Talk:Narconon/Archive 1

message: Coupla refs for someone to put in as needed. Government evaluation; CNN report. - David Gerard 00:36, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Narconon rejected by State of California 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Controversial lines cut and pasted here per WIki Policy 

message: 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)
thread_title:  FASEnet and Utah 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: Here is a more detailed analysis of the report, in English.  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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Poorly Cited 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Quantity of Narconon Centers 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Revert Dcottle561 

message: 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:, the applicible policy is WP:NOR  Terryeo 02:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Perhaps you didn't get it that I used The New York Times as a singular example.  I do not accept it that the Church is to be controversial in such a wide manner that an article may state so and not present information which is published, which has said so.  I do realize that active posters to alt.religion.scientology consider that to be the situation, however such individuals comprise an extremely small portion of our planet's population.  Therefore, to include such a statement in a wikipedia article, it is only necessary to follow WP:V which is to say, present a previously published, reliable source of information saying that. I used the New York Times as an example.  Perhaps you see that there are other sources of information which could be used, but in every case, widely published is what Wikipdia articles are mainly made up of.  So, therefore, find a widely published (should be easy if that is the actual situation) source and quote and use it. Terryeo 21:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:    Terryeo 20:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: Your answer strikes me as disingenuous, Terryeo.  Your reply--directing me to a very curt and non-informative dictionary definition--did not respond to my question in any useful way.  BTfromLA 00:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Really, a link appears there to the word which you requested a definition of. Terryeo 15:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That "definition" didn't respond to my question in any useful way, and you know it.  BTfromLA 16:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Terryeo, thank you for explaining your reasoning.  In my view, the Scientology method as you describe it, responding "without comment or interpretation and without ancillary discussion," seems to undermine communication and to project hostility in this context.  It appears that you did not read, or wish to address, what I wrote--I did not ask for a definition, I specifically invited you to engage in interpretation (that is, thinking) and discussion. The definition you linked to was simply another way of writing "Dev-T"--it didn't address, in the slightest, what I had asked you to comment on, i.e., whether my summary of the term was in some way mistaken or misleading, and whether what you were doing on this page was an example of "Dev-T" as a deliberate tactic. BTfromLA 14:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Let me see if I actually understand what you said, BT.  I think you said, "without comment .." projects hostility?  Is that what you said?  Did you say that to reply directly and with no interpretation, discussion, ancillary comments, etc, is to "project hostility?"   Is that what you are saying?  The fewer the words, the greater the projected hostility?  So like, I say, "nice day isn't it?" and because I did not use 100 words of more than 5 letters I have "projected hostility?"  And if I reply to such a query by saying, "yes" then I have projected hostility because the quanity of words I have used as been few and I am therefore "projecting hostility?"  Is that what you are saying that I am saying?  'Cause man, I'll tell you.  I am NOT going to engage in discussion when the topic of discussion is a word which is not understood by both parties.  Terryeo 15:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Terryeo, that's not what I meant.  Responding to this particular question--a small cluster of questions, really--with a three-word expansion of the abbreviation that offered no new information and no direct response to the issues I'd raised is what seemed to me a bit hostile.  There is nothing inherently hostile about brief responses--neither are they inherently gracious or appropriate.  It has to do with the context, Terryeo--with the meaning of your utterance within and in relationship to an ongoing discussion.  Clear enough?  BTfromLA 16:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmmm.  well it seems like we might have a situation where what you consider normal, civil behaviour (and obviously 1000s who think as you do) is considered by me (eeek, just me) to be unethical.  It would be completely against my ethics to tell you what the meaning of a word is, and this is particularly true of a Scientology - jargon word.  In a Scientology acadamy, if an instructor responded to the question, "what does 'Dev-T' mean" with the slightest hint that it meant something, the instructor would be performing an unethical action.  Acadamy instructors would respond by pointing to a reference, or by presenting to the student the meaning of the term in some other manner, but never by personal means and only by already written means.  And an instructor would do that without the slightest hint of their own, personal understanding of the meaning of the word. Am I being clear, but responsive? Terryeo 21:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Terryeo, you are indeed being clear and responsive.  Thank you for that.  This is very interesting to me, but we've wandered pretty far from the Narconon article, so I'll respond on your talk page in hopes of continuing the discussion there--I hope that seems appropriate to you.  BTfromLA 22:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  All right. Terryeo 11:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: "Acadamy instructors would respond by pointing to a reference": that makes me wonder, what happens in the case where the reference might be erroneous? Nobody can discuss it, so it will never get corrected? Also, what happens if my understanding of the reference is wrong? Who will know that I misunderstood whatever concept is referred if I can't discuss it with anybody? Just curious. --Raymond Hill 01:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi Raymond.  I think you are asking about the conduct of acadamy instructors?  BTfromLA asked me about a definition of "Dev-T".  I replied with a link and without ancillary discussion.  The resulting discussion has gone on.  I did say that about acadamy instructors.  In this particular situation they would point the student to the definition in Mondern Management Technology Defined, pg. 149, abbreviation, pg. 572 .  That would not be wrong.  Discussion does happen and is certainly not curtailed.  The point I was making is that an individual is capable of reading the printed word and understanding for themselves, the meaning of the printed word.  Acadamy Instructors are human and have made mistakes.  There are processes of correction, a division of Scientology Organization is called "Qualifications" and its responsibility includes correcting erroneous actions.  An acadamy supervisor acts as the first step in educational procedure.  But he is not the only help a student has.  And if he makes a mistake, there is a division of organization designed to correct his misunderstanding which led to his mistake. Hmm, But as I re-read your question, Raymond, maybe you are talking about whether people can talk to each other?  Of course people talk to each other ! :) Terryeo 04:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be Div 5 or QualDiv as expressed by a visit from a Cramming Officer, right? Wasn't the one-time Chief Cramming Officer of all Scientology, Dennis Erlich, posted there by L. Ron Hubbard? AndroidCat 02:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  3000 Orgs and missions, 3000 cramming officer hats.  Normally a person is routed to Qual because Qual is set up with the references in place and other MEST materials to perform their fuction. I've no idea about specific personal in specific Orgs, what are you speaking about a management org ? Terryeo 02:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Incorrect. It's always "3000 Orgs, missions and groups", isn't it? There are close to 148 orgs by my count. According to the RTC, there are less than 586 orgs and missions the last time I checked. It is easy to keep a file drawer full of "groups", so 3000 might be possible that way, especially if groups like Narconon are included. I did clearly say that Dennis Erlich was appointed by Hubbard as Chief Cramming Officer for all of Scientology, and not just an Org or Continental office, right? AndroidCat 02:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm pretty sure you must be suggesting that only Orgs and Missions use a Cramming Officer job and that Narconon and groups do not ? Terryeo 02:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's so nice that you're sure about what I'm suggesting. In fact, since I've seen ads for Applied Scholastics organizations hiring Ethics Officers, I have little doubt that they, Narconon, WISE, etc, employ Cramming Officers as well. AndroidCat 02:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Controversial Church..." statement 

