Talk:Office of Special Affairs/Archive 1

message: Removing this Series Template from across the Scientology related pages.  This is not correct usage of Series Templates per the guidelines.  They were set up to show the history of countries and were different articles form a sequential series.  This is not the case with the Scientology pages, which are random pages on different topics – not a sequence of any kind.  Wiki’s definition of a series is: “In a general sense, a series is a related set of things that occur one after the other (in a succession) or are otherwise connected one after the other (in a sequence).” Nuview, 12:15, 10 January 2006 (PST)
:See:
:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_series
:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_article_series
:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Navigational_templates#Religion
:There are both timeline-specific series, and series based a unifying theme. Ronabop 01:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Series Template

message: I have reverted certain edits lately that I believe to be too POV.  Since the original contributor disagrees, I am discussing them here.  Bold indicates added material, italics subtracted material.
:The Office of Special Affairs (OSA) is a department of the worldwide organisation the Church of Scientology
Calling the CoS a "worldwide organization" is technically true, of course.  However, do we understand the subject of the OSA any better because it has been pointed out that the CoS is a worldwide organization?  I don't see how, and it seems to be embedding here a particular POV (namely, that the CoS is an "organization" rather than a "church"); while some people do hold this view there's just no reason to go into it here on this page.
:responsible for directing legal affairs, 
If this is one of its responsibilities there's no reason to omit it.
:pursuing investigations, "oversee[ing its] social reform programs" (such as the Rehabilitation Project Force), 
the "pursuing" has been left in, since it clarifies the clause and makes it parallel with the other "-ing-form-verb noun" clauses.  I very much doubt, however, whether the CoS considers the Rehabilitation Project Force a social reform program in the sense that the phrase appears here.
:and publicizing the Church's "social betterment works" (viewed by many as propaganda).
The fact that not all observers agree that the CoS's "social betterment works" are actually works intended for the primary purpose of social betterment is already adequately expressed by using quotation marks, to indicate that this is the CoS's position, not a description agreed upon by all parties.  I very much doubt that it's necessary to specify that those who don't agree that they are true 'social betterment works' may classify them as propaganda instead.
:Observers outside the Church have characterized the department as an intelligence agency, comparing it variously to the  CIA, the Secret Service,
:Gestapo (which also was responsible for overseeing work and concentration camps) and the KGB.
I have no doubt that some observers have compared it to the Gestapo but that is not a very useful comparison because people compare everything to Hitler, the Nazi Party, and the Gestapo.  The CIA, the Secret Service and the KGB are better examples because it is easier to see how multiple perspectives are possible on the same organization. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say we do understand the OSA better for knowing the CoS is a worldwide organization because the OSA conducts legal and public affairs in many languages, within many legal systems and it thereby enhances our understanding of the complexities, enhances our understanding that the OSA is not just a small handful of lawyers who do all their work in English.  It is well know, for example, the CoS has appeared in German courts and less well known it has appeared in courts on most (or all continents) and I suspect they won't rest until they have appeared in courts in every country (except maybe the vatican).  Terryeo 03:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Think "Public defender" and you're right in the ball park.  As a city has a public defender the CoS has an OSA.  The same OSA handles the press too.  Does this sound like cross purposes?  I don't think so.  In today's world the press and the legal system are so closely linked that it is surprising other large corperations don't copy that organizational method. Terryeo 03:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV edits 

