Talk:Scientology/Archive 10

message: To learn more about Scientology, be sure to visit:
* www.codebot.org/articles/?doc=9471 (temporarily taken down by CoS legal department)
* 72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:WFVaKURIof4J:www.codebot.org/articles/%3Fdoc%3D9471 (google copy)
:Two things about that: (1) it should go on the Scientology versus the Internet page. The section on this page is an overview of major events and not so much news of the day (that goes for ytmnd too). (2) The "letter" posted on the [codebot.org site] doesn't look like a normal CoS complaint, and it certainly isn't any kind of valid DMCA takedown. As well, the offending post "posted by sysrpl on Saturday June 17, 2006 8:32 PM" and the site is down on Tuesday? That's fast work. I'm a bit dubious about this. AndroidCat 17:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not post the above link originally, but cleaned it up a by posting the google cache copy. In the short time the article was published it had the weeks top diggs at the social news website digg.com digg.com/links/Amazingly_Scary_In-depth_Look_at_Scientology_ and propagated to many other news site garnering over 100,000 hits in two days. Late Monday evening my website account at Verio was temporarily suspended in violation of their terms and conditions www.verio.com/support/documents/view_article.cfm?doc_id=4165. I'm in the process of resolving the issue and cannot say more until then. Sysrpl 18:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I removed the paragraph about codebot.org. We certainly need more reliable sources that what is claimed there is actually really going on. Frankly, I have my doubt, as I didn't see the smallest shred of evidence in the text that would justify the Church of Scientology to take action (there is nothing new in the text). After the ytmnd.com thing, for some people it could seem a good idea to enhance their internet traffic to claims that the Church is impeding their free speech. In any case, we need independant sources to confirm, I am not comfortable to leave this there, it would harm wikipedia if it turns out to be a hoax. On the other hand, I can't imagine a fake notice attributed to the Church of Scientology (they would have a case there)... So we really need to have good information on what is going on... Raymond Hill 19:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Raymond, carefully observe my name, and the two comments above yours. Sysrpl 19:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. Proof that the site exists is not at all the same thing as proof that the were issued a legal notice. --InShaneee 19:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: That's exactly the problem. You are the content and the source. We require an INDEPENDENT source. Your word is not sufficient, I'm afraid. --InShaneee 19:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: That letter on the site is odd for a few reasons: It's from "Legal Department, Church of Scientology International". Normally copyright and trademark warnings come from a legal firm representing the Religious Technology Center which protects the copyrights for the L. Ron Hubbard Library (CST) and owns the trademarks. As well, it doesn't quote any of the applicable parts of the DMCA law concerning takedowns or have the manditory "on penalty of purgery" bits. Nor does it list the specific offending parts of the page, which it must. It doesn't look like a lawyer drafted it at all. If that is the letter that Verio received, their lawyers should take a look at it. (Wiki isn't alt.free.legal-advice, I'm just explaining why it looked dubious.) AndroidCat 20:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read again. I am not the person who wrote the wikipedia paragraph, so I am not sourcing myself. Someone else wrote it, and I am confirming it. Sysrpl 20:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But you are the one who the content concerns, and are thus not independent. --InShaneee 20:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Read again. My comment was about codebot.org/notice.html the site. AndroidCat 20:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: sysrpl, even if you are not the original author of the paragraph, the paragraph doesn't qualify, the original author was wrong to include it in the first place. Raymond Hill 20:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: sysrpl, I suggest you contact www.chillingeffects.org/ chillingeffect.org (particluarly www.chillingeffects.org/input.cgi there), they should be able to assist you somehow, and this way it may start the process of spreading this event to the news or other reliable sources of information, but until then, from the wikipedia perspective, it doesn't qualify because of the lack of independent and reliable sources, that's the problem. It could well be possible that the Church made another clumsy attempt at preventing legitimate information [though readily available] from spreading through your well written article. In the mean time, be patient: as soon as there are reliable sources, it will be included. Raymond Hill 20:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: codebot.org

message: Remember http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Scientology/Archive_3#External_links_needs_a_severe_cull this discussion? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Scientology/Archive_3#External_links This one? And http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Scientology&oldid=30851022#External_Links this one? Wikipedia is not an agent to promote web sites. Only the external links that provide meaningful information for further readings should be listed. Raymond Hill 16:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links (again...) 

message: Could someone create a CoS hierarchical structure and ranking systems article? Perhaps it might include a graph or outline of the all the church's organizations? Also, a list of the preclear states, Sea Org ranks, ect. in the same article would be helpful.
 David Miscavige
  + Church of Scientology International 
     + Sea Org
     |  - Rehabilitation Project Force
     + Commodore's Messenger Organization
     |  - Religious Technology Center
     + Association for Better Living and Education
     |  - Applied Scholastics
     |  - Criminon
     |  - ...
Sysrpl 21:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Bridge to Total Freedom would be the reference for the preclear, clear and OT states of existence.  The other things you ask about, I don't know off the top of my head but I can tell you for sure, any article which spells out all of the Church's organization is going to be a damn complicated article.  There are going to be lines of communication (or most non-scientology editors would call them "command lines") going every which damn way.  For one thing, organizations exist independent of the personal who man them.  The personal who man them (Sea Org, as one example) have in addition, an indepenent organization with its own command lines, etc.  Whew ! It might be possible to clarify the ranks within the Sea Org though.  I'm not certain where those can be found. Terryeo 21:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Church of Scientology Hierarchy 

message: Scientology is an applied religious philosophy.www.whatisscientology.org/html/foreword/index.html 1/2 down the page.  The aticle as it stands presents otherwise, is states that "Scientology is a system of practices" and "A system of beliefs".  The article so confuses Scientology with the Church of Scientology that no one need write this article at all, this article could simply be deleted and the 40 million words which make up the applied philisophy, Scientology www.whatisscientology.org/index.html 40 millions words, well, the information of those words, as an article of Wikipedia, well, it could just be deleted.  The article doesn't introduce Scientology, the article introduces The Church of Scientology in the very first paragraph without a word about those 40 million words. Terryeo 00:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientology is a philosophy 

message: I felt it's consistant with other cases, and the most useful target for readers.  I'm mentioning it here, in case anyone disagrees.  --Rob 02:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Scientologist]] now redirects here not [[List of Scientologists]] 

message: Hey, normally I would correct this myself, but it appears that anonymous users can't edit this page. Anyway, in the last line of the "Silent Birth" section, the word "Noise" is clearly meant to be a link, but just shows up with square braces around it. Minor point, but like I say, I can't edit it.
:The square brackets are actually not meant to be a link here, but just indicate that the word was added by a wikipedia editor in order to provide context for the quote. The exact quoted statement would have been "no scientific evidence that taking that away at the time", which would have been confusing. Raymond Hill 14:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor typo