Talk:Variant texts in Scientology doctrine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Variant texts in Scientology doctrine article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

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 article was nominated for deletion on 29 July 2007. The result of the discussion was No consensus.

[edit] unhappy Introduction

The article is obviously written by a person who is of literal mind because it presents only one point of view. The Church has evolved, the English language has evolved. Especially in the management of the organization, for example: A paragraph talks about how "2 paragraphs" were deleted. Those 2 paragraphs talked about the Guardian's Office which is no longer part of the Church. There are other examples too. Terryeo 20:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Your argument is irrelevant: OSA succeeded the GO and performs the same function, just a different name. Also, the mention was done as a contemporaneous example by LRH. Now it would serve as a historical example and an important one which underscores the other points he made in that lecture. David Miscavige is attempting to rewrite history in this case at the expense of learning to not repeat history and why.--Fahrenheit451 17:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

My point in regard to the removal of two paragraphs about a disbanned, no longer existant organization. That organization got the Church into a fair amount of trouble. It performed certain functions and those functions are fulfilled today. But there is a difference, besides the personal who were removed from the GO. The matter of checks and balances within the organization is different, the organization is different. In this way the old GO got the Church into trouble while the new OSA which does some of the functions which the old GO preformed, is not likely to make the mistakes the old GO did. Terryeo 18:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I acknowledge all your opinions stated above. --Fahrenheit451 02:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terryeo states there is a False Statement thereby raising an issue

In the Church of Scientology, It has long been considered essential that the word of founder L. Ron Hubbard is incontrovertible, and that his works, or "Tech", must be preserved unaltered. Then the article lists out some examples. If the article confined itself to "Tech" then the article might be true. However, the article does not. Instead some examples of changes in administration, "Policy" are spelled out. Please understand, I'm not suggesting that Policy be deleted out of the "Altered Texts" article in order to fulfill the first sentence of the article, okay? But I'm promoting toward a better, more accurately stated article. Terryeo 20:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Fahrenheit, please confine your comments to the issues raised, rather than to present your evidence by refusing to discuss the issues raised. I am raising the issue that the article uses that introductory sentence to present other information. The article presents policy changes under the guise of "Hubbard's tech is viewed as incontrovertible". Do you understand? Terryeo 10:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

No it clearly does not and you are just captiously arguing again to waste the time of productive editors. Happy ho-hos banned user Terryeo.--Fahrenheit451 17:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, now you have removed the "tech" portion of the statement, Fahrenheit. How can you change the article and state your change to be motivated by a "captious arguement and a waste of productive editing", yet do it? Please stop your personal attacks, User:Fahrenheit451. However it leaves a statement which no Church staff member would agree with, which (probably) no Church member would agree with and which is, I believe, unattributable by Hubbard's own words. In fact, Hubbard's own words suggest the opposite. "Build a better bridge" was clearly Hubbard's intent and attitude. Today we have computers and internet. Hubbard was not alive when those came into common use. Do you suggest the Church Management ignore and throw out all computers and stick to only Hubbard's policies which obviously do not include computer use, computer protocal, computer messages, etc. etc. ? Of course not ! Management moves on, therefore policy changes. Therefore the initial statement doesn't apply to modern Church management. Terryeo 18:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The "build a better bridge" statement is a very general statement and does not authorize technical or policy alterations and omissions, so that statement is inapplicable. LRH does state on the febc tape, pr becomes a subject:"Progressive and dynamic technologies actually do not cease to develop, they continuously refine." That statement seems to countenance "refinement", but not omission or adding something "new", like the so-called patter drills or turning violating any of the ten points of "keeping scientology working" into suppressive acts or changing the definition of a floating needle. Your computer use argument is a strawman. The subject at hand are the original works of LRH, then altered by david miscavige. --Fahrenheit451 02:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I recognize that your reply is somewhat civil, though your use of "strawman" could have been more pleasently presented. I don't accept that "build a better bridge" could ever be inapplicable. Actually it is the whole issue and no change would have been made without that in mind. Apparently you don't feel it appropriate that the Church begin to use computer technology? Terryeo 04:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Not true, clear your words. The computer strawman is a entirely different body of data. Read again what I stated. You missed the febc data.--Fahrenheit451 20:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm attempting to discuss the issues with you, F451. Terryeo 23:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I have attempted to discuss the issues with you as well and you attack me. You are banned and I no longer wish communication with you. --Fahrenheit451 00:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hotly debated among Scientologists?

Whether these changes represent a major degradation of Hubbard's original writings, or merely minor edits and improvements that do not change the fundamental thrust of his message, is a matter hotly debated among some Scientologists says the article. But there is no mention of any publication which states such a "hot debate", there is no newspaper, book or other publication which is attributed to having published the "hot debate among some Scientologists". Yes, there is a little personal opinion on personal website which says it disagrees with the Church of Scientology, but those persons are not Scientologists. The debate is, therefore, not among Scientologists and should not be represented as being among Scientologists. And, even if there is such a debate, it should be cited because, as it stands, it is a weasel worded sort of statement. Terryeo 05:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Second dynamic

The alteration of the second dynamic is missing. The old version was that 2D = family, the new one is that 2D = creativity. --Tilman 15:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

What is your source of information about that, User:Tilman? Terryeo 18:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you disputing it? If yes, what is your side? --Tilman 21:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Source: [1]. I notice that Terryeo wasn't able to tell his position :-) --Tilman 17:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Tilman, apparently you are unable or unwilling to read the above statement. It says, What is your source of information about that. It is phrased as a question. You have been asked a question. The question is not about the time of day but about the source of a particular information. Do you understand? Terryeo 22:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AVC / Suggestion for further research

I see that this article is still at the beginning... The problem of altered texts was discussed in one of the Lisa McPherson countersuits in the court of Judge Schaeffer. It came out that there is a highly mysterious new entity named "AVC" which is allowed to change the "scripture". Authority Verifications and Corrections Unit --Tilman 15:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Tilman, you suggest someone do some "research". Might I suggest, since your are attempting to create a controversy where none exists, your suggestion of research serves little purpose in an encyclopedia. Obviously it is directed at creating controversy, rather than at creating good, useable information for an encyclopedia. Might you consider another springboard for suggestions, such as emails, or asking friends or user talk pages, rather than an article's discussion page? Part of the reason I point that out is that, the Church spells out how Bulletins and Policy letters are created. There's nothing hidden about the process. In fact, should you walk into a Church and ask them in person, they would probably point you to the appropriate book. If you actually have interest, I could quote and cite policy which defines the process you suggest someone "research?" Terryeo 17:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

What exactly is your point? Are you disputing that AVC alters the texts, or not?

