Talk:OT VIII

Link to the "Confidence Trick" page
The text in the body of this page regarding people paying hundreds of thousands for OT VIII is linked to the "Confidence Trick" page. While I understand and agree with the sentiment, I don't think this is in accord with NPOV. Sorry if I did this wrong, never edited before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.201.80.170 (talk) 21:29, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Summary?
Ariane Jackson's writeups from memory are the most respected summaries of OT VIII out there. Would anyone like to try summarising it from her writings? - David Gerard 11:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * David, unless I'm very much mistaken, Jackson is talking about what the Church calls "New OT VIII", and not about the level previously known as OT VIII, which is what the Fishman OT VIII is asserted to be. Jackson herself stated:
 * "OT8 has totally changed and has none of the Fishman version. It is actually just a review of all of the person's auditing and a verification/nullification of discoveries the person has made about himself. It consists of ONE question (in two parts) repeated."
 * We have it both straight from the CoS, and from Jackson, that there is more than one OT VIII, but the article does not address the difference between "old" OT VIII and "New OT VIII". The syllogism that "Ex-members know what's in the real OT VIII; Ex-members don't recognize the material in the Fishman OT VIII; therefore the material in the Fishman OT VIII is not the real OT VIII" no longer holds together when there is more than one document that has been "the real OT VIII".  I think we need to revise the article to reflect this. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I've shuffled stuff a bit. The OT-VIII in Fishman isn't generally accepted amongst critics, as far as I can tell (that might be original research of course). Note that Fishman obtained the OT-VIII in the affidavit from a different source to the OT I-VII, which are accepted as accurate (because the Church considered them copyright violations) - David Gerard 13:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If you think about what Antaeus is saying, though, it makes sense: I've long suspected that the CoS uses different material for different people, depending on what they think is most effective for that person. We just don't know what a "real" OT VIII is for sure, or if there's even a standard anymore. wikipediatrix 14:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * True. However, they seem to use consistent versions of OT I-VII - David Gerard 14:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I wonder. I'm pals with a Scientologist who won't talk about OTIII, but swears that there's no mention of Xenu in it. Of course, if there was, she's obligated to lie about it anyway, but she's really really not a good liar at all, she's very transparent. Something tells me that post-South Park, the CoS has pulled a switcheroo and is now either saving Xenu for a higher level or omitting him entirely. (If provable, this would be a massive instance of church-approved squirreling). wikipediatrix 14:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

FSSO
The article says that the only known Flag Ship Service Organization is the Sea Org. This is incorrect. The Flag Ship Service Organization (FSSO) is a Scientology Organization located aboard the Freewinds Motorvessel.

See: http://www.scientology.org/p_jpg/world/worldeng/21/fsso.htm

As an organization it is staffed my members of the Sea Org, as all Scientology Advanced Organizations are, but the terms "Flag Ship Service Organization" and "Sea Org" are not synonymous as the article implies.

It is also important to note the difference between FSO and FSSO. FSO is the Flag Ship Organization, also known as the Flag Land Base, or simply Flag, and is located in Clearwater, FL.

So, FSO = Flag = Building in Clearwater, while FSSO = Freewinds = Ship where OT8 and other courses are delivered. Both are staffed by SO members, but neither term is synonymous with the Sea Org (A Sea Org member posted at ASHO, for example, is not affiliated with either the FSO or the FSSO).

The article as it is currently written does a poor job of explaining what the FSSO really is.