message: Is to a completely unacceptable source of information.  It surrounds itself with "Associated Press" and other, reputable sounding terms but the actual information appeared in a GOOGLE GROUP !  Completely unacceptable information. WP:RS clearly spells out and spells out explicitly that no newgroup or blog may be used as a secondary source of information in any wikipedia article.  That reference is completely wrong !  It must be removed. Terryeo 21:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the "actual information", as you term it, appeared in the New York Times on July 17, 1989.  I dunno, Terryeo, even after all the effort that the members of the ArbCom put into explaining it to you, you still don't seem to grasp the distinction between a newsgroup or a blog or a "personal website" as a source, and as a relayer of information from other sources.  In this case, since the actual source is quite highly regarded indeed and since we have the date and title of the article, it would be quite easy to check whether the article does in fact contain the information that is cited in the reference (as I did, in fact).  It's so easy to check, in fact, that it's rather puzzlingly stupid to suggest that such a reference "must be removed".  Have you, perhaps, forgotten that the idea of Wikipedia is to bring well-sourced information to the reader?  Rather than just to attack the source of the information in an effort to get it "removed"? -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I see the use of a google group as a reference for that information has changed.  I won't go into the chain of logic which you will find both at WP:RS and in the talk page of WP:RS which explain in detail how information which appears in a google group is not a citable source.  If you wish to present the arguement, "information which is good information may be cited wherever it appears", your platform would be WP:RS and the consensus of opinion there.  My statement is a reflection of that consensus, and I'm glad to see the google groups reference out of there, in this manner Wikipedia readers can have better confidence in our articles. And by the way, Feldspar, your "rather puzzlingly stupid to suggest.." remark borders on incivility. Terryeo 08:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And I won't go into how much of your ArbCom case was about your frequent attempts to remove information which could have been easily verified under the pretext that some factor such as the presence of a convenience link meant that it had never been verified (an assumption in which you were frequently wrong).  That argument was certainly not the consensus of opinion in your ArbCom case, nor do I think you could point to a consensus of opinion anywhere on Wikipedia that if we have a reference which points to one of the largest and most widely available newspapers in the world and gives us a specific date and a specific article title (please tell me, can you construct a possible scenario in which a reference would be easier to check?) that "That reference is completely wrong !  It must be removed." without any mention of other options?  Such as, say, checking the reference (which, not to put too fine a point on it, is precisely the point of a reference)?  I'm sorry that you perceive incivility in it being pointed out that such a failure to explore any other option represents puzzling stupidity, but not only is it stupidity, it's stupidity on the scale that jokes are made of.  "Oh no!  The light bulb in the front hall went out!  We'll have to sell the house!"  "The car is out of gas!  Look, there's the gas station!  Maybe they can tell us where to buy a new car with gas in it!"  "Oh no!  This reference might not be a 100% accurate representation of a New York Times article whose date and title are fully known!  It must be removed!" -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  One grows bored with your incivil comments, dispersive arguements, personal attacks, and references to past difficulties.  I raised the issue that a google group was acting as a repository for information.  If you feel google groups should be perfectly acceptable to Wikipedia, your place to argue the issue is WP:RS. Terryeo 19:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just as one grows bored with your antics, Terryeo.  You didn't "raise the issue" that Google Groups was serving as a repository for information obtained from a perfectly verifiable source, you decreed that the reference "must be removed".  This is like saying "The cat is coughing up a hairball!  We must take him to the vet to be put to sleep!" and then when your obvious overreaction is pointed, pouting and pretending to be a martyr and claiming you were only "raising the issue" of the cat's hairballs, and pretending that whoever disagreed with you obviously doesn't care about the poor cat and his hairballs.  See, there wouldn't be any "references to past difficulties" if you weren't continuing pretty much the same behavior that caused those past difficulties. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Face facts, Terryeo.  You tried something sneaky, and we didn't fall for it.  "Hey!  Here's something that's easily fixed!  But I don't want it to be fixed; I want it to be removed instead!  Maybe if I lie and announce that it must be removed, people will somehow overlook that there are much better options than what I am falsely claiming is the one we must take!"  You tried, you failed, accept it, move on. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Per WP:PAIN, I ask you to stop your personal attacks, Feldspar. Terryeo 16:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *guffaw*  Oh, Terryeo.  You just get more and more hilarious.  You accuse other editors of acting in a secretly coordinated conspiracy and yet at the same time you demand that the same people never suggest that you did anything wrong because that would be a "personal attack"?  ROFL. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  *guffaw* indeed. Myself, I find it quite amusing that a group of individuals of like mind and fixated on presenting what millions of people have found to be helpful, are working with mutual effort and interest to display the difficulties that group of millions has had.  While this link is a neutral person's presentation of the Church's effort, the articles here prefer to find tidbits of past difficult, such as Fair Game and when I say, hey, you know, "that hasn't been a practice for years" and cite and quote HCO Policy Letters then editors come back with, "how can we believe you?".  Where is the wikilove, huh? Terryeo 15:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bravo! That is perhaps the one Scientology article on that site that doesn't officially credit Al Buttnor, Director of Special Affairs (OSA) for the Church of Scientology Toronto as author or co-author. Neutral... On Bizarro World, maybe. AndroidCat 15:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference 15 

message: Reference [14]  
states some information.  That HTML page says it is information generated by "the Board of Mental Health, State of Oklahoma" and the date, "13 December 1991" appears.  However, there is no indication the information was every published.  There is no indication of where the information was published, if it was published.  There is no certification of publication, no recognition of copyright regarding the source of publication, no mention of any person or authority of any kind whatsoever except the owner of the website.  In regard to who owns the information of that HTML page, the article presents 2 conflicting information because the webpage presents that Jeff Lee wrote the page but the article presents that Dave Touretzky is responsible for presenting the information.  No part of that reference complys with WP:RS which attempts to guide us editors toward the kind of reader confidence WP:V intends us to present. Terryeo 11:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excerpt from "State Mental Health Board Denies Narconon Certification Bid", by R. W. Lobsinger, The Newkirk Herald Journal, 19 December 1991: «Reasons for denial of certification were listed in a document called Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, which was released following the meeting by Hurst.» Raymond Hill 20:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I understand what you have posted, Raymond.  Apparently The Newkirk Herald Journal published the information.  What confidence do you have that the HTML document which your link points to has been reproduced with the blessings of the author of the article?  It appears on a personal website.  We might be contributing to a crime !  If not with this reproduction on a personal website, with other HTML reproductions on personal websites which do might not have the author's permission to reproduce the article.  There is nothing on that page which says it honors the copyrights of the creator of that information, there is nothing which says it was reproduced with the permission of the author.  There is no reason the personal website owner should, either.  Apparently he feels he can get away with typing in HTML, reproducing someone's hard work at his whim without permission and without honoring the author's copyright.  No mention is made of copyright.  WP:V says we should use reliable, reputable sources of information.  A personal website which reproduces an author's work at a whim, just because it suits his point of view, with no recognition of copyright, should probably not be considered a reliable, reputable source of reposited, secondary information.  Terryeo 03:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference [14] 

message: For example, Heber Jentzsch was arrested in Spain is spelled out in blazing detail.  Unsupported detail is given, too.  The full force of the government of Spain's wrath seems to be railed against the Church of Scientology for fraud.  Yet those charges were dismissed, I believe.  Courts, somehow, simply didn't find any of that to have substance.  But does the article say so?  No, the article presents the most inflammatory elements of the case as presented years ago.  Does the article say the government of Spain created the charges, just made them up out of the thin air?  No, the article only spells out the most inflammatory elements of long ago.  Another example, much is made of the Guardian's Office, a long since disbanded organization which was disbanded precisely because it had become an anti-Scientology group with some power, working within the Church.  The article presents a biased POV. Suppose I supply some detail here on the discussion page which would reflect when some of the past biased nonesense actually met the court system and what happend ?  It doesn't seem right to me that I'm always working toward "the other side", really.  It would seem to me that editors would actually want a balanced presentation.  But I'll supply such details if someone is willing to consider putting them into the article and not instantly reverting them "for POV reasons". Terryeo 10:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course all the charges with the Spain thing have been dropped and the situation has been spelled out as being false to begin with. Terryeo 04:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Press/marketing releases do tend to be positive.  AndroidCat 10:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  On Aug 10, 2004, Georgia Tweedie had submitted the pertinent article which was then posted  on that date.  User:AndroidCat has presented a link which makes analysis of the situation addressed by Tweedie's press release.  While 'Cat's information might apply in several areas, nothing is mentioned about Narconon (this article) and nothing is mentioned about drugs and nothing is mentioned about Narconon Programs in either the release nor the analysis of the release. Terryeo 14:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article doesn't seem to be biased? 

message: The most recent addition to the article is a pragraph presenting several difficulties.
Narconon facilities in California were cited repeatedly for violations by state inspectors. Violations included administering medication without authorization, having alcohol on the facility, and not having proper bedding for clients. Narconon has also used traditional Church of Scientology tactics to silence opposition, including sending letters to neighbors of a proposed facility in Leona Valley, California threatening legal action for criticism. Residents of the Leona Valley were concerned that Narconon would increase crime. [34] The local town council recommended an eight foot security fence and independent security, which was objected to by Narconon officials. [35]
The first 1/2 of the paragraph is unsupported by reference.  [34]'s link says the article is no longer present and searching for the phrase of its title produces no hits on the site, nor do various other searches of less restriction bring up the article.  It is a fairly serious statement for our article to say, "... were repeatedly cited for violations by state inspectors", and the article should present such a reference.  In addition, unless a secondary source specifically states, Narconon has also used traditional Church of Scientology tactics to silence opposition, such a biased phrase should not appear in Wikipedia articles. Terryeo 04:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As usual, this is a problem of wikipedia (not believing print articles), but I'll go ahead and copyright infringe the article anyway from Lexis-Nexis. Calwatch 05:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The second link talks about the relationship of the town council where it will be located, the county's planning commission and the county's board of supervisors.  It is unclear which body has the authority to allow the permit or if several bodies much each pass it in turn.  But that second link is good, published information, typical of the complex building codes some of us know and love. lol. Terryeo 04:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The town council is advisory but generally has the ear of the local supervisor/mayor, Mr. Antonovich. The Regional Planning Commission can vote on the subject but the BOS has the right to overrule their opinion by scheduling a rehearing. Or the BOS can punt to the RPC. After this, lawsuits will inevitably be filed. Calwatch 05:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edit 

message: I am moving this newly written, anonymous rant (left from an IP address) from the top of the page to the bottom. Vpoko 19:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your feedback, if you have specific recommendations to make please do so, but nothing in the above post helps anyone write a better article. Vpoko 19:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Everything in the article is properly cited by verifiable sources. The only "rant" here is the misspellings-and-insults-filled speech just given by 70.58.29.50. wikipediatrix 19:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay. To consider the anon's statement, I looked at the article.  While I use the broad term, "statement" and do not classify his statement as a rant, a claim, an attestation, or an arguement, another editor might.  However it is classified, the article has many criticsms.  Measuring the linear inches dedicated to criticsm, to the linear inches dedicated to pro-Narconon, I come up with a ratio of about 55 to 1.  So, there is some substance to the anon's statement.  Terryeo 15:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hey, if you find a verifiable source that God himself praised Narcanon, it can go in the article. Otherwise it can't, simple as that. Vpoko 14:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anonymous rant 

message: This article could use a little spring cleaning. The structure needs work to make things more coherent, and the History topic is unreadable. 207.67.84.171 21:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup tag 

message: These should be incorporated into the article.  Smee 08:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations to add to the article... 

message: :Could be used as a source to add info to this article.  Cirt (talk) 12:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't see anything in that article that adds any extra information that is relevant. Organizations have maintenance issues with old buildings all the time, so I don't see that itself as noteworthy.  --Fugu Alienking (talk) 15:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future of rehab center unknown 

message: *
:Source to be used in this article.  Cirt (talk) 14:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Again, I don't really see anything in here that is noteworthy for the topic of this article. It seems they have had planning permission overturned because the neighbors don't want to live next to a drug rehab clinic (who does?), not because of anything specific to do with Narconon. --Fugu Alienking (talk) 15:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Council revokes rehab consent 

message: *
:Source to be used in this article. Cirt (talk) 11:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rehab home cited for alleged code violations 

message: * 
* 
* 
There are others on the SFgate site. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source: Narconon promoted to children / Narconon in San Francisco 

message: I'm a bit confused by the sentence that references citation 6. That sentence begins "By the end of 1991...", but the PDF that refernce 6 links to does not mention the year 1991 in the section on Spain. In fact, the only appearance of "1991" in the whole document is in a section on Turkmenistan.
Instead, the document says that "In 1988, Heber Jentzsch, the current president of the Church, was arrested during a trip to Spain and spent four months in jail." [p. 47]. It shortly continues: "In December [2001] the Madrid Provincial Court had acquitted 15 members and employees of the Spanish branch of Scientology who had been charged along with the church leader Rev. Heber Jentzsch." [id.]. Judging by the dates and the context of those sentences, these are separate incidents. Additionally, the cited source makes no mention of what court dealt with the 1988 incident, only referencing "the Madrid Provincial Court" in the December 2001 incident.
I'm changing the part of this article in question to reflect what the cited source actually say. -George (talk) 04:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation 6 

message: I have removed the following text: 
=== Heroin possession ===
In March 2002, it was reported that a man was convicted of possession of heroin with intent to sell, arising from an incident where he was found with 31 packets of heroin during a police investigation of a disturbance at a store on September 9, 2000. The man worked at a Narconon facility in Georgia at the time. While the man was waiting to be sentenced, the judge allowed him to remain free on $15,000 bail and return to his duties as a drug rehab counselor at Narconon, despite the objections from the prosecutor of the case.
As far as I can see, the only source cited (which, incidentally, fails WP:LINKVIO and WP:RS) does not indicate that the man worked at Narconon at the time of his arrest for possession of heroin. Instead, the source dated 2002 says, "A former Lancaster man was found guilty late Friday of possessing heroin with the intent to sell the drug in September of 2000. Anthony J. Mariani, 40, now of Dunwoody, Ga., also was found guilty of possessing drug paraphernalia. Mariani, who has undergone voluntary drug rehabilitation and now works as a counselor for the inpatient Narconon program outside Atlanta, faces a possible 2-year mandatory minimum prison sentence." Jayen466 18:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the removal. Actually, I think it also fails WP:UNDUE - I don't really see the relevance of this incident to Narconon in general. It strikes me as a bit coatrackish. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section removed 

message: In March 2002, it was reported that a man was convicted of possession of heroin with intent to sell, arising from an incident where he was found with 31 packets of heroin during a police investigation of a disturbance at a store on September 9, 2000. The man worked at a Narconon facility in Georgia at the time. While the man was waiting to be sentenced, the judge allowed him to remain free on $15,000 bail and return to his duties as a drug rehab counselor at Narconon, despite the objections from the prosecutor of the case.
</blockquote>
As far as I can see, the only source cited (which, incidentally, fails WP:LINKVIO and WP:RS) does not indicate that the man worked at Narconon at the time of his arrest for possession of heroin. Instead, the source dated 2002 says, "A former Lancaster man was found guilty late Friday of possessing heroin with the intent to sell the drug in September of 2000. Anthony J. Mariani, 40, now of Dunwoody, Ga., also was found guilty of possessing drug paraphernalia. Mariani, who has undergone voluntary drug rehabilitation and now works as a counselor for the inpatient Narconon program outside Atlanta, faces a possible 2-year mandatory minimum prison sentence." Jayen466 18:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the removal. Actually, I think it also fails WP:UNDUE - I don't really see the relevance of this incident to Narconon in general. It strikes me as a bit coatrackish. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heroin possession 

message: About Narconon programs in schools:  JN466 08:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useful sources 

message: , rough translation here . Cirt (talk) 07:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Head of Scientologist “Narconon” center sentenced in Pavlodar, Kazakhstan 

message: I think we ought to add a section clarifying the relationship (better, lack of relationship) between Narconon and Narcotics Anonymous. I would do this, but I'm not entirely sure what the major differences and similarities are. Given that many people often (I'm told mistakenly) abbreviate Narcotics Anonymous as Narcanon, and since Narcotics Anonymous is probably the largest organization involved in the same project(getting people off narcotics) as Narconon, it seems to me that there should be a section in the Wikipedia article clarifying how Narconon is or is not related to Narcotics Anonymous.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.23.142.85 (talk) 04:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I know exactly what the issues are and will add something this evening. I have worked with Narcotics Anonymous groups before, assisting people who have been swindled by this  Scientology fraud. At the same time I'll add information about these crook's methods. Fredric Rice (talk) 15:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not Narcotics Anonymous 

message: As someone who came to this page to reseach various claims about the success rate of this program, it is fairly clear that the entire page is heavily biased against Narconon with very little substantive information. I do understand that investigations and overt community actions taken against Scientology may be facts, but objective people would like some information on the actual methods and success rates. Perhaps as an attorney I am used to at least an attempt at hiding bias. Propaganda is more persuasive when you attempt to sound objective.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.254.11.22 (talk) 18:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the methods are described here.  Perhaps they could go into more detail, but really what is there is a good description of their detoxification methods.  As for the success rate, I think the article covers that.  Narconon claims a 70% success rate, but no scientific verification has been done.  Obviously they aren't going to allow outsiders to come in and review their process or their files and without that how would one independently verify their success rate?  I too am an attorney, so I understand your concerns.  But you must understand that it is rather difficult with a topic like Narconon that is almost universally recognized as an unconscionable scam outside of Scientology members who try and defend it.  I would agree that it could be set up like a regular article, simply discussing the organization's history and methods before delving into some of the controversies, but the article would still end up being about the same.  It's just a fact with this organization that there is far more verifiable negatives than positives.Jdlund (talk) 14:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  BIAS 

message: No mention of the Arrowhead Oklahoma facility in the article.  This is a fairly large omission.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.128.83.160 (talk) 01:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arrowhead, OK 

message: If you look at references #29, 30, 31, 32 and 33 below:
^ Church of Scientology The Fundamental Skills of Auditing: Hubbard Professional TR Course (accessed June 4, 2006)
^ Hubbard, Narconon Communication & Perception Course Book 4a, 2004 edition. (pg. 447-482)
^ Joseph Mallia "Inside the Church of Scientology; Sacred teachings not secret anymore" Boston Herald March 4, 1998 pg. 025
^ Janet Reitman Inside Scientology Rolling Stone, Issue 995. March 9, 2006.
^ Leigh Woolsley "Case for the Cure", Tulsa World, 6 November 2005 pg. D-1
There are numerous issues with the information cited in the below paragraph:
“The remainder of the Narconon course uses "training routines" or "TRs" originally devised by Hubbard to teach communications skills to Scientologists.[29] In the Narconon variant, these courses claim to be designed to rehabilitate drug abusers. These training routines include TR 8, which involves the individual commanding an ashtray to "stand up" and "sit down", and thanking it for doing so, as loudly as they can.[30][31] Former Scientologists say that the purpose of the drill is for the individual to "beam" their "intention" into the ashtray to make it move.[32] Patients spend an average of 3 to 4 months in the Narconon facilities in the United States, for a fee which is different at every Narconon Center. The price ranges from $10,000 to about $30,000.[33]“
For #29, I could see no connection between the source and Narconon in the source.
For #30 and 31, I could see no connection found between the sources listed and Narconon in the sources.
For #32, I could see no connection between "the drill" and Narconon.
For #33, in searching tulsaworld.com, this article could not be found or supported.
Saying the above, I petition for the removal of these references and above paragraph as this information is unreliable and, at the very least, NPOV. Scifilover386 (talk) 00:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: After petitioning these sources for removal, and finding no objection, I am going to remove these sources. If someone objects, I am happy to have a discussion about the validity of your argument. Scifilover386 (talk) 23:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

text: Removing them would be premature. I do believe there is plenty of evidence of former NarcoNon patients claiming the TR8 is used in the program. Petter Bøckman (talk) 18:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The TR routines mentioned in the first sentence is confirmed by NarcoNon themselves, see Narconon Therapeutic Training Routines. Would this be a suitable substitute for the first source? Thimbleweed (talk) 07:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor references on this page 

message: The last section of the lede states:
To this day there exist no independent and recognized studies that can confirm the efficacy of the Narconon program.[4] Narconon's operator ABLE funded a peer-reviewed study, published in 2008 and co-authored by a former Narconon executive, which asserts that the Narconon curriculum had a thorough grounding in substance abuse etiology and prevention theory, incorporated a number of tried and tested prevention strategies, and had proven successful in reducing drug use among youths.[5]
This sentence now indicate it is about the full Narconon program, which it is not. We have an other study study (Berg 2008), which is the closest I have seen to a proper secondary source saying the Lennox & Checcini 2008 study is 1) not independent, 2) not properly conducted, and 3) is only about the school program, not the Narconon withdrawal program. As it not stands, the lede indicate the whole Narconon program has a "thorough grounding in substance abuse etiology and prevention theory, incorporated a number of tried and tested prevention strategies, and had proven successful in reducing drug use among youths", which is not what the source says. Considering the problems with this study, the emphasize put on this study in the lede would thus in my view go against WP:FRNG. I suggest removing the whole sentence, or at least change it so that it do not indicate the Lennox & Checcini study is a proper scientific study.Thimbleweed (talk) 20:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If there's no counter arguments, I will go ahead and edit the lede. Thimbleweed (talk) 07:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I do agree with this change. You're right in that the way this study was presented in the introduction, which is actually about the most insignificant aspect of the Narconon programme, can skew the impression that all of Narconon is scientifically of substance, when it clearly is not. --Thilo (talk) 05:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! Seeing the study is very much cited in other sections of the article, it's not as if we lost any information. This article will potentially be read by people in a very difficult situation. If people get the death year of Emperor Augustus wrong it's unfortunate, but no big deal in the greater picture, errors in this article is something people may potentially die from. I think we have an obligation to be extra careful giving factual and fair information here. Thimbleweed (talk) 07:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lede misleading? 

message: The history section needs to be updated to show that the Oklahoma facility has relocated.  Some time back Narconon entered into some kind of land swap / purchase with the Indian Nation for around 200 acres of former state park resort property.  The Indian's had been given (unlikely they bought the property, but I don't know) by the state after the state shut down the 3 story lodge & cabins at the park.  Narconon entered into an agreement to trade the original site plus cash for this property.  There was press reports that the Indian Nation had to get the Bureau of Indian Affairs involved when Narconon failed to pay the funds owed.  THere should be ample news reports to support someone to research and update this section.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.247.114.63 (talk) 03:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've put in some info about the history of Narconon in Oklahoma, although nothing specific yet about the land purchase / swap / whatever-it-was. --Mknjbhvgcf (talk) 14:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Facility Move to Former State Lodge 

message: A big news story is running on Rock Center, especially focusing on deaths at the "Arrowhead" facility in Oklahoma... AnonMoos (talk) 02:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've put in a brief mention of this, under 'controversies'. A link to the RC story itself might be a useful addition. --Mknjbhvgcf (talk) 16:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it was yet on-line when I made my previous comment, but it's at Families question Scientology-linked drug rehab after recent deaths - Rock Center with Brian Williams... -- AnonMoos (talk) 21:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Added link - thanks - also added link to Narconon's response statement. --Mknjbhvgcf (talk) 13:14, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  News story 

message: The "Pur Detox" (mentioned in the article) seems to be Narconon under a different name. Should this be included in the article? Relevant news article here. Thimbleweed (talk) 13:29, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it should. The slogan "The Truth About Drugs" seems also to be used sometimes without the Narconon name - I can have a look around for sources on that. What other sources to we have on the relationship between Pur Detox and Narconon? --Mknjbhvgcf (talk) 13:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Court House News also call them a "Church of Scientology-affiliated facility" and mentions the Purification Rundown. I don't know if this is enough. Would it be an ide to have a section called "other Scientology-affiliated drug rehabilitation groups" for Pur Detox, Novus Medical Detox and others? It seems they vary ever so slightly in treatment, so it could be difficult to claim they are Narconon. Thimbleweed (talk) 13:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: And not forgetting that they all seem to be related to Purification Rundown. I haven't heard of Novus Medical Detox at all. "other Scientology-affiliated drug rehabilitation groups" seems like a good idea to me. --Mknjbhvgcf (talk) 13:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

text: Also relevant: Second Chance Program, New York Rescue Workers Detoxification Project, also possibly 'Bio-Cleansing Centers of America'. --Mknjbhvgcf (talk) 14:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's another one, Teen-anon, which by their own description is a version of Narconon (including the Purifaction Rundown), directly aimed at teenagers. Thimbleweed (talk) 10:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

text: another one: 'Israel Says No To Drugs' --Mknjbhvgcf (talk) 10:04, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

text: Cleanse and Detox Program --Mknjbhvgcf (talk) 12:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: New section erected, feel free to move it to a more appropriate place. Thimbleweed (talk) 21:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not rename the section. I have made redirects for all the alternative names to the section.Thimbleweed (talk) 13:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I was going to reorganise the article so that the 'spin-off groups' section is moved out of 'history' (where you maybe wouldn't expect to find it). If I make this section into a first-level heading then will that screw up what you've done? Best wishes, --Mknjbhvgcf (talk) 14:39, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No, moving it or changing level won't matter as long as the name stays the same. Please go ahead and find a better place for it, my placement wasn't optimal. Thimbleweed (talk) 16:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative name? Pur Detox 

message: Narconon, Taceno, Italy, 1995.
Source on article Purification Rundown is 
--Mknjbhvgcf (talk) 14:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: added --Mknjbhvgcf (talk) 16:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deaths of Paride Ella and Giuseppe Tomba 

message: * wsbtv.com 2 Investigates: Patient death at Georgia Narconon Death raises about questions about Scientology-linked program's license
* wsbradio.com
--Mknjbhvgcf (talk) 13:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: * Affadavit of Dr David E Smith - who if I understand correctly is an expert witness in the case - is particularly useful and interesting.
* Patrick Desmond OSA Report "Created less than 24 hours after Patrick Desmond died of a drug and alcohol overdose while a patient at Narconon of Georgia, this memo, written by executive director Mary Reiser, is clearly routed to the legal director of Narconon International, the executive director of ABLE Eastern US, the Director of Special Affairs at the local Church of Scientology and the Office of Special Affairs at the Church of Scientology International. While Reiser never reported Desmond’s death to state regulators, this is her report to Narconon and church officials."
* State investigates Narconon Georgia after Channel 2 reveals new evidence / Investigation sparked after death at Scientology-linked facility "A Georgia drug rehab program with ties to the Church of Scientology is now under a state investigation ... Records show about a dozen complaints in the last decade, but the state of Georgia has taken no action against Narconon. ... In April, the inspector determined the facility was 'operating a residential' program. Two months later, all three deficiencies cited were retracted, despite Narconon's own website which calls the Georgia program a long-term residential facility. ... "If they are in fact running a residential treatment facility and they're not licensed to do that, then that becomes a real problem," said Cook. "We'll be taking a very close look at it. All of what you've said does concern me." State officials said they hadn't looked at any of those records until Channel 2 Action News started asking questions."
--Mknjbhvgcf (talk) 11:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  sources re Narconon Georgia - death of Patrick Desmond 

message: I think I made the wrong choice in adding it in the first place.
Hadn't realised that it was not widely used in other wikipedia articles about quack medicine, or that it was so contentious.
Further discussion can be found over at
Wikipedia_talk:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Pseudoscience_.27warning.27_headers
where I'm seeing some pretty cogent arguments against its use.
So, reverted my own edit and removed it. It wouldn't be fair to 'single out' Narconon from other types of quack medicine.
Chalk it up to newbieness.
--Mknjbhvgcf (talk) 18:44, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the pseudoscience warning header discussion, the warning is to be stated in the lede, not in a disclaimer. I suppose it just means the lede needs to be watched closely for dilutions. Thimbleweed (talk) 19:08, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm watching it like a hawk. :) --Mknjbhvgcf (talk) 13:07, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why I've removed the Quackery banner 

message: The intro to the article alone is all but neutral. This article needs a major overhaul. Suggestions how to go about it? Fairyday (talk) 05:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The lede states in neutral tones what the sources say. Find other reliable sources saying otherwise, and the lede can be changed. Thimbleweed (talk) 08:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

text: Could you be more clear about what you think the problem is? MartinPoulter (talk) 15:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV? 

message: The article now has a section on related Scientology groups and front groups for Narconon. I have now started finding a number of Narconons opperating under other names. I think this is newsworthy, but should I put this under the "Spin-offs and related groups", or should I make a new section for alternative names? Thimbleweed (talk) 08:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other names 

message: Estudio de Educación sobre Drogas de Narconon – Una Prueba de Prevención Controlada sin Factores al Azar Referencias Científicas de Narconon Estudio de Prevención de Drogas de Narconon – 2008 Currículo de Prevención de Drogas de Narconon – Resumen Currículo de Prevención de Drogas de Narconon – Descripción Detallada Un Estudio de Caso sobre el Programa Narconon para Jóvenes en Utah El Programa de Rehabilitación de Drogas de Narconon – Una Visión Global Descriptiva, por el Doctor Alfonso Paredes Artículo del Townsend Letter sobre el uso del Programa de Desintoxicación de Sauna Hubbard para Mejorar la Salud de los Trabajadores de Rescate de la Ciudad de Nueva York >Resumen de Evaluaciones del Programa Narconon durante los Últimos 25 Años Poniendo Fin a las Ansias por las Drogas – El Sinigual Progama de Desintoxicación del Programa Narconon Perspectiva de un Médico Perspectiva de un Experto en Abuso de Drogas El Programa de Rehabilitación de Drogas de Narconon – Evaluación Continuada del Programa 
REF. SOBRE EL PROGRMA DE DESINTOXICACION DE NARCONON
juan luis  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jldcampos66 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  narconon 

message: This is more of a screed against the dangers of Scientology than a Wikipedia article. While I agree that Scientology is dangerous and should be warned against (though the Catholic Church is about a million times more dangerous), this is an emotional reaction and has no place here. Are we supposed to forsake NPOV if we believe in something strongly enough? The point of view here is not "this is what Narconon is", but rather "this is why Narconon is bad." It's dishonest to claim that this is an article about Narconon when in truth its purpose is to warn against Narconon. It should be called Criticisms against Narconon or something.--Teiladnam (talk) 16:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Please point to the section(s) you feel fail to meet NPV, so that we can have a look at the wording. Thimbleweed (talk) 09:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The article currently has 163 sources and is rated B on our quality scale, meaning it is mostly a good article.  If you take issue with parts of it, please explain them here for community review.  Although try to limit your attacks on unrelated organizations.  Andrew327 16:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surprisingly biased... 

message: Would Dave Touretzky be an acceptable source? There is also an article from the Daily Kos, but I am not familiar with it and I'm not sure if it is useable. Thimbleweed (talk) 16:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I can tell neither one of them really qualifies.  Dave Touretzky looks like an AM talk radio show which do not have the editorial oversight neccisary for a Reliable source, and the Daily Kos article is edited under a pseudonym.  Even if these did qualify we would run into the problem of WP:WEIGHT which would question why this event is significant in the scope of the history of Narconon.  We aren't here to list every single time Narconon is mentioned on the news, nor are we supposed to become a listing of every Narconon site.  Additionally Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball and doesn't insert edits based on what the future effects may be.  So lets wait to see if the mainstream media picks up on this, and to what extent.  Cheers!Coffeepusher (talk) 17:10, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: David Touretzky is a college professor and well-known critic of Scientology who has a Wikipedia article... AnonMoos (talk) 03:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

text: The source was really just intended so show that "A Forever Recovery" is Narconon, affiliated if not just Narconon under a different name. I don't think this run counter to WP:CHRYSTAL. I do see your point about WP:WEIGHT, the article is certainly long as it is. I have earlier suggested making the section a separate list, would that be an idea? Thimbleweed (talk) 17:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: honestly I would delete the entire section unless some of those organizations are found to be notable.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that some are embroiled in lawsuits or otherwise are in trouble with local authorities makes them notable in my view. Also, I believe the "name-game" is very relevant to this article. I still thing taking out the lest and make it a separate entry is a better solution though. Thimbleweed (talk) 11:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Front group: A forever recovery 

message: Is the neutrality of the article still under dispute? The article seems fairly balanced to me, considering the difficulty in acquiring reliable sources extolling the benefits and workability of the program. The backlash against Narconon in recent years has reached the point that however which way we approach it, the bulk of the article will generally not be favorable to the organization. There are simply too few positive examinations and analysis of Narconon that would fulfill WP:RS and WP:V. The scientific and medical consensus is that the program is, at best, pseudoscience. So, the way the article is now, this is as good as it's going to get.
I would suggest, however, that a separate article regarding the criticisms and controversies of the program, and moving a substantial amount of the information  here to that main article. Like the Scientology article, this one is becoming very long and the longer articles become, the more unreadable they will become over time. George W. Bush is one of the prime examples of this phenomenon. Reading that thing is like a visit to a sadist posing as a dentist. Of course, the only difference between the two is the dentist usually has newer magazines. Laval (talk) 17:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I would resist separating the criticisms as that can be seen as a WP:COATRACK and would effectively create an attack page.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status of NPOV dispute: is it safe? 

message: A source used in the lead is from page 7 of the 19 February 2009 issue of the Thomas, Oklahoma Tribune, an 8-page weekly newspaper. That town has a population of about a thousand people, and the article cited doesn't give an author. I think this is a press-release or commercial news-wire item republished without comment, which is a fairly common practice for small-circulation newspapers. I do not think this meets WP:RS, and I think it should be removed. Any comments? Grayfell (talk) 23:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Essentially the same information is available in Inside Scientology, a 2011 Houghton Mifflin publication. We could probably just replace the Thomas Tribune source with this one. Pburka (talk) 03:27, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! I used that for the info on Benitez. After looking for more reliable info on the Arrowhead facility, it seems like it deserves a section of its own. Its controversial history, and that of its predecessor Narconon Chilocco, are described under the section on deaths. Since much of its history is about licensing and land issues, it seems a bit misplaced. A separate section on Arrowhead/Chilocco would give some background to the multiple deaths section. Any thoughts? Grayfell (talk) 00:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thomas, Oklahoma Tribune 

message: The phrase where Scientology head David Miscavige attributes criticism to Scientology's "war" with "the mental health field" is Original Research, which I discovered upon closer inspection of the transcript of the interview this text was based upon. In the interview, Miscavige and Koppel discuss the allegation involving Narconon and the state of Oklahoma. When he actually utters the quote that was in this Wikipedia article, he has shifted to talking about the Church of Scientology as a whole and not just Narconon.RustyIvory99 (talk) 00:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nightline interview 

message: Hello Grayfell. Thank you for your feedback. I understand that I may have overused the quotation, but the intention was not to insert a “press release puff” as you mentioned, but to provide a critical part of the conversation surrounding Narconon - the perspective of the organization itself. I suggest that we include a paraphrase or summary of the Narconon statement. How can we include this?RustyIvory99 (talk) 20:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You inserted the quote in the section on Narconon and Scientology. The quote has nothing to do with Scientology specifically, so it doesn't belong there at all. Beyond that, the quote is a standard press-release that adds nothing from an encyclopedic perspective. I don't think there is any doubt that Narconon thinks that Narconon is wonderful, so I don't see what use that blurb could be in this article. If there are specific points it raises that should be included, there are better sources for them. Grayfell (talk) 00:18, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Narconon statement 

message: I changed some of the references that were in the lead to list-defined references (WP:LDR). I'm not exactly thrilled about it, but I think the lead needs some serious attention, and it was driving me batty trying to figure out where references ended and the quotes began. This article has the most in-ref quotes of any I can recall having worked on. If anybody has a better solution to making this more easily edited, I would be THRILLED to hear it. Grayfell (talk) 01:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes in references. 

message: On the transcript extract should it be noted that Casal was retained by the Scientology corporation as their expert witness? This is Scientology's own witness stating that Scientology's Narconon does not work as Scientology claims. Damotclese (talk) 19:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medical Witness Casal Transcript 

message: Cite 13 (currently) references comments by the Scientology corporation as quoted in the New York Times however the citation offers the company New York Times, date, and page number. Should it contain this actual link to the article as the reference instead? Otherwise researchers will have to Google for it. Damotclese (talk) 19:20, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this must've just been an oversight. Fixed. Grayfell (talk) 04:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Excellent, thank you. The New York Times link to the actual article is stored in the Time's archive server so I believe we can count on the link being good in to the future. Looks great! Damotclese (talk) 16:41, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  New York Times Citation 

message: The commentary about Hubbard's book "The Fundamentals Of Thought" is not complete, the full title of the book is Scientology: The Fundamentals Thought. I propose that the text be fixed to include the full title since this is a matter that has been brought up in a number of criminal and civil court cases against Scientology. Scientology's lawyers argue that their "Narconon" isn't actually Scientology and the full title is often offered as exhibit eviodence to show that Narconon actually is Scientology. Damotclese (talk) 18:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. Scientology books get new editions and print-runs pretty often, but in this case, it looks like it has always been named Scientology: The Fundamentals of Thought, so... yeah. Grayfell (talk) 04:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you again, that also looks better, it matches Amazon's full title for the book and it matches court transcripts where the book has been entered in to the plaintiff's exhibits. Looks good! Damotclese (talk) 16:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Fundamentals of Thought 

message: You know what is missing here is an attempt to compile a formal list of Scientology Narconon businesses which are still in operation around the world, complete with a list of known fake front names which are extensive and change frequently, names which change in part to avoid law enforcement prosecution and civil lawsuits and in part to avoid people discovering that such offices are Scientology. (They tend to get raided or sued, then get shut down, and then pop up again elsewhere under different namesm, often run by the same owners/operators named as defendants.)
People researching Scientology's "Narconon" might very well be searching to see if the alleged drug treatment facility they are looking in to is a Scientology fraud or not, and having a list of known names for Scientology's Narconon offices would be greatly beneficial, not only for researchers seeking treatment facilities but also for victims and prosecutors. (On the Skeptic Tank web site, the #1 researched web page on the subject of Scientology is the list of known "W.I.S.E." businesses. People search for such information.)
I think I will collect what's known and submit a proposed update, using Twitter and Facebook accounts of all the fake names I can find. It will be an incomplete list which is unavoidable, but the list of names can be vetted to acquire good levels of confidence that they are Scientology merely by bringing up the Scientology web sites associated with each and verifying that they applaud and support the usual Scientology earmarks. Damotclese (talk) 23:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientology Narconon Offices Still Open 

message: Is this article now NPOV and if so should the POV banner be removed? 78.86.131.23 (talk) 10:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide additional information.  Are you referring to changes that have been made recently?  Andrew327 10:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm referring to the cumulative changes made since the POV banner was inserted (August 2013), when the article looked something like this. Diff. 78.86.131.23 (talk) 11:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes sense, I just wanted more context.  I support the banner's removal.  As an aside, it would be helpful if you would log in, so your IP address doesn't change over the course of the RFC.  Andrew327 11:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your contribution. If my IP address changes over the course of the RfC then I'll make a note to that effect. 78.86.131.23 (talk) 11:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

text: Also I guess I'm implicitly asking, if the article is still not thought to be NPOV, then which bits of it are the problem? (so I can work on improving them). --78.86.131.23 (talk) 11:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

text: Also I have to wonder how the article got added to the Maths, science, and technology RFC lists. :) People called in by the 'bots for RFC might wonder how they got called in to comment on Scientology. :) Brings a smile to my face. Damotclese (talk) 15:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your input. I thought quite hard about which category to post the RFC in. I came to the conclusion that, because Narconon International claims to be completely secular and explicitly denies that it is in any way religious, the religion/beliefs category would be inappropriate. Narconon claims to have unique technology and it claims that its technology is medical in nature so I looked for a medical category - 'science and technology' were the closest I could see. You raise the interesting question of whether the article might be considered NPOV in respect of science/technology while failing to be NPOV in respect of religion/beliefs. That one is above my pay-grade. :) Anyway, if I posted it in the wrong category then edit away.  78.86.131.23 (talk) 16:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV? 

message: Also it would be nice to work the article a bit to bring the B Classification up to a GA Classification. There is some serious work needed in the references and citations to do that however looking through the Classification requirements and looking theough the article, it appears to me that we're not too far away from achieving GA.
The references and citations which link to weaker weight sources can be backed-up by providing a secondary reference or citation verifying the weak-weight source. Example would be a reference or citation to journalist Tony Ortega's blogging news source should be backed-up by an additional reference or citation to a traditional mainsteam media news outlet such as ABC News, NBC News, CNN, a secondary source which has strong-weight acceptance.
With care, each secondary reference backing up the weak reference can be verified to address the same issue, fact, statement, or claim so that at the end of the effort an appeal for GA Classification will pass and, I would expect, this article's status can have the greater Classification.
I think such an effort is worth doing. Everything else is there, I think. Damotclese (talk) 23:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  B Class to GA Class 

message: I can do some research. Did you identify any specific citations (other than Tony Ortega / Underground Bunker) which need work? Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 20:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specific citations? 

message: Just got the news reports that Scientology's Narconon has been convicted of committing gross human rights crimes against a number of victims, this time in in Quebec, Scientology's rather notorious "Trois-Rivieres" facility. I have the court documentation which shows the Judge's highly detailed examinations of findings of Scientology's human rights crimes in these latest indictments however I'm awaiting ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN coverage of these new guilty findings before updating the article.
If anybody else beats me to it, please do so. :) The guilty findings are certainly something that should be added to the article once suitable heavy weight citations can be added in addition to the Scribd court documents. Thanks! Damotclese (talk) 19:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Editors, please examine my Canada Narconon Trois-Rivières Convictions addition and verify that I approach WP:NPOV and that the addition looks fine. If not, please update it. Thanks! Damotclese (talk) 17:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with the edit is that as of now it relies entirely upon non-reliable sources and original research.  I have reverted the edit for now, until reliable sources can be found and the entry updated.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

text: looks good to me.  Just avoid blogs and primary sources in the re-write and everything should be fine.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, we need heavy weight on the references and citations, that's the goal to bring the classification up to "GA." Does anyone want to update my proposed text? Or shall I do it? I can post the updated proposed test to the Talk:: page if people want to evaluate the results before comitting to the article. Thanks, Coffee! You are awesome. Damotclese (talk) 23:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Edit away!  Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:17, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you, yes as soon as I can I will add the sections withthe appropriate citations. Damotclese (talk) 16:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Felony Guilty Findings for Human Rights Crimes 

message: I expect that most editors and researchers have heard about the fairly new web site created by the Hamilton Law Attorneys which describes some of the current civil lawsuits in considerable detail, and which the attorneys request and invite alleged victims of Narconon to contact them to evaluate the possibility of instigating further civil cases to retrieve some or all of the money which new plaintiffs were allegedly defrauded of.
I have a Wiki Policy question about this. We must maintain WP:NPOV with utmost focus on accuracy and detail, and I expect that linking to the web site as a reference or citation may violate WP:NPOV. At the same time researchers might very wel be searching for information on how to instigate civil lawsuits to recover their money, so such a link is useful. Problem also is that linking to the attorney's web site is not exactly encyclopedic and comes close to a form of advocacy.
What do other editors think? Is the attorneys' web site a legitimate reference or citation which could and should be mentioned in the extant article? I'm leaning towards "no" however I would like to be convinced otherwise.
Thanks every editor who has been working on improving the classification of this article, with the attorney web site linking to this Wikipedia article, the need to maintain a clean, non-vandalized research page, I feel, makes this a very important page to keep clean. Damotclese (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to say no as well. If there was more secondary coverage of Hamilton's suits it might be useful as a supporting link, but right now, I don't think so. Even from a research perspective, there are several firms currently involved in suits against Narconon, and countless lawyers who would be willing to start action against Narconon, so providing a link to one such firm seems... slightly spammy, to be honest. A link would be a type of endorsement, and the article would need a great deal more very well supported content specifically about Hamilton before its encyclopedic value would exceed its promotional cost. Grayfell (talk) 21:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

text: Agree "no", per Damotclese & Grayfell. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Excellent, thank you, three editors are in agreement. Damn, that's got to be a first on Wikipedia. :) Sounds good, thanks! Damotclese (talk) 16:34, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hamilton Law Citation / Reference 

message: A source we seem to have missed:
Stacy's Law, named after Stacy Dawn Murphy, to provide more oversight for Narconon, rehab centers
Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:31, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This actually might be a good page to create on its own, researchers looking for background in to "Stacy's Law" might wish to bring up a single unique page which covers the history and the contents of the law. It might be worth creating a new page to cover it, suitable links and all the usual encyclopedia background. Damotclese (talk) 16:37, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an interesting idea - I'm not sure whether we have enough material yet to satisfy notability requirements - as a first step we could put in a redirect from "Stacy's Law" to a relevant section of this article (once one exists! ). Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Stacy's Law" 

message: http://www.news9.com/story/25802563/oklahoma-multi-county-grand-jury-to-investigate-narconon
Another link that could be used as a reference however News9 pages are short-lived, they get deleted fairly quickly from their web servers. I'll make a note of it here anyway for now. Damotclese (talk) 23:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Archive.org link for future reference. Grayfell (talk) 01:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oklahoma Grand Jury 

message: *Angelo Amato (San Diego)
*Christy Estrada and Branden Chavez (San Diego)
*Cathy and Michael Tarr (Nevada)
*Harry and Lauren Geanacopulos (Nevada)
*David, Stacy, and Jack Welch (Nevada)
*Bryan and Nikki Mott (Colorado)
*Charles and Tyler Matthys, and Linda Phillips (Colorado)
*Kenneth and Jered Mowery (Watsonville, CA)
*Robin Jones, James Ramirez Sr. and Jr. (Watsonville, CA)
*Charis Yates, Beret and Dean Pugh (Nevada)
*Lori, Ryan, and Jilliene Winchell (Nevada)
*Ben Levy (Colorado)
*Monica and Sean O’Connell (Watsonville, CA)
*Ronald and Jason McClure (Nevada)
*Michael and David Tino (Nevada)
*Jerry and Christy Courson (Colorado)
*Terney, Barbara, and Thomas Knoflick (Watsonville, CA) Damotclese (talk) 15:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note: Current Hamilton Lawsuits 

message: Greetings, Topazemomo. I reversed your edit because methadone deaths at unrelated drug treatment facilities are not relevant to Narconon. If there is some relevance you feel is important, please let editors know here in the Talk:: page and let's put your text back in with suitable relevance background. Thanks! Damotclese (talk) 16:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversed Topazemomo Edit 

message: Thank you editor TheQ Editor for removing the vandalism from the Scientology person in Italy which continues to vandalize the page, we may need to reinstate the IP blocks and request protection for the page once again, this latest death may be motivating the Scientology corporation in Italy to vandalize the page more frequently. Glad to see that editors are on top of it.
The Translated Article Covering New Italian Homicide is provided, plus there are Three Additional Civil Lawsuits which contain details about filthy human rights crimes Scientology is committing at their Narconon facilities.
That link http://tonyortega.org/2014/08/20/narconons-cancer-new-lawsuits-court-order-scientologys-rehab-network/ also notes that the Judicial ruling in some of the Hamilton civil cases is a ruling which can be applied to most or all future civil lawsuits -- and presumably criminal indictments, some of which are pending in Oklahoma -- to be used against Scientology.
Who ever has access to protecting the page, would you please get that process started? Damotclese (talk) 19:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Since it was only one recent edit, and it's been a couple of days with no further vandalism, page protection seems like overkill to me (WP:ROUGH). If it does become an ongoing problem WP:RFPP is the place to request page protection. Grayfell (talk) 05:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another Narconon Italy Death 

message: Angelo Amato (Warner Springs, CA)
Christy Estrada and Branden Chavez (Warner Springs, CA)
Cathy and Michael Tarr (Nevada)
Harry and Lauren Geanacopulos (Nevada)
David, Stacy, and Jack Welch (Nevada)
Bryan and Nikki Mott (Colorado)
Charles and Tyler Matthys, and Linda Phillips (Colorado)
Kenneth and Jered Mowery (Watsonville, CA)
Robin Jones, James Ramirez Sr. and Jr. (Watsonville, CA)
Charis Yates, Beret and Dean Pugh (Nevada)
Lori, Ryan, and Jilliene Winchell (Nevada)
Ben Levy (Colorado)
Monica and Sean O’Connell (Watsonville, CA)
Ronald and Jason McClure (Nevada)
Michael and David Tino (Nevada)
Jerry and Christy Courson (Colorado)
Terney, Barbara, and Thomas Knoflick (Watsonville, CA)
Claudia and Sarah Buchett (Warner Springs, CA)
Sherri and Emily Brown (Warner Springs, CA)
20 in total. Source: http://tonyortega.org/2014/09/13/ryan-hamilton-files-20th-lawsuit-against-scientologys-drug-rehab-network/
--Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:50, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current Hamilton lawsuits against Narconon / Scientology (13 Sept 2014) 

message: As much as I like "patient hosing" as that's much more accurate and descriptive of what these Scientology people do to their customers, I corrected the spelling. :) Damotclese (talk) 15:22, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patient Hosing 

message: I think that's a reasonable update for 66.87.128.186 to have made. It should be relevant to get that noted right up front. There is some complaints by the Scientology organization, however, complaining that the fake "drug treatment" fraud they sell was not in fact created / founded by Hubbard, so there is also a debate about whether one can legitimately classify Hubbard as the "founder" of this particular Scientology fraud. What do you think? Damotclese (talk) 16:47, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  66.87.128.186's Scientology Founder update 

message: Substituted at 15:26, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Greetings, Marcocapelle, thanks for the edit on the Scientology organization's "Narconon" entry. However if I may, I'd like to suggest that changing "Category:Religion and society" to "Category:Scientology and society" is not accurate; that is, removing the "religion" category, the category becomes less accurate. The quack medical frauds which Scientology commits against their Narconon customers is predicated in quack medical ritual, but also the Scientology ringleaders themselves demand that what they are doing is religion. Damotclese (talk) 18:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category change