If you have a theory about "the Church spells out how Bulletins and Policy letters are created", feel free to write this theory in the article. I always thought that Hubbard wrote them and that they stay that way, but hey, I'm the wog here. --Tilman 21:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

See also here [2] and Also: "Therefore RTC's Authorization, Verification and Correction (AVC) Division acts as the final authority for all translated LRH written materials, taped lectures and films." [KSW News issue 48, 1995] found in msgid:1171898389.362466.235790@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com --Tilman 18:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Both inside and outside the Church"

The article says: These alterations to the "Standard Tech" have caused controversy both inside and outside the Church, but no citation is given of any kind of controversy inside the Church. A link is provided to a group of dissidents outside the Church, but nothing is cited about controversy caused within the Church. To my knowledge, the opposite is true. The few changes in 1000s of pages of tech and policy have all been for the better and the membership supports them. While it is possible there is controversy within the Church, the statement should not be in the article because it is unsupported. Terryeo 18:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

How do you know that the membership "supports them". Was there a vote? Or a survey? Where was it published? Please provide the sources.--Tilman 21:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

gosh, it is interesting that you would reply, Tilamn. Notice my request for a citation there? These alterations to the "Standard Tech" have caused controversy both inside and outside the Church (Emphisis added). No citation is supplied. It is an unattributed statement, it is an uncited statement. It needs a citation if the statement is to remain. Per WP:V is it incumbant on an editor to suppy a citation if he wants a statement in an article. "Inside the church" is not cited. I'm pretty sure it is unciteable. It should be removed. Terryeo 20:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Please answer the question I asked. --Tilman 10:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The question you asked is not germane to Wikipedia's policy. WP:V states, the threshold for inclusion is verifiability. The statement, ..have caused controversy inside the Church .. is not verified in the article. I maintain that it is not verifiable. It is not a fact. It is in fact a falsehood. But you don't respond to Wikipedia policy which is designed to produce good articles for Wikipedia. Instead you make a personal request. If you wish to discuss this issue, please take it up on my personal discussion page where it would be appropiate and where I would be glad to discuss the issue you raise. This discussion page is for discussion of how Wikipedia policy and guidelines are implemented to produce a good article for Wikipedia. A citation is required for that statement, I'm fairly certain that no such citation exists. Terryeo 16:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Just answer the question. If you don't, it simply means that your allegation that "the membership supports" the many alterations in scientology "scripture" is untrue. I then suggest we simply delete this thread, forget your boo-boo, and you rewrite your criticism without your the false statement and we start anew. --Tilman 17:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Tilman, you have accused me of creating a crticism, though you are unable to specify what is criticized. What I actually did was request a citation. CITATION, per WP:RS which states, It is always appropriate to ask other editors to produce their sources. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who has made the edit in question, and any unsourced material may be removed by any editor. However, some editors may object if you remove material without giving people a chance to find a source ... The statement, ..have caused controversy within the Church.. is uncited and I maintain, unciteable. This is not a criticsm, this is not a personal criticsm, this is not a request that anyone ask me to PROVE the opposite. This is a request for a citation. Furthermore, Mr. Tilman, your request, How do you know that the membership "supports them". Please provide the sources. does not address the issue I raise. I raise the issue that controversy within the Church has not been published about this issue. You ask me to PROVE that there is no controversy. Do you understand how your query is not a reply to my request? The article states there is a controversy (and gives no citation). I request a citation. You request that I prove no controversy exists. Where is the "boo-boo" ? Terryeo 04:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Please, don't waste my time by asking what yourself wrote: That "the membership supports" the many alterations in scientology "scripture". I suggest you now take back that statement, since you weren't able to back it up. --Tilman 07:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Surely you don't use the convoluted logic, "If you cannot prove the counter thesis, the thesis must be true professionally? Well, it doesn't work here either. WP:RS says, any statement (even if couched within a larger statement) may be removed by any editor if it isn't cited. Please address the issue. You are both refusing to address the issue and raising an additional issue which has no actual bearing on the issue raised ! Terryeo 13:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Please stop playing games and wasting time (= "Dev-T" in your language) and simply address the issue you raised: you claimed that "the membership supports" the many alterations in scientology "scripture". I suggest you retract that statement, since you weren't able to back it up. Then, maybe we'll be able to move to the next issue (= "cycle" in your language). And please keep this topic away from my personal talk page, it belongs here and only here. --Tilman 16:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

My language is plain english. Works for me. You are a relatively new editor here on Wikipedia which has, as its foundation toward a WP:NPOV a policy WP:V which states something like, "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability". I have pointed out as clearly as possible a piece of information which is within the article, but not verified. I believe it is unverifiable. I beleive it is pure whoo-dee-doo, added by a confused editor who hoped to make a strong point. In attempting to make his point, he stated a falsehood. The falsehood is not large in quantity of words, but is large in implication. User:Tilman, you have twice refused to confront the issue and have attempted to substitute for the issue, a separate issue. Prove there is no controversy is the issue you substitute. That might be how you babble along on Alt.Net.Scientology, but on Wikipepdia the burden of evidence is on the poster of the information. Do you see the difference? There is an uncited piece of information, ...caused controversy inside the Church ... and I am requesting it be cited. User:Tilman your persistant use of such terms as boo-boo, your suggestion of delete this thread, your persistant refusal to confront the issue raised and your persistance in failing to understand even when pointed out to you wikipedia's standards of editing are not good recommendations of your conduct as a wikipedia editor. To be more specific, if you can not understand plain English, how can your attempting to communicate in "my language" be helpful? The issue has nothing at all to do with whether the membership of Church of Scientology views alterations in scripture to be valid, invalid, controversial or sent by God, the issue ONLY has to do with what has been previously published by reliable and reputable sources WP:V. The statement needs a citation if it is going to remain in the article. Furthermore, I am not the only editor who told you of the appropriateness of keeping personal issues out of article discussion spaces. Terryeo 17:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

both inside and outside the Church, especially among Free Zone practitioners. There is simply no citation whatsoever about "inside the church". That is purely whoop-de-doo original research and thought up fantesy by Wikipedia Editors. Another cheer for the Alt.Net.Scientology cabel and Clambake.org. Terryeo 15:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Once again: you wrote that "the membership supports" the many alterations in scientology "scripture". You were not able to back this up. Thus, this discussion is closed. Maybe start a new one without baseless claims. And please keep this topic away from my personal talk page, it belongs here and only here. --Tilman 17:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid the issue which you raised was not discussed, though I attempted to discuss that issue with you. I posted to your user discussion page in an attempt to discuss the issue you raised. I invited that you could post to my user discussion page toward a discussion of the issue you raised. The issue I raised was a lack of citation. I requested a citation. Again, if you are concerned and wish information and discussion about how the membership feels about the title of this article, altered texts, I'm willing to discuss it with you. It of course has not effect whatsoever on what has been previously published by reliable sources. There is the threshold for issues raised within articles :) Terryeo 18:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Once again: you wrote that "the membership supports" the many alterations in scientology "scripture". You were not able to back this up. --Tilman 19:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Clearly, you have refused to understand Wikipedia Policy when it has been pointed out to you. I will do so once more. WP:V makes clear, the burden of including an information in an article is that it be supportable. More specifically, an information must be supported by a previously published information by a reliable and reputable source. Until you understand the burden of such support is upon the editor who intorduces the information, it is most unlikely that your statements will contribute. The reason I say that is because in this section alone you have stated several dispersive posts which do not in any way, address the issue which this section raises. You state things about "well, if the inside the Church people do support it, then it is up to you to make the case". But this is NOT the situation. It is your obligation as an editor to understand the policy which you edit under. WP:V spells it out and WP:RS clarifies for particular situations. You are way, way off base Tilman, because you do not address the issue raised. And, further, you disperse attempts to arrive at a concensus of editor opinion by raising the separate issues which you raise in this section. Terryeo 22:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crowley my good friend, the beast 666

