Talk:Kenja Communication

message: :Kenja Communication is an Australian communication training group. Its website describes it as non-political and non-religious.
This commentary relates to Kenja Communication, Australia.
This group has had a strong effect on Australian social welfare. There will be a determined attempt to turn the article into a PR story, and complaints will continue untill that has been achieved. Please refer to the Wikipedia treatment of Scientology where there is acurate information allowed to remain on the site, while the Scientologists PR pages appear as wellLegalist 07:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Top

message: The group maintains a pyramidic financial structure where money is created as a resource, and then flows through to the leadership via a payments system for commodified spiritual experiences.
This model, originally conceived by L Ron Hubbard, after involvement with Jack Parsons, a disciple of Aliester Crowley, has proven successful for the leaders, although not always helpful to the members. It is a model which can be franchised easily, and can be set up in most areas with a large urban population, allowing for new recruitment to counter attrition.
In most cases, groups of this nature imply they have an altruistic nature and attempt to gain a tax free status to maximise profit. Whether through gaining a religious status from the government, or posturing as a social or sporting club, they conceal the profit's being funnelled through the group. Fundraisers appearing to be charitable, free up cash flow to then be liberated from the groups. Again, pioneered by L.Ron Hubbard, this is done primarily by suggesting the leadership is not in direct control of the group, but operates as a "consultant" only. The impression is of a hands off approach, for a one off fee. This is usually found to be false on closer inspection. 
Please source these allegations
TIA HAND —Phil | Talk 11:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In any case, these are not directly about the group, so they should probably not be in this article. Zocky | picture popups 12:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed for lack of sourcing 

message: I removed a section and some additional text due to complaints and a lack of sources (see WP:LIVING for policy basis).  Please do not re-add the material unless it can be sourced. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  section removal 

message: The mental illness section needs more work, it is too POV at present. Can we get some references for the Michael Beaver paragraph? Also there is nothing to compare the size of the group to how many people have 'developed' mental illnesses.
UBB449 07:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i was merely pointing out that it might not show in this context what percentage of Kenja members have had a negative experience. UBB449 02:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: its fairly clear what you are doing(Legalist 00:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV section 

message: I have removed the 'discharged with a disability' part because I think it takes the war records entirely out of context - I may be wrong but I seem to remember something like, most soldiers who fought in New Guinea in WWII came back with 80 or 90% instability due to the extremely inhumane conditions... therefore if someone came back only 10% unstable it would be supposed they are doing quite well. 
UBB449 08:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another POV section 

message: I have been observing how this article was started and how it has been growing with the 'contribution' of basically 2 usernames (the last one being 'Legalist'). All content is highly biased, manipulative and presenting a single negative point of view towards Kenja Communication.
This is propaganda by an individual or a small group of individuals against Kenja Communication. This article needs some balance to simply start to satisfy the fundamental principles of Wikipedia (NPOV).
I removed the last addition on AVO. This section is a misuse of the Wikipedia by 'Legalist' publishing what would be current court arguments (and again giving one sided viewpoint).
Not only this is opposing the (WP:LIVING) by citing unsourced (very) contentious material about (several) living persons, but this is simply defamation. Legal action is not possible with Legalist hiding behind his username (making it a misuse of the Wikipedia to 'safely' write defamatory statements).
If this was not enough, 'Legalist' is giving the name of fathers in case of an AVO, which will therefore be a 'Domestic Violence Order' (DVO). Naming the fathers means giving the name of the young people, which is possibly be a breach of the Australian 'Children and Young Person Act 2001'. But the important matter is that this article is defamatory and is damaging the reputation of several peoples including young peoples. This article is exposing on the public place family situations that should stay private and is trying to connect domestic issues with the involvement of some of its members to a so-called cult. In several countries, which already confronted these issues faced in Australia and where 'cult lists' have been established, this is already documented as a classical misuse of justice.
A Wikipedia article is definitely not the place for this.
But the purpose of 'Legalist' may not be to simply contribute to a free encyclopedia.
Using the popularity of Wikipedia, 'Legalist' is probably trying to threaten various persons or worse influence current court arguments. This is what I call another serious misuse of Wikipedia.
In conclusion and besides having this paragraph removed, I am requesting that the 'Wikipedia' authorities ban 'Legalist'. (Highestcourt (talk) 05:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  AVO 

message: Added links to cult, and added a link from the cult page to this group.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.218.213.116 (talk) 11:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The group is a cult 

message: I have a passing acquaintance with Scientology, both through a previous minor involvement, knowing people who were in it, and reading about it. I knew nothing about Kenja except for the sensational press coverage of the sexual accusations made against Dyers, and his subsequent suicide. Then, I saw the documentary “Beyond our Ken” which aired on the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) a couple of days ago. I was astonished that just about EVERYTHING taught and practiced by Kenja has quite obviously been ripped off from Scientology. In fact it is a sort of Scientology Lite. I was also surprised that, in a two-hour doco, no one mentions this. Perhaps the notoriously litigious Scientologists scared the producers off. 
Obvious rip-offs were: 
1. The teaching that our hang-ups and mental problems are the result of some attaching spirits
2. The belief in reincarnation, and a sort of Westernised karma. 
3. The idea that many psychological problems are embedded when the unconscious mind is not aware of what is being done to the individual. 
4. The notion that once these traumas are brought to the conscious mind, the individual will be freed from their noxious influence.
5. The practice of getting the individual to tell a church counsellor everything they can about their experiences in an effort to locate these traumatic episodes
6. The insistence that members of the group pay large sums of money to go through these procedures. 
7. The use of word “clear” (used by BOTH Scientologists and Kenja) to describe both the procedure and the emergent individual.
8. The promise that the “cleared” individual will be almost a super-person, charismatic, powerfully willed, able to control other people and bend them to their wills, with vastly increased creative powers. 
9. The vehement rejection of psychiatry and psychiatric drugs, even in extreme cases of schizophrenia and bipolar disease. 
10. The pathetic lip service given to “world peace” and other liberal notions, for which they do nothing at all. 
11. The control over members’ lives and the pressure placed upon them to sever ties with family members and friends who are perceived to be hostile to the organisation. 
As for Kenja not being “a religion”, anyone who knows anything about Scientology knows that Hubbard quite cynically gave his theories a religious gloss—quite late in their development—in order to make his views more authoritative, and to gain the all-important tax-free status. To call Scientology a “church” is to make a travesty of the word. Scientology is a pyramid selling organisation which uses some simple confidence building exercises, and makes its members pay through their noses for it. Dyers learnt his lessons well and applied precisely the same tactics in Kenja.  
Kenja was and is evil, not least because it takes people with significant mental problems and denies them psychiatric care. Then, when they really begin to disintegrate, they simply abandon them. As Ken said in the doco, these are problems they may have to sort out “in their next life”. Scientology does much the same thing. The real irony is that IF Dyers had been more powerful and had a massive organisation such as Scientology does, he would never have been so vulnerable to the Law and Public Opinion. Believe me, Hubbard got away with a lot worse then Dyers did, and he just laughed all the way to the bank. This material should be present in this article. Kenja is not the only offshoot of this toxic “Church” called Scientology. Myles325a (talk) 07:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kenja and Scientology 

message: I've moved this list here, as the list isn't "popular culture", as it appeared in the article, but instead is a list of media coverage. As such it might be useful for developing the article, but doesn't fit within it as such. - Bilby (talk) 13:27, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resources 

message: PaintedCarpet (talk) 18:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  copyedited 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Kenja Communication. 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/20060926001912/http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hanstrans.nsf/V3ByKey/LC19930422 to http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hanstrans.nsf/v3ByKey/LC19930422
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121212073641/http://melbourne-leader.whereilive.com.au/news/story/dances-with-spirits/ to http://melbourne-leader.whereilive.com.au/news/story/dances-with-spirits/
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) 07:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Thanks to Dorothyette for attempting to clarify this. Generally the word "company" is used to describe any form of business. On the other hand "organisation" (or organization, depending on your country of origin) is larger and comprises a number of companies. As the article already states, the Kenja Communication organisation has several businesses or companies in different cities and with different business names. This is a relatively minor point but I trust that this explanation should satisfy everyone. A Google search should verify these definitions. Banjo92 (talk) 03:57, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organisation vs Company