Talk:Office of Special Affairs

Series Template

Removing this Series Template from across the Scientology related pages. This is not correct usage of Series Templates per the guidelines. They were set up to show the history of countries and were different articles form a sequential series. This is not the case with the Scientology pages, which are random pages on different topics – not a sequence of any kind. Wiki’s definition of a series is: “In a general sense, a series is a related set of things that occur one after the other (in a succession) or are otherwise connected one after the other (in a sequence).” Nuview, 12:15, 10 January 2006 (PST)

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_series

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_article_series

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Navigational_templates#Religion

There are both timeline-specific series, and series based a unifying theme. Ronabop 01:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV edits

I have reverted certain edits lately that I believe to be too POV. Since the original contributor disagrees, I am discussing them here. Bold indicates added material, italics subtracted material.

The Office of Special Affairs (OSA) is a department of the worldwide organisation the Church of Scientology

Calling the CoS a "worldwide organization" is technically true, of course. However, do we understand the subject of the OSA any better because it has been pointed out that the CoS is a worldwide organization? I don't see how, and it seems to be embedding here a particular POV (namely, that the CoS is an "organization" rather than a "church"); while some people do hold this view there's just no reason to go into it here on this page.

responsible for directing legal affairs,

If this is one of its responsibilities there's no reason to omit it.

pursuing investigations, "oversee[ing its] social reform programs" (such as the Rehabilitation Project Force),

the "pursuing" has been left in, since it clarifies the clause and makes it parallel with the other "-ing-form-verb noun" clauses. I very much doubt, however, whether the CoS considers the Rehabilitation Project Force a social reform program in the sense that the phrase appears here.

and publicizing the Church's "social betterment works" (viewed by many as propaganda).

The fact that not all observers agree that the CoS's "social betterment works" are actually works intended for the primary purpose of social betterment is already adequately expressed by using quotation marks, to indicate that this is the CoS's position, not a description agreed upon by all parties. I very much doubt that it's necessary to specify that those who don't agree that they are true 'social betterment works' may classify them as propaganda instead.

Observers outside the Church have characterized the department as an intelligence agency, comparing it variously to the CIA, the Secret Service,

Gestapo (which also was responsible for overseeing work and concentration camps) and the KGB.

I have no doubt that some observers have compared it to the Gestapo but that is not a very useful comparison because people compare everything to Hitler, the Nazi Party, and the Gestapo. The CIA, the Secret Service and the KGB are better examples because it is easier to see how multiple perspectives are possible on the same organization. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say we do understand the OSA better for knowing the CoS is a worldwide organization because the OSA conducts legal and public affairs in many languages, within many legal systems and it thereby enhances our understanding of the complexities, enhances our understanding that the OSA is not just a small handful of lawyers who do all their work in English. It is well know, for example, the CoS has appeared in German courts and less well known it has appeared in courts on most (or all continents) and I suspect they won't rest until they have appeared in courts in every country (except maybe the vatican). Terryeo 03:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Think "Public defender" and you're right in the ball park. As a city has a public defender the CoS has an OSA. The same OSA handles the press too. Does this sound like cross purposes? I don't think so. In today's world the press and the legal system are so closely linked that it is surprising other large corperations don't copy that organizational method. Terryeo 03:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

False comparison Terryeo. The public defender gives legal representation to those citizens who cannot afford an attorney. osa is a pr/legal/intelligence apparatus the cofs uses to suppress its myriad of external and internal enemies, both created and imagined. I don't think corporations are that insane that they would copy the go/osa organization. I don't know where you get the information that the press and the legal system are closely linked. Looks like another unverifiable assertion of yours.--Fahrenheit451 22:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

a significant (hopefully helpful) resequencing of the template

In viewing the template (duh, from my POV) I think its purpose would be better served by some re-sequencing. Here is my proposal. I won't just do it. Too many people have contibuted too much and it is too much work to do something like this to it without good reason. I suggest Organization first because isn't that what people look for in a subject new or relatively new to them? And I've put Church of Spiritual Technology first because apparently (I don't have confirmation from the CoS) it owns all the trademarks and is thereby senior to all the rest about ownership. Sea Org staffs all the high positions of the CoS, their existence is of equal magnitued (in an operational sense) All the organizations to the right and below it are staffed by Sea Org Members or overseen by Sea Org members. About Public Groups, That line "Public groups and Recruitment" is the longest line and the template becomes nicely narrowed if (what I think is more accurate) it becomes "public groups". It is probably argueable, but any and all of it "recruits". ABLE is the highest organization and owns the most trademarks. I wanted to put the most senior thing in the top left and work downward to least senior / central. Organization over groups. Beliefs over practices over Fields of study and controversy last, with some seniority there too. Suppressive Persons is what most of the rest of controversy is about. I have used this character " ; " to indicate an end of line. I think the template will be 10% to 25% narrower if this is used:

--Organization--

Church of Spiritual Technology; Sea Org - Church of Scientology; Office of special Affairs; Celebrity Center Gold Base;

--Public groups-- (not Public groups and Recruitment)

ABLE Volenteer Ministers; CBAA W.I.S.E;

--Beliefs--

Thetan Dianetics Clear; Engram Reactive mind Xenu;

--Practices--

Auditing E-meter; Purification Rundown;

--Fields of Study--

Tone scale ARC MEST; Past Lives Study Technology;

--Controversy--

Scientology and the legal system; Suppressive Person - Fair Game; Operation freakout; Operation Snow White; Operation Clambake; Rehabilitation Project Force; Scientology versus The Internet;

me Terryeo 03:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Church of Spiritual Technology aka L. Ron Hubbard Library owns all the LRH copyrights, and is supposed to own all shares of ASI (IRS agreement). RTC owns the trademarks and manages/enforces the copyrights. The senority and actual balance of power between the CST and RTC has long been a subject of speculation among CoS watchers. AndroidCat 14:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Totally disputed

I think this is a very unsatisfactory article. While I don't agree with User:Andrew eagles's revert warring tactics (and I've given him a 24 hour block for violating the 3RR), I do think this article has major problems with POV and factual accuracy. In particular, the paragraph that starts "OSA also plotted the murder" strikes me as being grossly POV and bordering on libelous - it's an unverified claim made by a dubious source, not a proven fact. The article seriously needs to be rewritten. -- ChrisO 00:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

unreferenced?

Nikitchenko, please don't edit without making edit summaries, it will make things much easier for your fellow editors. I've removed the "unreferenced" tag you placed on the article, because as far as I can tell, everything prior to the Scarff footnote (end of next-to-last paragraph) is referenced by that very footnote. wikipediatrix 19:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, i didn't make edit summaries. It is very clear what I did. And again, there is missing data from the article. Scarff is known to commit perjury and lie. --Nikitchenko 19:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You need to prove this with some sources of your own before you start changing articles to fit this unproven, unsourced supposition of yours. And this still doesn't explain why you persist in edit-warring by placing the "unreferenced" tag on the page even after being directed to the reference. wikipediatrix 20:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nikitchenko, I will retrieve the evidence in support of your statement on Scarff, and post it here. --Andrew eagles 22:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going to quote Scarff, we should certainly add a caveat about his trustworthiness. Personally I don't think he's remotely credible. I look forward to seeing whatever you can dredge up. :-) -- ChrisO 23:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no strong feeling either way about Scarff, having no firsthand means to verify any of his horror stories. Perhaps the article can be rewritten to make it clearer from the getgo that much of its content comes from his court deposition. Maybe he also deserves his own article so these concerns can be covered there rather than here? I'd be curious to know why you distrust him? I did a quick Google search and the only person I could find calling him a liar was Scientology attorney Kendrick Moxon. [1] wikipediatrix 00:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lying and fooling the legal system is the only Scarff did, he isn't deserving notability and I hope with Andrew's help you will soon understand. --Nikitchenko 03:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we're writing an encyclopedia, not having a debate club. It doesn't matter what I think about Scarff, or what you think about Scarff, it only matters that Scarff has made these allegations about Scientology and the OSA in a court of law, and we must report that. If anyone has similarly weighty proof against Scarff that specifically pertains to the OSA, we must report that too. wikipediatrix 04:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipediatrix, what reference do you have that labels Scarff as a WHISTLEBLOWER? --Nikitchenko 19:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou Andrew. I know they exist, I seen them several years back from also court and police papers. --Nikitchenko 02:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, are you there? Well, I today I found a message by Modemac and some others. From those messages I was able to track down one of Scarff's messages. Here it is. --Nikitchenko 06:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"No attempts were made to intimidate & browbeat me into signing false declarations nor was I threatened." ... "Am I again a member of the Church of Scientology? No. Because I was never a member of the Church of Scientology, never on staff of the Church of Scientology, and took only 2 introductory courses at the Mission of Davis in Portland, Oregon. Much of what is in my 17-day deposition in the Fishman-Geertz case are lies." - Garry Scarff posting to usenet Jul 12 1997 Message ID: 01bc8f01$8de585e0$2ee0a1cd@scaarf