I remember that this part has been removed from a tape and/or from the transcript. --Tilman 17:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, if a piece of Hubbard's words have been removed from a tape, the Wikipedia Policy and Guideline to go by is WP:V (the threshold of inclusion is verifiability) and then its more specific directions, WP:RS. Both talk about widely published information being easily cited. However, that isn't how the information about Crowley once being Hubbard's "good friend". Instead the article in the section == Tape 18 == presents a germanic reference. While in some articles with no other potential reference, a germanic reference might be necessary, in this article 2 other references are cited. Don't you think it better to go with what can be widely understood than to present an esoteric german reference which isn't understood by most readers? Terryeo 17:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

So that makes three. --Tilman 17:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Now four. --Tilman 17:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I should start a definition that lists parts of scientology that weren't altered - I wonder if this would be less work? --Tilman 17:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

May I take it as a given that you are incapable of addressing the issues raised to you? Posting to your user discussion page brings, "don't post to my user discussion page". raising an issue gets an "you have done a boo-boo, prove the opposite of the issue you raise or I'll delete this whole thread!" Terryeo 18:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggested to delete the (other) thread, to save you the continueing embarassment of having made a claim that you couldn't prove. I'm trying to be nice. But hey, I love to keep it, so that people can see you made up a claim (that the membership supports the alterations), and now you're here with nothing :-) --Tilman 19:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I see. Once again you make a statement which says, "No, I didn't read the last thing which you said about deleting a thread". So, okay. You don't get it. All right. I would like to see an article which present what the membership thinks of these topics, but, unfortunately, the membership's statements rarely make the news. They are rarely inflammatory, you see? Thus, news services rarely bother with such mundane, normal, day to day successes. Terryeo 19:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

So now your point is that membership supports the alterations, because you haven't heard anything else. That isn't an argument. Besides, people inside scientology have protested this squirreling (see weblinks). --Tilman 20:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guardian's Office

"Actually, the Guardian's Office at this exact moment all over the world is holding its breath...". Yeah right, guys. The Guardian's Office was disbanned a long time ago. The orders it created don't have force. It didn't do its job and it did get the Church into various kinds of troubles and it was taken apart as an organization and no longer exists and hasn't exsited for quite a while. Terryeo 15:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The Hubbard quote is from 1971, when the GO did exist. What's your point? wikipediatrix 16:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The first version's quotation references the G.O. which existed at the time of quoting. The second version does not reference the G.O. which no longer exists. I see a certain logic to that. Terryeo 20:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes, there's a "certain logic" to it -- the logic of the "memory holes" from 1984, that is. However, you still haven't answered the question: why is the Church violating what is supposedly its own doctrine, that the words of Hubbard should be preserved unaltered? You're changing the topic, and that's really rather rude. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

You fail to address the obvious issue, The G.O. is not mentioned in later publications because the G.O. no longer existed to be referenced in later publications. It is rude of you to bring up once again, in this section about the Guardian's Office, the topic which is better discussed in an earlier section. Thanks for mentioning rudeness and its applicibility to the section Terryeo 17:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

And again, you are very blatantly trying to shift the topic of conversation off the real issue, onto some tangent which you insist on terming -- incorrectly -- "the obvious issue". This is a tactic you like, isn't it? I noticed you using in regards to Hubbard's "barley formula", trying to bring up the issue of whether today's modern corn syrup has additives or not.

The real issue is that the Church is quietly changing what Hubbard said. You keep saying "well, the Guardian's Office turned out to be bad! So of course they went back and erased all the things Hubbard said about how great the Guardian's Office was!" You are studiously avoiding any discussion of the enthymeme in that syllogism, which is "Organizations and individuals are allowed to go back and rewrite the historical record when it reflects poorly on them in the light of later events." Are you perhaps so studiously avoiding discussion of that principle because you know it's not only not accepted, but actively repugnant, to the majority of thinking people? Or do you actually believe that the Church can go back and try to cover up evidence that the Guardian's Office had the full support of L. Ron Hubbard itself while it was committing illegal acts? You can say "Well, the GO must have been in the right after all, if Hubbard was supporting them!" or you can say "Hubbard wasn't aware of the illegal acts they were performing; Mr. Source with all his OT abilities was completely fooled by the Guardian's Office" but what you can't do is go and rewrite history to pretend that Hubbard never gave the Guardian's Office that fulsome praise. That is the real issue and your insistence on this red herring of "well, see, here are all the reasons why it would be really convenient for the Church to rewrite history this way! Duh!! How dare you question whether the Church is allowed to rewrite history just because it would like to?" is not only tiresome but getting disruptive. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I know you are right, Feldspar. in that I view the real issue to be something different than other editors view the real issue to be. I'm pretty sure you are accurate in your assessement of that. I begin this section by pointing out the G.O. was disbanded and so, it shouldn't be a surprise when publications after its disbandenment don't mention its fuction, except possibly in a historical context. In any event, I don't mean to be disruptive. Terryeo 19:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The issue is that these are not just any 'publications after the disbanding of the Guardian's Office'. These are publications claiming to reprint, unaltered the statements Hubbard made before the disbanding of the Guardian's Office. That is the issue. When a large corporation finds out that its vice-president has been embezzling money and they fire him, they take a new group picture of the senior executives. They don't go back to all the previous annual reports and airbrush him out of the pictures he appeared in. That's not only dishonest, it's pretty damn creepy. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The datum upon which this article is built, the datum which is presupposed, which is presented as non-negotiable and the word of god is false. But I've said or implied this stuff before. That no one can understand it and takes some sentence which Hubbard wrote, takes it in a literal way is precisely what Hubbard warns against even as early as 1952 in Science of Survival. He spells out the emotional tone level of persons who are unable to do anything but literally apply what they read or are told. Terryeo 15:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah... in other words, us stupid rat-brain man-animals couldn't possibly comprehend why it's okay to go back and pretend Hubbard didn't say those things that the Church now finds embarrassing or inconvenient. Why didn't you tell us earlier that we were too low on the tone scale to comprehend? It would have saved a whole lot of time. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The creepy tactics you describe Antaeus are exactly what Joseph Stalin employed during his purges in the old Soviet Union. Now they are being used by David Miscavige in the cofs.--Fahrenheit451 15:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Now there's a comment ! Whew, really contributory to the article too ! Why don't you discuss parallells to Stalin at alt.news.scientology, rather than here? Or perhaps in some of your Clambake.org esseys? Here, we work with previously published information. Because books, newspapers, government reports, etc. have not compared Miscavige with Stalin, articles can't contain such personal opinion. Oh, btw, its 900+ OT VIII's now, heh. Terryeo 15:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo should be reminded of Wikipedia:Civility is his discussions.--Fahrenheit451 01:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Woooo! 900+ OT VIIIs! That is a powerful lot of pencils with their operating ends in operation! -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Both Fahrenheit451 and myself were banned for a period of time, in part for the above discussion. I point out again, an editor has created Original Research by using the phrase, "..inside the Church.." because the article does not include any verification for that statement and I strongly suspect, there has never been and never will be any publication which states that alterted texts have produced controversy inside the Church. It is basically a pile of hogwash. That you editors insist it is somehow significant certainly aligns with other misrepresentations of Scientology information, but in this one instance, ... inside the church ... is not documented. There is no reference for that piece of Original Research. It should be removed from the article. Terryeo 19:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Please stop wasting our time, you have been presented with evidence that "inside the church" is indeed correct, this is even in the definition itself. And after that, you claimed that the "membership supports" the ~~squirreling~~ alterations. When asked for evidence, you played around for days, and finally admitted that you didn't have any, you just assumed it because youself hadn't heard any protest. --Tilman 21:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

