Talk:Religious Technology Center

message: Often, when there is a subject that may one day merit its own article but which is currently discussed in some other article, it's often good practice to create a redirect to that article; that way if someone searches for the term, they'll be redirected to the most information we currently have on it.  
A redirect is appropriate when two article titles are synonyms, but it doesn't work the other way; a redirect doesn't imply that two entities are the same entity. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:50, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Restoring redirect

message: The article said that RTC is located at Gold.  Anyone have a verification about that?  Here is the sentence: "While the legal address for the RTC is in Los Angeles, California, it is physically located near Hemet, California at the Gold Base."  I'm disputing the Hemet, California bit. Terryeo 22:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The occassion when you find a statement that says, "RTC is located at Gold Base" (or equivalent) that will be the day you are justified in putting it in the article.  What Jesse says is not that.  He mentions that some people whom work RTC sometimes appeared at Gold Base.  By that reasoning, if they eat in a restaurant in China, RTC is housed in China. Terryeo 02:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I read through most of the Jesse Prince articles you present as links.  It does not state that RTC is housed at Gold Base.  If it had said so, the appropriate manner to present the information that RTC is housed at Gold Base would be:  "Jesse Prince stated that RTC is housed at Gold Base in his affidavit of ....."  He does not and so, once again, I am removing that state which says RTC is housed at Gold Base.   Should you run into any published source which supports your orignial research, why then, you should appropriatly cite and enter that information into the article.  Until then, it is original research. Terryeo 06:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is most certainly not original research.  My God, Terryeo, at least try to actually read the policies once or twice before you start throwing around the terms; when you use them in ways that make absolutely no sense, what do you think you're accomplishing? -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How clear can WP:CITE be?  You quote something like, "RTC's address is...." and state a source of information.  What is the difficulty with presenting the reader with information which he can, for himself, read and view and understand as much as he wants to?  Terryeo 22:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Jesse Prince's affidavit shows that the senior RTC officials worked out of Int Base at Gold. AndroidCat 16:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "worked out at" does not mean quite the same thing as "housed at."  For example, a person living in Los Angeles might attend at the LA complex, work out at some health club.  Does that mean they are "based" at the health club?  Well, no it doesn't. It means the people involved wored out, have been known to have worked out, sometimes work out at a location.  "Housed at" means something different.  It means the day - to - day activites, every day or almost every day, take place, emenate from, communications are sent from and received to a location.  RTC is not documented to be "housed at" gold base simply because some persons sometimes work out or even stay for a few weeks at Gold Base. Terryeo 07:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Fahrenheit451, we have danced around this tree before.  You say "this is a well established fact, that is a well established fact"  I say, "if it is a well established fact, present the verification"  this is exactly per wikipolicy, WP:CITE.  Would you have our readers take your word for something?  Why not cite a source which states something like, "RTC is located at ..." to support what you say.  Everyone else does, why should your statements be different? Terryeo 22:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Terryeo is right about this point.  If "that is a well-established fact," you should be able to provide a source.  Remember, verifiability, not truth. I'm removing the claim from the article in the meantime. Superm401 - Talk 04:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed here for citing about the location 

message: There was no good reason for this to be changed – I am putting my edit back in.  (Revision as of 05:34, 25 February 2006)Streamlight 14:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of anything else, that was a botched edit with links replaced by [1] text. AndroidCat 16:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually you seem to be removing a number of facts with references, especially any mention of Gold. AndroidCat 13:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This has nothing to do with Gold.  Its just the “facts” referred to are out of date. Streamlight 13:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gold and the RTC have moved? Where to? (Please provide three good references.) AndroidCat 14:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverting earlier edit

message: User:Fahrenheit451 changed the controversy section by renaming it "Attacking the competition" and removing attribution.  I've reverted his changes, as they made the article less NPOV.  Superm401 - Talk 01:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: Can somebody please provide a source for the half-sentence, "that Miscavige is on the infamous list of CIA sources published by CIA-vice-director Robert Crowley (CIA). This gives an new perspective to the real purpose of RTC, as independent Scientologists claim." The preceding half-sentence and its source establishes that an unreliable source published claims of this, but what about the fact itself? --Pjacobi (talk) 19:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source missing 

message: *
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Some articles have more substance than others. AndroidCat (talk) 19:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: RTC in news acticles

message: Are all of the various sources such as licence agreements and organizational covenants recently added WP:V verifiable? AndroidCat (talk) 20:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They will be uploaded on Wikimedia within the next week and then linked with the references.Geo1967 (talk) 20:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Verifiability?