message: In viewing the template (duh, from my POV) I think its purpose would be better served by some re-sequencing.  Here is my proposal.  I won't just do it.  Too many people have contibuted too much and it is too much work to do something like this to it without good reason.
I suggest Organization first because isn't that what people look for in a subject new or relatively new to them?  And I've put Church of Spiritual Technology first because apparently (I don't have confirmation from the CoS) it owns all the trademarks and is thereby senior to all the rest about ownership.  Sea Org staffs all the high positions of the CoS, their existence is of equal magnitued (in an operational sense)  All the organizations to the right and below it are staffed by Sea Org Members or overseen by Sea Org members.  About Public Groups, That line "Public groups and Recruitment" is the longest line and the template becomes nicely narrowed if (what I think is more accurate) it becomes "public groups".  It is probably argueable, but any and all of it "recruits".  ABLE is the highest organization and owns the most trademarks.  I wanted to put the most senior thing in the top left and work downward to least senior / central.  Organization over groups.  Beliefs over practices over Fields of study and controversy last, with some seniority there too.  Suppressive Persons is what most of the rest of controversy  is about.  I have used this character " ; " to indicate an end of line.  I think the template will be 10% to 25% narrower if this is used:
--Organization--
Church of Spiritual Technology;
Sea Org - Church of Scientology;
Office of special Affairs;
Celebrity Center   Gold Base;
--Public groups--  (not Public groups and Recruitment)
ABLE   Volenteer Ministers;
CBAA   W.I.S.E;
--Beliefs--
Thetan   Dianetics   Clear;
Engram    Reactive mind   Xenu;
--Practices--
Auditing   E-meter;
Purification Rundown;
--Fields of Study--
Tone scale   ARC   MEST;
Past Lives   Study Technology;
--Controversy--
Scientology and the legal system;
Suppressive Person - Fair Game;
Operation freakout;
Operation Snow White;
Operation Clambake;
Rehabilitation Project Force;
Scientology versus The Internet;
me Terryeo 03:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Church of Spiritual Technology aka L. Ron Hubbard Library owns all the LRH copyrights, and is supposed to own all shares of ASI (IRS agreement). RTC owns the trademarks and manages/enforces the copyrights. The senority and actual balance of power between the CST and RTC has long been a subject of speculation among CoS watchers. AndroidCat 14:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  a significant (hopefully helpful) resequencing of the template

message: I think this is a very unsatisfactory article. While I don't agree with User:Andrew eagles's revert warring tactics (and I've given him a 24 hour block for violating the 3RR), I do think this article has major problems with POV and factual accuracy. In particular, the paragraph that starts "OSA also plotted the murder" strikes me as being grossly POV and bordering on libelous - it's an unverified claim made by a dubious source, not a proven fact. The article seriously needs to be rewritten. -- ChrisO 00:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say that one should never use Scarff as a source for anything, unless he has a document or a witness to prove it. This guy is a permanent flip-flopper. There are many reliable sources on OSA that can be used. I suggest to delete the whole section with Scarff. --Tilman 20:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well we can use court documents that provide Scarff's testimony.  If there is verifiable information that impeaches Scarff, then that is also relevant. Vivaldi (talk) 16:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Totally disputed

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

message: According to the mediation template:  One side alledges that the other is pro-Scientology. One side alledges that the other is anti-Scientology. Much hinges on whether the phrase "was not carried out as the would-be assassin reported it to law enforcement" is or is not POV and whether its removal is or is not POV.   I'm not sure how the editors here were supposed to ever figure this out since  hasn't ever stated the basis for the dispute.  So my proposal for this paragraph is below.  Please discuss and if consensus says to include this proposal and remove the dispute tag, we will do so.
~~~~~~~~begin proposal for replacement paragraph~~~~~~~
Garry Scarff, claimed to be a former OSA operative, has made a number of controversial statements about the inner workings OSA, although many of his claims are disputed by the Church.  In a sworn deposition taken between July and August of 1993 and submitted in Church of Scientology International vs. Steven Fishman and Uwe Geertz, Scarff testified, "...I was directed, one, to go to Chicago, Illinois and to murder Cynthia Kisser, Cynthia Kisser being the Executive Director of the Cult Awareness Network, by a staged car accident."
The murder of Kisser did not take place because Scarff said, "I could not bring myself to harm or kill anybody." [7] Scientology attorney Kendrick Moxon has called Scarff "a liar" and Moxon also stated that "Scarff's own father says he's a scumbag."  Scarff has also been accused of "flip-flopping" between the former Cult Awareness Network and Scientology. [8]
~~~~~~~~end proposal for replacement paragraph~~~~~~~
Reference [7] and [8] are the ones that are currently listed on the OSA page as it exists today.  I submit the above as my proposal for compromise.  It clearly points out that what Scarff says is controversial and now even includes three disparaging remarks about Scarff.  Discuss Vivaldi 01:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since nobody had any objections to the above, I substituted the text in the main article.  Vivaldi 20:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uhh, I only get to read this now and you're saying no one objected?  I respond later this evening when I get back online. Have to logout for now. --Nikitchenko 21:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the alternative was to leave it as it was, and I knew you objected to that version, so hopefully this version is worded in a more neutral manner so as not to suggest that Wiki has taken a position on any of the issues raised.   Now the article clearly states in 4 places that Scarff's comments are disputed or that he is disreputable, including one time before the testimony by Scarff is even mentioned and 3 times after the Scarff claim is presented.  I think this is being more than fair to your POV.  But again, I'd be happy to see what alternatives you have to offer.  So far, I still haven't seen you explain your objection to the comment at all, the first time I even read that certain parts were considered biased was in the mediation page.  Vivaldi 19:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My compromise proposal 