You have utterly, totally mis-stated the situation. Your reply is uncivil because it does. Further, your reply is uncivil because it refuses to recognize the actual issue and attempts to substitute a separate and different issue. I ask you here to stop your personal attacks. "Inside the church" is unsupported by WP:V's .. previously published by reliable and reputable sources which is exactly what WP:V requires. My comment is about the article. That you misunderstand that my comment is about the article and instead, direct your comment to me, in an attempt to convince me, personally, about a piece of information does not produce a better article. Even if you were to personally convince me the article itself would not satisfy WP:V. Please stop wasting my time with your personal comments, directed to me. Instead direct your attention to the article. Information which is does not meet WP:V's verifiability standard is nothing but fairy tale and original research, it should not be presented in the article in the first place and it should not stand in the article because of an editor's personal belief. The situation is not controversial within the Church, in fact, quite the opposite. But I don't claim the opposite is true, what I claim is there is no published source of information which states that altered texts are a controversial issue within the Church. Therefore "within the Church" must come out of the article. Terryeo 16:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Tilman, Terryeo is wasting everyone's time with these neverending hair-splitting arguments over nothing. I continue to urge everyone not to take the bait. wikipediatrix 19:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The controversy inside the Church will not be able to be substantiated. It is Original Research. It is a fantesy and a fairy tale. No concurence is required. You don't like it, go change WP:V. I have spelled out exactly and specifically what the issue is and how editors in this article are defying Wikipedia's policies. As with many issues, some of you are unable to confront the actual issue, though several of you eagerly attempt to make anyone who raises an obvious issue, wrong or ignore them. Better writing could be found in Grimms Fairy Tales, there issues are actually confronted, though only in imagination. It is an issue. It won't disappear because several of you agree to ignore the issue. Terryeo 22:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It feels like there needs to be a statement made in the article, before all the redacted stuff about the GO, that the GO was disbanded. thoughts? Slightlyright 09:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alterations in Dianetics: MSMH?

The introduction states that Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health has also been extensively and repeatedly rewritten by the Church. Can anyone give examples of alterations in MSMH? Entheta 06:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me just say, the issue is a dumb, dead issue. Within the Church, the 'alterations' have been to keep current with the times, a sort of quality control of past changes in situation that were not reflected in the policies and guidelines. especially amongst freezone practitioners, well, I would certainly expect that since freezone practitioners are freezone because they have misunderstood something completely, made an issue of it and hence, are out of Scientology by their own choice. They are persuing their misunderstanding and using 'altered texts' as an excuse to proliferate their misunderstanding. outside the church has no meaning at all to Scientology, as Scientology is the only organization on the planet which disseminates Scientology. A few policy letters have been changed, those changes were toward a more universal, more legally correct (call it politically correct if you like) presense of Scientology across the globe, in various countries wherein Scientology would otherwise be an unacceptable 'new' religion. Just sounding off on the reality of the sitatuation. Of course I understand this is simply tooooo much for some editors to confront and they will attack this position. heh. Terryeo 04:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo is advised to stop his personal attacks on Freezone Scientologists, some of whom are Wikipedia editors.--Fahrenheit451 21:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Stating my opinion as part of an attempt to bring the article's very bad attribution up to Wikipedia standards is not a personal attack. I am perfectly willing to state my opinion. Any opinion I state which says, "all freezoners .... (anything)" is not a personal attack. Perhaps, you, Fahrenheit451, can follow the reasoning on that because the word "personal" references to an individual while the word "all" would reference to all of the people of a group. A "personal attack" would necessarily have to single out a single, particular and only one individual from a larger group of said individuals. Follow? Terryeo 00:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, I think that regarding alterations being in pursuit of a more legally or politically correct standing of the documents in question you are correct as regards some of the alterations made, and that considering the time in which LRH wrote and lectured it is, I suppose, a natural process of progression that these things are corrected at some point in order to prevent an unacceptable situation to the outside world (keeping in line with the R-factor of society, I suppose). However, some elements of the changes, particularly relating to things like meter reads and processing (take the issue over the changed F/N read definition - which I personally think might lead to O/Rs, or the changes to the L&N procedure, for example) couldn't really be ascribed to this. I mean, I'm prepared to accept these particular changes may in fact be perfectly correct, but still, they couldn't be ascribed to political correctness. Regarding the Freezone however, Terryeo, I don't really think your assessment is correct. (For the record, I'm not a freezoner, and don't have any interest in being one.) Back in the early Book One days, of course, pretty much all of the Dianetics movement was originally based around unofficial, "grass roots" co-audit clubs; the whole idea, as indeed pointed out by LRH on many occasions, was that the tech was designed to be used. I think the theory re. M/Us being the sole cause of the freezone movement isn't really a fair assessment - what ever happened to "what is true for you is true for you", as LRH put it, all Scientologists of course have their own reality on the subject. Without the unofficial development of the Book One co-audits, I don't expect that the subject would have developed to the degree that it has, and so it is incorrect to assume that "Scientology is the only organisation on the planet that delivers Scientology". Indeed, as an experienced Scientologist, I'm sure you've applied Scientology tech to help people, as indeed LRH repeatedly said one should do - that would, surely, be a method of dissemination not directly undertaken by the Church? Yours, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 00:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Terryeo 00:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I have one, single issue with this article. It lies ! The lie is small, it is only one word long, but it is an unsubstantiated, unreferenced, unattributable lie. The lie is the word "inside" in the sentence: These alterations to the "Standard Tech" have caused controversy both inside and outside the Church I would like "inside" to be removed for the reasons I have stated. Terryeo 19:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Invalid, unreferenced, unsupportable, wrong statement.

