far as the fine print goes. These images would look like crap if one attempted to print them, which is what the spirit of the low-res rule is all about anyway. wikipediatrix 20:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Maybe it's just the appearence of impropriety, but it seems akward to argue that clicking on a link that says "Download high-resolution version" will still download a low-resolution version. We're calling it high-res but then claiming that it's really low-res. Vpoko 20:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I dunno. "Low res" isn't always measured in terms of pixels. One could "optimize" the image so that it's far less than its current 216KB, yet still be the same actual size and hopefully still readable...Even when clicking through to the "high res" version of this, for example, I still can't completely read the fine print in the lower right corner. And the "low res" version is utterly unreadable. However, I still think a price list such as this, that was made to be given away and distributed freely, isn't really worth re-doing the images over. wikipediatrix 20:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, I wouldn't ever use the file size to measure resolution since too many other details (encoding, compression, etc) go into that. The pixels (length x width) is the only measure that determines resolution for an on-screen image (dots-per-inch isn't applicable since monitors have a fixed DPI). Also, I don't know that the "given away for free" argument would hold water since distribution doesn't give somebody the right to reproduce the copyrighted item. So in closing, in my humble opinion (and I'm not a lawyer or expert), this is pushing beyond fair use, but if the community feels that it IS fair use, I don't feel qualified enough to argue strongly either way. I suppose if the copyright holder has a problem they can send the Wikimedia Foundation a DMCA takedown notice. Vpoko 20:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I only know that the spirit of the "fair use" language is to make images be lo-res enough that no useful pirating of the work could be done by printing it. I don't actually think we're truly "reproducing" the work here by providing a barely-readable scan of it, but that's just me. wikipediatrix 21:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
This is turning into an academic discussion, but we are certainly "reproducing" the work. Even a photograph of a copyrighted item would be a reproduction, the question is whether that reproduction is allowed under the fair use doctrine. Vpoko 22:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I've requested a fair use review at Wikipedia:Fair_use_review Vpoko 15:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Extremely poorly written article

The article just jumps right in yakking about FSM commissions without any sort of proper intro. Then in the next paragraph, it abruptly changes the subject to copyright and trademark issues. In the third paragraph it makes another hard left turn to say "The Church of Scientology and its many related organizations have amassed considerable real estate holdings worldwide, likely in the hundreds of millions of dollars" and then moves on again. The fourth paragraph finally specifically touches upon the concept of "Scientology to be a business", but in an extremely POV fashion, and, of course, no sources cited whatsoever. Needs to be completely redone. Highfructosecornsyrup 19:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

My last revert was reasoned as "No stealth edits please - if you are changing "scientology" to "church of scientology", then change it and do not rewrite the rest of the article." Text was cut off for some reason... Futurix 01:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
And in fact I categorically disagree with your assessment of the article. It is entirely on topic, though I agree - fourth paragraph could benefit from extra sources. Futurix 01:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Saying "Do not rewrite the rest of the article" still doesn't explain your reasons for your blanket reversion. And saying you "categorically disagree" tells us nothing. I can explain my edits in detail, can you? Highfructosecornsyrup 02:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

At the very least, this thing definitely needs an intro. It really needs to be rewritten completely... There is plenty that can be said about Scientology as a business, so the article should exist, but in it's current state it kinda suxxor.. imo ---Slightlyright 04:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was an interesting article. And much more fair than most in the (wildly bloated) Scientology series. What it seems to need is an introduction that ties the various threads together. BTW the ownership of real estate has nothing to do with being a business. Steve Dufour 15:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scientology vs Church of Scientology

The large number of interlocked corporations of Scientology are more than just CSI. The IRS closing agreement lumps a great number of related companies, including the ones under the ABLE umbrella as "Scientology". (Apparently even Narconon has FSMs.) This articles covers more than just CSI, although it still lacks an introduction establishing that. (See above somewhere.) AndroidCat 03:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] problems with article

1.First paragraph is horribly written. Disjointed and random.
2.Second paragraph has no sources. We have no reason to believe this info is factual.
3.Third paragraph has no sources and makes a rather personal judgment. We have no reason to believe this info is factual.
4.Fourth paragraph makes a claim as truth instead of saying "Richard Behar, in a 1991 issue of TIME, says..."
5.The sentence "Belgium, France, Great Britain, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Spain, Israel and Mexico, remain unconvinced that Scientology is a religion" is a non-sequitur and has nothing to do with anything here.
6.Next paragraph "Courts of law..." has no sources.
7.Next paragraph "the findings of fact..." is sourced but is irrelevant. It spends a large chunk of the article simply stating that Hubbard's family made some money in the 1960s.
8."Costs" info comes primarily from an unofficial anti-Scn source and is likely outdated by now. We have no reason to believe this info is factual. wikipediatrix 04:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

1. The article badly needs an introduction as a favour to the reader and provide direction for the rest of the artcle. Which has been noted previously. This is outside of an accuracy dispute.
2. Easy enough to ref. A {{fact}} tag would have been fine.
3. Should be reworded, but the core meaning is also easy to ref.
4. That's why there's a ref on it, but I'll see if there are more people who also say that.
5. Awkward wording, but a list of countries where Scientology operates a business rather than a religion is relevant. This is outside of an accuracy dispute.
6. Easy enough to ref.
7. The question of profit-taking at the top should be in its own section and expanded, with more recent refs. This is outside of an accuracy dispute.
8. One source is a 2006 price list published by the Church of Scientology, scanned and webbed at critical site. The other source is a price list at the web site of the same Church of Scientology advanced organization. The chart needs a "(as of 2006)" date on it now that a year has passed. If the prices have changed from last year (speculation), the Church of Scientology will update their web site and issue new publications, yes?
Is there anything here that couldn't have been handled with a cleanup tag and a few fact tags--or even by adding a few easy cites? AndroidCat 16:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I dispute the unsourced claims. You say "easy enough to ref". Ball's in your court. wikipediatrix 17:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] fundamental POV problems

This article calls itself "Scientology as a business" but makes absolutely no introductory statement about why this is a notable subject in the first place. It would take some powerful naïveté to think that most other religions on Earth aren't run as businesses as well. The article makes a long litany of insinuations that basically boil down to the fact that Scientology orgs sell things, as if there's supposed to be something odd or wrong or remark-worthy about that.

Two lengthy paragraphs (mostly unsourced) dwell on a 1950s court case involving the founding church in D.C., which, needless to say, is irrelevant today and shouldn't dominate the article in the way that it does. For some reason, AndroidCat has fought to retain this material, even though it's Undue Weight in the context of the article and even though he acknowledges the lack of sources. wikipediatrix 16:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Fso prices3.png

Image:Fso prices3.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Fso prices4.png

Image:Fso prices4.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)