message: I'm not sure how the editors here were supposed to ever figure this out since  hasn't ever stated the basis for the dispute.
- I did state the basis for the dispute and do not appreciate Vivaldi's accusing me of not. --Nikitchenko 04:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nikitchenko, please provide the diff showing where you stated the basis for your dispute.  I've looked up and down this page and haven't found it.  I've even asked you numerous times to provide it.  What exactly are you disputing   Is it that Scarff made those claims? Vivaldi 09:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nikitchenko: I did state the basis of the dispute.

message: I have unprotected this article after a day-long cooling-off period. However, it remains on my watchlist and I request that all editors to this article stick to a one revert rule guideline on it for the time being and for the good of Wikipedia. If that is not possible in any one editor, then please ensure that all editors stick to the Three Revert Rule or I will block for 24 hours to enforce it.
Thanks very much for remaining calm and collected and for your understanding. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 20:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Amazing. The article talks about volenteers without saying who volenteered, what their motivations were, what they do as volenteers, whether they are members of the church or not or even providing the least citation of any volenteers at all.  At a heresay trial it would be perfect evidence, no source, nothing but a rumor that volenteers do some unknown action for unknown and uncitable reasons. Yet the main thrust of the organization, the OSA, none of its main thrust is presented at all. Instead the only things talked about are a tiny number of shady actions. Terryeo 23:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you like to help improve the article?  Surely you can add some information that demonstrates how OSA feeds the hungry, put clothes on the poor, and houses the homeless, right?  If you have some verifiable information that is sourced properly, I'm pretty sure that I'd let it stay.  You ready to get to work?  Vivaldi 23:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Ah, you guys.  I have stated so many times.  You think of me as being a doctrinaire, a person who can only state one point of view and deny all others.  I have stated often,  I would like the subjects introduced.  Terryeo 19:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotected 

message: The article has a single, introductary sentence which hints at what the organization is.  It is not an especially well written sentence, but it hints at some of the actions which the OSA can be observed doing.  The rest of the article is POV, slander, trash, mis-statment, useless drivel.  It is not well documented nor smootly written and informative.  The article is POV.  It reflect one POV.  The OSA has been the Office which has brought many court cases, probably has hundreds of court cases going on at any one time, deals with many languages and governements and is obviously well organized and run.  Else it would not continue to exist.  The article ignores all of that.  The OSA is, as I understand it, responsible for the public presentation of Scientology.  Before the OSA was the Guardian's Office.  It got Scientology into trouble and the OSA is still dealing with some of the leftover things the G.O. roused.  The article could be better written guys, it could be more balanced, it could present the good, and the bad instead of 95 % of its space being the bad and 5% being the single first sentence which contains a small, reluctant definition of the OSA's activities. Terryeo 19:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree the negative stuff doesn't need to be in the very first paragraph. So, with a mighty swipe of my thetan hand technique, I chopped the paragraph into two. wikipediatrix 19:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The article hints a little bit about a fairly large organization which calls news conferences, simotaneously runs judicial cases in a variety of languages and in a variety of countries and is responsible for the Church's public face.  A brief introductory sentence and the a list of personal websites, pushing a negative POV are presented.  The article isn't balanced.  Terryeo 22:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: Why are personal websites being used as references?  Gerry Armstrong and Arnie Lerma's personal websites are being used as references here. --Nikitchenko 01:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal website references 