The statement: These alterations to the "Standard Tech" have caused controversy both inside and outside the Church, especially among Free Zone practitioners is just plain wrong. A part of that statement might not be wrong, but some of it is just plain wrong. The portion which is just plain wrong is: alterations to standard tech have caused controversy inside the Church. That portion of the statement has been present in the article for some while. It is just plain wrong. Inside should be removed becuse it falls below the threshold for informational inclusion which WP:V requires. WP:V states an information must be previously published by reliable and reputable sources. There is NO information published which states that alterations to standard tech have caused controversy inside the Church. That portion of the article's statement must therefore be removed. Terryeo 15:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Has been answered before, see details by Gene Zimmer. --Tilman 17:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

No editor named Gene Zimmer has posted on this discussion page. Your have again posted without confronting the issue raised. Terryeo 22:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Websites as secondary sources of information

Here again is a very bad secondary source. A link within the article points to "The Truth About Scientology" which is a personal website created and maintained by "Kristi Wachter". It might be used as an "exterior link" or a "further reading of interest" sort of link, but WP:RS states, personal websites may not be used as secondary sources of information within Wikipedia articles. Terryeo 20:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Wachter's site is used as the reference which states Gene Zimmer's opinion. On that basis, the phrase, These alterations to the "Standard Tech" have caused controversy both inside and outside the Church. The site is personal. Watcher presents Zimmer's and other's opinions. The article is introduced on the factuality of a personal website. Wikipedia standards do not allow that. I notice Feldspar, Tilman and Fahrenheit are "owning" the article. In the sense they revert any change which does not place Watcher's personal website right up there in the top of the page, as the first citation. Is there are reason for these editors to defy Wikipedia's WP:V ? Terryeo 00:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Too much Snoeck

Four separate external links to Snoeck's personal site? That's WAY too many. (I'm not even sure that one would be suitable.) wikipediatrix 23:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I have reduced the links to 3 and created a Various study heading as two are actually detailed studies. Michel Snoeck and his constructive criticisms may really be the expert in that field. Jpierreg 12:00, 31 October 2006 (GMT)

Really? Why? In the past, on other topics, I've found him too inclined to adjust his facts to fit his conclusion as well as attempting to hide behind various online personna to toot his own horn. (See User:Olberon, who would add freshly-minted Snoeck pages which just happened to agree with a point of view Olberon wanted to make.) AndroidCat 12:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Right! the "may really be -the- expert" is from a favourable view point of Scientology or the Church of Scientology since he may still be in good standing with the church and since he is very precise in his communications as he systematically refers to LRH quotes and references. While for User:Olberon, I'd Never heard of him before but I've noticed he signs in (UTC) time and this looks more American rather than European I would say. I've changed the external links to Favourable Analysis and Other Analysis Jpierreg 15:50, 31 October 2006 (GMT)

Two weeks later, and the "favorable analysis" links are still ALL from Snoeck's site. One is sufficient; I'm pulling the others. wikipediatrix 15:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not fair that you've now removed the majority of the favorable analysis. The article is now completely biased unfavourably. There are too many unfavourable links. Jpierreg 00:10, 11 November 2006 (GMT)

I didn't read them that closely. Actually, I just picked the one with the most informative-sounding title. Feel free to switch it out with one you prefer. Having more unfavorable links than favorable ones isn't biased if there are no other favorable ones. We're not counting links, we're counting separate sources. wikipediatrix 00:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Who decides?

Who decides how many "altered texts" get analyzed here? Who decides which ones are chosen for the article? Isn't the whole act of taking X and saying "look how different it is from Y" completely original research, even if it's true? Highfructosecornsyrup 01:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Although the topic seems to be an important one, the whole article is almost all original research. All of the references are just personal websites. The newspaper story referenced does not even mention anything about altered texts. I don't think this article should be here at all by strict WP standards. Steve Dufour 05:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it appears to be mostly original research and have just tagged it as such. I don't know if reliable sources are available that say there have been many alterations, but if there are, they should be added. Aleta 21:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that Aleta. I would like to see a good article on this subject if that is possible. Could you also check out Standard Tech? To me it seems more like a dictionary definition of the expression as well as only being cited by one personal website. Steve Dufour 16:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I am going to go ahead and tag it (Standard Tech) Unencyclopedic. Steve Dufour 17:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability

I am having trouble figuring out what makes this notable? It is full of ARS-style speculation without a single RS of any substance. Just a reference to that amigo that complained about patter drills and managed to make such a nuisance of himself that he got thrown out of the Church (at least that is what I, someone familiar with lots of things, got out of the RS in the article.) --Justanother 18:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

So you say that the constantly altered scientology texts themselves are not "reliable sources"? --Tilman 21:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The question is about notability. So out of the millions and millions of Hubbard's words, critics on ARS have found a few that have been changed in recent editions of materials? And how is that notable? --Justanother 23:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

It was notable enough to be mentioned in the SP Times. And as the article shows, it wasn't just "a few words" changed. Add to this that entire concepts have been changed as well, like the 2nd dynamic. And consider the recent announcement in Germany from Christian Markert that David Miscavige is rolling out a new wave of changes. David Miscavige's "patter drills" are just a tip of the iceberg. --Tilman 05:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Re SP Times, the mention is tangential. The article is about the declare policy and goes into a few cases of who was declared and why. This is not notable. Unless someone can come up with some notability in the next week or so, I am going to AFD it as a bad case of WP:OR. --Justanother 12:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Justanother, are you under orders to get rid of this article?--Fahrenheit451 19:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Jawohl, Mein Capitan!!! You know better than that. --Justanother 19:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

If you feel better by starting an AfD, go ahead. --Tilman 15:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

FYI, the patter drills were written by Dan Koon, a class VIII auditor at RTRC, who blew the Int Base in May 2004. Can't give you a media cite on that, but it is known amongst ex-scn'ists. DM approved the drills before they were issued.--Fahrenheit451 19:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

FYI-2, patter drills were used with enormous success in the New Era Dianetics course which came out in the late 1970's. TR-100 to TR-104 or something. I did that course back then and I can still recite the commands verbatim and I have not audited NED since the late 80s (I think). Verbatim wall drills have long been used on the Laws of Listing and Nulling and in other areas. --Justanother 19:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Find a source for this, and include it in the article text. Most likely, the material is available electronically, so you could point out the exact segment of the course and thus restore DM's honour this time. --Tilman 04:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Why, the entire article is non-RS and OR by a very small group of disgruntled ex-members and another small group of know-nothing critics that will pile on any band-wagon. --Justanother 10:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Justanother, you are erroneously equating dianetic command training drills with the misapplication of that HCOB to drilling data. That is where the RTRC and RTC screwed up.--Fahrenheit451 21:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Your text is somewhat long and confusing. You "used to be an editor" means what? You are an editor, obviously.

Your text also contradicts itself, since you do mention examples where text was rewritten, i.e. altered.

Suggestion: concentrate on a single topic first, and contribute that one. The heavens gate example is quite interesting. --Tilman 15:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Assume that the readers include people who know nothing about Scientology. That's the case with a general encyclopedia such as this one. Aleta 15:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

A further comment: there are people inside any organization/structure/society... that will disobey the rules. Something's being forbidden does not prove it wasn't/hasn't been done. Aleta 15:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Second Dynamic

Why does the section for "The Second Dynamic" end with the sentence fragment "Hubbard revised his definition for the Second Dynamic when"? wikipediatrix 17:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for my mistake. I was looking for the exact data, got sidetracked and forgot to complete my sentence. I couldn't find a reference as I wished. I feel I am too new to request deletion. --Leocomix 15:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Generally speaking, I'm quite unhappy with your changes. However I'd prefer that freezoners and/or people more familiar with "da tech" revert you. --Tilman 19:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

As I understand there are two definitions for Second Dynamic. Not contrary to each other, the two. Misou 05:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Leocomix, there are people in the Freezone or independent field who have widely varying views on what is and is not valid about Hubbard's research and the subject of scientology. I see that you think that those folks have one view and that is very far from the truth. There are those who agree with recent revisions to the subject and those who have objections to Hubbard's views and conclusions going back to the 1950's. The new defintion of the second dynamic is: "The SECOND DYNAMIC is CREATIVITY. Creativity is making things for the future and the second dynamic includes any creativity... " Don't know if Hubbard indeed stated that, but that definition is absurd as any dynamic involves creation and counter-creation. Perhaps Hubbard thought of that whilst heavily medicated. Even for him, that definition is a real stretch of credibility.--Fahrenheit451 21:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Big Rewrite of 2007

I'm seeing and hearing stuff all over the place about how supposedly DM recently announced that all major Scientology books are being overhauled and rewritten, and that all existing Scientologists are being asked to buy them all over again in their new versions. But is there any good reference for this that we can use in a Wikipedia article? Something that isn't message-board hearsay? wikipediatrix 17:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear Wikipediatrix (I like the sound of that name, I'd be tempted to christen myself Wikipediator but it does not have the same ring to it), you can check the New Era Publications or Bridge Publications website which features the new release. There is a new Materials Guide Chart issued that lists thos enew releases. But of course to see the DM announcement you have to go into a Scn church and ask to see the Freewinds second night video. (He doesn't explicitly say you have to buy them all over again although that's exactly what is meant). --Leocomix 22:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Leo... I'm well aware of the New Era/Bridge sites you mention, but they don't actually spell out the details I'm asking for. (Is the new Materials Guide Chart in color? I keep seeing images of slick full color ones on Scn sites, yet the one I have is printed in black and white, and rather poorly). wikipediatrix 22:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The chart is in black and white. There is a slick color brochure but it's the same that you can find on the sites. What details are you looking for? --Leocomix 23:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

No official Scn site I've seen directly goes into detail about the text in the books has been changed. I'd like to include this info but in order for the article to comment on this, we need a reliable source that pretty much says so in no uncertain terms. wikipediatrix 23:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, in this type of situation the CoS does not want to give less than a full briefing (that's Scn internal policy anyway). The only full briefing is the Flag event of 2007, June recorded by Gold and replayed in churches in July. Can't a briefing, conference, video be a source? However, don't expect to get a list of every change. Per the briefing, for example, there are like 10 000 of mainly punctuation changes just for Science of Survival. Several examples are given. Some are word change. Also no official Scn site will ever provide a list because that would fall under the heading of issuing 'corrective technology' which is a no-no ever since the Study Tapes but has been reinforced since the start of the Research and Tech Compilations unit around 1980. This is for the same reason Tech volumes do not include cancelled bulletins anymore. As a note, Scientology cancelled its own history in the eighties and is now attempting to restore it by enforcing a chronological study so people can make sense of it. This created the situation where some Scientologists believed that Scientology was of one block, fully coherent, throughout its history whereas it's a development where some key concepts get continuously redefined (including definitions for the word Dianetics and Scientology). This is why since several events, they always make a big deal of saying that books now contain definitions pertaining to the relevant time period. (In the books edited in the 80s, you would get, say, the 1981 --latest-- definition of Clear in a 1956 book and that wouldn't fit).--Leocomix 00:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I definitely understand what you're saying about Scn being "one block, fully coherent, throughout its history" - that's something that most critics of Scn either can't understand or pretend not to, because that ruins the fun for them of pointing out seeming contradictions between a 1952 book and a 1971 book. Is the video you speak of available to be in anyone's hands, or is it only shown in Orgs right now? To be a proper source, it has to actually be something that's potentially available, like any other common book or DVD. wikipediatrix 00:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Like most of them, it is not available for purchase, just for viewing in an org. It may not be fully available but it's still more available than internal company memo. Now I wonder, wouldn't a politician statement in a meeting be a source? Would you really need a newspaper reporting it or a publicly available recording before it's a proper source? If it's the case you will have to wait for the next Scientology magazine (Impact, Source, Int Scientology News) to see if they pick up the story as they usually do. I don't receive them anymore. --Leocomix 01:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Life Orientation Course

Hi Leocomix - what page number in "Technical Bulletins Vol. IX" is your reference from? And I assume you're using the originals and not the Red editions? wikipediatrix 14:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Why the originals? No, I refer to the 1991 edition, the yearly introduction part that describes what LRH worked on during each year (I'm citing from memory, my books are kilometers away in a barn). Due to lack of info, I'm trying to go this way: 1. LRH worked on LOC in 1979 (this is attested in several CoS publications, maybe even in some former members history), LOC is the source of the new definition of 2D (this is already known and acknowledged in the Freezoners sites quoted). This approach kills the theory that LOC, having been issued in 1990, cannot have been from LRH. Of course, some people will continue to believe that none of this proves LRH created LOC in 1979 since nothing the Church says can be trusted. Or they will believe that even if LRH created LOC, someone else corrupted the text before it was published. But whatever they believe, they are invited to present facts from any source.

As an aside, I just asked a past member who was working with the English editing department about this. I asked him "As far as I know the definition of the dynamics used in LOC and later in Intro to Scn Ethics and Scn Hdbk comes from an LRH message addressed to the WOOC Project I/C. Can you confirm, deny? (if you know what I'm talking about)" and he answered "Yes, the definitions of the dynamics were given in a despatch to [name withheld by Leocomix] as WOOC Pjt IC. I have read it and they are what is in the current materials." So here it is, from two people who have been inside.

By the way both editions (1978 and 1991) are red. I don't get what you mean. Please explain. --Leocomix 16:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the earliest bound volumes weren't red, but since this is a 1979 document, yes, OK, I wasn't thinking. Problem is, we're still dealing with hearsay. What we need is some sort of Wikipedia-acceptable source that shows precisely, in a place where anyone who wants to make the effort can look it up and verify for themselves, that editing of LRH's works was in fact always sanctioned by him and especially granted to DM. If this can be proven to be fact, then an enormous amount of complaining and faux-controversy on Wikipedia can be dispelled and discredited instantly. So much criticism here is basing everything on the assumption that LRH decreed that so much as adding an apostrophe equals squirreling the tech, and that Scn books can never, ever be revised for any reason. wikipediatrix 17:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Earliest bound volumes?? Are you mixing up with the books (who have had black, dark green, red and blue covers)? Technical Volumes have always had red covers.

Somewhere I have a very early collection of Technical Bulletins with a brown/tan cover. wikipediatrix 19:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

For Wikipedia's purposes, we need a very specific source that is saying the same thing you are saying. Help us pin this down and a lot of squabbling will be laid to rest. Is there a WP:V source for the "diamond pin" anecdote? Can you name the specific HCOBs or HCOPLs that you refer to, and are there any that plainly lay out the protocol of editing LRH? We need to be precise as possible. (And just my for own curiosity, how does Dianetics Today's disappearance figure into it? Did the editors overstep their boundaries and mess up some text?) wikipediatrix 19:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Leocomix, please bear in mind that there are a plethora of views on variant texts from the cofs in the Freezone. You use the term Freezoners as if they all have one point of view. I suggest you have more dialogue with more of those in the independent field before you make your assertions as they are not based on fact. I think that you will find the views on the subject of scientology are much more varied than with those in the cofs.--Fahrenheit451 20:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Leocomix. That is quite a speculation that the massive exodus from the cofs beginning in 1982 was from misunderstood words causing a lack of results. Was this from D.M.? If so, I think he is going to be rather disappointed in results of his handling.--Fahrenheit451 20:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The new movie

What is the official name of the video of DM's OT Summit announcement currently being shown in Orgs? Does anyone know? Is it just "OT Summit 2007"? wikipediatrix 22:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

"MV2", the occasion of those showings is the anniversary of the Freewinds M-aiden V-oyage, the number is for the second night of that celebration. The OT Summit was the fourth night. I'd call it "Briefing by David Miscavige in Tampa, Floria", 26 June 2007. Or something like that. Misou 23:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It has to more precise than that. If the film has a clear title that is seen in the opening, we need to know it before it can be cited as a reference on Wikipedia in the same way that Orientation (film) is. If this video (as opposed to the event) doesn't, I'm not so sure it counts as a source, even though I'd very much like for it to. wikipediatrix 00:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's call an org then. Misou 01:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It's called "Golden Age of Knowledge for Eternity". Got the DVD now. Misou 03:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipediatrix is edit-warring this article

User:Wikipediatrix is clearly gaming content of this article. "-22:02, 2007 August 1 Wikipediatrix (Talk | contribs) (5,283 bytes) (I love playing Checkers. It's your turn.)" -Fahrenheit451 22:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

That's not a particularly helpful observation. Got anything more constructive to say, like, why you like your edits better? (In Wikipolicy terms, of course, not just from your own opinions.) wikipediatrix 22:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV-pushing in this article

This is a great example for POV-pushing and slander: "Whether these changes represent a reverting to Hubbard's original intention, a major degradation of Hubbard's original writings or merely minor edits and improvements that do not change the fundamental thrust of his message is a matter hotly debated among some Scientologists. Some Scientologists say that they were retaliated against by the Church for informing others that technical alterations have occurred. <ref>{{cite news |author = Robert Farley |url = http://www.sptimes.com/2006/06/24/Tampabay/The_unperson.shtml |title = The unperson |publisher = [[St. Petersburg Times]] |date = [[2006-06-24]] |pages = 1A, 14A|accessdate = 2006-08-15}}</ref>"

Because a) the article - I read this piece of sh.. twice - does not give any information backing up the article text and b) the whole section is pure WP:WEASEL-wording. Misou 17:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of discussion page comments by User:Leocomix

For the record, Leocomix removed the entire discussion he had with several other editors:[3]. I reverted his deletion. He later removed only his comments. However, his edit note alleges a different event: "(Per F451 protest I only removed my own comments and not those of other editors. As author this is my right to withdraw these.)"--Fahrenheit451 13:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what's your purpose in making that last comment. My edit note refers to my earlier blanket removal and your protestation over it. I never tried in any way to cover the fact that I had removed my comments (which made up 90% of the discussion and 99% of the information). I left an edit note mentioning the fact and explaining it: "I remove all my original research as this page isn't a forum and is too long." Everything I wrote is recoverable by using Wikipedia functions yet you come here and violate my wish for discretion by making a big fuss about it and creating links. I am new to Wikipedia and thought afterward my comments had no part in a discussion page, being typical of a forum. I mean no harm to anyone. Please respect my privacy. --Leocomix 13:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Leocomix, I never protested your edit, I just restored the discussion. Due to some other editors who edit scientology-related articles, and I am not referring to you, such actions are misinterpreted. I wanted to clarify my reversion. No problem.--Fahrenheit451 19:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't quite follow what you're saying. I never said you protested my edit of the article. I said you protested my removal of the discussion because you reverted it. This is also what you are doing above; "For the record..." After that, I only removed my parts of the discussion to satisfy you. Yet you write "his edit note alleges a different event" and you create a link to my page and a link showing the very comments I had deleted. Why can't you respect my request for privacy and discretion? If someone wants to see those he can look at earlier versions. Please remove the links at least if not this whole unnecessary discussion. --Leocomix 21:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Leocomix, from the context I think it is clear that I meant edit of the talk page as that was the topic under discussion. I never protested your edit, although you seem to have interpreted my revert as a protest. I am not removing any discussion, nor will I remove the links. I don't see how privacy and discretion are even relevant here as it is an article discussion page. However, you are free to remove your comments.--Fahrenheit451 21:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Per your own admission, you restored the whole discussion, I then deleted just my comments with an edit note referring to that current action (not the earlier one as you seem to beieve) stating that exact sequence of events. Yet you write I allege a different event. That is what I don't undertstand. Why do you allege that I alleged a different event? Prvacy and discretion are relevant because during that iscussion I rambled about my opinions and personal history and this does not belong in a talk page as talk page are for improvements or articles. Do you see the misunderstanding now? I ask you again to please reconsider your above statement. --Leocomix 09:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Leocomix, again, I never protested your edit to the talk page, I simply objected to your removing the entire discussion. Is that so difficult for you to understand?--Fahrenheit451 00:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

F451, thank you for pointing out this incredibly important information. Soon you will be ready to apply for Admin. Misou 18:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Misou, knock off your violation of WP:CIVIL.--Fahrenheit451 19:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You know, 451, you could save yourself a lot of trouble and invent a bot that just automatically and randomly chastises people for violation of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF, since that quite literally seems to be all you do around here anymore. wikipediatrix 19:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You know, Trixi, that is a serious situation with the scientology-related articles. I have never had to do that to this degree with any other article category. It is a distraction from editing. I hope that it not the intention of the violators.--Fahrenheit451 21:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I read this five times and still have no idea what you are talking about. wikipediatrix 01:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Trixi, I guess you have a couple alternatives: look for misunderstood words or simply drop out of the thread.--Fahrenheit451 00:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questions

How many side-by-side examples of "variant texts" must this article include? When I originally wrote it, I tried to give one example each of an altered book, an altered recording, and an altered policy. Other alterations are - or were - pointed out in each book's respective article, like Dianetics 55!. Since then, other editors have chimed in here with more and more - "ooh, here's a good one" - "and how bout this one! and and and..." until it's turning into a mess. There are literally hundreds, possibly thousands of these alterations, we can't list them all and this isn't supposed to be List of variant Scientology texts anyhow. Which leads to my next question: Who decides which examples are displayed here? The editors who bark the loudest and bully the most? Hopefully not. Anyone wanna have a serious discussion about it? wikipediatrix 18:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't even think the aticle to be warranted. I corrected it as best as I could after the AfD failed. The alterations number in the tens of thousands. DM said there were more than 10000 just for SOS. Theere were already 1000 by the 2001 edition of this book (I saw them all). --Leocomix 18:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

From a bibliophile's point of view and not a Scientologist's, I maintain the subject is notable, BUT I also maintain that it should not exist to present the opinions of Freezoners and anti-Scn folks, that there's something inherently wrong with these changes, as fact. wikipediatrix 19:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

What kind of variant text are you looking for? How do you define a variant text? Obviously parts are removed from lectures when CoS has been or can be attacked for these. Example from Route to Infinity that was removed in the manuscript gven for translation in 1997 and from the English itself in 2004: "Actually, have you ever noticed how a negro, in particular, down south, where they're pretty close to the soil, personifies MEST? The gatepost and the wagon and the whip and anything around there - a hat. They talk to them, you know? 'What'sa mattuh wi' you hat?' They imbue them with personality." Also in RTI, the part where it says to say a note if you leave your body (it's mentioned somewhere in Wikipedia). In FOT, the part that talked about yellow people and brown people and white people that was rewritten by the church. These are variant texts, not just typos or minor edits, but they have nothing to do with doctrine in the way that Freezoners think the tech was "altered" The only reason the subject of variant text comes about in religion is because it deals with doctrine and practice, things like the "filioque" addition, whether you don't consume or consecrate blood (Jehovah' witnesses), whether you get virgins or wheat in paradise (Islam). --Leocomix

Were they removed or replaced? And what was the given reason? Misou 03:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Leocomix. Please stop stereotyping Freezone folks. You are generalizing and it comes across as very bigoted. --Fahrenheit451 07:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Now, Leo, were those statements removed or replaced? And what was the given reason? Misou 23:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

First, I have absolutely no clue how anything I wrote is bigoted. I even find the accusation offensive and part of a pattern trying to involve me in arguments (since it's coming from one whose contributions are mostly comments in talk page and policing [4]). Second, statements from lectures are removed, those from books are replaced. No reason is ever given but the policies that govern this are not secret. All the rewritten or removed statements had been used as out-of-context quotes to cast a bad light on Scn or Hubbard. --Leocomix 13:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Leocomix, the quotes you speak of are documentably rewritten or removed. It is your opinion that they are out-of-context and that the intention is to cast a bad light on Scn or Hubbard. Hubbard said what he said. That is a historical record. I was not aware that historical revisionism is now officially part of the cofs.--Fahrenheit451 04:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

F451, this is quite lame. Why don't you ask Leo what he means by this "the policies that govern this are not secret", I mean, as an interested, rather neutral, reader? Misou 05:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the term "bigoted" even applies to silly little clubs like Freezone anyway. Let's ignore the noise and move on. Meanwhile, my questions I asked five days ago remain unanswered. wikipediatrix 01:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipediatrix, I know you did not ask me, but if you Q was who decides about the ex in the art, I'd say "no one", because this art should have no ex. This is stuff typical for refs. Misou 05:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

F451, once again it's very hard for me to understand your hostility toward me. I am not your enemy, do not consider myself as such and harbor no hostility toward you or the Freezone. It's the third time you misunderstand or misrepresent the things I say. So please cast away your assumptions about what I am, what I believe and any such preconceived ideas. I am not challenging in any way that Hubbard and the CoS have been rewriting books and lectures. They've been doing it since day one (and if you do not believe this I can go into the details). However you seem to challenge the right of CST (to whom LRH transferred the copyrights) to do this, which is a right exercised by every author and every editor in the world. You accuse them of historical revisionism. Well, I'm sorry but editing a book or a lecture is hardly the same as historical revisionism. Yes it is my opinion that anti-Scientology sites are extracting out-of-context quotes to create a distorted image. Why do you comment on this? What's wrong with expressing this opinion? I do not make it part of the article. I leave anyone to judge for himself. And last, there is nothing wrong if you were not aware of it but historical revisionism has always been part of Hubbard and CoS existence. But I'm not confusing the two and saying that the edits are historical revisionism. The only edits close to this in the article are the ones removing the mentions of the Guardian Office. If I have offended you now or in the past I apologize. --Leocomix 09:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)€

Leocomix, I am not against you. I think that you are putting something there that does not exist. It appears to me that you have misinformation on the Freezone from the general, but inaccurate comments that you have made about it. My opinion is that if the cst wants to change Hubbard's writings, they can. Based on the types of edits done, I call it historical revisionism, but you may call it something else. That is all.--Fahrenheit451 19:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced

This entire article is WP:OR and needs an AfD. --Justanother 15:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, it had one, just on the wrong premise. It is OR and non-notable, that is all. Personally, I find it interesting but it is not Wikipedia's job to publish non-notable OR articles that I find interesting. That is Kristi's job. --Justanother 15:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.