Talk:Narconon

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

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

ChrisO

You might concisely include accurate information, such as the quantity of Narconon brick and mortor sites its website presents (72) [1] or the quantity of sites some of the current Scientology documents present (over 100) instead of the "several dozen" which the article presently is presenting as the quantity of Narconon brick and mortar sites. Terryeo 17:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

As a comment, is it really appropriate to site one's own personal website, ChrisO, as a source of information when writing an article of this nature? Should a personal website author write an article which advertises their own site? Isn't there a number of Wikipedia policies which deny that you, as an wikipedia author, should not site your own personal website in a Wikipedia article? That is your own personal website, right? It says the copyrights, etc. are owned by Chris Owen, gives a yahoo email address. [2] Terryeo 05:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

---

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Narconon rejected by State of California

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

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

Controversial lines cut and pasted here per WIki Policy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Series Template

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FASEnet and Utah

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

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

Controversies: success rates studies

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

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

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

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

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

How can I correct the Narconon article? dcottle561

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

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

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

Here is a more detailed analysis of the report, in English. [3] and from an anti-narconon site. However, it states that of those who finished the program (14 persons), 13 were contacted and of those 13 persons, 11 were not presently using drugs at the time of contact. Thus, 11 of 13 were not using drugs. Based on that, a good rate. but based on other sampling methods (11 of 64 persons who begin the program) a lesser success is noted. Terryeo 20:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Poorly Cited

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

The statistics Pro and Con

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

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

Shelley L. Beckman. Ph.D. presented a 1997 report, including some statistics on Narconon. [4] and here's another link to the same report on another site. [5] Narconon in Oklahoma has a 70%+ success rate.[6] I got these results by searching "narconon +statistics" and excluding the most common websites that came up (-xenu.et -friendsofnarconon, etc)Terryeo 05:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Quantity of Narconon Centers

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

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

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

"beam intention?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Personal Websites

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Revert Dcottle561

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

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

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

"Controversial Church..." statement

Their affiliation with the controversial Church of Scientology has made Narconon itself a focus of controversy. Says the first sentence of the third paragraph in History. That is an uncited original research on the part of an editor. The adjective controversial isn't appropriate to the statement and shouldn't appear. There is a large number of articles Scientology articles. If an editor wants to present the Church as being "controversial", there is plenty of opportunity to include published sources of information which say so. User:BTfromLA edited that original research into the article at:[8], the applicible policy is WP:NOR Terryeo 02:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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