message: German, and this is the English Wikipedia.  Therefore it should not be cited. Terryeo 00:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:CITE - "Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to foreign-language sources of equal calibre. However, do give foreign-language references where appropriate. If quoting from a foreign-language source, an English translation should be given with the original-language quote beside it." -- ChrisO 01:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

text: German?  You're sure it's not Greek, right? -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: German or Greek, WP:CITE applies. --Nikitchenko 10:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:CITE, and not some misrepresentation of it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you trying to say? --Nikitchenko 09:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the assertion that Terryeo makes, supposedly based upon WP:CITE.  Then read ChrisO's direct quotation of what WP:CITE actually says.  Dots, connect the; math, do the. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  An interesting encodement.  However, that German document is unsuitable in other ways as well.Terryeo 04:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation [3] is German 

message: Another reference to tory from New Times LA. What is the New Times LA?  http://www.newtimesla.com. So far it isnt a reliable website, is it a real publication? --Nikitchenko 10:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An alternative newsweekly . The website seems to be defunct, possibly it's no longer in print. AndroidCat 13:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was an alternative newsweekly.  It was purchased by Village Voice Media which is a huge corporation that owns lots of alternative newsweeklies -- probably most of the major ones in the country.  This particular newsweekly had won a number of awards for investigative journalism and was read by hundreds of thousands of people each week.   Perhaps the article should mention that it is a defunct alternative newsweekly, but we shouldn't remove the claims made in the article solely on the basis that it appeared in a newsweekly.  Lots of verifiable information has come from journalists that work for alternative newsweeklies.  Vivaldi (talk) 02:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Times LA 

message: Wikipediatrix, Stollery and Antaeus Feldspar, why do you keep reverting my valid changes without really saying why? --Nikitchenko 01:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because they're not valid changes; they are your own personal misconceptions on how Wikipedia policy can be twisted to your ends.  There is nothing dubious about the statement that you keep adding the  tag to; it is a statement of established fact that Tory Christman, a notable critic of the Church of Scientology, makes certain statements about their harassment of ex-members and critics.  What you want to imply -- and keep misusing the  tag in an attempt to imply -- is that Christman's statements are themselves dubious.  However, we can see that this is an absolutely improper use of that tag, as evidenced by the fact that the tag does not adorn every single statement on Wikipedia which has been advanced by the Church of Scientology. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are making personal attacking saying my changes are not valid and commenting on my "personal misconceptions".  It is a dubious statement because Tory is not a reliable source which is referenced in the policy WP:V. Why do you think I "dorn every single statement on Wikipedia which has been advanced by the Church of Scientology" with this tag.  You are being uncivil Antaeus Feldspar. --Nikitchenko 01:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll have to inform the world that the definition of "personal attack" has now been changed by User:Nikitchenko, then.  Hey, world!  Guess what!  Now saying someone's changes are not valid is a "personal attack"!  It must be true, Nikitchenko decreed it to be so!  Oh, and he also changed the meaning of the  tag!  Instead of having to do with the verifiability of a statement, it now has to do with whether or not the statement is true!  You know, even though the principle "verifiability, not truth" is well-established on Wikipedia.  I guess Niki changed that too!  Oh, except it's only critics of Scientology who can have the tag applied to them that way.  As numerous court cases attest, neither Hubbard nor the Church of Scientology is a reliable source, but something tells me that if we started applying the  tags to the Church's claim in exactly the fashion Niki is trying to pretend is existing practice, he'd scream bloody murder.  Oh well! -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Feldspar refused to accept my congradulations about his being nominated to become an arbitrator and he uses terms like "twisted to your ends".  That language is Uncivil.  Please be a bit more civil, Feldspar. Let's simply find good, reliable sources of information and include bits of them in the articles. Terryeo 04:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: If you want to continue being as uncivil, that is up to you.  I already made a report on you to administrators.  Have fune Antaeus. --Nikitchenko 02:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverts

message: That is only reason to place the tag you have on the article. As I have never seen you make that claim I'm removing the tag - Glen TC (Stollery) 06:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: '''''Nikitchenko;  Is your position that Tory never made the claim cited in the article?'''''