Matt2053 01:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Notable
Besides having no sources, the article just basically seems to be saying that there is something called OT VIII. Steve Dufour 17:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Not anymore. WillOakland (talk) 04:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikileaks version
The version on Wikileaks is yet another text claiming to be OT VIII. The CoS has claimed the PDF on Wikileaks is a copyright violation - it contains the common versions of OTI-VII - but I've seen nothing on whether they expressly claim the version of OTVIII as a violation. Given their earlier erroneous claiming of the Fishman version, I'd say hold off for more information. I've added to the article accordingly. - David Gerard (talk) 11:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well the way you added it looks good so far. Cirt (talk) 12:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The quote is by any definition offensive and irrelevant to what OT VIII is supposed to be about, spiritual gain. I have tried to make it more neutral by also mentioning that Hubbard is alleged to have also said that Jesus did not exist, with a ref to show that this is a current debate.  He couldn't believe both things.  And also positive statements made about Christianity in the early years to give the third option.  I put a reference to The Secret Gospel of Mark only in the references which may or may not be relevant but is the actual controversy on this subject.  So if a disgruntled member wants to allege a highly offensive (to Christians) viewpoint, well he is not alone.  I hope this is fair and welcome other edits to make it even more neutral point of view.Drg55 (talk) 12:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Your edit, as it stood, is original research through the synthasization of two or more reliable sources. If there isn't a source that makes the point that 1. Hubbard was talking about the secret gospel of Mark, 2. and he believed it was fake, then you can't make the edit you are trying to do under wikipedia regulations.  This isn't about points of view, it is about the type of sources we are allowed to use to edit wikipedia.Coffeepusher (talk) 14:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Article is misleading
Unlike other OT levels, no "leaked" copy of OT VIII materials has ever been released. All that exists on the Internet are outlines allegedly based on memory from former members - none of these "versions" have ever been validated by the Church, unlike the other OT levels (most notoriously OT III) which have clearly been validated by the Church as being true. In other words, the versions of OT VIII floating around out there are for all intents and purposes BS. Also see WP:V and WP:RS. Laval (talk) 20:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It should also go without saying that Wikileaks is far from a neutral or reliable source - Wikipedia should not even link to it as Wikileaks is grossly in violation of the Church's copyrights by not only providing downloads of confidential (and copyrighted) documents, but also publicly available lectures and documents (such as RJ67, a publicly available cassette tape) that are available at any Church bookstore. Wikipedia should not encourage this kind of blatant copyvio by linking to such sites, which is indirectly supporting them. No matter how anyone feels about the Church, supporting copyright violation is just plain wrong, and Jimbo has himself stated as much. Laval (talk) 20:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

"copyvio"? You crazy Scientologists and your crazy contractions. 71.193.17.201 (talk) 01:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

If the Church of Scientology is claiming that these documents are protected by copyright, then they are defacto admitting that they are accurate. 67.208.188.68 (talk) 19:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Fishman version
The write-up we had did not seem to match the cited source. Rewritten – please check. -- J N  466  12:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Nancy Many
In her recent documentary that aired earlier this year(can be watched: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x13ahb6) Nancy Many put to rest the rumours of "The Masonic Program" at the old Guardians Office by strenuously confirming it was administered to her. Considering this program was designed by hubbard to teach that "L Ron Hubbard is the messiah", and we now know it to have occurred(at least according to Many), I think this is obvious evidence the Fishman Affidavit OT8 is clearly the original text(and this GO program was somesort of OT8 preparing test) or, equally as controversial, is based off recollections of, or indeed a leaked document from, the bizzare Guardian's Office program that we now know did exist at one stage. OT8 was not originally administered on the Freewinds, and it's even possible it could have been a version of "OT8"(or simply known by nickname as that due to the extreme and final nature of the "revelation" contained) administered specifically by the GO. This program was restricted to Commordore's Messengers(like Miscavige for instance) and Guardians Office Agents who were high ranking. No scientologist outside of these two groups was allowed access to this program, and they wouldn't even know of the existence of a "GO specific course", which is one reason it may have been OT8, or known as OT8 by those who were given it, due to the limited access to members in the extreme inner circles of the church. I think this deserves a strong mention in the article as it obviously relates to this particular issue. Colliric (talk) 10:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Tony Ortega's blog is not a RS
, Ortega may be a reliable source when his stuff is reviewed by others and published in a RS publication. His blog is not an RS under the WP:RS standard. The Tony Ortega page tells how he was fired from the Village Voice for hobby horsing (obsessing) about Scientology. If he was ever an expert (which is not certain), that fact DISqualifies him as a balanced RS. His gossip does not automatically get elevated to Wikipedia fact, just by appearing in the Ortega blog. Let's hold the standard as high here as everywhere else in Wikipedia. Grammar&#39;sLittleHelper (talk) 06:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see how his resignation from the Village Voice disqualifies him. Even if it was under pressure from people who felt the topic was a distraction, that does nothing to call his credentials into question; it merely indicates that the Village Voice didn't want to cover the topic.  He's still "an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications", which means he meets the WP:RS standard for using his self-published material on that topic.  I notice that you say that you feel that that disqualifies him as a 'balanced' WP:RS; but that's a misunderstanding of the relevant policy.  WP:BIAS does not disqualify him as a source; an WP:RS is not required to be 'balanced' in any way, shape, or form.  What they're required to have is a suitable reputation in the field, which (for this somewhat unusual field) he does.  We might use inline citations (to make it clear that it's him that's saying whatever), but we can include that in the article.  --Aquillion (talk) 07:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Let's do it. Grammar&#39;sLittleHelper (talk)

Potential copyright violation
See the text at the very bottom of the page. BalinKingOfMoria (talk) 05:43, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Wizardman was referring to this edit which was reverted three hours later. (Just leaving this note here in case someone else thinks the issue is still open.) Grorp (talk) 01:25, 13 August 2023 (UTC)