message: Do you know any ars people, who might be willing to "donate" photos from Gilman or from the various Scientology buildings in LA to wikimedia, so they are in the public domain and can be used here? Jeff Jacobsen must have some photos from Gilman and Petrolia. Geo1967 (talk) 23:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo requested

message: The banner warning that "this article does not cite any references or sources" must surely be out of date. The article has currently 50 references, and I couldn't find any "citation needed" in the article. --Raymond Hill (talk) 01:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Banner 

message: I found this revealing admission on the RTC website:
Defined as 'MATTERS OF RTC CONCERN' (at this page: http://www.rtc.org/matters/index.html), the RTC site listed a number of 'concerns'. These concerns also cited pseudo-laws produced by the Church of Scientology. 
At this site (http://www.rtc.org/matters/ethics.html), under the heading 'ETHICS', are a series of concerns which, frankly, do not concern copyright. Rather, they imply that RTC or the Church will take action against perfectly legal acts, but acts which the RTC term 'suppressive' or illegal according to there own laws. 
Included were the following disturbing points (see the above link for more)
# Any suppressive act against Scientology or Scientologists as listed in HCO PLs and HCOBs. 
# Organizing splinter groups to diverge from Scientology practices, still calling it Scientology or calling it something else, or using Scientology data to distract people from standard Scientology. 
# Any misrepresentation of Dianetics or Scientology. 
# Developing and/or using squirrel processes and checksheets. 
# Infiltrating a Scientology group or organization or staff to stir up discontent or protest at the instigation of hostile forces.
# Any anti-Scientology, anti-Source, anti-org or anti-Church management actions or intentions. 
# Any person who is hypercritical of Scientology or the Church. 
# Publicly departing Scientology. 
# Public statements against Scientology or Scientologists but not to Committees of Evidence duly convened. 
# Civil suits brought against a Scientology organization or Scientologist without first calling the matter to the attention of the International Justice Chief and receiving a reply.
# Impersonating a Sea Org officer/member, Scientology org staff member or Scientologist. 
# Anyone forbidding or advising against the writing of Knowledge Reports. 
# Sexual or sexually perverted conduct contrary to the well-being or good state of mind of a Scientologist in good standing or under the charge of Scientology, such as a student or preclear.
# Anyone refusing a confessional or refusing to answer a reading question. 
# Anyone implanted this lifetime. (This is very weird. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implant_(Scientology))
# Any person who acts Type III PTS (Potential Trouble Source). (Reference to Type III PTS is very rare. 
To quote Xenu.com (http://www.xenu-directory.net/practices/ptstype3.html)(under 'Affidavit of Stacy Brooks Young' (9 March 1994)) - "No one is supposed to talk about it outside of Scientology, and it is treated with utmost security when someone becomes Type 3 PTS. The reason for this is obvious: people are not supposed to be driven insane by Scientology, so it would be a public relations nightmare to try to explain it. But more importantly, the treatment of people who have psychotic breaks in Scientology is a clear abuse of the mental health laws, and if such treatment were brought to the attention of mental health officials there is little doubt that Scientology would be subjected to public scrutiny for its practices in this area."
CONTINUED:
# Instigation of destructive activities. 
And here come the pseudo-laws, the final statement which says what will happen if you don't follow the above, laws which have no legal authority:
# Any actions or omissions undertaken to knowingly suppress, reduce or impede Scientology or Scientologists, such as the suppressive acts/high crimes listed in HCO PL 7 March 1965RB, SUPPRESSIVE ACTS, SUPPRESSION OF SCIENTOLOGY AND SCIENTOLOGISTS, HCO PL 10 September 1983, PTSNESS AND DISCONNECTION, and any crime listed in HCO PL 7 March 1965RA, Issue III, OFFENSES AND PENALTIES which has been reclassed as a high crime due to it being severe, of magnitude, harmful to many and committed repeatedly. 
HENCE, the role of the RTC is far beyond that of monitoring copyright. As they describe themselves, there mission is to 'enforce' there authority. The question is, will they enforce their 'authority' in a manner which breaks existing laws?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.77.17 (talk) 12:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The RTC does more than just protect copyrights... 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Religious Technology Center. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130209040134/http://www.tampabay.com/news/article1012148.ece to http://www.tampabay.com/news/article1012148.ece
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041101175401/http://lisatrust.bogie.nl/Media/video/legal/prince_erlich.pdf to http://lisatrust.bogie.nl/Media/video/legal/prince_erlich.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061022163614/http://www.rtc.org/en_US/matters/index.html to http://www.rtc.org/en_US/matters/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:51, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I read your recent edit. I recognize WP:CRUFT, but what did you mean by "cutting cruft and tone"? I think I know what you mean, but it's a bit ambiguous. Could you elaborate on this, please?  ▶ I am Grorp ◀  00:10, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Tone is referring to some sections that might need to be rewritten to a more encyclopedic tone. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:32, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cutting cruft and tone?