message: Mediation has failed.  Mediator does not respond.  The scientology critics keep reverting my edits without discussion.  Is it time for an RFC? --Nikitchenko 01:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My sincerest apologies about the delay. I'm going to try to get the ball rolling re the mediation once more; please bear with me. I am giving this case my immediate attention. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-04-11 Scientology

message: *reference #1 (Wakefield's book) has some problems with it.  It is being used as a secondary source of information.  The linked site states it was published in 1991 by "a now defunct organization".  How did they publish it, was it typewritten notes made by carbons and distributed to staff?  Was "the Coalition of Concerned Citizens (PO Box 290402, Tampa, Florida 33687)" an actual publication house, or did they "publish" her "book" as a memo to staff?  Did it ever reach the public except to get placed on a personal websites and being presented as a "book?".  If it has an ISBN, that should be included. If it does not, that should be included.  If it was published by a publication house, that should be included.  The approximate distribution of the "book" should be noted if it was as small as appears.  Since the organization is now defunct, is the address still good? It is entirely possible, by reading the book, that it was created wholesale by the person who runs that personal website, or, alternatively, published wholesale by one of his "buddies".  There is no indication that the information within it was ever "published to the public" and there is no way to find out.  The organization it is purported to come from no longer exists !Terryeo 04:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The original report is available, it is link 3. I just updated it, it is still on the website of the AGS. So your argument dissolves into nothing. --Tilman 08:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The International Religious Freedom Report 2004 mentions it . --Tilman 09:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The first 3 references 

message: I'm not so good at writing "encyclopedic" texts, so here are some keywords for the regular editors about OSA-related activities.
* David Mayo court case: Mayo won a court case (and 2,9m $) against scientology related to harassment etc. The case was later settled.
* Tory Christman: what she doesn't mention in that URL but is well documented, are the trumped-up charges that she blocked a UPS truck. This was "sworn" in court, but when a video was shown that the truck wasn't blocked, scientology's own "local" attorney Wallace Pope wet his pants and was quick to claim that he wasn't involved in the perjury
* One name: Lawrence Wollersheim
* RVY wrote a lot about OSA and GO , especiaslly that both are department 20
* Frank Oliver has testified about OSA investigations in several courts.
I'm not even sure if this is for the OSA definition, or if some of it is more for fair game. --Tilman 08:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the current Party line from the Church is "yes, we finally admit that the Guardian's Office did lots of bad and illegal things on behalf of the Church.  However, we blame this entirely on evil people who "infiltrated" the Guardian's Office.  Now that the Guardian's Office is disbanded all the bad has gone away."  So I would say the most relevant things to look for are GO-style activities carried out by OSA. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please cite a reliable source for your claim. --Spanked 00:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I found several in about 10 seconds - see  . Of course, whether you consider the CoS to be a reliable source is another matter... -- ChrisO 00:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then cite your sources at the point of assertion.  Also note that according to Wikipedia's founder, uncited information may be removed by ANYONE.  Would you like a link to the quote by Wales? --Spanked 00:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you talking about? The claim in question is on this talk page, not in the article (yet). Talk pages and articles operate under different rules. You can assert anything you like in a talk page but if you want it to go into the main namespace, you have to cite it. WP:CITE applies. -- ChrisO 00:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly my point, talk all you want, but at the time of insertion of claims into the article, cite your sources or else your edit will be viewed as bad faith and the content may be removed by anyone. --Spanked 00:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions for further research

message: Could this be expressed some other way? I don't think we can talk about the people's motives without being able to read their minds: 
: The motives of these volunteers vary: Some truly believe that they are helping a worthwhile cause, while others participate under the notion that they receive special "ethics protection". [8] In one case a volunteer who read critical information about Scientology on the internet was led to believe that he would be unable to continue receiving services unless he performed a series of investigations for OSA. [9]
Thanks. Steve Dufour 13:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mind reading in article

message: Substituted at 21:49, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment