Talk:Narconon

Removing section as SYNTH
I am removing the section titled "Narconon and support from other religious groups" with the text: "Non-Scientology religious figures that have voiced support for Narconon have included the Rev. Charles Kennedy of The Glorious Church of God in Christ, Imam Wilmore Sadiki, James Mclaughlin of the Wayman Chapel, Baptist pastor Alfreddie Johnson, the Rev. Catherine Bego of the Word Evangelism Ministry, and Tony Muhammad of the Nation of Islam.[227][228][41]"

Reasoning:
 * Alfreddie Johnson and Tony Muhammad were already Scientologists, so their endorsement for Narconon fails to be "from other religious groups".
 * The source fails to verify that these people endorsed Narconon (they didn't):
 * Bego promotes The Way to Happiness, not Narconon.
 * Sadiki promotes human rights, not Narconon.
 * Kennedy promotes Scientology/Hubbard in general, not a peep about Narconon.

That leaves only Mclaughlin who is running his own licensed-by-Narconon center; not exactly a neutral recommendation. (Original content was added in 2013.) Concept is basically "these non-Scientologist other-religious-people have endorsed Narconon." Section is basically WP:SYNTH.

Grorp (talk) 07:24, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Narconon morphs again
I've been finding some interesting articles indicating that Narconon has been morphing into a different business model. The gist I'm getting is that Scientology leader Miscavige has decided that Narconon is to be run under Scientology, not as a "secular" subsidiary. As such, future lawsuits can be partially protected under "religious practices". Ortega suggests that the new Narconon centers will be like the Ideal Orgs — beautiful, expensive... and empty. Krebs has much to say about Narconon's deceptive methods of advertising online and by phone.

I'll leave these citations here for later since I don't have time to pursue this angle right now. Anyone interested is welcome to pick up this research thread.



Grorp (talk) 08:32, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Citation overkill
See WP:Citation overkill. The lead section has 31 citations! And 3 clusters like this:
 * [1][2][3][4]
 * [6][21][22][23][24][25]
 * 19. ^ [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][6]

No one is going to read all of these citations, and only one or a few are needed to WP:VERIFY the material that precedes the citation. These sources would be better utilized by being used in the body of the article, and then the summary in the lead doesn't need citations. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 03:39, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I did a very quick tidy of those most egregious instances, which rendered the article text difficult to read. These could of course all go in the body, as you say. Cambial — foliar❧ 14:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)