"Much of what is in my 17-day deposition in the Fishman-Geertz case are lies." Uh-huh... The reference to Scarff in the OSA article shouldnt be there. --Nikitchenko 06:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're using a Usenet article as a primary source? AndroidCat 10:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am disputing contents. Are you supporting the use of Scarff's claims as primary source? --Nikitchenko 16:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can add counter-examples questioning Garry Scarff's reliability, just don't use a Usenet article to remove text backed by court documents. AndroidCat 16:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What did I remove? I have not used the usenet to write anything into an article. All I have done was dispute how the article was portraying Scarff's claims as fact. --Nikitchenko 17:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Usenet articles should not be used EVER

Usenet articles should not be used as a primary or secondary or tertiary source. According to the guidelines at WP:Reliable Sources, editors should not use Usenet articles for source material. And obviously this applies to both critics and proponents of the issue. Any claim that has its sole source as a Usenet article should not be referenced and it should be removed immediately. The problems with Usenet include significant issues of Verifiability and reliableness and reputation. Usenet posts can have forged headers. Also, Usenet posts allow people on both sides to essentially self-"publish" their claims without the added step of having fact-checkers, lawyers, and editors sort through the claims that are made. Therefore, I will not object to anyone who removes a claim whose sole source is a Usenet article. If the claim is significant enough to be on Wikipedia then it will be significant enough to have been published by a reliable source somewhere. Vivaldi 14:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's an extremely good general rule, but I can see exceptional cases (a handful at best) where I'd be prepared to go the distance of making the argument through channels that WP:V and WP:RS were met. For example, the primary source for Scientology's attempt to RMGROUP alt.religion.scientology is the RMGROUP Usenet article itself. Someone gaming the rules could gradually erode the Scientology versus the Internet page by claiming that there was no primary reference, trimming secordary references, requesting cites (rinse/repeat), and then chopping text. (Not that that ever happens... rolls eyes) However the post nominally by Garry Scarff definitely isn't one of those cases. AndroidCat 16:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The deposition of Scarff isnt reliable source, either. But it seems some people want to insist on it, because it supports POV that paints the COS in a negative light. Talk about POV. I'll leave the Scientology articles and get back to something less controversial. Have fun. --Nikitchenko 17:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

disputed

I dispute the reference on Garry Scarff. Which was added in these edits[2],[3],[4],[5],[6],[7] and these reverts[8],[9],[10],[11],[12] --Nikitchenko 07:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On what grounds do you dispute them? Do you doubt that Scarff actually said and wrote those things or do you dispute the truthfulness of Scarff's claims? Because you might not be aware that, odd at it may seem, that on Wikipedia the standard policy for inclusion is NOT truth, but rather Verifiability. If these claims are properly sourced to Scarff, then its fine to leave them in. You are also free to add sources that can reliably and verifiably refute the claims of Scarff. Vivaldi 14:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vivaldi, do not remove those disputed tags. I'd be willing to bring this to RfC and even arbitration if necessary. --Nikitchenko 16:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed tag per reasons cited by Vivaldi on the basis not one of his questions re its validity were answered above. Until such basis is found tag has no place on article. Simple logic. - Gl e n ^T _C 16:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see. Now some critics come along and support POV that implies Scarff told the truth. OK. I'll leave this problem for those who's job is to handle such: OSA. Goodbye and have a good day. --Nikitchenko 16:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it state that? It states it is his opinion and then sites Moxon calling him a liar. What more do you need? - Gl e n ^T _C 17:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it by changing "known" and "revelations" because they suggest facts to readers. --Nikitchenko 17:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now it looks like the dispute is over wording. I was going to leave this article, but changed my mind because some editors have come and kept taking out the disputed tags. --Nikitchenko 17:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CITE THE SPECIFIC WORDING. I am reverting you deletion re the the attempted murder as you have removed vital information. - Gl e n ^T _C 17:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I tried discussing this with you. And now Wikipediatrix comes and removes that disputed tag again and makes a personal attack in her edit summary. I am done with this dispute and taking it to RfC. --Nikitchenko 17:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-04-11 Scientology

Nikitchenko and I are now in Mediation based on his opinion of the editing of this article See here. The Mediation is being held at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-04-11 Scientology. I notice there is a section, Comments by others so I thought given you all have dealt with each of us you may wish to comment when Mediation begins (I am unsure of the process at this stage). Look forward to hearing your opinions - Gl e n ^T _C 19:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]